Sitting of 31 July 1997

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

    Utilities Standing Charges
    Mr. Heppell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received from consumer organisations about standing charges. [10026]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): It is sad that, when the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made his debut appearance at the Dispatch Box as a shadow Cabinet member, for the first time in memory no one rose to congratulate him, even on his own side. Let me therefore wish him the same success in his present job as he had in his previous jobs.
    With regard to standing charges, although my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has not yet received formal representations from consumer organisations, a number of hon. Members have conveyed constituents' concerns about this issue.
    Mr. Heppell: I am sure that the Minister agrees that the reductions in VAT on gas and electricity, and the announcement about changes to the gas levy, will effectively mean a vast reduction in bills for British families. Will he confirm, however, that the review that the President of the Board of Trade announced on 30 June, in relation to the regulation of the privatised utilities, will take into account the needs of the poorest consumers?
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes. As my right hon. Friend stressed, the review will embrace all the concerns affecting consumers, including poorer consumers.

    Computers (Century Date Change)
    Mr. Singh: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action her Department is taking in respect of the millennium compliance of computers. [10027]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The Department of Trade and Industry regards this as a very serious issue and is taking action in two areas. First, it is encouraging companies to note the implications of the date change and to make suitable preparations. The DTI helped the information technology industry to set up task force 2000, which is
    434
    working vigorously to raise awareness of the issue. I recently hosted the IT skills summit, when I warned of the potential shortage of skilled resources to tackle the problem and called for the industry to report to me on fresh initiatives by September.
    The Department has also established a programme of activities to ensure that its own IT systems continue to operate properly up to and through the millennium date change.
    Mr. Singh: I thank the Minister for her reply. Does she agree that the previous Government did too little too late on this issue and that as a result of that inaction many firms are totally unprepared for the disaster facing them in terms of the year 2000 time bomb?
    Mrs. Roche: I am very pleased indeed that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to this problem. It is a serious problem for companies both large and small. There will be serious implications even for companies that have adapted and made sure that changes are in progress if they are not sure that other—perhaps smaller—companies with which they deal have also changed.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: The Minister would do well to recognise that the previous Government did flag up this problem. At that time, much of industry was unaware of the issue and many companies have done too little about it, which means that some of them will go out of business because it is almost too late. The crisis will come well before 2000 because of the very supply chain measures that the Minister mentioned. Will she confirm that the Government's target for adapting their own system, the dates for which were set by the previous Government—October this year for a full audit and December 1998 for full systems adaptation—will still be met, and can she give an indication of the cost?
    Mrs. Roche: I can certainly confirm that the measures that were undertaken will continue to be undertaken because they are extremely important, and I am happy to acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's contribution in relation to this issue. However, there is no room for complacency, because one of the great problems is the tremendous shortage of the specific skills needed to ensure that the problem is dealt with.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Is my hon. Friend aware that many retailers are selling computers that are alleged to be millennium compliant, whereas independent checks have shown that they are not? Is she further aware that many of the software programmes being offered to check on millennium compliance are also faulty? Does she have any plans to check those allegations?
    Mrs. Roche: Again, this is an important issue. The difficulty, as I am sure the House will be aware, is that the definition of what is compliant is very complex, and system performance depends on the interaction of different elements and how systems are used. I would urge industry to make the position as clear as possible to customers, and the Department will continue to do just that.

    Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe
    Mr. Clappison: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representation she has received about the shareholdings of the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe. [10028]
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): None, other than from a few hon. Members on the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. Clappison: To clarify what has been going on, will the President of the Board of Trade say when senior officials and Ministers in her Department were notified not to raise with the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, the noble Lord Simon, any matters which it is said have a bearing on BP? When was that notification given?
    Mrs. Beckett: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "that notification". It has been evident from the day of the Minister's appointment that he was clear about the matter, that the permanent secretary was clear about the matter, and that the Department was clear about the matter—that he would not and could not deal with matters directly affecting the company that he had just ceased to chair.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it not of interest that the Prime Minister's challenge yesterday to Conservative Members to make these allegations outside has not been taken up? We can understand the reason for that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we require no lectures about sleaze or standards in public life from a party which in government gave peerages and knighthoods to heads of companies that contributed most to the Tory party funds? Was not the sleaze in which the Tory Government were involved during 18 years so disgraceful that people in this country are not likely to forget it for a long time to come?
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Conservative party was dishonest and incompetent in government, and the campaign that it is running against my noble Friend suggests that it intends to continue in exactly the same way in opposition.
    Mr. Harvey: Will the President of the Board of Trade acknowledge that, although the noble Lord Simon may indeed have broken no regulation, and must certainly still be regarded as a BP insider, knowing of all its commercial intentions for the next couple of years, it would surely help to ease any public perception of a conflict of interest if he were to divest himself of some of his ministerial responsibilities, as other Ministers have done in the past?
    Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman would be right were it not for the fact that that is exactly what my noble Friend has done. There is no question of his dealing with issues that are directly about BP, and he has not done so from the day of his appointment. It is not true that he has, as Opposition Back Benchers are saying. That is totally untrue, as the Cabinet Secretary has confirmed. Obviously, my noble Friend cannot deal either with issues that could potentially give the company that he used to chair a competitive advantage. The steps that he has taken
    436
    to ensure that there is no conflict of interest are absolutely parallel to those taken by Ministers in previous Governments, particularly Conservative Governments.
    Mr. Redwood: After all the contradictions, all the different stories, will the right hon. Lady now answer some simple factual questions for a change? Will she tell the House when she first knew that the Minister planned to keep his holdings in BP and other companies? When did she first know that there had been a very long delay in putting the non-BP shareholdings into a blind trust? When were all Ministers and officials in the Department properly notified, in writing, that anything with a bearing on BP must not be discussed with that Minister? Until the right hon. Lady can answer those points, the questions will continue and there will be suspicions.
    Mrs. Beckett: We have answered some 58 nit-picking questions from Conservative Members on the subject. I have just explained that it was plain from the day of my noble Friend's appointment that he would not be able to deal, and would not deal, with matters which relate directly to BP or in which BP has a competitive advantage. That is all quite clear.
    As for the string of questions that Conservative Members have been asking, they are attacking my noble Friend for having shares in the company that he once chaired which are not in a trust; they are attacking him for having shares which are in a trust; they are attacking him for breaking the rules of the House, although he has not; and they are attacking him for not breaking the law of the land. What Conservative Members really resent is that he is a brilliant international business man who has taken up a post in a Labour Government for no pay, which is not of course the standard to which they are accustomed.
    Mr. Redwood: Having failed to answer those questions, will the right hon. Lady now answer this much easier question? Does she agree with the Minister for Trade in the other place that Jersey trusts are an excellent way of holding shares and not paying capital gains tax; or does she agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this is the kind of loophole that should be stopped because he does not like such loopholes helping rich companies and rich individuals?
    Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman ought to be aware that a range of different issues can be described under the heading of trusts, many of which are held in Jersey. It is not true, as he and some of his hon. Friends have attempted to imply, that the trust in which my noble Friend, with others, has some shares held is a trust which avoids tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "Keep going."] I am happy to keep going, because the right hon. Gentleman needs to know the facts.
    The shares to which references are being made are held in a trust; they are not in fact available to my noble Friend at present or to anyone who has shares in that trust, which is for many BP employees, so at present they are not liable to tax, any more than an individual who is promised a pay rise by his employer pays tax when he is promised it. When the shares are released and go into the ownership of my noble Friend, they will be liable to tax and it will be paid. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the totally unwarranted slur that he has made about this matter.

    Scientific Advice
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will disseminate best practice to Government Departments in respect of the use of scientific advice. [10029]
    The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): Most would agree that in the past there has been a lack of co-ordination throughout Government. Science and policy making need to be co-ordinated. The Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Robert May, issued guidelines in March this year on best practice for Government in respect of the use of scientific advice and copies are available in the Library of the House.
    Mrs. Mahon: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the studies into Gulf war syndrome recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence? Does he agree that the previous Tory Administration totally failed Gulf war veterans by not seeking scientific advice when the problems emerged?
    Mr. Battle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I seem to recall that she raised the matter many times in opposition, and I am glad that her persistence has paid off in Government policy now. Most will welcome the studies announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Ministry of Defence has now set in train two large-scale epidemiological studies. The researchers were selected following a scientific review by a panel convened by the Medical Research Council. The results will be made public—that is important—at the earliest opportunity, again subject to the usual review process.
    The funding of new research into the possible health effects of the combination of vaccine and tablets given to troops in the Gulf to protect them against the effects of biological and chemical warfare has recently been announced. I hope that that work will prove to be a practical test case of the working of the guidelines.
    Mr. Bercow: As the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe will receive scientific advice which is relevant to trade, to competitiveness and to the energy industries, when did the Minister first know that the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe had retained his BP shareholding, that he had nevertheless signed a Brussels blueprint for gas liberalisation and common energy taxation, and that he had exploited, and continues to exploit, a tax loophole which the Government of which he is—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's first point was reasonable, as it related to the question. However, he strayed quite a bit after that. It would be nice if the Minister could refer to scientific advice.
    Mr. Battle: I wonder whether the Opposition would recognise scientific advice if they saw it, given their inability to understand the Order Paper. I was well aware, as were most people, where my noble Friend Lord Simon came from. I suspect that that is why Opposition Members so deeply resent his appointment.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: The Government are receiving scientific advice following recent revelations about
    438
    radioactive dumping around the coast of Scotland. Does the Minister believe that a public inquiry should be held to allow full public scrutiny of that advice?
    Mr. Battle: The National Radiological Protection Board and the nuclear inspectorate are taking seriously the allegations about the findings on the coast of northern Scotland. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the information should be made publicly available.
    Mr. Baker: To follow the point raised by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), does the Minister agree that, in taking the best scientific advice, he must apply the precautionary principle and make sure that the environment and individuals are not damaged as a result of Government decisions? In those circumstances, why are the new Government not proposing to ban organophosphates in view of the substantial worries about those chemicals and the fact that when in opposition they suggested that they would do so?
    Mr. Battle: The good thing about science is that it enables Members to ask questions on such a wide range of subjects. This question has been put to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the hon. Gentleman received a response with which I concur. We intend to ensure that there is co-ordination of scientific advice throughout the Government. That is the difference between ourselves and the previous Administration. We cannot put Rome right in a day, but we have taken up the issues and started to tackle them. The previous Government swept them under the carpet.
    Mrs. Gillan: Can we now have a straight answer from the Minister? Given that high-level Government scientific advice must have been made available to any Minister signing a document on the single market action plan, which covered gas liberalisation and common energy taxation, will the Minister tell us what scientific advice Lord Simon has had access to and if it has had a bearing on any oil, gas, chemical or other matters which have a bearing on BP? We want a straight answer now.
    Mr. Battle: The straight answer is that the Conservative party is grubbing around trying to find any means that it can to undermine the integrity of my noble Friend. As the hon. Lady well knows, scientific advice is given across a range of matters in government all the time. Her question is not about scientific advice—she is trying to find a hook on which to hang her scurrilous attack on an honourable member of the Government.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Dawson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to develop links between higher education and the business community in order to aid investment, assist development and create jobs; and if she will make a statement. [10030]
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): My Department is active in fostering links between higher education and business by encouraging partnerships in areas of strategic research and through programmes, such as the teaching

    439
    company scheme introduced in 1975 under the last Labour Government to encourage undergraduates and graduates to work on short and medium-term projects in companies, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises.
    The results of a recent review of the teaching company scheme are being announced today and I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given today by my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Industry and Energy to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer).
    Mr. Dawson: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that Lancaster university in my constituency is a world-class centre of research excellence? Does he agree that the Government have a major job on their hands in channelling research excellence towards practical business use, given the utter failure of the previous Government? Would my hon. Friend be prepared to assist me in my task by coming with me to talk to the local authority, the university and the local business community, which are keen to pursue business uses and research excellence?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right to point out that Lancaster university is one of the leading universities in Britain in terms of the quality of its teaching and research. I am more than happy—as, I imagine, are my colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment—to support initiatives taken by Lancaster and other universities in promoting the Government's policies on excellence.
    My hon. Friend is also right to point out that it was the last Government who cut the budget by more than 30 per cent. The present Government are committed to educational research and development. The last Government did not see it as a priority; we do.
    Mrs. May: What on earth has happened to the Government's plans for internet and computer links in every education establishment? Has the regulator told the Government that their much-vaunted deal with BT cannot be done?
    Mr. McCartney: This Government have done more in the past 12 weeks to invest in skills and technology than the previous Government did in 18 years. The hon. Lady should watch this space. The present Government, unlike their predecessor, are committed to such investment, and will invest.

    Science, Engineering and Technology (Women)
    Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to promote science, engineering and technology careers for women. [10031]
    Mr. Battle: There is a massive under-representation of women in science, engineering and technology, especially in senior positions in universities and companies. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has made it clear that she will work to dispel the common perception that science, engineering and technology are career options for men only. We are pursuing that
    440
    objective through the Department's development unit on women in science, engineering and technology, which is within the Office of Science and Technology.
    Dr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for taking the situation seriously. May I draw his attention to a recent peer group review in Sweden which showed that women scientists applying for research grants had to be two and a half times as productive as men to achieve the same peer group rating? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is shocking, and will he undertake similar research to find out what the position is in this country?
    Mr. Battle: Yes, I will, in the light of that information. It is interesting to note that, although only 13 per cent. of engineering degree students are women, in Britain women perform better on their courses and obtain better degrees than men. I will put that information together with the research that we need to carry out. We want to ensure that many more young women take science and engineering seriously and see it as a positive career option.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Would not the resignation of Lord Simon be a good idea, as it would create an opportunity for a career move for a woman Labour Member of Parliament, who would be able to do the whole job—including dealing with matters relating to BP?
    Mr. Battle: When I sat down after answering the main question, I thought that the only way in which hon. Members could relate it to my noble Friend Lord Simon was by doing a bit of gender bending—and that is what has happened. I think that occasionally we ought to acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is herself—[HON. MEMBERS: "A woman."]—a scientist. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister said "a scientist".

    Beer Measures
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action her Department is taking to ensure that beer drinkers receive full liquid pints in public houses. [10032]
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The Government support the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South—East (Mr. Turner), which will ensure that beer drinkers get the full liquid pint.
    Mr. Campbell: Is not the real reason to do with profits for the brewers? Is there not a £9 profit on every keg that is brewed, which means excess profits for the breweries? Although we are new Labour, we are not really against profits—[Interruption.]—but does the Minister agree that excess profits at the expense of the consumer are wrong?
    Mr. Griffiths: I am not a prophet, but I agree with my hon. Friend. His point has been made to me by publicans

    441
    who run breweries. It is important to take account of the matter, and that is one of the reasons why we are determined to support my hon. Friend's Bill.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My question has nothing to do with the drinking habits of Lord Simon.
    Madam Speaker: That is a nice change.
    Mr. Winterton: It is important that drinkers get a full pint of beer, and the Minister will agree that the United Kingdom's traditional beer is of high quality. Does he also agree that it is important for people to be able to enjoy the traditions of English public houses and that the traditional names of public houses should be retained?
    Mr. Griffiths: I strongly support the hon. Gentleman.

    Motor Vehicles (Recycling)
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans her Department has to encourage the recycling of motor vehicles. [10033]
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: My encouragement has been very positive, and on 15 July I participated in a signing ceremony with key representatives of the motor trade and car recyclers who aim to ensure that 95 per cent. of car parts are recycled by the year 2015.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure he appreciates that the issue is much more complex that the matter of recycling parliamentary questions or press releases. Many car breakers already do an excellent job in making sure that many parts are reused. Much of the metal from cars is recycled. Does the Minister agree, however, that the more we keep old cars in use rather than replacing them with new ones, the more we keep old technology, which leads to high fuel use and volatile organic compounds emissions?
    Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend is right: about 75 per cent. of old cars are recycled. He brings to the House his vast experience as the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Environment, and I am sure that he and his colleagues have carefully considered the issue.
    Mr. Letwin: Does the Minister not think that the Department of Trade and Industry might be better advised to produce plans for recycling certain Ministers rather than cars?
    Mr. Griffiths: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that that was very witty indeed.

    Small Businesses (Interest on Debt)
    Mr. Spring: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received from small business organisations in favour of a statutory right to interest on outstanding debts. [10034]
    Mrs. Roche: I have met a range of business organisations representing all sizes and types of business and I have received many letters in support of the proposed legislation.
    Mr. Spring: Is the hon. Lady aware that small business organisations—eight out of nine—strongly
    442
    oppose statutory interest? The consultation process shows that small businesses are most anxious not about statutory interest, which the hon. Lady highlights, but about the return to local control of business rates, which in the 1980s under Labour local authorities drove many small businesses into bankruptcy.
    Mrs. Roche: I am astounded by the second part of the hon. Gentleman's reply. [Interruption.] It was his reply to my response. Opposition Members should listen more carefully. The previous Administration's system of business rates was widely loathed by the business community. That was said during its own consultation process. The statutory right to interest is supported by 80 per cent. of businesses and by some Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I am delighted to announce that all small business organisations support our proposals to tackle late payment.
    Mr. Olner: Small businesses in my constituency are very pleased that the Government are at last taking action to ensure that other companies pay them their moneys. The previous Administration walked away from the problem and did not look at it at all—because, I assume, the then Deputy Prime Minister made his money by advocating that those firms did not pay money to smaller firms. We welcome the measure, and I urge the Minister to press forward with it as soon as possible.
    Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said in answer to the previous question, all the small business organisations have joined us in a year-long campaign to deal with the problems of late payment. One of the measures that the Government will be introducing is the statutory right to interest. We are consulting on the best way forward and looking forward to the responses. Unlike the previous Government, we know that we need to do something about the problem.
    Mr. Fallon: Does the Minister not realise that, this autumn, businesses already face a wave of new legislation, including that on the minimum wage, paternity leave, union recognition and works councils, and that the last thing that small businesses want is to be encouraged to sue their customers? If legitimising late payment in this way is such a good idea, why does she think that, on Tuesday, The Independent described her plan as
    "smelling of legislation for legislation's sake"?
    Mrs. Roche: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has not read all the responses to the proposal. Nor does it appear that he has at all read the Green Paper, which is surprising considering that it came out on Monday, but let me put him out of his misery and tell him that, rather than imposing any burden on small businesses, it gives them a choice. I thought that that was what the previous Administration were all about.
    Mr. Breed: Will the Minister accept that, although the statutory right to interest on late payment is one way of tackling this endemic problem, consideration should also be given to requiring companies, particularly public companies, to publish in their accounts the degree of their late payment—through 30, 60, and 90 days—in an effort to expose those larger companies that continue to ensure that they do not pay their bills on time?
    Mrs. Roche: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and that is one of the matters that we are discussing with the small business organisations that have come together with us. I am delighted to announce that we shall consider publication with the private sector of such league tables, and we have discussed the matter with the Federation of Small Businesses.

    Small Businesses (Information Technology)
    Dr. Gibson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what her Department's policy is towards improving access to information technology for small and medium businesses.[10036]
    Mrs. Roche: Many recent studies have emphasised the importance of new technologies to the competitiveness of smaller firms. Many people—in Government, in business support organisations and in the private sector—have a role in getting that message across. Within Government, we are pressing ahead with our support for the information society initiative programme for business, which places particular emphasis on offering access and awareness opportunities for small and medium enterprises at locations throughout the UK.
    Dr. Gibson: Clearly, the Government are progressing many information technology initiatives, which will benefit small and medium businesses, including the Budget's doubling of tax credits for capital investment. What does the Minister make of a small business that, on its web site, admits to managerial disputes and the loss of confidence of its shareholders and of its public, a business whose managing director directs his market research from the back of a taxi in Newcastle airport? It is recorded on the web that that business is the Conservative party.
    Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that matter to my attention, but, in the end-of-term spirit, perhaps it is not my role to intrude on private and deep personal grief.
    Mr. Paterson: If the Government wish to improve information technology in small and medium businesses, would it not be a good idea if Ministers visited businesses? According to a written answer from the President of the Board of Trade, as of 23 July, in nearly three months in government, three of her Ministers—one of whom was the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe—had not visited a single business. That is a disgrace.
    Mrs. Roche: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is new to the House, but he really must get his facts correct. What is true is that the Conservative party cannot stand the fact that the Labour Government have the confidence of the business community, which the previous Government had lost totally.

    Regional Aid
    Mr. Beith: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement about the Government policy on the future of European aid to regions of high unemployment in the United Kingdom [10037]
    Mrs. Beckett: As part of its package on EU enlargement and Agenda 2000, the European Commission
    444
    has published proposals for reform of the structural funds. The Government will be working to ensure that the detailed arrangements for the funds take due account of the United Kingdom's disadvantaged regions, including those with high unemployment.
    Mr. Beith: Does the President of the Board of Trade recognise that serious unemployment remains a desperate problem in areas of older industries such as the coal mining industry in Northumberland, and that therefore objective 2A remains extremely important to the United Kingdom? Is she finding that the case that we hope that she is putting forward is being undermined by the use of the discredited claimant count, which dates from the previous Government and which does not give an accurate picture, comparable to that used by other countries, of the level of unemployment in such areas?
    Mrs. Beckett: We share with the right hon. Gentleman the view that it is important that proper account is taken of high levels of unemployment and that those levels should be accurately and consistently measured across international boundaries. One of the things that we are urging on the Commission is the use of internationally comparable statistics, not the discredited statistics produced by the previous Government.
    Mr. Gunnell: One of the ways in which the Department of Trade and Industry helps areas of high unemployment is through regional selective assistance. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to review the map of regions to ensure that regional selective assistance goes to those areas which most need it?
    Mrs. Beckett: I know of my hon. Friend's long record of concern about and interest in those issues. The matter must be considered not just across the United Kingdom but across Europe as the reform of structural funds is considered. We shall be looking at those matters, but we are very much at the beginning of that review process now.
    Mr. Forth: If the right hon. Lady believes that aid from Europe can reduce unemployment at all, would that not show that the great bulk of aid should come to London, which, regrettably, now has a much higher unemployment rate than many other regions of the United Kingdom?
    Mrs. Beckett: We are bound by the criteria which existed under the previous Government, within which aid does flow to some parts of the United Kingdom. However, as I said earlier, we shall be looking at what is happening in the south—in London and elsewhere—in the proposed review.
    Mr. Reed: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that Leicestershire is one of the most textile-dependent counties in Britain and throughout the European Union. Is she also aware that Leicestershire did not receive Retex funding under the Community initiatives programme during the 1980s and 1990s because it did not have objective 2 status? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, during the consultation period up to 2000, the existing Community initiatives such as Retex and RECHAR will be maintained to ensure that places such as Leicestershire, particularly Loughborough, benefit from European Union assistance?
    Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend will know, we do not wish to see the type of changes that would pre-empt

    445
    any results from the long-term and fundamental review. We are anxious to ensure that, under this review, across Europe and particularly in the United Kingdom, we receive fair treatment for different areas. I understand and sympathise with the points made by my hon. Friend about the impact on areas such as his own which has been affected by textiles. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that one thing we do have going for us is that at least we now have a Government who are prepared to speak up for Britain in Europe.
    Mr. Andrew George: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement about her Department's efforts to secure EU objective 1 status for the UK's poorest regions. [10038]
    Mrs. Beckett: The Commission's Agenda 2000 package includes proposals to reform the structural funds after 1999. The Commission will now need to make detailed legislative proposals, which will then have to be negotiated and agreed. The Government will then put forward those United Kingdom areas that meet the prescribed criteria.
    Mr. George: I thank the right hon. Lady for her reply. Does she acknowledge that Cornwall has a high level of unemployment, the lowest wages in the country and the lowest gross domestic product per head? If so, will she give Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly top priority in her negotiations with the European Union so as to secure objective 1 funds for those regions?
    Mrs. Beckett: We shall do everything we can to assist, and to press the case for all eligible regions. I very much welcome the implications of the Commission's proposals and review, which are to simplify the administration and contain costs. We believe that that will release more funds for worthwhile projects.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is there not a real need for the European Commission to undertake a revaluation of all indices that it takes into account when deciding not only objective 1, but objective 2 support? In reality, when looking at individual areas throughout the European Union—not just the UK, but countries such as Italy and France—can we not clearly and rapidly identify mistakes in the way that the work is being carried out? Those mistakes are being carried forward to the Commission's decisions on the allocation of funds to individual regions. It is a matter of ever-increasing concern to hon. Members.
    Mrs. Beckett: I am very well aware of the many occasions on which my hon. Friend has raised those issues and expressed concern, especially on behalf of his constituents and his locality. I share his view that it would be wrong for any mistakes in the existing regime to be carried forward into future decisions. We are consistently pressing the Commission to ensure that there is a thorough statistical and geographical basis for any decisions that underlie the scheme. It is partly for that reason that there is a fundamental review, and we shall continue to press those matters.
    Miss McIntosh: Does the right hon. Lady accept that the Government are not bound by the criteria? The whole purpose of Agenda 2000 is that the criteria can be
    446
    negotiated between the Government and the Commission. Will she consider widening the criteria to cover areas currently not covered, such as unemployment in port-related activities and, in particular, in the tourism sector?
    Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady is right to say that the criteria are not yet set and will have to be negotiated. That is partly why I told my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell—Savours) that matters were at an early stage. In all my answers, I have said that levels of unemployment must be taken into account. We are mindful of the different sorts of areas and the impact of those issues on different areas. We shall bear those matters in mind during the review and the negotiations.

    Libya (Trade Missions)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received from recent trade missions to Libya. [10040]
    Mrs. Roche: I was made aware of the proposed visit by the British Libyan business group through its letter to me of 17 July. Officials in my Department have since received a very brief account of that visit over the telephone.
    Mr. Dalyell: For the reasons deployed during the elongated Adjournment debate last Wednesday, and against the background of real doubts about whether Libya was responsible either for Lockerbie or for the brutal murder of Yvonne Fletcher, will the Department reflect on whether real harm is being done to British industry, which is suffering from not receiving orders from decision makers, most of whom were educated in this country? Has the Department reflected on how those huge orders are being creamed off by, in particular, France?
    Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising—[Laughter.] I am sorry that Conservative Members laugh, because it is a very serious matter. I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's concern to the attention of my colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. However, he will be aware that, since the murder of WPC Fletcher, we neither encourage nor discourage trade with Libya.
    Mr. Baldry: Is the Minister aware that—regardless of whether the market is Libya or anywhere else—UK exporters are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain a competitive advantage because of higher interest rates, and particularly because of the increasing value of the pound sterling? What is the Board of Trade's policy on the matter? Is it monitoring the number of jobs being lost by UK exporters because of the pound's competitive position? What policies will the Board of Trade follow to ensure that UK exporters are not persistently disadvantaged against other European Union member states?
    Mrs. Roche: We are giving full support to our exporters, both large and small. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that exporters want a stable economic situation, which is what my right hon. Friend

    447
    the Chancellor is giving them—in contrast to the previous Conservative Administration's cycle of boom and bust, which did no favours for UK exporters.

    Lloyd's of London
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will reconsider the case for an independent inquiry into the past conduct of the committee and council of Lloyd's of London. [10041]
    Mr. Ian McCartney: My hon. Friend has already received a full response on the subject from my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, and I have nothing to add to that reply. As for the future, however, the Government will be considering further the regulatory arrangements for Lloyd's in the context of the wider changes to financial services regulation that were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 20 May 1997, Official Report, columns 507–11, and the changes to insurance regulation that were announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 23 July 1997, Official Report, column 676.
    Mr. Cousins: I welcome the Minister's comments on bringing Lloyd's under a single powerful regulator and enforcer of regulations in the City of London, because such action will strengthen the City's case in world markets. However, serious questions about the past remain. Have Ministers received recent new evidence about the date on which the true extent of Lloyd's long-term liabilities arising out of American contracts became known to some members of the council and committee of Lloyd's and about what they did with that information? Has that evidence dealing with serious matters reached the Government? Are Ministers considering an inquiry under the Financial Services Act 1986? Have they referred the new evidence to the Serious Fraud Office?
    Mr. McCartney: When I receive from my hon. Friend or from anyone else any new evidence of fraud or alleged fraud, the Department and I shall pass it to the Serious Fraud Office. We expect any such evidence to be passed to the Serious Fraud Office for consideration and appropriate action.

    Bus Services (Scotland)
    Mr. Galloway: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to review the findings of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report into the supply of bus services in Glasgow and Central Scotland. [10042]
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: FirstBus has requested a review of my predecessor's decision—which he announced on 24 January 1997, following the MMC's merger report—on its acquisition of SB Holdings Ltd. I have asked the Director General of Fair Trading for his advice on the request.
    Mr. Galloway: I am glad to hear the Minister's answer. He should be aware of the widespread concern in the city of Glasgow about the cowboys from Stagecoach,
    448
    who were assisted in every way by the previous Government to muscle in on a bus market that was already being well served by Strathclyde Buses—which has an excellent relationship with its large work force, with the city's users' groups and with the general public. Stagecoach is freely riding the range in Glasgow without the assistance of the provisions of the MMC report; therefore, arguments about competitiveness are no longer applicable.
    Specifically, does the Minister accept that, because Stagecoach is already active in the city, the draconian demand that Strathclyde Buses divest itself of one of its Glasgow bus depots is unnecessary to foster competitiveness? Does he agree that the matter should be the subject of a very thorough review?
    Mr. Griffiths: I shall certainly consider carefully FirstBus's request in the light of advice given to me by the Director General of Fair Trading.
    Mr. Gray: When was the Minister last a fare-paying passenger on a bus?
    Mr. Griffiths: Last weekend, when I paid 60p in Edinburgh.

    Electricity Markets (Liberalisation)
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on her policy with regard to further liberalisation of electricity markets. [10043]
    Mr. Battle: The Government inherited an electricity programme that had been left in drift by the former Administration. A top priority was for us to sort out the programme and, within weeks, we have done that because full competition in the UK electricity market and completion of the single European market in electricity remain key priorities for the Government.
    Mr. Jenkin: Is the Minister aware of the difficulties with the settlement system in 1994 when the 100 kW market was opened up to some 50,000 customers? Is he absolutely confident that, on 1 April 1998, when some 23 million customers will have access to the pool, the settlement system will operate effectively? What steps has he taken to ensure that that will be the case?
    Mr. Battle: We were well aware of exactly what was happening because we were pointing it out to the previous Government when some 5,000 commercial bill payers did not get their bills on time. We told the Government that that would happen if they did not put proper systems in place.
    I have made it clear that the necessary systems must be robust and delivered in a timely manner. I commissioned a report from the Director General of Electricity Supply on the status of the programme and on his proposals for the way forward. That report was published on 29 May, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. I then discussed the director general's proposals with him, the chief executives of all the public electricity suppliers and the electricity pool on 12 June. It was agreed that the director general's report provided a sound basis on which to take forward the rest of the work to deliver that competition in 1998. We are monitoring it closely to ensure that we get it right.

    Research and Technology Organisations (Tax Status)
    Dr. Cable: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she proposes to report on the tax-exempt status of those independent research and technology organisations which she is currently reviewing. [10044]
    Mr. Battle: I expect to approve new arrangements for approving bodies under section 508 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 and to issue guidance for applicants by the autumn. I shall then deal with the outstanding applications for approval.
    Dr. Cable: I thank the Minister for that reply but suggest that there is considerable anxiety among scientists that, in widening his net for soft targets, which recently included pension funds, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has his eye on such admirable institutions as the National Physical Laboratory in my constituency. They contribute enormously to the science base of the country and plough back all their surpluses into scientific investment. Will the Minister give us clear assurances that they will be kept free of taxation?
    Mr. Battle: The matter that the hon. Gentleman questions under section 508 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 was raised by the previous Government who, to be fair to them, set up a review of how to tax research establishments. They published their proposals for comment on 28 April 1997, before the change of Government, but research associations will be affected. I know that the Association of Independent Research and Technology Organisations, which represents research establishments, is lobbying hard on this matter. I have met its representatives and, as far as I understand it, it is working constructively with officials, hoping to come to a mutually acceptable conclusion to ensure that genuine research is properly supported through the tax system, not priced out.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Is the Minister aware of the success of AEA Technology which, as a result of being floated and
    450
    becoming a private research organisation, is expanding its employment and activities? Has he any further plans to float other Government-owned research organisations and to encourage them with the suggested tax exemptions?
    Mr. Battle: I welcome the success of AEA Technology, but the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no.

    Mains Gas (Doorstep Selling)
    Mrs. Gilroy: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement about the doorstep selling of mains gas. [10045]
    Mr. Battle: I am concerned that some doorstep sellers seem to be engaging in misleading practices. I trust that the Director General of Gas Supply will put a stop to that. We intend to ensure that gas consumers get a fair deal and are not hoodwinked in the newly emerging energy markets.
    Mrs. Gilroy: To ensure that future gas competition delivers benefits to the many, not the few, will my hon. Friend the Minister look at the recent request by the Gas Consumers Council for a licensed code of practice? That is needed before the extension of liberalisation to the electricity market.
    Mr. Battle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. I welcome her comments because I know that she has taken an interest in those matters and has championed consumers for a long time. I welcome the establishment of the Energy Selling Association and its code of practice, which is aimed at enhancing standards. Suppliers will need to make an effort to ensure that their agents act properly. We shall shortly announce consultation on proposals to strengthen the general law on doorstep selling. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome that.

Madam Speaker's Statement
3.30 pm
Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make, which will be of interest to the House and needs to be put on record. It concerns the Order Paper, following the special report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, which was published on Tuesday.
I am content with the Committee's broad approach in seeking to reform the House's working papers. Accordingly, some changes will take place in the appearance of those papers, with effect from the end of the recess. I should emphasise that my approval is based on the fact that no procedural changes are involved. What is proposed is a matter of presentation, in an effort to achieve greater clarity.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order, of which I have given you notice, concerns the Prime Minister's answer to the questions of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. In reference to the shareholding in BP by the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, Lord Simon, the Prime Minister said:
"The Minister has retained the BP shares because he is obliged to do so. Having been the chairman of BP, if he got rid of them he would fall foul of the rules on insider trading."—[Official Report, 30 July 1997; Vol. 299, c. 331.]
As that did not accord with my understanding of the model code for directors contained in the stock exchange listing rules or the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1993 on insider trading, I sought advice from the House of Commons Library. It gave me a long response, part of which I should like to quote. On the specific question whether the Minister would have been permitted, as a former director of BP, to deal in BP shares under the model code, it said:
"This would suggest a possible selling window between the ending of the close period on 6 May 1997 and at the latest the start of the next close period on 5 July 1997."
Unless the Minister had price-sensitive or other information that precluded him from dealing in his shares—information that was not disclosed to BP shareholders with the interim results—or BP has a code of practice stricter than the model code, it would appear that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House with his answer and that the Minister was entitled to deal in his shares.
Should that be the case, I feel that the Prime Minister will wish to come before the House at the first available opportunity to put the record straight. As today is Parliament's last sitting day before the recess, do you agree that it would be proper for him to come to the House today to make sure that there is no more confusion?
Madam Speaker: We have had many robust exchanges on this issue in recent times. Those on the Front Bench will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, which is not a point of order for me to deal with.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to draw attention to what happened yesterday in the House. I fear that the Government might be tempted to fall into some of the very bad practices of the previous Government, particularly that of routinely issuing policy changes and various announcements on the final day before a recess, which cannot be discussed by Parliament.
Yesterday, the Home Secretary was at the Dispatch Box for a whole hour, yet, remarkably, he did not once mention the drugs tsar or tsarina. We heard this morning that the Government are going ahead with that policy. It is well known that in America, the drugs tsar has been a disaster and has been described as a drugs nanny. Drugs tsars have not worked in any part of the world. All of us in the House who want to reduce the harm caused by the use of illegal drugs believe that the drugs tsar policy

453
cannot work and is another excuse for not thinking and not having genuine reform, such as would result from the institution of a royal commission on the subject.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is expressing an opinion, not a point of order. He must pursue the matter through questions.
Miss Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It will not have escaped your attention that the President of the Board of Trade, in reply to a supplementary asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to Question 12, said that the Government were bound by the criteria on European aid set down by the Commission. In reply to my supplementary to Question 13, however, the right hon. Lady said that the Government were not bound by the criteria. Could the House be given clarification? I believe that we are not bound by the criteria and that the right hon. Lady can negotiate.
Madam Speaker: I fear that the hon. Lady is seeking to prolong Question Time, which was over at 3.30 pm.
Mr. Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the most recent Question Time, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food kindly undertook, in the interests of openness and transparency, to ensure that all the responses that the Government had received to the consultation on Professor James's report on the food standards agency would be put in the Library of the House before the summer recess.
To date, all that has been put in the Library is a list of those who responded. Those of us who are keen to do some good summer reading would like the opportunity to read the whole lot during the recess. Can you, bring your influence to bear on the private office of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to ensure that all the responses are put in the Library before we rise for the summer recess?
Madam Speaker: I shall look at the response that was given and see what I can do about it. I am delighted that hon. Members want so much bedside reading.

Caledonian MacBrayne
3.36 pm
Mrs. Ray Michie: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 24, to debate an important matter that requires specific and urgent consideration, namely,
the serious matter of the strike by Caledonian MacBrayne ferry crews on the Firth of Clyde which is due to begin on Monday.
I cannot stress too strongly the need for the dispute to be resolved immediately. If it is not, the consequences for the island communities and the Cowal peninsula will be severe. The ferries are lifeline links, and life on the island of Bute will be severely disrupted if the service between Rothesay and Wemyss bay ceases to operate. The strike will affect the transport of freight, including all the goods required for the island and animal foodstuffs, and the movement of livestock. It will affect out-patient clinics and the carriage of medical supplies, such as blood and pharmaceuticals. It will affect the ability of patients and relatives to reach hospitals on the mainland and the ability of commuters to travel to work.
On top of all that, the tourist trade on Bute and in Dunoon will be badly hit. The first two weeks of August are the busiest in the year and if the tourist trade slumps, there will be a dire effect on the already fragile economies of the area. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) must also be seriously concerned about Arran and the Cumbraes in his constituency, which will be cut off.
There is now a threat that the strike will spread north. If that happens, almost all the islands in my constituency could be affected. Only two have airports so Mull, Coll, Colonsay and Tiree, to name but a few, will be completely isolated, to say nothing of the Outer Hebrides.
I know that Scottish Office Ministers will insist that the dispute is a matter for the company and its employees to sort out and that they cannot interfere, but I say that they can and must. Caledonian MacBrayne is a public company and the Scottish Office holds the purse strings. If it will not allow Caledonian MacBrayne to offer better terms and conditions, Ministers should meet the union, explain the situation and make every effort to resolve the dispute. I hope, Madam Speaker, that you will allow a debate to consider the matter.
Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Lady said. As she knows, I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter that she has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 24, so I cannot submit her application to the House at this time.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could ask the authorities of the House to check the annunciator screen. It would appear that many hon. Members are unaware that the Scottish debate is about to start, as I can count only seven or eight Government Back Benchers from Scotland in the Chamber for the start of an important debate on Scotland. Surely the reason must be that the annunciator screen has failed to work throughout the building, and Scottish Members will not be able to come

455
here in time. Will you consider a temporary suspension of the House, to allow more Scottish Labour Members to arrive?
Madam Speaker: It was a good try, but I have no intention of suspending the House. There are four Scottish Members immediately behind the right hon. Gentleman.

Scottish Devolution
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
3.39 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar)rose—
Hon. Members: Where are they?
Mr. Dewar: That is a good question. Where are they? The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will recognise that we do not have to ask that question about Scottish Conservative Members or ask fake questions about annunciator screens to make the point that, apart from a few refugees in England, there are no Scottish Conservative Members. Perhaps that will concentrate his mind a little on the seriousness of his party's plight and the difficulties that the Conservatives face in Scotland without a single Member of Parliament.
We published the White Paper "Scotland's Parliament" last week. I was a little overwhelmed by the strength of the welcome that it received. It is widely recognised that it is not just another document produced by The Stationery Office. There are inevitably many White Papers, but this is the first on Scotland that anyone can remember which has sold and continues to sell as fast as it can be printed. I do not like airs and graces and I am not a great hand at pomposity, although I occasionally try to rise to the occasion. I can say only that people are fascinated by their own history and want to be part of it. There is a genuine feeling that history is in the making in Scotland and in the House, where the authority lies for giving devolution a fair wind.
The White Paper is not a theoretical text. Rather, it is intended to be a profoundly practical document, setting out what the Scottish Parliament will be like once it is in being and explaining the steps by which it will be established. It is a clear statement of what the Government intend to do, and our aim has been to make the detail of our proposals as accessible as possible. In that sense, I hope that we have succeeded. We want as many people as possible in Scotland to understand what the Scottish Parliament can add to their quality of life. We want them to be in possession of the facts and familiar with the arguments, so that on 11 September they will be in a good position to make what can fairly be described as an historic choice.
The House will accept that it is important to see the Government's commitment to a Scottish Parliament as not simply a commitment to Scotland, but an essential part of our wider commitment to modernising the constitution of the United Kingdom. If people are apathetic about government—and I fear that it is often the case—and sometimes even cynical, it is because the institutions of government have lost touch with the people they serve. In general political terms, we believe that there is a pressing priority to do something about that. We want to change that atmosphere and that perception. We want to modernise the constitution of the United Kingdom and make it fit the 21st century.
In previous exchanges in the House, I have stressed that we propose devolution and reform within the United Kingdom. Let me take the opportunity to do so once

457
again. We accept that sovereignty within a devolved system lies with the United Kingdom Parliament. That sovereignty can be exercised in a number of different ways. The choice that we are asking Parliament to make is to pass some of its practical day-to-day power to a directly elected Scottish Parliament representing the people of Scotland. I recognise that, of course, that cannot be done without the consent of a majority of Members of this Parliament, representing every part of the country. It is my job not only to convince Scotland that the proposal is right, but to carry my hon. Friends and hon. Members from all parties in that cause.
I turn to the case for a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly and a strategic authority and elected mayor for London. I should say in passing that I greatly welcome the meeting of minds among Opposition Members on the question of an elected mayor for London. It is always a little difficult when one has been attacking something with great fury and one's new leader comes along and announces that he is in favour of it. I know that Opposition Members will adapt bravely to that. On this occasion, I think that the Leader of the Opposition is in the right.
All the changes are aimed at fundamentally involving people in decisions that matter to them. There is already government in Scotland; some people would say, a lot. My Department has nearly 12,000 civil servants. They do a good job, but we believe that the structure within which they operate could be more effective and could more effectively and directly reflect Scottish opinion. There is a great range of quangos, great and small, delivering different services and functions in almost every area of Scottish life. What is needed, and what we shall deliver, is a more effective democratic framework, connecting all those various institutions to the people of Scotland.
The case for a Scottish Parliament is at the heart of such a process. It will strengthen democratic control, increase accountability, and above all bring decision making out of the shadows. As no doubt many hon. Members know—and I am learning—government works in ever-increasing mysterious ways. Discovering that is part of my daily life at the moment. There is a good deal to be said for bringing government closer to the people and ensuring that they are aware of exactly what it is about.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Dewar: It is very early. The hon. Gentleman is very persistent; this is his chance.
Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He is always courteous. I should like to ask a genuine question—I am trying not to be party political.
The Secretary of State will know that, in generating regulation and law in the European Union, we try to bring things together, so that one can trade across countries, and laws are similar. Why is it right now to say to a Scottish Parliament, "Please, go off in a different direction"? After all, that is the whole purpose of having a separate Parliament. In this place, we tend to legislate for England, for Wales and for Scotland, but the legislation is basically the same. Although I would like changes, surely a Scottish Parliament is the wrong way of going about it.
Mr. Dewar: I am genuinely glad that the hon. Gentleman has deserted partisan politics to ask a genuine
458
question, and I think that he probably needs the answer. We have legislated for England, Wales and Scotland in this House in the past, but I ought to stress that, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the laws, he will see that they are not necessarily the same.
Mr. Bruce: They come together.
Mr. Dewar:: No, there is no necessary convergence built in, either. Of course, there are many areas—and many areas in the legislation that we propose in the White Paper—where we leave matters on a United Kingdom basis because we believe that that is right. There are, for example, important level playing fields for commerce and industry, and for a whole range of issues such as company law reform, labour legislation and monopolies and mergers—there is a mass of them—but in many other areas, such as housing, education and a raft of structural facets of life, there is a very distinct tradition in Scotland. The institutional framework within which Scots live is distinct and different. The whole point about the Union was that it was a coming together of nations in one partnership, but that distinction was maintained by the preservation of Scottish legislation.
I agree with the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) that, in any particular area or for any proposal, there is not necessarily a virtue in being different for the sake of being different, but there are many areas in which it is right that the law should recognise the different and continuing traditions, attitudes and cultures that we have in the northern part of the United Kingdom. Putting those under direct democratic control in Scotland is the point of the whole exercise.
If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants to snuff out—that is a bad expression to use, because it suggests sudden change—that difference, gently and over time, he and I are fundamentally opposed. I believe that differences enrich cultural societies and nation states, even though they remain as one. I do not want to see those differences, as a matter of policy, eroded and elided. I do not glory in those differences—that is a little too jingoistic—but they are a positive advantage to the whole country. It is right that we should recognise the separate traditions in the structures of the United Kingdom, and that is one of the principal reasons why I started—many years ago—to support a form of devolution.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Perhaps this is a convenient moment to put to my right hon. Friend a question that bothers the Law Society of Scotland. How will the devolution of criminal law and procedure, in paragraph 2.4 of the White Paper, dovetail with the reservation to the United Kingdom of drugs, firearms, road traffic, immigration law, the activities of the security services in the detection of crime, and offences under the Companies Acts, in paragraph 3.3? I understand that my right hon. Friend has been given notice of the question by the Law Society of Scotland.
Mr. Dewar: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn that question to my attention—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hon. Friend."' He is indeed a friend of many years' standing. No doubt the Law Society will be glad that he raised the question, although I suspect that it knows the answer.

459
Certain parts of our criminal law have always been legislated for on a United Kingdom basis. It is generally accepted in the House—certainly by me, even if not by the nationalists, for reasons that we all understand—that, for example, there would be obvious disadvantages if the classification of dangerous drugs differed between Scotland and England. That would complicate the work of the enforcement agencies, whether Customs and Excise, the Crown Prosecution Service or the police. The classification of dangerous drugs has, sensibly, been done on a United Kingdom basis, but the essence of criminal law in Scotland, which is an important aspect of our different approach, will be devolved.
That cannot be a great puzzle to my hon. Friend, because he knows that that is the situation at the moment. The misuse of drugs is covered by UK legislation, but much of the criminal law is Scottish legislation. That is a distinction that has worked well in the past, and it is now being more completely recognised through being reflected in the institutional structure as well as in the body of the law.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Given that we have had a single, unitary Parliament in the United Kingdom for the past 300 years and the rich and separate legal tradition in Scotland has prospered, has not the right hon. Gentleman talked himself out of the need for a separate Parliament in Scotland? [Interruption.] He may be appealing only to the jeering nationalists and some of the extremists on the Labour Benches, such as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who want a Scottish Parliament somehow to insulate Scotland from the consequences of being part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Dewar: No one, so far as I know, has been jeering in the debate today—as yet. I know a jeering Scot Nat when I hear one and I fear that the hon. Gentleman has led a sheltered life. We have heard only a friendly and supportive muttering so far.
The hon. Gentleman's point need not detain us very long. He is right to say that Scots law has survived—I welcome that—but that does not mean that we should not continue to improve the structure and adapt our systems to play to our strengths. We in Scotland see our distinctive law as one of our strengths. So does Westminster, because no one, not even the hon. Member for South Dorset, has suggested that separate Scottish legislation should be abolished. Therefore, devolution is right institutionally.
The case for a Scottish Parliament is that it can ensure that whatever is done by the Government best suits Scotland's needs. That is an optimistic statement, and the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is entitled to suggest that the Scottish Parliament, like every other Parliament, will make mistakes. However, any mistakes will at least be our own and we can kick each other and not the hon. Gentleman, which may be a relief to him.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: I appreciate the proposal's importance to Scotland, but it must be put in a United Kingdom context, and the right hon. Gentleman has been doing so. He talked with feeling—I understand this—about Scotland's cultural need for decisions that are acceptable in Scotland to be taken, and a devolved
460
Parliament will help to do that. However, the scheme envisages the retention at Westminster of 58 Scottish Members of Parliament, who will be able to vote on matters of purely English concern thereafter, and their views might not be in accord with those of the majority of English Members representing their constituents.
I am sorry to raise this central issue so early in the debate, but as the Secretary of State touched on it so positively in the Scottish context, I should be interested to have his answer in an English and United Kingdom context.
Mr. Dewar: I hope that my whole speech will answer that, in a sense. The hon. Gentleman must not try to second-guess the boundary commissioners and write purely speculative—I fear that it is speculation touched with malice—figures into the record. I appreciate why he has done it, but I deplore it.
I want a fair and balanced package. I accept entirely that people must look at the balance, weigh all the advantages and disadvantages, and make up their mind which side of the balance they are on. There are substantial advantages for the United Kingdom as a whole. I stress again—this may become something of a gramophone record as the months unfold—that, if devolution is to go ahead, it must be approved by a majority of Members from United Kingdom constituencies, irrespective of political colour. A sovereign Parliament should be able to look at the government of this country—at what many people would call, to use a cliché, the democratic deficit—and wish to move to right it. That seems to be what this is about.
Sir Robert Smith rose—
Mr. Dewar: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, who is twitching on the edge of his seat, but I want to make a little progress.
This is a strong, good and stable settlement for the United Kingdom. It can be compared with the Scotland Act 1978, which reached the statute book but ultimately was not implemented. The House will realise that the law-making powers that would go to a Scottish Parliament in this version are much stronger and wider in range, and reflect in part the growth of Scottish Office responsibilities over the past 20 years. They also reflect the fact that, unlike the 1978 proposals, we shall devolve the whole range of Scottish Office functions, with one or two prescribed and limited exceptions, to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive.
Furthermore, we propose to give the Scottish Parliament some additional responsibilities. For example, the Lord Advocate's functions were not included in the devolved powers in the previous Bill. There will be financial assistance for industry, subject to sensible arrangements to ensure level playing fields in areas where that is important throughout the United Kingdom. This time we also propose to devolve forestry and responsibility for commercial ports and inland waterways.
It is difficult for me, with my lengthy perspective—I think that that means that I have been here for a long time—to remember that, in the 1978 package, universities and higher education were not devolved functions. Nor were agriculture and fisheries or economic development. This is a much more rational, tidy and stable division of

461
responsibilities between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament. That is an important virtue, and I commend it to the House.
Mr. James Paice: The Secretary of State mentioned forestry. The White Paper states, in the list of items to be devolved:
"the Secretary of State for Scotland's functions, including his power of direction over the Forestry Commission, will be transferred to the Scottish Executive".
I understand that the Secretary of State currently has total powers over the Forestry Commission for the whole of the United Kingdom. Simply passing control to the Scottish Executive would therefore pass to it the "power of direction" over English and Welsh forests.
Mr. Dewar: I am genuinely glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that, as it is an important and quite sensitive area. He has misunderstood the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I must make it clear, for the sake of my relationships with my colleagues in the Cabinet, that the Scottish Office is the lead Ministry, but the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Welsh Office have joint responsibility. We are very careful. Ministers in the previous Government will agree that we go to great trouble to move in unison and to agree policy decisions.
Obviously, there will be a new factor—devolution—and there will have to be discussions about the Forestry Commission itself and how it responds to the challenge. Those discussions are already under way, as a preliminary against the devolution proposals making progress. We are quite confident that those discussions, which are taking place in a very constructive mood, will come up with internal solutions for the new situation. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, in forestry matters, my writ does not run south of the border, other than in terms of being the lead Minister of the consortium of interested Ministers. That is the position.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
Mr. Dewar: No, I am very sorry. I am not trying to be difficult, but it is already 4 o'clock and I feel that I have hardly got started. Now there is a threat for all hon. Members.
Mr. Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not want to be difficult, but the right hon. Gentleman appears to be—
Madam Speaker: That is obviously a point of frustration and not a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to catch my eye in the debate. I have a number of hon. Members who will not be called if we continually get interventions and bogus points of order during speeches.
Mr. Dewar: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. I should be delighted if the hon. Gentleman wrote to me, and if he does not like my answer, it will give a much—
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may raise the matter if he seeks to catch my eye.
Mr. Dewar: Indeed he may, Madam Speaker, and I hope to be here—Oh well, no. [Laughter.] That might be going too far.
462
A second and crucial difference from 1978—I shall telescope this—is that we have moved to define the reserved rather than the devolved powers, to ensure maximum clarity and stability. Anyone looking at the 1978 Act would see a somewhat grudging document, which would have required frequent updating. There would have been a greater danger—I put it no higher than that—of arguments over vires. We wished to minimise the difficulties of interpretation and to allow for maximum flexibility in future. We have done so.
My third point is that the Secretary of State for Scotland will not have what is sometimes called the governor-general role, which was at the heart of the 1978 Act and was put upon the shoulders of the Secretary of State. The Scottish Parliament and Scottish Executive will have their own direct relationships with the Crown, rather than using the Secretary of State as an intermediary. Legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament will not need to go to the Secretary of State for consideration and approval before it is passed to the Queen for Royal Assent. It is important that we do not have such overriding decisions. It would have sullied the atmosphere and made for great difficulties. I am glad about that particular extension.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way on this extremely important point, and I very much agree with his analysis. In the contrast that he is drawing between the current proposals and those of the late 1970s, he has been sensible enough to recognise the inevitable reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament going to Westminster. When one considers this bold and imaginative White Paper in that respect, it is de facto the case that the office of Secretary of State effectively becomes redundant. If this reaches a successful conclusion, does he anticipate being the last holder of the office of Secretary of State, not just in its present form, but as a meaningful office of state at Cabinet level?
Mr. Dewar: That office certainly will change in character quite radically, because of the 12,000 civil servants and the range of legislative responsibilities passed to the Scottish Parliament. There will, in my view, still be a need for liaison. In the important areas of foreign affairs, defence, economic affairs in particular and fiscal affairs, there will still be a need for a Scottish voice in the Administration of the day, in United Kingdom terms. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's absolutist view on that matter, although I accept that it is something in which his party has believed for a very long time.
What is certain is that the Secretary of State will not have what I referred to as a governor-general role. To be fair, if one looks back to 1978, the White Paper made the point that it was expected that the Secretary of State could object to and block a Scottish Parliament Bill on the basis that he did not agree with it as a matter of policy. There was then a considerable outcry, and that was diluted in section 38 to the circumstances in which it would or might affect a reserved matter and was not in the public interest. But the override was there in a way that would have made for great difficulties in interpretation. The clarity of the new settlement is important.
I very much doubt whether my old friend who was Secretary of State at that time saw himself in a governor-general role, but certainly he was driven out of it by popular outcry. Some hon. Members may remember

463
that, on one occasion, the late George Brown, on being introduced to someone who had just become a governor-general, established conversationally that he had a hat with plumes and, as he left, said in a friendly way that he hoped that his feathers would fall out. I think that that is what happened to the governor-general role way back then, and we have finally buried the matter.
Dr. Liam Fox rose—
Mr. Dewar: Oh, a Front-Bench spokesman.
Dr. Fox: The Secretary of State has been quite good at following the point through in the debate, but how does he envisage the role of the Secretary of State developing if there is a Scottish Parliament of one colour in Edinburgh and a United Kingdom Parliament of a different political colour in London?
Mr. Dewar: The Secretary of State might be a little busier and his job might be a little more difficult, but that perhaps underlines the need for it. I met a Member of Parliament the other day—I make no complaint because he had not been following the argument—who thought that the Secretary of State would be in the Scottish Parliament, reflecting its political colour. The Secretary of State is a member of the United Kingdom Government and, clearly, his role will be to consider Scotland and Scotland's needs according to the beliefs and opinions of that Government, reflecting them in the counsels of that Government. We could argue about the detail, but the position is perfectly clear.
I want to push on to one or two other quick points, because I might outstay my welcome. The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive—I mention this particularly because I recognise that it is a matter of great controversy; rather more controversy than I expected—will obviously have a role and will be closely involved in European decision making and will have a presence in Brussels. The White Paper uses the words:
"The closest possible working relationships and involvement",
and involvement of the Scottish Executive
"as directly and fully as possible in the Government's decision making on European Union matters"
is what is on offer.
To end all doubts, I make it clear that I accept that of course the Scottish Executive representative will want to try to influence and take part in that matter. But at the end of the day, the United Kingdom is the member state and a common United Kingdom position will have to be evolved, and everyone will have a duty to try to advance that position in negotiations with other member states.
Miss Anne McIntosh: That raises an interesting point of constitutional law. The United Kingdom is responsible for negotiating its obligations as a member state, but the Scottish Parliament would have to implement them, which might lead to difficulties. Has the Secretary of State considered any potential constitutional difficulties in that relationship?
Mr. Dewar: Sotto voce he says, "Everyone else has," but that may be optimistic. However, I have and my
464
colleagues have. I accept that the hon. Lady, who I think is still a Member of the European Parliament for a southern English seat, although she represents a northern English parliamentary seat in the House, raises a perfectly legitimate point. If she looks at the White Paper, as I am sure she will have and will have just missed this, she will see that it takes great care to lay a duty on the Scottish Parliament to implement European law and directives. The reason for that—she is absolutely right—is that, if it refused to do so, the penalty for non-compliance would fall upon the United Kingdom Government as a member state, and that would be demonstrably unfair. That is why, as is the mark of the White Paper, we have tried to face up to these difficulties and to write in the necessary machinery.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Secretary of State is undoubtedly correct to say that member states have certain rights and entitlements in the European structure of decision making, which are not given to non-member states or, indeed, regions of member states. However, the White Paper envisages Scottish Parliament representatives leading the UK delegation on specific matters. What does he expect those matters to be? How often does he think that a Scottish Parliament representative will lead the UK delegation?
Mr. Dewar: I would not speculate about that, although there are precedents where Scottish Office Ministers have regulated parts of discussions and, occasionally, spoken in debates as members of the UK delegation. It is difficult to predict or to play the numbers game. I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in the numbers game. He predicted confidently the number of seats that his party would win at the election. He was wrong. I make no complaint about that, but it is a dangerous game. If he looks at the White Paper, he will see that a strong and robust role is proposed for Scottish Executive representatives as part of the UK delegation.
I am afraid that I do not often go to Europe these days to visit the Commission or to go to Brussels. I am aware—as the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) will be—of the active role played by many constitutional structures below nation state level, such as the German Milder, the Spanish autonomous provinces and the Italian provinces. There are a lot of them, and they all work extremely effectively on behalf of the areas that they represent. There is a real and positive virtue from a Scottish point of view, in having the Scottish Parliament involved at that level.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What would happen if the Scottish Parliament decided to comply with EU directives where the United Kingdom had applied for derogation? That is very important for many Scottish industries.
Mr. Dewar: That is ingenious. I would want to write to the hon. Lady about that. [Interruption.] Well, this is a serious debate. I do not know whether that is possible. I can think of precedents, but I would want to check them. I think it is possible to have derogation for an area within a member state, but before I say something that could be quoted against me—quite fairly—I should like to check.

465
It is important that we recognise the virtue of fiscal powers in a situation such as this. In tiers of government—whether it is local or central Government—there are powers to vary the revenue, and that seems right for the Scottish Parliament. We were influenced in this by the Conservative party's attacks on the "constitutional irresponsibility" of a body that did not have such powers, at least on the margins. I say that, because I ought to make it clear that the powers we are suggesting are comparatively modest, as against the block-and-formula arrangements for allocating on an agreed basis the resources of the United Kingdom to Scotland. I accept that that is an interesting and testing process.
We have added to the process the right to reduce or increase income tax at the basic rate by up to 3p in the pound, producing a levy at current terms of a maximum of about £450 million. That seems to me to be right, because it asks the Scottish Parliament to face real financial choices and makes it, in a sense, more directly accountable to the people it represents. The important point is that we are trusting the people of Scotland to make choices on their own behalf. After all, Scots elected to the UK Parliament and to local government are trusted in that way, and the new Parliament should be as well.
We have built in two specific safeguards with which the House will be familiar. First, income from savings and dividends will not be affected by the tax-varying powers. We were influenced heavily in reaching that decision by the need to have a level playing field for the financial services industry in Scotland, which is particularly important in insurance and pensions. Secondly, if the Parliament's power to raise the £450 million—which will be index-linked to preserve its real value—were eroded at some hypothetical future date by changes in the United Kingdom tax structure, an alternative base with the same sort of impact in terms of distribution would be provided by the Treasury.
It is important to recognise that the power may be used to deal with some special project or difficulty. I do not expect that it would simply be added to the blockand-formula sum that is negotiated as a continuously available additional revenue support. I believe that that would constitute a misuse of the power—although, of course, it would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. The power must be seen in the context of the United Kingdom direct taxation system as a whole. Moreover, I am advised by the Treasury that, of those who currently pay tax in Scotland, 29 per cent. would not have been affected if it had applied this year. That 29 per cent. consists of those with the lowest incomes in the tax system.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: While the Secretary of State is on the subject of the tax-raising powers and the revenue of £450 million, will he explain something in the White Paper? Paragraph 7.13 states:
"It is of course possible that future changes to the UK income tax structure might reduce the value of the product of the Scottish Parliament's tax-varying power. In these circumstances, the Parliament's ability to raise or forgo up to £450 million through the tax system will be preserved."
Does that mean that, if taxation in the United Kingdom—led by a Conservative Government—went down, the Scottish Parliament would still be able to levy £450 million on the Scottish people, which could well represent more than 3p in the pound?
Mr. Dewar: It would not represent more than 3p in the pound. I can imagine the hon. Gentleman attacking me with some vim and vigour on the ground that, at some stage, the basic rate might contract and become so narrow that no significant revenue could be raised. He produced his question as if it were a trick question that I was trying to avoid, but, in fact, I have spent quite a bit of the last few minutes referring to the possibility, and explaining why we had built the machinery into the system. If the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, he will probably see that it is fair and reasonable.
Mr. Dalyell: Mine is not a trick question. Yesterday in the House, I asked:
"If the tax produces only £250 million, what happens then?"—[Official Report, 30 July 1997; Vol. 299, c. 374.]
As was explained by the accountants Ernst and Young, the £450 million figure given by the Treasury was calculated on the basis of earned income and saved income. As I understand that we are dealing only with earned income, the amount could be very much less than £450 million. Will there not be a problem in making good the shortfall?
Mr. Dewar: I know that my hon. Friend has been talking to Ernst and—[HON. MEMBERS: "Young."] Ernst and Young—a small accountancy firm that has an office in Glasgow.
Since my hon. Friend first raised the point, I have checked the figures again. The exemption of savings income is almost de minimis. It does not raise very much, but an alternative arrangement would greatly complicate the system and cause the difficulties in relation to the financial services industry to which I have already referred. I am assured by the Inland Revenue that, on the basis of the 1997–98 figures, it is satisfied that £450 million would be the proper figure. I am talking about the use of the power at its maximum. There is a tendency to assume that it will always be used at its maximum, but that is not necessarily true. Indeed, the power may not be used at all in any given year.
I believe that our White Paper tackles many tough issues. We have tried to face up to some of the fundamental criticisms of the 1978 package. I have been talking about the powers, but other issues have prompted controversy and difficulty over the years. One, obviously, is the electoral system.
Saturday was a rather unusual day for me. I left Glasgow at about 11 am after some engagements, and returned to Glasgow at 9 pm via Stornoway and Kirkwall. That was almost certainly the only day in my life when I shall do that. I did it because it is important to recognise that Scotland is a different community with many facets. In 1979, the voting patterns in the referendum were different.
I was glad of the opportunity to go to the Western Isles and Orkney to discuss some of the problems with the people there. I was able to tell them that the proportional voting system that we advocate should mean that all strands of opinion will be fairly represented, not just in the north-east and in the highlands but in the central belt, where minority opinion has sometimes found it difficult to make a breakthrough. That is controversial in terms of my party and its short-term interests, but with a new start, it is right to tackle the issue. We did not shirk tackling it.

467
The reasoning that I have outlined also applies to Westminster representation, although I do not wish to expand on that. When the restriction, which has artificially boosted the number of Scottish Members above the population ratio, is removed, the boundary commission will look at the matter. That examination will be subject to the geographical and community tie arguments, which are currently part of the statutory criteria.
We have also tackled the problem of consent, which was again mentioned a few days ago by Conservative Members. I understand the force of the statement that we cannot say why people vote in general elections. Right, let us face that and have a referendum. We shall have a hard-working and perhaps an occasionally nervous summer, but the issue will be settled and a decisive yes on both counts will enable us to go forward with authority and added impetus.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dewar: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me finish this point.
I should like to draw attention—I almost said "pay tribute", but that could get me into trouble throughout the House—to the interview with the Leader of the Opposition on "The World This Weekend" on 27 July, in which the right hon. Gentleman dealt significantly with the issue. At times the interview was somewhat confused, but I imply no criticism, because I have great sympathy for people who find themselves at the wrong end of an issue that has been made awkward by what has been said with great virulence for months or years.
The tone of the interview was important. Speaking about the people of Scotland and Wales, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"If they vote for it in the referendum then they will get a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly and we will have to respect that for the future … if it's clearly stated we will listen to it. If the public approve that idea in the referendum then we are not going to be able to say and we might want to say … we can get rid of these things in a few years time".
That is an important decision by the Leader of the Opposition. He says that he will give some stability to the system and a fair run. I do not suggest that that is set in concrete and that it can never be altered or improved.
I and, I think, many Scottish voters were worried that the issue could become a political punchball and that, if the Conservatives were elected on a national swing in four or five years, they would, as a matter of prejudiced policy, simply dismantle the Parliament on the basis of the evidence of the moment. The Leader of the Opposition has laid that fear to rest. In a way, he is giving enormous legitimacy to the referendum by saying that, if people vote yes, the Opposition, and presumably a Conservative Government elected under his leadership, will recognise that that must be worked with.
We are all interested in making Britain's constitutional machinery a success, and the Conservatives will play their part in that. That is the right approach by the Opposition, although my saying that may not encourage Opposition
468
Members. The important statement by the Leader of the Opposition underlines the opportunity that the referendum provides. If we take it cleanly and it results in a reasonable or a handsome majority, we shall have a fair chance to make a success of the proposals.
Mr. Sayeed: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition spoke about the opinion of the Scottish people being "clearly stated"; the Secretary of State repeated those words. If about 40 per cent. of an artificially deflated electorate in Scotland vote and there is a 60:40 majority, it means that only 24 per cent. of those who are eligible to vote will have voted for a major constitutional change. Is that enough, given that it will do much damage to the Union?
Mr. Dewar: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is still fighting that battle. The result on the day will have to be judged by the House and by individual Members. It is a matter not simply of turnout, but of turnout balanced against the majority, or otherwise, that is achieved. Both factors have to be taken into account. The majority of the Labour party fought hard against franchises in 1978. I was there; I arrived in the middle of those arguments. We should not rig ballots in that way.
Although the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and his colleagues made some fairly fierce speeches on the matter, to his credit, when it came to the bit, none of the threshold amendments was pushed to a vote—
Mr. Michael Ancram: We were not allowed to.
Mr. Dewar: In the House of Lords, where there are some Conservatives, who might even listen to the right hon. Gentleman—he may even have connections there, when I come to think of it—the relevant amendments were not pushed to a vote. He should take my praise, because I was just about to congratulate him on his common sense in not doing so in this place. The ingenious and no doubt agile arithmetic that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) has produced is not going to be relevant, but we shall all make the judgment, when the result comes, and I hope that we shall not end up in that argument and situation.
Mr. Grieve: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Dewar: With all respect, I have taken many points of information.
Madam Speaker: Fourteen.
Mr. Dewar: I am obliged. That is clearly the appropriate phrase, but I do not regret taking those interventions, because I recognise that there is genuine interest and a genuine debate to be had.
Everything depends on the election, on the votes in that referendum and, ultimately, of course—if we get through that hoop—on the Scottish Parliament performing well and serving the people of the United Kingdom, particularly the people of Scotland, well. If the Scottish Parliament proves effective and popular in practice, its future will be secure. What has been said by Opposition Members has underlined that point, and I welcome it.

469
This settlement balances the interests of Scotland and of the United Kingdom, and it will strengthen and benefit both. I have genuinely learned much from the debates. It is important to debate these issues and I look forward to taking part in many more debates, if the legislation, as I hope, is introduced.
I even learned something from the House of Lords yesterday. My acquaintance the Earl of Mar and Kellie intends to stand for the Scottish Parliament, and quite right, too—he is a Liberal and a social worker and the two are not incompatible. I had not come across Lord Sempill before—I asked my office and found out that he used to be the Master of Sempill. I did not know that it was a place: I obviously do not know my Scotland. He also announced from the Cross Benches that he hoped to stand, although in what interest he did not say. I welcome that level of interest. He said:
"The opportunity to help develop a better society for the people of Scotland and build a stronger Union is there to be had.
If we let tradition freeze our minds, new ideas cannot be cultivated."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 July 1997; Vol. 582, c. 201.]
We may say that they are not the most elegant of words, but I am delighted to quote them; they are perhaps from an unlikely ally. It is an opportunity in that sense.
If we look at the White Paper, the absence of override powers, the way in which we have sculpted the legislation, defining the reserved and not the devolved areas of policy, the fairer electoral system, the opportunities in Europe within the United Kingdom framework, the fixed powers as buttressed and defined and the strengthening of democratic controls, we are looking at a very good package, modernised and improved compared with that of 1978 and that of the Scottish Constitutional Convention—a different package for a different day and the right package for the right time.
It will be a grown-up Parliament with grown-up duties. We must reject the idea that, in some way, the electorate of Scotland or their elected representatives cannot be trusted to do a good and responsible job. Too often, when it is boiled down, that is the essence of the argument from Conservative Members. Scottish politics will be a drear and dreich prospect if we pass up this opportunity. It is a time for hope and optimism. I hope that my colleagues in Scotland, the people of Scotland, my political friends and allies and people far beyond that will make sure that we do not miss this opportunity.

Royal Assent
Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Appropriation (No. 2) Act 1997

Finance (No. 2) Act 1997

Education (Schools) Act 1997

Law Officers Act 1997

Referendums (Scotland and Wales)

Act 1997 King's College London Act 1997

Scottish Devolution
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
4.31 pm
Mr. Michael Ancram: We knew that the Secretary of State was on dicey ground when, at the end of his somewhat lengthy speech—I pay tribute to him for taking so many interventions—he founded his final remarks on a quotation from an hereditary peer. As I understand it, the Labour party wants to abolish the role of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. It seems a little ungracious to use such a quotation as the basis on which the right hon. Gentleman asked the House to support the White Paper.
I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland, unlike his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, is genuinely committed in his advocacy of Scottish devolution in general and the White Paper in particular. However, I think that he is dangerously and damagingly wrong. Interestingly, he referred to the number of White Papers that had been sold and said that it was a best seller. I should remind him that some best sellers are horror stories or science fiction, and that nearly all are fiction.
Mr. Dewar: Penny dreadfuls.
Mr. Ancram: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that helpful explanation.
Mr. Norman A. Godman: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for showing his customary courtesy. Before he gets into his stride, will he be kind enough to confirm that he is not altogether hostile to the theory and practice of political devolution? Is not it the case that, contained within the framework document published in February 1995, there is a proposal for the setting up of a unicameral assembly with legislative and executive responsibilities? Had his party won the election on 1 May and had he become the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, presumably he would have been advocating that sort of devolution for Northern Ireland. Is that not the case?
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman should read the framework document carefully, because it makes it clear that it was not a blueprint to be acted on, but was a proposal to aid discussions between the parties. That was made clear at the time, for very good reasons. The point has arisen on a number of occasions and it would be wise for the hon. Member to ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether such interventions are helpful to her in what she is trying to do now.
The Government's proposals carry within them the virus that will begin to eat away, and eventually cause to unravel, the bonds that hold the United Kingdom together. It is not written into the White Paper, but the virus is there. The proposals are the first step on the way to an independent Scotland and the break-up of the United Kingdom. Conservative Members know that and the Scottish National party knows that, too. That is why it decided last weekend to support the double yes campaign.
472
We must ask the Secretary of State whether he really believes that, if he was right in his assertion that these measures protect the Union—that is the case he made today and on previous occasions—the SNP would be campaigning alongside him. It would not. He must know, as I know, that a Scottish Parliament will never be satisfied with the powers and resources that it is given. The dynamic of devolution will always ensure that it seeks more of both, and when it does not get them, it will always blame this Parliament at Westminster.
Eighteen years of propaganda have created enormously high expectations of a Scottish Parliament. Were one to come about, it would not take long for those expectations to be dashed. When schools did not improve, when hospital provision did not get better, when new housing did not appear, the Scottish Parliament would not take the blame—it would lay the blame on Westminster. When Scottish taxes were higher than those south of the border, that would be blamed on a parsimonious Westminster. To an ever-increasing extent, Westminster would be the whipping boy for the perceived failures of a Scottish Parliament.
Dr. Lynda Clark: My intervention is intended to be helpful as I am hoping to give you some support for your devolutionary credentials. I think that you are the same person—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I did not make any statement. I know that the hon. Lady is a new Member, so I must advise her that when she uses the term "you" she is talking about me.
Dr. Clark: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I should start again.
I am trying to assist the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) with his devolutionary credentials. In June 1979, he said that there was
"a genuine need and a genuine desire for constitutional reform not only in Scotland but in the rest of the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 20 June 1979; Vol. 968, c. 1412.]
The right hon. Member must have had some form of devolution in mind, so I should be grateful to know what form he would support.
Mr. Ancram: The date to which the hon. Lady referred was shortly after I had spent three months, together with the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), campaigning for a no vote. I pay tribute to the strength of the hon. Gentleman's arguments against a Scottish Parliament of the sort that we are now discussing. I stood alongside him then, I agreed with him, and his arguments remain true today. Since then, the Conservative Government had made some changes in the development of the Scottish Grand Committee. I was involved in discussions on those changes from 1979 onwards.
On the point about the dynamic of devolution and what it would do to a Scottish Parliament—[Interruption.] Labour Members shake their heads, but it is a serious matter because this has happened in other areas at other times in history. A Parliament, by its nature, always wants more power. How soon would a Scottish Parliament be flexing its constitutional muscles? How soon, claiming credence from the Claim of Right, would it be testing its own view of where sovereignty lay? I doubt whether

473
its view would be that sovereignty lay with the Westminster Parliament. How soon would it be asking for greater powers and greater resources, probably in the knowledge that it would not get them? Then what? It would become the focus for Scottish discontent, the cockpit for national resentment and the arena in which to set Scot against English. That is the virus and the dynamic it would create—it would tear at the bonds that hold this United Kingdom together.
Mr. John Swinney: How does the right hon. Gentleman's argument square with the view of the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, that, if the Scottish people wanted to assert their rights, use their sovereignty and determine their independence as their preferred option, no impediment should be placed in the way of their achieving that objective? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that? How does he square it with his argument?
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me, because that is precisely what a Scottish Parliament would argue—that sovereignty rests not with Westminster, as the Secretary of State said, but with the people of Scotland.
That is not all. The proposals, which were put before us last week, leave a dangerously unbalanced constitutional position within the United Kingdom. The envisaged reduction in the over-representation of Scotland at Westminster may help a little, but I frankly tell the Secretary of State that it is an alarmingly long way down the road. I suspect that it is the price of loyalty from his Back Benchers.
We must continue asking what will be the role of Scottish Members at Westminster. In logic, why should they still be able to vote on matters affecting English schools and English hospitals when they will not have the right to vote on those matters as they affect Scotland? Why should they decide those matters for my constituents when they cannot decide them for their own constituents? Why should a Scottish Member be able to be the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and decide individual spending programmes for England when he will not be able to do so for Scotland?
Does the Secretary of State really believe that that position is sustainable and that a quiescent England will somehow not notice the proposed constitutional travesty and inequality of treatment?
Mr. Edward Leigh: As my right hon. Friend is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, perhaps he cannot hear the sotto voce remarks of Scottish National Members, who are saying, "We don't want to come."
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making up for the fact that my hearing is becoming poorer as I get older. He has also reinforced the point that I was making. Scottish nationalists are supporting a Scottish Parliament because they believe that it will become the sovereign Parliament of Scotland. The intention and policy of the Scottish National party is to create an independent Scotland.
My argument, however, is not with the Scottish nationalists—like them, I believe that the Government's proposals will achieve their goal—but with the Secretary
474
of State, who tells us that the Government's proposals will secure the Union. I profoundly disagree with him on that belief, because there is nothing in precedent to suggest that that would be the consequence.
The proposals contain a frightening potential to set Scot against English and English against Scot. Far from binding together, the proposals will unbind; far from strengthening relations, they will undermine them; far from stabilising our constitution, they will unbalance and destabilise its very foundations.
For those of us who cherish the United Kingdom and believe that its great amalgam of nations, cultures, traditions and skills has been and can again be a force for immense good, the proposals are a nightmarish beginning of its unravelling. The proposals threaten the United Kingdom, and we oppose them.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does the right hon. Gentleman care to predict the date on which he thinks that Germany, having created its läder, will break into several independent nations?
Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Lady studies the position in Germany, she will discover that the White Paper does not make comparable proposals for the United Kingdom. If she believes that the proposals are for the maintenance and sustenance of the Union, she should ask herself why the nationalist parties in both Wales and Scotland support them. Have those parties suddenly converted to the idea of the United Kingdom, or do they know—as I know—what the proposals will lead to?
Mr. Ernie Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, once a Scottish Parliament is up and running in Scotland, the Conservative party in Scotland will put forward no more candidates for seats at Westminster?
Mr. Ancram: I am not sure that I understand even the purpose of that question. We have consistently said that we do not want the situation to arise. Before 11 September, we will be arguing that the proposals will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. On 11 September, we will ask the people to examine the Government's half-baked proposals. I believe that people in Scotland understand the value of the United Kingdom to Scotland, and I do not believe that they will lightly sow the seeds of its destruction. I also do not believe that they will want the voice and influence of Scotland to be diminished in the United Kingdom, and that would be the consequence of the White Paper's proposals.
We have been told—we have already discussed the matter today—that the post of Secretary of State will be maintained—but to do what? The Secretary of State said that the post will be changed quite radically. Having lost all his powers to a Scottish Parliament, however, what clout will he have in Cabinet? What influence will he have on the wider scene? The White Paper states that his role will be "promoting communication" between the Scottish and Westminster Governments. What does that mean? Is it a euphemism for a glorified message boy?
The truth is that, in politics and in government, one punches one's weight. If the proposals are implemented, the Secretary of State will have no weight, no punch and no influence. Scotland's historic voice at the centre of

475
government will effectively be gone. When, inevitably—as my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said—the political colours in Edinburgh and London are different, even the role of "promoting communication" will come into question.
Moreover, it will not be long before Scotland's voice in the House becomes very much less. Fewer Scottish Members will not strengthen Scotland's voice. The inevitable diminishing of the role of Scottish Members in the House, to meet the needs of constitutional balance, will lead to further marginalisation. The reality of the proposals—far from the Prime Minister's promise in the White Paper of giving Scotland an "exciting new role" within the United Kingdom—will be an undermining of the considerable role that Scotland now plays. That would be bad for Scotland and bad for the United Kingdom.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Perhaps my right hon. Friend is being too generous in his description of the role of a post-devolution Secretary of State for Scotland, because the White Paper's funding formula almost sets in stone the amount of money that will go to Scotland. In considering devolution, should we not re-examine the Barnett formula? I have spoken to Scots in my constituency who wonder why Scots in Dorset receive less money than Scottish—or English—people living in Scotland. Why should there be greater per capita spending in Scottish parliamentary constituencies than in English ones?
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I have one or two questions myself on financing and on the Barnett formula, but, before I ask them, I should like to deal with Scotland's future role in Europe.
We have been told that Ministers of the Scottish Executive will have a specific role in Europe, even if Scotland does not have a voice in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State shakes his head. He obviously does not believe that Scotland will have such a role in Europe.
The White Paper, however, tells us that Ministers of the Scottish Executive will be involved in formulating UK policy positions; supporting and advancing the single United Kingdom negotiating line; working as a United Kingdom team; and, when appropriate, speaking in Councils for the United Kingdom. That is pure political unreality—based, I suspect, on an assumption that there will somehow be a permanent new Labour majority in both England and Scotland, working cosily hand in hand.
What will happen, however, when there are different political colours and perspectives, as inevitably there will be? How likely is it that there will be agreement on a common United Kingdom policy position? What will happen to Scotland's position if there is no agreement? Will Scotland's case effectively be unrepresented in Councils, as it cannot be under current arrangements? What will happen if, politics apart, there are conflicting interests between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom on a European matter? How will Scotland's voice be heard?
By what right will a Scottish Minister from the Scottish Executive speak for the United Kingdom? We are told that it will be done by agreement. How often is such
476
agreement likely to be given? How will such a Minister answer to the United Kingdom Parliament—of which he will be neither a Member nor a Minister—for what he has said on behalf of the United Kingdom? The matter is a mess and a muddle, and we have received no answers to our questions about it—because, I suspect, it is irresolvable. The proposal is part of a sales pitch to win support at the referendum, but it does not add up, and the people of Scotland should know that before 11 September.
In reality, Scotland's voice in the Council of Ministers would be considerably lessened after implementation of the proposals. Scotland would be further marginalised, and greater would be the consequent resentment in Scotland. We would be left with such extraordinary anomalies as allowing Scottish Members to vote on abortion but not on capital punishment in the United Kingdom Parliament. Ultimately, such anomalies can only further marginalise Scotland within the United Kingdom.
Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: Yes, but it will be the last intervention in my speech.
Mr. Salmond: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's comments on Scotland's role in Europe, because it is an important matter. Can he tell us the percentage—to the nearest 10 per cent.—of times that Scottish Office Ministers attended Council of Ministers meetings? Was it 10, 20, 50 or 60 per cent? Does he know?
Mr. Ancram: I do not have the answer to that question to hand, but I know from my experience as a Minister in the Scottish Office and in the Northern Ireland Office that, when interests were at stake, Ministers were present, they were consulted and had a common view. The point that I am making is that if there is a differing view—if the United Kingdom position cannot be in line with that of the Scottish Parliament—the Scottish Parliament's voice would be unrepresented, and so would Scotland.
The United Kingdom would be threatened, Scotland would be marginalised and, on top of that, Scots would be worse off. The cost of the Scottish Parliament, including its setting up, would come off the Scottish block—£70 million in the first year and £30 million thereafter, we are told in the White Paper, but I suspect that that is a gross underestimate. Whether or not it is, that money will come from the block; it will come from the schools budget, the hospitals budget and the local government budget, all of which will have to pay for it.
We are told that the Barnett formula will be retained. Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell the House and the Scottish people how often the increasing levels of Scottish spending over the years were achieved by the Barnett formula alone. Is it true that, over time, the Barnett formula will equalise proportionate spending, rather than preserve currently favourable Scottish differentials? How will that mean more provision, as we are told it will, for the Scots under a devolved Parliament? Or will it all have to come from tax, from the can of tartan tax worms that we began to open last night? These are the central questions that must be fully answered before the referendum.

477
Indeed, there are many questions on tax that need to be answered. The Secretary of State said that he wants the Scots to have the facts. Well, let us see whether we can get some facts today. Previously, I have been singularly unsuccessful in getting any answers, and I fear that I am again pursuing the triumph of hope over experience.
Will the Secretary of State start by confirming that, contrary to the impression given so far, income tax is not the only element of the tax-varying powers being made available to a Scottish Parliament? In particular, will he—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may want me to repeat that question so that he can answer it. Will he confirm that, contrary to the impression given so far, income tax is not the only element of the tax-varying powers being made available to a Scottish Parliament, and that other elements are available, too?
Mr. Dewar: What are they?
Mr. Ancram: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman. I return to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). It is a serious point that has yet to be addressed. Will the Secretary of State please tell the House what will happen if changes in income tax bands or fluctuations in the tax base, which decide how much 1p in the pound can secure in terms of revenue, create a situation in which a 3p increase in the standard rate of income tax will not produce the guaranteed and index-linked £450 million? How will that shortfall be met?
The Secretary of State made it absolutely clear in his statement and, indeed, in the White Paper, that the £450 million is guaranteed. If the tax take from a 3p increase in taxes does not produce that, a shortfall will occur and, under the guarantee, it will be made up. How is that to be done—by allowing for more than 3p to be raised in the pound, which we have been told is the maximum, or by another tax? It has to be one or the other. If not, the guarantee is false. I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he wants to explain how the shortfall will be met.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for the right hon. Gentleman to invite anyone to intervene; it is for other hon. Members to ask to intervene. The right hon. Gentleman should continue with his speech.
Mr. Ancram: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but, having failed to get any answers from the Minister who I think is going to wind up the debate, I was hoping that I might have tempted the Secretary of State to intervene to give me an answer. It is something which the people of Scotland want to know. Either the guarantee is false or the shortfall will be made up by putting up the basic rate by more than 3p or through another tax. The Scottish people, who are worried about the 3p increase as it is, need to be told.
Mr. Dewar: It is poverty of imagination on the part of the right hon. Gentleman if he thinks that they are the
478
only two possibilities. He might consider a 3p maximum on a similar tax but a differently constructed income tax base.
Mr. Ancram: We are now being told that there is going to be another tax.
Mr. Dewar: I suppose that it was unwise of me to rise to the bait, but the right hon. Gentleman was asking me to answer a hypothetical question. If, at some future date, the present band on which the maximum of 3p is levied does not produce the requisite revenue and some alternative has to be found, it does not necessarily mean raising the 3p rate. One might look for another income tax base on which the 3p could be levied to produce the rate.
Mr. Ancram: The only possible interpretation of that is that there is going to be a different tax banding in Scotland. That is not in the White Paper.
There is a simple question to which the Scottish people need the answer. In a recession, for example, when there are fewer pounds to be taxed, if I can put it that way, and the 3p rate does not raise the £450 million calculated in the White Paper, there will be a shortfall. According to the guarantee that has been given, that shortfall is going to be met. I ask again, where is the money to come from? We are told that it will come from another arrangement relating to some other form of income tax. We want to know what that new form will be. We need answers to such essential questions.
I move on, however. Will the Secretary of State confirm that a Scottish Parliament with control over aggregate external finance and over the non-domestic rate and other local taxation could raise its own spending by passing the burden on to individuals and businesses through higher local taxes? For instance, could a Scottish Parliament retain some of the aggregate external finance for its own purposes, thereby pressurising local councils to increase council tax? Could it restructure the uniform business rate to achieve the same result? Or, could it, as I understand from the White Paper, introduce a new local tax—say, a sales tax—in order to justify retaining resources for itself? If it could do these things, are they not back-door methods for a Scottish Parliament to raise taxes even if the second question in the referendum has been answered no?
Mr. Dewar: I am genuinely curious, so may I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? Can Westminster do those things? If the answer is yes, should we abolish Westminster as an unpleasant conspiracy?
Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman has made my case for me. He has now compared the powers of the Scottish Parliament with the powers available to this Parliament. This Parliament certainly has powers to raise various other forms of taxation, but we have been told that the Scottish Parliament's tax-varying powers would relate only to income tax. It is becoming clear that in the thickets of the White Paper, well hidden from the casual reader, is the potential for many more tartan taxes than just income tax. Where potential taxes exist, one can be sure that in due course they will happen.
Scotland would be the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom, with devastating effects on individuals, jobs, business and inward investment. The cost of collecting

479
and paying the taxes would be punitive. It would also create great internal unfairness. Pensioners would pay the increased income tax while those who have saved and invested would not. Someone who lives in Berwick and works in Kelso will not pay the tax; someone who lives in Coldstream and works in Kelso will. Someone spending 185 days a year in Scotland will pay the increased tax, whereas someone spending only 180 days in Scotland will not. What happens if one's job takes one backwards and forwards across the border on a daily basis? The situation is mind-boggling. We need answers to the questions arising from the can of tartan tax worms, and we need them before the Scots are asked to vote on 11 September.
One thing is clear: the Scots will be worse off. As I said last Thursday, Scots will pay through the nose for devolution. It will cost to be Scots.
Ms Rachel Squire rose—
Mr. Ancram: I am not giving way again. I have spoken for long enough, and I want to conclude.
Last week, I warned that the people of Scotland were facing a dark, cold night. Just how dark and cold is becoming daily more apparent, as the small print of the muddled proposals is examined. It is a matter not just of what is in the proposals, but of what is not—it is the failure to answer questions on Europe, on tax and on many other crucial issues; it is the rush to get the referendum through before the Scottish people wake up to what is being done to them; and it is the implicit dishonesty in implying that people can vote for the package to save the United Kingdom at the same time as voting for it to break up the United Kingdom.
But the dawn beyond the night is no less cold, for it would find Scotland, having left the wider stage which historically it has bestrode so famously, withdrawn into itself, and inevitably resentful. It would find the Scottish people worse off, and it would find the United Kingdom torn apart.
The White Paper and the project that it sets out will end in tears—tears for the Scots and tears for the United Kingdom. I firmly reject it and I call on the people of Scotland to do the same before it is too late.
4.59 pm
Mrs. Ray Michie: I find it sad to hear the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) talking about things ending in tears. I wish that he was more constructive and had a greater interest in putting forward ideas that would help to improve some aspects of the White Paper.
I shall start on a light-hearted note. The Secretary of State sometimes accuses me of being over-romantic and of looking back too often. I wonder who chose 11 September as the date for the referendum? Was it a tiny bit of romance in his heart? It is, of course, the anniversary of the battle of Stirling bridge.
Mr. Salmond: Braveheartish.
Mrs. Michie: We all know about the film "Braveheart" and how everybody enjoyed Mel Gibson. I certainly did.
480
It has made a tremendous impression in America. Some 6,000 members of the American Society of Travel Agents will arrive in Glasgow on 7 September. They will make their way to Stirling for the 11 September celebrations. I hope that they will meet many thousands of Scots going to vote in the referendum.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: So do I.
Mrs. Michie: They will be going to vote yes, yes.
Mr. Dalyell: Am I doing the hon. Lady an injustice by suggesting that the implications of what she has said are profoundly anti-English?
Mrs. Michie: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should think that. I never mentioned the English. I was merely saying that 11 September was a worthwhile date to have chosen for the referendum. Perhaps I shall hear from Ministers whether it was chosen by chance or whether the Secretary of State decided that it was a good date because of the historical background.
Mr. Salmond: I have a helpful intervention. Does the hon. Lady recall, as I do, that, when the Conservatives were in government, they almost proposed a Trafalgar day? I thought that that was a pretty silly proposal, but I do not think that I attacked them for being anti-French.
Mrs. Michie: That was a helpful intervention. I remember that suggestion. I reject what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said.
I should like to follow up the questions that the Secretary of State was asked after his statement about the building that will house the Scottish Parliament. As the White Paper rightly states, it
"must be of such a quality, durability and civic importance as to reflect the Parliament's status and operational needs".
I am glad that the Secretary of State confirmed to me during Scottish Question Time that there were various options, including a new building, if a suitable site can be found.
I have two points to make about that. The first involves the funding of the building. No doubt we shall be accused of wasting money on a new building for the Parliament. It should be funded from three sources. Obviously, there should be some public funding, because it will be a building belonging to the people of Scotland. However, I see no reason why private money should not contribute to the project and I wonder whether it would be eligible for millennium funding. The dome is to cost between £500 million and £800 million.
Mr. Salmond: More.
Mrs. Michie: Well, up, up, up the cost has gone. The title was changed from the millennium project to the millennium experience, which was fine. I know that various millennium projects are planned to come to fruition in various parts of Scotland, but there is no single big idea. I suggest that the new Parliament could be our big idea—the Scottish experience.
My second point is about the design. I welcome the prospect of an open competition for the design if we choose to have a new building. I have a specific request

481
for the Secretary of State and the Minister. The design should be chosen not just by an architectural hierarchy and politicians. It is important to try to involve the people of Scotland in choosing the building. Perhaps they could choose from a short list of six. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are being extremely unfair to the hon. Lady. She is addressing the House and she should not be interrupted. [HoN. MEMBERS: "She is not addressing the issue."] Order. She should not be interrupted. That is the end of that.
Mrs. Michie: I am not sure why Conservative Members are trying to interrupt. I am addressing what is in the White Paper and trying to make some constructive proposals, which I have not heard from any of them.
The Scottish people should be involved in choosing whatever building is put forward from the competition. How can we do that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Have a referendum."] No. I was about to say that we have had enough proposals for referendums. We could involve the television companies, which would put the buildings on screen, with computer simulations of the inside. The Scottish people could then give their preferences in a phone-in. Similar exercises have been carried out before. This is not just my idea. Many people have told me that they do not want any carbuncles in Scotland. We want a building that we will like and appreciate. The choice of the people is not always the same as that of the architectural purists.
Mr. Godman: One of the most recent international architectural competitions that we have had in Scotland was for the new museum in Chambers street, Edinburgh. Was the hon. Lady unhappy with the way in which the design for that building was chosen?
Mrs. Michie: No, I was not. I would be happy if we consulted the people of Scotland. I do not know whether they would be interested in bothering to tell us what they would like, but we should at least try.
Mr. James Gray: The hon. Lady has spoken for eight minutes about the building in which the Parliament will be housed. Does she not think that that devalues this debate on the constitutional future of our nation?
Mrs. Michie: I do not want to argue with the hon. Gentleman. I have already said that I am trying to make constructive suggestions. There is a chapter in the White Paper about the housing of the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be able to raise other aspects later.
There are many aspects of the White Paper that we welcome, particularly the electoral arrangements as spelled out in chapter 8. Those arrangements are essential, as the Secretary of State has reiterated. We worked hard to persuade the Scottish Constitutional Convention to adopt a fair electoral system and we want to ensure that all parts of the country are properly represented.
One of the main criticisms of the Scotland Act 1978 was that, with the first-past-the-post system, the Parliament would be dominated by the central belt. It was said in 1978—it may still be said—that the Parliament
482
would be dominated by Glasgow trade unionists and Edinburgh lawyers. Each geographical area can now be confident that it will have proper representation and that its voice will be heard.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) has expressed concerns about other parties fulfilling their commitment to try to achieve gender balance within the Scottish Parliament. I assure her that the Scottish Liberal Democrats are trying to achieve that aim within a legal structure. I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured by that commitment.
Mrs. Fyfe: I am glad to hear that reassurance. I understand that the Scottish National party has taken the same position; I hope that that is correct. That leaves only the Scottish Conservatives who are benighted, as usual.
Mrs. Michie: I cannot answer for the Scottish Conservatives, although I think that they are beginning to understand that, with proportional representation, a gender balance and a Scottish Parliament, they are getting a lifeline to politics in Scotland. Without those things, they would be in the wilderness for ever.
Conservative Members have gone on and on about the additional list system being in the hands of party hierarchies. That would be wrong as well, certainly for the Liberal Democrats. Members of the Scottish Parliament will be vetted and selected to stand, as are Members of this Parliament, by the party members in the Euro-constituencies. Those selected will then be on the list. It is not a question of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, saying, "You, you, you and you will be on the party list." People will be chosen by local party members, as they are chosen at the moment to stand for first-past-the-post seats. I hope that we shall hear no more about patronage and party hacks going on lists.
The White Paper makes it clear that the Parliament will be responsible for further and higher education, including policy, funding, the functions of the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and student support. That is absolutely right. I am concerned, however, that, as a result of the Dearing report, the Government may legislate on the charging of tuition fees, which should be left to the Scottish Parliament. The Parliament will also want to ensure that Scottish four-year degree students will not be disadvantaged.
It has been proposed that students should pay £1,000 a year, with the loan being repayable at a later date. That flies in the face of the Scottish educational tradition, which has been firmly based on the belief that the best possible investment is in our people and our children. Education has always been regarded as the one opportunity that should be afforded to all our youngsters, and as the one boost that can give them a lift out of deprived or disadvantaged circumstances and give them a real chance to make their way in life. Education is important to us.
Running up a considerable debt is a frightening prospect even for the reasonably well-off. It goes against a principle that many of us were brought up to believe in—that we should not incur debt and that we should never purchase anything until we were confident of being able to pay for it. That is a wise dictum. The Scottish Parliament may want to look at that and at other methods of funding higher education. I also hope that there will be no move to do anything about university rectors in Scotland. It is a matter for a Scottish Parliament to decide.

483
I will try to get home the point about tax to Conservative Members. The Scottish Parliament is being given only tax-varying powers, so I do not understand what all the fuss is about. The Scottish Parliament is being given a minimal power. That power will be used only if a particular party has said that it will do so in its election manifesto and if the people then vote for that party. If the people vote for that party to go into government, the power will be used, because it will be the will of the people of Scotland. The power makes the Parliament more responsible and accountable, and that is why we must secure a substantial yes vote to the second question. I do not understand why Conservative Members think that a Scottish Parliament will act against its own people in terms of business and tax. Why would it do that?
Mr. Laurence Robertson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Dr. Fox: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Michie: I will give way to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox).
Dr. Fox: At columns 416 and 417 of yesterday's Hansard, when asked whether he thought that the second question was fraudulent because, even if the answer was no, the Parliament would still have tax-raising powers, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said that it was a fraudulent question to that extent. Does the hon. Lady agree with her hon. Friend?
Mrs. Michie: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland was saying that we would have preferred to have either no referendum or a referendum with just one question. I think that my hon. Friend was referring to the fact that we did not want a second question.
The White Paper raises a number of questions about the reserved powers, which are a bit bizarre. Under the heading "Certain other matters" on page 11, there is a list that includes the licensing of theatres and cinemas. I do not understand why that is included; perhaps the Minister can tell us later. The list also includes gambling. Does that mean casinos or betting shops? Why should they involve reserved powers? I do not see why this House should have a superior authority by which it can dictate to Scotland how it handles moral and ethical matters. We shall have to return to those matters, especially when the relevant legislation comes to the House.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow is right to say that Ministers will meet the Law Society of Scotland, because there are a number of questions to discuss. I am not a legal person, so I do not want to go into that area now.
Conservative Members make much of the merit of the Union, and they seem to believe that it is more important than democracy itself. Many people maintain, however, that the Union cannot be all that it is cracked up to be if it is unable to evolve, to adapt and to be flexible enough to meet the aspirations of its component parts. If we want to secure the unity of the United Kingdom, we should move towards a federal structure. I believe that we shall do so in the end. It has been Liberal Democrat policy for
484
many years and I know that the hon. Member for Linlithgow agrees with me. It is the answer to all the West Lothian questions and those relating to tax and fiscal powers. It is how the majority of countries work.
We need only look at America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Spain and Germany. Who gave Germany a federal Government after the war? We did. Who gave Germany a fair electoral system? We did. Yet, until now, not one jot or tittle of power has been allowed to leave this place. That is why I warmly welcome the White Paper. Although it is about devolution, it is much better than I expected, particularly having heard the rather chilling words of the Home Secretary when he said that power devolved was power retained. I commend the Government for having stuck closely to and, in some instances, improved on the proposals from the Scottish Constitutional Convention.
We are home rulers and, as I have said, the ideal is a federal structure.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Michie: No.
With a federal structure, this place would no longer dictate to Wales and Scotland; rather, there would be agreement on what powers each level of government would carry out.
Sovereignty as it is understood here is quite different from how we understand it north of the border where the people are sovereign—not any one person, body of people or Government, particularly as Governments are always elected on a minority vote.
The Conservative party in general and the official Opposition in particular demean themselves by their carping criticism. They could try to recover their political antennae, which have not been in evidence for many years, by speaking to real people, and not just among themselves, and trying to understand the deep passion, the desire of the hearts and heads of so many Scottish people who, though the generations, have dedicated their lives to the re-establishment of our Scottish Parliament. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) put it so eloquently last week, many people have lived and died without seeing it come to fruition. We, their children, have continued in that desire, and our children know that they must carry the banner until the day comes when Scotland can once again hold her head up high with confidence and pride as a partner in the United Kingdom, Europe and the world.
5.22 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am not given to exaggerated language, but frankly I was shocked by the opening of the speech by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). Let me explain to the House why. She referred to the battle of Stirling bridge some 700 years ago. She said that it was a light-hearted reference. Why did the hon. Lady start a speech in a crucial debate with that light-hearted reference when she knew very well that it was to a battle of Scots and English?
In 35 years of contesting elections with the Scottish National party—the leader of that party will bear me out in this, if in nothing else—I have never said that representatives of the Scottish National party are anti-English. Nevertheless, that will be a serious concern

485
once Pandora's box is open. I beg the hon. Lady to be careful in using that argument, because there are hundreds of thousands of English people working in Scotland and well over 1 million Scots working in England. They see it as one United Kingdom.
We are on very sensitive ground. The Liberal Democrats had great influence both in the convention and on the White Paper. In one sense, it is their White Paper as well as that of my right hon. Friends. Liberal Democrats can claim great influence on the White Paper; therefore, it behoves them to be ever more careful about what can be described as the law of unintended consequences. I beg the hon. Lady to be careful.
In his penultimate remarks, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the Leader of the Opposition. He took great comfort in the fact that the Leader of the Opposition had made statements along the lines that, if there were a Parliament, it would be permanent. I understand how the position has arisen, but how long will it last? Whatever the Leader of the Opposition or any politician says, how long can 72 or 58 hon. Members, or even one hon. Member, sent by electors north of the border be able to vote on matters relating to England, but be unable to vote on matters relating to Scotland? How long can that endure?
My problem with the White Paper is this: how long can a Scottish Parliament last in the form—or anything like the form—in which it has been proposed? People who propose constitutional change must submit proposals that at least have a chance of enduring. After careful study of the White Paper, I fear that there is no possibility of its proposals lasting a decade or more. Therefore, it behoves us to argue for proposals that at least have the possibility of enduring.
Once again, it comes down to something has been recognised for a very long time, certainly since the last years of the last century. At some risk, I quote Carson, who said in 1912:
"We see, as Irish Ministers saw in 1800, that there can be no permanent resting place between complete union and total separation … If there were no other objection to the establishment of a separate government in Dublin, it would be impossible because legislative autonomy can only be coupled with financial independence".
That is part of the problem which was reinforced by careful reading of the White Paper, by the reaction to Edinburgh castle and, not least, by the treatment of the subject by The Scotsman on that Friday morning. I fear that, at the end of the day, it comes back to the same question: the choice between something indistinguishable from the status quo and something indistinguishable from the general views of the Scottish National party. I stick to it, but the referendum really ought to be on two questions: "I wish to remain in Britain" and "I wish to be part of a Scottish state separate from England".
Mr. Donald Gorrie: Is it the case that, in recent history, the House has passed more laws relating to Scotland against the will of the majority of Scottish Members than laws affecting England against the will of the majority of English Members?
Mr. Dalyell: That is certainly right. Frankly, there is one answer to that: a separate Scottish state. Anybody
486
who thinks that an Assembly in Edinburgh could have protected us from Margaret Thatcher's poll tax is wrong. There is no way that an Assembly—
Mr. Gorrie: That is not true.
Mr. Dalyell: There is no way that an Assembly could have protected us.
Mr. Gorrie indicated dissent.
Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman will be able to speak later and I must be careful about time. I want to ask some specific questions.
One item in the White Paper which bothers me greatly is the statement:
"There will be provision for transferring further matters to and from the reserve list by Order in Council, which would be approved by both Parliaments."
That might sound harmless enough, but in simple, straightforward language those 25 words mean that, at any time, areas reserved for Westminster in the 1997 White Paper can be picked up at will by the Scottish Parliament. I do not envisage a Government in London feeling that there would be any point in challenging Edinburgh on such demands, but they will inevitably arise and, sooner rather than later, there will be more and more. Every shortcoming will, of course, be ascribed to a shortage of money from Westminster. We are on a motorway without exit to a destination that may not have been intended but is indistinguishable from a separate state.
I turn to the precise questions of the Law Society of Scotland. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench have the document to which I am referring. The first question has already been put. The second group of questions is:
"Why are the judicial appointments of the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk being dealt with on a different basis from other judicial appointments (paragraph 2.4)? Is there room for a judicial appointments commission in the devolved scheme?"
The third group of questions is:
"What solution is proposed in the event that the advice given to the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Executive Law Officers (the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General) and that given to the UK Parliament by the Scottish Law Officer, is different? What will the status of the Scottish Law Officer be? To which Department will he be accountable?"
There are other questions, such as:
"Will the convention that two Scottish Lords of Appeal in Ordinary should sit on Scottish cases apply to the proposal?"
Those questions are in the possession of the Scottish Office. It is important that they are answered before the referendum.
I turn briefly to money. I shall read out an unsolicited and short letter from Mr. Robert Hislop of 79, Belsyde court, Linlithgow. It says:
"Dear Mr. Dalyell,
I am an employee of Hewlett Packard and based in South Queensferry, but since I work for Sales and Service, the head office is in Bracknell.
My tax office is therefore in Southampton and not in Scotland.
My concern is regarding tax and devolution.
Like everybody else I pay UK tax, but if devolved powers ever arise does that mean I will be required to pay an extra 'Scottish' tax over and above the UK tax?

