Sitting of 12 June 1997

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

    Windfall Tax
    Mr. Prior: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the representations he has received from business leaders regarding the windfall tax. [1585]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Companies have been invited to make representations. While I intend to follow the normal procedure of treating such representations as I would others for the Budget—namely, as confidential between the parties—if companies wish to make their views public, that is a matter for them.
    Mr. Prior: Will my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] Will the Chancellor confirm that in principle he is not in favour of retrospective taxation and that the one-off windfall tax is, indeed, one off?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful for the welcome that I received from the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Right hon.?"] The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the windfall levy and asks whether I support retrospective action. That is a question that he should ask of his colleagues who were in the House in the 1980s. Was not the first windfall levy imposed by a Conservative Government without ever being in a Conservative manifesto and without any advance consultation with the businesses affected? That windfall tax was imposed on the banks to deal with the costs of failure. We are imposing a windfall tax so that we can tackle a problem that the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members should be concerned about. Indeed, they should be ashamed that the previous Government did not act to tackle youth and long-term unemployment.
    Mr. Stevenson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the notable exceptions of Sir lain Vallance from British Telecom and Conservative Members, there is tremendous public support for the windfall tax throughout the length and breadth of the country? Will my right hon. Friend therefore undertake to introduce the windfall tax at the earliest possible opportunity so that we can begin to get our young people back to work?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The greatest opponents of the windfall tax are not the utilities,
    1262
    but the Conservative party. When a report today states that 500,000 long-term unemployed people in our country need proper skills and training to allow them to get back to work, people will be asking why the Conservative party is defending the utilities instead of the long-term unemployed.
    A chairman of one of the utilities has reported that he regards the way in which we are going about the matter as reasonable and fair. Mr. James Rogers, co-owner of Midland Electricity, said only a few weeks ago that he was confident that Labour would apply the tax in a "fair and reasonable manner". He said:
    "a windfall tax would require us to deal with the sins of those before us. A one-off tax is not inconsistent with that."

    Minimum Wage
    Miss Kirkbride: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact of a national minimum wage on the cost of public sector pay. [1586]
    Mr. Gordon Brown: A minimum wage is in principle both fair and efficient. The impact of the minimum wage on public sector pay will depend on the level at which it is set. That is a matter for the Government to decide, when we have the advice of the Low Pay Commission, taking into account the wider effects on the economy.
    Miss Kirkbride: Will the Chancellor confirm figures given by the Foreign Secretary, when he was shadow Secretary of State for Health, that a minimum wage of £4 per hour would cost the National Health Service an extra £500 million a year?
    Mr. Brown: First, I welcome the hon. Lady to the House. She was a distinguished parliamentary correspondent and is now a Member of Parliament, having moved from a larger Conservative institution—The Daily Telegraph—to a smaller one, the parliamentary Conservative party.
    The claim about the minimum wage was made repeatedly by the Conservative party throughout the general election campaign. There is no evidence for the statement other than the accusation made by the former Secretary of State for Health, who has continually suggested this. Given the traditions of Winston Churchill, Harold Macmillan and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) in supporting a minimum wage, it ill befits the Conservative party to deprive the people currently being exploited in the labour market of the dignity of a minimum wage. I believe that both sides of the House should accept the principle of a minimum wage. The application of it will be a matter for the Low Pay Commission, on which business—including small business—is represented. It is about time the Conservative party joined the modern world.
    Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a popular demand throughout the country for a national minimum wage, which was best exemplified in the mandate that we received at the general election? On several occasions, my right hon. Friend and others on the Front Bench have said that they will consult, among others, people in the business fraternity. As several trade

    1263
    unions have now passed resolutions for a minimum wage of £4 and over, including Unison at £4.42 yesterday, will my right hon. Friend guarantee that he will pay some attention not only to those in the business community but to the real wealth creators—the workers?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting the principle of a minimum wage. [Interruption.] I should have thought that Conservative Members would be listening to the electorate more by supporting the case for a minimum wage—[Interruption.]—than by defending huge salary rises in the privatised utilities. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must stop shouting.
    Mr. Brown: The Opposition have learnt nothing from the past few weeks.
    The specifics of the minimum wage will be dealt with by the Low Pay Commission, which will receive representations. Business and employees are represented on it, and small businesses are specifically guaranteed representation on it. That is the right way to set a minimum wage. I may also tell the Opposition that the experience in America is that a minimum wage is not only fair and efficient but helps to create jobs.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Chancellor was very courteous to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), but he quite deliberately avoided the point of her question. Will he accept that, unless the minimum wage is set at a level at which it makes absolutely no difference to any public sector pay, it will affect the cost of public services? If he sticks to his commitment not to raise public spending, the national health service and others will face a choice between cutting services or cutting jobs. Faced with the minimum wage, they will be able to do nothing else.
    Mr. Brown: All those questions will be taken into account in setting the minimum wage. I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is trying to re-establish "one nation" traditions in the Conservative party, that his predecessors as shadow Chancellors and as leaders supported the principle of a minimum wage, and until the 1980s there was all-party consensus about the need for wage protection through wages councils.
    As for public sector costs, the Government are having to pay out huge sums in family credit to cover wage levels—set by employers—which are lower than they should be, instead of helping, as we should, people who are in poverty. The costs of family credit are escalating as a result of there not being a minimum wage and because employers are able to set wages lower than they should. It is about time that Conservatives started to show concern about the thousands of people earning £2 or less per hour and in some cases less than £1.50 per hour. The Conservative party had better soon restore its belief in "one nation" Conservatism.

    Bank of England
    Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what liaison arrangements he proposes
    1264
    between the Treasury and the Bank of England to ensure effective management of demand to ensure the attainment of the Government's commitment to growth. [1587]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Government's central objectives are high and stable levels of growth and employment. Price stability is an essential foundation and the Government have introduced radical reforms to monetary policy arrangements to achieve this. It is the Government who set the objectives by setting the inflation target, and the Treasury and the Bank of England will continue to have regular liaison at all levels.
    Mr. Mitchell: As the Bank of England's highest wisdom in any situation is to put up interest rates—it has already done so, despite the fact that real interest rates are at a record level and the pound is substantially overvalued—is not the Bank preparing the way for a manufacturing contraction, a rise in unemployment and a fall in growth next year? If we are to have an independent central bank, should not the Government at least appoint an expansionist Governor, and is the Minister aware that the shadow Chancellor might well be available for the job next week?
    Mr. Darling: I think that the shadow Chancellor has another job in mind and would not want to rule himself out of that at this stage. My hon. Friend will accept that, if we are to achieve long-term sustainable growth, we must have low inflation and stability—something that Britain has not had for many years. We must avoid the situation that we have experienced in the past 18 years, when the Conservative Government delivered two of the deepest recessions since the war. If businesses and individuals are to be able to plan in the long term, we must have stability. My hon. Friend will have noticed that long-term interest rates have fallen since my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's announcement three or four weeks ago.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Why does the Chancellor think it wise to separate the management of fiscal and monetary policy? Is it that he rejects the advice of John Maynard Keynes and is embracing the policies of Philip Snowden?
    Mr. Darling: No. My right hon. Friend made it clear why we have taken the decision to give the Bank greater operational autonomy. We believe that it is important that interest rates are struck with a view to the long term. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who has been in the House—and in politics indirectly—for a long time, will agree that when Britain's performance is compared with equivalent competitor countries, our record for stability is not so good as it should be. We believe that the steps that we have taken to give the Bank of England greater operational autonomy in support of the Government's economic policy—an important point, as my right hon. Friend has made clear—are the way to achieve the stability that most people agree is essential.

    Monetary Policy
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that the Government's monetary policy objectives are met. [1588]
    Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that the Government's monetary policy objectives are met. [1589]
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Last month I announced reforms which gave the Bank of England operational responsibility for setting interest rates. Today I have written to the Governor setting out the Bank's remit and how it will be held accountable for meeting its target.
    To meet the Government's objectives of high levels of growth and employment, we need consistently low inflation. That is why I am today announcing a precise and rigorous framework to achieve the Government's inflation target of 2.5 per cent.
    Our new long-term framework will ensure that, if inflation is 1 per cent. higher or lower than that target, an open letter will be sent by the Governor to the Chancellor so that the public are fully informed as to why the divergence has occurred and what steps will be taken in response. I have arranged to put the letter in the Library of the House.
    Mrs. Campbell: The whole country will welcome the openness and firmness of my right hon. Friend's pursuit of the Government's objectives. Does he agree that such measures are essential if we are to create a climate of stability and confidence and break out of the cycle of boom-bust economics that was the Conservative Government's policy?
    Mr. Brown: If we are to achieve our aims of high levels of growth and employment in the British economy and avoid the boom-bust economics that bedevilled people's lives during the period of Conservative Government, we need to set a target for consistently low inflation. The Conservative Government's inflation target was not met in any month in 1985 or 1986; average inflation under the Conservatives was 6.2 per cent. and in the 1990s it was 4 per cent. By setting our target of 2.5 per cent. and introducing the modern procedure whereby the Governor will write to the Chancellor if it is exceeded by more than 1 per cent., we are creating the most open and rigorous framework for monetary policy.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: In 1979, manufacturing represented 30 per cent. of gross domestic product, but that is now down to less than 20 per cent. and thousands of jobs have been lost. This country is a net exporter of investment. What do the Government intend to do to improve the situation?
    Mr. Brown: I agree with my hon. Friend. The reason why we have had, on average, high inflation and low growth over many years is lack of investment and lack of capacity in the economy. There is no long-run trade-off between inflation and growth. We need measures that will create a platform of stability on which industry and employees can build. It is precisely for those reasons that we have set in place a long-term framework for monetary
    1266
    policy. If the Conservative party does not believe that I am right to make these reforms in the Bank of England, will it pledge to reverse them in its manifesto at the next election?
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Chancellor acknowledge that what he has just told the House and explained to the Governor of the Bank of England is a clear departure from the Labour party's manifesto commitment? Under the heading "No risks with inflation", it said:
    "We will match the current target for low and stable inflation of 2.5 per cent. or less."
    By having a fixed 2.5 per cent. with, in effect, a margin of 1 per cent. either way, the Chancellor is setting a range of 1.5 per cent. to 3.5 per cent. Is that not the beginning of a serious relaxation of the commitment to bear down on inflation?
    Mr. Brown: I have tightened the framework and made the procedure more rigorous and open. Under the Conservative Government, the range was 1 per cent. to 4.5 per cent. Under this Government, if inflation goes above 3.5 per cent., the Governor of the Bank of England will write a letter to the Chancellor explaining his views and whether the circumstances are unique. If they are repeated over a period of time, he will write again three months later.
    Taken together, the reforms in the Bank of England, the setting up of the Monetary Policy Committee, the appointments that I have made to that committee, which have been widely welcomed, and this new open procedure will be welcomed in Britain and abroad. They are the best guarantee that we shall have the consistently low inflation that has eluded this country. That is the platform on which to build in order to achieve what everyone wants—high and stable levels of growth and employment.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) is right. The Chancellor has just tried to slip in an important announcement on a day when the figures show that the Conservative Government hit the inflation target of 2.5 per cent. on the button as a result of our policies. How can the right hon. Gentleman deny that he is loosening the inflation target by moving from 2.5 per cent. or less to 2.5 per cent.? He has now introduced a new obligation on the Bank of England: he will hold it accountable if inflation is more than 1 per cent. below 2.5 per cent.
    Those measures loosen the criteria for controlling inflation that the bank previously used. What is the reason for that? Is it a reaction to our criticism that the Chancellor's hasty decision to go to operational independence would lead to overkill? Does it not show that he is making policy on the hoof, and giving no stability or confidence to anyone?
    Mr. Brown: It is interesting to note the right hon. and learned Gentleman's nostalgia for the old Ken and Eddie show. Instead of an ad hoc, personalised and often chaotic system, we have introduced rules based on principles and a rigorous approach. One week the shadow Chancellor argues that our approach is too rigorous, and the next he says that it is too soft. The difference between the Conservative party and the Labour party is that the

    1267
    Conservative party met its inflation target in only 11 months out of 55. It did not meet its target at all in 1985 and 1986. Everyone knows that the only reason why the target was met last month was because of the fall in the exchange rate. We have established a framework that is open and will last. I believe that that is our best long-term chance of having consistently low inflation, and is the means by which to achieve high levels of growth and employment.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Ms Mountford: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new measures he is proposing to improve the private finance initiative. [1590]
    The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): I immediately moved to ask Mr. Malcolm Bates to carry out a complete review of the private finance initiative process with a view to streamlining it, and I abolished the requirement for universal testing which gunged up the process under the Tories.
    Ms Mountford: I welcome my hon. Friend's encouraging reply. Is he aware that the Conservative Government spent £30 million on consultants' fees, yet not one PFI hospital was built? Does he agree that the private finance initiative process is in urgent need of improvement?
    Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we are giving it that improvement. I am pleased to say that the legislation that we have introduced to enable NHS trusts to become involved in PFI projects is making good progress in another place—or will do next week. I am also pleased to say that, immediately after Question Time, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will introduce a Bill to enable local government to enter into positive public-private sector partnerships for the benefit of the country.
    Mr. Dafis: Will the Minister assure us that PFI companies will never have any responsibility for the hiring and firing of teachers, the provision of books and equipment and the delivery of the curriculum? Will he give a categorical assurance that those responsibilities will remain with local education authorities, schools and governors, where they belong?
    Mr. Robinson: I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that none of those aspects features in any of the proposals for private sector investment in education that I have seen; nor would they be approved by me.
    Mr. Derek Foster: Was not the former Chancellor guilty of extraordinary political incompetence, in that he screwed up the whole PFI process over a three-year period? Is it not now crucial for my hon. Friend to cut through the swathe of bureaucracy and put bulldozers on sites, particularly the site of Bishop Auckland hospital in my constituency?
    Mr. Robinson: As my right hon. Friend will appreciate, I cannot give any undertaking in relation to the Bishop Auckland health trust, but I assure him that
    1268
    we are moving to cut through the swathes of bureaucracy, as he so aptly describes them. I can tell him that the measures that we have taken via the review—such as getting rid of universal testing—and the legislation that we have introduced have done more to encourage the PFI in five weeks than the Tories did in five years.
    Mr. Jack: I welcome the Paymaster General to his post. Can he confirm that purchasing services with the maximum risk transfer will remain the key objective for the private finance initiative? Can he also confirm that financial reporting standard FRS5 and standard of accounting practice SAP21 will remain the standards by which the viability of the PFI is judged?
    Mr. Robinson: There the Opposition go again, getting bogged down in a whole lot of details and losing sight—[Interruption.] That is precisely why their bureaucratic, pettifogging approach has delivered no PFI deals on hospitals or local government. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed of his record.
    Mr. McAllion: Elsewhere in Europe, public investment which creates a tangible public asset does not count against the public sector borrowing requirement total. Will my hon. Friend therefore consider bringing Britain into step with the rest of Europe by changing to that form of public accounting? Will he bear it in mind that, as the markets already acquiesce in it throughout Europe, there is no reason to suppose that they would not acquiesce in this country as well? An added advantage would be that Scottish local authorities could raise private money to invest in remedying the housing crisis which afflicts so many people in my country.
    Mr. Robinson: I hear what my hon. Friend says. We shall, of course, consider those matters, but it would be wrong for my hon. Friend to think that we had any immediate proposals for change.

    Windfall Tax
    Mr. Keith Simpson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the companies that will be liable for the windfall tax. [1591]
    Mr. Nicholls: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what time span he will use to assess the excess profits on which he plans to levy a windfall tax. [1595]
    Mr. Swayne: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer over what time scale he will calculate the excess profits for the windfall tax. [1602]
    Mr. Lansley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what measure of profits he will base his windfall tax. [1605]
    Mr. Gordon Brown: I will announce details of the windfall levy in the forthcoming Budget.
    Mr. Simpson: I am obliged to the Chancellor for that highly detailed answer.

    1269
    Opposition Members would like some detailed information. May I return the Chancellor to the question of the windfall tax? Will he please confirm—yes or no—that it will be a one-off payment made in one year, and made only once?
    Mr. Brown: Yes.
    Mr. Nicholls: Despite what the Chancellor has said about the details being released in the Budget, he is surely aware that the Prime Minister admitted in the House yesterday that he knew which companies would be liable for the windfall tax. Bearing that in mind, will the Chancellor now say whether British Telecom is included? If it is included, will the right hon. Gentleman say in what years—if any—he regards British Telecom as having made an unfair and excessive profit as a return on capital?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman ought to be patient and wait until the Budget statement. I should remind him that, when the Conservatives introduced their windfall levy on the banks, they did not even announce the names of the companies in the Budget statement. Of course, the information will become available at the time of the Budget.
    The hon. Gentleman asks about excess profits. The report of the Public Accounts Committee, which appeared in March just before the general election and was signed by many Conservative Members, states:
    "We note that in the five years after privatisation the water companies made profits totalling £7.4 billion, and the regional electricity companies profits of £8.7 billion, and that in both cases the profits were in excess of the level that the respective Directors General had judged it reasonable to allow for in the future."
    That report to the House was signed by hon. Members in all parts of the House.
    Mr. Swayne: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how he intends to raise a windfall tax from owners of capital who have passed their ownership to subsequent shareholders since the industries were privatised?
    Mr. Brown: Unlike the Conservatives' windfall tax on the banks, we have made our determination to have the windfall levy known, not just for one or two years but over the past five years. People have been aware over that time of our intention to legislate in this way. Given what happened at the general election, I should have thought that Conservative Members would be better spending their time advancing the cause of the young and the long-term unemployed who will benefit from the measure than defending the excesses of the privatised utilities.
    Mr. Lansley: As the Chancellor is proposing a one-off levy, how can he fund a continuing public expenditure requirement on welfare-to-work? His sums simply do not add up.
    Mr. Brown: The one-off levy is to raise money for the Parliament; I made that clear before and during the general election campaign and I make it clear again. I know that the Conservative party is obsessively
    1270
    interested in the needs of the privatised utilities, but it is about time that Conservatives got interested in the needs of the young unemployed.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when he quoted from the report of the Public Accounts Committee, he could have gone much further? In a series of reports since 1983, the Committee has shown that each of the utilities was sold at a price which was less than could or should have been obtained. Is he further aware that these matters can be looked at clearly in the reports of the PAC and that they show that the windfall tax is entirely due to the previous Government's actions?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has been Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for a long time. The report of March 1997, which deserves wide publicity, stated:
    "the replacement values of the assets of the water and sewerage companies are now estimated to be £138 billion, … sale proceeds were … £3.6 billion … we and our predecessors expressed concern that the shares in the companies have been underpriced."
    If Conservative Members are not interested in the reports of the Public Accounts Committee, which are signed by Conservative Members, perhaps we should also look at the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which was published only a few days before the PAC report and refers to the dramatic profit increases of privatised utilities. It is about time the Conservative party came to terms with the fact that excess profits were made which were not justifiable, and that action in the public interest should now be taken.
    Ms Hewitt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as there are now 1 million fewer jobs than when the Leader of the Opposition first became Prime Minister, it is essential to introduce a windfall profits tax and use the revenue to help move 250,000 young people off welfare and into work?
    Mr. Brown: As a result of Labour's windfall levy proposals, there are fewer jobs in the House for Conservative Members as well. I direct the House's attention to this morning's report which states that half a million of our young and long-term unemployed are without the basic training skills necessary for them to get jobs. It is a scandal that, over the past 18 years, when the Conservative party could have taken action, it failed to do so. This Government will take action to help both the young and the long-term unemployed.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, instead of the Opposition display of heart bleeding for the privatisation fat cats, it would be better to ask my right hon. Friend to list the constituencies in which young people who have long been out of work will benefit? Mine is one such constituency in which people are looking forward to the results of this action.
    Mr. Brown: I agree entirely. In some constituencies, 30 per cent. of working-age households or families have no one earning a wage. They include young people, the long-term unemployed and single-parent families. It is

    1271
    again a scandal that, on average in Britain, 20 per cent. of working-age families have no one in work. That situation should not be sustained on social or moral grounds, and it is bad for the economy. We are determined to take the action that the Conservatives have failed to take over the past 18 years.
    Mr. MacShane: I invite my right hon. Friend to ignore the bleatings of those on the Conservative Benches, the friends of the fat cats, and pay attention to Yorkshire. Is he aware of the anger there at the profits made by those privatised monopolies? People want that tax to be used to create jobs, and there will be considerable anger if there is any diminution of the well-flagged intention of the Labour party, now in government, to use the tax fairly and justly.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When the country finds out that some of these water companies, despite six or seven years of privatisation and record profits, have paid not a penny in mainstream corporation tax, it will be annoyed. Ordinary men and women are paying 23p or 40p in the pound when many water companies have paid absolutely nothing. That is another reason why the action that we have had to take to help to tackle the problem of unemployment, because of the failure of the Conservative party, is both necessary and urgent.
    Mr. William Ross: Given that the programme on which the Chancellor is going to expend this money is unlikely to be completed in the time scale that the windfall taxation is available, how does he intend to fund that expenditure in future years?
    Mr. Brown: The one-off levy will be raised in the Budget and for a Parliament. The action that we take over the next few years will bring down unemployment, save on social security costs, and enable us to reduce social security bills so that we can meet our long-term objective, which is to transfer resources from social security and welfare to education and training. I want every young person to have the chance of proper training and education after the age of 16, so that we can have a nation at work, instead of many thousands of people on the dole.

    VAT (Domestic Fuel)
    Mrs. Organ: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy towards value added tax on domestic fuel. [1593]
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce VAT on domestic fuel. [1597]
    Mr. Derek Twigg: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent representations he has received on the level of VAT on fuel. [1599]
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what plans he has to reduce VAT on domestic fuel. [1601]
    Dawn Primarolo: The Government have a manifesto commitment to cut VAT on domestic fuel and power to 5 per cent., and we intend to keep that pledge.
    Mrs. Organ: That is very good news. I am pleased to hear it. Members of the Lydney and district area pensioner
    1272
    forum will be particularly delighted with that excellent news. Does my hon. Friend remember the former Prime Minister making a pledge, before the 1992 election, that he would not put VAT on fuel? Does she also remember that, after the 1992 election, the Conservative party immediately broke that pledge and imposed VAT on fuel at 8 per cent? Will she confirm whether the Labour party will keep its election pledge on VAT? [Laughter.]
    Dawn Primarolo: Madam Deputy Speaker—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Madam Speaker, my apologies. I assume that Opposition Members are shocked at my hon. Friend's suggestion that 'a Government should keep their election pledge. As she has said, the previous Government gave pledges and broke them. Our pledge will be kept and pensioner households will be the better for it, and warmer in winter.
    Mr. Cunningham: Is my hon. Friend aware that many pensioners regard the reduction of VAT on fuel as important, given that they have been neglected for the past 18 years?
    Dawn Primarolo: The Government's promise to reduce VAT on fuel, particularly for pensioners, demonstrates clearly that we are committed to a fairness agenda and to assisting pensioners. Instead of sniggering at the questions, perhaps Opposition Members would consider assisting the Government in meeting that target.
    Mr. Twigg: Does my hon. Friend recall the statement made by the former Chancellor before the last election in which he said that the challenge was to increase VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent? Is my hon. Friend aware that that statement is of particular interest to my constituents who would pay significantly more for fuel under Conservative policies?
    Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is correct to remind the House that the Conservative Government imposed VAT on fuel and that the former Chancellor said that he was committed to raising VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent. The Opposition should now withdraw that commitment and support our target of reducing VAT to 5 per cent.
    Mr. Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Conservative Government had not shamelessly broken their promises on VAT after the 1992 election, there might be a few more than 164 Conservative Members now?
    Dawn Primarolo: Yes, I do agree. However, I believe that, even without that broken promise, there would be so few of them now as to put us in government.
    Mr. Evans: Does the Minister agree that, when VAT on domestic fuel is reduced from 8 to 5 per cent., prices should come down? Does she agree also that, when the windfall tax on utilities is introduced, if any charge is passed on to consumers, prices from those utilities—particularly from the energy companies—will increase? Will the Minister give a guarantee that gas and electricity prices will not increase when the windfall tax is introduced? If she cannot do that, pensioners will be no better off, and Labour's election pledges will be revealed as a big con.
    Dawn Primarolo: That is rich coming from an hon. Member who voted to impose VAT on fuel in the first

    1273
    place. He did not care then whether extra charges would be passed on to pensioners and the low-paid. I assure him that a cut in VAT on fuel will mean a reduction in fuel prices for pensioners, the low-paid and everyone else.
    Mr. Evans: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Madam Speaker: It was not the hon. Gentleman's question, so he cannot make that point.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does the Financial Secretary recall that, on 27 March last year in this place, she supported a reduction in the rate of VAT on energy-saving materials, describing it as a matter of justice, jobs and democracy? Does she still support that policy?
    Dawn Primarolo: Under the Finance Act 1997, a review is being conducted—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The review is being conducted as a result of a Labour amendment to the legislation. We intend to pursue that review vigorously and report to the House. This Government keep their promises: the Conservatives did not.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Can the hon. Lady confirm that the cut in VAT will benefit the poorest and the wealthiest in the land? What proposals does she have to target benefits on the real poorest in order to combat and cut fuel poverty?
    Dawn Primarolo: The average household will benefit by £4.50 a quarter, and the poorest will benefit by even more as a proportion of their income. It is quite clear that our method is the most effective way of delivering that reduction. I impress upon the hon. Gentleman the fact that our commitment through the environmental task force and our strategy on energy efficiency will assist those households further and deliver real benefits to them instead of pious promises.
    Mrs. Ewing: Does the hon. Lady remember back to 23 January 1995, when my party's amendment aimed at reducing VAT on domestic fuel to 5 per cent. was described as a cynical ploy no fewer than three times by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling)? It was stated that there was never any chance of reducing VAT on domestic fuel to 5 per cent. What has happened to change the Minister's mind? What realistic promise is she now holding out? We do not want to take a cynical attitude—we want to be convinced that there will be genuine reductions.
    Dawn Primarolo: There was a cynical ploy, which put at risk the reduction to 8 per cent. that we had already secured on the Floor of the House, thereby stopping the Conservative Government pushing ahead with a rise in VAT to 17.5 per cent.
    The hon. Lady asked a rather convoluted question. My answer to her is that the difference is that Labour is now in government and we shall deliver our promises.

    City Regulation
    Mr. Purchase: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about his proposed reforms to City regulation. [1594]
    Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor's announcement regarding reforming the regulatory system has been widely welcomed. It was the result of some four years' work and wide consultation. I am pleased to report that work is well in hand to take the Government's plans forward.
    Mr. Purchase: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should condemn the previous dilatory authority that allowed Andrew Regan to be considered a fit person to run a bank, when only a few days later he was condemned by a High Court judge as being unfit and "clearly dishonest" in his dealings with the Co-operative Wholesale Society? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that it is time that there was a new authority that will ensure that people who want to run their businesses properly and decently can do so free from the influence of crooks?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the case of Andrew Regan, as I believe that it is now sub judice. On his general point, for many years there has been concern that the regulatory system has not been capable of cleaning up those parts of the industry that needed to be cleaned up. People who were guilty of quite serious misdemeanours—which reflected badly on the industry as a whole—were not properly dealt with.
    Part of the objective in streamlining the structure and the nature of the regulatory system is to ensure that, where there are problems—for example, insider dealing—they can be dealt with quickly and effectively. That is why our proposals have been widely welcomed. For years, people could not understand why the Conservative Government would not act to clean up the City. The vast majority of people in the City are honest and their integrity is beyond reproach. It was they, as much as anyone else, who wanted action to be taken. Once again, this is an example of the Labour Government acting in an area where the Conservative Government did nothing for 18 years.

    Departmental Expenditure
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will next announce changes to departmental public expenditure totals. [1596]
    Mr. Darling: I explained to the House yesterday our policy regarding the comprehensive spending review. I also explained that, during the general election campaign and since, we have made it clear that Departments are expected to work within their departmental totals.
    Mr. Hughes: Following yesterday's statement, I want to ask a question for the purpose of absolute clarification. If, for example, the Social Security Department and the Minister for Welfare Reform find savings in the social security budget and the Government bring down the social security bill between now and April of the year after next—as everybody hopes that they will—and if, in the

    1275
    same period, the demand for the health service rises and the obvious cost of running the service is more than the figure that the Tory Government set—a figure to which the Labour Government are adhering—will there be any chance of money being transferred from a reduced social security demand to a clearly increased demand for the health service?
    Mr. Darling: Unlike the Liberal party, this party and this Government have been very clear that, before we allocate and spend money, we must know where it will come from. The whole purpose of the comprehensive spending review process, which is now under way, is that my right hon. Friends examine their budgets and determine how they can be better spent. As I explained yesterday, we have already started the process in the health service and in education, and we intend to continue the process.
    Mr. Canavan: If the Barnett formula is to be reviewed, will the Chief Secretary assure the House that any amended formula will ensure that public expenditure is distributed to the different parts of the United Kingdom on the basis not only of population but of genuine need, and that any additional revenue raised by the Scottish Parliament will be available for additional expenditure within Scotland?
    Mr. Darling: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) yesterday, the Government will make our proposals on funding the Scottish Parliament in a White Paper, which will be published in time for the referendum campaign and the referendum itself. We have always made it clear that it is important that all parts of the United Kingdom should be funded on the basis of need and in an acceptable manner. That is our intention, and there are no difficulties about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) will see our proposals in the White Paper, and I am sure that he will think that they are very satisfactory.
    Sir Norman Fowler: In spite of that review, will the Chief Secretary confirm that the current arrangements for exemptions from paying prescription charges will remain unchanged?
    Mr. Darling: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy for those in need, because the House will remember the review that he conducted in the 1980s. I made it absolutely clear yesterday that all aspects of Government expenditure must be reviewed; there is no question about that. As he will well know, to exclude any part of expenditure would mean that the review cannot be effective. Conservative Members should remember that, unlike them, the Labour party is committed not only to the principles underpinning the national health service but to fairness—which is something that the Conservative party cannot even begin to understand.
    Mr. Tipping: Will the Chief Secretary ensure that any review of departmental spending is collective and that there is a careful analysis of issues that are dealt with by more than one Department? If he does so, will there not be a real opportunity of ensuring that hard issues—such
    1276
    as poverty, adding value to people and helping communities to aspire to a new future—have a chance of being successfully addressed?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is absolutely essential that the Government examine the entire range of services, not least health services, for which we are responsible. There is, for example, a relationship between poverty and health and between quality of primary care and subsequent need for hospital acute care. I can assure my hon. Friend not only that will there be reviews across Departments but that the entire process will be reviewed by the Public Expenditure Committee. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I will supervise that process.

    Special Advisers
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on the appointment of special advisers to Her Majesty's Treasury. [1598]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Government's policy on the appointment of special advisers was agreed by the Prime Minister, on 19 May, in the attachment to his letter to Cabinet colleagues. A copy of that letter has been placed in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Colvin: I thank the hon. Lady for that reply. Will she acknowledge two matters that should make the Chancellor's job rather easier? First, he has inherited a booming economy from the outgoing Conservative Government. Secondly, he has relinquished one of his principal responsibilities—deciding monetary policy—to the Bank of England. Why is it therefore necessary for him to increase the number of his special advisers by one third?
    Mrs. Liddell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, because the reality is that we have found UK public expenditure to be a mess. The state of public expenditure prompted yesterday's announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. Moreover, I detect a whiff of hypocrisy in the position adopted by Conservative Members on special advisers. Since 1974, special advisers have been serving well the United Kingdom and Governments from both parties.
    As for changes in monetary policy, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his statement of 20 May, made it quite clear that changes in setting the inflation level are related to achieving the Government's other targets—to ensure that we have the right parameters, a stable economy, economic growth and fairness. Ensuring that we have a Government who govern for the many and not for the few is our priority.
    Mr. Clapham: Will the my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that the special advisers to the Treasury read the study recently completed by Sheffield university's energy study group, which shows that there is a need for a change in the tax regime in the United Kingdom continental shelf? The study also shows that had we, for example, been matching the Norwegian system, the revenue

    1277
    per barrel between 1984 and 1995 would have been an additional £5.5 billion. As we move to a second hydrocarbon boom—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is miles off the point. We are dealing with the appointment of special advisers. I believe that Mr. Radice wished to ask a question.
    Mr. Radice: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is sheer humbug to talk about politicising the civil service when a few additional special advisers are appointed and when in fact it was Mrs. Thatcher, when she was at No. 10, who suborned the integrity of career civil servants by making them her political playthings—so much so that they were not accepted back into the civil service?
    Mrs. Liddell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, because there is clear evidence of humbug among the Opposition. Indeed, I well recall that, under the previous Government, it took the intervention of the Cabinet Secretary to ensure that the then Secretary of State for Scotland did not use the Government press office to disseminate Conservative party propaganda. The appointment of special advisers is specifically to guarantee that the civil service does not become involved in party political issues.
    Mr. Green: The hon. Lady talks about humbug in relation to the politicisation of the civil service. Will she comment on reports that the Prime Minister has offered Mrs. Rachel Lomax, a career civil servant, the job of a special adviser as head of his policy unit? Will she further comment on the fact that the lady concerned, who is an intelligent civil servant, has very sensibly turned down the job because she does not want to be tainted by it?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman is indulging in speculation. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's policy unit is a matter for him but, in the few weeks that we have been in government, we have had reason to believe that the civil servants serving the Government are all intelligent, and we have every confidence in them.

    Give As You Earn
    Dr. Godman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to raise the annual sum of money an employed person may donate to charities by way of the give-as-you-earn scheme; and what has been the cost of the scheme to public funds since its inception. [1600]
    Dawn Primarolo: The payroll giving scheme has cost more than £30 million. The limit for donations under the scheme is a matter for the Chancellor in his Budget.
    Dr. Godman: The upper limit of £1,200 per annum was set some time ago. Does my hon. Friend agree that it should be raised to, say, £2,000 per annum, as donors and charities would welcome such an increase and the latter would be able to plan their projects systematically? Incidentally, has my hon. Friend any idea how many hon. Members pay the maximum £1,200 per annum?
    Dawn Primarolo: I do not have any idea how many hon. Members are contributing the maximum. There are
    1278
    more than 10 million people in pay-as-you-earn schemes who could give to charities. It is up to the charities to ensure that those people are donating. Any increase in the allowance is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does the Minister share my concern about the funding of charities? If so, will she urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to change advance corporation tax? Would she like to explain why it would have a negative impact on charities, and undertake to talk to the charities about any such proposals?
    Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor heard that and will take it as a
    Budget representation. All hon. Members will want to ensure that charities are properly dealt with in the tax system.

    Financial Regulation
    18. Mr. Goggins: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to improve financial regulation. [16031
    Mr. Darling: I explained a few moments ago the Government's policy on the reform of the regulatory system. We are making good progress towards the reforms that we want to achieve.
    Mr. Goggins: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he agree to keep the House fully informed about future developments on the Securities and Investments Board? Will he also ensure the maximum possible protection for pensioners and savers?
    Mr. Darling: I can certainly give the House those assurances. Not only will we keep the House informed through parliamentary questions, but the legislation required to implement our reforms on the Bank of England's role in monetary policy decisions and its supervisory role will be introduced in the near future. I am sure that there will be many hours of debate on the Floor of the House and in Committee to enable hon. Members to contribute their opinions in the normal way.
    Mr. Willetts: Will the Chief Secretary confirm that the most difficult questions will be those relating to whether a bank in difficulty will be allowed to fail or whether the risks to the system as a whole mean that it should be assisted? Will he clarify whether such decisions will be for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the new financial regulator or the Governor of the Bank of England?
    Mr. Darling: The position will be made clear in legislation. The hon. Gentleman is right. When there are problems with banks, the public and the banking system need to know where responsibility lies. The Bank of England is the lender of last resort, but with problems of the magnitude of the collapse of Barings bank—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was at the Treasury at the time, but I may be wrong and he may be well aware of the arrangements—the Chancellor has always been consulted. That happened with Barings and with Johnson Matthey in the 1980s.

UK Beef Exports
3.31 Pm
Sir Teddy Taylor(by private notice): To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implications of the decision of the European Union veterinary committee to reject proposals designed to relax the ban on UK beef exports.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for this opportunity to inform the House of developments.
The terms of the Florence agreement for lifting the export ban on British beef provided for a number of steps, including on meat from animals in certified herds. It envisaged that the proposals would be first considered by the Commission's scientific advisory committee before the Commission made changes to the European Union legislation.
On 25 February this year, the previous United Kingdom Government submitted their proposals for a certified herds scheme to the Commission, which passed them to the Scientific Veterinary Committee for an opinion. The committee delivered its opinion yesterday and expressed concern on five points relating to the identification of animals, the tracing of animals on farms and of their meat through the slaughterhouse, and the amount of veterinary supervision involved. The committee suggested that changes needed to be made to the UK proposals before they would be acceptable.
It is disappointing that the Scientific Veterinary Committee has asked for further clarification when it did not take up our offer to send an expert to explain our proposals at an earlier stage in the process. We are not surprised that it has some criticisms. We are already considering carefully the points made and will give a detailed technical response very soon. Our officials are in Brussels today, and discussions will continue over the next few days.
We recognise that all consumers will be anxious for full assurances, in line with sound scientific assessments of risk. We shall press for the removal of the ban where those assurances can be given. I shall keep the House fully informed of developments.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister accept that, as the Government's endeavour to resolve the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis by making an offer of providing independent advice was rejected, despite the new positive approach and the lack of confrontation, we have simply had another slap in the face based on wholly irrational arguments, such as the definition of a herd? Has not the time come for the Government to impose restrictions, under article 36, on imports from nations whose standards of safety are lower than ours?
Will the Minister endeavour to persuade his colleagues in Europe that the real problem, which will have to be overcome somehow, discussed and faced up to, is the appalling, horrendous over-production of beef in Europe, which costs the taxpayer a fortune, which it is estimated will produce about 2 million tonnes of surplus by the end of the decade and which produces no benefit to anyone? Does the Minister accept that, despite all his hard work
1280
and despite the Government's endeavours for non-confrontation and friendship, they have simply had another slap in the face? They should do something now.
Dr. Cunningham: There are three substantive points in what the hon. Gentleman has very fairly put to me. I never anticipated that I would be able to undo in five weeks all the disastrous misjudgments on the issue by the previous Government over the past five years. The proposals were, after all, submitted by the hon. Gentleman's own Government and not by me. I decided, however, that it was proper and sensible to proceed with those proposals because of the consequences of the beef ban for the whole of the United Kingdom and for our beef industry. Whatever progress I can make, I shall endeavour to make on the basis of those and new proposals that I am formulating.
I do not regard this as a slap in the face. I have had two perfectly rational conversations today with Commissioner Bonino and Commissioner Fischler about very quickly trying to resolve the outstanding questions. There is no row going on. It is perfectly reasonable for the independent Scientific Veterinary Committee—this is not a Commission decision—to raise some questions about these important matters. We shall do our best to answer those questions quickly and fully.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about the beef regime in Europe. Of course I agree with him about that. Most, if not all, parties in the House recognise that we need fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy, including the beef regime.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend accept that as British consumers have accepted that beef from pedigree herds is perfectly safe and are increasingly buying it, it would be criminally unjust if farmers who have pedigree herds, in England and in other parts of the United Kingdom, were made to pay for a point of view that is not scientifically based and is totally unacceptable? To push people into bankruptcy on that basis would be totally unacceptable.
Dr. Cunningham: It is very difficult to argue that the opinions of an independent scientific committee of experts are not scientifically based. Those people were appointed to advise the Commission exactly because of their independent scientific status. Of course I agree with my hon. Friend that we should do everything possible to ensure that, where we can develop an effective certified herds scheme, our own beef producers are able to take advantage of it.
I also agree with my hon. Friend on the point about consumers being given the same levels of protection. It is exactly for that reason that I announced last week that I was not prepared to countenance indefinitely imports of beef to Britain from countries where BSE existed, unless that beef was subject to the same stringent safeguards as beef produced in this country.
Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the Minister accept that his response will be a grave disappointment to the House and to beef farmers, including myself? Is he aware of the current state of the beef market and of the desperate anxiety felt by many farmers? Has he naught to offer for their comfort today? Does he not feel, in all humility,

1281
just a little chastened by the revelation that warm words and soundbites will not in themselves get us all we want in Europe?
Does the Minister accept that the certified herds scheme, developed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), was well founded and based on the best scientific advice? In spite of that setback, will the Minister press on with the selective cull scheme?
Does the Minister also accept from the Conservative Benches the assurance that we shall support any reasonable supplementary measures that he now proposes, including those related to maternal transmission, which are based on scientific studies initiated during our time in office? In particular, will he clarify the position on the implications of any redefinition of cohort groups for revisits to herds for which the selective cull has already been completed?
Finally, will the Minister bear it in mind that, although the House will accept measures based on scientific judgment and taken in good faith to lift the export ban, we cannot be forced beyond that? Does he agree that the ban has never had any sound legal basis? Will he confirm that he will vigorously prosecute our current legal case in the European Court?
Dr. Cunningham: In view of the diatribe at the start of the hon. Gentleman's question, his use of the word "humility" in respect of the Government is rather misplaced. A little humility on the Conservative Benches would not come amiss, given their Government's responsibility for the scandal of the development of BSE in Britain and its consequences for all our beef producers and dairy farmers. The hon. Gentleman is ill placed to champion the rights of farmers, given the abysmal record of the Conservative Government and of his right hon. and hon. Friends on the issue.
Of course we are pressing ahead with the selective cull, the over-30-months scheme and other such matters, but we would have been better placed had the Conservative Government started the selective cull when they should have, rather than delaying it until the early weeks of this year. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will recall the former Prime Minister and the former Foreign Secretary returning from Florence and promising that, as a result of their negotiations, the beef ban would be lifted by November 1996. What a fraud that was.
Mr. Martyn Jones: Is not the real problem that the certified herds scheme that the previous Government submitted to the Commission was inherently flawed? Will my right hon. Friend produce proposals as soon as possible to satisfy scientists, consumers and farmers alike?
Dr. Cunningham: Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend. Some weaknesses in the scheme have been identified and officials from MAFF are today discussing how we can improve the scheme and get it accepted. I want to persevere with the scheme. It is basically a good idea to have certified herds qualifying to export their beef. I see no sense in abandoning the scheme simply because one or two problems have been identified. We shall press ahead with trying to resolve them.
1282
As I said, I have spoken with both the Commissioners involved today. They want to help us resolve the difficulties and I am hopeful that we can make rapid progress. We do so in the interests first and foremost of the beef farmers and beef producers, secondly, in the interests of British consumers and thirdly, in the interests of our economy. We want to end the beef ban.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Minister accept that beef farmers throughout Scotland, Wales and England are now facing serious problems as a cumulative result of the dire consequences of mismanagement over that period, mostly under Conservative rule—[Interruption.] It was 13 and a half months. Does the Minister accept that the critical issue now is not whether we can open the export door again, but whether we can achieve some harmonisation of standards throughout the single market so that the certified herds scheme, specified bovine offals and all the other controls to which the British public are entitled to look as an assurance of public safety are applied to all exports throughout the so-called single market? Is it not about time for real action to be taken to deal with imports from countries elsewhere in the European Union and outside it, which cannot reach those standards?
Is it not a fact that the previous Government took no action whatever to deal with the problem, no doubt because they were only too pleased that their friends in the food processing industry—including the burger chains—were able to import beef of low standard at low cost? Is it not critical now to assure the British people that all the beef that is available in Britain is of the same standard as that on which we insist here?
Dr. Cunningham: I accept no responsibility on the part of the Government for the circumstances that prevail in the British beef industry today. The hon. Gentleman said that they were mostly the responsibility of the previous Administration, but they are totally the responsibility of the previous Administration. There is no doubt about that.
I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's specific points. Of course I want to see the same rules applied on specified risk materials across the European Union as a whole. That was the purpose of the announcement that I made last week on imports of beef to Britain. I have raised the matter with the Commissioners and with the president of the Agriculture Council, Mr. Van Aartsen. I have made it clear to them that I expect them to pursue the proposals which, to be fair, Franz Fischler has retabled for the Commission's consideration.
As I am a reasonable person in these matters, I have said that I shall give them until 22 July—the date of the next Agriculture Council—to make a decision on that point. If they have not made a decision by then, the draft orders to take action against beef imports that have not been given the same rigorous treatment as our own will be tabled. Those draft orders are on my desk now.
Mr. George Stevenson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while he makes and continues to make vigorous efforts to have the export ban lifted, it would be wrong for him to make the same mistake that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) made when he announced in the House that the ban would be lifted on 20 November last year? Does he also agree that one of the problems identified by

1283
the committee is that of identifying animals both on and off the farm? Will he assure the House that the Government are making every effort to ensure that that problem is tackled in earnest?
Dr. Cunningham: I certainly want to avoid all the mistakes made by the previous Government in dealing with the European Union on this and other issues. There is little point in the aggressive, confrontational approach suggested by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), when we start not from a position of strength but from a position of considerable weakness as a result of the failures and the record of the previous Conservative Government. So I certainly do not intend to set any dates or make any claims for an early resolution to a complex and deep-seated series of problems that we have to resolve—first, the problems on specified risk materials, secondly, the problems of confidence in the consumer market, and, last but not least, the lack of political credibility on this issue with our European partners. None of the mistakes of the previous Government will be repeated by me.
As for my hon. Friend's last point about farm visits, thanks to the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, we have rapidly accelerated work on the selective cull scheme, to the point at which more than 9,000 farm visits have been made. All those animals have to be traced and identified, and the farmers have to co-operate in that process. It is not an easy or uncomplicated process. We want to press on with it as quickly as we can, and we are doing so.
Mr. Tom King: Beef farmers face a serious situation at present. The Minister recently confirmed his awareness of concern about the standard of much of the imported beef coming into Britain. The Ministry has helpfully published excellent results from recent inspections of slaughterhouses, which confirm the high standard of the beef that is now produced in Britain. Are not those factors categorical grounds on which the Minister could approach McDonald's and the other major burger companies? If the lower-quality beef used in burgers were purchased in Britain, it would significantly support the beef price. How far is the right hon. Gentleman getting in his discussions with the burger companies?
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his measured and effective intervention. He is right to say that we forecast imports this year of some 160,000 metric tonnes of beef into Britain—between 20 and 25 per cent. of the beef consumed in the UK market. That is a considerable import penetration of the domestic market. I assure him that I have already approached the major importers. I am asking them not only for their advice on the matter, but whether they would like to talk to me about how we might help them to change their minds.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend knows the appalling cost to the nation, to farmers and to all in the meat industry of the previous Government's appalling mishandling of the matter. Can he give the current figures for BSE incidence in herds? Will he make
1284
it absolutely clear that it is the policy of his Department not to dodge the issues as the previous Government did, but to solve the problem as soon as possible?
Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right. The costs are horrendous: £1.5 billion and rising to the British taxpayer. Let me add that the previous Administration did not make sufficient provision in public expenditure to cover all the costs—just another of the little ticking time bombs that we have found in the public finances since the general election. The costs to the meat industry have also been catastrophic: some £800 million. The cost to farmers is almost incalculable. The financial consequences alone are truly horrendous.
The incidence of BSE, at the latest count on 4 June—my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I now have a weekly update of the figures—showed that there had been—[Hon. Members: "Reading".] Of course I am reading; I want to get the figure right. The figures showed that there had been 169,349 cases of BSE, which is currently running at 100 cases a week. That is a much reduced rate, but it is still much higher than in any other similarly affected country.
Mr. William Thompson: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this is very bad news for Northern Ireland, which exports a greater percentage of its meat than does any other part of United Kingdom? I understand that, while the overall scheme was rejected, favourable comments were made about its application—albeit with certain amendments—to Northern Ireland because of enhanced computer traceability in that part of the United Kingdom. Will the Minister insist that those amendments are made quickly and, when they are made, that the scheme be accepted for Northern Ireland, so that we can get rid of the iniquitous beef ban?
Dr. Cunningham: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the critical importance of the matter to Northern Ireland's economy. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and his colleagues came to impress that point on me only a few days ago. We had a long conversation about the impact of BSE on farmers in Northern Ireland and the considerable significance of agriculture generally to Northern Ireland's economy: 75 per cent. of beef produced there used to be exported and cannot be now.
I am very well aware of the force of the hon. Gentleman's case, but he is wrong to describe the scheme as having been rejected. The scheme has not been rejected; questions have been asked about its particulars. The questions have not even been considered by the Commissioners yet. That is why I spoke on the telephone today to both Commissioners, to ask them to help us to answer the questions expeditiously and effectively so that the scheme can be accepted.
I want to make the best progress I can in dealing with those matters, certainly in the interests of farmers in Northern Ireland, but also in the interests of farmers in the United Kingdom as a whole. I acknowledge that there has been particularly good progress in Northern Ireland on registration, the selective cull and other matters necessary to fulfil the terms of the Florence agreement. If

1285
I had not recognised that, the hon. Member for Upper Bann and his colleagues would have left me in no doubt about it.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: In line with the suggestions of the Scientific Veterinary Committee, will my right hon. Friend consider adopting a two-part strategy? First, as the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) said, he should press for an immediate lifting of the ban in Northern Ireland because of traceability. Secondly, for mainland Britain, he should work towards lifting restrictions on all cattle born after 1 August 1996, at which date we can guarantee that there was no contaminated beef. That would mean effectively a progressive lifting of the ban as those cattle reached 30 months.
Dr. Cunningham: I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that, if I could get results simply by insisting that the ban be lifted in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, I would so insist. It is not quite that simple. As there are questions about the certified herds scheme, which apply equally to Northern Ireland as to other parts of the United Kingdom, I must answer those questions to the advantage of Northern Ireland as well as other parts of the UK. As I have said repeatedly this afternoon, I want to do that as quickly and effectively as I can. The advantage of the certified herds scheme being approved is that it would apply to the whole of the UK, including Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend's important second point was about a birth date after which we could export beef from anywhere in the UK. I have discussed that again with Commissioners Fischler and Bonino. I raised the matter with them in May and I discussed it again with Mr. Fischler today on the telephone. We are formulating new proposals along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, and I shall keep the House informed of progress.
Mr. John Swinney: It is rather difficult to get to the nub of the Secretary of State's statement. On the one hand, he is telling us that there are one or two problems with the scheme. On the other, he is saying that he is not giving us a definitive time scale within which the ban can be lifted. Will the Secretary of State give us some definitive guidance on how swift progress will be to have the beef ban lifted? Will he consider the proposals that have long been on the table, which have been endorsed by the European Union as an opportunity for the ban to be lifted in Scotland, as a priority within the United Kingdom?
Dr. Cunningham: I do not want to fall out with anyone in the Chamber during my first appearance at the Dispatch Box in my present role in this Parliament. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I am not a Secretary of State but the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Be that as it may, I am not being contradictory when I say that I want to resolve the problems as quickly as I can, but that I am not going to name a date. It would be unrealistic and misleading to do so. I have no idea how long it will take to resolve the problems. After all, the previous Prime Minister promised the nation that the entire ban would be lifted by November 1996. Here we are in June 1997 and none of the ban has been lifted.
It would be foolish in the extreme for me to start speculating about dates. I am certainly not going to raise false hopes. Perhaps that will disappoint the hon.
1286
Gentleman and his constituents, but I recognise the nature and scale of the problems in Scotland because many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies, like the hon. Gentleman, have left me in no doubt about the importance of the matter to Scotland. I shall work as effectively and quickly as I can to resolve the problems, but I shall not speculate on how long that will take.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: In addition to the terms of the Florence agreement, has my right hon. Friend any further proposals that will lead to the lifting of the beef ban? In particular, does he recognise that his recent comments about tightening import controls in the United Kingdom, unless common and improved standards of hygiene in slaughterhouses are introduced throughout Europe, have been widely welcomed by British beef producers?
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are looking at other possibilities for action that would help in the lifting of the ban, either in part or in whole. I have already referred to one: a birth date after which any beef produced anywhere in the United Kingdom would be eligible for export. We have to deal with the outstanding matter of the scientific evidence on maternal transmission, and we need to bring forward proposals to the Commission on that important issue. We are working on those. I shall keep the House informed on that matter.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments about the statement that I made last week. I have been quite emphatic about that statement. I want to see a European Union-wide approach to the removal of specified risk materials, but in the absence of such an approach, we shall act on our own account.
Mr. John Greenway: May I offer support to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said today about the need for the same hygiene standards and for the risk materials to be removed, having pressed that point in the House for 15 months? He will also know that I have always taken the view that this should be not a matter of dispute across the Floor of the House, but a matter between the House and this country, and the rest of the European Union.
Notwithstanding the short time that the right hon. Gentleman has been in his post, on which I congratulate him, does he not feel that, in a sense, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said at the beginning of his private notice question, all that has happened is that he has again been given a slap in the face? Indeed, it is not just him, but the British beef industry. The ban is unjustified and must be lifted without delay.
Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman started by being supportive and congratulatory, and I thank him for that, but it is no good him wagging his finger at me and saying, "The ban must be lifted without delay." I do not recall him saying that in the previous Parliament, when all sorts of false promises were being made from the Government Dispatch Box by Conservative Ministers. The hon. Gentleman is rational enough to know that there is just no hope of the ban being lifted without further delay. That is unrealistic. Much as I agree with his general point that we are doing everything that is reasonable in the circumstances, it is simply not going to happen that way.

1287
Before I sit down, I had better apologise to the House, because I have already given some information that was not accurate. I said earlier, in answer to a question, that officials had made more than 9,000 farm visits. That is not true. We have identified more than 9,000 farm visits to be made. At the moment, 3,600 of the farms have been visited. I apologise to the House for that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I shall end this exchange. Hon. Members will find that there may very soon be a debate on these matters, and I shall remember them.

