Sitting of 18 June 1997

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

Welsh Development Agency
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
9.34 am
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am grateful for this opportunity early in the new Parliament to put a focus on one of the key issues that arose from the general election—the failure of the Government, and the Government agencies, to overcome the job shortage in many parts of Wales.
I shall focus on the industrial location strategy of the Welsh Development Agency because the WDA is the main vehicle for delivering new job opportunities in Wales and because its strategy is laid down for it by the Welsh Office. Clearly, with a change of Government, there will now be fresh consideration given to a strategy that is appropriate in the light of the new Government's objectives. No doubt, discussion is currently going on between the Welsh Office and the WDA to that end. My objective in this debate is to spell out what we feel should be that strategy; I hope also to elicit from the Minister what is the Government's thinking on a matter that was central to Labour's general election manifesto.
I make it clear from the outset that I do not come to this debate carrying any baggage of hostility towards the WDA. I have long had an attachment to the agency; I can even claim paternity to it—or at least a share in the paternity. Back in 1970s, Professor Phil Williams and I published an economic plan for Wales in which a national development authority had a central role. I was on the Standing Committee in 1975 when the previous Labour Government brought forward the legislation that set up the agency.
I am the first to acknowledge that, in the 22 years since its creation, the WDA has played a significant role in the economic regeneration of Wales. It has given Wales a vehicle for fulfilling policies of which the regions of England have been understandably envious. It has also demonstrated how a national all-Wales body, working specifically for Wales, can have a direct, beneficial effect on the life and well-being of the people of Wales.
Having said that, I must acknowledge that—especially in recent years—there have been aspects of the WDA's policies with which I have disagreed, although such areas of disagreement have arisen primarily from the strategy laid down by the Welsh Office under the previous Government.
Let me first give some background to the economic context within which the WDA works and seeks to meet its strategic objectives. Wales has experienced a massive
228
change in its employment structure over the past generation. Industries that used to be the backbone of the Welsh economy, such as coal mining and slate quarrying, have been virtually wiped out. Those industries often existed in communities that had almost no other source of employment. We have seen the rundown of agriculture as a source of full-time employment, and the farm labourer has become an almost extinct species. The sea fishing industry, once a major employer along the western seaboard of Wales, has dwindled to a shadow of its former self and in other areas the steel industry has been rationalised, resulting in its employment capacity being a fraction of what it was a generation ago.
We are, therefore, faced with serious endemic problems of long-term unemployment and a lack of job opportunities for those leaving school in both old industrial centres and rural areas. The loss of well-paid jobs in many of those industries has led to a severe decline in the level of personal incomes, so that gross domestic product per head in Wales has fallen from 92 per cent. to only 83 per cent. of the United Kingdom average. Part of that decline is due to the fact that where replacement jobs have been secured, they are often low skilled and sometimes part time—26 per cent. of the Welsh work force is employed in part-time work, which is the highest proportion in the European Union.
In the past decade, there has been a noticeable drop in average weekly earnings in Wales compared with those in the UK. Between 1985 and 1995, average weekly earnings of males dropped from 93.1 per cent. of the British average to 88.5 per cent; and earnings of females from 94 to 91.5 per cent. In the old county of Gwynedd, the drop was far worse: by 1995, Gwynedd males were earning only 83.8 per cent. of the British average and Gwynedd females only 86.1 per cent.
In 1995, men in Wales earned £43 a week less than the British average and women £22 less. To increase those earning levels must become a strategic objective of the WDA and that must be a factor in its industrial location decisions. Activity rates among men have fallen from 91.5 per cent. in 1971 to 81.2 per cent. by 1991. Those factors of low activity rates, high unemployment, low wages and a high level of part-time working have created pockets of acute poverty and deprivation.
That, of course, is not the entire picture for Wales. There are some areas where there has been considerable success in economic regeneration. Along the M4 corridor in southern Gwent and eastern Glamorgan, and along the A55 corridor in Deeside running through into the Wrecsam area, there has been a significant influx of new industry, not least by way of inward investment from overseas. About 50 companies from Japan have set up in Wales, along with many companies from the United States, and most recently we have heard of the immense LG project for Newport. We congratulate the WDA on its success in that area.
It is against that background that we must consider the appropriateness of the job strategy and location strategy of the WDA. That must be considered in geographic, sectoral and structural terms.
Until recently, the guidelines laid down by the Welsh Office for the activities of the Welsh Development Agency accepted that up to 80 per cent. of the new jobs created in or attracted to Wales should be in two target areas, representing less than 10 per cent. of the land area.

229
of Wales. Those two areas were, first, around the M4 corridor in southern Gwent and eastern Glamorgan; and, secondly, around the A55 corridor in Fflintshire and Wrecsham. It is worth noting that three of the four new counties with the lowest unemployment in Wales are Monmouth, Wrecsam and Fflintshire, all with about 5 per cent. unemployment, and all are counties that coincide with those target areas.
Mr. David Hanson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, irrespective of that point, there is still a high inactivity rate among many people in Fflintshire, Wrecsam and the surrounding areas, and that many people are off the unemployment register and have become long-term inactive for a range of reasons, not least the closure of the pit in my constituency?
Mr. Wigley: I shall shortly discuss the need to get accurate local figures, which were, of course, distorted considerably during the previous Government's term of office.