487
Personally I cannot see myself being better off than I am at the moment and will probably be financially worse off. Someone has to pay for the infrastructure, extra civil servants, MPs, etc. I think the man in the street, and I include myself, is ignorant of what the true cost will be if the vote on September 11 is Yes Yes."
I would like some kind of response to that letter, because there are many like it. There is widespread concern. At some stage, the nine questions on tax that I asked in the debate yesterday, reported in Hansard at columns 414 to 416, should be answered.
I should like to ask about the role of the Secretary of State. Who will be responsible for oil taxation? This is of vital concern to Scotland. It will be decided around the Cabinet table in London, where Scotland's voice might be rather weaker than it has been hitherto. A Parliament may be more representative of Scottish opinion than any one Minister, but what use will that be when it cannot always make representations where it counts? There is considerable worry on matters of great consequence to our electors that it will be rather different when it comes to the Cabinet table, where key decisions are made.
My hon. Friends will have seen the concerns of Scottish and Newcastle in the business section of today's edition of The Scotsman. That company represents many employees, some of whom are in the Linlithgow constituency. I hope that there will be some response to the concerns that it has raised. There is a problem when an economy that is interlinked and has come together over all this time is in some sense, to use the phrase of Mr. Lain MacWhirter, "dewired". The dewiring of an economy is a real problem.
There are those of us who have taken and are taking a different view on a whole number of matters. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) last night. He is, as he put it courteously, a real friend. His speech was indistinguishable from that of someone who wanted something that was tantamount to a separate Scotland. I hardly think that he would deny that. He is an honourable man. I do not know whether he is here. Ah, I see that he is. The position that he took is absolutely honourable, but we cannot have our cake and eat it; we cannot ride two horses.
Mr. John McAllion: My hon. Friend says that we cannot ride two horses. Does he remember the famous expression of Jimmy Maxton: "If you can't ride two horses, you shouldn't be in a bloody circus."
Mr. Dalyell: I do not think that the situation is a bloody circus. I think that it is extremely serious for people in Scotland. We may take some things light-heartedly, but the unintended consequences of what we do will be with us for a very long time.
I fear that, on 11 September, the Scottish people and people in Scotland have to choose between something that is very like the present British position, with all its shortcomings, and is indistinguishable from the present British state—some of us think that it is worth while in general terms, although there are of course shortcomings—and something that has been described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) as a "mystery tour". The mystery tour would end up very much along the lines of what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) would like. If that is the decision of the people in Scotland, so be it.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East that it is no good criticising me on this subject—well, he can criticise me as much as he wishes—when all I am
488
doing is being a messenger of the reality that we now face. That reality is whether we want to remain part of Britain or whether we want to be part of a state that is separate from England. That is the choice.
5.39 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), because he touched on the theme that I wish to develop today. It arises from the words of the Secretary of State for Scotland in the glossy White Paper:
"The Government's aim is a … settlement which will be good both for Scotland and the United Kingdom."
The debate has been incomplete up to now—both today and previously. It has been incomplete because the voice of the bulk of the United Kingdom—the people of England, of course—has been silent. We have heard endlessly about what the people of Scotland may want and, in a different context, about what the people of Wales may want, but when will the people of England be asked what they think?
It is bizarre to debate the future of the United Kingdom when the voice of the people who are the bulk of that United Kingdom is silent. The people of England are assumed to be compliant in what is going on. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow that the proposed solution is incomplete or partial, because it is not firmly founded. If the Scottish people, who have been given a voice, vote on 11 September for a Parliament with its tax-raising powers, we will know what they have to say, but we will still know nothing about how the English people feel.
Mr. Salmond: That cannot be true. During the election campaign, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the then Prime Minister, said that the devolution issue transcended the election. If that is true, did not the people of England speak on the issue—and many others—in the election, according to the former Prime Minister?
Mr. Forth: That is the mandate approach. It is often claimed by Labour Members, and indeed by other hon. Members, that we know what people want from the outcome of the general election. All that the people said in the general election was that they no longer wanted a Conservative Government; they wanted a Labour Government. That is clear and I accept that verdict—I can do no less. However, I am not sure that we know what the people of England think about proposals for a Parliament in Scotland.
Mr. James Wray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this issue goes back a long time, to 1886 and to the forming of the Scottish National party in 1934? Is he further aware that two future Conservative Prime Ministers, one in 1968 and the other in 1970, advanced proposals for a Scottish Parliament?
Mr. Forth: I have a certain awareness of those matters, although I am not always as impressed as I should be when hon. Members quote former Conservative Prime Ministers at me. Perhaps I should work on that. We are considering the current position, which is that a small number of people in the United Kingdom are being asked

489
whether they want something for themselves. A large number of people in the United Kingdom are not being asked at all.
That leads me to the point made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), that several possibilities are not being considered. One possibility, which may end up as an attractive solution, is a Parliament for England. As the hon. Lady rightly pointed out, that would resolve the West Lothian question, and it should be considered. But why are the people of England not being asked whether they want a Parliament at the same time as the people of Scotland and Wales are asked what they want? That is what is so wrong with the debate. It is completely lopsided. The tail is wagging the dog, or is attempting to do so, and that is politically dangerous. If we proceed, the solution will be narrow and shallow and, therefore, its effectiveness and permanence will be open to challenge.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have shown a lack of courage in being unwilling to consult all Scottish people in the referendum on 11 September? He said that the English people will not be consulted, but nor will Scottish people who for the time being do not live in Scotland. In the general election only 13 weeks ago today, people who live in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Spain—anywhere one likes to mention—were consulted, but Scottish people who do not live in Scotland at the moment will not be consulted in the referendum. That shows the Government's fear.
Mr. Forth: It pains me to say it, but I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend. I have always taken the view that, if people freely opt to leave one country to live in another, they must give up most, if not all, of their say in what happens in the country they have left. I am more comfortable with the residency requirement than is my hon. Friend.
Mr. Gray: I wish to raise a residency issue which was overlooked in the White Paper. A Scottish soldier who is based in England is 100 per cent. Scottish and fights in the tartan, but he may have registered his vote in, for example, North Wiltshire. Does my right hon. Friend feel the same way about a Scottish soldier who has been disfranchised by the Government as he does about other Scots who are resident in England?
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has made an important distinction. I said that my previous reply applied to people who had voluntarily left Scotland. If someone is posted out of Scotland because of his occupation, that is different. However, I do not wish to get involved in that debate, because I wish my remarks to be brief.
My next point is about money. I am sure that all hon. Members have studied carefully the useful research paper produced by the Library entitled "Public Expenditure in Scotland and Wales". On page eight, it reveals that identifiable general Government expenditure on education is £588 per resident in England and £791 in Scotland. On health and personal social services, the amount spent per resident is £806 in England and £989 in Scotland. The Scots are—as we know—privileged people within the United Kingdom, and that must leave the English wondering what is going on. The Scots are privileged to
490
have a Secretary of State and a Scottish Office—for which there is no English equivalent—yet the English help to pay for higher Government expenditure on the Scots.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the examples of the privilege of the Scots is that we got the poll tax a whole year earlier? We are all very grateful for that.
Mr. Forth: I cannot see the relevance of those remarks to the point I am trying to make. Yes, the Scots had the privilege of getting the excellent poll tax earlier than we did in England. I regret that the poll tax was not successful, and I hope that we return to it in a different form in the future.
Ms Squire: On the basis of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said about the poll tax, he clearly does not represent the views of the majority of people of England or Scotland. The people of England protested fiercely against the poll tax and showed their opposition to it, so he clearly speaks only for a minority.
Mr. Forth: I do not want to get bogged down in this argument, and I suspect that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might not want me to either. The majority of people did not protest against the poll tax; a minority of rabble protested against it. The then Government were overly impressed and, regrettably, rather than try to make the poll tax work, as we could and should have done, we decided not to proceed with it.
Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Forth: No, I want to get on with the point about money.
If we are to make some sort of fresh start in constitutional terms, we should at least attempt to level the playing field in terms of money, taxation and expenditure as well. When the English people begin to realise the extent to which the Scots are already financially privileged, and then see the Scots over-represented, with all the implications for the West Lothian question about which we have heard so often in this regard, I am afraid that that will give rise to the possibility of English resentment or a backlash. I would rather see that dealt with properly now than left festering, as will inevitably happen if the proposals are approved through both the referendum and legislation.
Sir Robert Smith: I am concerned about the language coming from Conservative Members. Do they want to foment or mollify English resentment?
Mr. Forth: I would certainly seek to mollify English resentment, and the first stage is to give the English a voice on this matter. Surely the hon. Gentleman would accept that the best way to bring about English resentment is not to consult the English, not to ask them what they want, and to make no provision for the English of the kind being made for the Scots and the Welsh. That is the problem. By proceeding as they are, the Government risk an English resentment which will serve us all badly in the future if we are not careful.

491
My final point in the United Kingdom context has not been commented on much so far in this debate. The proposals in the White Paper are for a unicameral legislative system for Scotland. I understand that the Scots will have one chamber, with a rather peculiar election system, which will be able to legislate over a wide range of issues for the Scots. The English presumably will still have their laws made by the Westminster system: a House of Commons with Scottish representation, a revising Chamber—the House of Lords—and Royal Assent. The Welsh will have yet another system of law making, whereby their primary laws will still be made here at Westminster, but a Welsh Assembly will deal with secondary legislation.
We now have the prospect of three totally different law-making processes within the United Kingdom, which is yet another reason why the proposals threaten to fracture the United Kingdom and send its different component parts off in different directions. That is the underlying danger of the proposals. The procedure being adopted, the financial underpinnings and the constitutional differences that will be set up by the proposals all endanger the United Kingdom and the relationship between its constituent parts in a way that no one has yet been prepared to recognise. That is why I and many of my hon. Friends oppose the proposals. They will be opposed not only in Scotland and Wales but increasingly, for the reasons that I have given, in England. This is a tragedy, which it might not yet be too late to avoid.
5.53 pm
Ms Rachel Squire: Given their speeches so far, Conservative Members are doing an excellent job in persuading the majority of people of the United Kingdom that we need devolution and constitutional change. I should like to say to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that it is my clear impression that the majority of people of England decided that they wanted to change a system of government that had become increasingly ignorant and unwilling to listen to their views. They wanted the style of politics changed to one that would give them much more influence on decisions that affect their everyday lives.
I very much welcome the White Paper. I have long campaigned for it, although I freely admit not quite as long as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I was thinking today about what I could say in support of the White Paper which has not already been ably and eloquently said by other hon. Members. I decided to focus my remarks on how a Scottish Parliament will help bring about the constitutional change that will give all the people of the United Kingdom a much greater voice in decisions that affect their everyday lives, especially those whose voices were ignored or silenced under our system of government.
Mrs. Laing: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Squire: I shall certainly give way to the hon. Lady, who is clearly eager to stand for the Scottish Parliament.
Mrs. Laing: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, although it is not up to her to read my mind.
492
I listened carefully to what she said. How will the proposals in the White Paper give my constituents in Epping Forest in Essex a greater say? That is what the hon. Lady suggested. It is a reasonable suggestion, but I do not see how the White Paper will increase my constituents' say.
Ms Squire: The hon. Lady demonstrates the blinkered tunnel vision so characteristic of Conservative Members. The White Paper is the first step in a process of constitutional change that will give a much greater voice to the constituents of Epping Forest, Elgin and elsewhere. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] Because it is the start of constitutional change in the way in which this country is governed. Five years as an hon. Member in this House have convinced me that, if there is one thing that I want to change, it is how the system of government has been allowed, over the past 18 years, so blatantly to ignore the voice of the majority of people throughout the United Kingdom.
Sir Robert Smith: One direct way in which constituents in Epping Forest and other English constituencies will benefit is that, once a Scottish Parliament has been set up, all the time taken in the House to scrutinise purely Scottish legislation will be freed up, so that we can scrutinise other legislation. I share the hon. Lady's optimism that the White Paper is the thin end of the wedge, and I hope that we shall see a federal system for the United Kingdom in the long run.
Ms Squire: I cannot not agree with the hon. Gentleman's last sentiment, but I should have thought that some hon. Members representing English constituencies might welcome not having to pack the Benches, as they have over the past 18 years of Conservative rule, to force through legislation that related solely to Scotland, against the wishes of the people of Scotland.
Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Squire: I shall continue my speech. The hon. Gentleman might then grasp why I am so much in favour of the proposals for a Scottish Parliament and of wider constitutional change.
I want a style and system of government that gives a much greater voice to those whose voices have too often been ignored by our political process: the unemployed; people on low incomes; and low-paid part-time workers, especially women. I became involved in politics because of my anger at the injustice whereby those who worked hard all their lives were given little recognition or reward for doing so, because they did not happen to speak with the right accent, live in the right part of town, or know the right people to have opportunities and doors opened to them.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Squire: No—
Mr. Swayne: Do, do.
Ms Squire: No, I wish to continue. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to give way later, I may do so.

493
In particular, I have been angered by the way in which the contribution that women—both paid and unpaid carers—make to our society has been ignored by our parliamentary system and government. Many of my hon. Friends have sought to speak out and to make the voices heard of those who have often been ignored. We see these people every week, every month, in our surgeries—people who are at the end of their tether and have come to us desperately hoping that we can deal with their grievances.
However, for every person who comes to us, there are another 100 whose voices will never be heard. Many of my constituents are disfranchised by our present system of government in many ways. They do not have the contacts, the knowledge, the networks that would enable them to get something done about grievances that affect them and their families. They may feel deeply that they have been treated unfairly, but pressure in their everyday lives means that their complaints are often ignored and they get absolutely nowhere—for example, the 25 families who recently contacted me with their complaints about maternity services in Fife.
I see a Scottish Parliament as part of a beginning of constitutional change, which will empower the many, not the few. It will make politicians more accessible and more accountable to those whom they are elected to represent.
Mr. Grieve: If I understand the hon. Lady correctly—I have heard this from other hon. Members on the Government Benches—the advantages derived from Scottish devolution will be an example of what will happen elsewhere in the United Kingdom, as she spoke about it in the English context. Surely, if we are to have mature consideration of the total package, it would be wise for the House to know what mystery the Government have in store for England, as the remaining part of the United Kingdom to be dealt with, so that we can take an objective view of whether the proposals have any validity. One of the things to which we on the Opposition Benches object so much is that questions will be put to the Scottish and Welsh people in September, without their having any more idea than we have of what the total package will be.
Ms Squire: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to be aware of the different aspects of constitutional change that the majority of people in the United Kingdom elected the Government to carry out. The majority of people in the United Kingdom believed that politicians had lost touch with the reality of people's everyday lives. I want a system of government that increases participation and involvement, and enables far more people to make their voices heard.
I support a Scottish Parliament because it will change the face of politics. I support the White Paper, as it deals with the fact that, although Scotland has its own legislation, it has no legislature of its own. A Scottish Parliament will benefit the people of Scotland, because it will be able to legislate in the areas that are raised most frequently in our surgeries—such as housing, education, jobs and health. It will give the people of Scotland a much greater say over how public money is spent. It will, I hope, end for ever the situation that we have endured for so many years, in which a Secretary of State for Scotland and four Ministers, although voted in by a minority, have total control over how they spend £14.5 billion.
494
Any tax-raising power would be exercised only after debate and majority agreement. I am in no doubt that Scots who combined individual rights with collective responsibility would be more than willing to contribute more to the public purse if they were quite clear that that money would be spent on caring for the elderly, on providing more nursery provision and on increasing health services and housing.
Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Squire: No. The hon. Gentleman has been on his feet more than once already.
A Scottish Parliament will enable much better accountability of public spending and easier and more detailed scrutiny by the public themselves.
A Scottish Parliament will help to change the face of politics. Although it is encouraging that there are now more than 100 women Members of Parliament in this place, I would certainly support a Scottish Parliament in which there was 50:50 representation and a much greater cross-section of all aspects of society. I want to see a Scottish Parliament that is far more open to those from ethnic minorities and to those with disabilities. I want to see a Scottish Parliament whose benches are full not only of social workers, lawyers and teachers, but of people who have been business men, sales representatives, cleaners, carers and caretakers—a broad cross-section of our society.
I want to see a Scottish Parliament that breaks the mould of the aggressive, confrontational, egotistical point-scoring that this place has symbolised for so long; a Parliament that promotes and encourages serious and informed debate on the issues that affect people's everyday lives. I want to see a system of government that closes the gap between what happens in this place and what directly affects the people of the United Kingdom and their families. I also want to see a Scottish Parliament that provides the facilities so that people can combine a political role with their responsibility to their families and to the community as a whole. I want to see a parliamentary building that is accessible to disabled people. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that the Royal high school in Edinburgh does not meet that need.
Given the lobbying that is under way for the site of a Scottish Parliament, I should like to take this opportunity to remind hon. Members that Dunfermline was the ancient capital of Scotland for several centuries, and that we have a rather empty former naval base, thanks to the actions of the previous Government, which would give people an opportunity, literally, to sail to and from work every morning if their Parliament were located there.
I certainly want to see a Parliament that breaks the hierarchical and patronising mould of what all too often goes on in this place—it is a Parliament that still tends to say that people, if elected, should put themselves on some kind of pedestal and act at best as some kind of benefactor.
I quote Richard Tawney, an English economic historian, who sums up clearly the reasons why I want to see constitutional change:
"In the transition to political democracy, this country … underwent … no inner conversion. She accepted it as a convenience, like an improved system of telephones … She changed her political garments, but not her heart. She carried into

495
the democratic era, not only the institutions, but the social habits and mentality of the oldest and toughest plutocracy in the world … She went to the ballot-box touching her hat."
It is because I want to change that system of government, that style of politics, that I so fervently support the White Paper and the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. I urge people throughout Scotland to vote yes, yes on 11 September.
6.10 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on her quotation from R. H. Tawney. It is refreshing to know that Tawney has not been totally exorcised from new Labour thinking. Perhaps she will pass the relevant quotation and the egalitarian concepts that lie behind it to the Prime Minister and the Minister without Portfolio, to re-educate them in the views of progressive politics.
I want first to address a remark or two to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I hope that he will agree that he and I have been opponents of long standing, but always in a dignified and courteous way. However, I think that he was quite wrong in the attack that he launched on the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), who referred to the battle of Stirling bridge. The hon. Lady was quoting from a Forth Valley Enterprise brochure, perhaps trying to advertise the activities of that agency in celebrating the battle of Stirling bridge. Such an historical reference can properly be made, even in the jocular fashion in which I think the hon. Lady was introducing it, without implying anti-English feeling.
I direct the hon. Gentleman to the diary of Robert Burns, who, writing about his early childhood, says that he drew his poetic inspiration and his view of humanity and of Scotland from Blind Harry's account of the stories of Wallace and Bruce, which includes an epic description of the battle of Stirling bridge. If a great humanitarian and nationalist and internationalist such as Robert Burns can draw such legitimate inspiration, the hon. Lady is perfectly entitled to make such a reference in introducing a speech in the House of Commons.
Mr. Grieve rose—
Mr. Salmond: I shall give way in a few minutes, but I want to develop a few points first.
The news of the evening so far must surely go not to the Secretary of State for Scotland, not even to the hon. Member for Linlithgow or to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, but surely to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). He has moved his place, but he is still around. He said to fairly startled hon. Members, even on his own Benches—I could see their faces—that the poll tax was coming back in amended form.
I have heard a number of protagonists of a Scottish Parliament make arguments this evening, but nothing like as strong as the argument that was inadvertently advanced by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. If the only thing that a Scottish Parliament on these White Paper proposals was to do was to save us from the amended poll tax, one day to be introduced by the right hon. Gentleman, that in itself would be game, set and
496
match to the Scottish Parliament—a hostage to fortune that makes the tartan tax, and any slips that occur during the referendum campaign, pale into insignificance.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, although he will not be able to vote in the referendum, his words tonight will echo through the referendum campaign until 11 September, and no one in Scotland, least of all his relatives in Glasgow, will be under any illusions that, if he ever obtains a position of responsibility over Scotland, he will try to reintroduce the poll tax in some sort of amended form.
Mr. Forth indicated assent.
Mr. Salmond: I see the right hon. Gentleman nodding his assent. We have the final confirmation from the Conservative party. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has been deserted by his colleagues, but he has been in a minority before. Presumably for the sake of advancement, he sought his career down south. No doubt he will find that there are pastures in the Conservative party which support his particular thoughts and development of opinion. I have great faith in the right hon. Gentleman's resilience, and great faith that the people of Scotland will bear his words in mind when they come to vote on 11 September.
Most of the debate has been pretty much an end-of-term affair. It has not been worthy of the subject that we are discussing. Madam Speaker said yesterday that it was bucket-and-spade time for many hon. Members. Although Conservative Members had some fun with the absence of many members of the new Labour party from Scottish constituencies, their own contribution tonight has also been half-hearted. Perhaps there is a recognition, as there should be, that the real debate will take place not in the House but in Scotland during the next six weeks. I doubt the wisdom of the two questions in the referendum, but Scotland is properly where the debate should take place.
I have long held the theory that, if I could bring everyone in Scotland down for the day and sit them in the Gallery of the House of Commons, I could turn everyone in the country into an ardent proponent of at least self-government for Scotland, and probably of independence. Some of the attitudes that are struck in this place, particularly by Conservative Members, in their nature appear to observers to be resentful of the Scottish interest.
I referred yesterday—I looked up the opinion poll evidence for it—to the fact that the vast majority of the people in Scotland now regard the Conservatives as an anti-Scottish party. I refer to the ICM poll for The Scotsman in February this year, which asked that specific question. I know that it is difficult for hon. Members, but they should read some of our debates and consider whether that impression is reinforced by many of the contributions and the asides that are regularly made in this place, especially at Scottish questions, for example.
However, nothing that I have heard in the Chamber quite compares with the debate that took place last night in the House of Lords, or perhaps for the purposes of this debate I shall call it the House of Chiels. There was an extraordinary debate in the House of Lords last night, although, in respect of what the Secretary of State said, I have to say that there were some jewels to be found within the sands of ignorance. Basically, however, it was

497
a debate of profound ignorance of the Scottish situation. Having read the report of that debate in Hansard this morning, I cannot think of a worse place in which to have a debate about the future of Scotland than among the descendants—to quote Burns—of the "parcel of rogues" who sold the nation in 1707, or, for that matter, the newly ennobled representatives, many of whom have reached that tenure by coorieing up to the establishment throughout their career.
I want to offer the House a flavour of the debate that took place. The noble Lord Renton—I apologise to him in advance, because I could have picked many other examples—began by saying that he felt that the triple system in Scotland of district, regional and Westminster government was ideal, and no one should argue for any changes. He said that completely oblivious of the fact that the previous Government abolished the regional councils two years ago. That was pointed out to the noble Lord Renton, but I was struck by the fact that he did not withdraw his original argument. With a seamless ability, he merely took on board the fact that he had missed that abolition in his many visits to Scotland, and reintroduced the same argument, saying that basically he supported two layers of government, the unitary local authorities and Westminster, which were the most perfect that ever could be devised for mankind.
If we have reached the situation where the future of Scotland is being debated in these legislative Chambers by people who do not even know the present structure of government, we have cause to reflect on whether this is the perfect way to govern Scotland and whether it might not be rather better governed if the people who were arguing, debating and legislating at least knew what they were legislating about.
I wish to refer to the ennobled contributions. This may come as a surprise to Liberal Democrat Members, but I wish to comment on someone who knows a great deal about Scotland, the noble Lord Steel. He came up with the statement that there was "no public support" for the concept of independence. I have looked at the polls for the past five years, and the average support for Scottish independence is 33 per cent. I have looked also at the average support in Scotland for the Liberal Democrats over the same period, and it is 10 per cent.
I find it incredible that the former leader of the Liberal party—I know that he is now a noble Lord, but he is not senile and he is perfectly capable of constructing an argument—can argue that a concept has "no public support", when that concept has three times more support than the political party that he still represents. Not only should we not legislate in ignorance, but we should not have a Parliament where Members are able to divulge misinformation to other Members of that legislature, who apparently accepted the point without correction.
Lord Steel said that it was wrong for the Scottish National party to try to advance its case through a Scottish Assembly, yet his party wishes to advance its case for federalism through a Scottish Assembly. It is extraordinary that the noble Lord could argue that it is okay to try to extend the Parliament's powers towards federation, but it is somehow illicit and illegitimate to extend the Parliament's powers towards independence.
Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Salmond: I shall give way—I choose my words carefully—to my old university friend.
Mr. Swayne: Could my old university friend answer two points for me? First, will he confirm that it will be his intention from the outset to extend the powers of the Parliament? Secondly, will he become for a moment the devil's advocate—or the angel's advocate, depending on one's point of view—and state whether it would be more difficult for him to extend those powers were the Scottish people to have before them a defined Act, setting out exactly the powers and the nature of the Parliament, so that they could give a constitutional seal of approval? I suggest that it would be more difficult for those powers to be extended, at least for the first decade.
Mr. Salmond: It is a long time since the hon. Gentleman and I were at university together, but his interventions have not got any shorter in the intervening period. I was not sure whether I was to be described as the devil's advocate or the devil incarnate, which is how he used to describe me at university. It is obvious that the Scottish National party and those who believe in independence will stand for election looking for such a mandate for independence from the Scottish people. That, incidentally, is what we do when we stand for election to the Westminster Parliament.
According to a BBC Network poll two weeks ago, 71 per cent. of Scots believe that a Scottish Parliament would be a step towards an independent Scotland. We should agree that the judge and jury on whether Scotland becomes an independent state are the Scottish people as a whole. There is no backstairs secret way to Scottish independence. My party has advanced that cause for many years, and we have always done so by looking for a democratic mandate. Not every national or independence movement does that. I see the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) in his place, and he generously has made that point on a number of occasions. We look for a democratic mandate every time we stand for election.
Dr. Fox: Does the hon. Gentleman consider the proposed Scottish Parliament to be a useful vehicle on the road to an independent Scotland?
Mr. Salmond: I shall certainly campaign for a mandate for Scottish independence on any democratic platform, including this one, which provides that opportunity. There is now unity among the parties on the entitlement of the Scottish people to seek independence. The Secretary of State for Scotland has expressed that view well over the past few weeks and, in fairness, I should point out that that is not a new position for him. He has advanced it throughout his political career.
That was also the position of Lady Thatcher, as expressed in her memoirs, although I must confess that I never heard the former Prime Minister express that view in as clear a form at the Dispatch Box as she did in "The Downing Street Years". To be fair, another former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), also expressed that view at recent Conservative party conferences. I have never heard it clearly expressed by the present Prime Minister—

499
although I am certain that the Secretary of State for Scotland carries the whole Government with him in the acknowledgement of a democratic entitlement. That is where the matter should rest. Whether Scotland becomes an independent state should be determined by the people of Scotland. All the second-guessing on what policy might lead to Scottish independence misses the point.
The fundamental question will be decided not by the mechanics of government, but by the reality of Scottish identity. What is changing the nature of the debate in Scotland is not the form of government that has been proposed, but the changing nature of Scotland itself. Since the war, Scotland has become a much more Scottish place and a much less British place, as reflected in many institutions and in polls. People's identity is in transition in Scotland. For many hon. Members, that is an uncomfortable thought, and I understand that. None the less, that is what is happening.
We have not had a Scottish Parliament during the past 20 years, but support for Scottish independence as a concept has doubled among the population in that time. If only a devolved Parliament could increase support for independence, why have we seen that change in the past 20 years? My theory is that it is about the politics of identity.
Mrs. Laing: I compliment the hon. Gentleman on the clarity and logic of his argument, as a contrast to the argument of the Government. Independence is a perfectly clear and logical route which could be chosen. Does he agree that it is usual that, when an agreement voluntarily entered into by two parties is to be changed, both parties should be part of the new agreement? Is it not the case that Scotland—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has got away with long interventions earlier because she is a new Member, but there comes a time when I have to say that she must be brief.
Mr. Salmond: The interventions are becoming almost as long as my speech, and the clarity that the hon. Lady acknowledged cannot be found in the interventions. She compliments me—beware Greeks bearing gifts and Tories proffering compliments is sensible advice.
The former Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands used to refer to the concept well, when he described the possible advent of Scottish independence as being like leaving a bowling club. [Interruption.] It is not my analogy—it is the former Foreign Secretary's analogy. He said that, if one wanted to change the rules of the bowling club, one went to the AGM—let us say that this House is the equivalent of an AGM—to propose a change in the rules. If one got a majority, the rules were changed. That was his analogy for devolution. If someone wanted to leave the bowling club—that was his analogy for independence—they should tear up their membership card. The decision would be for them, and for them alone. Independence means a decision for Scots, and for Scots alone. [Interruption.] The reaction from Conservative Members convinces me that Malcolm Rifkind did not always carry the whole Conservative party with him when he made such analogies.
500
The White Paper contains many weaknesses and inconsistencies. It is remarkable, for instance, that it should state that the Scottish Parliament is to be given "competence" over the police in Scotland, but not over estate agents. I am not sure what conclusions should logically be drawn from that. A Scottish Parliament will be given control over capital punishment, but not over abortion; it is to control the health service in Scotland, but not the legislation governing cinemas and theatres. It will not have real economic power, and, as has been made clear in the debate, it will not have access to the real decision making in Europe. It will not even have supervision over broadcasting in Scotland. Many regional Parliaments throughout Europe are able to have such powers.
Let me, however, make the case for some of the things that the Parliament will be able to do, according to the White Paper. In debates such as this, we often hear about the cost of a Scottish Parliament. The introduction of the poll tax in Scotland cost £1,000 million: that was the cost of the administration of its introduction, of transitional relief and, subsequently, of its scrapping. The Government estimate that the cost of running a Scottish Parliament will be £20 million a year. That means that we could run a Scottish Parliament for 50 years, and the cost would be the same as that of a single piece of maladministration and insensitive government that was foisted on the Scottish people against their will. The Bromley question—as we shall call it during the referendum campaign—suggests that it might come back. On the basis of the White Paper proposals, the Scottish Parliament would not make the same mistake.
The same could be said of a variety of measures. The white elephant of Health Care International, which was pursued by the previous Government, cost £20 million: that is what running a Scottish Parliament for a year would cost. Then there is the "learning tax" that the current Government propose. We are not just talking about not adopting a course that is not wanted in Scotland; we are talking about the time and energy that are currently spent resisting, campaigning against and trying to stop things from being foisted on Scotland. All that energy could be put to more creative use in an attempt to build a better Scotland. Even in regard to fairly restricted levels of competence, there is a positive democratic argument for a Scottish Parliament. Ultimately, democracy must mean better government than bureaucracy.
Let me give what could be described as a seminar about Conservative Members who constantly peddle the myth of the subsidised Scot. I rather hoped, in view of parliamentary answers given in the previous Parliament—especially those given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 January and 21 March—that that argument had finally been laid to rest. The parliamentary answers showed that there had been a surplus of revenue over expenditure in Scotland since 1979 of some £31,000 million—£6,000 for every man, woman and child.
The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) shakes his head. Let me point out that, during the election campaign in Scotland, that was finally accepted not just by the Scottish National party but by representatives of the Labour party and, indeed, the former Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Forsyth. According to The Herald on 8 April:
"Scottish Secretary Michael Forsyth accepted publicly for the first time that the figures extracted from Mr. William Waldegrave, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, did show a net flow of £27,000 billion."

501
In The Scotsman on 29 March, Jim Stevens, a member of the Scottish Labour party executive—no friend of the Scottish National party and, I think, no friend of some of the more ardent devolutionists in Labour's ranks—said:
"I am saying that the SNP are right. The evidence produced from the Scottish Office and the Treasury suggests that they are right."
Let me say this to Conservative Members. Of course, because Scotland has a relatively small population in relation to its land mass, services are delivered at a higher cost per person. There is the roads budget, for instance, and the cost of joining up outlying communities. There is also the education budget. There are far more small primary schools in Scotland than there are per head of population south of the border.
The advantage to a country with a small population and a large land mass, however, is that natural resources per head are also much greater. I am thinking not only of oil and gas, but of land, fish, water and all the other natural resources from which Scotland benefits. To concentrate on the expenditure aspects without considering the resources and revenue arguments—which is what Conservative Members are doing—is to concentrate on only one side of the case.
Mr. William Cash: The hon. Gentleman may be overlooking the fact that the level of public spending in Scotland is not currently based on needs. Does he accept that it should be needs-based, and does he accept that if it were—on an objective basis—there would be a cut in public expenditure of about £2.5 billion?
Mr. Salmond: Despite my best efforts during the 10 years that I have been in the House, the hon. Gentleman continues to misunderstand my position. I am for a Scottish Parliament that has total control over all revenue and spending in Scotland. I am in favour of Scotland sending no Members of Parliament to Westminster. I am in favour of putting our house in order, and allowing the hon. Gentleman—but, for the sake of the people of England, I hope that he does not prevail—to put his own house in order, along with other hon. Members representing English constituencies.
The hon. Gentleman has led himself into an illogicality. He should take two matters into account. First, the Barnett formula is an equalisation formula, not a formula that is preferential to Scotland. Secondly, that formula was devised, in the 1970s, in preparation for devolution. It is somewhat surprising to hear the hon. Gentleman argue that a formula that was devised for devolution in the 1970s should be undercut by devolution in the 1990s. [Interruption.]
The hon. Gentleman continues to intervene from a sedentary position, as he does during so many speeches. I suggest that, on principle, Scotland should have access to all our resources, and that we should be able to enjoy the substantial fiscal subsidies that Scotland has built up over the past few years, and could generate in the coming few years.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Salmond: I have given way generously to Conservative Members. Let me make two final points.
The European dimension to the debate is crucial. The White Paper went rather further than I suspected it would in opening up that dimension for the Scottish people; but, as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will acknowledge, many key decision affecting Scotland are
502
made in Europe. Given that we are part of Europe, it is in our interests to have the maximum influence in Europe—which, of course, means being a member state. However, if a devolved Scottish Parliament could give us more access to decision making in Europe, that would be a great advantage.
I asked the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) how many Council of Ministers meetings Scottish Office Ministers had attended over the past few years, but he could not give me an answer. I have now obtained an answer, however, and can therefore inform the House that, of 542 Council of Ministers meetings that have taken place in the past five years, Scottish Office Ministers have attended 44. That is less than 10 per cent. My constituents would say that it is a good job that those Ministers were not on piece work: if they were, they would have been paid very little.
Despite Scotland's apparent claimed influence in Europe, its influence amounts to less than 10 per cent. in terms of vital decision making that affects it. If the White Paper enhances that to any extent at all—as it claims that it will—it is very welcome.
I said that I thought that this debate had a bucket-and-spade feel to it. The real debate on the issue will take place in Scotland over the next six weeks, and I shall enter that debate in a positive frame of mind. I shall speak about the future of Scotland and try to look as constructively as possible at how the proposals will benefit the Scottish people—at what is in Scotland's best interests. I do not regard any political debate as a foregone conclusion, but whatever the outcome, I am certain that the quality of the debate about the future of our nation will be better over the next six weeks at home than it has ever been in this place.
6.39 pm
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on at least returning the debate to a serious mode. I have always disagreed with his advocacy of Scottish nationalism, but he is at least making a serious case. He and I and many of my hon. Friends will agree that we find it deeply offensive for Scottish business to be discussed in this place as if it were fun and games or the subject of a fourth-form debate. The view is that it is not to be taken seriously, that it is only about mad Scots, kilted people from up north somewhere.
That attitude is deeply offensive to Scottish people and it is one of the major reasons for the Tories being wiped out in the general election. The televising of Parliament showed that attitude being taken night after night, and some Conservative Members were especially guilty. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), who spoke about a different way of conducting Scottish business in our own Scottish Parliament.
Some hon. Members have queried why no one is consulting England on this issue. The matter was raised in a fourth-form way, but it is a serious point and I shall address it. It may be news to some Tory Members that the campaign for a Scottish Parliament did not begin with a White Paper or among hon. Members: it began with the people of Scotland.
For more than eight years, those of us in the Scottish Constitutional Convention made plans for organising the Parliament, having elections to it and deciding what

503
it would run. Over those eight years, Scottish organisations and political parties discussed those issues. The media were aware of that, and if the people of England had wanted to review and revise how they were governed and how their home affairs were to be conducted, they could have engaged in such an exercise at any time. They could still do that: nobody is stopping them.
I do not want to tell English people how to conduct their home affairs: that is for them to say, and I am prepared to listen to their proposals with good will. However, Opposition remarks about the tail wagging the dog are utterly unacceptable and grossly offensive. Some people seem to have forgotten that in 1707 there was a union of Parliaments, although it was brought about by a parcel of rogues for ill motives. It was not a case of a small group of people "up there" making a nuisance of themselves. Such attitudes have destroyed the Tories in Scotland, and long may that continue.
Some women Members have said that in a Scottish Parliament at least three parties—Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish Nationalists—will be committed to equality of representation of the sexes. I had assumed that some Scottish Conservatives would be elected and thought that we would fall short of our ambition for a 50:50 representation. However, given the way that Conservatives are going on, they will have no Members in that Parliament and there will be 50:50 representation.
Mr. Grieve: I think that the hon. Lady misunderstands the comment about the tail wagging the dog. It was not a reference to the Union, whose ideals and existence we support. I understood the reference to be to the fact that, in the discussion of the devolution process, changes are being suggested for Scotland that will have a knock-on effect on the English. That issue is not being addressed and, to that extent, the tail is wagging the dog. The comment has nothing to do with the Union. There were unequal populations, but the Union came about and developed from a meeting of minds and a willingness to co-operate.
Mrs. Fyfe: As I have said, no one is stopping the people of England discussing whether they want to change the way in which their home affairs are conducted. They are still free to do that. The previous Prime Minister tried to scare English people into voting Tory at the election. He made fear of breaking up the United Kingdom the biggest issue, and he told them to vote Tory to preserve the Union. What did they do? They voted against the Tories in their millions. That showed that the people of England are not convinced or swayed by attempts to frighten them. Those of us who believe in devolution want the best for our friends and colleagues in England, but it is up to them to say what they want. It is not for us to tell them or for anyone to tell us how to run our home affairs.
For many years while the battle was going on, Labour Members and Labour activists were continually asked, "Will Labour really deliver? You failed 20 years ago and imposed a 40 per cent. rule. Can we trust you?" No one says that now, because Labour is delivering, and all that will stop us getting the Parliament is failure by people to
504
vote yes in the referendum. We were also asked whether we would water it down, but it is obvious to one and all that, far from a watering down, the Government have improved the proposals that were delivered by the convention.
One reason for a possible poor turnout could be a lack of publicity about postal and proxy votes. During the general election campaign, I met many people who wanted to vote but had left it too late. There must be more publicity about the referendum and, of course, about other elections. I am sure that that will have a bearing on the turnout.
Mr. Salmond: I was shocked to find in my constituency during the election that some polling stations were not provided with proper access for disabled people, despite representations by me and other hon. Members over some years. Perhaps the hon. Lady has had a similar experience and if she has, this might be a good point at which to put it on the record.
Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point. In my constituency, disabled people were being turned away at one polling station until access was made available. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports my view on that.
It is important for the Parliament to be genuinely representative of all our people. When women Labour Members raised the issue of equal representation for women, Opposition Members sniggered. I hope that they will say why they found that funny. They have not yet offered any thoughts on equal representation, but perhaps they will. The Parliament can provide equal opportunities through legislation, and will be entitled to do that.
Mr. Stephen Day: The hon. Lady decries what we said on this matter. Has she not considered that people should be elected to this place and to other democratic assemblies on merit and not because they belong to a specific class, sex or party?
Mrs. Fyfe: Sometimes I think that I am psychic. I knew that the hon. Gentleman would say that. What is wrong with Scottish Tory women? Few have been elected. Are they inadequate? The hon. Gentleman speaks about merit. On 1 May, the Scottish people certainly offered an opinion on who had merit and who did not.
Mr. Swinney: Does the hon. Lady agree that some Conservative women in Scotland may be appalled at the prospect of representing what currently constitutes the Conservative party in Scotland?
Mrs. Fyfe: I am sure that that goes for the majority of Scots women. Some women in Scotland support the Tory party, but it gives them little support. Not many of them are chosen as candidates because the Tory party is very much a male club.
One important thing that this Parliament can do is to have a system that genuinely listens to people and is open to them. It is appalling that this Parliament found time for children's legislation affecting Scotland only once in 25 years, but, when it did so, various bodies in Scotland gave evidence, which was a valuable part of the process and which the Scottish Parliament will follow through on.

505
I must watch the time; I have been giving way too generously. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—and he is a friend—said earlier that the Scottish Parliament would not last 10 years, but he blithely went on without giving a shred of evidence for that remark. It will last for as long as the Scottish people want it to. It could last for a long time, but it all depends on what they want.
Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Fyfe: I am sorry. I cannot because of the time.
The Scottish Parliament has been a long time coming. I look forward to getting that Parliament. I am sure that it could not introduce any measure worse than the poll tax. In recent days, we have talked about the cost of the poll tax. Let us never forget the human misery that it caused. People in our surgeries were in tears, afraid of not being able to pay that debt and wondering what would happen to their worldly goods. Nothing could have been worse than that. I cannot believe that those people in Scotland who are elected by Scottish people to conduct their home affairs, will ever perpetrate anything remotely like that. I look forward to achieving a Scottish Parliament in due course.
6.51 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: It is a matter of some pride to me that, three hours into this debate, I am the first Englishman representing an English constituency to be called to speak, and I have a right to speak. Hon. Members might expect me to launch into a tirade against Scottish devolution. I intend to do no such thing. In my few comments, I am not going to start lecturing people in Scotland about what the nature of their government should be. I will analyse simply what the legislation will mean for my English constituents. When England wakes up to what is proposed, there will be considerable debate about these issues.
For the sake of argument, I will assume that the referendum is passed and that devolution happens—I do not think that that is such an absurd assumption—and I will be entirely agnostic about the merits or demerits of devolution as it affects Scotland. Last week, after the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland, I again had the honour of being the first Englishman to be called—on that occasion, after 34 minutes. I put this question to him: why should he vote on the future of a grammar school in Caistor or in Gainsborough in my constituency, when neither he nor I would have the right to vote on education in his constituency?
Of course, the Secretary of State had no answer to that. His response was a variation of the argument that might is right. It seemed to be that Parliament is sovereign, can do what it chooses and has decided to do this. That is fair enough. I accept that at face value. The Scottish Parliament is going to happen. We knew that it was going to happen. We cannot stop the Labour party using its majority to achieve those ends. Of course, Parliament can decide to act unfairly or treat people in one part of the UK differently from those in another part of the UK, but, when it does act unfairly, this Parliament usually decides, in the course of time, to put things right. Devolution is going to happen, but I predict that this anomaly will be put right.
506
As an Englishman, I, too, have a claim of right. I and my constituents have a right to be treated fairly. I proclaim this principle: no representative should make a decision on behalf of people in other parts of the nation unless those people have a right to run affairs in that representative's part of the nation. That is an elementary democratic right. It is the principle of reciprocity, and we in England have a right to proclaim it. I say to the Scottish people: as the years go by, we will proclaim it with increasing force.
The first union that this country was involved in was with the United States, and it broke up more than 200 years ago on the cry, "No taxation without representation," so England shall awake—[Interruption.] There is no point in Scottish representatives laughing. Just as, in recent years, the European debate has dominated our affairs, so the devolution debate will increasingly dominate them.
The Government's answer is, "We accept this. This is the old West Lothian question. We have had all this before. It has been discussed for 18 years. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has bored us rigid about it, but no system is perfect. There will always be some imbalance." But, sometimes, something can be so unbalanced that the scales do not just tilt or sway, but come crashing to the ground. I suspect that that will happen within five, 10, or 15 years in this Parliament.
The answer from the Liberal Democrats is the obvious one: "We accept all this; the answer is the federal solution," but I suggest to my Liberal friends that, if a federal solution is to work, there has to be some similarity in size between the different regions, and a tradition—as in Germany and Italy, which were not nations before 1870—throughout the nation of devolved government. That is not the case in the UK.
South-east England has a population and an economy infinitely greater than that of Scotland. There is no separate sense of nationhood in south-east England. People who live in Sussex do not feel that they are different in any particular way from people who live in Leicestershire, although that would be in the east midlands region, while Sussex would be in the south-east region. In Lincolnshire, we have no right or desire to be run, as would happen, by the Leicester Labour party. We want to run our own affairs through our county and district councils, and we want our national affairs to be run here in London, not in Leicester.
Therefore, the Liberal solution, the so-called federal solution, is bogus. It will not happen. There is no call or desire for it in the English regions. In any event, we would be offered in Leicester, Plymouth or wherever not a Parliament, but only an assembly, a souped-up county council.
What will happen? The only solution—and I do not suggest this as a desired state of affairs, but as something that will happen—is that the Speaker will mark every Bill that relates to matters such as health and education that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and Scottish Members will be prevented from voting on that Bill. That will be a significant step forward or perhaps, in some people's view, a step back.
Scottish Members will still be able to vote on a considerable range of matters. As we know from the White Paper, they will vote on defence and constitutional matters that are reserved to the UK Parliament. In a spirit

507
of compromise, I have no doubt that they will also vote on matters relating to finance. After all, the size of the block grant influences many decisions relating to education and health, but Scottish Members will be prevented from voting on operational matters.
What are operational matters? The obvious example is the one that I put to the Secretary of State, which was whether we should preserve the remaining 164 grammar schools in England. As long as the people of Scotland are aware that, ultimately, their Members of Parliament will be prevented from voting on such matters—I suspect that that will be the case—they can go ahead and vote for devolution. They may say that they do not want a vote on such matters as they have no interest in English education.
It has been said that that is unlikely to happen and that there are huge constitutional objections to the Speaker marking Bills. What would happen if Labour Members outnumbered Tory Members in the United Kingdom Parliament as a whole, but, as in both the 1974 elections, they did not outnumber the Conservative Members in England alone? That would be a major objection, but the Government would have to carry on. The Government would have to be based on the total number of Members of Parliament, because those Members will decide what happens in the really important issues such as the Budget, the constitution, defence and foreign affairs.
I have already given a warning to the people of Scotland about their declining influence, but the Labour party should look to the future, too, and realise that it will not always have this enormous majority. There will, one day, be another Conservative Government and there will be pressure to introduce changes. The Labour party will find that its ability to influence matters such as health and education in England will be severely restricted.
There may be difficult or even absurd situations. For example, a Scottish Minister in the Cabinet would be able to decide the fate of grammar schools in England because the Cabinet is an informal structure. However, in the Division at 10 o'clock, he would not be allowed to vote. However, as the Government have said, nothing is perfect and, as they have rejected the apparently neat device of a federal solution, this will have to do.
What is the history of all this? Is this just the hon. Member for Gainsborough coming out with a few ideas that have not been talked about in the past? Of course not. I have done some research. I have been talking about what is known as the in-out solution. The idea was first suggested to Gladstone by Lord Rosebery at the time of the Irish home rule legislation. There were two arguments against the in-out solution. Gladstone told Rosebery that it put too much power in the hands of the Speaker. He said:
"I am afraid that the Speakership would hardly bear weight of your proposal."
I do not believe that Gladstone was right. You have broad shoulders, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I believe that you could bear the weight. It would be easy for you to determine the issues that relate purely to Scottish operational matters. You would then mark them and Scottish Members would not be allowed to vote on them.
The second objection was raised 100 years ago, again on Irish home rule legislation, when it was suggested that such a procedure would be constitutionally impossible.
508
As I have said, the parties could have different parliamentary majorities in Scotland, Wales and England and it could bifurcate the Executive.
We could overcome these difficulties. There would be a considerable problem because, together, Scotland and Wales have 112 Members of Parliament. Let us make no mistake; this is no small issue or small constitutional point that need not worry the people of these islands.
In 1969, the Kilbrandon commission dealt with all the objections to the in-out solution, but said that it was the most logical answer. The hon. Member for Linlithgow will know that section 66 of the Scotland Act 1978 said that where a Bill in the House of Commons which does not relate to or concern Scotland receives a majority on Second Reading only by virtue of the votes of Scottish MPs, a second vote will take place at least 14 days later, and only if a majority is achieved on that second vote will the Bill be deemed to have been read a Second time. That section was eventually passed by one vote.
There is nothing new in this. It is going to happen and it has been talked about in the past. It is a real threat, if it is thought of in those terms, to the influence of Scottish Members of Parliament.
There is another threat of which Scottish Members must be aware and, as an Englishman, I am entitled to mention it. There will be a further reduction in the number of Scottish Members. During the debate on Irish home rule, the question of Irish representation was bitterly disputed on the Floor of the House. Gladstone's first home rule Bill of 1886—this will delight our friends in the Scottish National party—entirely removed Irish representation from this House. His subsequent Bill of 1893 gave the Irish a reduced number of Members—they had 107 and it was reduced to 80. Originally, the 1886 Bill contained an in-out restriction such as I have described, but it was dropped in Committee. In 1914, the legislation for the Government of Ireland proposed 42 Irish Members, with no in-out restrictions.
All the debates that we are likely to have were aired 80 or 90 years ago. We all know that, when the Northern Irish Government was set up, the number of Members was reduced. There were originally 13 Members but it was reduced to 12 in 1947 with the loss of the university seats. In 1918, in the pre-Stormont Parliament, Ulster had 30 Members. At one time, the number of Northern Ireland Members was 13, but it was increased to 17.
We all know that Scotland has always been over-represented at Westminster. Since the war, Scotland has had more than 11 per cent. of the total seats, but in 1994, it had only 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom electorate. Fair enough: we have all accepted that compromise. However, if the 1920s Northern Ireland formula were adopted—two thirds of its proportionate share—the number of seats for Scotland would be reduced to 40. That might have to be 45, as that was the number of seats given to Scotland in the Act of Union 1707.
I am not making those points to our Scottish friends in order to be difficult. I do not want to drive them out. I am just saying that these issues have been discussed for over a century and they will be discussed more and more.
Mr. Salmond: I am not sure that this is the best example for the hon. Gentleman to use. In world history, there are many examples of devolved Parliaments

509
becoming independent Parliaments, but Ireland is not one of them. Surely, Ireland is an example of devolution not leading to independence.
Mr. Leigh: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must say that that is a bad point. Stormont was created by people whose entire raison d' etre was to stay in the United Kingdom. Is that the ambition of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) who represents the SNP? His ambition is precisely the opposite. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) knows that perfectly well.
Mr. Salmond rose—
Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman had plenty of time to make his points. He knows what his game plan is and he has no doubts about it. He is perfectly honourable about the fact that he intends to remove himself and all Scottish Members from this Parliament. That is the doomsday scenario, which may or may not happen.
I can tell Scottish Labour Members that there will be increasing pressure to reduce their number to below 58 and to insist on the in-out proposals that I have mentioned. The influence of Scotland in the United Kingdom Parliament will gradually and inevitably decline. Do Labour Members and the people of Scotland want that?
7.8 pm
Mr. Norman A. Godman: I was interested in the reference by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) to Gladstone's Bill. I should have thought that it is not the number of Scottish Members, but the principle of representation in this place, that is a matter of contention. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that, over the next few years, that issue will be debated over and over again.
I want to respond to three comments—one by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), one by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—who is not in his place at the moment—and one by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).
I agree with what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said about the criterion of residence for the referendum. Two members of my family have chosen to live in Australia. One is now an Australian citizen; the other hopes to become one. I suspect that, had they voted in the last election, they would have voted for the Scottish National party—but I am not responsible for youngsters. They told me that they had chosen to live in another country and hence had no moral right to take part in the referendum. Therefore, I agree on that point with the right hon. Gentleman, although I thought that his remarks on the poll tax were utterly absurd.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow referred to the unintended consequences of this measure. I remind him that, at a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Dumfries last July, I said:
"I believe that within the next 20 years, Scotland will either be a constituent nation within a federal Britain, or an independent member state of the European Union. I think that we will proceed unevenly down the federalist road."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 5 July 1996; c.30.]
510
My hon. Friend was right to say what he did.
The right hon. Member for Devizes might have been a little needled by my earlier comment on his contradictory view on political devolution. He told me to take care and speak to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about a Northern Ireland elected Assembly based on proportional representation. I actually did that on 30 June. In response, I received a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister of State—it is germane to this debate—saying:
"As you well know we endorsed in Opposition the proposals published by the previous Government for new democratic institutions in Northern Ireland outlined in the 'Framework for Accountable Government' document of February 1995. Those proposals were based extensively on discussions in 1991/92 with the four main political parties in Northern Ireland. In essence the proposals include the establishment of the unicameral Assembly which would have legislative and executive responsibilities; with a system of Assembly Committees, constituted broadly in proportion to party strengths in the Assembly and detailed checks and balances intended to sustain confidence in the new institutions. Elections to the Assembly would be by a form of proportional representation."
That is precisely what the White Paper suggests. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was sympathetic to that proposal, if not a signatory to it.
My hon. Friend the Minister continued:
"It will be for the talks participants, however, to decide how far they take into account these proposals. Any new arrangements settled on must command support from representatives of both communities in Northern Ireland—as the talks voting rules require—and then be approved in a referendum before being submitted to Parliament."
There are vast differences between Northern Ireland and Scotland, as we all know. The right hon. Member for Devizes was party to a proposal for an elected Assembly based on proportional representation—but, before it was set up, the people would have to decide through a referendum.
In advance of the debate, I picked up a book entitled "England's case against home rule", written by a professor of English law at Oxford university. In his concluding remarks, he said:
"On the whole, then, it appears that whatever changes or calamities the future may have in store"—
I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow will support these sentiments—
"the maintenance of the union is at this stage the one sound policy for England to pursue. It is sad because it is expedient, it is sound because it is just. Still, at this great crisis in the fortunes of our country, when every course is involved in undeniable perplexity and surrounded by admitted danger, there are two principles to which we may confidently appeal"—
this is an English case against home rule—
"it is by habitual adherence to them that England has grown to greatness. These two principles are the maintenance of the supremacy of the whole state and the use of that supremacy for the purpose of securing to every citizen, whether rich or poor, the rights of liberty and of property conferred upon him by law."
That was published in November 1886, a few months after the defeat of Gladstone's first home rule Bill. That is why I was pleased that the hon. Member for Gainsborough referred to that Bill.
I want to quote more recently from an Irish author who is employed at Edinburgh university. In the current edition of "Scottish Affairs", Owen Dudley Edwards says:
"Tory devolutionists were once an impressive throng, with such prominent names as Alec Douglas-Home, Edward Heath, William Whitelaw, Margaret Thatcher, Alick Buchanan-Smith, Malcolm Rifkind, Michael Forsyth: of these Buchanan-Smith alone remained true to his faith. But today's Tory Devolvers are Edinburgh

511
ex-Councillor Christine Richard and Councillor Brian Meek, Struan Stevenson (the vanquished heir to Sir Hector Munro's once safe seat in Dumfries) and other minor lights."
Brian Meek said in his recent column in The Herald:
"One of my biggest political mistakes, and not the only one, in the past decade was to turn my back on participating in the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Devo-Tories like me ought to have been there. You can't have any influence from outside.
We should have been arguing for a better system of financing for the parliament … Yet I do long for a parliament in Edinburgh and believe the people of Scotland will vote overwhelmingly in favour of the principle. When it happens nothing will ever be quite the same again."
He is absolutely right in his prediction. He continued:
"I hear a whisper that my good friend, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, is thinking of standing".
Lord James would make an excellent Conservative representative.
Mr. Cash rose—
Mr. Godman: Sit down.
The Parliament will be based upon proportional representation and there will be a number of Scots in that Parliament.
I want to refer to that most fair-minded and courteous of adversarialists, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). I shall have a bet with him here and now that that fine son of his, Charlie Cormack, will stand for the Scottish Parliament. He, too, was a fair-minded and courteous adverserialist in the recent general election. I met him and I believe that he would grace the Conservative Benches of a Scottish Parliament.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous words. However, I want to put on the record the fact that my son, of whom I am very proud—I am delighted by what the hon. Gentleman said about him—will certainly campaign for no, no in the referendum. I shall help him so to do. However, he is a democrat and if the vote goes in favour of a Scottish Parliament, of course he may stand. If he does, it will be with my blessing. However, he would do so not because he wants a Scottish Parliament, but in the hope that, from within, he might help to prevent the worst things from happening. He believes, as I believe, that the very integrity of the United Kingdom is threatened by these ill-thought-out proposals.
Mr. Godman: That was a most graceful intervention. All I would say to Charlie Cormack is not to come back to Renfrewshire. He would be better off standing in Perthshire, even with proportional representation. However, I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says. I am simply saying that I would place a bet—
Mr. Salmond: It was a graceful intervention by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), but did the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) note the inconsistency? Earlier, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said that it was inevitable that a devolved Parliament would end up as an independent Parliament. Now his colleague has said that his son will be dispatched to try to prevent that from happening. They cannot both be right. Which one is?
Mr. Godman: With due respect to the right hon. Member for Devizes, I plump for the interpretation of the
512
hon. Member for South Staffordshire. I look forward to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire canvassing for a no, no vote, and I hope that he will come to Greenock and Inverclyde. I should say also that I do not represent Port Glasgow.
Let us not deny that creation of a Scottish Parliament will undoubtedly lead to restructuring of the United Kingdom. Let us remember that the previous Conservative Government, who made some admirable proposals for Northern Ireland, began restructuring the United Kingdom. We could not have established a Northern Ireland Assembly with legislative and executive powers and expected that there would be no change in other parts of the United Kingdom. There will be changes.
The Scottish National party's agenda is not hidden, and we know that its members want an independent Scotland. I admire them because they have always been peaceable and democratic secessionists—unlike some of those whom we know, to our cost, in Northern Ireland. I admire the principle in which they believe, although I do not agree with it, because I am a federalist, and I have been one throughout my adult life. Nevertheless, they maintain an honourable position—although, of course, I always hope for their defeat.
In a recent editorial, The Guardian wrote:
"A more important question is whether creation of a Scottish Parliament will maintain the Union—just as Catalonia has remained part of Spain and Bavaria part of Germany—or whether it will lead to full independence. It is a 50–50 shout. Under the security of the European Union umbrella, independence is a feasible option. Labour's response is a grown-up one: if the Scots eventually opt for independence then so be it"—
as many hon. Members have said in this debate.
In The Observer, Will Hutton wrote:
"The Bill published last week on Scottish devolution (and to a lesser extent that on Wales) captures this demand"
for change
"and in so doing represents an incalculable change to the way Britain will be governed. For what will emerge from devolution is a dynamic that will create a federal Britain."
I believe that, in the next 20 to 25 years, there will be such a dynamic.
As I said in yesterday's debate—after an Opposition Member asked about the possibility of an English Parliament—let us establish an English Parliament over time, once there is a genuine and legitimate demand for such an institution. Federal societies work well elsewhere, and a federal Britain could work extremely well. There will always be contradictions and stresses, but we shall have to live with those problems.
I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a few questions—although I asked him one yesterday, and he said that I was not being very helpful. For many years, I have argued that there should be an international architectural competition for a new Scottish Parliament—although I would love for us to return to Parliament house. If there is an international architectural competition, however, I am not sure that the winning design should be chosen by people watching STV, BBC or Grampian, because it should be chosen by a panel of people who are representative of the nation. If I had been on the panel that chose the design for the national museum of Scotland, I would have chosen the runner-up rather than the winning design. A panel will have to choose the design in any international competition.

513
Yesterday, I asked my hon. Friend the Minister whether there had been any assessment of the suitability of adapting Holyroodhouse palace as a Parliament. The right hon. Member for Devizes may smile at that question, but, in the past few years, that wonderful building has been used on average for only 29 days per year, although each year it costs the Scottish Office more than £1 million to maintain. Although meetings were held there during our presidency of the European Union, it may be utterly unsuitable for use as a Parliament. Nevertheless, using it for only 34 days a year leaves much to be desired.
Sir Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman may not have heard a sedentary comment of, "Who cares?" Do not such comments demonstrate the need for a Scottish Parliament? The Scottish people care about debates on events in Scotland, even if some hon. Members representing English constituencies do not.
Mr. Godman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am utterly and genuinely convinced that, on 1 May 1997, had that currently English regional party won the general election, many more of my constituents would be opting for independence. I think that the Labour party, in winning the election, was given a last chance in Scotland. We shall deliver our promise and establish a Scottish Parliament, based—I am delighted to say—on the list rather than the single transferable vote system. The Irish Republic and other places show that the latter is wholly unacceptable.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland presented his White Paper, I suggested that, in the medium term, it may make sense to create a constitutional court to resolve conflicts between Edinburgh and London. It could be composed of four senior judges, one each from Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales. Answering my question, my right hon. Friend said that the best recourse would be to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in cases in which
"practical solutions to any dispute resolution … are required, ending with arbitration".—[Official Report, 24 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 1051.]
Such a solution might be legitimate and fair on a short-term basis, but for the medium term we should be considering a constitutional court.
As I have said often, we live in a multinational state. If one of the constituent nations of that multinational state attempts to transform that nation's governance, no person or party in another part of the multinational state has a legitimate right to obstruct the reform or to hinder the advance. We are witnessing such obstruction and hindrance by Conservative Members. They will lose the debate in the United Kingdom, as they have already lost it in Scotland. We shall have a Parliament.
7.27 pm
Mr. Stephen Day: I have listened to the entire debate and can best describe my reaction to it as one of sadness. I belong to a nation that has barely been mentioned by any hon. Member in the debate, because I am not English, Scots, Welsh or Irish—I am British, and very proud of it. We have not heard much about that aspect of the debate.
We should remember that this is the British Parliament. We already have a Scottish Parliament, and this is it. There is already an English Parliament, and this is it.
514
We already have a Northern Irish Parliament and a Welsh Parliament, and it meets here. We cast aside, doubt and jeopardise that fact at our peril.
In the devolution debate, the Scottish nationalists have been absolutely open, honest and true to their beliefs. It is also no accident that the Scottish National party supports the Government's proposals for Scottish devolution.
This afternoon, I have with regret heard some of my English colleagues speak from a purely English perspective. I do not like it; it is against my temperament, because being British is what defines me and my nation. However, the views expressed this afternoon undoubtedly, but sadly, represent a rising tide of opinion in the English constituencies. If I can send any message to the Government that has any chance of being listened to, it is that they should not, for God's sake, underestimate the potential of the proposals in the White Paper to provoke the kind of reaction that we have heard today.
Mr. Gray: The English worm will turn.
Mr. Day: We must avoid that at all costs.
I shall do all in my limited power to defend the Union that I love and hold dear. Nothing that is said from the Scottish perspective to antagonise the English, and nothing said from the English perspective to antagonise the Scots, holds any sway with me. They are small arguments that matter not to me. People who adopt a nationalist position and threaten the United Kingdom, and those who propose changes to our constitution such as those found in the White Paper, are people with little minds, creating little plans which will ultimately lead to little countries with no influence in the world. If this Parliament and the United Kingdom want to go down that path, I shall have to question whether this Parliament is still the Parliament that I knew and of which I wanted to be part.
Mr. Swinney: If this is such a British Parliament, why was the poll tax introduced in Scotland before it was introduced in England?
Mr. Day: Obviously, I was not a member of the Government at that time; I was a Back Bencher so I was not responsible for deciding when that legislation was introduced. However, the system that those with a nationalist perspective appear to want to bring tumbling down around their ears worked to the advantage of the Scots, the Welsh and everyone else in that it ultimately delivered them from the community charge, the poll tax or whatever one wishes to call it—the very thing about which people had been complaining. The system cannot be so bad because it reacted to the fact that people across the country did not like the poll tax. As a consequence, Parliament was representative, and reacted to the feelings and wishes of the people of Scotland and England.
I have no doubt that the White Paper holds the seeds of the dissolution of the United Kingdom. I believe that, for several reasons, some of which have been outlined already. We have debated English rights as opposed to Scottish rights, and I do not propose to repeat that aspect of the debate. However, I tell the Government that they are not only creating a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly but that they could, God forbid, be creating regional Parliaments in England.

515
The White Paper is therefore part of a package and should not be seen in isolation. It is wrong to debate the proposals for Scotland in isolation. We debated the proposals for Wales in isolation, but I sincerely believe that proposals made from an isolated position will ultimately lead to constitutional isolation for the part of the United Kingdom to which they refer. That is the danger inherent in the proposals.
Let us consider the differing powers being debated for Wales and Scotland. There will inevitably be competition between the two to match the powers of the other. Wales has been denied the power to raise taxes, while Scotland has been granted the power to alter taxation levels. Wales will inevitably want the same. The proposals are a recipe for constant constitutional change and pressure within the United Kingdom.
When I consider the proposals for a Scottish Parliament, I realise that the English regions could face regional Assemblies. I do not know anyone in my constituency, or, indeed, anyone in the north-west region, who has any interest in having a regional Parliament in the north-west. I am sure that the same goes for every other part of England. Such a Parliament could be foisted on people in my part of the country in an attempt to answer the West Lothian question about representation. I have to tell the Government that it is a price that we in the north-west do not want to pay, thanks very much. The Government can leave that Assembly on the shelf where it belongs. We do not want an Assembly building in the north-west, with all its cost implications.
If the Government proceed with their proposals, I fear that my United Kingdom will cease to exist in perhaps 10 to 20 years. I resent the fact that, when those matters are discussed in Scotland or Wales, the debate will not be about the effect on the constitution of the United Kingdom as a whole. It will be purely about whether the Scots want a Parliament in Scotland or whether the Welsh want an Assembly in Wales. People will not be asked whether they want what will be the inevitable consequences for the United Kingdom. The British aspect of the debate is completely overlooked, which is a disgrace.
If, as I fear, the proposals in the White Paper hold the seeds of the dissolution of the United Kingdom, I accept that we have to consider alternatives, other than the status quo, which might just save the Union that I love so much. The Liberal Democrats have a proposal for a federal system. It is certainly the case that, in a system in which each constituent part of the whole has equal legislative rights and powers, the whole is more likely to survive as a single political entity. However, the United Kingdom does not debate such matters in federal terms in isolation from arrangements beyond its borders—we are in the European Union. I suspect that the morass of Government proposals will ultimately lead to some kind of federal arrangement, but such arrangements would also lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. A federal system for the United Kingdom within a federal Europe—a Europe of the regions—would leave nothing for this national United Kingdom Parliament to do.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) laughs, but I am making serious points. Anyone who knows the proposals of those who want a federal European state knows that the first step is to create a
516
Europe of the regions. To bring that about, the power of existing national Parliaments must be destroyed by the creation of regional Parliaments. That is what the Government are proposing. Even if the powers of the Parliaments were equal in a European federal system, the United Kingdom would still break up. Any federal system would leave for this Parliament only the two main policy areas of defence and foreign affairs, which are the areas most coveted by the European Union.
Let us not kid ourselves. If we have Parliaments in our regions—in Scotland, in Wales, in Northern Ireland or in England—it will be impossible to guarantee the survival of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the United Kingdom would inevitably break up in those circumstances.
I do not want to lecture the Scottish people—or the English people—on what is best for them, but I ask the people of the United Kingdom to think about the British perspective. They should not just cast it aside. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who is no longer in his place, said that Scotland is now more Scottish and less British than it was. I suspect—in fact, I know—that that is true, but it is sad. However much pride we have in where we come from within the United Kingdom—we surely all have that—we count for nothing separately. These islands counted for nothing in the world until they came together. If we want to consign ourselves to the dustbin of history individually, Scotland will start the process by accepting the proposals in the White Paper.
Being British means far more than being English, Scottish or Welsh. It is time that those of us in this British Parliament had the guts to say so and remind the people of this United Kingdom what a privilege and a pleasure it is to live in such a great country.
7.42 pm
Dr. Lynda Clark: I am afraid that I do not share the sadness of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day). I hold the White Paper with pride, and I hope that its proposals will soon become a reality.
Conservative Members claim to be concerned about what they describe as anomalies in the proposed constitutional structure. They criticise the fact that Scottish Members may vote on English matters. The British Parliament has never been an exercise in academic logic. If it were, would we all be sitting here tonight? Would we have a system in which we would be arguing not about whether Scottish Members voted on English matters, but about whether Members who did not have a clue about the proposals voted at all? Our system is anomalous.
Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Dr. Clark: No, I will not.
In our system, the Queen in Parliament is sovereign. Any legislation approved by the Queen in Parliament is legal and constitutional. I have not heard or read in any of our debates of any attempts to change that system. The legal consequences of having such a system are that legislation that passes through Parliament defines the constitutional position. There is no point in talking about anomalies and unconstitutional matters. That is constitutional nonsense. If new proposals pass through both Houses of Parliament and the Queen gives Royal Assent, we shall have a new constitutional system, which will last until we change it.

517
No other country that claims to be a democracy has hereditary peers voting on legislation. Conservative Members have lived with that anomaly for many years. Left to themselves, no doubt they would go on living with that anomaly. That outweighs any other anomaly that the proposed constitutional changes may create. I am sure that Conservative Members will grow to love the new constitutional arrangements in the same way that they have grown to love other changes that they long opposed, such as votes for women—or perhaps they have not really grown to love that so much.
No constitutional lawyer will lose sleep over the possibility of a Scottish Member voting on legislation on English matters. I doubt whether many citizens—in England, Scotland or elsewhere in Britain—lie awake at night, tossing and turning, worrying about that.
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has led an ill-fated attack today. It may go down in history as a battle lost by generals, not the troops. There are many Conservative voters in Scotland shouting to be heard. They are trying to tell their leaders that devolution is the only hope for the Conservative party in Scotland.
The debate is not just about devolution: it is about democracy. The democratic process has cleared Conservative Members of Parliament out of Scotland. There is a lesson to be learned from that. Perhaps if the right hon. Gentleman had stayed in Scotland to fight for devolution and constitutional change, the Conservatives might have fared better. No doubt Scotland's loss is Devizes's gain. However, if all that he is offering is a toothless, wandering Scottish Grand Committee, it is perhaps as well that he made the change. In 20 years, the Conservatives have done nothing to meet the desire for constitutional change. They are afraid of it. Constitutional change is necessary and they must take a more positive attitude.
Conservative Members have suggested that the legislative system in Westminster has worked well for Scotland. As a Scots lawyer with more than 20 years' experience, I know that Scots law and development have suffered badly from the present system. I cannot believe that a Scottish Parliament would have insufficient time to debate issues raised by the Scottish Law Commission after they had been researched at great public expense. I cannot believe that, with a Scottish Parliament, there would be Scottish Law Commission reports on which no action was taken because of lack of parliamentary time. I cannot believe that a feudal system and the structure of land tenure in Scotland would have survived until now if there had been a Scottish Parliament.
There is much to be done. Much bad legislation has passed through this House on its way to Scotland. As a Scots lawyer, I have been struggling with it for the past 20 years, so hon. Members will understand that I am pretty fed up about it. I look forward to having a proper legislative Assembly that will give proper time and consideration to Scottish legislation. For that reason alone, I would vote for a Scottish Parliament, regardless of the more important policy matters.
I have great hopes for the future. We already have a devolved Executive and thousands of civil servants in St. Andrew's house, but we do not have a proper forum for detailed debate about Scottish issues or a proper system of democratic accountability. I look forward to the Bill that will follow the White Paper. I hope that it will lead to a Scottish Parliament.
7.49 pm
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Before I come to the meat of the White Paper, I want to say a little about the introduction, which has not been mentioned so far. I welcome the Government's commitment to have a referendum on proportional representation for elections to this Parliament. That is an important development which would help to do away with many of the anomalies of the past few years and much of the dissatisfaction with parliamentary government that is to be found throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. I also welcome the commitment to incorporate the European convention on human rights into English and Scots law. That has long been the policy of the Scottish National party and I am glad that it is now Government policy.
I welcome the White Paper because I welcome anything that brings some power back to the people of Scotland, no matter how little or how much. I am a supporter of the current system of having a Secretary of State for Scotland, even though we sometimes describe him as the governor-general. I was glad to hear him refer to the position of governor-general. I have always thought that he would look very stylish in a white helmet with feathers. Having a Secretary of State is better than the position in the 19th century when there was no Secretary of State.
The White Paper transfers significant areas of power back to the people of Scotland. I particularly welcome the fact that it deals with reserved powers and does not get into the mess of the Scotland Act 1978, which tried to lay down the powers that would be devolved rather than the powers that would be reserved. The proposed legislation will be much simpler.
I also welcome the fact that there is no attempt to place a glass ceiling on what the Scottish Parliament can discuss. The Scottish Parliament will be able to discuss any matters that it thinks are important to the people of Scotland. That is an important factor in trying to get all the people of Scotland to support the White Paper proposals.
I even welcome the recognition in the White Paper that the devolved scheme is subject to repeal by the Parliament at Westminster, despite the speeches by the Leader of the Opposition. We all know that what one politician says one day can be contradicted the day after by his successor. The recognition that the Scottish Parliament could be abolished in future by Westminster will emphasise to Scots who wish to see a substantial Scottish Government that the only way in which to ensure that in perpetuity is to go for independence.
I welcome the fact that the Government have eventually fulfilled a pledge made by the no campaigners in the 1979 referendum. They said that people should vote no so that the Government could come back with a better scheme of devolution. One of the reasons for the extinction of the Conservative party in Scotland after 18 years in power is that it failed even to try to come back with a better scheme.
Annex A to the White Paper lists all the Scottish bodies that the Scottish Parliament is to control. My first reaction, and that of many other hon. Members, was astonishment at how many bodies there were. It speaks volumes for the record of the previous Government that they established so many unelected quangos in Scotland

519
with no democratic input or control. I am particularly glad to see that the Scottish Parliament will control the Scottish Standing Committee for the Calculation of Residual Values of Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs. This is heady stuff. This is the stuff that will rock the foundations of the imperial Parliament. If the Parliament is to have powers like that, I can understand why Conservative Members are so deeply suspicious of the White Paper.
I now turn to representation. I feel that it would have been a more equitable method of representation, given that the Act of Union merged the two Parliaments of Scotland and of England, to have had an equal number of Members from Scotland and from England. The Secretary of State seems, however, to have lost a battle on Scottish representation at Westminster. Scottish representation at Westminster was set at 72 in 1885, and it has never fallen below 71 since then. In 1885, Scottish representation was proportional to English representation. When the Irish Members went away, the proportions changed, but the number of Scottish Members did not change.
It may be that, proportionately, Scots are overrepresented in the Chamber, but that should have nothing to do with the White Paper proposals. It is sad that a commitment to reduce Scottish representation has been included in the White Paper. It should not be a trade-off against the West Lothian question, because it has nothing to do with it. Consideration of the representation of Scots at Westminster should be a separate exercise, especially given the commitment to consider proportional representation for this Chamber.
I want to look at some of the anomalies in the proposals. I do not do so to be obstructive, because I know that Conservative Members are capable of obstructiveness for its own sake. I accept that all systems have anomalies in them, but I know of no system with more anomalies than this Parliament. Some people, for example, automatically come to the Houses of Parliament by accident of birth, whereas the rest of us get one vote in the process of electing the person who will represent us in this Chamber.
Some functions that are currently marked down as reserved to the Westminster Parliament could safely be devolved to the Scottish Parliament even if people wish to maintain the United Kingdom and even if their reason for agreeing to the Government's proposals is to maintain the unity of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) gave some examples of those functions earlier, and I will give one or two more.
The Scottish Parliament will be able to impose prohibition—I suspect that it will not—but it will not be able to alter the age limit for gambling. The Scottish Parliament will be able to outlaw alcopops, but it will not be able to outlaw scratch cards. The Scottish Parliament will be able to regulate lawyers—given the number of Scottish lawyers in politics, that may be a good thing—but it will not be able to regulate veterinary surgeons. It will be able to control the police, the fire service and the judiciary, but it will not be able to control the vital functions of architects and estate agents. It will be able to control the standard of foodstuffs, but not the standard of medicines. It will be able to control the release of
520
prisoners who have been sent to gaol for terrorist offences, but it will not be able to control the definition of what constitutes a terrorist offence.
The Scottish Parliament will be able to vary the basic rate of income tax, but it will not be able to vary the size of the band to which the basic rate of income tax will apply. It will be responsible for the collection and publication of statistics, and for the publication of registers and records, but it will not be responsible for data protection, although all those records are now computerised. It will be able to make policy decisions, but it will not be able to regulate the civil service which is meant to put those policy decisions into practice.
I hope that, when we discuss the Bill that will follow the White Paper, the Government will accept amendments on some of those points, which will, I hope, be argued for constructively. I hope that they will resist the temptation to use their huge majority simply to steamroller through every proposal without accepting any changes to the detail. The Scottish people should be able to take mature decisions on many of the matters that are currently being reserved for Westminster.
There is a significant opportunity for the Scottish people. After almost 300 years, they will be able to take some decisions for themselves. The major question is whether they will want to take all the decisions for themselves. Only the Scottish people can answer that question. I am particularly glad that there is nothing in the White Paper that will prevent them from giving that answer themselves.
7.58 pm
Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: I am grateful to be called to speak in a debate on a further important step towards changing the nature of politics in the United Kingdom. I refer specifically to the United Kingdom, to which the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) referred. It will remove power from a handful of people elected to the House and return it to the people.
The Opposition fail to understand that people voted for change. People knew what they were voting for at the general election. They voted for constitutional change—for a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly, London government and eventually regional government in England, if that is what the regions want. Unlike the hon. Member for Cheadle, I know many people in his part of the country who are already discussing the nature of a regional assembly. I have no fears about whether the people of England will welcome regional government as the Scots welcome a Scottish Parliament and the Welsh welcome an Assembly.
The Scottish Parliament will be different. It will have different electoral arrangements and every vote will count. No one will feel that his or her vote does not matter. It will provide much better representation for rural communities and far-flung peripheral areas. Most important, it will be different, because it will give political parties the opportunity to increase their representation of women and minority groups. Unlike the Opposition, I consider that extremely important. If we ignore the views of 50 per cent. of the population, we shall take bad

521
decisions, as can happen in families. The remarks earlier about able men being elected on merit are a great insult to women.
Mr. Swayne: If women are unable to represent men and men are unable to represent women, can the hon. Lady explain how she can represent the views of all the males in her constituency? Surely the logic of her position is that each constituency should have two Members of Parliament to represent the two different classes of antithetical human beings.
Mrs. McKenna: The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated why there are so few Tories in the House. Clearly, he does not understand the issue. My constituents understand that I represent them all. However, if we ignore the views of 50 per cent. of the population and do not involve them in a decision-making process, we shall end up with wrong decisions. The views of some Opposition Members make it quite clear that they do not want women in the House for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with the decision-making process.
I now turn to the parliamentary arrangements. The Scottish Parliament will decide how best to conduct its business. I know that it will not be based on the silly rules that apply to the House and date back centuries, such as those whereby people hurl abuse at each other across the Chamber, as we have witnessed today. The Scottish Parliament will have modern working methods which will not be based on the premise that a practice should continue simply because it has always happened.
I hope that the Scottish Parliament will be much more family-friendly. If Opposition Members do not understand the importance of that, they should be aware of the quandary of hon. Members who wish to be with their families, particularly during school holidays. Because of the rules of the House, if Scottish Members have children, they are unable to spend time with them during the school holidays. They have to make difficult decisions, and are frequently decried for doing so.
When I first came to the House, someone told me that Parliament could be brutal in its treatment of Members. I sincerely hope that the Scottish Parliament will be quite different and that its Members will be treated with courtesy, respect and consideration. That certainly does not always happen in the House.
The nature of the Scottish Parliament will appeal to many people. It will be inclusive and non-confrontational. That appeals to the groups of young people whom I meet regularly. Politics has become discredited. I am extremely unhappy that my profession has become discredited because of the behaviour of a few. The Scottish Parliament will offer the beginning of an opportunity to change the nature of politics. Young people are enthused by the notion of inclusive politics and being able to express a point of view without constant interruption. We do not have to hurl abuse at each other. We can have strong views and be passionate about causes without constantly hurling abuse and interrupting each other. That is on offer from the Scottish Parliament and throughout the United Kingdom as we change the system.
Turning to the building that will house the Scottish Parliament, it is appropriate that a modern Parliament should be housed in a new building. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde
522
(Mr. Godman), who is not in his place. I do not consider that Holyrood house is appropriate. The Scottish Parliament should have a modern, accessible, friendly building. Edinburgh is the right place for it as the capital of Scotland.
A couple of points should be made about the cost of the Scottish Parliament. No one refers to the cost of maintaining the Westminster Parliament, as no one has a problem with the cost of democracy. It is just as important for Scotland. However, the cost of the Scottish Parliament will be but a fraction of that of the poll tax, and we should be happy to accept it.
The Scottish Parliament will take responsibility for health, education, anti-crime measures and job creation, all of which are important to the people of Scotland. It also begins to extend democratic control over the responsibilities currently undertaken by the Scottish Office. It will bring government closer to the people. For the past 18 years, we have had decisions with which we disagreed imposed on us. It is the beginning of the modernisation of democracy in the United Kingdom, and perhaps that is what most upsets the Opposition.
Mr. Dalyell: I have listened with extreme care to my hon. Friend, who was a very distinguished and effective chairman of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. However, am I unjustified in thinking that the Parliament which she describes will suck up many of the existing functions of local authorities?
Mrs. McKenna: Not at all. I spent a great deal of my time in local government protecting it from the Conservatives when they imposed the reorganisation of Scottish local government against the wishes of the entire Scottish population, as is evidenced by the fact that Scotland does not have a single Conservative council or Member of Parliament. I do not envisage a Parliament that will do that; I see one that will discuss with local government where the appropriate boundaries should be between the functions of local government and those of the Scottish Parliament. I am sure that that crucial debate will take place, but I do not envisage that the Scottish Parliament will suck up the powers of local authorities. I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to make that important point.
Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said that people cherished parliamentary democracy. It is not the first thing that my constituents rush up to me in the street to discuss. They are more concerned about jobs, health and education. If the right hon. Gentleman really cherishes parliamentary democracy, he should realise that the majority voted to change this country to a more participatory democracy, which is in touch with the people, understands their aspirations and recognises that, if everyone is involved in the decision-making process, better decisions, which people want to make work, are made.
I urge the Opposition to recognise the voice of the Scottish electorate and to support the White Paper. I really believe that we have a clean page on which to write. We have an opportunity to make the Scottish Parliament a world first, which, with the Welsh Assembly, London government and regional government in England, will secure the Union—a Union based not on the Westminster system but on a new Parliament for the new millennium.
8.9 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I shall return to the speech of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) in a few minutes.
As a retread, giving his first speech on returning to the House of Commons, I am one of those biological improbabilities—twice a maiden. Nothing has more convinced me that I am back in the House than listening to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman). We found out that he reads books, likes architecture and wants federation—and it took him 19 minutes to tell us. [Interruption.] Such was my surprise that it took so long, I dropped my notes.
Any Government who are introducing legislation have two important duties. The first is to assess the possible impact of their proposals. The second is to attempt to reassure those who raise legitimate questions about what is suggested. That is particularly so when major, irrevocable constitutional changes are proposed.
Unlike the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, I do not agree that, by themselves, a large majority and a manifesto commitment are enough to fully legitimise new laws. A Government have to provide answers of substance to important objections, not just on matters of principle but on matters of detail. This Government have failed to do that with the devolution proposals. Instead, they have relied on, as we have heard time and again today, the old mantra, "Well, it was in the manifesto." I shall therefore reiterate some of the questions. This is the last opportunity before the referendum in six weeks' time for the Government to tell us and our constituents what, in their estimation, are the implications of their legislation.
Can the Government deny that the development of a new assembly in Scotland may create strains which could well pull apart the Union? How can they reassure us that the new layer of government will not become ever more hungry for more and more power? What reassurance can they give us that there will not be rivalry between a Scottish Parliament and Westminster? If that rivalry gives way to division and discord, how will they stop that being exploited by those who wish to see the break-up of the United Kingdom?
When the deal that the Secretary of State for Scotland has foisted on the UK is clearly understood in all its malignant detail, there will be justifiable anger throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland at the shabby injustice of what are partisan proposals. As the legitimacy of the Parliament to be will be based on a referendum in which the majority will have no vote, we may even find that some short-sighted English will start applauding the break-up of the Union. This Government have failed to explain why the Barnett formula will continue, with an English majority continuing to fund from their taxes higher spending in Scotland on matters that English Members of Parliament cannot influence.
Sir Robert Smith: There is much criticism of the proposal. Does that mean that those who are critical are happy with the status quo, or would they like the Scottish Office to be abolished? How else do they see the Scottish Office being made accountable? If they are worried about the break-up of the Union, they should be very worried
524
about the fact that Scotland has a separate Government as it is. This debate is about making that separate Government accountable.
Mr. Sayeed: I would prefer the status quo. I do not believe that the proposals are sustainable in their current form. I believe that they are a Trojan horse that will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. That is why I oppose them.
I shall carry on with the questions to which I should like—and to which I believe the House and the people of this country deserve—answers. We have had no satisfactory answer as to why it will possibly take until 2012 to reduce the over-representation of Scotland. Why cannot it be done sooner? Why cannot the Boundary Commission for Scotland report earlier, so that we can reduce the number of seats in Scotland to make representation closer to that in England—accepting, of course, that, in areas in the north where there is a higher rate of depopulation, there will be some overrepresentation? Such representation must be more realistic.
Nor have we been told why, on health, education and training, local government, social work, housing, economic development, transport, law, home affairs, the environment, agriculture, fisheries, forestry, ports, the arts and other matters, Scottish Members of Parliament will be able to speak and vote on English matters when they affect only England, but no English, Welsh or Northern Irish Member of Parliament will be permitted to vote on those matters as they affect Scotland—even though those who have no vote will foot most of the bills.
The White Paper is very clear: it says that a simple majority of those who vote will be sufficient to secure a "yes" to the largest constitutional change that this island has seen for hundreds of years. I asked the Secretary of State what would happen if the turnout was only 40 per cent. and there was a 60:40 vote in favour. I asked him whether he believed that that 24 per cent. of an artificially deflated electorate was sufficient to legitimise such irrevocable and major change. He could not answer; he did not answer. I hope that the Minister will answer in winding up.
We all heard the Prime Minister promise the leader of the Scottish National party a Bill before the referendum. At the very least, that would have permitted precise scrutiny of the undoubtedly bedevilling detail of the proposals. We now know that there will be no such Bill. I wonder why that change took place. If it had been a mere slip of the tongue and the Prime Minister had meant a White Paper and not a Bill, all he would have needed to say was, "I am sorry. I made a mistake. I am new in the job." That would have sufficed, but that did not happen—possibly, for different reasons.
One such reason might have been that the Prime Minister was just too arrogant to accept that he had made a mistake. It might have been that the Government belatedly recognised that, if the true implications of devolution saw the light of day, in all their legislative details, the anger of the majority in the United Kingdom would have been so enormous that they would have been thrown out.
I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Scotland is feeling rather pleased with himself. He is pleased by the way in which he has cozened the Labour Cabinet,

525
dominated by Scots, into proposing legislation so deeply damaging to the interests of the English majority. In doing so, he forgets that he is not a Minister in Scotland, but a Minister in a Government of the United Kingdom, and his principal duty as a Minister in that Government is to look after the whole United Kingdom, not an already over-represented minority.
The White Paper poses more questions than it seeks to answer. It fails to reassure on the fundamental questions of principle or to answer clear questions of detail. Tonight, Ministers have another chance to remedy that omission. Unless and until they do so, they will forfeit their claim to govern in the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom.
8.20 pm
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: The Government are seeking cross-party consensus on the Scottish Parliament, and to obtain the widest possible support and the most inclusive dialogue. For that reason, we welcome the widespread support for the White Paper. We would welcome the support of people of all parties and none in our campaign for a yes, yes vote in the referendum. Above all, when that vote has been delivered, we will try for a constructive dialogue with people from all parties as we create a Scottish Parliament.
With that in mind, we are glad that the Liberal Democrats and many representatives from civic groups were involved in our discussions in the Scottish Constitutional Convention. We welcome the Liberal Democrats' support in our campaign. We also welcome the vote by the Scottish National party executive last weekend, and we look forward with eager anticipation to the vote at that party's national council. We look forward to working with both parties on the yes, yes campaign.
We welcome the fact that some Scottish Conservatives have recognised that a Scottish Parliament is coming and have shown some willingness to co-operate. However, what can we say to people such as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) who seem not to have learnt their lesson?
In my maiden speech, I quoted Cromwell's famous saying:
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
In all sincerity, I suggest that the Tories should have learnt their lesson from the election. You—I am sorry, I mean Conservative Members—may be in shock from the May result. I fear that you may be in greater shock after tonight—I refer to the possibility of headlines such as "Slaughter in Uxbridge". It is time to learn the lesson of Scotland.
"Scotland sent you home to think again."
I apologise for saying "you", Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that was a quote from the song. You have been sent home—I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will try to remember—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. May I gently make the point to the hon. Gentleman that the whole point of the custom of the House is to ensure that we choose our words carefully?
Mr. Savidge: Scotland sent the Tories home to think again, and surely that lesson should have been learnt.
526
Scotland has proved their lack of thinking. For the Conservatives, Scotland has proved the converse of Descartes' famous statement, "They ceased to think, therefore they ceased to exist."
Let us remember the extent to which the Conservatives ceased to exist. There are no Scottish Members of Parliament, no Scottish Members of the European Parliament and no Scottish councils controlled by the Conservative party, and that shows that they should start to think again.
It would be too optimistic to hope that the Conservatives will have a Damascene conversion before the referendum, but, like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, I welcome the suggestion made at the weekend that the Leader of the Opposition was prepared to think again if the referendum delivered the expected result. If so, I hope that we will be able to work together constructively, instead of repeating tired arguments from the election. There is a place for combative politics, but there is also a place for consensus politics. We need consensus politics when we discuss the constitution, because the advantage of democracy should come before simple party advantage.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am slightly curious about that point. There was a different settlement on 1 May, but what opportunity has the House had to discuss constitutional options and whether the White Paper was the right approach, as opposed to any other? We have had no opportunity to discuss the constitution in those terms. The hon. Gentleman, who is from my birthplace, makes a welcome argument, but many of us wish to engage in discussions, and have been frustrated by the management of business in the House.
Mr. Savidge: That is precisely the point that we wish to make. We will be interested in constructive discussion in Committee, if we get constructive proposals that do not resemble the 200 childish, irrelevant and frivolous amendments that were tabled to the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. I urge Conservative Members to join in constructive discussion, but I appreciate some of the feelings that they have expressed about the future of the United Kingdom. I accept that their fears are genuine.
I have mentioned before that I am a mongrel, being half Scots and half English by birth and by residence. As a Member of Parliament, I expect to stay that way. I would say, as passionately as the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), that I am British, but I am also Scottish.
The proposals will strengthen the Union. I recognise that some nationalists will wish to continue to work for independence after we have a Scottish Parliament, but I note the point that was made by their leader, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), when he said that nationalist views have strengthened in the past 18 years. I have noticed a strengthening of an anti-English nationalism among some young people—I accept that the Scottish nationalists do not necessarily welcome that—because of their resentment of too much centralised government and a refusal by the previous Government to recognise the feelings of the Scottish people.
Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman and I represent constituencies in the same part of the country. I hope that he will accept the point made by the hon. Member for

527
Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that, in all his years of experience of contesting elections with the Scottish National party, he has never experienced anti-English sentiment. Any time members of the SNP have expressed anti-English sentiments, they have been expelled immediately.
Mr. Savidge: I am happy to endorse that point, because that was the point which I sought to make. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) mentioned how undesirable it was to have Scottish versus English and English versus Scottish, but those attitudes have been fed by the invidious process of over-centralism. At this point, I wish to bring in the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, who is both honourable and my friend. However, I was surprised that in this debate he should have used a quote from Carson in relation to Ireland. Surely the lesson to be learned from that is that, if only the right steps had been taken a century ago, the tragic history of that country since then would never have occurred.
That must be a strong argument for starting to have true devolution. Far from being a nationalist, my soul and feeling are internationalist. Although I try to be a pragmatic politician, my long-term, distant vision is that we shall evolve to a system of world government and—dare I say as I see that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has just left the Chamber—systems of continental and national government, all the way down to community councils, with proper subsidiarity throughout that process. A Scottish Parliament has a valid position in that, and would be properly regional in its outlook.
Central belt domination used to be one of the fears of people in north-east Scotland; however, people now feel much more confident, as is confirmed by opinion polls. In her maiden speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) said that our local paper in Aberdeen, the Evening Express, had a poll showing strong support for Scottish devolution.
In 1991, when I was a candidate in Kincardine and Deeside, opinion polls showed not only overwhelming support for devolution but that the majority of those who said that they would vote Conservative in that by-election—a by-election that the Conservatives lost—favoured devolution. A similar view was expressed in The Scotsman. In an exhaustive opinion poll, it showed that all areas of Scotland favour devolution. John Smith said that it was the settled will of the Scottish people; I believe that it is the settled will of people throughout Scotland.
Feelings about regionalism had been allayed partly because the system of proportional representation will be included in the Scottish Parliament. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said yesterday, one advantage is that it will strengthen the position of minority parties. I have made facetious reference before to the fact that the Conservative party has been reduced to minority party status in Scotland. I agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that it is healthy for politics that the Conservatives should have an opportunity to be represented in the Scottish Parliament. It would not be healthy if their views were not represented. I do not necessarily favour proportional representation for the House of Commons, although I would favour it to create a proper revising second Chamber in the other place.
528
A Scottish Parliament can, however, set a radical example in other ways. It will be a new Parliament for a new millennium, capable of new thinking. One issue which has concerned us as we have discussed modernisation of the House is that it is difficult to get really novel thinking in this place. To some extent, many of our traditions are literally set in stone. Indeed, they are set in wood and stone, because it is difficult to consider even seating or voting changes without upsetting many people. Even since the war, the building has become hallowed in many people's memories and minds.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) said, a Scottish Parliament can set an example to Westminster in terms of new thinking. It can also set an example to English regional assemblies or even an English Parliament, as was suggested by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). He may be more correct on that than he was on people's views about the poll tax.
This is an historic Parliament because it enshrines our democratic history and its evolution; the Scottish Parliament will be historic because it will make history. The first historic date will be 11 September, when all the people of Scotland will have a chance to take part in the historic victory of a yes, yes campaign. It will be an historic victory for Scotland, for Britain and for democracy.
8.33 pm
Mr. Donald Gorrie: I congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland—I hope that his colleagues will pass on my congratulations. He genuinely deserves great credit for standing up to the opposition, both in front of him and, in some cases, according to the newspapers, behind him, who tried to water down the Bill and the White Paper.
The White Paper is excellent, although it is certainly not perfect and can be improved. Even the Almighty took seven days to create the world, and he had two testaments. Perhaps this is the old testament White Paper and we shall have a new testament White Paper. It is at least a good testament on which we can build.
Some of the weaknesses have been illustrated by the two excellent speeches from Scottish National party Members who pointed out some of the anomalies. The Liberal Democrats feel that moral issues should be brought within the scope of a Scottish Parliament. A regulatory gremlin seems to have got into the White Paper and there are all sorts of issues on which a Scottish Parliament cannot regulate, because the uniformists have obviously won. The Scottish Parliament should control matters such as broadcasting.
Overall, it is a good package for which we are happy to campaign. Like the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats would like to go further in due course, but the White Paper is a good basis for a Scottish Parliament and for the form of the whole United Kingdom.
Conservative Members' doom and gloom are often genuine. They think that devolution is apocalyptic and that the world as they know it is about to collapse. They have no reason to believe that. They are like tipsters who still support a horse that they tipped in the general election and that came last. The horse just does not run. The public are not in tune with their ideas and their historical analysis is entirely incorrect. As a previous speaker said, the example

529
of Ireland shows that the Opposition of the day should have taken a constructive attitude to Gladstone's efforts to have an Irish Parliament. They should have improved his proposals, which were faulty but were at least a serious attempt, instead of blocking them. As a direct result, people in Ireland were, until very recently, still killing each other.
Mr. Day: If one looks at Irish history, one sees that the creation of the free state, which the cleverer nationalists subscribed to and supported, had all the trappings of the British state, with the oath of allegiance, Crown forces and the rest of it. Within a short time, however, all that had gone; the link with the Crown had gone and Ireland had become a republic. The Irish experience does not necessarily prove that the present proposals would save Scotland from a similar fate.
Mr. Gorrie: The point is that the Irish were not given their independence, or whatever they wanted, in a federal system at the time. They achieved it through the gun and extremely grudgingly, because the Conservatives managed to stop successive Liberal Democrat efforts generously to give them their own Parliament.
If the Conservatives persist in rejecting any endeavour to improve how the United Kingdom runs, they will break it up. I shall now try to be a tipster. The only bet that I have placed in recent years was on myself to win the general election, so I have a 100 per cent. record.
Mr. Ancram: Did the hon. Gentleman bet on the previous three elections?
Mr. Gorrie: I did not bet, but I had some idea where the truth lay.
The Conservatives, who genuinely have a mystical idea about the Union, risk destroying the Union by not looking at what the public want, especially in Scotland, but also in England. Basically, the Conservatives do not trust the Scots. They have an extraordinary idea that the Scots will legislate in an anti-British spirit, and that we are a bunch of peasants who are not to be trusted. That is simply not true. That is the thinking behind the Conservatives' views. [Interruption.]
I can say in all honesty that that is the message that comes across, not only to us but to Government Members. They have said that. The message is, "You have no confidence in the ability of the Scots to run their own affairs." Because it will have proportional representation, the Scots Parliament will be more responsive and more responsible to the Scottish people than this place.
The other issue which I should like to stress is that various people have said that the worm will turn. It is time that the English lion roared. We would welcome that. We believe that having a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly will cause the English to examine how they wish their affairs to be run. If the English want an English Parliament, or if they want a regional structure, that is great; they should get on with it. The logic behind the various speeches that have been made—that, because the English are not, at the moment, offered anything, the Scots cannot be offered anything either—is just not acceptable. The Scots have discussed this for years. There is a very strong majority view in Scotland that there must be a change.
Mr. Swinney: The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that, in all respects, peoples, as they define
530
themselves, should have a right to self-determination. That seems to be the point that he is arguing about Scotland and England.
Mr. Gorrie: Absolutely. We in Scotland believe that sovereignty lies with the people—that sovereignty in Scotland lies with the Scottish people, and in England with the English people. We do not wish to prejudice the English in any way whatever. I honestly do not see in what way these proposals are prejudicing them; in the past, however, 500 or more English Members of Parliament consistently voted through laws that the majority of the Scots were against and that were quite harmful to Scotland. That is the problem—not the fact that there might occasionally be some Scots voting on an issue and the English could not reciprocate.
Dr. Fox: That is exactly the point. The English are being prejudiced by this arrangement when Scots can vote on English issues, but not vice versa. The hon. Gentleman would be consistent if he made the case for a federal system, which has been suggested by the Liberal Democrats on other occasions. The hon. Gentleman's case is not logical in the way in which it has been presented today. It is another part of the bogus Liberal Democrat love-in with the Labour party.
Mr. Gorrie: If the Conservatives had their way, we would never get any change in anything. In the real world, we are trying to get a change. We would like a greater change to a federal system.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gorrie: No. Let me make my point.
The Scottish National party would like a change to independence, but we both accept that there is a very responsible and worthwhile Scottish Parliament on offer as a first stage. The next stage is that the English have to get their act together. Hitherto, they have not done that. That is what is now called for.
We can look forward to a Scottish Parliament that will, as other hon. Members have said, have a new way of doing things and be inclusive. Let us get on with it and make it a success. We have an opportunity to do things better, to learn from the dreadful mistakes of this place, to learn the best practice from here and from elsewhere, and to do things better. We can offer either the politics of fear, which the Conservatives offer, or the politics of hope, which the White Paper offers. Let us go for hope. Let us go for the White Paper.
8.43 pm
Mr. John McAllion: One of the disadvantages of being called more than five hours into any debate is that many of the points that are worth making have already been made. Therefore, I shall try not to be repetitive and will try to make a few fresh points, but, first, I shall respond to some of the comments that have been made, particularly from those who would describe themselves as the official Opposition.
I am really depressed, although never surprised, by the repeated failure of the Tory Opposition to rise to the occasion in debates such as this, which are about a

531
momentous turning point in the history of Scotland and, indeed, the United Kingdom. The tenor of speeches from Conservative Members has been disgraceful. It began with the obvious and appalling ignorance on all matters Scottish.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) intervened during the speech of his Front-Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), with the "news", according to the hon. Member, that he had overheard some SNP Members talking on the Back Benches. What do they want? Goodness gracious, they want an independent Scotland. They do not want any Scottish representation in the House. That is news to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps it is also news to Conservative Front-Bench Members. Lord Renton, who was mentioned by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), has nothing on the ignorance shown by Conservative Members in this place.
Then there was the mean-spirited, spiteful and anti-Scottish nit-picking from Conservative Members. Indeed, the debate began very badly with a point of order by a Conservative Member about the number of Scottish Members who were present. When that point of order was raised, there were 46 Members in the Chamber—46 out of 652—and more than half of them represented Scottish constituencies. Usually, there is only one Scottish Member of Parliament for every nine Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. On this occasion, there was more than one of us for every two of them. Where were the English Members at the beginning of the debate? They are always telling us, "This is a matter of profound importance to the English people. This is a matter which affects every English Member in the House." Where were they?
We have the usual suspects present, including the English nationalist wing of the Tory party. The Euro-sceptic wing of the Tory party is here to knock any change whatever. Also taking part in the debate are the exiled Scots, of whom Dr. Johnson once said that the finest prospect that they see is the road that leads south to England, away from their own country.
I do not have any time for any criticisms levelled in the debate by Conservative Members. Nor do the people of Scotland. That is why the Opposition do not have a single Member representing a Scottish constituency. That is exactly what they deserve.
With apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), Conservative Members brought up the hoary old chestnut about the West Lothian question. It does not cause me any problem, and I do not think that it causes Scottish Members or the Scottish people any problem whatever. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) has been saying for some time, we have been debating devolution in Scotland for the past 30 years. We formed a Scottish Constitutional Convention. We brought forward a detailed scheme. We knew that, if a Labour Government were elected at the general election, their first priority would be to introduce a Bill for a devolved Scottish Parliament.
The English people have made no such demand at any point. That is their choice. If they choose to have their domestic legislation dealt with by a British Parliament—this is a British Parliament—that is their choice. They
532
cannot complain if Members representing Scottish constituencies take part in debates involving grammar schools or anything else in England. They cannot complain if a Member representing a Scottish constituency sits in a British Cabinet and takes decisions that affect English people.
The English people have a solution to the West Lothian question—they can opt for their own devolved English Parliament. They can even opt for independence. They would have my support if they wanted it, but they would not be able to take the North sea oil reserves if they went for independence. We would keep those for ourselves. They are entirely welcome to go down that road if they wish; they would have my blessing.
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) spent most of his speech denouncing nationalism, but he wrapped himself throughout in the Union Jack, in a form of British nationalism that was no different from the nationalism that is represented elsewhere on the Conservative Benches. He is not against nationalism. He is against Scottish nationalism, English nationalism or Irish nationalism, but not British nationalism.
Mr. Day: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As always, he is being generous and humorous in equal measure.
Yes, the Union Jack is my flag. I am proud to say that, but I do not count myself as a British nationalist. I despise nationalism of all sorts. It creates tensions and differences between people. Love of one's country is patriotism, and it is a very different creed.
Mr. McAllion: I should like to believe the hon. Gentleman, because I believe that he is genuinely an honourable gentleman, but, towards the end of his speech, he gave himself away. It turned out to be another Euro-sceptic speech. He wants not so much British nationalism as Britain out of Europe. He does not want any power to be taken away from the British Parliament. He is a British nationalist in every sense of the word. His contribution was far more nationalist than most speeches made from the nationalist Benches, or even from the Conservative Benches.
The only positive point that I heard from the official Opposition during the debate was that made by the right hon. Member for Devizes when he described my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland as a dangerous man. I think that my right hon. Friend was secretly thrilled to be described as dangerous. He has had a good week. During the past week, he has been likened to Robert the Bruce, Braveheart and Keir Hardie, and now he has been described as dangerous. I dare say that there is not a woman of a certain generation in Scotland who is not now extremely interested in my right hon. Friend. I am sure that he will be delighted if he continues to be so described.
I welcome the White Paper's proposals for a Scottish Parliament. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, I am delighted by the choice of 11 September for the referendum in Scotland. I have no problem with 11 September being the 700th anniversary of the battle of Stirling bridge. In fact, it creates a nice sense of history, a sense of occasion, for the referendum for a Scottish Parliament to be held on that day. It is in no way anti-English. My hon. Friend was wrong to criticise the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) for mentioning it.

533
The battle of Stirling bridge was a milestone in the wars of independence which led to the creation of an independent state in Scotland. It is something of which Scots should be proud, not ashamed. It is not something which they should hide away and not talk about in case it alarms the neighbours. It is something we believe in. It is a good thing for Scotland. I am delighted that it was mentioned by the hon. Lady.
I was a Member of the House at the time of the tricentenary of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which was the foundation of the current state. I do not remember my hon. Friend objecting to the celebrations that surrounded that tricentenary, yet that was based on the suppression of the Irish people. One could argue that it was anti-Irish. Why were people not criticising the tricentenary celebrations of the Glorious Revolution?
Mr. Dalyell: I did object to them.
Mr. McAllion: For once, my hon. Friend has got me. However, I was surprised that he quoted Edward Carson as an example of what the United Kingdom stands for. If I remember rightly, Carson was the man who said, "Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right," in defiance of the democratically expressed wishes of the United Kingdom Parliament. That is not the kind of example to which someone who believes in the United Kingdom Parliament should refer. I was surprised at my hon. Friend for making that observation.
I am pleased that 11 September is the date for the Scottish referendum. In future, that day will be remembered not just for the battle of Stirling bridge, but as the date on which the Scottish people had the courage and determination to vote to bring back to their own country Scottish democracy and a Scottish Parliament. It will be remembered for ever more for that reason.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that it is important to remember the reception that the White Paper has had in Scotland. It has had a hostile reception here tonight, but it has had a marvellous reception in Scotland. Everywhere, politicians, political activists, the press, other media, and even the public have been delighted with the proposals. It is not often that the public are delighted by the same things as politicians, so it is nice when it happens. It has created the incredible circumstances in Scotland in which the Scottish Labour party and the Scottish National party, which have been at each other' s throats for the past generation, have come together to fight for the same proposals. That is one of the most exciting things to happen in my country for a long time.
Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend solve a mystery for me? We were told on Thursday night last week that the public were delighted. On Thursday night, most of them could not have obtained copies of the White Paper, let alone read it.
Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend often exaggerates his case, and I should be free to exaggerate mine as well.
The only really sour notes that have been struck today, apart from those by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and the Tory Opposition, have been by some elements of big business. The Scotsman this morning reported that Sir Alistair Grant—it is funny how these
534
big business people always have names like Alistair—chairman of Scottish Newcastle, has warned against a Scottish Parliament because it will threaten investment into Scotland, make Scottish exports uncompetitive and generally be bad for the Scottish economy.
Sir Alistair, and big business in general, are entitled to their point of view, but hon. Members should be conscious of the track record of big business on political matters over a long period. For example, big business thought that the universal franchise, giving the vote to the workers, was a bad thing. It thought that it was a bad thing that trade unions should be given legal protection. It still does. It thought that it was a bad thing that taxes should be raised to pay for the NHS and the welfare state. It still thinks that it is a bad thing to have a national minimum wage to take people out of poverty wages. It thinks that it is a really bad thing for anyone to suggest that there should be democracy in the workplace and that workers should have a say in what happens in their companies.
The political judgment of big business is usually self-serving, almost always reactionary and deeply anti-democratic. If Keir Hardie had listened to the views of big business in his day, he would never have set up the Labour party. I am glad that he did not listen to its views. My advice to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench is to follow in the footsteps of Keir Hardie and not listen to the views of Sir Alistair Grant or anyone else in big business, whether or not they are on the cocktail circuit.
I want to focus on two of the main arguments against a Scottish Parliament. The first is the alleged damage that opponents say will arise because of the tax-varying powers that will be given to that Parliament. We have already heard many of the scare stories associated with that—the extra tax burden on individuals who live and work in Scotland; the possible widening of the tax base by a Scottish Parliament which is beyond the control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House—that really worries many hon. Members here—and the impact of those extra taxes on the competitiveness of the Scottish economy.
Those arguments chime with the prevailing orthodoxy in the House, perhaps on both sides, that low taxes and low levels of public spending are the only keys to economic success in the modern world. There is nothing new or modern about that orthodoxy. It has been the prevailing orthodoxy of most Tory Governments during the past century. I do not agree with it. I reject the notion that raising taxes and increasing public spending must, by definition, disadvantage the Scottish economy or any other economy.
Scottish business can be equally damaged by a failure to raise public revenue for investment in the social and economic infrastructure. For example, does any hon. Member believe that it would not be in the interests of Scottish business for Scotland to have a fully integrated public transport system? Of course that would be to the advantage of Scottish business. But that cannot happen unless we raise taxes and the level of public spending. That is a lesson that must be learned by the House at some point.
Mr. Swinney: I am grateful to my neighbour from Dundee, East for giving way. Is he satisfied that the

535
proposed Scottish Parliament has sufficient powers to address the concerns that he has raised, with which I absolutely agree?
Mr. McAllion: I am never satisfied with anything—that is part of my nature. I am always looking for a little bit extra in any situation. But that is a serious point. We should not allow to go unchallenged the orthodoxy that says that public spending is a bad thing and is bad for business. Public spending is a good thing and can be good for business.
My wife went to Holland for a medical conference and she could not believe the integrated transport structure there. Trains go straight into the airport. One leaves a beautiful train and climbs aboard a plane to fly off. Try getting out of this place—getting from here to Heathrow is a nightmare. The underground system of this great capital city is screaming out for public investment. The public want taxes to be raised to pay for the transport infrastructure to make this country more economic.
Is anyone arguing that modern and well-equipped schools providing first-class education for all would not give us a competitive advantage over other countries? Of course they would. Is anybody arguing that the costs of crime are not crippling business? What causes those costs? Unemployment, poverty, deprivation and homelessness cause them. Those require public spending, and I have no problems with a Scottish Parliament having tax-raising powers. I shall be arguing in the referendum campaign that those powers should not only be given, but be used. Properly applied, the higher public spending which those tax-varying powers will unlock will be a significant advantage to the Scottish people, business and the economy.
The final point that I should like to make—unless my hon. Friends want me to continue to prevent Tory Members from getting in—concerns the argument that the White Paper proposals constitute a slippery slope to independence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has put it, this is a one-way motorway with no exits, whose destination is the break-up of the UK. We have heard a lot about that tonight.
My first reaction is to echo the Scottish writer Willie Mclllvaney, who wrote:
"To reject devolution because it might lead further is equivalent to a refusal to engage in argument because you might have to change your mind."
Willie, as always, was absolutely right. Scotland will go down the road to independence only when the people who live in Scotland are convinced by the argument. That is the basic reality. It will not be because of a Parliament here or an Assembly there, but because they believe that it is in their interests to have independence. There is no other way in which independence will come to Scotland.
I suspect that those who go on about slippery slopes and one-way motorways are uncertain about their own arguments for maintaining the status quo. They hide behind Jeremiah warnings, accusing the Parliament proposed in the White Paper of being something that it palpably is not. If they were honest with themselves, they would argue coherently and consistently why it is in the interests of the Scottish people to continue to be governed directly from this Parliament 400 miles away. That should be the basis of their case—not nonsense threats or warnings about where a Scottish Parliament set up in Edinburgh might or might not lead.
536
That argument takes us on to the dangerous ground of sovereignty, which has been touched on by some hon. Members. I make no apology—I signed the Claim of Right for Scotland because I believed in it. I fully accept that the people of Scotland have the sovereign right to decide for themselves how and by whom they are governed. The English people and all other British people also have that sovereign right.
I find it inexplicable that any democrat or socialist could believe for a moment that sovereignty should be vested in the Westminster Parliament rather than in the people who elect the Westminster Parliament. This Parliament—or, to give it its full sovereign title, the Queen in Parliament—is only partly elected. This is the only elected part of the Westminster Parliament, which is only partly modern. It is still partly mediaeval, as would become obvious to anyone witnessing the state opening of Parliament by the Queen in her regalia and finery from the middle ages. If we want to modernise our political institutions, we have to begin by accepting the basis of every modern democracy in the developed world—that sovereignty rests with the people and with no one else.
The theory of the supreme sovereignty of Parliament has been breached by the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union. European laws have primacy over the laws passed by this Westminster Parliament. To paraphrase an old song by the Proclaimers, it was "sovereignty no more" for this Parliament when we became members of the EU. The Scottish Constitutional Convention, in its final report "Scotland's Parliament, Scotland's right">, noted that while, in theory, under the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom, any Scotland Act could be repealed or amended without restriction by any subsequent Westminster Parliament, in practice such an action would be politically impossible.
Using as an example the entrenched rights of the Church of Scotland under the unwritten constitution of the UK, the report recommended that similar entrenchment should be made available for the Scottish Parliament to make it impossible to repeal or to amend a Scotland Act without the prior approval of the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish people in a further referendum. I note that that recommendation has not been acted on—quite the reverse. The White Paper makes it clear that the UK Parliament will remain sovereign. I know that that is a necessary compromise to get anything through a UK Cabinet and Parliament. We all know the reality—it does not make much difference.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear—and, indeed, as the Leader of the Opposition has made clear—no United Kingdom Government would or could ever deny the Scottish people the right to decide for themselves how they are to be governed. Lady Thatcher accepted that as a reality, although she had no time for the Scots during her long period in office. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who fought the last general election on the basis that he would retain the United Kingdom's integrity, accepted it as a reality.
If, having been convinced by the arguments for it, the Scottish people voted for independence, any Government who described themselves as democratic in any meaningful sense would have to accept that decision. Every hon. Member knows that that is the truth; there is no point in pretending that it is not. The people will decide, not politicians in this place or anywhere else. As far as I can see, however, all the evidence suggests

537
that the Scottish people are not yet convinced by the arguments for independence—although I suspect that they would become so if the Government failed to implement the proposals in the White Paper, for whatever reason.
One thing is certain. Opposition Members who do not live in Scotland—who go there occasionally to fish, hunt or whatever—should accept that there is no future for the constitutional status quo in Scotland, which was decisively rejected by the Scottish people when they announced the change in the mandate. The question, of course, is the degree of the change that they demanded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said that it was not possible to ride two horses at the same time—that we must be either in or outside the United Kingdom—but I do not accept that. No one uses the same argument in relation to the European Union. It is quite the reverse: the United Kingdom is in and out of Europe at the same time. Despite the boasts about the opt-outs that Britain has, we are partly in and partly out. If the single currency goes ahead, Britain may be in and it may be out.
The position is exactly the same in this context. Sovereignty can be shared by the same people across different Parliaments. The Scottish people can decide to be in the European Union, and to concede some of their sovereignty to that institution. They can decide to be in this Parliament and concede some of their sovereignty to it, and they can decide to have their own Parliament and to concede the rest of that sovereignty. It is not impossible to achieve that; it is very easy. It has been achieved in other democratic modern constitutions.
I see many arguments for retaining the United Kingdom. I see no sense in arguing for the break-up of the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force or the Army, or for different social security systems in the north and the south of this island. There should be a single integrated social security system—although it should be much better than the pathetic system that we have now, which victimises the poor in a very obvious way. Nor am I convinced by the arguments for a separate Scottish currency. I do not think that that would be in the interests of the Scottish people.
I am delighted, and convinced, by the proposals in the White Paper. As someone who has been committed to home rule for Scotland throughout my political life, seeing it as a priority, I am enthusiastic about the Scottish Parliament that is envisaged in the White Paper: I feel that I can fight for it. It is a Parliament which will be widely welcomed across Scotland. I do not think that the Scottish people are ready for separation, and I think that every election, every opinion poll and every referendum in Scotland has shown that to be the case.
The new Parliament will excite the people of Scotland. I do not fear proportional representation. I recognise that electoral systems are not run for the benefit of political parties; they are run for the benefit of those who elect political parties in to office. The first-past-the-post system disfranchises far too many people. The Scottish Parliament will not be dominated by any party or any area; it will be a genuine people's Parliament, about which all Scotland can be enthusiastic.
Female Labour Members argued strongly in favour of a Parliament that would give women equal representation. In a thousand years of history, the Westminster Parliament has not come near to achieving that, but it could be achieved on day one in a Scottish Parliament. Such a
538
Parliament could show the advantage of being prepared to change the constitution, and to go with opinion. I believe that the new Parliament will be sensitive to Scotland's needs, and that it will be in touch with the people of Scotland in general. In short, it will be everything that this Parliament is not.
Some hon. Members have argued against constitutional change. They fear it. Someone said that it is malignant, which makes one think of crosses and garlic on the doors to keep out the idea that constitutional change may find its way into this august Chamber, which has remained unchanged for so long. Those hon. Members argued that the workplace, trade union rights, the welfare state and the national health service have to change. Everything has to change except this place. I do not accept that; nor do my hon. Friends. The time for constitutional change is long past. Let us get to it and win the referendum.
9.9 pm
Mr. James Gray: Some elements of the debate have been deeply disturbing. One is the attitude of mind that has been ascribed to Conservative Members. I treat with some disdain the remark by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) that we are occasional visitors to Scotland for hunting, shooting and fishing. That is nonsense. I do not accept the comment by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) that Conservatives do not trust the Scots. That is also nonsense. Even worse was the remark by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) who said that Conservatives were anti-Scottish. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gray: It is early in my speech, but of course I shall give way.
Mr. Salmond: In last night's debate and today, I have said that opinion poll evidence shows that the vast majority of the Scottish population perceive the Conservative party as anti-Scottish. One poll showed that a majority of people who intended to vote Tory still thought that the party was anti-Scottish. Does not the hon. Gentleman wish to address that rather grave situation?
Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is reeling off the truth of the Scottish National party and the old nostrum that nationalists hate other people's countries and patriots love their own countries. Conservatives are true Scottish patriots, true British patriots and true English patriots. We love our nation and we are not prepared to see it destroyed, which is what Labour and the SNP would have us accept. I am proud to speak as a Scot. I was born, bred and educated at primary and secondary school and at university in Scotland and I never left its borders until I was 21. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. There are many conversations in the Chamber. There should be only one speaker.
Mr. Gray: My father was moderator of the general assembly of the Church of Scotland. The very title has Scottish resonance. I will not accept insults from hon.