Business of the House
4.2 pm
Mr. Alastair Goodlad: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 16 JUNE—Consideration in Committee of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 17 JUNE—Second Reading of the Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 18 JUNE—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Completion of remaining stages of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.
THURSDAY 19 JUNE—For three hours, there will be a debate on the common agricultural policy, on a Government motion. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 20 JUNE—Debate on the Child Support Agency on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 23 JUNE—Second Reading of the Local Government (Contracts) Bill.
Later that week, I expect to find time for an Opposition day.
Government legislation will also be taken that week, probably the Plant Varieties Bill.
I also hope to find time for the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997.
At this stage, I am unable to give the House the precise details of the days on which these items will be taken. There will be discussions in the usual way.
FRIDAY 27 JUNE—Debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
[Thursday 19 June—Relevant European Community Documents: 6627/97, relating to agricultural prices for 1997/98 and related measures; 9550/96, relating to a support system for producers of arable crops; 9876/96, relating to ewe and suckler cow premium schemes; 6112/97, relating to agri-monetary adjustment; 5617/97, relating to the Court of Auditors Special Report No. 1/97.]
Mr. Goodlad: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving us the business for next week and the partial business for the week after.
Now that the date of the Budget has been announced, when will the Finance Bill be published, when will the Second Reading debate be held and how long will be allowed for the Committee stage?
What progress is being made in setting up the Select Committees? Is the right hon. Lady aware that we have consistently stressed the importance of the speedy establishment of those Committees and that the House is becoming concerned at the lack of movement, particularly in respect of the departmental Select Committees and the

1289
Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, which will clearly have work to do, not least in respect of the allegations about the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar)? When does the right hon. Lady expect a statement to be made to the House on the circumstances surrounding the hon. Gentleman?
Will the right hon. Lady ensure that the Prime Minister comes to the House to make a statement following his discussions with the German Chancellor about the future of the Eurofighter aircraft project in view of its great importance for jobs in Britain, particularly in Lancashire?
Is the right hon. Lady aware of the current speculation about the Government's plans concerning prescription charges? Can she confirm that the Government do not intend to make pensioners pay those charges? If not, when will a statement be made to the House detailing the Government's intentions?
In the light of the change to Government policy in respect of primary-age children and the assisted places scheme, which the Prime Minister announced during questions yesterday, will the right hon. Lady please arrange for a statement to be made to the House clarifying the position and setting out exactly the Government's intentions in the matter for the information of those families involved?
Finally, in the light of the unsatisfactory reply given by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the private notice question of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), will she confirm that, either during or before next week's debate on the common agricultural policy, the Minister will update the House on the prospects for a lifting of the ban on British beef exports and banning the import of European beef?
Mrs. Taylor: I can confirm that the Finance Bill should be ready shortly after my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made his Budget statement, and we shall have discussions through the usual channels about the amount of time that is required for the Bill's various stages.
I have said on several occasions from the Dispatch Box that I, too, want to see the Select Committees established as quickly as possible. We have made some progress in terms of establishing the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons and one or two other important Committees. I attach particular importance to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and discussions are going on through the usual channels and with the minority parties on that matter.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the Labour party acted quickly with regard to the allegations against my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland involved the police in investigations into that matter. As I have said before, if the allegations come within Sir Gordon Downey's remit, obviously consideration could be given to his inquiring into the matter. But it is important that we all recognise that the matter is with the police, who may or may not take action.
The right hon. Gentleman asked again about the future of the Eurofighter, on which I made some comments last week. I repeat that the Government are fully committed to the Eurofighter programme. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence met the German Defence Minister in Bonn last week to discuss that specific project.
1290
The German Defence Minister made it clear that he thought that Germany needed the Eurofighter, and we hope that progress can be made on the matter.
Prescription charges were dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when he said yesterday that there were prescription anomalies. He was referring to the fact that one group of illnesses is covered by prescription exemptions whereas others are not. We are not making any commitment on that: it will be part of any departmental review.
No further statements on the assisted places scheme are planned for next week. The comments that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made yesterday were very clear. For a member of the previous Government to complain about debates on BSE is a cheek, and I have no plans to provide time for such a debate.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will my right hon. Friend examine early-day motion 112?
[That this House notes that a year after the appointment of General McCaffrey as America's Drug Czar, statistics prove that teenage drug abuse is soaring, reports of drug-related corruption have multiplied and the cities of New York, Philadelphia and Los Angeles have suffered startling jumps in use and overdoses; observes that the Drug Czar has been called a 'drugs nanny and a disaster'; and urges the Government not to repeat America's mistakes by creating a Drug Czar but to set up a Royal Commission to consider alternative policies.]
Sadly, the drug tsar appointed in America 16 months ago has not fulfilled the promise of his office. Since he was appointed, drug use, drug deaths and drug corruption have increased at a remarkable rate. We should consider carefully all the possible solutions to deal with the ever-increasing toll of drug abuse and drug deaths. A royal commission should investigate the use of legal and illegal drugs before we take any new policy initiatives that may end in failure, as they have in America.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend's views on this subject are well known, and I do not share them. If we appoint a drug tsar—I am willing to consider different titles for that position—we will ensure greater co-ordination in our campaign against drug use. Only this week, the Government announced that many projects up and down the country will receive drug challenge fund money. Those schemes are accepted by the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Employment, the Home Office and the police as a good way of learning how best to tackle this difficult problem. My hon. Friend does not share our views and has a different approach, so I am afraid that I cannot agree with him.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House tell us when we shall have an opportunity to debate early-day motion 103?
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1997 (S.L, 1997, No. 852), dated 17th March 1997, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th March, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.]
The motion incorporates our prayer to reverse the damaging changes that the Conservative Government made to housing benefit and council tax benefit. It has been endorsed by many Labour Members in early-day motion 88

1291
Will the right hon. Lady address the problem of time for debates on Europe? She will recall that on Monday we had a comparatively short debate on Europe instead of the usual two-day debate, with the result that many hon. Members, particularly Labour Members, were not called.
I note that the business announced for next week allows for only a truncated debate on the common agricultural policy. That is contrary to the precedent of a full-day debate. Will the right hon. Lady guarantee that we will have a full, two-day debate on a Government motion after the Amsterdam summit so that we can accommodate all the views in the House, notably the many and varied views of Conservative Members, which may not be properly represented in a one-day debate?
Now that the right hon. Lady can give us an idea of the time scale after the Budget for consideration of the Finance Bill, will she tell us when she expects the summer recess to be?
Mrs. Taylor: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first point about the problem of housing benefits and young people, we all recognise the difficulties that have been caused by the changes made by the previous Government. Unfortunately, the savings that were to come from those changes form part of the expenditure plans that we inherited. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said yesterday, the Government are reviewing all the options. We shall have to see what can be done in this field, as in many others, and I do not want to pre-empt any decision that may be made.
Discussions took place through the usual channels about the debate on Europe next Thursday, and it was thought that three hours would be for the convenience of the House on this occasion. I am sure that hon. Members will want to participate in that debate.
I cannot guarantee the two-day debate that the hon. Gentleman wants following the Amsterdam summit, but I have said that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House about the outcome. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that if he wants an extra two days' debate, that makes it even more unlikely that I shall be able to say anything in the near future in answer to his question about the summer recess.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Could my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to be made about the continuing crisis in the coal mining industry, which is now privately owned? We hear stories of the evil monster, the Tory Budge, sacking workers because they refuse to work two consecutive 11-hour shifts, and for no other reason. At the same time, he is going around the old pit villages recruiting people to work two 11-hour shifts at the weekend, although some of those people work from Monday to Friday in other occupations. That is the scandal of a privatised industry—a dangerous industry, given that people are being required to work for so many hours.
Mrs. Taylor: I cannot guarantee my hon. Friend a statement, but I think that the safety implications could be
1292
significant, and I shall undertake to draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: May I ask the Leader of the House again whether we can have an urgent debate on the Department for Education and Employment, on what resources it has and on whether it is using them effectively?
Yet another week has passed, and the Department has made no decision on the age of transfer of pupils in Buckinghamshire. That is causing a great deal of anxiety to parents, pupils and schools, and is already beginning to disrupt children's education. I think that we need a debate so that we can see how the Department has time to do its job. It appears to have time to appoint more political advisers; why does it not have time to make a decision on Buckinghamshire children?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Lady was a Minister. She will know that, when decisions of that kind are made, many factors must be taken into account, including all the representations that are made. [Interruption.] She may say that the decision could have been made before the election, but that does not mean that the new Ministers will automatically agree with her conclusion.
I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Education and Employment have been very active, in an extremely positive way. Many parents throughout the country will welcome the statements that we have heard emphasising the need to improve children's education from the earliest stage, and about extra literacy classes in the summer. I shall, of course, undertake to ensure that my right hon. and hon. Friends know of the hon. Lady's concern about the delay, but I do not think that she is right to say that they have been inactive. I think that they have been working very successfully.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will my right hon. Friend grant me one favour that I failed to gain from her distinguished and honourable predecessor, who is no longer with us? I refer to a debate on prisons. At present, we not only have a floating prison ship; we have overcrowding in prisons, there are not enough places for female prisoners and there are days when there are lock-outs because of the lack of space. There is a good deal to discuss, and the Select Committee on Home Affairs will not be established for some time. The matter is urgent, and it should be debated before the summer is out.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has put his request in a measured way, looking to the longer term rather than just to next week. I am sure that, given his ingenuity, he will find time to raise prison issues, probably on more than one occasion. Home Office questions are coming up shortly, and no doubt my hon. Friend will be able to explore other ways of raising those issues.
Mr. Edward Garnier: The right hon. Lady will understand the disappointment of my farming constituents that she has been able to find only three hours for a debate next Thursday on the common agricultural policy. Will she undertake to find more time for a debate on agriculture before we break for the recess? She will understand the acute anxieties felt by farmers in my

1293
constituency—be they beef, dairy or arable farmers—about the current agricultural crisis. I urge her to find a full day on which we can debate this serious issue.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said a few moments ago. My right hon. Friend recognises the anxiety that the crisis has caused, but he also recognises the origins of the problem and the fact that it was the previous Government who made it even more difficult for us to get the settlement that we want.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked for a debate of more than three hours next week. The time for the debate was agreed through the usual channels. If he wants extra time to debate this or any other matter, he will note that I have said that I hope to find time for an Opposition day in the week after next.
Mr. Chris Pond: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for an urgent debate on the decision by the new Conservative-controlled Kent county council to freeze all capital spending, including that on schools? That will mean that children in my constituency and others in Kent will be taught in quite unsatisfactory conditions and, of course, that runs counter to the Government's intention of improving quality in schools and in education generally.
Mrs. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend, but I am afraid that I will not be able to find time next week for such a debate. Of course, it is open to him to pursue other means of raising the issue, such as in a Wednesday morning debate. I was not aware of the difficulties that he mentions in Kent county council, but I shall make sure that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Deputy Prime Minister are aware of his concerns.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the right hon. Lady ensure that questions that are put down for written answer on a named day are answered promptly at 3.30 pm? I draw her attention to questions that are down for written answer today. Questions 53 to 56 are pertinent to the extraordinary assault on the freedom of the press by the Lord Chancellor at a press conference on Friday. As I speak, those questions have not been answered.
Mrs. Taylor: Obviously, I was not aware that the questions had not been answered, but I shall make inquiries.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the Leader of the House try to find extra time to discuss the current review of departmental spending and to debate particularly the problems of computers in recognising the year 2000? Each Department was set a target of a full audit by October of this year and most of those should now be well under way. The system should be corrected by December 1998, but the likely cost to the Government of putting this right appears to be rising, to a figure in excess of £1 billion or possibly even several billion. This is not an inter-party problem: it is a recognition that the Government and all private-sector firms face potential catastrophe unless they get their act together quickly.
Mrs. Taylor: I understand the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It has been described as the
1294
millennium time bomb and I know that people in the public and private sectors have been looking at ways to deal with it. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in his Department have been spending a considerable amount of time on it. At the moment, it is thought that the public sector may be ahead of the private sector. I do not think that I can find time for a debate on the matter, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has heard the hon. Gentleman and that, if he wishes to raise further points, the Minister will be willing to listen.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the right hon. Lady's hopeful suggestion that we may have a debate on Northern Ireland appropriations in two weeks. Yesterday and today, there has been concern throughout the House about the Barnett formula and the possibility of changes. Would it be possible to have a statement this week on that issue, so that the House can be clear that any review will deal not merely with numbers, but, rather, with need?
Mrs. Taylor: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that, for many years, the Barnett formula has formed the basis for many allocation decisions. Obviously, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury yesterday put that in the context of the overall spending review that the Government are conducting. He was not announcing specific plans for any change.
Mr. Robert Key: May I repeat my request for an urgent debate on defence, to give the Government the opportunity to clarify the confusion over the future of the Eurofighter and Trident projects?
The Prime Minister said during the general election campaign that Eurofighter was imperative for this country's defence, we have seen Ministers trotting off to Germany, and we have been told again today that Eurofighter is safe; yet, only yesterday, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, during the statement on the spending review, whether the Government were looking at spending on Trident and Eurofighter. We were told that the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence had announced a defence review, which would take six months to complete, but that the spending review would take 12 months to complete and did not exempt Trident and Eurofighter. That confusion is serious for our defence forces and for the defence of this country.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is making heavy weather of what has been said. I told him earlier that, only this week, the Secretary of State for Defence had had discussions with his German counterpart. The German Cabinet will meet on 11 July to discuss the federal budget. Apparently, the German Defence Minister is in favour of Eurofighter. There is no confusion whatever in the Government's attitude. Defence Question Time takes place on Monday and if the hon. Gentleman wants to take the matter further, he can do so.
Mr. Paul Burstow: Can the Leader of the House make time available for a statement next week—indeed, sooner if possible—on the industrial action that is about to take place on Connex South Central

1295
services, which will cause misery tomorrow to many of my constituents and to many other commuters trying to get into London? Will she draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions early-day motion 104 so that he can reply to it in detail?
[That this House notes with concern the forthcoming industrial action amongst drivers employed by Connex South-Central; believes this will cause considerable inconvenience to members of the public, disrupt the economy and undermine the efforts being made to raise confidence in rail travel and effect a transfer from road to rail; recognises the right both of Connex to seek changes to working practices and of ASLEF to resist reductions in safety; and calls upon the two sides to renew their efforts to resolve the dispute as a matter of urgency, on ASLEF to postpone any industrial action pending these further talks taking place, and on the Government to put pressure on both sides to reach a sensible and amicable agreement]
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may know that the Government's attitude is that this is a matter for the employer and employees, and not for the Government. Therefore, I do not anticipate a statement at this time. There is a real danger of inconvenience tomorrow, but he will have to recognise that it is a matter for those parties directly concerned.
Mr. Norman Baker: May I reinforce the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow)? Is the Leader of the House aware that, today, I had 17 pages of cancellations sent through by Connex South Central? Is she also aware that I have spoken to Lew Adams, general secretary of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen—ASLEF—and to the managing director of Connex South Central, both of whom say that they are willing to sit down tomorrow and talk? However, no date has been fixed for talks, trains are being cancelled and commuters in my constituency will be greatly inconvenienced by the strike. Will she have a word with the Minister of Transport, to knock some heads together, because both sides appear willing to talk?
Mrs. Taylor: if both sides were willing to talk constructively, we would not be facing a dispute. I recognise the problems that could be experienced if the dispute goes ahead; and, from what the hon. Gentleman is saying, the people involved might be able to find a way out.

Points of Order
4.27 pm
Sir Nicholas Lyell: Madam Speaker, may I raise a point of order, of which I have given you notice? Sir Gordon Downey, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, is a much-respected servant of the House, but he is reported as having given an interview to Counsel magazine recently, in which he is quoted as saying:
"There is quite a strong case for further consideration as to whether or not we would be better off with professional politicians without outside interests."
The House will recognise that such a view is highly controversial and would give rise, if proposed, to serious constitutional issues, which are matters for the House itself or for Parliament. An expression of view on the matter by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards would appear, if—I repeat, if—he has been correctly reported, to sit most uneasily with his quasi-judicial functions. Would you be kind enough to make inquiries and to inform the House of the true position and of any guidance to officers that you think may be necessary?
Madam Speaker: I have noted the concern expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I have seen the comments made by Sir Gordon Downey and I have been in touch with him. I shall make certain that he is aware of the concerns expressed in the exchanges that have taken place on this point of order today.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your opinion on a new and highly undesirable change in the procedures of the House. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was asked 19 questions, which he was expected to answer in half an hour. During business questions last week, the shadow Leader of the House asked 21 questions and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had only a minute or two in which to answer them. The shadow Leader of the House asked 16 questions today.
We are asked to relate business questions to the business of the House next week or in future and to request statements or debates. Of the 21 questions that the shadow Leader of the House asked last week, only seven sought statements or referred to new business of the House. Of his 16 questions today, only four sought statements or debates in the House. It is totally unreasonable to expect my right hon. Friend to provide adequate and intelligent answers to all of those questions. She is dealing with the business of the House: she is not a contestant on "Mastermind".
Madam Speaker: Obviously the hon. Gentleman brought his abacus to business questions. I cannot say that I have been counting, but I shall examine the record. I answered some 10 questions in about seven minutes in my state rooms this morning—I wish that Ministers could do as well.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek clarification arising from your reply to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). I assume that Sir Gordon Downey is in the same position as any other

1297
Officer of the House. While I may or may not agree with his observations, Sir Gordon performs a particular job for the House and he is entitled to express his point of view. It would be rather unfortunate if we were to try to gag him and prevent him from expressing his views.
Sir Gordon's role is to try to maintain the standards in public life that the public would like to see observed. While some may disagree with his comments—I do not believe that we could have 650 full-time politicians in the House—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an observation rather than raising a point of order. In answer to the proper question that he asked at the beginning of his remarks, Sir Gordon Downey is a senior Officer of the House.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You have said that you will express concern to Gordon Downey arising from the point of order raised by the Tory ex-Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lye11). Perhaps you could also inform him that the ex-Attorney-General is one of 164 Conservative Members. He is a lawyer and he probably wants another job now that his pay has been docked.
The arithmetic tells us that there are 418 Members on the Government side, almost all of whom will not be involved in consultancies. It is conceivable that Gordon Downey did the arithmetic as well, saw what happened in the general election, and decided that that is the way we should go: one Member of Parliament, one job. The Tories are squealing because they do not have as much money as they had before.
Madam Speaker: As I have said, I intend to make the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards aware of the exchanges that have taken place regarding this matter.

BILLS PRESENTED
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CONTRACTS)
  Mr. Secretary Prescott, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Dewar, Mr. Secretary Davies, Ms Hilary Armstrong, Mr. Nick Raynsford and Mr. Geoffrey Hoon, presented a Bill to make provision about the powers of local authorities (including probation committees and the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District) to enter into contracts; and to enable expenditure of local authorities making administrative arrangements for magistrates' courts to be treated for some purposes as not being capital expenditure: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed [Bill 5].
  PLANT VARIETIES
  Dr. John Cunningham, supported by Mrs. Secretary Beckett, Mr. Secretary Dewar, Secretary Marjorie Mowlam, Mr. Secretary Davies and Mr. Jeff Rooker, presented a Bill to make provision about rights in relation to plant varieties; to make provision about the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal; to extend the time limit for institution of proceedings for contravention of seeds regulations; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed [Bill 6].

  WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (Matters relating exclusively to Wales)),
  That the Matter of the Government's programme for Wales, being a Matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Graham Allen.]
  Question agreed to.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  4.32 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I beg to move,
  That this House, pursuant to section 9(4) of the Transport and Works Act 1992 ("the Act") as applied by section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, approves the following proposals, contained in an application for an Order submitted under section 6 of the Act by Eurostar (UK) Limited on 23rd January 1997 and entitled The Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Stratford Station and Subsidiary Works) Order, for

  (1) The construction, maintenance and operation of—

  (i) in the London Borough of Hackney and Newham, a station at Stratford for international and domestic services on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link with vehicular parking and other facilities in connection therewith; railways comprising down and up lines to serve international and domestic platforms at that station; and a station access road off Waterden Road, including a bridge over the River Lea;

  (ii) in the London Borough of Hackney, a realignment and improvement of Waterden Road;

  (iii) in the London Borough of Newham, a subway at the existing suburban Stratford station with a pedestrian link to the new station; and

  (iv) in the London Boroughs of Camden and Islington, railways near St. Pancras to provide access between the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and the West Coast Main Line by means of a connection to the North London Line.

  (2) The authorisation of works ancillary to the above-mentioned works, including the stopping-up of York Way in the London Boroughs of Camden and Islington, the making of a means of access to and from that road and interference with waterways.

  (3) The compulsory acquisition or use of land or rights in land for the intended works; compensation for this and for the injurious affection of land; and the compulsory use of subsoil.

  It may be helpful if I open the debate with a brief explanation of the statutory process and the purpose of the order. Orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992—the TWA—have replaced private Bills as the means by which new railways, tramways and certain other works projects are normally authorised. Section 9 of the TWA gives Parliament a continuing and important role in relation to schemes that the Secretary of State believes are of national significance by making the approval of each House a precondition to the making of an order under the TWA.
  If a resolution approving such proposals is passed in both this House and another place, the application will go forward for more detailed consideration at a public inquiry. It would then be for the Secretary of State to decide, in the light of the inspector's report, whether to authorise the proposals in question by making a TWA order. The Secretary of State is not bound so to do. Until he makes his decision, he must keep an open mind on the merits of the proposals. Nevertheless, in reaching that decision, he would take careful note of Parliament's view.
  The section 9 procedure has been used only once before, for the ill-fated central railway project which was roundly rejected by the House last summer. I trust that there will be a more positive outcome today.
  The use of this procedure in connection with the proposed Stratford station and the twin-track link to the north London and west coast main lines arises because
  1300
  section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 provides specifically for these proposals, in any application for a TWA order, to be referred to Parliament under the section 9 procedure. That special provision was inserted in the CTRL Act with all-party support because the House wished to have an opportunity to give the proposals its formal support in principle. The Secretary of State is not required to form an opinion on their national significance.
  The motion accordingly seeks the approval of the House for the proposals. It is phrased in this way, rather than in neutral terms, to enable us to secure a conclusive outcome in a single debate. If the House were to reject the motion, the scheme would, in effect, be dead, as the order could not be made. If the House passed the resolution—as, in this case, the Government recommend—the project would be considered in another place.
  Mr. William O'Brien: My hon. Friend referred to the link to the west coast main line. I make a plea to her and to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider a link to the east coast main line—I appreciate that it cannot be done under this order—so that we have a service to all the regions through orders similar to this one. I hope that Ministers will keep in mind the fact that we need the same services on the east coast as are proposed for the west coast.
  Ms Jackson: I am sure that my hon. Friend understands that his proposal cannot be debated this afternoon, because it is not a matter covered in the order. However, I shall ensure that his strong representations on behalf of his constituents are brought to the attention of our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  As I was saying, only if the application is approved in both Houses can it proceed to a more detailed examination at a public inquiry.
  I come now to the specific proposals that the House is asked to approve. The detailed case for the proposals will, with your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, be presented by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). I shall confine my comments to a short summary of the proposals and the representations received on them, and I shall set out the Government's position. A copy of the complete application, including plans and sections of the proposed works and the environmental statement, has been available for inspection in the Library since the application was made in January.
  The application for the order was made by Eurostar (UK) Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of London and Continental Railways Ltd., which successfully bid for the contract to build the channel tunnel rail link. The works contained in the draft order were not included in the CTRL Act because the decision in principle to proceed with them came too late for inclusion in the Bill without seriously prejudicing its progress.
  The proposed station at Stratford will provide a new intermediate stop for international and domestic services using the rail link. It will enable passengers to make connections with other railways services at Stratford, such as the London Underground Central and Jubilee lines, the docklands light railway and the north London and great eastern lines. The station will therefore give passengers a wider choice of access to international and domestic

  1301
  services on the CTRL and make an important contribution to the Government's declared aim of establishing a more integrated public transport system.
  The development of the station is expected to create sizeable regeneration benefits for the Stratford area, which is itself a focal point for development at the western end of the Thames gateway. Taking into account the scope for redevelopment of adjoining lands, including former railway lands, and the wider development opportunities in the lower Lea valley and the royal docks, the longer-term extra employment prospects for the area could be substantial.
  The other main proposal in Eurostar's application that is closely associated with the Stratford station is for a twin-track connection from the CTRL to the north London and west coast main lines. Such a connection will enable trains to and from the channel tunnel to bypass St. Pancras station and to transfer directly to the north London and west coast main lines, thereby reducing journey times between mainland Europe and Scotland, the north and the midlands. Stratford station would be used as the London stop on those through trains. The twin-track connection would replace the single track provided in the 1996 Act and increase operational flexibility and reliability.
  Mr. David Chidgey: Can the Minister confirm that the promoter's intention is still to complete all the works that she mentioned without further recourse to public funds?
  Ms Jackson: It is my understanding, given the contract into which the operator has entered with the Government, that there will be no further call on public funds.
  Dr. John Marek: Will the Minister expand on that answer? What will happen if the firm goes into liquidation? Do Ministers have any contingency plans to ensure that works, once they are half begun, are completed, so that the project comes to fruition?
  Ms Jackson: With respect to my hon. Friend, he has asked a hypothetical question. I repeat: the operator entered into a commercial, binding contract with the Government. We do not foresee any reason for it to break that contract.
  The Department received 59 objections to or representations about the proposed works, copies of which have been placed in the Library. I will, however, summarise the main points raised.
  There is concern that the station will cause excessive traffic on the surrounding road network and that inadequate provision is proposed for public transport and cyclists at the station. There is concern also about possible adverse environmental effects on the Bully Point nature reserve, on the River Lea, and about the loss without replacement of garden allotments, recreational amenities and metropolitan open land in the Lea valley, near Stratford.
  Some statutory undertakers and local businesses have objected to the adverse effects of the proposed compulsory acquisition powers associated with the works or to the effects of the works on access to businesses by road and rail. Concerns have been expressed also about the adequacy of the design of the proposed pedestrian link at Stratford station. More generally, a few objectors have questioned the demand for a station at Stratford.
  1302
  The London boroughs of Hackney and Islington have challenged the adequacy of the environmental statement in its assessment of some of the local environmental effects—particularly impacts on local traffic and transport—and the implications of operating additional channel tunnel services for local services on the north London line. Finally, the London borough of Newham has sought certain changes to the proposed planning conditions.
  What is the Government's assessment of the proposals? If Parliament approves the resolutions, the Secretary of State would have a duty to decide whether the order should be made. His mind must remain open on that decision, and, in making it, he must specifically have regard to the inspector's report, after detailed consideration of the proposals and objections to them at a public inquiry. The issue for the House to decide today is whether, in principle, the proposals are worthy of proceeding to that more detailed examination. The Government have no doubt that they are worthy.
  The objectors have raised a number of issues concerning the perceived adverse local impacts of the scheme on traffic levels, the environment and businesses. Those are matters that, quite properly, must be considered carefully before the order is determined. It will be open to the Secretary of State to amend provisions in the draft order or to change the planning conditions attaching to any deemed planning permission after considering any recommendations by the inquiry inspector. It would be for the promoter of the order to defend the adequacy of the environmental statement and to provide more information for the inquiry, if so requested by the inspector.
  The Secretary of State is under a statutory obligation to consider the environmental statement in determining whether to make the order. In the Government's view, the objections do not raise fundamental issues that might dent our confidence in the proposals' overall merits. We are satisfied that the grounds of the objections to the application are of a nature that would be best considered at an inquiry.
  We think that the proposed works are desirable in principle. They have the potential to create significant transport benefits by encouraging greater railway use, especially for travel to Europe. A new station at Stratford would also help to achieve a more integrated transport system in London. For local communities in the east Thames corridor, the works offer a real prospect of substantial benefits, with more jobs and much-needed urban regeneration.
  The Government therefore have no hesitation in inviting the House to pass the order.
  4.45 pm
  Sir George Young: The Opposition welcome the order. We give it our full support, and we are grateful to the Minister for her explanation of it.
  Debates on the channel tunnel rail link and on Stratford international station have, on the whole, been friendly occasions, involving a small and familiar cast—most of whom I see in the Chamber today, although their places seem to have changed a bit. We will especially miss one player—the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks)—who took part in every debate on the matter. To use

  1303
  a draughts analogy, however, he has reached the end of the board and helped himself to a crown. Understandably, he will not speak in today's debate.
  I am delighted that the new Government are proceeding with the previous Government's policy on construction of a high-speed link, thereby harnessing the energy of the private sector in a major private finance initiative, routing the line through east London to achieve the regeneration benefits mentioned by the Minister and making it easier and quicker for passengers to travel from France to regions other than the south-east. I was delighted to hear that the Government will support the order under the Transport and Works Act 1992, thereby making necessary amendments to the original legislation.
  The Minister described the effects of the measure, but I have a few questions. The briefing on the order states that construction of the station at Stratford will create jobs and "act as a catalyst" for east London. She mentioned those effects in her speech. At some point, however, I should like to know how the Government plan to reinforce her comments by proceeding with our Thames gateway strategy, which proposes more privately funded river crossings. Our strategy would build on proposals for a Stratford station by further improving transport infrastructure in east London and unlocking some of the large sites on either side of the river.
  On road links, which are mentioned in the order, the Minister recently answered a parliamentary question from me, stating:
  "no new starts on national schemes are planned for this financial year."—[Official Report, 9 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 318.]
  I should like confirmation that her Department will play its part in building the roads that are necessary not only to make the station a success but to proceed with the regeneration of east London.
  There are 56 objections to the works—mostly from organisations preserving their negotiating position—which I know that London and Continental Railways would like to resolve amicably. I should like to know whether any agencies or quangos for which the Minister's Department has responsibility is among the objectors.
  In schedule 2, the order also refers to "compulsory purchase and compensation". The Minister will know that two reviews on compensation were in progress at the end of the previous Parliament. One of those—its members were the ombudsman and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Select Committee—was narrowly and specifically focused on the relatively small number of households that would be affected by the channel tunnel rail link. It would be helpful if at some point, although not necessarily today, we knew what was happening with that review.
  There was also a much broader review of compensation generally, involving a number of Government Departments. Again, it would be helpful to have at some point a timetable and details of the Government's approach to that overall review of compensation.
  The Minister referred to one of the objections, which related to the provisions for buses and taxis. The Department's briefing note states that there is provision for 2,000 cars. I am sure that there will also be provision for buses and taxis, as the hon. Lady spoke about an
  1304
  integrated transport policy. I very much hope that the promoter will make it possible for people who arrive by bus and taxi to do so as conveniently as those who arrive by car.
  I hope that the Minister will not think it churlish if I say that LCR must be allowed to make profits to carry out and pay for the works that we are debating so that it can deliver its share of the bargain. It has entered into substantial commitments, and needs to make a profit to service the equity that it has to raise. I therefore hope that we will be spared some of the more violent rhetoric that we sometimes hear from Labour Members about utilities that make a profit. The private finance initiative can work only if there is also a private profit initiative.
  The TWA order is part of the revival of the railway, pioneered by the previous Government. Along with the Heathrow express, Thameslink 2000, the docklands light railway extension to Lewisham, the Croydon tram link and the Jubilee line extension, it is part of the substantial investment in public transport in London that the Government inherited from their predecessors. We welcome the order and give it our full support.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: I congratulate the Minister on the way in which she presented the order. I also congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) who, happily for us, now finds himself her shadow. My hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman have adopted a non-controversial approach to the scheme, which will bring the channel tunnel project to fruition to the benefit of the nation as a whole, rather than, as some of us feared initially, benefiting only London and the south-east.
  I must declare an interest, as I am a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and chairman of Travel West Midlands, a bus company based in Birmingham and a wholly owned subsidiary of National Express.
  The application under the Transport and Works Act 1992 seeks to put in place the last significant piece of the legislative framework for the channel tunnel rail link project. It will bring the benefits of the rail link to the widest possible community and, from that point of view, should be welcomed, as it has been by my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman.
  The application covers two aspects of the rail link that, at first sight, are quite unrelated. Powers are sought for a combined international and domestic station at Stratford, and for an improved connection between the rail link and the existing railway network in the King's Cross railway lands. However, there is a business relationship between the two.
  London and Continental Railways, the promoter of the order, wishes to offer the best possible international service from other major centres as well as London. Its proposals mean that Eurostar trains from, for example, Manchester and the west midlands to the continent will pass directly from the existing network—a modernised network, we hope—on to the rail link via the improved connection which forms part of the application, without having to go to the rail link terminal at St. Pancras and reverse direction there.
  Although it is to be welcomed, such a scheme deprives me of a joke, or what passed for a joke when I travelled around the country talking to various interested parties

  1305
  about international services to and from the centres of Europe. The prospect of sitting at St. Pancras station, waiting while the driver walks the length of a 14-coach Eurostar train, is not one to gladden the hearts of those of us who travel from, for example, Birmingham. The fact that the trains will now carry on to the channel tunnel rail link through the new and improved double connection is to be greatly welcomed.
  Hon. Members, or the exclusive bunch to whom the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire referred, will be aware that the original CTRL proposals referred only to a single-line connection from the west coast main line to the CTRL. Although it could have been used operationally, one does not have to be an anorak, as rail buffs are sometimes known, to appreciate that a single line is not conducive to trains rushing up and down in both directions, at least not at the same time. The replacement of that original proposal with the double-line link is to be greatly welcomed.
  As I suggested, there will be a reduction in journey times as a result of the order. We are now looking at Paris being only four hours from Birmingham and a fraction over five hours from Manchester. Having bypassed St. Pancras as I outlined, those trains will be able to make their London stop at the new Stratford station. When the rail link and the west coast main line connection are open, more than 20 million people in the United Kingdom will live within four hours of Paris. There is therefore a clear business logic to the application, as well as enormous economic and regional benefits to be had from it. I hope that Members representing constituencies along the west coast main line, those—like me—with constituencies in the west midlands and those, again like me, at least hailing from the north-west will recognise the benefits that will result from the proposals.
  Mr. Mike Gapes: The scheme will be of great benefit to east London, because there are approximately 120,000 unemployed people living within five miles of the proposed station. The scheme will help my constituents and others and will greatly benefit the economic regeneration of east London as well as cut our travelling times to the continent—it will take about two hours and 15 minutes to travel to Paris from Stratford.
  Mr. Snape: I am doubly heartened to think that my hon. Friend can take members of his family to Paris in two hours and 15 minutes, but he will have to clear that with the Whips Office under the current regime. He is right to point out the benefits that will accrue to his constituency and to the citizens of east London, an area that has high levels of unemployment. As he says, that problem will undoubtedly be alleviated to some extent.
  Stratford is already a major public transport hub, soon to benefit further from the opening of the Jubilee line extension. The new international station on the rail link at Stratford will provide a valuable interchange with the wide range of existing public transport services radiating from there, giving much improved international access to north and east London, Essex, docklands and the City.
  With the permission of the House, I should like to pay tribute to many hon. Friends, especially those from the Newham area, for fighting a long and successful battle to get an international station at Stratford. There were doubters in all parts of the House. I was never regarded
  1306
  as a great enthusiast myself, and it is enormously to my hon. Friends' credit that they have sold the area that sends them to the House as well and as successfully as they have. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire mentioned the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who, in some respects, is the greatest ham of them all. We appreciate that his new and welcome ministerial duties keep him away this afternoon, but he, too, worked very hard to ensure that the proposals came before us in their current form.
  The new station at Stratford will have two further dimensions. First, the rail link is intended to be used by domestic trains from north and east Kent to London, thus improving journey times dramatically when compared to travel via the existing routes. Domestic trains will serve the new station so that passengers from Kent will be able to benefit from the interchange opportunities.
  Secondly, the new station will act as a focus for the regeneration of the Stratford area, one of the most deprived parts of London. Under the overall framework of the Thames gateway project, to which reference has already been made, the local authorities—led by the London borough of Newham—are working with local landowners and other interests on the redevelopment of the Stratford rail lands to bring new businesses and new employment opportunities which are so badly needed. The new station will be at the heart of the area.
  The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire mentioned the need for proper public transport links at the new station, especially for buses. I am sure that he will appreciate that the station will have bus and coach set-down and pick-up points well positioned for the station's entrances and exits. Initially, the route to the station will be via the existing access road from Waterden road. Existing bus services could be extended or re-routed to allow for a stop at the station. A full range of services based on the new Stratford bus station will be accessible to passengers using the international station.
  The pattern and routing of buses calling at the international station will be determined by development in the area. My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) will take a close interest in that during the building of the station and associated works to ensure that essential public transport links are provided from the outset so that the majority of passengers using the station can arrive or depart on public transport.
  Major infrastructure projects usually have an environmental and human cost. I am delighted that this scheme is an exception. More than 90 per cent. of the land is railway land already earmarked for the rail link project and is some distance from existing residential areas. Construction will be undertaken as part of the overall rail link work, for which the House has already given permission, and will not add significantly to the environmental impact.
  That is not to minimise the importance of the 56 objections that have been made, but, under the procedure set out in the Transport and Works Act 1992, those objections should be carefully considered and the promoter hopes that the majority of those objecting will have their fears soothed. The comprehensive environmental protection regime already put in place will also apply to this scheme.

  1307
  I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support the scheme, which has many benefits. Support for the order in the House will be consistent with the expressed will of the past Parliament, which strongly supported the principle of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill in both Houses without a Division. Approval of the order will enable the scheme to go forward for detailed consideration at a public inquiry according to the procedures laid down under the Transport and Works Act.
  Those of us who have seen the scheme come to fruition through postponements, cancellations and heartache over the years will be delighted that this is the final piece in this railway jigsaw, to misuse a metaphor. It will enable the great civil engineering project of the channel tunnel to bring proper economic benefits in its wake, as all of us who have been associated with it—as I have been since I was elected to the House—have wanted. Those benefits will come not just to Stratford or to London and the south-east, but to the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope that the House will give that approval without a Division, but, if one is necessary, I hope that we shall have an overwhelming majority in favour.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. David Chidgey: I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. It is a pleasure to see her looking at me with both eyes rather sideways, as used to happen in the last Parliament. I wish her every success and I look forward to debating transport issues with her in the coming months. As the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) said earlier, we have always managed if not to adopt a friendly approach to our debates, at least to stick to the issues rather than concentrating on personalities. I am sure that that will continue.
  The Liberal Democrats welcome the order. We are pleased to see significant progress after the many disappointments and postponements that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) referred to. I hope that we can have an assurance that there will be no further delays as the scheme progresses towards completion.
  I do not want to take up too much time, because I know that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. I should like to address three key issues, to which I hope that the Minister will respond: Stratford station; the north London connection; and public funding.
  I asked the Minister about public funding during her speech. I was pleased that she foresaw no further demand on public resources. I hope that she will not be swayed from that view as the scheme progresses.
  The development provides significant regeneration opportunities for the area served by Stratford station, with great potential for substantial long-term employment opportunities. We welcome that. There is an expectation in the Department's briefing that the station will encourage greater use of public transport. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East mentioned bus links.
  The success of the station depends on the quality of the public transport links. There must be a comprehensive set of bus priority measures. I note that the car park has a capacity of 2,000. There must be opportunities for a park and ride or a kiss and ride scheme. I hope, most
  1308
  importantly, that the Minister will do all that she can to encourage the creation of quality partnerships between the local authorities and the local bus operators so that the public are offered attractive, efficient and affordable bus links to the new international station.
  The success of the station also depends on recognising the concerns that the local authorities have already set out. I note that the promoters intend to negotiate and try to resolve those problems, but I urge the Minister to use her influence to ensure that the promoters make every effort to resolve those fears before the public inquiry. If there are still objections when the public inquiry starts, the scheme will be delayed, which is the last thing that we want.
  The twin-track connection in north London is a short but vital rail link to join the channel tunnel rail link with the west coast main line. A direct, high-speed connection from continental Europe, beyond the south-east of England to the west midlands, the north-west and beyond offers significant potential for economic development, regeneration and growth in tourism throughout England. I welcome that prospect and will eagerly support it.
  A number of issues are germane to achieving those benefits.
  Mr. Jamie Cann: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the fact that the North London line is already at capacity? I approve of diverting Eurostar on to it, but we ought to consider another method of getting rail traffic across from the west and the east, to Felixstowe in particular, by opening up a few routes that could be cheaply provided, allowing the project to go ahead much more effectively.
  Mr. Chidgey: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments because they demonstrate the need to encourage Railtrack to make the investment desperately needed to expand our rail network now so that our railways properly serve the nation as the spine of our national transport system. The hon. Gentleman's point is very valid and I am sure that the Minister will take it on board.
  We should also use the north London connection to encourage freight services through the channel tunnel to the north of England. We should promote freight services on the channel tunnel rail link via the north London connection to the west coast main line. That is vital in getting the important shift of freight from road to rail.
  What consideration is the Minister giving to promoting freight trains through the channel, up to the west midlands and beyond? Will she grasp the opportunity to create the through-working of freight trains from continental Europe, along the channel tunnel rail link and on to the west coast main line to the north-west? Rail freight could be far more competitive with that opportunity. Are the Government pressing the French Government to accommodate through freight train operations from France to the United Kingdom by allowing freight trains to use the French rail network? Such an agreement would make the channel tunnel rail link much more attractive for freight operations.
  I return to the connection between the chunnel and the north of England. It is disappointing that Eurostar services to the north have been delayed until later this year. Can the Minister tell us whether the delay has been caused by Railtrack failing to undertake the necessary upgrading of the rail network?

  1309
  I welcome the potential for improvements to the North London line. The Minister will, however, be well aware that the line has a poor reputation among its customers. Can she assure me that improvements to North London line services are planned? Will there be improvements in reliability and, most importantly, in passenger safety, as part of the proposals?
  The key points are how best to develop Stratford station and how best to develop, through the north London connection, the link between the channel tunnel rail line and the west coast main line. I look forward to the Minister's response.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I declare not only a constituency interest, but the fact that I live in the Lea valley and go for walks in the Bully Point nature reserve to which the Minister referred. It is a delightful and tranquil place. Those from Newham who would destroy it are capable of destroying civilisation itself.
  The order is part of the fantasy politics of the London borough of Newham. Newham council calls the project "Gateway to the East", but those of us who know the area call it a gateway to hell. Have you ever been to Stratford town centre, Mr. Deputy Speaker? It is an offer that you could certainly refuse.
  Every 20 years, Newham council decides to redevelop Stratford town centre in the most environmentally unfriendly fashion. First, the developers remove every blade of grass and every tree, and then they get rid of the human beings. After that, they dig as big a hole as possible, fill it with concrete and put as many cars as possible on it. That is an accurate description of Stratford town centre. When the councillors realise what a ghastly mess they have made of it, they whinge to the Government and say, "Can we redevelop our town centre with more of your money?" That is why we are here today.
  I support the speedy building of the channel tunnel rail link, while expressing disgust at the manner in which the route was chosen. Newham council is concerned not so much with the international railway station as with a huge property development which, in 20 years' time, will contain some of the largest, and most soulless and empty office blocks we have ever seen. The council will then whinge again to the Government and ask whether it can redevelop the town centre.
  On the question of the number of jobs likely to be created, Newham council and the promoters shame us with what I might describe as perpetual exponential hyperbole. Do you remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the old axiom that there are lies, damn lies and Newham council lies? When the debate about developing the station at Stratford began some years ago, we were told that the development might create 200 or so jobs. The figure then rose to 2,000 and then to 20,000. At one time, it was even said that the number of jobs might touch 100,000. The truth?
  The truth is set out in some of the documents before the House. The station's construction over two years will directly create 430 jobs and a further 100 jobs are likely to be created from what is described as
  "associated induced and indirect expenditure".
  1310
  When those people have gone off to the next building site in London, the station operation at Stratford will employ just 70 people—50 for international services and 20 for domestic services. Station retailing will create 30 jobs and a further 28 jobs will be created from what is described as
  "associated induced and indirect expenditure".
  That is not a lot. The job hope is all pie in the sky stuff related to huge fat cat property development at Stratford, and it is part of the hyperbolic statistics for which Newham council and its leader are famed.
  My main point in speaking is not to speak ill of Newham council, still less of my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), who will, I hope, catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend came to my general management committee and got a drubbing from one of our representatives. My main aim is to concentrate on the environmental statement that accompanies the order. For a couple of years, I worked for the Government in urban transport. I can say quite comfortably that the environmental statement is slipshod, shoddy, anti-intellectual and based on unsound methodology. The victims of this appalling piece of work are likely to be the residents of Newham and Hackney.
  The only public road access to the station is not through Newham, but via Waterden road in Hackney. It will lead into what is currently a 2,000-space car park, but as the promoters will get 80 acres of land in the area, that could easily turn into a 10,000-space car park. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) gave it away—my God, what trouble he has created for himself in the House today!—by calling for park and ride facilities.
  Both the previous Government and this Government have assured us that the one thing they will not have is park and ride facilities, because that would spew traffic all over south Hackney and through the roads and homes of people who live in Wick ward and Victoria ward, each of which has three Liberal Democrat councillors. Those residents will be pleased to hear that their Liberal Democrat spokesman wants to make their lives a misery for the next 50 years with park and ride schemes. That will be a disaster for Hackney and will lead to far more road building. It will probably lead to the need to start to build dual carriageways to the station.
  Mr. Snape: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Sedgemore: No. My hon. Friend made a long speech and I need to be short.
  Mr. Snape: I wanted to answer some of my hon. Friend's questions.
  Mr. Sedgemore: I have met that one before.
  Mr. Snape: You never listen—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.
  Mr. Sedgemore: My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is getting a bit excited. I know that he is a railway buff and I am keen on railway lines too, but that is no reason for him to think that the lives of people in south Hackney should be destroyed or not properly considered in this House.
  Mr. Snape: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Sedgemore: The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend will not give way.

  1311
  The environmental statement does not even consider the effects of the extra traffic on Hackney residents. That is appalling. Worse, it makes no attempt to justify the assumptions used and provides no explanation of how the predicted traffic flow has been derived from those assumptions. There are six people sitting up there. Perhaps they can advise the Minister as to the answers to those questions and explain why assumptions have been made without justification.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know that the only people present here are right hon. and hon. Members.
  Mr. Sedgemore: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I used to sit up there when I worked in urban planning. That is why I am so excited about the issue.
  Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend made a great success of it, too.
  Mr. Sedgemore: Actually, I worked in that Department under a Conservative Government.
  It would have been possible to make a number of different assumptions about traffic flow. I can think of at least five. First, there could be more car trips from the west, particularly central London. Secondly, there could be more than nine international trains a day and three trains per hour using the station. Thirdly, more than 50 per cent. of international train passengers might use the station. Fourthly, more than 40 per cent. of international passengers might travel by road and fifthly, more domestic passengers than expected might travel by road. Variation in one or more of those assumptions could change significantly the predicted traffic flows. In fact, the environmental statement makes no reference to any of those possible variations.
  Worse, the current proposals make no predictions as to the traffic flows that will result from the associated private developments. That leaves a gigantic black hole in the environmental statement, which refers to very small figures and makes no attempt to justify the assumptions it makes, but when one also considers the private developments and the cars travelling not through Newham, but through Hackney, it is clear that a miserable hell will be created for the people of south Hackney if the associated developments are sufficiently successful for the Minister to claim significant job creation.
  I shall not oppose the order, but I believe that the public inquiry should closely examine 10 factors. First is the lack of explanation for the assumptions and conclusions used in the environmental statement concerning traffic and transport. Second is the proposed compulsory acquisition of part of Waterden road. Third is the consequential need to improve the rest of Waterden road up to the Lea interchange and the M11 link. Fourth is the loss of allotments with no compensating proposal for their replacement, on the grounds that such loss of open space cannot be justified without replacement elsewhere.
  Fifth—a number of hon. Members have referred to it—is the possible need for additional works on the north London line in the vicinity of the connection and Camden
  1312
  Road station to ensure that international services do not interfere with the operation or expansion of local services to and from Hackney and vice versa.
  Sixth is the desirability of ensuring that the proposals for the station allow for the addition of a new surface station on the existing line across the Stratford railway lands to serve their development and the channel tunnel rail link station and further their accessibility by and the promotion of the use of public transport.
  Seventh is the desirability of an additional access road from the surrounding road network to the station to enable it to be better served by public road transport, particularly buses. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East for mentioning that.
  Eighth is the possible need to limit or reduce the size of the station car parks to discourage travel to the station by road and to encourage access by public transport, but I fear that the hon. Member for Eastleigh has given the game away. The car maniacs are always there and they always win.
  Ninth, the gradient of the channel tunnel rail link west of Stratford station should be examined on the grounds that it inhibits the nominated undertaker in fully meeting the undertaking given to Hackney council in the other place concerning the depth of the tunnel beneath Trowbridge estate.
  My tenth and final point is the one on which I started—Bully Point. Will Newham really destroy one of the most beautiful nature reserves in the country and will it make my life, living on the River Lea, a complete misery? Surely not.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Coming from a party that has no understanding of internal disputes, I listened with astonishment to the contest that was developing during the speech of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). I found it significant that, at that moment, the Minister for sport entered the Chamber, no doubt looking for some gladiatorial contest. I hope that he was not disappointed.
  I must be one of the two longest-serving members of the group that wanted a station at Stratford. It may be surprising to some hon. Members to learn that I first became interested in Stratford when I was trying to persuade British Rail that the channel tunnel rail link should have been on a different route from the one that was finally chosen, and that Stratford was a manifestly sensible place for a station.
  British Rail and its successor, Union Rail, had a wonderful preoccupation with what they both termed an aeroplane on wheels. They felt that any stop between terminuses was a total economic disaster and the idea that trains might pick up passengers was an aberration. I am pleased that, over the long years during which the project has been coming to fruition, there has been a change in the undertaker, which has moved from thinking that passengers who got on anywhere other than the starting point were a nuisance to at least giving the impression that passengers should be picked up at several places. That is progress indeed.
  It is my first chance to welcome the Under-Secretary to her responsibilities, and I do so gladly. I very much hope that her Government will continue the work of the

  1313
  previous Government in trying to ensure that projects of such a size progress rather faster. This one is doing all right. So far, it will have taken only 17 years to reach its projected final date, but the amount of grief that such a time scale causes to large numbers of our constituents while decisions are taken and the blight settles is intolerable. I hope that we can re-establish the all-party parliamentary group on blight, as we were beginning to make progress towards relieving that burden.
  I received the information about the order about two days before I saw the newspaper reports that London and Continental Railways' takings from Eurostar were so poor that the company was likely to defer any works and was certainly deferring its flotation. That worried me considerably, so I got in touch with the company.
  Yesterday, I had a long meeting with its representatives, who gave me firm assurances that the company is on track for flotation next year. They were confident of finishing the line and making it operational by 2003. They told me that revenue from the Eurostar services, although somewhat disrupted by a French strike two Christmases ago and by the fire in the tunnel last Christmas, are nevertheless sufficient to give them the confidence to go ahead. I wanted to spell that out, as it would be a betrayal of everyone along the route and everyone affected by the proposal if London and Continental Railways was unable to honour those pledges. It gave them to me in the most firm manner.
  One of the great advantages of Stratford is that it will allow international passengers to be carried from one end of the United Kingdom into mainland Europe much more effectively than under previous plans. That is admirable. What bothers me a little is that the promoters say that the channel tunnel link will free up capacity on commuter routes. I was gently derided by Conservative Ministers for many years for suggesting that one day the pattern of commuting would change. I cannot believe that the information technology revolution will not eventually have a dramatic effect on patterns of travel to work.
  It is interesting that, after those years of derision, British Telecom at least has thought it worth spending a large sum of money on an advertising campaign that points out that it can now provide offices at home for people who currently commute, thereby allowing people to commute either much less often or not at all. I hope that the Government are taking seriously that possibility.
  The income repercussions of a marked change in the pattern of commuting will be considerable unless freight is carried on commuter lines. While the channel tunnel rail link may become a profitable venture as a result of the growth of international travel, domestic travel may well become less profitable and commuters may return to the position in which commuters in my area have been for far too long. Commuter services are under-resourced because it is not profitable to resource them. I ask the Minister to take seriously the possibility, indeed probability, that information technology will change the nature of travel to work in the coming years.
  I welcome the station at Stratford. It is an eminently necessary and sensible development and, for the life of me, I cannot understand why the previous companies engaged in the operation were so hostile to it.
  5.32 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I welcome the way in which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions introduced the debate. The channel tunnel rail link will yield big gains to the nation. As much as £6 billion has been estimated. The construction and operation of Stratford station assigns some of those gains to east London. Jobs, regeneration opportunities and significantly improved transport connections are huge benefits which are very welcome. So the station is supported in principle.
  However, the project is not cost-free. There is a downside for neighbouring areas such as mine—Leyton, Leytonstone and Wanstead. That downside, in a word, is traffic. My constituency is already overburdened with it, and any extra traffic problems must be considered and ameliorated at an early stage.
  The M11 link road remains a bitter bone of contention in Leyton and Wanstead. Promises of improvements for local roads as a result of its construction, which many did not believe at the time of the public inquiries, are already being withdrawn. Rat runs continue in local streets. Traffic delays and congestion on the link road itself due to greater car usage than was originally suggested are acknowledged even before it is built. Leytonstone High road continues to be a major trunk road, even though its part-pedestrianisation was originally mooted. Those broken promises are placing extra burdens on the community.
  Traffic associated with Stratford station will upset still further the traffic predictions for the M11 link road. The M11-Lee interchange has been designed to be in balance with the local road network and thereby prevent additional traffic from entering Hackney and Tower Hamlets in peak periods, when the intersection will run at its design capacity. The environmental assessment predicted an extra 400 vehicles per hour—a 42 per cent. Increase—on Waterden road in the morning peak. That will lead to huge problems not only in Hackney and on Waterden road but further back down the link road in Leyton and Wanstead.
  There will inevitably be pressure to improve the capacity of Waterden road, but that will also mean higher levels of traffic passing through Leyton and Wanstead, including local streets. That will negate the traffic relief that the M11 link road is supposed to provide, especially in Grove Green road, Leytonstone High road and Cambridge Park. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) made a good point when he said that yet more traffic from the private developments which would follow from the station should be taken into account.
  London and Continental Railways, together with the Department of Transport and the relevant boroughs, must make proposals to remedy the problems.
  Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend makes a similar point to the one to which I would have replied had I been allowed to do so by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). I appreciate the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead makes the point.
  Of course traffic is a problem. The promoters have given an assurance that there will be both price and physical constraints on commuter traffic to prevent people from railheading in the way that the spokesman for the Liberal party, the hon. Member for Eastleigh

  1315
  (Mr. Chidgey),favoured. So while my hon. Friend's fears are obvious and can be appreciated, they are not fears which can be generated by the order before the House tonight.
  Mr. Cohen: I accept that the order will go to a public inquiry. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those assurances on behalf of the promoters, but boroughs such as mine will want a great deal more than has so far been suggested to deal with the traffic. I hope that my hon. Friend will relay that message to London and Continental Railways.
  The environmental statement proposes up to 2,000 car parking spaces in association with the station. No-where in the statement is there justification for that number of spaces. London and Continental Railways should either justify or reduce the number of spaces. Areas surrounding the station such as Leyton and Leytonstone should not be turned into large car parks—certainly not without enormous ameliorating environmental compensation for the area.
  Furthermore, there should not be unrestrained increased traffic on Leyton and Leytonstone roads to service Stratford station. Traffic levels on roads into the station need to be kept to the minimum. One way of achieving that is to increase public transport provision into the station. For example, there should be rail services northwards along the Lee valley. Under no circumstances should there be a new road along the Lee valley.
  Road access to the station needs to be tightly constrained in order to reduce the damaging environmental effects of traffic in neighbouring areas. That has not yet been properly taken into account.
  London and Continental Railways stands to profit a great deal from the Stratford development and the channel tunnel rail link as a whole, but as I have made clear, it is not cost-free. In this private-public partnership, which can benefit all, the cost of dealing with the disbenefits must be met. I believe that they should be met by London and Continental Railways.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. Damian Green: I rise with some trepidation, having heard that some hon. Members on both sides of the House have been fighting these battles for a decade or more. My predecessor was in the front line of many of those battles. He served as Member of Parliament for Ashford for more than 20 years, and one of his most earnest wishes was that the channel tunnel rail link project be built during the equivalent amount of time that he expected me to serve in the House.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Tony Banks): We shall have to move fast, then.
  Mr. Green: We may have to improve on the speed so far, I suspect.
  I join other hon. Members in supporting the works proposed by the Minister. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) gave one of the most negative expressions of support that I have heard for any proposition.
  1316
  I want to interject a reservation which will be important for the Stratford area. I draw to the attention of hon. Members with constituencies near Stratford our experience in Ashford, which is further down the process because a station has already been built. Our experience of the disturbance, the effects on traffic and so on will prove relevant to Stratford. By and large, it has been positive.
  All reservations about the project must be weighed against the fact that the project should be regarded as an enormous asset, both to those areas of the country through which it runs, and nationally. Inward investment and economic regeneration have come much faster to Ashford because of the existence of the international passenger station. The prospect of a high-speed rail link will not only improve transport links to the continent but allow faster commuting to London and beyond.
  However, there has been, and still is, an unfortunate degree of uncertainty about timing and starting dates that has had a severe effect on people whose homes and businesses lie in the way of the link and who will have to move when it is built. One of the things that I have discovered in the past few weeks is that many of those people are disturbed by what they perceive as a lack of openness on the part of London and Continental in giving straight answers to straight questions.
  We all know that many questions simply cannot be answered at this stage—no one is being unrealistic about that—but I ask the Minister to use her good offices to urge London and Continental to be more open with people, whether in Ashford or Stratford, who are directly affected by the line's construction and the blight that it already causes, by giving more detailed information about dates and projected building times than it has up to now. I hope that London and Continental will regard the passing of the order as clearing a vital hurdle, and that it will use it as a chance to clear up the uncertainties about the timing of construction work that affects so many people, and that will soon affect more in the Stratford area.
  I hope that the flotation will go ahead as fast as possible. I was reassured when my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said that London and Continental hopes to proceed with flotation next year and then proceed to other building works. I hope even more strongly that firm dates can be attached to the various stages of the project. I congratulate those who have seen the project through so far, and I assure hon. Members that Stratford and the whole east London area will benefit as Ashford is already benefiting. However, the passage of this order must be used to enable regeneration to be accompanied by greater certainty for the business and home owners who are most affected by the line. I appeal to the Minister to use her powers to ensure that London and Continental changes its culture and becomes more open to those people.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. Stephen Timms: I am pleased to have the opportunity to support the motion strongly. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister opened the debate, because of her long interest in the project. I commend the role of London and Continental Railways because, as other hon. Members explained, this has been a long saga. The contribution of London and Continental has been

  1317
  imaginative since its participation began. I have also been impressed by the way in which it has entered into discussions with local community organisations about ways of making sure that the many jobs that will be generated by the construction project will be filled, as far as possible, by unemployed people from Newham, Hackney and Tower Hamlets.
  I was chair of the planning committee on Newham council when British Rail first suggested that there might be an international station at Stratford. Having aired it, British Rail quickly stepped back from the proposal, but when I briefed colleagues on Newham council about the idea, they were immediately enthusiastic because of the chance it gives to regenerate east London and to bring back economic activity and jobs to an area where thousands from Newham, Hackney and Tower Hamlets used to gain their livelihood and where today only a handful do. We want economic activity to be brought back.
  Mr. Charles Clarke: Does my hon. Friend accept that not only will east London's economic regeneration benefit from the station but that Norwich and East Anglia will benefit from the tremendously improved travel times to London and Europe that will bring us jobs and prosperity? That is why we strongly support the project and the order.
  Mr. Timms: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important point. The support of East Anglia for the project was an important factor in the campaign's success. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) in his place.
  It was while I was leader of Newham council that I first became aware of the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). Most of us understand how to raise issues with colleagues when policies cause concern, perhaps by a letter, telephone call or meeting. He chose first to draw attention to his views through his column in the Hackney Gazette, where he described me as a lunatic. I note that he has been consistent in his views to this day.
  Newham council's campaign for the station at Stratford has been extraordinarily popular. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) is in his place. He is in continual contact with the people of the area because he lives there. Whenever opinion in Stratford has been tested, there has been overwhelming support for bringing jobs back to the Stratford railway lands through this project.
  The campaign brought together in a remarkable way the local community, local community organisations, the local authority and local businesses. For that reason, I was especially pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister, in his important speech last week outlining the new Government's policies on regenerating our cities, picked out the Stratford Promoters Group as an example of successful partnership.
  Speaking in Tower Hamlets, he referred to the group as a "spectacular success", and said:
  "Let me give you one example from the neighbouring Borough of Newham. Some years ago, the local authority and other local partners brought together the Stratford Promoters Group which lobbied hard and effectively for an International Passenger Station at Stratford … That is the sort of partnership I want to see."
  He was right to say that it has been a very successful partnership with the local community, and I am delighted that it has led to the success that we are noting today by supporting the order.
  1318
  There are many people whose role in the campaign has been mentioned. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench. He has taken an interest in the project for a long time. He was much more supportive when in office than some of his predecessors, who were positively unwilling to support the station proposal.
  I pay tribute also to the members of the Select Committee who considered the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill as it then was, including my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). Their conclusion that the station at Stratford was in the national interest was an important step towards the Government's agreement that there should be a station at Stratford.
  It is important in east London to bring back economic activity and jobs into an area from which they have long disappeared, in huge numbers. I think that Stratford will be the London hub for the future national high-speed railway network. The Stratford railway land is a 120-hectare site that is important strategically for the future of east London. The international station will have a vital role in attracting development to Stratford, Newham and the Thames gateway as a whole.
  Stratford will underpin the importance of London as a world city. We are talking not of a local issue but one that is regional, Londonwide and national. We expect that when the rail land is fully developed, there will be about 15,000 jobs on site. The project will make a huge contribution to the regeneration of east London and to raising the level of prosperity in the area generally. It is a contribution that is very much needed.
  I make a request through my hon. Friend the Minister to London and Continental Railways—that it should be willing to work with the local authority and potential development partners to ensure that the plan for the station site and the construction of the station building is of a sort that leads to successful long-term development of an enormous site.
  I well understand the pressures that London and Continental is now under, but it is in its interests and those of the local communities that we should ensure that the development of the station itself contributes to the wider development of the site and the prosperity that results from that.
  The station will be a great step forward for east London, but there are some important environmental issues still to be resolved. There is no threat to Bully Point. I do not expect to see a 2,000-space car park on that site. These, however, are matters that need to be resolved in discussions between the local authorities, London and Continental and potential developers, and they can be resolved. Let no one in the House underestimate the immense popularity in the locality of the proposal and the widespread support that there is for it.
  5.53 pm
  Ms Glenda Jackson: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate. It seems that there is a feeling on both sides of the Chamber that the order should be passed. I hope that that will be the outcome of the debate.
  The right hon.Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who speaks for the Opposition from the Front Bench, said, if I might paraphrase, that he saw the usual faces in the Chamber for the debate although they seem to represent different areas. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, has a brand-new constituency.