The WDA strategy defined as acceptable a situation where as few as 20 per cent. of the new jobs should come to the rest of Wales—90 per cent. of the land area of Wales—despite the fact that two thirds of unemployed people in Wales live outside the two target areas.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not an odd proposition that the greatest effort has been made where the need is least and where the locational advantages are the greatest in Wales, which adds to the imbalances within the Principality?
Mr. Wigley: That is the thrust of the argument that I am trying to develop; I accept the hon. Gentleman's point.
Between 1993 and 1996, a total of 134 manufacturing projects in Wales were offered regional selective assistance. Only five of those were in Gwynedd and only seven in Dyfed. That bears out the point that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) made. That was a wholly unacceptable strategy, whereby Conservative Secretaries of State consigned countless thousands of unemployed people, and especially young unemployed people, to the economic scrap heap. As a result of the failure to establish a strategy and policy that would secure jobs within reasonable travelling distances of their homes—in north-west Wales, in south-west Wales and in the western industrial valleys of Glamorgan—those people have missed out severely.
The more cynical in our midst in Wales suggested that the Tory Government were deliberately using the Welsh Office industrial development budget to create a massive number of new job opportunities in Deeside in the north-east to try to meet the unemployment problems of Liverpool, and in Newport in the south-east to contribute to meeting the needs of Bristol. I readily accept that both those areas undoubtedly have their problems, but it is totally unacceptable that the budget of the Welsh Office should be used to solve their problems.
That deliberate policy of giving priority to securing new jobs in those parts of Wales which, because of geography and transport, were the easiest areas in which to secure employment, as the hon. Member for Swansea,
230
East said, was a cynical betrayal of those areas of Wales where the challenge was that much greater and which required that much more effort to crack the problem. It has led to seething anger in those areas, because people feel that they have been abandoned by the Department of State that was supposed to safeguard their interests—the Welsh Office, which determined the strategy within which the WDA operates. If ever there was an example of why both the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency should be made answerable to a directly elected Parliament of the people of Wales, this is it.
During the last few desultory months of the 18 years of Tory rule, as the last Secretary of State sat in his Welsh Office bunker, awaiting his party's richly deserved annihilation in Wales, there was a deathbed pang of conscience. On 19 March 1997, the Secretary of State adjusted the target figures, so that 50 per cent. of the new jobs might go to the two target areas and the other 50 per cent. should be secured for the other 90 per cent. of the land area of Wales, which includes most of the areas of high unemployment and deprivation. However, in adjusting the Welsh Office strategy for the WDA in that way, no indication was given of how those targets should be achieved.
There is, however, one intriguing sentence in the new guidelines which states that the WDA
"is expected to recognise, within the United Kingdom and European Union limits, the extra costs of locating in areas outside the eastern M4 and A55 corridors".
What does that mean? Does it mean that the WDA can make grants to compensate for geographic disadvantage? If so, by what mechanism and from where is the additional cash to be found? I suggest that the cash found should be ring fenced in the same way as money was ring fenced for the LG project. Money should be ring fenced for the needs of south-west and north-west Wales and for the western industrial valleys.
One of the answers given by the Welsh Development Agency and the Welsh Office in justifying their former strategy has been that many of the footloose international companies, when considering coming to Wales, stipulate that they want to be in one or other of those two corners of Wales and that in trying to persuade them to come to a more westerly part, the WDA might risk losing investment in its entirety. That is, no doubt, because so many of the inward investment projects are manufacturing to sell their products in the main markets of continental Europe and, therefore, want to be strategically located to take advantage of road, rail and air links to continental Europe. It is worth pointing out to little Englanders on both sides of the Chamber that it would be disastrous for the economic regeneration of Wales if we were to withdraw from the European Union.
If attracting industrial projects to more westerly locations than Newport or Wrecsam is impossible for the UK Government, how is it that the Irish Government have succeeded in creating 10 times more new jobs in Ireland in the past five years than the UK Government have succeeded in creating in Wales? Ireland is divided by greater distances and a maritime crossing from the main markets of those companies, but, if the circumstances offered to companies are right, industries can be established and located in such locations.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I am closely following the hon. Gentleman's argument.

231
Is it not a fact that most of these large investments are basically assembly plants? Does not the future lie in creating supplier networks out to the communities that he and I are interested in? Those are the role, function and targets that the WDA and Welsh Office are now aiming for. Supplier networks for those large assembly plants that lie along the M4 could be our job future.
Mr. Wigley: Yes, I saw the report in the Western Mail yesterday. It is hoped that about half the supplier companies to LG might be in Wales. That is good news and needs emphasising.
I suggest to the House, however, that the Welsh Office and the WDA have accepted far too easily the received wisdom that Newport and Wrecsam are ideally located to sell to Dusseldorf or Milan, whereas Holyhead, Caernarfon, Pwllheli, Ffestiniog, Ammanford or Aberdare are impossibly remote for such a purpose. That is nonsense and reflects much more on the mentality of those who drew up the strategy than it does on manufacturing industry. A small company located in Llanberis in my constituency manufactures medical diagnostic kits, 96 per cent. of which are exported. Llanberis is, in fact, closer in time to Manchester airport than Oxford is to Heathrow.
I would suggest that, with unemployment rates of 14 per cent. in Holyhead and south Pembroke, 12 per cent. in Aberdare and 10 per cent. in Caernarfon and Llanelli, the time has come for a fundamental change in the strategy laid down on the Welsh Development Agency.