539
Members because I appear and sound English. I am 100 per cent. Scottish and I intend to speak for Scotland although I represent an English constituency.
Mr. Swinney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gray: No. I have given way already. Enough has been said about my Scottishness and I hope that I have established my Scottish credentials.
I feel no embarrassment whatever in saying that I am appalled by the entire content of the White Paper and its consequences for Scotland and England and, more importantly, for the United Kingdom. Some hon. Members have alluded to the West Lothian question, which was so eloquently described, as on many earlier occasions, by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Others have spoken about incipient English nationalism and its potentially terrible consequences for the United Kingdom.
I should like to concentrate on one risk that arises from the Scottish Assembly—the issue of taxation. It sounds anodyne to speak about tax-varying powers of up to 3p in the pound, but it is a great deal more worrying to speak about a cost of £321 a year for the average wage earner or £650 a year for someone earning £30,000. Those figures sound like a significant price to be paid. Perhaps on 11 September the people of Scotland will ignore that price. The average GP may say, "I am prepared to pay £600 for the privilege of a Scottish Parliament." Are people certain that the price for all time will be £621 for a person on a salary of £30,000? I suggest that it will not.
The Scottish Parliament will properly say, "We are the duly elected representatives of the people of Scotland. We have been elected and given a mandate"—as the Labour party constantly tells us it has been given here—"by the people of Scotland to do all sorts of noble and worthwhile things." I am sure that, for a time, all those things will be done within the 3p in the pound.
The Minister without Portfolio will ensure that there is no possible cross-border embarrassment of a Labour Parliament in Scotland doing something that the Labour Government here does not wish it to do, but imagine that there was a Conservative Government here and a Labour Parliament in Scotland, or even that there was a hard-left Labour Parliament in Scotland, but a Mandelsonian-Blairite Labour Government here. Let us imagine that the duly elected representatives of the Scottish people decided to put teachers' pay up by 20 per cent., to spend another £20 million on roads or to make a host of other legitimate spending decisions that would cost more than 3p in the pound.
What would happen then? There would be three possibilities. The first is that those representatives would do what many Labour councils throughout the land have always done: bust their cap, decide to ignore the 3p in the pound limit and crack on with their spending. Secondly, they could force through some subsequent legislation that would allow them much greater tax variations than 3p in the pound. Would it be lop or 20p in the pound? Who knows where it would end up?
The third and by far the most likely outcome is that those representatives would say that the block grant was insufficient. They would say, "We, the duly elected
540
representatives of the Scottish people, have taken these sensible decisions. These are things that everyone wants. We cannot do it within our 3p in the pound because those swine, our paymasters in Westminster, will not give us the cash to do it." Therefore, an incipient and inherent tax bombshell would tick away beneath the Scottish Parliament.
Sir Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman seems to be confirming what hon. Members were saying earlier: the tenor of the debate is a lack of trust in the people of Scotland. The actions that have been described would be the actions of people elected by the people of Scotland. The hon. Member seems to assume and to take it for granted that his party has no chance of a revival, yet it is the only party in the history of Scotland to have had a majority of the vote in Scotland. Under the White Paper, it would be legitimate for the people of Scotland to vote for his party to cut taxes in Scotland.
Mr. Gray: That is, of course, true. Let us imagine that we have a Conservative Parliament in Scotland, but a Labour Government here. Exactly the same problem might arise. Those Conservative representatives might make sensible, legitimate decisions on behalf of the people of Scotland, which would effectively be blocked by Members here.
Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gray: I think that we have had enough discussion on that point for the moment. I am short of time, and I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
There is a curious conundrum here. The Labour party says that it does not approve of capping in local government, that capping is somehow a bad thing and that we must allow local government to spend up to whatever levels elected councillors want, but the 3p in the pound is the ultimate cap. It is capping second to none. The tax-varying powers of the Scottish Parliament are capped to only 3 per cent., whereas, in local government, councillors raise 20 or 25 per cent. for their own spending.
The ultimate cap is exactly what the Labour party is trying to get away from in local government. Therefore, it is only a matter of time before the duly elected representatives of the Scottish Parliament say, "We do not want this 3p in the pound cap. We do not see why English Members in Westminster should set down how much we should spend. We are the representatives of the Scottish people. We will decide how much is spent, and we will tax them accordingly."
I do not accept that the Scottish people believe that they will pay only £300 a year if they are ordinary wage earners, or £600 a year if they are middle-class wage earners. I suspect that they think that in passing, but that, between now and 11 September, they will realise that they are signing a substantial blank cheque, which will cost them and their families for many generations to come.
As soon as the stresses and strains in spending come about, it will only be a matter of time before the Scottish nationalists and others have their way and say, "We want none of this English interference in our way of life. We want our independence." It will only be a matter of time before people in English constituencies say, "Why are the

541
people of Scotland taking spending decisions and demanding more spending powers while we are, to some degree, subsidising them?" I suspect that many of my constituents in North Wiltshire will say, "If they want their independence, let them go. Let them take their subsidies and their 72 Members of Parliament with them. They can drop us a postcard when they want to rejoin the main stream of British life." I would have great difficulty arguing against that with my constituents.
This is the thin end of the independence wedge, and it is the beginning of the end for the Union.
9.21 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Scotland feels that it is safe to return to the Chamber now that his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has sat down. We noticed that, by his departure, he managed to avoid his ears being burnt by the sounds of Keir Hardie emanating from the Back Benches. All is safe and well now, and I am delighted that he is here to listen to me.
We should be under no illusions about the seriousness of this debate. It is a debate about the future of these islands. It deals with the structure of the kingdom, which has remained largely intact for the past 300 years. I understand why Labour Members say that, because the Conservative party did so badly in Scotland at the general election, we should bow to their will and accept the White Paper. The truth is that, notwithstanding what happened to the Conservative party in Scotland, we would be failing in our duty if we did not point out the serious damage that the White Paper is likely to do to the kingdom.
Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way.
Although I represent an English constituency, like the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge), I am an Anglo-Scot. I am proud to come from Scotland in the sense that my mother is a Douglas from the Borders, so I come from a long line of rapers and pillagers. My grandfather—
Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not be allowed to call the hon. Gentleman a raper and pillager. Is it in order for him to call himself a raper and pillager?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman was being light-hearted.
Mr. Howarth: I was being rather serious. I was explaining my ancestry, not my present practices. My grandfather, Thomas Douglas, thought that the best feature of the English was that they were able to produce such a large number of excellent women for Scotsmen to marry. He duly went off to Cheshire—I think the only time he came south of the border—to find an English wife.
We are as qualified to participate in these debates as anybody who represents a constituency north of the border. This is the United Kingdom Parliament, and these are matters which strike at the heart of the unity of the kingdom.
542
I believe that the proposals in the White Paper are deeply damaging to the interests of the United Kingdom and to Scotland in particular. They are bureaucratic and expensive and will turn out to be a lawyers' paradise. Most important, they are a recipe for conflict. Ultimately, they will be the first steps on the road to the balkanisation of Britain, which will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. It is for that reason that the Scottish National party is prepared to support the proposals. It sees them as the Trojan horse.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howarth: No.
The Scottish National party sees the proposals as a Trojan horse to help its open ambition for an independent Scotland.
Mr. Flynn rose—
Mr. Howarth: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman had his say last Friday.
Mr. Flynn: No, I did not.
Mr. Howarth: Well, as a Welsh Member of Parliament he should have done.
This measure is, in many senses, a panic response by the Labour party, which knows that it is challenged in Scotland by the Scottish National party. That is why it has introduced this measure in the way that it has and why it enjoys the support of the SNP.
There is huge potential for conflict in the White Paper. It states:
"The Government believe that, given an open and constructive relationship between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive, problems will usually be resolved quickly and amicably."
I hope that that is right, but I suspect that it is simply pious optimism.
The Scots should be aware that if they pass a law in the Scottish Parliament, it will not receive Royal Assent until it has come to this House, which will determine its vires. The White Paper says:
"there will be a short delay period to ensure that the UK Government is content as to vires."
The UK Government will say to the Scottish Parliament, "I am sorry, but we do not regard that law as being within your power." That is what will happen under the White Paper. If there is a dispute, it will go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is a serious recipe for endless conflicts with a Scottish Parliament anxious to flex its muscles and to arrogate to itself powers that this House will not concede to it. There will be endless rows and endless lawyers' fees.
The biggest flaw in the proposals is that they will lead to conflict. They will raise false expectations in Scotland about the manner in which the Scots will be able to enjoy a degree of devolution—which no one doubts they want. The result will be that not only will there be angst and disappointment in Scotland but, as many of my hon. Friends have said, once the English realise what is going

543
on, they will rise up and revolt and the Government will be responsible for a process that will lead to the disintegration of the United Kingdom.
9.27 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: In the two minutes available to me, I shall try to reduce an argument to a telegram.
I congratulate the Secretary of State. There could not have been a more persuasive advocate for a cause which, on reflection, could lead to the unbundling of the United Kingdom. I say that with diffidence, because the passions and the arguments fairly represented here, one way or the other, emphasise the unequalness of the construction of the constitutional changes. They are not consistent between Scotland and Wales. We cannot stand back and see an architecture disappear that reaffirms the one central passion that was most eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day).
The denigration of the Union or the minimalisation of it is in part a reflection of something that the people showed they wanted on 1 May. They wanted to end Conservative government. They wanted a Labour Government. In the euphoria and excitement of a new Government, looking at the detail of the proposals is somewhat difficult. The secessionist party and some members of the Labour party have treated with contempt the, in their view, impertinence of Conservative Members, albeit born in Scotland, intervening in what is perceived to be and accepted in Scotland as a done deal.
Let us remember the White Paper's history. There has been no debate in Parliament before its publication, and no weighing-up of the arguments and passions felt by Unionists. There are passionate Unionists in Scotland, too, and the way in which some hon. Members trivialise the debate and fail to recognise that fact does an injustice to Scotland.
Why are some of us passionate? Our Union was built by Scots, by Welsh and by English, and its curious feature is that England is the great melting pot. In truth, which one of us can claim that we do not have Scottish, Welsh or Irish blood within us? That is the essence of the Parliament of the United Kingdom—which is the union of two Parliaments, those of Scotland and of England. Those aspects must be weighed in the debate, but they have not been.
Why am I passionate? In the 290 years of our Union, we have marched from an oligarchical form of government to one of the highest forms of democracy on earth. We have seen the progress of our people, and we have been free people. As one united British people, our liberty and our social conditions have advanced. Unfortunately, the lack of balance in the constitutional proposals setting aside the English dimension—which is a part of the British dimension—means that the proposals cannot be enduring. If the House believes in the Union, it must do one thing: try to reach out to construct a politically balanced system, which reflects those elements.
Sir Robert Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Shepherd: No, I cannot; I have met my time limit. The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me.
9.30 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: If I have one sadness about today's debate on a major constitutional issue, it is about how poorly attended it has been. I am especially surprised at the poor attendance by Government Back Benchers representing Scottish constituencies, and perhaps even more surprised by the non-attendance of those to whom I am not allowed to refer—who sit above the Chamber, were such a place to exist.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State was not able to be in the Chamber for more of the debate, because it has been interesting. It also contained several themes that will be rehearsed in the coming referendum campaign, including the Secretary of State's own theme of the need, or otherwise, to modernise the constitution; the effect on the Union as a whole; and the cost and effectiveness of the proposed arrangements. I passionately believe that, of those three themes, the effect on the Union is undoubtedly the most important.
The essential question about the Union was asked very powerfully in speeches by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), and in a far too short speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). We cannot effect changes on parts of the United Kingdom without effecting changes on the whole of the United Kingdom. If the situation changes in Scotland, it will change in the whole of the United Kingdom—a fact that lies at the heart of what has been called the West Lothian question. We are unleashing a process of change, of which the White Paper's proposals—for which hon. Members had varying degrees of affection—are only the beginning.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said—as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has just said—that the biggest flaw in the devolution proposals is that they cannot be enduring. The hon. Gentleman said that a Scottish Parliament would not last 10 years, which cannot be a good recipe for constitutional change. A week ago, the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said that the proposals offered the possibility of a "dynamic relationship" between a Scottish Parliament and Westminster, but they are a recipe for instability. Proposals that the hon. Member for Linlithgow called a Pandora's box are a guarantee of friction within the United Kingdom and not—as Ministers have tried to convince us in the past week—a blueprint for stability.
Mr. Dalyell: What I said was that, in 10 years' time, the Parliament could not exist in anything approaching the form in which it is proposed.
Dr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman makes the point more eloquently than I could, and very effectively. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, it is of course the very reason why the Scottish nationalists are so much in favour of the proposals, but I shall come to that in a moment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said at the outset that one of the things that can easily be predicted about the Scottish Parliament is that it will blame Westminster for whatever goes wrong. It will blame Westminster for any policy failures, whether in education or in health. It will certainly not blame itself. It will blame Westminster whenever it is short of money—I have never known any wing of government not to blame the parent government if it is short of finance.

545
When the Scottish Parliament cannot fulfil the unrealistic expectations that have been raised in the devolution debate, it will blame Westminster. Therein lies the root of the conflict which we will endure, as the former Foreign Secretary said, for a generation and beyond.
What are we to make of the Secretary of State when he tells people on one side of the argument that they should support the White Paper and vote yes in the referendum because it is a way of preserving the Union and the integrity of the United Kingdom, while at the same time he tells the nationalists, with a nod and a wink, that if they vote yes, they may eventually get their way, which they see as an independent Scotland? Mention was made of riding two horses. It is not possible for one White Paper to be a guarantee of the Union and a stepping stone to independence—it has to be one or the other.
Mr. Flynn rose—
Dr. Fox: No, I shall not give way.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who is no longer in her place, said, "But Germany did not break up"—
Mr. Flynn: Exactly.
Dr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman says, "Exactly." However, there is logic in the status quo, there is logic in arguing for a federal system or for independence, but there is no logic in arguing for this proposal, which does one thing to one part of the United Kingdom and something different in another. The parts are not equally weighted, and the votes are not equally weighted for that reason.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made it clear that the Scottish nationalists will seek to use a Scottish Parliament as a stepping stone to an independent Scotland. I would have been surprised had he said anything else. He, like the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and others, was absolutely right to say that independence is a matter for Scotland. Should the Scots decide to be independent, that would, as an issue of self-determination, be a matter for them, but devolution within the United Kingdom is rightly a matter for Westminster and a sovereign United Kingdom Parliament. The Secretary of State agrees with that, but the White Paper is a recipe for conflict within the United Kingdom.
Lord Steel said that the White Paper was a stepping stone towards a federal United Kingdom—it cannot be stable and changing. Only the Government seem to believe that the Scottish Parliament will be satisfied with its political and financial lot. We profoundly disagree with that analysis, and believe that the proposals are a recipe for instability.
In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State spoke about modernising the constitution of the United Kingdom and bringing institutions back in touch with the people. We all accept that politicians have reached an all-time low in the eyes of the public. I understand that, according to recent surveys, only traffic wardens are held in lower esteem than politicians—it frightens me to think that estate agents and solicitors are higher up the table than we are.
Let us consider the details of what the Secretary of State said. He talked about the role of Scottish Members of Parliament, but to whom will Scottish voters go when
546
they have a problem with the health service or schools? Will they go to their Member of the Scottish Parliament? That would seem logical, so what is the role of the redundant Scottish Members of Parliament? If they do not accept the dual mandate—the logical position—and simply continue to sit in the United Kingdom Parliament, they are effectively saying that health, education and other welfare issues on which they fought the general election are not the most important issues to them, but that they want to talk about the remaining issues.
That says a great deal about the approach taken by some Labour Members. It will be interesting to see which ones decide to stand for the Scottish Parliament and continue to sit as Members of this House. Labour's remaining Westminster Members who are not Members of the Scottish Parliament will be only appendages. They will have no locus for affairs in their constituencies. They will be sidelined.
What will happen to the pay of Members of Parliament who continue to sit here, but do not handle all the issues of their constituents? When Ministers take office, they are deemed to be spending less time with their constituents. Parliament already has a precedent of reducing ministerial salaries. It will be interesting to see what the House decides to do.
Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Fox: I am sorry, but I really do not have time, much as I would love to give way.
We did not hear much about the role of the civil service. We know that it will be imposed on the Scottish Parliament as part of the home civil service. Can the Scottish Parliament reform it? What if it does not suit the Parliament's needs? Can the Scottish Parliament change it, cut it or increase it? What will be the consequence for the jobs of the current Scottish Office civil servants? The Secretary of State did not answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), who said that the logic of the White Paper meant an ever-diminishing role for the Secretary of State.
I do not want him to think that I raise this issue out of affection for him. I raise it out of affection for the role of the Secretary of State. He will become a political eunuch, sitting in a Cabinet with no influence on what is happening in Scotland. At best, when there are Parliaments of the same colour in Edinburgh and Westminster, he will be a messenger boy. When there are Parliaments of different colours in the two cities, he will be a whipping boy.
The Secretary of State talked about removing the democratic deficit. He gave a slightly ungracious response to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). We go back to the old question: how can we be removing a democratic deficit if Scottish Members are able to vote on English issues, but not vice versa? That introduces a democratic deficit. There is worse. If, as the White Paper says, Scottish Ministers will be able to speak for the United Kingdom in Europe, what will be the mechanism of accountability to the House of Commons of the United Kingdom? We need answers to those questions, because the Government are not removing a deficit, but introducing a new one.
Within minutes of the Secretary of State's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) asked what

547
would happen if the Scottish Parliament chose to implement European regulations from which the United Kingdom had sought derogation. That is a recipe for turning one part of the UK against another. What if farmers in Northern Ireland were able to accept a deal from Europe, when the United Kingdom Government were trying to negotiate a deal for the whole United Kingdom? The proposals are a recipe for instability, which we must try to stop as best we can.
Mr. Swinney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Fox: I am sorry, but I am very short of time.
The great fraud in the White Paper is tax. I am sure that the Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong, but we got the distinct impression that income tax is not the only lever of the tax-varying powers to be made available to the Scottish Parliament. If the starting point for taxation were raised to £6,000, 3.8 per cent. on the standard rate would be needed to make up the £450 million guaranteed in the White Paper. How will the shortfall be made up if a 3p increase does not make the full £450 million?
The Secretary of State called on us to be more creative in our thinking, saying that other taxes may not be involved—there may be variations in income tax. That must mean raising higher rates or widening the band. In the latter case, a Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House of Commons taking the low-paid out of tax could face the perverse situation of a Scottish Parliament putting them back into tax, so that it could continue to raise £450 million. That is surely not what the Government intend. I urge them, even at this late stage, to think again.
The Secretary of State let the cat out of the bag. In an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, he said that, if Westminster could raise taxes, perhaps we should abolish Westminster. That is exactly our point. This is a sovereign Parliament. We do not want the tax-raising powers of a Scottish Parliament equated with the tax-raising powers of this Parliament.
I was sorry that the Secretary of State missed the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East. That was real Labour. It is a long time since we have heard that in the House. He even said the S word—socialist. I am sure that his bleeper was going off at that minute.
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I believe that the views of business are important, and I do not believe that, as he claimed, big business is vicious, reactionary and deeply undemocratic. If those in the business community are disconcerted by the tax-raising powers, they may relocate and they may lay off people. That will have an impact on the prosperity of the Scottish people, and that is an important point for us to take into account in the debate.
We have already been cheated of debate on this topic by an arrogant Government. The Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill was guillotined when we wished to discuss issues in more detail. The White Paper will set up a Scottish Parliament dominated by the central belt and it will provide jobs for the boys at public expense. The Scots will pay through the nose simply for being Scottish. The proposals are essentially dishonest. The second question is fraudulent, because the Scots will face a tax-raising
548
Parliament whether or not they vote no to the second question. The proposals are a confidence trick with a large price tag, and above all, they are a threat to the Union.
The most telling moment in the debate—
Mr. Dewar: Idiot.
Dr. Fox: The Secretary of State need not shout, "Idiot." When he resorts to childish name-calling, it makes us think that we are starting to score some points. If he had had the courtesy to the House today to be in for more than about an hour of the debate, he might have heard some of the arguments in more detail. He might have heard the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, who had the courtesy to stay for the debate. When he was asked whether he believed that the Scottish Parliament, as proposed in the White Paper, would be a useful vehicle on his road to independence, he said yes.
Mr. Salmond rose—
Dr. Fox: That is the reality that the Government must come to grips with. The White Paper is not a blueprint for stability. The nationalists believe that it is a route to independence, and for once, we believe that they are right. We must reject the proposals while we can.
Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) refused to give way to me. I gave way to him in my speech. He should have the courtesy to allow me to say what was on the record before he tries to paraphrase my answer.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
9.46 pm
The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I shall try, in the 14 minutes left to me, to address some of the issues raised.
The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) talked about speaking on behalf of the business community. I issue a challenge to Conservative Front-Bench Members. I want them to meet the Scottish Chambers of Commerce; we have done that. I want them to meet the Confederation of British Industry in Scotland; we have done that. I want them to meet the Institute of Directors in Scotland; we have done that. I could go on and on.
Conservative Members have not yet embraced the fact that there are Scottish business organisations that want to contribute to the debate. Alas, their comments are distorted in the House by the Opposition or, even worse, Conservative Members give the impression that they are speaking for the business community. Quite honestly, nothing could be further from the truth.
Today is an important day. We are discussing the White Paper, which is a significant step forward. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State deserves tremendous praise and credit for what he has introduced. Today is also important because the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill has now been given Royal Assent, so we have an Act on the basis of which the referendum can take place. The other important issue is that we have had discussions in

549
Parliament. Politicians have had their say and we are now moving on to give the people of Scotland and Wales their say in the referendums.
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) asked what would happen in Europe if different political complexions were represented at Westminster and in Edinburgh. In view of the position now adopted by the Leader of the Opposition, working out the policy position that is in the best interests of the United Kingdom as a whole is more about information and analysis of the effects of different options than about party political positions. We are taking a reasonable view of all that. Again, the Conservatives would be advised to think rather than merely speak about the White Paper.
The right hon. Member for Devizes crowned his contribution with some very bad prose. The Secretary of State's proposals were described as a dark, cold night. We were then treated to the dawn beyond the cold, dark night after which the right hon. Gentleman told us that it would all end in tears. It was ridiculous to end a speech from the Front Bench by referring to a can of tartan tax worms. It is clear that the thoughts of Michael Forsyth live on. That speech summed up many of the remarks by the Conservative Opposition.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) referred to the Parliament building. I am grateful for her comments on the selection of the design and I shall certainly consider her suggestions. As she rightly said, funding is important, and we shall explore all possible means of funding the Scottish Parliament.
The hon. Lady also asked about the licensing of theatres and cinemas. She will recall that the White Paper said that health and safety matters are to be reserved. I hope that she will recognise that much of the legislation on licensing and theatres concerns health and safety matters. We wish to maintain that consistency and continuity.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the reserved powers relating to gambling. Gambling has always been controlled in a uniform way throughout Great Britain. Indeed, there is no separate primary legislation covering gambling in Scotland. That is sensible, as, for example, it is easy to bet by post or telephone. It is important to retain a United Kingdom market.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a number of important points, some of which were raised with us directly by the Law Society. In view of the time available this evening, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that I shall need to consider the points that were raised by the Law Society and respond to them. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend receives a full reply.
My hon. Friend also referred to further transfers by Order in Council. The provision is intended to tidy up issues that may be missed by the legislation. It is important to note that the power will be used only with the agreement of Edinburgh and Westminster. Once again, I should like to respond to my hon. Friend in detail.
Mr. Ancram: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McLeish: No. I must respond to all the points that have been raised.
Mr. Ancram: Will the Minister give way on that point?
Mr. McLeish: No. I am not giving way. [Interruption.] It is absolutely vital that I respond. I have been asked for
550
answers throughout the day and I shall not be halted by the continuing silly behaviour of Opposition Front-Bench Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow also asked why the appointment of the top two judges in Scotland would be treated differently. We propose no changes to what presently happens, except that the role currently performed by the Secretary of State for Scotland will transfer to the First Minister. The Secretary of State makes recommendations directly to Her Majesty the Queen on all but the top two appointments, on which recommendations will be made by the Prime Minister. We consider that it is sensible to continue with that practice as part of the United Kingdom legal system embracing constituent countries.
Mr. Ancram: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has said several times that he will write to hon. Members in response to their questions. Is it not the normal practice that such answers are lodged in the Library so that all Members can see them?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the Minister.
Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow raised a number of sensible, constructive points. He should receive the respect and courtesy that he deserves. However, I am quite happy to provide Opposition Front-Bench Members with copies of my replies.
Mention has been made of service voters. Specific provisions in the referendum legislation will allow service personnel to vote according to their declared residence, which need not be the place to which they are posted. It could be their home town or where they were living before they joined up.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred to funding to Scotland relative to other parts of the United Kingdom. In the past 18 years, we heard no complaints from the previous Government about the Barnett formula or the distribution of funds within the United Kingdom. Why should it be so now? Is it merely to coincide with the publication of the White Paper, or, indeed, was it simply an example of the wider issue of trying to use any point of debate to attack the proposals?
In a very witty speech, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) gave the impression that, in another place, some interesting points were made. He missed one, which I am quite happy to bring before the House. The Earl of Onslow referred to
"what happens on the A9 between Lockerbie and the Border".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 July 1997; Vol. 582, c. 253.]
Scottish Members will appreciate the significance of that.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan raised points about reserved powers and mentioned estate agents, abortion and licensing of cinemas. Our proposals are logical. We propose to devolve to the fullest extent possible the distinctive legal system in Scotland, but reserve employment law, health and safety, which including aspects of cinema regulation, the common UK market for goods and services, which of course includes estate agents, and certain health matters, including abortion, which are better dealt with on a Great Britain basis.

551
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) raised two questions concerning access during the referendum, which were reinforced by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. We plan to run a high-profile absent voters campaign on television and in newspapers that will start on Monday 4 August. We also plan a general reminder-to-vote campaign nearer the referendum using television and radio.
An important point was raised in relation to people with disabilities. I am pleased to announce to the House that, after discussions with groups that represent people with disabilities and with returning officers, I intend to introduce a 50 per cent. grant from the Scottish Office to ensure that polling stations are modified so that we can try to improve access for disabled people. We shall certainly wish to promote as best practice as we can.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) asked why we should not be removing Scottish Members of Parliament sooner. Primary legislation is required to remove the requirement for a minimum of 71 Members of Parliament. The Boundary Commission will of course consider matters on the normal cycle of eight to 12 years from the last review. That is logical and coherent. It is a matter for the Boundary Commission to attend to after the House deals with the problem.
Mr. Forth: Rubbish.
Mr. McLeish: Despite the curious comments from the Opposition Benches, I shall try to deal with the issues.
As well as making some other excellent comments, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) raised the question of architectural competition. We envisage an expert panel as part of the process, which will include representatives of varied interests in Scotland. The panel will recommend a shortlist of two to three options from which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can choose. We are currently looking for options for a Parliament in Edinburgh. We do not consider Holyrood palace a serious option. We want a Parliament that is fit for a new millennium and an enduring Parliament to ensure that public access is combined with excellent debate which leads to high-quality legislation.
The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) raised issues about anomalies in functions. We believe that the White Paper sets out clearly the
552
matters that we propose should be reserved, at paragraph 3.3, and the reasons why, at paragraph 3.2. The hon. Gentleman picked out certain matters and claimed that they are anomalies. He should recognise the overall structure and logic of what we have proposed. Having dealt with some of the issues that have been raised in the debate, I of course intend to write letters of clarification to hon. Members on any outstanding matters, informing them of detail.
Part of the general thrust of the Conservative opposition could be summed up in very few words. A party in turmoil should not try to undermine a White Paper. It should try to understand it first so that it can contribute a little better to the proposals. A party in retreat should not become an English national party. I suggest that the Conservatives on the Opposition Benches should appreciate that, in Scotland there is a healthy debate with the Conservative party, to which they are contributing absolutely nothing.
The important point is that the comments tonight from many Conservative Members will not protect the Union; they will threaten the Union. The logic of the Conservatives' position is difficult to understand. If one is so far out of touch, having any impact on reality becomes a strange occurrence.
The Conservative party simply will not learn. After 1 May, the White Paper and the referendum proposals, it is in a very vulnerable position. It has no Members in Wales or Scotland. The people of Scotland must now get to grips with the issues. Conservative Members have had a problem discussing the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland, because their attitude is fraudulent. They have already abolished the Shadow Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland, and the contempt that they have shown in opposition would continue into government.
On 11 September, the Scottish people will have a chance to vote. Parliamentarians in Parliament have had a chance to discuss—
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

PROCEDURE
Ordered,
That Sir Paul Beresford, Mr. Keith Darvill, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Clive Efford, Lorna Fitzsimons, Mr. Barry Gardiner, Mr. Damian Green, Mr. Eric Illsley, Chris McCafferty, Mr. Piers Merchant, Helen Southworth, Mr. Paul Stinchcombe, Mr. Andrew Stunnell, Mr. Paul Tyler and Mr. Nicholas Winterton be members of the Procedure Committee.—[Mr. McFall.]

PETITION

  Tolls
  10 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I wish to present a petition that has been organised by SKAT—
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to address the House.
  Mr. Kennedy: That is the first time that I have been heckled while presenting a petition, but there is a first time for everything.
  Mrs. Ewing: It was supportive heckling.
  Mr. Kennedy: Yes, it was.
  SKAT stands for Skye and Kyle against Tolls. The organisation has generated a considerable response of several thousand signatures in recent weeks.
  The petition reads:
  To the House of Commons.
  The petition of users of the Skye toll bridge declares that they wish the government to honour their Highlands and Islands pledge to abolish the tolls.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Scotland—
  who is, fortuitously, in his place tonight—
  to make good that pledge.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  It is my pleasure to present the petition on behalf of SKAT and in its support.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Engineering Industry
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McFall.]
  10.2 pm
  Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I am grateful for the opportunity of this Adjournment debate to make my maiden speech on the last day of this part-Session of this most memorable and historic Parliament. I am proud to be the first Labour Member to represent the constituency of Crosby. Boundary changes have meant that I have two predecessors, and it gives me genuine pleasure to pay tribute to both of them. I inherited the wards of Seaforth and Waterloo from my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton). His concern and diligence are legendary in Bootle, and I hope that I can follow in his footsteps and uphold his standards. He is a lovely man and very kind to his constituents.
  My other predecessor was Sir Malcolm Thornton, who served in Parliament from 1983 to 1997. Sir Malcolm contributed much to the local community during that time, and he will perhaps be best remembered in the House for his commitment to education and employment. Those are also my passions. I thank him, on behalf of the people of my constituency, for his service, and personally for his magnanimity and charm in defeat.
  My wonderful constituency lies between Liverpool and Southport. It is a constituency of great contrasts, including as it does the heart of the Liverpool docklands, where generations of local people have earned their livings. It also includes the residential area of Waterloo—not the scene of Nelson's great victory in 1815 but the scene of the Labour party's great victory in 1997. We then reach Crosby, which is thought to have been established in about 900 AD by Norsemen. The people of Crosby are rightly proud of their ancestry and their community.
  Moving further north, we find a pearl on the north-west coast—Formby. It is a place of great beauty, a habitat of wildlife such as red squirrel, beautiful pine forests and the natterjack toad. Formby, too, has a proud history involving the sea, and has provided generations of sailors who served this country with pride. It is said that the first potatoes grown in this country were harvested in Formby, brought there by Sir Walter Raleigh himself. I commend Formby as a place to visit. A stroll through the pine forests cannot fail to refresh and inspire.
  I shall now deal with a subject which, as the House will come to know, is my personal passion—engineering. I am a member of a group of people who have traditionally been seriously under-represented in the House and under-rated outside it. I am talking not about women, the disadvantaged or the disabled but about a group of people who have done more to improve and sustain our quality of life than any other group in the world. It is a group of people without whom life as we know it today would simply not exist. We would still be living in caves. In short, I am speaking about engineers and the wonderful, diverse, challenging, rewarding activity of engineering.
  I am a chartered engineer, and at the last count there were just seven of us in the House, representing just 1 per cent. of hon. Members. In the German Bundestag, the figure is about 6 per cent. and in the French National Assembly it is about 5 per cent. I intend frequently to speak about engineering during my time in Westminster,

  555
  not because I am riding a personal hobby horse but because I believe that engineers are vital to the well-being of our nation and because it is in the national interest to ensure that the engineering community is vigorous, healthy and respected.
  Engineers are responsible for just about every aspect that makes life worth living. The food we eat, the water we drink and the clothes we wear are all brought to us by engineers. The cars, trains, boats and planes that we travel on are products of engineering, as are the roads, rails, waterways and runways that carry them. The hospitals where we are cared for and the equipment used in them are designed and built by engineers. The communications revolution is theirs; it is also ours.
  Engineering is probably the most innovative and exciting profession. Indeed, it reaches parts that other professions could never hope to reach. If invaders from Mars—I expect them very shortly—wanted to disable and conquer our wonderful planet, engineers would be their most sensible and prime target. This country has a national genius for engineering, and some of the finest work in the world is done here. British people record more patents than any other nationality in the world. We continue to do so in the face of adversity that has plagued my industry for the past 20 years.
  Engineers are highly successful in both career and salary terms. An engineer has a better chance of becoming a chief executive than a person from any other profession, a better chance of becoming a university vice-chancellor than someone from any other discipline, and a better chance of enjoying his or her job than any other worker. I lost a lot of money coming to this place, but I would not change my decision because I came here to make people more aware of what my profession can offer society. That fact makes it all the stranger that engineering is not a career choice for most of the nation's youth.
  I arrived in engineering by accident. I emerged in a wonderful dockland environment, working on huge machines where there was a thump, thump, thump and a grind, grind, grind, but at the end of the day we had produced beautiful things of which we, and the nation, could be proud. The result of the lack of youth involvement is that the profession is not getting its fair share of the nation's top quality young people. As in some other areas, this is especially so for women.
  Women mechanical engineers represent only 3 per cent. of the total number of people in our profession. It makes it very lonely. It also makes it very difficult for other women to follow. We cannot deny the contribution that 50 per cent. of the population could make. By not involving women in industry, we lose the chance of doing better, and our nation always deserves to do better. I firmly believe that, although we have the lead in some matters now, that lead could be even greater with the greater involvement from the female population.
  We are clearly not lighting the spark of interest in the young. That is a matter that the engineering community must address. It is surely a matter that the Government should address as a matter of urgency. Why? Because, as far as our well-being as a nation is concerned, engineering is an industry that must deliver. It must deliver because of the financial contribution that engineering makes.
  556
  It is often said by Government Departments, among others, that engineering accounts for 5 per cent. of gross domestic product in this country. It is a figure that annoys me intensely, because it is based on a deeply flawed definition of what is and what is not an engineering company. Official statistics relating to the engineering sector tend to include only the manufacturing industry, but that is nonsense.
  What about construction, petrochemicals and the service industries? Almost all the companies operating in those sectors are engineering-led and dominated. They employ huge numbers of professional engineers, technical engineers, and semi- skilled and skilled workers. They should all be considered when calculating engineering's contribution to GDP. If they were, the true figure would rocket to 40 per cent., so it is easy to understand why we need a world-class engineering base in the United Kingdom to remain competitive. It is easy to understand why we became less competitive in the 1980s, when that figure was not appreciated.
  The Labour Government talk a lot about education, health, the environment and other issues which we consider crucial to the nation, and rightly so, but without engineers and engineering, the necessary wealth to pay for all these areas of need would not be created. United Kingdom engineering employs more than 1.7 million people. I feel very proud to represent them this evening. I hope that the House can see them all, because they stand with me now as I speak. I carry their hopes and ambitions, and it is not my intention to let them down or divorce them at any point. They have sustained me and given me great pleasure, and will continue to do so.
  UK engineering earned £75 billion in exports in 1995. It contributed in the region of £10 billion in corporation tax. Engineering underpins our whole economy. That is one dimension that distinguishes engineering from science. This is a pithy issue for the House, where engineering is considered to be embraced by science.
  Engineering is not science. I am not a scientist. I am an engineer, and so are 1.7 million other people who chose to go into engineering because it is not science. Science is the process of discovering nature and its laws. Without scientists, where would we be? However, engineering is about using those laws to make things. We articulate design. Our job is to take concepts and dreams and make them into reality. In so doing, we make money and create jobs. That is the purpose of engineering. That is what we do very well. We work hand in hand with scientists, but we are mutually exclusive, except on a very narrow boundary.
  There is clearly an important link between the two disciplines, but an equally important distinction. Science is a net consumer of national wealth. Some of my colleagues may argue with that. By comparison, engineering is a net generator of wealth. So why do the Government have a chief scientific adviser and not a chief engineering adviser? Perhaps the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry will assure me that he will consider making such an appointment as soon as practicable.
  Of course, much of the responsibility for promoting engineering must remain on the shoulders of the engineering community itself, but what can we in the House and in the Government do to help? There is quite a lot that we can do. We need to recognise the

  557
  contribution that engineers make to the national well-being, and publicly demonstrate our commitment to it.
  We need to make positive reference to engineering at every opportunity, publicly encouraging our young people to make it a career choice. In other words, we have a responsibility to talk it up. Talking up engineering means more money for the nation. More money makes us a stronger economy and we need to be a stronger economy on a world platform. We need to allocate parliamentary time to debate engineering matters. Having recently been appointed to the Select Committee on Science and Technology, I hope that engineering will feature strongly in that Committee. We need to allocate Government resources to promoting engineering, and I commend the Government for the initiatives that they are taking. I shall refer to the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts later.
  We need to create an education system which better meets the needs of industry. That is clearly a fact and many statistics are available to prove it. We need to listen to the engineering community when formulating policy because many people in the engineering community are desperate to be heard. If we silence them, we lose advantage. We must encourage them to join us. We lose nothing and stand a chance of gaining many things.
  Engineering impacts not only on every aspect of our daily life but on every aspect of our political life. Ministers in all Departments should think about engineering when formulating policy. It is quite a clarion call, but it would be a call well worth listening to.
  In short, we must give some positive leadership in an area so fundamental to our well-being. We can give a signal to the rest of the country that we believe that engineering is vital. We have kept the profession in the dark for too long. This would surely go a long way to raising the status of UK engineering and persuade the brightest and best of our young people that as a career it is not only exciting and remunerative but highly valued by our peers and the wider public.
  On 1 January 1996, an important event took place which historians will look back on as a watershed in engineering history. On that date, our 39 engineering institutions—by the way, I belong to the best, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers—having gone their own different ways for more than 150 years, agreed to bury the hatchet. That was vital, because the various engineering institutions had their own vested interests and failed to come together to lobby Government effectively.
  Those institutions decided that it was time to lobby Government effectively after being totally ignored by the Conservative Government for the last 17 years to the detriment of our industry. They formed a partnership with the Engineering Council. The Government subsequently recognised that new beginning by signing a memorandum of understanding with the Engineering Council, the profession's lead body which sets out formally the respective responsibilities of Government and the council in promoting engineering as a profession.
  That is an important beginning but should not be seen as an end. There are 1.5 million engineers out there just pleading for the Government to demonstrate that they think that engineering is important. They appreciate—I appreciate—how much they contribute, but it is demoralising that our nation's leaders have seemed unable
  558
  to find the words to say so. We are fed up with being pilloried. Perhaps if we in the House can pay engineers more than lip service, an arts-graduate-dominated media might follow suit.
  I also find it odd that, as the law stands, anyone can call himself an engineer. That is a sad fact. People are prohibited by law from calling themselves a medical practitioner, a lawyer or even a gas fitter unless they are qualified and licensed to practise. The reasons for that are obvious. There are serious safety and ethical ramifications in failing to do those jobs properly.
  But consider the anomaly. Someone can legally build a bridge, design an aircraft or put the Jubilee line right underneath the House and jeopardise Madam Speaker's sleeping arrangements without the need for any licensing. Imagine the potential disaster inherent in any of those operations. The majority of problems facing our environment can be solved only by engineers. We talk about sustainable development. Engineering is associated with being the generator of pollutants, but it will also be the solution. We must seek to consult the engineering profession if we are to manage our future more efficiently.
  We need to seek the contribution of the profession in a more pro-active way, and I can suggest a forum for doing so. We now have a national register of qualified and competent engineers maintained by the Engineering Council, but it does not have any legal status as yet. It does not encourage the industry to demand that engineers and employers be on the register. If employers do not demand registration, engineers do not always aspire to it.
  The Government could correct the anomaly at a stroke by affording the register the same legal status as that held by other professions. I hope that the representatives from my profession can articulate an argument that the Government will find acceptable and that they will introduce the register. That is significant for our nation, and it would afford us a greater status on a world platform. We must allow our engineers to move more freely in a competitive world market.
  We are not absolutely criticising the previous Government. There is almost a complete damning, but not quite. The previous Government's "Action For Engineering" initiative was a short burst of hope and was welcomed. Unfortunately, it died a quick death after two years. I urge the present Government to do more and to throw their weight behind the imaginative promotional campaigns emanating from the engineering community.
  I refer the House to the YES campaign—the Year of Engineering Success. It is managed by Mary Harris, a wonderful engineer who has done a stalwart job. Unfortunately, the money provided for her lasts for only a year. I ask the Government to consider allowing the YES initiative to come under NESTA—the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts.
  I urge the Government and the House to fix their attention on engineering. Certainly it is the goose that lays the golden egg for all developed nations, and the sooner we accept that and develop policies to match it, the sooner we will be able to draw the full benefit for our national well-being. I am proud to be an engineer and I understand the contribution that engineering makes to this nation. I commend our profession to the House, and I hope it will receive its sympathy, understanding and support.
  10.21 pm
  The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on her initiative in raising this subject. We are at the end of this part of the Session and have only a few minutes before the House rises, but that was an excellent maiden speech and I am sad that it cannot lead to a wider debate. I welcome her as a chartered engineer—I think she is the first female chartered engineer to enter the House. She has a long and informed interest in engineering, and I believe that she is a member of the Engineering Council's senate. Her contribution will be valuable and I am confident that she will keep raising the issue of engineering. She brings a clear and articulate passion to the subject.
  I am reminded of the first time the word "engineer" was used in the English language. In 1592, Harvey referred to someone who was
  "That dreadful engineer of phrases instead of thunderbolts."
  My hon. Friend's speech tonight and her skilled, creative and persuasive use of language will carry engineers positively into the future. She is an engineer of phrases and thunderbolts, and I look forward to her contributions in the House.
  We recognise the importance of engineers and engineering to the modern British economy and the enormous contribution that engineers make throughout every sector—primary as well as secondary industries, and services. Even the most narrowly defined engineering sector—metal products, mechanical equipment, electronics and instrumentation, electrical equipment, motor vehicles and other transport equipment—accounts for 8 per cent. of the UK's gross domestic product. Engineering sales totalled more than £164 million in 1996.
  In other words, it is a massively significant sector. We must recognise that engineers and engineering have a vital contribution to make to our national well-being as well as in a purely economic way. We want to support the Year of Engineering Success as positively and practically as we can.
  This year, the national health service will celebrate its 50th anniversary. It is worth reflecting on the vital role that engineers have played in health care, and indeed transport, during that time. We shall also be celebrating the role of science, engineering and technology. I like to keep those three words separate and distinct, rather than just speaking of "science". We shall be celebrating "SET for life" week, and we hope that engineering will have a high profile in that event.
  It is through the ingenuity of engineers that our manufacturing industries will develop processes and products that will not only raise the standard of living but give us all a more environmentally friendly future. Better manufacturing processes can help to minimise the environmental impact of products during manufacturing. We are talking about processes as well as products. I was interested by what my hon. Friend said about the quality of life in her constituency. It should be emphasised that engineering industries will be the industries of the future, helping us to clean up the environment and live on a better planet in the coming century.
  Engineering is often denigrated. My constituency is based on engineering—my family has an engineering background—but, even there, engineers are always seen
  560
  as oily-handed sons of toil. I stress the word "sons": they are not daughters. Engineers are seen as semi-skilled, or as people using manual skills. We must not continue to be locked into that "smokestack", "furnace", industrial vision of the past; we must transform it, and see engineering as the industry of the future.
  I was impressed by the language used by my hon. Friend, which suggested that engineering could be creative and, dare I say, artistic. At one point, she used the word "beauty" to describe engineered products and engineering processes. We ought to encourage the brightest and best of young people, particularly young women, to take up engineering at schools, colleges and universities, and to enter the profession. I hope that YES will pay attention to that. Perceptions need to be changed, and YES is a small step along the road. I believe that discussions are already under way between the British Association for the Advancement of Science and the Engineering Council with a view to increasing the engineering community's contribution to SET week in 1998.
  In Japan and Germany, a thorough understanding of technology is considered vital in top management. As my hon. Friend pointed out, there is a higher percentage of engineering graduates in France than in Britain. We must take engineering more seriously, in both industry and academia.
  As was pointed out at Question Time today, although women constitute only 13 per cent. of those who study engineering at university, they also constitute 15 per cent. of graduates. In other words, women on engineering courses have a higher success rate than men. We ought to encourage the brightest and the best to see engineering as their future career, because we in Britain have developed engineering skills that are second to none. I hope that those skills can be enhanced in the new century, but we have more work to do. I hope that the development unit for women in science, engineering and technology, which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry, will try to raise the profile of engineering among young women, and will encourage them to take up the subject and build our future.
  I appreciate that engineers are not required by law to register. As my hon. Friend may know, the Engineering Council has for some time been considering the pros and cons of mandatory registration, but no formal case has yet been put to the Government. Such a case would, of course, require the unequivocal support of employers, but I promise that, if that support were given, we would consider it seriously.
  The Government's chief scientific adviser, who works in the DTI, is a scientist; his predecessor, Sir John Fairclough, was an eminent engineer. I take my hon. Friend's point that science, engineering and technology must be kept distinct. I hope that my hon. Friend will not be offended if I quote the words of a poet. In 1781, William Cowper said of another person:
  "Unless we engineered him with question after question we could get absolutely nothing out of him."
  I hope that my hon. Friend will engineer Ministers in her Government with question after question so that they echo outside the House and result in engineering being taken much more seriously than in the recent past. Long ago, it was taken very seriously.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: I, too, also congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on the style and charm of her maiden speech and

  561
  on her passionate defence of engineering. The subject is under-represented in the House and the hon. Lady went a long way towards redressing the balance. We look forward to hearing from her again.
  Does the Minister agree with Sir Brian Moffat, one of our leading industrialists and engineers, that sterling is now ludicrously overvalued, that engineering will not be enhanced and that there is no sense in further successive interest rises which simply feed the import boom and fuel the high street sales bonanza?
  Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is unusual in an Adjournment debate in that it has broadened the debate, and I have only minutes to reply to his question.
  562
  Everyone is concerned to see that the economy does not adversely affect manufacturing—we shall debate that matter elsewhere. I have met representatives of the Royal Academy of Engineering, and I hope in due course to meet the senate of the Engineering Council. It is not my job to spend all my time in a glass box in the Department in Victoria street; my job is to get out as often as possible to meet engineers. In the words of my hon. Friend, I intend to listen and learn from them so that their thoughts and expertise may be injected into our political and parliamentary activities.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock till Monday 27 October, pursuant to Resolution [28 July].

Wales

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the percentage of local authorities' total expenditure spent on education for each county in Wales for the years(a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93, (c) 1993–94, (d) 1994–95, (e) 1995–96 and (f) 1996–97, ranked in order from the highest percentage to the lowest.[10865]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Percentage of local authority expenditure spent on education ranked1

  Per cent.

  1991–92

  Powys

  47

  Mid Glamorgan

  47

  Clwyd

  47

  Gwent

  45

  Dyfed

  44

  West Glamorgan

  43

  South Glamorgan

  42

  Gwynedd

  41

  1992–93

  Clwyd

  47

  Powys

  46

  Gwent

  46

  Mid Glamorgan

  44

  West Glamorgan

  43

  Dyfed

  43

  Gwynedd

  41

  South Glamorgan

  40

  1993–94

  Gwent

  43

  Mid Glamorgan

  41

  Powys

  41

  Clwyd

  40

  West Glamorgan

  39

  Dyfed

  39

  South Glamorgan

  37

  Gwynedd

  36

  1994–95

  Gwent

  43

  Mid Glamorgan

  39

  Powys

  38

  West Glamorgan

  38

  Clywd

  38

  South Glamorgan

  38

  Dyfed

  37

  Gwynedd

  34

  1995–96

  South Glamorgan

  39

  Gwent

  39

  Mid Glamorgan

  38

  Powys

  37

  Clwyd

  36

  418

  Percentage of local authority expenditure spent on education ranked1

  Per cent.

  West Glamorgan

  36

  Dyfed

  36

  Gwynedd

  33

  1996–97

  Pembrokeshire

  41

  Torfaen

  41

  Monmouthshire

  40

  Cardiff

  39

  Caerphilly

  39

  Bridgend

  39

  Flintshire

  38

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  38

  Powys

  38

  Merthyr Tydfil

  38

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  38

  Carmarthenshire

  37

  Isle of Anglesey

  37

  Newport

  37

  Ceredigion

  37

  Swansea

  36

  Denbighshire

  36

  Neath Port Talbot

  36

  Conwy

  35

  Wrexham

  35

  Blaenau Gwent

  34

  Gwynedd

  33

  1On 1 April 1995, police authorities became authorities in their own right. Prior to that date, police expenditure formed part of county council overall expenditure. For consistency across years, police expenditure has been excluded throughout.

  Higher and further education colleges transferred out of the local authority sector on 1 April 1992 and 1 April 1993 respectively and this may affect patterns of expenditure before and after these dates. Up to 1995–96 includes county and district services to be consistent with 1996–97 unitary authority figures.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the administration cost for 1996–97 of each of the executive agencies listed in annexe B of the White Paper on a Welsh Assembly; and if he will make a statement. [11931]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The following table sets out the latest available information for those executive agencies listed in annexe B of the White Paper on Welsh devolution:

  Administration costs 1996–97 £million1

  Non-departmental public bodies

  Welsh Development Agency

  20.3

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  3.4

  Land Authority for Wales

  1.8

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  4.3

  Wales Tourist Board

  4.0

  Countryside Council for Wales

  8.9

  Tai Cymru

  2.9

  Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales

  1.6

  Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  1.0

  Higher Education Funding Council for Wales

  1.9

  Further Education Funding Council for Wales

  2.4

  Residuary Body for Wales

  0.2

  419

  Administration costs 1996–97 £million1

  Welsh Language Board

  1.1

  Agricultural Wages Committees(there are six regional committees in Wales)

  0.002

  National Museums and Galleries of Wales

  10.4

  National Library of Wales

  4.9

  Sports Council for Wales

  1.0

  Arts Council of Wales

  1.8

  Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Wales

  1.2

  NHS bodies2

  5 Health Authorities

  17.4

  2 Special Health Authorities

  18.7

  29 Trusts

  129.7

  1 There is no fixed definition of administration costs and the criteria used vary from organisation to organisation.

  2The source of these figures is the 1996–97 unaudited accounts and may change. The audited figures for 1996–97 will be available in August/September.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are employed in each of the executive bodies outlined in annexe B of the White Paper on a Welsh Assembly: what changes to these numbers he envisages following the changes to their status proposed in the White Paper; and if he will make a statement. [11929]

  Mr. Davies
  Details of staff numbers are published annually in "Public Bodies", a Cabinet Office publication, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. I expect that the reforms detailed in the White Paper will lead to efficiencies in the delivery of services, but it is not possible to say precisely at this stage how this will affect staff numbers. This will depend upon decisions yet to be taken by the boards of the bodies concerned, the Welsh Assembly and me.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what savings in administration costs he calculates will accrue from the proposed changes to the executive bodies listed in the White Paper on a Welsh Assembly; and if he will make a statement. [11930]

  Mr. Davies
  I expect that savings in administration costs will accrue from the abolition or merger of five executive non-departmental public bodies, two special health authorities and two training and enterprise councils, because there will be fewer boards, chief executives and so on. But it is not possible to calculate precisely at this stage what the savings will be, because that depends on decisions yet to be taken by the boards of the bodies concerned, the Welsh Assembly and me.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will be the cost of setting up the information hotline relating to the Welsh Assembly; and if this figure has been included in his Department's estimates of the cost of disseminating information relating to the Welsh Assembly. [12019]

  Mr. Davies
  The telephone helpline cost £13,054.25 to set up. This figure has been included in the published estimates. The Government believe that it is necessary that the public be fully informed of their proposals for a Welsh Assembly, the establishment of which was a key element in the election manifesto.
  420
  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many copies of the White Paper on the Government's proposals for a Welsh Assembly have been printed; what forecasts he has made of their likely sales; what has been the total subsidy towards production of the White Paper to date; and if this figure has been included in his Department's published estimates of the cost of disseminating information relating to the Welsh Assembly. [12020]

  Mr. Davies
  Twelve thousand five hundred copies of the White Paper have been printed. Sales forecasts for White Papers is a matter for the Stationery Office. However, it is my intention that this document should be easily available to anyone throughout Wales. Up to now, I have agreed a subsidy of £17,200. Any additional subsidy—for example, because of particularly high demand—will be a matter for negotiation between my officials and the Stationery Office. It is my intention that costs will remain within published estimates. The Government believe that it is necessary that the public be fully informed of their proposals for a Welsh Assembly, the establishment of which was a key element in the election maniofesto.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will produce a video version of his proposals for a Welsh Assembly carrying subtitles and sign language interpretation. [12002]

  Mr. Davies
  A printed summary of the Government's proposals will be delivered to every household in Wales. This will be supported by television advertising and telephone helpline. I have no plans to produce a separate video.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure that all publicly broadcast information in relation to the forthcoming referendum in Wales carries subtitles and sign language interpretation. [11999]

  Mr. Davies
  Television advertising in support of the referendum information campaign will carry Teletext subtitles. I will examine the practicality of also including sign language.

  Roads Programme
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what plans he has to build new roads across the Gwent levels; and if he will make a statement;[11902]

  (2) if he will list all continuing plans under the roads programme; and if he will make a statement. [11911]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend announced the broad terms of a strategic review of the trunk roads programme in Wales on 3 July, and we are today publishing a consultation document.

  The review will be set firmly within the context of the development of a balanced, integrated transport policy for Wales. I intend to take a strategic approach to the process of making decisions on the roads programme, judging proposals—including those relating to the Gwent levels—on the criteria of accessibility, safety, economy and the environment, together with their contribution to the achievement of an integrated strategy.
  421
  Copies of the consultation paper are being sent to interested parties and placed in the Library of the House. It is also available on request from my Department.

  Family Planning Services
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairmen of the Welsh health authorities concerning recent changes in the provision of family planning services; if he will list recent changes in family planning service provision notified to him; and what guidance he has issued to health authorities on the commissioning of such services. [11927]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I have had no consultation with chairmen of health authorities regarding family planning services. Government policy is that people should be free to choose their source of contraceptive advice and that health authorities' family planning services complement rather than duplicate those services provided by GPs. Guidance which reminded health authorities of their responsibilities was issued to the service in Wales in 1990 and reinforced in 1993 by the "Protocol for Investment in Health Gain: Healthy Living".

  Copies of both documents have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Ms Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the relationship between changes in the level of provision of family planning services and the number of abortions carried out in Wales. [11928]

  Mr. Griffiths
  The following figures show the general downward trend of abortions in Wales. The increase in the first quarter of 1996 might be attributable to the reaction to publicity about oral contraceptives and thrombosis in October 1995.

  Abortions performed to women resident in Wales

  1988: 7,379

  1989: 7,366

  1990: 7,440

  1991: 7,187

  1992: 6,856

  1993: 6,924

  1994: 6,775

  1995: 6,442

  1996: 7,279

  Abortions performed in Wales

  1995

  1996

  Percentage increase from 1995 figure

  January—March

  1,073

  1,226

  14

  April—June

  1,061

  1,097

  3

  July—September

  1,115

  1,033

  -7

  October—December

  1,107

  1,031

  -7

  St. David's Day
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will take steps to have St. David's day made a bank holiday in Wales. [11718]
  422
  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Government have no current plans to change the bank holiday arrangements in the UK. However, I am sympathetic to the sentiment that my hon. Friend expresses and will seek to promote further consideration of this idea within government.

  Business Start-up Scheme
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many unemployed people have qualified for assistance on the business start-up scheme in each of the last five years; and what was the annual expenditure. [12169]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested for Wales is given in the following table:

  Number of participants1

  Expenditure (£ million)>

  1992–93

  2,077

  4,683

  1993–94

  1,957

  5,174

  1994–95

  1,958

  4,979

  1995–96

  1,593

  4,821

  1996–97

  1,679

  4,703

  Total

  9,264

  24,360

  1At March each year.

  Aberfan
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will consider restoring to the people of Aberfan the sums taken from them in 1968 towards the cost of removing coal tips above the village. [12269]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have long made clear my view that there should have been no requirement in the first place for a contribution to be made from the disaster fund toward the costs of clearing the tips.

  I am pleased to announce today that I shall be making available a grant of £150,000 to repay the sum originally contributed and to supplement provision in the Aberfan disaster fund and in the memorial charity. My Department will be discussing with the trustees how this money can best be spent for the benefit of the community of Aberfan.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what approach he will adopt when considering applications for sanction by local authorities under sections 19 and 20 of the Local Government Act 1982; and if he will make a statement. [12455]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  As required by the statute, we shall decide each application for sanction on its merits having regard both to our policy on sanction applications and to the circumstances of the individual case concerned. Our policy is to continue the approach previously followed—that the power to sanction should not be exercised too widely. Sanction may be appropriate in those cases where the expenditure is incurred in good faith, but in ignorance of the strict letter of the law, or inadvertently without observance of requisite formalities, or under such circumstances as make it fair and equitable that the expenditure should not be disallowed by the auditor.

  In accordance with our commitment to open government, we will send to the Welsh Local Government Association, the Audit Commission, the Commission for

  423
  Local Administration in Wales and to all local authorities in Wales a departmental note setting out the basis on which applications for sanctions under sections 19 and 20 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 are to be made and considered. Copies of the note will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as possible.

  Council Tax (Second Homes)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will review the operation of the legislation on council tax discounts for second homes in Wales. [12456]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend and I are aware of the concerns of a number of local authorities about the operation of the legislation on council tax discounts for second homes and have decided to review it in partnership with the Welsh Local Government Association.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to address the implications of the multilateral agreement on investment for small firms in Wales [10654]

  Mrs. Roche
  The multilateral agreement on investment will be the first multilateral, comprehensive and legally binding investment instrument and will represent a major step towards a global level playing field for investors. It will create the framework which all businesses need to be able to take international investment decisions with greater confidence.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the investigation by the Legal Aid Board's special investigations unit of the applications for legal aid made by a constituent of the hon. Member for Taunton, whose name has been supplied to him. [11615]

  Mr. Hoon
  I do not comment on, or intervene in, the award of legal aid in individual cases. I have, however, been advised by the Legal Aid Board that the investigation of the hon. Lady's constituent's means by the special investigations unit is still in progress.

  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures he is taking to prevent multiple applications to the Legal Aid Board through different regional offices to support unnecessary litigation. [11631]

  Mr. Hoon
  All application forms for legal aid require the applicant to state if they have applied for legal aid before and, if so, to provide details. The declaration to be signed by the applicant makes clear the range of penalties available if the applicant knowingly gives false information or withholds relevant information.

  The Legal Aid Board is introducing a new corporate information system which will give every legally assisted person a unique personal identifier. This will provide
  424
  board staff with the applicant's full legal aid history, preventing applications relating to the same case from being submitted to more than one regional office.

  Departmental Payroll
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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 other Departments and the costs of the systems and processes in the last year for which figures are available. [10733]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department's departmental pay unit is responsible for collating and inputting data to enable the payment of salaries and allowances to staff of the Lord Chancellor's Department, including the Court Service and the Public Trust Office agencies, and to certain full-time judicial officers and judges. The Department also processes data for the payment of fees and retainers for the clerks to the general commissioners of income tax, the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct and staff of the legal services ombudsman's office. The unit also inputs data to enable the payments of some pensions.

  Payments are actually made by Chessington Computer Services Ltd. on behalf of the Lord Chancellor's Department. It also calculates, deducts and pays income tax and national insurance.

  Payment of fees to part-time judicial officers and certain part-time Lord Chancellor's Department staff are processed by local offices within the Lord Chancellor's Department, with deductions for tax and national insurance. Some offices use manual systems, while others use an in-house accounting package for calculation and payment.

  For the centralised payroll function, the Department uses SPIRE—standard payroll input and retrieval—a software package operated by Chessington on a bureau basis. This permits the Department's payroll staff to input data on payments and deductions direct to the payroll computer at Chessington.

  Staff costs of the Department's pay unit in 1996–97 were £492,952, with £6,817 being spent in postage, training, staff travel and miscellaneous items. Chessington Computer Services Ltd. provided its services at a cost in 1996–97 of £780,867.

  Solicitors(Complaints)
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has for the creation of an independent body to adjudicate on complaints against solicitors. [11226]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Department has no plans to create a new complaints handling body. The Office for the Supervision of Solicitors was set up by the Law Society in September 1996 and I agree with the legal services ombudsman that it will take two to three years before the office can be properly judged by results.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to introduce a waste minimisation strategy for his Department. [11571]

  Mr. Hoon
  As Green Minister for the Lord Chancellor's Department, I am currently revising the Department's environmental strategy and associated action plans. Waste minimisation will be one of the major elements within this strategy.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on existing targets set to minimise waste within his Department. [11572]

  Mr. Hoon
  As Green Minister for the Lord Chancellor's Department, I am currently revising the Department's waste management procedures. The information gathered during this process will be used to measure progress in the reduction of levels of waste in due course.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the amount, and proportion, of paper recycled by his Department in each of the last five years. [11573]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is not available. The Lord Chancellor's Department has 417 buildings, each with separate contracts for collection of confidential and ordinary waste. The information could not be determined without incurring disproportionate cost. As Green Minister for the Lord Chancellor's Department, I am currently reviewing the arrangements for collection of waste.

  The existing arrangement is for confidential waste to be collected by specialist contractors. All other waste is collected through local authorities. Paper collected by our confidential waste contractors is either pulped prior to recycling or incinerated to produce electricity. I intend that all our paper waste should be disposed of in this way.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the Crown Prosecution Service's consideration of the unlawful killing of Mr. Shiji Lapite. [11282]

  The Attorney-General
  Following the concerns expressed by the divisional court, the Director of Public Prosecutions has, with my full support, commissioned an inquiry into the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to bring criminal proceedings following the deaths of Shiji Lapite and Michael O'Brien. It will be headed by His Honour Gerald Butler QC and it will inquire into the considerations by the Crown Prosecution Service of the Lapite and O'Brien cases and, more generally, the process and quality of casework decision making in deaths in custody cases.

  His Honour Gerald Butler QC will make such recommendations as appear appropriate and will report to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who will then report to me. The report will be made public.
  426
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General what are the terms of reference for the review of the CPS; from what sources evidence and opinions are being sought; and what is the timetable for the review. [12213]

  The Attorney-General
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) on 12 June,Official Report, columns 533–34.

CABINET OFFICE

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio (1) pursuant to his answer of 28 July,Official Report, column 25, for what reasons he is unable to itemise the journeys undertaken at public expense since 2 May;
  [11804]

  (2) what were the objectives of his recent visit to France. [11811]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I do not propose to disclose the details of conversations, meetings or other engagements undertaken in pursuance of my duties as Minister without Portfolio.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what independent advice he has taken in respect of the environmental impact of(a) the materials and (b) the method of construction identified for the millennium dome. [11878]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company, of which I am sole shareholder, has taken the advice of a wide range of organisations in the construction field. Specifically, the environmental consultant, Battle McCarthy, was commissioned to provide advice on the construction of the millennium dome, including its environmental impact. In preparing its report Battle McCarthy drew on the technical expertise of the dome's architects, the Richard Rogers Partnership, and the consulting engineers, Buro Happold.

  Ministerial Advisers
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will list the persons who are not established civil servants who advise or assist him in the performance of his ministerial duties indicating their age and previous occupations, the use they make of official accommodation, equipment, facilities, transport and secretarial services, the access they are given to official meetings or unpublished official information, and the person or organisation responsible for their remuneration. [11720]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I have nothing further to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 18 July,Official Report, columns 340–41.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what funding is presently committed from his departmental budget for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 to resolve the year 2000 computer problem; and if he will make a statement. [11889]

  Dr. David Clark
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before the summer recess. I shall therefore be writing to the hon. Member and will place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list for each Department and agency(a) the average days of sick leave, (b) the total days of sick leave and (c) the index figure, taking the civil service average as 100, in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [11504]

  Dr. David Clark
  The information requested is shown in the tables for 1994 and 1995. It is based on figures in the report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service 1995" prepared for my department by the Occupational Health and Safety Agency Ltd. and published last month. Figures for earlier years could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  My Department regularly encourages Departments and agencies to review their approaches to sickness absence management.

  Working days lost through sickness absence 1994

  Average working days lost1

  Estimated number of working days lost2

  Index of average working days lost (Civil Service average=100)

  Civil Service

  9.9

  4,902,000

  100

  Departments/Agencies of > 10,000 staff

  Ministry of Defence

  8.1

  664,300

  82

  Customs and Excise

  8.3

  218,700

  84

  Inland Revenue

  9.6

  614,300

  97

  Home Office

  10.5

  499,500

  106

  Lord Chancellor Department

  10.7

  134,500

  108

  Employment Service

  11.3

  538,300

  114

  Benefits Agency

  12.4

  849,200

  125

  Departments/Agencies of 5,000–10,000 staff

  Department of Trade and Industry

  7.0

  52,700

  71

  Department of Transport

  7.4

  45,700

  74

  MAFF

  8.0

  59,600

  81

  Crown Prosecution Service

  8.7

  58,600

  88

  Scottish Office

  8.8

  53,900

  89

  Employment Department

  10.2

  62,300

  103

  Land Registry

  10.9

  96,100

  110

  Contributions Agency

  11.3

  107,000

  114

  Child Support Agency

  11.6

  65,700

  117

  National Savings Department

  14.3

  84,300

  144

  Departments/Agencies of 1,000–5,000 staff

  Met Office

  4.9

  7,900

  50

  ADAS (MAFF)

  6.2

  10,700

  62

  428

  Working days lost through sickness absence 1994

  Average working days lost1

  Estimated number of working days lost2

  Index of average working days lost (Civil Service average=100)

  HM Treasury

  7.0

  9,600

  71

  HMSO

  7.3

  14,900

  73

  Department of the Environment

  7.8

  35,800

  79

  Department for Education

  8.2

  13,900

  83

  Ordnance Survey

  8.4

  17,600

  84

  Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal

  8.4

  8,600

  85

  Health and Safety Executive

  8.6

  35,600

  87

  Insolvency Service

  8.6

  15,900

  87

  Overseas Development Administration

  8.6

  10,800

  87

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  8.7

  12,100

  88

  IT Services Agency

  8.9

  34,300

  89

  Central Statistical Office

  9.1

  12,500

  92

  Welsh Office

  9.5

  21,500

  96

  Department of Health

  9.7

  47,700

  98

  OPCS

  10.3

  20,700

  104

  Intervention Board

  10.7

  10,700

  108

  Companies House

  12.4

  12,800

  125

  Department of Social Security

  12.7

  38,500

  128

  War Pensions Agency

  12.8

  19,800

  129

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  13.2

  46,200

  133

  Scottish Prison Service (SO)

  13.3

  56,900

  135

  Driving Standards Agency

  14.6

  23,700

  148

  Registers of Scotland

  14.7

  17,100

  148

  Departments/Agencies of 500–1,000 staff

  Natural Resources Institute

  4.8

  2,500

  48

  Nat Physical Lab.

  5.1

  3,500

  51

  Building Research Establishment

  5.2

  3,400

  52

  Office for Standards in Education

  5.3

  2,700

  54

  Central Science Lab.

  6.1

  4,100

  62

  Cabinet Office

  6.8

  4,200

  68

  Planning Inspectorate

  6.9

  4,000

  70

  COI (HMT)

  6.9

  3,600

  70

  ACAS

  8.6

  5,600

  86

  Department of National Heritage

  8.6

  5,200

  87

  Scottish Courts Service

  9.9

  8,000

  100

  Charity Commission

  10.3

  6,700

  104

  Central Vet. Lab.

  10.3

  6,500

  104

  Export Credit Guarantee

  10.9

  5,800

  110

  Paymaster General

  11.6

  9,600

  117

  Departments/Agencies of 200–500 staff

  OPSS

  4.5

  2,000

  45

  Civil Service College

  4.7

  1,300

  48

  Serious Fraud Office

  6.3

  2,100

  64

  Office of Electrical Reg.

  6.5

  1,500

  65

  Northern Ireland Office

  6.7

  1,400

  67

  Government Centre for Information Systems

  6.7

  2,300

  68

  Chessington Computer Centre

  7.5

  3,100

  76

  Scottish Courts Administration

  7.8

  1,600

  79

  Nat. Engineering Lab.

  7.9

  1,900

  80

  PSA

  8.1

  2,400

  82

  Treasury Solicitor Department

  8.7

  3,400

  88

  Historic Royal Palaces

  8.9

  3,900

  90

  Fair Trading Office

  9.5

  4,000

  96

  429

  Working days through sickness absence 1994

  Average working days lost1

  Estimated number of working days lost2

  Index of average working days lost(Civil Service average=100)

  Property Holdings

  9.8

  4,600

  99

  Teachers Pensions Agency

  10.9

  4,000

  111

  General Registers Office (SO)

  11.6

  3,000

  117

  Public Record Office

  11.8

  5,700

  119

  Departments/Agencies of <200 staff

  NHS Estates

  3.5

  400

  35

  Office of Gas Supply

  3.9

  200

  39

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  4.8

  400

  49

  Warren Spring Lab.

  5.0

  300

  51

  Schools Funding Agency

  5.0

  1,000

  51

  Office of Water Services

  5.5

  900

  55

  Telecommunications Office

  5.6

  900

  57

  Government Actuary Department

  5.8

  500

  58

  Government Property Lawyers

  6.1

  800

  62

  Occ. Health Service

  6.4

  600

  65

  Buying Agency

  6.4

  700

  65

  Scottish Prison Service

  6.8

  800

  69

  Scottish Records Office

  6.9

  1,000

  70

  Friendly Societies Register

  7.8

  1,400

  79

  Crown Estate Office

  8.5

  1,700

  86

  RASA(OMCS)

  10.5'

  1,500

  106

  Resettlement Agency

  16.1

  3,200

  163

  Royal Mint

  18.1

  1,000

  183

  Excludes Departments/agencies with fewer than 50 staff.

  2 Source: Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service 1995, OHSA Ltd.

  2 Estimated by OPS from above report.

  Working days lost through sickness absence, 1995

  Average working days lost1

  Estimated number of working days lost2

  Index of average working days lost (Civil Service average=100

  Civil Service

  10.7

  5,125,000

  100

  Departments/Agencies of > 10,000 staff

  Ministry of Defence

  8.9

  709,200

  83

  Customs and Excise

  9.6

  240,400

  90

  Inland Revenue

  10.8

  661,100

  101

  Home Office

  11.3

  540,000

  106

  Court Service (LCD)

  11.6

  127,400

  108

  Employment Service

  12.4

  520,600

  116

  Benefits Agency

  12.7

  872,300

  119

  Departments/Agencies of 5,000–10,000 staff

  Defence Research Agency

  4.7

  40,400

  44

  Department of Trade and Industry

  8.2

  69,600

  77

  Department of Transport

  8.7

  65,500

  81

  MAFF

  9.1

  62,600

  85

  Scottish Office

  9.6

  64,000

  90

  Crown Prosecution Service

  9.7

  64,000

  91

  Land Registry

  10.5

  63,900

  98

  Contributions Agency

  12.5

  71,800

  117

  Child Support Agency

  13.4

  72,200

  125

  National Savings Department

  16.1

  86,700

  150

  430

  Working days lost through sickness absence, 1995

  Average working days lost1

  Estimated number of working days lost2

  Index of average working days lost (Civil Service average=100)

  Departments/Agencies of 1,000–5,000 staff

  Meteorological Office

  5.7

  8,000

  53

  ADAS(MAFF)

  6.2

  7,300

  58

  Ordnance Survey

  8.3

  16,700

  78

  Department of Environment

  8.3

  36,400

  78

  HM Treasury

  8.4

  9,300

  79

  HMSO

  8.5

  19,500

  79

  Overseas Development Administration

  8.6

  18,400

  80

  Health and Safety Executive

  9.1

  40,100

  85

  Central Vet. Lab.

  9.4

  9,500

  88

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  9.4

  12,700

  88

  Insolvency Service

  9.5

  15,600

  89

  IT Services Agency

  9.7

  30,500

  91

  Department of Health

  9.8

  42,900

  92

  Welsh Office

  10.0

  21,400

  93

  DFEE

  10.3

  22,100

  96

  Crown Office and Proc. Fiscal

  10.4

  10,600

  97

  DSS

  10.5

  30,500

  98

  OPCS

  11.4

  21,700

  107

  Central Statistical Office

  11.5

  15,100

  107

  Employment Department

  11.5

  50,800

  107

  Scottish Prison Service

  12.5

  54,000

  117

  War Pensions Directorate

  13.0

  19,300

  121

  DVLA

  13.4

  46,000

  125

  Registers of Scotland

  13.6

  14,800

  127

  Driving Standards Agency

  16.6

  27,800

  155

  Departments/Agencies of 500–1,000 staff

  Transport Research Lab.

  3.7

  1,600

  35

  Natural Resources Institute

  4.0

  1,900

  37

  Office of Public Service

  4.9

  2,700

  46

  Building Research Estab.

  5.6

  3,600

  52

  Central Science Lab.

  5.6

  3,800

  52

  Cabinet Office

  6.9

  4,300

  64

  Ofsted

  7.0

  3,600

  65

  Planning Inspectorate

  7.4

  4,400

  69

  ACAS

  8.1

  5,300

  76

  Lord Chancellor Dept.

  8.7

  7,500

  81

  Dept. of National Heritage

  9.8

  5,900

  92

  Paymaster General Office

  10.5

  7,700

  98

  Charity Commission

  11.3

  6,700

  106

  Scottish Courts Service

  12.1

  10,500

  113

  Intervention Board

  12.6

  12,300

  118

  Companies House

  14.1

  13,800

  132

  Public Trust Office

  14.7

  7,900

  137

  Departments/Agencies of 200–500 staff

  Civil Service College

  4.1

  1,100

  38

  Schools Funding Agency

  4.4

  1,100

  41

  Northern Ireland Office

  5.1

  1.200

  48

  Govt. Centre for Info. Systems

  5.2

  1,500

  49

  Serious Fraud Office

  5.3

  1,800

  50

  Lab. of the Govt. Chemist

  5.8

  1,600

  54

  Treasury Solicitors Dept.

  6.9

  2,800

  64

  Office of Electrical Reg.

  7.1

  1,700

  66

  431

  Working days lost through sickness absence, 1995

  Average working days lost1

  Estimated number of working days lost2

  Index of average working days lost(Civil Service=100)

  Chessington Computer Centre

  8.2

  3,300

  77

  Office of Fair Trading

  8.4

  3,400

  79

  Historic Royal Palaces

  8.6

  3,500

  80

  General Register Office(SO)

  9.4

  2,200

  88

  Property Holdings

  9.9

  4,200

  93

  Export Credit Guarantee

  10.3

  4,900

  96

  COI (HMT)

  10.6

  5,000

  99

  Public Record Office

  10.6

  4,900

  99

  Departments/Agencies of <200 staff

  Ofgas

  3.9

  300

  36

  NHS Estates

  5.4

  500

  50

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  5.8

  400

  54

  Government Actuary Department

  5.8

  500

  54

  PSA

  5.8

  600

  54

  Ofwat

  6.1

  1,00

  57

  Crown Estate Office

  6.5

  1,200

  61

  Telecommunications Office

  7.1

  1,100

  66

  Monopolies and Mergers Comm.

  7.1

  500

  66

  Scottish Record Office

  7.5

  1,100

  70

  Government Property Lawyers

  8.5

  1,100

  79

  Occ. Health and Safety Agency

  8.6

  800

  80

  Buying Agency

  8.9

  1,000

  83

  Nat. Engineering Lab (DTI)

  9.4

  1,500

  88

  Scottish Courts Admin.

  9.8

  1,500

  92

  RAS

  10.8

  1,600

  101

  Friendly Societies Register

  11.8

  2,00

  110

  Resettlement Agency

  17.2

  1,600

  161

  Excludes Department/agencies with fewer tha 50 staff.

  1 Source:Analysis of sickness Absence in the civil Service 1995,OHSA Ltd.

  2 Estimated by OPS from above report.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the next steps agencies which have regional administrative structures. [11363]

  Dr. David Clark
  The next steps agencies which have regional administrative structures are listed:

  Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency

  Central Office of Information

  Coastguard

  Court Service

  Defence Dental Agency

  Defence Estate Organisation

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency

  Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency

  Defence Secondary Care Agency

  Defence Vetting Agency

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  Driving Standards Agency

  Employment Service

  Employment Tribunals Service

  Farming and Rural Conservation Agency

  432

  Forensic Science Service

  Highways Agency

  HM Land Registry

  HM Prison Service

  Insolvency Service

  Marine Safety Agency

  Meat Hygiene Service

  Medical Supplies Agency

  Medicines Control Agency

  Ministry of Defence Police

  NHS Estates

  Ordnance Survey

  Property Advisers to the Civil Estate

  Radiocommunications Agency

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  Social Security Child Support Agency

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  Specialist Procurement Services

  The Buying Agency

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  Valuation Office

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans his Department has to extend benefits currently enjoyed by spouses of members of the principal civil service pension scheme to partners of members who are the same sex or a common law spouse. [11829]

  Dr. David Clark
  Any extension of benefits would have a cost and could be made only if there is a willingness on the part of scheme members to meet the cost in full.

  Civil Servants (Alleged Wrongdoing)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) on how many occasions a civil servant who has reported alleged wrongdoing under the civil service code has reported the matter in writing to the Civil Service Commission; [11814]

  (2) on how many occasions since the introduction of the civil service code a civil servant has reported alleged wrongdoing. [11813]

  Dr. David Clark
  Where a civil servant believes that he or she is being required to act in a way which would be in breach of the Civil Service Code, he or she should report the matter internally in accordance with departmental procedures. If the civil servant involved believes that the response is not a reasonable one, he or she may report the matter in writing to the civil service commissioners.

  Two appeals falling within the terms of the civil service code have been investigated by the civil service commissioners and upheld. Details are provided in the commissioners' annual report for 1996–97. A third approach is still the subject of internal departmental procedures. A fourth was resolved within the Department before it became clear whether it fell within the terms of the code.
  433
  Information on the number of cases raised under the code, and settled internally within Departments without reference to the commissioners, is not held centrally.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cattle Cull
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates his Department has made of the number of over-30-months scheme cattle in Kent requiring incineration over the next three years. [10355]

  Mr. Rooker
  A designated abattoir in Kent has been awarded a contract to deal with those animals coming forward for slaughter under the scheme in Kent and the neighbouring counties, notably Sussex and part of Hampshire. It is estimated that 25,000 animals over 30 months of age from these counties will be slaughtered in Kent each year. It is not possible to give an estimate of the numbers which will be incinerated over the next three years because the majority of animals being slaughtered under the scheme at the present time are being rendered prior to disposal. However, a carcase incineration facility may be established adjacent to the over-30-months scheme abattoir in Kent which will offer significant efficiencies.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average weight of cattle slaughtered under the over-30-months cattle slaughter scheme; and what proportion of the cattle slaughtered under the scheme exceeded that average weight. [10159]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The average weight of cattle slaughtered under the over-30-months slaughter scheme is 595 kg.

  Sixty-three per cent. of cattle presented under the scheme weighed more than 595 kg

  Dr. Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle weighing(a) between 560 kg and 609 kg, (b) between 610 kg and 659 kg,(c) between 660 kg and 709 kg,(d) between 710 kg and 759 kg and (e) over 760 kg live weight have been slaughtered under the over-30-months cattle slaughter scheme during 1997. [10160]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The information requested is as follows:

  Live weight(kg)

  Number of cattle presented liveweight

  Number of cattle presented deadweight

  560–609

  29,500

  48,135

  610–659

  22,809

  39,849

  660–709

  12,929

  29,699

  710–750

  5,813

  19,827

  Over 760

  4,744

  27,120

  Beaufort's Dyke
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) of 1 July,Official Report, columns 158–59, what radioactive waste has been dumped in the Rockall or Rockall trough areas, other than
  434
  that already reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency and listed in IAEA-TEC Doc. 558, March 1991.
  [11357]

  Mr. Rooker
  I am not aware of any dumping of radioactive waste in those areas other than those reported in the IAEA document and carried out in 1951 and 1953. The search of archive records referred to in my reply of 1 July was in relation to areas not previously recognised as sites for the disposal of radioactive waste.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he expects to publish the remit of a food standards agency; [11325]

  (2) what will be the composition of the membership of the proposed food standards agency. [11326]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government will publish a White Paper in the autumn setting out their detailed proposals for a food standards agency in the light of pubic consultation on Professor Philip James's report.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the Meat Hygiene Service to be incorporated into a new food standards agency. [11324]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are considering all aspects of the structure and remit of the proposed agency, including the question of meat hygiene enforcement, in the light of consultation on Professor James's report. It will publish detailed proposals in a White Paper in the autumn.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many payments were made under the arable area payments scheme in 1996 of(a) £0 to £1,000, (b) 1,000 to £5,000,(c) £5,000 to £10,000,
  (d) £10,000 to £15,000, (e) £15,000 to £20,000, (f) £20,000 to £25,000, (g)£25,000 to £30,000,
  (h) £30,000 to £40,000, (i) £40,000 to £50,000, (j) £50,000 to £75,000, (k) £75,000 to £100,000, (l) £100,000 to £200,000, (m) £200,000 to £500,000, (n) £500,000 to £1 million, (o) £1 million to £1.5 million and (p) £1.5 million to £2 million. [11314]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 30 July 1997]: The following table sets out the payments made to each claimant by the Ministry under the 1996 arable area payments scheme in the bands requested.

  Size band

  Number of claimants

  (a) £0 to £1,000

  2,728

  (b) £1,000 to £5,000

  15,255

  (c) £5,000 to £10,000

  4,718

  (d) £10,000 to £15,000

  4,707

  (e) £15,000 to £20,000

  3,482

  (f) £20,000 to £25,000

  2,664

  (g) £25,000 to £30,000

  1,996

  (h) £30,000 to £40,000

  3,074

  (i) £40,000 to £50,000

  1,973

  (j) £50,000 to £75,000

  2,837

  (k) £75,000 to £100,000

  1,357

  (l) £100,000 to £200,000

  1,487

  (m) £200,000 to £500,000

  327

  435

  Size band

  Number of claimants

  (n) £500,000 to £1 million

  27

  (o) £1 million to £1.5 million

  4

  (p) £1.5 million to £2 million

  1

  In addition, one claimant received payments totalling over £2 million.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many payments of £1 million or more were made under the arable area payments scheme in 1996. [6300]

  Mr. Rooker
  [pursuant to his reply, 1 July 1997,c. 158]: Six.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on existing targets set to minimise waste in his Department. [11539]

  Mr. Morley
  Under the Department's action plan for green housekeeping, there is a requirement on all our sites to minimise the generation of waste. So far, it has not been considered appropriate to set specific targets in what is a diverse and changing departmental estate. Although the scope for setting targets remains under consideration, a series of formal environmental audits of our laboratory sites is planned for later in 1997–98.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the amount, and proportion, of paper recycled by his Department in each of the last five years. [11540]

  Mr. Morley
  This information is not available. Paper recycling schemes are in operation at many of the Ministry's 230 sites and the responsibility for handling such schemes is decentralised. At our London headquarters buildings, 37 tonnes of good-quality waste paper was recycled during 1996–97, which considerably exceeded expectations.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce a waste minimisation strategy for his Department. [11538]

  Mr. Morley
  A waste minimisation strategy already forms part of the Department's action plan for green housekeeping, with the objective of reducing the amount of waste produced, encouraging recycling schemes and reusing materials. A leaflet and notices have been issued to all staff and local campaigns have been undertaken to encourage participation, including exhibitions, presentations and the introduction of schemes for recycling paper, tin cans and other materials.

  Pigs (Gas Stunning)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a copy of the advice he received from the Farm Animal Welfare Council on the carbon dioxide gas stunning of pigs. [11827]

  Mr. Morley
  I have placed in the Library a copy of the letter from the Farm Animal Welfare Council dated 1 May 1997. This says that the council would like MAFF to encourage the industry to develop superior stunning and 436
  killing methods which move away from stressful handling and that these should make use of non-aversive gas mixtures. FAWC in its letter further recommended that the industry should concentrate on the use of argon to induce anoxia and that high concentrations of carbon dioxide in air should be phased out as systems using alternative gas mixtures became commercially available.

  We have commissioned commercial trials using alternative gas mixtures and the next steps we take will depend on the results of these.

  We also await formal proposals from the European Commission to add alternative gas mixtures to the permitted methods for stunning animals.

  Office Refurbishment
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for the refurbishment of ministerial offices in his Department; and what is the estimated cost of the works and date of completion. [11870]

  Mr. Morley
  The current Ministry building in Whitehall which houses ministerial offices is in need of major renovation within the next few years. Ministers, and about 76 officials, will therefore move by the end of November to MAFF offices in Nobel house, Smith square.

  Details on costs for this move and associated redecoration works were included in the reply given to the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) on 28 July, Official Report, columns 23–24.

  Vegetable Oils
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to this answer of 23 July,Official Report, column 639, concerning research into use of crops yielding vegetable oils, if he will list the principal research projects his Department is funding, indicating the cost of each to public funds. [11820]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is as follows:

  Project title

  Total cost(£)

  Genetic engineering of oilseed rape to produce products of defined acyl variation and low downstream processing

  320,697

  Oilseed rape seed loss-improving strength of pods by using engineering fracture analysis of genetically diverse pods

  348,000

  Genetic improvement of oilseed rape for reduced susceptibility to pod shatter

  607,193

  Regulation of pod shatter in oilseed rape

  190,210

  A knowledge based assessment of rapeseed oil as a pesticide adjuvant

  243,261

  Vegetable oils with specific fatty acids

  87,840

  Pesticide adjuvants from vegetable oils

  68,092

  Cost benefit assessment, including life cycle analysis, of oils produced from UK-grown crops compared with mineral oil

  192,754

  Comparative field trils of alternative UK road transport fuels

  33,520

  Linseed agronomy

  1,015,216

  Cattle Traceability
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) of 19 June,Official Report, column 286, on cattle traceability, when he expects to implement a system which meets the Florence precondition on cattle traceability. [11637]

  Mr. Rooker
  We believe that the cattle passport system, introduced on 1 July 1996, fulfils the Florence precondition on cattle traceability in Great Britain. However, a computerised system will improve cattle traceability still further, and is required under recent EU legislation which applies to all member states.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what actions his Department is taking to proceed with(a) the export certified herds scheme and (b) the date-based scheme. [12199]

  Mr. Rooker
  On 24 July, my officials discussed both schemes with the EU Commission. As a result, further clarification is to be provided on the date-based scheme. In line with the Florence agreement, the Commission will be putting both schemes to its scientific advisory committees.

  State Veterinary Service
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many veterinarians are currently employed in the State Veterinary Service; and if he will make a statement on the future of the State Veterinary Service with particular reference to his plans for a food standards agency; [11780]

  (2) what plans he has to conduct open consultation with interested organisations in respect of proposed changes to the State Veterinary Service. [11781]

  Mr. Morley
  At 1 July 1997, the number of veterinarians employed in the State Veterinary Service within the direct line command of the chief veterinary officer was 306.15 full-time equivalents and includes permanent, fixed-term and casual appointees. This total excludes 13 veterinary posts recently transferred to the MAFF food safety and standards group on 2 June 1997 in preparation for the creation of a foods standards agency. It has been decided that the veterinary field service—the operational arm of the SVS—should not at present become an executive agency and I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) on 30 July,Official Report, column 322. The Government's proposals for a food standards agency will be published in a White Paper in the autumn. The White Paper will provide interested bodies with a further opportunity to comment on the organisation and remit of the new agency, including any implications it may have for the State Veterinary Service.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what funding is presently committed from his departmental budget for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 to resolve the year 2000 computer problem; and if he will make a statement. [11899]
  438
  Mr. Morley
  Current commitments from the central information technology budget to resolve the year 2000 computer problem are:

  (a) 1997–98: £2,500,000

  (b) 1998–99: £1,400,000

  (c) 1999–2000: £750,000

  making a total of £4,650,000. Further expenditure—to take the figure up to an estimated £7 million in total—is expected as detailed plans are finalised over the coming month.

  Costs will be met from existing public expenditure survey provision. The Department is working in line with guidance published by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency; detailed and costed plans will be supplied by the end of October 1997.

  Fishing
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which articles and subsections of articles of Council regulation 3760/92 will automatically continue after 2002; and what is the relevant legal text which substantiates their continuation. [12190]

  Mr. Morley
  All of Council regulation (EEC) No. 3760/92 apart from article 6 continues automatically until the Council decides to change it. The provisions on access restrictions within six and 12-mile limits are exceptional in that they automatically end on 31 December 2002, but the Government are committed to securing their renewal thereafter.

  Article 21 of the regulation says that it entered into force on 1 January 1993. With the exception of article 6, no date is specified in the regulation for any part of it to expire. It therefore continues sine die until the Council decides otherwise.

  Camphill Devon Community Ltd.
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to make a decision on the eligibility of Camphill Devon Community Ltd. for a farm and conservation grant; and if he will make a statement. [12168]

  Mr. Morley
  The claim for grant from Camphill Devon Community Ltd. has raised a number of questions concerning the eligibility of the investment on which grant is being claimed under the farm and conservation grant scheme. However, we hope to have resolved these questions shortly.

  Performing Animals
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the quarantine arrangements for travelling zoos and circuses involving performing animals. [12084]

  Mr. Rooker
  Each animal subject to the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974 and imported into Great Britain from outside the British Isles is required to be quarantined for six months. In each case, the physical arrangements of the quarantine premises for containing the animal have to be shown to be satisfactory.

  Rams' Horns
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the British Stickmakers Guild about the classification of rams' horns as animal offal; and if he will make a statement. [10556]

  Mr. Rooker
  [pursuant to his answer, 28 July 1997, c.24]: I have received representations from the British Stickmakers Guild about the classification of rams' horns as animal offal.

  Under the Heads of Sheep and Goats Order 1996, the heads—excluding the tongue—of sheep and goats of any age other than those born, reared and slaughtered in Australia and New Zealand must be disposed of as specified waste material. This would include the horns if still attached to the head. However, horns themselves are not considered to be a risk, provided they are removed without breaking into the cranial cavity in order to ensure that there is no risk of contamination with brain material.

  Fisheries (Rockall)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the potential fish catches and stocks in the 60,000 sq miles of ocean around Rockall; and what funding the Government have made available in the last 20 years to research and develop the potential of these waters. [11581]

  Mr. Chisholm
  I have been asked to reply.

  I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the House Library.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what licensing arrangements currently apply to fishing operators in the 60,000 sq miles of Atlantic ocean around Rockall; how many(a) British and (b) Spanish fishing vessels operate there; and what estimate he has made of the number of British vessels with the capacity to fish waters of these depths. [11577]

  Mr. Chisholm
  I have been asked to reply.

  United Kingdom vessels fishing within the current Rockall fisheries zone must be in possession of a UK fishing licence, while vessels from other EC member states are subject to their own national licensing and management arrangements. All such vessels are subject to quota restrictions and western waters effort ceilings where appropriate. This will remain the case following the redrawing of British fisheries limits.

  Landings information held by the fisheries departments shows that, in 1996, 46 British vessels operated in the waters affected by the change. Comparable information for Spanish vessels is not held by the fisheries departments.

  Information on the number of vessels capable of fishing in deep waters around Rockall is not held centrally.

  Vitamin Supplements
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has further to 440
  review the scientific evidence relating to the safety of vitamin B6 supplementation; and if he will make a statement. [11719]

  Mr. Rooker
  The scientific evidence relating to the safety of vitamin B6 has been reviewed by Department of Health's independent Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment—COT—on two separate occasions. I have every confidence in the ability of the COT and in the quality of its advice and I have no plans to invite it or any other body to undertake a further review.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the dangers to public health of higher dose vitamin B6 supplements. [10956]

  Ms Jowell
  The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment—COT—has considered the toxicity of vitamin B6 on two occasions. The committee reviewed the scientific papers published in national and international journals and noted reports of peripheral sensory neuropathy in humans. There was evidence of nerve damage in animals. It recommended that the level of vitamin B6 in dietary supplements be limited to 10 mg per day. This recommendation applies to supplements sold under food law.

  In the light of the COT's recommendation, the Medicines Control Agency's Committee on Safety of Medicines reviewed vitamin B6 containing medicinal products and recommended that those sold on the general sales list—GSL, that is, those freely available to the public—should be limited to 10 mg, while those above 10 mg and below 50 mg should be available under the supervision of a pharmacist while those of 50 mg and above should be available under the supervision of a doctor—prescription only medicines.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has evaluated into the number of deaths or cases of adverse health reactions in the last 10 years in America arising from higher dose vitamin B6 supplementation; and if he will make a statement. [10942]

  Ms Jowell
  The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment—COT has considered the toxicity of vitamin B6 on two occasions. Lists of the references from national and international scientific journals which it considered are lodged in the Library. Following its consideration, the COT published a statement on 4 July 1997. Officials have no specific information on adverse health reactions to higher dose vitamin B6 products in America, but in the years 1987–96 the UK yellow card adverse drug reaction—ADR—reporting scheme administered by the Medicines Control Agency has received a total of 42 reactions associated with products containing only vitamin B6.

TREASURY

  Foreign Income Dividends
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about his proposals to abolish foreign income dividends; and if he will make a statement. [8928]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 21 July,Official Report, column 445. We have received several representations from United Kingdom-owned companies that obtain a high proportion of their profits from overseas, and as my hon. Friend the Paymaster General stated in Standing Committee on the Finance Bill on 22 July, we welcome their views and shall find a way froward that balances the interests of the Exchequer with those of the companies involved.

  Windfall Tax
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on the future use of windfall taxes. [11472]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The windfall tax is a one-off tax.

  Indirect and Corporate Taxation
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the proposals contained in CSE (97) 1 final 9000/97 relating to(a) the elimination of significant distortion in the area of indirect taxation and (b) the longer-term need to look at further elements of corporate taxation. [9652]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: The Government welcome the commitment by member states to consider measures to eliminate significant distortions in the area of indirect taxation. In particular, we are keen to see progress on alcohol and tobacco duties where significant cross-border trade is distorted by varying rates of duty.

  Privatised Industries
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount at current prices paid in taxes by privatised firms(a) in the most recent year for which figures are available and (b) since 1979. [10920]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: Corporation tax paid by formerly publicly owned companies since 1987–88 is as follows:

  Year

  £billion

  1987–88

  1.5

  1988–89

  1.6

  1989–90

  1.5

  1990–91

  2.1

  1991–92

  2.3

  1992–93

  2.3

  1993–94

  1.9

  1994–95

  2.5

  1995–96

  2.9

  1996–97

  2.7

  Release of earlier figures would infringe taxpayer confidentiality.
  442
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue the formerly nationalised industries have contributed to the Exchequer since privatisation. [11340]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and Poole, North (Mr. Fraser) regarding Exchequer receipts of corporation tax paid by formerly publicly owned companies.

  Nationalised Industries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the annual profits and losses of the nationalised industries in current prices for each year between 1974 and 1997. [11350]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. John Bercow, dated 31 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 annual profits and losses of the nationalised industries in the current prices for each year between 1974 and 1997.
  I regret to say that estimates of profits/losses of the nationalised industries are not produced.
  For the National Accounts, the nationalised industries are classified within the Public Corporations sector. As of April 1997, the nationalised industries were as follows:

  Briish Coal Board

  Magnox Electric

  British Railways Board

  London Region Transport

  Highlands Islands Airports

  British Nuclear Fuels

  Post Office

  Civil Aviation Authority

  British Waterways Board

  Caledonian MacBrayne

  The Public Corporations sector also contains many other bodies, e.g. NHS trusts, the BBC, Channel 4, and urban development corporations. The composition of the sector has changed significantly, over the period from 1974, particularly with privatisations.
  The National Accounts definition of the United Kingdom profits, losses of Public Corporations is entitled to the gross trading surplus (this is gross of depreciation). It would be possible to construct gross trading surplus aggregates for the nationalised industries from 1991 to 1996 only, but this would be at disproportionate cost. Data before 1991 are unavailable.
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) does not publish data for the gross trading surplus of the Public Corporations sector as a whole. This series goes back to 1946 but is affected by breaks due to sectoral reclassifications, including privatisation, nationalisation and the establishment of NHS trusts. I attach a table of the data from 1974 to 1996. This data, from 1986 onwards, will appear in the 1997 edition of United Kingdom National Accounts which is being published on 8 August. Gross trading surplus data for 1997 are not yet available.
  443

  Gross trading surplus of public corporations

  Year

  Current prices (£ million)

  1974

  2,561

  1975

  3,094

  1976

  4,505

  1977

  5,095

  1978

  5,466

  1979

  5,710

  1980

  6,309

  1981

  7,974

  1982

  9,502

  1983

  10,004

  1984

  8,511

  1985

  7,262

  1986

  8,213

  1987

  6,993

  1988

  7,554

  1989

  5,951

  1990

  3,426

  1991

  1,410

  1992

  1,699

  1993

  2,438

  1994

  2,698

  1995

  4,230

  1996

  3,959

  BSE
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the figures contained in table 5A.4 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1997–98," showing projected United Kingdom expenditure on BSE for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [11186]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The provision made for expenditure on BSE remains as in that table, supplemented by a further £0.2 billion spread over 1996–97 and 1997–98 in respect of the selective cull of animals most at risk of developing BSE announced on 16 December 1996, Official Report, column 632. The actual outturns will depend on a variety of factors, including some policy decisions that have not yet been taken.

  EU Budget
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the net benefit to the United Kingdom at today's prices in each year as a result of the budget rebate of 1984. [11234]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the abatement agreed at Fontainebleau. The table sets out the information requested.

  Value of UK's abatement, in current prices(£million)

  1985–86

  1,346

  1986–87

  2,131

  1987–88

  1,713

  1988–89

  2,260

  1989–90

  1,739

  1990–91

  2,247

  1991–92

  2,791

  444

  Value of UK's abatement, in current prices (£million)

  1992–93

  2,198

  1993–94

  2,519

  1994–95

  1,740

  1995–96

  1,620

  1996–97

  2,418

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the net level of United Kingdom contributions to the European Community for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement; [11306]

  (2) if he will update the figure for the estimated net United Kingdom contribution to the European Community budget for 1998–99, in table 5A.4, page 123, of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1997–98", incorporating the impact of developments at the European Union budget negotiations on 24 July; and if he will make a statement. [11612]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The Government's expenditure plans take account of the plans of the previous Government for the forecast of the trend in the United Kingdom's net contributions to the European Community budget; as published in the previous Chancellor's departmental report on his smaller departments, Cm 3617. The forecasts are as follows:

  1997–98:£2,750 million

  1998–99:£3.000 million

  1990–2000:£3,400 million

  The Treasury will revise the forecasts in due course. As the Community budget for 1998 has not yet been finalised, there is no reason at this stage to update these forecasts.

  Generalised System of Preferences
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive the European Commission's report on the abuse of the generalised system of preferences. [10141]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 July 1997]: The European Commission has indicated that its study on the post-clearance recovery of customs debts associated with preferential customs schemes—including the generalised system of preferences—will be published in the early autumn.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of United Kingdom businesses affected by claims to retrospective duties arising from irregularities found in origin certificates issued by developing countries under the generalised system of preferences. [10143]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 July 1997]: In the 12 months ending 30 June 1997, some 70 UK businesses were notified of a duty liability as a result of invalid claims to preferential rates of duty under the generalised system of preferences.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the level of outstanding
  445
  duty arising from the irregularities found in origin certificates issued by developing countries under the generalised system of preferences. [10142]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 July 1997]: Approximately £1,600,000 duty is outstanding in respect of irregularities found in the past five years in origin certificates issued under the generalised system of preferences.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that an agreement made between Bangladesh and the EC concerning invalid origin certificates under the generalised system of preferences does not disadvantage United Kingdom businesses. [10144]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 July 1997]: Importers in a number of member states have received invalid origin certificates from Bangladesh. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise will seek to ensure that action taken in respect of these documents is consistent throughout the Community and it will continue to press for a fair and equitable solution to the problem.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what powers the Treasury will have to ring-fence itemised expenditure under the process described in paragraph 1.22 of the White Paper on a Welsh Assembly; and if these powers will extend to the determination of individual subheads within the estimates. [10707]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The allocation of the budget assigned to Wales will be at the discretion of the Welsh Assembly, as it is at present a matter for the Secretary of State for Wales.

  European Central Bank
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's policy towards an independent European central bank. [11822]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Budget (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to publish a green book on the environmental implications of the next Budget. [11861]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer I gave to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), on 10 July, Official Report, column 1062.

  Tobacco Duty
  Mr. Swinney: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce banding for the tobacco products duty on cigarettes related to their nicotine content; and if he will make a statement. [11313]
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 July 1997]: EC law requires that all cigarettes sold within a EU member state shall be subject to the same rate of excise duty. It would not therefore be possible to band tobacco products duty in this way.