  1319
  I shall link the issue of compensation that the right hon. Gentleman raised with the questions put by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on planning procedures and blight. Before doing so, however,I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome to me.
  The Government expect the final report of the interdepartmental group on blight later this year. The draft scheme on redress, which was put to the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration shortly before the general election, is being considered as to the best way forward.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for his contribution to the debate, which was especially helpful to the House in detailing what is so important about the order. Without the order, there can be no next step. My hon. Friend highlighted the importance of the development that we are discussing, stemming from his lifelong commitment to and knowledge of the importance of railways. He highlighted, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), in an intervention, the importance of the scheme going forward, not least for employment opportunities. The point was highlighted also in another intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke).
  The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) seemed mostly to be concerned about issues that in essence, if the order is accepted, will be the responsibility of the public inquiry. That theme ran through many of the contributions of hon. Members. Everyone in this place shares concern over environmental issues. There is little doubt, should the order be accepted, that the public inquiry will examine these issues in no small detail.
  The hon. Member for Eastleigh raised also the issue of freight and the development of it. In essence, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, the channel tunnel rail link is a high-speed link to carry passengers. If, however, the order is accepted and if the links are made, along with the construction of the station, existing lines will be released. Freight will be able to be carried on the channel tunnel rail link and there will be additional capacity on existing lines.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), in a typically robust contribution, claimed that he had not come to the Chamber to speak ill of Newham council. May I say to him that he could have fooled me? However, my hon. Friend was mostly concerned about the environment, which is an issue more properly examined at the public inquiry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) talked also of environmental concerns. He, too, said that we must move away from an over-dependency on car usage, and that is central to the Government's thinking. That can be most speedily progressed by the creation of a properly integrated public transport system.
  The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) took up, in a sense, one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms). I have no doubt that London and Continental will pick it up and act on it with some speed. It is important for the speedy development of projects such as the one that we are discussing that there be great openness between the developer and the local communities. Should the order be passed, should the report
  1320
  of the public inquiry advise and should the Secretary of State so order, there must be close working between the developer and the communities.
  I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham. I am delighted to see that the Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), is sitting next to my hon. Friend. I had little doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham would be here in spirit, and it is more of a pleasure to see that he is here in the flesh, albeit that he has not chosen to delight the Chamber with a contribution to the debate.
  We pay tribute to the work, the dedication and the energy which my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham has brought consistently to the project that we are considering. He has never flagged or failed in his belief in the project and the benefits that it can bring to his constituency, to London and to the country as a whole.
  If I have not answered any questions raised this afternoon, I shall write to hon. Members. I remind the House that agreeing to the order will not be decisive but it will enable an application to go forward to a public inquiry, with a clear endorsement, assuming that it is agreed in another place, in principle by Parliament. I commend the application to the House and invite Members to approve the order.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House, pursuant to section 9(4) of the Transport and Works Act 1992 ("the Act") as applied by section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, approves the following proposals, contained in an application for an Order submitted under section 6 of the Act by Eurostar (UK) Limited on 23rd January 1997 and entitled The Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Stratford Station and Subsidiary Works) Order, for

  (1) The construction, maintenance and operation of—

  (i) in the London Borough of Hackney and Newham, a station at Stratford for international and domestic services on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link with vehicular parking and other facilities in connection therewith; railways comprising down and up lines to serve international and domestic platforms at that station; and a station access road off Waterden Road, including a bridge over the River Lea;

  (ii) in the London Borough of Hackney, a realignment and improvement of Waterden Road;

  (iii) in the London Borough of Newham, a subway at the existing suburban Stratford station with a pedestrian link to the new station; and

  (iv) in the London Boroughs of Camden and Islington, railways near St. Pancras to provide access between the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and the West Coast Main Line by means of a connection to the North London Line.

  (2) The authorisation of works ancillary to the above-mentioned works, including the stopping-up of York Way in the London Boroughs of Camden and Islington, the making of a means of access to and from that road and interference with waterways.

  (3) The compulsory acquisition or use of land or rights in land for the intended works; compensation for this and for the injurious affection of land; and the compulsory use of subsoil.

  Northern Ireland
  5.59 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I beg to move,
  That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (Amendment) Order 1997 (S.I., 1997, No. 1403), which was laid before this House on 3rd June, be approved.
  The order proscribed the Loyalist Volunteer Force and the Continuity Army Council. It came into effect on 4 June and is subject to approval within 40 sitting days.
  Let me begin by giving some background to those two organisations. The Loyalist Volunteer Force is a breakaway group of the Ulster Volunteer Force. The Continuity Army Council is a name generally used to describe the military wing of Republican Sinn Fein.
  We do not take decisions concerning the proscription of any organisation lightly. It might be helpful, therefore, if I put the proscription of these two organisations in the context of a number of appalling acts of terrorism for which they have claimed responsibility.
  In March this year, the LVF set fire to the tourist information centres in Banbridge and Newcastle. It was also responsible for arson attacks on the Irish heritage centre in Donaghmore, a school in Newry and Sinn Fein offices in Dungannon. It also in the same month claimed responsibility for planting a bomb in Dundalk town centre. In April, it claimed responsibility for an arson attack on a public house in Aghalee, and in May it claimed responsibility for the murder of 62-year-old Sean Brown, a local member of the Gaelic Athletic Association club. He had been abducted from the club and his body was found beside his burnt-out car in Randalstown. The reason given: loyalist parades being re-routed.
  With regard to the CAC, in July 1996, it claimed responsibility for a car bomb left outside Killyhevlin hotel in Enniskillen, which destroyed much of the building. In September, it claimed responsibility for a bomb abandoned in a stolen car in Belfast city centre. In May, the CAC was believed to be responsible for a car bomb in Belfast, which detonated prematurely, injuring an occupant of the car.
  Taking into account acts such as those, and judging carefully all the available information against the statutory criterion for proscription—being concerned in terrorism or in promoting or encouraging it—I concluded that, in both cases, that criterion had been fully met. Once that judgment had been made, I took prompt action, as any organisations that are constituted for the primary purpose of carrying out criminal terrorist acts can have no legitimate place in our society.
  As a result of the order, it is an offence to be a member of the LVF or CAC from the time that they became proscribed organisations. It is also an offence to solicit or invite any person to become a member of those organisations or to assist in the holding of a meeting to support or further their activities.
  Proscription cannot prevent terrorist acts, but it does make life harder for the terrorists. Most important of all, it gives a clear statement of the Government's and society's abhorrence of those organisations. Those who put themselves above the law must expect the consequences. Those crimes serve only to exacerbate divisions and
  1322
  mistrust in Northern Ireland society. Proscription reinforces the Government's commitment to protect all the citizens of Northern Ireland.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is it not the case that, apart from all else, members of the LVF have been and remain deeply implicated in the disgraceful, violent picketing of the small Catholic church at Harryville?
  Marjorie Mowlam: Yes, there is evidence to suggest that that is the case. I join my hon. Friend and all hon. Members in condemning the sectarian bigotry that we see every weekend at Harryville Catholic church, where attempts have been made to stop people entering, showing their faith and being able to participate in church services. It is an example of how the tensions and the sectarianism are surfacing again in the run-up to the marching season. I join my hon. Friend wholeheartedly in condemning what has been happening there.
  We hope that the proscription of the LVF and the CAC will have some effect in showing that we as a House of Commons do not give any credence to such behaviour, and that we shall work in the weeks and months ahead to do all we can to build a society that is based on peace, prosperity and reconciliation for all sides of the community.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: The Opposition support the order. We accept that the Secretary of State has shown that there is sufficient information to justify the proscribing of the two groups, which is obviously not a light matter; the decision has not been lightly taken. She gave us a list of the acts that appear to have been committed by both groups, on both sides of the sectarian spectrum, interestingly. The Opposition are satisfied that she had every justification for acting to proscribe them.
  As the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) reminded the Secretary of State, it is not just straightforward acts of violence that are carried out by such groups. As he said, we have seen the disgraceful behaviour at Harryville. We have seen other sectarian acts on the other side in relation to the burning of Orange halls and so on, all of which strike directly at the deep rights of individuals, such as the right to worship. It is absolutely correct that we should condemn wholeheartedly those who try to disrupt those basic rights, for which many people's ancestors—on both sides of the divide—died. They are precious rights, and we should certainly take a strong and condemnatory view of those who seek to disrupt them.
  The reasons for such proscription must be twofold: first, to bring to bear on such organisations and their members the full force of criminal law, to make it more difficult for them to pursue their nefarious activities; and, secondly, to show beyond doubt the implacable hostility with which a democratic society regards those who systematically seek to use violence in pursuit of political ends. Those reasons for proscription are different, but they relate to the way in which society conducts itself, and it is right that, in those circumstances, proscription is used.
  The emergence of those two groups may have been by design, in order to provide cover for acts of terrorism outwith the recognised structures of the IRA or the

  1323
  Combined Loyalist Military Command, or it may have been caused by disgruntled breakaways from within those organisations. Either way, I believe that it is right that the trap door of proscription should now be closed on them.
  Being sanguine—I think that the Secretary of State recognised this—I do not believe that this act alone will lead to a flood of convictions for membership, or, indeed, to the disbandment of those groupings. The history of previous proscriptions does not give great grounds for over-optimism, particularly in relation to the difficulties of securing sufficient evidence to make charges stick. We all know of the intimidation that is brought to bear on those who on occasion show sufficient courage to give evidence against others in their community for membership of proscribed groups. It is one of those difficult areas where the intention of the order may not in practice turn out to be quite as achievable as we would hope.
  I hope that I shall be proved wrong, but history suggests that we should not put too much store by the effectiveness of criminal conviction that might follow such an order. None the less, the order gives an important message and is a positive step. In that context, it is worth reminding ourselves that there are other proscribed groups on the loyalist and the republican side, the most highly organised of which is the Provisional IRA, whose political wing, which is not proscribed, is Sinn Fein.
  I mention that because, in the pursuit of peace over the years, that fact has on occasion become somewhat blurred in the minds and mouths of certain commentators and observers, encouraged sometimes by the romanticisation and glorification of those movements on the cinema screen. Just as these two groups are being proscribed by the order because they are terrorist groups, so, we must never forget, is the Provisional IRA. It is an organisation designed and committed to achieve its political objectives through the use of violence, murder, injury and destruction. It must continue to be pursued with the full vigour of the law, just as the two groups proscribed today will be until they mend their ways.
  Dr. Godman: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the romanticisation of terrorist organisations in films and plays, but we should also remember the romanticisation of such people in newspapers elsewhere in the world. When I was in Australia at Christmas, I was appalled to read of events in Northern Ireland and to see terrorists described in broadsheets, not tabloids, as guerrillas. I made my views known to some journalists whom I met when I was there.
  Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Those of us who have been involved in Northern Ireland see a very different side than is often portrayed, as he says, in newspapers and films. We are talking about not guerrillas or freedom fighters, but people who kill, maim, destroy, injure and create devastation to families and communities in pursuit of political objectives, and there is nothing glorious or romantic about that. It is right, when considering the proscription of the two groups today, that we recognise that that same definition applies to the Provisional IRA and to the proscribed organisations within the Combined Loyalist Military Command as well.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: What impact does proscription have on the media who broadcast the
  1324
  words of proscribed groups, saying that they have had a coded message, and at the same time give publicity to those who put hoods on themselves? That does not disguise their body language or their speech. Surely proscription should at least make the media accountable to the law as well.
  Mr. Ancram: I am not sure that it is necessarily wise to try to restrict the media by law on occasions such as this, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I hope that the media will recognise the responsibility they bear in this area, and the fact that, if they set out to portray acts of horror and terror as anything other than that, they are themselves helping to create a myth which is destructive to the process in which the Secretary of State and others are involved in trying to bring peace to Northern Ireland.
  It is for that reason—we must also look at the matter in this context—that it is right that Sinn Fein, as the political wing of a proscribed organisation, cannot be admitted to the talks process until a genuine and unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire by the Provisional IRA is again in place. That is why the judgment of that ceasefire has to be based on more than just words. Actions will be just as important, as will be the cessation of actions, because, in judging whether a proscribed organisation such as the Provisional IRA is genuine in a ceasefire, it is right that we look to see whether it is still doing things that are inconsistent with a ceasefire. Those which were identified last November, which I understand are still those that the Secretary of State would consider, include continued surveillance, continued targeting and the continued development of weapons, which, in terms of a proscribed terrorist outfit, are simply inconsistent with any declaration of a ceasefire.
  Sinn Fein is, of its nature, implicated by association in the violence of the IRA, and no amount of counter-protestation by its arch-propagandists can distort that fact. That is why it is right that Sinn Fein must show a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and adherence to democratic principles before it can be included in the democratic process.
  I can assure the Secretary of State that in the—currently, I have to say—unlikely event of a ceasefire, the Opposition will support her in the most vigorous examination of the words and actions during any ceasefire in order to be satisfied that they show a genuine move away from terrorist violence as a means of seeking to achieve political objectives. Without such vigorous examination and assessment, the confidence to allow a fully inclusive process of talks to prosper simply would not exist.
  The order is introduced at a time of great uncertainty and, I think it is right to say, tension in Northern Ireland, when recent acts of violence on all sides, including yesterday's vicious assassination, have given rise to raw sensitivities about the present and apprehension about the future. The order will give some assurance of the Government's attitude to fringe sectarian terrorism, and for that reason I welcome it.
  I am sure that the right hon. Lady will agree that such determination is all the better for being balanced and even-handed. She will know the importance of a balanced approach throughout the work that she is currently undertaking, and I hope that she will bear that in mind in

  1325
  her future consideration of other aspects of what she is doing, such as consideration of the North report and her attitude towards the future of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
  It is essential that all parts of the community have confidence at this time that their position, traditions and safeguards are not being unilaterally undermined. I think that the Secretary of State agreed with me yesterday at Question Time on the importance of dialogue and agreement in moving forward. I trust that she will show that in practice in dealing with the thorny issues that confront her because, at the end of the day, confidence building depends on consultation and trust.
  To confirm the benefit of the order, I hope that the Secretary of State will take the earliest opportunity to impress upon the new Government in Dublin that confidence will be created and retained only by an even approach to both parts of the community in Northern Ireland, and that any undue indication of sympathy towards the republican cause will undermine the efforts that she must be making to assure the people of Northern Ireland that the political process in which she is involved, and her fight against terrorism, are reasons for confidence rather than fear. She deserves the understanding and co-operation of the Irish Government in that regard.
  The Opposition welcome the order. We expect with confidence to see it accompanied by other Government actions consistent with a determination to eradicate the scourge of terrorism wherever it occurs in Northern Ireland and, in that respect, the Secretary of State will have our support.
  6.16 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: To add to my intervention in the speech of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), no one who engages in violent activities against a Government in a parliamentary democracy can legitimately be described as a guerrilla. Journalists elsewhere in the world who do that are guilty of the worst kind of romanticism and sloppy, badly researched journalism.
  I welcome the order. The right hon. Member for Devizes may be right when he says that such a measure may not lead to any increase in the number of successful prosecution for violent behaviour. Nevertheless, for a Secretary of State who has been in office for just five weeks, it is in a plain way a strong declaration of intent, and I compliment her on that.
  I support what the right hon. Member for Devizes said when he talked about the dreadful behaviour of those who have engaged in seeking to harass—and worse—ordinary people whose only aim was to attend mass at that small church in Harryville. Similarly, the arsonists who have fired Orange halls must be condemned in an identical manner.
  The order is a declaration of intent which I welcome, as, I am sure, will ordinary people in the two communities in Northern Ireland.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: I begin by offering apologies on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who had intended to take part in the debate but was unable to do so because of difficulties in obtaining a flight from Belfast.
  1326
  The Secretary of State's decision to proscribe the CAC and the LVF was almost certainly inevitable in view of the actions of both bodies, assuming that distinct bodies operate under those names; sometimes one is never entirely sure. Although proscription may not be as effective as one would like, it is necessary in order to show the community's abhorrence of terrorist actions. Consequently, we support the proscription, because it has become inevitable.
  The Continuity Army Council has been a problem for some time, as shown by the litany of events that the Secretary of State mentioned, which go back to the major car bomb in Enniskillen in 1996. It is somewhat surprising that that organisation was not proscribed sooner.
  The Loyalist Volunteer Force seems to be composed of dissident elements of the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association. One cannot be absolutely sure, but the impression one gets is that elements within those organisations who were opposed to the loyalist ceasefire have drifted away from their parent organisations and have been engaged in terrorist activity of their own. That that has happened is to be condemned. It has tended to undermine the integrity of the loyalist ceasefire, which is a matter of considerable regret.
  One of the few positive aspects of security in Northern Ireland in the past year is the fact that the loyalist ceasefire has been sustained, albeit with some difficulty. People in those organisations who moved to the position of being opposed to the loyalist ceasefire have made a serious mistake. I hope that, even at this stage, those who have been engaged in such activity will realise how foolish it is. Loyalist violence at this stage simply lets the IRA off the hook. It is completely counter-productive, and is quite wrong. Any loyalist who is currently engaged in violent activity should do some hard thinking about whom they are actually helping.
  The Secretary of State mentioned the consequences of proscription, such as prosecution for membership of such organisations. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) referred to the difficulty of making such charges stick. That is part of the general problem of prosecuting people for terrorist offences. Why has not more progress been made on the development of a proper, coherent witness encouragement and protection scheme? Some action has been taken on the protection side, but why has more not been done to develop a proper witness encouragement scheme? For years, the RUC has argued that such a scheme is needed. It is a pity that more has not been done about that.
  Proscription leads to a number of remedies in regard to fund raising on behalf of proscribed organisations. That is very important. There has been some success on that front, but not enough. We should target the fund-raising activities of the organisations that have just been proscribed, particularly the Loyalist Volunteer Force, which is engaged in racketeering. Some people suggest that racketeering is given a greater priority than the actions in which it claims to be engaged. Close attention should be paid to that, because, by virtue of the proscription, authorities will have the power to investigate racketeering. One hopes that some positive consequences will come from that.
  As the right hon. Member for Devizes said, the greatest security threat is still the IRA. It was on a go-slow during the various elections: the election in the Irish Republic,

  1327
  the local government elections in Northern Ireland and the general election. However, the threat is still there. In some respects, the threat is just as high and just as great as ever it was, and people should not be complacent. Vigorous action by the security forces against all proscribed organisations is clearly needed. There is still a general belief in the community that that vigour is not being applied, and that a degree of restraint is still being exercised over the police, the Army and the intelligence services for political reasons because of the so-called peace process. I hope that the Minister of State will make it clear that no such restraint is being applied, and that vigorous action will be taken against all proscribed organisations. We may then see the consequences of that.
  People in Northern Ireland were greatly encouraged by the security forces' success against IRA activists in South Armagh a month or two ago. That was noted and deeply appreciated: during the election campaign, many people in my constituency commented positively on that. But it seems to have been an isolated success. I hope that the Government will give the police, the Army and the intelligence services every encouragement to repeat that success, because it is very much needed.
  There is no doubt that the IRA will try during the summer to do what it can to destabilise society in Northern Ireland. At the secret meeting of Sinn Fein in the Irish Republic six months ago, Gerry Adams boasted about what it had achieved last summer. He told his adherents that what had happened in Drumcree was no accident, but was the work of his activists over several years. There is no doubt that he and his associates will try to do the same this summer. That is causing tension in the community, and it is not helped by the fact that morale in the RUC is poor. That poor morale is not improved by the comments about so-called police reform, which have not been fully explained to the police or the community. Something must done on those fronts as well.
  Proscription is inevitable. We support the order, and we hope that the Government will proceed from this point to ensure that vigorous action is taken against all proscribed organisations.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I welcomed the arrival of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, and I strongly supported it during its passage through the House, as I supported previous emergency provisions Acts. In my judgment, the powers and provisions of the successive Acts have been and remain essential, and the Secretary of State's action today confirms that. More to the point, the people who make use of those powers and provisions have consistently reported that they are helpful and necessary. The time certainly is not right to abandon them, as the Secretary of State's tabling of this amendment order and the situation on the ground in Northern Ireland confirm.
  The amendment order is brief and modest, but, notwithstanding its brevity and modesty, I welcome and support it. The proscribing of organisations may not be the ultimate weapon in the fight against terrorists, but it is a useful adjunct. In some circumstances, it can be a means of securing convictions, although not as frequently as many of us would like. It certainly sends out the right
  1328
  message that there is no lawful place in a free, democratic society for organisations that believe that violence is a legitimate means of pursuing political objectives.
  I have no doubt that the two named organisations deservedly qualify for proscription. Their reported actions show that, and I dare say that intelligence sources also provide further good reasons for their proscription. I applaud the Secretary of State's prompt and decisive action.
  When the present Secretary of State was shadow Secretary of State, she sometimes described her position on policy issues as "constructive criticism." I often felt that "constructive criticism" was a euphemism for "opposing politely". Nevertheless, I believe that the Government of the day appreciated her approach, and I shall try to follow her example.
  Obviously, this is not the occasion for a wide debate on emergency provisions Acts or on the Government's overall intentions with regard to anti-terrorist legislation. However, it is worth putting down in utmost brevity some markers to which, no doubt, we shall return on future occasions.
  The first marker that I want to put down is a bit complicated. It relates to the EPA and the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. I may be mistaken, but in the final days of the previous Parliament, I formed the impression that Labour Members might be thinking in terms of moving beyond the Lloyd review. I based that understanding on the speech of the present Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) when we last debated EPA matters on 19 March. He said then:
  "Lord Lloyd … said that many of the procedural provisions in the Emergency Provisions Acts might have taken a different form given the existence of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. He also said that once lasting peace had been established in Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom there would be no need for separate Acts: one would suffice."—[Official Report, 19 March 1997; Vol. 292, c. 1016.]
  I hope that, in their deliberations, the Government will not lose sight of Lord Lloyd's all-important qualification. In his judgment, the need for separate Acts remains unless there is lasting peace. That, in itself, demands a considerable passage of time after a ceasefire, or we will not know that that ceasefire is lasting.
  When Lord Lloyd referred to separate Acts, did he not have in mind the EPA and PTA, not the EPA and the 1988 order, as the present Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland seemed to think was the case? In either event, Lord Lloyd warned against streamlining or amalgamating legislation unless there was lasting peace, and I believe that it would be unwise to overlook that.
  My second marker relates to the Diplock courts. Here again, I hope that the Government will not act too hastily. I do not think that the essential issue is whether to contract in or out of a Diplock court system; I cannot see that that really matters. Nor should it be argued—as it sometimes is—that the Diplock court system is a form of inferior justice. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) made that point persuasively in the Second Reading debate on 19 February last year.
  Surely the essential issue is whether Diplock courts are still needed-and they are: we cannot yet dispense with them. Deeply though we may regret it, the threat

  1329
  of intimidation, or worse, for jurors or witnesses, is as great as ever. To provide protection would be extremely difficult in practical terms and would almost certainly be cost-prohibitive, in view of the number of people who would need to be protected and the length of time for which they would have to be protected. I hope that the Government will not rush in and precipitately curtail the Diplock system.
  For the sake of brevity, I shall refer to the third marker only in passing. It relates to the silent video recording of questioning in the holding centres. The arguments about whether the right balance has been maintained, and about whether we are going too far or not far enough, are well rehearsed, but I feel that silent video recording should be given a reasonable trial. That has not yet happened, and it should before any change is seriously considered.
  My fourth marker relates to detention orders. Hon. Members have made their hostility to such orders very clear and the arithmetic of the House is such that, if they so decide, they can proceed. I shall say only that if they seek to remove that lapsed power from our anti-terrorist legislation, I do not think that I will be alone on the Opposition Benches in arguing as persuasively as possible that it would be a dreadful mistake. Tragically, the security position in Northern Ireland demands and justifies emergency provisions and the PTA. That is the reality, which the tabling of the order confirms.
  I hope that the Secretary of State has fully grasped one dimension of the security situation in the Province, on which the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) commented. A security crisis looms in Northern Ireland today and there is a real danger that it could assume horrific proportions.
  Demonstrably, since 1992—and probably some time before that—a key objective in the Provisionals' overall strategy has been the orchestration of confrontation between Unionists and the British state. The Orange Order marches provide the primary vehicle for achieving that, and all the signs suggest that they are succeeding. The crisis will be compounded if the Government unwittingly play into the hands of the Provisionals. With the height of the marching season approaching and tension in the Province rising, the RUC has a pivotal role to play, and the morale of the RUC is a vital consideration.
  Mr. John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should the hon. Member not confine his remarks to the order that we are discussing?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The terms of the order are fairly narrow, concerning two specific organisations. Perhaps the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) will confine his remarks to that order.
  Mr. Hunter: In recent weeks, the two organisations that have been proscribed today have been instrumental in creating disorder in Northern Ireland. My point is that it is through the marching season, and the marches in particular, that those who seek to disrupt order in Northern Ireland are working. That is my argument in support of proscription. I hope that the Secretary of State fully appreciates how dangerous the position is, and that he will find means to restore morale within the RUC.
  6.36 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): We have had a brief but constructive debate. I think it appropriate to acknowledge what all right hon. and hon. Members have said in condemnation of paramilitary violence and sectarianism, from whatever quarter it comes. It is clear that the House is unanimous in that condemnation.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) asked why we had not proscribed the organisations before. The decisions that we are making tonight must be based on reliable evidence relating to the organisations as a whole, rather than assertions, suspicions or even the conviction of individual members for criminal offences. The evidence available at any particular time has been kept under review, but it is now such that we believe that the Loyalist Volunteer Force and the Continuity Army Council are organisations which deserve proscription.
  The right hon.Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made many telling points about other groups that have already been proscribed. He said that proscription of itself would not achieve the removal of those groups from the face of Northern Ireland society, and the evidence tells us just that. Clearly, the best and most effective proscription will occur when those groups listen to what all decent, right-thinking people want for Northern Ireland—when they respond to what the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want for their society.
  The right hon. Gentleman also sought assurances that the Government, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, would seek to ensure that all sectors of this deeply divided community were dealt with sensitively. He made some telling points. I think that, overall, he recognised that that was indeed the way in which the Government and my right hon. Friend had proceeded during the weeks in which we have been in office, and that we would continue to proceed on the same basis.
  The right hon. Gentleman rightly commented on the need for the new Dublin Government to adopt an even-handed approach to the position in Northern Ireland. We worked well with the last Dublin Government and we look forward to building a constructive and progressive relationship with the new Government and those who will speak for them in the peace talks. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept those assurances.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: I had intended to speak in the debate, but, because of a mechanical problem, I was unable to do so. As I was rising to my feet, an hon. Member was entering the Chamber and I did not manage to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that, by convention, a lengthy intervention on the Minister's winding-up speech will be entertained.
  I welcome the proposed order proscribing these two organisations. They are splinter groups—one, I understand, from the Combined Loyalist Military Command and the other from the IRA. However, it would be wrong to think, as I am sure the Minister will agree, that proscription is any sort of panacea for the type of activity in which those organisations engage.
  One of the problems has been that democratic process attempts to come to terms with violent terrorism have not worked. It is clear that democracy cannot co-exist

  1331
  with violent terrorism with political objectives. As I am sure the Minister will agree, the inevitable outcome of the over-exposure of democracy to terrorism is that democracy itself is first corrupted and is then capable of being subsumed by that terrorism.
  Perhaps the Minister should be aware that the peace process policy, which was to some extent created by the previous Government, but which has been endorsed and subsequently adopted by the present Government, has itself brought about many of the problems that the Government have to deal with.
  The Government will be attempting to deal with two particular objectives that are mutually exclusive. The first is the holding of a peace resolution conference with the plenipotentiaries of violent terrorism and the other is the bringing about of a negotiated stable political settlement in Northern Ireland. The more that the Government attempt to achieve the former, the less they make available the prospects of the latter. While they may help, perhaps more cosmetically than substantively, it would be foolish to think that they will make a great contribution to the elimination of terrorism in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Ingram: I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's points. Perhaps his last two strayed a little from the order. He said that proscription of itself would not achieve the desired end result. I made those very points at the start of my speech.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman's name appeared on the annunciator during his intervention, which is most unusual. Perhaps new things are happening in Parliament—new Labour, new screens. We shall have to learn as we go along. However, I take on board the hon. and learned Gentleman's points, and I have no doubt that we shall return to them in later debates.
  Before that intervention, I was replying to the speech of the right hon. Member for Devizes. I dealt with his comments about the need for sensitivity in the context of relationships throughout the Province's divided community. He also spoke about the new Government in Dublin. I am sure that we all want to see that Government work progressively towards the achievement of peace in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann spoke about the witness protection scheme. That goes beyond the thrust of what the order seeks to achieve. Obviously, we shall reflect on what he said. Perhaps if I write to him on dip detailed point, that will help him and other hon. Members.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) was wide-ranging. We are debating the narrow issue of the proscription of two paramilitary organisations and, while it is not for me to say that any hon. Member strayed beyond the bounds of the order, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had to call the hon. Gentleman to order. He raised several issues, including the functioning of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996, the Lloyd review and the Diplock courts. He made some constructive criticisms, but perhaps it is better to deal with the hon. Gentleman's specific points when we debate those aspects in terms of the Government's legislative programme. I am sure
  1332
  that the hon. Gentleman will raise many of those issues again, when the House will be able to deal with them at greater length and on a more structured basis.
  My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow—I apologise. Perhaps I have gone native in Northern Ireland and have forgotten my homeland of Scotland and its constituencies. I hope not. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) spoke about the disgraceful scenes in Harryville. Today, I took the opportunity to go through the town of Harryville and I saw the church that is being repaired as a result of the weekend's events. We must all condemn what is going on there. It is simply outrageous. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke about the way in which attempts are being made to stop people who are going about their lawful business or following their religious persuasions and attending church.
  The speeches in the debate will contribute to a better understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland. My final point relates to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in opening the debate. Of itself, proscription cannot guarantee the prevention of terrorist acts, but it will make life harder for the terrorists.
  For example, it will be illegal to solicit, invite or accept financial or other material support for the LVF or the CAC or knowingly to contribute to them. The order will make it illegal to solicit or invite membership of those organisations or to solicit or invite a person to carry out orders or directions given on behalf of the LVF or the CAC or requests made by a member of either of them.
  It will also be illegal to arrange, manage or address a meeting knowing that it is to support those organisations or that it is to be addressed by a member of them. Finally, it will be illegal to dress in any way that arouses the reasonable apprehension that a person is a member of either of those organisations.
  The effects that flow from the proscription of an organisation are not retrospective. Therefore, a person may be prosecuted for activities only if any of the above offences occur after the date of proscription. People know the purpose of the order, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (Amendment) Order 1997 (S. I., 1997, No. 1403), which was laid before this House on 3rd June, be approved.

  WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 108 (Welsh Grand Committee (sittings)),
  That the Welsh Grand Committee shall meet in County Hall, Mold, on Monday 30th June at Eleven o'clock to take Questions pursuant to Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and to consider a Matter pursuant to Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)), proceedings being interrupted at half-past Four o'clock.—[Mr. Graham Allen.]
  Question agreed to.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Thursday 19th June, Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to the Common Agricultural Policy, and the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on that Motion not later than three hours after their commencement.—[Mr. Graham Allen.]

  Revenue Support Grant (Somerset)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham Allen.]
  6.47 pm
  Mr. David Heath: This is a particularly timely debate in more ways than one. I am surprised to be addressing the House at such an early hour. As the Minister will appreciate, the debate is timely because of the announcement of the capping of Somerset county council a couple of weeks ago. It will come as no great surprise to him to hear me say that the capping announcement was a considerable disappointment to the many people I represent in Somerset and those in the wider county. They had hoped, perhaps in vain, for rather better from the new Government.
  The county council will decide within the next week whether it wishes to appeal against that capping designation. I have a strong suspicion that it will decide that it will wish to appeal. If I am right, it will certainly have my support and that, I believe, of the other Members of Parliament representing Somerset. We will support the county council, because we believe that it has an extremely strong case.
  That is not a surprising statement. All councils believe that they have a strong case to spend more. I have sat through enough meetings of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance and other consultative bodies to know that the arguments that go backwards and forwards between local and central Government tend to be a little stereotypical and to be rehearsed in detail each year, but I honestly believe that there are good reasons why Somerset's case merits close consideration.
  The first is that there is no doubt that Somerset county council is extremely badly treated by the formulae. Remember that, this time around, Somerset was given a capping limit of 2 per cent., the lowest of all the county authorities. Remember also that the amount that Somerset county council has budgeted to spend in excess of that limit is marginal in its context—a further 1.2 per cent and a total of £3.6 million.
  Secondly, the county council has an extraordinary record of efficiency and prudence in the way in which it conducts its business, and we can substantiate that. Thirdly, the areas in which that money is be spent are precisely those that the new Government claim are their priorities over coming years. The county council has made it clear that its interests and priorities are to protect frail and elderly people, to provide a proper education for our children and to maintain the safety of citizens in Somerset. Those are, I hope, aspirations that the Government share.
  Let us deal with the formulae. Somerset is not a high-spending authority. There are no aspects of county spending to which people can point and say, "There is an authority that spends over the top on its services." They can say, of course, that Somerset spends more than its standard spending assessment allowances. Were that not true, the county would be in a parlous state. It spends £12 million more than the education SSA. Despite that, its education spending is still 4 per cent. below the Audit Commission family average. No one who has visited Somerset schools and who knows the Somerset education service would believe that Somerset is a high-spending authority in terms of education.

  1335
  Why, then, is the SSA so inadequate? Technical issues need to be considered. They are based on sparsity factors and the rural nature of Somerset, which falls between all the measures that are reflected in the SSA. The SSA fails to reflect properly the growth not only in the population but in the clientele in the most important sectors—the number of children in school and the number of elderly persons and persons needing support from the social services departments.
  Therefore, the SSA is at fault; and then we have the area cost adjustment. Were the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) here, I am sure that he would want to intervene at this point to say how important it is that the area cost adjustment be reviewed. He has consistently held that view from the moment that he ceased to be a Minister with responsibility for the environment.
  Other factors, such as the landfill tax, weigh heavily on a county such as Somerset, which has no realistic alternatives because—again—of the sparsity of the population. It faces a substantial imposition in terms of the landfill tax, without the room within the capping formulae to provide.
  Remember that a previous Government already considered an appeal against capping designation by Somerset in 1995–96 and, wonder of wonders, they agreed with us. Somerset is the only authority that has ever successfully gone through the cap and been granted every penny that it asked for. The formulae were clearly out of step with the county's needs. In that year, the council was granted an extra £2.6 million, which represented a 1 per cent. addition to its expenditure.
  Let us consider the efficiency and effectiveness of the authority's education service. Somerset has the lowest administrative costs of any authority in the country—£9.29 per child; some authorities spend more than £120 per child. That is out of all proportion, and shows the level of the education service's effectiveness and efficiency. Somerset has the highest proportion of spending devolved to schools and, as I have mentioned, the highest spending above SSA of any county. It also has the lowest proportion of surplus places in primary schools. Given that we have many village schools and schools that are monopoly providers for the area they serve, that is a remarkable achievement.
  The maximum amount of money that is provided from Government is going to our schools, yet our schools still suffer from underfunding. Class sizes have been steadily increasing. Last year, before the general election, I was the first Somerset education committee chairman in eight years to propose a budget that did not involve real-terms cuts, which is remarkable, but that depended on the county council being allowed to spend above the capping designation.
  Social services are equally important. Somerset was one of the first counties to externalise its residential care service and it is the only one to have externalised domiciliary care. That may be right or it may be wrong, but what is absolutely certain is that the results are very low unit costs and very low management and support costs. That has just been checked by the Audit Commission and the social services inspectorate and it is demonstrably the case. Again, the fire service has among the lowest costs in the country, yet it is one of the most
  1336
  efficient brigades in terms of its call-out response time. Expenditure on highways maintenance, which is among the lowest in the country, has now been put into education.
  All that means that the county is operating extremely effectively. There is no spare money. There is no scope for using reserves, as some authorities might, because there are no reserves. There have been no reserves for many years. Few—one can never say never—further administrative savings can be made within the county. The results of cutting real-terms expenditure are cuts in the services that people in the county need.
  Where, therefore, will the extra £3.4 million of expenditure go? Is it to be frittered away? Of course not. It is to go in the main to education—an extra £2 million. Here I must declare an interest. I have two children in a Somerset school. They will be affected by the proposals. They will certainly be affected if the Government impose the capping limit.
  I have mentioned that class sizes have increased. In 1995, 24.9 per cent. of primary classes in the county contained more than 30 children; in 1997, the figure has gone up to 31.6 per cent. We are not crying wolf. Those are real affects in our schools. As I have said, this year, we have a standstill budget, but what if the designation is confirmed? It will mean 90 teachers will lose their jobs. How do the Government reconcile that with the priority of education, education, education? How would they find the extra £1 million that will then have to be spent on redundancies, to sack teachers, instead of paying for more teachers for a better education for our children?
  The rest of the money totals £1.4 million, which is to go towards social services. Already, we have limited support in the county for carers. Already, domestic support to the frail and elderly has been cut. Already, the home care service has been cut. If the designation is confirmed, 125 places for elderly people in care homes will be lost and 50,000 hours of personal care for the frail and elderly will be lost. The child care team will also be cut.
  No caring council would contemplate making such cuts, and I suggest that no caring Government would contemplate enforcing them. I know that the Minister is a caring man: I am sure that he will consider my comments and listen to the representations made to him. I hope that he will not take it the wrong way when I ask him not to recite the brief to which he referred in replying to a similar debate on Oxfordshire several weeks ago. Parts of that brief seemed a little stale: perhaps they predated the change of Government and were written by the same civil servants. Perhaps the policy was a left-over from the previous Government.
  I hope that the Minister will consider the realities of Somerset and its case. I hope that he will remember that the rationale for capping is to protect the public from irresponsible authorities and from excessive council tax increases. Somerset has a very low council tax compared with those of neighbouring authorities. It is not an extravagant authority, and there are no easy alternatives to be taken.
  Who is being protected? Last week, I asked the Minister in a written question how many representations he had received from people in Somerset complaining about their council tax bills this year. The answer was none: not a single person from Somerset has complained

  1337
  about his or her council tax. However, many people have written to say that they do not want cuts in education, social services or the fire service.
  The Conservatives assisted us in the last county council election by opposing going through the cap, thereby presenting a clear alternative to the people of Somerset. As a result, the Liberal Democrats won by a massive margin and the Conservatives made very little progress. Therefore, like the Government in this place, the Liberal Democrats have a mandate in Somerset.
  I ask the Minister to consider matters of local accountability. The Government have just signed the charter of local self-government. Let the Minister prove that he believes in self-government by allowing local people the discretion to make local decisions about local services and what they are prepared to pay for them. That will not affect the departmental totals; it will affect the total spend, but, as far as I know, that has not been capped. It will not affect the Department's contribution to local authorities, but it will allow the county of Somerset to offer a fair deal to our children and our elderly.
  I hope that the Minister's reply will not involve further reviews of sparsity, area cost adjustments and the SSA system. The children of Somerset cannot wait for those reviews to take place. It is a truism that children have only one chance at education. If the council is forced to sack teachers, it will have a devastating effect on the children in Somerset schools now—next year, the year after, some time or never will be too late for those children. The Minister has an opportunity to make a real difference to the services provided in Somerset. I urge him to seize that opportunity in responding to the debate and, more important, in responding to those representations that I fully expect him to receive from the county of Somerset in due course.
  7.3 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on his success in securing the Adjournment Debate this evening and on his powerful advocacy of his county council's case. He has put a strong and eloquent case, and I acknowledge his concern for the interests of his constituents and others in the county.
  The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that my reply will inevitably reiterate many of the points that I made to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) during last week's debate. We are considering broad principles concerning the operation of local government finance that apply equally to Somerset and Oxfordshire county councils.
  First, I shall make some general points about the new relationship between central and local government. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome mentioned in his speech, last week we signed the Council of Europe's charter of local self-government. That is a clear pledge of the Government's commitment to forging a new and constructive partnership with local government at home. Local government has a central role to play in tackling the neglect and mistakes of the past 18 years.
  We recognise, and believe in, the importance of local government as an independent democratic institution. We want to reinvigorate local government in ways that
  1338
  encourage increased democracy, with local people having more say in the affairs of their council; increased autonomy, with more freedom for authorities to take their own decisions; increased accountability, with elected representatives being more visibly accountable for their actions; and increased partnership between central and local government and between local authorities and people, businesses and groups in their areas.
  Within that framework, local authorities have important roles as commissioners and deliverers of a wide range of local services, of which education—which the hon. Gentleman described in considerable detail—housing and social services are often seen as the most important. Authorities are responsible for assessing service needs, balancing priorities, procuring delivery of services and providing them directly, monitoring standards, reviewing performance and acting on complaints.
  However, local authorities are concerned with more than simply ensuring the delivery of high-quality services. We want to see local authorities develop their roles as leaders and champions of their areas: identifying local problems and areas of concern and developing strategies to address them; bringing groups, businesses and agencies together; and being the voice of local communities in dealing with Government, Europe, investors and other interests.
  Local government is at the sharp end of the fight against deprivation. The Government will join local government in a concerted attack against the multiple causes of social and economic decline—social exclusion, unemployment, bad housing, crime, poor health and environmental problems. Good local government can play a key part in tackling those serious and deep-rooted problems.
  Equally, we recognise that poor local government will stifle improvements not just directly in terms of the services that an authority provides, but by imposing an excessive cost burden on the community and creating a vacuum of community leadership. We therefore need to work with local government to ensure that people receive good-quality services from the whole of the public sector.
  We also need to work together in developing our policies for local government. It is essential that we work together to create systems that work, and have detailed discussions about policy and implementation before we enact legislation. We want to forge close links with local government and related organisations that can make a real contribution. We want to see practical experience and knowledge brought to bear at the early, formative stages of policy development, and not left to the end of the process, when minds are made up and the scope for change is limited.
  We have all had too much experience recently of central Government legislating in haste, and local government having to live with, and sort out, the problems that followed. We must now start to work together on future legislation. We must examine ways in which we can develop pilot studies on a wide range of issues including best value, a new approach to regeneration, community planning and partnerships with other agencies and democratic innovations.
  We must—and intend to—work together to assess the scope of the new duty on local authorities to promote economic, social and environmental well-being in their areas, and on ways in which we can strengthen local

  1339
  authorities' community leadership role, facilitate innovation, and encourage local partnerships in the delivery of services. Of course, we must work closely with local government in order to implement our manifesto commitments on local government finance.
  As to this year's settlement, all public expenditure programmes must be examined rigorously each year, and local government spending—which accounts for a quarter of all public expenditure—is no exception. Decisions on local government spending must take account of the pressures on local authorities and of the scope for greater efficiency and effectiveness within those authorities.
  As I have stressed on other occasions, we have inherited this year's local government spending plans and are clearly committed to retaining them. Although we are committed to reviewing the local government finance system in future years, for this year at least we must work within the current spending plans.
  Mr. Tom King rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman has just entered the Chamber. He cannot expect me to give way when he has not heard the opening speech by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and has had little opportunity to listen to my comments. I have made it quite clear that we inherited the local government spending arrangements.
  Mr. King rose—
  Mr. Raynsford: I have already said that I am not prepared to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who was not present for the speech by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.
  Mr. King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that this debate is entitled to run until 10 pm? The fact that the Government's business has collapsed does not affect that, so I hope that the Minister will reflect on that fact. I want to make only a brief intervention and I had already asked the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) whether I could intervene. I happen to be a Somerset county Member. It would be unfortunate if the Minister, who is aware that the debate could continue until 10 pm, chooses not to allow me to make my brief intervention. I hope that he will feel able to accommodate me.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Whether hon. Members give way is not a matter for the Chair—it is entirely a matter for the Minister.
  Mr. Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have made it clear to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) that I am not giving way, and I shall explain why. He knows that this is a short debate and he is aware of the convention on Adjournment debates. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome had the courtesy to tell me, before the debate began, that he had received a request from the right hon. Gentleman to intervene. Had the right hon. Gentleman been in the Chamber for this debate, I would have been happy to
  1340
  agree to that. However, he was not here. He did not have the courtesy to come to the Chamber and listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. Instead, he has come here 20 minutes after the start of the debate and expects to intervene, even though he has not listened to any of the comments of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and shows no interest in listening to what I have to say. I consider that to be a considerable discourtesy. The right hon. Gentleman, who has many years of experience in the House, should know better.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome introduced the debate in an intelligent, sensible and courteous way. He made a number of points about standard spending assessments. Since 1990–91, Somerset's overall SSA has increased broadly in line with the average increase for English authorities. For 1997–98, its SSA has increased by 1.9 per cent., which is only just below the average increase for shire counties and is well above the average 1.5 per cent. increase for English authorities as a whole.
  The hon. Gentleman reasonably raised the question of the education SSA. He made a valid point, because Somerset's education SSA is relatively low compared with that of other counties—it is 33rd out of the 35 counties. It was an entirely proper point for him to make. However, what he did not say was that, on a number of other SSAs, Somerset does relatively well—for example, on highways maintenance it comes fourth out of the 35 counties, on other services 11 th, and on social services 15th. We acknowledge that the case he made on education is valid, but it is only a partial case that relates to only one service; it does not take account of the broad range.
  The hon. Gentleman will understand that the framework for SSAs involves assessments of the need to spend under various headings. Those needs vary from authority to authority. Authorities will do well on some, but less well on others. That reflects the circumstances in their areas and the need for them to spend in relation to other authorities. That is why it is possible for an authority to score relatively low in relation to other authorities on some indicators, but to score relatively well on other indicators. That is the case with Somerset.
  Mr. David Heath: I am sure that the Minister agrees that the education SSA and the revenue that derives from it is so large in comparison with the other services provided by a county council that, if the education SSA is wrongly assessed—especially to the degree that I think the hon. Gentleman almost recognised in his comments—that has an effect on every other service, as well as on the level of education that the county hopes to provide.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point. I have no doubt that, as and when the county seeks to make representations, that will be in the forefront of the issues raised. We shall listen carefully to any representations from the hon. Gentleman, his colleagues in the county council and others.
  SSAs are the basis for the distribution of revenue support grant. They are based on measures of spending need that apply to all local authorities and they are discussed with representatives of local government. The SSAs for 1997–98 have been announced. As with total local government spending plans, we have said that they will not be revisited, and we do not propose to do so now.

  1341
  Having said that, we are committed to a fair distribution of Government grant among authorities, and we believe that there is scope for improvement in the arrangements in future years. My colleagues and I shall look closely at the current SSA system. We shall listen to local government views on how SSAs might be improved, both for 1998–99 and in the longer term.
  As the hon. Gentleman feels that the SSA system does not treat Somerset fairly, I should be happy to examine any proposals he has for different methods of calculation. However, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon last week, any system of this nature has to be universal, and any changes would need to apply to all authorities equally. When making any changes, we will, of course, want to be sure that they will produce a sounder assessment of needs.
  Mr. Tom King: I want to apologise to the Minister for my earlier intervention. I am grateful to him for his courtesy in giving way now. He, too, is a long-serving Member, so he will understand that there is a problem when business collapses ahead of time. I merely wanted to point out that there is concern about the area cost adjustment. We made representations to the previous Government and a study was set up. Unfortunately, the basis on which it went forward led to an unhelpful result and we were then forced to ask for the study not to be implemented.
  I apologise again to both the Minister and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome for my inadvertent discourtesy in not being here at the start of the debate. I would be grateful for advice on what work is being done. I hope that the Minister or his colleague, the Minister of State, will receive a delegation of Somerset Members of Parliament who wish to press the urgency for a fresh approach to the ACA formula, which is so important in determining the overall level of expenditure for Somerset.
  Mr. Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point and I am happy that I allowed him to intervene. My previous comments related solely to the way in which his earlier intervention arose. I recognise that he has represented the area for a long time and has been involved in the issue of area cost adjustment, which has produced some curious consequences. The issue is complex, like many other elements in the local government finance scheme. Many of us start off with high hopes of achieving significant improvements. We set out our proposals, only to find that the consequences are very complex and often not as helpful as we had hoped.
  It is a difficult area. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about the need to re-examine the issue. If he and other hon. Members seek a meeting with either me or the Minister of State, we shall be glad to hear their representations.
  With regard to capping, we again gave clear signals that, although we propose to replace in due course the current crude capping system, it would have to wait for future years. In the meantime, we said that we were proposing to follow the intentions of the previous Government for 1997–98. All authorities, including Somerset county council, knew that when setting their budgets.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said that there was disappointment in the county council at our decision. It may have been disappointed, but it cannot
  1342
  have been surprised, because it was made clear that this year's local government framework was inherited and that the caps would apply.
  Mr. David Rendel: I was present at the debate on Oxfordshire last week. I have heard the Minister's remarks so far tonight, although I am afraid that I did not hear all of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). The Minister has said once again that he is relying on the previous Government's plans in respect of both Somerset and Oxfordshire. There has been a strong indication from Conservative Members that, had they remained in government, they would have listened very carefully to representations made by Somerset and by Oxfordshire, and that they probably would have agreed with them. Will the Minister do the same?
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman would be showing surprising naivety if he believed Conservative Members' protestations that they would act differently if they were still in government. It is very easy to repent after the event, and I am sceptical about such blandishments. The Government, however, will listen very carefully to the specific representations that we expect to receive from the counties of Somerset and—after last week's debate—Oxfordshire. We shall also do our best to accommodate sensible proposals for changes in the system that may help in future, and we shall listen to the authorities' case on this year's settlement.
  Of 436 authorities, only three have set budgets that are significantly over their provisional capping limits. Our decision to designate those authorities demonstrates that we are taking our spending commitments seriously. We have also made it clear that, under our plans for replacing the current capping system in future, we shall retain reserve powers to control excessive council tax rises. Therefore, this year, all three authorities will be required to reduce their budgets unless they can demonstrate to us that they should not.
  Under the capping legislation, capping principles apply to classes of authority, and we can consider an individual authority's detailed circumstances only if it budgets over cap. Somerset county council, having been through the process before, is well aware of that principle. The county was granted a capping concession on the previous occasion, in 1995–96—the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said that it was a unique achievement—when, after making its representations, it was granted a concession of £2.6 million. That concession led not only to relief in that financial year but to a permanent increase in the authority's base budget, from which it continues to benefit.
  This year, Somerset was allowed to increase its budget by 2 per cent. On the information available, there is nothing to suggest that Somerset is in a tougher position than counties that have budgeted within cap. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made the point that, in his opinion, Somerset was allowed the smallest cap increase of any authority. I do not think that that is correct, however, because many other counties received a 2 per cent. increase, and many other local authorities received 1.5 per cent. Therefore, Somerset was not alone in its increase.
  As I said, the Government do not believe that Somerset is in a tougher position than counties that budgeted within cap. Our proposed cap would still allow the county to

  1343
  increase its budget by £5.58 million over its 1996 budget, when it fixed a budget that was within its cap. On the evidence that we have received to date, we think that that is a reasonable and achievable goal. As I said, however, we welcome and will listen carefully to any representations made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome or by Somerset county council.
  Decisions on priorities between services is a matter for the authority itself. I accept entirely the importance that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome attaches to education, because the Government have a similar concern for education. I am sure that he will accept, however, that it would be wrong for central Government to say how it believes authorities should divide their spending, because that is a matter for local authorities. It is not for me to suggest where authorities should make any reductions if their cap is confirmed. Local authorities would quite reasonably object if we attempted to dictate in such a manner.
  At this stage in the capping process, authorities can accept the caps that we have proposed. When that happens, the cap limit is set by notice, and the authority can immediately set a revised lower budget and recalculate its council tax. Obviously, sending new bills will impose an extra administrative burden, the expense of which will have to be met from within the authority's revised budget. Such expense is a result of the authority's decision to breach the provisional cap, and all authorities are aware of those implications.
  Mr. Norman Baker: Does the Minister realise that many Members will find his answer slightly depressing? He and the Labour party were elected to government, by a quite substantial margin, with a mandate for a fresh start. Furthermore, a part of the Labour manifesto dealt with a brand new start with local government, which, for the past 18 years, has been held in a stranglehold. Controls over most of UK local government—unlike controls over most local governments in Europe—have been excessive.
  Does the Minister also realise that the local government elections, which were held on 1 May, also comprehensively rejected the Conservatives? The mandate at both national and local level, therefore, is to pursue a policy opposite to that pursued by the previous Government. I therefore do not understand why the Minister is pursuing a Conservative party policy. How can he be so attracted to capping when capping is anathema
  1344
  to equality between local and central Government, and by what right does he feel that he and other Ministers can override the wishes of the electorate and of individual county and district councils? The electorate voted for one policy, but a different policy is being imposed by the Government.
  Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to my speech. I made it absolutely clear that the Government are committed to a new relationship with local authorities and to dealing with many of the problems that he and other Opposition Members have highlighted. I have also made it clear that we inherited a financial settlement that came into operation a month before we were elected. We have made it quite clear that, this year, we shall be working within that financial framework. It would not be possible to make such a commitment to the electorate and then to renege on it without being subjected to criticism of being a party that does not honour its pledges to the electorate.
  The Government clearly stated what we would do—that we would work within the financial framework that we inherited—and we are doing it. We are, however, simultaneously examining ways in which we can improve relationships between local and central Government and improve local government's future financial framework. We shall improve those relationships and that framework.
  Should Somerset wish to challenge its cap, it will have 28 days from the date of designation—until 18 June—to propose an alternative amount and to provide its reasons for doing so. The authority will not only be able to submit its written case, but will have an opportunity to meet me or one of my colleagues to make its case directly. A meeting has provisionally been arranged—for 26 June 1997—with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who has responsibility for housing and local government. We shall consider all the relevant points, including those made in this debate, before reaching our final decision.
  Final caps will be stated in an order, which is, of course, subject to approval by the House. Once that process is complete, we shall notify the authority of its maximum permitted budget. If a budget reduction is confirmed, the authority would have 21 days in which to calculate a substitute budget requirement. It would then, of course, have to set a reduced council tax.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Seven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Firearms
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the number of persons resident in the United Kingdom who are authorised to possess a firearm for their personal protection(a) under a certificate, permit or other form of authority issued in accordance with the Firearms Act 1968, (b) by virtue of being servants of the Crown and (c) by any other exemption or method of authorisation. [3295]

  Mr. Michael
  I have made no such estimate. Home Office guidance to the police in England, Wales and Scotland is that they should refuse applications for the grant of a firearm certificate for the applicant's protection or that of his premises. In Northern Ireland, there are approximately 11,000 people who hold certificates for firearms needed for personal protection. Information on the number of military personnel or other Crown servants currently authorised to retain service weapons for purposes of self-protection is not readily available.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many lives he estimates will be saved each year by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997; and on what basis this estimate is made. [3297]

  Mr. Michael
  No such estimate can be prepared. The intention of the Act is to reduce the risk to public safety of another outrage such as that committed at Dunblane primary school by someone using a lawfully held handgun.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to place in the Library at monthly intervals a memorandum setting out the type and number of firearms which have been surrendered in accordance with the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 but which have not been destroyed, the reasons for not destroying them, the person or body to whom they have or are to be transferred and the price which has or is to be paid for them. [3299]

  Mr. Michael
  No. Police forces will retain handguns surrendered to them until compensation has been paid. We will report the overall outcome of the surrender exercise to the House but obtaining monthly reports on the lines suggested would be a time-consuming and expensive exercise which would not be justified. There will be no sales of surrendered handguns.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the total cost of introducing and implementing the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and the present Firearms (Amendment) Bill. [3296]
  510
  Mr. Michael
  The estimated total cost of implementing both the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and the Firearms (Amendment) Bill is £169 million. Of this figure, £138 million is the estimated cost of implementing the prohibition on higher-calibre handguns contained in the Act which includes the cost of compensation payments for these, for their accessories and the police and central administration costs. The remaining £31 million is the estimated cost of implementing the prohibition of small-calibre handguns envisaged by the Bill, including the cost of compensation payments for them and their accessories.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made for the destruction of firearms surrendered to the police in accordance with the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. [3298]

  Mr. Michael
  Those firearms surrendered under the terms of the 1997 Act will be destroyed in accordance with local police arrangements. These will vary from force to force. A few firearms may be retained for police training purposes, and some may be taken by museums for public display.

  Deportations
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been deported from the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [2977]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The answer to the question is given in the following list.

  Persons removed 1 from the United Kingdom under the deportation process, 1992–1996

  1992: 2,583

  1993: 2,285

  1994: 1,870

  1995: 1,893

  19962 1,889.

  1 Includes voluntary departures after deportation action had been initiated.
  2 Provisional

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportation orders have been signed by Ministers in each of the last five years. [2990]

  Mr. O'Brien
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Deportation Orders signed by Ministers, 1992–96.

  1992: 887

  1993: 1,245

  1994: 1,514

  1995: 1,648

  19961: 1,864.

  1 Provisional.

  Freemasonry
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he is going to implement the Home Affairs Select Committee's recommendations on freemasonry in the police and the judiciary, with special reference to a public register of freemasons. [3000]
  511
  Mr. Michael
  The Government are currently considering the Home Affairs Committee report on freemasonry in the police and the judiciary, and have written to the Clerk of the Committee to say that a substantive response to the Committee's recommendation will be made by the end of August this year.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 June,Official Report, columns 90–91, if he will make a statement on the statistics published on 2 June, Official Report, column 91, in respect of the decline in the percentage of eligible adults who are registered to vote over the last 20 years. [3072]

  Mr. George Howarth
  It is not possible to make a direct comparison between electoral registration figures and estimates of the resident population, because they are not compiled on the same basis. The 1997 electoral register for Great Britain published in February showed the highest ever number of parliamentary electors registered to vote and saw the largest annual increase since 1987. We will seek to encourage this continuing improvement in electoral registration.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juveniles aged 10 to 16 years were convicted in each offence group in each year since 1994. [2991]

  Mr. Michael
  Information from 1994 and 1995 is given in the table. 1996 data will not be available until the autumn.

  Number of persons aged 10 to under 17 convicted at all courts by type of offence 1994 and 1995

  England and Wales

  Offence

  1994

  1995

  Indictable offences

  Violence against the person

  3,951

  3,231

  Sexual offences

  322

  301

  Burglary

  5,758

  6,049

  Robbery

  1,204

  1,466

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  11,043

  12,267

  Fraud and forgery

  266

  306

  Criminal damage

  1,461

  1,583

  Drug offences

  471

  600

  Other (excluding motoring offences)

  1,491

  1,814

  Motoring offences

  158

  175

  Total Indictable offences

  26,125

  27,792

  Summary non-motoring offences

  8,046

  10,393

  Summary motoring offences

  2,646

  2,936

  All offences

  36,817

  41,121

  Tote
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current salary of the chairman of the Tote; when his appointment is due to end; and if he will make a statement. [2993]
  512
  Mr. George Howarth
  The current salary of the chairman of the Tote is £103,108. Lord Wyatt's appointment is due to end on 30 June. We are taking steps to select a successor.

  Police Forces (Chemical Agents)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) which police forces in England and Wales use the MIBK chemical agent; [2769]

  (2) if he will forbid the use of the chemical agent MIBK by police forces in England and Wales; [2770]

  (3) what assessment he has made of representations from the Hertfordshire and Surrey Police regarding the MIBK chemical agent and its effect on foetuses. [2768]

  Mr. Michael
  My right hon. Friend does not plan to forbid the use of Methyl Isobutyl Ketone (MIBK) by police forces. MIBK is the solvent used as a carrying medium in CS canisters carried by officers in 17 forces in England and Wales. It has a wide range of uses, for example as a food additive and as a solvent in certain paints and varnishes. It is also found naturally in oranges, grapes and vinegar. A great deal is known about MIBK. The Department of Health has advised that it is an appropriate solvent to use in CS canisters, and it has been used by the Gendarmerie National in France for 17 years without any serious medical concerns.

  There have been isolated reports published which suggest that at very high levels MIBK may affect unborn foetuses in lower mammals. These reports and the other available scientific evidence have been assessed by the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch, the Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence. Their advice is that the scientific evidence does not indicate that MIBK is a human teratogen (that is to say, produces foetal abnormalities).

  Police Training
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is standard procedure for United Kingdom police forces to provide firearms training systems that include training sequences designed to train police or other security personnel to fire on unarmed demonstrators; and if he will make a statement. [2775]

  Mr. Michael
  It would be entirely wrong for police forces not to train officers, or anyone else, to fire on unarmed demonstrators. The only circumstances in which police officers are trained to use a firearm against an unarmed person are training in the use of plastic baton rounds against people engaging in serious public disorder. Plastic baton rounds may be used as a last resort, where conventional methods of policing have been tried and failed or are unlikely to succeed if tried, and where the chief officer decides such action to be necessary because of the risk of loss of life or serious injury or widespread destruction of property where the damage may lead to serious risk of loss of life or serious personal injury. The police in the United Kingdom are trained to respond with the minimum force required to counter effectively any threat which they or members of the public come under. The use of force is governed by section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 which provides that a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime. If my hon. Friend has any evidence
  513
  of any police force in the United Kingdom using such training sequences, I shall be grateful if she will let me have her evidence straightaway.