It is time for 80 per cent. of the new jobs towards which the WDA or the Welsh Office provide public funding to be located outside the two target areas that have done so well in the past. There should be specific targets for securing new jobs in the western part of Wales, the old counties of Gwynedd and Dyfed, and in the western parts of the coalfield area.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: My hon. Friend makes a very persuasive case about the need to attract jobs into west Wales. I am sure that he would agree that we should also underpin the indigenous industries in those parts of Wales. One of the great dangers that those industries face is that the strategy adopted by the previous Government was to force the Welsh Development Agency to sell its units, many of which are rented by local businesses. They may well be sold over their heads, and they may be charged rentals that they cannot afford if major companies move in. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Welsh Office should address that issue?
Mr. Wigley: Yes. I was just coming to that.
One aspect of the WDA's policy that I should like to highlight concerns the availability of industrial land and buildings. Virtually no strategic sites are available in Gwynedd for inward investment, although I understand that the WDA may be in discussion with the county council on one possibility near Bangor, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams). Why should those sites not already be earmarked? Furthermore, there are no WDA-owned industrial estates in Pwllheli and the Llyn peninsula. In view of that failing, I must ask how the WDA is meeting its obligation to unemployed people and the young jobseekers of Pwllheli and western Dwyfor.
232
The rents that have been charged in the Cibyn industrial estate in Caernarfon for units ranging between 1,000 sq ft and 3,000 sq ft range between £3.15 and £3.50 per sq ft. The rent being charged for similarly sized units in Amlwch, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones), is £2.50 per sq ft. Amlwch has the advantage of full development area status, which we in Caernarfon do not have. That underlines the need to review these rent levels.
If, in the past, Wales has been regarded as remote from the centres of population, trade and commerce, the advent of modern technology and telecommunications makes such a concept much less relevant. There is no reason why telemarketing call centres and computer-based work cannot take place in the most remote Welsh communities, with the essential product—information transmitted by land line—being sent at next to no cost to any urban centre in Europe or the world. Given the natural verbal skills of the Welsh people, this is perhaps a natural industry to grow in Wales.
I am conscious that the Welsh Development Agency has recognised the need to create a state of the art fibre-optic cabling of Wales as the basis for developing information industries throughout our country. A bid was made for millennium projects support for such an investment a short while ago. Given that the WDA saw that as a priority, and recognised that such an investment would be immensely expensive but also beneficial to the Welsh economy, the question for the Welsh Office now is: how does it intend to take that agenda forward? I doubt whether the Welsh Office budget is likely to have that much money—we are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds. In that case, the investment must be secured from elsewhere.
If we look around for the industrial concerns that may have that sort of money at their disposal, and an active interest in cabling up Wales, we find that there are relatively few contenders. Cable television companies might be interested, but the danger is that they will want only the rich pickings of the populous areas, leaving mid-Wales, north-west Wales and south-west Wales out in the cold. It would be outrageous if the WDA were party to an agreement that discriminated against those areas.
If no cable company were willing to take on such a broad responsibility, might it be possible to persuade British Telecom to undertake it, recognising, of course, that it would need something in return? Might that return emanate from a liberalising of the restrictions on what British Telecom can convey on a upgraded network of telephone lines, which, after all, go into every household? Optic cable links can carry myriad communication elements into every house, including multi-channel television links, interactive commercial links, the information highway and an embryonic element of a diffused and decentralised data processing structure. That, of itself, would enhance the potential of people to work from their own homes; and in an age when we must all be more environmentally conscious, it would minimise the unnecessary transportation of people and products.
The WDA has identified the development of this infrastructure; the challenge now is to take it forward because of its importance to the Welsh economy. Today, we want to know the attitude of the new Government to such developments. What guidelines are they giving the WDA? This is an urgent issue because key decisions are about to be taken and there are specific steps that the

233
Welsh Office and other Government Departments must take to help the countless thousands who are unemployed in Wales.
Mrs. Betty Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman share my welcome for the Secretary of State's announcement two weeks ago of investment proposals for west and north Wales? Would he further agree that one reason why these areas have fallen into neglect has been the decline in employment in the slate quarries? I think in particular of Bethesda in the Dyffryn Ogwen area, where the trend has been one of gradual decline. Successive Governments have not given those problem areas the attention that they deserve, so the unemployment figures have steadily worsened.
Mr. Wigley: Yes, indeed. The hon. Lady represents an area similar to mine, so she is well aware of the problems. I accept her points.
We need to be clear about the size of the unemployment problem. The official figure for Wales is about 80,000, but I suspect that the true number is between two and three times as high—the labour force survey certainly suggests that.
We need a review of the workings of the Industry Act 1982, because many of the areas formerly designated for industrial development have now done very well indeed. We should not use crude unemployment figures for the purpose; we should factor in activity rate figures, the age structure of the work force, youth unemployment, outward migration to seek work and incomes per head. Consideration should also be given to how the UK industrial development map would best accord with the prospects of maximising help from the European Union. I stake a claim today that the Government should seek objective 1 status for the old counties of Gwynedd and Dyfed within the European Union; a review is currently under way.