  Financial Services (Distance Selling)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce legislation on the distance selling of financial services. [11784]

  Mr. Darling
  None. The Government will of course consider any draft directive covering distance selling of financial services which may be proposed by the European Commission. However, no such draft has been issued.

  Travel-to-work Areas
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will amend the travel-to-work area boundaries to coincide with the new local government boundaries; and if he will make a statement. [11218]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Marshall, dated 30 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 travel-to-work area boundaries.
  A recent consultation exercise by the ONS has shown a demand for statistics for travel-to-work areas (TTWAs) as well as for local authority areas. ONS has accordingly decided to continue to produce statistics for TTWAs and is now consulting on revised boundaries.

  Investors Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received concerning the investors compensation scheme from investors who made their investments prior to the formation of the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [11907]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I receive such representations from time to time.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the qualifying conditions for a claim under the investors compensation scheme; and if he will make a statement. [11906]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The eligibility of any claim on the investors compensation scheme will depend on the individual circumstances. However, the following general conditions must be met:the claimant is a private investor;
  the investment firm must have been fully authorised before it failed;
  the claim arises out of business regulated under the Financial Services Act;
  the firm owes the investor money—through fraud or negligent dealing—or was holding shares or other investments on the investor's behalf;
  the firm cannot pay out investors' claims;
  the firm has been declared in default by the ICS.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what funding is presently committed from his departmental budget for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 to resolve the year 2000 computer problem; and if he will make a statement. [11967]

  Mr. Darling
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on 10 July 1997,Official Report, column 609.

  Financial Services Regulation
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in discussions with the Bank of England regarding the role of the registrar's department after the change in responsibility for debt management from the Bank of England to the Treasury. [11725]

  Mr. Darling
  The Treasury and the Bank have agreed that the status of the registrar's department will not be affected by other changes on debt management, and this has been announced to staff. The registrar's department will remain under Bank of England management and continue with the current programming of restructuring. The options over its future will then be reviewed in five years.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the new supervisory body for the financial sector will have responsibility for supervising(a) friendly societies, (b) credit unions and (c) cheque traders. [11731]

  Mr. Darling
  As my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary announced in a written answer on 23 July,Official Report, column 595, the new regulatory organisation will have responsibility for supervising friendly societies and credit unions. We have no plans at present to extend financial regulation to cheque traders.

  Financial Services Regulators
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received from Sir Andrew Large an implementation plan for the new financial regulatory body announced on 20 May. [12271]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I received the plan on 29 July. Copies have been placed in the Vote Office, together with copies of a letter from Sir Andrew and my reply.

  Treasury Supplement
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the amount of the Treasury supplement in each of the last 10 years; and what are the estimated figures for the next two years. [11715]

  Mr. Darling
  The Treasury supplement to the national insurance fund was abolished in 1989. From 1993, a new Treasury grant was introduced, and the level of that annual grant has been as follows:

  1993–94:£7,589 million

  1994–95:£6,280 million

  1995–96:£3,575 million

  448
  As part of his report to the Secretary of State for Social Security on the 1997 uprating and rerating orders, the Government Actuary has estimated the size of the Treasury grant needed for 1996–97 and 1997–98 to be £1,925 million and £980 million respectively.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new advice he plans to provide to people with approved personal pension plans in respect of the amount they contribute to those plans following the abolition of advance corporation tax credits. [11653]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None.

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future role of the National Audit Office in relation to auditing the Budget. [11602]

  Mr. Darling
  As part of the opening up of economic decision making, the Chancellor intends that there should be a continuing role for the National Audit Office in subsequent Budgets. Future arrangements are not yet settled.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to announce new public expenditure plans for 1999–2000 and beyond; and if he will make a statement. [11606]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Spending plans for 1999–2000 and beyond will be announced next year after the Government have concluded the comprehensive spending review announced by the Chief Secretary on 11 June.

  Departmental Spending Limits
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if further changes to departmental spending ceilings for(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 will be made; and if he will make a statement. [11607]

  Mr. Darling
  Departments are expected to live within the ceilings currently set for the next two years.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect on the public sector borrowing requirement in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 of the discrepancy between the timing of receipts and disbursements relating to the national lottery to and from the Exchequer; and if he will make a statement. [11994]

  Mr. Darling
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many and what proportion of(a) full-time employees, (b) part-time employees and (c) all employees

  449
  on adult rates of pay in the south-east and Greater London as a whole and broken down by county, unitary authority and London borough, have earnings excluding overtime payments of less than (i) £3.50 an hour and (ii) £4.42 an hour; and if he will list these figures separately for men and for women; [12191]

  (2) how many and what proportion of all employees on adult rates of pay in the south-east and Greater London have earnings excluding overtime payments of less than (i) £3.50 an hour (ii) £4.42 an hour broken down by standard occupational classification and by standard industrial classification; [12192]

  (3) how many and what proportion of (a) full-time, (b) part-time and (c) all employees on adult rates of pay working in social work activities in Great Britain have earnings excluding overtime payments of less than (i) £4.26 an hour and (ii) £4.42 an hour. [12088]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to my hon. Friend shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Construction Workers
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to align the tax and national insurance treatment of construction workers who provide their services through an agency. [12272]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The exemption for construction workers from the agency tax rules will be removed with effect from 6 April 1998. So agencies that supply workers to the construction industry will, subject to the conditions set out in these rules, be required to operate pay-as-you-earn on payments to construction workers in the same way as other agency workers. Agencies are, of course, already obliged to account for employer and employees class 1 national insurance contributions, provided the relevant conditions are satisfied.

  Tax Law Rewrite Project
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on the tax law rewrite project. [12273]
  450
  Dawn Primarolo
  I am delighted to report that the tax law rewrite project continues to make good progress. The Inland Revenue has today published the project's first exposure draft containing draft clauses. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. A number of innovative techniques have been adopted. The rewritten legislation incorporates easier to understand language, a more logical structure and shorter sentences.

  I very much support this important project, which aims to bring clarity and certainty in our direct tax legislation for businesses and individuals. Full consultation is the key to its success, and I urge everyone with an interest in tax law to take this opportunity to comment.

  Office Refurbishment
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the refurbishment of ministerial offices in his Department; and what is the estimated cost of the works and the date of completion. [11868]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  There are no plans to refurbish any ministerial offices in the Treasury.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the proposal to refurbish the Treasury building in Great George street under the private finance initiative. [12274]

  Mr. Robinson
  At a time when all Departments are undertaking comprehensive spending reviews and are subject to extremely tight expenditure controls, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unwilling to embark on a major construction project of this scale, which would have involved substantial expenditure and significant financial risks for the other Government occupants of the building in terms of the disposal of property elsewhere. The plans to refurbish the main Treasury building under the private finance initiative represented good value for money in their own terms, but Ministers judged they had to have regard to wider considerations.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has therefore decided to terminate negotiations with our private sector partner, Exchequer Partnership plc.

  Securities and Investments Board
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the financial position of the Securities and Investments Board. [12326]

  Mr. Darling
  The Treasury has today laid a minute to inform the House that the Treasury has issued a non-statutory guarantee to the Securities and Investments Board for up to £8 million.

  This exceptional course is necessary to ensure that SIB is able to raise a commercial loan in order to finance work on preparation for assuming additional regulatory responsibilities after Royal Assent to the legislation announced in the Chancellor's statement of 20 May. SIB cannot use the fees that it raises under the current powers in the Financial Services Act 1986 for this purpose. The process of transition is described in more detail in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's reply of today to my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham. In particular, the documents mentioned in that reply make it clear that SIB, and its successor, will receive no support from public funds.

  The guarantee will cover a loan sufficient for all SIB's preparation costs which can be foreseen now. This sum does not at this stage cover accommodation. The guarantee may therefore need to be extended at some point in the future, in which case I will notify Parliament of it.

  The guarantee will remain in place until SIB obtains powers under the legislation to reform the financial regulatory system, to recoup its operational costs from the industry it regulates. This power will apply to the cost of transition as well as to SIB's on-going administrative costs. It is thus likely that SIB will need the guarantee for at least two years. I will ensure that the contingent liability continues for as short a period as possible. While the liability is outstanding, Parliament will be kept informed in the usual way.

  VAT (Fuel)
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 15 July,Official Report, column 136, concerning the fine tuning of his modelling of the consequences of reducing value added tax on domestic fuel, if he will estimate the weekly benefit of the reduction, net of the consequential lower uprating of pension benefits next April, to an average (a) single pensioner, (b) pensioner couple and (c) single householder on average earnings. [9450]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: The change in the VAT rate on domestic fuel will have no impact on the real value of the basic state pension. We are committed to uprating the basic state pension at least in line with prices and will consider the uprating of benefits at the normal time and in the normal way.

  Households will on average gain £18 a year from the reduction in VAT on domestic fuel from 8 to 5 per cent.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people paid income tax in(a) 1978–79 and (b) 1997–98; and how many people
  452
  would have been paying income tax in 1997–98 if the tax regime had been indexed and maintained at 1978–79 levels. [10895]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: Estimated number of taxpayers are given in the table. This comparison is hypothetical since if an indexed version of the 1978–79 tax regime had prevailed over the last 19 years the income base would not have grown in the way it has.

  Number of individuals paying tax (million)

  1978–79

  25.9

  1997–981

  24.6

  1978–79 indexed regime on

  27.4

  1997–98 income base1

  1 The effect of changes in mortgage interest relief cannot be included in this comparison because most mortgage interest relief is now given at source and therefore is not recorded on individual tax records.

  Disposable Incomes
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 July,Official Report, column 591, on changes in disposable income, for what reason the effects of indirect tax changes including excise duties, in the July 1997 Budget were not included in his answer. [11367]

  Mr. Geofrey Robinson
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The hon. Member asked for the percentage change in after-tax disposable income. Disposable income is generally defined in economic literature as personal income minus personal taxes, where personal taxes consist of inheritance taxes, property taxes and personal income taxes. Disposable income is that part of income which households may use in any way they wish. The amount of indirect taxes paid depends upon what individual households choose to consume—for instance, those households who choose to spend their income on cigarettes will pay more indirect tax than those who choose to spend their income on books.

  For estimates of the effects of the tax changes, including indirect taxes, announced in the Budget, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 16 July Official Report, columns 167–68.

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to make an announcement on Government guidelines for the next public sector pay round; and if he will make a statement. [11374]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The evidence to the pay review bodies will include evidence on economic considerations and public sector pay. We expect to publish it in the autumn.

  Income Tax (Covenants)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount of income tax recovered by charities or charitable covenants for the latest year available. [10766]
  453
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: Income tax repayments and payments of tax credits to charities were £755 million in 1996–97, of which around £250 million were repayments at the basic rate of tax for donations under deeds of covenant.

  EU Budget
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the percentage nominal increase in the United Kingdom's gross sterling gross national product-based contribution between the 1998 outturn EU budget and the 1996 outturn EU budget on the assumptions that(a) the adopted budget for 1998 is identical to the preliminary draft budget for 1998,(b) there is no underspending by the EC in 1997 and(c) the sterling-ecu exchange rate as at 31 December 1997 is 1.3644 ecu to £1. [11118]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the reforms made to the EU budget process since 1979; and if he will make a statement about their impact on the United Kingdom. [11233]

  Mr. Robinson
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  EU Funds (Fraud)
  Mr. Frabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps have been taken to eliminate fraud in the United Kingdom in respect of EU funds during the last five years; and with what results. [11237]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Personal Equity Plans
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to continue personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts beyond 1999; and if he will make a statement. [11469]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget that a new individual savings account will be introduced in 1999. This will extend the principle of TESSAs and PEPs to encourage people, through tax reliefs, to raise the level of their long-term savings. Individuals, including PEP investors, will have the opportunity during 1999 to switch to the individual savings account, which will provide a tax-free environment for savings. Consideration is being given, in consultation with interested parties, to the scope of a tax-free environment for savings after 1999. A consultative document will be published later in the year.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of individuals who have invested in personal equity plans where the value of the 454
  investment is (a) more than £1 million, (b) between £500,000 and £999,999, (c) between £100,000 and £499,999 and (d) between £25,000 and £99,999 and if he will make a statement. [11470]

  Mr. Robinson
  This information requested is not available. PEP investors do not have to give details of the plans they hold onto their tax office; and PEP plan managers are not required to list the current value of individual plans when making their returns to the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the total effect of the tax reliefs on tax-exempt special savings accounts and personal equity plans on the aggregate level of savings in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [11471]

  Mr. Robinson
  Research suggests that most of the funds going into TESSAs do not represent new savings, with a considerable amount coming from other deposit accounts, but for PEPs there may be a somewhat greater element of new equity investment. The new individual savings accounts will be attractive to a wider range of savers. Extension to those with little or no financial savings at present should make them more effective in attracting new savings.

  Pensioners (Fuel Costs)
  Mr Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 July,Official Report, column 595, what effect he expects the reduction of VAT on domestic fuel to have on (a) the retail prices index increase in Septemberr 1997 and (b) the basic pension uprating in April 1998, assuming that the uprating is in line with prices and average earnings respectively. [11492]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 30 July 1997]: The effect of reducing VAT on domestic fuel from 8 to 5 per cent. would be to reduce retail prices index inflation by 0.12 percentage points. The state retirement pension is uprated in April of each year by the annual RPI inflation rate for the preceding September. Uprating by the RPI reflects the changes in prices paid for goods and services; so the real value of the pension is not affected.

  Duty-Free Shopping
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's policy towards duty-free shopping in the United Kingdom. [11589]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The Government's policy is in line with international customs agreements to which the United Kingdom is a party and under which individuals travelling abroad are entitled to purchase goods duty and tax free, up to specified quantitive or monetary limits. Duty-free shopping for intra-EU travellers is due to be abolished on 30 June 1999 in line with the decision taken by the Council of Finance Ministers towards the end of 1991. Duty-free shopping will, however, continue to be available to those travelling to destinations outside the European Union.

  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Ms Walley
  ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the time scale is for reporting the findings of the joint Treasury/Inland Revenue/DTI review of the North sea taxation regime announced in the Budget. [11519]
  455
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  I refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 28 July 1997,Official Report, column 15.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the last review of the North sea taxation regime was carried out; and if he will make a statement. [11520]

  Mr. Robinson
  That is a matter for the previous Government. The last time that a significant set of changes were made to the North sea fiscal regime was in March 1993.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps his Department is taking to consult independent organisations in the review of North sea taxation announced in the Budget. [11522]

  Mr. Robinson
  Interested parties are being given an opportunity to put forward their views. Officials have written to a number of representative bodies to that end.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what ways he plans to consult the offshore oil and gas industry during the current review of the North sea taxation regime. [11521]

  Mr. Robinson
  Interested parties are being given the opportunity to put forward their views. Officials have written to a number of representative bodies to that end.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which companies or individuals have contributed their views to the review of North sea taxation announced in the Budget. [11523]

  Mr. Robinson
  The review was announced on 2 July, some four weeks ago. I understand that no interested parties have chosen to make their detailed views known as yet.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which individuals or companies are being asked to contribute expert studies to the current review of North sea taxation. [11524]

  Mr. Robinson
  Interested parties are being given the opportunity to put forward their views. Officials have written to a number of representative bodies to that end. We have also asked the advice of an academic on certain specific issues. The review will take the views of commentators into consideration.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken to consider the environmental implications of any changes to the North sea taxation regime as part of the review announced in the Budget. [11525]

  Mr. Robinson
  As has been made clear on numerous occasions, concern for the environment is at the heart of all Government policy making.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the need for funding to assist small businesses in respect of equity gaps. [11788]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The Government fully recognise the need for small firms to be able to obtain appropriate forms of finance. In the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced plans to sharpen the 456
  focus of the venture capital trust scheme and keep it under review to ensure that it remained properly targeted, while encouraging and rewarding risk taking by individuals.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the advantages of introducing tax incentives to encourage business to corporate venturing in relation to the provision of funding for capital high-technology and other small business projects. [11819]

  Mr. Robinson
  There is no clear evidence of a market failure in respect of corporate venturing by businesses. Nor is it certain that any market failure could be properly addressed by offering a tax incentive. But the Government recognise the importance of the small business sector, particularly high-technology businesses, and are determined to pursue policies which create a climate in which enterprise can flourish.

  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what response the Treasury has made to the Bank of England's October 1996 report on the financing of technology-based small firms. [12238]

  Mr. Robinson
  The Government agree with a number of recommedations in the Bank of England's report and are reviewing the loan guarantee scheme with a view to improving access for new high-technology start-up firms, within the existing resources of the scheme.

  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to amend the enterprise initiative scheme and venture capital trust schemes to improve the availability of start-up and second-round funding for smaller businesses. [12236]

  Mr. Robinson
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor recognises the progress the EIS and VCT schemes have made in raising investment for early stage and expending businesses. In his Budget, the Chancellor announced plans to sharpen the focus of the EIS and VCT schemes and intends to keep both schemes under review to ensure they remain properly targeted, while encouraging and rewarding risk taking by individuals.

  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to encourage the provision of equity for start-ups in the small business sector and for high-technology small ventures. [12235]

  Mr. Robinson
  The Government fully recognise the need for small firms to be able to obtain appropriate forms of finance. We are currently reviewing the loan guarantee scheme to improve access for new high-technology start-up firms, within the existing resources of the scheme.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on existing targets set to minimise waste within his Department. [11533]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The Treasury has not set any waste minimisation targets but intends to do so in August 1997.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce a waste minimisation strategy for his Department. [11532]

  Mr. Robinson
  The Treasury intends to have a waste minimisation strategy in place by August 1997.
  457
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the amount, and proportion, of paper recycled by his Department in each of the last five years. [11534]

  Mr. Robinson
  The Treasury introduced a white paper recycling scheme in 1993. This scheme was extended to include newspapers in 1996 and the amounts recycled are as follows:

  Financial year

  Kg

  White paper

  1993–94

  7,230

  1994–95

  9,680

  1995–96

  5,490

  1996–97

  5,600

  Newspapers

  1996–97

  2,400

  It is not possible to determine the proportion of total waste that this represents.

  Tax and Benefits System
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the members of the committee reviewing the tax and benefits system headed by Mr. Martin Taylor. [11124]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The task force headed by Martin Taylor is comprised of senior officials from HM Treasury, the Inland Revenue, the Department of Social Security and the Department for Education and Employment. The review will draw on other Departments as necessary.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are being made to encourage external submissions to the review on the tax and benefit system headed by Mr. Martin Taylor. [11126]

  Mr. Robinson
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: External submissions are welcome from all sources, and a number have already been received.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the review of the tax and benefit system headed by Mr. Martin Taylor to be published. [11110]

  Mr. Robinson
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: I expect Martin Taylor's project to last about a year.

  Auctioneers
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on the imposition of value added tax at 17.5 per cent. on(a) auctioneers' services and (b) imported works of art and antiques; and if he will make a statement. [11584]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  Goods imported into the UK normally bear VAT at the standard rate 17.5 per cent. Under the terms of a derogation from the sixth VAT directive, as amended by the seventh VAT directive, certain works of art, antiques and collectors' pieces are eligible until 30 June 1999 for an effective rate of VAT at importation of 2.5 per cent. After that date, the UK should increase the VAT rate to at least the normal minimum reduced rate of 5 per cent.
  458
  Supplies of auctioneers' services to persons in the UK are normally liable to VAT at the standard rate of 17.5 per cent. Special arrangements apply when auctioneers' services are supplied in respect of certain works of art and so on held under temporary importation conditions and eligible for the effective rate of VAT of 2.5 per cent. on permanent importation. In these cases all auctioneers' services are taxed at the same effect rate of VAT as the goods themselves, though this is currently the subject of challenge by the European Commission.

  Investors Compensation Scheme
  Öpik
  To ask the chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to allow claims to be made under the investors compensation scheme where the initial investment predates the formation of the scheme; and if he will make a statement. [11908]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mrs.May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the responsibilities of(a) Her Majesty's Treasury and (b) the Bank of England regarding work on EMU and the single currency. [11726]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  HM Treasury is the Department responsible for Government policy regarding economic and monetary union. On 24 July, HM Treasury published a booklet to inform businesses about the practical implications of EMU, which will arise whether or not the United Kingdom joins the single currency. The Treasury has also recently announced the establishment of an advisory group of private sector representatives to provide a two-way exchange between the Government and business about the practical effects of EMU.

  The Bank of England participates fully in the work of the European Monetary Institute. The Governor is a member of the Council of the EMI. The Bank of England will continue to be responsible for co-ordinating preparations in the financial sector, especially the wholesale financial markets which will need to be able to use the euro whether or not the United Kingdom joins the single currency.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown of general Government consumption between spending programmes in cash. [11639]

  Mr. Darling
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the rebate for contracting out of SERPs was calculated by the Government Actuary on the basis of prospective investment yields after tax; [11651]
  459
  (2) if he will take action against those providers of approved personal pensions who fail to review whether personal pension holders should opt back into the state earnings-related pensions scheme following the abolition of advance corporation tax credits; [11601]

  (3) what estimate was made in the Budget forecasts of the number of people who will opt back into the state earnings-related pensions scheme as a result of the abolition of advance corporation tax credits; [11652]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the revenue impact over the next five years from people opting back into state earnings-related pensions scheme following the abolition of advance corporation tax credits. [11654]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  It is too early to assess the overall effects of the Budget tax changes on pension funds.

  Offshore Trusts
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the tax advantages which exist under pre-March 1991 overseas trusts. [11645]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The Chancellor announced in his Budget a wide-ranging review of all areas of tax avoidance.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount of corporation tax revenue which is lost from the use of Channel Island trusts by British companies for executive incentive programmes in the last financial year. [11646]

  Mr. Robinson
  There are no special corporation tax allowances or exemptions for British companies which remunerate their executives through incentive programmes, whether or not such programmes involve the use of Channel Islands trusts.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to discourage the placing by British companies of shares related to executive incentive schemes in offshore trusts. [11647]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess.I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Warrington Valuation Office
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) by how much income exceeded expenditure at Warrington valuation office in 1996–97; [11592]

  (2) if the Warrington valuation office has sufficient surplus capacity to accommodate staff and files transferred from Bolton; [11593]

  (3) how long he estimates it will take for Warrington valuation office to generate enough surplus income to cover the estimated costs of refurbishment. [11594]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess.I shall write to my hon. Friend shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the displacement rate resulting from private sector substitution involving employees subsidised through his welfare-to-work proposals; what estimate he has made of the deadweight costs involved in such proposals; and if he will make a statement; [11604]

  (2) if he will estimate the welfare benefit and other savings resulting from the welfare-to-work proposals in his Budget for (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [11603]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a breakdown of the total expenditure on the new deal for young people for(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99, to show expenditure on (i) payments to employers, (ii) payments to trainers, (iii) payments to new deal clients, (iv) administration costs and (v) other costs; and if he will make a statement. [11605]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide a substantive answer before the summer recess. I shall write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Diesel
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many litres of(a) ultra-low-sulphur diesel and(b) normal diesel fuel were sold in each of the last five years. [12227]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The total amount of diesel released for consumption in the last five years was:

  Million litres

  1992–93

  13,260

  1993–94

  14,170

  1994–95

  15,529

  1995–96

  16,479

  1996–97

  17,303

  Separate figures for ultra-low-sulphur diesel and normal diesel fuel are not available.

DEFENCE

  Ships Support Agency
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Royal Navy's Ships Support Agency for 1997–98. [12460]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ships Support Agency was launched as an agency in December 1996. It is responsible for directing in-service support of surface ships and submarines and their equipments; for ensuring that proper consideration is given to support issues and marine engineering design requirements in the procurement of
  461
  new naval platforms; and for the ownership and management of the naval stores inventory, except for fuel and food.

  The Ships Support Agency has developed a comprehensive set of performance indicators in conjunction with its owners and customers. These include measures to monitor the quality, timeliness and efficiency of the agency's outputs. The targets which have been agreed, for the period up to March 1998, are:

  Performance indicator

  Targets

  Materially available vessel days (MAVDs)

  62 per cent.

  1. To provide the Royal Navy with the agreed percentage of materially available vessel days

  Pounds per MAVD

  £55.5K per MVAD

  2. To provide the agreed Fleet availability cost-effectively.

  To introduce a refined pounds per MAVD performance indicator

  March 1998

  3. To introduce a refined pounds per MAVD performance indicator to provide a more robust measurement of the SSA's efficiency

  Upkeep period timeliness

  +5 per cent.

  4. To deliver upkeep periods within specified tolerances of the agreed programme.

  Upkeep period costs

  +/-4 per cent.

  5. To contain the cost of programmed upkeep periods within tolerance of the predicted costs.

  Upkeep material performance

  March 1998

  6. To introduce a performance indicator to quantify material state at the conclusion of upkeep periods. Progress report.

  Fleet time material performance

  4

  7. To limit the average number of outstanding Operational Defects per vessel in Fleet Time.

  8. To introduce a performance indicator based on the percentage of Fleet Time that vessels are unable for material reasons to carry out their programmed task.

  March 1998

  Efficient stockholding

  2.5:1

  9. To improve stockholding to issue ratio.

  Resource accounting

  10. To ensure the implementation of the MoD accruals accounting system within the Agency. progress report.

  March 1998

  Through life costs

  March 1998

  11. To create an effective Through Life Cost model.

  Private sector involvement

  March 1998

  12. To complete a review of the options for further Private Sector Involvement in the support of vessels, equipments and weapons. Progress report.

  Defence Intelligence and Security Center
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre for 1997–98. [12207]

  Mr. Spellar
  The role of the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre is to train the armed forces and other intelligence agencies in intelligence and security disciplines and conduct after capture; to contribute to effective and timely advice to the armed forces on appropriate intelligence and security matters; and to maintain an operation capability. The key performance targets are set for the agency for the 12 months from April 1997 are:

  Key target 1:
  To meet 100 per cent. of operational tasking to performance standards agreed with the Director General and Intelligence Geographic Resources—DGIGR—and to the satisfaction of "customers", in accordance with priorities laid down by, or through, Director Intelligence Commitments, and within agreed resources.

  Key target 2:
  To make available to "customers" 3,483 training days and, where possible, to meet surge requirements within agreed resources.

  Key target 3:
  To produce by 31 March 1998 a plan to introduce a systems approach to training to DISC courses from 1 April 1998 onwards.

  Key target 4:

  (a) To complete the rationalisation and collocation of DISC in accordance with the timetable, subject to the satisfactory performance of contractors and other external staff.

  (b) To deliver the required output as expressed in the "Aim, Objectives and Key Targets", within agreed resources.

  Key target 5:
  To achieve a 2.5 per cent. improvement in efficiency within the 1997–98 operating costs budget, in addition to the savings from collocation.

  Military Survey Defence Agency
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Military Survey Defence Agency for 1997–98. [12209]

  Mr. Spellar
  The role of Military Survey Defence Agency is to ensure the provision of geographic support to defence operations, planning and training. The key targets set for the agency for the 12 months from April 1997 are:

  Key target 1:
  To satisfy 100 per cent. of requirements for operations on time from within the agency's capabilities and resources.

  Key target 2:
  To maintain the operational readiness of the field support elements of the agency to the Army standard known as "substantially effective".

  Key target 3:
  To achieve the agreed work programme on time, to cost and to deliver 457 discrete products.

  Key target 4:
  To meet milestones agreed by the operational sponsors for the Military Survey digital geographic information system.
  463
  Key target 5:
  To meet agreed milestones in a wider Defence intelligence "Competing for Quality" project, embracing the agency's non-core IT, media and print support.

  Key target 6:
  To achieve a 2.5 per cent. improvement in efficiency above the 1996–97 baseline.

  Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre fo1997–98. [12216]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre exploits analyses and exploits imagery from all available sources and produces intelligence products and services to meet central MOD and operational command requirements. The targets set for the 12 months from April 1997 are:

  Key target 1:
  To respond to all operational tasks, which might involve the detachment of up to 22 service personnel. Tasks are to be met within agreed timescales as follows:

  98 per cent. of priority 1 tasks

  90 per cent. of priority 2 tasks

  85 per cent. of priority 3 tasks

  Key target 2:
  Subject to achieving key target 1, the agency's programme of work, including standing intelligence requirements and support to contingency planning, will be met within agreed timescales as follows:

  90 per cent. of priority 2 tasks

  85 per cent. of priority 3 tasks

  75 per cent. of priority 4 tasks

  70 per cent. of priority 5 tasks

  Key target 3:
  In conjunction with the Defence Analytical Services Agency, to establish a baseline for measuring customer satisfaction by October 1997, and to improve the quality of customer service by March 1998.

  Key target 4:
  To achieve a 2.5 per cent. improvement in efficiency.

  Key target 5:
  To ensure the upgrade of JARIC's technical capabilities meets its planned operating capability by March 1998.

  Key target 6:
  To conduct trials and studies to support the procurement of reconnaissance systems in response to MOD agreed tasking, meeting time and quality requirements within agreed resources.

  Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency for 1997–98. [12325]

  Dr. Reid
  The chief executive of the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency has been set the following key targets for 1997–98:

  1. To achieve 80 per cent. demand satisfaction on presentation.

  2. To obtain the works brief so that laboratories and workshops can be collocated by September 1999.

  3. To complete a review of the scope for further private sector involvement.

  464
  These key targets take forward the work of the previous year's targets in the context of the agency's continuing collocation and restructuring plans. Collocation of the agency will ensure the agency remains in a position to benefit from opportunities for further rationalisation and provide the scope to reform activities which are essential to the achievement of the agency' s corporate and business plans. Given all the other pressures on the agency, particularly downward financial pressure, I believe they are challenging but achievable. I have previously arranged for copies of the agency's framework document to be placed in the Library of both Houses and the annual report and accounts for 1996–97 have also been so placed.

  Defence Animal Centre
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Animal Centre for 1997–98. [12318]

  Dr. Reid
  The chief executive has been set the following key targets for 1997–1998:

  1. Meet 100 per cent. of the requirements for trained military personnel and trained military working animals for operations;

  2. Meet 95 per cent. of customer satisfaction for trained output quality;

  3. Meet 95 per cent. of customer satisfaction in terms of trained output;

  4. Meet 95 per cent. of customer satisfaction in timeliness of delivery;

  5. To reduce net full costs as shown in the accruals accounts by 2.5 per cent.;

  6. Meet course specific success rates for military working animals greater than or equal to 95 per cent.;

  7. Meet training success rate for personnel greater than or equal to 90 per cent.;

  8. To complete the planned stages of the investors in people action plan;

  9. To explore all private finance initiative options for rebuilding administrative and single person accommodation.

  RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency for 1997–98. [12324]

  Mr. Spellar
  The RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency's key targets for 1997–98 are:To achieve at least 98 per cent. of the aerosystems maintenance task to standard and on time.
  To keep within the agency's allocated budget.
  To achieve the efficiency targets specified in the logistics command management plan.
  To complete the comprehensive rationalisation of functions within the agency by:
  relocating the ground ratio servicing centre from RAF North Luffenham to RAF Sealand by 31 December 1997.
  withdrawal from RAF North Luffenham by 31 March 1998.
  To achieve the civilianisation programme at the RAF MGDA units.
  To implement the delegation of specified civilian personnel management functions to RAF St. Athan, RAF Sealand and RAF Stafford by 31 March 1998.
  To continue the certification of Units with the agency to the IS09000 standard by:

  465
  achieving second or third party IS09002 re-certification of the Royal Air Force armament support unit (RAFASUPU) by 1 November 1997.
  achieving third party IS09001 certification for RAF Stafford by 27 July 1997.
  To develop and implement continual customer satisfaction measurement by 31 March 1998.

  Defence Analytical Services Agency
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the review of the Defence Analytical Services Agency has commenced. [12458]

  Dr. Reid
  A periodic review of the Defence Analytical Services Agency is under way. As a defence agency, the performance of DASA since its launch will be evaluated and a review of the options for the best management of its functions will be undertaken.

  Comments and contributions from those with an interest in DASA and its work will be welcomed and should be sent by 30 September 1997 to:

  DASA Review Team

  Project Manager

  Room 119

  Northumberland House

  London

  WC2N 5BP

  Telephone: 0171 218 0339

  Fax: 0171 218 5203.

  Defence Bills Agency
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Bills Agency for 1997–98. [12459]

  Mr. Spellar
  Targets have been set for the chief executive of the Defence Bills Agency for financial year 1997–98 in accordance with the agency's overall aim of meeting the requirements of its service level agreement with the Ministry of Defence fully, efficiently and in a manner which offers best value for money. The chief executive's key targets build on the already high standards of service provided by the agency since its formation in January 1996 and are as follows:

  1. To pay 97 per cent. of correctly-presented bills within 11 working days of receipt and 100 per cent. within 30 days.

  2. To raise 100 per cent. of invoices within five working days of receipt of correctly-presented instruction.

  3. To obtain investors in people accreditation by 30 September 1997.

  4. To meet the performance criteria laid down in the service level agreement

  5. To deliver the service contracted for in the service level agreement at the agreed price.

  Wessex Helicopter Replacement
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the replacement of the service currently provided by the Wessex helicopters of No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron. [12473]

  Mr. Spellar
  The two Wessex aircraft used by No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron are nearly 30 years old and are becoming increasingly costly to maintain and operate. At 466
  the request of the royal household, we will therefore shortly issue invitations to tender to UK helicopter operators to provide a service based on a single helicopter. The cost of the new service will be met by the royal household from the royal travel grant in aid and should provide significant savings.

  Future Large Aircraft
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current status of the future large aircraft programme. [9979]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The importance of an air transport capability in the new strategic environment has been demonstrated in numerous recent operations such as the Gulf conflict and Bosnia.

  My Department has been closely involved in discussions with European partners on the future large aircraft programme, which is a potential solution to our future air transport requirements. I have now decided that the UK should join partners in issuing a request for proposals to Airbus Military Company for the future large aircraft, and formally endorse the European staff requirement and statement of principles governing the commercial management of the programme.

  The programme offers an important opportunity for European industry. The Government believe, however, that there is a need to maintain competitive pressure to ensure best value for money. We shall, therefore, be encouraging our partners to join us in seeking bids from other aircraft manufacturers.

  We expect the replacement aircraft to come into service early next century. Precise costs for each aircraft will be provided in response to our request for proposals.

  Gordon Foxley
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about negotiations with the companies involved in the payment of commissions to Gordon Foxley relating to defence companies. [7090]

  Mr. Spellar
  [pursuant to his answer, 3 July 1997, c. 257]: and following the announcement made by the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement on 13 June 1996, Official Report, column 248, concerning settlement with Raufoss AS: A satisfactory settlement has now been concluded with the second of the three companies concerned, Junghans GmbH of Germany, under which the company will pay an agreed sum in redress to my Department, including interest and a contribution to costs for payments made contrary to contractual conditions. A statement of contribution by the company, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House, forms part of the agreement with the Ministry of Defence. We have decided that in the light of this agreement the company will become eligible to be considered for Ministry of Defence orders, although normal commercial relations will not be resumed for some months. Discussions are continuing with the successor companies to Fratelli Borletti SpA, the third company involved in the Foxley case, against whom proceedings are still in train.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what percentage of employees in his private office are(a) of Asian origin and (b) of Afro-Caribbean origin. [8964]

  Mr. Spellar
  Data on the ethnic origin of civilian staff are collected on a self declaration, confidential basis. Under my Department's code of practice on ethnicity data relating to civilian staff, we do not give information if numbers in statistical summaries are so small that it would be easy to identify the individualoncerned.

  The number of staff in private office who have declared themselves as of Asian origin is fewer than five and is not therefore given. The number of staff who have declared themselves as of Afro-Caribbean origin is five which is 10 per cent. of the current total numbers of civilian and service staff.

  Hawk Aircraft (Indonesia)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations he undertook with(a) the Foreign Secretary and(b)he President of the Board of Trade before the decision was made to allow further sales of Hawk jets to Indonesia. [10366]

  Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry on 11 July 1997,Official Report, columns646–47.

  Services Museums
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the services museums indicating the financial contribution to each from his Department in the latest year for which figures are available; [10753]

  (2) what action he will take following the publication of the report "The Way Ahead" on services museums. [10751]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House. I shall also provide additional information on the funding and location of museums across all three services which, for completeness, should have been included in the Minister for the Armed Forces' answers to him of 29 July 1997,Official Report, columns 178–79.

  Departmental Payroll
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [10739]

  Mr. Spellar
  Employees on the payroll of the Ministry of Defence are either civil servants or members of the armed forces.
  468
  Civil Service

  For civil servants the Pay and Personnel Agency carries out the following functions related to the department's payroll responsibilities. The associated management systems and costs are also shown.

  Function

  Management systems

  Costs of the systems/processes in 1996–97 £ million

  Civil Service non-industrial pay

  On-line validation and error reporting—known as "OLIVER"

  5.59

  Civil Service industrial pay

  The Defence Industrial Pay Systems(DIPS)

  5.82

  Pensions administration

  Financial Information System—known as
  "FIS"

  2.97

  Expenses management and processing

  Computerised payment and authorising of civilian travel—"COMPACT"

  1.54

  Personnel IT support

  Civilian Personnel Management Information System—CIPMIS

  0.62

  There are no co-operative arrangements with other Departments although the agency does provide some payroll associated services to other Government Departments and agencies on a recoverable costs basis.

  There is no sub-contractor involvement with the systems and processes associated with civilian payroll as the bulk are bespoke systems designed, maintained and operated in-house. However, the management system use for pensions administration is provided by Chessington Computer Services Ltd., which is contracted by the Cabinet Office under the central arrangements for the principal civil service pension scheme. Similarly the agency maintains a civilian staff personnel information system as a complementary service to the MOD and this uses a contractor—CAP Gemini—to provide IT operations and support.

  Armed Forces

  For members of the armed forces, the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency—AFPAA—formed on 1 April 1997, is responsible for the following tri-service payroll functions:
  Payment of regular, reserve and volunteer reserve military personnel including associated allowances.
  Payment of terminal grants, special capital payments and resettlement commutation.
  Payment of family maintenance grants.
  Pensions administration.

  A number of mostly bespoke management systems provide the listed functions but a separate, commercial, package has been purchased to administer RAF reserves pay.

  There are no co-operative arrangements with other Government Departments for armed forces payroll. However, normal administrative arrangements exist with external organisations such as DSS, CSA, HMIT and the Inland Revenue.
  469
  Sub-contractors who are employed by—AFPAA—and provide support to payroll systems are; QVF, Grist, CSS Trident, Lorien and Parity Solutions Ltd.

  As military personnel administration and payroll functions utilise the same IT infrastructure and systems, it is not possible to identify separately those costs specifically attributable to payroll. However, indicative costs for providing payroll and pensions services to the armed forces are;

  Navy £10.13 million

  Army £11.69 million

  RAF £9.81 million

  AFPAA is currently engaged in the procurement of a partner from the private sector, through the private finance initiative, to deliver most of the agency's services. The contractor will be required to deliver a harmonised tri-service pay system by 1 April 2000."

  HMS Tiger
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what type of Royal Navy vessels have carried the designation HMS Tiger; and what was the role of each vessel. [11959]

  Mr. Spellar
  There have been 12 ships of war built since the 15th century that have borne the name "Tiger".

  Type

  Built/commissioned

  22 Gun ship

  1546

  Discovery vessel

  1613

  32 Gun ship

  1647

  48 Gun ship

  1678

  50 Gun ship

  1743

  60 Gun ship

  1747

  4 Gun ship

  1794

  12 Gun ship

  1805

  Sloop

  1849

  Destroyer

  1900

  Battlecruiser

  1913

  Cruiser

  1942

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on existing targets set to minimise waste within hisDepartment; [11560]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce a waste minimisation strategy for his Department; [11559]

  (3) if he will list the amount, and proportion, of paper recycled by his Department in each of the last five years. [11561]

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

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the nuclear accident response organisation was set up; and how many units within his Department report to it. [11828]

  Mr. Spellar
  A nuclear accident response capability has been in existence since the 1950s, when my Department began to use nuclear material. This capability 470
  has been developed over time into what is now known as the MOD Nuclear Accident Response Organisation. This organisation would draw on skills from a range of units across the armed forces and the MOD.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department plans to hold the next exercise to test procedures for dealing with accidents involving nuclear weapons on British territory; where this exercise will be held; and what is the title of this exercise. [11947]

  Mr Spellar
  Thenext exercise—Exercise Senator 97—to test procedures in the event of an accident involving nuclear weapons on British territory, will be held between 22 and 26 September 1997 in conjunction with the authorities in Lincolnshire. Details of the exercise will be sent in the normal way to the hon. Members in whose constituencies the exercise will occur.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make public reports of exercises held to test his Department's procedures for dealing with an accident involving nuclear weapons on British territory [11946]

  Mr. Spellar
  The reports of exercises held to test the Department's procedures for dealing with an accident involving nuclear weapons are classified or management in confidence documents. Making these reports public could affect the candour with which participants comment on experience and undermine the value of the exercises. We are considering, in consultation with all participating agencies, whether a summary of exercise activities should be publicly available on request.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the members of the nuclear weapons safety committee, indicating the Government Departments and organisations they represent. [11948]

  Mr. Spellar
  The members of the nuclear weapon safety committee are as follows:

  Professor Sir John Cadogan CBE FRSE HON FEng FRS (Chairman)

  Professor R.J. Berry RD FRCP FRCR FFOM

  Professor R.H. Clarke

  Mr. H.J. Dunster CB

  Dr. B. Edmondson

  Dr. B.L. Eyre CBE FEng

  Mr. D.C. Fakley OBE

  Professor J. E. Field OBE FRS

  Rear Admiral J. S. Grove CB OBE RN Retired

  Sir John Hill FEng FRS

  Mr. P.G.E.F. Jones CB

  Dr. F.H. Panton CBE

  Members are invited to serve on the committee in their own right as acknowledged experts in the nuclear field. As such, they do not represent any particular organisations or Government Departments. They are assisted by officials from my Department who also attend meetings as and when necessary.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidelines for service personnel he has drawn up on how to fight fires involving nuclear weapons; when the latest version of these were issued; and how many versions have been issued since 1967. [11958]
  471
  Mr. Spellar
  Instructions to service personnel on fighting fires involving nuclear weapons are contained in various service publications, which are updated as necessary. The key principles in these instructions are the same as the guidelines issued to civilian fire service personnel in the "local authority and emergency service information on nuclear weapon transport contingency plans"—the LAESI document a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many exercises have been held since January 1996 to test his Department's procedures for dealing with an accident involving nuclear weapons on British territory; what were the names of these exercises; and where and when they were held. [11884]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following medium and major nuclear weapon accident exercises have been held since January 1996:

  align="center">Nuclear weapon accident exercises since January 1996

  Date

  Name

  Location

  February 1996

  Running Fox

  Hampshire

  April 1996

  1Standardisation

  Wiltshire

  May 1996

  Senator 96

  Northumberland

  June 1996

  Running Fox

  Hampshire

  September 1996

  Bowline

  Argyll and Bute

  October 1996

  1Standardisation

  Oxfordshire

  October 1996

  1Standardisation

  Suffolk

  November 1996

  1Standardisation

  South Glamorgan

  March 1997

  1Standardisation

  Norfolk

  April 1997

  1Standardisation

  Wiltshire

  June 1997

  1Standardisation

  West Yorkshire

  1 Standardisation exercises test the RAF immediate response force teams for the transportation of nuclear weapons.

  Information regarding minor exercises, organised at unit level is not held centrally.

  Meteorological Experiments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will open for public inspection at the Public Record Office the file with the classmark AIR 2/17902 relating to meteorological experiments. [11956]

  Mr. Spellar
  In line with our commitment to greater openness, arrangements are being made to review AIR 2/17902 ahead of its scheduled review date. Companion files, AIR 2/17903 and 17904, will also be examined at the same time. I will write to the hon. Member on completion of the review process and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  10 Squadron (Cargo)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the nature of the material which was transported from RAF Brize Norton to Dover Air Force base in the United States of America by 10 Squadron on(a) 10 February, (b) 12 May and (c) 16 May; from which establishment this material originated; what was the ultimate destination of the material; and under which defence agreement this material was transferred. [11957]
  472
  Mr. Spellar
  I am withholding the information requested under exemption 1 of the code of practice on access to Government information relating to defence, security and international relations.

  Office Refurbishment
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the refurbishment of ministerial offices in his Department; and what is the estimated cost of the works and date of completion. [11871]

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

  Air Force Bases (Germany)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Royal Air Force began operating from its bases at Laarbruch and Bruggen in Germany; and what use is currently made of the bases by the Royal Air Force. [11857]

  Mr. Spellar
  RAF Laarbruch commenced operations in November 1954. Currently, the station is the main operating base for Numbers 3 and 4 squadrons, equipped with Harrier GR7 aircraft, and Numbers 1 (Field) and 26 (Rapier) squadrons, RAF regiment. RAF Bruggen commenced operations in July 1953. Currently, the station is the main operating base for Numbers 9, 14, 17 and 31 squadrons, equipped with Tornado GR1 aircraft, and Number 37 squadron RAF regiment.

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department received a copy of the report carried out by a United States department inspector general into breaches of security at RAF Menwith Hill in 1993. [11853]

  Mr. Spellar
  The inspector general's office is an auditing body with no locus in security matters. However, there is a regular dialogue between my Department and the US authorities concerning security at RAF Menwith Hill and I am aware that an internal US review was carried out in 1993.

  Military Assistance
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the review of the practice of withholding details of military assistance to other countries is expected to be completed. [11964]

  Mr. Spellar
  Work on the review is continuing. I expect to make an announcement to the House soon after Parliament returns in the autumn.

  WE-177 Bomb
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the WE-177 bomb is expected to be withdrawn from service; and which types of WE-177 have been in service and on what dates. [11954]

  Mr. Spellar
  The WE-177 type B bomb entered service on 1966. The type A and type C variants entered service in 1969 and 1973 respectively. The last of these weapons will be withdrawn, as previously announced, on 31 March 1998.

  AWE Aldermaston Newsletter
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how often the newsletter at the atomic weapons establishment, Aldermaston is produced; when the newsletter was first produced; and what is the current security classification. [11965]

  Mr. Spellar
  An internal newsletter has been produced at the atomic weapons establishment since November 1953. It is issued six times a year and is unclassified. A recent additional innovation is an occasional magazine, "AWE Community Link", which is distributed to some 10,000 households in the locality.

  Defence Employment
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the figures for military personnel employed in 1996 by local authority area. [11576]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Defence Analytical Services Agency and I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Paul Altobell to Sir George Young, dated 31 July 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence requesting publication of "figures for military personnel employed in 1996 by local authority area" since this falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of Defence Analytical Services Agency.
  This information is published annually by Defence Analytical Services Agency in our tri-service personnel series under the title "UK Regular Forces" strengths in the United Kingdom by local authority area.
  The latest version covers the deployment of Armed Forces as at 1 July 1996. Copies of this return are available from the House of Commons library.
  I hope you find the information useful.

  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each region the number of employees in defence industries for the financial year 1995–96. [11579]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is not available precisely in the form requested. However, table 1.12 of the 1997 edition of "UK Defence Statistics", published on 29 July, gives the provisional estimated UK regional employment directly dependent on defence equipment expenditure, that is to say those working directly for defence contractors. A copy of "UK Defence Statistics 1997" has been placed in the Library of the House.

  British Prisoners of War (Salary Payments)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy in respect of the payment of salaries to British officers held as prisoners of war in future conflicts. [11723]

  Mr. Spellar
  British officers who are taken prisoner of war in any future conflict will continue to receive their pay unless the Defence Council or an officer authorised by them is satisfied:

  (a) that they were made prisoners through their own disobedience to orders or wilful neglect of duty;

  (b) that having been made prisoners they failed to take any reasonable steps available to them to rejoin Her Majesty's service;

  474

  (c) that having been made prisoners they served with, or aided, the enemy in the prosecution of hostilities or measures calculated to influence morale or in any other manner whatsoever not authorised by international usage.

  (d) That they were in receipt of pay advanced by the detaining power.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy towards the payment of salary to officers from the armed forces who were held as prisoners of war during the Gulf conflict. [11722]

  Mr. Spellar
  British officers who were taken prisoner during the Gulf conflict continued to receive their pay for the few weeks they were held captive.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 July,Official Report, column 785, on land mines, when his officials first learnt that all British anti-personnel land mines had not been taken up following conflicts in the Falkland Islands and the Gulf. [11611]

  Mr. Spellar
  Officials in my Department have been aware since the clearance of British minefields in the Falkland Islands in August 1986 that one British anti-personnel land mine could not be located.

  The officials responsible for providing my right hon. Friend with advice on this subject were informed on 10 July 1997 by those responsible for laying the anti-personnel land mines in Iraq that not all have been recovered.

  Officers
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many serving officers hold the ranks of(a) field marshal, (b) general, (c) lieutenant general and (d) major general or their equivalents in the (i) Army, (ii) Royal Air Force, (iii) Navy and (iv) Royal Marines; how many and what percentage of each category attended fee-paying private schools; what steps are being taken to ensure that future officer intakes reflect the educational provision of the UK; and if he will make a statement. [12006]

  Mr. Spellar
  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of his letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what funding is presently committed from his departmental budget for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and(c) 1999–2000 to resolve the 2000 computer problem; and if he will make a statement. [11900]

  Mr. Spellar
  In accordance with guidelines issued by the Cabinet Office and the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency Year 2000 Public Sector Group, my Department is examining its computer systems to determine their susceptibility, if any, to the year 2000 problem and to produce plans for the necessary modifications. The estimated costs of these modifications will not be available until later this year. My Department
  475
  has also stressed the importance of this issue to industry. For all new procurements, the Department is insisting year 2000 compliance as a condition of contract.

  Document AIR 2/16918
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons his Department withdrew AIR 2/16918 from the Public Record Office; which offices within his Department consulted the document; on what date the document was received from and returned to the Public Record Office; and if he will make a statement. [12239]

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

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment of the medical effects of the CS gas solvent, methyl isobutyl ketone has been made by officials of his Department since 1990; how many published or internal reports have been written on this subject by his Department's medical officers since 1990; and how many of these reports are currently unclassified. [12176]

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

  Abbeywood
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in respect of Abbeywood(a) the number of part-time and full-time employees, (b) the totals of (i) wages and salaries, (ii) national insurance and (iii) pensions in respect of each category, (c) the totals of (1) travel costs and (2) housing costs in respect of all employees at Abbeywood and (d) all expenditure on Abbeywood broken down by category in 1996–97; and what was the total of expenditure listed in (d) as a percentage of that year's total Ministry of Defence outturn. [11597]

  Mr. Spellar
  The major occupier of the Abbeywood site is the Procurement Executive with 3,999 full-time and 74 part-time employees. Sharing the site is the Ships Support Agency with 754 full-time and 12 part-time employees.

  Costs related to the specific categories requested are not readily available and will require further investigation. I will write to the hon. Member with further information when it is available and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many of the biological detection system vehicles operated by the 1 field laboratory unit during the Gulf war(a) arrived at their destination with scientific equipment damaged and (b) were repaired to full operational capability by the end of the conflict; and if he will make a statement; [11879]
  476
  (2) in what form were samples collected by the Sandfly air sampling system on each of the nine vehicles of the 1 field laboratory unit in the Gulf war (a) recorded and (b) stored; and where those samples and records are currently kept. [11596]

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

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all papers prepared by Dr. Coker for his Department's Gulf war illness inquiries; and if he will place in the Library copies of all reports [12018]

  Mr. Spellar
  Group Captain Coker published a paper on the results from the first 284 patients seen by the MoD's medical assessment programme—MAP—in the summer 1996 edition of the Journal of the Royal Naval Medical Service—"A Review of Gulf War Illness".—I have arranged for a copy of this paper to be placed in the Library of the House.

  In late 1996, the group captain prepared the first draft of a paper concerning the results from some 500 MAP patients. However, in the event work on this draft paper was never completed.

  Doctors at the MAP have now seen 1,520 patients and the Government have undertaken to publish detailed results form the programme later this year. Group Captain Coker will be closely involved with this work, which will supersede his earlier draft paper.

  Hadleigh
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons his Department has closed its site on the outskirts of Hadleigh in Suffolk; when this site was first opened by the Ministry of Defence; and what was its function. [12103]

  Mr. Spellar
  The reasons for closing ammunition compound Hadleigh were, as the site is in close proximity to residential development, the explosive licences issued were so restrictive and therefore the full range of ammunition required by units based in East Anglia could not be stored. The cost of running the site was high as the movement of ammunition in to and out of the storage buildings was manpower intensive, the design of the buildings precluded the use of mechanical handling equipment.

  The site was first opened during world war two.

  The function of the site was to store ammunition.

  Nuclear Warheads
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of active nuclear warheads available to British forces for each year since 1975. [11797]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am withholding this information under exemption 1 of the code of practice on access to Government information relating to defence, security and international relations.

  Hawk Jet Sales
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors underlie the continued sale of Hawk jets. [11831]
  477
  Mr. Spellar
  Any application for a licence to export Hawks will be considered in accordance with the Government's policy on the export of conventional arms, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 28 July,Official Report,columns 26–29.

  American Submarines
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy in respect of the use of British waters by American submarines with nuclear capability. [11815]

  Mr. Spellar
  United States Navy nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed submarines may visit UK waters or designated berths subject to prior agreement with my Department. However, as with all vessels, they have a right of innocent passage through territorial waters.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Departmental Payroll
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list each of the functions relating to the payroll for which her Department is responsible, indicating the management systems 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. [10746]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor>
  The collation and processing of payments to my Department's staff are carried out within the Privy Council Office; the staff costs associated with this work are estimated at £1,900 in the year 1996–97. The actual payments are made by Chessington Computer Services Ltd., which uses the SPIRE—standard payroll input and retrieval—management system; the cost of this contract in the year 1996–97 was £4,900.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Environmental Audit Committee
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Council if she will ensure that the reports of the proposed environmental audit committee are debated on the Floor of the House. [10674]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  I cannot give any undertakings, but I hope that it will be possible to find opportunities for the House to give appropriate consideration to the work of the committee.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Council if she will ensure that the proposed environmental audit committee is able to investigate and comment on legislation before it reaches Committee stage. [10675]

  Mrs. Taylor
  It will be for the committee to decide the subjects for its own inquiries.

  The possibility of a Select Committee inquiry before the Second Reading of a Bill is discussed in the first report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, which was published on Tuesday 29 July.

  Scottish Business
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the President of the Council how much time has been spent by the House and its Committees considering Scottish issues in each of the past five years, indicating separately time spent on (i) Bills, (ii) questions and (iii) debates on(a) education, (b) housing, (c) transport, (d) social work, (e) employment and economic development and (f) other subjects. [10179]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The information is available in parliamentary Session, rather than calendar year. The hon. Member should note that Session 1992–93 was longer than usual, and 1996–97 shorter than usual, due to general elections.

  Chamber

  (i) Bills

  1996–97: 21.09 (nine Bills, of which three consolidation Bills and one private Members' Bill).

  1995–96: 13.15 (three Bills).

  1994–95: 17.33 (six Bills, of which three consolidation Bills).

  1993–94: 28.03 (two Bills, of which one private peer's Bill).

  1992–93: 17.07 (seven Bills, of which two consolidation Bills and three private Member's Bills).

  (ii) Questions

  1996–97: 4.02 (four sessions).

  1995–96: 8.59 (nine sessions).

  1994–95: 7.55 (eight sessions).

  1993–94: 7.19 (eight sessions)

  1992–93: 11.02 (12 sessions)

  (iii) Debates

  1996–97: Two approval motions: one on local government finance (3.36) one on housing (1.42).

  1995–96: Two approval motions: one on local government finance (1.34) one on housing (1.34) and a motion amending Standing Orders relating to the Scottish Grand Committee (1.31).

  1994–95: One approval motion on local government finance and housing (3.12) and an opposition day debate on the environment (3.28).

  1993–94: Four approval motions: one on housing (2.15) one on local government finance (4.23) one on commercial rates (1.34) one on legal aid (0.29) a motion setting up the Scottish Grand Committee (2.01) and a private Member's motion on Scottish Democracy (2.55).

  1992–93: Seven approval motions: four on commercial rates (0.13, 0.13, 0.22, 1.56) one on local government finance (3.13) one on housing (1.40) one on legal aid (3.23) and two Opposition day debates: one on local government and water (3.18) one (initiated by the Scottish National Party) on the cold climate allowance (2.32).

  COMMITTEES

  Standing Committees

  The following are extracts from the sessional returns for the relevant years detailing sittings of Standing Committees on Scottish issues.

  Number of sittings

  1996–97

  First Scottish Standing Committee

  *Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill

  11

  *Contract (Scotland) Bill

  1

  *Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman and Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland Bill

  1

  *Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill

  1

  *Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

  1

  Scottish Grand Committee

  Ministerial statements

  1

  479

  Number of sittings

  Bills

  1

  *Contract (Scotland) Bill

  1

  *Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman and Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland Bill

  1

  *Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill

  1

  *Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill

  1

  Subjects raised on a substantive motion for the Adjournment

  Scotland and defence

  1

  Local government in Scotland

  1

  Public expenditure in Scotland

  1

  Scotland in the World

  1

  Education and local government finance in Scotland

  1

  Housing and local government finance

  1

  1995–96

  First Scottish Standard Committee

  *Deer (Amendment)(Scotland) Bill [Lords]

  1

  *Education (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

  7

  Special Standing Committee

  *Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill

  1

  Scottish Grand Committee

  Ministerial Statements

  1

  Bills

  Licensing (Amendment)(Scotland) Bill

  1

  Subjects raised on a substantive motion for the Adjournment

  Law and Order in Scotland

  1

  Pre-School Education in Scotland

  1

  Economic Development of the Highlands and Islands

  1

  Effects of the Budget in Scotland

  1

  Local Government Funding in Scotland

  1

  The Health Service in Scotland

  1

  Employment and Training of Young People in Scotland also Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

  1

  Child Benefit and Welfare Reform in Scotland

  1

  Privatisation in the National Health Service in Scotland

  1

  Criminal Justice in Scotland

  1

  Scotland in the Union

  1

  1994–95

  Special Standing Committee

  *Children (Scotland)

  13

  First Scottish Standing Committee

  *Criminal Justice (Scotland) [Lords]

  9

  Scottish Grand Committee—subjects raised on a substantive motion for the Adjournment

  Public Expenditure in Scotland

  1

  The Scottish Economy

  1

  The Future of Rail Services in Scotland

  1

  Scottish Homes

  1

  Inward Investment in Scotland

  1

  Council Tax in Scotland

  1

  Scotland's Local Government

  The Future of Nursery Education in Scotland

  The Structure of Water Services in Scotland

  The State of Housing in Scotland

  1

  The Financial and Economic Implications of Independence for Scotland

  1

  Community Care in Scotland

  1

  Competitiveness in the Scottish Economy

  1

  Bills

  *Children Government etc. (Scotland)

  1

  1993–94

  First Scottish Standing Committee

  Local Government etc.(Scotland)

  40

  Second Scottish Standing Committee

  Inshore Fishing (Scotland) [Lords]

  1

  State Hospitals (Scotland) [Lords]

  1

  Scottish Grand Committee Matters

  The Economy in Scotland

  2

  Law and Order in Scotland

  1

  Estimates

  Class XIV, Votes 17 and 18

  1

  480

  Number of sittings

  Class XIV, Votes 13, 14, 7 and 8

  2

  Class XIV, Votes 1 and 2

  1

  1992–93

  First Scottish Standing Committee

  * Bankruptcy (Scotland)

  10

  * Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) [Lords]

  8

  Second Scottish Standing Committee

  Damages(Scotland)(No.2) [Lords]

  1

  Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland)

  1

  Protection of Animals (Scotland)

  1

  Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland)

  1

  Scottish Grand Committee Bills

  * Bankruptcy (Scotland)

  2

  Matters

  Public Expenditure in Scotland

  1

  Local Government Reform in Scotland

  1

  National Health Service in Scotland

  1

  Crime in Scotland

  1

  Women's Issues in Scotland

  1

  Child Care in Scotland

  1

  In addition, Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation have considered instruments, etcetera relating to Scotland as follows:

  1996–97: seven instruments at five sittings

  1995–96: 13 instruments at nine sittings

  1994–95: 18 instruments at 10 sittings

  1993–94: 18 instruments at four sittings

  1992–93: 56 instruments at 19 sittings

  Scottish Affairs Select Committee

  Further details are available from the Sessional Returns of the relevant year.

  1996–97: 13 meetings, one visit, two reports and four minutes/memoranda of evidence and appendices

  1995–96: 25 meetings, two visits, three reports and seven minutes/memoranda of evidence and appendices

  1994–95: 19 meetings, six visits, three reports and four minutes/memoranda of Evidence and Appendices

  1993–94: 26 meetings, six visits, one report and five minutes/memoranda of evidence and appendices

  1992–93: 28 meetings, 15 visits, one report and four minutes/memoranda of evidence and appendices.

  Public Accounts Commission
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what discussions he has held with the Comptroller and Auditor General on the cost of inspecting the accounts of NHS trusts. [11846]

  Mr. Sheldon
  The Commission regularly discusses the costs of the National Audit Office's activities, most recently on 23 July 1997 when it considered the NAO's corporate plan for 1998–99 to 2002–03. The costs of inspecting the accounts of NHS trusts are included in the plan, but were not separately identified or discussed.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what plans he has to introduce a waste minimisation strategy for his Department; [11547]
  481
  (2) if he will list the amount, and proportion, of paper recycled by his Department in each of the last five years; [11549]

  (3) if he will make a statement on existing targets set to minimise waste within his Department. [11548]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In 1996, in response to the White Paper "A Strategy for Sustainable Waste Management", we commissioned consultants to propose a waste minimisation strategy. Before then, there were no statistics available. Our consultants estimated that in 1996 this Department produced around 3,900 tons of solid waste per annum; 2,280 came from our London sites and 1,620 from our Hanslope Park site near Milton Keynes. Of the total, around 2,900 tons went ultimately to landfill. The balance, around 1,000 tons from the London sites, was incinerated by Westminster city council and the heat recovered for power generation.

  Our current aim for central London by recycling, mainly paper, is to reduce by the year 2000 the amount of solid waste sent for landfill by 400 tons per annum, equivalent to a 33 per cent. reduction. Elements of this strategy were already in place in 1996 whereby white paper and toner cartridges were recycled.

  At our Hanslope Park site, we are aiming for a reduction of 300 tons on the same time scale, representing a 20 per cent. reduction. At Hanslope Park, where we have a dispatch and packing operation, we introduced a recycling arrangement, whereby incoming cardboard packing material is shredded for reuse as an alternative to polystyrene products. We estimate that the financial savings from not dumping the cardboard as landfill, and not having to buy as much polystyrene packing materials, will meet the cost of the shredding equipment within 18 months. This is in addition to significantly reducing the amount of material sent to landfill.

  The long-term aim of our waste minimisation strategy is to reduce by the year 2000 the proportion of waste going to landfill to 60 per cent. of the 1996 figure.

  Rockall
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason he proposes to give up British claims to the area of the Atlantic around Rockall. [11779]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  British fishery limits to the west of Rockall will be redrawn upon the UK's accession to the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. The conversion will bring many advantages to the UK, including the right to impose strong anti-pollution measures around our shores and important freedom of navigation. The convention provides that rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

  Even before accession, the UK's claim to 200-mile fishery limits based on Rockall was highly questionable. Rockall itself will remain part of Scotland with a 12-mile territorial sea, and will remain within British fishery limits, as will the Rockall Bank and the new deep water fisheries to the east of Rockall. Redrawing our fishery limits has no effect on our continental shelf to the west of Rockall.

  Straddling Stocks
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the rules relating to straddling stocks under the UN law of the sea convention 1983; when they come into force; and if he will make a statement on the capacity of flag states to take action against foreign vessels taking straddling stocks. [11955]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The United Nations convention on the law of the sea—UNCLOS—of 10 December 1982, which enters into force for the United Kingdom on 24 August, contains a number of provisions relevant to straddling fish stocks, including a requirement that the states concerned seek to agree measures to conserve such stocks in the high seas. A detailed framework agreement of 1995 implementing these provisions of UNCLOS has been signed by the United Kingdom, but is not yet in force.

  A costal state may pursue into the high seas foreign vessels fishing for straddling stocks within its fishery limits in breach of its law and regulations. The control of vessels fishing for straddling stocks on the high seas is primarily the responsibility of the flag state. A coastal state will also be able to take action to the extent provided in the 1995 straddling stocks agreement, once it enters into force.

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the differences between the criteria set out in his answer to the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) of 28 July,Official Report, columns 26–29 and the criteria followed by the previous Government. [11885]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The new criteria for considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms build on the UK's commitments to guidelines on arms transfers agreed with permanent members of the UN Security Council, the European Union and the then Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.

  The new criteria are more detailed and precise than those followed by the previous Government. They represent a clear tightening of policy on arms exports, inter alia, by:
  moving from an assessment of whether equipment is likely to be used for internal repression of international aggression to an assessment of whether equipment might be so used;
  requiring officials to consider clear evidence of recent use of similar equipment exported by any country;
  providing detailed guidance on the meaning of internal repression;
  giving guidance on those goods which have a more obvious potential for use in internal repression.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contracts permitted by the previous Government he intends to prohibit in accordance with the criteria set out in his answer to the hon. Member for East Ham of 28 July,Official Report, columns 26–29, [11886]

  Mr. Lloyd
  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced on 28 July,Official Report, columns 26–29, we were not responsible for the decisions on

  483
  export licences made by the previous Administration. We do not, however, consider it realistic or practical to revoke licences which were valid and in force at the time of our election.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for East Ham of 28 July,Official Report, columns 26–29, for what reasons Her Majesty's Government do not consider it would be realistic or practical to revoke arms exports licences which were valid and in force at the time of the general election. [12211]

  Mr. Lloyd
  I will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  Sikander Mahmood
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the re-application for entry clearance by Sikander Mahmood, Islam Abad ref. IMM/D2436, will be dealt with(a) on the documentation submitted and (b) by interview. [11793]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have asked our high commission in Islamabad for a detailed account of the application and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will write to my hon. Friend within one week of receiving that account.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what factors underlie the continued sale of Hawk jets to Indonesia. [11832]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The decision to authorise the issue of the current licences to export 16 Hawk Aircraft to Indonesia was announced to the House on 21 November 1996,Official Report, column 676.

  As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House on 28 July, Official Report, columns 26–29, the present Government were not responsible for the decisions on export licences made by the previous Administration. We do not, however, consider that it would be realistic or practical to revoke licences that were valid and in force at the time of our election.

  East Timor
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many British made(a) Land Rovers, (b) water cannon and
  (c) other military, security and police equipment and vehicles are currently deployed in East Timor; and where they are located; [12105]

  (2) what steps the British Government have taken to ascertain the amount of British-made military, security and police vehicles and equipment currently deployed by Indonesia in East Timor; and what mechanisms have been put in place to monitor the end use in East Timor of such vehicles and equipment; [12106]

  (3) what assurances the Government have received from the Indonesian authorities regarding the deployment and use of British-made military, security and police equipment and vehicles in East Timor. [12104]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funding is presently committed from his departmental budget for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 to resolve the year 2000 computer problem; and if he will make a statement. [11892]

  Mr. Fatchett
  This Department's current cost estimate is £3 million—excluding the cost of replacement office automation systems, which will be millennium compliant, introduced before March 1999. We do not yet know the likely cost breakdown over the period in question. We will submit costed year 2000 plans to the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency by October 1997, in accordance with central requirements.

  Congo
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what efforts his Department is making to monitor the human rights situation in eastern areas of the Democratic Republic of the Congo; [12091]

  (2) what plans he has to refer the human rights record of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to (a) the UN Security Council and (b) the Organisation for African Unity; [12092]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the human rights situation in eastern areas of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [12090]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  Burma
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking against the State Law and Order Restoration Committee regime in Burma; what plans he has to support sanctions against the regime; and if he will make a statement. [12225]

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to encourage the UN to investigate the conditions in the Karenni relocation camps in Burma and the activities there of SLORC forces. [12241]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I will write to my hon. Friends shortly.

  Karabakh Conflict
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the new proposals of the three co-chairmen of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Minsk conference for a settlement of the Karabakh conflict; and if he will make a statement. [11984]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what
  485
  discussions he has had with other European Union countries regarding recent events in Cambodia; and if he will make a statement; [120141

  (2) what reports he has received on the involvement of Cambodian Government officials in the drugs trade; and if he will make a statement; [12089]

  (3) what representations he has made to the Government of Cambodia following the recent coup d'etat; and if he will make a statement; [12012]

  (4) what consideration he has given to the withdrawal of Her Majesty's ambassador in Phnom Penh following the recent coup d'etat by the minority party in the coalition Government established after the supervised elections; and if he will make a statement. [12013]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 26 June concerning a constituent; and why no acknowledgement has been sent to him. [11985]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  British Embassy, Berlin
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to announce the preferred bidder for the private finance initiative contract for the British embassy in Berlin; and if he will make a statement. [12278]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Department has selected Bebcon, a consortium of prominent German contractors and financiers, as the preferred bidder for the new British embassy offices in Berlin.

  The embassy will be built to a design by Michael Wilford and Partners, winners of the 1995 embassy design competition, on the site of the pre-war British embassy in Wilhelmstrasse. Under the eventual contract, Bebcon will finance, construct and then manage the building for 30 years. Building work will start around the end of this year, and the embassy staff will move into the new building in autumn 1999.

  This is the Department's pathfinder private finance initiative overseas estate project. European Union competition procedures and British Government private finance initiative guidance have been followed throughout.

  European Council
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for August; and if he will list major EU events for the next six months. [12279]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The information is as follows:
  486
  This calendar is primarily concerned with European Union matters, but certain other relevant events are also included. Events and dates quoted are based on the information available on the date of issue.

  align="center">European calendar: August 1997 to Janaury 1998

  Venue

  Event

  August 1997

  There are no events scheduled for August.

  September 1997

  4

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  5

  Kiev

  EU/Ukraine Summit

  7–9

  Echternach

  Agriculture Council(Informal)

  12–14

  Mondorf

  Ecofin Council (Informal)

  15–16

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  15–19

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  22–25

  New York

  Political Committee

  22–23

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  29

  Brussels

  Political Committee (reserve date—to be confirmed)

  October 1997

  1–2

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  2

  Luxembourg

  Telecommunications Council

  3–4

  Echternach

  Internal Market Council (Informal)

  6–7

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  7

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  9

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  9–10

  Mondorf

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (Informal)

  10–11

  Strasbourg

  Council of Europe Summit

  13

  Luxembourg

  Econfin Council

  16

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  16

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  16–17

  Luxembourg

  Possible European Council

  20–21

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  20–21

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  20–24

  Strasbourg

  European Parliamentary Plenary

  24–27

  Edinburgh

  CHOGM

  25–26

  Mondorf

  Foreign Ministers (Informal)

  30

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  November 1997

  3

  Brussels

  Consumer Council

  3

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  5–6

  Brussels

  European Parliamentary Plenary

  10

  Brussels

  Research Council

  10

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  13

  Brussels

  Industry Council

  17

  Brussels

  Ecofin Council

  17

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  17–18

  Brussels

  Agricultural Council

  17–21

  Strasbourg

  European Parliamentary Plenary

  19

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  20

  Brussels

  Education Council

  21

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  24

  Brussels

  Culture Council

  24–25

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  27

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  28

  Brussels

  Development Council

  December 1997

  1

  Brussels

  Ecofin Council

  1

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  2

  Brussels

  Labour and Social Affairs

  3–4

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  4

  Brussels

  Health Council

  4–5

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  8

  Brussels

  Energy Council

  8–9

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  10–11

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  12–13

  Luxembourg

  European Council

  15–16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  15–16

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  487

  European calendar: August 1997 to Janaury 1998

  Venue

  Event

  15–19

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  18–19

  Copenhagen

  OSCE Ministerial Council

  18–19

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  January 1998

  1

  —

  UK presidencency commences

  12

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council (to be confirmed)

  19

  Brussels

  Ecofin Council

  19–20

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  26–27

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  29–30

  (to be advised)

  Justice and Home Affairs Council (Informal)

  Entry Clearance
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to lay before the House the 1996 report by Dame Elizabeth Anson, the independent monitor of refusal of entry clearance where there is no right of appeal. [12266]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The report was laid today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. I welcome the report and note Dame Elizabeth's recommendations, which will receive careful consideration.

  North Atlantic Assembly
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the United Kingdom delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly. [12280]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The following will represent the United Kingdom at the North Atlantic Assembly:

  Mr. Donald Anderson MP (Leader)

  Mr. Hugh Bayley MP

  Mr. Menzies Campbell MP

  Mr. Harry Cohen MP

  Mr. Frank Cook MP

  The right hon. Sir Peter Emery MP

  Mr. Bruce George MP

  The Lord Gladwyn of Clee

  Mr. Mike Hancock MP

  Mrs. Sylvia Heal MP

  The right hon. Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith MP

  The Lord Kennet

  Alice Mahon MP

  Mr. Michael Mates MP

  Mr. John Smith MP

  Rachel Squire MP

  Mr. Peter Viggers MP

  The right hon. Alan Williams MP

  Departmental Payroll
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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 other departments and the costs of the systems and processes in the last year for which figures are available. [10730]
  488
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  This Department is responsible for the assessment of staff pay, the preparation of input, the evaluation of output and the reconciliation of the pay account.

  No management system has been purchased and there is no subcontractor involved.

  The calculation of pay is carried out on our behalf by GCHQ Cheltenham.

  The total cost of the in-house part of the whole operation is currently £1,160,000 per annum. This includes direct staff costs plus the cost of accommodation. The pay calculation running costs are borne by GCHQ, this Department having contributed to the original set-up costs.

  Kenya
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications of the moral and ethical principles of his foreign policy for relations with Kenya. [11292]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave him on 2 June,Official Report, column 81. We will treat respect for human rights as an important element in determining our overall relationship with Kenya. I underlined to the Kenyan Government and opposition the importance we attach to free and fair elections when I visited the country from 25 to 28 June. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development made clear on 16 July, Official Report, column 195, we will take account of further developments in this respect in deciding on future development assistance to Kenya. We have condemned the recent violence in Kenya and continue to urge all concerned to agree through peaceful dialogue on how the necessary conditions for free and fair elections can be established.

  Defence Equipment (Export Licences)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many export licences for defence equipment were issued between 1 May and 22 July. [10651]

  Mrs. Roche
  From 1 May up to and including 22 July 1997, 1,701 export licences were issued for the export of military, security and paramilitary goods and arms, ammunition and related material, controlled under part III of schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994; 1,673 were standard individual export licences, and 28 were open individual export licences.

PRIME MINISTER

  Policy Unit
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the commercial and other external interests of the members of his policy unit. [10399]

  The Prime Minister
  No. As with all other civil servants, the members of my policy unit are not required to publish their private interests. However they are required to ensure that there is no conflict between their private interests and their public duties.

  "Questions of Procedure for Ministers"
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister how many revisions have been made to "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" since May 1992; what paragraphs were revised and in what way; what factors underlay each revision; and on what dates each revision was announced to Parliament. [10406]

  The Prime Minister
  Three amendments to "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" have been made since May 1992. The first revised paragraphs 118 to 123 and was announced to the House on 21 July 1994,Official Report, column 551. The second, which revised paragraph 1 was amended after debate on the then Government's response to the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life Cm2931 and announced on 2 November 1995, Official Report, column 456. The most recent amendment was again to paragraph 1 and was set out in the then Government's response to the second report from the Public Service Committee on ministerial accountability and responsibility, HC 67, published 5 November 1996, the publication of which was announced to the House on 7 November 1996 Official Report, column 594. The background to the changes was set out in the statements to the House at the time and, in the case of the latter change, the Government response to the Public Service Select Committee report.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he has issued a new edition of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" to his ministerial colleagues. [12268]

  The Prime Minister
  I have issued to ministerial colleagues a successor document to "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" called the "Ministerial Code—a Code of Conduct and Guidance on Procedures for Ministers". I expect all Ministers to work within the letter and spirit of this code, in order to uphold the highest standards of honesty and propriety which the British people fairly expect of those in public life. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  I have also issued to my ministerial colleagues, "Guidance on the work of the Government Information Service"—a document which brings together in one place the guidance on the entire range of the Government information service's work. Copies of this have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those Departments with responsibility for arms sales indicating the particular responsibilities in each case. [10518]

  The Prime Minister
  The Departments most involved in matters related to defence exports are the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and HM Customs and Excise. The Defence Export Services Organisation, in the MOD, provides British defence exporters with the strongest possible Government support, within the framework of our defence, security and foreign policies. Licences to export controlled goods are issued by the President of the Board of Trade. All relevant individual licence applications are circulated by DTI to other Government Departments with an interest. These will normally include the FCO, MOD and Department for 490
  International Development. The DTI is also the sponsoring Department for the defence industry itself. It works closely with industry on the whole range of issues relating to its effectiveness. The FCO plays an active role in promoting British industry overseas and advises on the foreign policy implications of defence exports. Finally, HM Customs and Excise are responsible for the enforcement of export controls.

  Sovereign (Documents)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will reduce the 100-year embargo on the release of documents relating to the sovereign and the sovereign's family. [10613]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 July 1997]There is currently no statutory embargo on the release of public records relating to the royal family. The forthcoming White Paper on freedom of information will address the issue of public access to all types of Government records.

  Departmental Payroll
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Prime Minister 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. [10734]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster,Official Report, 29 July 1997, columns 140–41.

  Open Government
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 July,Official Report, column 44, if he will consider opening the other papers in the classmark CAB171 at the Public Record Office. [10954]

  The Prime Minister
  I shall consider this and let the hon. Member know the outcome once all the material has been reviewed.

  Palestine
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on UK-Palestine relations following his recent discussions with Chairman Arafat of the Palestine National Authority. [11338]

  The Prime Minister
  I was pleased to welcome President Arafat to London and to reiterate the Government's support for his work in the cause of peace in the middle east.

  I made clear our concern at the continuing deadlock and our strong support for international efforts to get the peace process back on track. We believe that it is important that neither side acts in a way that damages the prospects for peace. I reaffirmed to President Arafat our view that the continued building of Israeli settlements is not only illegal under international law, but a major obstacle in the way of peace.
  491
  I urged President Arafat to do everything possible to contain violence and to ensure the Palestinian Authority's respect for human rights. I reaffirmed Britain's willingness to continue playing an active role in the search for a just and lasting peace based on the two key principles of land for peace and the right of Israel to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries. As we approach our presidency of the European Union, we shall be giving particular attention to ways in which Europe can contribute.

  I also reassured President Arafat of the United Kingdom's continuing strong material support for the Palestinians.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the security of funding for(a) accommodation and (b) services for the Scottish Assembly over the next (i) 10 and (ii) 20 years [9927]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 July 1997]: The Government's proposals for the funding of the Scottish Parliament are set out in the White Paper, "Scotland's Parliament", which was published on 24 July.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of the division of responsibility between(a) a Scottish Assembly and
  (b) the Westminster Parliament on the capacity of (i) the Privy Council and (ii) other courts to evolve a corpus of consistent rulings in the legislative competence of the Assembly. [11732]

  The Prime Minister
  The propose procedures for identifying and resolving problems over the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament are set out in the White Paper, "Scotland's Parliament" at paragraphs 4.15 and 4.17. The Government believe that problems would normally be resolved amicably, but there would be procedures for establishing the competence of the Scottish Parliament both before and after legislation is considered by it; and there would be provision for unresolved disputes about vires to be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. There is no reason why the courts should not evolve a consistent body of rulings.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the areas of Scots law which would be subject to the Scottish Parliament and not subject to Westminster. [11802]

  The Prime Minister
  The White Paper, "Scotland's Parliament" makes clear that all matters that are not specifically reserved would be devolved and would therefore fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. A list of such matters is included in chapter 2 of the White Paper. Chapter 3 summarises the matters which would be observed.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if future United Kingdom legislation will include United Kingdom extent provisions following the introduction of a Scottish Parliament. [11801]

  The Prime Minister
  Following the introduction of a Scottish Parliament, United Kingdom legislation would continue where appropriate to include clauses defining its territorial extent.
  492
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of a Scottish Parliament on the current judicial structure. [11803]

  The Prime Minister
  It is made clear in the White Paper "Scotland's Parliament" that responsibility for the criminal justice system and prosecution system for the civil and criminal courts in Scotland would be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. It would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament to determine how it discharges that responsibility, although I would expect it to pay full regard to the independence and standing of the judiciary. The two most senior judicial appointments in Scotland—The Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice Clerk—would however continue to be made by the Queen, on my advice, but on the basis of nominations from the Scottish Executive.

  Amsterdam Summit
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) of 26 June,Official Report, column 608, if he will make a statement on the obligations of member states not participating in the Euro-area as set out in the presidency conclusions at Amsterdam. [11423]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 July 1997]: As I said in my previous reply, membership of the new exchange rate mechanism will be voluntary. There is therefore no legal obligation to join.

  Policy Reviews
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent instructions and guidelines he has given to Departments in relation to future policy reviews; and if he will make a statement. [11888]

  The Prime Minister
  Proposals for reviews should be cleared through my office, to ensure that they are considered in the context of the Government's overall agenda.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the Government's policy towards age discrimination in elections to public bodies. [11713]

  The Prime Minister
  Appointments to public bodies are governed by the overriding principle of selection based on merit. The Commissioner for Public Appointments' "Guidance on Appointment's to Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies and NHS bodies", which is mandatory for all Government Departments, states that age should not be a criterion in drawing up a specification for a public appointment unless there is a need to balance the age range of membership. However, even then, age should not be used as the deciding factor when making appointments.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on age discrimination in employment; and if he will make a statement. [11792]

  Mr. Alan Willians
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy in relation to age discrimination; and what steps have been taken to implement the policy. [11806]
  493
  The Prime Minister
  The Government firmly believe that age discrimination is unfair and makes no economic sense for business or society. However, tackling it is a complex matter and it is important to ensure that any action we take will bring real benefits. That is why we have already announced our intention to consult widely on age discrimination in employment to obtain a consensus on the best way forward.

  Minister without Portfolio
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reason the Government were represented at meetings in France on Thursday 17 July with(a) the French President's aide-de-camp and (b) the French Minister in charge of European affairs by the Minister without Portfolio. [11812]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster of 22 July,Official Report, column 525, if he will include the answering practices of the Minister without Portfolio in the review of ministerial accountability. [11976]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the reply given by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 22 July,Official Report, column 525.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the persons who were not established civil servants on 2 May whose salaries are currently being paid by Government Departments, identifying those who previously assisted the campaigning activity of the Labour party under the present Minister without Portfolio; and if he will list the current salaries and positions held by each of these persons. [5421]

  The Prime Minister
  [pursuant to his reply, 18 July, c. 340–41]: Mr. Bernard Gray should be added to the list of special advisers.

  Council of Europe
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will announce the composition of the United Kingdom delegation for the September 1997 part session of the parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. [12281]

  The Prime Minister
  The September 1997 part-session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will be opened in Strasbourg on 22 September. The delegation from the United Kingdom for the session will consist of 23 members of the Labour party, nine of the Conservative party and four members from the minority parties. The delegation will serve in place of the current delegation from the opening of September 1997 part-session.

  The appointments of representatives and substitutes have been made on the basis of nominations by the parties concerned, in accordance with the resolution of this House on 22 May 1992, Official Report, column 682 and of the House of Lords on 18 June 1992, columns 290–92.

  The same delegation will be representing the United Kingdom Parliament at the Assembly of the Western European Union.
  494
  Representatives from the Government benches will be:

  The hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), who will act as leader; the hon. Members for Tooting (Mr. Cox); for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe); for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn); for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe); for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara); for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall); for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara); for Glasgow Baillieston (Mr. Wray); Lord Kirkhill and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.

  Representatives from the Conservative Party will be:

  The hon. Members for: Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson); for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman); for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) and Lord Newall.

  Representatives from the minority parties will be:

  The right, hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and Lord Russell-Johnston.

  The following substitutes have been appointed to act as necessary on behalf of the delegates.

  From the Government Benches: the hon. Members for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer); for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones); for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Naysmith); for Dover (Mr. Prosser); for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley); for Basildon (Angela Smith); for Morecombe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith); for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Taylor); for Finchley and Golders Green; (Mr. Vis); Lord Grenfell and Lord Judd.

  From the Conservative party—the hon. Members for Romsey (Mr. Colvin); for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles); for Solihull (Mr. Taylor); for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and the Earl of Dundee.

  From the minority parties—the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and the Lord Steel of Aikwood.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the total cost of answering written questions tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker). [12536]

  The Prime Minister
  I am advised by POLIS that the hon. Member has tabled some 295 questions. The total cost is estimated at £30,000 since the beginning of May.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Higher Education
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will estimate, in 1995–96 prices, the level of Government expenditure on higher education for(a) 1990–91, (b)1991–92, (c)1992–93, (d)1993–94, (e)1994–95, (f)1995–96, (g)1996–97, (h)1997–98, (i) 1998–99, (j)1999–2000 and (k)2000–01, using (i) the plans as set out in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1997–98" including the estimates of the gross domestic product deflators contained therein, and (ii) the new estimates of the GDP deflator announced in the Budget and any additional moneys available as a consequence of the policy changes announced in his statement of 23 July; [11590]

  (2) what is his estimate of the extra Government expenditure available for higher education as a consequence of his statement of 23 July for (a)1997–98, (b)1998–99, (c)1999–2000 and(d) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [11591]
  495
  Dr. Howells
  The table shows the level of Government expenditure on higher education institutions for the period from 1990–91 to 1999–2000, in line with the expenditure plans announced in the 1996 Budget which were not changed in the July 1997 Budget. No figures are available for 2000–2001 at this stage.

  In his statement of 23 July on the Government's preferred approach to the future funding of higher

  Public Funding for Higher Education in England

  Financial year

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  November 1996 GDP deflator

  7.99%

  6.41%

  4.21%

  2.89%

  1.77%

  2.53%

  2.50%

  2.00%

  2.00%

  2.00%

  June 1997 GDP deflator

  8.00%

  6.38%

  4.20%

  2.91%

  1.51%

  2.75%

  2.76%

  2.75%

  2.75%

  2.50%

  HEFCE sector grants

  £2,711m

  £2,539m

  £2,664m

  £2,890m

  £3,538m

  £3,734m

  £3,561m

  £3,609m

  £3,573m

  £3,489m

  TTA grants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  £116m

  £175m

  £179m

  £175m

  £167m

  Tuition fee income

  £555m

  £l,140m

  £l,349m

  £l,498m

  £l,142m

  £967m

  £991m

  £988m

  £l,047m

  £l,047m

  Total funding in cash terms1

  £3,266m

  £3,679m

  £4,013m

  £4,388m

  £4,680m

  £4,817m

  £4,727m

  £4,776m

  £4,796m

  £4,703m

  Total funding in real terms (November 1996 deflator)2

  £3,986m

  £4,219m

  £4,416m

  £4,693m

  £4,918m

  £4,937m

  £4,727m

  £4,682m

  £4,609m

  £4,432m

  Total funding in real terms(June 1997 deflator)3

  £3,993m

  £4,228m

  £4,426m

  £4,703m

  £4,941m

  £4,950m

  £4,727m

  £4,648m

  £4,542m

  £4,346m

  1 Adjust to allow for the dual support transfer to the Office for Science and Technology over the period 1992–93 to 1994–95

  2 1996–97 prices

  3 1996–97prices

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate on the present accounting basis, of the(a)additional expenditure on higher education and (b)additional revenues accruing to the Exchequer in (1)1998–99, (2)1999–2000 and (3)2000–01, as a consequence of the proposed changes to higher education tuition payments and student maintenance; and if he will make a statement. [11188]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The following table shows the estimated cost of extending loans and the savings associated with the replacement of grants with loans and the introduction of tuition fees under the Government's preferred approach to the future funding of higher education announced by my right hon. Friend on 23 July. Figures are for financial years at 1995–96 prices. The net savings are therefore notional and have been derived independently of current expenditure plans. They are also dependent on the phasing of the introduction of the new loans arrangements.

  align="right">£million

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Additional loans

  expenditure1

  (400)

  (750)

  (1,100)

  Grants savings

  250

  600

  850

  Tuition fee savings

  150

  250

  400

  Net savings

  0

  100

  150

  1Costs are shown in brackets

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate of student numbers in higher education for(a) 1990–91, (b)1991–92, (c)1992–93, (d)1993–94, (e)1994–95, (f)1995–96, (g)1996–97, (h)1997–1998, (i)1998–99, (j)1999–2000 and (k)2000–01. [11622]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government's estimates of higher education student numbers in England remain for the time being as shown in the table. No projections have yet been made for the year 2000–01.
  496
  education, my right hon. Friend said savings would be used to improve quality, standards and opportunity for all in further and higher education. I refer the hon. Member to the following answer which sets out our estimates of the net savings associated with this preferred approach. Net savings would start to accrue in 1999–2000. We have not yet taken decisions about extra Government expenditure for higher education in the light of these savings.

  Home and EU students (full-time equivalents, thousands) by academic year:

  Number

  1990–91 actual

  673

  1991–92 actual

  756

  1992–93 actual

  853

  1993–94 actual

  942

  1994–95 actual

  1,000

  1995–96 provisional

  1,041

  1996–97 projected

  1,046

  1997–98 projected

  1,042

  1998–99 projected

  1.058

  1999–2000 projected

  1,060

  We shall review student numbers for future years in the light of our comprehensive spending review and of the recently published report of the national committee of inquiry into higher education under Sir Ron Dearing, whose aim of widening participation we support.

  School Inspections
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review the system of school inspections to ensure that schools that have received a satisfactory Office for Standards in Education report are not subject to a further inspection after an amalgamation; and if he will make a statement. [11082]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 30 July 1997]: The timing of school inspections and the requested analysis of inspections undertaken so far are matters for Her Majesty's chief inspector. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend, placing a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the numbers of(a)Ofsted reports published up to 1 January 1997 for primary and secondary schools in England, (b)teaching staff in those schools and (c)teachers identified by the reports as poor or failing; and if he will make a statement. [11093]
  497
  Mr. Byers
  The timing of school inspections and the requested analysis of inspections undertaken so far are matters for HMCI. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member, placing a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the costs of the preparation and evaluation of inspection bids by(a)local education authorities, (b) private companies and (c) Ofsted, since the introduction of the compulsory competitive tendering regime. [5336]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 23 June 1997]: The costs of the preparation and evaluation of inspection bids are matters for HMCI. I understand that he has written to my hon. Friend and a copy of his letter is being placed in the Library.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to end compulsory competitive tendering in school inspection. [5335]

  Mr. Byers
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of the reply in the Library.

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment under what legislative authority the Government will be implementing its welfare-to-work programme. [11638]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Opportunities for work, education and training under our new deal for young people and long term unemployed adults will be provided pursuant to arrangements made by the Secretary of State under the Employment and Training Act 1973, as amended by the Employment Act 1988. The new deal will deliver high quality options for 18 to 24-year-olds who claim the jobseeker's allowance for six months or more. We intend to amend the Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996, subject to the approval of Parliament, to ensure that young people who are entitled to benefit from the new deal also have responsibility for participating in the programme, and that there is no additional option of continuing indefinitely on full benefit.

  New Deal
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to incorporate foyers into the gateway framework of the new deal; and if he will make a statement. [11917]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Foyers, like other interested organisations, will be able to bid to deliver appropriate parts of the gateway against the national specification which will set out the detailed arrangements for the provision of these services.

  We are consulting widely on the design of the new deal for young unemployed people and on the range of provision which should be available during the gateway to help young people to overcome particular disadvantages and problems. Foyers, like other interested organisations, are fully involved in those consultations.

  Oxbridge Entrants
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to increase the percentage of students entering Oxford and Cambridge universities from state schools. [11716]

  Dr. Howells
  The universities of Oxford and Cambridge are, like all higher education institutions, responsible for their own admissions procedures and Ministers are prevented by law from intervening in such matters.

  Business (Government Assistance Schemes)
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people in each of the last five years qualified for assistance on(a) the enterprise allowance scheme and (b) the business start-up scheme in each standard region and Great Britain as a whole; and what was the annual expenditure in each year. [12172]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The enterprise allowance scheme was replaced in 1991–92 by the business start-up scheme which, in turn, was absorbed within the single regeneration budget in 1994–95. The precise information requested is not available, but starts by Government office region are available for 1994–95 and are given in table 1 and total expenditure and number of starts in England for each year of the programme are given in table 2.

  Table 1: Business start-up scheme: Starts by English region 1994–95

  Region

  Starts

  South East

  2,393

  London

  3,081

  Eastern

  1,925

  South West

  2,801

  West Midlands

  1,576

  East Midlands

  3,042

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  3,402

  Merseyside

  1,356

  North West

  3,058

  North East

  1,602

  align="center">Table2: Business start-up scheme: Starts and expenditure in England

  Year

  Starts

  Expenditure (£ million)

  1992–93

  33,600

  62.0

  1993–94

  34,700

  82.0

  1994–95

  24,236

  63.8

  Class Sizes (Bolton)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly), of 18 June,nOfficial Report, column 193–4, what factors underlie the maximum class size of 60 for the Bolton, South-East constituency. [12004]

  Mr. Byers
  The information derives from classes as taught during a single selected period on the census date in January. This can include some unusually large classes. Classes can include nursery as well as infant classes,
  499
  classes engaged in activities such as physical education, games, drama, music, singing, watching television or listening to a radio programme, and classes supported by one or more members of the non-teaching staff of the school. Class sizes can be affected by one or more of these factors.

  The class of 60 pupils taught by one teacher in the Bolton, South-East constituency was a nursery class. The teacher was supported by four nursery assistants.

  Education-related Projects
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review the criteria for the funding of youth and community projects and other education-related projects for young people in respect of the eligibility of those in the 11 to 14 years age range. [12230]

  Dr. Howells
  None. The delivery and funding of the youth service are matters for decision by individual local education authorities out of the resources made available to them through the annual local government finance settlement.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding is presently committed from his departmental budget for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 to resolve the year 2000 computer problem; and if he will make a statement. [11897]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), on 10 July 1997 Official Report, column 573.

  Autistic Children
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he has issued to local education authorities on the provision of special educational needs for autistic children following the recent court judgment requiring an authority to pay for an autistic child to attend the Higashi school in the USA. [11791]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The High Court's decision related to an individual appeal, where particular circumstances applied. It would not be appropriate to issue general advice to local education authorities on the basis of that case.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when his Department's

  Table 1: The Age Participation Index (API) for Great Britain by socio-economic group

  Academic year

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  I—Professional (A)

  55

  71

  73

  78

  79

  II—Intermediate (B)

  36

  39

  42

  45

  45

  IIIn—Skilled non-manual (C1)

  22

  27

  29

  31

  31

  III—Skilled manual (C2)

  11

  15

  17

  18

  18

  500
  review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will be completed; and when he plans to make an announcement on its result. [11498]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 26 June,Official Report, column 635.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what representations he has received from(a) the National Disability Council and (b) organisations representing disabled people concerning the implementation of the later rights of access under part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if he will make a statement; [11496]

  (2) if he will publish a timetable for the implementation of the later rights of access within part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [11497]

  Mr. Howarth
  The National Disability Council, disabled people and their organisations, individual businesses and their representatives and many others have responded to the consultation exercise carried out by the previous Government last year and have given their views on how quickly it would be sensible to implement the later rights of access under part III of the Disability Discrimination Act. A summary of responses to the consultation exercise will be published in due course. The Department is currently considering these matters in the context of our determination to deliver our manifesto commitment to establishing comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people. The Department will make an announcement as soon as possible. Whatever our eventual recommendation, the Department is committed to developing our proposals in consultation with all interested parties.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what penalties the Government will enforce against schools which educate five, six and seven-year-olds in classes of more than 30. [11640]

  Mr. Byers
  It is our pledge that, by the end of this Parliament, all pupils of five, six and seven years old will be in classes of 30 or less. We are consulting on the mechanics of implementing this pledge to reduce class sizes.

  University Students
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on changes in the percentage of students entering university education in the last 18 years from social classes A, B, C and D. [11717]

  Dr. Howells
  The following table shows how the proportions of young people from different socio-economic groups entering full-time higher education have changed since 1991–92: comparable data are not readily available from earlier years.
  501

  Table 1: The Age Participation Index (API) for Great Britain by socio-economic group

  Academic year

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  IV—Partly skilled (D)

  12

  14

  16

  17

  17

  V—Unskilled (E)

  6

  9

  11

  11

  12

  Total

  23

  28

  30

  32

  32

  Groups I to III

  26

  31

  33

  35

  36

  Groups IV and V

  11

  13

  14

  15

  16

  The API is the number of home domiciled young (aged less than 21) initial entrants to full-time undergraduate courses in GB, expressed as a proportion of the average 18 to 19 year old GB population.

  (A), (B), (C1), (C2), (D), (E)—institute of practitioners (IPA) equivalent definition of social class.

  Participation among socio-economic groups D and E remains less than half that of socio-economic groups A to C, notwithstanding the recent expansion in higher education. The Government's proposals, as set out in my right hon. Friend's statement to the House on 23 July, will encourage access and ensure free education for the least well-off.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures will be taken to address student hardship among poorer students following the introduction of tuition fees; and what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of fees on the composition of the student intake and on the level of educational attainment. [11794]

  Dr. Howells
  Under the Government's preferred approach to the future funding of higher education announced by my right hon. Friend on 23 July, students from poorer families will not have to pay fees. They will continue to receive free tuition. They will also have access to larger subsidised loans than students from better off families. The Government's proposals are designed to widen access to higher education and to encourage those from under-represented groups, such as lower-income families, to undertake higher education.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if European Union nationals studying in the United Kingdom will be required to pay fees for higher education on the same basis as United Kingdom nationals. [11626]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government remain committed to treating students from other European Union countries on the same basis as home students as far as fees are concerned.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the net annual savings to public funds from the introduction of tuition fees for higher education in each of the next 10 years. [11174]

  Dr. Howells
  The annual level of savings will be dependent upon the number of students entering higher education in each year, but for working purposes the savings associated with the introduction of tuition fees are estimated at approximately £150 million in the financial year 1998–99, rising to approximately £400 million in 2000–01. These figures are at 1995–96 prices. In the first year of the new funding arrangements, 1998–99, the savings associated with the introduction of tuition fees and the shift from maintenance grants to loans will be offset by the cost of additional loans expenditure.
  502
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment at what point in the academic year tuition fees will have to be paid; and if failure to pay will prevent a student from attending the course. [11173]

  Dr. Howells
  It will be for universities and colleges to determine when the fee should be paid and what should happen in the case of students who do not pay.

  Educational Qualifications
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if United Kingdom students who have studied for a minimum period of one or two years will have their educational qualifications recognised in other European Union countries; and whether they will continue to qualify for European Union educational programmes and grants. [11627]

  Dr. Howells
  The acceptance of United Kingdom qualifications in other European countries is a matter for the appropriate authorities in the country concerned. United Kingdom students will continue to qualify for European Union programmes and grants if they satisfy the conditions of eligibility.

  Bursaries and Awards
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the total cost of university grants, bursaries and maintenance awards paid to undergraduates in the last available year; and what proportion of that total was paid to undergraduates from households with net incomes of(a) £15,000 or less and (b) £15,000 to £25,000 annually. [11578]

  Dr. Howells
  Expenditure on mandatory awards made to students by local education authorities in England and Wales in the academic year 1995–96 was £2,059 million, of which £1,075 million was for maintenance grants. For most students, the grant is means tested primarily on the taxable income of his or her parents and not on the net income of the household. It is not possible to relate the total expenditure on grants to particular levels of parental income. However, in 1995–96, the parents of some 198,000–33 per cent.—dependent students were assessed to make a nil contribution to grant because their income was £15,510 or below. The parents of a further 149,000–25 per cent.—dependent students were assessed to make a contribution of between £45 and £1,000 because their income was between £15,510 and approximately £25,300.

  Information on expenditure on bursaries and awards made by other bodies is not collected centrally.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the amount, and proportion, of paper recycled by his Department in each of the last five years. [11546]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department retains information only on the amount of recyclable wastepaper collected and this is as follows:

  Figures quoted in kilos

  1992–93

  82,066

  1993–94

  82,066

  1994–95

  289,001

  1995–961

  278,671

  1996–97

  196,860

  Total

  928,664

  Recycling schemes were introduced at different points across the estate during the period covered by the question. Rationalisation of the estate.

  1The merger between the Department for Education and the Employment Department and a commitment to reduce the use of hard copy documents in favour of electronic documentation have also played their part in the resultant figures given.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to introduce a waste minimisation strategy for his Department. [11544]

  Dr. Howells
  Waste minimisation forms part of the Department's green housekeeping strategy. The strategy for 1997–98 is based on measuring several streams of waste collected for recycling—paper, aluminium cans, bottles, copier toner cartridges and fluorescent tubes. Within the framework of the strategy, facilities management teams on each of our four main sites—Darlington, London, Runcorn and Sheffield—decide which streams they will measure.

  At the end of the year, it is intended that progress will be reviewed against the overall minimisation target and all sites will be urged to extend the range of streams to be measured during 1998–99.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on existing targets set to minimise waste in his Department. [11545]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has set a target of reducing waste by 5 per cent. during 1997–98 and plans to compare records for the period from April to September with those from October to March. The year 1997–98 will then be adopted as the base year for setting realistic future targets.

  Departmental Payroll
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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 other Departments and the costs of the systems and processes in the last year for which figures are available. [10728]

  Dr. Howells
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Consultation Exercises
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will place in the Library before the summer adjournment a list of his Department's current consultation exercises initiated since 1 May. [11796]

  Dr. Howells
  Since 1 May, the Department for Education and Employment has carried out, and is presently undertaking, the following consultations:

  Consultations exercises which have ended
  Introduction of a single school leaving date for 16-year-olds in 1998—ended 28 July
  National curriculum assessment and reporting arrangements—ended 18 July

  Current consultation exercises
  Adult guidance
  Arrangements for publication of primary school performance tables by local education authorities in 1997
  Design and Implementation Advisory Group—university for industry
  Draft amendments to the Education (Pupil Registration) Regulation 1995
  Early years development plans for 1998–99: draft guidance for consultation
  Education (Assisted Places) Regulations: statutory consultation
  Employment-based routes into teaching
  First aid in schools
  Funding of in-service training for those involved in careers education and guidance
  Higher education
  Initial training and qualifications of careers advisers
  Investing in young people: the right to study
  New deal building partnerships
  New deal national design consultation—(three events)
  New deal regional conferences and events (28 in total)
  Preliminary study into public sector financial control training for training and enterprise councils
  Regulations to govern the approval of qualifications under section 37 (1) (b) of the Education Act 1997
  School security: dealing with troublemakers
  Smaller infant classes
  "Successful careers in the 21st Century"—policy document on the future of the careers service
  Teaching: high status, high standards—General Teaching Council
  TECs and welfare to work
  White Paper "Excellence in schools"
  Youth service audit

  The list includes both small and large-scale consultation exercises. In certain instances, the consultation is limited to a small number of key organisations and not to a scale normally associated with consultation exercises. The list does not include consultation exercises within the Department.

  Windfall Tax
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to include unemployed disabled people in employment and training programmes funded by the windfall tax; and if he will make a statement. [12016]
  505
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We intend that unemployed disabled people will get the help they need to meet the aim of improving their skills, employability and job prospects. Ministers have already decided that disabled people claiming jobseeker's allowance will have early access to the opportunities for work, education and training provided by the new deal for young unemployed people. We will also encourage and enable those with disabilities or a long-standing illness to access training and work, to improve their employability and thereby reduce their dependency on long-term incapacity benefits. Some £200 million from the windfall levy has been set aside to fund this and other measures.

  Office Refurbishment
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for the refurbishment of ministerial offices in his Department; and what is the estimated cost of the works and date of completion. [11872]

  Dr. Howells
  The only plans are to purchase appropriate furniture for the two new ministerial offices created in the DfEE headquarters building following the election. The estimated cost is £15,000 and delivery is expected within two to three months.

  Tithe Farm Lower School
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the latest position on the Office for Standards in Education inspection of Tithe Farm lower school, Houghton Regis, Bedfordshire; and if he will make a statement. [11620]

  Mr. Byers
  The inspection of individual schools is a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector. I will, however, write to the hon. Member, setting out the statutory procedures for the production and distribution of inspection reports. I will place a copy of my letter in the Library.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to introduce a waste minimisation strategy for her Department. [11568]

  Clare Short
  My Department intends to review its management practices to ensure that we maximise energy efficiency, recycling and water saving. The review will include an examination of waste.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on existing targets set to minimise waste in her Department. [11569]

  Clare Short
  There are no existing formal waste minimisation targets although my Department recycles paper and glass. Energy-efficient lighting and state-of-the-art boiler controls have been introduced in the Department's building in East Kilbride and an energy efficiency audit has also been commissioned. The 506
  Department rents its London and overseas offices, and pursues energy-efficient policies within the constraints of rented property.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the amount, and proportion, of paper recycled by her Department in each of the last five years. [11570]

  Clare Short
  Records of waste paper recycling are incomplete, but the estimated quantities recycled in each of the last five years are:

  1992–93: 29.7 tonnes

  1993–94: 31.0 tonnes

  1994–95: 31.2 tonnes

  1995–96: 30.4 tonnes

  1996–97: 29.0 tonnes

  Data on paper usage for each of the last five years could be provided only at disproportionate expense, but the quantity recycled in 1996–97 is estimated to represent approximately 27.5 per cent. of supplies purchased in that year.

  Office Refurbishment
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has for the refurbishment of ministerial offices in her Department; and what is the estimated cost of the works and date of completion. [11867]

  Clare Short
  Following the creation of a second ministerial post in my Department, it has been necessary to create additional ministerial office accommodation in the buildings in London and East Kilbride. Including consequential expenditure on relocating and repartitioning adjoining non-ministerial accommodation, the total estimated cost of building works was £26,263. The works are substantially complete. The cost of providing additional furniture is estimated at £19,832. No other refurbishment is planned.

  North Korea
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to respond to the UNICEF appeal for aid to children in North Korea. [11288]

  Clare Short
  We are discussing the appeal with UNICEF and will decide on our response once we know the result of the UNICEF evaluation mission currently under way.

  Aid and Trade
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the total value of aid and trade provision projects since 1978; and if she will list the top 10(a) recipient countries in descending order by value of projects received and the value of ATP received by each country as a percentage of the total and (b) companies in descending order by value of projects received and the value of ATP received by each company as a percentage of the total. [11840]

  Clare Short
  The total value of commitments for aid and trade provision projects since 1978 is £1,387 million.
  507
  The top 10 recipient countries in descending order by the value of ATP commitments are:

  Country

  ATP allocation (£ million)

  Percentage of ATP total

  China

  285.94

  20.47

  Indonesia

  261.36

  18.71

  Malaysia

  152.03

  10.88

  India

  96.42

  6.90

  Turkey

  89.93

  6.44

  Zimbabwe

  55.64

  3.98

  Kenya

  46.89

  3.36

  Philippines

  46.52

  3.33

  Egypt

  40.53

  2.90

  Morocco

  37.95

  2.72

  Total

  1,113.21

  79.69

  Total for all countries

  11,396.99

  —

  1 Due to rounding the totals may not balance. The Balfour Beatty figure includes £24.37 million spent in respect of the Pergau hydro-electric project before 1994–95. This project is no longer being financed by the aid and trade provision.

  It is not possible to provide figures for the amount of business retained by the prime contractor as opposed to the amount handled by subcontractors. It should, however, be noted that the extent of subcontracting is normally considerable.

  The 10 companies that have won most ATP-supported business as prime contractors since 1978 are:

  Company

  ATP allocation (£ million)

  Percentage of ATP total

  Kvaerner (including the Trafalgar House Group)

  188.66

  13.50

  GEC

  155.31

  10.94

  Balfour Beatty

  108.37

  7.63

  Rolls Royce (including NEI)

  68.82

  4.85

  Biwater

  66.42

  4.68

  AMEC

  58.7

  4.13

  Foster Wheeler

  53.85

  3.79

  Snamprogetti UK

  47.18

  3.32

  Siemens Plessey

  43.43

  3.11

  Philips UK

  34.11

  2.40

  Total

  824.85

  59.04

  ATP total allocated

  1,396.99

  —

  Debt Relief Assistance
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans the Government have for assistance with debt relief for(a) Ethiopia, (b) Burkina Faso, (c) Burundi, (d) Ghana, (e) Kenya, (f) Madagascar, (g) Mozambique, (h) Nicaragua, (i) Rwanda, (j) Zimbabwe and (k) Uganda. [11287]

  Mr. Darling
  I have been asked to reply.