  Alcoholic Drinks (Children)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to prevent the sale of mislabelled alcoholic drinks to children; and if he will make a statement. [2974]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government are very concerned about the promotion and sale of certain alcoholic drinks to children. My right hon. Friend has set up a Ministerial Group to look at the issue. As its chairman, I am holding urgent talks with the drinks industry to demand swift action. If we are not satisfied with the response we are prepared to take action ourselves.

  A range of children's icepop drinks was recently found to have been contaminated with alcohol. The producer says that this was accidental and has withdrawn the product from the market.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the overall increase in the numbers of(a) police officers of all ranks and (b) police constables in England and Wales over the period 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997. [2965]

  Mr. Michael
  Provisional figures from police forces show that total police numbers increased by 257 to 127,158 in the 12 months ending March 1997. Within that total, police constable numbers increased by 460 to 98,132. These increases are well below the 1,000 additional officers planned by the previous Government last year.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held in Brussels on 26 and 27 May. [3978]

  Mr. Straw
  The Minister of State and I represented the United Kingdom at the Council. The main matters dealt with were as follows:

  The Council agreed as "A" points, among other things, the Europol Drugs Unit budget for 1998, a joint action on co-operation on law and order and security, and a resolution on unaccompanied third-country national minors. Two actions covering Europol were also agreed, one covering how data will be stored and analysed and the other with the conditions of employment for Europol staff.

  The Commission presented proposals for a future joint action on temporary protection for displaced persons. The proposals concern possible arrangements for European Union member states to respond in a co-ordinated way to situations where large numbers of refugees seek to enter the European Union from countries where events may have placed them in danger. In the light of preliminary discussion, the proposals will now be considered in detail in the appropriate working group.
  514
  There was discussion of a draft joint action aimed at providing an appropriately speedy mechanism for identifying and controlling new synthetic drugs throughout the Union. Establishment of such a mechanism was agreed in principle, although some work is still needed on the finer points of the text.

  There was agreement in principle to a Protocol to the Europol Convention, which would lay down the extent to which Europol staff will benefit from certain privileges and immunities when carrying out their official functions. Minor amendments to the text are needed before the Protocol can be signed. This should be achieved fairly quickly.

  Agreement was also reached on the second Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of the Communities' Financial Interests. This Protocol lays down steps to be taken by member states to criminalise certain acts of fraud and corruption against the Community budget and laundering of the proceeds of such fraud and corruption. The Protocol should be ready for signature in the near future.

  The Presidency reported progress on the draft Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. Although some progress has been made, a number of issues remain to be finalised by the working group.

  The Presidency reported the outcome of their meeting with representatives of the United States Government on 14 April, under the terms of the Transatlantic Dialogue. It was agreed that broad themes for ongoing co-operation should concentrate on the fight against terrorism; implementing of the Caribbean drugs initiative; and prevention of drug smuggling.

  The Commission gave a summary of work under way to combat trafficking in women and children. This included projects under a number of European Union Justice and Home Affairs programmes, as well as on the role of voluntary organisations working in the field.

  The Council also took note of reports on the work of the task force on organised crime in the Baltic region. The task force, which involves Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Finland, the Presidency and the Commission, has taken a number of concrete measures, including the establishment of 24-hour national contact points, joint communications systems and actions against stolen motor vehicles and drugs. It will report to heads of Government in January/February 1998.

  Two new European Union Conventions were signed by Ministers. One covered arrangements for the Service in Member States of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, including a Protocol covering the role in these matters of the European Court of Justice. The other was the Convention on the Fight Against Corruption involving Officials of the European Communities or Officials of the Member States of the European Union.

  Meetings were held with Ministers of the associated Central and Eastern European countries and, separately, with Cyprus. These concentrated on asylum, and covered in particular the application of the safe Third Country concept, public attitudes to asylum, and the possibility of a parallel convention to the Dublin Convention. The Dublin Convention lays down the procedure for

  515
  determining the state responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the member states of the European Communities. A parallel Convention would create a similar procedure for European Union member states and other contracting parties outside the Union.

  Boards of Visitors Annual Report
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received a copy of the National Advisory Council for the Boards of Visitors Annual Report for 1996. [3987]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  We received an advance copy of the first annual report by the National Advisory Council on 29 May. It covers the period from 1 February 1996 to 31 January 1997. The report describes the varied and extensive programme of work carried out by the National Advisory Council on behalf of the Boards of Visitors. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.

  Animal Experimentation
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to introduce legislation to simplify and tighten the laws relating to animal testing wording on cosmetics labels in order to circumscribe ambiguous marketing. [2880]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  I have been asked to reply.

  Requirements related to claims regarding animal testing of cosmetics will be tightened by regulation 4(4) of the Cosmetics Products (Safety) Regulations 1996, which will be enforced from 1 January 1998.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  ENVIRONMENT AND THE REGIONS

    BSE Incinerators
    Mr. Blizzard
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue guidance to planning inspectors to ensure that applications for BSE incinerators are not granted approval on appeal where they will destroy business confidence in a locality. [2477]

    Mr. Raynsford
    A number of recent planning applications have related to the construction of incineration facilities for the destruction of cattle slaughtered as part of the over 30 months scheme, rather than to those which show clinical signs of BSE for which provision exists already. Planning inspectors reach decisions on the basis of submitted evidence and published Government Planning Guidance. It is not appropriate to aim guidance solely at Planning Inspectors and on a single issue. Consideration is being given currently to whether there is a need to issue planning advice, to a wider audience, on facilities required to deal with wastes arising from the over 30 months scheme.

    Elderly Care
    Mr. Fearn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review 516
    the funding allocated to Sefton Metropolitan borough council in the 1997–98 revenue support grant in respect of care of the elderly. [2480]

    Mr. Raynsford
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) on 10 June 1997,Official Report, column 405

    Water Companies
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will include in his review of the abstraction licensing system new measures to ensure that water companies manage their aquifer resources sustainably; and if he will make a statement. [2789]

    Angela Eagle
    A key aim will be to ensure that the environment is properly protected, while providing fair and flexible arrangements for access to water resources by water companies to meet properly managed demands in a sustainable way. Amongst the possible measures which will be studied are economic instruments in relation to abstraction.

    Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    Mr. Gummer
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions what specific measures he plans to achieve the Government's target of a reduction in CO2 emissions by 20 per cent. from 1990 levels by 2010. [2678]

    Mr. Prescott
    We are reviewing the United Kingdom's Climate Change Programme looking at policies and measures across all sectors which could contribute to a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 levels by 2010. These include improvements in areas such as domestic and industrial energy efficiency, measures to tackle emissions from the transport sector as part of the integrated transport strategy, and a large increase in the amount of electricity generated from renewable sources and combined heat and power schemes. We shall produce a revised programme after Kyoto.

    Domestic Waste
    Mr. Stunell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions (1) if he will bring forward a comprehensive policy for domestic waste reduction, with special reference to control of packaging, reuse of materials and recycling, developed within local authorities and voluntary groups in partnership; and if he will make a statement; [3001]

    (2) if he will review all current proposals for waste incineration plants to establish (a) the health and environmental risks of emissions and (b) the extent to which the implementation of policies to improve recycling of domestic waste might reduce the need for incineration. [3002]

    Angela Eagle
    The Government will be looking carefully at existing practice and policy in the field of waste management, to see how the contribution from recycling and other means of recovering value from waste can be maximised. At present, only 6.5 per cent. of household waste is recycled, and only 12 per cent. of municipal waste has some value recovered from it. Local
    517
    authorities, voluntary groups, households and businesses all have a vital contribution to make in improving the sustainability of our waste management practices. Reduction of waste at source has an important part to play, and we hope to see the development of imaginative and effective initiatives to encourage it.

    Current proposals for incineration plants will be considered, in the normal way, under the existing planning framework. We will keep under review the evidence on emissions from incinerators. It is essential that both new and existing incinerators meet stringent emissions standards to protect public health and the environment.

    Non-domestic Rates
    Mrs. Ballard
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to ensure that rateable businesses which temporarily cease to pay non-domestic rates due to the inability to trade for reasons of natural disasters are not treated as new accounts, which do not receive transitional relief, once they restart trading. [2824]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Properties removed from the rating list because they have been rendered incapable of occupation, for whatever reason, will necessarily require refurbishment or reconstruction, possibly to a higher standard than was the case before. We have no proposals to change the rule that such properties on re-entering the list should be denied transitional relief.

    Council Tax
    Mr. Pike
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many and what percentage of properties in Burnley are in (i) council tax band A and (ii) council tax band B. [2887]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The information requested is as follows:

    Burnley: Dwellings on the Valuation List as at 16 October 1996

    Band A

    Per cent. of total

    Band B

    Per cent. of total

    26,358

    65.7

    4,084

    10.2

    Mr. Pike
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which 50 local authorities in England have the highest percentage of properties in (i) council tax band A and (ii) council tax band B; and which 50 local authorities have the lowest percentage in those bands. [2888]

    Mr. Raynsford
    I have today placed the information in the Library of the House.

    Development (Stevenage)
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's policy regarding development west of Stevenage. [3058]

    Mr. Raynsford
    Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 states that releases of land from the Green Belt—like the proposals in Hertfordshire County Council's Structure Plan Review for development west of Stevenage—should 518
    take place only in exceptional circumstances. It will be for the County Council to respond to the recommendations of the independent Panel who conducted an examination in public of the Structure Plan Review proposals in March. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minster will consider that response before taking a view on whether the case for any Green Belt releases has been made.

    Housing Corporation
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to meet the chief executive and chairman of the Housing Corporation; and if he will make a statement. [3059]

    Mr. Raynsford
    My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Local Government and Housing and I met the Chief Executive and Chairman of the Housing Corporation on 2 June. We had a fruitful and informative discussion about the work and role of the Corporation and we look forward to working together in the coming months.

    Capital Receipts
    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the current level of set-aside capital receipts derived from the sale of council houses for each local authority in Essex. [3010]

    Mr. Raynsford
    The amounts of housing capital receipts which were set aside by each local authority in Essex between 1990–91 and 1995–96 are set out in the table. However, individual authorities may have used these set-aside receipts to repay debt or in lieu of further borrowing, and so may no longer retain them in the form of cash and investments.

    Receipts setaside from sales of Housing Revenue Account assets 1990–91 to 1995–96 £000s

    Basildon

    10,465

    Braintree

    13,072

    Brentwood

    5,404

    Castle Point

    2,588

    Chelmsford

    13,172

    Colchester

    11,629

    Epping Forest

    14,694

    Harlow

    27,644

    Maldon

    15,346

    Rochford

    2,295

    Southend-on-Sea

    7,330

    Tendring

    4,588

    Thurrock

    17,017

    Uttlesford

    6,931

    Note:

    Source of data: HRA subsidy claim forms.

    We will be consulting the Local Government Association and local authorities on the Government's Capital Receipts Initiative in due course. No decision about the basis on which resources are to be distributed to individual authorities will be made until that consultation process is complete.
    519

    Contaminated Land
    Ms Ellman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what financial support he is giving in the current year to English local authorities and to the Environment Agency to meet capital costs of site investigation and remediation of contaminated land. [3183]

    Angela Eagle
    The Department of the Environment's Contaminated Land Supplementary Credit Approval programme, which has a budget of £14 million in the current financial year, provides support for capital costs incurred by English local authorities where they are responsible for the investigation or remediation of contaminated land. The programme also is able to provide support, in the form of additional grant-in-aid, to the Environment Agency where it is carrying out works to deal with water pollution from contaminated land.

    The programme is aimed at tackling problems on sites owned by local authorities or those where authorities or the Environment Agency have responsibility to take action and cannot recover their costs from third parties. The Department operates an assessment and prioritisation procedure to ensure that the available funding goes to projects representing the greatest threat to health or the environment.

    Some authorities have already been notified of support, where this is to meet on-going contractual commitments for projects funded in previous years. The Department of the Environment has today written to local authorities with successful bids for new projects and to the Environment Agency, notifying them of the financial allocations which are being made.

    The following table sets out the allocations which have been made for the current financial year.

    Local Authority

    Number of sites

    Total allocation (£)

    Bassetlaw DC

    1

    120,000

    Birmingham City

    2

    35,000

    Blackburn and Darwen BC

    2

    20,000

    Blackpool BC

    1

    1,000

    Bradford MBC

    1

    30,000

    Brighton and Hove C

    1

    30,000

    Bury MBC

    1

    492,000

    Cambridgeshire CC

    2

    89,000

    Cheltenham BC

    1

    293,000

    Cheshire CC

    2

    170,000

    Chorley BC

    3

    22,000

    Cornwall CC

    2

    42,000

    Croydon LB

    2

    157,000

    Cumbria CC

    2

    75,000

    Darlington BC

    1

    279,000

    Devon CC

    2

    445,000

    Dudley MBC

    4

    193,000

    Essex CC

    2

    410,000

    Gateshead MBC

    4

    765,000

    Greater Manchester WDA

    1

    99,000

    Guildford BC

    2

    147,000

    Hampshire CC

    2

    408,000

    Hartlepool BC

    1

    9,000

    Hereford and Worcester CC

    2

    91,000

    Hounslow LB

    5

    313,000

    Knowsley MBC

    1

    171,000

    Leicester City

    5

    582,000

    Leicestershire CC

    1

    880,000

    Merseyside WDA

    3

    510,000

    Middlesbrough BC

    1

    250,000

    520

    Local Authority

    Number of sites

    Total allocation (£)

    Newcastle City

    1

    56,000

    Norfolk CC

    2

    188,000

    Northamptonshire CC

    2

    675,000

    North East Lincolnshire C

    1

    136,000

    North Lincolnshire C

    1

    770,000

    Northumberland CC

    2

    12,000

    Norwich City

    1

    1,789,000

    Nuneaton and Bedworth

    3

    90,000

    Oldham MBC

    1

    10,000

    Oxford City

    1

    1,271,000

    Oxfordshire CC

    1

    5,000

    Portsmouth City

    4

    163,000

    Redbridge LB

    1

    22,000

    Rotherham MBC

    3

    348,000

    St. Helens MBC

    1

    23,000

    Sandwell MBC

    20

    277,000

    Sheffield City

    1

    559,000

    Solihull MBC

    1

    535,000

    Stafford BC

    1

    25,000

    Stockton-on-Tees BC

    1

    12,000

    Surrey CC

    6

    1,278,000

    Tameside MBC

    1

    67,000

    Three Rivers DC

    1

    4,000

    Trafford MBC

    3

    77,000

    Walsall MBC

    3

    205,000

    Warwickshire CC

    1

    450,000

    West Yorkshire WDA

    6

    651,000

    Weymouth and Portland BC

    1

    750,000

    Worcester City

    1

    26,000

    Environment Agency

    6

    500,000

    Note:

    Total allocations include an over-programming margin against the total budget to allow for slippage in expenditure on individual projects.

    Gazumping
    Mr. Blizzard
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will consider changes to the law to prevent gazumping and the late withdrawal from house purchase agreements. [2478]

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

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

    HSE Prosecutions
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of prosecutions which the Health and Safety Executive has brought against each local authority in England in the last three years; and how many have resulted in convictions. [3252]

    Angela Eagle
    In the three years from 1993–94 to 1995–96, the Health and Safety Executive prosecuted local authorities in England 44 times for 51 alleged breaches of health and safety law and secured 50 convictions. Details from HSE records are shown in the table. Figures for the year April 1996-March 1997 are not yet available.
    521

    Local authority

    Occasions prosecuted

    Breaches alleged

    Convictions

    Wealden District Council

    1

    1

    1

    East Sussex County Council

    1

    1

    1

    London Borough of Islington

    1

    1

    1

    St. Edmundsbury Borough Council

    1

    1

    1

    Norwich City Council

    1

    1

    1

    Stevenage Borough Council

    1

    1

    1

    Salford Borough Council

    1

    1

    1

    Lancaster City Council

    1

    1

    1

    Sunderland City Council

    1

    1

    1

    Avon County Council

    1

    1

    1

    Somerset County Council

    1

    1

    0

    London Borough of Southwark

    1

    1

    1

    City of Birmingham

    1

    1

    1

    Bromsgrove District Council

    1

    2

    2

    Doncaster Borough Council

    1

    1

    1

    Harrogate District Council

    1

    1

    1

    Manchester City Council

    2

    2

    2

    Elmbridge Borough Council

    1

    1

    1

    Durham County Council

    1

    1

    1

    South Tyneside Borough Council

    1

    1

    1

    Gateshead Borough Council

    1

    1

    1

    Lancashire County Council

    1

    1

    1

    Cleveland County Council

    1

    1

    1

    Surrey County Council

    1

    1

    1

    London Borough of Harrow

    2

    4

    4

    Colchester Borough Council

    1

    1

    1

    London Borough of Tower Hamlets

    1

    1

    1

    St. Helens Borough Council

    1

    1

    1

    Berkshire County Council

    1

    1

    1

    London Borough of Greenwich

    2

    2

    2

    Cornwall County Council

    1

    1

    1

    London Borough of Haringey

    1

    2

    2

    London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

    1

    1

    1

    London Borough of Redbridge

    1

    1

    1

    Corporation of London

    1

    3

    3

    Bedford Borough Council

    1

    1

    1

    Wrekin Council

    1

    1

    1

    Newark and Sherwood District Council

    1

    1

    1

    Humberside County Council

    1

    2

    2

    Rochdale Borough Council

    1

    1

    1

    Liverpool City Council

    1

    1

    1

    These figures have not been validated.

    There have, of course, been successive cuts to the HSE's grant-in-aid over recent years. Despite considerable difficulty, HSE has sought to meet these budget reductions with least harm to its key areas of work such as inspection and other field activity. Nevertheless, this can lead to heavy workloads associated with
    522
    prosecution, discouraging it—especially when pitifully low fines from magistrates are taken into account. We are looking closely at this.

  TRANSPORT

    Rail Regulations
    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the arrangements in place currently for claims handling in respect of claims against operators of rail services, with particular reference to the experiences of those persons submitting claims arising out of the Rickerscote rail crash at Stafford on 8 March 1996. [2862]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    The arrangements for claims handling are governed by the Claims Allocation and Handling Agreement (CAHA), which is currently being reviewed by the Rail Industry Disputes Resolution Committee—a committee of industry representatives with an independent Chairman. Their proposals for changes to the Agreement will be submitted to the Rail Regulator for approval.

    The Rail Regulator has initiated a separate review of third party liability insurance in relation to "privately owned rail vehicles" (defined as ones which are both owned by a company outside the licensing regime of the Railways Act 1993 and which are operated without the benefit of a lease or other agreement which transfers liability for the vehicle to a licensed train operator). He believes that it is in the interests of both the rail industry and third parties that a practical solution is found to the third party liability issues surrounding such vehicles. I understand the Rail Regulator intends to publish a consultation document later this year.

    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what public liability insurance is required of(a) Railtrack plc, (b) licensed operators of rail services and (c) other operators of rail services. [2861]

    Ms Jackson
    Licensed operators, including Railtrack, are required by the Rail Regulator to carry third party liability cover of at least £155 million, unless the Regulator agrees a lower figure in specific circumstances. In the case of companies providing services to the rail network who fall outside the Regulator's licensing powers, the level of third party liability insurance is a matter of commercial judgment. However, in the case of unlicensed contractors and sub-contractors, the Regulator has required licensed operators to provide, in their own insurance, cover for the difference between the contractor's insurance and £155 million.

    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what regulatory framework governs claims procedures in respect of the franchised railway companies; and what role the Rail Regulator has in respect of them. [2863]

    Ms Jackson
    All licensed railway operators, including Railtrack, are required by their licences to be a party to claims handling arrangements approved by the Rail Regulator. The railway industry established the Claims Allocation and Handling Agreement (CAHA) in early
    523
    1994. This continues to be the means by which all operators fulfil this licence obligation. The Rail Regulator is responsible for enforcing licence conditions.

    Cycling
    Mr. Colvin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what policies are being pursued by the Government to encourage cycling; and if he will make a statement. [3049]

    Ms Glenda Jackson
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 3 June,Official Report, column 165: to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane).

    Mr. Colvin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will meet the Rail Regulator to discuss whether adequate provision for the transport of cycles should be added to the obligations of train operators; and if he will make a statement. [3048]

    Ms Jackson
    The provision of capacity for the carriage of bicycles is a matter for the Franchising Director. Franchise operators are required by their Franchise Agreements to ensure that facilities are made available for the carriage of cycles on trains, so far as is reasonably practicable and subject to the availability of appropriate space on their rolling stock.

    The Government are keen to see proper facilities for cyclists who wish to use the railway. We are currently reviewing the Franchising Director's Objectives, Instructions and Guidance. As part of our review, we will be considering what action the Franchising Director should take to encourage increased carriage of cycles on trains.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Credit Card Fraud
    Mr. Richard Allan
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to help businesses protect themselves against the losses caused by fraudulent credit card usage, with particular reference to telephone transactions. [2816]

    Mr. Nigel Griffiths
    I understand that the banks are actively working with retail organisations to investigate methods of preventing all types of credit card fraud, including telephone transactions, and I strongly welcome this initiative.

    Departmental Documents
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage and how many documents in 1996 she estimates were(a) passed on to the Public Record Office intact, (b) passed on to the Public Record Office in censored form, (c) retained by her Department in full, (d) retained by her Department in part, (e) destroyed, (f) otherwise disposed of, and (g) otherwise unaccounted for. [2506]

    Mr. Nigel Griffiths
    [holding answer 11 June 1997]: No document falls due for transfer to the Public Record Office until it is 30 years old. The suitability of a
    524
    document for selection for permanent preservation under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958 will be reviewed during that period.

    The Act does not require statistics to be kept in the form requested. To do so would incur disproportionate cost. However, in order to comply with their duties under the Act, departments are obliged to make arrangements for the safekeeping of their records, with a view to their possible selection and transfer to the Public Record Office and eventual release to the public. The general arrangements for extended closure or retention of public records are set out in Chapter 9 of the White Paper Open Government of July 1993 (CM.2290).

    Lloyd's
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will review the decision of the last Government not to hold an independent judicial inquiry into the financial affairs of Lloyd's of London. [2962]

    Mrs. Roche
    [holding answer 11 June 1997]: I have given careful consideration to the question of an enquiry into the past problems of Lloyd's of London ("Lloyd's").

    I recognise the hardship suffered by many underwriting members of Lloyd's ("Names") as a result of the losses at Lloyd's in the late 1980s and early 1990s, despite suggestions that for the most part, the losses can be attributed to a series of natural and man-made disasters. Moreover, a number of adverse rulings in the courts in the United States extended the scope of policies underwritten at Lloyd's to cover certain asbestosis and pollution risks which were never envisaged when the policies were written. The position was worsened by the so-called "LMX" spiral, where syndicates and reinsurance companies in the London Market repeatedly reinsured one another at a time of poor market conditions. The various losses have been thoroughly investigated in some 27 independent reviews. Under the circumstances, it seems unlikely that further investigations will identify any information beyond that which is already known.

    Some Names have suggested that they were the victims of fraud. None of the independent loss reviews, or the investigations carried out by my Department and the Serious Fraud Office, has uncovered any evidence sufficient to justify the institution of proceedings. Although people have claimed to have such evidence, they have consistently refused to make it available to my Department for examination. Of course, if anyone provides any new evidence to me, I shall consider it very carefully and act accordingly.

    There are a number of other practical considerations which I have taken into account.

    As the Companies Acts are not relevant to the Society of Lloyd's, the only powers available to instigate an investigation are powers under the Tribunals of Enquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. This is an extremely costly procedure which cannot be justified on the basis of the hearsay evidence available to me and when previous investigations, conducted much nearer the time, failed to produce any proper evidence. I also note that, given the complexity of the Lloyd's market, it could take many years to complete the process. The alternative would be an administrative enquiry which would have no powers to

    525
    require the production of evidence and would therefore have to rely on the goodwill of the people against whom the allegations have been made.

    With regard to improved regulatory standards for the future, I note there have been substantial changes to the regulatory arrangements since the events in question. The Government will be considering further the future regulatory arrangements for Lloyd's but I am afraid I do not believe that a further enquiry into past events will materially help that consideration.

    Under the circumstances, I do not, therefore, propose to establish a public enquiry.

    VAT (Fuel)
    Mr. Gummer
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade how she plans to counteract the effect on fuel consumption and emissions of the promised reduction in VAT on fuel. [2677]

    Mr. Battle
    We have already announced a review of policy to see what would be necessary and practicable to achieve 10 per cent. of UK's electricity needs from renewables by the year 2010. We have also announced a fundamental transport policy review and the need to promote energy conservation. We are reviewing the United Kingdom's Climate Change Programme, looking at policies and measures across all sectors which could contribute to a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 levels by 2010.

    Unfair Dismissal
    Mr. McDonnell
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade for what reasons Her Majesty's Government are not bringing forward legislation to vary the qualifying period for unfair dismissal in the current session of Parliament. [2997]

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    The Government has no plans at present 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.

    One Day Sales
    Mr. Pike
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations her Department has received about one day sales; what plans she has to introduce regulations to control such sales; and if she will make a statement. [2279]

    Mr. Nigel Griffiths
    My Department has received representations about one day sales from trading standards departments, chambers of commerce, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and LACOTS (the Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards). I know they cause considerable concern and have instituted an urgent review. My officials will shortly be meeting representatives of LACOTS to discuss proposals they have made for tackling the problem.
    526

    Anglia Television
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what powers she has to order a fresh investigation into the dealings in Anglia Television shares by Lord Archer. [2994]

    Mr. Nigel Griffiths
    The Secretary of State may appoint inspectors if there are circumstances suggesting that an insider dealing offence may have been committed. As inspectors have already been appointed and reported in this case a fresh investigation would be appropriate only if new information came to light.

    Parental Leave
    Mr. Alan Simpson
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimates she has made of the numbers of people in one year who would be eligible for parental leave from their employer and of the average duration of such leave taken at any one time. [2968]

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    Research shows that many companies offer some form of parental leave to their employees, but we do not know how many people are covered by such arrangements in any one year or the average length of leave taken.

    The Government intends to accept the Social Chapter including the Parental Leave Directive, which entitles employees to a minimum of three months' unpaid parental leave. The precise effects of the directive will depend on how it is implemented and we are not yet able to give estimates of the kind requested.

    Beer Measures
    Mr. Whitehead
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to introduce a standard pint measure mark as a requirement for glasses in which beer is served in public houses; and if he will make a statement. [3293]

    Mr. Nigel Griffiths
    My Department is discussing this matter with interested parties and I hope to make a statement shortly.

  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Human Rights
    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the extent to which her Department will carry out human rights appraisal, monitoring and evaluation in respect of all aid projects; and what account her Department will take of human rights reports in carrying out such appraisal, monitoring and evaluation. [2277]

    Clare Short
    My Department's goal is the achievement of human rights for all and we will adopt a human rights based approach to development which may include, political, social and economic rights.

    DFID's distinct contribution will be to focus on those rights which are important for the eradication of poverty and the dignity of the disadvantaged and will be related to the circumstances of the country and its people.
    527

    Palestine and Sierra Leone
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the current level of United Kingdom aid to(a) the Palestine National Authority and (b) Sierra Leone. [3057]

    Clare Short
    UK bilateral assistance to the Palestinian National Authority is expected to total nearly £10 million in the current financial year, in addition to our one-sixth share of the European Union's 50 million ecu (£35 million) programme. Spending on aid to Sierra Leone in the UK financial year 1996–97 was an estimated £10.3 million and £1.4 million to UN organisations. Spending in the current financial year will depend on developments following the military coup on 25 May.

  HEALTH

    Rural Community Hospitals
    Mr. Burnett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to review the role of rural community hospitals; and if he will make a statement; [2489]

    (2) if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to rural community hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [2488]

    Mr. Boateng
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) on 2 June,Official Report, column 41

    Mr. Burnett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the bed-types on which the efficiency of hospitals is assessed, with particular reference to community hospitals; and what plans he has to increase the variety of bed-types used in that assessment; [2486]

    (2) if he will list the criteria used by his Department in assessing the efficiency of hospitals, with particular reference to rural community hospitals. [2487]

    Mr. Boateng
    We measure the efficiency of health authorities, not hospitals, centrally. Activity is at present measured by the number of episodes of care, not the number or type of bed used. Where a health authority commissions inpatient care from a community hospital then this activity will at present be measured in the efficiency index for that authority.

    Wythenshawe Hospital
    Mr. Goggins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients resident at Wythenshawe Hospital on 1 June had been forced to remain in hospital for longer than their treatment required because suitable residential or day care support was not available; how many such patients had been resident at the hospital for up to(a) one week, (b) two weeks, (c) one month, (d) two months and (e) three months or more; and what estimate he has made of the additional financial costs to the NHS of these extended periods of care; [2554]

    (2) how many patients admitted to Wythenshawe Hospital in (a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97 had been forced to remain in hospital for longer than their treatment required because suitable residential or day care was not available for up to (i) one week, (ii) two weeks, (iii) one
    528
    month, (iv) two months and (v) three months or longer; and what estimate he has made of the additional costs to the NHS of these extended periods of care. [2553]

    Mr. Boateng
    Health and social services are working hard across the country to resolve the difficulties caused by delayed discharges. In Manchester, the National Health Service trusts, health authority and social services are currently working together to understand the reason for delayed discharges and what they can do to resolve the problems this causes in terms of patient care and cost to the NHS. Officials have already been asked urgently to address this issue in terms of revised guidance on hospital discharge.

    Patients in the South Manchester area are admitted to both Withington and Wythenshawe Hospitals and many from the Wythenshawe area are transferred to Withington as this is where the trust's rehabilitation and care of the elderly wards are located. The information given relates to both hospitals.

    Length of wait (months)

    Wythenshawe

    Withington

    6–8

    —

    6

    5

    5

    7

    4

    3

    3

    3

    4

    10

    2

    4

    4

    1

    3

    4

    Total number of patients accepted for placement

    19

    34

    Total number of patients waiting for assessment

    14

    231

    1 total wait = 242 days

    2 total wait = 1,437 days.

    There are also 17 patients in the elderly mental health unit at Withington whose discharges are delayed. These people have been in-patients for between one and four months.

    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]

    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
    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
    529
    recognition of this problem, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist has issued guidelines stating that every maternity unit should have agreed protocols for the management of shoulder malpresentations to minimise the risk of these conditions. We are not aware of any evidence to suggest that obstetric intervention contributes to the incidence.

    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 HES (Hospital Episode Statistics) data and is shown in the attached 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. Hospital Episode Statistics will therefore pick up cases where the diagnosis was not made at birth and the baby was subsequently re-admitted. Information prior to 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)

    Ordinary admissions and day cases combined NHS hospitals, England

    Estimated number of Finished Consultant Episodes (FCEs)

    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)—Erb's palsy and Klumpke's palsy combined.

    ICD9 code 953.4: Injury to brachial plexus.

    Data in this table is grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data.

    Source:

    Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).

    Carers
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department(a) has commissioned and (b) plans to commission on the health problems facing carers. [2963]

    Mr. Boateng
    In recent years the Department of Health has funded a substantial body of research on carers and caring which has looked, inter alia, at the health of carers. The completed research has been published and widely disseminated.

    Research currently in progress includes a major evaluative research study on community care for very dependent older people, which will investigate outcomes for both users and carers. A developmentally focused programme of research to develop and test new approaches to assessing community care outcomes for users and carers is currently being taken forward in collaboration with two local authorities.
    530
    Plans are well in hand to commission a major new research initiative on outcomes of social care for adults, to include outcomes for carers. It is expected that the research will include a study of outcomes of assessments of carers' needs, a study of carer outcomes over time, and a study to evaluate the impact on older people with dementia and their carers of early primary care intervention. A study of carer burdens and associated costs in dementia care over time is also planned.

    Breast Implant Registry
    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make the existing National Breast Implant Registry compulsory; and if he will make a statement. [3170]

    Mr. Boateng
    We have no plans at present to make the National Breast Implant Registry compulsory. Any changes to the policy on breast implants must await the report of the Independent Review Group set up recently by the Chief Medical Officer.

    Insulin Pen
    Mr. Sanders
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make pen system needles for insulin dependent diabetics available on prescription; and if he will make a statement. [3171]

    Mr. Milburn
    We are currently considering whether general practitioners should be allowed to prescribe insulin injection pen needles on the National Health Service.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Interception of Communications Act 1985
    Mr. Ashton
    To ask the Prime Minister when the Annual report of the Commissioner appointed under section 8(1) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement. [3812]

    The Prime Minister
    A copy of Lord Nolan's annual report for 1996 has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 8(7) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The confidential annex to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 8(8) of the 1995 Act. I am grateful to the Commissioner for his work in reviewing the issue of warrants and in providing assistance to the Tribunal as provided for in the Act. I note in particular the Commissioner's view that interception of both postal and telecommunications remains both an effective and an essential operation in the interests of national security and the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, and the prevention and detection of serious crime.

    Intelligence Services Act 1994
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Prime Minister when the Annual report of the Commissioner appointed under the Intelligence Services Act 1994 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement. [3905]

    The Prime Minister
    A copy of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's annual report, for 1996, has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 8(6) of
    531
    the Intelligence Services Act 1994. The confidential annex to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 8(7) of the 1994 Act. I am grateful to the Commissioner for his work in reviewing the issue of warrants and authorisations, and in providing assistance to the Tribunal as provided for in the Act. I note that he was satisfied that the former Secretary of State had properly exercised his powers under the two sections of the 1994 Act.

  DEFENCE

    Service Personnel (Electoral Registration)
    Mr. Fallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the proportion and number of Service personnel on the electoral register who do not exercise their vote. [3201]

    Mr. Spellar
    My Department does not keep records of those Service personnel who exercise their rights to vote. This is a private matter for the individual. However, it is possible to ascertain the percentage of Service personnel who are registered to vote. As at 1 April 1997, 72.5 per cent. of Service personnel were so registered. Comprehensive measures are taken by the Services to ensure that all personnel are given the necessary information to enable them to register as Service voters.

    NATO Enlargement
    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy on the conclusions of the US Department of State report on the Enlargement of NATO, with particular reference to the responsibility for bearing the costs associated with improving NATO's regional reinforcement capabilities. [3180]

    Dr. John Reid
    The report to Congress by the US Administration on the enlargement of NATO provides a useful assessment of the relevant issues. In the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out the collective defence of both existing and new members and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration and capability for reinforcement. On that basis, we do not expect NATO enlargement of itself to require significant changes to the capabilities already determined collectively by the Alliance as necessary to fulfil this strategy.

    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the financial cost to Britain of NATO expansion up to the year 2001. [3181]

    Dr. Reid
    No decisions have been taken on which countries will accede to NATO membership, when, or on what terms. The costs of enlargement, which will fall both on the countries which join and on the existing members of the Alliance and which will be incurred over a long period, will depend on those decisions. Subject to that caveat, we expect the costs of enlargement to be manageable.

    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to revise NATO's Strategic Concept agreed in 1991. [3182]
    532
    Dr. Reid
    The Alliance's Strategic Concept, adopted by NATO's Heads of State and Government at their meeting in Rome in 1991, sets out the principal aims and objectives of the Alliance. Recognising the changes in the strategic environment since 1991, the Alliance has decided to examine the Strategic Concept to ensure that it is fully consistent with Europe's new security situation and challenges. NATO Foreign Ministers decided, at their meeting in Sintra on 29 May, to recommend to NATO's Heads of State and Government that they should decide the way ahead at their Summit in Madrid on 8 and 9 July.

    Asbestos-related Diseases
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many compensation claims from former service men who suffer from asbestos-related illnesses have been turned down by his Department; [1896]

    (2) what estimate he has made of the number of former service men suffering from asbestos-related diseases who are not covered by the change in the law in 1987 which gave service personnel the same rights as civilian employees to obtain compensation; [1897]

    (3) how many cases of asbestos-related disease in former service personnel have been reported to his Department. [1898]

    Dr. John Reid
    Unfortunately, we have no means of knowing how many cases of asbestos-related disease in former service personnel have ever been reported to my Department. Nor does my Department hold data which could be used to estimate how many former service personnel may be suffering from such diseases. However, my Department's computer records on claims for compensation show that since 23 October 1986 we have been notified of 100 claims from former service personnel suffering from an asbestos-related illness due to their time in the Armed Forces. All of these claims for compensation had to be repudiated on the basis of Section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 because they related to exposure before May 1987. The repeal of Section 10 in 1987, which first gave members of the Armed Forces the right to claim common law damages from their employer, was not retrospective.

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will introduce a scheme to provide compensation for former service personnel and workers at defence installations who are suffering asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos during their employment. [3036]

    Dr. Reid
    I have asked for advice on the issue of compensation for former service personnel and civilian workers who are suffering from an asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure to asbestos during their employment with my Department; and I will consider what options to provide assistance may be available.
    533

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Crown Prosecution Service (Welsh Language)
    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Attorney-General if the Crown Prosecution Service is subject to the requirements of the Welsh Language Act 1993 in the preparation of official reports and other publications. [3167]

    The Attorney-General
    The provisions of the Welsh Language Act 1993 do not apply to servants or agents of the Crown. They do not, therefore, apply to the Crown Prosecution Service. If a Crown servant or agent chooses voluntarily to adopt a Welsh language scheme, certain provisions of the Act concerning the preparation of a scheme and the investigation of alleged failure to comply with it do apply. The CPS is currently considering the preparation of a detailed formal scheme in accordance with the Welsh Language Board's guidance.

    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Attorney-General what was the cost of producing the bilingual 1996 annual report of the Mid-Glamorgan CPS. [3169]

    The Attorney-General
    The production cost of the bilingual Branch annual report for the Crown Prosecution Service Mid-Glamorgan was approximately £1,145.

    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Attorney-General if CPS branches in Wales have(a) sought and (b) been given professional advice by the Welsh Language Board about the grammatical accuracy of their official reports and other publications. [3168]

    The Attorney-General
    The hon. Member may be referring to the report of the Mid-Glamorgan branch of the Crown Prosecution Service. For this report a professional translator was used. Unfortunately on return of final proofs from the printers grammatical errors in the Welsh language version went uncorrected. However steps will be taken in future to seek to avoid any such re-occurrence.

    Prosecution Arrangements
    Ms Merron
    To ask the Attorney-General what progress has been made in establishing the proposed review of the Crown Prosecution Service to which he referred in his written answer to the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) on 21 May,Official Report, columns 73–74. [3979]

    The Attorney-General
    I am extremely pleased that Sir Iain Glidewell, a retired Lord Justice of Appeal, has agreed to chair the independent Review of the Crown Prosecution Service. He will be assisted by Sir Geoffrey Dear who retires at the end of this week as HM Inspector of Constabulary and (a person with management and organisational experience). Sir Iain proposes to commence work on Monday 16 June 1997. The Review will examine closely the internal structures of the Crown Prosecution Service, together with its policies and procedures. It will also consider ways to enable the Crown Prosecution Service to inform victims of crime about prosecutions decisions. The Review will have the following terms of reference:

    Against the background of the decision that the CPS should in future be divided so that there are Chief Crown
    534
    Prosecutors in all police force areas but within a national framework, to:
    examine the organisation and structure of the CPS, including the role of Headquarters, together with CPS policies and procedures and to consider whether and, if so, what changes are necessary in order to provide for the more effective and efficient prosecution of crime through local public prosecutors;

    Without prejudice to the generalities of the above for that purpose, to:
    assess whether the CPS has contributed to the falling number of convictions for recorded crime;
    consider the manner in which the CPS influences its relationship with the police;
    consider the validity of criticisms that the CPS has led to unjustified "downgradings" of charges; and
    make and cost recommendations taking account of the need to operate within existing provision.

    Sir Iain will aim to submit his report to me by the end of 1997. He will be seeking views and contributions from a wide range of sources including the Crown Prosecution Service and its staff as well as other criminal justice agencies and legal practitioners. The Report will be published.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Beef
    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the NFU on the decline in the price of beef in the UK market. [3038]

    Mr. Rooker
    The matter of beef prices was most recently discussed when our right hon. Friend, the Minister, met the NFU on 3 June.

    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his Department's forecasts of the amount of beef that it is expected will be held in intervention in each of the next four years. [3039]

    Mr. Rooker
    The extent to which UK beef will be purchased into intervention over the next four years will depend upon the state of the EU and UK beef markets and the rules governing access to intervention. The Department has not attempted to make forecasts over such a long timescale in this difficult area.

    Organophosphates
    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the environmental hazards associated with organophosphates. [2827]

    Mr. Rooker
    (a) The Ministry has commissioned no research into the environmental hazards associated with organophosphates (OPs).

    (b) No veterinary medicine is authorised for use unless it meets stringent statutory criteria of safety, quality and efficacy. Safety includes safety to the environment. Applications for marketing authorisations must be supported by data which are assessed against the statutory criteria, including details of research.
    535
    Organophosphates are also used as agricultural pesticides. The marketing or use of a pesticide is approved only after thorough evaluation. No approval is given to pesticides that pose any unacceptable risk to human beings, non-target species or the wider environment.

    Farmers (Forms)
    Mrs. Ballard
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to simplify and rationalise the forms that farmers are obliged to complete. [3074]

    Mr. Rooker
    An Efficiency Scrutiny on Simplifying Farmers' Paperwork was conducted last year by my and the Welsh Office Agriculture Departments, with the assistance of working farmers. These recommendations are being implemented subject to compatibility with legislation and further views of the industry.

    Abattoirs
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of approved abattoirs operating within England for each year from 1975 to date. [1572]

    Mr. Rooker
    At 1 June 1997 there were 381 licensed red meat slaughterhouses in England. The table below gives figures for each year from 1975 to 1996. Prior to 1993 red meat slaughterhouses in England were licensed not by MAFF but by local authorities. The figures for 1975 to 1992 have therefore been derived from records of State Veterinary Service visits during each year and are approximate.

    Year

    Numbers

    1975

    1,385

    1976

    1,320

    1977

    1,280

    1978

    1,145

    1979

    975

    1980

    960

    1981

    910

    1982

    840

    1983

    875

    1984

    860

    1985

    850

    1986

    815

    1987

    795

    1988

    780

    1989

    690

    1990

    645

    1991

    595

    1992

    1540

    19932

    434

    19942

    424

    19952

    402

    19962

    384

    1 At the end of 1992, 455 applications had been made to MAFF for licences under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992.

    2 As at 31 December.

    536

    Live Animal Transport
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to minimise journey times for animals between point of production and place of slaughter; and if he will make a statement. [1573]

    Mr. Morley
    The rules on journey times for live farm animals are laid down by EU Directive 91/628, as amended in 1995. We shall be seeking improvements, especially in relation to slaughter animals, when these rules come up for review in 1999. In the meantime we have made the new Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 to bring about overdue implementation of the 1995 EU rules and to enable controls on the welfare of animals in transit to be tightened. We will not compromise on these rules.

    Meat Hygiene Service
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to return the functions currently exercised by the Meat Hygiene Service to local authority control; and if he will make a statement. [1574]

    Mr. Rooker
    The Government has published for consultation Professor James's report into the establishment of an independent Food Standards Agency and will look carefully at the options for the future of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) following the consultation exercise. Professor James himself states in his report that the arguments for dismantling the MHS and redistributing its responsibilities to Local Authorities are unconvincing, and that the new Agency should take over responsibility for the MHS.

    Animal Health (Prosecutions)
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports his Department obtains regarding prosecutions by local authorities for offences under the Bovine Animals (Records, Identification and Movement) Order 1995; and if he will make a statement. [2805]

    Mr. Rooker
    The Department obtains quarterly reports from local authorities regarding prosecutions under the Animal Health Act 1981 for offences under the Bovine Animals (Records, Identification and Movement) Order 1995.

    Mr. Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports his Department obtains regarding prosecutions by local authorities for offences under the Heads of Sheep and Goats Order 1996; and if he will make a statement. [2806]

    Mr. Rooker
    The Heads of Sheep and Goats Order is made under the Animal Health Act 1981. Local authorities are required to inform the Ministry of any prosecutions taken in 1996, including by local authorities, are contained in the "Return of Expenditure Incurred and
    537
    Prosecutions taken under the Animal Health Act 1981, and Incidence of Disease in Imported Animals for the Year 1996" made to Parliament under Section 80 of the Act. That shows no prosecutions taken in 1996 under this Order and we are aware of none so far this year.

    Mr. Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports his Department obtains regarding prosecutions by local authorities for offences under the SBM Order; and if he will make a statement. [2810]

    Mr. Rooker
    The SBM Order is made under the Animal Health Act 1981. Local authorities are required to inform the Ministry of any prosecutions taken under Orders made under the Act. Details of prosecutions taken in 1996, including by local authorities, are contained in the "Return of Expenditure Incurred and Prosecutions taken under the Animal Health Act 1981, and Incidences of Disease in Imported Animals for the Year 1996" made to Parliament under Section 80 of the Act. They are also reported in the monthly BSE Enforcement Bulletin, copies of which are available in the Library of the House, and the latest of which was sent by me to every Right hon. and hon. Member last week.

    Mr. Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports his Department obtains regarding prosecutions by local authorities for offences under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995; and if he will make a statement. [2811]

    Mr. Rooker
    Local authorities have no enforcement responsibilities under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995. These Regulations are enforced by the Meat Hygiene Service, an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, created in 1995. Details of any prosecutions under these Regulations will be reported in the monthly Meat Hygiene Enforcement Report which was first published at the end of May 1997, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. A copy was also sent by me to all hon. Members last week.

    Mr. Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports his Department obtains regarding prosecutions by local authorities for offences under the Fresh Meat (Beef Control) Regulations 1996; and if he will make a statement. [2812]

    Mr. Rooker
    There is no statutory requirement for local authorities to notify my Department of prosecutions they make under the Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) Regulations 1996. However, the Ministry obtains as much information as possible on such prosecutions by other means, including the BSE Regulatory Forum which is attended by local authority representatives to co-ordinate enforcement activity, and from day to day contacts between local authorities and Ministry staff around the country. Details are reported in the monthly BSE Enforcement Bulletin, copies of which are available in the Library of the House, the latest of which was sent to all hon. Members last week.
    538

    Over 30 Months Scheme
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports his Department obtains regarding prosecutions by local authorities for offences under the Over 30 Months Slaughter Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [2807]

    Mr. Rooker
    The Over 30 Months Scheme (OTMS) provides for compensation payments to producers for animals which can no longer be taken into the food or feed chain. There are no specific offences under the scheme for which local authorities have prosecuting responsibility although the movement of animals and the handling and processing of material arising from the scheme is governed by a range of more widely applicable legislation in which local authorities may have an enforcement role. No prosecutions have been brought by this Department for offences specific to the scheme and no central records are maintained from which local authority prosecutions under other legislation but relating to OTMS material could be extracted.

    Beef Stocks Transfer Scheme
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports his Department obtains regarding prosecutions by local authorities for offences under the Beef Stocks Transfer Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [2808]

    Mr. Rooker
    The Beef Stocks Transfer Scheme is a non-statutory scheme administered by the Intervention Board and enforceable on claimants by contract. The Scheme contains no offence provisions. Activities of companies engaged by the Board in connection with its administration responsibilities are covered by normal criminal law. To date we have had no reports of any prosecutions.

    Calf Processing Aid Scheme
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports his Department obtains regarding prosecutions by local authorities for offences under the Calf Processing Aid Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [2809]

    Mr. Rooker
    The Calf Processing Aid Scheme provides for payments to be made to slaughterers of eligible calves. There are no specific offences under the scheme for which local authorities have prosecuting responsibility although the movement of animals and the handling and processing of material arising from the scheme is governed by a range of more widely applicable legislation in which local authorities may have an enforcement role. No prosecutions have been brought by this Department for offences specific to the scheme and no central records are maintained from which local authority prosecutions under other legislation but relating to the scheme animals or material could be extracted.
    539

    BSE
    Mrs. Helen Jackson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the locations and number per location of BSE diagnosed cattle landfill in Britain. [612]

    Mr. Rooker
    [holding answer 21 May 1997]: The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC), which advises Ministers on BSE, considered the issue of BSE and the environment in May last year, including the past disposal of the carcases of cattle affected, or suspected of being affected, with BSE to landfill sites. It considered that although the spongiform encephalopathy agent was not yet fully characterised, there was good evidence to believe that individual molecules were not infectious and that infectivity was associated with macro molecular agglomerations indeed possibly with tissue fragments, albeit small ones. On this basis it concluded
    "it was unlikely that leachate from landfill sites would present a significant risk and there was certainly no justification for taking heroic measures to excavate sites, even those which had previously been used for material such as BSE-confirmed cattle".

    The Environment Agencies took over responsibility for the safe regulation of landfill sites in April 1996, and under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 they monitor ground and surface water quality in the vicinity of licensed landfill sites to check for leachate contamination. The Agencies have carried out a qualitative assessment of all the sites concerned taking into account the number of carcases buried, the degree of containment and the proximity of water sources. They have also carried out a further more detailed quantitative assessment of a selection of sites which were judged from the qualitative assessment to be typical of those sites that appeared to be most vulnerable. The results show that potential risks to be very low, less than one in a million years.

    The conclusions of the assessment are in line with the advice previously given to Ministers by SEAC. The Committee has been given the opportunity to comment on the quantitative assessment and has given it its endorsement. The Environment Agencies are now considering how best to publish the report, and related work, and aim to do so shortly.

    A list of the locations of the sites concerned and numbers per location is below. No BSE suspects have been disposed of by landfilling since 1991, when sufficient carcase incineration capacity came on stream to process the number of cases that were coming forward:

    Number of BSE suspects carcases disposed of

    Site

    County

    Comment

    1001–1200

    Everleigh Tip, Everleigh, Pewsey

    Wiltshire

    Closed

    501–1000

    Stoney Hill Landfill, Horsehay, Telford

    Shropshire

    Closed

    401–500

    Hill and Moor Landfill Site, Pershore

    Hereford and Worcester

    540

    Number of BSE suspects carcases disposed of

    Site

    County

    Comment

    201–400

    Wardle Landfill Site, Wardle, Nr. Nantwich

    Cheshire

    Closed

    Arpley Landfill Site, Arpley, Warrington

    Cheshire

    Whites Pit, Arrowsmith Rd, Poole Attlebridge

    Dorset

    Closed

    Landfill Site, Attlebridge Welford Quarry Landfill

    Norfolk

    Site, Welford Himley Wood Landfill Site, Lwr

    Northants

    Gornal

    Staffs

    101–200

    Jameson Rd Landfill Site, Fleetwood

    Lancs

    Salt Ayre Landfill Site, Lancaster

    Lancs

    Winterton Landfill Site, West Haulton, Scunthorpe

    Lincs

    Rock Cottage Landfill, Ripon

    North Yorkshire

    Closed

    Gamblethorpe Landfill Site, Newsam Green Rd, Leeds

    South Yorkshire

    Closed

    51–100

    Taddington Landfill Site, Kalton Hill Quarry, Taddington Crich Landfill Site, Crich, Nr Matlock Gainsborough, Lea Rd, Gainsborough Packington Landfill, Little Packington, Meriden

    21–50

    Butchersfield Landfill Site, Rixton, Warrington

    Cheshire

    Blooming Heather, Broughton Moor

    Cumbria

    Closed

    Clifton Marsh, Freckleton

    Lancashire

    Rowley Landfill Site, Queen Park Road, Burnley

    Lancashire

    Bramford Landfill Site, Ipswich

    Suffolk

    Closed

    Lackford Hall Heath, Lackford, Bury St, Edmunds

    Suffolk

    Ryton Landfill, Ryton-on-Dunsmore

    Warwickshire Closed

    Darrington Quarry, Darrington Leys, Knottingly

    North Yorkshire

    Mickleby Landfill, Near Whitby

    North Yorkshire

    11–20

    Stretton Sugwas, Worcester

    Hereford and Worcester

    Closed

    Whinney Hill, Accrington

    Lancashire

    South Thoresby, Near Alford

    Lincolnshire

    Closed

    Kirby-on-Bain, Tattershall Road, Kirkby-on-Bain

    Lincolnshire

    Leadenham Quarry, Portergate Road, Leadenham

    Lincolnshire

    Ingham, Thetford Road, Ingham, Bury St.Edmunds

    Suffolk

    Closed

    541

    Number of BSE suspects carcases disposed of

    Site

    County

    Comment

    11–20 cont.

    Seamer Carr Landfill Site, Seamer

    North Yorkshire

    6–10

    Pluckley Landfill Site, Pluckley, Ashford

    Kent

    Closed

    Kenwick Landfill Site, Kennick Quarry, Louth

    Lincolnshire

    Seghill, Northumberland

    Northumbria

    Barnstone Landfill Site,

    Nottinghamshire

    Works Lane, Lanham

    Jeniva Landfill Site Hawton, Newark

    Nottingham-shire

    Closed

    Dimmer Landfill Site, Castle Cary

    Somerset

    Closed

    Wetherden Landfill Site, Stowmarket

    Suffolk

    Beddingham Landfill Site, Lewes

    East Sussex

    1–5

    Nantycaws Refuse Tip

    Carmarthenshire

    Stoneyfield, Invergordon

    Highland

    Closed

    Middleton, Forss, Thurso

    Highland

    Closed

    Castletown Tip, Castletown, Thurso

    Highland

    Closed

    Holiday Moss, Rainford, Merseyside

    Lancashire

    Morley Greaseworks Site, Dewsbury Road

    Leeds

    Closed

    Nettleton, Woods Hill, Nettleton

    Lincolnshire

    Closed

    Stainby, Crabtree Road, Stainby, Grantham

    Lincolnshire

    Boston, Slippery Gowt, Wyberton, Boston

    Lincolnshire

    North Forr, Crieff

    Perthshire

    Closed

    Bryn Posteg Landfill Site, Llannidloes

    Powys

    Acton Landfill Site, Bears Pit, Sudbury

    Suffolk

    Closed

    Burton Farm Landfill

    Warwickshire Closed

    Site, Bishopton, Stratford-on-Avon

    Lower Spen Valley, Dewsbury

    West Yorkshire

    Sugden End Landfill, Crossroads, Keighley

    West Yorkshire

    Shroggs Landfill Site, Wheatley, Halifax

    West Yorkshire

    Closed

    Wilson Road Landfill Site, Lowmoor, Bradford

    West Yorkshire

    Closed

    Bio-aerosol Production
    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the hazards of bio-aerosol production in and around commercial compost-making facilities. [2826]

    Angela Eagle
    I have been asked to reply.

    My Department has commissioned and evaluated two research projects on composting of which, amongst other things, considered bio-aerosol production: Composting of Waste Derived Fines Rejects at Castle Bromwich (CWM/081/93) and Municipal Waste Composting (CWM/074/93). The bio-aerosol results within the latter report were published separately as Airborne Micro-organisms Associated with Domestic Waste Composting (WSL-LR 808(MR)). These reports are
    542
    available from the Waste Management Information Bureau, AEA Technology plc, F6 Culham, Oxfordshire OX14 3DB, telephone number 01235 463162.

    Research funded by the Health and Safety Executive, which is sponsored by my Department, has also addressed bio-aerosol product from composting plants. The results were incorporated in two publications: "Domestic waste composting plants as sources of airborne micro-organisms", by B. Crook, R. P. Bardos and J. Lacey in Aerosols, their Generation, Behaviour and Applications, Proceedings Second Aerosol Society Conference, London: The Aerosol Society, 1988; and "Microbial emissions from composts made for mushroom production and from domestic waste" by J. Lacey, P. A. M. Williamson and B. Crook in Composting and Compost Quality Assurance Criteria, Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Community, EUR14254, 1992.

    In addition, research being carried out for the Environment Agency, which is funded by my Department, has been monitoring bio-aerosol production at three commercial composting sites, although the results have not yet been published.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Housing Benefit
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the Government's policy regarding restrictions on housing benefit for single claimants aged between 25 and 60 years. [2234]

    Mr. Bradley
    Measures to restrict housing benefit for single people under the age of 60 were inherited from the previous administration and the reduction in expenditure this entails form part of Departmental expenditure plans. We are reviewing those plans and will announce our decision shortly.

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Tom King
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research has been commissioned, what estimates have been made by her Department and what information presented to her, regarding the costs per annum to the social security budget of the introduction of a minimum wage at(a) £3.50 an hour, (b) £4 an hour and (c) £4.40 an hour; and if she will make a statement. [2106]

    Mr. Field
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade on 9 June,Official Report, column 310.

    Pension Scheme Surpluses
    Mr. Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has for legislation to prevent banks appropriating pension scheme surpluses in their annual accounts. [2090]
    543
    Mr. Denham
    Any payment to employers of surplus pension fund assets can be made only where the following requirements are:the Inland Revenue approve the payment, which must satisfy paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 22 to the Taxes Act 1988.
    the trustees must be satisfied that the payment is in the interests of the members.
    where it is necessary for the employer's consent to be given, that consent shall be obtained.
    all current and future pensions in payment, including those accrued in the past must be increased annually in line with the Retail Prices Index or 5 per cent. whichever is the less.
    members have been properly notified of the proposal.

    Members have the right to make written representations to the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA) against the trustees' proposal if they believe the statutory criteria have not been followed. OPRA will then decide whether the scheme has met the statutory conditions.

    Failure to comply with the legislation lays the trustees open to sanction by OPRA, which can also order the employer to make restitution.

    We have no plans to change these rules at present. We are currently evaluating the Pensions Act to see how it is working in practice.

    Fuel (Direct Deductions Scheme)
    Mr. Gorrie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has for the direct deductions scheme for fuel. [2287]

    Mr. Bradley
    The Government is committed to creating a modern and efficient Social Security system. To this end and we are currently considering the direct payments scheme, including the report published in February following the review carried out under the previous administration. We will be making announcement in due course.

    Compensation Recovery Scheme
    Dr. Godman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the applicability of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 to settlements on and after 1 October 1997. [2846]

    Mr. Bradley
    It is intended that the provisions of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 will apply to all compensation payments made on or after Monday 6 October 1997 unless they are made in pursuance of a court order or agreement made before that day.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Somalia
    Mr. Gerrard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many DNA tests have been carried out by the British Embassy in Somalia on Somali nationals applying for family reunion in the past five years; and how many of those tests have shown that relatives were not related as claimed. [2978]
    544
    Mr. Fatchett
    The UK does not have any diplomatic representation in Somalia. Somalia applicants for family reunion apply at the British Embassy at Addis Ababa. We have figures only for Somalia family reunion applicants who have been DNA tested at Addis Ababa from 1994 onwards. They are as follows:

    Year

    Number tested

    Not related as claimed

    1994

    44

    14

    1995

    37

    13

    1996

    64

    17

    19971

    42

    1

    1 So far.

    Immigration
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average cost of processing a settlement application. [2866]

    Mr. Fatchett
    The average cost of processing a settlement application is £240.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for entry clearance have been refused under the primary purpose rule in each of the past five years. [2869]

    Mr. Fatchett
    The number of applications for entry clearance wholly or partly refused under the primary purpose rule at Posts in the Indian sub-continent is as follows:

    1992: 2,580

    1993: 2,390

    1994: 2,370

    1995: 2,440

    Definite figures for 1996 are not yet available. Figures for other posts are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Sudan
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Sudan. [3071]

    Mr. Tony Lloyd
    We have close historic links with Sudan. But we are concerned about the Government of Sudan's record in a number of areas, notably human rights and its prosecution of the civil war in the country. We look to the Government of Sudan to respond positively to the human rights concern most recently expressed by the international community at the UN Commission on Human Rights in April of this year. We continue to stress the need for a comprehensive negotiated settlement to the civil war.