There also needs to be a change in emphasis in the WDA between the support given to large companies to come and locate in Wales and the lack of support for small indigenous companies when they want to expand—the very point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones). Time after time, I have heard of small businesses in Wales asking the WDA for assistance but being given no practical help. There is often an initial indication of interest, but then it fizzles out and no cash materialises. It is immensely frustrating for small companies in Wales to hear of millions of pounds being provided through the Welsh Office or the WDA for inward investment projects—sometimes at a cost of £30,000 or £40,000 a job—when they cannot get a brass farthing towards creating a handful of much-needed jobs in some of our scattered communities.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: It is clear that a key element in any strategy for revitalising rural Wales is value addition to our food products. There is a food centre at Horeb in my constituency, established by the local county council, which has applied to the DTI for a grant to set up as a teaching business company. The sum requested is quite small—about £250,000—but the money has not been forthcoming.
234
Furthermore, the regulations governing the establishment of teaching business companies usually apply to large industrial systems only. Is not that a good example of how we need both the right policies in place and relatively small sums of money to set up enterprises that would be of key importance not just to Ceredigion but to the whole of Wales, as part of a Welsh food strategy?
Mr. Wigley: My hon. Friend touches on an important point. The Development Board for Rural Wales operates in rural and mid-Wales, but in areas such as Dwyfor, Preseli or Dinefwr, which fall within the WDA's remit, there needs to be a more integrated strategy serving the needs of rural Wales.
In developing its strategy, the WDA must, of necessity, be conscious of the resources that we have in Wales. One of those resources is the produce of our agricultural sector. In terms of meat and dairy products, we have a tremendous resource, but it is often too poorly marketed, and the added value in the food chain takes place outside Wales. We look with envy at how Ireland has succeeded in building on its agricultural and food production base. That must surely be an area in which the WDA more positively helps to facilitate development.
We also have the resource of our national University of Wales and of the research undertaken by its scientific and technological departments. Why on earth does such highly regarded research work not lead to more practical benefits, in terms of applied technology and jobs? The contrast between the direct spin-offs—jobs—created around Cambridge in England or Boston in the United States and the lack of such spin-offs in Wales is staggering. Key people in our university often take an academic delight in boasting that their work is not necessarily of relevance to Wales but is of relevance to mankind. That is all well and good, but they should remember that their budgets come from the Welsh expenditure block, and it is not unreasonable that the people of Wales should look to its university to bring back more direct benefits to the Welsh economy.
I mentioned earlier Ireland's success in attracting new jobs. We are, of course, aware that GDP per head in the Irish Republic is not just greater than that of Wales but has overtaken the UK's. We in Wales must learn the lesson from Ireland that it is important to create a skilled work force. The Irish have put substantial resources into education, to ensure that the industrial and commercial skills are there for potential employers. There has been a tragic failure to do that in Wales and throughout the UK. As a result—incredibly—there are high pockets of unemployment in Wales side by side with industrialists who cannot find adequately trained labour.
A strategic consideration, therefore, must be the improved skilling of the Welsh work force; the failure of the TECs in Wales in this context must be brought into the equation. There may be a case for integrating them with the WDA—and integrating part of their work with local authorities—so that the feedback from employers in Wales finds its way directly into the organisation of training and reskilling the work force. Clearly, there must also be a much closer liaison between education and training if this problem is to be solved.
On the need for reskilling our work force, the Government must surely be aware of the academic research that has been undertaken in Cardiff, based on

235
primary research in Scotland, showing the benefit to the economy from investing in education, which virtually pays for itself. That is of direct relevance to the debate.
I was glad that the previous Government made some progress with regard to establishing training centres in Gwent and Bridgend, although I was sorry that no Welsh educational institution bid successfully for the Bridgend contract, and that we had to go to Swindon to find people who could take on the contract.
Do the Welsh Office and the Welsh Development Agency seriously believe that a training centre in Bridgend will serve the needs of unemployed people in Pembroke Dock or Aberystwyth, let alone Porthmadog, Bangor or Penygroeis? If it is their intention that such a centre should serve the whole of Wales, will travelling and residential costs be reimbursed? If, as I suspect, that is not the intention, can we have training centres nearer the people in Wales?
Another target sector that the WDA has identified, but which is being developed sporadically, is the television and film sector. We have a significant infrastructure in film production in Wales already, but I often wonder whether that base has been provided for the development of existing opportunities. One thinks particularly of the film development funds in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. We need something similar if we are to take the maximum opportunity in Wales.
A further sector with a strong track record is marine biology in Bangor, yet we do not get the jobs arising from that.
Because of pressure of time and to allow other hon. Members to speak, I shall curtail my remarks. The work of the WDA must be seen in the context of the resources available to it. Its budget has been severely eroded over recent years. During the Redwood era, the WDA was specifically required to sell off the family silver in order to maintain its statutory responsibilities. That was an outrageous situation and must never be allowed to recur.
The way in which the WDA was starved of cash in terms of grant in aid during the Redwood era is staggering. In 1991–92, the grant in aid stood at £87.5 million. By 1994–95, it was down to £50 million and by 1995–96, it was down to £29.2 million. The WDA had to make up the shortfall by selling its capital assets, but, despite its doing that, the cuts had a direct material effect on the total expenditure of the WDA, which fell from £165 million in 1992–93 to £130 million in 1995–96.
It is true that additional resources have been put in recently, not least because of the need to ensure that money was available for the LG project. The net result is that the revised budget for 1997–98 stands at £152 million, which is below the level of the 1992–93 budget. When one takes into account the fact that some of that money is earmarked for the LG project, it becomes clear that the resources available for the rest of Wales have fallen significantly in real terms.