  Debt payments due to the UK arising from export credits are rescheduled in the multilateral forum of the Paris Club. Decisions on which countries qualify for debt relief, and on the amount of relief provided, are taken on a case-by-case basis. The UK has already cancelled its aid loans to six of the countries listed, and only one of the countries, Zimbabwe, now has any such loans outstanding to the UK.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will publish the latest draft of the multilateral agreement on investment, and place a copy in the Library. [10653]

  Clare Short
  [pursuant to her reply, 28 July 1997, c. 56]: The Department of Trade and Industry leads on this agreement. My hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry told the House on 23 July that the report that was presented to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Ministers in May 1997 on the progress of the multilateral agreement on investment is to be placed in the Library of both Houses.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will list the amount, and proportion, of paper recycled by his Department in each of the last five years; [11531]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce a waste minimisation strategy for his Department; [11529]

  (3) if he will make a statement on existing targets set to minimise waste within his Department. [11530]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  My Department recycled approximately 32 tonnes of paper last year, but no records are available for previous years. Arrangements are now being made to record the proportion of all waste paper which is recycled.

  As part of a green housekeeping strategy, my Department is committed to adopting the best environment practices wherever possible and practicable, including reducing the amount of waste produced and maximising that which is recycled. Initiatives already implemented include guidance to staff on paper-saving practices such as using electronic mail, double-side copying, and reusing envelopes, the installation of green bins to collect paper or cardboard for recycling and schemes introduced for the recycling of cans, plastic cups, and printer toner cartridges.

  A waste audit was recently undertaken and we will use the results of the audit to help us set a target for minimising waste by the end of August.

  Newstead Abbey
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received about the possible undermining of Newstead abbey; what steps he is taking; and if he will make a statement. [11903]

  Mr. Banks
  Representations have been received from the Byron Society, the Newstead Abbey Byron Society, the Thoroton Society of Nottinghamshire and four individuals. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is very concerned by reports that the mining will have adverse effects on the structure of these nationally important buildings and is considering what can be done to mitigate the likely impact on these structures or prevent damage from occurring.

  Museums and Galleries Commission
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement in respect of the grant in aid his Department proposes to give to the Museums and Galleries Commission until 2000. [11700]

  Mr. Fisher
  The Museums and Galleries Commission's grant in aid for the financial year 1997–98 is £8,904,000. The indicative figures for the next two years are:

  1998–99: £8,826,000

  1999–2000: £8,693,000

  Firm allocations for 1998–99 will be announced in the autumn.

  Office Refurbishment
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has for the refurbishment of ministerial offices in his Department; and what is the estimated cost of the works and date of completion. [11875]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  My Department is creating a new office for the additional Minister announced following the election. This involves work to one other Minister's office and moving some private offices. In total, five offices will be redecorated. As this work is being tendered, the estimated cost is commercially sensitive at present.

  Sports Broadcasting
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will introduce a development levy on television contracts with sporting clubs and ruling bodies to assist funding for youth development of sport. [11949]

  Mr. Banks
  Although I am not persuaded that a statutory levy is justified, the Government do want to see sports bodies re-investing a good proportion of television money into youth development of their sports. The sports' own code of conduct on the sale of television rights itself accepts this point.

  Tourism (Dramatic Arts)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the contribution of British dramatic arts to the promotion of inbound tourism in(a) London and (b) the United Kingdom. [11702]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  In 1995, 49 per cent. of visitors said that our theatres and performing arts were an important part of their decision to come to Britain. In 1996, 35 per cent. of overseas visitors to London said that London's culture and arts had greatly encouraged them to visit and a further 41 per cent. said that culture and arts had influenced their decision to come. The British Tourist Authority fully recognises the importance of arts and culture in attracting overseas visitors, and these play an integral role in its overseas marketing campaigns.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the impact of rises in ticket prices to dramatic arts venues in London on the United Kingdom tourism industry. [11703]
  510
  Mr. Clarke
  The latest available information from the society of London Theatres, from 1991, showed that up to one third of seats in London's theatres were filled by overseas visitors and many other by domestic tourists. I understand that the society will be updating this information later this year. The English tourist board announced last week that tourist spending in England rose by 7 per cent. to a record level of £10.7 billion in 1996. The British Tourist Authority estimates that earnings from overseas tourism in 1996 increased by 5 per cent. to £12.69 billion. All the evidence therefore suggests that London continues to attract record numbers of visitors.

  Museums and Galleries (Lottery Funding)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures are being taken to ensure an equitable distribution of lottery funds to museums and galleries across the United Kingdom. [11701]

  Mr. Banks
  The national lottery distributing bodies have already announced awards worth over £465 million to museums and galleries throughout the country, notably through the Heritage Lottery Fund's major museum, library and archive projects programme which aims to achieve a good regional spread of major projects across the United Kingdom.

  The White Paper "The People's Lottery", Cm3709, published on 21 July, makes clear the Government's objective that there should be more confidence that lottery money generally is allocated fairly and equitably in the light of need across all regions and parts of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to extend the use of heritage lottery funding in respect of museums and galleries projects. [11699]

  Mr. Banks
  The National Heritage Act 1997 will extend the powers of the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund and enable them to support a wider range of projects and applicants. The powers will open up new opportunities for the Heritage Lottery Fund to assist museum and gallery projects. The Heritage Lottery Fund is currently consulting on the use of the wider powers. We are considering implementation of the Act as part of our wider review of lottery distribution.

  Millennium Commission Grants
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, if he will list by local authority area in(a) Wales and (b) England the (i) number and (ii) value of Millennium Commission grants made in each year to date. [7221]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall write to my hon. Friend in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Lottery Awards
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list, for each category of national lottery good causes, how much money has been
  511
  awarded to individuals or organisations in the Chorley parliamentary constituency in each year since the lottery was established. [11219]

  Mr. Banks
  To date, over £3.7 billion has been awarded to 27,387 projects throughout the UK. Of these, 19 awards worth £534,962 have been made to projects in Chorley. Annual breakdowns are set out in the following table.

  Distributing body

  Total amount £

  Number of awards

  1995

  Arts Council of England

  —

  0

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  —

  0

  Millennium Commission

  —

  0

  National Lottery Charities Board

  53,328

  3

  Sports Council

  43,523

  1

  Total for 1995

  96,851

  4

  1996

  Arts Council of England

  —

  0

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  97,130

  2

  Millennium Commission

  —

  0

  National Lottery Charities Board

  324,313

  10

  Sports Council

  9,118

  1

  Total for 1996

  430,561

  13

  Region

  London1

  Merseyside

  North-west

  South-east

  Distributing body

  Amount£

  Awards

  Amount£

  Awards

  Amount£

  Awards

  Amount£

  Awards

  1995

  Arts Council

  126,468,346

  81

  3,225,848

  10

  7,318,924

  41

  12,526,983

  45

  Charities Board

  28,804,775

  328

  6,504,451

  105

  13,403,172

  221

  13,412,786

  240

  Sports Council

  4,840,007

  34

  4,108,997

  9

  9,293,546

  61

  25,168,932

  121

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  23,785,882

  20

  90,000

  1

  4,600,619

  7

  1,304,642

  12

  Millennium Commission2

  52,200,000

  2

  1,668,500

  1

  12,431,702

  2

  70,891,500

  5

  1995 total

  236,099,010

  465

  15,597,796

  126

  47,047,963

  332

  123,304,843

  423

  1996

  Arts Council

  163,399,606

  173

  2,050,243

  15

  69,810,976

  84

  40,639,873

  84

  Charities Board

  52,367,043

  559

  11,229,820

  141

  27,542,094

  361

  25,752,757

  410

  Sports Council

  31,921,074

  71

  3,409,903

  14

  15,159,624

  113

  32,160,530

  212

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  125,134,428

  59

  4,010,000

  4

  14,158,065

  36

  15,293,204

  39

  Millennium Commission

  52,943,718

  5

  —

  0

  19,065,549

  3

  4,296,850

  6

  1996 total

  425,765,869

  867

  20,699,966

  174

  145,736,308

  597

  118,143,214

  751

  1997

  Arts Council

  35,794,183

  893

  2,857,883

  40

  22,961,547

  159

  10,564,722

  583

  Charities Board

  5,994,942

  36

  —

  0

  197,359

  3

  1,509,190

  12

  Sports Council

  46,073,489

  45

  6,309,089

  6

  53,787,600

  74

  36,365,440

  122

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  60,629,091

  68

  9,706,100

  9

  51,888,958

  46

  26,842,758

  62

  Millennium Commission

  —

  0

  28,721,195

  2

  2,700,000

  1

  329,800

  1

  1997 total

  148,491,705

  1,042

  47,594,267

  57

  131,535,464

  283

  75,611,910

  780

  Grand total

  810,356,581

  2,374

  83,892,029

  357

  324,319,735

  1,212

  317,059,967

  1,954

  1 Awards to bodies based in London include many to institutions that are of national importance and are of benefit to the country as a whole. Awards to these organisations account for 60 per cent. (approximately £485 million) of the total so far awarded to London.

  2 Figures for Millennium Commission awards cover capital projects only and so exclude the Millennium Awards scheme.

  512

  Distributing body

  Total amount £

  Number of awards

  1997

  Arts Council of England

  7,550

  2

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  —

  0

  Millennium Commission

  —

  0

  National Lottery Charities Board

  —

  0

  Sport Council

  —

  0

  Total for 1997

  7,550

  2

  Grand total

  534,962

  19

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list, for each category of national lottery good causes, how much money has been(a) given and (b) awarded in the Government regions of (i) London, (ii) the north-west, (iii) Merseyside and (iv) the south-east, in each of the years since the lottery was established. [11220]

  Mr. Banks
  To date, over £3.7 billion has been awarded to 27,387 projects throughout the UK. An annual breakdown of the awards in London, the north-west, Merseyside and the south-east is set out in the following table. Figures for the amounts already drawn down by region are not held centrally.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding is presently committed from his departmental budget for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 to resolve the year 2000 computer problem; and if he will make a statement. [11894]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The cost of preventive and remedial action on year 2000 will be met from existing public expenditure survey provision. The Department is following the guidance published by CCTA. A detailed and costed action plan is being drawn up.

  English Sports Council
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about the appointment of ministerial nominees to the regions of the English Sports Council. [21319]

  Mr. Banks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has previously announced that, as part of our new approach to sport, we are looking at the way that the current sports council structures are working. As part of that review, we have looked carefully at the regional structure of the English Sports Council, the proposed role of ministerial nominees to the council's regional offices, and the relationship between the council and local authorities and governing bodies of sport in the regions. While there is still work to be done on what new arrangements might be introduced, my right hon. Friend and I have decided to stand down all the ministerial nominees that have either been formally appointed or were nominees-designate to work alongside the English Sports Council.

  This decision is no reflection on the ability of the individuals concerned to play a part in developing the Government's plans for sport. I will make a further announcement later this year about how we intend to rebuild the relationships between the English Sports Council and its partners in the regions, which were once so strong, and to help ensure that the role of local government and of local sport organisations in providing sports opportunities are given the credit they deserve.

  Television Broadcasters
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will require public television broadcasters to ensure that all public information, party political and party election broadcasts are fully accessible to the deaf and hard of hearing people in the United Kingdom. [12001]

  Mr. Fisher
  The Broadcasting Act 1990 set a target of 50 per cent. of transmissions for subtitling of programmes by 1998 for Channel 3 services and by the fifth anniversary of the commencement of the service for Channel 5. After that target is reached, it is for the Independent Television Commission to set the level of future targets. It is also a condition of the Channel 4 licence to ensure that 50 per cent. of its programmes are subtitled by 1998. I understand from the ITC that all Channel 3 licensees subtitle all their national news programmes and current affairs programmes and that Channel 4 subtitle their main news and current affairs programmes. Party political broadcasts are also subtitled.
  514
  Under the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1996, digital terrestrial television services have to meet a target of subtitling 50 per cent. of programmes by the 10th anniversary of the digital programme service starting. The 1996 Act required the Independent Television Commission to draw up a code on promoting the understanding and enjoyment of programmes by persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. As part of that code, the Independent Television Commission has also set interim targets for subtitling digital services.

  In its statement of promises to viewers and listeners, the BBC is committed to subtitling 50 per cent of all its programmes by 1998. The statement also contains a commitment to subtitle all national daily news programmes, regional news and current affairs broadcasts.

  The existing arrangements allow the ITC and the BBC flexibility to meet viewers' needs as fully as possible, constrained by statutory minimum subtitling levels and by what is technically and financially realistic. Within these arrangements, broadcasters place particular emphasis naturally on subtitling programmes which inform viewers of news and current affairs. The detailed arrangements for determining which programmes are subtitled, however, are not a matter for government.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will request Camelot to install national lottery terminals in villages in remote rural areas; and if he will make a statement. [11167]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: This is an operational matter for Camelot Group plc. I have, therefore, asked the Director General of the National Lottery, who is responsible for regulating the operation of the lottery, to write to the hon. Member, and copies of his response will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Our proposals for the future of the national lottery were set out in the White Paper "The People's Lottery" published on Monday 21 July. The White Paper makes clear our concern to protect the contribution which the lottery makes to small retailers throughout the country. The impact on retailers will, therefore, be taken into account when choosing the next operator of the national lottery.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much was raised for good causes by the national lottery between November 1994 and April 1997. [11162]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The national lottery raised £3,208,646,966 for the good causes between 19 November 1994 and 31 March 1997.

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will list those projects funded by the Millennium Commission in(a) Nottinghamshire and (b) the east midlands; [9128]

  (2) if he will list by region the expenditure allocated by the Millennium Commission. [9129]
  515
  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 17 July 1997]: These are matters for the Millennium Commission. I shall write to my hon. Friend in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what Millennium Commission funding has been allocated to projects in(a) The Wrekin, (b) Shropshire and (c) the west midlands. [7777]

  Mr. Smith
  [holding answer 10 July 1997]: This is a matter for the Millennium Commission, I shall write to my hon. Friend in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the Millennium Commission will continue in existence after 2000; if it will remain responsible for the millennium experience at Greenwich; and what responsibility it will retain for financial shortfalls in respect of the millennium experience. [6479]

  Mr. Smith
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before the summer recess. I shall therefore write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Millennium Celebrations
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the budget set aside for the millennium celebrations; and what percentage of that budget will be designated for projects in each of (i) Scotland, (ii) Wales, (iii) Northern Ireland, (iv) England (excluding London), and (v) London. [6130]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 3 July 1997]: It is estimated that, by the end of 2000, over £2 billion of national lottery proceeds will have been disbursed by the Millennium Commission on capital projects to mark the millennium, on the millennium awards scheme, and on the national millennium experience and its regional programme. While it aims for an equitable regional distribution of grant, the Millennium Commission does not designate portions of its budget for projects in particular regions of the United Kingdom.

  No central Government expenditure on millennium celebrations is planned, other than approximately £40,000 per annum to support the work of the millennium co-ordinating group and its sub-groups.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what fee he estimates Mark

  align="center">Permanent list of absent voters

  Year

  Date of election

  Type of election

  Postal

  Postal proxy

  Proxy

  Total

  1992

  9 April

  Parliamentary General

  12,980

  17

  2,521

  15,518

  1993

  19 May

  Local Government

  8,259

  28

  1,642

  9,929

  1994

  9 June

  European Parliamentary

  Not available

  1996

  30 May

  Northern Ireland Elections

  14,377

  21

  1,769

  16,167

  1997

  1 May

  Parliamentary

  15,236

  36

  1,985

  17,257

  1997

  21 May

  Local Government

  19,959

  33

  2,378

  22,370

  516
  McCormack International will receive from its consultancy for the millennium experience; and if he will make a statement. [6601]

  Mr. Smith
  [holding answer 7 July 1997]: I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before the summer recess. I shall therefore write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what factors led him to adopt his present policy on the millennium dome; and if he will make a statement. [6902]

  Mr. Smith
  [holding answer 7 July 1997]: I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before the summer recess. I shall therefore write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Sport (Spectators)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what reports his Department receives of spectator attendance at(a) premier, first, second and third division association football matches, (b) county cricket matches, (c) super league, first and second division rugby league matches, (d) Courage division 1 and 2 rugby union matches; and if he will make a statement. [6975]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 9 July 1997]: The Department does not receive reports of attendances at these matches, but has access to them when necessary from the governing bodies of the sports concerned.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Prisoner Transfers
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what monitoring arrangements exist at the embassy in Dublin concerning prisoner transfer agreements with the Irish Government; and if she will make a statement about early releases to date. [10475]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been no prisoner transfers from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland; nor have there been any requests for such transfers.

  Postal and Proxy Votes
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals listed on(a) the postal vote and (b) the proxy vote permanent register obtained postal and proxy votes for each election since 1992. [8691]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The following is the information:
  517
  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list by constituency the number of applications signed by individual doctors and the reason given for(a) postal votes and (b) proxy votes for the 1997 general election. [8693]

  Mr. Murphy
  Records of absent vote applications are not currently stored in a way that would readily provide information on reasons for application and individual doctors attestations.

  The chief electoral officer has instituted a review of all absent vote applications for the last three elections in Northern Ireland and any relevant conclusions of the report may be published in due course.

  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for(a) postal votes and (b) proxy votes have been refused for each election since 1992. [8692]

  Mr. Murphy
  Until 1996, absent vote applications were dealt with by area offices and as a consequence no records are available for the numbers of applications refused in previous years. For the 1997 elections, a central absent voting unit was established.

  Significant numbers of applications were received in good time, but were incomplete and had to be returned to the applicant. In such cases, each applicant received a letter of explanation and was invited to resubmit their correctly completed form. However, large numbers of applications were received in the last hours before cut-off time for receipt of applications and, in these circumstances, it was not possible to return incomplete applications to applicants.

  Parliamentary election—1 May 1997

  Reason

  Number

  Applicant not registered elector

  320

  Received too late

  300

  Insufficient or no reason

  162

  Dual/treble attestation

  126

  Not attested or not properly attested

  145

  Not signed

  66

  Medical reason, non-physical illness

  98

  Medical (not properly completed)

  64

  Proxy information not completed

  9

  Letters returned by Post Office

  5

  Signature not accepted

  3

  Too late, received after "late" closing date

  3

  No date of election given

  2

  Miscellaneous

  115

  Total

  1,418

  Local Government election—21 May 1997

  Reason

  Number

  Applicant not registered elector

  275

  Received too late

  398

  No reason given

  69

  Insufficient information

  88

  Not attested

  128

  Dual/treble attestation

  112

  Not signed

  121

  Medical Non-physical illness

  69

  Miscellaneous

  232

  Total

  1,492

  518
  Mr. Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list, by constituency, the number of individuals listed on the permanent list for(a) postal votes and (b) proxy votes. [8690]

  Mr. Murphy
  The information is as follows:

  Permanent absent voters by constituency (as at 18 July 1997)

  Constituency

  Proxy

  Postal

  Total

  Belfast East

  114

  572

  686

  Belfast North

  101

  572

  673

  Belfast South

  98

  531

  629

  Belfast West

  80

  430

  510

  East Antrim

  189

  372

  561

  East Londonderry

  46

  1,254

  1,300

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  293

  3,270

  3,563

  Foyle

  116

  993

  1,109

  Lagan Valley

  118

  916

  1.034

  Mid Ulster

  77

  2,529

  2,606

  North Antrim

  123

  760

  883

  North Down

  150

  554

  704

  Newry and Armagh

  77

  1,656

  1,733

  South Antrim

  180

  450

  630

  South Down

  264

  1,909

  2,173

  Strangford

  136

  705

  841

  Upper Bann

  75

  1,101

  1,176

  West Tyrone

  253

  2,087

  2,340

  Total

  2,490

  20,661

  23,151

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the alleged injuries caused by plastic baton rounds since 1981 were(a) alleged to have been caused by rounds fired from a distance of less than 20m and (b) alleged to be injuries to the groin, buttocks or higher body parts. [9922]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 24 July 1997]: The information is not held in the form requested. However, the Royal Ulster Constabulary has supplied the following:

  align="center">Alleged PBR deaths/injuries

  Deaths

  Injuries

  19811

  7

  216

  1982

  1

  4

  1983

  —

  8

  1984

  1

  41

  1985

  —

  12

  1986

  1

  59

  1987

  —

  40

  1988

  —

  22

  1989

  1

  25

  1990

  —

  12

  1991

  —

  10

  1992

  —

  8

  1993

  —

  14

  1994

  —

  13

  1995

  —

  7

  1996

  —

  73

  19972

  —

  3

  Total

  11

  667

  1 Figures do not include five persons allegedly killed by baton rounds prior to 1981.

  2 To 30 June.

  Total deaths allegedly caused by baton rounds 1972 to date: 16.

  IRA Punishment Beatings
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many murders, maimings and beatings described as punishment beatings were carried out by the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland(a) following the Provisional IRA's ceasefire declaration from midnight on 31 August 1994 to 6 pm on 9 February 1996 and (b) during the Provisional IRA's renewed terrorist campaign from 6 pm on 9 February 1996 to midday on 20 July 1997, on which their latest ceasefire declaration was announced. [10565]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 25 July 1997]: The information is not available in the format requested and would incur disproportionate cost to provide. The table, however, illustrates the number of deaths that have occurred directly due to the security situation and those casualties attributed to paramilitary style attacks by "Republican" organisations. The Royal Ulster Constabulary uses the term "paramilitary assaults" as opposed to punishment beatings as the latter tends to imply a certain justification for these appalling offences.

  align="center">Deaths due to the security situation caused by Republican organisations

  Number of deaths

  1 September 1994 to 9 February 1996
  (1800 hours)

  110

  9 February 1996 (1800 hours) to 20 July
  1997 (1200 hours)

  11

  1This figure includes one RUC officer who died as a result of injuries sustained in 1973.

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style attacks by Republican organizations

  Number of casualties

  Casualties as a result of paramility style assaults

  1 September 1994 to 9 February 1996 (1800 hours)

  183

  9 February 1996 (1800 hours) to 20 July 1997
  (1200 hours)

  209

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style shootings

  1 September 1994 to 9 February 1996 (1800 hours)

  Nil

  9 February 1996 (1800 hours) to 20 July 1997
  (1200 hours)

  18

  Departmental Payroll
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [10745]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  For the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments, the available information is as follows:520
  The Department of Finance and Personnel provides a centralised non-industrial payroll service to NI Departments and NI civil servants employed by the NIO. For 1996–97, the total cost of the systems and processes, including the costs of the personnel section in each NI Department, was £2,303,202.
  The Department of Education for Northern Ireland operates a teachers' payroll system which pays salaries to teachers in most schools and colleges on behalf of their employing authorities. Costs for 1996–97 were £886,612.
  The Department of the Environment (NI) operates a payroll system for weekly paid industrial staff. Costs for 1996–97 were £1,774,713.
  The Department of Agriculture (NI) operates a payroll system for weekly paid industrial staff. Costs for 1996–97 were £439,721.

  The Northern Ireland Office has a contract with Chessington Computer Services Ltd,. for the provision of a payroll service for the home civil service staff. The terms of the contract are commercial in confidence.

  Absent Voting Papers
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the(a) number and (b) percentage of absent voting papers issued in (i) each parliamentary constituency for the 1996 forum election and (ii) the 1997 general election; and what steps she is taking to reduce electoral fraud. [10272]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: I have viewed with concern allegations that there is a significant level of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. I will study the results of the chief electoral officer's investigations into postal vote applications with interest.

  Parliamentary general election 1 May 1997

  Northern Ireland elections 30 May 1996

  constituency

  Total number of postal ballot papers issued

  As a percentage of total constituency electorate

  Number of postal ballot papers issued

  As a percentage of total constituency electorate

  Belfast East

  748

  1.21

  635

  1.02

  Belfast North

  656

  1.01

  566

  0.87

  Belfast South

  694

  1.09

  621

  0.97

  Belfast West

  687

  1.11

  458

  0.75

  East Antrim

  559

  0.95

  575

  0.99

  East Londonderry

  1,750

  2.97

  1,517

  2.59

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  4,927

  7.61

  4,336

  6.81

  Foyle

  1,102

  1.62

  1,081

  1.62

  Lagan Valley

  1,231

  1.73

  1,065

  1.52

  Mid Ulster

  3,609

  6.11

  2,676

  4.64

  North Antrim

  1,260

  1.74

  1,105

  1.54

  North Down

  812

  1.30

  713

  1.14

  Newry and Armagh

  3,021

  4.27

  2,174

  3.11

  South Antrim

  654

  0.94

  698

  1.01

  South Down

  2,447

  3.50

  2,115

  3.06

  Strangford

  1,057

  1.51

  872

  1.26

  Upper Bann

  1,561

  2.21

  1,546

  2.21

  West Tyrone

  3,062

  5.24

  1,913

  3.34

  Total

  29,844

  2.53

  24,666

  2.12

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the different reasons, by number and percentage, for which absent voting papers were issued in each(a) parliamentary constituency and (b) council area in the 1997 general elections; and if she will make a statement on her policy in relation to

  521
  discrepancies between Northern Ireland electoral laws and rules and those pertaining to the rest of the United Kingdom. [10122]

  Mr. Murphy
  [holding answer 30 July 1997]: Regulations specifying the grounds upon which absent voting papers may be issued for a both parliamentary and local government elections are set in statute. In both cases, the chief electoral officer shall grant an application if he is satisfied that the applicant's circumstances on the date of the poll will, or are likely to be such, that he cannot reasonably be expected to vote in person. There may be almost as many circumstances which qualify as there are applications, and so it would be impossible to list them all here.

  I do not consider that there are discrepancies between Northern Ireland's electoral laws and rules and those pertaining to the rest of the United Kingdom. There are clearly differences, but no more than are necessary to facilitate the different circumstances in Northern Ireland, not least of which is a system of single transferable vote proportional representation for local government and European parliamentary elections.

  Electors
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many electors in each constituency are registered from addresses outside the United Kingdom; and if she will list the top five countries where such electors reside, indicating the numbers involved. [10313]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: In accordance with regulation 34 of the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1986, the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland publishes each year a list of overseas electors which gives details of the elector's name, the constituency in which they are registered and their declared present address.

  Overseas electors—1997 Register of electors

  Constituency

  Number of electors

  Belfast East

  5

  Belfast North

  8

  Belfast South

  5

  Belfast West

  3

  East Antrim

  3

  East Londonderry

  2

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  10

  Foyle

  5

  Lagan Valley

  3

  Mid-Ulster

  5

  Newry & Armagh

  5

  North Antrim

  7

  North Down

  13

  South Antrim

  2

  South Down

  5

  Strangford

  7

  Upper Bann

  4

  West Tyrone

  5

  Total

  97

  The top five in the league table of countries where registered Northern Ireland overseas electors reside accounts for 60 per cent. of the total number of overseas electors.
  522

  Country of residence

  Number of electors registered

  United States of America

  17

  Belgium

  13

  France

  7

  Republic of South Africa

  5

  Canada

  4

  Australia

  4

  Spain

  4

  Germany

  4

  Electoral Reform Committee
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will ask the chief electoral officer to give evidence to the Electoral Reform Committee of the Northern Ireland Forum for Peace and Dialogue. [10314]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The chief electoral officer is an independent office whose duties are clearly established by statute.

  It would not be appropriate for me to ask the chief electoral officer to do anything without those duties. I am aware, however, that the chief electoral officer has made clear that he is always prepared to see elected representatives at his office to discuss those matters within his area of responsibility.

  Arable Area Payments
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many payments were made under the arable area payments scheme in 1996 of(a) £0 to £1,000, (b) £1,000 to £2,000, (c) £2,000 to £3,000, (d) £3,000 to £4,000, (e) £4,000 to £5,000, (f) £5,000 to £10,000, (g) £10,000 to £20,000, (h) £20,000 to £50,000 and (i) over £50,000. [11315]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 30 July 1997]: The number of payments made in 1996 under the arable area payments scheme were (a) 1,172 from £0 to £1,000, (b) 878 from £1,000 to £2,000, (c) 424 from £2,000 to £3,000, (d) 348 from £3,000 to £4,000, (e) 347 from £4,000 to £5,000, (f) 67 from £5,000 to £10,000, (g) 87 from £10,000 to £20,000, (h) 46 from £20,000 to £50,000 (i) three over £50,000.

  European Parliament Elections
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the implications for Northern Ireland of the Government's plans to introduce a list system of proportional representation for European Parliament elections. [10474]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My officials will be considering whether it would be in Northern Ireland's best interests to be included in any British system of PR for European parliamentary elections, or whether Northern Ireland should retain its existing model of PR or something similar. The overriding criterion will be what is best for Northern Ireland. I would be interested to receive the views of the Northern Ireland parties on this matter.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer of 23 June,Official Report, column 404, if she will make it her policy to ensure that disability living allowance reviews and appeals are costed and the price published; and if she will make a statement on the success rate for reviews and appeals. [10476]

  Mr. Worthington
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie, and I have asked him to arrange for a response to be given.

  Letter from Alec Wylie to Mr. Robert McCartney, dated 29 July 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question on the costs and success rate of Disability Living Allowance reviews and appeals.
  As explained in my letter of 17 June 1997, the Social Security Agency does not maintain records on the costs of Disability Living Allowance reviews and appeals, processes to which people who are dissatisfied with adjudication officer decisions have a statutory right of access. Compiling and maintaining this information would require a major clerical work programme at disproportionate costs and the Agency has no plans to introduce such a system.
  Current available information indicates that around one third of reviews and appeals for Disability Living Allowance are successful. This is broadly in line with other similar benefits. While the Agency aims to get as many decisions as possible correct at the initial claim stage, it frequently happens that, when given a decision on their application, customers provide further evidence of their disability which then has to be reviewed. This is the main reason for the success rate for reviews and appeals.
  I hope this explains the position for you but I would be happy to provide any further information you require.

  Education (Schools) Bill
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will ensure that Northern Ireland is covered by the Education (Schools) Bill. [10477]

  Mr. Worthington
  Separate legislation is being prepared to give effect to class size requirements in Northern Ireland.

  Parades
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many parades have taken place in Northern Ireland in the current year; how many were organised by(a) the Orange Order, (b) the Royal Black Institution, (c) the Apprentice Boys of Derry, (d) The Ancient Order of Hibernians, (e) children and youth organisations, such as boys and girls brigades, scouts, (f) the Royal British Legion, (g) Sinn Fein, (h) trade unions and (i) other organisations and individuals. [11501]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information is not currently available in the format requested and would incur disproportionate cost to provide. I can, however, give details of the number of parades which have taken place in Northern Ireland in the current year which are described as either loyalist, nationalist or other.
  524

  Parades held from 1 January 1997 to 27 July 1997

  Number

  Loyalist

  1,576

  Nationalist

  114

  Other

  254

  Total

  1,944

  The statistics may be subject to adjustment.

  Violent Crime
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will list for each month since 1 January 1994 the number of arson attacks and explosive attacks which have been made on(a) churches, by denomination (b) other church property, (c) Ancient Order of Hibernians halls, (d) Gaelic Athletic Association buildings, (e) Orange halls, (f) other halls, (g) private houses, (h) integrated schools, (i) maintained schools, (j) controlled schools and (k) voluntary schools; [11499]

  (2) if she will list for the months of May, June and July to date in (a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997 the numbers of incidents in which (i) petrol bombs were thrown at the security forces, (ii) firearms were used against the security forces and (iii) the security forces were attacked with stones or other missiles, broken down by town or police sub-division, giving (1) the duration of the assaults, (2) the numbers of persons involved and (3) the numbers of petrol bombs used; [11500]

  (3) how many punishment beatings and shootings there have been in each month, broken down by police division, since 1 January 1994; and if he will indicate (a) which terrorist or paramilitary body was responsible and (b) how many were (i) republican and (ii) loyalist inspired. [11507]

  Mr. Ingram
  I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Stolen Vehicles
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for the months of May, June and July to date the numbers of vehicles stolen in each police sub-division in Northern Ireland this year and in (i) 1995 and (ii) 1996; how many of them were(a) recovered and (b) destroyed; and what estimate she has made of the costs of each case of damage in each sub-division in each year. [11503]

  Mr. Ingram
  I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Stormont Talks (Bodyguards)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which delegations of participants in the all-party talks at Stormont have bodyguards within the castle buildings precincts; which of these bodyguards are armed; and if she will make a statement. [10432]

  Mr. Ingram
  I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Bus Operators (Fuel Costs)
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of(a) the

  525
  cost to public transport bus operators resulting from the increase in fuel costs announced in the Budget and (b) its effect on the cost of travel by bus. [11617]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I understand that Ulsterbus and Citybus, which operate the great bulk of bus services in Northern Ireland, estimate that the increase in fuel duty will add around £850,000 a year to their costs. As a result, they increased bus fares by an average of 1.75 per cent. on July 28.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding is presently committed from her departmental budget for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 to resolve the year 2000 computer problem; and if she will make a statement. [11895]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Departments, together with the Northern Ireland Office, are each responsible for their own expenditure programmes. In each case the cost of rectifying the year 2000 problem will be met out of their existing public expenditure survey provision. The exact costs involved will not be known until later in the year when the Departments will have completed a set of fully costed plans for the work involved. At that point, the original expenditure programmes may have to be adjusted.

  Employment Advertisements
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how often since 1992 her Department has been responsible for employment advertisements which contained age restrictions upon those who could apply. [9512]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Computer-related Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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) 1999–2000; and if she will make a statement. [11392]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]:

  For the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments, the information is as follows:

  align="right">£ thousand

  Current

  Capital

  1995–961

  25,316

  16,319

  1996–971

  26,415

  17,466

  1997–98

  26,821

  18,202

  1998–99

  31,991

  16,500

  1999–2000

  34,383

  14,875

  1Actual expenditure.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if she will make a statement on existing targets set to minimise waste within her Department; [11566]
  526
  (2) what plans she has to introduce a waste minimisation strategy for her Department; [11565]

  (3) if she will list the amount, and proportion, of paper recycled by her Department in each of the last five years. [11567]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Telecommunications Towers
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list(a) the number of planning applications for telecommunications towers made by each of the telecommunications companies operating in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years and the current year to the latest available date, (b) the number of such towers erected by each such company in each year, (c) the number of such towers erected for which planning permission was not needed and (d) her estimate of the total number of such towers which will be needed by each company to complete their network. [12187]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of(a) the present average yield of each of the principal farm crops and (b) the comparable yields if all farmers were to convert to organic farming. [12188]

  Mr Paul Murphy
  (a) The average yields of each of the main farm crops in 1996 and for the previous five years are given in the table.

  align="right">tonnes per hectare

  1996

  Average 1991 to 1995

  Spring barley

  5.03

  4.26

  Winter barley

  6.64

  5.78

  Wheat

  7.70

  6.87

  Oats

  5.07

  4.62

  Potatoes (maincrop ware and seed)

  29.93

  27.23

  (b) The organic sector in Northern Ireland is too small to provide reliable estimates of comparable yields.

  Social Security
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action will be taken in Northern Ireland to involve the private sector in delivery of social security services. [12276]

  Mr. Worthington
  The Government's objective is to create a modern welfare state where social security benefits are to bring people into mainstream society and are not simply hand-outs. The delivery of benefits has to be modernised as well as the system itself. Privatisation is not the only way of improving quality and reducing costs, but we see no reason why the public sector should deliver services if there are more efficient ways of doing so. The Society Security Agency, in conjunction with the Benefits Agency, has initiated a project to involve private sector consortiums to explore opportunities for the modernisation of service delay. This project fits well with our approach to public-private sector partnerships and
  527
  action on it will continue. Specific details will soon be announced by the chief executive of the Social Security Agency.

  Alongside this, whenever the private sector is used in the future, the arrangements will be strengthened to:
  Define a minimum quality of service threshold when we assess bids.
  Contracts will not be awarded if a supplier fails to reach this threshold.
  Place greater emphasis on evaluation of suppliers' management of staff transfers.
  Provide guidance to potential and current suppliers to make clear what we consider to be good employment practice.
  Strengthen contract monitoring to assess suppliers' performance including quality of service, management of people, cost efficiency, evaluation and feedback on performance.

  I believe that this approach will ensure that the best possible social security service will be delivered to people in Northern Ireland by committed staff at the right cost to the taxpayer.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  A406 (Upgrading Contracts)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the contracts to upgrade the A406 at Sterling way and Fore street to be completed; and what steps he is taking to remedy the delays already announced on these contracts. [10677]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Andrew Love, dated 31 July 1997:
  The Minister for Transport in London has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the improvements to the A406 at Sterling Way and Fore Street.
  The contract to improve this part of the A406 is expected to be completed by late Spring of 1998. However, the completion of the underpass which will take the A406 under the existing Fore Street junction and Railtrack's Silver Street Station, should be completed 2 to 3 months prior to the completion of the full contract.
  The delays have mainly been caused by the contractor encountering unexpected ground conditions during piling operations. The contractor is reducing the effect by increasing his resources and reviewing his construction methods. There are no plans to accelerate the main works to achieve an earlier completion date, because it would be costly. The Contractor is already working 7am to 7pm and extending those hours would create unacceptable disturbance. Other constraints on the sequence of work are imposed by lane closures and fitting out the tunnel.

  Smoky Vehicle Hotline
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many complaints have been received by the Vehicle Inspectorate's smoky vehicle hotline in each of the last five years; and how many prosecutions have resulted from complaints in each year. [11466]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the chief executive of the Vehicle Inspectorate agency to write to the hon. Member.
  528
  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 31 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the number of complaints received by the Vehicle Inspectorate's Smoky Vehicle Hotline in each of the last 5 years; and how many prosecutions have resulted from complaints in each year.
  The total number of reports received via the Hotline for each of the past 5 years is as follows:

  1992/93: 2,481

  1993/94: 2,887

  1994/95: 8,113

  1995/96: 16,304

  1996/97: 11,622

  We do not have details of the number of prosecutions arising from these reports. Vehicle operators are initially asked to supply written evidence that the vehicle reported on complies with emissions limits. In cases where there is evidence of non-compliance, details are added to the maintenance data held on the vehicle operator (which includes previous Hotline reports). The information is used by the Inspectorate on a cumulative basis to target enforcement action against operators with apparent unsatisfactory maintenance standards. Follow-up action may result in prosecutions and/or action by Traffic Commissioners against a vehicle operators' licence.

  Freight Grants
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish revised guidance on freight grants; and if he will make a statement. [12076]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department is currently preparing a revised guide. It will be published shortly.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the costs of discretionary blight payments to people in homes near the Birmingham northern relief road; and what contribution to these costs will be paid by Midland Expressway Ltd. [12260]

  Dr. Strang
  The total cost attributable to discretionary purchase under sections 246(2)(a)/(b) and 248 of the Highways Act 1980 is some £1.5 million. The full cost of acquiring all land and property for the Birmingham northern relief road and compensation payments will be met by Midland Expressway Ltd.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what controls he will have on the level of tolls on the Birmingham northern relief road and the rates charged for heavy goods vehicles relative to those for other vehicles. [12259]

  Dr. Strang
  The level of tolls and their applications to different classes of vehicle will under the legislation be matters for the concessionaire.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has made a cost-benefit analysis of the long-term economic advantages of the Birmingham northern relief road. [12257]

  Dr. Strang
  A cost benefit analysis carried out in 1991 showed the scheme proposed by Midland Expressway Ltd. having a benefit:cost ratio of more than 2:1.
  529
  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many subcontractors to Midland Expressway Ltd. for the Birmingham northern relief road project are companies in the(a) Kvaerner Group and (b) Autostrada Group.[12256]

  Dr. Strang
  The construction of the Birmingham northern relief road will be controlled by companies associated with the Kvaerner and Autostrada Groups. The work to be subcontracted will be specified at a later stage.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what forecasts his Department has made of the effect of the Birmingham northern relief road on the percentage change in traffic levels on motorways in the west midlands. [12258]

  Dr. Strang
  The Birmingham northern relief road will provide a high-quality free-flowing route for through traffic to bypass the very heavily congested section of the M6 between junctions 4 and 11. The M6 will remain a high-standard route through the west midlands conurbation and is expected to be used to the full extent of its available capacity. Removal of through traffic from the M6 will enable traffic from lower standard local roads and trunk roads to use the M6, thereby easing traffic flows on those routes. As a consequence, M6 traffic levels are not forecast to reduce to a significant extent.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the details of the penalty clause in the contract between the Government and Midland Expressway Ltd. in relation to the Birmingham northern relief road, including the compensation which would be payable(a) to Midland Expressway Ltd. and (b) to other parties and subcontractors if the Birmingham northern relief road did not go ahead. [12255]

  Dr. Strang
  The BNRR concession agreement includes a number of detailed provisions for compensation payable by either party if the agreement is terminated under various possible circumstances. Under those provisions, the risk that the public inquiry outcome did not allow the scheme to proceed rests wholly with the concessionaire.

  I will write to my hon. Friend with further details on this matter.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of the concession agreement covering the Birmingham northern relief road. [12229]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I will arrange for a copy of the concession statement that was put before the public inquiry to be placed in the Library, and will consider further with the concessionaire what further material can be provided.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue planning guidance to restrict development along the Birmingham northern relief road corridor. [12261]

  Angela Eagle
  Any proposals for such development would be assessed against existing planning policy guidance and policies in regional planning guidance and development plans. In particular, local planning authorities would need to assess any proposals along most of the length of the relief road against the policies in 530
  planning policy guidance note 2 on green belts. PPG2 maintains the presumption against inappropriate development within green belts and requires very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development.

  M25 (Noise Alleviation Measures)
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he proposes to implement the previously proposed noise alleviation measures to the M25 between junctions 12 and 15 independently of the outcome of the review of the proposals for widening the motorway within its existing curtailage between these junctions. [11714]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Phillip Hammond, dated 31 July 1997:
  The Minister for Transport in London has asked me to reply to your recent question about noise alleviation measures on the M25 between junctions 12 and 15.
  I understand the concerns raised about noise levels by busy roads and it is an issue that the Highways Agency takes very seriously. In this case the previously proposed noise alleviation measures are related to the predicted increase in noise resulting from the widening of M25. These noise reduction measures are an integral part of the widening scheme between junctions 12 and 15 and will not be implemented independently from that scheme.

  Minicabs (London)
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will consult over the Government's commitment to regulate London's minicabs; and if he will make a statement. [12270]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have today published a consultation paper on how best to regulate London's minicabs. I have arranged for copies to be deposited in the Library. Comments are invited by 15 September.

  I will arrange for the right hon. Member to see the results of the consultation before the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill is published.

  National Roads Programme
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the study undertaken by his Department into the total and cumulative environmental impact of the national roads programme. [12267]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under the previous Administration, my Department commissioned the Transport Research laboratory to carry out a feasibility study into this subject. I have now received the study report, copies of which have been placed in the Library. The report highlights a number of practical difficulties about the way in which the total environmental impact can be defined and measured. As recommended, we are now seeking the views of interested statutory bodies and others. We will consider how best to proceed in light of those consultations, taking account of the strategic roads review which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport announced on 19 June.

  Aircraft Safety
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of passenger journeys on airlines covered by "Airworthiness Notice 64" which will take place between 1 June and 30 September this year. [11366]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Airworthiness notice 64 applies to all passenger aircraft on the UK register which have a maximum weight in excess of 5,700 kg or capable of carrying more than 20 passengers. No estimate has been made of the number of passenger journeys which will be carried out by such aircraft this summer.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, (1) pursuant to his answer of 22 July,Official Report, columns 493–94, concerning minimum space for seated passengers, what assessment he has made of the safety risk posed to this portion of the population which falls outside the normal design extremes covered in "Airworthiness Notice 64 (March 1989)"; and if he will make a statement. [11365]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 22 July, Official Report, columns 493–94, concerning minimum space for seated passengers, if he will update "Airworthiness Notice 64 (March 1989)" to take account of the latest anthropometric data. [11364]

  Ms Jackson
  It is not practicable for the design criteria for aircraft seats to cover both extremes of body size. The anthropometric range used in airworthiness notice no. 64 represents a practical standard for the design and installation of aircraft seats. There is no reason why an individual who falls outside the anthropometric range used by the Civil Aviation Authority should be at greater risk during an emergency evacuation.

  There has been no significant change in the anthropometric data since 1989 and the CAA has no proposals to review this standard.

  Central Line (Drivers' Cabs)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what factors underlie the decision to install air conditioning in drivers' cabs on the Central line; what has been the cost(a) per cab and (b) in total of the installation of air conditioning; and if he will make a statement. [11941]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The scope of investment projects is a matter for London Underground Ltd. However, I understand that air conditioning in drivers' cabs was installed for health and safety reasons, as operators would be subject to excessive temperatures during hot weather—for safety reasons, there are no opening cab windows and it would not be possible to open cab doors in transit. The total cost of installing air conditioning is estimated at £3.5 million or around £20,000 per cab. This is less than 1 per cent. of the total cost of the trains.

  Motorway Service Areas
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review guidance to local authorities and planning inspectors on the distance between motorway service areas. [11721]
  532
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Policy on the spacing of motorway services areas is set out in roads circular 1/94 which states that they should not generally be less than 15 miles apart. My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to amend that guidance though, in common with other aspects of land use planning and transport policy, it is an area we are keeping under review.

  Radioactive Material Transport
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the safety standards for the transport of radioactive material. [11727]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker),Official Report, 23 June, columns 381–82.

  Aircraft Movements (Heathrow)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the Cranford agreement on aircraft movements at Heathrow. [11847]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A reconsideration of the Cranford agreement forms one aspect of the further work commissioned in 1995 to assess the capacity and environmental implications of the proposals in the runway capacity enhancement study report. We do not expect the final stage of this work to begin before the autumn.

  Bus Transport (Fuel Costs)
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of(a) the cost to public transport bus operators resulting from the increase in fuel costs announced in the recent Budget and (b) its effect on the cost of travel by bus. [11616]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department estimates that the total cost to bus operators—in England, Scotland and Wales—of the increase in fuel duty announced in the Budget is likely to be about £40 million per year. The effect if any on the fares charged will vary from operator to operator. However, fuel duty is a relatively small part of the total cost of bus operation and the proportion of the duty rebated by my Department to operators of local bus services remains at over 60 per cent.

  Roads Expenditure
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list for each of the last five financial years the expenditure on motorways and trunk roads in respect of(a) reconstruction, (b) overlay, (c) resurfacing and (d) surface dressing; and what are the forecast outturns for 1997; [11707]

  (2) if he will list the bridges carrying motorways and trunks roads which are awaiting strengthening works to comply with the EU plan to permit 40-tonne trucks, indicating the target date for the work to be undertaken; [11709]
  533
  (3) if he will list for each of the last five financial years the total lane kilometres of trunk road and motorway subject to (a) reconstruction, (b) overlay, (c) resurfacing and (d) surface dressing and what is his forecast for (a) to (d) for 1997–98; [11708]

  (4) which bridges carrying motorways and trunk roads are (a) currently and (b) expected to be subject to width or weight restrictions. [11710]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I will write to my hon Friend and will place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Highways Agency (Quality of Service Indicators)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Highways Agency will be publishing its quality of service indicators for safety, average journey times and the extent of congestion on trunk roads and motorways. [11706]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The latest information on accidents and casualties on trunk roads and motorways in England is contained in "Road Accident Statistics in English Regions: 1995". Average speeds on the various road classes in the network are in "Traffic Speeds on English Trunk Roads: 1995". Both these documents are published by the Government statistical service. The Highways Agency will be publishing congestion monitoring information later this year. The agency is currently developing a more comprehensive set of indicators for the quality of service on trunk roads.

  Traffic Problems (Salisbury)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the terms of reference for his study into alternative solutions to traffic problems in the Salisbury area; when it will(a) start and (b) finish; and if there will be public consultation. [11839]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The study will be led by the Government office for the south-west, which will seek to agree terms of reference with a wide range of interested parties over the next two months. The time scale for the study will depend on the terms of reference and on the amount of additional information that will need to be collected. It is intended to be an inclusive process and emerging ideas will be shared with the local communities.

  Car Accidents (Young Drivers)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many car accidents involved drivers between 17 and 21 years of age in the last year for which figures are available; how many of these resulted in(a) personal injury and (b) death; and in how many of these accidents the driver was alone. [11790]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In 1996, there were 41,989 injury accidents involving car drivers between 17 and 21 years of age in which there were 718 fatalities and 66,072 casualties. It is not possible to distinguish from reported accident data whether a driver was alone.

  London Underground (Safety Measures)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been 534
  the result of the Health and Safety Executive's monitoring of London Underground's progress in developing (a) barriers between adjacent carriages to stop persons falling in the gap between them, (b) the provision in the driver's cab of television pictures of the platforms as the train approaches and as it is leaving, (c) modifications to the on-train passenger emergency devices so that they stop the train if one is operated as the train leaves a platform but warns the driver thereafter and (d) selective provision of platform attendants with an emergency button to stop a train. [11942]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Underground Ltd. is primarily responsible for safety on the underground, and is either testing or implementing these four measures, which are intended to improve safety on platforms. I understand that the Health and Safety Executive is continuing actively to monitor the way in which London Underground Ltd. is proceeding with each of these measures.

  Bradford-Cumbria DBFO Scheme
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much compensation will be paid to each of the four consortiums bidding for the Bradford-Cumbria design, build, finance and operate scheme as a result of the deferment of a decision whether to proceed. [11996]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It will be for the tenderers to submit claims to the Highways Agency with full supporting evidence for the sum they believe due. The agency will process those claims after any necessary clarification with tenderers.

  A31 (Pedestrian-cycleway)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what was the cost of constructing the pedestrian-cycleway on the A31 between Ashley Heath and Ringwood; [12253]

  (2) what is the estimated cost of signing the pedestrian-cycleway which has been constructed between Ashley Heath and Ringwood; [12254]

  (3) when he plans to carry out the signing of the pedestrian-cycleway which has been constructed between Ashley Heath and Ringwood. [12252]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 31 July 1997:
  The Minister for Transport in London has asked me to reply to your recent questions about the cost of constructing the pedestrian-cycleway on the A31 between Ashley Heath and Ringwood, the cost of signing the pedestrian-cycleway and when the signing of the pedestrian-cycleway will be carried out.
  The cost of constructing the pedestrian-cycleway was £22,000, and the estimated cost of signing approximately £16,000–£18,000. At this stage I am unable to confirm precisely when we will be able to start the signing work, although a bid will be submitted for its inclusion in the Network Enhancement Project budget for implementation in 1998–99. However, I should point out that this scheme will be in competition with other safety improvement schemes on the network, and will also be subject to Hampshire County Council modifying the No Entry Order at West Street to a Prohibited Driving Order with a cycle exemption.

  M25 (Widening)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will order a public inquiry into the scheme for a 10 to 12-lane M25 between junctions 12 and 15 as part of the Government's further review of the scheme. [12183]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No. The statutory processes regarding the publish proposals for this scheme were completed when the decision on the environmental impact statement was made.

  Bicycles (Lights)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his assessment of the potential safety benefits of fitting lights to all bicycles; what is his policy on the fitting of lights to all bicycles; and what representations he has had from the cycle industry and from groups representing cyclists. [12228]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under the road vehicles lighting regulations, the fitting and use of lights on pedal cycles is already mandatory between sunset and sunrise.

  Since a large proportion of pedal cycles are never used in darkness and would receive no benefit from the fitment of lights, the costs of retrospectively requiring all cycles to have lights fitted would be difficult to justify.

  Views expressed by cycling interest groups and the bicycle industry on these issues have been mixed. Those in favour of the fitment of lights to cycles at the point of sale have maintained that the user's choice to subsequently remove them, either permanently or temporarily, should be preserved.

  Business Aviation
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement about his policy on business aviation; [12233]

  (2) if it is his policy to maintain access for business aviation to the widest possible network of United Kingdom airfields. [12234]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government recognise the importance of business aviation. Guidance to planning authorities on their approach to air transport, including business and general aviation, along with the impact of airports on the environment, will be part of the wide-ranging review of policy leading to the White Paper on integrated transport strategy.

  A406 Widening (Compulsory Purchases)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what stage negotiations with the London borough of Enfield has reached regarding compensation for the removal from Pymmes park, N18, of a cedar tree as part of the compulsory purchase of license land relating to the widening of the A406; when these negotiations are expected to be concluded; and if he will make a statement. [12250]
  536
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Andrew Love, dated 31 July 1997:
  The Minister for Transport in London has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about negotiations with the London Borough of Enfield over the removal of the cedar tree in Pymmes Park.
  In April 1996 we wrote to the London Borough of Enfield's Principal Corporate Solicitor, reiterating an offer first made in February 1995 to replace the cedar tree with two mature cedar trees.
  This letter also reflected our view that we were not liable for any compensation other than that negotiated with the District Valuer for the land needed for the A406 improvement. I enclose a copy of our letter for your information. To date, we have not received a response from the Council.

  Following is the letter:
  We spoke last week about your letter of 25 March and I promised to set out our views on this.
  Looking back over the papers, I see that we had told you that we expected to take entry into the park before the end of March 1995. We had also written to you on 28 February to say that we could find no way of saving the tree and to offer to provide two replacement trees. That letter also offered a meeting, an offer which received no response.
  We wrote to you on 27 April to explain further why we could not save the tree; the offer to provide replacement trees stands, but I do not see that we are liable to provide any compensation other than the negotiated with the District Valuer for the land.

  Thames Water (Discharges)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent reports he has received concerning radioactive discharges relating to Thames Water. [9847]

  Angela Eagle
  All radioactive discharges in England and Wales must be authorised by the Environment Agency under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. Limits for discharges of radioactivity are set by the Environment Agency in accordance with national and international standards, and the potential cumulative effects of discharges are carefully considered. Levels of actual radioactive discharges reported to the Environment Agency are placed on the public registers.

  The Environment Agency also monitors levels of radioactivity in the waters and sediments of the River Thames. The results of this monitoring programme demonstrate that levels of radioactivity in the River Thames are low and consistently below World Health Organisation guidelines for drinking water. MAFF undertakes a separate monitoring programme, which includes levels of radioactivity in certain fish, plants and sediments of the River Thames.

  Both the Environment Agency and MAFF produce annual reports of their monitoring programmes. Although I received no such report recently, I understand that the next agency report is expected to be issued during the summer, and the next MAFF report, the title of which is "Radioactivity in Food and the Environment" at the end of September.

  In addition, information on radioactive discharges from, and levels of radioactivity recorded at, various sites in the UK, including some on the River Thames, is included in the "Digest of Environmental Statistics" No. 19 1997, which was published on 11 July.
  537
  I am investigating what information is available on historic discharges into the River Thames from the principle sites involved, and I will write to the hon. Member.

  Employment Advertisements
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how often since 1992 his Department or its predecessor Departments have been responsible for employment advertisements which contained age restrictions upon those who could apply. [9511]

  Angela Eagle
  [pursuant to her reply, 24 July, c. 694]: Employment advertisements placed by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have not carried age restrictions for some years. This Department believes that older workers have a great deal to offer in the way of skills and experience and we welcome applications from people irrespective of their age. However, certain advertisements placed by its agencies have reflected age criteria appropriate for specific jobs. A lower age limit of 25 is imposed on the Vehicle Inspectorate's traffic examiners and the Driving Standards Authority's driving examiners. The Coastguard Agency used to recruit watch officers only between the ages of 27 and 50, but this restriction ceased in 1995. In 1996 the planning inspectorate advertised for inspectors who could offer 10 years' service prior to the normal retirement age.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to provide guidance to the Office of Water Services on the implementation of legislation to improve the quality of drinking water and the environment as part of the 1999 periodic review of water pricing. [10649]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, together with the Secretary of State for Wales, will issue public guidance in 1998 to the Director General of Water Services on the extent and timing of the water quality and environmental obligations likely to be placed on water and sewerage companies during the review period. In providing this guidance, the Government will draw on advice from the Environment Agency and the drinking water inspectorate on quality requirements, and advice from the Director General of Water Services on the investment likely to be required to meet quality standards and the price implications for customers. It is then for the director general to take account of that guidance in setting price limits in the 1999 periodic review.

  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, announced an inter-departmental review of the regulation of the utility industries on 30 June, Official Report, columns 20–21. When issuing guidance to the Director General of Water Services, the Government will take into account the conclusions of that review.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the purity of English drinking water by region; and how that compares with the purity of drinking water in other EU countries. [12167]
  538
  Angela Eagle
  The drinking water inspectorate publishes an annual report on the quality of water supplied by the 29 water companies in England and Wales. The report for 1996 was published on 8 July and is available in the House Library. It confirms that the quality of drinking water in England and Wales remains very high. In excess of 3 million samples were tested in 1996 and of these 99.7 per cent. complied with the standards. Comparable data for the quality of drinking water in other EU member states are not generally available.

  Director General of Water Services
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the statutory duties of the Director General of Water Services which relate to the periodic review of water pricing. [10650]

  Angela Eagle
  Condition B of the instrument of appointment of the water undertakers, made under section 6 of the Water Industry Act 1991, sets out the formula for calculating price limits. It provides for a review of all price limits by the director at 10-yearly intervals, or after five years at the request of the companies of the director.

  The Director General of Water Services, under section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991, must exercise and perform his powers and duties in a manner best calculated to ensure that water and sewerage companies can carry out and finance their functions under that Act, in particular by securing a reasonable rate of return on their capital. Subject to that, he has to protect customers and promote economy and efficiency.

  Under section 3 of the Act, the director general, so far as is consistent with his duties under'section 2, has general environmental and recreational duties, including a duty to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest and a duty to have regard to the preservation of public amenities such as freedom of access to the countryside and seaside.

  My right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, announced an inter-departmental review of the regulation of the utility industries on 30 June, Official Report, columns 20–21. The Government's objective for the review is to set a long-term stable framework for utility regulation which is seen as fair by all the interest groups involved, particularly by consumers

  Computer-related Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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) 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [11384]
  539
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The table sets out total estimated departmental payments—£ million—on computer-related current and capital work for the years requested:

  Year

  Current and capital work £ million

  1995–96

  55.5

  1996–97

  55.7

  1997–98

  64.1

  1998–99

  62.2

  1999–2000

  59.3

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to bring forward legislation to create regional development agencies. [11704]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington East (Mr. Kemp) on 24 June 1997,Official Report, column 478.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has in respect of membership of the boards of the proposed regional development agencies; if there will be representation allocated to the co-operative and mutual sector; and if he will make a statement. [12226]

  Angela Eagle
  On 11 June, the Government launched a wide ranging consultation on our proposals for regional development agencies. We will make our detailed decisions in the light of that consultation

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the boundaries in England for the proposed regional development agencies will be the same as those proposed for regional lists for elections to the European Parliament. [12079]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Office Refurbishment
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the refurbishment of ministerial offices in his Department; and what is the estimated cost of the works and date of completion. [11873]

  Angela Eagle
  We have no plans for refurbishment of ministerial offices.

  Community Land Schemes
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review community land schemes. [11585]

  Mr. Raynsford
  If my hon. Friend would let me know those aspects of current arrangements which he believes should be reviewed, I would be pleased to give the matter my careful attention.

  Departmental Merger
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the cost to public funds, including the cost of management initiatives, hardware, software and retraining, of changing to common form the differing installations and practices developed by the former Departments of the Environment and of Transport for their internal financial and other information systems, staff records and pay and grading systems. [11944]

  Angela Eagle
  Final decisions have not yet been taken on the future of all these systems. It is expected that over time the merger will result in overall reductions in the running costs of the new Department.

  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions by what proportions and with what direct full-year consequences in annual cost to public funds, the aggregate staff expressed in full-time equivalents of the former Departments of the Environment and of Transport have been reduced in 1995–96 and 1996–97; and what are the estimated figures for(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [11945]

  Angela Eagle
  The most recent published information is contained in the respective 1997 annual reports of the former departments of the Environment and of Transport, which show that staff numbers and the associated running costs were as follows:

  1995–96 (outturn)

  1996–97 (estimated)

  1997–98 (planned)

  1998–99 (planned)

  Department of Environment

  Aggregate staff (FTE)

  4,527

  3,846

  3,755

  3,667

  Year on year percentage change

  —

  15

  -2

  -2

  Associated running costs (£ million)

  226

  229

  204

  198

  Year on year percentage change

  —

  +1

  -11

  -3

  Department of Transport

  Aggregate staff (FTE)

  8,532

  7,704

  7,649

  7,550

  Year on year percentage change

  —

  -10

  -1

  -1

  Associated running costs (£ million)

  395

  401

  373

  354

  Year on year percentage change

  —

  +2

  -7

  -5

  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was his initial estimate of the cost to public funds of reintegrating the former Departments of the Environment and of Transport. [11882]

  Angela Eagle
  The estimated costs of the merger are still being prepared. These will depend on decisions regarding the systems to be adopted and the structure of the new Department. It is expected that over time the merger will result in overall reductions to running costs.

  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the initial estimate of costs at current prices of separating a Department of Transport from the Department of the Environment in 1976. [11883]

  Angela Eagle
  At this distance in time the information required to answer the question is no longer available.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many business organisations and individual businesses he intends to consult in his review of business rates. [11787]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We shall be consulting the business community as widely as possible. We are currently considering the best way of involving representatives of the business community in the work of the review. Any proposals for change will be the subject of a full public consultation exercise allowing all business organisations and businesses to comment.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many hon. Members have requested meetings with Ministers of his Department since 1 May in relations to issues of compulsory competitive tendering; how many such requests have been refused; and how many remain outstanding as of 24 July. [11221]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since 1 May, there have been three requests from hon. Members for meetings with Ministers about compulsory competitive tendering. Two of these requests were declined and the third is under consideration.

  Computer (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what funding is presently committed from his departmental budget for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 to resolve the year 2000 computer problem; and if he will make a statement. [11898]

  Angela Eagle
  To date, committed resources primarily relate to internal staff working in line with CCTA guidance to produce detailed, costed plans by October 1997. These plans will inform decisions on budgetary commitments necessary to meet target dates for corrective work. It is expected that costs will be met from existing public expenditure survey provision.

  New Homes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the accuracy of the previous Government's projections for the number of new homes required by 2011; and if he will make a statement. [11595]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The most recent household projections have been subject to considerable public scrutiny since their publication in March 1995, in particular by the Environment Select Committee in evidence for its report on housing need in 1996. I am satisfied that they were the best that could be made with the available data and that they accurately reflect recent trends.

  While generally endorsing the projections, the Committee recommended that the Department continue to examine the extent to which household formation is affected by economic and social factors. This is currently being addressed by the department of applied economics,
  542
  Cambridge university, as part of a wider research project for the Department on the modelling of the need for social housing. The project has been extended beyond its original completion date and should now be finalised by the autumn.

  Last year, the Department also commissioned Heriot-Watt university to undertake a detailed literature review on household formation, with particular emphasis on evaluating the available evidence on the extent to which economic factors affect the propensity for new households to form. This work has recently been completed and the report will be released on Monday, 4 August. Copies will be placed in the House Libraries.

  Leisure Development, South Yorkshire
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what decision he has made concerning planning application reference R96/684P for a leisure development at Catcliffe, South Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement. [11600]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Secretary of State has been waiting for further information from Rotherham metropolitan borough council. This has recently been received and he expects to make a decision soon on whether or not to call in this application.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what decisions Green Ministers took at their meeting, on 30 July. [11881]

  Mr. Meacher
  At our first meeting, we agreed to establish a programme of work to support the strategic decisions taken by the new Cabinet Committee on the Environment. We considered ways of building sustainable development into policy formulation at the highest level and looked at ways of ensuring that Departments consider sustainable development and the environment in implementing their policies and programmes.

  As background to our work, we are today publishing the results of a consultancy study by KPMG that the last Administration commissioned to gauge how far it was meeting its commitment to assess the potential environmental impact of new policy proposals. The study shows that while Departments had begun to take better account of environmental impacts, much more needed to be done to ensure that policies were systematically considered. Copies of the study will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  To address the shortcomings some of the practical measures we are introducing immediately are:

  (i) a new sustainable development unit in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to support all Departments and to produce an aide-memoire for policy advisers, reminding them of the need to incorporate environmental considerations into policy appraisals for those policies where environmental impacts might be significant, and setting out the steps that ought to be taken in doing so. It will also provide a central contact point for Departments.

  (ii) DETR economists, in consultation with other Departments represented on the Inter Departmental Group on Environmental Costs and Benefits, will provide more technical guidance to those who are frequently involved in

  543
  the environmental aspects of policy appraisal. When available this guidance and the aide-memoirs will replace "Policy Appraisal and the Environment".

  We agreed to undertake regular collective reviews of the quality and scope of such assessments.

  We also asked officials to consider further targets and policies for ensuring that Departments and their agencies are operated sustainably, for example in energy and water saving, waste minimisation, procurement and staff commuting plans.

  We are concerned to keep Parliament and the public informed of progress and issues under debate and will be publicising the outcome of our meetings.

  Property Improvement Grants
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the rules governing qualification for an improvement grant where the property is used for both residential and commercial purposes; and what plans he has to change the rules for qualification. [11912]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Under part I of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 renovation grants are available for the improvement or repair of a dwelling, which is defined as a building or part of a building which is occupied as a separate dwelling. We have no plans to change this provision.

  Out-of-town Developments
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to revise planning policy guidance in respect of the development of out-of-town stores. [11921]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have no current plans to revise PPG6.

  Green-field Sites
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will seek an urgent meeting with the relevant planning authorities in Suffolk in respect of his policy towards releasing more green-field sites for development in Suffolk. [11619]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No. The Suffolk structure plan makes provision for 54,690 dwellings until 2006 and green-field site specific issues are mostly resolved within the local plans framework introduced by schedule 54a to the Town and Country Planning Act 1991.

  Green Belt
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to revise legislation relating to planning guidance in respect of the protection of the green belt. [11712]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have no current plans to revise planning policy guidance note 2 which sets out the Government's policy on this issue.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he 544
  has to restrict the number of days during the calendar year when car boot sales may be held without planning permission; and if he will make a statement regarding permitted development rights in so far as they affect car boot sales. [12240]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Part 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 grants a general planning permission for the temporary use of land for up to 28 days in any calendar year. However, the general permission for car boot sales is limited to 14 days, in recognition that they may, in some locations, cause problems such as parking, litter and noise. We are considering whether further controls over such markets are necessary.

  Population and Household Changes
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of(a) population and (b) household changes in (i) Birmingham and (ii) Worcestershire over the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [12194]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Population estimates and projections are the responsibility of the Office for National Statistics—formerly the Office for Population Censuses and Surveys. The projections of the numbers of the households, which uses this information are the responsibility of my Department.

  Populations and household projections for Worcestershire alone are not available as it was not a separate county at the time the most recent projections were made. The population and household projections over the next 10 years for both the metropolitan district of Birmingham and the county of Hereford and Worcester are as follows:

  1996

  2001

  2006

  Population1(thousands)

  Birmingham

  1,008

  1,006

  1,002

  Hereford and Worcester

  708

  731

  751

  Households2(thousands)

  Birmingham

  402

  408

  416

  Hereford and Worcester

  285

  301

  317

  Source:

  1 "1993-based Subnational population projections", OPCS Series PP3 number 9,1994.

  2 "Projections of Households in England to 2016", DoE 1995.

  Business Start-up Scheme
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many unemployed people have qualified for assistance on the business start-up scheme since its incorporation into the single regeneration budget in each region and for England as a whole; what was the annual expenditure; and which
  545
  training and enterprise councils have taken part in each year. [12171]

  Angela Eagle
  Information in the form requested is not available.

  The single regeneration budget provides support to local partnerships for schemes which promote the wider regeneration of their chosen area. Under the first two rounds of the challenge fund, 238 schemes have included plans to assist business start ups. Over their lifetime of up to seven years, and subject to satisfactory progress on delivery plans, these schemes stand to receive some £1.7 billion in challenge fund support towards a wide range of economic, environmental and social measures including an estimated 80,000 new business start ups. Training and enterprise councils are involved with the vast majority of the 238 schemes. Further support for new business start ups will also be provided under rounds 3 and 4 of the challenge fund.

  Information on the number of new business start ups supported under the challenge fund in 1995–96 and 1996–97 for each of the 10 Government offices for the regions and for England is as follows:

  Number of new business start ups

  Region

  1995–96(actual)

  1996–97(provisional)

  Eastern

  440

  739

  East Midlands

  463

  943

  London

  1,858

  2,236

  Merseyside

  577

  1,747

  North-east

  1,740

  2,232

  North-west

  1,283

  1,869

  South-east

  123

  375

  South-west

  571

  1,042

  West Midlands

  1,993

  2,476

  Yorkshire and Humber

  1,410

  2,702

  England

  10,458

  16,361

  Global Temperatures
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the global average temperature was relative to the 51 to 80 average in(a) June and (b) the period from January to May. [12243]

  Angela Eagle
  Climate monitoring carried out at the Met Office's Hadley centre, supported by my Department, shows provisionally that the global average temperature—relative to the 1951–1980 average—was +0.44°C in June 1997 and +0.37°C for the period January to May 1997.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what prediction the Government have made of global average temperature relative to the 51 to 80 average in each month from July to November of this year. [12244]

  Angela Eagle
  Climate monitoring is carried out at the Met Office's Hadley centre, supported by my Department. However, data for July are not yet completed and the Government make no such predictions of global average temperature.

  Regional Boundaries
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make the Local Government Boundary Commission responsible for regional boundaries in England. [12099]

  Mr. Caborn
  I announced on 11 June that we intend the boundaries of regional development agencies to be the same as the administrative areas of the Government offices for the regions, except that there will be a single agency for the north-west region including Merseyside.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect on the powers and responsibilities in respect of planning and development in their geographical areas of those bodies which straddle borders between Government regions of his proposals in respect of the regions, with particular reference to the Peak District national park. [12110]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Government offices and the various regional planning bodies already liaise on cross boundary regional planning matters. We envisage that the regional development agencies which we are proposing to set up will be able to cooperate with one another in developing and implementing economic strategies for the regions.

  Rural Poverty
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has for the future role of the Rural Development Commission in respect of rural poverty. [12107]

  (2) what measures the Government are taking to combat rural poverty; [12108]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government recognise the special needs of people who live and work in rural areas and of the need to tackle poverty. My Department is responsible for the Rural Development Commission which operates a number of economic and community support programmes, designed to promote regeneration and tackle disadvantage in the countryside. We have been discussing with the Commission its draft 1997 corporate plan which sets out the Commission's future expenditure proposals. The Commission expects to publish its plan later this summer.

  We are currently considering how the proposed new regional development agencies might promote economic regeneration in rural areas. We are in the process of consulting interested parties in the regions to hear what they have to say about our proposals.

  A number of programmes in my Department and others may impact on rural poverty. The policies and programmes of my Department are being reviewed as part of the comprehensive spending review, in order to consider how far we are meeting the aims of enhancing opportunity, fairness and sustainable development, while promoting employment and investment for sound economic growth.

  Local Self-government
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which clauses of
  547
  the Council of Europe's charter of local self-government the Government plan to sign up to during the ratification stage. [12195]

  Mr. Raynsford
  These are matters to be decided when, as we intend, we come to ratify the charter. It is the Government's belief, however, that this country's domestic legislation on local government conforms with the charter as a whole.

  Council Tax Bandings
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the current council tax bandings with particular reference to mobile home owners who live in properties worth less than the lowest banding threshold. [12021]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have asked officials to undertake a review of the council tax. This review will consider, among other things, the current council tax valuation bands.

  Water Metering
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what discussions she has had with the water companies concerning the metering of places of worship; [12095]

  (2) what discussions he has had with religious leaders regarding the water metering of places of worship; [12096]

  (3) what steps he is taking to exempt churches, mosques and temples from the compulsory installation of water meters. [12097]

  Angela Eagle
  This Government have not taken part in any discussions on the basis of charging places of worship for water and sewerage services. This issue will fall within the scope of the Government review of the system of charging for water announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on 25 June 1997,Official Report, column 514. My Department has written to interested bodies inviting comments and in reply has received representations from religious bodies on the issues raised in the review, including the basis of charging for religious and community premises. The Government will consider all the representations before making proposals on charging. There will then be a period of formal consultation. The Government have made clear their opposition to compulsory metering for essential domestic use.

  Gipsy Sites
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will consider, for local authorities that have provided adequate and well-maintained gipsy sites, providing financial assistance for emergency transit sites for other gipsies visiting their area. [11998]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Exchequer grant at 100 per cent. was available for some 16 years for local authorities to provide both permanent, and transit, gipsy sites with a life of at least 10 years, and for temporary sites with a life of at least three years. Gipsy sites grant was never available for 548
  emergency stopping places which are often no more than redundant pieces of land with basic sanitary facilities for short overnight stops. Advice that local authorities should consider providing such sites in their areas, as a means for dealing with short-term unauthorised camping, was first enshrined in departmental circulars issued in 1977 and 1978.

  We have no plans at present to reintroduce Exchequer grant aid for local authorities to provide gipsy caravan sites.

  Local Government Finance
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that local authorities receive their full management and maintenance allowance for council-owned homes. [11997]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In calculating each authority's entitlement to housing revenue account subsidy, the allowance made for expenditure on management takes account of a target management and maintenance score determined annually for each authority based on a number of indicators including the characteristics of its stock. Allowances for individual authorities are calculated to move gradually towards the target figures thus ensuring no dramatic changes in subsidy entitlement from one year to the next.

  We will be making proposals later this year on HRA subsidy for 1998–99. We shall consult local authorities on the draft HRA subsidy determination in the normal way.

  We are considering all aspects of the financing of local authority housing as part of the comprehensive spending review. It will see that taxpayers' money is being spent effectively in order to fulfil the Government's manifesto commitments.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many planning applications in England were referred to his Department(a) under directions made under the Town and County Planning Acts, (b) voluntarily by local planning authorities and (c) voluntarily by interested individuals or bodies; and how many applications in each category were in fact called in, in each of the last five years. [12109]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As I explained in my answer to the hon. Member on 28 July,Official Report, column 42, the information is not available in the form requested.

  Bioregional Network Production
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into Bioregional Network Production, and what estimate he has made of the number of (i) jobs which would be created and (ii) road miles which would be saved by promoting Bioregional Network Production models. [11993]

  Angela Eagle
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which local authorities have applied for the special control provisions to deal with problem houses in multiple occupation contained in the Housing Act 1996; and with which local authorities his Department is having discussions about such provisions. [11983]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A registration scheme for houses in multiple occupation containing special control provisions has been confirmed, under the powers introduced by part II of the Housing Act 1996, for Portsmouth city council and will come into force on 1 September. My Department has held discussions about the possibility of introducing such schemes with two other authorities; Bournemouth borough council and Thanet district council.

  Rent Rises
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the real rises in rents for(a) council, (b) housing association and (c) private sector dwellings between 1979 and the latest date available. [12198]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The average weekly rent for local authority tenants in England increased from £6.49 to £40.05 between 1979–80 and 1996–97, which represents a 135 per cent. increase in real terms after adjusting for inflation as measured by the GDP market price deflator. The closest comparison that can be made for average private sector rents is between 1978 and 1996–97 when rents rose from £6.70 to £76.49, a 263 per cent. increase in real terms. These average private sector rents are estimates from the 1978 private renters survey and the 1996–97 survey of English housing and are subject to sampling variability. No data on overall average housing association rents are available before 1984.

  Housebuilding (Birmingham)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to take full account of issues of sustainability in considering the patterns of new housebuilding in and around Birmingham; and if he will make a statement. [12193]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are considering advice provided by the west midlands regional forum of local authorities on housing provision in the west midlands region up to the year 2011. They have taken into account national planning policies on sustainability in formulating their advice, and we have those policies very much in mind in considering our response.

  Performing Animals
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the health and safety inspection arrangements at travelling zoos and circuses involving performing animals. [12085]

  Angela Eagle
  Arrangements for inspections of health and safety at travelling zoos and circuses are a matter for local authorities who are the enforcing authority under the 550
  Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for these types of activity. The Health and Safety Commission has issued guidance to local authorities on enforcement.

  Shopping Centres
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the Government's response to the Environment Committee's report on shopping centres, fourth report, Session 1996–97 HC210; and if he will make a statement. [12317]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government have today laid before Parliament their response to the Environment Committee's report on shopping centres which was published in March 1997.

  The Government, in responding to the Committee's report, reaffirm the objectives of the current planning policy guidance in PPG6: "Town Centres and Retail Developments". This guidance seeks to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of our existing city, town and district centres. The Government are strongly committed to ensuring that such centres act as the focus for investment, particularly in retail, office, leisure and other appropriate developments, so as to provide easy access to a wide range of facilities and services by a choice of means of transport.

  This does not represent a change in Government policy, but rather continues the policies already established. I think that this will be seen as good news by the development industry and by others seeking planning permission, who will welcome the reassurance that continuity of policy provides.

  Gas Power
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the Rio 2 treaty on United Kingdom policy towards gas power. [11102]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United Nations General Assembly special session on 23 to 27 June 1997 did not result in any treaty commitments. However, in considering applications for gas-fired and other forms of power stations, we will ensure consistency with the wide objectives of secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices and meeting environmental targets.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on existing targets set to minimise waste within his Department; [11527]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce a waste minimisation strategy for his Department. [11526]

  Angela Eagle
  The former Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport set targets, respectively, for a 15 and 20 per cent. reduction in waste from their headquarter buildings by March 1998. An appropriate waste minimisation target and strategy for the new Department is being considered.
  551
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the amount, and proportion, of paper recycled by his Department in each of the last five years. [11528]

  Angela Eagle
  The amount of paper recycled for the Department's headquarters buildings is as follows:

  Year

  Total paper recycled in DETR HQ buildings (Tonnes)

  1992–1993

  202

  1993–1994

  220

  1994–1995

  198

  1995–1996

  146

  1996–1997

  119

  Total1992–97

  885

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Shiji Lapite (Unlawful Killing)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action the Metropolitan police intend to take in respect of the unlawful killing of Shiji Lapite; and if he will make a statement. [11283]

  Mr. Michael
  The matter is now in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions to review the decision not to institute criminal proceedings. The Police Complaints Authority will review its decision not to pursue a disciplinary charge in this case, but cannot do so until the outcome of the DPP's review of the papers. The Metropolitan police have undertaken to co-operate fully.

  Animal Experimentation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the report of the National Anti-Vivisection society, "Access Denied", a copy of which has been sent to him. [11280]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock),Official Report, column 258.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newark (Ms Jones) of 24 July,Official Report, column 681, if all the animals he lists as being at Huntingdon Life Sciences are currently being used in experiments. [11618]

  Mr. Howarth
  The figures given in that answer were estimates of the number of animals currently held by the establishment. A large majority of these animals will be undergoing regulated procedures.

  Under section 15 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, where a protected animal has been subjected to regulated procedures and where, at the conclusion of the procedures, the animal is suffering or is likely to suffer adverse effects, it must be killed by an approved method.

  More precise figures for the number of animals which would need to be killed could be established only at disproportionate cost.

  Asylum Seekers
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applicants for asylum before August 1993 are(a) awaiting a decision on their application and (b) awaiting an appeal hearing against refusal of asylum; [11514]

  (2) how many appeals against refusal of asylum, listed by nationality of applicant and by date of application, are awaiting decision; [11513]

  (3) how many applications for asylum made to his Department, listed by nationality of applicant and by year of application, are awaiting decision. [11512]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information on the number of applications awaiting an initial decision in the asylum directorate, as at the end of June 1997, is given in the tables. Of the total, 53.025, it is estimated that 11,300 were applications made prior to August 1993.

  As at the end of June 1997, there were approximately 24,000 asylum appeals yet to be determined. I regret that the breakdowns requested, by nationality and year of application, are not available.

  Table 1: Asylum applications awaiting an initial decision as at 30 June 19971, 2, 3

  Number

  Europe

  Bulgaria

  770

  Cyprus

  585

  Poland

  640

  Romania

  570

  Former USSR

  3,225

  Turkey

  4,275

  Former Yugoslavia

  3,275

  Others

  310

  Total

  13,645

  Americas

  Colombia

  2,440

  Others

  2,300

  Total

  4,745

  Middle East

  Iran

  1,110

  Iraq

  1,085

  Lebanon

  380

  Others

  1,140

  Total

  3,710

  Africa

  Algeria

  530

  Angola

  1,220

  Cameroon

  185

  Ethiopia

  1,140

  Gambia

  640

  Ghana

  2,660

  Ivory Coast

  455

  Kenya

  2,170

  Liberia

  330

  Nigeria

  3,480

  Rwanda

  285

  Sierra Leone

  830

  Somalia

  690

  South Africa

  60

  Sudan

  795

  Tanzania

  485

  Togo

  155

  Uganda

  855

  553

  Table 1: Asylum applications awaiting an initial decision as at 30 June 19971, 2, 3

  Number

  Zaire

  3,165

  Zimbabwe

  145

  Others

  555

  Total

  20,825

  Asia

  Afghanistan

  685

  Bangladesh

  1,045

  China

  1,825

  India

  1,070

  Pakistan

  1,825

  Sri Lanka

  2,740

  Others

  695

  Total

  9,890

  Other and unknown nationalities

  205

  Grand total

  53,025

  1 Excluding dependents.

  2 Figures rounded to the nearest five.

  3 Takes into account recent revisions to the number of in-country applications lodged in January to May 1997.

  Table2: Asylum application awaiting an initial decision as at 30 june 1997 by year of application1

  Year of application

  Percentage

  Pre 1992

  5

  1992

  10

  1993

  10

  1994

  20

  1995

  30

  1996

  15

  19972

  10

  Total

  53,025 (100 per cent.)

  1 Estimates rounded to the nearest 5 per cent.

  2 January to June.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people refused asylum in the United Kingdom since August 1993, listed by year of application, have(a) applied for and (b) been granted leave to remain on (i) exceptional, (ii) marriage and (iii) other grounds. [11502]

  Mr. O'Brien
  The available information is given in the table.

  align="center">Number1 of persons refused asylum but granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom, August 1993 to June 1997 Principal applicants

  align="center">Year of decision

  1993 August to December

  1994

  1995

  1996

  19974 January to June

  Type of leave granted

  Exceptional leave to remain2

  790

  3,660

  4,410

  5,050

  1,450

  Leave to remain as a spouse3

  50

  150

  270

  330

  120

  Other leave3

  10

  20

  40

  40

  30

  1 Figures rounded to nearest 10 and exclude dependants.

  2 Relates to those persons granted exceptional leave to remain at the time of being refused asylum.

  3 Relates to those refused asylum seekers subsequently granted leave to remain on non-asylum grounds.

  4 Provisional.

  Assaults on Police
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each police force in England and Wales and for each year since 1992(a) the total number of sickness days taken due to assault, (b) the average number of days lost per police officer due to assault and (c) the total cost to each police force. [11505]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is shown in the table. Information on the total cost of the days lost as a result of assaults on police officers is not held centrally.

  align="center">Total number of days sick leave due to assault

  Forces

  1993

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Avon and Somerset

  906

  1,106

  1—

  2,090

  Bedfordshire

  341

  247

  334

  750

  Cambridgeshire

  400

  270

  219

  377

  Cheshire

  1,119

  221

  799

  653

  City of London

  9

  145

  46

  1—

  Cleveland

  1,069

  513

  392

  417

  Cumbria

  457

  271

  512

  260

  Derbyshire

  1,502

  612

  814

  756

  Devon and Cornwall

  712

  445

  574

  920

  Dorset

  490

  492

  37

  140

  Durham

  448

  602

  817

  438

  Dyfed-Powys

  557

  251

  306

  495

  Essex

  582

  469

  749

  275

  Gloucestershire

  482

  319

  149

  323

  Greater Manchester

  1,427

  2,413

  2,492

  1,647

  Gwent

  342

  90

  132

  669

  Hampshire

  1,535

  537

  1,026

  1—

  Hertfordshire

  214

  218

  101

  268

  Humberside

  727

  627

  458

  276

  Kent

  400

  593

  302

  207

  Lancashire

  1,160

  1,016

  1,779

  950

  Leicestershire

  469

  992

  598

  550

  Lincolnshire

  709

  697

  719

  601

  Merseyside

  2,825

  3,325

  3,160

  2,229

  Metropolitan police

  11,323

  11,686

  5,000

  9,723

  Norfolk

  256

  289

  1—

  111

  North Wales

  61

  71

  28

  450

  North Yorkshire

  119

  76

  86

  33

  Northamptonshire

  370

  339

  69

  486

  Nortrmmbria

  4,048

  2,596

  2,471

  2,453

  Nottinghamshire

  1,161

  700

  776

  876

  South Wales

  3,414

  2,502

  2,455

  1,316

  South Yorkshire

  697

  1,040

  482

  607

  Staffordshire

  345.50

  346

  401

  483

  Suffolk

  122

  66

  75

  778

  Surrey

  240

  100

  282

  216

  Sussex

  738

  798

  688

  1,050

  Thames Valley

  668

  895

  1,073

  896

  Warwickshire

  375

  382

  379

  312

  WestMercia

  504

  398

  427

  773

  West Midlands

  2,054.19

  2,806

  2,165

  3,072

  West Yorkshire

  2,017

  1,318

  1—

  2,476

  Wiltshire

  249

  179

  259

  320

  Provincial total

  36,320.69

  31,302

  228,631

  231,999

  England and Wales total

  47,643.69

  42,988

  233,631

  241,506

  1Information not available.

  2 Incomplete totals.

  align="center">Average number of days sick leave per assault

  Forces

  1993

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Avon and Somerset

  10.53

  21.69

  1—

  14.72

  Bedfordshire

  13.12

  9.15

  9.28

  25.86

  Cambridgeshire

  17.39

  15.00

  14.60

  25.13

  Cheshire

  19.29

  9.61

  19.49

  13.06

  City of London

  3.00

  24.17

  9.20

  1—

  555

  align="center">Average number of days sick leave per assault

  Forces

  1993

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Cleveland

  19.80

  17.69

  9.80

  13.45

  Cumbria

  19.04

  10.42

  16.52

  10.00

  Derbyshire

  32.65

  14.23

  18.93

  12.60

  Devon and Cornwall

  10.79

  9.08

  13.67

  20.00

  Dorset

  18.85

  28.94

  4.63

  15.56

  Durham

  13.18

  12.29

  18.16

  18.25

  Dyfed-Powys

  27.85

  10.04

  9.00

  11.79

  Essex

  10.39

  12.34

  14.69

  9.82

  Gloucestershire

  17.21

  9.38

  13.55

  10.09

  Greater Manchester

  8.49

  16.87

  22.86

  11.60

  Gwent

  21.38

  7.50

  11.00

  22.30

  Hampshire

  17.64

  13.77

  17.10

  1—

  Hertfordshire

  9.30

  10.38

  25.25

  14.11

  Humberside

  12.32

  22.39

  12.38

  8.36

  Kent

  9.30

  11.40

  7.55

  6.27

  Lancashire

  12.08

  10.92

  25.06

  12.18

  Leicestershire

  8.53

  15.90

  11.73

  9.33

  Lincolnshire

  12.66

  18.34

  23.19

  17.68

  Merseyside

  20.62

  23.58

  24.12

  22.07

  Metropolitan police

  12.36

  12.21

  13.70

  23.10

  Norfolk

  7.11

  14.45

  1—

  8.56

  North Wales

  4.36

  5.92

  3.50

  13.64

  North Yorkshire

  7.93

  10.86

  7.82

  8.25

  Northamptonshire

  18.50

  26.08

  8.63

  17.36

  Northumbria

  21.31

  21.11

  23.09

  20.97

  Nottinghamshire

  20.73

  12.96

  14.92

  17.88

  South Wales

  21.88

  19.86

  25.31

  13.29

  South Yorkshire

  20.50

  26.67

  11.21

  7.78

  Staffordshire

  9.34

  7.36

  10.84

  14.21

  Suffolk

  6.78

  9.43

  5.77

  12.75

  Surrey

  10.43

  11.11

  16.59

  10.29

  Sussex

  17.57

  17.73

  21.50

  26.25

  Thames Valley

  22.27

  24.86

  39.74

  22.97

  Warwickshire

  14.42

  13.17

  10.83

  12.48

  West Mercia

  14.82

  9.71

  13.34

  12.67

  West Midlands

  13.97

  9.95

  13.53

  21.04

  West Yorkshire

  13.36

  13.05

  1—

  4.01

  Wiltshire

  10.83

  8.95

  17.27

  15.24

  Provincial total

  15.51

  15.11

  217.44

  212.47

  England and Wales total

  14.62

  14.20

  216.76

  213.98

  1Information not available

  2Incomplete totals

  align="center">Average number of days sick leave due to assault per officer

  Forces

  1993

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Avon and Somerset

  0.3

  0.4

  1—

  0.7

  Bedfordshire

  0.3

  0.2

  0.3

  0.7

  Cambridgeshire

  0.3

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  Cheshire

  0.6

  0.1

  0.4

  0.3

  City of London

  0.0

  0.2

  0.1

  0.0

  Cleveland

  0.7

  0.4

  0.3

  0.3

  Cumbria

  0.4

  0.2

  0.4

  0.2

  Derbyshire

  0.8

  0.3

  0.5

  0.4

  Devon and Cornwall

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  Dorset

  0.4

  0.4

  0.0

  0.1

  Durham

  0.3

  0.4

  0.6

  0.3

  Dyfed-Powys

  0.6

  0.3

  0.3

  0.5

  Essex

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  0.1

  Gloucestershire

  0.4

  0.3

  0.1

  0.3

  Greater Manchester

  0.2

  0.3

  0.4

  0.2

  Gwent

  0.3

  0.1

  0.1

  0.5

  Hampshire

  0.5

  0.2

  0.3

  0.0

  Hertfordshire

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.2

  Humberside

  0.4

  0.3

  0.2

  0.1

  Kent

  0.1

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  Lancashire

  0.4

  0.3

  0.6

  0.3

  Leicestershire

  0.3

  0.5

  0.3

  0.4

  Lincolnshire

  0.6

  0.6

  0.6

  0.5

  Merseyside

  0.6

  0.7

  0.7

  0.5

  556

  align="center">Average number of days sick leave due to assault per officer

  Forces

  1993

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Metropolitan police

  0.4

  0.4

  0.2

  1—

  Norfolk

  0.2

  0.2

  1—

  0.1

  North Wales

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.3

  North Yorkshire

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.0

  Northamptonshire

  0.3

  0.3

  0.1

  0.4

  Northumbria

  1.1

  0.7

  0.7

  0.7

  Nottinghamshire

  0.5

  0.3

  0.3

  0.4

  South Wales

  1.1

  0.8

  0.8

  1—

  South Yorkshire

  0.2

  0.3

  0.2

  0.2

  Staffordshire

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  Suffolk

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.7

  Surrey

  0.1

  0.1

  0.2

  0.1

  Sussex

  0.2

  0.3

  0.2

  0.3

  Thames Valley

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  0.2

  Warwickshire

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  0.3

  West Mercia

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.4

  West Midlands

  0.3

  0.4

  0.3

  0.4

  West Yorkshire

  0.4

  0.3

  1—

  0.5

  Wiltshire

  0.2

  0.1

  0.2

  0.3

  Provincial total

  0.4

  0.3

  20.3

  20.3

  England and Wales total

  0.4

  0.3

  20.3

  20.4

  1Information not available

  2Incomplete totals

  Police Overtime
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were(a) the total and (b) the average overtime payments for police officers in each police force in England and Wales for each year since 1992–93. [115061

  Mr. Michael
  The following tables show overtime costs, where available, for each police force in years 1992–93 to 1995–96. Figures for
  1996–97 are not held centrally. The information for years up to, and including, 1994–95 is taken from the police grant claim forms. The format of this changed in 1995–96, when police authorities were no longer required to submit detailed expenditure information. The figures for 1995–96 are therefore taken from returns submitted by police forces to Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary's matrix of indicators. However that return also changed in 1996–97,since when information on overtime costs has no longer been available. Nor are details of overtime costs included in the Charered Institute of public Finance and Accountancy statistics of actual police expenditure from 1994–95 onwards. The average overtime payment has been calculated bf dividing the total cost of overtime for the force by its recorded police strength as at 31 march in the year in question.

  align="center">Police overtime

  Total cost 1992–93£

  Average per officer£

  Total cost 1993–94£

  Average per officer£

  Avon and Somerset

  6,483,805

  2,113

  3,411,264

  1,125

  Bedfordshire

  2,465,006

  2,110

  2,005,596

  1,742

  Cambridgeshire

  3,482,000

  2,753

  2,452,994

  1,942

  Cheshire

  4,442,473

  2,328

  2,849,688

  1,498

  City of London

  2,173,705

  2,635

  2,414,334

  2,704

  Cleveland

  1,645,093

  1,113

  1,860,389

  1,302

  Cumbria

  2,355,384

  1,969

  1,772,714

  1,510

  Derbyshire

  3,258,958

  1,781

  2,606,392

  1,432

  Devon and Cornwall

  6,061,765

  2,083

  4,308,050

  1,478

  Dorset

  1,729,899

  1,329

  1,496,308

  1,154

  557

  align="center">Police overtime

  Total cost 1992–93£

  Average per officer £

  Total cost 1993–94£

  Average per officer £

  Durham

  1,670,907

  1,210

  1,850,700

  1,338

  Dyfed-Powys

  2,142,357

  2,215

  1,385,499

  1,436

  Essex

  5,628,590

  1,917

  5,897,104

  2,008

  Gloucestershire

  1,539,963

  1,340

  1,986,563

  1,714

  Greater Manchester

  24,271,289

  3,438

  15,174,820

  2,178

  Gwent

  1,553,956

  1,548

  1,381,970

  1,392

  Hampshire

  7,107,374

  2,170

  6,577,017

  2,011

  Hertfordshire

  2,324,840

  1,368

  2,721,585

  1,618

  Humberside

  3,280,068

  1,614

  3,583,821

  1,758

  Kent

  5,598,524

  1,780

  6,013,068

  1,912

  Lancashire

  6,967,479

  2,173

  4,521,393

  1,426

  Leicestershire

  3,875,318

  2,147

  2,165,623

  1,187

  Lincolnshire

  2,343,488

  1,953

  2,090,057

  1,734

  Merseyside

  13,660,235

  2,926

  9,685,750

  2,064

  Norfolk

  3,484,596

  2,420

  2,926,125

  2,022

  Northamptonshire

  2,804,613

  2,339

  2,043,539

  1,747

  Northumbria

  10,559,857

  2,964

  6,289,065

  1,748

  North Wales

  2,351,525

  1,729

  2,037,388

  1,507

  North Yorkshire

  3,001,970

  2,155

  2,155,751

  1,636

  Nottinghamshire

  2,582,689

  1,110

  2,176,532

  935

  South Wales

  5,553,765

  1,749

  4,840,639

  1,546

  South Yorkshire

  7,415,640

  2,446

  6,150,043

  2,034

  Staffordshire

  3,716,068

  1,705

  3,555,875

  1,610

  Suffolk

  2,358,621

  1,901

  1,937,984

  1,604

  Surrey

  3,244,020

  1,916

  2,761,499

  1,655

  Sussex

  6,215,486

  2,066

  4,857,135

  1,614

  Thames Valley

  9,882,241

  2,574

  9,822,938

  2,514

  Warwickshire

  1,836,204

  1,800

  1,679,423

  1,606

  West Mercia

  4,261,532

  2,075

  3,097,475

  1,504

  West Midlands

  11,628,414

  1,672

  9,948,439

  1,418

  West Yorkshire

  7,933,671

  1,575

  7,361,286

  1,459

  Wiltshire

  2,387,129

  1,887

  1,653,739

  1,308

  Metropolitan

  76,857,000

  2,900

  71,113,000

  2,567

  align="center">Police overtime

  Total cost 1994–95 £

  Average per officer £

  Total cost 1995–96 £

  Average per officer £

  Avon and Somerset

  2,843,044

  948

  2,510,903

  842

  Bedfordshire

  1,792,069

  1,592

  Not available

  Cambridgeshire

  2,456,325

  1,948

  2,277,573

  1,840

  Cheshire

  2,243,278

  1,161

  2,092,792

  1,047 City of

  City of London

  1,646,861

  1,861

  1,533,612

  1,763

  Cleveland

  1,664,361

  1,157

  1,502,665

  1,058

  Cumbria

  1,600,386

  1,371

  1,395,521

  1,252

  Derbyshire

  2,249,611

  1,252

  Not available

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,326,400

  1,156

  2,753,740

  950

  Dorset

  1,728,068

  1,342

  1,498,850

  1,187

  Durham

  1,661,918

  1,228

  1,584,453

  1,131

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,295,359

  1,327

  991,485

  1,000

  Essex

  6,216,366

  2,128

  4,521,694

  1,568

  Gloucestershire

  1,792,109

  1,541

  1,536,837

  1,356

  Greater Manchester

  21,327,408

  3,031

  12,320,615

  1,776

  Gwent

  1,340,540

  1,345

  1,188,953

  1,139

  Hampshire

  7,057,835

  2,168

  6,792,300

  2,029

  Hertfordshire

  2,727,741

  1,602

  2,860,029

  1,671

  Humberside

  3,166,817

  1,561

  3,195,743

  1,566

  Kent

  5,815,810

  1,866

  4,752,818

  1,523

  Lancashire

  3,315,921

  1,032

  4,727,719

  1,491

  Leicestershire

  1,803,140

  981

  Not available

  Lincolnshire

  2,352,836

  1,962

  1,804,428

  1,576

  Merseyside

  8,772,444

  1,883

  9,308,852

  2,110

  Norfolk

  2,408,259

  1,726

  2,785,562

  1,988

  Northamptonshire

  2,067,450

  1,788

  1,940,193

  1,683

  Northumbria

  6,939,486

  1,924

  4,900,000

  1,336

  North Wales

  2,025,795

  1,483

  2,323,768

  1,686

  558

  align="center">Police overtime

  Total cost 1994–95 £

  Average per officer £

  Total cost 1995–96 £

  Average per officer £

  North Yorkshire

  2,042,438

  1,571

  2,331,828

  1,761

  Nottinghamshire

  2,240,937

  966

  2,858,904

  1,233

  South Wales

  2,052,738

  681

  3,121,410

  1,031

  South Yorkshire

  4,370,277

  1,438

  5,200,856

  1,692

  Staffordshire

  3,098,956

  1,389

  3,045,884

  1,379

  Suffolk

  1,825,389

  1,533

  923,590

  812

  Surrey

  3,449,709

  2,058

  2,397,070

  1,458

  Sussex

  6,020,618

  2,054

  4,223,529

  1,374

  Thames Valley

  8,395,959

  2,179

  5,428,446

  1,478

  Warwickshire

  1,466,419

  1,448

  394,790

  403

  West Mercia

  2,766,917

  1,352

  1,948,868

  966

  West Midlands

  9,810,619

  1,398

  9,198,454

  1,287

  West Yorkshire

  6,393,270

  1,266

  6,722,464

  1,307

  Wiltshire

  1,459,612

  1,158

  1,168,206

  958

  Metropolitan

  72,537,984

  2,640

  68,611,322

  2,509

  1992–93 to 1994–95: police grant claim forms. 1995–96: The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy Estimates.

  Prisons (Education)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of prisons and young offender institutions reduced their education provision in 1996–97; and what percentage plan to do so in 1997–98; [11508]

  (2) what was the average weekly number of hours spent in education per prisoner in (a) June and (b) December in (i) 1995, (ii) 1996 and (iii) 1997 to date. [11510]

  Ms Quin
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours of education were provided at(a) Holloway, (b) Highpoint, (c) Albany and (d) Wandsworth prisons in (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97; and what is the planned number in 1997–98. [11509]

  Ms Quin
  Hours of education—defined as daytime education, vocational training courses, construction industry training courses and evening education—at these establishments were:

  Hours

  Holloway

  1995–96 (actual)

  90,200

  1996–97 (actual)

  87,500

  1997–98 (planned)

  130,000

  Highpoint

  1995–96 (actual)

  194,600

  1996–97 (actual)

  97,000

  1997–98 (planned)

  313,000

  559

  Hours

  Albany

  1995–96 (actual)

  100,600

  1996–97 (actual)

  56,400

  1997–98 (planned)

  57,000

  Wandsworth

  1995–96 (actual)

  118,500

  1996–97 (actual)

  57,400

  1997–98 (planned)

  38,176

  Prisoners (Cells)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average time per day which prisoners spent in their cells in(a) 1995–96,(b) 1996–97 and (c) each month since April 1997. [11511]

  Ms Quin
  The Prison Service monitors the time that is available for prisoners to spend out of their cell, based on normal prison routine, rather than the actual time that prisoners spend in their cell.

  The average time available for prisoners to spend out of their cell for 1995–96,1996–97 and each month since April 1997 was:

  1995–96: 11.4 hours

  1996–97: 11.2 hours

  April 1997: 11.0 hours

  May 1997: 11.1 hours

  June 1997: 11.0 hours

  The data for the current financial year are subject to final validation.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prisoners were held in their cells for more than(a) 10, (b) 12 hours per day in (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) each month since April 1997. [11825]

  Ms Quin
  The Prison Service monitors the time that is available for prisoners to spend out of their cell, based on normal prison routine, rather than the actual time that prisoners spend in their cell.

  The table details the average proportion of prisoners held in prisons where the average time available for prisoners to spend out of their cell was (a) more than 10 hours and (b) more than 12 hours.

  Percentage of prisoners unlocking for:

  1995–96

  1996–97

  April 1997

  May 1997

  June 1997

  More than ten hours

  70

  63

  57

  59

  60

  More than twelve hours

  28

  24

  23

  22

  20

  The data for the current financial year are subject to final validation.

  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average daily time spent out of cells by prisoners in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) each month since April 1997. [11952]

  Ms Quin
  The Prison Service monitors the time that is available for prisoners to spend out of their cell, based on normal prison routines, rather than the actual time that prisoners spend out of their cell.
  560
  The average time available for prisoners to spend out of their cell for 1995–96,1996–97and each month since April 1997was:

  1995–96: 11.4hours

  1996–97: 11.2hours

  April 1997:11.0hours

  May 1997:11.1hours

  June 1997:11.0hours

  The data for the current financial year are subject to final validation

  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prisoners were out of their cells for(a) more than 10 hours per day and (b) more than 12 hours per day in (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97. [11951]

  Ms Quin
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are currently accommodated two to a cell designed for one person.
  [12222]

  Ms Quin
  I will write to the right hon. Member.

  Prisoners (Constructive Activity)
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average weekly number of hours spent in constructive activity by(a) all prisoners, (b) remand prisoners and (c) sentenced prisoners in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) each month since April 1997 (1) nationally and (2) in each London prison. [11950]

  Ms Quin
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Republican Prisoners (Transfers)
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many republican prisoners have submitted applications to be transferred from his jurisdiction to penal institutions in the Republic of Ireland; what is the average length of time for such an application to be processed; and if he will make a statement; [11084]

  (2) what plans he has to authorise the transfer of republican prisoners to penal institutions in the Republic of Ireland under the European convention on the transfer of sentenced prisoners; and if he will make a statement. [11083]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answers 30 July 1997]: Any prisoner may apply for repatriation to the Republic of Ireland. All such applications are considered under the terms of the convention and, in accordance with this country's long-standing policy, which is normally not to repatriate prisoners where there would likely to be a substantial reduction in time to serve as a result.

  To date, 24 prisoners convicted of terrorist-related offences and held in prisons in England and Wales have applied to be repatriated to the Republic of Ireland.

  Of eight such applications which have been resolved to date, six were processed in an average period of a little over 10 months from date of application for repatriation

  561
  to date of final decision; two were withdrawn by the prisoners concerned 19 months after date of first application.

  The date of application is taken as being either the date on which the prisoner submitted the request, or 1 November 1995—the date on which the Republic brought the convention into force there—whichever is the later.

  Cardiff Prison (Disciplinary Hearings)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of disciplinary hearings instituted at Cardiff prison following the death of Geoffrey Thomas. [11938]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 24 July Official Report, column 683. It has come to my attention that dates given in my previous answer were incorrect, for which I apologise.

  Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against five members of staff at Cardiff prison following the death of Mr. Geoffrey Thomas. Three of the cases have been concluded. Proceedings against two others have been adjourned at the request of the Prison Governors Association.

  The first hearing took place on 21 and 22 May, and not 19 May as previously stated. The adjournment of two cases took place on 23 May and not 22 May.

  The Prison Governors Association has questioned the impartiality of the governor hearing the case, and not the legality of the actions of the governor investigating the incident, as stated in my previous answer.

  Hearings will be reconvened at the earliest available date.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcom Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding is presently committed from his departmental budget for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 to resolve the year 2000 computer problem; and if he will make a statement. [11890]

  Mr. Straw
  Each business area within the Home Office is responsible for ensuring that computer systems in their area are year 2000 compliant. The Department is following guidance published by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency. The business areas are currently preparing costed plans for this work and these plans should be completed by end of October this year, which is the target date recommended by the central information technology unit. Until these costed plans are available, it is not possible to estimate the cost of year 2000 remedial work and at this stage no funds are committed. The business areas are aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that costs will have to be met from existing public expenditure survey provision.

  Prisoners (Mental Disorder)
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what access to the NHS is available to mentally disordered prisoners; what information is 562
  collated by the Prison Service about mentally disordered prisoners' medical history; what information is passed on to the NHS after release; and if he will make a statement. [11910]

  Ms Quin
  Prisoners who are mentally disordered in accordance with the criteria in the Mental Health Act 1983 for detention as in-patients for medical treatment can be transferred to psychiatric hospital. Prisoners with mental health problems who do not meet those criteria receive care and treatment in prison, often under the supervision of a qualified psychiatrist as occurs in the community.

  On their first reception into prison, all prisoners receive a physical and mental health examination which includes a psychiatric history. Prison staff may, with the prisoner's agreement, request individual records or other medical reports from the national health service in cases where that is considered necessary.

  Where there is a need for continuing treatment after release, medical information is transferred from the prison doctor to the prisoner's general practitioner or other responsible agency in the community. Where a prisoner does not consent to such disclosure, but his or her mental ill health places them or others in the community at significant risk, such information would be disclosed to an appropriate person or agency and the prisoner informed accordingly. The Prison Service plans to issue a new health care standard on "Continuity of Health Care" which will give additional advice to establishments on exchanges of information about health care matters between the Prison Service and other agencies.

  Primary Purpose Rule
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in implementing changes in the primary purpose rule. [11919]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend announced the abolition of the primary purpose rule in an answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 5 June,Official Report, column 218. An amendment to the immigration rules was laid which came into effect the same day. Outstanding appeals involving primary purpose are being reviewed. In cases where the refusal was on the ground of primary purpose alone, instructions are being issued to grant entry clearance.

  Prisons (Security)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Government policy towards the outstanding recommendations made in the Learmont report into prison security. [11932]

  Ms Quin
  One hundred and twelve of the recommendations have been implemented. Of the remaining 15, 11 are the subject of a cost-benefit analysis to determine their operational effectiveness and value for money, and four are still being reviewed or evaluated through pilot schemes.

  Volunteers (Screening)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made with the proposal in the Cullen report for the screening of volunteers; and if he will make a statement. [11598]

  Mr. Michael
  The recommendation for the vetting and supervision of adults working with children and young people, including paid workers and volunteers, is under consideration by the Government.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to introduce a legal obligation on individuals and organisations to have all their(a) existing and (b) new volunteers screened; and what estimate he has made of the average cost of that procedure. [11599]

  Mr. Michael
  There is no legal requirement for individuals or organisations to screen existing or new volunteers. Depending on the level of check, the cost of such checks has been estimated at between £5 and £10. We are currently considering the implementation of part V of the Police Act 1997 and will honour an undertaking to consult voluntary organisations before reaching a decision.

  Sutton Police Station
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to bring forward the date of the private finance initiative for building a new police station in Sutton. [11830]

  Mr. Michael
  The Metropolitan police propose to seek tenders for provision of services for a package which includes replacement of divisional police stations in Sutton, Bromley and Lewisham.

  The receiver for the Metropolitan police district hopes to advertise for expressions of interest in the Official Journal of the European Communities by September.