    Libya
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from President Nelson Mandela regarding(a) sanctions against Libya and (b) Lockerbie. [3066]
    545
    Mr. Tony Lloyd
    We have received no such representations.

    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to review sanctions policy regarding Libya; and what assessment he has made of the resolution passed at the Organisation of African Unity summit relating to sanctions against Libya. [3067]

    Mr. Lloyd
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 10 June,Official Report, column 400.

    Sierra Leone
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning events in Sierra Leone. [3068]

    Mr. Tony Lloyd
    The military coup of 25 May which overthrew Sierra Leone's democratically elected government has not yet been overturned. The coup leaders have been joined by the Revolutionary United Front guerillas who have waged a long war against the Sierra Leone government. It is unclear who, if anyone, is now governing Sierra Leone. There have been no reports of fighting in Freetown since 3 June though sporadic looting continues. Food and fuel are in short supply. We have deplored the coup. We are in touch with regional powers involved in efforts to find a peaceful negotiated settlement in Sierra Leone. We shall continue to work for the return of constitutional order to Sierra Leone without further bloodshed.

    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with his counterparts in Commonwealth countries regarding Sierra Leonean participation in Commonwealth meetings and bodies. [3069]

    Mr. Lloyd
    I look forward to discussing Sierra Leone with others in the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) when it meets in London on 10–11 July 1997. CMAG was created at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Auckland in 1995 and has since its inception considered events in Sierra Leone. It will report to this year's CHOGM in Edinburgh in October. Officials are in close contract with the Commonwealth Secretariat on events in Sierra Leone.

    Burma
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from ASEAN member states regarding Burmese participation in the Asia-Europe summit meeting. [3070]

    Mr. Tony Lloyd
    We have had no approaches from ASEAN members making representations over Burmese participation in the Asia-Europe summit meeting.

    EU (Freedom, Security and Justice)
    Sir John Stanley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the subject areas where the Dutch presidency have proposed replacing unanimity with qualified majority voting in 546
    Freedom, Security and Justice (SN 539/97 c 40); and the numbers of the articles and paragraphs in which these proposals are made. [1973]

    Mr. Doug Henderson
    The Treaty draft on an "area of freedom, security and justice" proposes a period of 3 years following the entry into force of the Treaty, during which unanimity should continue to apply to all subject areas currently covered by unanimity. On the expiry of this period, qualified majority voting would be extended to the following areas currently covered by unanimity:

    Subject

    Article

    Paragraph

    Internal borders

    B

    1

    External borders

    B

    2a

    Issuing of short term visas

    B

    2b (ii) and (iv)

    Freedom of travel within the EU for third country nationals

    B

    3

    Asylum policy and procedures

    C

    1

    Temporary protection for displaced persons

    C

    2a

    Illegal immigration and illegal residence

    C

    3b

    Judicial co-operation in civil matters having cross-border implications

    E

    —

    Administrative co-operation in areas covered by new Title

    F

    —

    Sir John Stanley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the subject areas to which the Dutch presidency have proposed extending the co-decision procedure in Freedom, Security and Justice (SN 539/97 c 40); and the numbers of the articles and paragraphs in which these proposals are made. [1974]

    Mr. Henderson
    The draft Treaty text on an "area of freedom, security and justice" proposes a period of 3 years following the entry into force of the Treaty, during which consultation with the European Parliament, rather than co-decision, should continue to apply. The presidency continues to leave open the question of whether, on the expiry of this period, co-decision should apply to certain provisions of the Title.

  NATIONAL HERITAGE

    Contact Sports
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to ban those identified as bearing the ε4 gene from participating professionally in contact sports; and if he will make a statement. [2119]

    Mr. Banks
    None. I am aware of the concern about the APO ε4 allele, which is sometimes associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer's disease. I am not aware of evidence which could justify banning those who have the APO ε4 allele from participating professionally in contact sports, even were there powers to do so.

    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to introduce mandatory genetic screening for those involved in contact sports to identify fighters genetically predisposed to suffer brain damage; and if he will make a statement. [2118]
    547
    Mr. Banks
    None, although this is a very interesting question. However, I believe that the utmost attention must be paid to all sports where risk is a factor, and my Department encourages all governing bodies of sport to have the appropriate medical and safety regulations in place.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Cummings
    To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proportion of income to the national lottery is generated in the Northern region. [2146]

    Mr. Banks
    Figures on the proportion of income to the national lottery by region are not held by my Department and are 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 my hon. Friend, placing copies of his response in the Libraries of the House.

    Football (Racism)
    Mr. Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he next plans to meet representatives of the Football Association to discuss racism in amateur football; and if he will make a statement. [2091]

    Mr. Banks
    I intend to meet the Football Association again in the near future to discuss many issues of importance to the game, including racism in football. This Government are determined to stamp out racism at all levels of the game.

    Departmental Documents
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what percentage and how many documents in 1996 he estimates were(a) passed on to the Public Record Office intact, (b) passed on to the Public Record Office in censored form, (c) retained by his Department in full, (d) retained by his Department in part, (e) destroyed, (f) otherwise disposed of, and (g) otherwise unaccounted for. [2512]

    Mr. Tom Clarke
    [holding answer 11 June 1997]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on 11 June 1997, Official Report, columns 450–51.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Parental Responsibility Orders
    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many parental responsibility orders have been made; and how many parental responsibility agreements have been registered each year in England and Wales since the implementation
    of the Children Act 1989. [2155]

    Mr. Hoon
    The question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
    548
    Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. David Kidney, dated 12 June 1997:
    The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of parental responsibility orders made and parental responsibility agreements registered each year in England and Wales since the implementation of the Children Act 1989.
    The Children Act 1989 came into force in October 1991. The information you requested has therefore been collected since then and is as follows:

    Parental responsibility orders made

    Parental responsibility agreements registered

    1991 (October to December)

    175

    263

    1992

    2,492

    2,951

    1993

    3,377

    4,422

    1994

    3,893

    5,506

    1995

    4,483

    3,594

    1996

    5,687

    3,586

    (These figures are for county court, High Court and Family proceeding court private law Children Act cases).

    Monmouth and Chepstow Magistrates Courts
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement about the proposed closure of(a) Monmouth and (b) Chepstow Magistrates courts. [2380]

    Mr. Hoon
    Magistrates courts are provided by the local paying authority for the use of the magistrates courts committee (MCC). Decisions concerning the future of any magistrates court are for the relevant MCC to determine.

    The Lord Chancellor is involved in a dispute over a magistrates court only when there is an appeal by a contributing local authority against a proposed closure. The procedure for such appeals to set out in section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979. In the absence of an appeal the Lord Chancellor has no locus in the matter.

    Decisions relating to (a) Monmouth and (b) Chepstow Magistrates Courts remain an issue for local management.

    Court Injunctions
    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the increase in the use by United Kingdom companies of court injunctions as a means of preventing criticism; what guidance he has given the courts on the use of injunctions in such a way; and if he will place a copy of such guidance in the Library. [2790]

    Mr. Hoon
    It is for the court in each case to determine whether an injunction would be the appropriate remedy.

    Personal Injury Claims
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to use his powers under section 1 of the Damages Act 1996 to set a rate of return for use in personal injury claims. [2556]

    Mr. Hoon
    It is important that this power is used in a way which supports the interests of all parties. The Lord Chancellor will take note of the outcome of
    549
    Wells v. Wells, Thomas v. Brighton Health Authority and Page v. Sheerness Steel, which have been granted leave of appeal in the House of Lords. He will consult interested parties before exercising the power.

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to bring into force section 10 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995. [2555]

    Mr. Hoon
    The Lord Chancellor will bring into force section 10 of the Civil Evidence Act following the outcome of Wells v. Wells, Thomas v. Brighton Health Authority and Page v. Sheerness Steel, which have been granted leave of appeal in the House of Lords, and consultation with interested parties on the use of particular discount rates for calculating awards in personal injury claims.

    Civil Justice Review (Press Conference)
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reasons the Lord Chancellor briefed selected journalists on 6 June about the terms of his review of civil justice and legal aid reforms. [3294]

    Mr. Hoon
    As the review of civil justice and legal aid was the first major announcement made by the Lord Chancellor since his appointment, the Lord Chancellor decided that it was an appropriate opportunity for him to explain the terms of the review to the legal correspondents in person, and to answer their questions.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who selected the journalists who were invited to the press conference which the Lord Chancellor held on 6 June about the terms of his review of civil justice and legal aid reforms. [3292]

    Mr. Hoon
    The Lord Chancellor.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the journalists who were invited to the press conference which the Lord Chancellor held on 6 June about the terms of his review. [3290]

    Mr. Hoon
    The following journalists were invited to the Lord Chancellor's briefing on 6 June: Frances Gibb The Times, Clare Dyer of the Guardian, Terry Shaw of the Daily Telegraph, Patricia Wynn-Davies of the Independent, Robert Rice of the Financial Times, Joshua Rozenberg of BBC Television News, Jane Peel of BBC Radio News and Marcel Berlins of BBC Radio 4's "Law in Action" programme.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, LordChancellor's Department if he will list the journalists who attended the press conference which the Lord Chancellor held on 6 June about the terms of his review of civil justice and legal aid reforms. [3291]

    Mr. Hoon
    The journalists who attended the Lord Chancellor's press briefing were Frances Gibb of The Times, Clare Dyer of the Guardian, Terry Shaw of the Daily Telegraph, Patricia Wynn-Davies of the Independent, Robert Rice of the Financial Times, Joshua Rozenberg of BBC Television News, Jane Peel of BBC Radio News, and Marcel Berlins of BBC Radio 4's "Law in Action" programme
    550

    Radioactive Waste Disposal (Document)
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 June,Official Report column 11, if he will place in the Library (a) a list of the titles of the 42 files on disposal of radioactive waste at the Hurd Deep and (b) a copy of the untitled document to which he makes exceptional reference. [2643]

    Mr. Hoon
    I am placing in the Library a list of the titles and dates of the 42 files referred to.

    In drawing up the list it has become clear that there are three further files, beyond the one referred to in my Answer of 2 June (WA 11) that are not open to inspection because they are not yet 30 years old, and I apologise to the hon. Member for inadvertently misleading him on this point. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has already applied to the Lord Chancellor for all four items to be opened immediately, and they will be available in the Public Record Office after an Instrument under section 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958 has been signed.

    The Public Record Office has no power under that Act to make closed records, or copies of them, generally available before an Instrument opening the records has been signed.

    List of records transferred to the public record office by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority relating to the disposal of radioactive waste at the Hurd Deep

    AB 6: United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and predecessors: Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell, Correspondence and papers

    Piece number

    Date

    Title

    153

    1946–1952

    Radioactive Waste Disposal: General Policy

    164

    1946–1947

    Effluent

    237

    1946–1948

    Effluent Working Party: General Correspondence

    381

    1947–1954

    Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea

    437

    1948–1953

    Disposal of Radioactivity at Sea

    604

    1949–1955

    Arrangements for Radioactive Waste Disposal at Sea

    607

    1949–1950

    Effluent Disposal

    741

    1950–1953

    Disposal of Radioactive Waste other than at Sea

    1045

    1952–1958

    Disposal of Radioactivity at Sea

    1499

    1954–1959

    Disposal of Radioactive Effluent

    1732

    1955–1959

    Radioactive Waste Effluent:General

    1733

    1955–1959

    Radioactive Waste Disposal:General

    1734

    1955–1957

    Radioactive Waste Disposal:Disposal at Sea

    2087

    1958–1962

    Disposal of Radioactive Waste at Sea

    2247

    1960–1961

    Annual Sea Disposal: 1960–1961

    2248

    1959

    Annual Sea Dumping: 1959

    2249

    1958

    Annual Sea Dumping: 1958

    2250

    1959

    Annual Sea Dumping: 1959

    2251

    1961

    Annual Sea Dumping: 1961

    2452

    1960–1968

    Radioactive Effluent: Correspondence

    2575

    1961–1962

    Annual Sea Disposal Operation

    551

    AB 12: United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and Predecessors: Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell: Committees, correspondence and papers

    Piece number

    Date

    Title

    43

    1947–1948

    Effluent Disposal Working Party: Agenda and Minutes

    207

    1954–1956

    Project Health Committee: Agenda, Minutes and Papers

    227

    1955

    Effluent Sub-committee: Minutes

    354

    1957

    High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor: Clean-up committee: Minutes and Papers

    507

    1961–1966

    Health Committee: Agenda, Minutes and Papers Volume 2

    AB 15: United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and Predecessors: Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell: Reports and memoranda

    Piece number

    Date

    Title

    6565

    1963

    Prediction and Measurement of Doses during Sea Disposal Operations in 1961

    6723

    1964

    Report of the Working Party on Containers for the Disposal of Radioactive Waste at Sea

    AB 16: Ministry of Supply and United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority: Atomic Energy Division and London office: Files

    Piece number

    Date

    Title

    1653

    1955–1958

    Disposal of Radioactive Waste by Sea Dumping

    1654

    1959–1963

    Disposal of Radioactive Waste by Sea Dumping

    3532

    1960–1966

    Sea Dumping: Indemnity to and Charges by Admiralty

    AB 45:London office: Health and safety: Correspondence and papers

    Piece number

    Date

    Title

    39

    1963–1964

    Disposal of Radioactive Waste by Sea Dumping

    AB 54: United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority: Energy Research Establishment Harwell: Health and safety, correspondence and papers

    Piece number

    Date

    Title

    2

    1962–1963

    Annual Sea Disposal Operation

    3

    1962–1964

    Annual Sea Disposal Operation

    15

    1962–1964

    Waste Disposal at Sea

    16

    1960–1962

    Liaison with France: Waste Disposal at Sea

    17

    1962–1969

    Liaison with France: Waste Disposal at Sea

    26

    1964–1969

    European Nuclear Energy Agency: Collaboration on Sea Dumping of Radioactive Waste

    552

    AB 54: United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority: Energy Research Establishment Harwell: Health and safety, correspondence and papers

    Piece number

    Date

    Title

    27

    1962–1965

    Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: Conditions for Authorisation of Disposal of Radioactive Waste at Sea, and Contracts with Commercial Firms

    28

    1963–1964

    Annual Sea Disposal Operation

    29

    1964–1973

    Sea Dumping: Background Papers

    31

    1963–1964

    Sea Dumping of Radioactive Wastes

  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Education Expenditure
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of GDP was spent on education in(a) 1979–80, (b) 1983–84, (c) 1987–88 and (d) 1992–93; what is planned to be spent in 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [3035]

    Mr. Byers
    The information requested is as follows:

    Percentage of GDP spent on education (UK)

    1979–80

    5.1

    1983–84

    5.2

    1987–88

    4.8

    1992–93

    5.2

    Projected expenditure on education in 1997–98 will amount to some £38 billion but accurate figures cannot be calculated until outturn information is available. In 1996–97 the proportion spent on education is estimated to be 4.9 per cent.

    Mr. Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of his improvement targets on the percentage of GDP to be spent on education over the planning period; and if he will make a statement. [3032]

    Mr. Byers
    The Government are committed over the course of the Parliament to raising the proportion of national income spent on education as it decreases the proportion spent on the costs of economic and social failure.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Vaz
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on 3 June,Official Report column 151, if he will make a statement on the number of 18 to 24-year-olds registered as unemployed, and the estimate of the number of 18 to 24-year-olds by the ILO Labour Force Survey; and what action he proposes in respect of these statistics. [3076]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    The latest LFS figures are for Winter 1996–97 and show the number of ILO unemployed 18 to 24-year-olds in the UK to be 498,500. The most comparable claimant count figures are for January 1997, and stood at 479,000. The Government's
    553
    commitment, in its New Deal programme, is to give opportunities for work, education or training to 250,000 18 to 24-year-olds who have been unemployed for more than six months. The New Deal is also part of a wider programme aimed at helping people on welfare—including those on other benefits as well as the claimant unemployed—back into work.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    European Legislation
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the President of the Council if she will list the items of EC legislation and other relevant documents which(a) were scrutinised by the Select Committee on European Legislation in the last Parliament and recommended for further debate but have not yet been considered either by European Standing Committee A or B or on the Floor of the House and (b) have not yet been scrutinised by the Select Committee on European Legislation; and if she will make a statement. [3179]

    Mrs. Ann Taylor
    Listed are the five items recommended for debate by the Select Committee on European Legislation in the last Parliament for which the debate is still outstanding.

    Committee/floor

    Document reference

    Subject

    European Standing Committee A (with a Floor debate recommendation)

    6177/94

    Proposal for a Council Directive concerning the quality of bathing water

    European Standing Committee A

    5947/94

    Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 79/489/EEC on the conservation of wild birds

    European Standing Committee B

    6748/91 and 6294/92

    Proposal for a Council Directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states on advertising of tobacco products

    European Standing Committee B

    9098/94

    Proposal for a Council Directive on harmonisation of the main provisions concerning export credit insurance for transactions with medium and long-term cover

    European Standing Committee B

    9141/94

    Proposal for a Council Directive on the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of a transfer

    A total of 180 items of business, including some outstanding since the last Parliament, remain to be considered by the Select Committee on European Legislation. I have asked the Clerk of the Committee to send the hon. Member details of remaining business before the Committee and place a copy in the Library of the House. I hope that both the Select Committee on European Legislation and the European Standing Committees will be re-nominated soon.

    Defibrillators
    Dr. Harris
    To ask the President of the Council how many defibrillators are available in the Palace of 554
    Westminster; and if she will list their locations, indicating which are (a) automatic, (b) advisory and (c) semi-advisory. [3220]

    Mrs. Ann Taylor
    This is not a matter for me but I have asked the Serjeant-at-Arms to write to the hon. Member.

  WALES

    BSE
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the BSE situation in Monmouthshire. [2528]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    The BSE epidemic is in decline in Monmouthshire and throughout Wales. The number of new cases has fallen sharply: separate figures are not available for Monmouthshire, but the number of reported cases in 1996 for Wales was about 50 per cent. below that for 1995.

    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the Government's plans to compensate beef farmers in Monmouthshire as a result of the BSE crisis. [2527]

    Mr. Griffiths
    Producers in Monmouthshire and elsewhere have received direct financial aid—amounting to some £250 million for the UK as a whole—since the start of the beef crisis. In addition to this, significant sums are being spent on expanded intervention arrangements, on the calf processing scheme and on the over 30-months scheme.

    Health Service
    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the role of financial targets in assisting NHS trusts to provide a professional health care service. [2823]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    Financial targets are an important element in ensuring that a professional healthcare service is provided most efficiently within the resources available.

    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the financial position of Welsh(a) health authorities and (b) trusts at the end of the financial year 1996–97. [2818]

    Mr. Griffiths
    Until the annual accounts of both health authorities and NHS trusts are received it is not possible to make an accurate assessment of their financial positions.

    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of the (i) Welsh health authorities and (ii) Welsh NHS trusts have been reported to him as being likely to be in deficit in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98; and what are the arrangements for carrying over of deficits. [2819]
    555
    Mr. Griffiths
    Subject to the final accounts position, health authorities have indicated a financial out-turn as follows:

    Health Authority

    Forecast Surplus/(Deficit) 1996–97

    Morgannwg

    (1.370)

    Dyfed Powys

    (7.394)

    Gwent

    (1.440)

    Bro Taf

    (8.029)

    North Wales

    (6.541)

    The table summarises the latest returns from health authorities of forecast out-turn based on an income and expenditure basis, which attempts to calculate the total resource costs incurred in any one financial year. The figures are provisional. All authorities succeeded in meeting the requirement to remain within their notified cash limits for the financial year 1996–97. Cash limits reflect the actual liquidity requirements of authorities to meet liabilities as they arise.

    The following trusts are reporting a deficit position for 1996–97:
    Morriston—this trusts' financial performance was debated by the Welsh Affairs Committee report and a copy of its findings is available in the Library of the House.
    Carmarthen—this was a planned deficit and the trust achieved a year on year break-even position.
    North Glamorgan—this was due to a technical adjustment in
    relation to an accounting treatment for early retirements.
    Pembrokeshire—this was due to a technical adjustment in
    relation to an accounting treatment for early retirements.

    Morriston NHS Trust is in the process of drawing up a recovery plan to be agreed by commissioners and will be expected to return to a balanced position within agreed timescales. It is too early in the financial year to forecast the likely out-turn for 1997–98.

    As health authorities deal with cash figures the carrying over of deficits is not applicable. However, the present arrangement for the carrying over of deficits for trusts is that they are required to devise a recovery plan, in conjunction with their respective commissioners, and would be expected to return to a balanced position within an agreed timescale.

    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the long-term financial position of Welsh(a) health authorities and (b) NHS health trusts. [2820]

    Mr. Griffiths
    The Government is currently reviewing the financial position of the NHS in Wales and we will be in a better position to do so when the audited accounts have been received. We have announced a review of the number and configuration of NHS trusts to identify a more effective way of delivering services and this will realise considerable savings. We are also reviewing the formula for distributing resources to health authorities.

    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will institute an annual investigation into the effectiveness of financial targets in the NHS as a means of highlighting relevant trends in financial performance. [2821]
    556
    Mr. Griffiths
    The effectiveness of financial targets and trends in financial performance in the NHS are subject to continuous review.

    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the requirement for NHS health trusts in Wales to break even, year on year, allows a trust with a surplus in one year to budget for a deficit in the following year. [2822]

    Mr. Griffiths
    Yes. However, should a trust forecast a year end deficit, for which they did not have sufficient reserves, it would be necessary to prepare a recovery plan which would be formulated in conjunction with commissioners. The trust would be expected to return to a balanced position within an agreed timescale.

    Council Houses
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to release the controls on the use of receipts from council house sales; what estimates he has made of the number of extra jobs that will be created as a result; and if he will make a statement. [3148]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    We have introduced the Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill. When enacted, this will allow us to release resources in the form of Supplementary credit Approvals. We will consult local authorities in Wales on the timing and phasing of the release, and the targeting of resources before taking final decisions on these issues. Until that stage is reached, I cannot estimate the effect of this new investment on job creation.

    Casualty Units
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he plans to take to increase staffing of trust hospital casualty units on Saturday evenings and early Sunday mornings; and if he will make a statement. [3150]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    Trusts have been made aware of our requirements to provide high quality services including the need for patients to be assessed within 10 minutes of their arrival at accident and emergency or casualty departments. It is for respective trusts to consider how best to deploy their staffing resources to meet requirement.

    Assisted Places Scheme
    Mr. Öpik
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the total numbers of (i) pupils and (ii) schools and (b) the total amount of public expenditure involved in the assisted places scheme for each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement on the total expected savings from the abolition of the assisted places scheme in Wales. [3172]
    557
    Mr. Hain
    The position over the last five years is as follows:

    Financial year

    Number of pupils

    Number of schools

    Total cost £

    1992–93

    700

    8

    2,457,230

    1993–94

    691

    8

    2,621,261

    1994–95

    720

    8

    2,771,504

    1995–96

    726

    8

    2,904,845

    1996–97

    887

    14

    3,462,320

    Projected expenditure for 1997–98 is £4.5 million, for 1998–99 £5.1 million1 and 1999–2000 £5.7 million1. Subject to Parliamentary approval of the Education (Schools) Bill, total estimated savings once the scheme is phased out will amount to some £5.7 million per annum.

    1 Planned provision for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 will be subject to review in the forthcoming public expenditure survey.

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Öpik
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) three-year-olds and (b) four-year-olds, received state-funded nursery provision in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement on the amount of extra expenditure which would be needed to meet total demand for state funded nursery provision for (i) all three-year-olds and (ii) four-year-olds. [3173]

    Mr. Hain
    The information requested is as follows:

    At January

    3-year-olds1

    4-year-olds2

    1995–96

    18,600

    35,251

    1994–95

    19,375

    34,638

    1993–94

    18,779

    34,165

    1992–93

    18,258

    34,822

    1991–92

    17,942

    33,866

    1 Includes full and part time pupils in maintained nursery, primary and special schools.

    Specific funding of £42.5 million is being provided in 1997–98 to enable all four-year-olds to receive education of at least five half day sessions per week. We will consult on targets for education for three-year-olds in the context of the forthcoming White Paper on education.

    Class Sizes
    Mr. Öpik
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the total new expenditure needed to(a) reduce all class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds to 30 or under and (b) reduce all class sizes for all school children to under 30; and if he will make a statement. [3174]

    Mr. Hain
    We will consult the Welsh Local Government Association and Local Education Authorities in Wales in the context of the forthcoming White Paper on Education on implementation of our policy of reducing infant class sizes to 30 pupils or less. That consultation will include an assessment of costs which will vary from area to area. Reduction of all classes to under 30 is not under consideration.
    558

  SCOTLAND

    Carers
    Mrs. Ewing
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the recommendations in the Carers National Association's report, "Still Battling? The Carers Act One Year On"; and what action he will take to ensure that carers are fully informed of their rights. [2986]

    Mr. Galbraith
    The report was launched on Monday 9 June as part of the 1997 National Carers Week. We will study the report carefully and consider what action is necessary.

    Registers (Access Charges)
    Mr. Swinney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what reasons the Registers of Scotland have increased the cost of access to(a) the sasine search sheets and (b) the on-line database for the register of inhibitions. [2571]

    Mr. McLeish
    The fee contained in the Fees in the Registers of Scotland Order 1995 (SI 1995 No. 1945) for the searching of any Register of Sasines search sheet affecting one property is £7. There has been no increase in this fee. Private searchers enjoy special arrangements whereby a "badge" fee enables each searcher to have access to the search sheet between 08.30 and 16.30 each day. This preferential arrangement permits a "badgeholder" to make multiple searches during this time. A daily "badge" fee of £30 was set in 1993 and was based on the £5 fee for a search of any one search sheet contained in the 1991 Fees Order. The 1995 Fees Order increased this £5 fee to £7 and the daily "badge" fee, as part of a catch-up exercise, has been increased, pro rata and with effect from 1 May 1997 from £30 to £42.

    The fee contained in the Fees in the Registers of Scotland Order 1995 (S.I. 1995 No. 1945) for searching each group of six names or less in the Register of Inhibitions and Adjudications is £7. Historically, the fee for on-line searching of this computerised Register has borne no relation to the search fee as set up in successive Fees Orders. Over the years there has been a gradual catching-up exercise underway. Prior to 1 May 1997 the fee for searching each group of six names or less was £0.94, an 86 per cent. discount on the fee as set out in the 1995 Fees Order. With effect from 1 May 1997 the discount has been reduced to 50 per cent. The new fee of £3.50 for searching each group of six names or less in now related to the 1995 Fees Order.

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Tom King
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research has been commissioned and what estimates have been made by his Department and what information presented to him, regarding the costs per annum to the total Scottish Office budget of the introduction of a minimum wage at(a) £3.50 an hour, (b) £4 an hour and (c) £4.40 an hour; and if he will make a statement. [2111]

    Mr. Wilson
    I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on Monday 9 June 1997,Official Report, column 310.
    559

    Urban Aid Programme
    Mr. Gorrie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to increase the funds available for the urban aid programme. [2284]

    Mr. Chisholm
    The Government are committed to remaining within the existing Public Expenditure totals for 1997–98 and 1998–99, and any increase in funds for one programme could therefore be funded only from reductions in another. Over the coming months, Ministerial colleagues and I shall be reviewing all the financial priorities within the Secretary of State's expenditure programmes. Decisions on any transfers of resources will be taken following the review of priorities.

    Federation Councils on Alcohol
    Mrs. Ray Michie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the future of Argyll and Bute Federation Councils on Alcohol; and if he will make a statement. [2853]

    Mr. Galbraith
    Representations have been received from the Director of the Federation about the organisation's financial difficulties. However, this is a service issue which requires to be resolved at local level by the statutory and non-statutory agencies in the Argyll and Bute area.

    Number ofMRSA isolates submitted by Scottish hospitals to the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health, by health board areas, by four-week periods, May 1996 to May 1997

    Weeks

    1996

    1997

    Health board

    21–24

    25–28

    29–32

    33–36

    37–40

    41–44

    45–48

    49–52/3

    1–4

    5–8

    9–12

    13–16

    17–20

    Total

    Ayrshire and Arran

    5

    6

    6

    11

    7

    8

    10

    10

    12

    16

    19

    15

    24

    149

    Argyll and Clyde

    15

    21

    47

    6

    29

    12

    19

    24

    27

    41

    28

    30

    33

    332

    Borders

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    Dumfries and Galloway

    1

    0

    2

    6

    1

    4

    4

    8

    9

    26

    11

    18

    13

    103

    Fife

    5

    3

    1

    2

    3

    2

    4

    2

    1

    4

    3

    2

    1

    33

    Forth Valley

    1

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    24

    55

    52

    43

    43

    218

    Greater Glasgow

    24

    29

    3

    34

    23

    7

    49

    27

    60

    74

    64

    30

    74

    498

    Grampian

    0

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    1

    2

    8

    3

    16

    Highland

    0

    2

    2

    2

    0

    0

    2

    1

    0

    0

    0

    3

    1

    13

    Lanarkshire

    16

    38

    25

    21

    34

    26

    43

    30

    28

    52

    32

    56

    62

    463

    Lothian

    9

    14

    6

    11

    22

    21

    17

    17

    18

    54

    25

    47

    57

    318

    Tayside

    9

    2

    5

    15

    9

    7

    12

    22

    19

    23

    16

    28

    19

    186

    Total

    85

    115

    97

    109

    128

    87

    161

    141

    200

    346

    252

    280

    330

    2,331

    Deportation
    Dr. Godman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons awaiting deportation have been detained at(a) HM Prison Greenock and (b) other prisons in each of the past seven years; what was the average time spent in such detention; and if he will make a statement. [2765]

    Mr. McLeish
    Detailed statistics concerning persons detained before 1995 are not available within the Scottish Prison Service. The number of persons detained in(a) Greenock and (b) other prisons in Scotland under the Immigration Act since 1995 are detailed in the table. The average period of time spent in detention by persons awaiting deportation is 54 days.
    560

    Environment Protection Agency (VAT)
    Dr. Godman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to enable the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to reclaim VAT; and if he will make a statement. [2689]

    Mr. Chisholm
    VAT refunds are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of MRSA have been recorded in each health authority district in Scotland in each of the last 12 months. [2980]

    Mr. Galbraith
    [holding answer 11 June 1997]: Information on the total number of cases of infection or colonisation with methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is not collected centrally in Scotland.

    The Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health receives isolates submitted voluntarily by hospitals in Scotland. The following table shows the numbers of isolates received for the 12 months to May 1997 for each Scottish health board area. Several isolates may be taken from a single patient on one occasion or at different times.

    1995

    1996

    1997

    Aberdeen

    13

    18

    6

    Barlinnie

    —

    1

    1

    Cornton Vale

    —

    1

    3

    Edinburgh

    10

    11

    11

    Greenock

    67

    65

    54

    Inverness

    1

    —

    —

    Longriggend

    —

    —

    3

    Perth

    —

    1

    —

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Health Board Headquarters (Armagh)
    Mr. John D. Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of the gardens at the headquarters of the Southern Area Health Board at Tower Hill, Armagh City. [2143]
    561
    Mr. Worthington
    The total cost of landscaping, including the courtyard gardens, within the Tower Hill site was £28,347.

    Acute Hospitals
    Rev. Martin Smyth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the acute hospital rationalisation proposals will be implemented. [1522]

    Mr. Worthington
    [holding answer 11 June 1997): Teams have been set up in the Royal Group of Hospitals Trust and the Belfast City Hospital (BCH) Trust to take forward the decisions arising out of the Acute Hospitals Reorganisation Project. The process of implementation has already begun but in view of the inter-relationship of many of the specialties involved and the complexities arising from this, implementation will be on a gradual basis and is likely to take a couple of years. As promised by the Secretary of State earlier, I am presently looking again at the decision to centralise maternity and associated services in the BCH Tower Block. This is also the subject of a judicial review.

    Departmental Running Costs
    Mr. Todd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement about the 1997–98 running cost limit for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments. [3771]

    Mr. Murphy
    The gross running cost limit for 1997–98 for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is £783,171,000. There is also a net running cost limit of zero for the Land Registers of Northern Ireland. Details of the provision for individual Northern Ireland Departments are set out in the Northern Ireland Estimates published today and are available in the Library.

    Police Authority
    Mr. Pond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements have been made for the appointment of a new Police Authority for Northern Ireland. [3813]

    Marjorie Mowlam
    The Police Authority has a vital task to perform in securing the maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force. It also has a very important role to play in enhancing the relationship between the police and the public it serves.

    I have therefore appointed 17 members of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland for a term of three years which will begin on 29 June 1997. In making the appointments I have, as required by the Police Act (NI) 1970, consulted organisations and persons representative of the community in Northern Ireland. In addition, and in accordance with the Guidelines issued by Sir Leonard Peach, the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland, applications for appointment were invited by advertisements in the Northern Ireland press. As a result, the Authority widely represents the community and continuity is provided by the continuing service of several individuals for a second term.
    562

  TREASURY

    Monetary Policy
    Mr. Sutcliffe
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that the Government's monetary policy objectives are met. [1589]

    Mr. Gordon Brown
    Last month I announced reforms which gave the Bank of England operational responsibility for setting interest rates. Today, I have written to the Governor setting out the Bank's remit and how it will be held accountable for meeting its target.

    To meet the Government's objectives of high levels of growth and employment, we need consistently low inflation. That is why I am today announcing a precise and rigorous framework to achieve the Government's inflation target of 2½ per cent.

    Our new long term framework will ensure that if inflation is 1 per cent. higher or lower than this target, an open letter will be sent by the Governor to the Chancellor so that the public is fully informed of why the divergence has occurred and what steps will be taken in response.

    I have arranged for the letter which I have sent the Governor today to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

    Cyclical Social Security
    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the causes of the predicted rise up to 2001–2 in cyclical social security as set out in table 4.6 in the most recent Red Book; what assessment he has made of the implications; and if he will make a statement. [1604]

    Mr. Darling
    The spending plans inherited by the Government for the period up to 1999–00 assume increases in Cyclical Social Security expenditure from future inflation upratings and future growth in the number of Income Support claimants and the average amounts of benefit paid to them. They are partly offset by an assumption of falling unemployment. Beyond 1999–00 the projections allow for additional growth in expenditure above what would be expected from inflation upratings, in line with that observed in the past. The Government are currently reviewing these plans and will announce the outcome in the Budget.

    Unemployment Figures
    Mr. Bayley
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the methodology used by the Government for calculating the level of unemployment. [1606]

    Mrs. Liddell
    My hon. Friend's interest in methodology is well placed and shared by the Government and the Government have begun a process of consultation which reflects the Employment Select Committee's recommendations for more prominence to estimates for the labour force survey.

    On 8 May the Office for National Statistics launched a process of consultation with users about the dissemination and presentation of labour market statistics. The Director of the Office for National Statistics is responsible for

    563
    deciding the form, the coverage and timing of release of statistics by his office, which is committed to a wide-ranging consultation.

    The consultation reflects the Employment Select Committee recommendation to give more prominence to estimates from the labour force survey.

    The Government are committed to ensuring the widest possible acceptance of these statistics, and the ONS will make public the conclusions of the consultation.

    Manufacturing Investment
    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will next meet representatives of manufacturing industry to discuss ways in which investments in new manufacturing enterprises can be encouraged. [1607]

    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
    Treasury Ministers regularly meet representatives from British industry. We are keen to discuss ways of improving investment in new companies, and industry more generally.

    Local Tax Offices
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the reorganisation of local tax offices by the Board of Inland Revenue. [1608]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Since 1993 the Inland Revenue has been carrying out a 10 year Programme to reorganise its whole network of local offices. Firm plans exist for the period up to mid 1998 and proposals for the remaining period are currently being considered by the Board of Inland Revenue.

    Economic and Monetary Union
    Mr. Cash
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place the issue of the single currency and the protocol on the third stage of economic and monetary union on the agenda for renegotiation at the intergovernmental conference at Amsterdam. [1609]

    Mr. Darling
    Economic and monetary union (EMU) is not on the IGC agenda. I have no intention of reopening the protocol which protects our right to choose whether to join the third stage of EMU.

    Bank of England
    Mr. Fraser
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with what frequency he plans to meet or communicate with his nominated members of the Bank of England's new monetary policy committee. [1610]

    Mr. Gordon Brown
    I have no plans to meet or communicate with the four new members of the monetary policy committee in their official capacity. The Treasury will be represented at the committee's meetings in a non-voting capacity.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Paul Clark
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to reduce youth and long-term unemployment. [1611]
    564
    Mr. Darling
    We will give 250,000 under 25s opportunities for work education and training, and encourage employers to take on those unemployed over two years. Further details will be announced in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget.

    Mrs. Clwyd
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about his proposals to reduce youth and long-term unemployment. [1624]

    Mr. Darling
    We will give young people aged under 25 opportunities to work, using a £60 per week rebate to employers, to enter full-time education and training, and to do work in the voluntary sector or in a new Environmental Task Force. We aim to help 250,000 young people move from welfare to work. We will also help employers to take on those unemployed over two years with a £75 a week subsidy. An advisory task force, chaired by Sir Peter Davis, will advise on key issues of programme design and implementation, and mobilise the support of employers. Further details will be announced in the Chancellor's Budget.

    Inflation
    Mr. Blunt
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the basis on which he will determine his next inflation target. [1612]

    Mrs. Liddell
    I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to the hon. Members for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) earlier today.

    Windfall Tax
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed windfall tax on prices charged by the utilities to their consumers. [1613]

    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be considering a wide range of factors in reaching his view on the windfall levy. He will be consulting the regulators and will announce details of the levy in his Budget statement.

    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the representations he has received from the National Association of Pension Funds regarding the windfall tax. [1619]

    Mr. Robinson
    Treasury Ministers are treating representations from companies and other bodies as confidential.

    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the operation of the windfall profits tax. [1620]

    Mr. Robinson
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will announce details of the windfall levy in his Budget statement.

    Mr. Maude
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what measure of profits he will base the windfall tax. [1623]
    565
    Mr. Robinson
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will announce details of the windfall levy in his Budget statement.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Mrs. Osborne
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to promote private finance projects. [1614]

    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
    I announced an immediate review of the machinery of PFI, by Malcolm Bates, the Chairman of Pearl Group and a former member of the Private Finance Panel. That will streamline and improve the process. I have also scrapped the requirement for universal testing of all projects.

    Capital Receipts
    Mr. Syms
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact of an increased release of local authority capital receipts on the public sector borrowing requirement. [1615]

    Mr. Darling
    The release of capital receipts will be phased to meet the requirements of prudent management of the public finances, including having regard to the effect on the PSBR.

    Exchange Rate
    Mr. Alan W. Williams
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the change in the value of the pound against the basket of international currencies relative to June 1996. [1616]

    Mrs. Liddell
    Since June 1996 the pound (on its trade weighted index) has risen by around 16 per cent. The Government want a stable and competitive pound over the medium term, consistent with its objective of price stability.

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much public expenditure has been increased to date by the policy changes initiated by the present Administration. [1617]

    Mr. Darling
    There have been no increases to date in the planned level of public expenditure.

    VAT (Fuel)
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans to reduce VAT on domestic fuel. [1618]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The Government have a manifesto commitment to cut VAT on domestic fuel and power to 5 per cent.

    Youth Unemployment
    Mr. Fabian Hamilton
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution Her Majesty's Treasury has made since 1 May towards combating youth unemployment. [1621]
    566
    Mr. Darling
    The Treasury has been closely involved with other Government Departments in drawing up proposals to help 250,000 people aged between 18 and 25 move off benefit and into work. Further details will be set out in the Chancellor's Budget.

    Interest Rates
    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what mechanisms are in place to ensure that the needs of businesses/exporters in particular are taken into account in the setting of interest rates. [1622]

    Mrs. Liddell
    In setting interest rates, the monetary policy committee of the Bank of England will be able to draw on the information gained from business surveys, and the Bank's network of regional agents which cover the whole of the United Kingdom. The Bank's agents have widespread contacts with companies, both large and small, and other organisations covering all sectors of the economy.

    Customs and Excise (Freemasons)
    Mr. Mallon
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures are in place to ensure that officials of HM Customs and Excise declare their membership of secret societies, with special reference to the Freemasons. [1910]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 6 June 1997]: Customs and Excise publish internal guidance for all staff on personal conduct. This is based on the Civil Service Management Code, which applies not just to members of Customs but to the whole of the civil service.

    The policy in respect of membership of societies (secret or otherwise) is based on the following:
    Civil servants must not misuse their official position to further their private interests or those of others. Conflicts of interest may arise from official dealings with, or decisions in respect of, individuals who share a civil servants private interests (for example, freemasonry, membership of societies, clubs and other organisations, and family). Where a conflict of interest arises, civil servants must declare their interest to senior management so they can determine how best to proceed.

    Members of Customs who feel they have been subject to unfair treatment related to membership of an organisation are encouraged to make a complaint using the Department's normal procedures.

    Customs and Excise (Northern Ireland)
    Mr. Mallon
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what (i) equal opportunities and (ii) fair employment policies are implemented by the Customs and Excise Department in Northern Ireland; and which members of staff are exempt from these policies. [1911]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 6 June 1997]: Customs and Excise operates an equal opportunities policy for all its staff. The aim of the policy is to provide equality of opportunity for employment and advancement on the Department of the basis of ability, qualifications and aptitude for the work.

    In relation to Northern Ireland in particular, the Department is committed to ensuring that the skills and abilities of staff from both the Protestant and Roman

    567
    Catholic communities are developed and used to the full. This means that no job applicant or member of staff will receive less favourable treatment on the grounds of their religious belief or political opinion.

    No member of staff is exempt from the equal opportunities or fair employment policies.

    Financial Services Industry
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans for reform of the regulation of the financial services industry. [1584]

    Mrs. Liddell
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 20 May,Official Report, columns 507–24.

    Single Currency
    Mr. Wilkinson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has commissioned or evaluated on the effect on the world gold price of the sale of excess reserves by states participating in the single currency. [1731]

    Mrs. Liddell
    Developments in the world gold market are kept under continuous review as part of the normal process of managing the official reserves.

    Capital Gains and Inheritance Taxes
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations the Government have received in recent years from the Centre for Policy Studies, the Institute for Economic Affairs, the Adam Smith Institute, the Bow Group and the Institute of Directors about the relationship between capital gains and inheritance tax rates, investment decisions and Exchequer revenues; and if he will make a statement. [2793]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 9 June 1997]: One representation has been received since 1 May. This was sent by the Institute of Directors and concerned the effect of capital gains tax rates on investment decisions. We will consider carefully this representation, and any others which we receive.

    Mr. Winterton
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policies on capital gains tax and the encouragement of business investment in(a) publicly quoted and (b) unquoted companies. [2796]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 9 June 1997]: Our manifesto contained a commitment to reviewing the effects of capital gains tax on long-term investment.

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. John M. Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the CBI regarding the impact on the economy of a national minimum wage. [1592]

    Mrs. Liddell
    My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not received any representations from the CBI on this matter. Business leaders will be represented on the Low Pay Commission, which will 568
    make recommendations to Government on the appropriate level of the minimum wage, taking into account the wider effects on the economy.

    Public Borrowing
    Mr. Fallon
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his definition of the Government's golden rule in respect of public borrowing. [2979]

    Mr. Darling
    [holding answer 10 June 1997]: Over the economic cycle the Government will borrow only to invest and not to fund current expenditure. Further details will be set out in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget Statement.

    Private Health Insurance
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to remove the tax relief from private health insurance premiums. [2873]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 10 June 1997]: It would not be appropriate to comment on any possible tax changes during the run up to the Budget.

    Pension Funds
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much revenue would be raised by restricting the payable tax credits on dividends paid by United Kingdom resident companies to pension funds and other exempt institutions to(a) 15 per cent., (b) 10 per cent. and (c) 0 per cent.; [1853]

    (2) at current values of United Kingdom pensions fund holdings, what would be the effect on the value of those funds if payable tax credits on dividends paid by United Kingdom resident companies were reduced to (a) 15 per cent., (b) 10 per cent. and (c) 0 per cent.; and if he will make a statement on the ability of such funds under these circumstances to meet their obligations without receiving any additional contributions. [1854]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 2 June 1997]: Payments of tax credits issued with dividends of United Kingdom companies to pension funds and other exempt institutions and to individuals were about £5 billion in 1996–97. As the right hon. Member will be aware the consequences of any changes would depend on responses of the companies and institutions involved.

    Banking Supervision
    Mr. Mitchell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to appoint to the new system of banking supervision only appointees from firms which have not been criticised by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors. [1445]

    Mrs. Liddell
    Appointments will be made on the basis of the skills, experience and integrity of the individuals concerned.

    Mortgage Lenders
    Mr. Mitchell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will require mortgage lenders with tied insurance arrangements to display warnings that only one specified company's products are on sale in their branches. [2026]
    569
    Mrs. Liddell
    No, the Government have no powers to require mortgage lenders to display such information, but welcomes the industry's Mortgage Code which comes into effect next month. Unless where insurance concerned is an investment under the Financial Services Act 1986, where the regulators' existing rules about providing information on whether agents are tied or independent already apply.

    Profit-related Pay
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the proposal to end tax relief on profit-related pay, with special reference to the first £1,000 of income. [2865]

    Dawn Primarolo
    I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion but it would not be appropriate to comment on any possible tax change during the run up to the Budget.

    Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
    Mr. McAllion
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total cost of mortgage interest tax relief in Scotland in the years 1995–96 and 1996–97; and what it is estimated to be for 1997–98. [2532]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The cost of mortgage interest relief in Scotland was estimated to be £200 million in 1995–96.

    This estimate has been obtained by applying the regional distribution of the cost of mortgage interest relief from analyses of Family Expenditure Surveys up to 1994, to the total figure for 1995–96. It is not possible to provide reliable estimates for mortgage interest tax relief in Scotland for 1996–97 or 1997–98.

    Duty Free Shopping
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the effect on the cross-channel ferry industry of the abolition of duty free. [2660]

    Dawn Primarolo
    None, but Customs and Excise have received copy reports commissioned by the industry outlining the likely effects of abolition from their perspective.

    Tax Returns
    Mr. Maclean
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of tax returns were received by the Inland Revenue(a) prior to 31 October, (b) between 1 November and 31 January, (c) between 1 February and 5 April and (d) more than 12 months after the date of issue following the end of the tax year resulted in fines and penalties for late submission not involving fraud or wilful neglect in each of the above categories. [2130]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Few returns submitted within 12 months following the end of the tax year were likely to attract penalties for late submission. Returns submitted later than this were more likely to be subject to penalties.
    570

    Illegal Imports
    Mrs. Ballard
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate she has made of(a) the loss of revenue to the Exchequer and (b) the loss of income to retailers in the United Kingdom due to the illegal importation of tobacco, wines and spirits. [2543]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Customs' current estimate of the total revenue evaded (excise duty and VAT) in a year through the smuggling of alcohol and tobacco is set out in the table below. The table also sets out Customs' estimate of the retail value of the smuggled goods at UK off-licence prices, including excise duty and VAT. The amounts actually lost to UK retailers and the Exchequer will be less than the amounts shown below. This is because many smuggled goods, particularly alcoholic products, represent additional consumption rather than substituting for similar goods purchased in the UK.

    £ million

    Product type

    Revenue evaded

    Retail value

    Spirits

    50

    75

    Wine

    50

    100

    Beer and cider

    110

    235

    Tobacco products

    560

    765

    Total

    770

    1,175

    The above estimate does not include any amounts for commercial fraud.

    Jobseeker's Allowance
    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people under the age of 25 years are currently on the jobseeker's allowance scheme(a) in Winchester and (b) in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [1287]

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

    Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Mark Oaten, dated 12 June 1997:
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on how many people under the age of 25 years are currently on the jobseekers allowance scheme (a) in Winchester and (b) in the United Kingdom.
    ONS figures cover all unemployment-related benefits i.e. they include those receiving National Insurance Credits only, although these only constitute a small proportion of the total (approximately 10 per cent). JSA specific counts can be provided by Department of Social Security but not to the required geographical breakdown—only for Great Britain.
    The ONS produces two measures of unemployment. The first, derived from the quarterly Labour Force Survey, is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and counts as unemployed, people who are: a) without a paid job; b) available to start work within the next two weeks and c) have either looked for work in the past four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained.
    ONS also publishes the monthly claimant count, which is based on the UK administrative system and includes all people claiming unemployment-related benefits at Employment Service offices on the day of the monthly count, who on that day had signed on as

    571
    unemployed and available to do any suitable work. All people who attend an Employment Service office to sign are counted, irrespective of whether they are actually receiving benefit.
    Both measures are described and compared in the ONS booklet How exactly is Unemployment Measured?, a copy of which is enclosed. This booklet is also available in the House of Commons Library.
    572
    ONS information is only available on the total number of people claiming all unemployment-related benefits (Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance Credits). In April 1997 on an unadjusted basis, people age under 25 years and claiming unemployment-related benefits numbered 245 in the Winchester parliamentary constituency and 440,028 in the United Kingdom. If specific JSA breakdowns are required these are available from the Department of Social Security.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Evans of Parkside
John Evans, Esquire, having been created Baron Evans of Parkside, of St. Helens in the County of Merseyside, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Gould of Potternewton and the Lord Whitty, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract
Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse, Knight, having been created Baron Lofthouse of Pontefract, of Pontefract in the County of West Yorkshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Gregson and the Lord Mason of Barnsley.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to attend the University of Glasgow to receive an honorary Doctorate of Laws on Wednesday, 18th June 1997. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

EU Anti-Fraud Proposals
3.21 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will support the European Union's proposed FISCALIS programme, which is due to start in 1998 and which is intended to reduce fraud in VAT and in excise duties by improving co-operation between member states.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Lord on his alertness at picking up so early the FISCALIS proposals because they have not yet been considered in detail at European Community level. So in a way the Question is a little premature. However, while endorsing the FISCALIS programme in principle, the Government's full support must be subject to further consideration of the costs and resources involved. The Government are determined to work with the European Commission in developing co-operation with EC authorities as a means of combating fraud within the Community.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. I agree that this is an early stage, but it cannot be too soon to start considering the scheme which has been put forward. Does the noble Lord agree that while the European Commission can provide help and co-ordination, the curbing of fraud must mainly depend on the willingness of authorities in member countries to increase their vigilance and clamp down on transgressions? Can the British Government stimulate other governments in the Community to catch and prosecute their nationals who indulge in fraudulent practices? I confidently expect to receive support for what I say from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, whom I am glad to see in his place. The noble Lord has made a study of this subject over several years.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the proposed arrangements under the FISCALIS programme, particularly the improvement of IT systems, are based very much on work which has been done in the United Kingdom. So the noble Lord can be assured that work will be carried out within the United Kingdom on this very important project. The whole programme is designed with co-operation between European Community countries in mind. I am sure therefore that the benefit of experience in the UK will be made available to the other European countries.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one of the difficulties that must be facing Her Majesty's Government in this regard is the failure of the Commission's proposals to make adequate distinction between fraud and irregularity and its failure generally to take account of irregularity which, according to British law, in many cases is already fraudulent? Will the Government give consideration to the view already widely held, not only in the United Kingdom, that the nature and form of Commission legislation in many spheres is in itself an open invitation to fraud?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am not sure that I can respond to the second part of the noble Lord's question. As to the first part, most of the tax at risk is excise duty. There is no evidence of significant fraud as a result of intra-EC VAT systems. VAT losses attributable to the single market are estimated at about £150 million. As regards excise goods, Customs and Excise estimates that revenue—that is, excise duty and VAT—evaded through abuse of personal importation rules for alcohol and tobacco is about £770 million a year. That is large-scale commercial fraud. There are possibly other significant but unquantifiable losses.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, do the Government agree that not only is there fraud on VAT and excise duty across the Community, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has told us on a number of occasions, there is fairly massive fraud in the European budget itself, especially in the common agricultural policy? Can the Minister assure the House

979
that the Government will be every bit as determined as the last Government to pursue fraud in the Commission, at European level and also at member state level?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I can certainly assure the noble Lord that this Government will be as diligent as the previous one, and far more diligent, I hope, in pursuing fraud.

EU Social Chapter
3.26 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to sign the EU social chapter and then avoid EU legislation arising therefrom which they may consider damaging to British interests, given the chapter's provision for qualified majority voting.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, by accepting the social chapter we will ensure that the United Kingdom can take part in negotiations and influence the outcome. We will argue strongly for competitiveness. Under the last Government's so-called "opt-out", legislation such as the European Works Council Directive, which affects many British companies, could be adopted without any United Kingdom involvement.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, which I find a little optimistic in view of the fact that the draft social chapter legislation at present includes provision to impose works councils on companies with as few as 50 employees, with legal rights within those companies, affecting perhaps 11.5 million people in this country, and also gives to part-time workers all the rights which are at present enjoyed by full-time workers. Does not the noble Lord agree that the new Government could pass into British legislation any Act it wished in this field without having possibly to assume legislation from Brussels which it does not like? In short, is not signing the social chapter rather like going for a walk in a tropical country in the rainy season and forgoing the offer of an umbrella?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I find the analogy rather bizarre, but then I would expect that from the noble Lord. The fact of the matter is that, as regards the Works Council Directive, a large number of companies in this country have voluntarily undertaken the obligations which are enshrined in the social chapter in this regard. But we had no influence on that whatsoever because of the opt-out. Indeed, there can be no influence if one seeks to entertain the idea of an opt-out. For the sake of its business and its own interests, we believe that it is important that Britain should participate in the debates. We were precluded from doing that because of the strange notions of the party opposite.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that at present there is discussion between Mr. Flynn and the European Parliament about the possibility of a further 87 items being brought in under the social chapter? If so, can the Minister refer back to the Question and say whether it would be possible for Britain to choose not to implement items which will not do this country's economy any good and with which the Government disagree?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, my noble friend inadvertently draws attention to the need for us to be present at those discussions. I do not know precisely what discussions Commissioner Padraig Flynn is having with the European Parliament, but we need to have a voice in the discussions and the sooner we can achieve that the better. I do not accept all my noble friend's conclusions on this. The reality is that in the discussions we shall maximise flexibility and competitiveness while at the same time ensuring that the social justice which is enjoyed by others comes to people in this country also.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether qualified majority voting will overrule British objections?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, qualified majority voting could theoretically—
Noble Lords: Ah!
Lord Clinton-Davis:—overcome objections from any member state, not only from Britain. Why does my noble friend consider that we are incapable of influencing a decision so that it is in favour of Britain? That was not possible under the government of the party opposite because of the extraordinary stance that they took. We have a much better chance of being able to ensure that the need to maintain the competitiveness of the Community economy, which is stated explicitly in the social chapter, is indeed maintained if we have a proper voice.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that interventionist employment legislation, such as unduly onerous terms of hiring and firing and such as a minimum wage of over £5 per hour, can but inhibit employment? Is the Minister also aware that the European Court of Justice, as part of the process of advancing integration, would give effect to such subsidiary legislation?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, we had quite a lengthy exchange yesterday on the minimum wage—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: We did not get a reply.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, a reply which satisfies some will never satisfy the noble Lord, but I am quite used to that because I have heard the noble Lord, and have been much entertained by him, over many years now. A Low Pay Commission has now been established. It will look at the level of the minimum

981
wage. I reiterate what I said yesterday to the noble Lord: this matter was placed clearly before the electorate in our manifesto—there was no equivocation about it—and it was endorsed by the electorate. That is something that the other side will have to get used to.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that not all of the proposals that are put forward by the Commission emerge unchanged as Community legislation? The noble Lord may have experience of that himself. Will he also confirm that the British attitude to social policy is shared by a number of other governments, in particular by the Swedish, Finnish, Danish and Dutch Governments, and that we are therefore unlikely to be isolated or on our own?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's second point is definitively yes. On his first point, as a former European Commissioner, perhaps I may say that not one of my proposals (or for that matter any proposal by a colleague) was ever passed without qualification by the Council of Ministers or even by the CoReper before that.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, in view of the fact that in answer to his noble friend the Minister said that majority voting could mean technically that we would have to put up with something which we voted against, will the Minister now confirm that it would be much better to do our negotiating now, to get something that is in Britain's interests and only then to sign the social chapter?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a rather strange question. I thought that the party opposite was against the social chapter, but the noble Lord is now urging us to legislate nationally for the items that are in the social chapter—
Lord Clark of Kempston: No!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I find that an extraordinary proposition, coming as it does from that source. The fact of the matter is that it was the noble Lord's government who extended qualified majority voting in the Single European Act—and who did so extensively. Why does the noble Lord omit to recall that salient fact?
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, can the Minister give the House one example of how the signing of the social chapter will create jobs in the United Kingdom or enhance our international competitiveness?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I believe that introducing greater fairness at work is an important element of ensuring greater job creation—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Clinton-Davis: You see, my Lords, I think that the parental leave directive is important in encouraging people to be able to take up work, yet it is something
982
which the noble Lord's government vigorously opposed. I thought that that was morally offensive. Indeed, I also thought that it ran contrary to the interests of British industry. If the works council directive is so offensive, why have 39 British plcs adopted it voluntarily?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that some of the exchanges this afternoon have been strange, given the fact that the British people declared their view of the matter at the last general election?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, but noble Lords opposite are not at home with that decision. They are not prepared to live with it—but they will have to do so.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the welfare of the workforce in this country and creating decent social conditions for them are matters of importance which have been totally neglected by those who have criticised him today?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his support.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when the Minister listens to these exchanges, does he understand better why it has been said that the English have the attitude to sovereignty of a confirmed bachelor nation?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I suppose so.