That is a direct consequence of the dogmatic approach of the previous Government. The incoming Labour Government must give a commitment to avoiding that and to providing adequate funding for the WDA to do its job properly.
236
We have recently heard about the appointment of the new chief executive, Mr. Brian Willott, and we wish him well in his responsibilities. It is a pleasant change to have a chief executive whose roots are in Wales and who is also prepared to live in Wales.
The WDA has a challenging time ahead. It will face changes in its democratic answerability and, quite possibly, in its structure and remit. All those will develop over the coming months. What is needed now is a clear-cut and decisive strategy geared to providing a fair range of jobs in required numbers within reasonable travelling distance of every community in Wales.
The WDA will need hands-on leadership, from within the Welsh Office and, in due course, from the Welsh Assembly and from its own senior executives. Its success or failure will be measured in terms of the increase in sustainable employment opportunities and in the standard of living and the quality of life in Wales. Its success or failure will be felt most of all by the people of Wales.
From the start, getting the strategy for the WDA right must be a priority for Welsh Office Ministers. We wish the Minister and his team well in their work, as we do the staff of the WDA. Labour was elected overwhelmingly in Wales on a programme of getting jobs for the people. It is now time for the Government to deliver. The WDA is the vehicle for facilitating that delivery. It is time to make it happen, and we hope that that is what the Welsh Office intends to do.
10.3 am
Ms Jackie Lawrence: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate on the industrial location policy of the Welsh Development Agency.
The new seat of Preseli Pembrokeshire was created, in part, from a small section of the previous Ceredigion and Pembroke, North seat, which was ably represented in the House by Cynog Dafis, the first Green party Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom, who has played a prominent role in bringing environmental issues to the fore in debate both here and in west Wales.
The major part of Preseli was inherited from the former Pembroke seat previously represented by my Labour colleague, Nick Ainger, who has shifted slightly east and now represents West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire. My hon. Friend was the third Nick in a row to represent Pembrokeshire at Westminster. In 1992, he defeated the Conservative Nicholas Bennett, who had followed the former Secretary of State for Wales, Nicholas Edwards, on his retirement from the Commons in 1987.
During the five years since 1992, Nick Ainger has earned a reputation as an excellent and hard-working constituency Member of Parliament with a great interest in environmental issues. I have great pleasure in following tradition and paying tribute to his record as my predecessor in the House. His maiden speech referred to the importance of pollution control measures in the burning of fossil fuels, notably proposals to import and burn orimulsion at Pembroke power station—an issue which is on-going and affects his constituency, in which the power station is situated, but has also raised concerns throughout west Wales and further afield.
The environment, together with job creation throughout all sectors of our economy, are without doubt the two most important issues in Preseli Pembrokeshire. The two issues are not separate, but closely interlinked.

237
Pembrokeshire is a beautiful county, affectionately known by those who live there as Wales's premier county, and for good reason. We have probably the most beautiful coastline in the entire United Kingdom—a fact exemplified by the existence of the Pembrokeshire Coast national park, which was created to protect and conserve that coastline from increasing threats: threats from land use development, as well as the inevitable ecological and environmental pressures from the increasing number of tourists who come to share and enjoy our beautiful county.
Our offshore islands of Skomer, Skokholm and Grassholm are internationally recognised nature reserves. The seas around the island of Skomer are a marine nature reserve, one of only three in the whole of the UK. That designation was awarded in 1990 in recognition of that unique and sensitive marine environment. It is hoped that it will soon be matched by designation as a European special area of conservation.
That will mean that the highest environmental standards are required for any development around our coast, which is vital to protect the livelihood of the many local people who rely on the agriculture, tourism and fishing industries. Insistence on the highest possible standards for development is vital also to restore the balance between the needs of the petro-chemical industry based around Milford Haven waterway and the other sectors of our economy that I have mentioned.
Much as I should like to extol further the virtues of Pembrokeshire, I am conscious that this is an Adjournment debate and that the time available for Members to contribute is limited. I shall outline the problems faced by our local economy and the reason why an effective strategy for regional development is so important to us in Pembrokeshire.
As I said, anyone visiting Pembrokeshire almost always recognises that it is a beautiful place in which to live. However, that beauty masks some serious problems which are just as severe as and, in some cases, worse than those in many more obviously deprived parts of Wales or the UK as a whole.
The population of the administrative county of Pembrokeshire is about 110,000—a figure which census information shows has grown significantly in recent years. It is, however, an aging population. For example, there was a fall of 11.65 per cent. in the number of males in the age group 16 to 24 between 1981 and 1991, compared to a fall of 9 per cent. in Wales overall. Over the same 10-year period, the number of males aged over 65 increased by 27.6 per cent., compared with a Welsh figure of 15.1 per cent. Thus, we have a greater migration of our young people out of the county, but a substantially greater influx of people over retirement age.
From my 20 years living in Pembrokeshire, I know that young people who have grown up in the county would generally like to stay, and leave only because work opportunities are simply not available for them. They face the choice of moving elsewhere to find work, or remaining with no prospect of work, or prospects of wage rates as low as £2.20 an hour or even less. Those figures were outlined by Cardiff business school for west Wales in studies from 1996.
238
Unemployment figures have been consistently high since the late 1970s and are some of the worst in the United Kingdom. Long-term unemployment increased significantly between 1995 and 1996, despite numerous changes to the way in which the former Government calculated the "official" figures. A recent study commissioned by Pembrokeshire county council estimated that, in 1994, Pembrokeshire had a gross domestic product per head of population of just under £7,000—less than 72 per cent. of the United Kingdom average. That figure had dropped from 84 per cent. in 1984.