  European Union
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on justice and home affairs matters currently under discussion within the European Union.
  [11922]

  Ms Quin
  In securing its major policy objectives in the Amsterdam treaty, the Government ensured that the United Kingdom would continue to play a leading role in European Union co-operation to fight crime, drugs and terrorism.

  During its current presidency of the European Union, Luxembourg proposes to give priority to the implementation of the Dublin convention on asylum; to undertake further work on a draft Eurodac convention; and to work towards further measures to tackle illegal immigration. Attention will also be given to issues relating to the implementation of the Europol convention; work to counter a range of organised criminal activities; and aspects of the illegal production and trafficking of drugs.
  564
  In general, Luxembourg's work programme has a strong practical emphasis, which the Government welcome, and on which we intend to build during the United Kingdom presidency in 1998.

  A full explanatory note on Luxembourg's proposed work programmes was made available for parliamentary scrutiny earlier this month under explanatory note reference 9378/97.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has, pursuant to article K.2 of the Amsterdam treaty for(a) operational co-operation of law enforcement bodies, (b) training and secondment of staff, (c) shared use of equipment and forensics and (d) common evaluation of investigative techniques. [11402]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 30 July 1997]: Support for operational co-operation, training and secondments, equipment and forensic science, and relevant investigative techniques are all matters which are already discussed under title VI of the present treaty on European Union. It is for future consideration exactly how they will be taken forward when the Amsterdam treaty is in force, but this will not require radical changes.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what operational guidelines will be issued on the protection of personal data while law enforcement bodies operate under article K.2 of the Amsterdam treaty. [11403]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 30 July 1997]: We have no current plans to issue guidelines of this sort. The law enforcement agencies of member states will continue to operate in accordance with national law. The Europol convention already contains data protection provisions relating to Europol, and data protection issues will be considered fully in the development of any new initiatives at European Union level.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on(a) the independent operational capacity of Europol following the Amsterdam treaty and (b) Europol's proposed research, documentation and statistical network on cross-border crime. [11404]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 30 July 1997]: Article K.2 of the Amsterdam treaty sets out the future role of Europol in supporting operational activity by law enforcement agencies of member states. Europol will have no independent operational capacity. The reference to a research documentation and statistical network is consistent with the tasks already set out in the Europol convention. It will be for consideration, once the Amsterdam treaty and the Europol convention have been ratified, whether Europol's role in this area should be developed further.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the asylum protocol of the Amsterdam treaty on the formulation of(a) a common asylum policy and (b) a common asylum system for the European Union. [11411]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 30 July 1997]: The asylum protocol of the draft Amsterdam treaty concerns the handling of claims for asylum from nationals

  565
  of European Union member states in other member states. As such, it will apply to a relatively small number of cases.

  The position of the United Kingdom in relation to other measures which might be adopted under the new title in the treaty of the European Communities concerning free movement of persons, asylum and immigration, is guaranteed by protocol Y of the draft Amsterdam treaty. This provides that such measures shall not be binding on or applicable in the United Kingdom and Ireland unless either or both states wish to take part.

  Probation Service
  Ms Beverely Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prisons and young offender institutions reduced their number of probation staff in the financial year 1996–97. [11635]

  Ms Quin
  Thirty-eight per cent. of the total number of establishments in use during 1996–97 reduced their numbers of seconded probation staff. In some, the reduction was in terms of the number of hours worked by probation staff, rather than full-time posts. Some establishments have increased their numbers of probation staff since the beginning of the current financial year.

  Ms Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many seconded probation officers there were in (i) June 1995, (ii) January 1996, (iii) June 1996, (iv) January 1997 and (v) June 1997; and what is the estimated national number in 1999; and nationally in(a) Manchester, (b) Leeds, (c) Birmingham and (d) each of the six London prisons. [11636]

  Ms Quin
  The numbers of probation officers working in prisons on 30 June and 31 December each year from 1995 to 31 December 1996, the latest date for which figures are as yet available, are as follows:

  Seconded probation officers working in prisons (whole-time equivalents)

  Number

  30 June 1995

  645

  31 December 1995

  639

  30 June 1996

  586

  31 December 1996

  543

  Information on probation officers seconded to individual prisons is not held centrally, but I will write as soon as possible to my hon. Friend with the details she requests.

  The number of probation officers seconded to the Prison Service in future years will depend on the outcome of the comprehensive spending review and of discussions between governors and chief probation officers about what staff in what grades can most efficiently meet the services' joint responsibilities to provide good through care under the national through care framework published in 1993, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Restorative Justice
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his Department's policy towards 566
  restorative justice; and what guidance is given to (a) police forces and (b) magistrates on the operation of restorative justice; [11834]

  (2) what plans he has to review the operation of restorative justice in United Kingdom police forces. [11833]

  Mr. Michael
  I have recently met representatives of the National Council for Social Concern to discuss their proposals to promote restorative justice in England and Wales. Our long-standing commitment to introduce a reparation order demonstrates the Government's wish to restore a proper balance of rights and responsibilities which will be taken forward in the Crime and Disorder Bill later this year. The concept of "restorative justice", like the concept of "relational justice" developed by the Jubilee centre in Cambridge, provide useful tools for understanding crime and disorder when combined with a careful analysis of local problems and an objective assessment of "what works".

  Immigration
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what conditions a foreign national who has married a resident of the United Kingdom, in the United Kingdom, may have the unlimited right to remain in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [11905]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A person who enters the United Kingdom with an entry clearance for the purpose of marriage, or who is in the United Kingdom for a purpose other than marriage and subsequently marries a British citizen or a person settled here, may be granted an initial probationary period of 12 months leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom provided that person meets the requirements of the immigration rules. On completion of the 12-month probationary period, they may be granted indefinite leave to remain provided the marriage still subsists and the other requirements of the immigration rules are met.

  Prison Staff (Early Retirement and Severance)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison staff members have accepted offers of early retirement or severance under the voluntary early retirement and severance scheme. [11837]

  Ms Quin
  One thousand, one hundred and thirty-four members of staff accepted offers of early retirement or severance under the Prison Service voluntary early retirement and severance scheme.

  Caution Plus
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the operation of caution plus by the Thames Valley police force; and what plans he has to encourage other forces to adopt caution plus. [11782]

  Mr. Michael
  The operation of caution plus schemes in a number of areas has demonstrated the value of early, positive intervention with young offenders. I have been impressed by a number of initiatives such as the retail theft initiative in Milton Keynes which show the value of the police working with local authorities and the community—including the business community—to tackle crime and to "nip things in the bud".
  567
  We are studying "best practice" in the Thames Valley and elsewhere in working towards implementation of our proposed final warning for young offenders and the intervention which will be associated with it. Our first consideration is how best to see "what works" in order to prevent crime and reduce reoffending.

  Political Parties
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards the state funding of political parties. [11649]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have no plans to introduce state funding of political parties.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the disclosure by political parties of their financiers and donations. [11648]

  Mr. Howarth
  We are committed to obliging parties to declare the source of all donations above a minimum figure.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the compulsory registration by political parties of their membership. [11650]

  Mr. Howarth
  We have no plans to introduce compulsory registration by political parties of their membership.

  Programme Development Unit
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the objectives of the Home Office programme development unit; what performance indicators will be used to monitor its work; and if he will make a statement. [11914]

  Mr. Michael
  The primary objective of the Home Office programme development unit is to contribute to the development of policy and practice in the area of crime and criminal justice through experimental initiatives from which general lessons can be drawn. It identifies, initiates, encourages, develops and manages innovative local projects to test out in practice ideas stemming from research and practice. It ensures projects are properly monitored and independently evaluated and disseminates the results. It offers help with the replication of similar programmes where appropriate.

  The work of the programme development unit is assessed by the contribution that its work makes to informing policy and practice; the extent to which projects found to be successful are continued beyond the period of Home Office funding, either through attracting funding from other sources or through being mainstreamed into the activities of other bodies such as local authorities; and the extent to which they are replicated.

  The work of the programme development unit is regarded as an essential component in the armoury to tackle and prevent crime.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 July,Official Report, column 385, if he will list those who responded to the consultation document "Bringing Rights Home",
  568
  published in December 1996; and what further discussions on the incorporation of the European convention on human rights have been held since. [11937]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We received responses to "Bringing Rights Home" from the following persons and organisations:

  Charter 88

  Churches Commission for Racial Justice

  Data Protection Registrar

  Director of Human Rights, Council of Europe

  Martin Doherty

  Editor of the "European Human Rights Law Review"

  Avril Fox

  Guild of Editors

  Sir Basil Hall

  Human Rights Incorporation Project

  Institute for Public Policy Research

  Joseph Jaconelli

  Justice

  Martin Kenny

  Law Society

  David Lepper

  Liberty

  Karen Maloney

  Frank McManus

  Councillor N. Perrott

  Public Law Project

  Royal National Institute for Deaf People

  Rabinder Singh

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights

  Dr. Robert Wintemute

  Enid Wistrich.

  Home Office Ministers have had meetings to discuss incorporation of the convention with Charter 88, the Human Rights Incorporation Project, the Institute for Public Policy Research, Sir Kenneth Keith, Liberty, my noble Friend the Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Justice.

  Country Watch
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the success of schemes of policing for rural areas with particular reference to country watch. [11785]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government recognise that the most effective response to rural crime is a partnership between the police and the local community, but no specific assessment has been made of country watch. We encourage crime prevention schemes that enable members of the public—with the support of the local police—to do something positive in the fight against crime.

  In accordance with this, we intend to introduce new statutory duties for local authorities and the police to work together and with the local community to analyse and identify local problems of crime and disorder and then together to draw up and implement strategies for tackling such problems. That will apply in both rural and urban areas.
  569
  Schemes like country watch will continue to play a role in this partnership. The support which such schemes attract from the local community can make a significant impact on crime in the countryside.

  Special Constabulary
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to issue the consultation paper on compensation arrangements for special constables; who is being consulted; what is the deadline for consultation; and when he plans to bring forward legislation. [11724]

  Mr. Michael
  We intend to issue the consultation paper in September, and shall invite the police representative bodies, the Local Government Association, and the working group on the special constabulary to submit comments by the end of October. Subject to these consultations, our aim is to introduce these new arrangements as part of a revised and consolidated set of regulations for special constables, to be made next year under the Police Act 1996.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special constables there have been in post in each year since 1979. [11354]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The number of special constables in post in England and Wales since 1979 are given in the table.

  Year

  Number

  1979

  15,960

  1980

  15,108

  1981

  14,978

  1982

  15,160

  1983

  15,331

  1984

  16,012

  1985

  16,161

  1986

  16,070

  1987

  16,209

  1988

  15,788

  1989

  15,589

  1990

  15,881

  1991

  18,073

  1992

  19,243

  1993

  20,566

  1994

  20,096

  1995

  20,026

  1996

  19,736

  19971

  19,836

  1 The figure for 1997 is provisional. The figures from 1979 to 1994 were recorded as at 31 December of those years. From 1995, the figures were recorded as at 31 March.

  Prisons (Staff)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the ratio of prison staff to prisoners in each year from 1993 to 1997. [11838]
  570
  Ms Quin
  The information requested is listed.

  Year

  Staff:prisoner ratio

  1993

  1:1.17

  1994

  1:1.24

  1995

  1:1.26

  1996

  1:1.33

  19971

  1:1.50

  1 Figures as at 30 June 1997.

  Perjury
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons found guilty of perjury since 1979 served custodial sentences in an open prison; and what percentage this represents of the total. [10010]

  Ms Quin
  The information available centrally combines the offences of perjury, libel and perverting the course of justice. Information for 1991 to 1996 is contained in the table. From court proceedings statistics for the years 1991 to 1995, it is known that around one in nine of these offenders will have served sentences for perjury. It is not possible to provide the information in this form prior to 1991 as information held centrally before that date combined perjury with a much larger group of offences.

  align="center">Prisoners released from open prisons having served a custodial sentence for perjury, libel, or perverting the course of justice

  year

  Number of discharges

  Percentage of all discharges from open prisons

  Percentage of all discharges from all prisons

  Percentage of all discharges for perjury, libel, and perverting the course of justice

  1991

  40

  0.5

  0.1

  30.5

  1992

  66

  1.0

  0.2

  34.7

  1993

  59

  0.7

  0.1

  26.1

  1994

  76

  1.0

  0.1

  24.5

  1995

  102

  1.1

  0.2

  21.2

  1996

  156

  1.4

  0.2

  27.8

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average length of time spent in prison by prisoners who were released in each year since 1992 having served a custodial sentence for perjury. [10009]

  Ms Quin
  The information available centrally combines the offences of perjury, libel and perverting the course of justice. The available information is contained in the table.

  In the information held centrally about prisoners, the offence of perjury cannot be separately distinguished from among this group of offences. From court proceedings statistics for the years 1992 to 1995, it is known that around one in nine offenders given custodial sentences for perjury, libel or perverting the course of justice were guilty of the offence of perjury.
  571

  Average length of time served for prisoners released, having served a custodial sentence for perjury, libel, or perverting the course of justice.

  Average time served (months)

  1992

  3.7

  1993

  4.3

  1994

  3.8

  1995

  3.5

  1996

  3.6

  Operation Quantum
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the(a) cost and (b) number of consultants hired to advise Operation Quantum. [10099]

  Ms Quin
  Since the inception of the project in April 1996, seven consultancy firms have been employed by the Prison Service to provide specialist advice on legal issues, corporate finance, procurement procedures and specification processes. The need for consultants has been steadily reduced as skills transfer into the service has taken place. The service now retains four consultancy firms.

  To date, the Prison Service has spent £2.5 million on consultancy fees. The costs of the whole procurement process, including consultancy fees, are expected to be recovered from the net savings generated by implementation of the project.

  Prisoners (Diet and Behaviour)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department commissioned(a) before and (b) after 1 May to consider the effect of diet on prisoners' behaviour. [11936]

  Ms Quin
  The Prison Service has not commissioned such research. However, as previously stated to the hon. Member, it has agreed to facilitate the nutritional rehabilitation project being run by Natural Justice Ltd. in Aylesbury young offender institution which started in 1996. This is expected to finish this year.

  Police Scientific Development Branch
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which scientific journals and other publications staff from the police scientific development branch, Sandridge, have published papers since 1990; and if he will list the date of publication in each case. [11963]

  Mr. Michael
  A list is being compiled in order to be able to respond fully to the hon. Member.

  As soon as the list is complete, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the(a) published and (b) internal reports the police scientific development branch, Sandridge, produces outlining its activities. [11966]
  572
  Mr. Michael
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Published reports
  There are a number of published reports which outline the police scientific development branch activities:

  (i) Home Office annual report

  (ii) Home Office memorandum on the prior options review of PSDB—1997, in the Library;

  (iii) Technical papers included in conference proceedings—both in the United Kingdom and overseas;

  (iv) Technical papers in scientific and technical publications;

  (v) Office of Science and Technology forward look of Government-funded science, engineering and technology;

  (vi) Annual review of government research and development.

  (b) Internal reports
  PSDB internal reports, which are sent out to specific customer contacts include:

  (i) two-page PSDB overview, by director PSDB;

  (ii) PSDB annual report;

  (iii) PSDB technical reports and standards.

  Departmental Savings
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the savings planned in his departmental budget for(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 in order to allow for the higher than planned expenditure on the Prison Service announced in his statement of 24 July; and if he will make a statement. [11518]

  Mr. Straw
  It is too early for me to be able to identify the savings in the Home Office budget which might cover the extra spending on the Prison Service. For both 1997–98 and 1998–99, I will be looking rigorously at my whole programme to find offsetting savings. I expect this process to take several months.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the amount, and proportion, of paper recycled by his Department in each of the last five years. [11543]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office takes its responsibilities to the environment seriously and increasingly participates in local paper recycling schemes. For example, the Department has been operating the Westminster city council's "Green Bin" scheme very successfully for almost two years in its central London headquarters buildings. However, no central record is kept of the amount of paper utilised or recycled.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a waste minimisation strategy for his Department. [11541]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office is committed to seeking improvements to its green housekeeping and is currently revising its energy and environmental strategy and will address waste minimisation as part of this. A draft of the new strategy and accompanying guidance material will be discussed at a property managers seminar to be held on 15 September. The expectation is that the new strategy will be adopted as Home Office policy and receive its official launch by the end of the year.
  573
  In the meantime, the current Home Office green housekeeping strategy, published in August 1993, requires that property managers carry out an annual audit against environmental objectives which include waste minimisation. Specific reference is made to the continued need for attention to the efficient use of all resources, to the effective and economic use of paper and to extending the recycling of other departmental waste, such as glass, plastics, cans and batteries. The Department has also promulgated all the central guidance on waste minimisation and can claim considerable success with its recycling of paper, bottles and toner cartridges and most recently with reuse of its computers and printers.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on existing targets set to minimise waste in his Department. [11542]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department is strongly committed to minimising waste. In encouraging its local property managers to make the most effective use of the limited effort they are able to devote to green housekeeping, the Home Office has sought their full co-operation with local and central environmental initiatives for improving waste management in preference to their administering the setting up and monitoring of specific waste minimisation targets. Once a year, the local property managers are asked to report progress against their action plans under the terms of the 1993 Home Office green housekeeping strategy. The Department is in the process of revising its energy and environmental strategy and, in line with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' recommendations, will be giving due consideration to the appropriateness of future waste minimisation targets.

  Office Refurbishment
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the refurbishment of ministerial offices in his Department; and what is the estimated cost of the works and date of completion. [11874]

  Mr. Straw
  I have no current firm plans for the refurbishment of ministerial offices, but decoration and window glazing work estimated at £8,500 may be carried out later this year.

  Firearms Consultative Committee
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the names of the new members of the Firearms Consultative Committee. [11943]

  Mr. Michael
  There have been three new members since the committee last reported in July 1996.

  They are:

  Mr. J. D. Hoare: Secretary of the National Small-bore Rifle Association

  Mr. B. Hughes: Crown Prosecution Service

  Mr. V. Clayton: Home Office

  Wormwood Scrubs Prison
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when repairs to the roof at Wormwood Scrubs will be completed. [11953]
  574
  Ms Quin
  A bid has been made for repairs to be carried out to the roof at Wormwood Scrubs in the financial year 1998–99.

  UK Passport Agency
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the development of the UK Passport Agency. [11586]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have recently approved the UK Passport Agency's plans for the introduction of a new, more secure British passport from the end of next year. The agency has awarded two contracts under the public-private partnership arrangements to the private sector. Siemens Business Services will undertake the receipt of passport applications, and the collection, storage and transmission of the data needed or the new passport. The Stationery Office Ltd. will undertake the printing and issuing of the new passport. The enhanced security features will include digitised photographs and signatures.

  The UK Passport Agency is not being privatised. It will retain its core function of establishing eligibility for a British passport, and will continue to operate from its six existing regional offices. There will be a reduction in the agency's staffing, but there should be no need for compulsory redundancies for permanent staff.

  Traffic Wardens
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend the powers of traffic wardens to the enforcement of a range of moving traffic offences; and if he will make a statement. [11228]

  Mr. Michael
  The Department is keen to encourage the police service to make the most efficient use of its traffic warden resources.

  There are no plans at present to extend the functions of traffic wardens, but we are considering a proposal from the Association of Chief Police Officers that wardens should be given the power to stop vehicles so that they can assist the Vehicle Inspectorate and other enforcement agencies with the conduct of road checks.

  Special Secure Units
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons which contain special secure units; how many places are available in each; and what is the annual cost of maintaining(a) a prisoner in a special secure unit and (b) a category A prisoner. [11105]

  Ms Quin
  Those prisons which are equipped with special secure units and the places available in each are as follows: Belmarsh, 48 places; Full Sutton, eight places; and Whitemoor, 14 places. There are currently 40 prisoners held in special secure units.

  The average cost per prisoner place in a special secure unit is estimated to be approximately £61,000 per annum1. Convicted category A prisoners are held in one of five dispersal prisons. The average cost per prisoner place in a dispersal prison is £33,000 per annum1.
  1 Costs are based on figures obtained for the financial year ending 31 March 1997 and represent the cost per accommodation place certified to hold prisoners in an establishment.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 19 June,Official Report, column 247, what plans he has to fund new CCTV projects in 1998–99; what plans he has to extend the CCTV challenge competition; when new bids for CCTV will be considered; and if he will make a statement. [12232]

  Mr. Michael
  As I indicated in my reply to a question from the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) on 19 June,Official Report, column 247, we are considering whether there should be another round of the closed circuit television challenge competition in 1998–99 as part of our review of spending programmes. An announcement will be made later in the summer.

  Sentencing
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average length of prison sentence passed on adult males by Crown courts in(a) 1992, (b) 1995 and (c) 1996 for (i) violent offences, (ii) sexual offences, (iii) burglary, (iv) robbery, (v) theft and handling, (vi) drugs offences and (vii) motoring offences; [12224]

  (2) what proportion of offenders sentenced for indictable offences were sentenced to custody (a) at all courts, (b) at Crown courts and (c) in magistrates courts, in each year from 1992 to 1996 and in each month of 1997. [12223]

  Mr. Michael
  The information is published in the Home Office statistical bulletin issue 16/97 "Cautions, Court Proceedings and Sentencing England and Wales 1996". This was published on 16 July 1997 and tables 9 and 7 refer.

  The 1996 data are "estimated", with final figures becoming available in the autumn. 1997 data will not be available until mid-1998.

  Copies of the bulletin are available in the Library.

  Immigration Detainees (Medical Services)
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what revised specification for provision of medical services has been prepared for immigration detainees in Campsfield house; and if he will make a statement. [12007]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Earlier this year, advice was sought from the director of public health in the Oxfordshire health authority in preparing a revised specification for the provision of medical services at Campsfield house. This included enhanced attendance by a doctor, additional nursing staff, including the appointment of a registered mental nurse, stress management clinics, and the availability of a female doctor for those detainees who specifically requested one. Effecting these enhancements commenced on 15 January and they were fully in place by 1 March 1997.

  I am assured that the health services at Campsfied house are comparable with those provided for Oxfordshire residents by a general practitioner. A detainee who wishes
  576
  to see a specialist will, if the medical circumstances of his case warrant it, be referred to a specialist and any such decision will be taken by the doctor treating him.

  CS Gas
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evaluation of the medical effects of the CS gas solvent, methyl isobutyl ketone, has been made by officials of his Department and the police scientific development branch since 1990; how many published or internal reports have been written by his Department on this subject since 1990; and how many of these reports are currently unclassified. [12180]

  Mr. Michael
  The Home Office police scientific development branch, together with the Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence, fully evaluated all scientific data relating to methyl isobutyl ketone, MIBK, before police trials of CS spray canisters containing this solvent were conducted last year. The Home Office has not produced any reports, either internally or published, about MIBK.

  The ideal solvent for use in CS spray will present no risk to health—in particular, the eyes—and will evaporate as soon as it has done the job of delivering the CS irritant to the target. I am told that MIBK is the solvent which comes closest to achieving this. It occurs naturally in oranges, grapes and vinegar. It has many applications, including use as a food additive. It has been used in CS sprays in France for many years without serious difficulty: in particular, extensive research there has shown that it has a low toxicity to the eyes. Its only drawback is that it has a relatively low volatility, which means that it remains on the skin of someone sprayed for a short time before evaporating and may cause de-fatting and blistering.

  Regional Boundaries
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a boundary commission responsible for regional boundaries in England. [12098]

  Mr. George Howarth
  It is our intention that the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England should be given the responsibility of making recommendations as to the regional boundaries to be used in England for the 1999 elections to the European Parliament.

  Highgrove (Policing)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by whom the cost of policing in and around Highgrove, Tetbury, on Friday 18 July was met; and if he will make a statement. [12231]

  Mr. Michael
  The cost of policing in and around Highgrove on 18 July was met by Gloucestershire constabulary in the normal way.

  Prisons (Unit Costs)
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the percentage change in prisons unit costs between 1995–96 and 1996–97; and what is the planned percentage reduction in each of the next three years. [12221]
  577
  Ms Quin
  The unit cost used by the Prison Service is net current expenditure per uncrowded prisoner place—the total certified normal accommodation of all prisons. To ensure comparability between years, adjustments are made to exclude payments to local authorities under section 53 of the Young Persons and Children's Act 1933, and to allow for transfers of work to or from the Service. Payments for prisons designed, constructed, managed and financed by the private sector are also excluded, as are the places so provided.

  On this basis, the percentage change in unit costs in real terms between 1995–96 and 1996–97 is minus 3 per cent. This is based on forecast outturn for 1996–97.

  The planned percentage reductions in real terms over the next three years are:

  1997–981: -1.1 per cent.

  1998–992: -2.3 per cent.

  1999–20002: 0.4 per cent.

  These figures are subject to revision in the light of my right hon. Friend's reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on 24 July, Official Report, column 682, that the service will be allowed to spend £43 million extra this year and next to increase capacity to meet the rise in prisoner numbers. Changes in inflation assumptions would also affect the figures.

  1Compared to previous year forecast outturn.

  2Compared to previous year provision.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his latest cash estimate of expenditure on the Prison Service in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; and how these figures differ from those implied by the departmental spending plans set out in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1997–98"; and if he will make a statement. [11247]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: The "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1997–98" did not set a separate figure for Prison Service expenditure.

  The expenditure plans of the Prison Service were set out in table 1 of the audit of Prison Service resources which we published on 25 July. That table gives details of transfers between the Prison Service and the Home Office and other Departments made since the conclusion of the 1996 public expenditure survey.

  The expenditure plans set out in the audit have been increased as a result of my right hon. Friend's announcement on 24 July of increased funding for the Prison Service this year and next year, to help meet the pressure arising from prisoner population. The effect of those changes is to increase planned expenditure to:

  1997–98: £1,774.5 million

  1998–99: £1,733.3 million

  Metropolitan Police (Sick Leave)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Metropolitan police officers have been on paid sick leave for(a) three months, (b) six months, (c) one year, (d) two years, (e) three years, (f) four years and (g) five years. [12015]
  578
  Mr. Michael
  The management of sick leave has been devolved within the Metropolitan police service and the detailed breakdown of the information requested is not immediately available. I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible with a full response to his question.

  Speed Cameras (Fines)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the value of fines collected as a result of the evidence of highway speed cameras(a) over the most recent months for which information is available and (b) over the 12 months preceding that. [11630]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Some estimate of the revenue received can be made from the fact that there were 36,916 prosecutions for speeding offences detected by automatic cameras in England and Wales in 1995, the latest year for which figures are available, and 20,630 in 1994. The average amount of fine imposed for all speeding offences in 1995 was £107–£113 in 1994. Not all fines will have been paid.

  The majority of speeding offences detected by automatic cameras are dealt with by fixed penalty, 170,014 in 1995 and 95,510 in 1994, the current charge being £40.

  Offences against the Person
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to implement the recommendations of Law Commission report No. 218 "Offences Against the Person and General Principles". [12215]

  Mr. Straw
  The Law Commission's report No. 218, published in November 1993, is a major contribution to the development of the criminal law. It was warmly welcomed by many involved with the criminal justice system as creating a clearer and more coherent statement of the law of violence against the person. The Government have considered the Law Commission's recommendations with great care, and accept the principle of its proposals for reform of those offences contained mainly in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

  This is a complex and difficult area of the law, and case law has evolved since the Law Commission's report was first published. It is important that any proposals to reform offences that come before the courts so frequently, and have been in existence for 136 years, are robust, well thought through and well supported. Following a detailed consideration of their report, done in close collaboration with the Law Commission, we have decided to publish a draft Bill in a consultation paper later this year. This will set out our initial proposals for reforming the law in this area, based on the Law Commission's report, and seek views on some of the difficult issues around the technical legal changes proposed by the Law Commission, such as definitions of intent, recklessness and intoxication or whether the intentional transmission of disease should be included in the Bill. The proposals will apply to England and Wales.
  579
  In accepting the principle of reforming the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the Government do not plan to take forward all the Law Commission's proposals at this juncture. In particular, the Law Commission made recommendations for setting out general defences of duress and the justifiable use of force in statute. We recognise the importance of these proposals, which are not directly related to the reform of the 1861 Act, but they raise some very difficult questions which should be considered separately and over a longer time scale.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision for electoral registration will be made for voters permanently resident in hospitals who are unable to register under the hospital's address. [12082]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The electoral registration officer is required by law to register all those who are resident in his or her area who appear to him or her to be eligible to vote. Only those who are patients in mental hospitals, whether voluntary or detained, are prevented by law from using, for the purposes of electoral registration, the address of the hospital in which they are resident.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions he will make for the registration of homeless voters for forthcoming by-elections and referendums. [12083]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Guidance issued to electoral registration officers makes it clear that no one should be denied the right to register simply because he or she is homeless. Although an elector must be registered at an address at which he or she is resident, that address need not be a conventional one. Any person who may have been missed off the register can make a claim to be added to it after publication, and it is for EROs to determine on the facts of each case whether an individual is eligible to register.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he plans to take to ensure that disabled voters have equal opportunities to register and vote in forthcoming by-elections and referendums. [12081]

  Mr. O'Brien
  It is the statutory duty of each electoral registration officer to include on the register for the area in which he acts the names of all those who appear to him to be eligible. Any eligible elector who may have been missed off the register can make a claim to be added to it after publication. District and London borough councils are statutorily required to designate as polling places, so far as is reasonable and practicable, only places which are accessible to the disabled. Acting returning officers may also apply to the Home Office or the Scottish Office for grants towards the cost of providing temporary ramps and polling screens adapted for use by the disabled which may be used at elections and referendums. There is no cap on the number of applications which the acting returning officer may make for grant assistance.

  Intrusive Surveillance Code
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will confirm the arrangements for 580
  the public consultation exercise on the intrusive surveillance code of practice required under part III of the Police Act 1997. [12320]

  Mr. Michael
  Further to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Ms Jones) on 16 July,Official Report, column 176. I have now decided that the public consultation exercise should begin on 12 August.

  Stephen Lawrence
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish an inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence on 22 April 1993. [12275]

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make an announcement on the actions to be taken by his Department towards the murder of Stephen Lawrence; and if he will make a statement. [12277]

  Mr. Straw
  I have decided to establish an inquiry under section 49 of the Police Act 1996. The terms of reference of that inquiry will be:to inquire into the matters arising from the death of Stephen Lawrence on 22 April 1993 to date, in order particularly to identify the lessons to be learned for the investigation and prosecution of racially motivated crimes.

  I have appointed Sir William MacPherson of Cluny, formerly High Court judge of the Queen's Bench, to conduct this inquiry. He will be supported in carrying out this inquiry by Mr. Thomas Cook, former deputy chief constable of West Yorkshire, the Right Reverend John Sentamu, Bishop of Stepney, and Dr. Richard Stone, chairman of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality. Under section 49, the inquiry will have the powers to summon any person to give evidence, to require the production of documents and to take evidence on oath.

  The handling of this case by the Metropolitan police is the subject of complaints made by the Lawrence family which are currently under investigation in accordance with police complaints procedures. That investigation is being supervised by the Police Complaints Authority. The authority expects the investigation to be completed in September and to report the outcome in October. Under section 97(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the authority may make a report to the Secretary of State on any matters coming to its notice to which it considers that his attention should be drawn by reason of their gravity or of other exceptional circumstances. The authority intends to produce a report on this case under that special provision. Under section 97(5) of the 1984 Act, that report must be laid before Parliament and published.

  The inquiry under the Police Act will begin when the Police Complaints Authority report has been completed. That will allow the inquiry to consider any issues emerging from the investigation supervised by the Police Complaints Authority. The inquiry's statutory powers will also allow it to require the production of any evidence gathered during the course of the Police Complaints Authority investigation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has also confirmed that the full co-operation of the Crown Prosecution Service will be given to the inquiry.
  581
  I believe that the establishment of this inquiry following the completion of the investigation supervised by the Police Complaints Authority will allow the concerns of the Lawrence family and others to be fully addressed, and will identify the lessons to be learned from this tragic case which will be relevant to the future handling by the criminal justice system of racially motivated crimes.

  Drugs
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the "Tackling Drugs Together" initiative. [11909]

  Mrs. Anne Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are continuing to implement the "Tackling Drugs Together" strategy for England initiated by the previous Administration. The UK anti-drugs co-ordinator will review progress, on appointment, and submit proposals for a new strategy.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Market Testing
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of state for Social Security what plans she has to stop further market testing of services within her Department. [4609]

  Mr. Field
  Market testing, part of the competing for quality initiative introduced under the previous Administration, is one of several ways the Department of Social Security has assessed the value of involving the private sector in the delivery of services.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney).

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the PFI projects currently being undertaken by her Department, indicating in each case(a) the expected savings, (b) the savings to date, (c) the cost to date, (d) whether the projects are on target or delayed, (e) the extent of any delay, (f) whether the delay is due to the civil service or agency or the private partner and (g) the projected total cost. [6246]

  Mr. Field
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney).

  We currently have two PFI contracts—the automation of benefit payments through Post Office outlets—BA POCL—and a replacement for the national insurance recording system NIRS2:

  NIRS2

  The contract was signed in May 1995, allowing for a phased delivery between February 1997 and April 1999. It is expected to cost some 60 per cent. less than a public sector development. Although there are no operational savings thus far, there will also be no payment to the service provider until NIRS1 is replaced in April 1998.
  582
  Under the original contract, NIRS1 was to be replaced in February 1997. In fact, it will not be decommissioned until April 1998. However, the first release of NIRS2 was delivered as planned in February 1997 and the whole development phase remains on schedule for completion in April 1999. The revised implementation date was at the request of the service provider.

  The contractor charge will be volume driven, but, over the life of the contract, it is estimated to be some £45 million.

  BA POCL

  The project is at an early stage. Implementation of the benefit payment card began in October 1996 with a trial involving child benefit recipients. Other benefits will be added to the system over the next few years. The project is expected to be cost-neutral in administrative terms, but, over its life, savings are expected of some £1,200 million from reduced fraud losses.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy on whether to increase the proportion of Benefits Agency staff on casual or fixed-term contract basis; and what assessment has been made of the consequent impact on morale and staff quality. [7988]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Modernising the social security system is a key priority of the Government, We will streamline services to provide better, simpler, more efficient services to clients. The staffing of the Benefits Agency is a matter for Peter Mathison, its chief executive, I have asked him to write the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Mark Todd, dated 31 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what is the policy on increasing the proportion of Benefit Agency (BA) staff on casual or fixed term contract basis; and what assessment has been made of the consequent impact on morale and staff quality.
  The use of casual and fixed term appointments (FTA) has always been an integral part of our staff planning to allow managers to cater for fluctuations in workloads and to staff short term projects.
  Although no formal assessment has been made of the impact of these measures, the Agency recognises that some FTA and casual staff may feel insecure. The Agency has to strike a balance between the needs of the business and those of the workforce. Both FTA and casual staff are given comprehensive training equivalent to that provided for permanent staff. They are also included in the Agency's performance appraisal arrangements to ensure that they remain motivated, that their development needs are identified and that their potential is maximised.

  Widow's Benefits
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will introduce measures to ensure that women in polygamous marriages are not denied widow's benefits; and if she will estimate the cost to public funds of paying benefit. [10292]

  Mr. Denham
  The concept of marriage under British law is fundamentally monogamous. It would, therefore be inappropriate to pay widow's benefit to widows who, at the time of the death of their husbands, were in a polygamous marriage.
  583
  Information is not available on the cost to public funds of paying benefit in all such cases.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average order for payment made by the Child Support Agency in respect of absent parents who are(a) employed and (b) self-employed. [10526]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Government believe that children are entitled to the support of both parents. The child support scheme is designed to provide levels of maintenance which absent parents can realistically afford.

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

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Peter Bradley, dated 30 July 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about maintenance assessments.
  The latest figures available show that as at 28 February 1997, the average full maintenance assessment for employed absent parents was £39.02; for those who were self employed the average full maintenance assessment was £23.72.
  The difference in the value of the assessments is due to the level of net income of absent parents who are employees and those who are self employed. The average net income for an employed absent parent was £191.83; for an absent parent who was self employed the figure was £150.00.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents are currently receiving income support; and what estimate she has made of the number of lone parents likely to be in receipt of income support in each of the next five financial years. [10771]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  It is estimated that as at August 1996, the latest date for which information is available, there were 1,061,000 lone parents receiving income support in Great Britain. Available estimates of the number of lone parents likely to be in receipt of income support in the future are in the table. New estimates of the number of lone parents in receipt of income support, taking into account the new deal for lone parents, will be available in October.

  Lone parents in receipt of income support

  1996–97: 1,057,000

  1997–98: 1,054,000

  1998–99: 1,044,000

  1999–00: 1,054,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are consistent with those given in tables 6 and 7 in the 1997 Social Security departmental report, published before the new deal was announced, and are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and as such are subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if she will list the amount, and proportion, of paper recycled by her Department in each of the last five years; [11564]
  584
  (2) what plans she has to introduce a waste minimisation strategy for her Department; [11562]

  (3) if she will make a statement on existing targets set to minimise waste within her department. [11563]

  Mr. Denham
  One of our key aims is to promote policies that sustain the environment.

  No record is kept of the amount of paper recycled. However, waste paper is sorted in all social security offices into two categories, "Confidential/Restricted" and "Other". All "Confidential/Restricted" waste is recycled and other paper is subject to best practices which includes reusing paper and the disposal of paper in green bins.

  The Department has produced a green guide for use locally throughout its estate which includes guidance on the recycling of paper, drinks cans, glass, plastic, printer toner cartridges and batteries. In addition contacts have been appointed in each DSS business unit/agency who are responsible for promoting green issues.

  There are no targets set to minimise waste. However, a benchmarking exercise to baseline current volumes and costs is scheduled to be completed early next year and we will be considering introducing targets when the accommodation and services contracts are re-let.

  Private Pensions (Regulation)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what regulatory reform the Government propose in respect of private pension provision. [11823]

  Mr. Denham
  On 17 July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a wide-ranging review of pensions. One of the pension challenges to which my right hon. Friend referred was the need to get the regulation of pensions right. The personal pensions mis-selling scandal illustrates too clearly what can go wrong when pensions are not properly regulated. Appropriate regulation provides security for members, minimises the scope for abuse and does not impose an undue burden on providers.

  As part of the review, we are taking stock of the way the recent pension reforms are being implemented, and we have already begun consultation with interested parties, including employers, employees, the pensions industry, the regulatory authorities and others.

  We will also consult fully on our plans to develop new stakeholder pensions to offer secure, flexible, value-for-money second pensions, particularly to those who cannot join an employer's occupational scheme and whose pay is low or who have intermittent wages; and a framework of citizenship pensions for those who assume responsibility as carers and who cannot build up a second pension scheme in their own right.

  The review will enable the Government to publish an initial framework for change in the first part of 1998. There will then be a period of further consultation before firm proposals for legislation are developed.

  Income Support (Earnings Disregard)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the cost of increasing the earnings disregard for income support to(a) £30 and (b) £50 per week. [11580]
  585
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Our objective is to reduce poverty and welfare dependency and to promote work incentives. We will develop a system that supports work, savings and honesty. Our first steps are to focus on helping people off welfare and into work and to review the central areas of insecurity for older people.

  The information is in the table.

  Increase in earnings disregard on income support

  Estimated cost

  Increase to £30

  Between £45 million and £55 million

  Increase to £50

  Between £65 million and £110 million

  1. Estimates are based on the 1994–95 "Family Resource Survey", and the May 1996 "Quarterly Statistical Enquiry", uprated to 1997–98 levels of prices and benefit levels. Numbers of income support cases with earnings have been uprated to be in line with caseload forecasts underlying the 1997 departmental report.

  2. The range reflects uncertainty as to whether new claimants will be in receipt of income support or income-related jobseeker's allowance. The cost excludes the cost of families, in receipt of family credit, with a partner working between 16 and 24 hours who would become better off on income support, as it has been assumed that they would claim income-related jobseeker's allowance.

  Disabled Claimants
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the cost to date of implementing the benefits integrity programme for disabled claimants; and what savings are estimated to be achieved in the first year of operation. [11977]

  Mr. Denham
  One of our key aims is rebuilding integrity in, and public support for the social security system. The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Bob Blizzard, dated 31 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the cost and savings of the Benefit Integrity Programme.
  The cost of implementing the Benefit Integrity Project is £1,099,440 for the period 28 April 1997 to 30 June 1997. These are the latest available.
  The estimated programme expenditure savings attributed to the Benefit Integrity Project for the current year is £27m.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the list of regional consultants and their specialties held by the War Pensions Agency is available to the public; and whether claimants have the right to see reports written by regional consultants relating to their case. [12186]

  Mr. Denham
  Queries on operational matters concerning the War Pensions Agency are for its chief executive Mr. Kevin Caldwell. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from K. C. Caldwell to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 31 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the availability of the list of regional consultants used by the War Pensions Agency.
  586
  The list of regional consultants and their specialities held by this Agency is available to members of the public on request. A copy of a regional consultant report is sent to a War Pension claimant on request provided that we are sure its disclosure would not harm the health or welfare of the claimant.
  I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the gross and net cost of changing the assessment of housing benefit to a fixed six-monthly assessment in the manner of family credit. [12196]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information requested is not available.

  Housing benefit is being reviewed as part of a joint housing review with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. In addition Mr. Martin Taylor has been asked by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to examine the interaction of the tax and benefits systems so that they can be streamlined and modernised, so as to fulfil our objectives of promoting work incentives, reducing poverty and welfare dependency and strengthening family and community life.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to support new housing benefit claimants whose rent includes an element for social care costs, following the recent court judgment indicating that such costs are not covered by the housing benefit system. [11613]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Following the recent court judgment on the scope of housing benefit my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced, on the same day, a package of interim measures designed to:Continue the vast majority of Housing benefit expenditure on support services in existing housing provision; and
  introduce a compensation scheme to protect the position of claimants in existing supported housing by compensating landlords whose tenants lose income as a result of the changes.

  We are consulting the Social Security Advisory Committee and local authority associations on draft legislation to enable housing benefit, which is designed to meet housing costs rather than to make general social provision for the protection of vulnerable people in their homes, to meet the majority of charges for general support services in supported accommodation. We hope to legislate as soon as possible.

  These measures will apply to current and future tenants of existing supported housing. They will last until we develop and implement a coherent and rational long-term funding arrangement for supported housing.

  Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate she has made of the savings from presenting officers no longer attending tribunals; [12100]

  (2) what steps she is taking to ensure the continued independence of the tribunal system following the alterations regarding the attendance of presenting officers. [12101]
  587
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  It is our policy that presenting officers should attend oral hearings of tribunals. The non-attendance of presenting officers in the Huddersfield area is being investigated and I will write to my hon. Friend in due course.

  Claims (Backdating)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate she has made of the cost effect of removing the discretion of adjudication officers with regard to the backdating of claims; [12078]

  (2) what steps her Department is taking to ensure that genuine claimants are not penalised by the removal of discretion for adjudication officers with regard to backdated claims. [12077]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The changes to the backdating rules in April removed the administratively onerous good cause provision and replaced it with special reasons set out in regulations. These special reasons apply to income related benefits which are meant to meet immediate needs. It is, therefore, reasonable to limit the range of situations which count as a special reason for a late claim and it underlines the importance of claimants making their claims promptly.

  Claims for non-income related benefits, such as retirement pension and child benefit, can receive backdating automatically without the need to show that there was a special reason for the delay.

  We are committed to modernising and streamlining the structure and delivery of social security to make the system simpler for the public to understand and more straightforward for staff to administer. These changes went some way to simplify the complex rules for backdating benefits.

  Disability Appeals Tribunals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 24 July,Official Report, column 747, in what proportion of appeals to (a) social security and (b) disability appeal tribunals an oral hearing is requested by (i) an adjudication officer and (ii) either of the parties; in each case how many (A) oral hearings (1) in the presence of the appellant or a representative and (2) in absence and (B) paper hearings took place in each month since 1 April; what were the success rates for appeals in each of these categories; and if she will place in the Library a report on the effects of the changes to the appeals system introduced on 21 October 1996. [12087]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Evaluation of the changes introduced to the appeal system on 21 October 1996 is underway. When the evaluation is complete, a report will be placed in the Library. Detailed assessments, such as the data requested, will not be available for some months. However, on investigation of the availability of this data, it has come to light that the information provided in my answer of 24 July may be incorrect, for which I apologise. I will write to the hon. Member with clarification in due course.

  Mortgage Interest Benefit
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment she has made of the effect on payments of mortgage interest benefit under income support arrangements of the lack of flexibility available to the Benefits Agency to match the payment cycles of lenders; [11990]

  (2) what plans she has to permit flexibility in the payment of mortgage interest benefit in respect of lenders who do not follow a four week payment cycle. [11991]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 28 July,Official Report, column 19.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance has been given to doctors employed by the Benefits Agency to determine whether claimants are entitled to continue receiving incapacity benefit. [11982]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of the Benefits Agency medical services is a matter for Peter Mathison the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Bob Blizzard, dated 31 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking what guidance has been given to doctors employed by the Benefits Agency to determine whether claimants are entitled to continue receiving incapacity Benefit (IB).
  It may be helpful if I first explain that doctors employed by the Benefits Agency do not determine entitlement to IB. Entitlement to IB is decided by Adjudication Officers (AOs) who consider all the evidence available, including reports from medical examinations.
  Doctors who conduct examinations in connection with IB are required to undergo a four day modular training course which can be tailored to meet individual needs. Elements of the course include the technical aspects of IB, the requirements for the content of the medical report form, selecting and justifying the choice of descriptors which specify the level of a customer's disability in each functional area, and mental health problems. The course includes elements of training on customer services and equal opportunities.
  Following initial training, the first three assessments carried out by the Benefits Agency Medical Services (BAMS) doctor are monitored, and each must reach a satisfactory standard for the doctor to be approved to carry out future IB assessments. The work of all doctors is monitored subsequently by BAMS. This takes the form of random or targeted studies of completed reports, and is also carried out in response to any work returned by Adjudication Officers which is considered to be of an unsatisfactory standard. There is an ongoing training programme which ensures that doctors are kept informed of any developments in this areas of work.
  In addition, all full time BAMS doctors have to undergo a two day residential course covering the clinical areas they are likely to encounter, such as back pain and psychiatric disorders, as well as those likely to cause particular difficulties, such as chronic fatigue states. Many of the sessions in these courses are conducted by internationally recognised experts in their fields.
  In addition to the training, all doctors are issued with a copy of the "IB Handbook for Medical Services Doctors", which acts as an aide memoir. A copy of this publication is available in the Library of the House of Commons.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Poverty
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what role she plans for mutual, voluntary and co-operative organisations in her anti-poverty strategy; and if she will make a statement. [12220]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Our objective is to improve the living standards of the many, not just the few, and to provide educational and employment opportunities for all. The best way to tackle poverty is to help people into real jobs, and we have recently announced our new deal to move people into employment. We welcome any contributions made by mutual, voluntary and co-operative organisations towards achieving this aim. For example, we are working with Gingerbread and the National Council of One Parent Families on the new deal for lone parents, and we meet regularly with organisations such as Child Poverty Action Group and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.

  Benefits Offices, Wales
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the future of benefits offices in Wales. [11992]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) on 24 July 1997,Official Report, columns 748–49.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidelines have been issued concerning the assessment of claims for the jobseeker's allowance; what further guidelines she plans to publish; and if she will make a statement. [11918]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The chief adjudication officer, who has statutory responsibility for issuing guidance to adjudication officers, has revised the adjudication officers' guide to include guidance on the assessment of claims to jobseeker's allowance. The AOG is readily available to members of the public at social security offices and most major public libraries, and is regularly updated to reflect changes in legislation and decisions made by the social security commissioners.

  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 responsibilities and rights. A programme of monitoring and evaluation is under way to enable us to ensure that jobseeker's allowance contributes to achieving our objectives.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans she has to change the appeal and tribunal process relating to claims made for the jobseeker's allowance; and if she will make a statement; [11916]

  (2) how many appeals have been made against decisions to (a) withdraw and (b) deny receipt of the jobseeker's allowance; how many hearings have been heard under the appeal system; how much notice is given of the date of a hearing; and if she will make a statement. [11904]
  590
  Mr. Bradley
  On 9 July, we introduced the Social Security Bill which will modernise the delivery of social security. The Bill contains measures to provide a more streamlined, efficient and faster appeals system for social security benefits including jobseeker's allowance. We shall be setting and publishing demanding targets and reporting on the results.

  The information regarding jobseeker's allowance appeals is not available in the format requested. The available information is as follows.

  At the end of June, the independent tribunal service had received 24,802 appeals involving jobseeker's allowance. A total of 8,620 appeals have been cleared; 3,884 at hearings. Regulations require the ITS to provide a minimum of seven days notice of the date of a hearing. The ITS routinely provides more notice than this, however, and in many areas is currently giving three to four weeks' advance notification.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what funding is presently committed from her departmental budget for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 to resolve the year 2000 computer problem; and if she will make a statement. [11896]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Funding for the cost of preventive and remedial action on year 2000 in this Department is being met from existing budgets by making economies and by reprioritising existing work programmes. The initial broad estimate of the total cost is £30 million. Work is well advanced to refine this estimate and detailed and costed action plans will be available by the end of October 1997.

  National Benefit Inquiry Line
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to restore the free phone national benefit inquiry line; and what assessment she has made of the impact of the withdrawal of the free phone national benefit inquiry line on the take-up of income-related benefits. [11112]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: We will streamline services to provide better, simpler more efficient services to claimants and other customers. There are no plans to restore the Benefits Agency freeline service. Queries on operational matters are for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 31 July 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the Benefits Agency Freeline service.
  There are no plans to restore the Benefits Agency Freeline. Advice and information about benefit entitlement is available through the Agency's network of local benefit offices. Benefit literature is readily available in local offices, post offices and numerous other outlets.
  As part of the changes required to deliver a modern service to the public we will look again at the availability of freephone and local rate telephone services.

  591
  Advice and information on benefits for the disabled, their representatives and carers is available from the Benefit Enquiry Line. The freephone number is 0800 882200.
  There was no monitoring of the take up of income related benefits when the Freeline was open and there is no evidence to suggest that the closure of the service has had any material impact on the take up of these benefits.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Outsourcing Projects
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the outcome of her review of the outsourcing projects initiated by the previous Government. [12323]

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what criteria she has adopted in her considerations of transferring the ownership and management of her Department's property estate to the private sector. [11880]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the employment implications of transferring the ownership and management of the Department's property estate to the private sector; [11926]

  (3) what plans she has for transfer of the ownership and management of her Department's property estate to the private sector; and if she will make a statement. [11877]

  Ms Harman
  I can today announce how we intend to proceed on a number of projects designed to involve the private sector in the delivery of social security. The decisions we have taken on these projects, which were inherited from the previous Administration, are in support of our commitment to modernise the delivery of social security to make it simpler, better and more efficient.

  The manifesto made it clear that:
  this would be a government of ideas and ideals but not of outdated ideology, what counts is what works;
  it would reject the dogmatic view that services must be privatised to be of high quality, but equally we see no reason why a service should be delivered directly if more efficient means are available;

  We have reviewed the projects inherited against:
  our objectives for modernising the social security system;
  our commitment to work within the announced spending totals for the first two years of Government;
  our aim of getting best value for public money and of reducing the burden on taxpayers;
  the scope to apply private sector expertise, discipline and economies of scale in procuring public services and the ability to secure increased investment from the private sector;
  the need for continuing flexibility for government to make future changes to services;
  the opportunities for improving the quality of service for customers; and
  the implications for staff.

  We believe that there has been evidence in past privatisation of:
  Cost cutting at the expense of concern for quality. In support of our clear commitment to a quality social security service we will establish a minimum quality of service threshold against which we will assess all bids from the private sector. If a supplier fails to reach this threshold, we will not expect to award them a contract no matter how low their price;
  592
  Insufficient priority to managing conformance to quality of service standards during the contract period. We will tackle this by strengthening the contract monitoring regime to include a stronger assessment of suppliers' performance on service quality. We will also require greater evaluation and feedback on performance against the new quality standards;
  Insufficient attention to the concerns of staff. We have made clear our commitment to take account of the needs of staff in considering the involvement of the private sector. We will therefore place greater emphasis on management of people when evaluating contracts; we will carefully evaluate suppliers' management of past staff transfers; and we will issue new guidance to potential and current suppliers, making clear what we believe to be good employment practice;

  The conclusions we have reached on the individual projects are as follows:
  Estates and accommodation services (PRIME)

  We propose to proceed with PRIME—private sector resource initiative for management of the estate—which will transfer the ownership and management of the DSS estate to the private sector. The project will bring specialist private sector expertise to the management of the estate, delivering reduced operating costs, increased flexibility to respond to the changing patterns of service delivery, and scope for additional investment in property improvements. The property transfer will enable us to secure full value for the large DSS estate and to share in gains from further property development, while retaining departmental control on the location of outlets.

  As well as the PRIME project, we also propose to explore whether further private sector involvement could improve the delivery of associated office support services, mainly in the Benefits Agency. High-quality service to customers requires effective support to staff in services such as typing and reprographics. These services are currently delivered through a patchwork of public and private sector teams as a result of previous market tests. The current approach does not guarantee quality or efficiency and has not been flexible to changes in service delivery. The PRIME contract requires some reorganisation of office service arrangements and provides an opportunity to reorganise on more efficient lines. We now propose to start the process of testing what the in-house teams could do, under a more effective contracts regime, and what the private sector could offer. Before taking final decisions, we will ensure that any transfer to the private sector meets our new strengthened criteria on quality of service, evaluation of performance and concern for the staff issues.

  Child benefit centre (PROSPECT)

  PROSPECT was established by the previous Government to outsource child benefit and guardian allowance operations in Washington. The previous Government's proposals were driven by dogma and we will not proceed with them. We wish instead to see a proper examination of options other than full scale outsourcing.

  There is a need to improve the quality of service at the child benefit centre, and we have asked officials to prepare an alternative approach based on our principles for a modern service. Options for involving the private sector will be considered in this context.
  593
  Benefits agency medical services

  The IMPACT 97 project was established to transfer the delivery of Benefits Agency medical services—BAMS—to the private sector. The bulk of doctors who provide the medical advice and conduct medical examinations in support of benefit claims are independent contractors, not employed by the Department. The future of BAMS has been under discussion for several years now; the majority of non-medical support staff involved have chosen to transfer to an external company if the project goes ahead, and staff want an end to the uncertainty. There have also been extensive negotiations with contractors who are aware that a final announcement is imminent.

  We have decided to proceed with this project, involving the private sector to bring enhanced management expertise to BAMS, with investment in new technology, delivering reduced running costs and service improvements. As a result of the outsourcing, we expect to see an improved quality of service to customers, covering areas such as the arrangements for making appointments for examinations, the process for delivering medical advice on benefit claims and the quality of the accommodation in medical examination centres.

  We will now proceed to invite final bids from the contractors shortlisted. The final decision on award of contracts will feature further qualitative evaluation of potential suppliers' management capability for provision of the service and an evaluation of the arrangements for the transfer of staff affected.

  BA area director partnerships (ADAPT)

  The ADAPT project was established to deliver a two-phase approach to involvement of the private sector. The first phase entails a period of partnership between three private sector consortia and three BA area directorates which will explore, without payment from the taxpayer, whether external input can help our objectives to modernise the delivery of social security. The approach fits well with this Government's approach to public-private partnerships. It enables us to bring in external expertise to identify new ways of working and to test what the partners have to offer without commitment to any particular outcome. We have decided that the project should continue and the three partners will be announced shortly. If the first phase produces effective proposals for improving service delivery, we may proceed to a second stage and award contracts for delivery of services.

  Contributions Agency competitive benchmarking

  In addition to the series of outsourcing projects, we have also reviewed the project within the Contributions Agency to benchmark services against the private sector. The CA benchmarking programme assesses the scope to apply private sector expertise, discipline and economies of scale in procuring public services. The ongoing programme has so far tested the quality and scope for improvement of three areas of the Contributions Agency operations—international services, deferment of national insurance contributions, and insolvency services.

  This benchmarking programme meets our criteria, adopting a non-dogmatic approach of judging things by what works; avoiding a single presumption that the
  594
  private or the public sector is always the solution and assessing the best way forward against the scope for improvement by existing staff.

  We have decided that Contributions Agency staff should continue to manage international services and deferment, bringing in improvements in service through in-house efficiency measures. On insolvency services, which handle national insurance debts of insolvent companies and bankrupt individuals, we have concluded that we should begin the testing of offers from external suppliers, applying our strengthened principles for involvement of the private sector. The early indications from the benchmarking programme confirm that there may be gains to be made from testing our service against the best in the private sector. We have decided that the competitive benchmarking process in the Contributions Agency should continue, extending to other areas of service.

  Stand-alone support IT applications (SASA)

  The Department has a major programme of IT change and we have decided that it should concentrate its expertise on the development and maintenance of key strategic mainframe systems. The development and management of stand-alone systems will be more effectively supported in the private sector, which has greater expertise in this area and will be able to deliver a better quality service at reduced costs. We have therefore decided to proceed with the transfer to the private sector of the development, support and maintenance of the Department's non-strategic, stand-alone, business support computer systems—SASA. The contract will cover around 740 systems ranging from those on a single PC to networked applications running up to 200 PCs, using a diverse range of software packages.

  Conclusion

  These decisions on the involvement of the private sector will help to deliver a modernised social security service. Where our modernisation strategy entails involvement of the private sector in the future, we will apply the criteria we have set out for the review of outsourcing, asking of every project, "Does it work? Is it fair—to customers, taxpayers and staff?".

  A separate announcement will be made in respect of services in Northern Ireland. Further details on the individual projects will be announced in the very near future.

  Benefit Review
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she will publish the results of the recent benefit review of income support; and if she will make a statement. [12472]

  Mr. Denham
  This Government take fraud against our social security system very seriously and are determined to reduce the level of fraud and abuse. Fraud is anti-social behaviour; assisting in the fight against fraud is an expression of responsible citizenship.

  We have inherited a significant problem and this research underlines the need to review and evaluate existing measures. Work is in hand to re-examine the strategic objectives governing counter-fraud work throughout the Department. This will ensure that there is

  595
  coherence between counter-fraud objectives and other policy and operational strategic objectives, in particular those aimed at controlling loss of programme expenditure.

  All plans for the future will be based on making sure that the social security system is based on honesty, fairness and responsibility. We will also move towards a more systematic process of assessing risks to ensure that resources are targeted for maximum effect.

  The level of fraud and abuse represents a serious problem which we are determined to consider carefully and respond to fully.

  In order to establish the size of the problem on an ongoing basis the Benefits Agency is undertaking a five-year programme of reviews. This programme covers all the major social security benefits to measure in a statistically valid way the level of incorrectness, including fraud within the benefit stream.

  A review of income support was carried out through visits and interviews with a random sample of 4,350 customers in autumn 1996 when a review of their benefit entitlement was completed.

  The results of this review show that the majority of customers—79 per cent.—are entitled to the benefit at the rate they are receiving.

  However, fraud or a high suspicion of fraud was found in just over 11 per cent. of cases representing estimated annual potential expenditure losses of £1.77 billion on income support.

  We will be hosting a fraud seminar in September. This will involve high-level representatives from both inside and outside of Government. Private sector expertise will be brought alongside those already involved to exchange and develop ideas and experience to ensure that we are tackling the problem in the most effective manner.

  Domestic Fuel (VAT)
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the impact on the uprating of the basic state weekly pension for(a) single person and (b) a couple of a 3 per cent. change in the value added tax rate on domestic fuel. [11789]

  Mr. Denham
  The change in the VAT rate on domestic fuel will have no impact on the real value of the basic state pension.

  We are committed to uprating the basic state pension at least in line with prices and will consider the uprating of benefits at the normal time and in the normal way.

  All pensioners will benefit from the reduction in their fuel bills following the reduction in the VAT rate on domestic fuel from 8 to 5 per cent.

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to exempt claimants of the industrial injuries disablement benefit from her proposed restrictions on backdating; and what procedures will be introduced to protect disabled people whose conditions are not immediately diagnosed. [11583]
  596
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Clause 70 of the Social Security Bill provides for the alignment of the time limits for the backdating of claims to benefit with the one month currently allowed for reviews. This provision is an integral part of modernising and streamlining the social security system. It will make the system easier to operate and simpler for people to understand. It will also underline the importance of people making their claims promptly.

  The Social Security Bill also provides for regulations to prescribe exceptions to the one-month time limit. We are currently giving careful consideration to what, if any, circumstances there might be in which exceptions ought to apply.

  People who qualify for industrial injuries benefits already receive a substantial preference in that their benefits are non-contributory and tax-free and are payable on top of any mainstream incapacity and disablement benefits to which they may also be entitled.

SCOTLAND

  Feudal System
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made by the Scottish Law Commission in its review of the feudal system. [12474]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Government gave a manifesto commitment to initiate a study into land ownership and management in Scotland, including the options for removing the rights of feudal superiors.

  The feudal system is anachronistic and makes conveyancing more expensive than it need be. It also allows unscrupulous superiors to charge excessive amounts for granting consent to alterations or changes of use of property.

  I am therefore delighted that the Scottish Law Commission will be able to submit a report on the abolition of feudal tenure, with draft legislation in 1998—one year earlier than expected. At the same time, the commission will issue a discussion paper on related questions of real burdens. It will report on those questions by the end of 1999.

  The effect of the two reports will be to sweep away superiorities, replace the feudal system with a system based on absolute ownership, and reform the law real burdens.

  The Government are committed to the introduction of legislation to abolish the feudal system as soon as we can after the commission reports. It may be necessary to carry out further consultations following publication of the reports, but I very much hope that the legislation will be one of the first reforms to be enacted by the Scottish Parliament. It would be most fitting if Scotland entered the new millennium not only with a new Parliament but with a completely modernised system of land tenure.

  Hunting
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will announce which officials will conduct the review of hunting on Forestry Commission land. [7916]
  597
  Mr. Chisholm
  The review of hunting on Forestry Commission land is an internal review which is being carried out by the Forestry commissioners and commission officials as a normal part of their duties.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) for what reason a review of hunting on Forestry Commission land has been commenced; and when it will be conducted; [8837]

  (2) who will be invited to give evidence to the Forestry Commissions review of hunting on Forestry Commission land; [8835]

  (3) which officials will be involved in the review of hunting on Forestry Commission land; [8838]

  (4) when he expects to publish the results of the review of hunting on Forestry Commission land; [8834]

  (5) how much he estimates the review of hunting on Forestry Commission land will cost the Forestry Commission. [8836]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 22 July 1997]: Against the background of our manifesto commitment to allow a free vote on hunting, we have asked the Forestry commissioners to review their policy for hunting over commission land, and to advise us of their conclusions. This is an internal review which will not be published, but which will take full account of representations received. The review is being carried out by the Forestry commissioners and commission officials as a normal part of their duties and will not be costed separately. The commissioners aim to complete their review later this summer.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what factors led him to carry out a review of hunting on Forestry Commission land; [10281]

  (2) which officials will carry out a review of hunting on Forestry Commission land; [10282]

  (3) who will give evidence to the review of hunting on Forestry Commission land. [10284]

  Mr. Chisholm
  Against the background of our manifesto commitment to allow a free vote on hunting, we have asked the forestry commissioners to review their policy for hunting over commission land, and to advise us of their conclusions. This internal review is being carried out by the forestry commissioners and commission officials and will take full account of representations received.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much he has budgeted for expenditure on refurbishing(a) official residences occupied by Scottish Office Ministers and (b) Scottish Office properties. [7745]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: Under current public expenditure plans, total provision for refurbishment work over the next three years is as follows:
  (a) Bute house, which provides occasional accommodation for Ministers—£35,000. This budget is for replacing some of the furniture originally provided on loan by the National Trust for Scotland as these pieces will be recalled by the original owners later this year.
  598
  (b) Scottish Office properties—£6,515,300. The figure excludes the operational assets of the Scottish Prison Service, the Scottish Court Service and Historic Scotland. Most of the expenditure in fact relates to the refurbishment of St. Andrew's House—£6 million.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the answer of 16 July,Official Report, column 220, if he will itemise the same expenditure plans including all changes announced since the publication of "Serving Scotland's Needs", including the itemised figures for each year from 1994–95 to 1999–2000 in cash and real terms at 1996–97 prices using the gross domestic product deflator; if he will set out the cumulative spending planned from 1997–98 to 1999–2000 under each item in real terms and the total cumulative spending, assuming that spending is maintained at 1996–97 real-term levels; and if he will indicate the difference between the two cumulative totals. [10271]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 25 July 1997]: I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the House Library.

  Government Expenditure and Revenue
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the date for publication of the new edition of "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland". [7744]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 14 July 1997]: "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland, 1995–96" will be published in the first half of November 1997.

  Council House Repairs
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sum has been spent by each local authority and its predecessor authorities on repairs and improvements to council houses in each of the last five years(a) in total and (b) per 100 homes managed by the council. [9610]

  Mr. Chisholm
  I shall write to the hon. Member and arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the House Library.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of the Scottish Office operation at Dover house in each of the last three years. [10172]

  Mr. Dewar
  The cost of the Scottish Office operation at Dover house in each of the last three years was £1,925,000, £1,745,000 and £1,740,000 in 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 respectively. These figures do not include the costs of Ministers or of staff who are based in Edinburgh but who travel to Dover house for part of the working week while Parliament is in session.

  Literacy and Numeracy
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, (1) pursuant to his answer of 17 July, what data his Department holds on numeracy levels among 16 to 24-year-olds in Scotland; [10128]
  599
  (2) pursuant to his answer of 16 July, Official Report, column 220, what data his Department currently holds concerning literacy levels among 16 to 24-year-olds in Scotland. [10129]

  Mr. Wilson
  I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the House Library.

  Dance and Music Tuition
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with representatives of(a) Scottish local authorities, (b) Scottish parents and (c) Scottish teachers concerning the resources available for (i) dance and (ii) music tuition. [10374]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: My right hon. Friend has recently met representatives of the Friends of the Dance School of Scotland, at Knightswood secondary school, to discuss funding concerns. My right hon. Friend is still considering this issue.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much new woodland has been planted with Government incentives in each year since 1979. [10984]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The area of new woodland planted in Great Britain with Government incentives since 1979 is set out in the table.

  Year ended 31 March

  Area (hectares)

  1980

  8,302

  1981

  8,400

  1982

  12,462

  1983

  12,511

  1984

  16,673

  1985

  16,029

  1986

  19,019

  1987

  19,147

  1988

  23,821

  1989

  25,108

  1990

  15,406

  1991

  15,436

  1992

  14,147

  1993

  15,295

  1994

  15,897

  1995

  18,128

  1996

  14,975

  1997

  15,971

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what targets he plans to set in respect of the increase in the proportion of woodland areas in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland by 2010. [11147]

  Mr. Chisholm
  Although we are committed to increasing the area of woodland in Britain, we have not set any specific targets.

  Computer-related Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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) 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [11386]
  600
  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the House Library.

  A1
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the impact of daily return lorry journeys arising from the transport of rubbish from Edinburgh to Oxwellmains on traffic flows on the Al road at Pencraig Hill. [11061]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 30 July 1997]: The road layout at Pencraig Hill can accommodate the anticipated additional 60 heavy goods vehicle movements per day which are forecast to be generated by the movement of land waste by road from Edinburgh to the new landfill site at Oxwellmains. These additional movements are not considered to have a significant impact on the A1.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will withdraw the consent for the transport of rubbish from Edinburgh to the new landfill site at Oxwellmains until the A1 road has been dualled between Haddington and Dunbar. [11062]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 30 July 1997]: Planning consent for the landfill site and conditions attached to that consent are a matter for East Lothian council.

  Arable Area Payments
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many payments were made under the arable area payments scheme in 1996 at(a) £0 to £1,000, (b) £1,000 to £2,000, (c) £2,000 to £3,000, (d) £3,000 to £5,000, (e) £5,000 to £10,000, (f) £10,000 to £20,000, (g) £20,000 to £40,000, (h) £40,000 to £70,000; (i) £70,000 to £100,000, (j) £100,000 to £200,000, (k) £200,000 to £300,000 and (1) over £300,000. [11317]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 30 July 1997]: The information relating to payments made to farmers in Scotland under the 1996 arable area payments scheme is set out in the table:

  Number

  (a)£0–£1,000

  952

  (b)£1,000–£2,000

  968

  (c)££2,000–£3,000

  798

  (d)£3,000–£5,000

  2,016

  (e)£5,000–£10,000

  846

  (f)£10,000–£20,000

  1,523

  (g)£20,000–£40,000

  1,369

  (h)£40,000–£70,000

  653

  (i)£70,000–£100,000

  187

  (j)£100,000–£200,000

  124

  (k)£200,000–£300,000

  8

  (l)over£300,000

  3

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on existing targets set to minimise waste within his Department. [11554]
  601
  Mr. Chisholm
  The Scottish Office proposes to set waste minimisation targets throughout the Department once the necessary supporting information is collated and analysed. This action is in hand.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the amount, and proportion, of paper recycled by his Department in each of the last five years. [11555]

  Mr. Chisholm
  I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the House Library.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce a waste minimisation strategy for his Department. [11553]

  Mr. Chisholm
  The Scottish Office has recently developed a waste minimisation strategy for its main building at Victoria quay, Edinburgh, as part of an environmental management system. It is planned to introduce similar strategies through existing management structures in all other principal Scottish Office buildings.

  Further Education
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has to establish a further education funding council; and if he will make a statement; [11213]

  (2) if non-certificated courses will continue to be available in further education; and if he will make a statement; [11214]

  (3) what plans he has to encourage the use of (a) private public partnership, (b) private finance initiative and(c) derivatives in meeting the capital needs of further education; and how his Department intends to support such initiatives; [11215]

  (4) if he will make a statement on his strategy for further education in Scotland. [11216]

  Mr. Wilson
  I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the House Library.

  Local Government Elections
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider postponing the third statutory review of local government electoral arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [11217]

  Mr. Chisholm
  Parliament has required the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland to review the electoral arrangements for all local government areas as soon as practicable after 1 April 1996. The Secretary of State has no power to postpone that review. The Secretary of State will, however, be giving very careful consideration to the proposals which the Local Government Boundary Commission make as a result of that review.

  Keelylang Site of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secreary of State for Scotland how long negotiations have been continuing between Scottish Natural Heritage and the owner of the land covering the Keelylang site of special scientific 602
  interest, Orkney, regarding the conclusion of a management agreement in respect of the site of special scientific interest. [11842]

  Mr. Chisholm
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the House Library.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how he will ensure that legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament is compatible with European Union or other international obligations of the UK. [11808]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Government's proposals are set out in paragraphs 4.18–4.21 of "Scotland's Parliament"—Cm 3658—in respect of international obligations and in paragraph 5.8 in respect of European Union obligations.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the distinction between the specification of(a) devolved and (b) reserved powers for the Scottish Parliament. [11810]

  Mr. McLeish
  In order to ensure maximum clarity and stability, the Government have proposed that the legislation establishing the Scottish Parliament should list the matters to be reserved to the UK Parliament rather than specify devolved matters.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Ponsonby rule will be applied in the Scottish Parliament. [11807]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Ponsonby rule applies to the ratification of international treaties. Since under the Government's proposals international relations would be reserved to Westminster, the Ponsonby rule would not apply to the business of the Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on the role of the Lord Advocate in respect of advice given to(a) the Scottish Parliament and (b) the United Kingdom Parliament; [11798]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the nature of the Lord Advocate's accountability to the Westminster Parliament following the introduction of a Scottish Parliament; [11799]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the role and responsibilities of the Lord Advocate in respect of (a) law reform issues, (b) the Scottish prosecution service, (c) the administration of Scottish criminal matters in England and (d) the appointment of judges following the introduction of a Scottish Assembly. [11800]

  Mr. McLeish
  I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the House Library.

  EU Birds Directive
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to designate new special protection areas, declared under the EU birds directive, to protect(a) the hen harrier, (b) the golden plover and (c) the corncrake; and what percentage of the United

  603
  Kingdom breeding population of each of these species is currently protected by special protection areas in Scotland. [11924]

  Mr. Chisholm
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the House Library.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funding is presently committed from his departmental budget for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 to resolve the year 2000 computer problem; and if he will make a statement. [11891]

  Mr. Donald Dewar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on 10 July,Official Report, column 546.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what are the actual or estimated totals for Scottish Natural Heritage's expenditure on the operation of the sites of special scientific interest system in Scotland in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998–99; and what proportion of Scottish Natural Heritage's total expenditure these sums represent; [11843]

  (2) what are the actual or estimated totals for Scottish Natural Heritage's expenditure in relation to the designation and protection of sites notified under the birds directive and habitats and species directive in (a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998–99; and what proportion of Scottish Natural Heritage's total expenditure these sums represent; [11844]

  (3) what was the actual or estimated expenditure by Scottish Natural Heritage on its statutorily required nature conservation functions in (a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998–99. [11923]

  Mr. Chisholm
  My noble Friend the Minister for Agriculture, the Environment and Fisheries will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussion his Department has had with Scottish Natural Heritage regarding the negotiation of a management agreement in respect of the Keelylang site of special scientific interest in Orkney; and if he will make a statement. [11841]

  Mr. Chisholm
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the House Library.

  European Issues
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what mechanism will be used to ensure agreement between United Kingdom and Scottish Executive departments in reaching a common negotiating position on European issues. [11809]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Government's proposals on the subject are set out in paragraphs 5.4 to 5.6 of the White Paper, "Scotland's Parliament", Cm3658.

  Local Agenda 21
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to support Scottish local authority initiatives in respect of local agenda 21; and if he will make a statement. [11845]

  Mr. Chisholm
  Local agenda 21 is primarily a matter for local authorities to advance. The Scottish Office provides financial support to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to co-ordinate a strategic approach by Scottish local authorities to local agenda 21. My noble Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries in Scotland is meeting COSLA on 3 September to discuss the role of authorities in the promotion of sustainable development. Later this year, he plans to convene a conference on local agenda 21 for councillors and senior local authority staff.

  Animal Exports
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what actions his Department is taking to proceed with(a) the export certified herds scheme and (b) the date-based scheme. [12200]

  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm
  The Government are pursuing both schemes with the EU Commission with equal vigour. Further clarification is to be provided on the date-based scheme. In line with the Florence agreement, the Commission will be putting both schemes to their scientific advisory committees.

  Devolution (Interpretation)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will produce a video version of his proposals for Scottish devolution carrying subtitles and sign language interpretation; [12003]

  (2) if he will ensure that all publicly broadcast information in relation to the forthcoming referendum in Scotland carries subtitles and sign language interpretation. [12000]

  Mr. McLeish
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the House Library.

  Mr. Brendan Callaghan
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made with the review of the case of Mr. Brendan Callaghan; and if he will make a statement. [12102]

  Mr. McLeish
  We are presently conducting a detailed examination of the papers submitted on behalf of Mr. Callaghan and of other material that has been obtained in order to establish what issues require further investigation before a decision can be reached on his petition. Depending on the results of that examination, the Crown Office will be requested to conduct detailed investigation of the matter at issue.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will extend the time allowed for community councils
  605
  and other community organisations to comment on the proposed changes in the procedures to notify neighbours of planning applications. [12086]

  Mr. Chisholm
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the House Library.

  Business Start-up Scheme
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many unemployed people have qualified for assistance under the business start-up scheme in each of the last five years; and what was the annual expenditure. [12170]

  Mr. Wilson
  I shall write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the House Library.

HEALTH

  Nursing Homes (Negligence)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions apply to enable individuals to pursue complaints of negligence against private sector nursing homes; and if he will make a statement. [7702]

  Mr. Boateng
  Any complaint about a nursing home, including complaints about the competence or negligence of nursing home staff, should be referred to and investigated by the local health authority in its capacity as registering authority of nursing homes under the Registered Homes Act 1984. The health authority will then decide what action to take.

  Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to seek to update the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960 in order to(a) protect consumers and (b) protect clinical titles; and if he will make a statement. [8739]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government are committed to bringing forward, for consultation, proposals for legislation to replace the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960. A Bill advisory group is advising the United Kingdom Health Departments on the preparation of instructions on a draft Bill, which will be subject to a wide-ranging consultation process to enable all the issues to be debated.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of employees, in each payband, in the quangos for which his Department is responsible, are of(a) Asian origin and (b) Afro-Caribbean origin. [8953]

  Ms Jowell
  The information for all those public bodies which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has responsibility—NHS bodies1—health authorities, NHS trusts, special health authorities, executive and advisory2
  606
  non-departmental public bodies and tribunals—has been placed in the Library.
  1 None of the Advisory NDPBs and tribunals which the Department of Health sponsors employ staff.
  2 Information on NHS bodies also includes two directly managed units—Northfield Services for Pld and Manchester College of Midwifery—whose staff are employed by Health Authorities and two organisations which employ NHS staff, information management centre and FHS computer unit.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a mandatory requirement on all NHS bodies to undertake regular ethnic minority returns of staff. [11281]

  Mr. Milburn
  National health service employers are already required to return ethnic origin information about their employees to the NHS Executive as part of the Department of Health's annual medical and dental and non-medical work force censuses.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of national health service dentistry in the Vale of Evesham. [9193]

  Mr. Milburn
  There are problems with availability of national health service dentistry in the Vale of Evesham. It is the responsibility of health authorities to oversee the provision of NHS dental services in their locality. At the request of Worcestershire health authority, the Secretary of State authorised on 18 July a specific arrangement in Evesham designed to improve the availability of these services. The health authority is also seeking to employ a salaried dentist in Pershore and Kidderminister.

  Preston General Hospital
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children from Chorley and South Ribble district were treated at Preston general hospital in the last year for which figures are available. [9856]

  Mr. Milburn
  The current basic unit for measuring hospital activity is the finished consultant episode. FCEs are not the same as the number of patients treated because a hospital spell can consist of more than one FCE, and patients discharged too early who are subsequently readmitted as emergencies count as another FCE. Furthermore, an FCE count cannot by itself serve as a valid measure of productivity since it is not standardised over time for any changes in the quality of treatment.

  In 1993–94, the last year of the Chorley and South Ribble DHA, there were 5,667 such episodes for children aged up to 16 recorded for the acute unit of the former Preston health authority. The total for people of all ages was 28,236.

  The former Chorley and South Ribble and West Lancashire district health authorities merged in 1994.

  The most recent figures are for 1994–95, when 5,854 episodes for children aged up to 16 from the South Lancashire health authority area were recorded for Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust. The total for people of all ages was 28,535.

  Source: Department of Health. Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Chemical Support Services
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), of 14 July,Official Report, column 81, what grades of NHS staff are included under the definition of clinical support services. [9691]

  Mr. Milburn
  There is no established definition of clinical support services. As part of the review of private finance initiative, officials 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.

  Fluoridation
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the fluoridation of water supplies; and if he will introduce legislation to require water companies to follow the advice of health authorities on this issue. [9814]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are currently looking at many aspects of public health policy, including water fluoridation.

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the causes of fluorosis in children; what links have been identified between fluorosis and the fluoridation of water supplies; and if he will make a statement. [5965]

  Mr. Milburn
  [pursuant to his reply, 2 July 1997, c. 174]: I am now able to provide additional information. The full reply is as follows:

  The Department of Health has not itself commissioned any research into causes of fluorosis in children. Extensive research over many decades undertaken independently of the Department has confirmed a link between water fluoridation and dental fluorosis, although at a level of one part per million in temperate climates it is considered to be of negligible importance.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1992, in 1997 prices, for his Department and its agencies; and what estimate he has made of the quantified annual cost savings achieved by this. [10412]

  Ms Jowell
  Estimates for expenditure on all external consultants for the Department of Health and its agencies, in 1997 prices, are as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1992–93

  24.194

  1993–94

  20.468

  1994–95

  21.926

  1995–96

  21.132

  1996–971

  15.789

  1 Information for 1996–97 includes a figure of £2.194 million for NHS Regional Offices which were established in 1996–97.

  608
  The Department does not hold information centrally on savings which are a direct consequence of external consultants' activity.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the individuals appointed by his Department to public positions since 1 May were first identified by the public appointments unit. [10408]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department of Health has appointed one individual since 1 May 1997. This appointment was as a direct result of using the public appointments unit.

  Non-NHS Staff
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many non-NHS staff have been employed by each health authority in each of the last five years. [10416]

  Mr. Milburn
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Young People (Care)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many young people in local authority care or subject to care orders absconded for more than a week for each local authority in the last three years. [10435]

  Mr. Boateng
  The figures which are available relate to the number of children looked after by local authorities in England who were recorded as absent from their agreed placement for more than one week. Although this will include children who absconded, it will also include children who were absent for other reasons. Figures for the latest three years available have been placed in the Library. Figures for the year ending 31 March 1996 are not yet available.

  Non-urgent Elective Surgery
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average waiting time period specified by each health authority for providers of health services to carry out non-urgent elective surgery in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [10812]

  Mr. Milburn
  Health authorities contract for maximum, not average, waiting times for elective treatment. In most cases, they do not specify maximum waiting times for non-urgent, as opposed to urgent, elective treatment. Nor do they specify maximum waiting times for surgery as distinct from other in-patient treatment. Contracted maximum waiting times for admission to hospital for 1996–97 and 1997–98 are shown in the table. Where a range of times is shown, this indicates different maximum waiting times for different providers or specialties.

  align="center">Contracted maximum waiting times

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Anglia and Oxford

  Bedfordshire

  12 months

  15 months

  Berkshire

  12 months

  12–15 months

  Buckinghamshire

  12 months

  15 months

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  12 months

  12–15 months

  East Norfolk

  12 months

  12–15 months

  Northamptonshire

  12 months

  12–15 months

  609

  align="center">Contracted maximum waiting times

  1996–97

  1997–98

  North West Anglia

  12 months

  12–15 months

  Oxfordshire

  12 months

  12–15 months

  Suffolk

  North Thames

  Barking and Havering

  12 months

  15–18 months

  Barnet

  12 months

  18 months

  Brent and Harrow

  12 months

  18 months

  Camden and Islington

  12 months

  12 months

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  18 months

  18 months

  East London and The City

  12–15 months

  6–18 months

  East and North Hertfordshire

  12 months

  12–18 months

  Enfield and Haringey

  12 months

  18 months

  Hillingdon

  12 months

  12 months

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  12 months

  6–9 months

  North Essex

  12 months

  18 months

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  18 months

  18 months

  South Essex

  12 months

  18 months

  West Hertfordshire

  12 months

  18 months

  North West

  Bury and Rochdale

  12 months

  12 months

  East Lancashire

  12 months

  12 months

  Liverpool

  12 months

  12 months

  Manchester

  12 months

  12 months

  Morecambe Bay

  12 months

  12 months

  North Cheshire

  12 months

  12 months

  North West Lancashire

  12 months

  12 months

  Salford and Trafford

  12 months

  12 months

  Sefton

  12 months

  12 months

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  12 months

  12 months

  South Cheshire

  12 months

  12 months

  South Lancashire

  12 months

  12 months

  Stockport

  12 months

  12 months

  West Pennine

  12 months

  12 months

  Wigan and Bolton

  12 months

  12 months

  Wirral

  12 months

  12–18 months

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Bradford

  12 months

  12 months

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  12 months

  12 months

  County Durham

  12 months

  12 months

  East Riding

  12 months

  12 months

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  12 months

  12 months

  Leeds

  12 months

  12 months

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  12 months

  12months

  North Cumbria

  12 months

  12 months

  Northumberland

  12 months

  12 months

  North Yorkshire

  12 months

  12 months

  Sunderland

  12 months

  12 months

  Tees

  12 months

  12 months

  Wakefield

  12 months

  12 months

  South Thames

  Bexley and Greenwich

  12 months

  18 months

  Bromley

  12 months

  12 months at most providers

  Croydon

  12 months

  15 months at most providers

  East Kent

  12 months

  12 months at most providers

  East Surrey

  12 months

  9–18 months

  East Sussex

  12 months

  12–18 months

  Kingston and Richmond

  18 months

  18 months

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  18 months

  18 months

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  12 months

  18 months

  West Kent

  12 months

  15 months at most providers

  610

  align="center">Contracted maximum waiting times

  1996–97

  1997–98

  West Surrey

  12 months

  18 months at most providers

  West Sussex

  12 months

  18 months

  South and West

  Avon

  10–15 months

  12 months

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  9 months

  9 months

  Dorset

  6 months

  6 months

  Gloucestershire

  9–12 months

  9 months

  Isle of Wight

  10 months

  15 months

  North and East Devon

  12 months

  15 months

  North and Mid Hampshire

  12–18 months

  12–18 months

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  6 months

  12 months

  Somerset

  12 months

  12 months

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  9–14 months

  12–15 months

  South and West Devon

  12 months

  9 months

  Wiltshire

  12 months

  12–15 months

  Trent

  Barnsley

  12–18 months

  12–18 months

  Doncaster

  12–18 months

  12–18 months

  Leicestershire

  12 months

  12–18 months

  Lincolnshire

  12 months

  12–18 months

  North Derbyshire

  12 months

  12–18 months

  North Nottinghamshire

  12 months

  12–18 months

  Nottingham

  12 months

  12–18 months

  Rotherham

  12 months

  12–18 months

  Sheffield

  12–18 months

  12–18 months

  South Derbyshire

  12 months

  12–18 months

  South Humber

  12 months

  12–18 months

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  9 months

  9 months

  Coventry

  9 months

  9 months

  Dudley

  6 months

  6 months (with some specialty variations)

  Herefordshire

  6 months

  9 months

  North Staffordshire

  9 months

  9–15 months

  Sandwell

  9 months

  6–9 months

  Shropshire

  9 months

  9 months

  Solihull

  9 months

  9 months

  South Staffordshire

  9 months

  9–12 months

  Walsall

  6 months

  9 months

  Warwickshire

  9 months

  9 months

  Wolverhampton

  9 months

  9 months

  Worcestershire

  9 months

  9 months

  Contraceptive Advice
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to introduce measures to raise the profile of family planning clinics and GP surgeries among older women as a source of contraceptive advice; [11329]

  (2) if he will provide figures, by age, of the total numbers and the percentages of the age group of women attending family planning clinics and GP surgeries for contraceptive advice for each year from 1990 to the present. [11327]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department of Health has published a booklet "Your Health: A Guide to Services for Women". The booklet offers advice and information on a wide range of health issues, including family planning services and contraception. Copies have been placed in the Library.
  611
  The contraceptive education service is provided by the Family Planning Association under contract to the Department of Health. The CES aims to raise awareness and understanding among the general public including women of all ages about contraceptive methods and family planning services.

  Local health authorities are responsible for providing family planning services that meet the needs of the population they serve. Services should be targeted to meet the needs of particular client groups, especially those among whom the take-up of family planning services is lowest. In meeting local need, commissioners and providers need to ensure that information on the full range of family planning services is readily available.

  align="center">Net ingredient cost of prescriptions dispensed by (a) dispensing doctors; (b) community pharmacists and appliance contractors; and (c) prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered, 1992 to 1996.

  England

  align="center">Net Ingredient cost (£ million)

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Dispensing doctors

  185.0

  207.9

  226.3

  243.7

  267.6

  Community pharmacist and appliance contractors

  2,637.3

  2,902.0

  3,114.3

  3,361.6

  3,653.3

  Items personally administered by prescribing doctors

  34.4

  47.7

  62.4

  73.8

  84.9

  Overall total

  2,856.7

  3,157.6

  3,403.0

  3,679.2

  4,005.8

  1. The information is from the Prescription Pricing Authority PD1 series of forms.

  2. The net ingredient cost is the basic cost before discount and excludes dispensing costs and fees.

  3. The figures for dispensing doctors include those items personally administered by dispensing doctors.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce a waste minimisation strategy for his Department. [11535]

  Mr. Boateng
  Waste minimisation is already part of this Department's current energy and environment plans for its buildings, with particular emphasis on paper, a major component of waste.

  Facilities for the recycling of paper, cans and laser printer cartridges have been provided in the Department's main buildings for a number of years. Recent initiatives include reducing the amount of paper used and widening the range of recycling facilities to other materials.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the amount, and proportion, of paper recycled by his Department in each of the last five years. [11537]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department of Health recycled approximately 120,000 kg of waste paper in London for the 1996–97 year.

  Paper comes into the Department from many different sources and not all is currently measured. The proportion of paper sent for recycling cannot therefore be calculated.

  Data were not collected for previous years.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on existing targets set to minimise waste within his Department. [11536]

  Mr. Boateng
  While recycling facilities have been available for a number of years in the Department's main buildings, volumes of materials sent for recycling have only been recorded since April 1996. Based on very
  612
  Information about women attending family planning clinics is contained in the Department's publication "Family Planning Clinic Services, Summary Information for 1995–96, England". Copies have been placed in the Library. Comparable information on women attending GP surgeries is not available.

  Prescribed Drugs
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the value of drugs prescribed per general practitioner over the past five years, distinguishing between(a) those who have their own dispensing facilities and (b) those who use an independent pharmacist. [11232]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  limited data, an initial target was set to recycle 134,000 kg of waste paper in London during 1996–97, of which an estimated 120,000 kg was achieved.

  Office Refurbishment
  Mr. Terry Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the refurbishment of ministerial offices in his Department; and what is the estimated cost of the works and date of completion. [11869]

  Mr. Milburn
  There are no plans to refurbish ministerial offices in the Department, but, as part of a plan to improve working conditions in Richmond house, comfort cooling is being installed throughout the building including three ministerial rooms at a cost of £17,178. The work is likely to be completed by the end of August.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 25 July,Official Report, column 798, (1) if he will list all the areas of work currently being undertaken by his Department under each heading, broken down by ministerial responsibilities; [11961]

  (2) what issues and areas of work to be undertaken are covered by the subjects listed as ministerial responsibilities in his Department; [11960]

  (3) if he will make a statement listing for each Minister the (a) current areas of work, (b) three priority issues that will be dealt with over the next six months in each area and (c) relationship between (a) and (b) and his Department's overall responsibilities, giving such statistical data as are available; [11856]
  613
  (4) if he will list for himself and each of his Ministers the issues reflecting his Department's priorities, indicating the timetable by which they will be achieved. [11962]

  Mr. Dobson
  Later this year, my Department will be publishing White and Green Papers covering various aspects of health policy which will be intended to promote the health of the public and better meet the needs of patients.

  Vitamin B6
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those published papers which were considered by the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment and the Food Advisory Committee prior to their recommending a ban on higher dose vitamin B6 supplements. [11587]

  Ms Jowell
  Higher doses of vitamin B6 have not been banned. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's independent food advisory committee recommended, on the basis of advice from the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment—COT—that the level of vitamin B6 in dietary supplements sold under food law should be limited to 10 mg per daily dose. In addition, on the basis of the COT's advice, the Medicines Control Agency's Committee on Safety of Medicines reviewed vitamin B6 medicinal products and recommended that those vitamin B6 preparations sold on the general sales list—that is, those freely available to the public—should be limited to 10 mg, while those above 10 mg but below 50 mg should be available under the supervision of a pharmacist. Those of 50 mg and above should be available under the supervision of a doctor as prescription-only medicines.

  The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment has considered the toxicity of vitamin B6 on two occasions. On the second occasion the COT considered submissions from industry and nutritional therapy/alternative medicine groups. Lists of the scientific papers considered by the committee have been lodged in the Library. The COT considered the totality of the literature on vitamin B6 toxicity, more than 100 papers, and its conclusions were passed to the Food Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of published papers challenging the validity of the conclusions of studies undertaken by K. Dalton and M. J. T. Dalton in relation to vitamin B6 supplementation. [11588]

  Ms Jowell
  The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment has considered the toxicity of vitamin B6 on two occasions. The COT's statement, which was published on 4 July 1997, was based on an overall assessment of the scientific literature on this topic, which included papers challenging the conclusions of the paper of Dalton K. and Dalton M. J. T. and also submissions from industry and nutritional therapy-alternative medicine groups. The COT considered the totality of the literature on vitamin B6 toxicity, more than 100 papers, and lists of published papers have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the numbers of women who experience debilitation as a result of pre-menstrual tension; how many such women supplement their diet 614
  with higher-dose vitamin B6 supplements; and what research his Department has evaluated on (a) adverse reaction and (b) deaths in such women in the last 10 years. [11913]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department of Health has no information on either the numbers of women who experience debilitation as a result of pre-menstrual tension or the total number of women supplementing their diet with high-dose vitamin B6 preparations. Figures for prescribed medicines may be obtained, but the number of women using vitamin B6 products without a prescription is unknown.

  In the years 1987 to 1996 the United Kingdom yellow card adverse drug reaction reporting scheme administered by the Medicines Control Agency has received a total of 42 reactions associated with products containing only vitamin B6. Of these, for five women the indication for vitamin B6 was pre-menstrual tension, none of whom received more than 100 mg per day. With the exception of one case of congenital malformation, all recovered.

  Adverse reaction data from the UK's yellow card adverse drug reaction reporting scheme are provided voluntarily by doctors, dentists and pharmacists and indirectly by pharmaceutical companies. Adverse drug reaction reports relate to suspected adverse reactions associated with medicinal products. We have no information on the use of vitamin B6 as a food supplement. The inclusion of a reaction on the ADR database is not considered evidence that the medicine caused the reaction. Other factors such as the temporal relationship between medicine and reaction, any concomitant medication and the possibility of underlying disease should also be considered.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he made of the published views of the gynaecology department of St. Thomas's hospital, London, about the effects of vitamin B6 supplementation prior to announcing his ban on such supplements. [11805]

  Ms Jowell
  Higher doses of vitamin B6 have not been banned. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's independent food advisory committee recommended, on the basis of advice from the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, that the level of vitamin B6 in dietary supplements sold under food law should be limited to 10 mg per daily dose. In addition, on the basis of the COT's advice, the Medicines Control Agency's committee on safety of medicines reviewed vitamin B6 medicinal products and recommended that those vitamin B6 preparations sold on the General Sales List—GSL; that is, those freely available to the public—should be limited to 10 mg, while those above 10 mg but below 50 mg should be available under the supervision of a pharmacist. Those of 50 mg and above should be available under the supervision of a doctor—prescription-only medicines.

  The COT has considered the toxicity of vitamin B6 on two occasions. Before the second occasion, representatives of industry and nutritional therapy/ alternative medicine groups were asked to submit information giving evidence of the safety of vitamin B6 for consideration. The published views of staff of the gynaecology department of St. Thomas's hospital were assessed by the COT as part of its review of the toxicity of vitamin B6.

  Community Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to alter the obligation on local authorities to place 85 per cent. of community care services with private and voluntary sector providers. [12005]

  Mr. Boateng
  Decisions on the future of the special transitional grant independent sector condition will be made within the context of the Government's overall policies and manifesto commitments.

  NHS Estates
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of NHS Estates. [12353]

  Mr. Milburn
  National Health Service Estates plays a key role in helping the NHS to improve patient care through better use of the estate. The previous Government announced in December 1994 that it planned to privatise the non-core functions of NHS Estates. I have decided that the agency should retain its current status.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the private finance initiative schemes that are currently under consideration in the regions covered by the Government offices for the south-east and the south-west which pertain to the health service and are not the subject of the first prioritisation of 3 July 1997. [11362]

  Mr. Milburn
  Those national health service trust schemes in the regions covered by the Government offices for the south-east and south-west that have outline business case approval and are currently testing for private finance are listed. All schemes listed have a capital value of £1 million or over. Information is not collected centrally on schemes with a capital value below £1 million. The list excludes those major acute private finance initiative schemes that were part of the recent prioritisation exercise.

  Region/trust

  Scheme

  South-east

  Chichester Priority Services NHS Trust

  Graylingwell reprovision

  Crawley Horsham NHS Trust

  Patient administration scheme (PAS)

  Hastings and Rother NHS Trust

  Mental health reprovision

  North Downs Community Health NHS Trust

  Farnham Hospital development

  North Downs Community Health NHS Trust

  Aldershot Polyclinic development

  Oxleas NHS Trust

  Bexley Hospital reprovision

  Queen Mary's Sidcup NHS Trust

  Endoscopy and day surgery centre

  Thanet Healthcare NHS Trust

  Private Patient and Post graduate medical centre

  North Kent Healthcare NHS Trust

  Sheppey Community Hospital

  South-west

  Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Neurosciences intensive treatment area

  Southampton Community Health Services NHS Trust

  Lymington Hospital reprovision

  Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  Radiotherapy equipment

  Portsmouth Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mental health and learning disabilities

  North Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Alton Hospital

  616

  Region/trust

  Scheme

  Salisbury Health Care NHS Trust

  Inpatient mental health

  Frenchay Healthcare NHS Trust

  Brain Injury rehabilitation unit

  Hampshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Replacement radio scheme

  Poole Hospital NHS Trust

  Parkstone House residential

  Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Trust

  Opthalmic services

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health service private finance initiative agreements(a) have been approved and (b) are ready to proceed. [11140]

  Mr. Milburn
  Following the enactment of the National Health Service (Private Finance) Bill which received Royal Assent on 15 July, the private finance initiative scheme at Dartford and Gravesham national health service trust achieved financial close on 30 July. Norfolk and Norwich Healthcare NHS trust has reached agreement to proceed to financial close.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 21 July,Official Report, column 414, on the private finance initiative, if he will place in the Library copies of each of the business case PFI bid documents for those NHS facilities that were recently listed as approved for further consideration. [10673]

  Mr. Milburn
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  NHS Trusts (Private Activities)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what procedures will be placed upon NHS trust private activities to ensure(a) that the income they generate is used for the benefit of the NHS and (b) that they do not interfere with the provision of health services to the community; [11141]

  (2) by what means his Department monitors compliance with directions to NHS trusts in respect of the limits on their private activities; and what steps are taken in the event of non-compliance. [11142]

  Mr. Milburn
  Procedures are already in place. The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 states that private practice must not interfere with the performance by a trust of any of its obligations under NHS contracts. Health authorities and general practitioner fundholders, backed up by regional offices of the Department, monitor the performance of trusts against contracts. Trusts are required to recover the costs of their private patient activity including an appropriate return on capital employed. Memorandum trading accounts are prepared and audited. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State retains powers to give directions to a trust about the exercise of their powers to provide accommodation or services to private patients and the trust has a duty to comply.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 July,Official Report, column 212, if he will make a statement on the term adverse operating variance. [11925]
  617
  Mr. Milburn
  In line with generally accepted accounting practice, a National Health Service trust makes a charge against its income and expenditure account for the depreciation of its assets.

  The prices a trust charges to its purchasers includes the depreciation charge, but changes in the value of a trust's assets may occur too late for the resulting change in depreciation to be reflected in the prices charged to purchasers.

  Increases in depreciation will result in an increase in expenditure which is not matched by an increase in income from the trust's purchasers. In these circumstances, the trust may show a deficit in the income and expenditure account. This is not within the control of the trust's management; nor is it an indicator of financial problems. The operating variance is used to calculate the underlying financial position of the trust by adjusting its income and expenditure account for changes in depreciation caused by late changes in the trust's assets.

  Where the variance is adverse, the underlying position will be investigated further.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the criteria that each NHS executive regional office uses to determine which health trusts and authorities are judged to have serious financial problems. [7759]

  Mr. Milburn
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 July 1997, c. 212]: I am now able to provide additional information. The full reply is as follows:

  The National Health Service Executive assesses the seriousness of financial problems by initially looking at the scale of the financial problem reported—that is, over £1 million deficit or, if lower, a deficit of 1 per cent. of turnover in health authorities; and adverse operating variance of either £0.5 million or, if lower, of 0.5 per cent. of turnover in trusts. The NHS executive will supplement this with an assessment of additional factors such as the robustness of recovery plans.

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into prostate cancer; and if he will make a statement. [11934]

  Mr. Boateng
  The national health service research and development programme's health technology assessment programme has undertaken two studies into prostate cancer. These are:a systematic review of detection, management and screening for prostatic carcinoma, at a cost of approximately £54,000;
  a review of evidence on the cost-effectiveness of different strategies for detecting and managing prostatic carcinoma, at an approximate cost of £13,000.

  These two studies have recently reported.

  The next round of priorities for the HTA programme have been set and one of these is treatments for the spectrum of prostate cancers likely to be identified by a screening programme.

  The Department's policy research programme is currently undertaking a systematic review of minimally invasive therapy for benign prostatic hyperplasia and
  618
  cancer. The study is being undertaken at the university of Newcastle between 1 August 1996 and 31 July 1997 at a total estimated cost of £39,491.

  Another study, a mortality study of cadmium exposed workers with particular reference to lung and prostatic cancer, was completed last year and has reported. The study was undertaken at Imperial college between 1 October 1994 and 31 May 1996 at a total cost of £32,070.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department has spent in the last year for which figures are available on the treatment and cure of prostate cancer. [11935]

  Mr. Boateng
  Expenditure on prostate cancer cannot be identified separately. Expenditure on cancer services generally is estimated to account for approximately 7 per cent. of national health service resources.

  Breast Screening
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend routine breast screening to those over 65 years. [11609]

  Mr. Boateng
  Three pilot schemes are currently under way in Northern and Yorkshire, Trent and South Thames regions to evaluate the effectiveness of extending the routine call-recall breast screening programme to women up to the age of 69. These schemes will run for three years to enable an assessment of the likely uptake, effect on work load, and effectiveness in terms of cancer detected. We will base any change to current policy on the evidence from the results of these studies, which should be available from the end of 2000.

  In the interim, women aged 65 and over can continue to be screened every three years free of charge on request. This has been publicised in leaflets available in general practitioners' surgeries and clinics, as well as in breast screening centres, and emphasised more recently by a leaflet and poster campaign jointly organised by the charity Age Concern and the breast screening programme.

  Specialist Training Certificate
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 24 July,Official Report, column 729, how many of the doctors awaiting decisions on their applications for the certificate of completion of specialist training (a) are at present working in the NHS, (b) have previously worked in the NHS, (c) were trained at UK medical schools, (d) are at present employed as consultants in the NHS and (e) have waited more than three months for accreditation. [11711]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Specialist Training Authority currently has no outstanding applications from doctors who have been recommended for the award of a certificate of completion of specialist training by the medical royal colleges. Information on the status of applicants is a matter for the STA and is not held centrally.

  Alternative Practitioners
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met representatives of alternative and complementary medical practitioners; what was discussed; and if he will make a statement. [11933]
  619
  Ms Jowell
  I met representatives of the Faculty of Homoeopathy on 21 July. Their thoughts on the future of homoeopathy were discussed.

  On 23 July, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I also met representatives of various organisations, including nutritional therapy interests, to listen to their views on the intended changes to the legislation controlling vitamin B6 contained in dietary supplements.

  I plan to meet the Council for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, and other organisations representing alternative and complementary medical practitioners, later in the year.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding is presently committed from his departmental budget for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 to resolve the year 2000 computer problem; and if he will make a statement. [11893]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department is committed to having all business critical systems fully year 2000 compliant by the central information technology unit recommended deadline and the costs of preventive and remedial action will be met from existing public expenditure survey provision. A detailed and costed action plan will be available in the autumn.

  GP Fundholders (Anglia and Oxford)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GP fundholders there are within the Anglia and Oxford health authority region by county. [11728]

  Mr. Milburn
  General practitioner fundholder numbers are not collected by county. The number of GP fundholders by health authority in the Anglia and Oxford region as at 1 April 1997 is set out in the table.

  Anglia and Oxford region fundholder numbers(Waves 1–7)—1 April 1997

  Health authority

  Total number of funds

  Total number of practices

  Total number of general practitioner fundholders

  Bedfordshire

  26

  26

  100

  Berkshire

  55

  73

  291

  Buckinghamshire

  56

  63

  270

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  16

  16

  72

  East Norfolk

  36

  39

  187

  Northamptonshire

  36

  38

  167

  North West Anglia

  25

  31

  124

  Oxfordshire

  40

  44

  209

  Suffolk

  27

  27

  Total

  317

  357

  1,567

  Efficiency Task Force
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 10 July,Official Report, column
  620
  580, when he expects the NHS efficiency task force first to put forward its ideas to Ministers and officials. [11939]

  Mr. Milburn
  The ideas of task force members have been received and are under consideration.

  Patients (NHS Hospitals)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been treated in NHS hospitals for each year since 1979. [10910]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The information in the table shows numbers of finished consultant episodes. FCEs are not the same as the number of patients treated because a hospital spell can consist of more than one FCE, and patients discharged too early who are subsequently readmitted as emergencies count as another FCE. Furthermore, an FCE count cannot by itself serve as a valid measure of productivity since it is not standardised over time for any changes in the quality of treatment.

  Table: Number of general and acute cases in NHS hospitals in England for each year since 1979

  align="right">Thousands

  Year

  Ordinary admissions

  Day cases

  Total FCEs

  1979

  4,529

  570

  5,099

  1980

  4,755

  649

  5,404

  1981

  4,875

  690

  5,565

  1982

  4,830

  685

  5,515

  1983

  5,113

  787

  5,900

  1984

  5,246

  872

  6,118

  1985

  5,385

  938

  6,323

  1986

  5,429

  1,020

  6,449

  1987–88

  5,608

  861

  6,469

  1988–89

  5,572

  1,005

  6,577

  1989–90

  5,677

  1,152

  6,829

  1990–91

  5,685

  1,251

  6,936

  1991–92

  5,913

  1,535

  7,448

  1992–93

  5,987

  1,785

  7,772

  1993–94

  6,127

  2,080

  8,207

  1994–95

  6,210

  2,439

  8,649

  1995–96

  6,396

  2,813

  9,209

  Note: Prior to 1988–89 in-patient data were collected in terms of discharges and deaths rather than Finished Consultant Episodes. The figures above have been converted to FCEs using data from 1988–89, when data were collected on both bases.

  Source:

  SH3 1979 to 1987.

  KP70 1987–88 onwards.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) fully qualified nurses and (b) doctors were employed in the NHS in each year since 1979. [10909]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The information requested is in the following table.
  621

  align="center">NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS) and General Medical Services (GMS) medical staff and qualified nursing and midwifery staff

  England as at 30 September each year

  HCHS hospital medical staff1

  HCHS community medical staff

  GMS General Medical Practitioners2

  GMS practice nurses

  HCHS qualified nursing and midwifery staff

  Year

  Headcount

  WTE

  Headcount

  WTE

  Headcount

  WTE

  WTE

  1979

  39,860

  32,130

  5,890

  2,790

  23,060

  990

  192,0004

  1980

  40,760

  33,200

  5,980

  2,820

  23,670

  1,070

  212,5004

  1981

  41,620

  33,940

  6,040

  2,880

  24,360

  1,240

  212,100

  1982

  42,190

  34,500

  6,170

  2,870

  24,840

  1,450

  219,300

  1983

  42,760

  35,160

  6,330

  2,910

  25,340

  1,660

  223,310

  1984

  42,780

  35,370

  6,160

  2,880

  25,790

  1,920

  227,720

  1985

  43,550

  35,970

  6,150

  2,930

  26,190

  2,210

  234,130

  1986

  43,990

  36,310

  6,030

  2,920

  26,530

  2,500

  236,770

  1987

  43,960

  36,250

  6,300

  2,760

  27,020

  2,770

  239,360

  1988

  45,490

  37,600

  6,160

  2,790

  27,420

  3,480

  241,780

  1989

  46,970

  38,910

  6,110

  2,770

  27,750

  4,630

  244,610

  1990

  48,590

  40,250

  5,900

  2,730

  27,520

  7,740

  242,340

  1991

  49,900

  41,430

  5,320

  2,780

  27,890

  8,780

  243,250

  1992

  50,380

  42,290

  4,940

  2,600

  28,180

  9,120

  246,570

  1993

  51,550

  43,800

  4,710

  2,590

  28,460

  9,600

  241,850

  1994

  52,040

  44,660

  4,070

  2,370

  28,740

  9,100

  238,780

  1995

  55,350

  47,870

  3,920

  2,300

  28,870

  9,740

  246,8203

  1996

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  28,940

  9,820

  248,0703

  Notes:

  1 Figures for hospital medical staff include hospital practitioners and clinical assistants who may also be General Medical Practitioners.

  2 General Medical Practitioners include: restricted principals, unrestricted principals, trainees and assistants.

  3 1995 and 1996 figures for HCHS nursing and midwifery staff are not directly comparable with figures for earlier years because of a change in the way non-medical staff were classified from 1995.

  4 Figures for 1979 and 1980 are not comparable with those for later years because of a reduction in nurses standard working hours in 1980–81 from 40 to 37.5 hours per week.