Plastic Baton Rounds: Use in Northern Ireland
3.37 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the interest of reinforcing the credibility of the "peace process", they will recommend the banning of the use of plastic bullets in Northern Ireland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): No, my Lords. We shall act with the greatest energy and determination to advance the prospects of reaching a comprehensive and widely acceptable settlement in Northern Ireland, but we do not believe that that objective would be served by banning the use of plastic baton rounds. We recognise that the use of baton rounds has given rise to controversy and we look forward to a time when their use is no longer required. In current circumstances, however, where the security forces require the capability to defend lives and property, and to protect themselves in riot situations, baton rounds unfortunately remain necessary.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and congratulate him on his appointment. However, I find the reply disappointing. I suppose that the Minister must know that since the introduction of these missiles 100,000 bullets have been fired and

983
17 people have died as a result, among them eight children. That has had a devastating effect on whole communities, with thousands of people alienated from any talk of a peace process while they are under constant threat from plastic missiles. If we are serious and sincere about attempting to carry the population with us with regard to the peace process, I should have thought that it would be better to recommend a ban on the use of such missiles, particularly before the parade season starts, in order to give the peace process some credibility in the eyes of those affected. I should add that plastic bullets have been available to the police on the mainland for many years but none was used during the riots in Toxteth, Notting Hill, Bristol or Tottenham. The police did not use plastic bullets then, but suddenly their use outside public houses, at football matches, in private homes and at demonstrations is being justified. Will the Minister reconsider his Answer?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, plastic baton rounds have been used in Northern Ireland for many years. I remind my noble friend that they were used only a week or so ago at Harryville to prevent disorder when rioters tried to break into a Catholic church. We have had to use them to maintain the peace and to ensure that safeguards can be applied when lives or properties are at risk. For that reason we must stick with these weapons. I hope that when there is peace in Northern Ireland these weapons will no longer be necessary. In the meantime, unfortunately they are.
Lord Blease: My Lords, does the Minister agree—
Lord Hylton: My Lords, even if it is not possible—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I believe that it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, even if banning these weapons is not possible, can the Minister give an assurance that their use will be kept to a minimum and that the right size and quality of missile will be used?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, there are already strict rules governing the use of plastic baton rounds by the RUC. The use of these rounds is also governed by Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 in that the force used must be reasonable in the circumstances. The police also undergo thorough training before they are able to use these weapons. We are doing all we can to ensure that they are used in the safest possible way.
Lord Blease: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is the considered aim of all peaceable organisations in Northern Ireland to be able to dispense with the use of plastic bullets? Does the Minister also agree that the credibility of the peace process could be more realistically and constructively reinforced if the perpetrators of crowd violence, organised rioting, the burning of churches, property and public transport, and
984
the destruction of homes were to exercise responsibility and control over themselves and those who crowd around them?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, if there were no disorder on the streets plastic baton rounds would not have to be used.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, recently not only did the RUC battle for four hours to prevent a Catholic church from being burnt down but also a policeman was kicked to death for doing his duty and trying to separate participants on a march demonstration. Is this the climate in which we should contemplate the removal of support from the RUC? Is the Minister able to give the House an indication of the number of members of the RUC who have been injured in recent years compared with the number of those injured by plastic baton rounds?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, it is difficult to give absolutely precise figures but I shall do my best to inform the House. It is estimated that some 100 people may have been injured over the past three years by plastic baton rounds. Last year alone over 400 RUC officers were injured in dealing with disorders. In one week alone between 7th and 15th July 230 officers were injured, some seriously, in trying to maintain peace on the streets.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will my noble friend consider seeking a worldwide ban on the use of this horrendous weapon? When one sees what has happened to human beings who have been hit by these bullets one wonders in what kind of world we live. In a way, it is even more terrible than the threat of any bomb. I should like my country to initiate a total world prohibition on the use of this particular bullet.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I fear that if in the present situation in Northern Ireland the security services were not in certain circumstances able to use these weapons there might be more injuries both to members of the security services and to rioters. None of us likes this weapon, but in the circumstances it is less unpleasant than any alternative currently available. If there were a better alternative available the Government would very quickly adopt it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that, regrettable though the necessity of using these weapons may be, the intervention of the last noble Lord sounded more like a comment on landmines than plastic bullets? Does the noble Lord agree that this House should not accept that as a description of their effect?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I said earlier that the training of the police was such that everything was done to minimise serious injury to those who might be hit by plastic baton rounds. That is the way in which they are intended to be used, and the police are well trained.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the recent report from Northern Ireland about a batch

985
of plastic bullets found to be flawed and allegedly ill made and far more damaging and dangerous than those normally used? What are the implications of that finding and the report from the police in Northern Ireland?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, only a few days ago there appeared in Hansard an Answer to a Parliamentary Written Question on this very subject. There have been some problems with plastic baton rounds which have not been up to the required standard. When the RUC spotted this in March of this year they immediately drew attention to the fact and the rounds were withdrawn in April—very quickly indeed. Although there were some defects in the plastic baton rounds which were used in the two years following 1994 there is no hard and fast evidence that they caused injury, or any injury greater than that which might have been caused by ordinary plastic baton rounds. Certainly, that point is still under investigation.

EMU: Stability Pact
3.46 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the stability pact for the European single currency.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I compliment the noble Lord on the topicality of his Question, which is on the front page of most of the newspapers this morning. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that it is unlikely that Britain will be in the first wave of membership of EMU. However, it is in everyone's interests, including ours, that EMU is built on a firm basis and that it succeeds. The stability pact is designed to promote sound public finances. The Government believe that sound public finances are necessary to provide a stable economic environment and the foundations for high and sustainable levels of growth and employment. The Government have set their economic policies on this course to achieve these objectives.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply and for his recognition of the topicality of the Question—which is what it is supposed to be. I am sorry that the Minister who is in charge of these matters at the Treasury, the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, has once again not come to the Dispatch Box to deal with these matters. Can I take it from the Answer given by the noble Lord that next week in Amsterdam his right honourable friend the Prime Minister will not support his fellow socialist M. Jospin, the Prime Minister of France, who wants consideration of the stability pact deferred so that the French Government can study it? Further, will his right honourable friend not be supporting M. Jospin in his desire to place less emphasis on an independent central bank and more on elected politicians?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am answering for the Government this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Simon will be here whenever he is required to be here. As to
986
M. Jospin, it is not for me to comment on the position of other governments. The French have asked for time to allow their new government to consider these issues, which I believe to be a reasonable request. I am afraid that I am unable to speculate on what will happen next week. The Prime Minister will need to take a view on the proposals placed before him at the Amsterdam European Council and decide what is best in Britain's interests.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, recognising that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, does not yet know for whom he speaks, does my noble friend accept that there is need for stability within a monetary union? Therefore, is it not necessary for any country that seeks to join to have clear and sustainable convergence, even if it means that France and Germany are not able to join an economic and monetary union?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend. What is essential for the success of EMU is genuine convergence among the economies taking part. Any decision about Britain joining must be determined by a hard-headed assessment of Britain's economic interests. We have set out five economic tests: looking at the likely impact of EMU on investment, financial services, business cycles, keeping the flexibility to respond to any problems that might arise, and, what is vital, the effect of EMU on employment.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, will the Minister advise the Government, in approaching the criteria under the Maastricht Treaty and the rules under the stability pact, not to lose sight of their essential purpose, for which they are only an aid, which is to ensure that only those who can sustain a low rate of inflation can be feasible members of monetary union? I hope that the Government will not be hung up on the strict letter of the criteria and will not lose sight of the wood for the trees?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we shall not lose sight of the wood for the trees. The full title of the pact is the stability and growth pact. Stability is only part of EMU. We are equally concerned about its other aspects: employment, growth and investment. When we are satisfied with the entire package we shall make our decision.

Business
3.51 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, following the debate on Community railway strategy, my noble friend Lord Donoughue will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a PNQ in another place on the rejection of proposals to relax the ban on UK beef exports. I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should not exceed 20 minutes from the end of the Minister's initial reply to the Opposition spokesmen and that contributions to the discussion should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification.

Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords be named as members of the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL):
L. Boston of Faversham,
L. Chesham,
L. Thomson of Monifieth.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection the following Lords he appointed to serve as members of the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST):
L. Flowers,
L. Phillips of Ellesmere,
L. Renfrew of Kaimsthorn.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Science and Technology: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so perhaps I may say that your Lordships might be relieved and I hope comforted to know that this afternoon completes the series of sessional Motions which I find it my duty to impose upon your Lordships from time to time. I hope that noble Lords' smiles are not over-optimistically enthusiastic, because I cannot promise not to bring other Motions before your Lordships during the Session.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank the usual channels and the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers for the considerable amount of effort they put into the preparation of the names and other matters placed before your Lordships. The usual channels and the Convenor are sometimes not thanked sufficiently. I should like to take the opportunity to do so.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Baroness Platt of Writtle be appointed a member of the Select Committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Railway Strategy: ECC Report
3.54 p.m.
Lord Geddes Lord Geddes rose to move, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Community railway strategy (7th Report, Session 1996–97, HL Paper 46).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before outlining the basis of our report and the conclusions that the committee reached, perhaps I may congratulate the Minister most sincerely on her appointment. The noble Baroness brings with her a wealth of knowledge and experience of transport matters. It is an area in which too, take a great interest, and doubtless we shall be looking at each other across the Floor of the House on many occasions. I congratulate her.
I thank also most sincerely—it is traditional to do so on these occasions, but I do it with great sincerity—the technical adviser who assisted Sub-Committee B, Professor Andrew Evans of the University of London Centre for Transport Studies, our Clerk. Doctor Andrew Mylne, and his secretary, Jane Sanders, for the tremendous amount of work they put in during our discussions and in compiling the report. Finally, I thank my colleagues on Sub-Committee B. This was the first occasion upon which I had had the honour of chairing the committee, although I had been a member of it for some years. Without their support, I could not have got through this report. I thank them.
The report is based upon the Commission's White Paper published in July 1996 with the principal aim to introduce market forces to the rail sector and to allow rail to compete more effectively with other transport modes. The measures within the White Paper included greater financial transparency and relief of what is described as historic debt; the separation of infrastructure management from operations; the greater integration of national systems; the promotion of—I confess I hate this word—inter-operability; and the establishment of rail freight freeways to encourage the movement of freight from road to rail.
The rail sector within the EU remains largely state-controlled and organised on a national basis. Railways are widely regarded as national assets and as providing a public service as well as a commercial one. The White Paper upon which our report was based attempts to balance the benefits of a more commercial approach with protection for the public service element. Thus it proposes open access for freight and international passenger services only, but not for all domestic passenger services, which are dependent upon subsidy.
Although the key areas in the White Paper are not new—indeed the committee reported on similar proposals in 1990—they have been taken up enthusiastically by Commissioner Kinnock. In evidence to the committee, for which the committee was extremely grateful, Mr. Kinnock spoke passionately about the need for change if rail is to survive as a major transport mode.
As will be seen from our report, the committee took evidence from, among others, Mr. Kinnock and Commission officials; John Watts MP, then Minister for railways and roads; Mr. John Swift QC, the Rail Regulator; Railtrack; SNCF and the Community of European Railways; Mr. Jimmy Knapp of the RMT; and from—I apologise for the mouthful that is coming up—English, Welsh and Scottish Railway on the freight side and the Great North Eastern Railway on the passenger side.
The committee recognised that the UK rail sector is considerably ahead of the railways of most other member states in terms of liberalisation. Only Sweden has also separated infrastructure and operations, although in its case with one national operator. So the Commission's proposals will have a much greater impact, if implemented, outside the UK than inside it. However, UK witnesses were interested, particularly the freight operators, who were looking for better access to other networks.
The report does not consider the merits of rail privatisation. The Commission does not, and indeed cannot, advocate privatisation in any case. But it is notable that the previous Government linked their support for much of the White Paper proposals to their advocacy of privatisation. When the Minister replies, will she explain Her Majesty's Government's attitude in that context, and to what extent she expects it to differ from that of the previous Government?
The committee agreed with the case for change and supported much in the White Paper, although, as we said, we realised that it would require a concerted political will to achieve such change. Indeed, it might take as much as a generation to do so. We supported the introduction of market forces, but emphasised that rail will continue to rely on public subsidy for passenger services. Therefore, we considered it essential to introduce transparency to ensure that the area where rail operates more commercially is clearly distinguished from the area which is funded by the taxpayers. Where services are uneconomic, the state should offer exclusive concessions to particular operators. However, those concessions should be open initially to competitive tender, including from companies in other member states.
The committee disagreed with the Commission on the Commission's advocacy of separation of infrastructure and operations. Indeed, financial separation is already required under an earlier Community directive. We were of the opinion—and I emphasise that word—that such separation of infrastructure and operations was not necessary per se. It might be desirable; it might not be desirable. But it did not have to take place provided that there was financial transparency and everyone could see exactly what was happening.
Our conclusion was contested perhaps by my noble friend in person, but certainly by the previous Government. I should be interested to know from the Minister the view of the present Government in this context. Our report very strongly advocates a Community regulatory authority. The White Paper proposed an agency, but we went further than that and
990
stated that if there was to be any hope of achieving inter-operability—of achieving a proper exchange within the European Community on railways—there had to be a regulatory authority which had the ability and strength to knock heads together. Without that—I was going to use slightly stronger language, which within the Chamber I shall moderate—we did not see how such integration and inter-operability could conceivably take place.
Again, I suggest that the previous Government were lukewarm on our advocacy of a regulatory authority. They suggested that a European-wide regulator should be established only if existing powers were shown to he inadequate. Will the Minister comment on that and say to what extent this Government's views vary from those of their predecessors?
The second area where we disagreed with the previous Government was with regard to the uniform cut-off date for defining "historic debt". The White Paper advocated a specific date of 1st January 1993. The committee was highly sceptical about that, given that some member states have run up huge debts by buying expensive new rolling stock, while Britain, for instance, had very little debt because of lower investment. A uniform cut-off would give an unfair advantage in a single market to those who had bought high, bought recently and had more modern stock. The previous Government disagreed, saying that a case-by-case approach would be too slow and would benefit those member states whose cases were considered first. Will the Minister comment on that?
Much of the White Paper dealt with freight issues. I strongly suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will concentrate on that issue. The Commission was keen to see early progress on getting more international freight onto rail. Our committee was impressed by this approach and the imaginative proposal for rail freight freeways. It is ridiculous that long distance freight takes so long. Within the European Union, rail freight travels at an average speed of 10 m.p.h. Of course, when it is moving it is faster than that, but statistically that is the speed at which it travels from point A to point B. We particularly welcomed the pragmatic approach of encouraging railway companies to set up freeways on a voluntary basis rather than proceeding by legislation. Can the Minister say what progress is being made and to what extent, and how, the present Government are supporting the initiative?
As regards integration and inter-operability, there are formidable practical obstacles in moving towards an integrated European rail network. The most obvious are the physical factors, such as differences in the gauge of the track or the electric voltage. There are also operational obstacles such as the recognition of train crew qualifications and border formalities. Because rolling stock specification varies from country to country, train operators cannot benefit from a single market when buying new stock. UK freight operators found the restricted British loading gauge a disadvantage. But they are also disadvantaged vis-à-vis road by being held up for hours at a time at frontiers. The report calls for a pragmatic, case-by-case approach. concentrating on ways to make different

991
systems work together rather than imposing a single uniform system at a high cost. Will the Minister advise us of the progress that has been made or that she expects to be made in that context?
Our report also calls for harmonisation in the area of safety appraisal, with oversight by an independent, Community-wide body. Obviously safety is a very important issue, but there is a danger that rail is disadvantaged in the competition with road by safety standards much higher than those applicable in the road sector. We did not want to diminish the importance of safety, but we were of the opinion that sometimes the requirements went more than a little over the top. The challenge is to make rail more competitive without lowering safety standards.
As regards employment, we recognise that restructuring European railways will inevitably involve significant job losses. But we also recognise the greater danger of a continuing decline of the sector if the nettle is not grasped. Mr. Kinnock, in evidence to the Transport Committee of another place, made a most interesting remark. He stated:
"The choice now is between the lingering demise of rail, which will be cataclysmic for the number of jobs involved, and the possibility of progress through change".
We endorse that comment most strongly. We agreed that jobs were best protected by restructuring and we supported the use of the Community Social Fund to mitigate the impact on workers. Again, I am sorry to say that the previous Government were not at all keen on that, stating that it could let off the hook the member states which had not provided for their own rail employees. Will the Minister comment on that?
The Deputy Prime Minister recently announced the development of an integrated transport policy for the UK. Does the Minister see Labour's plans for rail in Britain as consistent with the Commission's thinking, as developed by a former Labour leader?
In summary, the report was on the Commission's White Paper. It was only that; and we described it as a fairly "green" White Paper. The next stage must be towards specific proposals. The committee hopes that Her Majesty's Government are committed to making this a priority for the UK presidency in the first half of 1998. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Community Railway Strategy (7th Report, Session 1996–97, HL Paper 46).—(Lord Geddes.)
4.8 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, as a comparatively new member of the committee, I wish to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, on his wise and business-like chairing of the committee, interspersed with much good humour, and on his excellent summary of the sub-committee's report. Perhaps I may first declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. As the noble Lord suggested, today I shall concentrate mainly on freight.
992
It is interesting to reflect that the committee began hearing evidence nine months ago. Since then, we have had a change of government. However, it will also be interesting to see how much change there has been in the intervening period in the attitude to the report of the railways of other member states and how they intend to implement it. I shall return to that matter later. I certainly welcome not only the White Paper but also the committee's report as major contributions to creating competitiveness on the railways and to helping to solve the congestion problem of congestion on the roads in an environmentally friendly manner.
I should like to look at the history of some of the railways, to some extent in this country but mainly on the Continent. It is true that they were probably built as a symbol of the state carrying out its duty to transport freight and passengers and to generate economic movement around the country. As the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said, there has been enormous investment—the TGV in France and the ICE in Germany. But that has been done on extremely nationalistic lines with very poor or under-used cross-frontier arrangements for both passengers and freight. The UK has invested less and probably closed more lines. The whole of Europe has spent the past 20 years building roads. The railways have ended up with enormous debts while there is virtually no debt in respect of roads. The road network throughout Europe is becoming clogged up. There is an inflexible rail system with appalling links between many member states. That is what has driven the Commission to issue the White Paper.
Where are we now in terms of freight? Continental railways carry a much higher proportion of freight, measured in tonnes per kilometre, than we do in this country. It is something like 15 per cent. in France, 21 per cent. in Germany and 6 per cent. in this country. We are in a situation now where money has run out, for whatever reason, for the building of roads and money has run out also for the building of railways. Therefore, it is good that the White Paper sets out a framework within which the railways should be restructured; and it is not a prescriptive framework. The challenge must be to create an environment in which the railways can achieve the growth which we all want in the market place on a basis of a level playing field with other modes of transport.
I wish to discuss two points in particular in the committee's report: one is rail freight freeways; and the other is to add something to what the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said about technical inter-operability and safety.
In a personal capacity with the Rail Freight Group, I am involved in the development of a rail freight freeway from London to Hungary—a place called Sopron. Perhaps I may share some of the challenges we face and the progress we are making in that regard. What has emerged is that there is very little connection between the passenger service and the freight service. They have different needs and customers. They meet on the track usually only when they are getting in the way

993
of each other. Therefore, there will always be a debate as to who wins and who has priority. That is one of the challenges that we must address.
Of course, in the UK, the railways are privatised. There are four operators of rail freight in this country. EWS is the largest but there are also Freightliner, which concentrates on containers, and two others. They provide a transport service to the end user which includes rail. In the industry there are also terminal providers, providers of road freight to the terminals, wagon and equipment providers, road haulage connections and so on. It is a long logistical chain. It is not just a question of rail versus road. It is very important to remember that.
On the Continent, there are privately owned and state owned trains but the state railways usually provide the traction and the drivers. As the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said, the average speed is quite abysmal. Freight is given a fairly low priority on many routes. That may be because of lack of drivers, timetabling or frontier controls. It is interesting that the timetabling between member states is often non-existent. Sometimes it takes about six months to get a new train running between member states. The first rail freight freeway from Rotterdam to Milan has easily found a path for half a dozen more trains per day in each direction simply because people have started to talk to each other. There have been no new lines. There has been merely an exchange of ideas and the working out of priorities.
TERFF—which is a terrible acronym for Trans Europe Rail Freight Freeways—is not seeking new lines but more efficient use of existing ones and the removal of bureaucracy which is holding up growth. That is terribly important. It seeks to create new rail freight flows which can compete with roads in terms of time, price, reliability and customer service. It seeks to do that by creating a new flow or by increasing an existing one. For example, 40 per cent. of the traffic from UK to Italy goes by rail while none of the traffic from UK to Germany goes by rail. I shall return to that point.
For me, the ultimate objective is a train that goes from London to Hungary non-stop, with two drivers, a bunk and cooking and toilet facilities. The train may be diesel or it may be electric. That is how we shall compete, and that could be achieved.
The sub-committee welcomed the freight freeways. SNCF expressed concern but since it gave evidence I believe that its attitude has modified. It cannot call it a freeway but it calls it a freightway. It is quite happy to participate so long as it provides the locomotives and drivers, perhaps on a subcontractual basis. That is a beginning.
There is also progress from the Community of European Railways, which is a grouping of all the European railways. It has produced a report, which it sent to Mr. Neil Kinnock last month. That is very positive and all the railways to which I have referred signed up. That is a good basis for moving forward.
How are we to achieve those freeways? What are the pitfalls? First, if an operator wishes to send a train, he should be able to get an answer to the question of whether there is a train path, how much it will cost and
994
how long it will take within 24 hours. As I have said, it sometimes takes several months. In fact, this morning I heard that one such request to Germany took six months. That must change. Timetables must exist for the train to follow, with connections. Frontier controls must change. We must remove the delay involved in collecting the tail lights from the back of trains. There are a great many frontier controls and immigration controls in relation to the drivers. There are custom controls, especially in this country. There is a change of locomotive at every change of voltage. We must be able to make improvements in that regard. This country is one of the worst offenders.
Costs are the biggest problem. If we add up the infrastructure costs all the way from London to Hungary we shall probably find, as we may do in the autumn, that the costs, to which must be added traction and rolling stock costs, make rail totally uncompetitive with road. That is because each member state has a different means of charging. In Holland, there will be no charge for freight trains for another few years. In Germany, there is a price list and if you ask the Germans to negotiate they say, "No, that is the price and we are sticking to it. We shall not discuss it". As I have said previously, charges for using the Channel Tunnel are higher for rail freight than for road freight. There is an historic reason for that and I do not blame anyone, but in the next few months perhaps the Minister will find time to address that issue. It is a very complicated problem. But the fact remains that for the end customer it is three times more expensive to take a rail container through the tunnel than it is a road container. I suggest that that is hardly in line with the present Government's policies.
The operators are also putting together a market study to see how much traffic there will be. There are other freight freeways between Rotterdam and Milan and between Germany and Barcelona. The railways are very enthusiastic about it but it needs governments and the European institutions to provide support and pressure on member states to accept the freeways, market pricing and some priorities. That is a beginning but we have a long way to go.
I turn briefly to the interoperability and safety issues. The sub-committee noted the very different systems to which the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, referred. Paragraph 97 of the report mentions the problem of frontier procedures and the need to harmonise standards. I was particularly struck by the previous Government's response to that where they say that,
"technical and administrative provision must be subject to cost/benefit and only laid down to the extent necessary".
In a recent conference speech, Richard Hope, who is a well-known railway journalist and former adviser to the Select Committee on Transport in another place. quoted Roger Freeman, the former Minister for Public Transport, in 1990 saying that,
"on the roads you actually measure the safety benefits in cash terms: on railways, if technology is available to improve safety, it should be done".
I hope that my noble friend the Minister can reassure us that some of this will change. If the railways are really to compete on a level playing field with road, we

995
need safety; but we also need affordable safety, otherwise they will close down. For example, with South West Trains, half the problem was that the drivers were learning the routes and took several weeks to do so. However, there are 32 million car drivers who do not even have to learn any road routes before they go anywhere.
I should like to conclude on the complexity of the matter. I believe that it is illustrated most effectively by the European night sleeper services which have not yet started through the Channel Tunnel and are owned by four railway companies. Each railway specified its wish list. It is now so expensive to operate that, even with the several hundred million pounds' worth of government money that went into the project, it is unlikely to enter service at all. That is a scandalous waste of public money. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to inform your Lordships as to what might be the future of that project. Even if it is written off, I should like to see those trains run rather than sitting in a siding as they are at present.
I believe that the report has been a most useful exercise. I strongly welcome the policy of the new Government towards public transport and towards Europe and its partner member states. I also welcome the constructive attitude to European matters, offering advice, leadership and, occasionally, a little humility. That also applies to railways. I look forward to hearing my noble friend's reply.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, I feel somewhat daunted following the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, with his extensive practical experience. I am only an amateur in the business. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, for introducing the debate on the report on European Community railway strategy. I congratulate him on his very able chairmanship of our committee. I have just a few points to make.
The evidence presented to the committee showed European railways to be in a very critical state with a steadily declining share of the market, especially in freight. Drastic steps such as those proposed in the strategy will be required to revitalise the railways before they suffer a fatal decline. I am in complete agreement with the policy of support for rail transport. I am appalled at the destruction of our environment by heavy goods vehicles while railway lines, which could be used for much of the bulk mineral traffic carried in these vehicles, lie idle. I suspect that the situation elsewhere in Europe is similar to that which pertains in Derbyshire with which I am particularly familiar. I know of at least three railway lines in Derbyshire lying idle and rusting. All the traffic is on the road.
The short distance of some 60 kilometres travelled by the average load in the United Kingdom probably limits the scope of what can be done, except in the case of trainload freight. Hence we must support the programme of rail freight freeways which are beginning to become a reality in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. I understand that the longest of
996
these is from the North Sea ports to Moscow—a distance of some 1,400 miles—with a break of gauge at the Russian border.
Both the strategy and our report comment on the harmonisation of Community railway systems. A number of major problems make this impractical and unlikely to be cost effective, as already mentioned. One problem with all European through rail routes is the diverse nature of the traction supply on electrified tracks. The capacity to accept four or five systems of electrical power may be required on international routes; this leads to great complexity. It is not cost effective to convert a complete railway system to the standard of 25,000 volts at 50 hertz, which is the preferred methodology nowadays. We have done it in the UK. The London, Tilbury and Southend line was converted from a DC (direct current) system to an alternating current. But that is a very small item compared, for example, with converting the whole of Austria with its unusual frequency and voltage.
International traffic to and from the UK is limited by our loading gauge being substantially smaller than that in Europe. We do not even have a common European track gauge. Spain uses a broad gauge track which requires the axles of rolling stock to be changed at border stations. All that is compounded by the delays of Customs and driver checks which result in rail freight taking twice as long as that carried in a lorry to travel from the UK to Italy. Rail freight freeways should go some way towards restoring the balance, providing that the cost can be met as described by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.
The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, outlined the separation of infrastructure from operations. I am not convinced of the necessity for this. Prior to the formation of British Rail in 1948, the railway companies used each other's lines with legally enforced running powers and were able to invest in infrastructure to meet their traffic needs. Examples were the extensive quadrupling of mainlines to accommodate both freight and passenger traffic without interference of one with the other, and the avoiding lines built by the Great Western Railway to speed up passenger traffic by avoiding certain stations. That took place both on West Country lines and in South Wales. It is a type of investment we do not see at present. It is, however, what is needed on the West Coast mainline and in the strategy for Europe. It is essential that pinch points which interfere with the interaction of passenger and freight traffic are examined and adequate investment provided to overcome the problem.
I am not impressed by aspects of competition between UK train operating companies. The matter is perhaps a little wide of our report. As one of our witnesses said, the real competition is not between rail companies but between road and rail. Yet the Community rail strategy is to be modelled largely upon what we have done in this country. We are apparently ahead of the field. I do not believe that we have enough experience to be clear about the advantages and disadvantages of our approach. To date, we have seen Railtrack's under investment in infrastructure and the appalling performance of South West Trains this spring. The

997
general reduction in manpower, already evident since privatisation in the UK, will be repeated all over Europe, and especially in France.
One paramount essential is safety. The safety record of British railways has been built up over the past 150 years and is second to none. I believe that the road traffic record in no way approaches the same standards, and that it cannot do so due to the inherent differences between the two modes of transport. Those standards must be maintained in the proposed strategy while remaining cost justifiable. I hope that I do not sound too pessimistic. I am a keen supporter of railways from environmental and social points of view. I trust that we can still revitalise the European Community railways and I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.
4.27 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness on her appointment to this post. I recall, appropriately, that I first met the noble Baroness on a railway station when she was a very young worker for Shelter and I had inveigled her to address the massed divisions of senior boys at Eton—a far more intimidating task, I believe, than any she will ever face in this Chamber. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, on the work of the Select Committee.
I should like to give a warm welcome to the Commission's White Paper and to the careful and thorough work undertaken by the Select Committee. The question of developing a European railway strategy needs urgent attention. Indeed, there is a reference on page 9 of the House of Lords paper to the statement of Commissioner Kinnock that,
"the survival of rail is at stake",
that it may face a "lingering demise" unless vigorous and co-ordinated action is taken. That may sound somewhat alarmist, even apocalyptic—and, indeed, not altogether convincing—in the light of the enormous sums being invested by most European railway administrations, but there is certainly no room for complacency.
Members of your Lordships' House may wonder why someone from these Benches is taking part in today's debate. It is a highly technical debate and one about which most bishops might not be expected to know very much. I do, indeed, speak with the greatest diffidence. I do so because I have a particular personal interest in the subject—an entirely amateur interest; but, more importantly, because I believe that transport strategy should be driven by a clear ethical imperative; namely, the protection of the environment, in the widest possible sense of the word, from the ever-increasing impact of road traffic. I believe it to be the case that both the Commission's White Paper and the Select Committee's report underestimate the potential for transfer of traffic from road to rail.
I hope that I may for a moment be parochial and anecdotal. Last Saturday I was invited to launch in Hereford the local Agenda 21 action programme agreed by five existing local authorities and one shadow unitary authority under the sharp and arresting title of
998
WHAM?—What Happens After Me? It was a serious attempt to pick up the Agenda 21 issues which emerged from the Rio Conference five years ago and to put in place practical policies for environmental protection at every level, encouraging vigorous action by everyone from the largest commercial and industrial firms to the individual citizen.
The relevance of that local initiative to today's debate lies in the answers given by participants to the question about what they most disliked at present about living in Herefordshire. There were lots of things they liked but the thing they overwhelmingly disliked the most was the relentless increase in road traffic, both lorries and cars. Those answers reveal one aspect of what I believe is a rapidly rising sense of frustration, impatience and even anger at the dominance of the road culture.
I am saddened to see the relatively scant attention paid in the Select Committee report to environmental issues, summed up in two rather discouraging paragraphs on page 12. I believe we need to do much better than that. There are specific ways in which government action could make a decisive difference to the relative volumes of freight traffic conveyed by road and by rail.
In particular, I welcome the point well made by the Rail Freight Group about the need to impose the full costs of road use on road hauliers so that there is a more nearly level playing field in which rail can compete with road. That is dealt with at question 8 on page 2 of the Minutes of Evidence which points out that not only do Vehicle Excise Duty and road tax not cover such costs as policing and dealing with accidents, but they wholly ignore the costs of environmental damage caused by heavy road traffic. That seems to me to be the first priority for government action.
The second is seemingly a much more minor matter but I believe it is also important. It requires a brief resume of the recent history of rail freight operations in this country. Twenty years ago British Rail had a monolithic freight operation, not notable for dynamic or imaginative management. It was the dinosaur, if you like, of the transport industry. In the 1980s there came about a change which was described by the unlovely word "sectorisation" in which the haulage of different commodities was placed under separate management: coal, steel, roadstone, petrochemicals and so on. The emphasis was strongly on block trains of the same commodity. Some Members of your Lordships' House may remember freight locomotives carrying quaint pictograms indicating the traffic they were supposed to be hauling, for example black diamonds indicated coal.
Alongside the block trains, the rail freight operators' pride and joy were two other forms of rail freight: Speedlink for wagonload traffic, small consignments, and Freightliner—which has already been mentioned—for inter-modal traffic. Containers which arrived by sea or by lorry at a Freightliner terminal were transhipped onto a Freightliner block train and then transhipped again at the other end. It was fine for some long runs and for traffic in containers but it was not widely usable by most manufacturers and distributors for most of their journeys. Those people needed Speedlink, but Speedlink came to a sticky end after losing much money.

999
In the run-up to privatisation came further reorganisation. There was Loadhaul, Mainline, Transrail, Rail Express Services, Rail Freight Distribution and so on. The process was not exactly calculated to encourage good management or vigorous marketing. In the end, in February last year, ownership of most of these operations passed, as we have heard, to the American company, Wisconsin Central, now renamed English, Welsh and Scottish Railway (EWS) whose evidence was central to the Select Committee's work. This year EWS also acquired Rail Freight Distribution, the international arm of rail freight, operating conventional and inter-modal traffic through the Channel Tunnel, our vital link into the European rail system.
I think that many people held their breath and wondered what this American company would do. It claimed that it would triple rail's share of freight in Britain from the pitiful 6 per cent. we have already heard mentioned this afternoon. Many people were incredulous. However, the signs so far are extremely encouraging. I hope I may identify four things which seem to me to be grounds for hope and encouragement. The first is the revolution in managerial attitudes displayed by EWS—its focus on the customer, and the energetic and imaginative marketing of rail freight. I hold no brief for the company but I admire what has already been achieved and what the company's chairman. Mr. Ed Burkhardt, aims to do. A propos the EWS acquisition of Rail Freight Distribution—which happened after the Select Committee took evidence—which took place despite the fact that RFD was losing £1 million a week, Mr. Burkhardt said:
"It is a can of worms, and EWS is either daft or incredibly brave in attempting its rescue. But we believe that properly operated international freight services can tap into a huge market where today's rail share is minuscule. I would like to see the railways treating their customers in a kinder. gentler manner".
Those are the words of a hard-nosed American entrepreneur! He continued:
"This is not rocket science. We just have to provide dependable services with fast schedules. and be convenient to use".
In the same speech at the Euromodal conference in Paris in March of this year he said:
"We have met our European partners. They recognise that the railway culture must change towards a higher level of customer orientation. I think it is our role to hasten reform on a collaborative basis".
That statement picks up a great deal that was said to the Select Committee—some of it said rather anxiously—about co-operation with European partners. Therefore the first positive point is that we need much better management and an attitude of total commitment to expanding rail freight in the UK and in mainland Europe.
The second point is that we need confident investment in the rail freight business. EWS has just ordered 250 new locomotives—which are sadly to be built in Canada. although in London, Ontario—and it plans to set up a wagon manufacturing business in Britain turning out 500 new wagons a year. That does not sound to me like an industry in terminal decline.
1000
The third point brings me back, after this historical digression, to the second area where I believe government action is needed. It relates to wagonload traffic. Despite the earlier collapse of Speedlink, there were still railway managers who believed in wagonload traffic. It was greatly to the credit of the short-lived Transrail company that it reintroduced a wagonload system called Enterprise. This now has 250 terminals served daily. They are not massive installations like Freightliner terminals but for the most part modest sidings. EWS is admirably fitted to build on that business. Some 80 per cent. of Wisconsin Central's freight business in the USA consists of wagonload traffic. That is an incredible figure in European terms, but it explains, at least in part, why EWS is so confident of vastly increasing the share taken by this Cinderella of rail freight. I beg to differ with the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, about that. I believe that there is a future in wagonload traffic, not just in block trains.
The importance of all this is that the rail freight business will really make an impact on road traffic at the wagonload level as regards supermarket deliveries and small factories' output which at present travel exclusively by road—the traffic that so irritates the people of Herefordshire. However, the terminals must be in place. The connections with rail must be in place. There was, and still is, a provision called Section 8 grants, which help greatly with the cost of connecting business premises to the rail network. That system functioned well when Speedlink was operating but of course it was no use when the wagonload facility was withdrawn. It is referred to at question 2 in the Minutes of Evidence where Julia Clarke states:
"we have a system of support for freight through freight facilities grants and track access grants, and we certainly do not want to see that ruled out because of European legislation".
Indeed we do not. In fact we want much more positive encouragement of such grants so that the potential for transfer from road to rail is enormously increased. The environmental argument in favour of this policy is, I believe, overwhelmingly convincing.
Fourthly, and finally, another most welcome development since the Select Committee took its evidence, and another key to a major expansion of rail freight traffic, has been the negotiation of a track access agreement between EWS and Railtrack, giving a fixed annual charge for track access over the next five years. No longer will the complicated and discouraging process explained at question 61 be a deterrent for rail freight operation.
The environmental imperative is of great importance. I hope and believe that the Minister will be able to respond encouragingly on the two matters I have identified as requiring government action: first, the accurate measurement and charging of the environmental and other at present unquantified costs to road transport and the creation of a more equitable basis for competition between road and rail; and, secondly, the active encouragement of wagonload, or less-than-block train, traffic by offering further help in making rail accessible to manufacturers and distributors.

1001
There is much else I could say. Yes, we need a European regulatory agency. We should certainly not have a uniform cut-off point for debt. Yes, we want rail freight freeways, and so on. But I have already trespassed far too long on your Lordships' time—far longer than any amateur has a right to do.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Cadman: My Lords, I feel that we should congratulate my noble friend Lord Geddes and his committee on producing this most interesting report. It is most encouraging also that the European Commission under the direction of its transport Commissioner Mr. Neil Kinnock seems to have realised that rail has a part to play in the transport needs of the Community. Indeed, one may even suspect that a degree of urgency has crept into its deliberations over the need to take some action to alleviate problems associated with the burgeoning road vehicle population and its effect on the well-being of Community transport.
Many of us, indeed the vast majority, value the independence that motoring gives us. We seem to be quite prepared to put up with the inconvenience caused by the presence of so-called juggernauts. A trip around the M.25 is a good demonstration. One would do well to remember that this independence transcends equally to the commercial world. Many, if not all, those trucks are owned by firms engaged in providing a service to their customers by transporting goods, largely using their own staff, on roads provided and maintained using public money at little cost to themselves.
The railway also acts as a transport contractor. However, it has to provide its own infrastructure and this imposes on it a considerable financial burden. Since most EU railway administrations are government owned, governments find themselves not only having to provide very expensive roads but railways as well. Noble Lords can well imagine that there are problems with treasuries.
The real role of governments, aided by the European Commission, is to provide a framework to enable goods and passengers to move about the area as efficiently as possible having regard to environmental consequences. Some form of integration is obviously necessary. That is why I believe we should look at least positively at the new Government's proposed efforts in that direction.
The report's conclusions and the European Commission White Paper point in the direction of a considerable increase in the use of rail in the long term. That, given the environmental advantages of rail, is most encouraging. The problem seems to be in achieving the policy. I suggest that the privatisation models, as proposed and introduced in this country and in Sweden, could go a long way towards success, although it is too early to say which method is best.
There has been much new investment recently in infrastructure, including the Channel Tunnel, the Storaebelt, the soon to be completed Oresund crossings between Denmark and Sweden, French and German high speed lines, and eventually our own Channel Tunnel rail link. Much of that improvement is directed
1002
at passenger traffic but one can draw attention to the two great water crossings as being of particular benefit to freight flows.
The recommendation to establish freight freeways is a most welcome step. It will be interesting to see how the various railway administrations measure up to the task. It is encouraging to note that in this country Railtrack is actively pursuing the establishment of just such a freight route linking Scotland with the Channel Tunnel. That should do much to encourage the transfer of long distance freight to rail to the benefit of users of the motorway system. The response of the SNCF to that initiative is disappointing to say the least. I suppose it is hardly surprising given the present political situation in France. but let us hope that French railway affairs progress in the future as well as they have in the past.
Governments seem prepared to look after their agriculture lobby to an extraordinary extent. We have the common agricultural policy. I like to think that one of the main reasons is to have the land and countryside adequately farmed and managed. Can noble Lords imagine what it would be like if large areas were left unfarmed? Can noble Lords also imagine what it would be like on the motorway network if the railway systems were to become unavailable? Their continued availability and development is, I suggest. almost a social necessity given the fact that everyone wants to be able to have total mobility in their cars.
I give a rather bizarre example. Many noble Lords are familiar with the Austrian Alps and the fact that the agriculture of that region is heavily livestock based. Indeed, it is the activities of the Alpine farmers which allow many of us to indulge in winter sports. Many of the farmers use straw which has to be delivered from other parts of Austria. Much is still delivered by rail in vans for collection from the local station by farmers in their tractors. As noble Lords can imagine, one cannot get much straw into a railway van even if it is the rather more generously proportioned European model. Coupled with the fact that some of the traffic has to be delivered along narrow gauge tracks, the operation must be extremely expensive. The benefit of not having that agriculture traffic on the somewhat restricted Alpine road network is obviously worth the considerable subsidy involved.
To revert to the freight freeway issue, so ably spoken about by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, from the Benches opposite, much freight traffic is at this moment sent along routes that avoid areas congested by passenger traffic. Unfortunately, there has always been a conflict of interest here regarding higher weights and lower speeds. It is interesting that in Poland there exists just such a dedicated freight route. However, a little closer to home, the use by the Germans of separate lines on each side of the Rhine for freight and passenger traffic is a good example. In effect, they have a four track railway which is a somewhat unusual luxury in Europe. Together with all the river traffic, it makes an interesting spectacle.
A recent visit to north Italy showed that the Italians, who are well into intermodal traffic, are sending an appreciable number of trains along an exceedingly

1003
secondary-looking railway on the eastern side of Lake Maggiore. By doing so, trains from the Milan area passing north through Switzerland are able to avoid the congestion at Chiasso, the traditional border crossing point.
From a socio-economic aspect, the prospective loss of railway jobs as administrations become more business oriented and adopt improved technology could easily be offset by the increased use of rail throughout the Community. Outside the Community, it is interesting to note that many old cross-border routes that were closed due to the presence of the Iron Curtain or other international impediments are being reinstated. Let us remember that building motorways is much more expensive than reinstating old railway lines. In eastern Europe, where governments are perhaps less able to afford such luxuries, the availability of new rail routes is becoming increasingly interesting.
There is no doubt that rail has an important part to play in the transport area. Let us hope that this report is helpful in encouraging the various EU railway administrations better to co-operate with each other. It seems to be a bureaucratic and technological nightmare at times, as the problems with our own European nightstock sleeping cars will testify. Perhaps it will not be too long before the next report by this excellent committee will be able to tell us that many of the recommendations in the report have been achieved.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, as a member of sister Sub-Committee C, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, on the report. With our brief as regards environmental issues, we were closely interested in reading the conclusions. I remember the excitement with which I read the final draft of the report in our Select Committee meeting. Events since then, so ably set out by the right reverend Prelate, have only confirmed the importance of the report and our debate today.
Perhaps I may congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his expertise on railway matters. As a regular rail passenger through his diocese on the South Wales and West service, this helps to explain the quality of the service as it speeds through Hereford. Long may it continue.
It also falls to me to correct something which I said during our debate on the Queen's Speech, where I was a little critical about the lack of debate on environmental policy during the last general election. I may have anticipated that perhaps there would not be any environmental initiatives emerging from the Government. However, I was wrong, or at least I have been wrong so far. Therefore, tonight I want to encourage the Government, and Mr. Prescott in particular, with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, this evening to continue to pursue their agenda for an integrated transport policy. I want to thank them for pursuing this not only in the United Kingdom, its countries and regions, but also at the European level. The reason is that, as we come to the end of the
1004
Netherlands presidency and on to the United Kingdom presidency, there will be a marvellous opportunity for co-operation between Neil Kinnock, as the transport Commissioner, and his former colleagues in the new government in the United Kingdom to pursue this earnestly. I am sure that the Minister will tell us this evening that this is what they intend to do.
The report was valuable not only because of its analysis and conclusion but also, as always with these documents, because of the quality of the evidence. I was also very impressed by the EWS evidence and the commitment this international company has already shown to the development of a new freight market. The promise to try to increase the freight market threefold over the next 10 years, with a commercial dynamic to do that, could have substantial environmental effects. I fail to understand the argument put forward in some of our discussions on the impact of rail change that because road use is increasing exponentially the amount of environmental benefit from transfer is only minimal and therefore should not be seen as a major contribution to environmental policy.
In the longer term, clearly the transfer from road to rail of the existing additional freight will of course benefit the environment, and the sooner that is realised and the sooner it is properly priced the more effective such transfers will be. Clearly, in the area of passenger transport there are more immediate benefits in terms of the reduction of overcrowding of roads by individuals in motor cars, and particularly in travel-to-work patterns. That again is something which the report highlights, and we need to pursue it further.
The development of the United Kingdom separation between operational and infrastructural aspects of rail policy is one which many of us were concerned about before privatisation but if Mr. Neil Kinnock can be converted about privatisation so can the rest of us. However, it is not so much a sudden conversion, in my case or on the part of Mr. Kinnock, to privatisation as a conversion to transparency of funding and to ensuring that the operational infrastructural aspects are clearly identified. The operation of rail represented perhaps the worst aspects of traditional forms of state ownership and traditional forms of nationalisation. That was exemplified in the funding mechanisms, in the impact on the overall indebtedness of states throughout Europe that the rail network brought about and also in the lack of investment in terms of rail renewal, because again that had public expenditure implications.
The opening up of the rail network to a separation of the infrastructure and the operational aspects has enabled all these issues to be more clearly identified and hopefully tackled. Clearly, the existing subsidy arrangements for suburban and regional services need to be argued for and they can be argued for more clearly now on the basis of transparency. It is not the case that state aid can be poured in at the end of a year or of a five-year period in order to subsidise losses on specific services. All these are clearly identifiable and have to be identified. Therefore, the opportunity of providing state aid for so-called loss-making services—that is loss making in terms of revenue but often environmentally beneficial—can be pursued more clearly.

1005
The United Kingdom has taken the lead in this area of separation between infrastructure and operation, with the other model which we have in Sweden operating differently in terms of the way in which funding is transferred as between the infrastructure provider and the operator. There is a different mode of transfer of resources there but whichever mode we adopt, the fact that there is this model surely will enable us to argue more clearly for identifiable environmental objectives and targets to be introduced into the provision of services.
Again in this area it is important to identify the way in which environmental benefits can be properly quantified. I would ask the Government, when they look at their integrated policy for transport, not just to look at it in terms of public transport facilities but to look at the real environmental, social and therefore economic pricing of different modes of transport. There needs to be an analysis of transport across all modes and all types of transport ownership. Only then can we clearly identify the environmental benefits that in my view certainly arise out of railway transport.
The transport network, as traditionally developed throughout Europe, is, as we have heard, related to the creation of the nation-state system. Indeed, one can look at the issue of the integration of rail transport in much the same way as we may look at the currency integration, single market integration or indeed the integration of environmental standards more generally. The rail network itself, being a nation-state creation, exhibits all the benefits of the traditional centralisation of the nation state. We need only look at the rail networks to see how they are traditionally centred on capitals. One of the interesting developments in recent years has been the growth of trans-European networks and also an emphasis on regional links, which are no longer operating in the "hub and spokes" traditional nation-state structure.
Therefore, I would make a final plea that, as we go towards 1999 and the revision of the TM guidelines, we should look at essential trans-regional connections such as the one across North Wales to Ireland. It seems to me that the exponential growth in the Irish economy at 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. a year which is predicted over the next five years should result in a much more substantial—I see the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, agrees with me—demand for freight development along the North Wales rail link. After all, we have already an overdeveloped expressway network across most of North Wales which is pushed to capacity occasionally. To have an effective rail alternative there for freight as well as for passenger traffic would, in my view, be an essential part of regional policy, not just for North Wales but obviously in terms of a link to Ireland.
The other issue which is covered very clearly in the Sub-Committee's report and also in the original document is that of the reduction in employment in the rail industry. I would not want to sit down without mentioning that. There has been a loss of over half a million employees in the rail industry in the past 10 years. Therefore, I hope we shall see a proposal that the social fund should be utilised to cushion the reduction. I hope that will be pursued, because clearly
1006
any effective development of the network depends on the quality of the staffing. That after all is a great tradition in the history of Wales, as in all other regions of the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe. There is a great tradition of service in the rail industry and I am pleased to say, as I experienced again this morning travelling to Bangor, that that tradition of service is still maintained.
5 p.m.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, I should first like to join with other speakers in congratulating the sub-committee on an interesting report on an important subject. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Geddes on a clear exposition of the report which clarified the main points and was an extremely helpful introduction to the debate.
When we consider rail, it is important to see it in the context of transport issues in general. This country and most of Europe face a considerable problem in dealing with the congestion, expense and environmental pollution of road transport. It is a challenge to any government to try to ameliorate that problem. It is perhaps the gravest environmental problem that we face as a nation and as a continent.
Seen against that situation, rail's possible contribution is modest. Rail is often held up by the enthusiasts as something close to our salvation in the environmental world. It is said that if we invested more, spent more time on it and gave it greater priority, the congestion and the pollution which we experience on our roads could be greatly lessened.
I am more of a pessimist. Rail, like a number of other programmes and policies, can ameliorate the situation; it can make a helpful change. But it is at the margin and should be treated as such. There are some areas in which rail is tremendously important and takes the bulk of the traffic—for instance, commuter traffic into London and our other conurbations. But throughout the country as a whole it is much less important. I have heard it said that if we made a tremendous investment in rail, both freight and passenger, it would do nothing more than absorb one year's incremental growth in road transport. Even if that is not an accurate statistic, it gives us an idea of the scale of the problem.
I should like to say a few words about freight transport. I must speak with caution because I too am a total amateur. Freight transport depends on two things: first, efficient inter-modal terminals and, secondly, a regular supply and programme of freight trains moving at a reasonable speed between the terminals. Most road hauliers would rather have their lorries spend hours in gridlock on the M.25 or other motorways than put their goods on a freight train and perhaps lose days in a siding. The pain and grief of road transport does not exceed at the moment the delays that can be caused by freight moving, as we heard today, at an average speed of 10 miles an hour. Until that can be improved, I see no realistic hope that a great mass of freight can be moved from the roads to rail.
I remember at an earlier inquiry grave reservations being aired by witnesses over the interest and enthusiasm of what was then British Rail for investing

1007
in terminals. It was felt that British Rail was not competitively interested in moving freight onto the railways. We have heard much more encouraging reports of EWS: I can only hope that it and the other franchisees can produce a much greater transfer of loads from road to rail. I wait with modest pessimism to see what can be done.
It is most interesting to have seen the network of "rail trams" that have sprung up in some of our major conurbations recently. I am not sure whether the topic falls strictly within the scope of the debate, but to me it is the most interesting development in passenger rail transport in recent years. I have experience only of Manchester, which has a good network of rail trams. They are efficient, clean, regular and reasonably priced. They have been so successful that there are ambitious plans to extend the system and to have a branch out to the airport. That seems to me to be a guaranteed way of taking motor cars off the roads. If we can produce rail trams at a reasonable price and make them reasonably efficient, investment in that sort of railway network would produce more immediate and perhaps more lasting results than the long distance, more conventional type of passenger train.
The committee dealt with gauges, which I take to mean not the distance between the two rails but the superstructure of wagons and carriages. It came to the conclusion that investment in standardising our railways with the continental gauges was not a sensible investment of money and that better use could be made of funds by improving the bureaucracy, the administration and the passenger trains between countries. I do not entirely rule out a modification of the gauge system in the UK for one network—the West Coast main line to Glasgow. When one considers gauge changes, one is generally confronted with a tremendous global figure which is horrifying in its size. But if one breaks down that global figure into annual increments over 10 or 15 years, it may become much more manageable, particularly as each section is completed to the standardised continental gauge. The towns and cities within that section could benefit immediately from the modifications.
We must never lose sight of the fact that we are on the periphery of Europe. We do not have the advantage of countries such as France and Germany which are more or less in the centre. We must always be prepared to spend more than those countries on communications of all sorts if we are to maintain our position as a major trading partner with our competitors.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, this report, and, indeed, this afternoon's debate, have given me more inspiration than almost any other previous European Community or railway debate. First, the Commission's proposals recognise Britain's contribution. It was Sir Peter Parker who invented the expression "public service obligation" way back in the mid-1970s. The Commission's proposals were also radical in stressing that if we do not move, and move quickly, the on-going
1008
decline in the railways will become terminal. Furthermore, it recognises that there are mountains to climb.
First, we have the debt mountain, as several noble Lords mentioned. Secondly, there is the cultural mountain, especially the one between what one might call the cost-led railway—which, sadly, still applies to much of Europe—and what I hope will become a market-led railway in this country. Those mountains have a special implication for job creation and job preservation. Thirdly, there is the mountain posed by the conflict of flexibility of road versus rail and the problems of levelling the playing field, which is distorted by environmental and social costs, in particular the great difficulty in quantifying those latter inputs.
The membership of Sub-Committee B, whose report we are debating, was uniquely qualified to tackle the issues. I cannot recall another membership which included experts such as the former Secretary of State for Transport, doubling as a former chairman of British Rail, and a former Minister of State in the same department. Both have an important role to play in emphasising that major acts of political will are necessary if we are to achieve the Commission's aims. On the technical side we have the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—a senior member of the Eurotunnel staff, who, not I feel because of a mid-life crisis, has metamorphosed into an expert in multi-modal freight. We also had a leading civil engineer and a highly successful trade union administrator. If I single them out it is only to show how well balanced they were by other members who, while lacking the specialist skills, were less likely to take evidence at its face value and thus were more prone to ask penetrating questions. Our Committee of Selection served the House well in this context.
The choice of witnesses left almost nothing to be desired in putting the issues before the committee. If I could be allowed a dream ticket, while recognising Mr. Nigel Jones's competence in articulating the EWS view, I would note how he emphasised the learning curve which he was climbing. I would have loved, as would the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, to hear or read evidence from Ed Burkhardt, his ultimate boss, on the US experience, where freight is king and passenger railway is much closer to death than it is anywhere in Europe.
It was also a pity that Sweden's experience was available only in the form of written evidence, because sometimes such material tells only half the story. The domestic passenger graph on page 101 confirms the argument of my noble friend Lord Elibank that one cannot treat transport modes in isolation. The written evidence does not explain Sweden's airport policy, which for several decades has been to move away from down-town airports to remote greenfield sites. There is also the introduction of the Swedish high speed train in the early 1990s, with the consequent 50 per cent. plus increase in line speed and average speed. Both those factors played a significant part in the passenger growth figures demonstrated in the graph.