Fewer than 10 per cent. of those employed in Pembrokeshire are involved in manufacturing activities, compared with 20 per cent. for Wales as a whole. Between 1981 and 1991, manufacturing industries in Pembrokeshire declined by 12.7 per cent. compared with a 7.8 per cent. decline for Wales as a whole. Our mainstay industries of agriculture, tourism, defence establishments and oil have been hit badly. The former Government's closure of defence establishments at RAF Brawdy, Milford mine depot and Royal Naval armaments depot Trecwn led to the loss of hundreds of direct jobs and millions of pounds from our local economy.
The impact of bovine spongiform encephalopathy has been devastating for our local farmers; a 1996 study estimated an annual loss of £34 million from the south-west Wales economy as a direct result. In November last year, estimates showed that the Sea Empress oil spillage had cost the tourism and fishing industries about £32.7 million. The most recent blow to the people of west Wales is the news that Gulf oil refinery faces possible closure, with the loss of more than 200 direct jobs and a further 2:1 ratio of indirect jobs.
The whole operation of the Welsh Development Agency, including its industrial locations policy, is of immediate interest and concern to my constituents who are desperate for job opportunities and for investment. Earlier this year, before the general election, the former Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), is reported to have instructed the WDA to point any inward investment to areas of Wales outside the M4 and A55 corridors. Such an instruction should not have been necessary, as the Welsh Development Agency's responsibility is clearly to all of Wales, and not just the south and north-east corners. In fact, the opening paragraph of the chairman's statement in the 1995–96 annual report of the WDA assures us that
"the WDA has continued to pursue its mission to promote Wales as the best business climate in Europe by assisting in the growth of quality jobs and competitive industry for the benefit of all the people of Wales."
Unfortunately, we have seen little evidence of that in Pembrokeshire.
Wales requires an economic powerhouse that considers the needs of all areas of Wales—east, west, north, south, urban or rural—without any lines of demarcation. That body would combine the best elements of the WDA with the best elements of the Development Board for Rural Wales in order to cater for the needs of both urban and rural areas of Wales. It should be able to apply the strategy that is most appropriate for the area in which it is working, instead of one strategy or the other in the selective style of the previous Administration.
I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who represents a Welsh constituency, will be acutely aware of

239
the frustrations of the people of Wales not just with the industrial locations policy of the WDA, but with the lack of accountability of that organisation. For that reason, I welcome the referendum planned for later this year when the people of Wales will be given an opportunity to say yes to the restoration of democracy within Wales. The expertise of 60 local people in an assembly will ensure that instructions such as that given by the former Secretary of State to the WDA to "go west" are no longer necessary.
Local people know what local people need. The implementation of an element of proportional representation in elections to the Assembly will ensure that people from all localities in Wales have an input—whether the issue is economic development and regeneration, health or education and skills training. The Assembly will not detract from the work of hon. Members in this place or of local government in Wales. It will enhance and complement both and, unlike unaccountable quangos, it will restore the democratic deficit that has increased over the past 18 years—by all accounts, at a cost that is considerably less than that of quangos. It will deliver reduced costs, with democracy for the people of Wales as a bonus.
For the sake of the economic future of my constituency and in order to meet the needs of other areas such as Pembrokeshire that demonstrate problems of both urban and rural deprivation, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will consider ways of responding effectively to our needs.
10.14 am
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) honestly and sincerely on her maiden speech, which was thoughtful and thought provoking. I am confident that she will prove an excellent Member of Parliament and that the people of Preseli Pembrokeshire will be represented very well.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on securing time for this debate on a matter that is important for the whole of Wales. In the time available, I shall concentrate on the rural parts of Wales. My hon. Friend has assiduously tackled deficiencies in the Welsh Development Agency over the years. He has offered constructive criticism, rather than simply banging away without offering any helpful suggestions. I am sure that the recent change in direction by the agency and the Welsh Office is due in no small measure to my hon. Friend's efforts.
The Welsh Development Agency's success in attracting high-profile new investment, such as LG in Newport, is most welcome. However, the problems of rural areas present a far more difficult scenario. In effect, a single huge job creator in a populous area will sweep away an enormous percentage of the unemployment figures at a stroke. However, the economy in the other 80 per cent. of Wales will remain utterly reliant on the small and medium-sized sector businesses, without which the economy would collapse. It follows, therefore, that it is far more difficult to attract the medium-sized sector to the pockets of unemployment that are prevalent in many parts of rural Wales.
The situation has been exacerbated of late by the scaledown of labour in the agricultural industry. A particularly worrying aspect is the rate of long-term youth
240
unemployed, which is as high as 33 per cent. in some parts of rural Wales. Addressing that problem must be a priority if we are to build a healthy and viable society in Wales.
It is correct to say that the Welsh economy generally is depressed, with gross domestic product per head at about 83 per cent. of the United Kingdom average, as the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire said. Low wages are a feature in many industries. Tourism, which is one of the main employers in Wales, remains largely seasonal despite the efforts of many in the industry to encourage expansion into the so-called "shoulder areas" of the year. Wales must also deal with an inferior transport network—indeed, it is hardly a network at all.