  5 Not available.

  All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  WTE indicates whole-time equivalents. WTE figures for GMPs are not available.

  Sources:

  Department of Health's: annual medical and dental workforce census; annual non-medical workforce census; and bi-annual census of General Medical Practitioners.

  NHS Staff (Patient Care)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS staff provided direct patient care in(a) 1979 and (b) 1996. [10900]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: I refer the hon. Member reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave him on 22 July at column 736.

  Estimates for national health service staff, which comprise hospital and community health services and general medical services as a whole, are not available before 1990.

  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
  [pursuant to his reply, 29 July 1997, c. 124]: I am now able to provide additional information. The full reply is as follows:

  Information is not collated by the Department on individual trust's plans for hospital waiting times. The Government have inherited a situation where 44 of 100 health authorities have contracted for longer maximum waiting times in 1997–98 than in 1996–97. Whereas only four have contracted for shorter maximum waiting times.
  622
  The Government have made clear the priority that they attach to waiting lists, and to safeguarding emergency admissions.

  School Nursing Service
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's future plans for the development of the school nursing service in London. [9176]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government are currently considering all health services for school-age children within the context of the response to the Health Select Committee report on children's services.

  Child Sex Abuse (Recovered Memories Report)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with the Royal College of Psychiatrists over its decision not to publish the report by Professor Sydney Brandon into recovered memories of child sexual abuse; and if he will make a statement. [11145]

  Ms Jowell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not had any discussions with the Royal College of Psychiatrists about the report of its working party on recovered memory chaired by Professor Sydney Brandon. The question whether it publishes his report is a matter for the royal college.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Livingtstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what work has been carried out by the Public Health Laboratory Service since 1990 to evaluate the health effects of the organism E. coli MRE 162; for what reasons and on whose behalf this work was conducted; when this work was conducted; what was the conclusion of the work; and in which publications, and when, this work was published. [12189]

  Ms Jowell
  The Public Health Laboratory Service's laboratory of enteric pathogens received E. coli MRE 162 from the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down in March 1997. There was a request from CBDE to evaluate the organism with respect to the risk posed to human health.

  The organism was fully identified as E. coli serotype 08:H9 and tested for a wide range of enteric virulence factors. All tests were negative and it was concluded that the strain was unlikely to cause diarrhoeal disease. A report was sent to CBDE on 22 April 1997. The work carried out has not been published in scientific journals.

  Health Action Zones
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role county, district and borough councils will have in planning and implementing health action zones. [12094]

  Mr. Milburn
  To set up and run a health action zone, a wide range of interests including local authorities will have to work in close partnership. We shall publish further details in due course.

  Neonatal Injury
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps his Department is taking to eliminate the damage caused by (i) Erb's palsy and (ii) brachial plexus injuries during the birth process; [2885]

  (2) if he will list the incidence of (a) Erb's palsy and (b) brachial plexus injuries over the past 20 years. [2886]

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he plans to take to raise national awareness of Erb's palsy. [2878]

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Erb's palsy/Klumpke's palsy

  142

  158

  202

  240

  370

  330

  Injury to brachial plexus

  337

  191

  181

  149

  135

  148

  Notes:

  ICD9 code 767.6: Injury to brachial plexus (birth trauma)—Erbs palsy and Klumpke's palsy combined.

  ICD9 code 953.4: Injury to brachial plexus.

  Data in this table are grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data.

  Source:

  Department of Health, hospital episode statistics.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Advance Corporation Tax Credit
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the impact on the cash flow of small businesses of the Budget changes to ACT tax credit. [10046]
  624
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a programme(a) for the recording of every incidence of (i) Erb's palsy and (ii) brachial plexus injuries and (b) to raise the general awareness about Erb's palsy. [2930]

  Ms Jowell
  [pursuant to her reply, 12 June 1997, c. 528–29]: I am now able to provide additional information. The full reply is as follows:

  We are of course concerned about the damage to babies caused by Erb's palsy and brachial plexus injuries during birth. The safety of the mother and her unborn child are of paramount importance and childbirth is safer now than at any other time. Most cases of Erb's palsy and brachial plexus injuries arise spontaneously, but are also considered to be influenced by misplacement of the shoulders in the birth canal. In recognition of this problem, a working group under the auspices of the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy, is currently preparing guidance on the management of shoulder dystocia—difficulty in delivering the shoulders during the birth. The guidance will provide advice on the early identification of cases where there may be a risk on coping with cases where shoulders dystocia occurs. The guidance is expected to be available later this year.

  Information on the number of finished consultant episodes of those patients admitted to hospital with primary diagnosis Erb's palsy and brachial plexus injuries in NHS hospitals in England up to 1994–95 is available through hospital episode statistics data and is shown in the table. The definition of a consultant episode is the period that a patient spends under the continuous care of a specific consultant in a specific health care provider. A hospital provider spell can comprise one or more consultant episodes. However, episode statistics will therefore pick up cases where the diagnosis was not made at birth and the baby was subsequently readmitted. Information before 1989–90 recorded discharges and deaths and is therefore not directly comparable to hospital episode statistics data.
  Primary diagnosis—of Erb's palsy (ICD9 code 767.6) and brachial plexus injuries (ICD9 code 953.4)
  Estimated number of Finished Consultant Episodes (FCEs),
  Ordinary admissions and day cases combined NHS hospitals, England.

  Mrs. Roche
  The changes to ACT tax credit are part of a package of measures designed to create a better environment for growth and high-quality, long-term investment. Taking account of the cut in the small companies' corporation tax rate, and of increased first-year plant and machinery allowances for small and medium businesses, the small firms sector as a whole will receive a significant boost from the Chancellor's Budget.

  Inward Investment
  Mr, Olner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further steps her Department intends to take to promote inward investment in the United Kingdom. [10047]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My Department's Invest in Britain Bureau will continue to promote the attractions of the UK for mobile international investment to consolidate our position as the No. 1 location in Europe for inward investment. The Government will pursue economic policies which enhance those attractions, including macro-economic stability, an increase in the skills base, "flexibility plus" in labour markets and a positive approach to Europe.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the number of foreign-owned companies, by country, which have established operations in the United Kingdom. [11210]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 30 July 1997]: According to information notified to my Department's Invest In Britain Bureau, the numbers of new projects by country of origin between 1979 and to date, are as follows:

  Number

  Australia

  24

  Austria

  4

  Belgium

  16

  Brazil

  1

  Canada

  69

  Denmark

  33

  Finland

  19

  France

  65

  Germany

  285

  Hong Kong

  21

  Iceland

  1

  India

  4

  Indonesia

  1

  Isle of Man

  1

  Israel

  6

  Italy

  16

  Japan

  174

  Kenya

  2

  Korea (South)

  30

  Liechenstein

  1

  Malysia

  1

  Middle East

  1

  Netherlands

  34

  New Zealand

  5

  Norway

  29

  Portugal

  2

  Republic of Ireland

  51

  Saudi Arabia

  3

  Singapore

  6

  South Africa

  8

  Spain

  10

  Sweden

  42

  Switzerland

  42

  Taiwan

  24

  Thailand

  2

  Turkey

  3

  Uruguay

  1

  United States

  765

  1. These figures are based on information on new projects provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest and exclude expansions and mergers or acquisitions. There is no requirement to notify the Department and so the figures include only those projects where IBB and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice. They take no account of subsequent developments.

  2. Data collected from 1977 onwards—when IBB was established.

  Coalfield Areas
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions she has had with coalfield representatives and local authorities regarding industrial development in the coalfield areas. [10048]

  Mr. Battle
  My colleagues and I have frequent discussions with those representing coalfield interests on a wide range of issues, including regeneration.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to make use of the deregulation procedures established by the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. [10049]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I intend to use the deregulation order-making power to reduce or simplify the burdens imposed in two cases. These are:the repeal of the check-off system of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; and
  an amendment to the Patents Act 1977 to allow the filing fees for patent applications to be paid later than the filing date

  Further proposals for use of the power are under consideration.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals she has to control imports of goods produced by child labour. [10051]

  Mrs. Roche
  We are firmly committed to eliminating abusive labour practices, particularly child labour, around the world. We fully support initiatives to improve the welfare of children, including a new International Labour Organisation convention on child labour, and are increasing our financial support for international programmes working towards this end. We have also begun to discuss with business, unions and other organisations what further initiatives the Government might take, but we must ensure that these would not harm the very people we are trying to help.

  Utility Regulation
  Mr. Shepherd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to announce the conclusions of her review of utility regulation. [10052]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The review team will advise Ministers before the end of the year. If the Government conclude that changes should be contemplated, a consultation document will be published. Final conclusions will be announced as soon as practicable.

  Small Businesses (Information Technology)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her Department's policy towards improving access to information technology for small and medium businesses. [10053]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave today to my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and for Stourbridge, (Ms Shipley).
  627
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her Department's policy towards improving access to information technology for small and medium businesses. [10039]

  Mrs. Roche
  Many recent studies have emphasised the crucial importance of new technologies to the competitiveness of smaller firms. Many people—in government, in business support organisations and in the private sector—have a role in getting this message across. Within government, we are pressing ahead with our support for the information society initiative programme for business, which places particular emphasis on offering access and awareness opportunities for SMEs at locations throughout the UK.

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures her Department is taking to support defence-related exports. [10054]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The Ministry of Defence's export services organisation leads the Government effort on supporting defence-related exports. My Department maintains a close dialogue with the industry on the whole range of issues affecting competitiveness. The full range of Export Credits Guarantee Department's facilities are available for defence as well as for civil-related exports.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arms and defence-related materials have been licensed for export by the United Kingdom to(a) Burundi, (b) Djibouti, (c) Eritrea, (d) Ethiopia, (e) Kenya, (f) Rwanda (g) Somalia, (h) Sudan, (i) Uganda and (j) Zaire in the period since 1990. [8998]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 23 July 1997]: I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of that letter in the Library.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contracts permitted by the previous Government she intends to prohibit in accordance with the criteria set out in the answer of the Foreign Secretary to the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) of 28 July,Official Report, columns 26–29. [11887]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs today.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list, by year, those arms exports for which her Department has refused an export licence since 1987. [11058]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: I will write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy in the Library of House.

  India
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to develop Britain's trading relationship with India. [10055]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have already made clear my strong commitment to strengthening the Indo-British partnership. A major trade exhibition—Towards 2000—is being held 628
  in October this year at the time of the state visit of HM the Queen and HRH the Duke of Edinburgh. I will be visiting India myself later in the year. A promotional campaign is also planned in the UK to raise awareness of the opportunities in India among small to medium companies. I am confident that this activity will contribute significantly to meeting the target of £5 billion that has been set for two-way trade by 2000.

  Low Pay Commission
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects the Low Pay Commission to start its work. [10056]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Appointments to the Low Pay Commission were made by the Prime Minister and announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 25 July columns 808–09, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson). The commission held its first meeting on Monday 28 July.

  Telecommunications
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions she has had with the cable industry on its investment programme and possible changes in the restrictions on BT. [10057]

  Mrs. Roche
  I met representatives of the cable industry on 23 June this year, and was briefed on a range of issues including the cable industry's investment plans. My officials also maintain regular and productive contact.

  Internet Access
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to stimulate the development of Internet access services in the UK. [10058]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Department of Trade and Industry is fully committed to the development of the information society in the UK and is enthusiastically pushing forward the "Information Society Initiative—Programme for Business" which encourages the informed uptake of networked services by British business. The DTI will also be developing an enterprise zone. This will be an Internet-based service for small and medium companies, providing a "one stop access point" to key information and to sources of further support for SMEs. The Government are also working internationally to secure the right conditions for fostering the optimal use of the Internet through work on security, intellectual property rights and self-regulation, the latter based on existing law and the existing penalties. The market in the Uk is itself expanding very fast, with many active Internet service providers allowing users access to a wide variety of contents and applications.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the proposal for a human rights clause in the treaty relating to the World Trade Organisation. [10061]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Government are firmly committed to ending abusive labour practices around the world. We are already pursuing this objective in the ILO and through
  629
  other international forums. We are also exploring how work can be taken forward in the WTO. We see no conflict between our commitment to promote free trade and fight protectionism on the other hand and our determination to see abusive labour practices eliminated on the other.

  Women Directors
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many women are(a) executive and (b) non-executive directors on plc boards. [10062]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Institute of Management's latest national management salary survey shows that women now represent 4.5 per cent. of directors on company boards, up from 3.3 per cent. last year.

  Manufacturing Trade
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the change in the level of manufacturing trade over the next 12 months. [10064]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  In the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" published on 2 July 1997, the Chancellor of the Exchequer forecast the volume of manufactured exports to grow by 7.5 per cent. in 1997 and by a further 6 per cent. in 1998.

  North-east Lancashire (Investment)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to promote inward investment into north-east Lancashire; and if she will make a statement. [10065]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My Department's Invest in Britain Bureau promotes the whole of the UK as the No. 1 location in Europe for overseas inward investors. In 1997–98, it will provide £1,393,000 to promote inward investment into the whole of the north-west region, including north-east Lancashire. It will also continue to offer the region the opportunity to bid for any new projects where it can meet investors' needs.

  Utilities (Standing Charges)
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received from consumer organisations about standing charges made by utilities. [10035]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Although my right hon. Friend has not received formal representations from consumer organisations, a number of hon. Members have conveyed the concerns of some of their constituents about this issue.

  Konver Grants
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the allocation of Konver grants. [10059]

  Mr. Battle
  The UK secured the Commission's agreement to spend up to 50 per cent. of Konver funds in areas falling outside objective 1, 2 and 5b areas. This enabled us to spend Konver funds in both objectives areas and non-objective areas.

  Appointments
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many political and personal appointments she has made; and at what cost to public funds. [1117]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have appointed two paid advisers—Sheila Watson and Dan Corry. They are both paid within a range of £24,349 to £73,848. Their salaries are negotiated individually and are confidential within this range. Details of this and of previous salaries are not provided, in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  I have also appointed Lord Hollick as an unpaid adviser.

  Utilities (Consumer Protection)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to conduct a review of consumer representation and protection in the utility industries. [4397]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  On 30 June, the President of the Board of Trade announced an interdepartmental review of utility regulation. The important issues of consumer representation and protection to which my hon. Friend refers will be covered in this review.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many tonnes of spent oxide nuclear fuel have been(a) sheared and dissolved and (b) reprocessed to the thermal oxide reprocessing plant since (i) March 1994 and (ii) March 1997. [6550]

  Mr. Battle
  Since the thermal oxide reprocessing plant began operations in March 1994, some 680 tonnes of fuel have been sheared and dissolved to the year end, March 1997, the latest date for which figures are available. THORP remains on target to process 7,000 tonnes of fuel in its first 10 years of operation and to make at least £500 million profit for this period after decommissioning costs have been taken into account. Shearing and dissolving are an integral part of reprocessing.

  International Port, Aden
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what facilities and advice are available to United Kingdom companies wishing to participate in the privatisation and development of Yemen's international port at Aden. [11291]

  Mrs. Roche
  Within the DTI, the Yemen country desk and the section in projects export promotion directorate with responsibility for ports actively monitor this project and alert UK companies with expertise in this sector to the business opportunities it presents.

  The country desk, in conjunction with the British embassy in Yemen, has already organised a seminar on board Britannia, while it was in Aden in February, for British companies interested in the opportunities offered by the port development. Forthcoming opportunities include a DTI-supported trade mission led by HRH the Duke of Gloucester in September and October, another DTI-supported trade mission in February 1998, and a

  631
  DTI-supported all-British trade fair in Sana'a in November 1997. The country desk and export promoter for Yemen are also organising a seminar on investment finance for Yemen in the UK in September 1997 with speakers from Yeminvest and the World bank.

  The country desk will continue to work closely with the commercial section in the British embassy, Sana'a, including the second secretary, commercial, a new post that has been created to respond to the increase in commercial opportunities in Yemen, and in particular those offered by the developments in Aden.

  Official Travel (Cost)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total cost to her Department of the trips made by the Minister and officials to(a) Antwerp on 24 June and (b) Athens on 25 to 28 June. [9432]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 18 July 1997]: Before 1 May, a decision for officials to attend the International Travel Services Association Antwerp conference was taken. The total cost to the Department of the visit to Antwerp was £37,038.00. The DTI provided two stands at the ITSA conference which were staffed by a total of five officials; three other officials attended the conference as full delegates; I was accompanied by my private secretary. The total cost to the Department of the visit to the UK industry travel and tour conference in Athens was £3,238.00. I undertook a number of official engagements, meeting 20 UK exporters to Greece; and meetings with Greek Ministers.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) of 11 July,Official Report, columns 646–47, if she will list (a) the dates on which export licences for the export of Hawk aircraft to Indonesia were issued, (b) the number of aircraft specified in those licences, (c) the time during which the licences were intended to remain in force, (d) the branch of the Indonesian military or paramilitary forces specified as an end user and (e) whether (i) the licences distinguished between the trainer or ground attack variant of the aircraft and (ii) the licences specified the weapon systems or weapon system fittings which were to be supplied with the aircraft. [9589]

  Mrs. Roche
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House. Inquiries are being made as regards the release of the information under the non-statutory code of practice on access to Government information and, since confidential information is involved, the consent of the company is being sought for the disclosure of the information.

  General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the benefit to the United Kingdom to date of the 1994 GATT agreement to liberalise world trade. [11236]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 29 July 1997]: Work undertaken by the GATT secretariat suggests that, over the long term, the agreement on trade in goods alone
  632
  could boost the real income of the EU as a whole by around 1.7 per cent. per annum. By 2005, this could amount to around $160 billion per annum for the EU. No separate estimates are available for the UK.

  Employment Contracts
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if she will make a statement on her Department's policy in relation to the use of waiver clauses in employment contracts; [10593]

  (2) what plans she has to review the operation of section 142 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 in respect of the use of waiver clauses in employment contracts; and if she will make a statement. [10592]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Government expect to consult on proposals for fairness at work later this year. We will consider the issue of waiver clauses in this context.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to reach a decision on export licence application number 530904; and if she will make a statement. [10619]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 28 July 1997]: The licence was issued on 29 July 1997.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 21 July,Official Report, columns 452–53, concerning Manroy Engineering, how her officials were informed by the company that the Manroy L80 Manpack mist sprayer did not go into production; and how the information was verified. [12204]

  Mrs. Roche
  When my hon. Friend asked her previous question, the company was contacted by telephone by an official of the export control organisation of my Department. The company advised that it had not entered into production of the equipment in question and I am not aware of any reason to doubt that advice.

  Waste Minimisation
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to introduce a waste minimisation strategy for her Department. [11550]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The DTI, as part of the environment management strategy and good housekeeping, has already adopted a number of measures to minimise waste management, including:Energy efficiency—to reduce the overall consumption of the Department over a three-year period on the baseline figure of 1995–96.
  Waste paper—to increase the waste paper sent by the Department for recycling from 30 to 75 per cent. of paper purchased before the end of 1998;
  Ink/toner cartridges and cans—to recycle all spent cartridges and drink cans.

  The strategy is of a proactive waste management with the continued emphasis on minimisation of waste that would need to be sent to landfill sites.
  633
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the amount, and proportion, of paper recycled by her Department in each of the last five years. [11552]

  Mr. Griffiths
  The figures are available only from July 1996. In that period, the Department sent around 77 tonnes of paper for recycling. This represents 30 per cent. of the paper purchased by the Department. It is the aim of the Department to increase this to 75 per cent. before the end of 1998.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on existing targets set to minimise waste within her Department. [11551]

  Mr. Griffiths
  The targets set by the Department to minimise waste are:Energy efficiency—to achieve a 5 per cent., or better, reduction in energy consumption over a three-year period on the base figure of 1995–96.
  Waste paper—to increase the waste paper sent for recycling from 30 to 75 per cent. of the paper purchased before the end of 1998;
  Ink/toner cartridges and cans—to recycle all spent cartridges and drink cans.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is(a) remit and (b) time scale of the Government's review of renewable energy policies; [11455]

  (2) which civil servants are dealing with her Department's review of renewable energy; [11457]

  (3) which (a) Government Departments and (b) other organisations her Department is consulting in its review of renewable energy policies; [11456]

  (4) how and when information from her Department's review of renewable energy policies will be made publicly available. [11458]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 30 July 1997]: I have established an interdepartmental review group, led by my director of the energy technologies directorate of the DTI, to report in the autumn on new and renewable energy policy options. The review will consider what would be necessary and practicable to achieve 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity needs from renewables by 2010 and how renewables can make an effective contribution to meeting requirements for future gas reduction commitments.

  I am consulting colleagues in other Government Departments with interest in renewables, including the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices; the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Treasury. The review will provide an input to the comprehensive spending review and the UK's climate change programme. I will consider wider consultations with the renewable trade industry trade bodies and other interested bodies in the autumn in the light of options resulting from the review.

  The outcome of the review will be published in 1998.

  Technology-based Small Firms
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the responses to the Bank of England's report of October 1996 on the financing of technology-based small firms. [11786]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government have welcomed the Bank of England report as a very useful contribution to pinpointing the issues associated with the financing of technology-based small firms. The Government are discussing with the Bank of England the recommendations for action in the report, taking account of the various responses to the report received by the bank.

  Civil Service Pension Scheme
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the terms of reference of the competing for quality review of her Department's use of the principal civil service pension scheme; what is the time scale of the review; what consultation process is planned in respect of it; and if she will make a statement on the proposals for(a) any market testing and (b) contracting out this service. [10585]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 30 July 1997]: The DTI has no plans to conduct a competing for quality review of its principal civil service pension scheme administration at this stage. There, are therefore no proposals at present to market test or contract out this work.

  Retail Newsagents
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what representations she has received from retail newsagents on difficulties being faced due to unregulated competition; [10635]

  (2) what proposals she has for regulation of the newspaper retail supply trade; [10636]

  (3) what plans he has to introduce amendments to the Restrictive Trade Practices Acts in respect of retail newsagents. [10637]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 30 July 1997]: My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of representations from retail newsagents on the state of the newspaper distribution industry. I met Roger Clarke of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents on 22 July.

  The Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for considering allegations of anti-competitive behaviour, abuse of monopoly power and restrictive trade practices. He is considering the most recent submission from the National Federation of Retail Newsagents, the main representative body for independent newsagents, arguing for the newspaper distribution industry to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  The Government have no plans to regulate the newspaper retail supply trade, or to amend the Restrictive Trade Practices Acts specifically in respect of retail newsagents. Nor do we expect our proposals for the forthcoming Competition Bill to contain measures specifically in respect of retail newsagents.
  635
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if her forthcoming competition legislation will include measures to address the competitive position of independent newsagents. [11311]

  Mr. Griffiths
  [holding answer 30 July 1997]: The competition Bill will introduce a prohibition of anti-competitive agreements and a prohibition of abuse of a dominant market position. These are measures to improve the effectiveness of competition law across the economy as a whole, rather than being targeted on individual sectors.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the situation facing independent newsagents. [11310]

  Mr. Griffiths
  [holding answer 30 July 1997]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on 21 July 1997, Official Report, columns 446–47.

  Copywatch
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what relationship the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs has with Copywatch. [12173]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  None.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice the company Copywatch has provided to her Department; and what advice from the company she has accepted. [12174]

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the president of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the advice provided by the company Copywatch to the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs. [12197]

  Mr. Grifffiths
  A report was submitted on 18 June from Copywatch. I have placed the Department's response in the Library of the House.

  Employment Pacts
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which proposed territorial employment pacts the Government intend to nominate to the European Commission as pilot projects in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [12469]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The European Commission said in its interim progress report on the implementation of territorial pacts for employment that it expected 10 proposals from the United Kingdom to add to the 78 proposals from other parts of the European Union. The Government received 66 proposals from all parts of the UK and, following regional prioritisation, I have selected the proposals put forward by:

  Barnsley Metropolitan Borough;

  Birmingham City Council on behalf of Black Country Districts, Birmingham and Solihull;

  Borough of St. Helens;

  East Midlands 3-Cities (Nottingham, Derby and Leicester);

  London Borough of Haringey/North London Leadership (Tottenham Partnership);

  Northern Ireland Training and Employment Agency;

  North Wales Economic Forum;

  636

  South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council;

  West Cornwall Initiative; and

  Western Scotland Objective 2 partnership.

  Although the Commission only invited the UK to nominate 10 pilot projects, the Government would also welcome similar pacts and local partnerships in other areas which could have a significant local impact and which could provide useful information and experience.

  Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the topics which have been addressed by the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe within her Department since 1 July. [11641]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer the hon. Member to the list of ministerial responsibilities, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe has held discussions with the gas regulator since 1 May. [11644]

  Mrs. Beckett
  None.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe will be involved in meetings related to the review of utility regulatory regimes being carried out by her Department. [11643]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Within the DTI, the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry leads on this review. The Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe will continue to deal with issues which fall within his portfolio of ministerial responsibilities, subject to the arrangements in place to ensure that no conflicts of interest can arise.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe will continue to answer questions in another place on the review of utility regulatory regimes being carried out by her Department. [11642]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Minister will continue to answer questions on a range of DTI issues in another place.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who are the trustees of the blind trust established by the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe; and what instructions they have been given for the management of the portfolio. [11795]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe has made arrangements for his non-BP shareholdings to be placed in a blind trust in accordance with the guidance in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". Further details of these arrangements are a private matter for the Minister.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) of 23 July,Official Report, column 665, (1) what procedures exist to ensure compliance with "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" by the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe; and what mechanisms are in place to ensure that, from the date of his appointment, he has not seen any papers or

  637
  attended any meetings formally or informally, which would have or would have had, a bearing on BP or its competitors; [11968]

  (2) which Minister or civil servant takes the decision on whether a conflict of interests arises in respect of the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe. [11975]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Minister decided at the outset that he would not be involved in discussions or decisions directly affecting BP, and civil servants dealing with issues falling within his ministerial responsibilities have acted accordingly since then. The Minister's private office has, in addition, ensured that he does not see papers or attend meetings that directly affect BP. In cases of doubt, the Minister and civil servants consult the permanent secretary for advice.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what dates and at what venues the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe's recent meetings or parties with BP personnel were held. [11633]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe met directors of BP on 9 May, 4 June and 4 July, at BP's offices in Finsbury circus and in a restaurant. The Minister also attended farewell social engagements hosted by BP on 4 June, 25 June and 3 July in a marquee at Finsbury square, at the Barbican and in Manchester square.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe has now complied in full with paragraphs 109, 110, 111, 112 and 117 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". [11632]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Minister has complied with the guidance in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" in full since the day of his appointment.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether she took legal advice prior to the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe signing the explanatory memorandum on European Community document on gas liberalisation to ensure that the Government would not be open to legal challenge. [11634]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe has not signed any such memorandum; the gas liberalisation dossier is the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Industry and Energy.

  Minister of Competition and Consumer Affairs
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) of 24 July,Official Report, column 732, where in Athens, and when, the social event took place, at which the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs met Mr. Haji-Iannou. [11920]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  At Vouliagmeni at 10am on 26 June.
  638
  Mrs. May
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the articles contributed to "Travel Weekly" by the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, together with their publication dates since 5 May 1997. [11901]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Two articles were submitted after 5 May: one appeared on 21 May. The second appeared on 25 June. An article submitted before my appointment as Minister appeared on 7 May.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she first heard and from whom that the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs was stepping down from the consideration of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigation of the travel trade. [9950]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 21 July 1997]: My hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs communicated his decision to me via official channels at the earliest practical opportunity after he had made his decision.

  Competition Law
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on competition law reform. [12470]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I will shortly be publishing a consultation document and draft Bill which is intended to introduce a tougher competition regime. The Bill will introduce a prohibition approach to anti-competitive agreements, cartels and abuse of a dominant position similar to articles 85 and 86 of the treaty of Rome. There will be fines for breach of the prohibitions and rights for customers and competitors to seek compensation in the courts.

  In addition, I am planning to establish a new body, a competition commission, which will take on the existing functions of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and will also hear appeals against the decisions of the Director General of Fair Trading under the prohibition regime.

  Commercial Debt
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on her plans to improve the ability of small businesses to obtain money owed to them. [11915]

  Mrs. Roche
  Small businesses play a fundamental part in the economy of the UK. The Government are concerned therefore by any actions that unnecessarily hinder their competitiveness. The late payment of commercial debt is acknowledged by many in the business community to be a serious problem, particularly for small businesses which are least able to bear the additional costs resulting from payment delays. The Government are determined therefore to improve the payment culture in the UK.

  The Government are pursuing a package of measures in partnership with business organisations.

  The Government will introduce a statutory right to claim interest on late payment of commercial debt. Legislation will be transparent, so that all businesses are

  639
  clear about their rights and obligations. A Green Paper, "Improving the Payment Culture: A Statutory Right to Claim Interest on Late Payment of Commercial Debt" was published on 28 July.

  The Lord Chancellor announced, in June of this year, that, as part of the review of existing proposals for the reform of the civil justice system, consultation would proceed on proposed fast-track and multi-track procedures which will ensure realistic timetables and reduce the cost, delay and complexity of civil litigation.

  The Government will publish league tables of the payment performance of Government Departments and agencies. They are working with others to produce league tables on the payment performance of public limited companies and their large private subsidiaries. The first set of tables is expected in summer 1998.

  I am delighted to say that a number of leading business representative organisations have pledged to join the Government in tackling the problem of late payment. They include the British chambers of commerce, the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business, the Institute of Directors, the Union of Independent Companies, the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union. Over the next 12 months, we will work with them and others on a number of initiatives to tackle late payments and meet the needs of small businesses.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimates she has made of the cost of publishing league tables of payment performance of plcs and their subsidiaries. [11733]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government are committed to working in partnership with the private sector to publish league tables of the payment performance of public limited companies and their large private subsidiaries.

  The Companies Acts already require plcs and their large private subsidiaries to state the average time to pay their suppliers and to publish this figure annually in their director's report. The Federation of Small Businesses has offered to collate and publish this information in a league table format. These tables will provide small businesses with information on how quickly they can expect to be paid when dealing with larger business, at no cost to the public purse.

  The publication of league tables is another important step in promoting a more ethical payment culture in the UK.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the closing date for representations on the consultation paper, "Improving the Payment Culture." [11730]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on 22 July 1997,Official Report, column 507.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the organisations and individuals who have been sent the consultation paper, "Improving the Payment Culture." [11729]

  Mrs. Roche
  To date, some 3,500 copies of the Green Paper "Improving the Payment Culture: A Statutory Right to Claim Interest on Late Payment of Commercial Debt"640
  have been sent to organisations and individuals. Recipients include individual businesses, trade associations, legal, accountancy and financial bodies, business representative organisations, business links, training and enterprise councils, chambers of commerce, local authorities and NHS trusts.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list in domestic currency the statutory national minimum wage, or the lowest minimum wage established on the basis of legally binding sectoral or industry agreements, in each European Union state and in the United States of America, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Canada; and if she will list the equivalent of each of these amounts as an hourly rate in pounds sterling(a) on the basis of current exchange rages and (b) at purchasing power parity exchange rates. [12214]

  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 below.

  Hourly rate3 in Sterling at

  Country

  Minimum wage in national currency

  Current exchange rate1

  PPP exchange rate2

  Belgium

  44165 BFr Monthly

  4.20

  4.76

  Canada

  C$5 Hourly

  2.17

  2.75

  France

  6406 FFr Monthly

  3.75

  3.94

  Greece

  5746 Dr Daily

  1.52

  2.19

  Japan

  Y 4969 Daily

  3.19

  2.43

  Luxembourg

  46275 LFr Monthly

  4.25

  4.53

  Netherlands

  2244 FI Monthly

  3.96

  4.44

  New Zealand

  NZ$6.25 Hourly

  2.45

  2.78

  Portugal

  58883 Es Monthly

  1.09

  1.80

  Spain

  2279 Pta Daily

  1.19

  1.62

  USA

  $4.75 Hourly

  2.85

  3.19

  1 Current Rates as at 25 July 1996.

  2 PPP exchange rates for 1996 from OECD Main Economic Indicators July 1997.

  3 Converted to hourly rates using results from the European Labour Force Survey 1995 published by Eurostat, except Japan were results from ILO "Conditions of Work Digest" are used.

  Employees' Rights
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures she proposes to transfer the legal responsibility enforcing terms and conditions of employment from employees to employers; and if she will make a statement. [11092]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Generally, terms and conditions of employment are a matter for agreement between employer and employee. Where one party breaches the contract, it is for the other party to seek enforcement.

  Direct Rail Services
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the trial train service being run by BNFL's Direct Rail Services subsidiary from Penrith to Cricklewood receives public subsidy. [11783]
  641
  Mr. Battle
  This service does not receive any public subsidy. Operational details are a matter for Direct Rail Services.

  Security Equipment
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how information given to her officials by manufacturers and suppliers of military, security and police equipment is(a) verified and (b) evaluated; and if she will place copies of the evaluation and verification procedures in the Library. [12203]

  Mrs. Roche
  The way in which officials verify and evaluate such information depends on the nature of the information requested. In some circumstances, we do verify information provided by applicants for export licences, for example the intended end-user, but in others we do not, for example where a company states that it has not produced a particular item of equipment and there is no reason to doubt that statement.

  Holocaust Victims (Funds)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps her Department has taken to investigate claims that the British Government failed to return confiscated funds deposited by victims of the holocaust in British banks; and if she will make a statement. [11284]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The Government take very seriously the concerns expressed in the Israeli Knesset and in the media about the confiscation of property from nationals and residents of enemy countries during the second world war. The DTI is working closely with the FCO to identify the relevant papers—many of which are already at the Public Record Office. The results of that work will be made public when it is completed. Both Departments are also co-operating with the Holocaust Educational Trust and other interested individuals and organisations.

  Fuel Agreement
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many beneficiaries of the national concessionary fuel agreement there are, broken down by those in receipt of(a) coal, (b) smokeless fuel and (c) cash in lieu of fuel. [11988]

  Mr. Battle
  At June 1997, the breakdown of national concessionary fuel agreement beneficiaries—that is, not including British Association of Colliery Management beneficiaries—under my Department' s liability was as follows:(a) 14,477 in receipt of coal; (b) 88,977 in receipt of smokeless fuel; (c) 63,242 in receipt of cash in lieu of fuel.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many concessionary fuel beneficiaries have a statutory entitlement which pre-dates the national concessionary fuel agreement. [11989]

  Mr. Battle
  At 7 July 1997, there were 793 beneficiaries receiving concessionary fuel under statutory entitlement—that is, under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946.

  Coal Production
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total United Kingdom coal production for the last complete year for which figures are available; and how much was(a) opencast coal and (b) deep-mined coal. [11986]

  Mr. Battle
  Coal production in the United Kingdom in 1996 is set out in the table.

  Thousand tones

  Total production1

  50,197

  Of which:

  Deep-mined

  32,223

  Opencast

  16,315

  Note:

  1 Total production for 1996 comprises deep-mined, opencast and other production. Other production of 1,658,000 tonnes is an estimate for slurry and so on recovered from dumps, ponds, rivers.

  Source:

  Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics.

  Opencast Coal
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of opencast coal mined in the United Kingdom for the last complete year in which figures are available was(a) used for sweetening purposes and (b) went to the power station market. [11987]

  Mr. Battle
  Of 16,315,000 tonnes of total opencast production in 1996, over half went to the power stations market. The proportion of opencast coal used in the United Kingdom for sweetening purposes is not available.

  Radio Advertising (Wealth Warnings)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will remove the requirement for wealth warnings on radio advertising. [11621]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 29 July 1997,Official Report, column 223.

  Information Society
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to monitor and assess the United Kingdom's progress towards the information society relative to other countries. [12467]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Department of Trade and Industry commissioned Spectrum Strategy Consultants, as part of the information society initiative, to undertake primary research to assess the UK's progress towards the information society. The aims of the research were to measure levels of ownership and usage of information technology, electronics and communications products by both companies and consumers in the UK, US, Germany, France and Japan. In addition, the study compares attitudes and levels of awareness, and analyses drivers and barriers to change. This builds on a pilot benchmarking study undertaken for DTI in 1996, the publication of which was announced on 25 October 1996 in a written answer to the hon. Member for Bournmouth, East (Mr. Atkinson)Official Report, column 16.
  643
  The latest study, entitled "Moving into the Information Society—An International Benchmarking Study" will be published on 4 August and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House. Further 0copies are available by calling the ISI business infoline on 0345 15 2000, by e-mailing info@isi.gov.uk, or through the ISI website at http://www.isi.gov.uk/isi/mitis.htm.

  Advisers
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade pursuant to her answer to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) of 24 July,Official Report, column 733, if she has placed any restrictions on her Department's Ministers having outside advisers additional to those listed in her answer. [12251]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Additional special advisers to DTI Ministers would need my agreement and that of the Prime Minister.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 24 July,Official Report, column 733, on advisers, which director of Copywatch has now been appointed an adviser to the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs; and if she will make a statement. [12212]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  I am not aware of such claims.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to make internal guidance manuals relating to regional selective assistance available to local authorities and potential inward investors. [12017]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have no plans to make the internal regional selective assistance guidelines available to local authorities and potential inward investors. The guidelines provide detailed advice for officials operating the scheme and cover sensitive aspects of appraisal and monitoring.

  The RSA brochure, which is freely available from Government offices and business links, provides details about the scheme and guidance on how to apply for grants.

  Power Stations
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will provide a list of outstanding applications under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for the building of combined-cycle gas turbine power stations currently under consideration by her Department; when she expects each application to be determined; and if she will make a statement. [11608]

  Mr. Battle
  Applications for combined-cycle gas turbine power stations at the following locations are currently under consideration:

  Baglan Bay, Port Talbot (1,200 megawatts)

  Capenhurst, Cheshire (65 MW)

  Carrington, Greater Manchester (380 MW)

  Croydon (80 MW)

  Elland, Halifax (56 MW)

  Ellesmere Port, Cheshire (65 MW)

  Enderby, Leicester (1,125 MW)

  Fawley, Hampshire (130 MW)

  644

  Great Yarmouth (350 MW)

  King's Lynn Phase II, Norfolk (820 MW)

  Newcastle (350 MW)

  Port Talbot (200 MW)

  Rosgoch, Isle of Anglesey (880 MW)

  Runcorn, Cheshire (140 MW)

  Saltend, Hull (1,200 MW)

  Sandbach, Cheshire (58 MW)

  Shotton Paper Mill, North Wales (240 MW)

  Snodland Paper Mill, Kent (60 MW)

  Spalding, Lincolnshire (800 MW)

  Swansea (185 MW).

  Each application is considered on its merits and I cannot therefore say when the decision on each application will be taken.

  Directors and Company Secretaries (Report)
  Mr. Healy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many responses she has received to the consultative document, "Disclosure of Directors' and Company Secretaries' particulars"; and when she expects to publish the Government's conclusions. [10935]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To date, my Department has received just over 250 responses. I expect the Government's conclusions to be published later this year.

  Teaching Company Scheme
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will respond to the recommendations of the panel which carried out the 1996 quinquennial review of the teaching company scheme; and if she will make a statement. [12468]

  Mr. Battle
  The report of the 1996 quinquennial review panel of TCS, under the chairmanship of Sir Robin Nicholson, chairman of Pilkington Optronics and former chief scientific adviser to the Government, was submitted in October 1996. Since then, the five Departments of State and four research councils which funded TCS at that time have been actively considering the findings of the review panel and its many recommendations.

  This review has shown that with a Government investment of £1 million TCS produces net benefits of 58 jobs, £3.6 million worth of value added, £3 million worth of exports, and £13.3 million of additional turnover, as well as increases in research and development expenditure, in participating companies. These are substantial achievements by any standards.

  Following the recommendations of the review panel, the Government have decided to extend the scope of TCS to enable organisations in the science, engineering and technology base as well as universities to participate with effect from 1 September 1997. This will allow our firms to make full use of the technological skills and experience that are available throughout the country.

  Copies of Sir Robin's report and the Government response are being placed today in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Sickness Dismissals
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many dismissals on the grounds of sickness have been notified to her Department in each year from 1987. [11089]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Department is not notified of individual dismissals.

  Unfair Dismissals
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to reduce the qualifying period for eligibility to pursue a case for unfair dismissal; and if she will make a statement. [11090]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government have no plans to change the qualifying period for unfair dismissal. The House of Lords has referred to the European Court of Justice questions relating to whether the qualifying period for unfair dismissal is indirectly discriminatory against women. However, the Government are committed to providing fair minimum standards for people at work and expects to consult on proposals for fairness at work later this year.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many civil servants are working in each Minister's private office; and how many civil servants in which offices have transferred out of private offices since 1 May. [11940]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The number of civil servants working in DTI Ministers' offices is not materially different from the number which worked there under the previous Government. Movement of staff in and out of Ministers' offices continues, as it did before 1 May.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the outcome of her review of her Department's policy towards tackling the problem of the failure of the majority of computer systems to recognise the year 2000. [12022]

  Mrs. Roche
  I am working closely with Taskforce 2000 on the serious problem facing businesses large and small. Many businesses are aware of the problem, but too few are taking action with the necessary urgency. We are shifting the emphasis of the campaign from general awareness to stimulating action, through many channels of communications, including financial auditors, banks and supply chains. We will be looking at progress in key sectors of the economy, and consulting on what more needs to be done.

  On 22 July, I hosted the millennium information technology skills summit, which addressed the growing shortage of skills, which will be aggravated by the century date problem. I have asked participants to bring forward proposals for new initiatives and to make a report to me in September.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action is being taken by her Department in respect of the millennium compliance of computers. [10063]
  646
  Mrs. Roche
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West, (Mr. Singh).

  Investment Agreement
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment her Department has made of the impact of the multilateral agreement on investment on the Government's plans for corporate taxation, with particular reference to the windfall tax on privatised utilities. [12248]

  Mrs. Roche
  We do not expect that the multilateral agreement on investment will impact on the Government's plans for corporate taxation, including the windfall tax on privatised utilities.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment her Department has made of the impact of the multilateral agreement on investment on Her Majesty's Government's ability(a) to restrict foreign investment in sensitive sectors and (b) to discriminate in favour of high value-added investments. [12246]

  Mrs. Roche
  The multilateral agreement on investment will provide for sectoral restrictions on foreign investment. These restrictions must be notified in advance. The UK's list is short, reflecting the liberal approach we take to foreign investment. We would not expect the multilateral agreement on investment to impair the UK's ability to attract high value-added investments.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment her Department has made of the likely impact of the multilateral agreement on investment on the British Government's existing obligations in relation to health, environmental and labour regulations. [12249]

  Mrs. Roche
  The multilateral agreement on investment is essentially about the non-discriminatory application of regulations as between foreign and domestic investors. Since the UK regulations are generally applied in a non-discriminatory way, they will not be undermined by the agreement.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment her Department has made of the impact of the multilateral agreement on investment on the Government's ability to promote local community development programmes through(a) laws requiring banks to invest in economically deprived areas, (b) development funds marked for local businesses, (c) tax breaks for local companies and (d) other measures. [12247]

  Mrs. Roche
  The multilateral agreement on investment should not conflict with local community development programmes.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment her Department has made of the impact of the multilateral agreement on investment on the Government's ability to ensure that transnational corporations receiving public funds in assisted areas are required to meet specific performance objectives. [12245]

  Mrs. Roche
  The multilateral agreement on investment's rules on performance requirements are still under negotiation. The Government's approach is to ensure that such rules are consistent with regional
  647
  development policies so that it would remain possible to obtain certain commitments as a condition for receiving public funds.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade pursuant to her oral answer to the right hon. Member for Wokingham, (Mr. Redwood),Official Report, 3 July, column 406, when she (a) wrote and (b) dispatched the letter to the right hon. Member. [7409]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 9 July 1997]: The letter was written on Friday 4 July and was faxed to the right hon. Gentleman's home on Saturday 5 July.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Easington, dated 23 May, concerning the surplus in the mineworkers' pension scheme. [8650]

  Mr. Battle
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 15 July 1997.

  Written Answers
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham will receive a substantive answer to each question for which she has received a holding reply. [11836]
  648
  Mrs. Beckett
  The hon. Member has received substantive answers, including this one, to the 70 questions that she has tabled since 14 May.

  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total cost to public funds of answering the written questions tabled by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) to her Department in the current Session. [12471]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) has to date tabled 70 questions to my Department. This has cost at least £7,490, using the average cost of answering written questions,Official Report, 4 December 1996, column 656.

  Ministerial Duties
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which Ministers will be attending their departmental offices during August; and if she will list the Minister in charge of the Department for each week of the summer adjournment. [10455]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 25 July 1997]: Apart from any holiday they may be taking, all my Ministers will be working during August and attending their DTI offices as necessary for the conduct of business. Ministers will continue to exercise their own responsibilities, although a duty Minister will also cover each day for his or her colleagues as necessary. It follows, therefore, that the ministerial responsibilities of the DTI will be adequately covered during this period.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

Eagle Owls
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will encourage experiments in the use of eagle owls to control numbers of pigeons, grey squirrels and vermin in appropriate selected areas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the eagle owl is not native to Great Britain, despite its recent appearance on St. Paul's Cathedral. The last confirmed sighting of a wild eagle owl was in 1883 in Argyll. Encouraging the use of non-native species for vermin control would be inappropriate because of the risk of escape into the wider environment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply, which was not unexpected. Does she agree that the eagle owl based on St. Paul's Cathedral did a very good job in culling the hordes of pigeons in that area, although he was an alien and an escaped prisoner? Is she aware that the owls would not be expected to discriminate between grey and red squirrels because where there are greys there are no longer any reds. It would not matter if the owl were colour blind.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I had not thought of the eagle owl in question as an asylum seeker. Certainly, we should take no lessons from the party opposite on the treatment of asylum seekers. Birds of prey can be and have been used for scaring pigeons in some urban areas. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 does not prohibit such action. But the birds of prey in question sometimes do not limit themselves to scaring. They have been known to consume some of the vermin concerned. Nor are they good at discriminating between either red or grey squirrels and domestic pets. So there are some dangers in taking that course of action.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned the eagle owl in Argyll. As someone with Argyllshire interests, may I ask whether it would be possible for the eagle owl to be returned to Argyllshire? Possibly it could keep down one of the biggest pests there; namely, the hooded crow.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I know there are concerns about birds of prey keeping down vermin. Birds of prey also prey on other birds, such as racing pigeons. Indeed, we should also bear in mind the
306
conservation of grouse. I should also point out that eagle owls are extremely undiscriminating predators. I am told that they are known as the rottweilers of the avian world. We should not wish to get into the position of having to have a dangerous owls Act.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Members of your Lordships' House visited a landfill site in Sutton Courtenay fairly recently? We were impressed that the birds, which would otherwise have caused nuisance to a nearby aerodrome, were controlled by falcons. But they were in the hands of a trained falconer. There is a serious point behind the noble Lord's Question, which we should pursue instead of always resorting to chemicals.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I know that there is concern about the use of chemicals to deal with vermin of various kinds. It would be better if we could have more ecologically acceptable ways of doing it. There are dangers when birds of prey are not properly controlled. The department is examining less environmentally destructive ways of dealing with vermin populations.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the County of Angus there are still red squirrels and we want to keep them? Is the description of the grey squirrel as vermin, given by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, correct? Would campaigns to eliminate them by more conventional means be acceptable to the Government?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, indeed, the description of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is correct. The grey squirrel is not protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act and various measures are being taken. The Government are committed to preventing the further spread of grey squirrels, although it is not practical to reduce their number over the whole of Great Britain. The onus rests with landowners and occupiers of land to control grey squirrels in their locality. As I said, research is being sponsored at the moment into methods of controlling grey squirrels, including making them sterile by use of a vaccine in food.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister say what answers she offers in terms of central London? I have a beautiful apricot tree which has hundreds of apricots on it. I find it very distressing every day to see a magnificent grey squirrel come down, rip open anything up to 50 apricots, throw the fruit on the ground and eat the nuts—the kernels—from the inside. Various Members of this House have suggested that I could shoot him. But I do not feel that that would be at all appropriate in central London. Does she have any answers about what could be done?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, deprivation of food is the advice that my department gives but I can see that there would be difficulties in the particular case highlighted by the noble Baroness. On a lighter note, I wonder whether she might care to consult the two gentlemen in Newton Abbot who spent a long time at

307
the bottom of their gardens hooting at each other in the belief that they were owls. Perhaps we could go in for some virtual owls to protect apricots.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, if an experiment were to be undertaken, can it be borne in mind that the owls should be installed in pairs? That would be more congenial for them and make it unnecessary for human beings to hoot at them or at each other by mistake. There are rumours that, with a five foot wingspan, eagle owls attack small dogs. Would they be able to discourage dog ownership in the selected areas and so perform an additional service by helping to keep our pavements clean?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord is trying to lead me down highways and byways in terms of the dog population where perhaps I should not follow. There would be some danger to the owls concerned were they to feed on the pigeon population in central London. A post-mortem was carried out on the owl from St. Paul's Cathedral because it was believed that it might have been poisoned by eating the contents of the pigeon that it had attacked.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that if the recipe of my noble friend Lord Campbell for dealing with these vermin was tried on a wide scale it might be necessary, in turn, to control the owl population? As cats mouse and terriers rat, does she think that 'ounds could be persuaded to owl?

Baltic States: Trade
11.14 a.m.
The Earl of Carlisleasked Her Majesty's Government:
What support they give to firms intending to invest in the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania).
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, a relief from owls! The main source of support for firms intending to invest in the Baltic states is the Know How Fund's pre-investment feasibility study scheme. At the European level, the joint-venture programme—JOP—part of the EU's PHARE programme assists small and medium enterprises in the EU to set up joint ventures with partners in the region, or expand existing ones. Both the overseas trade services of the DTI in London and the embassies in the Baltic states also provide information and advice.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure he will know that the volume of imports into the three Baltic states from the United Kingdom compares rather unfavourably with those of our western European neighbours. Is he aware that before the Second World War 30 per cent. of all imports into Estonia—the northern Baltic state—came from the United Kingdom? Is he further aware that the Baltic
308
states have an important role to play in the development of trade between the Russian Federation and the West? The Minister is to be congratulated on having already met Mrs. Andrikiele, the Lithuanian trade minister. Will he at the earliest opportunity have meetings with Mr. Leimann and Mr. Krasds, his Estonian and Latvian opposite numbers, so that trade can be increased between the United Kingdom and the Baltic states?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, if the Ministers concerned wish to see me, of course I shall see them. I am always delighted to meet my opposite numbers in order to engage in discussions about the prospects for enhancing trade. The noble Earl referred to the position of the Baltic states. Of course they are important, and for the reason the noble Earl has given. It is also true that since the war our trade with these countries has deteriorated, which is to be regretted. On the other hand, in the more recent past there has been a sizeable increase in our trade with the three states. That is to be encouraged and we shall use our best endeavours, in the way I have indicated, to ensure that that happens.

Organic Farming
11.17 a.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliamasked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of their response to the 2nd Report (Session 1996–97) of the House of Commons Agriculture Committee on Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Other Schemes under the Agri-Environment Regulation, what are their proposals for improving support for organic farmers.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Government wish to encourage an expansion of organic production and are looking at the best ways of achieving that. To this end the Government have this week launched a consultation exercise to seek views from a wide range of interested parties.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that very encouraging response and I congratulate the Government on their conversion to truly sustainable farming. The evidence that persuaded the Agriculture Select Committee of another place to make the recommendation was given by Mr. Patrick Holden, who recommended that a minimum increase in the organic aid scheme for support should be £200 a hectare. May I impress upon the noble Lord the importance of increasing support to that level?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl would not expect me to commit the Government at the Dispatch Box to that level of aid. However, the Government noted the Agriculture Select Committee's view that they should consider maintenance payments to existing organic farmers, which I know has been argued. The Government need to take account of the funding implications and do not currently view

309
payments for the maintenance of organic production as a priority. In the meantime, those already farming organically can receive aid if they convert new land.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the reason for not looking favourably on continued support is that organic farmers are expected to get a premium price for their products. However, if the scheme is successful, is it not the case that the premium price is likely to diminish quite sharply? Therefore, will there not be a need to continue with some form of support even after the five to 10-year period that has been proposed? Will the Government undertake to look again at that?
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is part of the review which we are now undertaking. At present, 0.3 per cent. of the UK's food is supplied organically. There would have to be a substantial increase on that, which would take a considerable time before there would be any marked effect on the size of the organic premium received from the consumer, which is the essential help the organic farmer needs in addition to government aid. This is just the kind of point at which the review we are suggesting, which has wide-ranging terms of reference, will be looking.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it should be possible for the Government drastically to revise their priorities in this field? Is he aware that vast sums are paid every year, including £ 1 million to each of five individuals, under the set-aside legislation? Does he further agree that it is quite scandalous that millions of pounds of British taxpayers' money should be distributed by the EU in this way to inhibit the production of food? Is it not the case that much more needs to be done at all levels to support organic farming by all possible means?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I believe that the issue of CAP reform is just a shade wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I can assure my noble friend that, as I am sure he knows, one of the Government's objectives in their dealings with the European Union is a substantial and wide-ranging reform of the common agricultural policy. It is part of the common agricultural policy to encourage organic production and it is also part of our policy. I am not sure that we can shift the whole weight of the CAP onto the support of organic food production.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the real problem in expanding organic farming is the cost to commercial farmers to convert to that method of farming, and that very few farmers can afford to do so? Does he also agree—and this is relevant to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—that the payments for agri-environmental purposes under the CAP are exceedingly small in comparison with other payments for agricultural support? Is the Minister aware that the proposals in Agenda 2000, which sets out the Commission's draft proposals for the reform of the CAP, are rather disappointing in that respect? Will he ensure that the study which is to be made in this country will be brought
310
to the attention of the Commission, with the aim of getting greater agri-environmental payments to the countryside in general?
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the election the Labour Party produced documents setting out our suggestions for reform of the common agricultural policy. It is our intention to undertake a wide-ranging reform of the CAP. That certainly includes heavy emphasis on the need for the improvement and encouragement of environmental-friendly farming. Organic production is a part of that.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, although organic farming will never feed the starving millions of the world, it is a far better use of CAP money than putting it towards set-aside, in that organic farming will reduce the amount produced and provide a reserve in case of a real need for food?
Lord Carter: My Lords, it is certainly true that consideration of organic farming has moved a long way from the days which the noble Lord and I remember when it was regarded as, "muck, mystery and magic". It is now firmly on the agenda. I do not believe that the cost of the comparatively small proportion of production which is now devoted to organic farming, even with a substantial increase in that proportion, will provide the means for a fundamental reform of the CAP.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, is it not true that, whereas we all subscribe to the theory that it is better to have more organic farming, the reality is that the consumer is not prepared to pay the real cost of the product? Does the noble Lord agree that until such time as we can get over that gap between the cost of the product raised through non-organic farming compared with the cost of the product raised through organic farming, we really have a problem? Do the Government have any plans to encourage the British consumer to pay higher prices to meet the increased cost of organic farming? How do the Government propose to convert the consumer?
Lord Carter: My Lords, we regard that as a matter for the consumer. If consumers wish to have more organic products and are prepared to pay more, they will get them: if not, then those products will not be provided. It is the marketplace at work. However, as the noble Baroness said, it is correct that the costs of organic production are higher. There is a problem. Research work shows that, with a high level of technical efficiency, one can produce organic crops and products at an economic cost. The problem is—and this has always been my view as a farmer—that both intellectually and technically it is much more demanding than conventional farming. I am not sure that we yet have the resources for the advice that farmers need.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is enormous demand in supermarkets throughout the country for organic products? Is he further aware that they have a great shortage of such products?

311
Supermarkets would sell a great deal more if the supplies were available. Is he also aware that at the moment supplies of organic products have to be imported from Germany, Holland and Denmark?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I suppose that if customers were prepared to pay more, that would produce increased supplies.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the objective of CAP reform is to reduce subsidies to agriculture and not merely to shift them from one sector to another? Is he aware that MAFF research has shown unequivocally that organic farming can be profitable once the transition costs have been paid? Surely it is those costs with which we should be concerned, and not with increasing subsidies.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it is not a case of increasing subsidies. In the reform of the CAP there will be a shift of support from one area to another. But there are other areas in which reductions in costs can be achieved—for example, tobacco subsidy and fraud.

Mutual Societies and "Carpet-baggers"
11.26 a.m.
Lord Taylor of Blackburnasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to prevent "carpet-baggers" from attempting to force mutual societies to convert to banks against the wishes of the majority of the members, such as recently occurred with the Nationwide Building Society.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are well aware of the benefits of mutual societies. We have been looking at a number of proposals for secondary legislation put forward by the Building Societies Association. They all raise difficult issues of principle because they could frustrate the will of the members or significantly reduce the board's accountability to members. In short, they highlight the difficulties that the Government face in acting to protect mutuality without diluting the essence of a mutual organisation; namely, a society owned by and run for its members. But the Government are keeping the situation under careful review.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Nationwide Building Society. I am sorry that other Members of the House who are interested in the agricultural world have not done that this morning. Can the Minister say whether there are other measures that he believes building societies themselves can take to prohibit the action that took place last week with the Nationwide Building Society and the costs that the members had to incur to prevent the carpet-baggers trying to take over the society?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is certainly right that carpet-baggers cause considerable cost and disruption to mutual building societies. They cause additional management costs and put a strain on the service to existing members. I am sure he is also right that there are steps that building societies themselves can take to discourage carpet-bagging. For example, they might consider whether the emphasis on a flat-rate windfall does not actually encourage carpet-bagging.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister gave a detailed reply to the initial Question. But is any legislation at present in place, financial or otherwise, that the Government can resort to or place at the disposal of people to stop this practice taking place? If there is not any legislation in place, can the Minister try to get the Government to speed up the inquiry that is taking place with a view to putting a law on the statute book to deal with this situation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend will remember that the Building Societies Act 1997 was enacted just before the election, with all-party agreement. That reduces the temptation, if I may put it that way, to depart from mutual status by giving building societies greater powers to extend the range of businesses that they undertake. I am sure that that is the most important and effective way of reducing carpet-bagging and preserving mutuality.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is not the answer to the problem in the hands of the members of the mutual society concerned? Is it not a fact that under existing law every member of a mutual society has a vote in such a situation and it is for the members to determine whether the mutual society should convert into a bank?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that the answer lies in the hands of the members. Unfortunately, recent experiences do not give us confidence that the members will take full account of the long-term interests of the society and its future members. The result of the Nationwide ballot was, of course, welcome, but, as the noble Lord will know, a number of societies have been invaded by people who are only out for a windfall gain rather than for the long-term benefit of the society.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, is it not the case that the enactment of Section 9 of the Building Societies Act would largely solve the problem? Further than that, undesirable as carpet-bagging is, is it not also the case that every step which is being proposed to stop it equally discourages small investors for whom the building societies are particularly designed?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord is referring to Section 9 of the 1997 Act which is due to come into force in October. Its effect will be to stop building societies having two-tier memberships, with some voting members and some who

313
are simply investing members. Although that is clearly desirable, I am not certain that it will have all of the beneficial effects which the noble Lord is expecting. Indeed, some people in the building societies movement have been urging the Government to defer the implementation of Section 9.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, in view of the important part which the mutual societies play in democracy in our society, can the Minister give me an assurance that if the building societies come up with proposals which will more firmly place the control of those societies in the hands of long-term, genuine members, the Government will treat such proposals sympathetically in order to stop the parasites who are moving into building societies only for their own benefit?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sympathetic to the thrust of my noble friend's question, as I have been, I think, to all similar questions. The problem is that all the specific proposals which the Building Societies Association has put to the Government for secondary legislation involve provisions such as raising the threshold for approval, delaying the qualifications for membership or increasing the number of nominations required for membership of the board, all of which involve a diminution of the principle of mutuality. Although the Government are, of course, reluctant to legislate for business management reasons, that is not the fundamental issue. We would like proposals from the building societies which will protect mutuality without reducing the rights of members.

Succession to the Crown Bill [H.L.]
11.33 a.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to remove any distinction between the sexes in determining the succession to the Crown. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Parliamentary Privilege: Joint Committee
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons Message of yesterday be now considered and that a Select Committee of six Lords he appointed to join with the committee appointed
314
by the Commons as the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege to review parliamentary privilege and make recommendations thereon;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the committee:

L. Archer of Sandwell,

L. Mayhew of Twysden,

L. Merlyn-Rees,

L. Nicholls of Birkenhead,

L. Waddington,

L. Wigoder;

That the committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time shall, if the committee think fit, be printed and delivered out;
That the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General and the Solicitor-General for Scotland, being Members of either House, may attend the committee, may take part in deliberations, may receive committee papers and may give such other assistance to the committee as may be appropriate, but shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment or be counted in the quorum.—(Lord Richard.)
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I should like to ask the Lord Privy Seal one question. On the assumption that the only purpose of parliamentary privilege is to enable Parliament to do its job better and that that is its only justification, and given that there is, and there should be, considerable public interest in how Parliament performs, and that such interest should be encouraged, will it be possible for the evidence taken by the committee to be taken in public?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I do not know the answer to that question, but I hope that the committee will see fit to conduct at least a large part of its deliberations in as public a manner as it can. It should be done openly and transparently. I am afraid that I am not in a position today to be firm about the precise limitations on where one stops that process.
On Question, Motion agreed to; and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill
11.35 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.—(Lord Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN OTHER LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (8) as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out ("Her Majesty may by Order in Council") and insert ("the Secretary of State may by order")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu—
1A Page 1, line 5, leave out ("such day as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint") and insert ("11th September 1997").
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1A in lieu thereof.
In speaking to this amendment, I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 10. The Government have stated their intention to hold the referendum in Scotland on 11th September, with the Welsh referendum a week later on 18th September. The Bill in its original form allowed the dates of the referendums to be appointed by Her Majesty in Orders in Council. We were pleased to accept the principle of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, to incorporate the Orders in Council into the main Bill. The Lords amendments would replace the original mechanism for setting the dates with a power for the Secretary of State to appoint the dates by order. These orders would have been used to set down the dates of 11th and 18th September. It makes sense now to write the dates into the Bill rather than to require an order to be made.
Some noble Lords may ask why we intend that the referendums should be on different dates, contrary to Amendment No. 7—
Noble Lords: Why?
Lord Sewel: Well, my Lords, you are going to get the answer. Amendment No. 7 requires them to be on the same date, but I fail to understand the Opposition's obsession with a single date. There is no reason why the Scottish and Welsh referendums should be held on the same day. They are two separate referendums being held in two separate countries on two separate sets of proposals. They are distinct events and distinct propositions. I am afraid that there would be as much sense in arguing that the referendum on our proposals for London should be held on 11th September. "Why not have a single referendums day?" seems to be the argument from noble Lords opposite. It is a nonsense.
There are many things that we want from the referendum—including a "Yes" result. We want it to demonstrate clearly that the people of Wales endorse our proposals. For that, we need to make sure that the people of Wales are well informed about our proposals and that they make their decision based on a full and thorough understanding of what the assembly will mean, what it will do and what it will bring to Wales. We have already made an excellent start on informing the people.
316
I am delighted that the White Papers in Wales and in Scotland are selling well—although one is subsidised. It is hardly a common occurrence for people to clamour to get hold of a government publication.
As well as reading our proposals, people need to debate and scrutinise them and to hear what all the different interests have to say about them. For that reason, it is important that the referendum in Wales is not held on the same day as in Scotland. I am sorry to say, but I think it is a matter of fact, that the national media have a tendency to take less interest in events west of the Border than they do in those north of the Border. If the referendums were held on the same day, there is a real risk that our proposals for Wales would receive less public scrutiny and debate. There would be a degree of overlap and confusion—and that is wrong. People in Wales might arrive at the ballot box having heard a great deal about a Scottish parliament but relatively little about the proposals for a Welsh assembly. We need to ensure that these proposals are discussed as far as possible in a self-contained and focused way. That is achieved by holding the two referendums on two separate dates.
Our proposals for Scotland and Wales are different. There is no reason why the two ballots should take place on the same day, but there is every reason to give the people of Wales the time and the opportunity they deserve to hear and debate our proposals before they go to the polling stations.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1A in lieu thereof.—(Lord Sewel.)
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we should at least be thankful that the third group of amendments tabled by me and accepted by your Lordships at Committee stage has been accepted by the other place. Therefore, we can leave for our summer holidays today; otherwise, we would have been here for another week. Occasionally, the Government see the good sense of Opposition suggestions.
As far as concerns the amendments before us today, the argument has not improved since the first time we heard it. If I had put forward an argument like that and noted that not a single Member of your Lordships' House believed it the first time round I would at least have tried a different and new argument on the second occasion. Not even his noble friends agree with the Minister's argument. We all know why the referendums must be held on different days. Frankly, it would be far better for the Minister to admit it than to try to create a web of an argument that we all know is absolutely false.
The referendums are to be held on two different days simply because the Government believe—I suspect that they are looking at the bookies' odds—that there is a better chance of achieving a "Yes" vote in Scotland than in Wales and that if they hold the Welsh referendum a week after the Scottish referendum the Welsh people may be gazumped into giving a "Yes" vote there too. I thought that this Government were against gazumping, but here they want to do it on this most important aspect of our constitution.

317
The argument that the Welsh need another week to debate these issues is the most pathetic of all the pathetic points that have been made. The idea that in that week everybody in the United Kingdom will forget the result of the Scottish referendum and that the whole country will then discuss the Welsh question is imagination on the part of Her Majesty's Government. We all know that the weekend following the Scottish referendum, whatever the result, the United Kingdom press will be full of the results of that referendum. If this argument held any water at all the Government would be holding the Welsh referendum a month after the Scottish referendum to allow clear time between the two. Frankly, I would have had a great deal more respect for the Minister and the Government if that proposition had been put forward. I do not think that I would have been as able as I am now to poke fun at the pathetic arguments that noble Lords have just heard.
If they are two distinct propositions, why did the Government insist that they be debated together yesterday? If they were two distinct propositions they should have been debated on two different days. Even the internal consistency of the Government—
Lord Carter: My Lords, I point out to the noble Lord that it was the Opposition who asked for the two referendums to be debated on the same day.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I asked for the two to be debated on the same day yesterday. If the noble Lord had been here to listen to my speech, he would have heard me say that I did not believe it was sensible given the list of speakers but fortunately most noble Lords followed my example and kept their speeches short. We did not come to the more important debate on salmon until later, but at least we came to it on the same day as the debate started.
The position is as I have said. The Government's case is a nonsense. They hope that they can gazump the Welsh people into giving a "Yes" vote on the back of the Scots. It is not because the Herald, The Scotsman, Scottish Television, Grampian Television or BBC Scotland have a huge viewing figure in Wales. I suspect that very few people in Wales are able to receive even radio transmissions from Scotland, let alone buy Scottish newspapers. The idea that the Welsh will not be able to consider the proposition before them because the airwaves and the press will be full of the Scottish position is just Cloud-cuckoo-land.
We have been repeatedly told that this is a government of honesty and integrity. Would it not be nice just to have a little honesty on this question? Tell us the truth. The truth is that the Government do not believe that they can get a "Yes" vote from the Welsh unless somehow they can browbeat them into believing that the Scots will get something that they will not get. I say to the Welsh people that whatever my fellow countrymen do they would be best advised to give this a very big "No" on 18th September.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I take much cheer and comfort from the argument that has been advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. It is
318
based on the proposition that there will be an outstanding victory in Scotland and a decisive "Yes, yes" vote. I welcome that recognition and concession contained in the noble Lord's argument. The fact of the matter is that we are dealing with two very different proposals. That emerged very strongly from the points raised in yesterday's debate. It is proper that there should be a degree of space between the decisions taken on these questions in Scotland and Wales. That will lead to clarity, not confusion. In those circumstances. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
11.45 a.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 1, page 1, line 6, after ("and") insert ("income")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
2A Because it is desirable to keep the questions to he asked in the referendums as simple as possible.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A. In moving this Motion I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 15 and 16.
The people of Scotland will be asked whether they agree that there should be a Scottish parliament and that a Scottish parliament should have tax-varying powers. The amendment to which the Commons have disagreed would require a specific reference to "income" tax-varying powers. The key to this is to understand what the people of Scotland are being asked to agree with. It is not some vague notion of an independent Scotland or some never-never promise of better things to come from the party opposite—a never, never, never, never, never promise. The people of Scotland will be asked whether they agree with the Government's proposals. It says so on the ballot paper.
The Government have set out their proposals in the White Paper Scotland's Parliament which was published on Thursday of last week. Chapter 7 of the White paper sets out the financial arrangements for the parliament, including the tax-varying powers. No doubt noble Lords are familiar with it. I quote from Chapter 7:
"Subject to the outcome of the proposed referendum on this issue the Scottish Parliament will be given a power to vary tax … The Government propose that the tax varying power should operate on income tax".
It is crystal clear that the tax-varying power on which the referendum asks the people of Scotland to give their views is the power to vary income tax.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. The White Paper which was published only a week ago uses the words "operate on income tax". What the White Paper does not say is that the tax-varying power would, for central government

319
taxation, be confined to income tax. It just says that it "should operate on". That wording does not reflect what has been said on the Government Benches.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, in all honesty, I do not understand the distinction that the noble Lord is trying to make. It is:
"operate on the income tax system".
It is as simple as that. We have no hidden agenda. We are being straight, honest and clear over this. The chapter goes on to describe in some detail how the system would operate; the amount by which tax could be varied; who would be liable to pay it; what would happen in the event of the UK income tax structure changing in future. We have argued consistently that the questions to be put to the people should be at a level of principle, backed up by the detail contained in the White Paper.
If we add the word "income" why not also include the 3p in the pound limit; or the definition of who should pay the tax? We could keep on adding qualifications until the questions on the ballot paper ended up half a page long. Similarly, we are not asking on the ballot paper whether the Scottish parliament should have powers in Scotland over the health service, social work, housing or any of the other areas set out in the White Paper. The points put to the people of Scotland, through the questions on the ballot paper, are the simple issues of principle that are then backed up and illustrated through the details contained in the White Paper itself.
I accept that a balance has to be struck between keeping the question simple and giving voters enough detail so that they are clear as to what they are voting for. We believe that our original wording is right. The tax-varying power is a sufficiently important aspect of the powers of the parliament to warrant a separate question, but it is not necessary to specify every aspect of the powers in question. That is done by and through the White Paper.
To add the word "income" would create a false sense of precision, because it is limited. There are other factors that go beyond income in terms of the level of the income tax; what is and what is not covered in terms of savings and dividends; and who is liable to pay it. The referendum in Scotland will seek consent for the Government's proposals for a Scottish parliament with tax-varying powers. The people of Scotland will well understand what they are being asked to approve.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 2A.—(Lord Sewel.)
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that argument was just about as pathetic as the argument on the first amendment, just as the reasons given by the Commons are pretty pathetic:
"Because it is desirable to keep the questions to be asked in the referendum as simple as possible".
Having said that, I agree with the Minister that we should agree with the Commons. I recommend that to the Government. However I shall explain the true
320
reason. It is that if we put "income" into the question, we should be asking a deceitful question, because the proposition before the Scottish people, contained in Chapter 7, goes a good deal wider than income tax. That we teased out yesterday.
If it comes about, it gives the Scottish parliament power to vary and to change the form of local authority income. The council tax could be increased of course. It could be replaced or added to by a local income tax, a sales tax, or, according to the Government's partner in these operations, the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, by charges. A charge by any other name would sound as sweet, I suppose. We know that the cat has been let out of the bag on this.
Despite the best endeavours of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to answer my question, I am still just a little bit at a loss to understand the answer as to the consequences of what will happen if the parliament cannot raise £450 million. Let me try once again, but for the last time. If the parliament is to be allowed to raise £450 million as its upper limit (index linked), that is fine. At the moment, that is equivalent to having an additional 3p in the pound on income tax for those of us resident in Scotland.
Let us assume that the Chancellor decides to narrow the tax base of the 23p rate. Then obviously the tax take will reduce. Let us say that it goes down to £400 million. So £50 million will have to be raised from somewhere else. Is it to be raised from breaching the 3p in the pound, or—this is the rub, and why the word "income" must come out, as the Commons have rightly suggested—is it to be raised by some other tax?
Frankly, I did not understand the answer that I received last night from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I do not think that anyone bar the noble Lord understood his answer. I have tried to simplify it to see whether I can, at last, obtain an answer from the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. If I cannot obtain an answer—I just warn the noble Lord, Lord Sewel—he will be receiving correspondence from me during the Recess in which I shall be keeping at this issue.
It seems absolutely clear to me that that parliament will have a lot more powers over revenue than just income tax. I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, agrees with me, because he said clearly, and rightly as an economist, that it is foolish to tie a parliament's hands to just one form of raising its revenue. That is why the Government want to overturn your Lordships' amendment. As I said on the previous amendment, a little honesty and integrity would be welcome, and we would know where we were.
When I come to vote on this question, I shall not be voting "No" just to stop the parliament from raising my income tax. I shall be voting "No" to stop it raising a whole raft of taxes on me, my fellow Scots, and the Scottish economy. I commend the amendment to your Lordships. Without meaning to be, the Government are being refreshingly honest.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, referred to me as the partner in crime, or something, of the

321
Government. Let me assure him that on this issue I have no sympathy whatever with the Government. They have made a rod for their own back with the second question on the referendum. If the referendum itself was thought by many of us to be entirely unnecessary, the second question is thought by most of us to be totally absurd.
Why on earth Her Majesty's Government should pick out one aspect of the proposal and invite the people of Scotland to pass comment, I do not know. Why did they not choose the electoral system and ask, "Do you or do you not approve of that?"? Why did they not choose the relations with Europe, referred to in the White Paper? They have invented the second question for reasons best known to themselves. It is certainly not approved of by me or my colleagues on these Benches. The question of whether the word "income" is or is not included seems to me to be relatively unimportant. However, I have to say that the White Paper is clear, whatever the reasons behind it.
Chapter 7, page 21, of the White Paper states:
"the Scottish Parliament has a defined and limited power to vary central government taxation in Scotland and alter its overall spending accordingly".
That is the point. The proposals which will be brought forward in the legislation will constrain the Scottish parliament on those matters that affect central government taxation only; for example, income tax, VAT and national insurance contributions. Those cannot be varied. However, as I said yesterday, the Scottish parliament can do whatever it likes, apart from those matters which are reserved to the Westminster Parliament.
If the Scottish parliament, in its madness, were to decide to tax caravans, hotel beds or whatever, it can do that. That is within its powers. Where I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is that I have a basic confidence in the common sense of the Scottish people and in the politicians whom they will elect, even if they were to elect Conservatives.
At the end of the day, whatever the parliament does, it will have to answer to the Scottish people. The idea that we shall have a parliament in Edinburgh running amok, putting taxes on all over the place, is just Cloud-cuckoo-land. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, should be a little more trustful of the people of Scotland.
My final point to the Conservative Party is that I well remember the arguments on this very issue in the 1978–79 period. I well remember the Conservative Party in general, and the late Lord Home in particular, arguing against the proposals in 1979 on the ground that the Scottish parliament had no fiscal responsibility. Now that fiscal responsibility is being given to it, it objects again. The truth is that it remains against the whole scheme, and it might as well be honest about it.
12 Midday
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I rise to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, for courteously giving way in his opening speech. I intervened because I thought
322
that it was the right moment to ask about the key words which he was reading. He stated that the varying power would operate on income tax.
My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish pointed out that local authority taxation—that is, council tax and so forth—will be separately within the power of a new parliament. However, as regards central government taxation, again I ask whether the Minister can give an assurance that the varying power will be restricted to income tax?
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I rise to ask a question. In yesterday's debate the Minister said:
"Let me—I hope for the last time—put the record straight. What we are proposing is that the Scottish parliament will have power to increase or decrease the basic rate of income tax set by the UK Parliament by a maximum of 3p".
He went on to say:
"We decided that the power should be limited to varying income tax because there was no practical alternative".—[Official Report, 30/7/97; col. 187.]
Is the Minister in disagreement with Ministers in the other place? If the Government wish to have the mention of income tax removed from the ballot paper, what other reason can there be, because they have said clearly to this House that that is all they want?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, developed his argument with the skill that has commanded our admiration throughout. However, I am bound to say that it hardly stood up to examination on this issue. What, after all, was the thrust of your Lordships' amendment? It was precisely to state what the Government say they intend to be the ambit of the tax varying power. They intend to limit it to income tax, and they say so in the White Paper. They propose to limit it to a variation of up to 3p. either way. That follows the recommendation of the Scottish Constitutional Conference. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Steel, that to give a parliament wide powers without financial responsibility is absurd. However, the amendment proposes to write into the ballot paper precisely what the Government propose.
Two arguments have been put forward. Today the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, repeated the argument that he proffered earlier; namely, that it is a question of principle. But he has never explained why one addresses a matter of principle when one asks, "Do you want to vary taxation?", but one does not do so when one asks, "Do you want to vary income tax?". They are equally matters of principle. The other argument was put forward by the other place; namely, that it wants to keep the ballot paper simple. It is not a simplification if what you intend is a variation of income tax to say precisely that.
I intervene as a devolutionist and a Cross-Bencher, but it seems to me that the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, was overwhelming. If he had divided the House I would have followed him into the Division Lobby, as indeed I would on the earlier amendment. Not only is it futile for the Government to object to a formulation of exactly what they propose, but it is extremely dangerous. Beside the Government

323
supporters in the Scottish parliament, there will be supporters of the Scottish National Party, which has a very different agenda. It proposes independence. Its tax varying powers will be utterly different; they will extend to Customs duty because the party will look forward to Customs houses along the Border, which will then be a frontier.
The Government appear to be utterly reckless in framing a question which can be distorted against them by those who are no friends of theirs—the Scottish National Party—who will say, "Yes, the question we put to the electorate was whether they wanted tax varying powers. That is what we want". It is no use the Government saying that in the White Paper they limited that to income tax varying powers, because the Scottish National Party will say, "Who reads a White Paper on holiday, even if it is selling profitably?". It is an utterly unreal argument and the Government are running a grave risk in resisting your Lordships' amendment.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, perhaps I may first reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Steel. The reason for the second question is simply that we are of the opinion that the granting of a tax varying power should not be undertaken lightly. We believe that the people who will be subject to that power should be consulted specifically on the granting of it. We believe that that is the right and proper way forward and that is why we are giving the people of Scotland the opportunity to make a separate and specific decision on that point—
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am listening to him with astonishment. Surely there is a stronger case for consulting on the change in the electoral systems. As the policy of Her Majesty's Government is later to consult the United Kingdom electorate on a change to the electoral system, I would have thought that a stronger case could be made for picking out that one item. As joint chairman of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, my objection is to cherry-picking particular parts of the proposals and sticking them in the referendum.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Steel. I believe that a tax varying power is a fundamental power that is given to a parliament. It impacts directly on the citizens and as they are subject to that power they ought to be consulted on whether the body that is being established should be able to exercise it. I believe that it is qualitatively different from other aspects of the package and that it is why it is right and proper to have a separate question.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked whether I could give an assurance that the tax varying power on central government taxation would be limited to income tax. I give him that assurance.
As regards the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I can only repeat the argument that I and my noble friend Lord Williams have used. We have
324
built this project on the basis of a White Paper which explains the detail and on a ballot paper which asks for approval in principle. That is where we stand. The people will be consulted and invited to make a decision on the two issues of principle. The detail comes through the White Papers.
I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and his usual bravura performance. I must refute entirely the argument that somehow he has teased something out of us in terms of the powers in relation to local authority taxation. It is absolutely explicit in the White Paper that the Scottish parliament will have the power to change the system of local government taxation. We have never tried to hide that. It is there; it is in black and white; and to say that it has been teased out is a total distortion.
Let us go along with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, about the £450 million. I shall try again to shed some light on that matter for him. The 3p. on the income tax at the moment, because of the tax structure, raises £450 million. The noble Lord says quite rightly that you cannot freeze the tax structure at one particular time and assume that that will continue for ever. Noble Lords who have been Chancellors of the Exchequer have tended to vary the tax structure from time to time and have quite understandably and quite rightly introduced different rates.
There may well come a time in the future when the tax structure changes so that 3p. on the basic rate does not raise £450 million, and I had better say for the sake of completeness, index linked at that stage. What happens then is that the Scottish parliament and Westminster agree the basis upon which the £450 million index linked can be raised—in other words, the shortfall matched—by going back to the income tax structure. That is not to be achieved by opening up the opportunity to raise a whole plethora of other taxes. That is not on. It is focused on and limited to income tax. The only changes which will occur will be a product in changes to the tax structure itself.
Throughout our debates on this issue the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has from time to time, at every opportunity, tried to run a scare story. The scare story is that, despite our explicit words in the White Paper, we are somehow opening the door to much wider tax-raising powers in relation to the powers conferred upon the Scottish parliament to raise taxes for its own purposes. We are not. That hare will not run; it cannot run; and to persist is irresponsible scaremongering.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for getting closer to giving me an answer to the question than either he or his noble friend has managed to do hitherto. But let me be clear. It is going to come from the income tax structure. To me that means that either the standard rate will have to be increased by more than 3p. in the pound or the 3p. will have to be extended into the 20p. rate or the 40p. rate. If it is to come out of the income tax structure of Scotland, it must come in one or other of those directions. I should be grateful to the noble Lord if he would indicate whether I am right about that. I am not asking him to look into the future and predict how it

325
will be done. I merely ask him to agree with me that what I suggest is the way in which it will have to be done.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, no, I am afraid that the noble Lord is misconceived on that particular point. On the one hand, he is saying that the tax structure changes and then illustrates that point by saying that we should have to move to the 40p. rate or the 20p. rate. The only reason for any change in the 3p. would be if those rates and structures changed as well. It would not be a movement into 40p. or 20p. but would be as a result of changes in the tax structure, of which we know nothing and have no knowledge at the moment. It may be at some future point.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, will the Minister tell us what information the public is to receive on that subject? I think we were told that a summary of the White Paper will go to every household. Will that summary include all the paragraphs which relate to this matter so that the people know what the ballot paper means? Will there be an explanation and, if there is an explanation, will it explain to people what the Minister has just explained to us? This is quite a complicated matter. If people are to answer a specific question, they must know what it is that the Government are saying.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the summary will be a summary. It will not contain all the paragraphs in the White Paper by any means. We shall make available to the people of Scotland and Wales a summary in simple, straightforward, plain English of what are the powers of the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly, including the tax varying powers for Scotland.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
5 Clause 1. page 2, line 3, at end insert—
("() An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument.")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
5A Because the amendment is unnecessary, as a consequence of the amendment in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 1 proposed by the Commons.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 5A, to which I have already spoken.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 5A.—(Lord Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
6 Clause 2, page 2, line 4, leave out ("Her Majesty may by Order in Council") and insert ("the Secretary of State may by order")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment but propose the following amendment in lieu—
6A Page 2, line 4, leave out ("such day as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint") and insert ("18th September 1997").
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 6A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 6A.—(Lord Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
7 Clause 2, page 2, line 4, at end insert ("under section 1(1)")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
7A Because it is not desirable that the referendums in Scotland and Wales should be held on the same day.
10 Page 2, line 26, at end insert—
("() An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument.").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
10A Because the amendment is unnecessary, as a consequence of the amendment in lieu of Lords Amendment No 6 proposed by the Contmons.
15 Schedule 1, page 4, line 19, after ("HAVE") insert ("INCOME").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
15A Because it is desirable to keep the questions to be asked in the referendums as simple as possible.
16 Page 4, line 22, after ("HAVE") insert ("INCOME")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
16A Because it is desirable to keep the questions to be asked in the referendums as simple as possible.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 7, 10, 15 and 16 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 7A, 10A, 15A and 16A. There is nothing more for me to say.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 7, 10, 15 and 16 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons numbered 7A, 10A, 15A and 16A.—(Lord Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Finance Bill
12.17 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is the first Finance Bill of the new Government that your Lordships' House has considered. It implements the major part of the Budget. That Budget was a Budget for the long term. We are not interested in short-term expediencies that are popular for a day but in the end are damaging to the economy. We will pursue policies whose goal is to ensure stability, long-term growth and sound public finances. And we seem to have made a good start, according to the IMF.

327
After its annual mission to review the economy, it said:
"The new Government has made an excellent start. It has set a high standard for its economic policies, aiming to maintain stability and foster long term growth while seeking fairness and developing human potential. And it has taken decisive steps towards these goals by making the Bank of England independent, introducing a Budget that makes rapid progress towards sound public finances, and initiating welfare to work and other programmes to enhance employability".
As I have said, we are not interested in measures that will be popular for a day. We have taken some tough decisions which some people have found uncomfortable. But I am sure they are the right decisions which are in the long-run interests of the whole country.
Perhaps I may now turn to the contents of the Bill. The prerequisite to improved long-term economic performance is ensuring economic stability. Giving the Bank of England operational responsibility for setting interest rates was the earliest earnest of that aim. However, my right honourable friend's Budget and Finance Bill contribute powerfully to stability.
First, Clause 15 provides for the reduction in the rate of mortgage interest relief. The housing market in the past 10 years has experienced an unsustainable boom in the late 1980s and we are only recently emerging from the inevitable slump that followed it. Stability is essential to home owners. Negative equity has been the curse of many home owners. The situation is improving, but no one wants to see another period of hardship and frustration for home-owners like that. But, equally, we do not want to return to the days when house prices were rising out of control. That is why the Budget was the right moment to announce a further reduction in the rate of mortgage interest relief from 15 per cent. to 10 per cent. taking effect from next April.
For the same reason, Clause 49 implements an increase in stamp duty, which took effect earlier this month. Property sales over £250,000 are now subject to stamp duty at 1.5 per cent. and sales over £½ million are charged at 2 per cent.
As I said, the Budget is aimed at the long term. Investment is essential to the long-term health of the economy, and the Finance Bill contains a number of measures designed to encourage it. Clause 18 cuts the main rate of corporation tax to 31 per cent., the lowest it has ever stood at, and lower than in any major industrialised country. It also cuts the small companies' rate to 21 per cent. These cuts will make it more worth while for firms to invest, as more of the profits that they earn will remain with them and not be passed to the Exchequer.
However, the cuts in the corporation tax rates are only part of the story. The tax system at present contains a significant distortion. When a company retains its profit for reinvestment, it is taxed at 33 per cent., but when it pays out to a pension fund that profit is taxed at 16 per cent. As so much of the stock market is in the hands of pension funds, there is a powerful incentive for them to press companies to pay too much out in dividends. That
328
cannot be right, and the Finance Bill corrects it. From Budget day, tax credits have no longer been payable to pension funds, removing the distortion that I described.
The latter has not been a popular reform with everyone, as debates in another place confirmed. People naturally have concerns about how pension funds will manage in a different environment. They also have concerns about the withdrawal of the foreign income dividend scheme, where we have promised further consideration. But it was the right reform to encourage the sort of long-term investment that we desperately need in this country. The improvement in economic performance will in the long run be good for everyone, including pension funds. Now was also the right time to change the system. Many pension funds are sitting on substantial surpluses which will give them time to adjust to the new system.
There are other changes to encourage investment. At this stage of the business cycle businesses need to be investing strongly. That is why we have introduced, in Clauses 42 and 43, a temporary doubling of allowances for investment in the next 12 months, targeted on small and medium-size businesses. The change is a timing one only; but businesses will pay £230 million less tax next year which will encourage them to bring forward investment so they do not run into capacity constraints at a crucial stage of the cycle.
On top of this general investment incentive, we are proposing, in Clause 48, a special regime for British films. There is great talent and potential in the British film industry and considerable scope for increased investment and employment. We are proposing a relief which will allow 100 per cent. write-off for production and acquisition expenditure for British qualifying films costing £15 million or less to make. But this is not an open-ended relief. It is set to last for three years, after which we will review the position to see how well film makers have responded to the incentives that we are offering.
The centrepiece of the Budget was the windfall tax. Part I of the Finance Bill, together with the associated schedules, sets out the details of how it will work. The purpose of the windfall tax is of course to fund the Government's welfare-to-work programme, which truly represents a new deal for the young unemployed. But the windfall tax is more than just a way of raising the £5.2 billion that we will be spending over the years of this Parliament. It is right in principle to correct the failures of the past.
The privatised utilities were sold too cheaply and have been subject to early price regulation which gave customers a bad deal. The windfall tax addresses both those failures and recycles the money for the benefit of those in our society—that is, the young and the long-term unemployed—who have been victims of the unbalanced economic recovery that we have experienced over the past five years. We have always made it clear that we are pursuing tax policies which are fair and are seen to be fair. Little that the last government did could have been more unfair than their decision to increase VAT on domestic fuel and power to 8 per cent.; indeed, they wanted to raise it to 17.5 per cent.

329
The easiest decision we took in the Budget was, therefore, the one to lower the rate to 5 per cent. which is effected by Clause 6 of the Bill. Of course, we would have liked to have abolished VAT on fuel and power altogether, but we are prevented from doing so by European law. Thanks to Clause 6 all households will be better off from September by an average of £18 a year. But crucially the poorest households, many of them pensioners, will benefit most in proportion to their income because they spend a disproportionate amount of their income on heating their homes, which is what made the imposition of VAT in the first place so unfair.
Cutting VAT will cost about £½ billion a year, which must be made up from somewhere. We have chosen tax increases which further our aim of fairness. Part of the money comes from the removal of the income tax relief for private medical insurance in Clause 17. That relief benefits the few at the expense of the many. There is no evidence to show that that has led to any significant increase in the number of policies taken out by people over the age of 60. In opposition we made no secret of our intention to remove that relief and we have now done so in a way which is fair by allowing existing contracts to run their course with the benefit of tax relief.
The rest of the money that we need to cut VAT on fuel and power—indeed, a good deal more than we need—comes from a powerful package of anti-avoidance measures. I want to make it clear that the Government are serious about attacking tax avoidance schemes wherever we see them. A number of the schemes that were identified relating to VAT and insurance premium tax are being closed down by regulation. Others will have to wait for the next Finance Bill. A scheme whereby employers avoid PAYE and national insurance contributions by paying highly paid employees in the form of money owed by the company's debtors falls into that category.
However, in Clause 26 of this Bill we have been able to tackle a leakage of tax through arrangements to lend preference shares and for share dealers to buy dividends and thus create an artificial tax loss at the expense of everyone else. In Clauses 44 to 47 we have also countered two avoidance devices involving finance leases. In one, finance lessors routinely have a number of subsidiaries with different accounting dates whose sole purpose is to maximise the timing advantage of the capital allowances that they have bought off their lessees. In the other, we are blocking the sale of unused past capital allowances which are transferred to the lessor through the use of sale and leaseback schemes. In addition, as my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget, the Inland Revenue will be carrying out a wide-ranging review of areas of tax avoidance with a view to legislation in future Bills.
Finally, the Chancellor announced a number of measures designed to protect the environment and health. As the new Government's tax objectives that we set out in the Red Book acknowledge, the prime purpose of taxation is to raise sufficient money for the Government to pay for the services which their policies require. However, as the Red Book also makes clear,
330
there is a role for the tax system, and the changes that we make to it to encourage the production of "goods" and discourage the production of "bads". For that reason, we have announced that we will be doing work on the environmental costs of extracting aggregates. We will also be consulting on ways of improving water quality. But in this Bill we have shown that we take our environmental responsibilities seriously. Clause 11 increases the rate of tax on hydrocarbon oils. In particular, it implements the first stage of the Government's new commitment for Parliament; namely, to increase fuel duties by 6 per cent. in real terms a year.
The final measure that I should like to pick out from the Bill is the decision to increase the duty on tobacco. From 1st December, Clause 12 increases the duty by 5 per cent. a year on top of inflation. I make no apology for the size of those increases. They will deter young people from starting to smoke and reduce smoking overall to the benefit of everyone. I hope that in these brief remarks I have set the Finance Bill in context by showing how the tax measures we have taken, and are starting to enact today, fit in to the Government's objectives. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
12.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this is our annual debate on the Finance Bill. At least it has been annual up to now, but it will be interesting to see how many Budgets are introduced in one Session by the new Government. If the new Government follow the previous Labour government, I suspect that we shall discuss Finance Bills more than once in a Session. However, I suppose we are grateful that at this last gasp before the long Recess the Finance Bill is before us.
To an extent the Budget was long promised. It has been clear for some time this year that the Government were committed to a Budget to achieve two things: to introduce a windfall tax on the public utilities and to reduce VAT on heating fuel. However, I suspect that some of the other increases have hit fuel in another way. If one has oil-fired central heating, I suspect that on the one hand one has lost something, but gained something on the other hand. I am not sure what the net effect is.
What else were we told about the Budget earlier in the year before the election, apart from the proposed windfall tax and the reduction of VAT on fuel? Earlier in the year the Prime Minister told businessmen in Birmingham,
"We have no plans to tax at all".
He told Daily Express readers,
"Our plans do not involve raising taxes at all".
He seems keen on the words "at all". He continued,
"If we have any such proposals we will make them clear before the election".
As I have said, there was one clear commitment as regards the windfall tax. I shall not discuss that in any great detail because I made my views known during the debate on the Queen's Speech. However, there was no mention of the other 16 taxes, making 17 taxes in all.

331
There was certainly no reason to have an emergency Budget. I believe I have mentioned my next quote before. I quote from the Economist of 12th April which states,
"Britain's economy is in its best shape for several decades. It has entered its sixth consecutive year of growth with GDP rising fast, unemployment falling, inflation low, exports growing and the balance of payments healthy. There is now plenty of evidence that Britain's century-long relative economic decline has been arrested and, indeed, that it is well placed to improve its relative performance over the next few years".
That passage appeared in the Economist on 12th April before the events of 1st May. I hope that the Minister and his friends in the Treasury will remember that and not try to pretend to us and to the world that somehow everything that happened to the economy before 1st May was a disaster but that since 1st May there has been a miracle. No doubt if they try to do that I, and even perhaps some economists on their Back Benches, will remind them of the long-term reality of the position. I mention another quotation to underline the point I am making about the strength of the British economy which this Government inherited. On 2nd July it was said,
"As we look at this and future Budgets produced by the Labour Administration, we must remember that rarely, if ever, have a Government had such cause to be grateful to their predecessors when it comes to the economy".
I must emphasise the last sentence,
"rarely, if ever, have a Government had such cause to be grateful to their predecessors when it comes to the economy".
That was not a quote from the noble Lord, Lord Desai. It came from the noble Lord, Lord Healey. I remind the Minister of that in case he tries to pretend that everything they inherited from the previous government was dreadful.
We know that we have had economic success. We have seen it. We have seen the unemployment figures fall month after month over the past four to five years. I used to recount that when I stood at the Dispatch Box opposite. At the same time as our unemployment has fallen, unemployment in most of our Continental neighbours has remorselessly risen. Unemployment among young people in particular has fallen by about 100,000 a year in each of the past four years. When Gordon Brown first proposed his windfall tax to help young people, unemployment for those young people stood at 280,000. It now stands at 180,000 and it is still falling. However, in France, Italy and Spain unemployment rates for young people are double ours or worse. I hope that the Government can continue our success in getting young people off the dole and into work. We introduced a number of schemes. Some of them were pilot schemes to try to identify the schemes that worked best and were most economic. If the Government follow that course, I shall welcome it.
The other thing that the Government inherited was an inflation target which had been hit bang on, as Kenneth Clarke predicted it would in the month of the election. The interesting thing to note is that the Budget adds 0.8 per cent. to the inflation rate. The Government have deliberately set out to increase the rate of inflation over
332
the next few months. I shall discuss manufacturing industry later but I suspect that it is having to live with some of the consequences of that.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, if the previous government were so overwhelmingly successful, why were they treated with such contempt by the electorate?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that would require a longer answer than your Lordships' patience should endure while I am discussing this Finance Bill. I do not believe for a moment—I do not think that anyone else does—that it was a question of the state of the economy. In some ways the noble Earl might have asked me a more difficult question. The economy was in a good state. I have quoted the noble Earl's noble friend Lord Healey on that point. Perhaps the noble Earl does not agree with the comments of his noble friend Lord Healey. The noble Earl could have asked why, when the economy was in a good state, did the previous government not win the election? Generally if the economy is in a good state the government in office win an election, and if it is in a bad state they lose it. However, the previous two elections have rather stood that theory on its head. However, I shall not be diverted. I have quoted from the Economist and from the noble Lord, Lord Healey. I do not think that anyone disagrees with the proposition that the economy was doing extremely well on 1st May.
I could quote the words of the IMF and the OECD to back my assertion. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned some quotations. It is a good job that his noble friend Lord Eatwell, who used to do battle with me on these matters, is not present because he gently reminded me at one stage of the odd time when the IMF and the OECD had made wrong predictions about the economic prospects of government. After that warning I was careful how many times I mentioned the predictions of the IMF and the OECD.
I return to the Budget and the economy. When the Government looked at the books—as it is termed—try as they might, they could find no black hole. Indeed the economy was doing better than the November forecasts in the Red Book produced at that time. In the time between my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke's Budget to the end of the financial year, borrowing was £3.3 billion less than forecast. Indeed much of the trumpeted speed with which we shall get into balance is due to greater buoyancy of the economy than was forecast by my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke.
I wonder why we have had these 17 tax rises. Was it because the economy was overheating? If that is the justification—that has been claimed once or twice—why did the tax rises fall so heavily on the corporate sector and not on consumption? If the tax rises were introduced to prevent the economy overheating, they should have fallen on consumption and not on the corporate sector. However, that was not the case. We have heard a great deal, although not today, about rises in spending on health and education. However, none of that is what the Government used to describe—when they criticised us when they were in opposition—as new money. It is money from the reserves and from next year's reserve.

333
Every year—but a bit later than this, and in the current year—the Government use the reserves to help those spending programmes that are under pressure. I regret to say they usually had to help the Department of Social Security because we were not good at predicting our spending in the year ahead. We used to be reprimanded quite often, but it was difficult to predict, given the size of the budget and the different factors. However, that was what the reserve was used for. If a programme was under pressure, it went to help.
On this occasion—the Government have trumpeted it loudly—they have allocated half the reserve nine months before the start of the next financial year. They have not changed the control total; it is still within the control total. Therefore, there is no new money. Presumably the Government have a very good crystal ball and can see clearly that in the next financial year there will not be a need for those reserves: that they can live with half the reserve. I do not believe that that is a responsible way forward, but at least we know exactly where the money is coming from. It is not new money. If the Conservative Government had remained in office, nearer the next financial year the chances are that we might have allocated some of those reserves because that has been the pattern of the past few years.
I turn to some specific points in the Budget. I refer, first, to foreign income dividends. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, did not say much about them; I am not surprised. They are a form of tax relief for British companies with large overseas earnings. The Government said that they were going to abolish them. But when the damage was explained to them—I was going to say that they had cold feet but they did not—they carried on with the legislation. Clause 36 and Schedule 6 to the Bill deal with that. But the clause and the schedule no longer represent government policy. To legislate and then consult is a new concept. I believe that the Government are now persuaded that they cannot undertake what is in the Finance Bill. It is quite remarkable.
I should like to know what they will do. Are we to wait on the next Finance Bill to put matters right? Until that Finance Bill, will they deal with foreign income dividends in the way provided for in Clause 36 and Schedule 6; or will they turn a blind eye to their proposals in the Finance Bill and wait until the next finance legislation to put their mistakes right?
I turn to the other part which I believe important. The Budget claims to help the budget of the Department of Social Security by its welfare-to-work policy. That is fine. As I mentioned earlier, I support anything that can be done to help people back into work, as we were doing. Yet at the same time the Budget endangers the welfare budget by its attack on pensions. The one issue on which I thought we almost had consensus was the importance of our own personal pension provisions, whether through a personal pension or an occupational pension. I know that I am wrong; I have been told that so many times I have to believe it. I am told that the proposals are good for pension funds. It is a doctrine that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has brought before your Lordships' House. I am not sure that too many noble Lords believe him but he keeps on trying.
334
The matter has been expounded best by Ms. Dawn Primarolo, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. On 3rd July at col. 507 of the Official Report she said in another place that it is good for pensions and pensioners, not bad for them. People should understand that the government reforms will benefit pension funds. Will taking £5.4 billion out of pension funds in a year or two's time be good for pensions and pension funds? As I asked the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on the last occasion we discussed the issue, if the Government had taken £10.8 billion, would it have been doubly good for them?
Another member of the Government took a different attitude, but before he joined the Government. When the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, was simply Mr. Simon, chairman of BP, on 1st May he drew the attention of the National Association of Pension Funds to the danger of abolishing tax credits on dividends for pension funds. His remarks were part of a much longer criticism written by John Browne, chief executive of BP. They expressed this simple view: that in the opinion of the board of BP, of which the noble Lord was then chairman, and one of Britain's biggest employers, the plan would be bad for people with occupational pensions and the pensions industry. If I had to choose between Ms. Dawn Primarolo and the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, I would choose the noble Lord. I suspect that he knows a great deal more about the issue.
Put simply, the position is this. Up to now, when a UK company has paid £100 in dividends, £80 went to the shareholders and £20 to the Treasury. Pension funds were then able to claim that £20 back. They will no longer be able to claim it back. They will therefore not gain £100 but only £80. As in previous debates, a little honesty and integrity is needed, with the Government saying, "Yes, the pensions funds will have a problem, they will have a shortfall, but we need the money and that is the way that we shall go about it". But what is said is that somehow it will be good for pension funds.
The other excuse is that pension funds have big surpluses; that many companies have pension holidays at present. Many do, but not all by any means.
Perhaps I may refer to final salary schemes to which the Government pay such lip service and which are so important for many people. If those schemes do not have surpluses, and when the surpluses are used up, they will then require more contributions from the business, diverting funds from the very investment that the policy was set up to help. The only person who can put money into a money purchase scheme to make up the deficit will be the individual himself or herself. People will have to put more money into their pension funds if they are to achieve the pension they think they need when they retire. Indeed, a 30 year-old who expected at 65 years to have a fund of £270,000 will have his fund reduced to £240,000 by the ACT cuts. He will have to put aside £12 a month for the next 35 years in order to undo that damage. Therefore, I hope that we shall not hear that the policy does not do any damage to pension funds. It does a great deal of damage. For those funds

335
which will be brought below the minimum funding requirement, the employers will have to put money in under the 1995 Act in order to make up that difference.
It is a serious matter for pension funds. The Government would do better to be honest about it and say that they believe that pension funds were in a privileged position and they have decided to remove that privilege; and if it means that employers and employees will have either to put more money in or face reduced pensions, they will have to make that decision. That would be more impressive as a reason.
But the policy is supposed to help investments. There is no explanation as to why. I am puzzled why Scottish names have to be changed. Mr. Norman Lamont became "La-mont" and Mrs. Liddell, Chief Financial Secretary is now "Li-ddell". I do not know why Scottish names have to be changed when one enters the Treasury. I am not sure what Brown will be changed to. Mr. Norman Lamont made a reduction from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent. There is no evidence that increased investment arose from that cut. Can the Minister say anything about that in his reply?
I wish to sum up and look at the more general economy briefly. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, as he has done with me in the past, will talk a few moments about the impact of sterling on jobs, and the manufacturing industry in this country. This Government have paid much lip service to the manufacturing industry. I do not think that they are doing it any good. They know that themselves. Various remarks are made in what is now to be called either the Red Book or the White Book, depending upon whether one looks at the white cover or the back cover. I could give your Lordships some clear quotes. I am sure noble Lords have read them. The Government say that investment and manufacturing industry will have difficulties over the high value of the pound. Have the Government any intention of doing anything about it; or will they leave the Bank of England to continue putting up interest rates regardless of the consequences for the rest of the economy?
Is it just possible that in the long summer Recess the Government may decide to take Britain back into the exchange rate mechanism? We should be told that, and this is the last opportunity before the Recess to tell us. I hope to receive a clear answer from the Government. I am just a little suspicious that that might be exactly their intention. They will want to make sure that we re-enter at a value of sterling of which they approve. What value do they approve of? And can we have a cast-iron guarantee from the Government that they will certainly not re-enter the ERM between now and the House resuming in October?
12.50 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I wish to concentrate on the first two objectives set out by the Government in the Financial Statement and Budget Report issued on 2nd July; namely, promoting economic stability and encouraging long-term investment, to which the noble
336
Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred in his opening remarks. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that I shall indeed refer to sterling later.
The Government have rightly concluded that the achievement of those two basic objectives is essential if the other objectives set out in the Budget Statement and underlying the Bill under consideration are to be achieved. Those are: modernising the welfare state to encourage work; high-quality public services; protecting the environment; and developing education and health. In view of the importance of the two main objectives, it is worth considering what measures the Government have introduced in the Finance Bill and in other ways in order to achieve them, and what problems lie ahead.
So far as the promotion of economic stability is concerned, the Government have identified the two main issues as keeping inflation and public finances in check. As regards inflation, they have given increased powers of independence to the Bank of England—an approach that we strongly support from these Benches. I have referred to it on many occasions in previous years. We are delighted that the Bank now has that responsibility; it means that decisions in this area will no longer be taken having regard to political consequences.
In the case of fiscal policy, the Government have laid down the golden rule that over the economic cycle they will borrow only to invest and not to fund current expenditure. Again, that is a concept with which we entirely agree. Their stated aim is to keep the public debt, as a proportion of national income, at a stable and prudent level. The Red Book sets out the details by which those desirable objectives are to be achieved. Time will tell whether the measures taken are successful, particularly when changes occur in the economic cycle.
I especially welcome the Government's identification of the need for long-term investment as a priority objective. I have referred to that need many times in previous economic debates; indeed, by my repetition of the subject, I thought I was beginning to bore the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. He has mentioned it to me in the corridors from time to time. I said: "I'll cease to bore you on that, if you cease to bore me on the great and manifold achievements of the Government in running the economy". I do not think that either of us has in fact stopped doing so.
As the Budget Statement makes clear, Britain's ratio of investment to GDP is low by historic and international standards; and in spite of the improvements to the economy to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred, the gap against other countries has been widening. As recently as 1996 manufacturing investment, which had a particularly bad year then, as a share of GDP fell to its lowest level since records began—a very worrying phenomenon. It is obvious that unless these trends can be corrected there can be no long-term positive prospects for the British economy. I regard the measures introduced in the Budget—which are welcome—to be simply a first step in the process of stimulating investment in the long term; I hope that further Budgets will add to them.