1009
Similarly, there is the fact that Swedish rail runs a "groupage" service for less than wagonload or less than container load consignments, as well as a collection and delivery service. That is not highlighted in the freight elements of the Swedish evidence. I believe such provision attracts a great deal of traffic and, although it is modest or small traffic, it is that traffic which underpins any growth in traffic in general.
The Swedes have also simplified their administration and improved reliability. These are but foothills in the mountain range which I have touched on loosely, but they must be climbed if suitable freight is to be attracted hack to rail.
Section 101 of the Committee's conclusions notes that rail's ability to reduce the volume of road traffic is limited. But I believe there is scope to some extent by following Ed Burkhardt's dicta. First, you have to cut costs, go for automation and cut staff, sad though that may be. He notes, in a magazine article which I read recently, that Wisconsin Central's major marshalling yard at Greenbay handles roughly the same volume of traffic as the EWS one at Willesden, but it manages to do so with one-eighth of the staff. Trains are now being shunted with one man and a radio.
Secondly, you have to keep up service levels and go for wagonload. The right reverend Prelate mentioned that Wisconsin Central's traffic is 80 per cent. wagonload. I was intending to say that that is a figure which is anathema to most European operators, but as the right reverend Prelate used that word first I decided not to cross swords with him but to use the word "nightmare". But all the European operators need subsidies, whereas Wisconsin Central's wagonload-dominated operation raised its income by 139 per cent. in 1993–94—that is its net income, not its gross revenue—and by a further 16 per cent. in 1994–95, a sum getting on towards £30 million.
Another sentiment of Mr. Burkhardt is that if your customer is giving you wagonload business, see if you can persuade him to give you the extra wagon or even more of the same commodity, or, by tailoring your product, see if you can move another product which your customer is already moving.
The committee, at Section 104, queries the need for a uniform cut-off date for historic debt. But if we are to see serious growth in international freight, market-led operators must replace cost-led operators; otherwise we shall have the Avesta to Sheffield situation which is mentioned in the report, where market-led Scandinavian railways, in particular the Swedish one, came face to face with German cost-led tariffs. Swedish steel is still fabricated in Sheffield and then returned to Sweden for consumption, but because of the German attitude to tariffs, which I am certain was cost-led, and was also non-negotiable, as was said earlier, material, alas, no longer goes by rail.
If the will is there you can do it the opposite way. Swedish and Norwegian rail some years ago set up an Oslo-to-Narvik service over a distance of 1,240 miles, which is roughly the same distance as Oslo to central Italy. a service which takes 27 hours and averages just under 46 miles per hour from origin to destination. This
1010
has required reducing frontier times and using trans-border locomotive working, which has been the practice between Sweden and Norway for almost as long as I can remember. It has involved trans-border crew working—alas, achieved only in the last few years, but now a fixture and fitting of their joint railway operation. It involves reduced bureaucracy and has simplified paperwork. These are all best practices which other European railways should study if international rail freight is to grow.
Those are all elements of the rail freight freeway (recommendation 106), which I would strongly welcome. I believe that these detailed elements, small in scale but big in outcome, are far more desirable than total system harmonisation. If we are talking of £1 billion to make the west coast main line (some 500 miles) fit for the 21st century, I shudder to think what a European network would cost either in finance or in terms of bickering between administrations.
Smaller sums are being spent on equipping the high speed link to the Channel Tunnel with freight loops—his was at the insistence of another place—and a freight link into Ripple Lane, north of the Thames. Here too we have hit the buffers, because if Eurotunnel, as my noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, pointed out, prices rail freight out of the tunnel, the investment is wasted. We hit the buffers again if the new French Government follow the old in opposing the Brussels proposals we are discussing this evening. How long could that go on, I ask myself. How does harmonisation square with different gauges—another subject touched upon—as in Ireland, the Iberian peninsula, Finland and perhaps eventually the former USSR? How long would it take to negotiate two round-trip tickets by Eurostar—and here I delve into the passenger business, only to discover that I have to go elsewhere to buy tickets for the onward journey into Holland?
I have talked about mountains. Let us set out to climb them but let us first tackle molehills closer to home.
5.8 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, during today's debate a number of people have claimed they are amateurs as far as rail transport is concerned. I really am an amateur, notwithstanding the fact that my first employment was in the purchasing authority of Sudan railways, right opposite St. James's Palace. It took up about seven eighths or nine tenths of the space given to the embassy as a whole. Its main purpose was to buy rolling stock and other equipment for the Sudan railway. That, as your Lordships will understand, was many years ago. Sudan railways are still going, but only just. So, I am an amateur.
I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and his committee on the work that they have done on this Community White Paper, and the conclusions which they have presented for our consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, has given a very comprehensive introduction to the White Paper and to the work of his committee. He asked the Minister a number of questions. I would like to add my support to those

1011
questions and I await their answers with great interest. I must apologise as I have a question or two of my own to ask. I am sorry I have not given advance notice of them, but no doubt if they cannot be answered today then perhaps a letter could be sent instead. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford on asking some pertinent questions. He is another person who claims not to know anything about the subject but he knows a great deal.
No doubt the matters we are discussing today will play a part in the debate before and after the transport White Paper which is to be published by the Government next year. I very much welcome that announcement and withdraw perhaps a little of the scepticism I expressed during the debate on the Queen's Speech. Among other things I hope that the White Paper will result in targets for the modal shift from road to rail for inter-urban and commuter passenger journeys and for freight journeys. We shall not get these policy changes unless we set ourselves some objectives. The Community, in urging us to do various things, is another helpful influence, but, as individual states, we still have to set ourselves the policy targets in order to play our part within a wider Community endeavour. Like the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, I believe that the context in which a sustainable and integrated approach to meeting peoples' travel needs is gradually emerging. I have hopes that the Government will achieve more than the previous government's transport debate managed to do. I wish them well in the production of the White Paper.
I wish to make a few general comments about the conclusions of the European Communities Committee report. We welcome the continued emphasis by the Commission and other European Union authorities on achieving a shift from road to rail and the committee's broad support for that. I am neutral on the value of privatization. It is too early to say whether privatisation has really worked. However, I am definitely sceptical about the need to separate operations from infrastructure. That argument is still not decided. There are real problems when that separation is made.
I generally support the scepticism expressed by those giving evidence and by the committee with regard to large bureaucratic organisations on a European-wide basis trying to organise the railways. The committee has committed itself to a European-level regulatory body. As I understood from the introductory comments of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes—I did not quite understand from the report—that is because the committee thinks that such a regulatory body would be an essential part of assisting inter-operability. I remain to be totally convinced bearing in mind the evidence given by the industry. Noble Lords may say that the industry would say that it did not want to be regulated and did not want large bureaucratic organisations. I was struck by the industry's interest in trying to get on with this in a practical day-to-day way rather than having to do it as part of a huge scheme. On the whole, when we are dealing with difficult situations, that is probably a sensible way of progressing.
1012
It is impossible to cover all the topics raised in the original strategy paper and in the European Communities Committee report on it and so, like others, I shall concentrate largely on freight issues and on the proposed rail freight freeways, of whose difficulties and potential advantages the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke in great detail and with great authority. In this context I wish to ask the Government a few questions.
Generally, we support the contention that it is desirable to shift traffic from road to rail. I believe it is possible. Within that I share the enthusiasm of the Commission for trying to shift greater amounts of freight onto rail. That enthusiasm and determination is justified on safety grounds, which various noble Lords have mentioned; on the grounds which no one has directly mentioned of the greater damage caused to the roads by freight vehicles, which will become worse as vehicles become heavier and heavier; and on the grounds of damage to the local environment and pollution, particularly that caused by inner city congestion. Those are all good reasons for trying to achieve that objective.
I do not share the view of the previous government that the proportion of rail freight has fallen so low that the effect of increasing the total, even by quite a large amount, would not be significant in terms of traffic. That view was expressed today by the noble Lord, Lord Elibank. The industry in this country does not seem to share that doubt and diffidence in the matter of the shift and the potential for the shift. I was interested that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford also questioned these doubts as to whether we can transfer from road to rail. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, drew our attention to other means of attracting freight back to rail and referred to the experience of other countries. It is not merely a desirable objective but an attainable objective, particularly when EWS and other companies in the UK rail industry are as bullish as they are.
We may have to do other things on the government/local government side to redress the balance between road and rail freight. I was interested by the suggestion to ban larger lorries from entering city centres. In that way road transport would have the same need to make transfers as rail transport now has. Rail transport normally has to transfer onto road transport for the last leg of a journey. One of the advantages currently seen in road transport is that goods do not have to be moved from one truck to another. As lorries become bigger, as they will do, the disturbance they cause in town centres will become worse and worse. I hope that in the course of the preparation of the White Paper the Government will pay attention to that aspect.
Another difficulty in achieving the objective of transfer which cannot necessarily be achieved simply by opening up European railways to competitive operations is the inbuilt price/convenience advantage that road transport has over rail for both passengers and freight. My noble friend has outlined his fears in that respect. As those giving evidence from the industry pointed out, railways, whether they like it or not and irrespective of whether they are competitive within the industry, are subject to competition from road transport. While there

1013
may be some discussion as to whether road users bear the full burden of the costs which they impose—my view is that they do not—users are faced with higher journey costs at the point of use on rail as compared with road. That is one of the main deterrents to freight shippers and private individuals approaching their transport needs. What action are the Government contemplating to try to shift that balance a little in favour of rail as compared with road? I believe that this perceived cost has to be tackled at a national level and needs real government input. Perhaps not today, but during the preparation of the White Paper, I shall be interested to see what the Government have in mind.
I believe that it was the right reverend Prelate who discussed the acquisition by EWS of Rail Freight Distribution. My understanding is that that is still being held up by Commission attention being paid to the competition aspect and whether too much subsidy is involved. If I am correct, I very much hope that the Government will be able to make the appropriate intervention at Community level to ensure that this merger can go ahead because, as the right reverend Prelate said, it is very much in the interests of getting more freight onto rail that the determination and management skills of EWS should be applied also to the Rail Freight Distribution company.
There is another problem in which the Government might take an interest, and I hope that they will; namely, the subject of access to an international rail freeway from the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, dealt with that. My impression is that the Germans, Dutch and Italians are beginning to talk very constructively about the construction of such a freeway, but we are hampered because we have to go through France in order to get to any of those countries and the French alliance of the rail company, the government and the unions is opposing the initiative. Are the Government able to make representations, either through Community organisations or directly to the French Government, to see that that is no longer a disadvantage to us?
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, drew attention to the high cost of taking rail freight through the tunnel. Again, I understand that one of the problems is that competition between Eurotunnel and the ferry services has resulted in the heavy discounting of the price for lorries going both through the tunnel and on the ferries. It has been suggested that the prices now being charged are below cost. Are Ministers concerned that Eurotunnel has not passed on that price benefit to rail freight operators, that is to say, for loads going by rail? If so, is there any action that they can contemplate taking?
Finally, I draw attention to the fact that while there seems to be some confidence that there is capacity on some of the continental railways to accommodate the freight freeway and that on those railways it is bureaucratic rigidity which is the main obstacle to progress, on this side of the Channel the situation may be different. The noble Lord, Lord Elibank, considered the possible need to modify our infrastructure to adapt to wagons of a different gauge.
1014
There has been a great deal of talk over recent months and years on a subject which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, holds close to his heart; namely the piggy-back. I do not know whether the Government will be interested in supporting that initiative, particularly on the West Coast mainline where it appears that the recently signed contract with Virgin may mean that we do not have the right capacity to accommodate the desired through route from the Channel Tunnel to the North and North-West.
My last point deals with the different regions. Are the Government interested in the East-West Rail Consortium proposal for a route from the haven ports in East Anglia into central England and from there to the North and North-East? Obviously, it would be of great benefit if we could have another route for rail travel, as we used to have, from those ports directly into northern Europe. For that to succeed we need the right capacity to take rail traffic to and from those ports.
I welcome the report and the Commission's interest. I look forward with great interest to watching a government which, I hope, are committed to the same objectives, carrying out their policies.
5.35 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have certainly had a fascinating debate this afternoon, as ever, on railway matters. I congratulate the Committee on the production of its report. It is a very thoroughly researched document. An enormous amount of high quality evidence was taken and a great deal of analysis went into it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, remarked, we have heard a number of speeches from people who claimed not to know very much about railways, but who then went on to give highly informed speeches on the subject. I only hope that the reverse is not thought of the noble Baroness opposite and myself as we ought to be expected to know something of the subject. But, of course, that will not be the case.
We heard a very good speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, who was one of the notable claimants of innocence in the matter of railways. But the House may not know that he knows a great deal about motorcycles as well, so the depth of his knowledge about transport has few bounds.
It has been said this afternoon that there is no doubt that the railways are of key economic, social and environmental importance to this nation's transport requirements and also to our European partners. It is very clear that changes are required in Europe if the decline in investment and in rail's share of the passenger and freight markets is to be reversed. Here I find myself totally in agreement with the Transport Commissioner.
Of course, we know that the Conservative Government recognised the strength of this issue and these arguments, which led to the structural reform introduced by the Railways Act. We know that this measure met very bitter political opposition right up to the general election campaign. I certainly welcome the conversions that we saw on this issue and the U-turns on the commitment of the Labour Party to a publicly-owned railway, particularly after my colleagues

1015
and I had tried to persuade them over the course of more than 200 parliamentary Questions in this House alone and of lengthy debates. At that stage we did not seem to have convinced the party opposite. I am very glad that at the 11th hour we managed to do so. I very much look forward to a detailed statement from the noble Baroness opposite putting some flesh on the bones of the public statements that we saw during the election campaign. We saw the then Leader of the Opposition in a photocall with a privatised train operator, which raised more than one eyebrow. That certainly added weight to the conversion.
We know that the policy of privatisation was controversial and as such it certainly made a change, particularly in an area where a public sector body had so long held a cosy monopoly. That is inevitably so. The prospect of change provoked some to don rose-tinted spectacles and to reminisce about the good old days of British Rail in the 1970s. But I believe that most commentators, when looking at the issue seriously, realised that, in the past 25 years and beyond, the rail network in this country had had very real problems indeed. British Rail had become desperately inefficient and distanced from the needs of the consumer. That is one of the things about which we are now all agreed. British Rail lacked an incentive to improve. The public sector was unable to provide the level of investment required.
The reality now is that privatisation, despite very real political opposition at the time, has been a clear success. We have seen some notable conversions to the cause. I was delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, in his place, and to hear how he had followed the arguments concerning rail privatisation and the separation of the vertically integrated units. I was extremely interested in his opinions and in those of the Transport Commissioner, Mr. Kinnock, to whom the noble Lord referred.
We have seen companies competing fiercely for franchises, new levels of service and a new quality of service—higher than was provided by British Rail—new safeguards for passengers, with guaranteed levels of service, and key fares being capped. There has also been new investment, with over £10 billion-worth of investment planned by Railtrack.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, the noble Viscount is making a most interesting speech, but has he noticed that the report is not about rail privatisation in the United Kingdom?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the report is about Community rail strategy. If the noble Lord looks again at the report, he will find that it refers extensively to what has happened in the UK. I very much regret the fact that the noble Lord has not been able to make a detailed contribution this afternoon. Nonetheless, we look forward to hearing from him in later railway debates when he has more time available.
As I was saying, we have also seen new investment by the privatised train operators in new rolling stock. I refer, for example, to Virgin Rail's commitment to
1016
invest in high-speed tilting trains. Passenger TOCs are committed to investing considerable sums in rolling stock. All of that has been achieved with a saving to the taxpayer over the next 15 years of some £6 billion. In seven years' time, the grant requirement will be about 40 per cent. of what BR claimed for running the services last year. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm the accuracy of those figures.
I now direct my remarks particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. It is inevitable that any debate on Community rail strategy examines the clearest possible example of where such major structural changes have taken place—and that is in the UK. I think that it is of considerable significance—indeed, almost every speaker this afternoon has referred to it—that we examine what has happened in this country (albeit over a very short period of time) from the extremely pessimistic predictions that were made at the time of the passage of the Railways Act to the realities of today.
It is against that background that we now see a widespread acceptance internationally that there have to be major structural changes in rail networks. In Japan, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands there have been steady moves in this direction. We now have before us the Commission's White Paper, which is a further endorsement of this approach. There is a great deal in the White Paper with which we could agree. The central message is that railways have largely been insulated from market forces, and that they will not deliver anywhere near their full potential unless drastic action is taken to revitalise them. There is a greater emphasis on commercial operations, and on redefining the relationship between government and operator. That is precisely what has occurred in the United Kingdom and it is of direct relevance to what is happening in Europe.
When we were in government, we welcomed the White Paper. Indeed, in the explanatory memorandum which was submitted by Mr. John Watts, who was then the Minister responsible for railways, he said that the White Paper successfully identified many of the issues that rail must address if it is to develop and, indeed, increase its market share. Certainly, the recognition that rail must,
"be more efficient, customer orientated and attractive to users, whilst at the same time reducing the burden on the state for subsidy",
was music to our ears, as it reflects our own determination, which led to the privatisation of the UK's railways. We support the emphasis on greater commercialisation of rail networks and the proposed extension of separation of infrastructure from operations, measures which have, of course, already been implemented in the UK. We welcome the recognition that more freight traffic needs to be encouraged to use rail.
In his explanatory memorandum, John Watts indicated that the then government supported the Commission's objective of increased interoperability of conventional rail where this will improve competitiveness. Measures must be firmly linked to cost/benefit principles. We did not agree that successful financial restructuring required that all past debt be relieved, and we would expect normal state aids criteria to apply. There were, however, a number of areas where

1017
we did not necessarily support the Commission: for example, we believe that the level of access charges should be set by national infrastructure managers, not by a European body. I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the analysis that was put forward by the then government to find out where, if at all, the policies of her government differ from ours.
As was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Geddes, the White Paper is really more of a Green Paper, as it does not contain specific legislative proposals, but is couched in more general terms. Although there is detail in some areas, in others specific detail is lacking.
With regard to the committee's examination of the report, evidence was given from a wide variety of sources. I was certainly very interested to read the evidence of the independent rail regulator, Mr. John Swift QC. He was struck by how far behind the rest of the Community was in rail restructuring. He was quite right to draw attention to the necessity of introducing market forces or increasing efficiency, as the continuing burden on the state for subsidy would not be sustainable. If railways are to have a long-term sustainable future in Europe, these truths will have to be faced and tough decisions will have to he taken.
When considering how the measures proposed in the White Paper would affect the rail networks of Community countries, it is best to start by looking at the UK example. In giving evidence to the Committee, John Watts was clear that the changes made in the UK were in line with the policy objectives set out in the White Paper. That must put the UK in a very special position when it comes to negotiations in the Transport Council, because the UK has the expertise in, and experience of, such a transfer and of structural changes. Indeed, the objectives that are set out in the White Paper coincide to a great extent with the experience of the UK.
This afternoon's debate is therefore of considerable importance. It is probably the first major opportunity the new Government have had to outline in some detail their policy towards the railways and how they intend to apply that approach to their negotiating policy in Europe as regards the Commission's proposals. There are therefore some key questions for the Government to answer, and I am sure that the whole House looks forward with considerable interest to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. The House was probably looking forward rather less to my speech, because I have rehearsed the policy of my party on railway privatisation and railway restructuring on possibly more than one occasion. As we now have wholly new policies to come from the party opposite, we can all look forward with great excitement to hearing from the new advocates of privatisation.
As we know, the Labour Party opposed this policy tooth and nail at the highest level, vowed to stop the privatisation process and, when that looked set to fail, committed themselves to taking back the railways into public ownership. Their subsequent U-turn was most wise, and most welcome, but how far does it go, particularly in view of the general acceptance of the success of the policy, and the consistent moves towards
1018
following our example from our European partners about which we have heard this afternoon? The Commission's White Paper is the clearest possible example that this is the case. In the light of this, will the Government now be the international advocates of rail restructuring and privatisation? Will they impress their views on their European colleagues? But before we find the answers to those questions, their credibility in Europe on this matter will depend upon how they handle the issue at home. I invite the noble Baroness to tell the House whether the Government intend to accept the current structure of the privatised railway industry and, if not, what changes they propose to make to the regulatory and franchising system, to track access arrangements and to freight facility grants.
Perhaps I may ask as an aside, although I believe that it is a relevant one, whether Railtrack fulfils the eligibility criteria for the windfall tax. I do not want the noble Baroness to be coy and invite me to wait for the Budget. I should like to ask specifically whether it fulfils the eligibility criteria. That is deeply relevant. Does the noble Baroness believe that if such a tax were imposed on the infrastructure operator it would, for example, speed the improvements to the West Coast main line or hinder them?
So far as labour relations are concerned, it is clear that, where there are good incentives for staff to perform well out of the monolithic structure of state railway corporations, real progress can be made. The White Paper notes that railway workers can expect overall employment in the industry to decline but should recognise that their job security depends upon making rail more competitive and that that will require a more productive and flexible workforce. That must be true. I was very interested that, in his evidence, the Transport Commissioner, Mr. Kinnock, said that rail unions faced a harsh choice between losing virtually all the jobs in rail because change had not taken place or making changes which would probably bring about workforce reductions but in a controlled and controllable way.
If the noble Baroness allows her eyes to dwell on the section of her speech that deals with employment issues and how interventionist the Government seek to be, I shall be interested in hearing any comments that she may want to make on the threatened ASLEF industrial action that is to take place fairly shortly. The noble Baroness may not be keen to volunteer an opinion, but I shall respect her very much if she does so.
I see that I have trespassed considerably on the time of the House. However, the issues of vertical integration were ones on which a number of my noble friends and other noble Lords talked a great deal. Suffice it to say that the model that we have seen with the separation of the infrastructure from the operations has brought very considerable benefits.
As to freight, I believe that we have had a very positive discussion this afternoon. In particular, I refer to the speeches of the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. They have been impressed by the determination of the new private sector operators to increase market share and receive the full benefit of that improved market share, using all the

1019
incentives and new investment possible to ensure success. Possibly the most important change has been the orientation towards the customer. I believe that that remark by the right reverend Prelate is very valid.
If this debate had taken place five years ago I am sure that the White Paper would have contained very different conclusions and that the Committee's remarks in its consideration of that White Paper would have been very different. The fact that in the intervening period we have witnessed the biggest structural readjustment in the railways for a very long time—from proposals for legislation through to enactment and into successful operation—has completely changed the game plan. I am very pleased that there is now wide acceptance that this policy has worked. I look forward to hearing the proposals of the new Government.
5.54 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for the Environment and Transport (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords who have been so generous in their welcome to me in this debate tonight. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford referred to the time we first met when I made a speech to a group of senior boys at Eton. He said that after that nothing could get worse. Sometimes I look at the Front Bench opposite and believe that nothing has changed at all!
A debate in your Lordships' House is a sure way of focusing a new Minister's mind on a subject with which he or she may not have been previously familiar. It is a daunting as well as a salutary experience to reply to a debate in this place where, however specialised the subject, one is always dealing with specialists. Sometimes they come from unexpected places, like the Bishops' Bench today.
I am most grateful to the committee and to noble Lords who have spoken for ensuring that I have at least started to get to grips with this important area early in my time as a transport Minister. I record the Government's thanks to the committee and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, both for his work as chairman and for the lucid and authoritative way in which he introduced the debate today.
A large number of specific questions have been raised in the course of the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and other noble Lords. I shall attempt to reply to the vast majority of them in the course of my speech. However, I must tell the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that at the risk of sacrificing his respect I shall not be drawn into answering questions on putative ASLEF action. Even more so, I believe that it is prudent rather than coy in a debate on European railway strategy not to be tempted into discussing the plans of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a windfall tax.
The White Paper on revitalising the Community's railways has come at a crucial time. Railway use across Europe, both passenger and freight, has been in decline for many years. This is a trend that must be reversed not only for the sake of the railways but also for wider environmental and transport considerations, as many
1020
noble Lords have pointed out. The committee recognised clearly the importance of the railway system in Europe in its report and that given the right support railways could become a cheaper, faster and thus more efficient transport option. The Government agree. Like the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and the noble Lord, Lord Cadman, we believe that a more efficient and attractive rail system able to compete with other transport modes will also bring significant benefits to the environment by reducing pollution and congestion.
As several noble Lords have said, next year we shall publish a White Paper on an integrated transport policy for this country. I am glad that we have been able to reassure some of the more sceptical Members of your Lordships' House in the first debate on transport issues as to the fulfilment of that commitment. The White Paper will set out a long term strategy and a sustainable framework for decision-making on transport issues which takes into account our responsibility to safeguard the environment. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Cadman and Lord Elis-Thomas, in this respect. We believe that this meshes very well with the European approach set out in the White Paper.
The Government therefore share and welcome the committee's support for the White Paper and agree with many of the initiatives proposed by the Commission. There is a great deal of work to be done. We shall need to consider carefully the best way of proceeding in the interests of the United Kingdom. I hope noble Lords will understand that the Government are still developing their detailed policy in a number of areas, but I should like to take the opportunity today to respond in general to the White Paper and the conclusions that the committee drew from it and to answer points that have been raised in the course of the debate.
At the outset, I believe that it is important to flag up the clear shift in approach in the new Government's attitude to Europe and the European Union. We want the United Kingdom to be a leading player in Europe—a contributor to and a shaper of policies. In this spirit we shall take a more positive attitude in a number of areas. We see Europe as an opportunity for the United Kingdom—for jobs, working conditions and trade. The United Kingdom presidency next year gives us a real chance to make an impact. We want to make progress towards completion of the single market, tackle unemployment and promote flexible labour markets. Positive action in the rail sector will contribute to all those aims.
It is clear that we are dealing today with a fundamental transport issue for Europe. Mr. Neil Kinnock, the European Union Transport Commissioner, whose evidence to the Select Committee has been referred to by several contributors to today's debate, was asked whether the main motive behind the White Paper was commercial, environmental or to do with the dreaded word "interoperability". He replied that all of these issues were significant but that at root it was a question of survival for the railways. He saw the rapid demise of the rail sector not only in terms of its railway consequences but as a serious additional threat to an already overburdened road system. That point was also made by the noble Baroness,

1021
Lady Thomas of Walliswood. He described the potential effects of further decline in terms of the economy, employment, the environment and the efficiency of transport movement within and across the single market as devastating. The Government agree with the analysis of Commissioner Kinnock and the committee that change is urgently required; moreover, the Government have the political will to bring about such change.
It may be helpful if I say a word or two about privatisation. It is tempting to follow the invitation of the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and reopen the debate about privatisation within this country. But it would not be appropriate to go into that matter in detail—tempted though I might be—in a debate on European transport matters. I should point out that privatisation is neither a prerequisite nor a requirement of the proposals in the White Paper. The main changes which the Commission has proposed, and with which both the committee and the Government agree, can be achieved within the framework of a well-run state rail sector.
The timing of the White Paper is significant because, as noble Lords are aware, many countries have already restructured or are in the process of restructuring their railways to give effect to EC Directive 91/440. That directive, which came into force in 1993, requires member states to separate the management of railway infrastructure from the operation of train services so that in terms of management, administration and accounting, the railways are afforded independent status—an issue referred to today. It also allows international groupings—that is, associations of companies in different member states—access to the networks of those countries where the railway operators are based, as well as transit rights in between. The White Paper rightly says that further restructuring is necessary if the process of regenerating the European rail sector is to continue. On the question of debt, for example, financial restructuring is essential if a transparent system for the allocation of, and charges for, train paths is to be realised.
Perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, with regard to the Government's attitude towards the cut-off date for the relief of debt. The Government are not wedded to the one date of 1993. But whatever date is chosen it must provide the right basis for sound financial management.
In pursuing the extension of open access, a principle with which the committee agrees, questions such as whether international services should take priority over domestic services will need to be addressed.
The committee commented on the Commission's suggestion of the creation of a European railway agency as a possible means of resolving the problems of infrastructure allocation and the general integration of national railway systems. Its view was that if such a body were to be set up, it should be more of a regulatory authority than an agency. That is obviously an area at which the UK and its European partners will have to look more closely as proposals are developed. It will be necessary to identify those tasks which could usefully be undertaken, or those areas which need to be
1022
regulated, and then ensure that the existing mechanisms could not be improved before the case for such an agency or authority could be demonstrated. That is an issue at which we need to look in some detail. I hope that that helps noble Lords who raised the issue.
The committee also welcomed the concept of rail freight freeways. My noble friend Lord Berkeley and other noble Lords referred to that important issue in some detail. The aim is to develop international freight services with freer access and better co-operation and co-ordination between rail freight operators and infrastructure managers. I hope that will be welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, despite his pessimism about the scope for change. This would include "one-stop-shop" facilities to deliver fast-response, coherent path allocations across borders and an approach which encouraged the players to market an end-to-end product, beyond a purely national perspective.
As your Lordships will know, a high level group of member states' representatives has been meeting under Commission chairmanship to take the rail freight freeways initiative forward. The Commission sees the freeways idea as an interim solution pending multilateral agreement to further liberalisation of freight access rights, an objective which we share in helping to complete the single market in the transport sector.
It may be helpful if I say a word or two about the latest position on freeways. The Commission has submitted within the last few days its review of the work of the high level group to the Council of Ministers. The review summarises the action to be taken by the member states and their railways and identifies a number of key issues for resolution over the longer term, notably track access charges, train path allocation and the establishment of a performance regime for freeways. The Commission concludes by suggesting a wider remit for the high level group, broadening the debate on longer term issues to encompass passenger services as well as freight. On a more practical level, there are active proposals for the early implementation of the freeway concept on a number of routes: one is a north-south freeway linking the Netherlands and Italy. Another is UK-Hungary, which is also the subject of an application for funding under the pilot actions for combined transport scheme from the European Freight and Logistics Leaders Club in which a number of UK-based rail interests are prominent.
The Government very much welcome the fact that the UK will be among the first in taking active steps towards making the freeway concept a reality and we shall be supporting the application for PACT funding. We hope that freeways can be developed quickly in other member states and the benefits of flexibility and more open access exploited to the full.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, asked about the French Government's attitude in that respect. The French had previously opposed the White Paper, and, in particular, the proposals for extending open access. However, the restructuring of SNCF has recently been completed, and we hope that that will preface a more pragmatic approach by the French. The

1023
noble Baroness asked also about the opportunity for piggyback services on the West Coast main line. We understand that Railtrack is currently examining the opportunity for a freight upgrade. We expect to know more when those investigations have been completed.
There is much else to be commended in the White Paper. As the committee noted, many member state railways are burdened with substantial debt; that prevents competition on equal terms, as the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, said. Investment has not always met business needs and the decline in the attractiveness of rail has led to reduced revenue. Relieving debt and allowing independent financial management will allow the railways to keep track of their costs and revenues and enable subsidy to be focused where it is needed; for example on the provision of a guaranteed level of socially necessary rail services.
In addition, the Commission has put forward proposals to separate the management of infrastructure and the provision of train services into distinct business units, with separate management and balance sheets. The committee, I know, was not convinced of the merits of that proposal but, after a slow start, many member states, including France, which until recently was strongly opposed to the idea, are now taking this route. The Government believe that it makes sense. I shall reply to the concerns of the noble Lord. Lord Geddes, by reiterating the point made by Commissioner Kinnock, that the fundamental reason for seeking the change was to help new entrants gain entry to the market and to enable a competitive, commercial relationship between the providers and users of the infrastructure.
In terms of trans-European train operation, the Government agree with the committee that it would be more cost effective to pursue the benefits of greater interoperability by developing compatibility in systems and equipment rather than by aiming for total harmonisation. The noble Lords, Lord Methuen and Lord Geddes, referred to those issues. We support the aims of the existing interoperability directive which applies to the European high speed train network. But for this directive and any future proposals for conventional rail lines, we believe that technical and administrative measures to effect interoperability should be kept to the minimum necessary to ensure the safe and efficient running of through trains on the network. At the same time the potentially high costs of interoperability should not be allowed to outweigh the benefits. The UK is playing an active role in the preparation of technical specifications for interoperability with a view to producing practical solutions within a realistic timescale.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley asked about sleeper services through the Channel Tunnel. I understand that those services are under review by Eurostar and its European partners. Under the railway regime that we presently have in this country it is for the railway companies alone to decide what services to introduce and when.
Noble Lords drew attention to the fact that restructuring Europe's railways and the resulting improvements in efficiency have led to a reduction
1024
in the railways' workforce. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, spoke about that. Perhaps I may make clear the change in this Government's attitude as compared with the previous Administration's negative response to the committee's recommendation that the European Social Fund might be used to mitigate the impact of job losses. We believe that every avenue should be explored to make it easier for redundant employees to find new jobs and share the committee's view on the issue. However, with only limited funds likely to be available, they should be aimed at those areas where redundancies exacerbate existing regional unemployment problems. We will need to ensure that there is a sound legal base for use of funds in this way and that they are properly targeted—not simply used to bail out those members states which have made no provision for redundancies at the expense of those which have.
The White Paper contains many positive ideas for ensuring that rail becomes an attractive, viable alternative in comparison with other transport modes, most of which were endorsed by the committee. The UK, which has already implemented many of the Commission's proposals, will take an equally positive approach in assisting the Community to achieve its goal. We have experience in this field which we can share with our European colleagues. Our presidency of the EU in 1998 provides a valuable opportunity which we are determined to take.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the Government's gratitude to the committee for its important contribution to the wider debate on the future of Europe's railways and for recognising that major change is needed, not just at national but at European level. This Government are determined to contribute positively to this change and intend playing a full part in the concerted effort that is necessary to achieve a new era for Europe's railway system.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, it is customary on these occasions to say what an interesting and valuable debate we have had and for the proposer of the Motion to thank all those who have spoken. But we have had an extremely interesting and constructive debate and I thank all those who have spoken.
I thank in particular the noble Baroness the Minister for a very comprehensive and constructive reply. If I heard her correctly, relative to the committee's report—and that is the only reason why I am standing and not sitting—she disagreed with its conclusions in only one respect. That was concerned with the separation between infrastructure and operation. I reiterate that the conclusion of the committee was neutral in that respect. We said that we did not regard it as a necessity. We did not express an opinion as to whether we thought it was good or bad. Our conclusion was that different countries should or would approach the matter in different ways given their national characteristics and—dare I say it?—problems. Therefore, we have reached the situation in which the Government concur with all the committee's recommendations, which is a very satisfactory situation.

1025
It is not my job to go through every speech that has been made and it would be invidious to do so. However, perhaps I may make a couple of points. First, I greatly welcomed the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. I hope that he can encourage his fellow Lords Spiritual to join in such debates more often. It genuinely adds to the debates, and we are very grateful to him.
The right reverend Prelate believed that there was an underestimate of the scope for transfer from road to rail. My noble friend Lord Elibank took the opposite view and poured slight scepticism on that belief. The committee was extremely disappointed that on the evidence there did not appear to be great scope. I draw the right reverend Prelate's attention to paragraph 85 in particular, which states:
"While supporting rail for these reasons"—
economic, environmental and all the other reasons—
"we recognise that the revitalisation of rail, even on the most optimistic forecast, is likely to have in itself only a minor impact on the overall balance of transport modes".
We found that conclusion intensely disappointing, but on the evidence we received we could reach no other conclusion. As your Lordships know, a report can be made only on the evidence received.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, spoke of the regulatory authority. We put forward that suggestion, if I may use lay terms, because we thought that it would be necessary to have a really strong referee or umpire who could knock heads together and perhaps ultimately say, "Look, you will do it this way and not that way because the two sides cannot agree". That was the point of our emphasis on a regulatory body. I note the Minister's remark in that context and I concur. Let us wait to see whether existing agencies and authorities can do the job. The committee, in conclusion, doubted it, but I take the point that we should wait and see.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, gave me a good opportunity to refer to a previous report of the committee under the inestimable chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Elibank; namely, that on the weights and dimensions of road vehicles. If the noble Baroness cares to look at the report dated 26th July 1994 she will see conclusion 49, which states:
"We are persuaded that 44 tonnes spread over six axles causes significantly less damage than 38 tonnes over five".
Therefore, we do not concur with her that more weight is necessarily more harmful.
It has been a good debate and I thank all those who have taken part. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

UK Beef Exports
6.17 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the opinion of the European Union Scientific Veterinary Committee on the
1026
United Kingdom's proposals for a certified herd scheme which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement is as follows:
"The terms of the Florence Agreement for lifting the export ban on British beef provided for a number of steps, including meat from animals in certified herds. It envisaged that these proposals would first be considered by the Commission's Scientific Advisory Committee before the Commission made changes to the European Union legislation.
"On 25th February, the previous UK Government submitted their proposals for a certified herds scheme to the Commission, which passed them to the Scientific Veterinary Committee for an opinion. The committee delivered its opinion yesterday and expressed concern on five points relating to the identification of animals, the tracing of the animals on farms and of their meat through the slaughterhouse and the degree of veterinary supervision. The committee suggested that changes needed to be made to the UK proposals before they would be acceptable.
"It is disappointing that the Scientific Veterinary Committee has asked for further clarification when it did not take up our offer to send an expert to explain our proposals at an earlier stage. We are not surprised that it has some criticisms. We are already considering carefully the points made and will give a detailed technical response very quickly. Officials are in Brussels today and discussions will continue over the next few days. We recognise that all consumers will be anxious to have full assurances in line with sound scientific assessments of risk. At the same time we will press for the removal of the ban where those assurances can be given. I will keep the House fully informed on developments."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.19 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made by his colleague in another place. Consumers, producers and processors must be very disappointed. We had been told that soft words would turn away anger and would probably lift the ban as opposed to the tremendous support which the previous Government gave to the industry. But today's news leaves us in a very unsatisfactory position.
Why is it said that insufficient information was taken forward? If there is a desire for an identification system, what is wrong with the system in operation in Northern Ireland? The Commissioner has said already that he is happy with that. The EU vets have crawled over that system. If that is an issue, why did the Minister not press for those animals to be allowed back into the market place?
Will the Minister tell the House when it is proposed to establish a computerised system in England? When will the tracing take the form not of planned visits but planned inspections? What is the timetable that he foresees for those inspections?

1027
The Statement does not help us as regards any new ideas or new approaches which are to be brought to this matter. In the past, we have given information to that committee. It was assumed that all the necessary information had been given. What is now different from the requirements that were imposed before Christmas?
As regards the identification of cohorts to meet the selective slaughter, will MAFF make arrangements to ensure that the selective slaughter in Northern Ireland, which is well under way, can be completed? Will it have priority?
What are the noble Lord's views on a ban not only in Europe but in the rest of the world? The South Africans are prepared and happy to take beef from Northern Ireland. What right does the European Union have to stop that? Is it based on the assumption that re-imports into the Union cannot be controlled? If so, that is not a problem for farmers in the United Kingdom.
The Minister may need to reply to my next question in writing. What are the Government doing about the fact that the French continue to refuse imports of meat that is processed in the United Kingdom but which comes from other countries which may have BSE? That meat can go back into Europe but has been stopped by the French. If the Minister looks at that issue, he will find a thick folder on it. I hope that that is a matter which the Government have taken on board.
One anxiety which is not touched on in the Statement relates to compensation for farmers in the future. I understand that there is to be no additional compensation. But if, as it appears, we are working towards settling the issue by allowing into the market place only those animals born after August 1996, that would involve heavy costs. The previous Government never walked away from supporting the producers and processors.
The main issue about which I wish to ask the Minister is whether he believes that there is now no safer beef anywhere in the world than that from Northern Ireland. That is well identified and well measured. It is hoped that Scotland and England will come up to that standard. Can the Minister give me some indication of the timetable that we can look forward to?
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for answering the Question and making the Statement. Because it is a PNQ rather than a Statement as such, we did not have copies of it in advance. I draw that to the attention of the noble Lord the Chief Whip, who is here. I am sure that he is here in two capacities, as he will be interested in the subject as well as our procedures. This is not like an ordinary Question at Question Time when the questioner should not be told what is the Answer before he produces his supplementary questions. The procedure which we are following is very much the same as that for a Statement when, because the subject is complex, the details are provided in advance. But that is by the way.
The Statement is very disappointing. I am sure that everyone will find that that is so. Do the Government accept that the most important and urgent issue, rather
1028
than the opening of the export market as such, is the need for the harmonisation of import and export controls throughout Europe so that all beef that is consumed is of the same standard? Of course it is important that we look after the health of the public. It is very important also for the future of Europe that we see that there is fair dealing. That should be one of the Government's objectives.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their questions.
The noble Baroness asked why the committee felt that there was insufficient information. It set that out in its document. We do not necessarily accept that but it has put forward its reasons. We shall examine them and do our best to provide further information.
As regards Northern Ireland, which was the subject of about six of the noble Baroness's questions, our view is that we must achieve a lifting of the ban for the whole of the United Kingdom. We accept that in many ways the situation is better in Northern Ireland. When we achieve acceptance of certain solutions that we are trying to put forward, then it is quite clear that Northern Ireland will be a beneficiary because, in many ways, its herds are in a better state. The traceability is certainly better. Northern Ireland will benefit and we very much want that to happen and we bear very much in mind the situation in Northern Ireland because of its greater dependence on agriculture.
The noble Baroness asked when the computerised system would be set up. The previous Government were responsible for the handling of that. My understanding is that that is now under way in Great Britain and by the beginning of next year we are looking to have a reasonable, although not a full, establishment.
The noble Baroness asked about France. That really is a matter for the Commission. We shall submit our views on that.
On compensation, we are subject to strict budgetary restraints. We shall look at the matter and try to protect the British farming and meat industry as far as we possibly can. But I am bound to say that we act in a budgetary situation in which the previous Administration bequeathed us insufficient provision even to meet the present needs.
On the need for harmonisation, I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that we wholly agree with it; indeed, we have put that view fully to the Commission, and that is also its view. However, the Commission has its problems in the Council, as we do. As regards any further questions to which I have not responded, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister accept that I think his description of the decision of the veterinary committee is disappointing? Indeed, that is probably a grave understatement; I believe that it is catastrophic. Can he confirm a report which appeared in the Sunday Telegraph on 8th June that Professor John Pattison has now conceded that the

1029
CJD epidemic running into hundreds of thousands of cases which he predicted, and which gave rise to the BSE catastrophe, will not now occur? Faced with the dramatic decline in the number of CJD cases, the professor has now apparently admitted that the final number of such cases may end up not in hundreds of thousands but in only 200.
If that is so, is it not a fact that the professor and other scientists got it grievously wrong and that the then government were grievously at fault in too easily accepting the doomwatch scenario painted by the scientists which resulted in the futile killing of a million animals over 30 months of age and cost the taxpayer £3.5 billion in compensation—that is, £134 for every single household? If that is the case, does my noble friend the Minister agree that we have in fact been faced with enormous expense and enormous damage to our farming industry for no reason at all? Further, will he now take a far more robust attitude with our European partners than was taken by the previous government?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his intervention. The handling of this issue, and others, by the previous government did, I believe one can say quite gently, contain many defects. So far, we are pleased that there is no epidemic. However, there have been eight cases since last March and there are now 18. That is not an epidemic, but it is serious. In government one always finds oneself in the dilemma, especially when one is dependent on scientific advice, to which my noble friend referred, whereby one has always to preserve the balance between caution over the national health—and one probably always has to be over-cautious—and over huge costs. History will judge whether the previous government got that right. But we, with them, would not want to take major risks with the health of the nation.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I should like, first, to congratulate the noble Lord on his new post. I should also like to say how lucky in my opinion the farming industry is—and I declare an interest as a farmer—to have someone of such ability in the position that the noble Lord now occupies. Secondly, I must say that I find myself very much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. Of course, I am delighted that the present Government are following some 90 per cent. plus of the previous government's policies. However, this is one area where, frankly, they should scrap them totally. They should cease to attempt to appease the unappeasable in the case of Europe and recognise that, however much anyone may be trying to get a balance between budgetary constraints and risks to human health, there is no way in which we can justify spending £3.5 billion on 18 cases of a disease which may be linked to BSE in cows. Indeed, there is no way in which the budgetary decisions so made could be justified.
With the massive majority that the Government have, perhaps I may urge the Minister to take a totally fresh look at the matter and say, "We shall not export our beef until BSE is ended". It will end in due course because the numbers are falling rapidly at present. Indeed, there is probably a great deal less BSE in Britain than there is
1030
in France, and the time has now come to stop spending taxpayers' money, to stop the slaughter—certainly of cohorts—and to wait until the situation comes to a natural end.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks. I have taken note of his alliance with my noble friend who is sitting behind me. I am not sure whether that has always been the case and, therefore, I shall view what the noble Lord says with even greater care. I shall certainly report his views to my right honourable friend. Nevertheless, I have to tell the noble Lord that we are not totally—or even 90 per cent. in general—continuing the policies of the previous government, but we are locked into a particular process and we have certain obligations which we shall pursue while taking a radical look at them. We would not wish taxpayers to pay more than is necessary. We are most concerned about the consumer interest, but the health of the country is our top priority.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I have perhaps an easier question for the Minister. Can he say what progress is being made to secure the removal of heads, spinal cords and some other offal from beef carcasses imported into this country from continental Europe?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. However, I can assure him that it is my observation that there are no easy questions in this department. We announced last week our proposals to ensure that specified risk materials are removed, and, indeed, are removed from imports. We have given the European Union until 22nd July to come forward with proposals to ensure that it has similar controls. Therefore, we have taken quite new and radical steps in that respect. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the case we have to put before the Scientific Veterinary Committee is an unanswerable one? We have all the evidence and we have done all the things that we need to do in order to be able to get the committee to agree with us. If we find the committee continuing with the obfuscation and obstruction which it has demonstrated on this occasion and which may be a hangover from previous days, or if at the end of the process it reaches the conclusion that we should not be allowed to go ahead with a certified herd scheme, would that not be a great disappointment to the Minister and cause him to question whether the approach being taken by his Government towards Europe is going to pay the dividends which he hopes? Further, can the Minister tell the House what conceivable disadvantage would occur to any other part of the United Kingdom—except perhaps to the amour propre of the Scots—if Northern Ireland were allowed to go ahead of the rest of us in getting permission to market its beef?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I believe that our case is very strong. It is not in all specifics the case that we might have submitted; indeed, it was submitted by the previous

1031
government. However, we believe that the thrust of the case is absolutely right. But if the committee has questions about particular details and phrasings, we shall look into them in order to try to be constructive. As the noble Lord knows, it is an independent scientific committee; it is not a group of European politicians. Therefore, we must treat the committee with respect and we shall try our very best to do so.
I should also tell the noble Lord that my right honourable friend has been in contact today, by telephone, with both the relevant commissioners—namely, Commissioner Fischler and Commissioner Bonino—to discuss how we should take the matter forward positively. It is clear that their view is that this step is not a slap in the face or a rejection; it seeks to establish the basis on which we can go forward and secure a lifting of the ban. It should be viewed more positively than it has been in the British press.
As regards Northern Ireland, I can only repeat what I said to the noble Baroness. We sympathise with and are concerned about the beef industry in Northern Ireland. We shall do everything we can to help it. However, our basic aim is to seek a lifting of the ban for the whole of the United Kingdom. If we obtain specific concessions—for example, on certified herds or on animals born after certain dates—there is no doubt that those in Northern Ireland will he the main beneficiaries. As regards damage, I do not believe that the industry in Northern Ireland could inflict any damage on the rest of the United Kingdom. However, the Scots are often sensitive about these matters.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I wish to pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, which I do not think was answered. Does the noble Lord accept that what infuriates the British people more than anything else with regard to the beef ban is the power, or purported power, of the European Commission to ban exports of our beef and beef derivatives to countries outside the European Union which may wish to buy our beef, notwithstanding the BSE scare? I suspect that 18 months ago 99.99 per cent. of the people in this country would have found it quite inconceivable that the European Commission possessed such draconian powers at the expense of national parliaments. Will the Minister say under what clauses or paragraphs of the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act or the Treaty of Maastricht the European Commission is given such powers? If he does not have the facts at his fingertips, will he be so kind as to write to me? At the same time can he say whether the power to ban such exports is confined solely to agricultural produce, or could it be extended to manufactured goods which the Commission deems to be in some way unsafe?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I point out to the noble Lord that we are challenging that action as being excessive and beyond the Commission's powers. We
1032
must await the judgment of the European Court on that matter. We do not accept that the Commission has those powers.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, when do we expect the European Court of Justice to deliver its verdict on this matter?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am sorry, we have no idea, but we hope it will be by the end of the year.

Social Security (Social Fund and Claims and Payments) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1997
6.42 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations (S.I. 1997/792), laid before the House on 17th March, be annulled.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Motion is to persuade the Government to think again, or rather to persuade a new Government for the first time to think through the present proposals further to tighten eligibility for funeral expenses payments. In my speech to this Motion I depend for my facts on a number of briefs, but most particularly on the respected and impartial brief of the citizens advice bureaux. I also rely on my noble friend Lord Falkland to raise some matters which I shall not be able to touch on.
However, I depend for my motivation, as opposed to my facts, on my experience as a parish priest, where I suppose I have more experience with the bereaved than most Members of your Lordships' House. That moves me to know that this is one area where it is important that any government fall over backwards to be as humane and as compassionate as possible. Unlike other social security areas, in this case the damage done by fraud cannot be of major and overwhelming importance. Death comes to all of us but at least it comes only once.
The citizens advice bureaux consider that the present proposals further to tighten eligibility for funeral expenses payments and to limit the amount allowed will lead to people being deprived of assistance by harsh rules which fail to take account of the significance of funerals for those who are bereaved. The rules governing access to funeral payments are now so complex that not only does this cause problems for Benefits Agency staff administering the scheme, but it is virtually impossible for anyone apart from a partner of the deceased—and not always then—to know if they will qualify for a payment, let alone how much they will receive. The proposed amendments are another example of how short-term demands to cut costs take precedence over the creation of a system which is comprehensible to claimants and easy to administer.
At present, help is available to a person in receipt of income related benefits who is the partner of the deceased or either a close relative or close friend of

1033
the deceased. Since June 1995 there has been a ceiling on the amount allowed for funeral expenses: £500 plus a range of specified expenses. In practice, judging from CAB evidence, this has meant total payments are made in the range of between £650 and £800, which have fallen well short of the actual cost of a simple funeral in many cases. The fact that there are simple "green" funerals—which would appeal to me and about which I know a certain amount—does not affect the issue, as the poor do not usually have the know-how or necessarily the will to benefit from that.
There are two main aspects to the new proposals. First, an "immediate family member" test will be introduced. That will mean that, where there is no surviving partner, a funeral payment will be refused if there is a parent (including an absent parent) or a son or daughter of the deceased who is not in receipt of an income related benefit. In this situation relatives or close friends who would otherwise qualify for financial help in arranging a funeral will be refused. Secondly, the £500 limit will rise to £600, but with a reduction in assistance with specific expenses. The effect is likely to he a reduction in the overall payments made to individuals.
The CAB service believes that the new immediate family member test will lead to cruel and arbitrary decisions where the person judged to be an immediate family member may well have no interest or intention in paying for the funeral of the deceased and may not even be available to do so. Already CAB evidence shows that Benefits Agency officials are rejecting claims from close friends or relatives on the basis that it is not reasonable that they should take responsibility—usually where the deceased has other relatives who are not in receipt of qualifying benefits.
For example, a CAB in Wales reported the refusal of a funeral payment to a single parent on income support. Her mother had died in suspicious circumstances and the father had been arrested for her murder, then sent to a mental hospital, from which he had disappeared without trace. The Benefits Agency argued,
"There is a close relative who could reasonably he expected to pay"—
that is, the father. By selling all her possessions of value, the client had managed to accumulate £450, but that was not enough. There are other examples of such judgments.
Where immediate family members are exempted from responsibility for funeral costs if at school, a student, in prison, in hospital or in the Armed Forces, these exceptions are too rigid to cope with the variety of other situations where it might be unreasonable to expect an immediate family member to pay. For instance, they do not deal with the situation where the immediate relative is mentally ill but living in the community on contributory benefits. I am afraid that such cases are only too common these days. They do not cover the situation where the immediate family member is not traceable. There will be particular problems for immigrants to the UK who may have immediate family overseas. An elderly parent living in Pakistan or Nigeria for example will not be in receipt of qualifying benefits
1034
but may still be living in straitened circumstances. There may also be difficulties in contacting the person and arranging for the transfer of funds.
The proposed rules are likely to cause further grief to the parent of a deceased child. The Child Support Act has emphasised the financial obligation of each biological parent regardless of any estrangement between them. The new rules exempt from the "immediate family" test a parent, son or daughter who is estranged from the deceased. This exemption will not necessarily assist parents who are estranged from each other rather than the child, in particular if the absent parent had contact with the child or had been pressing for contact.
The further proposed restrictions on the amount awarded for funeral expenses merely throw into relief how inadequate the payment has become in enabling poor people to bury their dead without falling into debt. The truth is that even modest funerals cost more than £600. Many examples are reported to the citizens advice bureaux where it has been impossible for the person involved to pay the expenses. The proposed new limit on funeral expenses bears no relation to reality. As a result, the DSS appears indifferent to the consequences for poor people.
I know that the measure is a result of bureaucracy rather than necessarily hard-heartedness. However. I would expect the present new Government to be able to give us a new start in this matter. We consider that poor people should be allowed to bury their loved ones with all proper respect. Assistance with funeral costs is one of the oldest and most valued forms of help which the social security system in this country gives. The proposed new rules are a further erosion of claimants' rights to be treated with dignity, not least at moments of greatest distress. If we are committed, as I hope we all are, to helping those who are most in need of help, this is a situation where I sincerely hope that the Government will be able to think again. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations (S.I. 1997/792), laid before the House on 17th March, be annulled.— (Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
6.52 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, my noble friend has outlined admirably the view from these Benches. I should not have been dealing with this subject, but my noble friend Lord Russell is not available today.
Like most noble Lords I have had a funeral in my family. During the past two years my mother died. She did not have an elaborate funeral, but I know full well the costs of that funeral. It was not in the London area; it was in the far west, in Devon. The cost was considerably in excess of the £600 allowed under the scheme. I agree with my noble friend and support him in saying that the limit of £600 is too rigid. In general terms the amount is inadequate.
However, my specific concern relates to homosexuals who find themselves bereaved. A partner may have died, often regrettably as a result of AIDS. In this country in

1035
recent years there have been some 9,500 deaths as a result of AIDS of which about 75 per cent. have occurred among gay men. Although some people may not have accepted the fact, having lived with the difficulties of being homosexual and having suffered in many ways some homosexuals now choose to live with partners in stable relationships and can suffer this kind of bereavement.
The £600 limit affects everyone. However, homosexuals are particularly vulnerable as regards the immediate family test. Distress is caused to the surviving member of the partnership if he is denied the responsibility of taking care of the funeral expenses. Under the regulations, if it is necessary to probe and investigate whether there is a close member of the family who is not receiving benefit that adds additional complications in the case of homosexuals. Many are living with a partner of which the family is ignorant, and of whom they would wish the family to remain ignorant. In some cases the family has taken a disapproving view of the relationship and there has been an estrangement.
I have no reason to suppose that the tidying up measures imply any discrimination against homosexuals. I have read all the papers concerned with these measures. It is a bureaucratic tidying up and an attempt to ensure that there is no abuse of benefit claims. I have no doubt that there are examples of fraudulent benefit claims in this area. However, it is a sensitive subject. It is on record that in the old days, as many of your Lordships will know, people who were very poor saved all their lives for a funeral. It was commonplace until perhaps 20 or 30 years ago for people to spend several years worrying and enduring hardship, saving for a funeral so that they would not load their families with the distressing responsibility of having to scrape around to give them a decent burial. I think that that situation is preferable even if there were some hardship, rather than having to undergo what is clearly a distressing, painful and probing investigation in order to qualify for the benefits under the regulations.
I have read in the papers of general cases which if they were not so tragic would be ludicrous. The cases do not involve homosexuals about whom I am specifically concerned. The Benefits Agency has felt it incumbent to make inquiries and investigations, with statements in letters to people who suffer the distress of grief. We are enjoying again the programme "Yes, Prime Minister". Those statements make some of the jokes in that programme not so far fetched. I should like to see the removal of that distress. It is surely not beyond the means of the Government to devise a scheme where the most simple criteria are exercised, giving the least possible distress to the bereaved even if that increases slightly the risk of the occasional claim being made which is not strictly correct.
I conclude on this note. The Terrence Higgins Trust which has done good work in the area of AIDS and in caring for those who have suffered distress and bereavement through AIDS has reiterated that if the situation is allowed to continue it will cause distress not only to people who are bereaved but also to a great
1036
number of family members of surviving homosexuals who had been in partnerships. It is an important point. I know that some people have fairly hard views about those who live in homosexual relationships. I believe that we are now more able to accept that many are extremely respectable and caring relationships.
I utterly reject that in a more permissive society we are seeing evidence of more homosexuals taking on this kind of lifestyle. It is just that there are now fewer people suffering in silence under the appalling burden of not being able to reveal to their families and to the world at large that they are homosexual, and that more of them are out and living in these kinds of relationships. Unfortunately, in these kinds of relationships, and because of the dreadful disease of AIDS, there are a great number of fatalities. It is just as painful for a homosexual who has lost his partner, and sometimes more painful in terms of grief and upheaval in their lives, as it is for people living in heterosexual relationships. The additional difficulties imposed by these regulations, which I hope I have articulated clearly enough, make the matter well worth our attention. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give me some help and encouragement to believe that the situation will alter in due course.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, on putting down this Prayer, although in fact I suspect I should be congratulating his noble friend Lord Russell, who had intended to put down this Prayer on the last day of the last Parliament. However, it suddenly dawned on the noble Earl that he could actually put it down in this Parliament if, as I suspect he then thought, a new government decided to continue the policy of their predecessors. Certainly the noble Lord. Lord Beaumont, should be congratulated for today, but he really does not deserve the full congratulations because these should rather be directed to his noble friend. Actually I think he should be doubly congratulated because in the few weeks of this Parliament we have had from the Liberal Democrat Benches for the first time some tentative—and I must say they have been pretty tentative—criticisms of the new Government. To date it has been a fairly lap dog performance from the Liberal Benches. Its members have jumped up one after the other to ingratiate themselves with the Government Benches, to such an extent that we all wonder on these Benches how long it will take for one of them to be given a job. It will not surprise anybody who has read—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): Sour!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, no, it is not sour at all: my goodness! It is just a statement, an observation of what has been happening no later than today. In fact the Liberal Democrats have been almost more supportive of the Government than the government Back-Benchers have been. The noble Baroness the Minister will not be in the least surprised

1037
when I say that I am not going to be in any way critical of these regulations, because they were signed by my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Roger Evans, before the unfortunate event of the general election.
The regulations are the result of some very heart-searching discussions we had in the Department of Social Security on several occasions and more recently, when we decided on these changes to the Social Fund payments and claims for funerals. When we first looked at this issue we decided that we had to take some steps to deal with what was becoming an increasingly difficult problem. What was happening—I know that it never bothered the Liberal Democrats Benches when we were in government and I do not suppose it will bother them now that we have a Labour government—was that the cost of funerals to the Social Fund—that is, to the taxpayer—which was £18 million in 1988–89, had risen to £61 million by 1994–95. At that point we decided, as part of our general review of every part of the system, that we really had to look rather carefully at this.
The noble Viscount who has just spoken, was complaining about the Benefits Agency looking around to see if there was a close member of the family who was not receiving benefit and who should in fact be taking on responsibility. For myself, I see nothing wrong with that. It seems to me preferable to what was happening, which was that the family were looking round to see who was on benefit who could become the responsible member and therefore become eligible for the benefit. That was one of the problems and one of the reasons for the increase.
The other reason for the increase was the cost of the funerals themselves. Although I no longer have the facts in front of me I can certainly remember enough of them to remember the enormous variations from one part of the country to another, which we felt were really quite wrong. If the taxpayer was picking up the bill, it seemed to be quite unreasonable that he should be picking up very large bills in one part of the country for funerals which were exactly the same as those in another part of the country where the bills were very much smaller. We worried considerably about this and one of the reasons why the first lot of regulations was complex was indeed as a result of our concern to make sure that every eventuality was covered.
It is not true to say £600 is the end, because we were careful about that. We were very well aware that the difference in costs between cremation and burial is very considerable, and indeed the costs of burials differ between one part of the country and another, for very well understood reasons. The difference can be very considerable indeed. We therefore made the cost of cremation and the cost of burial quite separate from the item of £600, so that somebody who could not afford to bury a relative would not be forced into cremation, for example, simply because they could not afford it. The result of that, if my memory is correct, is that for burials the average was not £600 but in excess of £1,000 because of the additional cost of burials. However, I am sure the noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong.
These issues of social security are always difficult. I have a great deal of sympathy for the difficulties that I know will face the noble Baroness, because there are
1038
always hard cases and the citizens advice bureaux seem to make a great habit of finding the hardest imaginable cases that exist. However, the simple fact of the matter is that the social security system has to deal with the generality. It has to be fair to everybody, and I think the system that we devised was a perfectly fair one.
As the noble Viscount pointed out, there are many people who make sure that they pay for insurance to deal with their funeral provisions. They will still have to be careful with the costs of the funeral when they come along, if in fact their insurance is modest. It seemed to us, and it certainly seems to me. that it would be quite wrong if the relatives of somebody who is not very well off but who has taken sensible insurance precautions during his or her lifetime find that the funeral they can afford is far less expensive than somebody else can obtain via the social security system and the taxpayer. Frankly, that is the position we were in. So I have a great deal of sympathy with the Government on this one.
I absolutely agree with the instrument before us. I hope the noble Baroness will not accede to any of the requests that have come from the Liberal Democrat Benches and that she will stick to the plans put forward by the last government in this regard, in order to be fair to all people in the country, both taxpayers and those poor people who need help, and also in order to prevent the abuse and escalation in this particular service that we were seeing. I think I am right in saying that as a result of the actions that we took in 1994 the costs to the Social Fund of this particular programme were reduced from the £61 million I mentioned earlier to £49 million in 1995–96. However, I may be wrong and I have no doubt that the noble Baroness knows exactly what the cost is. I can certainly assure her that if the Liberal Benches put this Prayer to a Division tonight she will not find me reversing the views which I took when I was in government.
7.9 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the points made during the debate and I believe the entire House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for giving us the opportunity to explain the Government's position regarding the provision of help to meet funeral expenses and in particular to explain the changes contained in the amending legislation, the subject of today's debate, the Social Security (Social Fund and Claims and Payments)(Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1997. I suppose I should be even more grateful for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, setting out the previous Government's views on an item that we have inherited and which he defended with considerable enthusiasm—an enthusiasm which I would find difficulty in matching, and I shall not seek to do so.
Your Lordships will be aware that the Government inherited policy changes in a number of areas. I do not necessarily defend those changes. However, your Lordships will also know that savings from those policy changes, including the measures within the amending regulations which are the subject of today's debate, were

1039
built in to the previous Government's expenditure plan. We need to take that into account in considering the issues before us today.
Before I talk about the changes. I should like to refer back to the purpose of Social Fund funeral payments. They are to provide help with funeral expenses where someone has been awarded a qualifying benefit and has good cause for taking responsibility for the costs but has insufficient funds to meet such an expense. Help goes to people on income-related benefits namely, income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance, family credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit or disability working allowance.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said, the scheme covers the necessary cost of specified items, including burial and cremation charges, which can amount to over £2,000. In addition, the scheme provides £600 to meet the funeral director's charges, a minister's fee or donation and possibly an organist's fee or a floral tribute. The total cost met by the DSS could exceed £3,000 under the regulations.
A number of changes have been made in recent years to the way the scheme works. Taking into account all the changes introduced, planned expenditure for 1997–98 is £40 million, helping an estimated 50,000 people.
The changes to the provisions we are discussing today were first announced on 1st November 1996. The proposed amendments were referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee. The committee conducted a consultation exercise, to which 51 responses were received: its report and recommendations were given to the previous Government, who decided to proceed with the changes as originally planned. The amending regulations came into force on 7th April 1997.
The package of measures within the amending regulations being debated today include the introduction of an additional test to help determine whether someone has good reason for taking responsibility for the funeral expenses. Where there is a surviving partner, they will automatically be regarded as being responsible for the expenses, and help will be available provided the other qualifying conditions—for example, being in receipt of income-related benefit—are met. The same will apply in respect of a child's death, where the parents will be deemed responsible. In all other cases, details of any parent (including absent parents), son or daughter of the deceased will be considered. Where at least one member of the immediate family exists and neither they nor their partner, if they have one, have not been awarded a qualifying benefit, no help will be given.
Where a parent, son or daughter of the deceased is able to meet the costs, it is right that they should do so, rather than the taxpayer. The balance needs to be struck between providing help to anyone in genuine need and the taxpayer being asked to meet the cost when someone else should do so.
The advisory committee was concerned about the degree of questioning at a difficult time for families, but the regulations introduce some provisions to disregard certain categories of immediate family members not
1040
awarded a qualifying income-related benefit. They include children, full-time students, fully maintained members of a religious order, prisoners or hospital in-patients who had been awarded a qualifying benefit immediately before entering prison or hospital, and where the person was estranged from the deceased prior to death. The point in relation to estrangement is that it was meant to be helpful rather than the reverse. The Government will keep the position under close review and consider changes if it becomes clear that help is not reaching those in genuine need.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, pressed me on what would happen where a family member not on an income-related benefit lives overseas. They would not be eligible. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, asked what the situation was for same-sex couples. The survivor of a same-sex partnership may well be eligible for help under the regulations, provided he or she has good reason for taking responsibility. But so would any parent, son or daughter and it would have to be determined who might be regarded as the responsible person in that situation. I accept that it is a sensitive issue and respect the problems that may arise. We will obviously keep the matter under review.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked what would happen if no one was available to take responsibility. The local authority takes responsibility if there is no person in the immediate family who is liable to do so.
The other major change within the amending regulations relates not to who in the family may be responsible, but to the removal of the specified provision for funeral director's fees, which was capped at £500. That capped amount included a list of what was allowable for the funeral director's fees, and a number of additional items, including minister's and organist's fees, have also been removed as specified items. However, both have been subsumed within the higher figure of £600 for "other funeral expenses". That gives more flexibility to the family in disposing of the money.
Before April this year, up to £75 was available as a separate provision for additional requirements arising out of the religious faith of the deceased. Monitoring of funeral payment awards showed that that provision was very rarely used. In addition, the Social Security Advisory Committee reported that it had received no comments in the responses to its consultation exercise on the proposal to no longer specify that provision.
In addition to the amount allowed for "other funeral expenses", the necessary cost of specified items and services, including burial or cremation charges, will be met. The person arranging the funeral will still be able to choose between a burial or cremation. In the case of a burial, in some parts of the country—particularly where the local authority charges for a non-resident—that cost alone can be up to £2,300 before the department meets the cost of the funeral director's fees. Where the deceased lived in a remote area of the country, or died away from home, extra help may also be available for the additional transportation costs.
A number of other change measures are included within the amending regulations. Those include allowing people who marry while living in a residential