Rural Wales is characterised by a population comprising a high proportion of elderly people with a lower proportion of under-45s. Population growth in rural Wales is due largely to the in-migration of mainly elderly people and, as a consequence, service delivery is more costly per head. In addition, the settlement pattern of rural Wales is under threat. Characteristically, Wales has always had a network of small market towns which frequently serve a catchment area of many miles. In the past five years, we have seen a huge growth in the number of large stores—such as supermarkets and hypermarkets—in those towns. They are seeing off the smaller retailers, one by one.
I was among those who called consistently for policy planning guidance notes 6 and 13 to be introduced in Wales without delay. The Welsh Office, under the tenureship of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), sat on the documents for 12 months after they were introduced in England by the Department of the Environment. During that time, large retail outlets sprang up like mushrooms over huge swathes of rural Wales. We must now come to terms with the consequences of those events.
In seeking to address the particular problems associated with the economic and socio-economic planning for Wales, the Welsh Office should develop a rural strategy, which was so eloquently propounded by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire. I consider that we have lessons to learn from the English model, a rural affairs commission similar to that model might be part of the answer. The fact is that the problems of rural Wales are broad based. They never present one single answer, but beg several. A body that brings together all the problem areas and addresses them would be most welcome.
What I have just said will inevitably be taken as a criticism of the Development Board for Rural Wales, but, in truth, the board has performed fairly well within what many of us consider to be a far too limited remit. I recognise that the board has considerable expertise in encouraging growth in the rural economy, but its powers and obligations should be extended. There is no justification for cutting its budget, even if that means thousands of new jobs for the Newport area. I call on the Government to reinstate the board's budget and to extend its remit so that it is better able to fulfil its statutory purpose and obligation to assist in improving
"the economic and social welfare of the people in mid Wales."
The recent market town initiative is most welcome, but I ask the Minister to look again at what the board can offer existing businesses to help them expand. That must be the

241
key to any strategy. I believe that that offers far more potential even than attracting further inward investment. A thorough appraisal of ways in which to invigorate rural Wales and redress its further decline is long overdue.
We need improved public transport, and initiatives such as post buses are most welcome. Our rural post offices and shops are a vital resource. Although some recent rate relief was introduced, further initiatives must be sought. Capital grants must be introduced to assist businesses in rural areas. Support for all rural businesses, be they general stores, garages, public houses or whatever, should be considered, because they are key resources. Any business failure in those sectors inevitably has a serious knock-on effect throughout rural areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon referred to information technology and the need to cable up Wales. That is of paramount importance if Wales is to have a truly prosperous future. I believe that time is of the essence, as Wales has great potential for attracting telematic-based firms in rural areas.
One of the particular problems in rural Wales is the need to link up indigenous businesses. Due to the far sightedness of several individuals in my constituency there is a contract shop for connecting businesses. In the past, businesses typically had to import raw materials from the west midlands, but they now find that those same materials are available at a competitive rate within the constituency. Such an initiative is extremely important. I also echo what my hon. Friend said about the transport of goods and people.
We need to think carefully about encouraging real diversification in agriculture. If that means a relaxation of planning procedure, so be it. The national park within which I live must be a living, breathing and expanding area where the communities can live and prosper. We need to redouble our efforts to assist our market towns. Environmental improvements such as those undertaken by the WDA at Llanrwst and currently at Dolgellau are fine as far as they go, but we need to make it more attractive to people to start up in business. We need to remind people that rural Wales has some world market leaders within it. If they can succeed, a new business will also succeed. A far more radical and all-embracing policy is required so that all the key players in rural regeneration are singing from the same hymn sheet.
We have a wonderful quality of life in rural Wales. People must recognise our determination to ensure that businesses prosper. At the moment, I fear that that message is not getting through. I also fear that a drastic rethink is necessary to make Wales, in particular its rural areas, a haven for business start-ups and expansion.
I trust that when the Welsh Assembly is set up it will concentrate on the dire need to refocus and simplify the various efforts to achieve rural regeneration. I believe that the Assembly would be an excellent forum for that and a catalyst for true forward thinking about what is good for Wales.
10.24 am
Mr. Donald Anderson: What a happily consensual debate this has been. It is one in which people who represent different parts of Wales have sought to consider constructively its problems and propose solutions.
242
I congratulate the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on his timely choice for debate because, at the start of a new Parliament, I believe that we are pushing at an open door. I know that when the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), replies, he will fully understand the problems and will seek to address them constructively.
I also want to commend warmly the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence), which was a model of its kind. During the election campaign, I had the privilege of being twinned with Preseli, and my wife and I spent a happy two weeks there at the start of the campaign. I can certainly underscore what my hon. Friend said about the deprivation in her constituency. At one stage, I thought that there was a new candidate standing for election because of the number of boards displaying the name Halifax. That is some indication of the pressures that that constituency has faced due to a combination of factors associated with the oil industry, defence cuts, BSE and other problems that my hon. Friend described so graphically. I know that she will be a worthy successor not only to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), who used to represent the northern part of her constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger), who used to represent the major part of it.
The broad theme of all the contributions has been the same—yes, the Welsh Development Agency has had some successes, but there have also been some major failures. That cannot be laid at its door, because as its name implies, it is an agent and there is a principal behind it—the Welsh Office. By its policies, the Welsh Office has allowed the divide between the more prosperous and less prosperous areas of Wales to increase. In part, that is due to its failure to use the instruments that are available to it, but, worse than that, it has increased the locational advantages of south-east and north-east Wales. Effectively, its policy has been one of failure by omission to use certain instruments to attract developments to those areas that need it. Worse than that, by its policies it has increased the disadvantages of certain areas—disadvantages that have already been described.