337
That is all pretty positive. The Government are basically following the right lines. But, I now turn to what I consider to be the major short-term problem faced by the Government in the management of the economy; namely, the rapid rise in consumption. In previous debates I have drawn attention to the fundamental weakness in the British economy in virtually the whole period since the end of the war—namely, the way in which boom periods have been brought about by substantial increases in consumer spending, alongside continuing weakness in investment, inevitably leading to subsequent recessions. That has been our experience over practically the past 50 years. In these circumstances, when referring to this issue, I call for a rebalancing of policies as between investment and consumption. It is satisfactory that the Government have decided to place so much emphasis on stimulating investment and have taken steps to that end.
However, in the meantime consumption continues to roar ahead. In spite of the previous Government's estimate that it would grow at a rate of 4 per cent. this year (the estimate contained in the previous Red Book) the figures for June show that it is already rising at 5½ per cent. Regrettably, that is very reminiscent of what happened in 1988. I drew attention to the fact in a debate on 5th March which was answered for the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. The Red Book of that year estimated that consumption would grow at the rate of 4 per cent., a rate identical to that assumed for this year. In the event, in 1988 it rose by 7½ per cent. and was the main factor leading to the subsequent recession.
Returning to the present time, while consumption is rapidly rising, so is consumer credit, which reached a new peak in June. M4, which is the broad money supply indicator, is at its highest level since 1990, when the previous recession set in. There are already gloomy forecasts that we may be heading for another recession. I do not share those views but I fear that there are serious risks ahead unless action is taken.
A worrying consequence of the present situation is the rapid rise in the value of sterling (to which I now turn as I was invited to do by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay), even though there has been a slight levelling off in the past two days. That is undoubtedly already having harmful effects on the engineering sector. I attended a meeting the other day of the Engineering Employers' Federation at which there was shown to be a complete change in all the trends in engineering that were very positive last year—orders at home and abroad, re-equipment, investment and so on were moving up. This year, all those trends are moving the other way, and other parts of manufacturing industry are also suffering. Competitiveness abroad has weakened; but so has the position at home, with imports of manufacturing goods now penetrating the home markets more and more owing to relative cheapness. We were told of German manufacturers who for years had abandoned the British market because of the high costs of the mark now returning. So the situation is serious.
The Government, as a result, face an unfortunate dilemma. They have rightly established a long-term policy, which I fully support, based on financial stability and investment growth, and have taken the first steps
338
towards its achievement. But they are confronted with the short-term risk of overheating. That has been spectacularly stimulated by handouts from the demutualised building societies to which reference was made in a Question earlier. Happily, the members of Nationwide, at least for the time being, have resisted the temptation to go the way of the other societies.
The main weapons in constraining the consumer boom are fiscal, through tax, or monetary, through interest rates. Within the limits of their manifesto commitments, the Government introduced a number of fiscal increases in the recent Budget. Many feel that those do not go far enough but I do not believe that they could have gone further in view of the Government's commitments. The only weapon left is that of interest rates. That in turn has had, and will continue to have, the harmful effect of pushing up sterling.
The major issue is how to deal with short-term risk while at the same time keeping on course for the long-term objectives. At this point I should like to turn to consideration of what is likely to happen with the euro. Whatever happens, it is bound to affect us: whether we are in or out, whether it goes ahead with us or without us, it is a factor which we now seriously have to take into account. We must contemplate what is most likely to happen and what our attitude towards it should be.
The present expectation—at any rate in financial markets—is that the single currency will be introduced on schedule in 1999. It is also assumed that it will have a large rather than a restricted membership and is therefore likely to be relatively weak. That is the present expectation, as far as I can glean from careful study of the financial press.
If British policy is to stay out at the initial stage, the likely consequence in those circumstances is for sterling to remain strong and perhaps to become even stronger. In my opinion, a strong sterling alongside a weak euro is a recipe for very serious problems for our economy.
Both the CBI and the TUC recently concluded that Britain should commit to the single currency as long as the conditions were right and there was a prospect of sustainability. I believe that also to be the position of the Government. No doubt that can be confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when he replies.
The CBI, however, does not consider that entry should be effected at the first wave but at some subsequent date. The TUC considers that all options should be kept open, including first-wave entry. If the Government were to follow the TUC view and declare that all options were open, that could help to reduce speculative currency movements. I therefore believe that there is a great deal in the recommendation of the TUC, subject, of course, to the conditions being right and all the other qualifications. This could bring sterling nearer to an acceptable level, in my opinion. What is an acceptable level? I have always felt that if sterling was quoted at DM 2.50, as opposed to the present DM 3, that would be about right.
It is all the more important, in my opinion, that the Government should keep all options open at this stage, including entry at the first wave, in view of the fact that

339
the UK will assume the presidency of the European Union next year, when firm decisions will have to be taken as to who will participate in the single currency.
Let me sum up my opinion. I believe that the Government have been right in their strategic approach to the management of the economy. They have been right to emphasise financial stability and long-term investment as the basis on which to build for the future. Unfortunately, they are faced with the all too familiar phenomenon of a consumer boom. It will require great skill to deal with this problem while at the same time safeguarding the long-term objectives. I hope that this time we shall not be thrown off course.
1.5 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, in the absence of an opportunity to debate the Consolidated Fund Bill and the appropriation Bill, this is the only opportunity at this time of the year for your Lordships to consider the economy generally. Although we had from both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, a valuable concentration on the Finance Bill and its effects, we have greatly benefited, if I may say so with respect, from the widening of the scope of the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
I must begin with an apology in that it is many years since I was concerned directly with a Finance Bill. I feel that all the more strongly when I look at the list of speakers which contains so many experts.
Secondly by way of introduction, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, not only for his introduction but also for the information which he ensured that I received this morning by breakfast-time. I told him yesterday that one of the points I wanted to raise related to the provisional collection of taxes. That matter is inscribed in detail in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, but most of us do not have that advantage. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for answering in general the points that I put to him and shall be grateful if he will convey my thanks to whoever wrote the letter. There remain two minor points which I should like to raise but, if I may, I will do so by letter rather than detain your Lordships.
My third point is, I am afraid, a familiar one on these occasions. It is a protest against our having to debate this important measure on the day we rise for the Recess. I am afraid that the Government have had a very bad example set them. After repeated protests last year, we finally had an opportunity to debate the Finance Bill, but it was at very short notice on the Friday when we were to rise for the Whitsun Recess. That is a great waste of parliamentary resources. At a time when the Government are considering deployment of parliamentary resources, I venture to suggest that this is a matter which they should consider.
Your Lordships' House has five former Chancellors, four former Chief Secretaries—I see only one present today and no former Chancellor now—two former Governors of the Bank of England, a chairman of one of the joint stock banks and a number of eminent
340
economists, though I think only one is present. There is no other parliamentary chamber in the world which commands such expertise and experience. In my catalogue I forgot to mention the noble Lord, Lord Clark. I also omitted the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who has so many multifarious experiences that he cannot be classified. But it is a great waste not to debate this important measure at a more convenient time.
I want to mention three specific points. The first was referred to by previous speakers; namely, interest rates. New Labour is nothing if not a political menagerie. No doubt it is highly attractive to shift onto the Governor of the Bank of England unpopular decisions about rate increases, which seems at the moment to be the favourite method of regulating the economy.
With respect, I draw attention to the immense skill of the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, Kenneth Clarke, in delicately adjusting the rates and fiscal measures to control the economy. It was a model. I confess that I had not seen that since my own Chancellor when I was in the Treasury. Derick Amory had the same gift, helped in his case by the fact that the economic adviser, Sir Robert Hall, had the same gift of seeing how the economy was moving and making the small adjustments that were required to steady it.
I very much fear that shifting the unpopular decision, which will hit house owners and borrowers, onto the Governor of the Bank of England is bound to cause trouble. In all my adult life I have never known a Bank Governor who has not been a hard money man. There have been three increases in the rate since the present Government came into office. It would surprise me very much if we do not have another. Noble Lords who preceded me emphasised the great damage done to exports if there is too severe an interest rate policy.
These days, there is talk of managing by talking down the sterling rate. That is possible. Perhaps the most likely method is to make noises about joining the European Monetary Union. I am in favour of monetary union and the exchange rate mechanism. Unless they are in place, there will be competitive devaluation, which is a protectionist measure. Perhaps if the Government start talking about Europe, it will be at risk of infuriating the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, but may be useful in reducing the height of sterling.
The other matter that I wanted to mention is again a general one; namely, the borrowing requirement. When we borrow in order to consume the result, we ask our followers—our children and grandchildren—to pay for our own satisfactions. Naturally, I rate access to justice very high. Nevertheless, if we borrow in order to pay for legal aid, we are asking our children to pay for our litigiousness. It is the same with national health. We are in danger of becoming a nation of hypochondriac litigants. So one is bound to ask: for what purpose is borrowing at the present rate justifiable? The answer must surely be: when the benefit accrues to those who have to repay the debt. So if a bridge is built over which they can go, that is justifiable; if education is improved by borrowing, that is justifiable; but what is not justifiable are the transient satisfactions of our generation.

341
The previous Chancellor was very good in reducing the borrowing requirement. But it is still very much too high, on the principles that I have endeavoured to lay before your Lordships. I hope that the noble Lord, when he replies, will be able to tell us something about the borrowing prospect. That seems to me, together with the matter of interest rates, to be the most important matter that we have to face on the long-term view of the economy.
1.17 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I agree with him that, when we discuss the Budget, we have only one chance to discuss the Finance Bill. In the previous two years we were able to discuss the Budget speech during the week in which the Chancellor presented the Budget. This year it was not possible because of the overload of business. But I hope that my noble friend can assure us that in future years time will be found within the Budget week to have a discussion on the Budget speech. We can then wait for the Finance Bill, when it comes later.
I very much welcome the debate so far. I am sure that my comments will only follow lines which have already been laid down by previous speakers. First, I welcome the perspective which the Chancellor laid down; namely, that we only borrow for investment purposes—the golden rule—and that we try so far as possible not to borrow for consumption. In the debate introduced last March by the noble Lord, Lord Pym, I remember that I said that in a sense there is now all-party consensus on a certain basic macro-economic framework. That is to be welcomed. We all agree about that and there is not very much to distinguish between us on that question.
But I go further and draw an implication from what my right honourable friend said. At the top of a cycle we should not have any borrowing at all. We should not have a consumption deficit at the top of the cycle. We are at the top of the cycle, as many noble Lords have said, and I should have preferred the Chancellor to have taken much more out of the economy than he did. We know that the PSBR projection in the previous Budget for 1997–98 was an overestimate. The economy has done so well that we will not have a £19 billion PSBR. We will have a £15 billion or £16 billion PSBR. The Chancellor has reduced it by about £9 billion. I would have preferred him to wipe out the entire PSBR in one year. At the top of a cycle you can do it. If you cannot have a zero deficit at the top of a cycle, when can you have it? If he had been able to do that, he would have given the Bank of England reason not to increase interest rates; or rather to anticipate the slowing down of the economy due to fiscal measures, which would have lessened the pressure on the pound.
My right honourable friend has taken a decision. It is a matter of judgment. He could be right. But he does not want to fine tune the economy with fiscal measures. He wants to leave it to monetary policy. I believe that he could have done a one-off balancing this time, especially because the short-run monetary policy measures which the Bank of England can take do not solve the problem of the exchange rate appreciation.
342
Therefore, we are left with one instrument short. We have to control the booming economy—a consumption boom—but at the same time we have to take care of the exchange rate appreciation. By not taking enough out of the economy through the Budget my right honourable friend left the field open to the Bank of England to take a rather gloomy view and go on raising interest rates. I fear that we have not seen the last of the increases in interest rates. There will no doubt be many more to come.
Some people have argued in the press—Mr. Gavyn Davies is among them—that the Bank should perhaps go for an overkill; that it should increase interest rates not by quarter percentage points but should go for a one percentage point increase immediately. That would mean a quick dip in the growth rate but a quick recovery as well. If you are not going to take the fiscal road to wiping the deficit out, I would prefer the overkill option. If you go slowly—quarter percentage point by quarter percentage point—you will prolong the agony. We may end up with sterling at about three deutschmarks through much of 1997 and a part of 1998 as well.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that that will mean that manufacturing growth will slow down, if not become negative. The Red Book—or the Red and White Book as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, called it—actually anticipates that. It predicts a decline in the growth rate of manufacturing output from 1.5 per cent. in 1997, which by itself is not a very high level of output, to 0.75 per cent. for 1998. This has already been factored in. What we are witnessing now is a two-level change in the British economy. First, investment in the services sector is much stronger than investment in manufacturing. The services sector is more profitable than manufacturing and has been for the past few years. That is a long-term change in the economy. At the same time the strength of the exchange rate is probably going to accelerate this process, at least in the next year or two.
The fact that in the first six months of this year manufacturing exports have stayed up tells me that British exporters are learning to squeeze profits when the pound is strong rather than put the prices up as the pound goes up. How long the profits squeeze can last we do not know. We can only hope that we can go on taking a profits squeeze and go on maintaining an exports growth. However, I fear that what we will have is a slowing down of manufacturing production and we could be facing a growth recession and a considerable slowing down of gross domestic product in the second half of 1998 or the first half of 1999. That will happen because the Bank of England will want to put up interest rates. That will feed the exchange rate.
There is speculation as to whether our making good noises about the euro will have an effect on the pound. Much more important than the noises we make on the euro are the noises the French make on the euro. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, mentioned, if this turns out to be a euro with a large initial membership, so that France, Italy, Spain and perhaps Portugal are in as well as the countries of the deutschmark zone, it will be a euro which will be under considerable speculative attack and it will be a euro into which we certainly should not go.

343
That will mean that the pound will be as strong next year as it is this year. The right thing for us during the presidency would be to say that the euro should not start on time. We should take a firm view that it is not in anyone's interests to have either a weak euro with many members or a strong euro with few members.
We should not have a situation in which one year's deficit number looms so large that we decide on membership on a 3 per cent. deficit and we judge that the French have managed it very well because they are down to 3.2 per cent. or that the Germans have managed very well, by some degree of fudging, to get it down to 3 per cent. That is not the way economies should be run. When we have the presidency we should say that it is in no one's interest in Europe to start the euro at that date. We should say that countries should be allowed to join only if the deficit goes below 3 per cent. for three years. If we do that there will be a much slower and a much stronger evolutionary process for the euro. We are taking the Maastricht deadlines far too seriously. We are taking them seriously. Not only are the mainland European economies damaging their employment and growth prospects, but we are in danger of starting the euro initially weak. That could be damaging.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the prospect of the euro coming in 1999 has acted as a strong pressure point on governments to get their finances in order and that, if there were a prolongation for, say, three years, that pressure would be removed and the likelihood of ever getting back there could be much reduced?
Lord Desai: My Lords, we should not postpone it unconditionally. We should say that a performance of 3 per cent. and below should be maintained for a number of years. Only countries which have maintained a good budget deficit record should be allowed to join. Let us merge the stability pact and the Maastricht conditions in one package and let us have a later start date. Let us postpone it so that the markets are convinced that the deficit numbers shown by European countries are not fudged or faked numbers, as they certainly are in the case of Italy and are likely to be in the case of France and perhaps Germany as well. It will do us no good at all just to say that the conditions have been laid down and that therefore, by some narrow interpretation, we fulfil them and start on 1st January 1999. The freedom not to start should be explored. That is the leadership we should give during our presidency. We should say that having these silly conditions dominating us is no way to run economies.
I do not want to say too much about the Finance Bill itself because that is something we cannot amend. But perhaps I may point out one thing about the effects on pension funds. Perhaps one unintended side-effect will be that the pension funds will be able to switch out of equities into gilts. That might make it easier for governments to borrow money. It may be slightly cheaper to finance government debt than before, which may not be a bad thing at all.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, to follow the logic of that, it will also mean that the yield on gilts is likely to go down and that the returns will be less than they are currently because the equity return will be much higher.
Lord Desai: My Lords, yes, indeed. It may be a measure to direct part of the City more towards gilts and away from equities. It is a technical advantage and I do not believe that it is a bad thing.
I cannot resist saying something about VAT on domestic fuel. I do not believe that my noble friend will like me for this. I have said for a long time that income elasticity for domestic fuel is 3.5 per cent. People who gain from cuts in the tax on domestic fuel are the rich. The poor have to pay the taxes, and if the poorest are to be relieved of the burden, they should be given an income transfer, but do not reduce taxation because that only benefits people like ourselves and we are the last who should be favoured.
1.31 p.m.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, I follow the sentiments expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Your Lordships' House has a wealth of expertise in finance. This House has no power over money Bills and consequently finance debates here are sparse and infrequent. That is a mistake. Although money Bills cannot be altered by your Lordships the advice that can be given from this House should not be ignored.
We have to look at the background to the Budget. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish was right when he said that this Government have been extremely fortunate because they have taken over an economy which was booming. Unemployment was going down and inflation was low, and so forth. There is no question that the economy of this country was one of the best in Europe, if not the best. I remind noble Lords that that is very different from the economy that the Conservative Party inherited in 1979. I believe that all economists would agree that at that time the economy was a shambles.
I first came to the other place in 1959. I believe that I have spoken on every Budget and I have served on many finance standing committees. It worries me that this Bill has been guillotined. One cannot possibly guillotine a Budget debate when running an economy. Consequently, there has not been close scrutiny of the Budget by Back-Benchers in the other place. I deplore the steamroller effect of pushing through legislation without the normal close scrutiny by the other place.
I believe that the health tax on elderly people in the Budget is a spiteful tax. For the life of me I cannot see why, if a person does not want to rely on the National Health Service, they cannot be helped to have private health care. That aspect of the Budget will mean extra pressure on our National Health Service.
I turn now to the pension dividend changes. I believe that the Government have not looked at how pension funds work. The actuarial value of pension funds, particularly for the future, is dependent on the fact that there were fiscal incentives for pensions.

345
The Government have taken that away. There are no party politics involved in the views of the National Association of Pension Funds. It has worked out that over 10 years it will mean that some £50 billion will be taken out of pension funds. There are long-term consequences. At the moment the pension funds are in surplus, but they could easily go into deficit. There is a surplus at the moment because of the boom on the Stock Exchange, but that may not last.
If that means that an employer has to put an extra tranche of money into the funds in order to counter the cost of £50 billion over 10 years, although the present members of pension funds may remain members, I am worried about the new employees who might come into a business. It may be that there will be resistance by some employers to admitting new employees into their pension funds.
Another point I want to make concerns the base rate. I believe that successive governments have paid far too much attention to the economic effects of the base rate. We all know that there is a consumer boom at the moment in this country. If I have an overdraft of 100 units and I am paying two points over base rate, which is probably what I would have to pay, I shall be paying 8.5 points per 100 units. The Chancellor has put the rate up by a quarter of 1 per cent., but that is not going to stop me spending money. If I know that, from my other resources, I can service an overdraft of that magnitude, another 0.25 per cent. is not going to mean much to me.
As regards the base rate, mortgages have been hit, and also manufacturers, because of the strength of sterling. It means that we shall suck in imports because of the strength of sterling. People will be encouraged to go abroad for their holidays. I do not object to that at all, but it is all a drain on the balance of payments deficit in this country.
We should have concentrated on the other side of the coin to stop or check the consumer boom. I believe that more emphasis should have been given to spending taxes such as VAT. One has to accept that children's clothing, food, and transport would be affected. But the rest of the VAT catchment area could have achieved what is required. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, said that when we are at the top of the cycle we must have no public sector borrowing. That is easily said, but the only way in which one can stop that is either by reducing government expenditure or increasing taxes. There is no other way. It is axiomatic. I remind your Lordships that that happened under both the last government and the one before that. Indeed, some years ago the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, managed to do that, as did my noble friend Lord Lawson.
We should pay far more attention to matters other than the blunt instrument of raising interest rates by one quarter of 1 per cent. and then by another one quarter of 1 per cent. because there is no question but that that really squeezes our manufacturers and their exports. If they lose exports the consequence is that there are bound to be lay-offs in the workforce. That is the main danger of sterling being too strong. I hope that in the future the Government will look for a more practical way of containing consumer spending by doing something about the spending taxes.
1.40 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I begin by supporting my noble friend Lord Desai in his suggestion that we should revert to our previous practice with regard to such debates. I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to assure me that when we have a longer gap between a March Budget and the end of a Session, we shall be able to have a debate on the Budget as well as a later debate on the Finance Bill.
As this is to be our only debate on the subject, I hope that your Lordships will not mind if I do not deal with the details of the Finance Bill but concentrate instead on the general policy behind it. The Chancellor was right to say—he said it again today in an interview in The Times—that he is concerned about getting the economy right and in balance over the long term. He is right about that, but I fear that he is showing an obsession with concern for the short term. He is concerned about the short-term rate of inflation, the short-term public sector borrowing requirement and the short-term level of interest rates. That is in order to achieve a 2.5 per cent. target for inflation, as he said in his instructions to the Governor of the Bank of England.
In the short term, I would not consider it a disaster if inflation was 2.7 per cent. or even 3 per cent. We have known higher rates over the years. I believe that the economy could live with a rate of 3 per cent. over a short period. I could certainly do so. I believe that in the longer term the Chancellor is right to have a target figure of 2.5 per cent. As he told the Governor in that famous letter from which I shall quote in a moment, the Governor will have to explain a rate which is 1 per cent. higher or lower.
However, I believe that the Chancellor has gone too far. Indeed, somewhat unusually for me, I support what was said in a leader in The Times on 26th July, which stated:
"The announcement that the British economy has been growing at a slightly faster than expected pace would normally, one might think be greeted with a little enthusiasm. When that annualised rate of 3.4 per cent. coincides with an underlying rate of inflation clearly beneath 3 per cent., unemployment falling below 6 per cent., and a benign balance of payments …".
The Times is, of course, right and I am not claiming credit for this Government or the previous government. It is a fact. The leader then stated that despite everything that is happening in the economy,
"movements in inflation remain tiny".
That is absolutely true. There is no sign yet of a take-off in the rate of inflation.
However, as a result of the obsession with the short term, growth will inevitably be lower and the tax take will not be high enough to finance reasonable levels of public expenditure. As I have said previously in your Lordships' House, I believe that to sustain for two years the present level of public expenditure bequeathed by the previous government is to attempt to do too much and is to do too much damage to the public sector. The health service, education and local government are in desperate need of money. There can be little doubt about that, yet we are committed to doing nothing more than was done by the previous government.

347
What I dislike most of all is that apparently no money can be transferred from one department to another. If one department saves money, that money cannot be used in another department because we are committed to the existing levels of expenditure in each department. Which department will therefore save money? Any department that manages to do so will spend it again pretty quickly, and before 31st March in any given year. We all know that that often happens.
Perhaps I may give an example relating to another public sector body. I have the honour to be the trustee of the Victoria & Albert Museum and chairman of its finance committee. Similar things must happen in other public sector bodies. We have had cuts of £1 million a year for three years. That may seem small to your Lordships, but it is not small to a museum. The museum is now expected to operate at public sector wage levels which are not only very low, but which have been frozen in real terms for a long time. The net result is that many employees—wonderfully decent people—accept those cuts because they fear that the alternative would damage the museum and their own employment prospects. They are not on big salaries now, but they have to live on reducing salary levels in real terms while they see the "fat cats", to use the phrase of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, doing rather better. Therefore, I am not at all pleased to see levels of public expenditure being maintained and I have to tell the Chancellor and my noble friend on the Front Bench that that is my view.
I turn now to the balance between tax levels, interest rates and the exchange rate which everybody agrees is too high. Even the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said that it was too high, although he did not tell us how he would reduce it. The Opposition do not have a case because they say that there should not have been a Budget. However, they do not tell us what would have happened to the exchange rate and the economy without the Budget or without the increase in interest rates.
My own view is that having higher taxes and higher borrowing to pay for slightly higher public expenditure in the short term would be right and would not massively increase the rate of inflation or the public sector borrowing requirement. Indeed, it would not be a disaster if the PSBR did not reach zero by the end of the century. All the highly intelligent Ministers and Prime Ministers of the 15 countries which were present for the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, on which incidentally there was no referendum, decided that borrowing 3 per cent. of GDP in any given year would be all right. We will be well within that.
We are told by some—by the CBI, for example—that the Chancellor should talk the rate down. That is a strange request for such an organisation to make. Can anyone imagine the Chancellor getting up and saying, "Ladies and gentlemen, I have to tell you that the pound should be lower". I am sure that that would work immediately. It would have some effect, but I doubt whether it would have the effect that the CBI has in mind, although I am not entirely sure what it does have in mind. Some noble Lords may have been members of
348
that distinguished body, but I am not sure whether many of its members would support what the CBI is telling us that we should do.
Those who complain about the high level of interest rates and the exchange rate do not have the faith in the Chancellor which the CBI has. They do not believe that he could talk down the exchange rate. Not even the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, could talk down the exchange rate because he would not do anything. As I have said, he would not have had this Budget. The noble Lord has now returned to the Chamber so perhaps I may say to him that he never does better than when he has a terrible case. That has been true today. I always enjoy listening to the noble Lord. He made a great speech earlier, but what worries me is that he never has a serious case to make. That certainly applied today, although this is a serious matter on which we are having a serious debate about something which is very important; namely, the high exchange rate and the high level of interest rates.
The Chancellor said that he does not want either a boom or a recession. Nor do I. I do not know what will happen in the economy in the next year. Various assumptions have been made about what proportion of building society windfalls will be spent. They are called "assumptions", but in non-jargon, they are guesses. No one knows what will happen. I willingly concede that I do not know. However, I would rather risk a slightly higher rate of inflation than the dangers of recession and a reduction in growth of the kind that we are all too likely to have.
I was not always in favour of the idea of the Chancellor giving the Governor of the Bank of England and the Monetary Committee the right to decide interest rates. It was generally applauded when he first did it. I am not sure that everyone applauds it today. One reads in the Queen's Speech what the Government say about that matter:
"The central economic objectives of my Government are high and stable levels of economic growth and employment … To that end a Bill will be introduced to give the Bank of England operational responsibility for setting interest rates, in order to deliver price stability and"—
this is my emphasis—
"support the Government's overall economic policy, within a framework of enhanced accountability".
We did not read anything or hear anything about such a Bill in the letter to the Governor from the Chancellor. Can my noble friend inform the House when he comes to wind up whether there is to be a Bill confirming the instructions to the Governor and the Monetary Committee on how inflation should be controlled. The letter to the Governor is slightly different from what is said in the Queen's Speech. In that letter the Governor of the Bank of England is informed:
"…I said that the monetary policy objective of the Bank of England will be to deliver price stability (as defined by the inflation target) and"—
this is my emphasis—
"without prejudice to this objective, to support the Government's economic policy, including its objectives for growth and employment".

349
It appears from that that the Governor and the Monetary Committee should take account generally of the Government's economic policy but that the overriding matter that they must take into consideration is inflation, regardless of any other consequences to the economy. That is quite clear to me given the words "without prejudice to this objective". The letter makes no mention of a Bill to confirm that. If there were to be a Bill I would not be in favour of that kind of qualification. However, the Chancellor also says in the letter to the Governor of the Bank of England:
"Of course, I have to take into account that any economy at some point can suffer from external events or temporary difficulties, often beyond its control. The framework I propose is based on the recognition that the actual inflation rate will on occasions depart from its target as a result of shocks and disturbances".
I do not believe that anyone will dispute that that is likely to happen from time to time. However, in his letter he makes it quite clear that the target that he has set of 1 per cent. up or down will be fixed just once a year. It will not be changed in times of volatility. On this occasion it will be slightly shorter because the Budget next year will take place in the Spring, but normally, whatever be the volatility, we are told that the target will be changed only once a year. It appears that the Governor and the Monetary Committee—all of them are very nice people—will have a target and policy imposed upon them by the Chancellor that will place a degree of rigidity on the economy, with which I am not at all happy. The case of my right honourable friend the Chancellor for stability in the long term is well made but not necessarily in the short term at present levels. It will keep growth eventually at too low a level. Growth in the economy is vital if there is to be any hope of improving public services that we all know need to be improved.
The case for a Labour Government, new or old, has been well made and accepted by the country, but eventually it must be a government that is rather better than just the Conservative alternative. There is no point in just being better than the Conservative alternative. We have to do something—which is what we are in politics to do. I hope that we are in politics to give help to those who need it, both through the public services and otherwise. To do the kinds of things that I fear are being done will not provide that kind of help.
1.55 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, if I agreed with a word that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, uttered on the question of inflation I would immediately sell all of my conventional gilts and buy index-linked. I have no intention of doing either. I entirely agree with what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and my noble friend Lord Clark of Kempston about the difficulties of and objections to debating the Finance Bill so late in the day.
There are dangers as well. I remind the Government Front Bench of what happened almost 15 years ago when the Labour Party, then in opposition, decided to take the Finance Bill hostage and ambush it as part of an industrial dispute. The trap was sprung at four o'clock in the afternoon of Friday, 24th July. The Motion for Third
350
Reading was opposed. A Division was called and the Lobbies were cleared. At the last moment the leaders of the ambush bottled out—which I believe is the current phrase—and the government of the day got their business. I was the Treasury Minister in charge of the Bill, so I realise the trauma to which such events can give rise. A government who decide to conduct business right up to the wire face certain dangers. I have no reason to suppose that the present Opposition intend to ambush this Bill today. But it is the duty of the Government to keep sufficient of their members on tap in order to defeat any such move, as we did in 1982. I say no more about that.
I should like to raise the question of consultation on major changes in the tax system. I do not do so in any sense of criticism of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who has always answered innumerable Questions and supplementaries with great knowledge, patience and courtesy. Just occasionally one gets the feeling that his direct knowledge has run out and, in the immortal words of Edmund Burke, he relies upon his imagination. I propose to deal with the exchanges that occurred on Monday of this week regarding consultation on tax changes.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith asked whether there had been any consultation over the decision in the Budget to abolish the tax credit for pension funds. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, did not mince his words. At col. 8 of the Official Report he said:
"My Lords, under existing Budget procedures it is not appropriate to consult".
That point was pursued in the next column by my noble friend Lord Boardman. In reply, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the Government had had barely two months. In a moment I shall challenge that. He went on to say (at col. 10):
"Clearly consultation of the wider kind referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, continues to take place, but not in the specific run-up to a Budget".
Over a very long period of time—certainly as far back as 1920—there have been very detailed consultations on major changes in the tax system. The question therefore is whether what was done in this Budget represents merely a standard sort of budgetary exercise or an important change in the tax system. I rely in evidence on the words of Mr. Gordon Brown in the course of his Budget speech. At col. 306 of the Official Report of the other place he said:
"The objective behind our two-year long corporate tax review"—
notice that he said two years, not two months
"begun in opposition, has been to develop a tax system that encourages personal savings, favours higher levels of investment, rewards long-term investment, and is fair to all".
It would be difficult to imagine a more comprehensive definition of a major restructuring of the whole tax system, but, not content with that, he went on (in col. 311) to refer to:
"A country equipped for the future should have a modern tax system based on principle".
That is how he justified his proposals. One will find that repeated again and again in the briefing that was issued at the time of the Budget.

351
There is no question whatever—I have brought along a large selection of documents to prove it—that in circumstances such as this consultation was not only the right procedure but the one almost invariably followed. In 1982, when a massive consultation document was produced by my right honourable and learned friend Sir Geoffrey Howe, as he then was, the result of the consultation was that nothing should be done. That shows that consultation can sometimes put a government right, although not necessarily justify what a government are doing.
I have great sympathy with the Labour Party over this—I say this sincerely—because it came into office with an immense programme—I am not now trying to criticise the programme—and the appalling problem of trying to carry such a programme through two Houses of Parliament in a limited period of time. It had great problems. I in no way contest that, but I want it put on the record that with major changes of this kind the proper course is consultation.
I turn to another aspect of the subject. The Budget changes have been attacked, and in my opinion rightly attacked, on the ground that they impose an additional tax burden of some £5 billion on pension funds and other institutions. But in fact the changes are worse and more dramatic than that. They represent a further and massive step, undisclosed, towards the double taxation of dividends. For more than 150 years—since income tax was introduced in this country in 1789 by Mr. William Pitt the Younger to finance the war against the French dictator, the Corsican Napoleon—the British system has taxed dividends once and once only. Following the system of the deduction of tax at source, of course the tax is collected first on the company and then passed on to the individual shareholder.
But in 1965 Mr. Harold Wilson's Labour Government changed over to what is most misleadingly called the classical system under which dividends are taxed twice. There is nothing classical about that system. In fact it was imported from the USA which imposed it in 1913 when it introduced its federal income tax. That was over 100 years after a system had been introduced in this country. Under that so-called classical system, dividends are taxed twice. That is, one taxes the company first on the totality of its profit—what it retains itself and the dividend—and then one taxes the dividend a second time.
From the Labour Party point of view, particularly from the point of view of old Labour, that was a wonderful idea. It soaked the rich. Potentially it raised a great deal more money. It allowed the Labour Party to indulge in its traditional pantomime of pretending to run the economy.
When the Conservative Party came back into power in 1970, it dismantled that system and returned to the long-established British system of taxing dividends once and once only. Tragically, at that stage a mistake was
352
made. We adopted the French imputation system. The French have many very great virtues, but they do not extend to designing a decent tax system.
Lord Marsh: Hear, hear!
Lord Cockfield: I entirely agree, but I shall not go into that. We adopted the imputation system because at that time we were on the verge of joining the European Community, and it was thought, mistakenly as it proved, that the imputation system would become the general tax system in the European Community, and it would therefore be to our advantage to adopt that system. The French imputation system does not tax dividends twice. It taxes them once and once only. Unfortunately the system is opaque and difficult to understand and its results are often misinterpreted.
The story must go on to Mr. Norman Lamont. Mr. Lamont was obsessed by a problem called surplus or unrelieved advance corporation tax. Incidentally, he did a great deal of consultation, so I am not criticising him on that ground. As a first step to meeting the problem of unrelieved advance corporation tax, he reduced the credit given to the shareholder for the tax already paid on the dividend from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent. It is a peculiarly warped piece of logic to say to A, who complains that he is paying too much tax, that it is the intention to increase the tax on B and then to point out to A how much better off he will be because, while the tax is being increased on everyone else, it is not being increased on him.
From the Treasury point of view, that manoeuvre has the great merit of raising an additional £1 billion of revenue. But the truth of the matter is that it was the first step—and a big step—back towards the Harold Wilson system of the double taxation of dividends. It is quite incomprehensible how a Conservative Government could ever have done that or ever have allowed their Chancellor of the Exchequer to do so. I can imagine only that the Government never understood what was going on and most certainly Mr. Lamont never understood what was going on. The argument recently advanced that it was the first step towards a basic rate of income tax of 20 per cent. is complete nonsense. It is not borne out by any of the documentation at the time and nor as a matter of logic does it hold water. It was done solely in the mistaken opinion that it would help the problem of surplus advance corporation tax and that on the side it would produce £1 billion of revenue.
Mr. Gordon Brown has now built on that and effectively he has reverted to the Harold Wilson system of the double taxation of dividends. The move has been disguised by transitional provisions and by measures to soften the blow on individuals. The picture is further obscured by the fact that the first victims are tax exempt bodies. Therefore, it appears merely to be an attack on the pension funds, but it is not. Ultimately, it is an attack on all of us and the day will come when that is apparent.
It is a massive return to the economics of old Labour. The economic arguments are bogus. The Harold Wilson system failed to deliver the alleged benefits. A quarter

353
of a century on it will fail again. In the end, even the Exchequer will lose. Professor Northcote Parkinson's fifth law was:
"Expenditure will rise to match the revenue available".
The £5 billion of extra revenue which will be raised by this manoeuvre has been mortgaged in advance in expenditure commitments. Mr. Gordon Brown is already hard at work digging his own grave. I hope only that we do not fall in it with him.
2.11 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, rightly drew attention to the failure of the Government to consult on many issues. That was a direct result of a totally unnecessary rush towards a Budget. It was part of the "Gung ho, let's show we are hitting the ground running" attitude. No doubt the Government were clearly inhibited by that failure to take advice and consult on a range of complex issues. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, that in respect of pensions, to which I shall return in a moment, the consequences will go much further than pensioners and pension funds.
Following a distinguished tax expert, I wish to begin with a few words in praise of income tax and those who administer the system. I must admit that I do not like paying it, no doubt like many other Members. Indeed, I spend a considerable amount of money and time seeking to avoid paying it. But it is efficient, flexible and, above all, fair.
However, in the Budget the Government did something which I cannot remember any other government doing. For purely electoral reasons they completely ruled out the use of income tax, despite the high cost and radical nature of some of their policies. I am pleased to see that at least one other noble Lord, hot from the Cabinet Room, has joined the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on the Liberal Democrat Benches. Before they sold their souls for a seat in the corridors of Downing Street and an occasional trip in a government Mondeo, the Liberal Democrats spoke out consistently against that policy as being purely an election gimmick. They were right. It makes no sense for a government to write out of consideration the possibility of using direct personal taxation as one of the tools available to them.
They were completely committed, despite that, to very expensive policies, some of which are of very doubtful efficacy. Everybody feels the need to do something for the unemployed, in every country. The one fact that has become crystal clear over the years is that not very much is achieved by throwing money at the problem. But the Government were elected on those policies, and I hope very much to be proved wrong. However, even in that regard what they seek to do is marginal.
The Chancellor then took a calculated view that he could get away with the windfall tax and the abolition of tax credits because the public simply would not understand the implications. The windfall tax was presented as part of the crusade against the so-called fat
354
cats—vastly over-paid people of little value to society, the sort of people who can be found on a No. 10 guest list.
Of course, the reality is different. That belief that there are things called companies which can be plundered and that that has no impact on people is a mixture of ignorance and a deliberate attempt to mislead. Companies do not have any money of their own. A tax on the utilities is a tax on their owners, otherwise known as shareholders. Those shareholders are not the rich.
There is a lot of mythology in the Labour movement about money, the City and large companies. Overwhelmingly, shareholders take the form of pension funds, insurance policies and particularly in the case of the utilities, the privatised companies, a very large number of small, individual shareholders. The majority of the individual shareholders uniquely in the privatised industries have an average shareholding of something like £2,000. That is because those people invested in the privatised companies precisely because they believed that it was safe because it was government sponsored. They invested at the invitation of the British Government in a public flotation. Some years later, the present British Government decide in retrospect that the issue was under-priced. They then say, "On the basis of that, the profits are too big". They say it is a one-off, but it will not be because those things never are once the door is opened. In deciding in retrospect, that the issue was underpriced they reneged on the original deal and sequestrated some of the shareholders' funds.
It will not be disastrous because of the sheer size of the companies. But it is a very dangerous precedent when people invest in a prospectus, particularly a government-backed prospectus, and then find that the basis upon which they bought is subsequently changed.
Of course, it is perfectly legal. The Government have a very large majority. With that majority, they can do virtually anything they like. But that is the commercial morality of a banana republic and not in the interest of this country.
The issue of tax credits is different. The implications are very wide indeed. As the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, said, they go a great deal further than pension funds and the impact is as yet unknown. Being charitable, I do not believe that the Government knew what they were doing when they took that action. I am not sure that that is a particularly flattering remark to make about a government. They go down that road and then say, "Well, we did not consult so we do not know what is actually going to happen but we will do the best we can". That is extremely worrying. The implications are wide and still unquantifiable.
The basic facts are clear. That measure will have a major, wholly adverse impact on 7 million personal pension holders. I do not believe that anyone disputes that view. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said that it will get a lot better in the future. I must say that I have fired sales people for selling policies on that basis. However, it is generally accepted that the figure will he 7 million people or thereabouts.

355
With the greatest respect, it is simply absurd to claim that it can be other than highly damaging to that very high number of ordinary people. William Mercer, a well-known firm of independent consultant actuaries, has published its first considered judgment. It estimates that the effect on personal pensions will be about 0.75 per cent. That does not sound very much, but the reality is devastating. For example, for someone with 20 or 30 years to go before retirement, it means that he would have to increase his contribution by between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. to get there. It is not a question of choice. Most people will not be able to do it. If the Government did not know that that would be the effect, they should not have done it. That is not a piece of political propaganda; it is actuarial arithmetic. You do the arithmetic and that is the result. It is nowhere near as complicated as people outside the industry believe. I feel that I should declare an interest as I have a direct financial interest in the pensions industry and in the investment industry, which I have declared before.
The problem goes even further. The noble Lord, Lord Clark, mentioned the likelihood that employers would switch out of final salary schemes to the disadvantage of the people concerned. Arthur Andersen, another professional independent firm of consultants, decided to take a look at the matter. It surveyed 50 companies in the FTSE 350, employing over 500 people. That is not arithmetic; it is people's replies to a questionnaire. In response, two-thirds of them said that, as a result of the change in the tax credit position, they had already decided to move from final salary schemes to money purchase schemes. Moreover, 6 per cent. said that they were considering getting out of employee pension schemes completely. Again, that is not guesswork: those were the answers obtained from a questionnaire sent out by a reputable, internationally-known firm.
I could go on, but the effect on millions of people who are trying to provide for their retirement is massive. Many who left SERPS—with a lot of prodding from government—now find that they are worse off than if they had remained in it. The implications are interesting. If one looks at pension mis-selling, although it is different, it is clear that the people who mis-sold pensions knew, in most cases, what they were doing and should suffer as a result. But the government of the time, to give them the benefit of the doubt, did not know what they were doing. So some people deliberately chose particular pension schemes because they thought they were better than SERPs. They then contracted out of SERPS and into the other schemes, only to find that they would have been a lot better off if they had stayed with SERPS. I shall return to that point. It is retrospective mis-selling of pensions in a big way by government.
There is also a problem with local authorities and their pension schemes. They now find themselves in a special position. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, quite rightly said that, because there has been no consultation and no time to work it out, no one knows what the final position will be. That will come out in the actuarial studies. Therefore, no one knows what the cost will be,
356
but obviously local authority finance directors have to make estimates. They may be wrong; but they have made the best estimates they can.
In that respect I give a few examples. These are the estimates drawn up by professional people acting in their professional capacity to the best of their ability. The figure for South Yorkshire is £7 million, for Merseyside it is £9 million and for Greater Manchester it is £10 million. One could go right down the list of unbudgeted expenditure which is now facing local authorities. I believe that they will have just three ways of dealing with it. One is to reduce staff, another to reduce services and the third way is to increase local taxation. These are different policies which are perfectly legitimate in different circumstances but they are not consequences that should arise by accident as a result of major legislation.
The Government's official line on this shambles is extraordinary in its naivety. There is no time to discuss the technicalities. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, said that there will be a switch out of equities into gilts. Some Members of the Government see that as a good thing because they are worried about the risks posed to carefully managed pension funds by equities. Of course that switch helps the gilts market. However, the moment one helps the gilts market, the value of gilts rises and immediately the yields fall. People in pension schemes have to invest their pension funds in gilts because they have to buy an annuity. Therefore, overnight, they will receive lower returns. People believe that the financial services industry is immersed in impenetrable mystery but it is simple. It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of arithmetic. When prices go up, yields come down. When yields come down, those people who have invested achieve a more profitable capital position and a less profitable income.
Most pension funds are primarily directed towards income. However, mature funds will have as great a concern with capital. The idea of a government wandering around this minefield, taking a decision and then saying, "Whoops, look what happened here we did not think that was going to happen", is terrifying. There is no doubt at all that what the Government expect to see happen is most unlikely to happen. They believe that that which is crystal clear to them is not even dimly apparent to companies such as Shell, ICI, Glaxo and the major R&D companies. They have not noticed that they should spend a little more on investment. The Government will not only tell them that they should do so—all governments tell industry what it should and should not do—but will try to force the position to make that happen. I do not think that it will happen and there is no evidence that it will.
This Government include people who are highly respected in local government, academia and the law. They are people of real talent who have good reputations. However, it is a fact—this is not intended to detract from their skills and achievements—that few of those people have any experience or interest in business or commerce. This Government do not have a Harold Leaver or a Jack Diamond. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will not mind when I say that they do not have a Joel Barnett.

357
The culture of the Labour Party has always been suspicious of the Stock Exchange and its activities. Words such as "gambling" and "casino" are regularly used. Yet within days of entering office the Government concluded that they should go ahead with their policies in this area. As a result they have dealt a blow to the pension plans of 7 million people, far greater than Maxwell and mis-selling combined. The side effects are massive. The Government have become involved in trying to directly affect the share market and Stock Exchange. Yet I have heard it said—I am sure that it is not true—that some of them believe that P/Es are little green things served with fried cod. If the Government are working in this way, it is a terrifying prospect. They will live to regret it. The tragedy is that many people who were not responsible will pay the price.
2.30 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it was said, I believe of the late President Kennedy, that he may or may not have been a good president but he was a hell of a speaker. Rising above party controversy, I believe that we can say that about the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. My mind goes back to the time when he was an infinitely promising youngster. He sat beside me in the Wilson Cabinet. To adapt a phrase used of Gladstone, he was rising over the stern unbending socialists. I do not know whether the noble Lord feels that he still says the same thing, or has changed totally. I visit prisons a lot, and murderers and people say to me that they feel remorse. Does the noble Lord feel remorse at having been such an ardent socialist? I do not know. Perhaps at some time he will tell us. However, he speaks with enormous feeling and, frankly, it makes a strange impression on me, his old colleague and admirer on that Cabinet Bench all those years ago.
I shall detain the House for a very few moments. I have a question to put to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I am glad that he is not totally inhibited these days. I should have much liked to have seen him playing a large part on the penal front, but he seems to have a mixed sphere of influence. I have given him notice of my question, and told him that I do not expect an answer or a comment. I hope that he will lay my fundamental and unavoidable question before his colleagues today. It is not a question which would have puzzled the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, in the old days. He would have given a very positive answer.
In recent times I have said that this is the most critical moment in the penal history of this country. I adapt the language a little to talk about our social history. This is the most critical period in our social history.
At the last election, I put to an excellent candidate this question. Does the Labour Party still believe in the redistribution of wealth in favour of poorer classes? No one can fail to understand the question. In the old days no Labour Government would have had any difficulty in answering the question. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, would have had no difficulty in the days when he sat beside me.
That is my question. I realise that there are arguments the other way. I have changed; we have all changed over the years. The Catholic Church has changed. Some time
358
ago we had Vatican II. I am not against all change. I do not suggest that. Nevertheless, when I was a young Conservative, working in the Conservative Research Department, an article in The Times said that unfortunately wealth is like heat. It is only when it is unequally distributed that it can perform what the physicists call work. I quoted that with alacrity. I probably supplied it to Mr. Neville Chamberlain, my chief, as a useful piece of spokesmanship. That was and remains an argument. It convinces many good people, better people morally, I dare say, than me. It convinces Christians, including, I am sure, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, a good, Christian woman. The argument is plain enough. If one allows people to receive the rewards of their commercial activities, that will benefit the poor in the long run. Some people call it the "trickle down" theory. Whatever it is, the theory is extremely prominent throughout the world. People are allowed to achieve something and are rewarded, and in the end the poor benefit more than under any attempt at redistribution.
Whatever answer is supplied, we cannot get away from the question: do we favour redistribution towards the poorer classes and an increase in social justice? Looking back at the history of this country, roughly speaking, half of the 34 years preceding 1979 were under Conservative rule and half under Labour rule. During that period the income and wealth of this country were redistributed in the direction of the poorer classes. Then Thatcherism came in and there was an abrupt change. That change continues to the present day. It represents a redistribution of wealth in favour of the rich.
I saw some figures the other day, although I do not lay too much stress upon them, indicating that over the past 10 years the income of the poor has remained roughly the same; whereas the very rich have become far richer. Now, that trend is established as a fact. Do we in the Labour Party support that trend? Or do we return to the traditions of the Labour Party? It is a simple question. I do not ask it of the noble Lord, whose heart is in the right place, if my saying so does not embarrass him.
I am always nervous of paying compliments to Ministers since it might damage them. I may have fatally damaged the career of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, by suggesting that one day he would be Prime Minister. I said the same of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and it did not do him any good either. I am not sure that that was not what ruined the prospects of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, as a future Labour Prime Minister. So I shall be careful. Subject to the reservations mentioned, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has his heart in the right place. Today he is a government spokesman and bears that responsibility. Having been a spokesman of one sort or another in this House for over 20 years, I know how careful one has to be. One cannot speak as one would perhaps wish to do if one were on the Back Benches. So I do not expect an answer today. But there is the question. It cannot be escaped.

359
As I understand it over the next two years we are more or less committed as a result of election pledges not to spend more money on welfare. So be it. We have gained a tremendous majority with a manifesto of that kind. I hope that we shall be in power for five years. After those five years are up and the next election comes, I hope we shall be able to produce a policy of which the late Clem Attlee would have been proud.
2.37 p.m.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, I wish to spend a very short time drawing attention to a problem that is not dealt with by the Finance Bill. It was in a debate on 27th March 1996 that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, drew your Lordships' attention to the urgent need to simplify the rules governing capital gains tax. The introduction of self-assessment of income tax has increased the need to amend those complex procedures. I wish therefore to speak briefly about that problem.
Capital gains tax is an established and well-accepted tax whereby a capital gain is taxable above a certain level. The rules are complicated, largely because the gain is taxable, however many years it takes for the gain to emerge, provided only that it has emerged since March 1982 or from the date of purchase if the item was bought after March 1982.
Money has fallen in value since March 1982. Because it would be unfair to tax a gain that has emerged only as the result of a fall in the value of money, a device termed the "indexation allowance" was introduced into capital gains tax legislation. It is a device of Byzantine quality, about which I must go into some detail in order that your Lordships can appreciate the nature of the problem.
I think I can do no better than quote the pithy description of the indexation allowance given in that debate in March 1996 by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. He explained that, in order to calculate a capital gain, five steps have to be taken:
"Step one: you deduct the retail prices index at March 1982, or at the later date of purchase, from the RPI at the date of sale in order to obtain an adjusted RPI. Step two: divide the adjusted RPI by the RPI at the date of purchase in order to obtain a readjusted RPI. Step three: you multiply the cost price of the investment by the readjusted RPI in order to obtain the indexation allowance. Step four: you add the indexation allowance to the actual cost price in order to obtain the adjusted cost price. Step five: you deduct the adjusted cost price from the sale price and there is your taxable gain".—[Official Report, 27/3/96; col. 1724.]
That is a Byzantine procedure which is clearly too complex for most who assess themselves and attempt to complete their tax return without professional advice.
The introduction of self-assessment of income tax carries the necessary corollary that the processes should be capable of being easily understood by all. In fact, the calculations can become much more complicated. Let me give an example. Every time there is a rights issue during the period when a share is held, the calculation must be repeated, as the RPI will be different at the date of a rights issue from that which prevailed when the share was purchased. Again, any investor who decides
360
to take advantage of an offer of shares instead of a dividend needs to undertake the calculation at the time he receives the additional shares.
It has been suggested that much of this could be avoided if taxable capital gains were limited to gains made over the period of the past two years because the need for indexation might then be avoided altogether. If that is not acceptable, some other system must be devised which is capable of being widely understood and operated, not only by the man in the street but also by the peer on the Clapham omnibus.
2.45 p.m.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, first, let me say how much I have enjoyed today's debate. I am indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for introducing it today. I have learned a great deal from noble Lords far more experienced and knowledgeable than I am. I am indeed grateful to your Lordships for your kind attention.
Not all noble Lords will agree with everything that Her Majesty's Government have done since taking office and some may share the concerns which are increasingly often heard nowadays; namely, that the Government are rushing through too much legislation without providing sufficient time for parliamentary debate. In that sense I worry that, intentionally or unintentionally, the role of Parliament, including that of your Lordships' House, seems to be being diminished.
Nevertheless, I appreciate the opportunity that we have today to debate the important matters contained in the Finance Bill. I also want to say how very delighted I was to learn today of the appointment of Mr. David Clementi as Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. I have worked as a colleague of Mr. Clementi for 20 years and have the very highest regard for him.
I must admit to a degree of disappointment in the Chancellor's Budget speech. It does nothing to alleviate the real economic problems that we face. At a time when there is a growing need for measures to encourage savings rather than consumption, it is to be greatly regretted that, instead, the Government have adopted measures that will discourage savings.
I do not want to talk today about the windfall tax, on which much has already been said in your Lordships' House and elsewhere. But in that connection also I believe that the Government hit the wrong target, as was so eloquently and clearly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. The windfall tax will do nothing to encourage investment by overseas as well as domestic investors in United Kingdom equities.
My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish told your Lordships that pension funds will no longer be able to reclaim the 20 per cent. advance corporation tax credits. The abolition of those tax credits means that tax exempt institutions effectively will be subjected to a 20 per cent. tax charge on their dividend income from United Kingdom companies, which would have to increase their net dividends by 25 per cent. in order to provide the same return as they do now to pension funds

361
and to charities. The latter will benefit from a 2-year grace period and then some compensation on a declining scale for the next five years.
I understand that 19th April this year was designated Pensions Day by the Labour Party's campaign team. Mr. Tony Blair, at the time Leader of the Opposition, said in a pensioners' rally in London that day:
"My message is be warned, your pension is not safe with the Tories".
Look what happened! The Secretary of State for Social Services is quoted as having said that the pensioner deserves a better deal. The Chancellor, to the contrary, has dealt him a severe blow.
The Chancellor's measure will encourage consumers to spend rather than save for their retirement. It is the opposite of what the economy now needs. Furthermore, it makes investment in United Kingdom equities relatively less attractive than before compared with investment in other kinds of assets, such as fixed income securities and foreign equities. That may well lead professional fund managers to reduce the proportion of pension funds which is invested in UK equities. That proportion is currently around 55 per cent. in a typical case.
Your Lordships will understand that the effect on share prices will be to reduce the prospects for capital gains at the same time as increasing the cost of capital to British companies. Pensioners may, therefore, find that not only is the dividend income of their funds reduced but that the capital value of their funds is also adversely affected, a so-called double whammy. That is from a government which have pledged to advance the long-term interests of the many and meet the people's priorities.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that one would have to be very optimistic to believe the Chancellor's claim that the abolition of dividend tax credits will actually boost investment. I think that the Chancellor does not pay enough attention to the relationship between yield and value. Neither, apparently, does he recognise the relationship between share price level and ability to invest. The effect of his proposal will be to divert £5 billion a year from investment into government expenditure.
I should declare my interest as a trustee of the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund. In the year ended December 1996 we were able to disburse £12.5 billion as direct charitable expenditure. This is money that is provided to former and current members of the Royal Air Force and other countries' air forces that fought with us in the Second World War, such as the Polish Air Force, in relief of sickness, disability, accident, infirmity, poverty or adversity. Our calculations show that for the year 2004 our main fund, together with its principal subsidiary funds, will suffer a loss of income of nearly £1 million as a result of the Chancellor's measures. This calculation assumes no increase in dividend payments during the period, so I believe the real loss will be much greater. The situation is the worse because investment income is our only increasing source of income. Our other principal sources of income—public support,
362
Royal Air Force support and legacies—are all declining and are expected to continue to decline. I believe the other service charities face a similar situation.
It is also relevant that demands on the fund are increasing and will be nearing their peak at the time these changes take full effect in 2004. Nevertheless, I was happy to learn that the Government plan to review the taxation of charities and hope that this review may provide an opportunity to reimburse the losses that the charities sector will face as a result of the changes.
I am also a trustee of the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund Staff Pension Fund, which will suffer an immediate annual loss of income of some £100,000. I believe therefore that the parent charity will have to suffer an additional burden in that it will need to increase its contributions to the staff pension fund by around 2 per cent. per annum in order to maintain the minimum funding requirements. Mr. Peter Murray, the chairman of the National Association of Pension Funds, was reported as saying that public and private sector employers will have to provide over £50 billion of extra pension contributions over the next 10 years, money which could otherwise have been used for investment. This works out at roughly £5 billion a year. However, this amount of additional contributions is what is needed to cover the shortfall in annual income. It is not the amount which would need to be added to the total principal amount of our pension funds now in order to maintain their dividend income stream.
The total pension fund pool in this country amounts to around £600 billion. Of this a little over half is invested in UK equities. Assuming no change in dividend payments, this amount would have to be increased by more than £75 billion in order for the current level of dividend income to be maintained. Alternatively, some companies may be able to increase their dividend payments. However, the Chancellor said in his Budget speech that the present system of tax credits encourages companies to pay out dividends rather than reinvest profits. I assume, therefore, that it is not through increased dividend payments that he intends that the income shortfall should be made up.
The Chancellor also reminded us that many pension funds are in substantial surplus and at present many companies are enjoying pension fund holidays. What he did not tell us is that around 40 per cent. of pension funds of quoted companies will not be able to meet their minimum funding requirements as a result of these measures.
The attack on pensions was an easy move for the Government to make because most people do not fully understand the advance corporation tax system. The Chancellor's move is perhaps easier to understand if one considers its effect on the heralded stakeholder pensions and citizens' pensions. Clearly, the abolition of advance corporation tax credits has substantially reduced the potential cost of a compulsorily-funded pension scheme as far as the Exchequer is concerned.
Unfortunately, the Budget introduces anomalies between different ways of saving, which is likely to lead to pension funds attempting to disguise themselves as

363
personal equity plans or the soon-to-be-introduced individual savings accounts, in order to continue to receive advance corporation tax credits.
The reduction to 31 per cent. in the rate of corporation tax is, of course, welcome, but within two years it is likely that additional pension fund contributions will more than offset this benefit. The Budget has done nothing to address the structural imbalances within the economy. It has increased the incentive to spend rather than to save. It has made it more likely that there will be further interest rate rises leading to an even stronger pound. Against that background the prospects for our manufacturing sector maintaining its creditable export performance look increasingly bleak.
I must apologise for having detained your Lordships for too long. Other noble Lords have covered other aspects of the Finance Bill. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Mackay in what he said, especially on the subject of foreign income dividends, which is now causing so much confusion and uncertainty. I earnestly hope that the Minister will look again at the bitter blow that has been dealt to the country's pension funds and encourage his right honourable friend to reconsider his proposals in respect of advance corporation tax credits. I thank noble Lords for listening to me.
2.57 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I would like to begin by answering a question which was asked by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish in terms of Scotsmen changing their names. "Don't say Brown, say Hovis". That would be an insult to that great loaf in the context of this half-baked Bill which we have before us today, which has been improperly drafted and improperly considered—a strong argument for the Bill being considered in detail by this House. That is an argument which I believe will become unanswerable should the party opposite ever get around to reforming this House, as it has said it intends.
It is a Budget and a Bill which have brutal effects on industry. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, quoted parts of the IMF report which approved of what the Chancellor had done. He left out the bits where it pointed out the damage to industry and suggested that consumers should have been more heavily taxed. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, was able to fill in those missing parts in his peroration.
I must do my best to adopt the non-adversarial and inclusive approach which is being hymned by the party opposite, and perhaps confine myself to the side-effects of this Budget, and to some words on the RPI, which has featured in many speeches.
"It's good to talk", as they say, and perhaps it would be a good idea if the Chancellor was to do some more of it, as my noble friend Lord Cockfield so admirably said. He should at least talk to his colleagues who have great plans for the economy and for the future of this country, such as the introduction of a new pension and social security system and a long-term approach to the way in which we look at investments. As the noble Lords, Lord Marsh and Lord Barnett, pointed out, it is
364
no good talking about long-termism and then looking at the short term in all the measures that one takes. The Wood Mackensies of this world, when they look at pension funds, say that they are looking at long-term performance, but they measure it quarter by quarter and so long-term performance just becomes a succession of short-term performances and any real sense of long-termism goes out of the window. If the Chancellor does the same and measures all his activities by the short term, then long-termism will not have a look-in.
The Gladstonian settlement for the Chancellor has set him apart and made him an institution which is both adversarial and non-inclusive within government. It is something at which this Government, if they are true to what they profess, ought to take a look.
The Chancellor should have talked in particular to his colleague the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, who could have told him in a moment what a mess he was making with FIDS. Indeed, on the day after the Budget, BP wrote to the Chancellor telling him that if he persisted in that, it would list in Luxembourg and would no longer be part of the FTSE in London. Within the next few days, about a quarter of that index had similarly written to the Chancellor. That is the motivation behind his change of mind. If the Chancellor had had the sense to talk to anybody who understood anything about major companies, he would not have made that mistake.
The Chancellor could also have talked to Martin Taylor of Barclays, who could have told him something about the effects of the proposed tax changes to leasing. Leasing has, indeed, been used by banks as a tax avoidance scheme, but it is a tax avoidance scheme with excellent side-effects for industry. It has made cheaper, and has encouraged, investment in capital goods by British companies and at least half the cost of that so-called "tax avoidance" has gone into benefits for British industry. Barclays may look around for a month or two for other ways of sheltering from tax and it will find them because it has some excellent people on board. As far as I can understand what is being said at the moment, it will find such a shelter in schemes that will benefit overseas companies and individuals, not British companies. The net cost to Barclays will last for a month or two, but the net cost to British industry will be of the order of £0.5 billion per annum.
Martin Taylor might also have had something to say about the moves to stop market makers benefiting from dividends and providing liquidity to markets over dividend dates. If dividends are made so unattractive to people, tax avoidance schemes will be built around them. You cannot avoid that. Now that that incentive has been increased, more such schemes will spring up. Why choose to attack one of the main mechanisms of liquidity in the London market and allow the abuse to appear elsewhere?
There has to be an understanding of the fact that the tax avoidance industry will always be one step ahead of the Treasury. What the Treasury has to do is impose a morality and to make sure that people do not take it too far and that those abuses that occur are controlled and have beneficial side-effects. The windfall tax is a direct

365
attack on any reasonable concept of morality between the Treasury and the taxpayer, particularly the corporate taxpayer. Its effect will be to push people into what perhaps I may describe as an "Italian attitude" of institutionalised tax avoidance and deceit. I should be very sad to find our tax system going down that road.
If the Chancellor had chosen to talk to almost anybody about his proposed changes to pensions tax credit, he would have been put right. So many noble Lords have referred to this today that I do not want to speak at the length that I had planned, but I am sad that my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire is not here today because, as a professional, he would have been able to enlighten the Government on the way in which actuaries go about the business of valuing pension funds. They do it on the basis of income—and what other basis is there for valuing a share? It is all that the long-term shareholder ever gets from a share. When he sells, he does so to somebody who wants the income that is yet to be generated by that share. To do so on any other basis would be a form of pyramid selling. It is right to talk about market value, but market value is related to future income and the Government have cut both that and the actual income at a stroke.
The Government have also taken the unusual step of reducing the accepted value for the underlying growth rate of the British economy. It will be interesting to see how actuaries take that into account when they look at the prospective dividend growth rate in their pension funds.
Actuaries are being asked to swap the immediate certainty of dividend flows for an extremely sketchy uncertainty of the possibility of greater dividend growth in the future. That dividend growth is not due to come from anything that the Chancellor has done; it is due to come from companies further cutting the dividends that they pay in order to create money for reinvestment. That will merely compound the problem of pension funds and pension fund shortfalls. They are extremely unlikely to do it and I cannot see any benefit to companies from that move.
The Budget misunderstands the basic role of dividends, particularly if one is looking at tax-exempt funds and pension funds. Dividends are a mechanism for moving cash from cash-rich and cash-generating companies—from the cash cows to the young calves of Britain who require some food. Pension funds take their dividends and reinvest them in companies that need the cash. Now the cash will be stuck in companies that do not need it. One will have breweries with bulging coffers, but young high tech companies that we need for the future must turn elsewhere for it, because it will not be in the hands of the institutions that used to have it.
The Government have great plans for pensions. In making this move on taxation they have cut off many of their options and alternatives far too early. It would have been much more beneficial had they saved this change, should it have been made, until their entire plans for the pensions and savings industry had been in place. As many noble Lords have said, there will be a good number of side-effects, some unknown but some already obvious. There will be a gearing up of British
366
industry. The pension funds will want to have back their income. Future issues will not be in the form of shares but in the form of convertibles. There will be leveraged buy-outs.
One of the extraordinary side-effects of this Budget is the possibility of windfalls for individuals. The Budget is supposed to be a response to the problems in the economy created by windfalls, but it has been done in such a way as to ensure that companies indulge in share buy-backs on a scale that has never been seen before. That will create yet further windfalls in the hands of those lucky enough to hold those shares. It will make the whole business of venture capital much more difficult because the higher risk end of equities will be the area from which pension funds will flee in their search for income. It will make pension funds more short term and industry more short term in its attitude. A company that is highly geared must have a more short-term attitude.
It will poison any movement there may be towards final salary schemes. It is perhaps more correct to say that it will hasten the rush away from final salary schemes. It will have an immediate effect on individuals who are to retire. An individual who retired a day before the Budget would receive 13 per cent. more in pension than an individual who retired a day after the Budget. If one looks at the effect of the measures, it is an immediate tax on those who are retiring. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, has said, this can be made up only by those of us who have 20 or 30 years to go by a 30 per cent. increase in contributions.
Further, it will make property companies a relatively unattractive investment. It will be 31 per cent. more expensive for an institution to hold properties through a property company than through direct investment. By and large, this means that the property market as a whole will become much less fluid, active and efficient. It will result in the movement of assets overseas where there is not the same disadvantage on the income front as there used to be. As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, has said, it will lead to a move back into SERPS. To be in SERPS is now more profitable than to be out of it. That will cost the Government dear. It has been estimated that over time it may account for half the benefit that the Government hope to receive from this tax change. It will also impose on industry an enormous upfront cost in making up its pension schemes. Industry will gain no benefit from it unless it does what the Government supposedly urge it to do and cuts its dividends so that it has more money to invest. If it does so it will merely compound the problem.
But enough of what everyone else has said. I should like to deal now with the retail prices index. This has become an important part of our economic management. It is the target that the Bank of England sets, and it has been given only interest rates as a mechanism to meet that target. When inflation was running at 10 per cent. a year, errors in the RPI did not matter all that much. It did not matter if it was 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. wrong. The difference between 9 per cent. and 11 per cent. was not part of the public consciousness. However, when one speaks of an RPI target of 2.5 per cent. errors in the RPI matter a great deal.

367
In March 1996 the Bank of England published a paper entitled Measurement Bias in Price Indices. That looked in particular at three sources of error in the RPI. It referred to outlet bias, because the RPI does not take account of the fact that people would look at various shops and choose to buy at the cheapest one. The movement from the more expensive to the cheaper shops is cut out of the RPI and so the RPI overestimates inflation. It is late in bringing in new goods. It waits until new goods have reached the plateau of their price progression. It misses out on the bit when they are dropping steeply in price, and, again, overestimates inflation as a result. It misses out changes in quality, as is occurring continuously with goods such as computers, and overestimates inflation as a result.
The Bank of England's conclusion was that the RPI, as a result of those three factors, might be an up to 1 per cent. overestimate of inflation. Things do not stop there. The RPI includes interest, as a proxy of housing costs. So if the Bank of England puts up the interest rate, it puts up the RPI. The Chancellor has fitted himself with a set of self-twisting knickers. He cannot do anything about it. The more the Bank of England sticks up interest rates, the more the inflation rate goes up, and, presumably, the more it has to stick up interest rates to try to bring it down again.
The RPI includes house prices as a proxy of house maintenance costs. That is ridiculous. In a period of high house price inflation as we have at the moment, maintenance prices have not increased by, 25 per cent. in the past year. The RPI does not include the effect of loyalty cards, BT's friends and family scheme, and all the other schemes that organisations have to keep customer loyalty, which have greatly reduced the cost of shopping in places such as Tescos, and the cost of telephone calls. But those reductions are not in the RPI.
The family expenditure survey upon which the RPI is based is acknowledged to be unreliable. It has to be fudged for drinks, sweets and tobacco. If you look at the way in which the weights have changed over the past five years, it is supposed, under the family expenditure survey, that we have not spent a penny more on telephones. It is still only 1.5 per cent. of our expenditure. It is the same over each of those five years. But the amount we have spent on rail travel has apparently fallen from 0.6 per cent. to 0.4 per cent.
There are a number of other aspects of the survey which raise some eyebrows as to whether anyone has tried to connect what it is saying with the real world; whether they have compared the minutiae upon which it is based of innumerable surveys of shops and people with what is happening in the economy as a whole.
It includes indirect taxation. That is an extraordinary thing for it to do. The Chancellor taxes us indirectly through raising the price of cigarettes, and it is in the RPI. If he raises income tax, it is not. What is the argument for indirect taxes being in there? Why should we look at inflation in that way? It is not, it is taxation. There is an index published (the RPIY) which excludes that. Is that not the direction in which we should be going?
368
There is nothing in the RPI for major elements of our expenditure on the NHS, education, or roads. Just because they are done through the Government, does not mean that they are not part of inflation as experienced by ordinary people. Certainly their effects are, because if we are getting inflation in those areas it comes back at us in tax.
We have to get the RPI right. It seems possible to me, on the basis of my quick look at it, that we might have an RPI inflation which is zero at the moment. We might be basing our entire economic policy in terms of interest rates on trying to get down an inflation which is already not there. We have to use a measure which is accurate. It is enormously important that the Bank of England should be running its interest rate policy on a measure based on reality.
In conclusion, I ask whether the Government will follow their own premises: to open up the process of setting a Budget; to apply the principles of inclusiveness and non-adversarialness to the way in which, internally, they generate their Budget decisions; to make a new settlement for the Treasury so that individual Ministers can take on more responsibility. They are asking the Scots to take on the responsibility for their own budget, but individual Ministers still do not have to live with the consequences of their decisions. They are treated by the Treasury as if they were babes in arms. There needs to be a more equal split between the responsibility for money taken by the Treasury and that taken by Ministers, hard though that might be for the Treasury to accept. It might also result in it coming a few centuries up to date in its accounting policies.
I hope that the next Budget, which is not long away, will support the long-term projects for the success of this country which the Government profess, and that it will rescue us from "Brown's bust", which seems to be the fatal result of this Budget.
3.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the length of the debate and the expertise of those who have taken part give lie to the claim that your Lordships have had an inadequate opportunity to consider the Finance Bill. At the beginning, I was inclined to divide the debate into one about process—in other words, the consultation and other processes leading to the production of the Budget and subsequently the Finance Bill before us—and product, which I thought would be the content of the Finance Bill and its implications. I now see that my taxonomy was inadequate. There is indeed a process and I shall try to spend as little time as possible on it. There is also product—and I refer to the contributions which are related to the Finance Bill.
However, there is a third section which appears to me to have nothing to do with the Finance Bill or the subject we are debating today. I would love to follow my noble friends Lord Barnett and Lord Desai in their speculation about the way in which the economy is going. They know far more about that than I do and I am not qualified to do so. However, I am in no way capable of following the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for example, who spent a long time discussing the retail

369
prices index, or the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, who spoke about the indexation of capital gains tax. Neither of those subjects had any connection with the Finance Bill which is before us.
I shall deal as quickly as I can with the issue of consultation and the nature of the process
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I know that he has not taken part in previous debates on Finance Bills. The tradition has been that they range a good deal wider than the Bill; they have the double function of being a general economic debate and the debate on the Bill. I believe that if the noble Lord checks he will discover that his noble friends took that view when they sat on the Opposition Benches.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that I have recognised that it is entirely proper that the debate should be about the wider economic issues. I believed that in referring to my noble friends I was acknowledging that. But some contributions have gone somewhat beyond even that proper wider definition.
We have been told that there was inadequate consultation on the Budget. On 1st May we had the largest consultation on the economic policies of this country that has taken place for five years. The result was overwhelmingly clear that the previous government did not sustain the confidence of the people of this country in their economic, social or other policies. During that consultation period—that long election campaign—all the issues of taxation, redistribution, equity, economic growth, employment and investment were aired at great length. Such consultation will continue as far as the Government can encourage it. We believe that there should be public debate on these issues and that the Government should take a lead in—I will not say "guidance"—ensuring that the debate is well-informed and constructive.
What we did not do during the two months between the election and the Budget was to consult on specific issues such as advance corporation tax and pension funds. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. Two aspects are involved. First, as the noble Lord well knows, once one starts consulting on an issue of that kind the pension funds will take forestalling action and will see to it that the large companies in which they invest anticipate any change in taxation by increasing their dividend payments.
The noble Lord referred to the experience of Mr. Norman Lamont in 1993. I think he will find that Mr. Lamont did not consult on the reduction of advance corporation tax for pension funds and that, even if he did, the effect of his reduction in advance corporation tax was quite different from ours because it was not accompanied by a reduction in corporation tax. That makes the whole package that we are now presenting rather different from his package.
We have been told that the process of the passage of the Bill was inadequate because of the use of the Guillotine in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Clark, referred to that. This Bill, with only half the number of
370
clauses of the previous Finance Bill, had far more time on the Floor of the House of Commons than that Bill did. If one takes clauses per hour, it can be shown that debate in another place was entirely appropriate, as indeed it has been in this House, bearing in mind our responsibilities. Therefore, I reject utterly any claim that there has been inadequate parliamentary consideration or consultation in relation to the Finance Bill 1997.
I turn now to the product rather than the process—the more interesting aspect of what the Bill contains. First, I address the issue of whether we needed a Budget which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, in his opening speech. I find it remarkable that it should be suggested, on the one hand, that we did not need a Budget at all and it was perfectly all right to carry on without any adjustment to fiscal policy; and, on the other hand, we should be criticised, as we have been from all sides of the House, for an inadequate constraint of consumer spending. That was the perfectly legitimate point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I do not agree with it. The IMF does not agree with it. But a number of noble Lords have said that we have failed adequately to constrain consumer spending, which has damaging effects on exchange rates and inflation.
The fact is that the PSBR is planned to reduce by £7 billion in this year and there will be a further reduction next year. That requires that there should be a readjustment of fiscal policy of the kind which is being put forward in this Budget. I cannot accept that it would have been possible, even if it had not been required by our election manifesto and victory, not to proceed with a Budget this summer rather than waiting for a whole year.
We turn then to the issue which has concerned most noble Lords; that is, pensions. On that we have had what can only be described as hustings speeches. Noble Lords have drawn much larger conclusions from the relatively modest changes in advance corporation tax for pension funds than is justified by the extent of what is actually taking place in this Finance Bill.
For example, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, from his great expertise, gave us a considerable discourse on the history of the corporation tax system. But without in any way being qualified to disagree with what he said about the history of double taxation, the changes proposed in the Budget do not result in the reimposition of double taxation. The changes are related specifically to pension funds and they amount to the removal of double relief. Those who are not liable for taxation—pension funds and charities—will no longer be able to claim that from the dividends which they receive from companies. Therefore, they are being put in the same position as everyone else. There is no attack in this Budget on the single taxation of dividends for the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, himself or for any other individual. We are not abolishing tax credits. Indeed, they will still remain and the companies tax will still be imputed to the shareholders.
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, in particular, made considerable oratorical reference to the latter as if it were some great immorality as well as a lack of wisdom. It is not simply a question of whether we need the

371
money, although of course we do: it is a question of whether it is right to have an anomaly in the corporation tax system which encourages companies, at the behest of their pension fund shareholders, to pay dividends instead of putting the money into investment. If noble Lords doubt that, they should look at the difference between the general level of dividends in this country and those paid by companies in other European countries or, indeed, in the United States. It is an anomaly of our tax system which has caused these excessive dividends, and those dividends—this double relief against taxation—are abolished by the changes in advance corporation tax set out in the Budget.
As someone who ran a small business for 30 years, I find it rather amusing that the Labour Party should be told that it has no business people. I believe that the phrase used was "business men". Indeed, when I look at my noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury and at the role played by Mr. Martin Taylor, and at the many distinguished business people who are gladly involving themselves in the project of this Government, it seems to me that some noble Lords on the Opposition Benches are a little less representative of business thinking than they believe themselves to be. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am much obliged. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again, but he did mention his noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury as being a serious businessman; indeed, he is. Has the Minister any comment on the remarks that I quoted from a letter written by the noble Lord, Lord Simon, when he was the chairman of BP as regards ACT? It seems to me that he did not much approve of it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the chairman of that company, my noble friend Lord Simon was producing a covering letter on the participation by his chief executive in a deposition from a large number of companies. It was in the form of a covering letter that my noble friend Lord Simon made his observations.
Following on from the pension issue, there is a valid point to be made about foreign income dividends. Indeed, it is a valid point to say that in certain circumstances it would be possible for surplus advance corporation tax to build up and for there to be no way to deal with it. However, I should emphasise that no changes will take place on foreign income dividends before April 1999. Even then, we have agreed that there will be special rules for international headquarter companies and that during that period there will be extensive consultation on the issue of what will happen about foreign income dividends.
I shall move on now from pensions and foreign income dividends to the question of the windfall tax, which again has aroused a great deal of antagonism. I rather think that today's debate has been held a month too late for those noble Lords who feel so strongly about it. It would have been legitimate to speculate at the time of the Budget that this might be enormously damaging to prices and to investment by the privatised utilities and
372
that it might have all sorts of damaging side effects. However, the month that has passed since the Budget has shown that that is not the case. There has not even been a significant effect on share prices, let alone any justification for claims that the windfall tax will be paid by means of a reduction in employment on the part of those companies, by increases in consumer prices or by a reduction in investment.
Four weeks after the Budget it is clear that we calculated the windfall tax correctly and that it is a proper reaction to the under-pricing of the privatised utilities at the time of sale and inadequate regulation in the immediate succeeding period. I make no apology for the basis on which the windfall tax has been calculated. I certainly do not acknowledge that the windfall tax will lead to any significant economic disadvantage.
As I said, I would love to follow my noble friends into some of the wider speculation on the economy. I, of course, acknowledge the damage that could occur from a high pound. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that what he described as a short-term problem could, if it were badly managed, become a longer-term problem and that would have a greatly damaging effect on our manufacturing industry because of a poor balance of payments position. The Government recognise that as well as anyone else. We recognise the limitations on options that are available to us. I notice that no one who said that we should not have a high pound has put forward any concrete suggestions as to what should be done about that.
I notice that no one who criticised the interest rate policy did anything other than observe that interest rates continue to rise, as they did in the final nine months or so of the Conservative Government. I do not question whether interest rates should rise by a large percentage or slowly by a quarter of a per cent. but whether interest rate changes should be made early rather than late. I suspect that some of the difficulty that we are now experiencing results from the fact that the previous government refrained, on I believe six occasions, from agreeing with the Bank of England on interest rates. The result is that interest rates may have moved further than would otherwise have been necessary if remedial action had been taken in time.
I wish to reply to the point made by my noble friend about the rich and the poor and the trickle-down effect. If he looks at the Budget he will find that rather than seeking redistribution through the taxation system we are seeking through the taxation system to increase the spending power and the self-respect of poorer people in our society by providing them with opportunities for work and for getting off welfare. In terms of the decent society that he and I care about, that is the most practical way to proceed at the present time. That is direct action on poverty of a sort which is simply not possible in fiscal terms.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I was rather hoping that the noble Lord would not attempt to reply. I am rather sorry that he has tried to do so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we shall have other opportunities to debate these matters. I am

373
sure that they will be valuable opportunities. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, in his opening remarks mentioned what he described as the tendency of the Labour Party to claim that the previous government's economic policies were disastrous and that the present policies represent an economic miracle. I have felt that temptation myself. In the past few months I have observed among those on the Opposition Front Bench a temptation to react to any question, however specific, with a generalised claim that the economic policies of the previous government were miraculous and that the economic policies of this Government are bidding fair to be disastrous. So I think that the boot is on both feet, if I may so put it.
Bandying claims about the differences between economic policies of past and present governments will not get us far when considering what we should do next, which I consider to be the most important issue. The noble Lord, Lord Clark, for example, boasts about the inheritance of this Government compared with the Conservative Government of 1979. He should consider the employment statistics as well as some of the other figures before he is quite confident of the change that he describes.
Though I seek to make as small a party point as possible, it is true that over the past period—I do not even describe it as 18 years—the economy has lacked the capacity to grow adequately without setting off inflation. It is true that the gross domestic product per person is still lower than that of any other major industrial country. It is still true that unemployment is above 2 million; and one in five households have no work. It is true that we have inadequate investment in education, infrastructure and new technology. We have a history of large budget deficits, resulting in a burden of public debt which is to be paid off by current and future generations. I do not claim that the Budget overcomes those inherited difficulties. But I claim that it is making a start and moving in the right direction. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived. Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 30th July), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Aerodromes
3.27 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the range of provisions and facilities at aerodromes.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to speak on this Unstarred Question and raise certain problems that are occurring within the range of provisions and facilities at UK aerodromes, and I hope that the Government will wish to address those concerns in a positive way. I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for being present to answer my questions. I am also grateful to noble Lords who are taking part.
I declare an interest insomuch that I am a member of the Popular Flying Association (PFA) and like many thousands of other members of the PFA I am a pilot
374
who flies his own home-built aircraft. My plane is a two-seat Glasair aircraft and, everything working, I shall be flying to Pakistan in late September via Corsica, Greece, Cyprus, Jordan, Kuwait, Dubai and the Oman. I am also an elected member of the PFA Executive Committee as well as a member of a number of other flying clubs and squadrons.
A number of aerodromes and facilities at aerodromes are being lost to general aviation. Existing aerodromes are being closed or put under pressure to reduce their operations. For example, Hatfield was closed after Welwyn Hatfield District Council used lack of positive government advice as an excuse for failing to support the proposals for Hatfield aerodrome. Another example is that of West Mailing aerodrome which was closed and turned into a business park. The local residents of this area would probably prefer the odd plane coming and going to a large grassy aerodrome than the tarmac and concrete business park they now have, with all the associated noisy traffic. West Mailing's air traffic has been accommodated at other aerodromes such as Biggin Hill, which has become overcrowded with air traffic. There is often a 25-minute wait for take-off clearance.
The most recent concern is Little Gransden's battle with the South Cambridgeshire District Council, whose Airfields: Supplementary Planning Guidance, published in April 1997, will severely limit the airfield. I shall refer to this as the South Cambs. policy. The policy will have far-reaching consequences for general aviation (GA) where it is implemented. Indeed, the South Cambs. policy has succeeded where Hitler failed. It has grounded all the Spitfires in the Cambridge area except for those at two airfields. Are the Government happy with the South Cambs. policy, which will limit selected aerodromes to certain categories of aircraft and limit aerodromes to shortened flying times? Most importantly, are the Government happy with the South Cambs. policy authorising flightpaths and routes to and from aerodromes? Will the Minister agree that any aircraft, once it has left contact with the ground at an aerodrome, must comply with the Air Navigation Order (Civil Aviation Act 1982) and that the CAA administers that legislation?
Local government is making planning policies that are closing down or restricting aerodromes. These restrictions are dangerous and are in conflict with the remit of the CAA. The South Cambs. policy was produced by the council without proper consultation with the CAA, which not only wished to be consulted but also has a statutory right to be consulted. The guidance was seemingly produced without expertise and has direct safety implications. It also propounds unilateral changes to the Rules of the Air. The end result of the South Cambs. policy could produce a very hazardous situation. Are the Government concerned about that?
Also worrying is how the South Cambridgeshire District Council produced this policy. The council received 1,077 representations, of which five offered no comment; 13 supported the council; and 1,059 opposed the council. The PFA, with its 9,100 members, would have been just one of those 1,059 objectors. Surprisingly, Cambridgeshire County Council offered

375
no comment; and Luton airport was supportive. Luton airport, which receives mainly commercial air transport (CAT) traffic and discourages general aviation from using its own area, is now seeking to discourage general aviation outside its own county. It is interesting to note that in 1990, 43 per cent. of all pilots entering CAT did so via GA's flying clubs and private flying movements.
Planning Policy Guidance 13 does not seem to be strong enough. The previous Government declared their support for GA and the importance it placed on flying training. PPG 13 states:
"small airports can serve local business needs, especially in outlying areas, as well as recreational flying. In formulating their plan policies and proposals, authorities should take account of the contribution of this General Aviation (GA) to local and regional economies and the benefits of having suitable facilities within a reasonable distance of each sizeable centre of population. As demand for commercial air transport grows, GA may find access to larger airports inconveniently restricted. GA operators will therefore have to look to smaller airfields to provide facilities".
Further to that, Dr. Mawhinney, a member of the previous government, said that,
"The Government consider that strategic and local planning guidance will need to recognise the role that smaller airfields and landing strips play and the difficulty of reopening or providing substitute facilities for airfields that have been closed".
Will the Minister confirm that the Government not only agree with PPG 13 and Dr. Mawhinney's statement but would also act positively where this policy is insufficient? The planning policy guidance has not been strong enough to save Ipswich airport, which has been closed in order to facilitate the building of more houses by the local district council. I am sure that the wide open space of this old aerodrome and its wildlife will be much missed by future urban dwellers.
Today, the planning system in the UK is a "plan-led" system (Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). This means that increased emphasis has been placed upon development plan policy by local government officers, elected members and the Planning Inspectorate. It is therefore essential to have clear policy guidance regarding GA issues from central government. A lack of policy inevitably leads to confusion. With no national policy on aerodromes in the UK, it is not surprising that we are losing aerodromes. Do the Government believe that a national planning policy on aerodromes is important, and do they agree that it is disconcerting that the UK is losing aerodromes?
The noise and subsequent awareness of aircraft in the sky creates public hostility. New planes can be produced to be quieter and more efficient. Some older planes can be engineered to be quieter and more efficient, although this can be difficult and expensive. Both these aims can be achieved with motivation and resources. In the interests of aviation and good relations with the general public, we should strive to achieve these goals as soon as possible.
Considerably lower noise levels and better efficiency of planes can be achieved by fitting engine silencers, electric magnetos and multi-bladed propellers. To achieve these goals, modifications and new components would need to be cleared for safety by the existing regulators. Many engineering developments and
376
modifications have been tested and approved abroad by well respected aviation bodies but require extensive and expensive duplication of tests before they are allowed in this country.
A number of district councils, such as Huntingdonshire and Suffolk Coastal District Council, seem to be interested in implementing the South Cambs. policy. If this were done, the rules of the air would change depending on the county a plane was flying in and the CAA would lose some of its regulatory powers to district planning officers. Would the Government be happy to accept that situation? Perhaps now is the time for a government national policy on aerodromes, a strengthening of PPG 13, in return for a professional body to come forward with proposals for an improved behavioural code for flyers dealing with such difficult subjects as reducing noise on individual planes and improving flying movements—in other words, a complete code of behaviour for pilots. What are the Government's thoughts on this matter?
3.48 p.m.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I rise to support the Unstarred Question asked by my noble friend Lord Rotherwick on the provisions and facilities of aerodromes. I should like to declare an interest as I am chairman of Kent International Airport, which is still referred to by many by its old name of Manston, a famous fighter base during the Battle of Britain which was subsequently adapted to become an emergency landing field for aircraft in trouble. Having a very long and wide runway and an unobstructed approach from the sea, it was very suitable for that purpose. It was one of the few airfields to have a fog dispersal system, known as Fido, which consisted of 75,000 gallons of petrol spread either side of the runway in the form of a ditch. In foggy weather the petrol was ignited and the intense heat dispersed the fog sufficiently for an aircraft to land. Needless to say, it was abandoned after the war as being too expensive to continue.
I have always taken a keen interest in general aviation, having flown during the war and only having to stop flying 10 years ago for medical reasons.
There has always been a need for airfields near major cities to cater for business aircraft and private flying in general. They have now become more important than ever, as major airports are being extended, with new terminal buildings—for example, possibly a fifth terminal at Heathrow and a second runway at Manchester. With ever-increasing numbers of scheduled and chartered flights, the business aircraft will be squeezed out more and more. It seems strange that only 25 years ago a private pilot could land at Gatwick to clear customs and there was no landing fee at all to pay. It concentrated the mind when air traffic control would ask one to expedite one's landing—which means, in flying jargon, "For God's sake, hurry up"—because there was a Boeing 707 on final approach. Soon, unfortunately, those days were to end and very high landing fees virtually eliminated the possibility of light aircraft, private aircraft certainly, using Gatwick.

377
On the Continent and in France, in particular, there are well equipped airfields near most of the larger industrial areas. But it is better not to land between 12 noon and 2 p.m., as one would be lucky to find anyone in air traffic control or customs or anyone to refuel the aircraft. There is an excellent general aviation airfield at Cannes-Mandelieu on the French Riviera, which eases pressure on the nearby Nice airport.
The London area would benefit from a suitable airfield for business and private flying, with easy access to London. Farnborough comes to mind as suitable and as an airfield which could easily be developed for that purpose. Unfortunately, Hatfield, which would have been another suitable airfield, has already been closed. A few years ago, the north lost Sunderland Airport to make way for the Nissan car manufacturing plant, and northern regions certainly should not be neglected.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give their support to encourage general aviation airfields to the benefit of business and to ease the congestion at major airports.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Norton: My Lords, I thank the House for allowing me to speak in the gap. I only appreciated this morning that the subject was being debated. I speak from the standpoint of the private pilot. I declare an interest as a private pilot with some 1,200 hours flying time, although I must admit that most of those hours were flown on the Continent.
The very large airports have the facilities but no enthusiasm for the private pilot. That is quite understandable, given the enormous pressure of commercial activities. But it is at the other smaller commercial airports that I consider improvements can be made for the private pilot wishing to travel from one commercial centre to another.
The medium-sized airports—those with spare capacity—so far as I have experienced, have very little enthusiasm for the private pilot. The private pilot is a nuisance. Private pilots do not bring in jumbo-sized fees by way of landing charges, handling, maintenance, catering etc. I suspect that they are also considered more of a security risk. I shall make a specific recommendation about that later.
So, the private pilot represents low income. But, so far as the airport is concerned, exactly the same radio calls are made to land a large jumbo or a small light aircraft. Price is used to dissuade the private pilot from using the facilities at the commercial airports. To give just a small example, recently I had to divert from Coventry to Birmingham, having just missed the closedown of Coventry for the day. The price of landing and overnight stay at Coventry was £21, but at Birmingham it was £47. That included a £17 handling charge, for which no handling services were required. It is cheaper for me to land at Geneva, Paris, Marseille or Berlin than Birmingham, and in every case the facilities are as good or superior.
What are the special facilities or provisions that the private pilot requires? The most important is a realistic price for the facilities; the second is an enthusiasm for
378
the private pilot. Otherwise, the demands of the private pilot are few. Strangely enough, one of the most important requirements is to have signs for easy access to the facilities available. That prevents private pilots being a nuisance because they do not know how to reach the facilities which are available. Airports are complex places to find one's way around. Signs are important. They also improve security.
Every airport has facilities such as weather forecasting, fuel and flight planning that will already be required for the commercial operators. There is no reason why the same facilities should not be used by the private as well as the commercial pilot, as happens all over the Continent. On the subject of security, perhaps I may suggest to the Government that they look at the possibility of having photographs on pilot licences. At present, there are airports such as Southampton which use the licence as a security document. That is ridiculous as it has no photograph and no ready means of identifying the person who is holding the licence.
What are the benefits? They are, first, increased revenue to the airports from increased use; secondly, a corresponding reduction on the pressures that exist on the smaller flying strips; and, thirdly, a greater ease of travel for the private pilot through the use of airport communication infrastructures. The small airfield communication facilities either by road or rail are frequently poor. What is required is an enthusiasm for private flying by the commercial airports from which the pilots and airports could benefit.
3.56 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rotherwick for asking this Unstarred Question. It is a little unfortunate that the timing of it has reduced the number of noble Lords available to contribute when compared to the similar debate that he initiated earlier this year. It makes it difficult for me to respond to or amplify his observations and those of other noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Strathcarron and the noble Lord, Lord Norton, made valuable comments. But it must be harder still for the Minister to respond.
There is much to be said for revisiting this issue as we have a new government and an integrated transport review in progress. We also now have one department, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, responsible for transport as well as for the environment. Many of the points raised concern the balance to be struck between the requirements of general aviation and the implications for the environment. We shall have to see whether the DETR is in fact manageable and what advantage the Government are able to take of it.
My noble friend Lord Rotherwick mentioned the problems of Ipswich, Hatfield and West Mailing. My noble friend also raised the problem of local authorities' planning decisions impinging upon matters which are properly and indeed legally the preserve of the CAA. He particularly drew your Lordships' attention to the situation in South Cambridgeshire County Council. The

379
council did not even consult the CAA before introducing changes. My noble friend has explained the situation in detail. I do not propose to repeat what he said.
The CAA is an internationally highly regarded regulatory authority and, quite properly, is legally responsible for regulating all safety matters, in particular take-off, circuit and landing routes for aerodromes. I recall a similar incursion by local authorities outside of their remit during the implementation of the night and weekend lorry ban in London. The desirability of that ban is a separate issue, but the local authorities were inviting—a polite way of putting it—operators to interfere with their vehicles' EU-type approved braking systems by fitting airbrake silencers in order to reduce the noise. We now seem to have a similar problem of adventurous local authorities interfering in matters properly in the domain of the CAA. I have to confess to being technically a little weak when it comes to aviation matters but it seems to me that anything to do with civil aircraft design, maintenance or operation should be the strict preserve of the experts at the CAA. I am sure the Minister will not dispute that.
My noble friend Lord Rotherwick also suggested that some local authorities are attempting to cut back, or at least to hold to a standstill, general aviation facilities for environmental reasons. I hope that the Minister, while understanding the concerns of local authorities, will want to allow the continued development of general aviation.
My noble friend Lord Strathcarron and the noble Lord, Lord Norton, also raised the problem of business aviation at major airports and the availability of landing slots and their cost. There is a difficult balance to be struck here. On the one hand, I am sure that the new Government's instincts will not suit the convenience of an international playboy. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Norton, qualifies as an international playboy. On the other hand, if they are indeed the party of business, they will recognise the real economic value to be attached to the time of a chief executive of a major international—
Lord Norton: My Lords, I would like to put the record straight. I am not an international playboy.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to hear that my previous friend, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, is not an international playboy. I would have been extremely disappointed if he thought that he was. As I said, if the Labour Party is the party of business, it will realise the real economic value to be attached to the time of a chief executive of a major international company based in the United Kingdom.
These are important matters for the integrated transport review, which I am sure the Minister will tell us will be much more than a re-statement of the desirability of public and, in particular, rail transport. It is surprising to me that light aircraft are really quite economic in terms of cost per mile. Can the Minister assure the House that when the review is finally published these particular matters will be covered in
380
detail? Will the review include a comprehensive plan for small airfields, as asked by my noble friend Lord Rotherwick?
Part of the problem that local authorities are attempting to address is noise pollution. Of course, there are noise regulations for new aircraft. In another debate I have recently stated that I am wary of retrospective legislation. Furthermore, most light aircraft in use can meet international noise standards without modification, but that does not mean that there is no room for improvement. There are ways in which noise emissions of light aircraft can be reduced. My noble friend Lord Rotherwick mentioned silencers, multi-bladed propellers and, interestingly, magnetos, which are of course 1950s technology.
Some noise-reducing modifications would have other benefits to the operator and so would not necessarily be objectionable in cost terms. I am sure that so soon after the noble Lord spoke and so near to the Recess, the Minister and other noble Lords will not be disappointed if I do not repeat all the noble Lord's detailed arguments.
The Minister will be aware that there are many ways of measuring noise and I believe that PPG24 is relevant, although I have to confess that I am not familiar with the document. Is there more than one way of measuring aircraft noise? How is ambient noise accounted for and where is the noise from an airfield measured? Is the noise measured only on the airfield or is it at inhabited buildings near to the airfield or at all points of the compass?
I do not believe that the technical decisions that the CAA would need to take in order to secure improvements in noise emissions are too revolutionary. Some of the modifications that have been proposed this afternoon are already approved by the FAA. My noble friend Lord Rotherwick referred to the duplication of tests. The Minister will even be aware that aircraft registered with, and approved by, the FAA can fly in the United Kingdom without CAA approval of the modifications that have already been implemented. However, I do accept that the FAA is configured slightly differently from our own CAA.
My understanding is that the CAA is principally concerned with safety, but must have regard to environmental considerations. If we are to allow general aviation to continue to develop without unduly interfering with the right of others to their peace and quiet, the Minister might have to consider altering the CAA's terms of reference to give greater weight to environmental matters. That is another matter for the review to cover.
My final question is fairly general, but this is a good opportunity to ask it. The integrated transport review will be completed some time next year and no doubt there will be frustrating delays, such as those we experienced with the accelerated road review—and probably for the same sort of reasons. Does the Minister envisage a need for primary legislation as a result of some aspects of the review, particularly within her own areas of responsibility? Will there be a comprehensive and integrated transport Bill, such as the 1968 Act, or

381
will there be only minor tinkering, using secondary legislation? Short though this debate has been, I am sure that it has been worthwhile. It will be interesting to hear how much the noble Baroness saves for her review.
4.6 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Wind-sock it to 'em!
Baroness Hayman:—I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, for initiating this debate, and those noble Lords who have participated. Although we have heard only a few speeches, their content has made clear the importance and the value that noble Lords attach to general aviation. That is well understood by the Government. Unlike others, I have no direct interest to declare, not holding a pilot's licence myself, and I certainly cannot emulate my predecessor in this post who I understand took to paragliding at one stage of his career. I do not want to follow him down that route. However, perhaps I should declare an interest in the sense that for five years I had the honour of representing Welwyn and Hatfield as constituency Member of Parliament in another place and I am aware of the history of that aerodrome and have flown from there.
Perhaps I should first set out the regulatory framework within which aerodromes operate, which requires a brief explanation of the CAA's responsibilities with regard to aviation safety. Flights involving the public transport of passengers or pilot instruction must generally use aerodromes licensed by the CAA, which requires that specific safety arrangements and facilities be available. Other flights can use unlicensed facilities, but the CAA publishes guidelines as to the minimum safety facilities that these should consider. Pilots using unlicensed facilities will in any case have demonstrated their competence to the CAA via the pilot licensing process. I can certainly assure the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, that airborne aircraft must comply at all times with the 1995 Air Navigation Order. Separately, developments at all aerodromes with flight operations on more than 28 days a year may be subject to scrutiny under the planning system.
It was in relation to the planning system that the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, highlighted the loss of aerodrome facilities in this country. It must however be remembered that the Government are not responsible for the development or operation of civil aerodromes. This is a matter for the owners or operators of those sites working within the bounds of the established planning system. The noble Lord rightly pointed to the pre-eminence of the plan-led system. I am pleased that aerodrome operators, users and their trade associations are paying more heed than in the past to the need to make their views known early in the planning process. This system allows for public participation and it is right that all those with an interest should participate in it. Where my department can, and does, help is by examining draft development plans to ensure that, where appropriate, they accord with published planning advice.
382
Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 on transport, with a section highlighting to planning authorities the economic benefits of general aviation and smaller airports, has already been mentioned. In response to queries from the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, I confirm that we support the guidance set out in PPG13. As for a national planning policy, this guidance, including the approach to air transport, will be part of a wide-ranging review of policy leading to a White Paper on an integrated transport strategy to be published next year, to which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred.
I confirm that civil aviation in all its guises has a role to play. I assure noble Lords that the environmental impact of aviation and airports and their contribution in terms of an integrated transport policy in this country will be integral to the review and the White Paper. We therefore encourage all interested parties, including the general aviation community, to respond to the consultation which will be launched shortly on the White Paper. In the meantime, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, and other noble Lords that the Government recognise the importance of general aviation, especially its contribution to business and flying training.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked whether the Government anticipated major legislation at the end of the White Paper. I believe that it would be wrong to prejudge the results of the consultation and what will go into the White Paper. What, if any, legislative framework follows must respond to what is set out in the White Paper.
I return to the issue of planning guidance. PPG24 also warns local authorities about inappropriate or noise-sensitive development such as new housing in the vicinity of aerodromes. But in the field of planning circumstances always vary from site to site and from one planning authority to another. It is therefore not appropriate to be more prescriptive. But the department is not aware of any concerted efforts by planning authorities to undermine general aviation.
The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, referred to particular cases where he believed that local authorities had ignored those interests. Our understanding is that Welling and Hatfield Borough Council engaged experienced consultants to study whether a general aviation use of Hatfield would be economically viable. I also understand that the option of a grass runway as part of an aviation heritage centre is among those currently being considered by the council.
As far as concerns South Cambridgeshire, I note the noble Lord's concern about the precedent that may be set for the CAA's regulatory role. I am pleased to report that South Cambridgeshire has formally sought CAA views on its supplementary planning guidance on aerodromes, and the two parties have since been actively discussing safety issues. The CAA has now given South Cambridgeshire specific guidance on safety requirements as well as more general advice on matters of policy. I can assure the House that the Civil Aviation Authority is very much aware of the issues involved. I can also reassure those noble Lords who have raised

383
the point that planning authorities' policies on general aviation will be considered as part of the review of PPG 13.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to the powers and competencies of the CAA. He is correct in his assertion that the CAA's primary responsibility is for the safety of aircraft. The authority has not at present indicated any problems arising from lack of powers in respect of environmental matters, but if it chose to do so in future we would give careful consideration to those concerns.
To return to individual cases, if a planning authority refuses planning permission for aerodrome development or takes enforcement action or one of the other options in the planning system, there is a right of appeal. In considering an appeal an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State will take account of all relevant circumstances and give them the appropriate weight according to published guidance. I am sure that noble Lords realise that I am unable to comment on the merits or otherwise of individual planning cases, especially where appeals are outstanding or decisions may be pending. That applies in the case of Little Gransden. But at the end of the day it is unrealistic to ask the Government to force an aerodrome to stay open if the owner or operator is determined to close it, be it publicly or privately owned. I emphasise again that it is perhaps at the early drafting stages of development plans that the department can have most influence.
I know that there is concern about some well-publicised cases of aerodromes closing or under threat. In fact the number of licensed aerodromes has remained close to its present total—just over 140—over the past few years. In addition, there are thought to be over 400 unlicensed aerodromes, as well as many more hang-gliding, paragliding and balloon launch sites. So while I can understand the concern of individuals about threats to their local aerodromes, that is not the national trend.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, asked about Farnborough in relation to business aviation. The MoD is currently in the process of tendering Farnborough Airfield for business aviation. The successful new operator, to be selected later this year, will be expected to continue its business aviation capacity. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is following that process carefully.
Perhaps I might write to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, about photographic pilot licences. That strikes a chord, because I am wrestling with photographic driving licences at the moment. On the issue of charges for private pilots, the European Commission has just issued a proposed directive setting a framework for airport charges to all users across the Community. The UK is taking an active role in negotiations in the Transport Council to ensure that the interests of the UK industry, including general aviation users, are taken into account.
384
I turn to environmental considerations which have been highlighted in the debate. The environment is at the heart of the Government's policy concerns and throughout their transport considerations. I welcome and support the goal of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, of reducing noise impacts of light aircraft. We must all recognise that noise from aircraft is a significant environmental nuisance at smaller aerodromes as well as at large international airports, although different in character and scale. But the prime responsibility is on aerodromes and pilots themselves to fly responsibly, and to be good neighbours. That has been acknowledged in the debate.
We know that leisure and private flying are found by many people to be generally more annoying than other forms of aviation. There are other patterns, which also emerge in the correspondence my department receives.
Localised or prolonged activities such as parachuting or aerobatics can also attract complaint, so here again it is important that those activities be conducted so as to minimise nuisance. The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, pointed to the need for a better behavioural code for flyers. In that context, we welcome the production of material such as the General Aviation Awareness Council's guide to considerate flying. That is an excellent document which, if followed, will ensure that flying will cause the least possible nuisance to people on the ground. In that area local public perception as to the nature and conduct of flying activities is central. That means that effective consultation with the community is in the interests of aerodrome, pilots and public alike. Some aerodromes are required, by designation under Section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act, to provide consultation facilities; but the non-designated aerodromes are not absolved of the need to communicate with their neighbours. As my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis commented in this House earlier this year, we are keen to see good practice at all aerodromes. I am happy to commend again the very constructive advice on that subject produced by the General Aviation Awareness Council.
On the issue of aircraft noise reduction, the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, mentioned the various noise reduction devices that are available for individual aircraft, and where those are officially sanctioned I would hope that operators would choose to fit them. But it must be right that the CAA, as the body responsible for aircraft safety, must be convinced that their use does not diminish safety standards. In several instances, noise reducing measures developed in research institutes have fallen short of those standards in practice. There have been cases where such equipment has had an effect on airworthiness through vibration, reduction in engine cooling, airframe fatigue, power loss or weight increase. The CAA is considering this matter in collaboration with colleagues in the European Joint Airworthiness Authority from the safety viewpoint and, with the International Civil Aviation Organisation, from the noise angle. I should add that, while we welcome technological advances to individual

385
aircraft, they are wasted if the aircraft are operated in an inconsiderate manner. I am sure that noble Lords who are pilots will understand that even better than I do.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked some specific questions about noise and its measurement. He is right in saying that there is more than one way to measure aircraft noise, but the system used within the United Kingdom is well respected and internationally accepted. He asked how ambient noise was accounted for. Ideally, it is accounted for by siting monitors away from where the ambient noise is generated. However, if unavoidable, allowance will be made for the ambient noise if it is, for instance, background traffic noise. As regards the place from where noise at an airfield is measured, two options are available. It can be done by siting the noise monitors at the most sensitive areas or by putting monitors where the aircraft are noisiest, which is UK policy. Therefore, we have a level playing field between the measurements taken at different aerodromes.
In conclusion, I wish to reassure noble Lords that the Government recognise the concerns of general aviation users and the role which small aerodromes can play in facilitating business aircraft and the training of pilots. Furthermore, we recognise that that is a legitimate interest which should be taken into account when we consult on the integrated transport White Paper.
Equally, we are committed to striking the right balance between aviation and the environment. The integrated transport White Paper will give us all the opportunity to consider these issues in the round. It is a theme that in the balance between transport, mobility
386
and the environment, it is vital that we tackle across the transport field if we are to achieve an integrated transport policy that is the Government's aim.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I am a little disappointed in her response to the possible means of reducing noise, the role of the CAA and the duplication of approval of the FAA and the CAA. I do not expect the Minister to reply today, but perhaps she will reflect on the issue and come back to us later.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall be pleased to write to the noble Lord on that matter. However, it is only right that I should reiterate the advice that the CAA is giving at present. It is that safety considerations must be its paramount considerations. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord on that issue.

Royal Assent
4.23 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (The Viscount of Oxfuird): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Appropriation (No. 2) Act,

Finance (No. 2) Act,

Education (Schools) Act,

Law Officers Act,

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act,

King's College London Act.

House adjourned for the Summer Recess at twenty-four minutes past four o'clock until Tuesday 14th October next.

  EU Preferential Access for African Countries
  EU Preferential Access for African Countries
  Overseas Police and Military Training Commitments
  Overseas Police and Military Training Commitments
  International Development
  International Development
  Development Education
  Development Education
  Callander Rifle and Pistol Club: Records
  Callander Rifle and Pistol Club: Records
  Treasury Building: Refurbishment Project
  Treasury Building: Refurbishment Project
  Windfall Tax: Impact
  Windfall Tax: Impact
  Gambling Industry: Contribution to GDP
  Gambling Industry: Contribution to GDP
  Deregulation
  Deregulation
  Disposals by Museums and Galleries
  Disposals by Museums and Galleries
  Museums and Galleries: Admission Charges
  Museums and Galleries: Admission Charges
  NAPS, Carbamate and OF Pesticides: Effects of Combination
  NAPS, Carbamate and OF Pesticides: Effects of Combination
  Pure Fusion and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
  Pure Fusion and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
  Defence Secondary Care Agency HQ
  Defence Secondary Care Agency HQ
  Gulf War Personnel: Blood Samples
  Gulf War Personnel: Blood Samples
  Ballistic Missile Defence Studies
  Ballistic Missile Defence Studies
  European Commissioners: Pensions and Benefits
  European Commissioners: Pensions and Benefits
  Ministerial Code
  Ministerial Code
  Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, 22 September
  Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, 22 September
  Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe
  Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe
  International Development: DTI Collaboration
  International Development: DTI Collaboration
  Gas Liberalisation
  Gas Liberalisation
  Parental Leave: Costs to Schools and the NHS
  Parental Leave: Costs to Schools and the NHS
  Late Payment
  Late Payment
  Expanding Ammunition for Humane Killing
  Expanding Ammunition for Humane Killing
  Prison Service: Parliamentary Questions
  Prison Service: Parliamentary Questions
  Intrusive Surveillance: Code of Practice
  Intrusive Surveillance: Code of Practice
  Stephen Lawrence: Inquiry
  Stephen Lawrence: Inquiry
  Offences against the Person: Law Commission Report
  Offences against the Person: Law Commission Report
  Custodial and Non-custodial Sentences
  Custodial and Non-custodial Sentences
  Care of Mentally Ill Prisoners
  Care of Mentally Ill Prisoners
  Prisoners' Medical Records
  Prisoners' Medical Records
  Gay Christian Movement: Blasphemy Investigation
  Gay Christian Movement: Blasphemy Investigation
  Gambling: Club Membership
  Gambling: Club Membership
  Gambling: Employment
  Gambling: Employment
  Theft of Handbags from Vehicles
  Theft of Handbags from Vehicles
  Post Office: Medical Insurance
  Post Office: Medical Insurance
  World Trade Organisation
  World Trade Organisation
  Arms Sales: Export Licences
  Arms Sales: Export Licences
  Marine Policy and Industry
  Marine Policy and Industry
  Child Care Vouchers
  Child Care Vouchers
  CFCs
  CFCs
  National Roads Programme
  National Roads Programme
  Minicabs in London
  Minicabs in London
  Water Industry Costs: EU Directives
  Water Industry Costs: EU Directives
  Harbour Authorities and Pilotage
  Harbour Authorities and Pilotage
  Queen Elizabeth II Bridge
  Queen Elizabeth II Bridge
  VAT Reduction on Domestic Heating Fuels
  VAT Reduction on Domestic Heating Fuels
  Civil Court Claims
  Civil Court Claims
  University Tuition Fees
  University Tuition Fees
  National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education: Report
  National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education: Report
  Education Act 1993: Gloucestershire Judgment
  Education Act 1993: Gloucestershire Judgment
  NHS: Market Testing Savings
  NHS: Market Testing Savings
  NHS Share of GDP
  NHS Share of GDP
  Nurses' Earnings
  Nurses' Earnings
  Nurse:Patient Ratio
  Nurse:Patient Ratio
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Permanent Vegetative State
  Permanent Vegetative State
  Pre-Menstrual Tension: Vitamin B6 Supplements
  Pre-Menstrual Tension: Vitamin B6 Supplements
  Vitamin B6
  Vitamin B6
  Psychiatric Units
  Psychiatric Units