1041
care home or a nursing home to be treated as partners and where one dies the other is regarded as being responsible for the funeral expenses—thereby removing the need to consider other family members.
I understand that the detailed, pre-April 1997 provision was thought to be complex, difficult to understand, and led to inconsistent decision-making. Under the current arrangements, the person making the funeral arrangements is free to decide the detail, knowing the level of help available. Of course, it will be important for funeral directors to be aware that the person making the arrangements will be making a claim to the Social Fund for help. Encouragement should be given to consider the level of help available and the services which can be obtained within that amount.
I accept that it is a worrying and upsetting time for people who do not always feel able to "shop around" and obtain a decent price. I asked an official today to check the response of the three organisations of funeral directors to see whether services could be provided within the £600 cap available. Though those organisations accepted that not all funeral directors would be able to meet their costs, most of them should be able to do so. Clearly the department cannot be in the position of underwriting whatever a funeral director sees fit to charge. That would not be reasonable.
The amended provision allows someone to spend some of the available funds on fees or services not directly provided by the funeral director—something that was not possible before due to the specific and tightly-drawn references in the previous regulations.
Finally, we should note that the Social Security Advisory Committee's main recommendation was that there should be
"a new approach to provision for funerals".
That reflected the view that the scheme had become too complex. In doing so, it put forward the suggestion of an insurance-based scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred to the number of people who take that on voluntarily. It is an interesting idea. One of our aims in reviewing social security is to consider how we can foster arrangements that encourage people to make provision for themselves, and which reward, rather than penalise, saving.
To conclude, your Lordships will be aware of your Government's commitment to the electorate to live within the previous administration's expenditure plan and these savings conform to it. Room for manoeuvre is limited, but, as I stated earlier, the provision will be kept under close review and if changes are thought necessary then, of course, I shall come back to the House to do so. I therefore ask the House to accept these regulations.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I would like to pick up a couple of remarks made from the Conservative Front Bench. It is a little unfair on the citizens' advice bureaux to suggest that they make a practice of finding the hardest cases. The citizens' advice bureaux make a survey of what their branches bring into them and then, of course, they choose the ones which make the best cases, rather like the noble Lord does when
1042
he is making speeches from the Front Bench. It is what we all do and it is perfectly acceptable. The fact that those extreme cases do exist is evidence.
It is certainly not true of my colleagues, looking around here, and certainly not of myself that we are lap dogs to the present Government Front Bench. I spent the whole of the general election in Liverpool fighting a Labour incumbent in a constituency where I could not fight any Tories because there were not any. In fact, it was difficult enough to find a Tory voter and certainly no Tory workers of any kind were available, so I was fighting a Labour incumbent with Liberal policies, which I may say come from the left-wing of the Labour Party.
I had hoped that I would receive some response from the Minister, and I have. I had hoped that wearing carers' ribbons this week might be equivalent to a Masonic handshake across the Chamber, and although it was not quite that, at least it shows that we both think along the same lines and care in the same kind of way.
One of the reasons why I am not a lap dog of the Government is that I do not like the defence that the Government have to stick to the previous Government's expenditure plans and have to accept their rejection of necessary tax rises. We thought that was wrong at the time, and incidentally, quite unnecessary to get them elected, and we thought it was wrong in principle as well, and we still do.
I welcome the Minister's commitment that they will keep the matter under close review and will make changes if necessary. I conclude by paying tribute, largely to the small independent and really good funeral directors found throughout these islands. I regret that the whole industry appears to have been taken over by large American conglomerates which, from personal experience, I do not regard as giving anything like the same kind of service. But the good funeral director does need support. I am delighted to know from the Minister that most funeral directors think that in most cases they can meet funeral arrangements under—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I can clarify what I said. I talked to three trade organisations, if I can use that word. They could not give a guarantee in the case of every funeral director, but they were confident, or reasonably so, that there were some funeral directors in the organisations they represented who could provide such a funeral.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I am delighted to hear that. It will involve a certain amount of shopping around, although I know, as the Minister has already accepted, that this is not on the whole an occasion when you want to shop around. I will take what the noble Minister said and examine it in detail. It certainly confirms what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has been suggesting and also the noble Viscount, who has contributed a very important point to the debate. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Hong Kong
7.24 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to support the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong and to maintain the common law system in the administration of justice in Hong Kong courts, in accordance with the autonomy accorded to Hong Kong in the Joint Declaration.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is indeed a privilege to raise the question of the unique territory of Hong Kong in the final days of the British administration and in the presence of many of those who have shown such a long and dedicated commitment to its people.
The bequest of the British administration of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China is a thriving economy, the eighth largest trading entity in goods in the world, producing the equivalent of 25 per cent. of China's gross domestic product. The GDP per head of population is up to 207,000 Hong Kong dollars, or £16,640, for the current year. Growth rates have been at an annual average of 5.9 per cent. and are estimated for this year at 5.5 per cent. The reserves stand in excess of the equivalent of £13 billion. We have provided the framework of administration and law, within which the natural genius of the Chinese people for business and for hard work has thrived. Commercial obligations have been entered into and enforced. Law and order have been maintained. Corruption has been checked. Human rights have been respected. These are the conditions within which prosperity and freedom can flourish and be enjoyed. Historically, we have also in Hong Kong offered a haven to those escaping repression and injustice, and many of them and their descendants we leave behind.
With this record, 30th June is a moment for farewell but not for regret. July 1st is a moment for pride. We are proud of our contribution. The British traditions of fairness and justice have not repressed or exploited the Chinese people or in some way distorted their philosophy, as is sometimes claimed. By contrast, representing as they do universal truths and freedoms, British values, liberal values, have been a liberating force.
Our responsibilities for Hong Kong are not over. We have to maintain the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984. A clear breach of that declaration was the creation of a "provisional legislature" in the territory. The previous Foreign Secretary, Mr. Rifkind, described it as reprehensible and unjustifiable. Representations were made by the previous government to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, and in December last Mr. Rifkind announced that he had sought Chinese co-operation for an independent settlement of the question by the International Court of Justice. But nothing has happened. The first act promised by China after midnight on 30th June, no doubt in the red glare of the rockets, will be to swear in that unconstitutional provisional legislature.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, speaking for the then Labour Opposition a year ago, said that it was beyond doubt that China was breaking the Joint Declaration by setting up the provisional council. His view has been confirmed by the International Commission of Jurists, the United Nations Human Rights Commission, the US Senate and, recently, the Australian Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to a commitment by Mr. Major, the Prime Minister at that time:
"If there were to be any suggestion of a breach of the Joint Declaration we would have a duty to pursue every legal and other avenue available to us".
Now that duty falls upon a Labour Government.
The current Legislative Council, as constituted by the 1995 democratic elections in Hong Kong, is in accordance with the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. On the other hand, the Provisional Legislative Council, set up on 21st December last year by the selection of some 60 members by 400 persons appointed, in effect, by the Government of China, has no basis in law. Constitutionally it does not exist. Any ordinances it purports to pass will be illegal. If you look at its make-up you will see that the pro-democracy parties in Hong Kong, who represent 52 per cent. of the current LegCo, would now hold only 8.3 per cent. of the membership of this appointed body.
Why is it illegal? It is illegal because the Joint Declaration provided in its first annex that the legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be constituted by elections. It is illegal because the Basic Law itself, the constitution passed and approved by China, provides in Article 68 that the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be constituted by election, and Annex II of the Basic Law sets out how in its first term the council shall be formed in accordance with the decision of the National People's Congress.
That congress did make a decision, in 1990. It provided that the first council, which would last for two years, should be composed of 60 members, with 20 members returned by geographical constituencies through direct election, 10 members by an election committee and 30 members by functional constituencies. That has not been followed through. We owe it to the people of Hong Kong, the people whom Mr. Major declared would never walk alone, to demand free and fair elections, in accordance with the Basic Law and in fulfilment of the obligations of the Joint Declaration. And let no party in Hong Kong be proscribed from standing in those elections.
As the Harvard sinologist, Mr. Roderick McFarquhar, has pointed out, the notion that whispering to China regarding breaches of the Joint Declaration will have more effect than talking tough in public is a total chimera. He rightly points out that the present Chinese leadership is afraid of international humiliation before its own people. He urges that, to be effective, pressure on China must be firm, public and continual.
I urge upon this new Government that they fulfil the promises they made in opposition. If China refuses to respond to the invitation to take the matter to the

1045
International Court of Justice, then let the issue of the provisional legislature be referred immediately to that court for an "advisory opinion". That is what happened in 1971 with the South African occupation of Namibia. The consent of the Chinese Government would not be required. All that is needed is that the United Nations votes to refer the issue to that court. China, as a party to the dispute, though a permanent member of the Security Council, could not exercise a veto. An advisory opinion, although not a binding judgment, defines international law. It would marshall international censure. It is wholly unsatisfactory that we should stand by while the Democratic Party in Hong Kong is forced, as it did this week, to issue proceedings for an injunction in the courts of Hong Kong to challenge the legitimacy of the provisional legislature. Not only are the individual members of that party exposed, but the independence of the new Final Court of Appeal will be under enormous and immediate pressure.
I turn to human rights. A year ago, Mr. Hanley, then a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said that the Government were continuing to press China to ratify a range of international human rights instruments. The President of the International Commission of Jurists, the honourable Justice Michael Kirby, has since called for Britain to join the 92 other countries which signed the first optional protocol of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights so that individual citizens can appeal directly to the United Nations Human Rights Committee which monitors compliance with the guarantees of freedom of expression and of association. As Dr. Robin Fitzsimmons pointed out in an article in the Asian Wall Street Journal on Tuesday last:
"Dissidents who demonstrate 'illegally' or who are charged with the new crime of 'subversion' against the PRC, could appeal to the committee in Geneva and gain an international audience".
In the Hong Kong courts, the common law system preserved by the Joint Declaration for the next 50 years and underpinning the commercial success of the territory is under an unexpected threat. It is the use of the English language and its place in those courts. If international confidence is to be retained, it is essential that Hong Kong's legal system functions in accordance with well tried and tested procedures. The essence of the common law around the world is that precedent will prevail. The precedents of the common law are in the English language. It is unrealistic to suppose that they can ever be translated into the Chinese language. It is obvious that difficulties may arise in the interpretation of precedents in a language which is not the mother tongue for the majority of the population.
In the criminal courts, where the liberty of the subject is at stake, there are compelling reasons why the language used should be Chinese. It is the language of nearly all the defendants and most jurors. But in the civil and commercial courts it is essential that a policy of bilingualism be introduced. That is well recognised by the elected Legislative Council, the Bar and the Law Society of Hong Kong. The outgoing British administration has been hesitant, afraid perhaps to
1046
challenge what is perceived to be possible opposition by China and ready in an unthinking way to promote the use of Chinese in all the courts.
The final LegCo meeting on this special subject has resolved to request the Chief Secretary to set up a high level body to monitor and co-ordinate the implementation of a policy of true biligualism at a speed compatible with Hong Kong's paramount interests. The proposal is that the body should be under the leadership of the Chief Secretary, with representatives of the Bar, the Law Society, the judiciary, the universities, the Attorney-General's chambers and consumers of legal services. I urge the Government to give their full support to this proposal in the few days left when executive action can be taken.
I have no doubt that the people of Hong Kong will welcome reassurances from the new Labour Administration that they are determined to uphold their interests and their freedoms. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response in that regard. The best way in which the interests of the new Government can be signalled is by the attendance of the Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, at the handover ceremonies on 30th June next. But he must not be there to preside over the swearing in of an unconstitutional legislative council. He is entitled to expect, before he signals his intention of going, that the People's Republic of China will announce a timetable for the implementation of the requirements of the Basic Law for democratic elections and for the creation of a constitutional legislative council.
I am grateful to your Lordships for the time and attention you have given to this Question.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for providing this opportunity for debate. It is an important debate and I look forward to hearing other noble Lords' contributions.
There are only 18 days until the transfer of sovereignty and this Government took office only some 40 days ago. Clearly, the most immediate responsibility of the Government is to ensure that there is a successful transition. But I am sure that in this debate we can and will look further than this immediate responsibility.
For myself, there are two groups of issues which are in a tension with each other. The first is that Britain should work to use Hong Kong as a bridge into China to further its business interests in trade, manufacturing and mineral exploitation. The second group of issues is that we should continue to draw to the world's attention human rights abuses within China and how those rights are to be protected in Hong Kong once the transition is complete. I shall first say a few words about the business opportunities in China.
I have some little experience of that as I worked on oil exploration rigs in northern China in the early 1980s. The lesson I learnt was that when one is investing in China there is infinite flexibility in helping one make the investment. Unfortunately, the exploration programme with which I was associated was

1047
unsuccessful, so we never found out whether that Chinese flexibility extended to recovering the fruits of our investment. Nevertheless, that initial encouragement was certainly there.
I should like to give two very minor examples of the flexibility which I encountered. First, we had a couple of small strikes on the rig on which I worked. By "strikes", I mean labour strikes and not oil strikes. The Chinese crews refused to work. We found that we resolved those strikes very amicably with the help of the Chinese authorities. They were speedily and practically resolved and, as far as I am aware, there were no repercussions on the crews concerned.
The second example of flexibility is that on my days off I travelled fairly extensively within China. At the time that was quite illegal and I was told not to do it. Nevertheless, I thought that I knew better and off I went. As I travelled I found that I was accompanied by a series of English-speaking students who attached themselves to me and ensured that I came to no harm. No doubt these students informed others that I had come to no harm and the whole experience was completely unthreatening.
These two small examples showed me that when one is associated with a project which is benefiting China, flexibility is the order of the day. There can be no doubt that there are huge opportunities available for Britain to work through Hong Kong.
The second group of issues, as I have said, relates to the question of human rights abuses within China. Last night I spent an idle couple of hours searching the Internet for information about Hong Kong and China. I have to report to your Lordships that, apart from the immaculately presented website of the Foreign Office, there is a huge amount of information about human rights abuses in China and particularly concern emanating from Hong Kong about how that issue will affect them.
I shall raise just one of these small issues, which has also been brought to my attention by Amnesty International—that is the issue of Vietnamese migrants who, I believe, have been refused refugee status. Many of them are petty criminals and stateless. My understanding is that China does not want to inherit that problem. It is also my understanding that the Hong Kong authorities have promised that the refugee camps, or the camps in which the migrants are kept, will be cleared by 1st July. However, that is unlikely to be the case, or so I am informed. I shall be grateful if my noble friend the Minister can tell me what the fate of those people will be.
In general, I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will say that the rule of law is the ultimate protection for the people of Hong Kong and that China has agreed in the Joint Declaration that its version of a socialist system shall not be imposed on Hong Kong. However, I believe that it is incumbent on the Government to do all they can to ensure that all the provisions of the Joint Declaration are met in full and that proper and verifiable reports are submitted to the UN treaty monitoring body.
1048
But I go further than that. Quite rightly, Britain will be fully represented in Hong Kong after the transition of sovereignty. The FCO mission statement, about which we have heard so much, must become a tangible working document daily guiding us in developing our relationship with China. We should never shy away from raising our concerns about human rights, while at the same time trying to capitalise on the business opportunities that are available to us.
The unique experiment of managing two systems within one country will be an extraordinary challenge to China. The way in which China handles that challenge will be critical for the future prosperity of Hong Kong and an important test of China's own commitment to human rights. I wish them well.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, this debate represents the continuing interest in Hong Kong which Parliament has taken and will, I believe, continue to take. To begin with, I declare that for a number of years I have been an adviser to John Swire and Sons, who have considerable interests in Hong Kong.
For at least the next 50 years the future of the people of Hong Kong will, by treaty enforceable if necessary, as the noble Lord pointed out, in the international courts, be in the hands of the Government and Legislative Council of Hong Kong. Their individual freedoms and rights will be interpreted and adjudicated by the Hong Kong courts. There is in place, I believe, the means to ensure the continuing prosperity and stability of Hong Kong.
The only concerns are therefore on how it will work out in practice. I will confine myself to two aspects of this: first, the coming handover at the end of the month; secondly, the style of government which will follow.
First, the handover. I believe that we should all be delighted that China's top leadership—that is, both Jiang Zemin and Li Peng—will be attending and that our Prime Minister, together with the Foreign Secretary, will he representing Britain, along with the Prince of Wales, who will represent the British Crown. It is also appropriate that among the representatives of other foreign governments will be the American Secretary of State, Mrs. Madeleine Albright.
There will also be in Hong Kong no fewer than 8,400 journalists, all of whom will be as ready as anyone fully to enjoy the festivities (and of course I know a thing or two about how journalists can enjoy themselves) but all of whose editors will be wanting, indeed demanding, a story. Thus in the remaining two weeks before, and for an unquantifiable period after the handover, there will be in Hong Kong a large number of highly intelligent people seeking symbols, signals or tokens to interpret—and, if necessary for dramatic effect, to misinterpret—events. It may not be easy for the Chinese leadership, who have what they at least would still regard as the benefit of a compliant and supportive media, to understand this.
I believe that the position of Hong Kong is fundamentally very strong but temporarily and superficially it could prove fragile. There is one point,

1049
increasingly referred to in the press, which does worry me. That is the arrangements for the arrival of the Chinese military forces. Under the Basic Law they are there for the defence of Hong Kong. There is provision in Article 14 of the Basic Law for the Chinese military to be used in aid to the civil power to restore order, but only at the request of the Chief Executive, as has always been the case with the Governor under British administration.
In my view it is inconceivable that such intervention would be necessary under any circumstances which can be foreseen at present. Hong Kong, which is one of the best ordered cities in the world, has an extremely well trained 30,000 strong police force. The necessary advance party of Chinese military has already arrived. I regret, therefore, that it appears to be thought necessary that there should be a large scale "march in" of the People's Liberation Army at midnight on 30th June, complete with a press stand to cover their arrival. It would be still worse if these forces were to be accompanied by armoured vehicles. Frankly, that cannot be the TV image which China, Britain or Hong Kong would wish to see flashed around the world.
I now turn to the style of government. It is clear that the new Chief Executive, Mr. C. H. Tung, has the complete confidence of the leadership in Peking and that he has unfettered access to them. This is a particularly important means of guaranteeing the independence of Hong Kong under the one country-two systems formula.
China will also have two senior representatives based in Hong Kong. One will be Ambassador Ma Yuzhen, formerly Ambassador in London, who will be the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Liaison Office with a staff of some 200. The other will be the Director of the New China News Agency, whose present staff of over 1,000 is expected to be considerably reduced. The present head of NCNA, Mr. Chou Nan, is not expected to remain and he may be succeeded by Ambassador Jian Enzhou, who also, until earlier this year, was China's Ambassador in London. Britain will have a special locus for the next three years through the Joint Liaison Group.
Although there will have to be links at working bureaucratic level between Chinese authorities and the Hong Kong Government, there should be no need whatsoever for there to be any Chinese cadre pressure to be applied to the Chief Executive or members of his office. But we would be naive indeed not to assume that private, commercial and political interests, perhaps even some with allegiance to the Chinese Ministry of State Security, will not try very hard to worm their way into the heart of the new Hong Kong Government. I am confident that Mr. Tung will successfully resist this, provided he is aware of the danger.
One of Hong Kong's great assets is the calibre and integrity of its Civil Service. That integrity owes much to the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, who in the 1970s took resolute and effective action to root out corruption in the Hong Kong police and some parts of the administration. He also set up the Independent Commission against Corruption, which is a formidable
1050
enemy of wrongdoers. Conflicts between personal interest and public duty are most rigorously excluded from the Hong Kong Civil Service.
One of the few risks which I would see to the future of Hong Kong, especially as the world's third most important financial centre (and what a prize it is for China, as a third-world country, to be acquiring this) would be the introduction of the corrupt practices which have so plagued China in recent years. It is crucial that Hong Kong, and especially the Hong Kong government, is defended against this. From this it follows that there must be the closest links and mutual confidence between the Chief Executive and the Hong Kong Civil Service.
Hong Kong is extremely lucky to have as Chief Secretary and head of its Civil Service someone of the talent and dedication of Anson Chan. And although, during these twilight weeks when she has been working for the Hong Kong government while it has been under British administration, it may have been difficult to forge the close partnership between Mr. Tung and Mrs. Chan which will be crucial, I hope it can be established from the beginning of next month.
Then there is the role of the Legislative Council. I agree that it is a pity that the "through train" did not apply to all members of the elected council. However, we should at least be glad that 33 of them are members of the new, nominated LegCo.
The final safeguard for Hong Kong's people is the judiciary. Everyone is delighted at the appointment of Mr. Andrew Li as the new Chief Justice. A member of one of Hong Kong's most distinguished families and a former member of the Governor's Executive Council, his reputation for impartiality is equalled only by his proved ability.
The perpetuation of the independence of the judiciary, based on the constitutional position in the United Kingdom, was one of the great achievements of the 1983–84 negotiations for the future of Hong Kong. That the resulting agreement was so good is a great tribute to my noble friends Lady Thatcher and Lord Howe, with their insistence that to be recommended to the British House of Commons any agreement negotiated in Peking must first be acceptable to the people of Hong Kong.
Finally, I would like to say a word of tribute to the last Governor of Hong Kong. I believe history will judge that Mr. Patten has served the people of Hong Kong, and thus the interests of China, well. He has ensured that after Westminster loses its 150 year-old role as the ultimate guardian of Hong Kong's rights and freedoms, the people of Hong Kong are in a much stronger position to speak for themselves.
I returned from Hong Kong yesterday. On Tuesday, an ordinary lower middle class Chinese man said to me, "It will all be OK. The eyes of the world will be on Hong Kong. China will do nothing bad to us." To me that is the real epitaph on Mr. Patten.
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Dunn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for the opportunity to contribute in this House my brief thoughts on Hong Kong for the last time before it ceases to be a

1051
British territory. As the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said, the means and the safeguards are in place to ensure that Hong Kong's rights and freedoms, and the rule of law, will continue. However, the question that goes on nagging so many commentators, particularly in the western world, is: will it all fall apart once the British have gone?
Normal pressure group activities in Hong Kong, an everyday occurrence in any civilised society, are reported as widespread discontent. Innocent comments by Hong Kong's political leaders are scrutinised for nuances to support the thesis that they are China's mouthpieces. The media play up proposals to modify the public security ordinances, but they play down the changes to those proposals resulting from public consultations. They tell us of friction between senior civil servants and the new Chief Executive, but they rarely report civil servants' repeated public pledges of loyalty and support. Far-fetched and irresponsible conclusions are drawn with little or no basis.
Those pessimistic pronouncements remind me of the character in Anthony Trollope who had predicted evil consequences and who then did his best to bring about verification of his own prophecies. Your Lordships will understand how deeply unsettling it is for Hong Kong's people to read such downbeat predictions about their future in the overseas media.
The reality is very different. Hong Kong's stock and property markets are at an all-time high. Hong Kong people who have emigrated to Canada and elsewhere are returning in droves. Hong Kong's economy continues to be the envy of the western world, growing at over 5 per cent. per annum in real terms. The auspicious list goes on and on.
Of course, it would be naéve to suggest that everything will be smooth sailing; nor is it realistic to think that the Hong Kong of tomorrow will be exactly like the Hong Kong of today. The new Chief Executive and his team of advisers will have a crucial role to play in providing leadership to Hong Kong and advice to China. They will have to establish their credibility with the public by clearly demonstrating that they will exercise a high degree of autonomy within the framework of the Basic Law fearlessly and in the best interests of Hong Kong. They will need to establish a close working relationship with Hong Kong's well respected Civil Service, the morale of which has understandably taken a knock in recent months. The Civil Service has a proud record of professionalism and honesty. It is a pillar of Hong Kong's success. It has greatly contributed to Hong Kong's stability. Its members need to be assured by the incoming administration that their service under British administration will not be held against them, that they are trusted, that their professional judgment will be considered seriously and that their integrity will be protected. Those tasks are difficult enough without constant sniping by the media and fireside critics who have no responsibility for the fate of the 6 million people of Hong Kong.
1052
My essential point is this: for the very first time in the history of this remarkable community, Hong Kong people have the opportunity to assume the role of governing Hong Kong's internal affairs. This is a turning point. Hong Kong's people will need time to develop their own style. They will need time for the new systems to bed down. They will need time to develop a relationship of mutual trust and respect with their new sovereign.
Britain has done much to put in place arrangements to enable Hong Kong's way of life to continue. The goodwill and support of this House is always a source of comfort and assurance. But the time has come for Hong Kong people to assume responsibility for their own affairs, and they should be encouraged to do so. They should be encouraged to resolve differences where they exist in their own way, to seek consensus wherever they can, and to seek unity in purpose and vision.
What has been built in Hong Kong from the magic mix of British administration and Chinese entrepreneurial energy and flair is a unique society. When the British flag comes down at midnight on 30th June Britain can feel justly proud that it leaves Hong Kong in good shape with a self-confident community that assumes responsibility for its internal self-government. There is no doubt in my mind that Hong Kong people will rise to this challenge with courage. Let us wish them well and give them our blessing, and let us root for their success.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, this debate gives me the opportunity to thank the Government and people of Hong Kong for inviting me and my wife to visit that jewel of the Far East. I do so most warmly. My wife and I spent five days in Hong Kong just after Easter of this year. Both of us found it enjoyable, interesting and very rewarding. We learned a lot. I was particularly impressed by the Hong Kong civil servants with whom we had meetings. Apart from their warmth and friendliness, I was impressed by their obvious ability and professionalism. I also had meetings with business leaders and was impressed by their entrepreneurial zeal and investment plans for the future—not only investment in Hong Kong but also in mainland China. I also met British diplomats and the General Officer commanding the Hong Kong garrison. I was impressed by their professionalism and frankness in answering my questions.
This debate is about human rights. The opening speaker dealt mainly with classical human rights, that is, the right of freedom under the law, free expression, democracy and so on. I am surprised to learn that the English common law can operate only in English. I would have thought that the principles of English common law would be susceptible to translation into every language in the world. I should like to strike a slightly different note and emphasise the basic rights of human existence: the right to decent housing and the right to the means of sustaining life.
During my visit I was fascinated to learn that during the late 1940s and early 1950s the population of Hong Kong rose from about 600,000 to 3 million in the space

1053
of 18 months to two years, and that as a result of a serious fire in a refugee or resettlement camp a major programme of public housing was introduced. It is of interest to reflect that the proportion of the population of Hong Kong then living in public housing was probably higher than in our major conurbations of Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham and London.
Two particular aspects struck me about the Hong Kong situation. One was the apparent direction of Hong Kong Government policy to withdraw from public housing. The other was the apparent lack of adequate pension provision for the vast majority of the Hong Kong population. In this country over the past 20 years we have had experience in both areas. The Government in this country have reduced investment in public housing and encouraged the selling off of public housing assets under the right to buy policy. The same Government have also allowed the value of old age pensions to be eroded over the period. One knows that the result of those policies has been an increase in homelessness, due mainly to repossessions because of unforeseen repair bills, massive reductions in income because of loss of jobs and matters of that kind, and poverty in old age. Of course, it is not right for us even in this august Chamber, to lecture the people of Hong Kong on how to run their affairs. However, I hope that they will learn from our experiences in those two areas of public policy and thus try to escape some of the pitfalls into which we have fallen.
I hope that the new Government will build a constructive and positive relationship with the Government and people of China which in the long run will enable us to have influence with them and assist the people of Hong Kong to maintain close links with the rest of the world and also integrate with mainland China.
It is apposite in this House to discuss two elements of the historical perspective. First, I refer to the remarks of a late uncle of mine who took a great interest in Chinese affairs. When I asked his view on what had happened in Tiananmen Square his response was that the Chinese leadership had grown up in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s when the whole of China was a seething maelstrom of disorder. They were terrified of that disorder and the disintegration of the Chinese nation, and the whole of their political life had been shaped by it. That was a salutary message to me. It was not an excuse for what had happened but an explanation of it. Secondly, I believe that recently a film has been made based on what is generically known as the Chinese opium wars. I may not be a very good student of history, but I was amazed to discover that campaigns were mounted by British armed forces to protect capitalist entrepreneurs who were selling opium to the Chinese people. If one thinks of that in the modern context one is absolutely horrified. Therefore, in a historical context, compared with that portrayed over the past 20 to 50 years, Britain's involvement in Hong Kong is not a completely rosy picture.
I hope that as the new Government ascend through their learning curve they will also recognise the lessons of history and relate to the Government of China on the basis of mutual understanding not only of the historical perceptions of our two nations but the possibility of
1054
peaceful progress and development with Hong Kong, not just as a jewel sitting in isolation in the Far East but as a gateway for the rest of the world into China and a gateway for the whole of China to the rest of world.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be able to take part in what has been rightly described as the last debate of this kind on Hong Kong under British jurisdiction to take place in this House. I hope that the House, and, in particular, the Minister will forgive me if I have to depart before the conclusion of the debate to catch up with a long deferred engagement. I am privileged also to follow the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, who drew our attention to the lessons of history with regard to Hong Kong and China. I recollect one particularly vivid fact. It is that my opposite number Wu Xuequian, the Foreign Minister with whom I negotiated the Joint Declaration, was separated from his wife and sent into the countryside to work on the land for several years during the Cultural Revolution. That, too, is part of the background to which the noble Lord referred.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to whom we are grateful, in describing Hong Kong's achievements as those of an historically unique society, and as a magic mix, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, said, between two distinct and ancient cultures, with tremendous achievements. It was a great privilege for me to play any part in helping to negotiate, with a marvellous team of governors and ambassadors, starting with the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, and going through governors Youde and Wilson and ambassadors Cradock, Evans and McLaren, the production of the Joint Declaration which the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, signed in December 1984 on behalf of us all.
If I were required to identify one guiding principle in that negotiation I hope I shall not be counted egocentric when I identify a metaphor of my own when I said that it was as though China and Britain were engaged in running a relay race together in which we had to hand over at the critical point not a baton, but something of enormous value—a relay race run with a Ming vase. Within five years the agreement that we had hammered out had proved astonishingly successful as a means of withstanding the buffeting of the tragic events in Tiananmen Square, proving itself to be an agreement for bad times as well as for good, and remaining the foundation for subsequent agreements.
There was the most remarkable agreement to be laid upon that within 12 months of Tiananmen Square. It was arrived at between my noble friend Lord Hurd and his then opposite number Qian Guichen, and embodied in the Basic Law for the progressive extension of democracy in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, as the noble Lord said, of 60: 20 in 1995 to be elected; 24 in 1999 and 50 per cent. in 2003.
It is remarkable that the relationship proved so strong that that could be agreed between the two governments within less than a year of Tiananmen Square. So was constructed the through train (a continuously evolving

1055
LegCo, designed to carry the Ming vase over the historic frontier of 1997). I am not now proposing to review the events since then, still less to apportion responsibility for any mishaps along the way, but to come straight to the present position: it must be acknowledged that the position as it is today is not as it was foreseen by Wu Xuequian and myself in 1984.
We did not visualise the competing existence of two Legislative Councils, both in due course due to disappear. We did not visualise a situation in which the last British appointed governor should have little, if any, contact with Chinese officialdom for probably four years—a situation in which the chief executive designate and the outgoing governor are barely in communication with each other. The latest miracle of that unique society is that it has been so little disturbed by those features that it remains optimistic about its own future, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, described.
How has that been achieved? I think it is because most, if not all, alas, of the key institutions and features that we needed are firmly in place: the economy, the separate currency, the budgetary system, and the financial institutions are prosperous and confident. The laws of course require work still to be done to them, but the laws, the administration (local and central) the legal system, the judges, including the newly appointed Chief Justice, Mr. Andrew Li, to whose appointment we all pay tribute as an outstanding one, are there. Alongside all those institutions there are the people who matter: a Chief Secretary of distinction and integrity, Anson Chan, and all her senior colleagues. Again, I endorse the tribute paid by the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, to the quality and dedication of the civil service.
Last but not least, Hong Kong has enjoyed the benefit of two successive chiefs of high ability, intelligence, sense of duty and integrity, one of them being my most talented and experienced colleague in British politics. I spoke at the last meeting of his, alas, unsuccessful election campaign in 1992. He has been there since his appointment in that year. He is to be followed by one of Hong Kong's most distinguished world-respected citizens with, as my noble friend Lord Marlesford pointed out. real authority and influence in Beijing—Mr. Tung Chee Hwa.
Hong Kong must count itself fortunate. Any democratic society would surely be grateful to have had available the service of two such distinguished people. My only sadness is that their service has not been concurrent—literally running alongside each other: running the relay race together and in step—but very largely consecutive; and, alas, not as fellow drivers of the through train with the Ming vase safely aboard.
Yet I retain my optimism about the future of Hong Kong. What are the features that justify that that will secure her continuing success? The first is the response of the People's Republic of China to the extraordinary challenge identified by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby: the manifest determination of Chinese and Hong Kong leaders to achieve, in self interest and for the sake of self-esteem, the success that they want to achieve. The second is the appointments that have been made of the Chief Executive, the Chief Justice, and the rest. The
1056
third is the sustained determination of the Hong Kong people themselves, not deterred by the past 40 years of political uncertainty. Nor will they be deterred in the days and months of possible uncertainty ahead.
I endorse strongly what the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, said about the part that can be played by the world's media in commenting upon these matters. Of course they are entitled to comment and report freely, but responsibly and not in such a way as to create prophecies which will be self-fulfilling.
What more is needed beyond that for success? Most important of all, Chinese understanding, to the fullest extent, that Hong Kong's success depends as much on the continuity of political and social institutions, rights and obligations, as on the economic factors of Hong Kong. Indeed, they are probably more important than the economic factors in the last resort.
In that context—here I join hands with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford—what is needed is the speedy implementation of the Chinese pledge that the provisional Legislative Council will soon abolish itself, and proceed, as swiftly as possible, to the re-election of a Legislation Council, broadly on the basis agreed with my noble friend Lord Hurd, and that, in accordance with Article 26 of the Basic Law, the rights of all Hong Kong residents to seek election will be safely guarded. That is the key question. Will all those who were formerly travelling as elected members on the earlier edition of the through train be free to resume that role in the elections that I hope will soon take place?
What role, finally, for Her Majesty's Government? In that context I congratulate Mr. Robin Cook, on his arrival at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—not an easy perch but a perch with huge challenges. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, on her appearance at the Dispatch Box, in this role on his behalf. I wish them both very well in a fascinating task.
I recognise that some features of the ceremonies that will take place at the end of the month will be less well integrated than some of us would have hoped. Ex-President de Klerk and President Mandela will probably go down in history as having managed the transition a little better at that ceremonial moment. It is important to keep the ceremonial differences to the minimum. It is good news, as the noble Lord pointed out, that both countries will be represented by their senior leaders, alongside each other at the ceremonies. It is important for the sake of Sino-British relations, for the sake of Hong Kong itself and, above all, for the people of Hong Kong, that Her Majesty's Government should now re-establish the continuity and confidence in relations between the two governments. There are many reasons to regret the change of government which took place in this country on 1st May, but here at least may be one area where the change of the political cast can provide an opportunity of help in the future towards restoration as quickly as possible of that confidence, which is so important.
I wish the noble Baroness and her colleagues well in this task. As one who cares passionately about the future of Hong Kong, and about Sino-British relations only second to that, I also wish the people of Hong Kong everything they wish for themselves in the years ahead.
8.20 p.m.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, there is little for me to say. Two of the people I respect most in the creation of the modern Hong Kong are the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. He negotiated the Declaration, which was a fantastic diplomatic achievement. He was helped by the late Sir Edward Youde and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not here tonight; he is looking after the electricity supply in the Orkneys. The noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, was a senior member of the Executive Council and took a leading part in the negotiations, not directly with the Chinese but in advice to the government.
I feel humble in following those two contributors to the debate and I am greatly relieved to hear their optimism. That optimism is clearly based on the same features, which encourages me about the future. Much as I love Hong Kong, I realise the anxiety of many people and wonder what we can do about it. I have a horrible feeling that, unless we are very careful, what we shall do is to start this great new experiment with a major row about the Provisional Legislative Council. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, seemed to speak with a strong brief on the subject.
The last time that the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, spoke in this House he begged the Government to face realities in Hong Kong. One of the realities to which he referred was the fact that the provisional legislature would come about. There was no way it could be stopped. I was very pleased that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, explained that the provisional legislature was not something to be frightened of. It consists of some extremely good people who were members of the previous legislature. Its role is to extinguish itself by passing legislation for an elected successor. That is not something to have an enormous row about. I cannot follow the legalities, but it does not seem to me to be anything like as bad as the media and some people in Hong Kong make out.
Anyone who has much to do with Hong Kong is inevitably asked what will happen and will it all fall to pieces. The noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, answered that question in her own way. My way is to say to anyone who asks, "Go to Hong Kong and look around you. Do you really believe that people who can achieve a city of that kind are incapable of managing their affairs and achieving a working relationship with China?". After all, the odds are very much in their favour. Their links with China—commercial, financial and of blood—are close and extensive. Yes, the residue of emigration from China and memories of what has happened in China worry people; they are bound to. However, the population of Hong Kong will find it easier to adjust to a new relationship with China than appears to us here.
It is a unique place in the world and I very much hope that we will not lecture it about what happens there. Our way of doing things is so very different from that of the East Asians, although of course we have a continuing responsibility to ensure that the terms of the Joint Declaration are implemented. We will have to do that
1058
firmly if necessary, but, it is to be hoped, discreetly with no return to the mega-diplomacy which occasionally broke the surface in recent years.
Subject to that, prospects in Hong Kong are very good. The economy is right, the relationship of the SAR with China—sadly, not of the British Government with China—can be good and is good. The same applies to relationships with individual members of the community in Hong Kong. So long as the economy—an important aspect of Hong Kong's future—holds up and is linked to the level of world trade, the prospects for these delightful people are very bright. I am extremely glad to think that people such as the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, will continue to play a major part there in one way or another.
Finally, I wish to emphasise the extreme importance of the quality of the public services in Hong Kong. I have served in six different countries and, as far as I am concerned, their quality has not been equalled anywhere. There has been a great deal of anxiety about a through-train of the legislature. I believe that what matters most is a through-train of the public services and, happily, I understand that there have been few defections. Most people are staying on with a degree of excitement to work for the SAR in the same way as they worked for the colony of Hong Kong. They are apolitical and highly professional, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. Happily, they are clean in their dealings with the public. So long as they and their confidence are maintained, the future of Hong Kong will continue to be bright.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, like other noble Lords this evening, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for introducing this debate at this timely moment. Like the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, who has just spoken, I find that there is very little for me to say. I believe that my speech will be reduced to a number of questions to the Minister.
First, is the Minister able to confirm that the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister will attend the handover ceremony but that he will follow the lead given by the American Secretary of State, and not attend the swearing-in ceremony and thus legitimise the provisional legislative council?
On that subject, I wonder whether the Government have had any contact with our European Union partners to see what is their attitude to that swearing-in ceremony. Will they follow our lead on that? I should be particularly interested to know what is the attitude of the French Government to that because the President of France, M. Chirac, has only just returned to the upright position following a visit to Peking in the pursuit of Airbus orders.
The question of the provisional legislative council has been covered very well already by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I support him on that. I ask the Minister whether the Government believe that the Joint Declaration has been breached in any way. If so, will they state that very clearly, both in public and in private, to China?

1059
I hope also that the Minister will take the opportunity this evening to confirm that the Government will press for early elections to a properly-elected legislative council, earlier rather than later, in the one-year period which is presently envisaged.
The Question this evening relates to how we can best protect Hong Kong after the hand-over. I should like to touch on that very briefly. When Hong Kong is talked about in certain quarters, there is a tendency to simply shrug our shoulders and say, "Well, we cannot do anything about it. China will do as it wishes". I do not think that that is right. If we accept that, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. There is action that we can take, if necessary, to ensure that Hong Kong receives the deal to which we put our name on its behalf.
If China does not wish the Hong Kong question to be internationalised, that is a very good reason for internationalising it if the case arises. We should not be frightened of doing that. In March of this year, the US Congress passed a resolution authorising the President to impose trade restrictions if China does not honour its promise. That is a fall-back position which I hope will not arise. Nevertheless, it gives some kind of weapon to the international community with which to support Hong Kong. Again, I stress that that is what we are asked to consider this evening in the Question before us.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, what good does the noble Lord think that sanctions on China by America would do for the people in Hong Kong? Surely it would ruin them.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I agree that sanctions should be very much an instrument of last resort and would be very difficult for Hong Kong. But the real point is that there is action that the international community should be able to take if the need arises. I very much believe that it will not. Nevertheless, I do not believe that saying that we cannot do anything is a valid way in which to tell Hong Kong that we shall be looking after its interests after the hand-over.
After all, China wishes and needs to become a full member of the World Trade Organisation. It wishes to host the Olympic Games at some stage in the future; and I hope it does. All those are perfectly legitimate aspirations. But I believe that they come with a price tag. China must understand and accept the constraints of interdependence with the outside world. It must recognise that it must play by the rules of the international game and abide by the guarantees that it has given to Hong Kong, jointly with us.
I conclude with two questions, one of which has been touched on already by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Will the Minister tell the House what is the state of play in relation to the reporting on human rights to the United Nations under the Human Rights Convention and the Civil and Political Rights Convention? I do not know how that obligation to report will be fulfilled.
Finally, is it the Government's intention to implement the promise made by the previous Administration to report to Parliament at six-monthly intervals on
1060
Hong Kong covering the Joint Declaration with special reference to human rights; and that those reports will continue until at least 1st January, 2000?
8.35 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, this evening that it is difficult to add to the expertise that we have heard this evening. If the noble Lord can add little with all his expertise, knowledge and experience, I can surely add nothing more than a relatively young man's view of Hong Kong's future.
I agree that this debate has rightly struck a note of optimism. There has always been much firmness, strength of purpose and unity in your Lordships' House and another place on the subject of Hong Kong's transfer to China. As we have seen, many of your Lordships have a keen and often personal interest in all matters relating to Hong Kong and certainly your Lordships' House has played its part in writing one of the last chapters about the British presence in the region.
There is consensus to set a smooth and successful transfer of sovereignty. That consensus is underlined by the Government's continuity of policy. Hong Kong remains one of its highest foreign policy priorities, and that is reflected in the expressions of confidence in the work of the Governor, a sentiment which I fully endorse. His outstanding stewardship, his vision and courage in resolutely standing up for Hong Kong and its interests have been second to none. I hope that we shall hear from the Front Bench opposite that that means that there will be no lessening of Britain's commitment to Hong Kong in its new guise as the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. I hope that Britain will continue to be committed to its stability, prosperity, the support of its representative government, its rules of law and, of course, its rights and freedoms.
The paramount importance of the interdependence between China and Hong Kong was recognised in the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, of which we have heard much this evening. In that international treaty, registered with the UN, there is a remarkable series of detailed and binding arrangements which were laid down to guarantee key issues—the rule of law and the rights and freedoms of the Hong Kong people—in exchange for Chinese sovereignty.
As a result, Hong Kong will and must continue as an international business centre with complete financial autonomy. It needs to continue to have its own government and legislature composed of Hong Kong people. Its capitalist economy, freedoms, currency, customs, legal systems and its financial markets must, and I hope will, remain intact.
As we know, it will continue to be a member of many international organisations from the WTO to the IMF and will be able to develop its own economic and cultural relations. Its cosmopolitan way of life will remain unchanged for 50 years beyond 1997. That was the debt of honour owed to Hong Kong by Britain and the Joint Declaration pays it. It underpins the important Chinese principle of one country, two systems and of

1061
Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong. It is a framework within which the people of Hong Kong can continue to build on their achievements and can work for a secure and prosperous future.
The Joint Declaration was welcomed in 1984 both in Hong Kong and internationally as the best achievable basis for a secure future for Hong Kong. Its success in that regard has been demonstrated by the fact that the predictions of media prophets of doom, who have been referred to this evening and who foresaw the imminent economic death of Hong Kong have been proved to be utterly without foundation.
Together with the Joint Liaison Group, it has been the cornerstone of British policy since its origin 17 years ago and I am glad to say that it will continue to be so under the new Government. The Joint Declaration is a staggering achievement and it is an honour for me to pay tribute to all those who shaped that document, not least noble Lords present this evening and, notably, my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon.
Central to the topic of today's debate, the Joint Declaration is unambiguous in its vision of the upholding of the rule of law and the protection of the rights and freedoms of the Hong Kong people. There is strong recognition that the only vehicle for a successful and prosperous future is freedom under the rule of law. The nexus of agreements of laws and treaties, rules and regulations covers almost every sphere of human activity and reflects Britain's greatest and most enduring legacy to Hong Kong and its future success; that is, the rule of law.
The Joint Liaison Group has worked hard to ensure that there will be judicial continuity—the independent exercise of judicial power, the fair appointment of judges—and that the work of the courts will remain free from political interference. The JLG has worked hard to ensure domestic autonomy and jurisdiction of the final Court of Appeal which will replace the Privy Council. This creates legal history in Hong Kong, by allowing it to have its final appellate court within its territory for the first time.
I echo the sentiments expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, who referred to the appointment of Andrew Li last month as first Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal. It was greeted enthusiastically by all sections of the Hong Kong community. I am sure that your Lordships' House will join me in wishing him well as he undertakes the pivotal role that he will play in navigating the Hong Kong judiciary into the next millennium and, above all, in ensuring that existing rights and freedoms are safeguarded by the fair, efficient and independent administration of justice. The JLG has also worked hard to ensure that Hong Kong's laws will be consistent with the Basic Law, and some 150 United Kingdom Acts have been localised in full consultation with the Chinese. Therefore, by 1st July. the Hong Kong people will possess a comprehensive body of laws which owes its authority to its own legislature.
In the last two minutes available to me, I should like to concentrate on what the Government need to do. The Government face diplomatic minefields ahead.
1062
Politically, ethically and economically the British Government, as co-signatory to the Joint Declaration, with 3.5 million British passport holders resident in Hong Kong, our 12th largest export market, must keep the emphatic promise made by the government of,
"never allowing Hong Kong to walk alone,"
after the handover. Britain's Consulate-General in Hong Kong is its largest in the world. It is a physical symbol in bricks and mortar of our continuing commitment to Hong Kong, which cannot and does not end with the transfer of sovereignty at the end of this month.
Having tasted democracy, Hong Kong expects nothing less than open, transparent and accountable government. Public demand for the democratic process to stay on course and develop after 1997 will be irresistible. I should, therefore, like to know the Government's policy towards the provisional legislature after the handover. I should particularly like to hear answers to the admirable questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
In his opening address to the Legislative Council last year, the Governor laid out a series of eminently sensible benchmarks by which to judge events in Hong Kong after the handover. These benchmarks provide a standard by which the human rights performance as well as the legal and judicial autonomy can be measured. I urge the Government to adopt and apply them and to make a firm guarantee that action will be taken if China fails to meet them.
The Government admirably put human rights at the heart of their foreign policy. They correctly point out that China's modern dynamic economy is paralleled by a very unmodern, static attitude to human rights which is sometimes inappropriate for a member of the United Nations. They have indicated that policy towards China will not be one of economic exclusion or cultural isolation, as these options will not be the best way to influence China politically, as the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, stated in his intervention. However, there is an inherent tension in that policy. With Hong Kong in mind, I must ask how the Government will seek to walk the fine line between non-isolation of China and appropriate action taken in protest at human rights violations.
In conclusion, I should like to take this opportunity to wish the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, who will be in Hong Kong for the handover, a very successful trip. This debate has turned on Hong Kong's future. For 17 years, the Joint Declaration has ensured that no gamble has been taken with the lives of millions of Hong Kong men, women and children. The Government must ensure that that continues to be the case through the implementation of the treaty. June 30th 1997 is one of the key dates of this century, a date imbued with both past and future significance. It represents a leap of faith for Britain, for China and for Hong Kong. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what part the Government will play in ensuring that that leap of faith is vindicated.
8.44 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for providing this opportunity for debate. This House has always paid close and particular attention to developments in Hong Kong. The affection for, and understanding of, Hong Kong shown by all sides of the House this evening is testament, if one were needed, that Hong Kong will not be forgotten after 30th June.
I should like especially to welcome the contributions made by the former distinguished Governor of Hong Kong, the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn. If I may say so, the noble Baroness's elegant, persuasive and very wise advocacy is a reflection of her deep knowledge of Hong Kong and her continuing engagement in developments there.
There are 18 days until the transfer of sovereignty, which the Prime Minister announced yesterday he intends to witness personally. It is only a little over 40 days since this Government took office. One of our first actions was to confirm Chris Patten in his post as Governor until 30th June. He has done, and is doing, a tremendous job and he enjoys our full confidence.
As many noble Lords have noticed, events are moving at a tremendous pace. When I first spoke on Hong Kong in this House, I said that achieving a successful transition was among the heaviest and most immediate overseas responsibilities placed upon the Government. Since then, we have seen the 40th plenary meeting of the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group, the last before the handover, and numerous other contacts with China at all levels to ensure, as far as we can, that the transition agenda is completed.
That agenda is almost completed. I wish to pay tribute here, as many have done, to the officials of both sides and from the Hong Kong Government who, over the 13 years since the Joint Declaration was signed, have worked tenaciously and tirelessly to turn the high principles enshrined in the Joint Declaration into practical administrative measures; to convert the catch-phrases "one country, two systems" and "a high degree of autonomy" into real life.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was right. The rule of law has been central to Hong Kong's economic and social success. Not just rules; not just law; but the rule of law. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, once said:
"Be you ever so high, the law is above you".
The rule of law means that the government and each individual is equal before the law. It protects individuals against arbitrary interference by the government; against improper influence by the rich and powerful; against corruption; and against abuses of power. It means impartial judges and an independent prosecution service.
The phrase, "One country, two systems" means that Hong Kong will continue to have its own legal system, entirely separate from that of mainland China. One, of course, cannot legislate for integrity. But Hong Kong has one of the finest legal systems in the world, served
1064
by some of the best judges and lawyers in the world, as many noble Lords have acknowledged. What we can do—and have done with the agreement of China at every stage—is to ensure that that system and those people can continue to provide the people of the Hong Kong special administrative region with the protection of the rule of law within the common law system. With China's agreement, Hong Kong will have its own Court of Final Appeal—in Hong Kong, not Beijing—replacing the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The rule of law is the ultimate protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. China agreed in the Joint Declaration that the mainland's "socialist system", would not be imposed on the people of Hong Kong. To make sure that there is no room for doubt, China listed in the Joint Declaration exactly what it meant by that general undertaking. It promised freedom of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, to join trade unions, of correspondence, of travel, of movement, of strike, of demonstration, of choice of occupation, of academic research, of belief, of the inviolability of the home, the freedom to marry and the right to raise a family freely. These are basic human rights to which many noble Lords have drawn our attention this evening.
China is itself party to neither the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights nor that on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, though it has indicated—and we would welcome this—that it may sign the second covenant this year. But it agreed in the Joint Declaration that the provisions of the two covenants as applied to Hong Kong will remain in force. We firmly believe that that includes reporting to the United Nations treaty monitoring bodies. We will continue to press the Chinese Government to explain how reports on the implementation of the covenants in the Hong Kong special administrative region will be made. We have made clear that, for our part, we would not object to the Hong Kong special administrative region submitting reports itself, and the UN treaty monitoring bodies have indicated that they are also willing to be flexible on this matter.
Many of those who have spoken this evening, including the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, have placed our policy on Hong Kong in the wider context of our relations with China. China is a country of great and growing importance. We will speak up when we should in areas such as human rights, but that should be seen in the context of a much more wide-ranging and constructive relationship than has so far been achieved. We hope Hong Kong will be a bridge between Britain and China, not a barrier. But if it is to be a bridge of friendship and not a bridge of sorrows, the incoming sovereign power must fully honour the undertakings it has made in the Joint Declaration.
Several noble Lords have referred this evening to the plans to swear in the provisional legislature in the early hours of 1st July during the inaugural ceremony of the special administrative region. I do not wish this evening to rake over the past. Our views on this invention of China's are clear. Nothing China does can alter the fact that up to 30th June there can be only one constitutional legislature in Hong Kong—that elected by the people of

1065
Hong Kong in September 1995. We are committed to co-operating with it and we will do nothing to undermine it. There has never been any question of British Ministers attending the swearing-in of the provisional legislature. What is essential now is for China to ensure that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government hold free and fair elections as soon as possible after the handover.
I now turn to some of the specific issues raised by noble Lords this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to the International Court of Justice as regards the legality of the provisional legislature and its actions. The previous Government made clear that Britain would be willing to join China in seeking adjudication on the question of the future of the legislature from the International Court of Justice, but it needs the consent of both parties for it to go before the ICJ. China has not accepted our offer but I confirm that it remains on the table. However, a nation state cannot itself ask the ICJ for an advisory opinion.
The noble Lord also asked about bilingualism. Both the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law provide for English and Chinese to be used in Hong Kong. The government legislature and the courts use both languages and laws are published in both languages.
I thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for his kind remarks about the Foreign Office web site. He raised some important questions about Vietnamese refugees, as opposed to the other problems with economic migrants. The Government continue to support the efforts of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to find resettlement opportunities for the remaining refugees in Hong Kong.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, asked about the transfer of defence responsibilities. We agreed some time ago through the Joint Liaison Group that the People's Liberation Army might station unarmed advance parties in Hong Kong to prepare for the orderly deployment of the main garrison on 1st July. There is no question of Britain agreeing to the deployment of the main PLA garrison in Hong Kong before 1st July. As sovereign, Britain is responsible for the defence of Hong Kong up to the last stroke of midnight on 30th June. At that point China will resume responsibility for the defence of Hong Kong.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, asked about the style of government after the handover. The Government believe that the people will judge Mr. Tung and his government by what happens from 1st July on rather than what is said before he takes up office. If the concept of Hong Kong people running Hong Kong is to work, it will be important for all of Hong Kong's people to stand up for the territory's interests. I believe we would be sensible to listen to the wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, on that point.
1066
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, asked what was happening as regards some of our colleagues in Europe. It is for our colleagues in Europe to decide what they intend to do about the Chinese swearing in. We have made our views clear to them.
I, like the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, and the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, wish to thank the Hong Kong Civil Service. 1 pay tribute to those who have fought tirelessly in the cause of more representative government in Hong Kong, many of whom for no good reason will find themselves on the sidelines on 1st July. Hong Kong needs them. I hope their dedication will carry them through to the next round of elections so that they can give the people of Hong Kong the opportunity to vote for openness and for progress.
Britain's relationship with Hong Kong will change in 18 days' time, but it will not end. The promises China made to Britain and to the people of Hong Kong in the Joint Declaration will last for 50 years. The Joint Liaison Group will continue to meet to discuss the fulfilment of those promises until the year 2000. The Government will monitor developments closely. We will publish for Parliament every six months a report on the implementation of the Joint Declaration, with special reference to the protection of human rights in Hong Kong. We will continue to remind all countries with a stake in Hong Kong's future of the importance of their maintaining an active interest in Hong Kong.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, told the House, Hong Kong is in great shape. We can be proud of what Hong Kong has achieved under British sovereignty. As many of us know, few, if any, places in the world are more vibrant, more energetic, more open and more prosperous than Hong Kong in 1997.
There can be no doubt about Britain's commitment to Hong Kong after the handover. Britain's commercial and consular interests speak for themselves: there are some 3½ million British passport-holders in the territory, 1,000 British firms operating there and tens of billions of pounds of investment in what is our second largest export market in Asia. We are proud that we shall have—as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said—one of our largest consulates-general at the heart of all this.
We have done our best to secure the best possible future for the people of Hong Kong. Very soon, Hong Kong people themselves will take on the responsibility for guiding their own future development, within the framework of the Joint Declaration, under the late Deng Xiaoping's concept of,
"Hong Kong people running Hong Kong".
I am sure I speak for noble Lords in all parts of the House when I say that we wish them well.

Lloyds TSB Bill [H.L.]
Committed to a Select Committee.
House adjourned at three minutes before nine o'clock.

  Tamil Nadu
  Tamil Nadu
  EU Development Council, 5 June
  EU Development Council, 5 June
  Iraq: Aid Distribution
  Iraq: Aid Distribution
  The European Union: Members' Aspirations
  The European Union: Members' Aspirations
  National Advisory Council for the Boards of Visitors: Annual Report
  National Advisory Council for the Boards of Visitors: Annual Report
  Special Immigration Appeals Commission
  Special Immigration Appeals Commission
  Justice and Home Affairs Council, 26–27 May
  Justice and Home Affairs Council, 26–27 May
  Pregnant Women: Employment Protection
  Pregnant Women: Employment Protection
  Armenia: Double Taxation Convention Negotiations
  Armenia: Double Taxation Convention Negotiations
  Bread and Flour Regulations 1995
  Bread and Flour Regulations 1995
  BSE: Latest Case
  BSE: Latest Case
  Pesticides: Effects on Birds
  Pesticides: Effects on Birds
  Organic Farming: Support Payments
  Organic Farming: Support Payments
  Performance Tables for 11 Year-Olds: Publication
  Performance Tables for 11 Year-Olds: Publication
  Cabinet Committees: Membership
  Cabinet Committees: Membership
  Interception of Communications: Commissioner's Report
  Interception of Communications: Commissioner's Report
  Intelligence Services: Commissioner's Report
  Intelligence Services: Commissioner's Report