I do not intend to ask the Under-Secretary to visit the areas in question because he knows them well. We were delighted by his appointment because he will be a powerful advocate within the Welsh Office for the type of policies that we have mentioned. My hon. Friend need only look at the relevant statistics gathered by the Welsh Office concerning population movement and other demographic factors such as the aging population, the number of young people who leave Wales and the decline in the population in certain areas. They speak for themselves.
The statistics on poverty show how earnings have declined. In my part of south-west Wales, for example, earnings used to be well above the Welsh average because of highly paid steel jobs at Port Talbot, but we are now well below it. That has been a feature of the economic development in south-west and north-west Wales. Other statistics, which relate to economic activity and the comparative financial advantages of certain areas, also speak for themselves. Under the Redwood era, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon has said, the figures were astonishing. Over three years, I think, the Cardiff Bay

243
development corporation was given by way of grant in aid more than twice the budget that the Welsh Development Agency had for the rest of Wales.
Recently, for example, my city of Swansea was trying to attract a well-known consumer business to the city. Swansea was told, "Yes, we may be interested in coming, but you—the city and council—must match the subsidised price of, and other incentives at, Cardiff bay." The city does not have the resources to do that. Playing on the locational advantages of south-east Wales is causing enormous problems.
There is always a temptation in these debates to be parochial and to get a quick headline in the local newspaper. We must recognise, however, that Cardiff is the flagship. It is the capital of Wales and should be treated accordingly. We must recognise the locational advantages—
Mr. Martin Caton: Does my hon. Friend agree that partnership between the Welsh Development Agency and other agencies, such as central Government, is essential if we are effectively to create the jobs that we need, especially in the Swansea area? Does my hon. Friend agree also that the WDA let us down extremely badly recently when, having promised us money for the Technium project, the science park at Penllergaer, which is just outside my hon. Friend's constituency, the money was pulled away, along with European money that was already guaranteed? That money went back to south-east Wales. Does my hon. Friend agree that that was regional policy in reverse?
Mr. Anderson: Yes, precisely that. My hon. Friend has produced an extremely good case study. As he says, it is regional policy in reverse. Money was pledged for the science park at Penllergaer. The project involved using the expertise of the local university in a way that the hon. Member for Caernarfon was suggesting. At the 11 th hour, however, the money was taken away by the WDA and assigned to the Cardiff area. It was an astonishing decision, and I hope that my hon. Friend will use it as a case study.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of other examples in the Neath area of regional policy in reverse. Money goes to areas that are already relatively prosperous, its having been taken from areas that are not prosperous. That must be examined.
I adopt all that has been said about proportions. I understand very much what has been said about the deathbed repentance of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) a few months before the general election. The right hon. Gentleman saw the writing clearly on the wall. He said, "I have sinned. My policy has been wrong. Oh Lord, what I would like to do is as follows." That policy has been set down and I re-pose the question asked by the hon. Member for Caernarfon: will the Welsh Office pick up the challenge?
I am talking not of the theoretic undertakings of the previous Secretary of State but of a firm commitment that the investment targets for the WDA will be entirely recast with emphasis being given to the more deprived areas, such as areas west of the golden corridors of the A55 and M4. I want to see that broad commitment accepted in principle. Will my hon. Friend the Minister, in whom we have enormous confidence and think of as the advocate
244
of the areas outside the more prosperous areas of Wales, give us an indication of the ways in which the Welsh Office intends to act? What instruments does it propose to use? I hope that my hon. Friend will underline that we have a new and reforming Government who are prepared to use all the available instruments for Wales as a whole.
10.34 am
Mr. Richard Livsey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on making an excellent maiden speech. I have a considerable Pembroke ancestry in my blood and I appreciated what she said.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has initiated the debate. I congratulate the Minister, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), on his appointment as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. In constituency terms, he is my next-door neighbour.
I shall endeaivour to make a succinct speech in drawing attention to a number of areas of strategy that are important for the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales.
Various Secretaries of State have used the WDA as the engine of economic development in Wales. That is especially true of the tenure of Peter Walker, one of the better Conservative Secretaries of State, in the mid-1980s. The problem is that locational development has been unequal, with the result that there is a divide. There are many who say that there is little economic development in south Wales west of Bridgend, and there is some truth in that. There is a similar divide in north Wales along the A55.
We have a problem in the western valleys and we have enormous problems in south-west and north-west Wales. There are problems in rural areas. We are in danger, however, of forgetting mid-Wales, which is a huge chunk of the country. There is a great deal of discussion about what goes on in north Wales and south Wales, but the problems of mid-Wales are substantial. Those problems are undoubtedly the result of poor infrastructure. It is unpopular these days to talk about road developments and I would not advocate motorways running throughout Wales, but some improvements to the A470 and A483, especially in the Brecon and Radnor constituency, and in Powys in general, would improve north-south communications and assist economic development without wrecking the environment.
The difficulties facing the rural economy, with up to 25 per cent. of those involved depending on employment that is connected with agriculture, should not be underestimated. The problems of BSE and cuts in the green pound are taking farm incomes down to even lower levels.
We in mid-Wales are especially concerned about the Development Board for Rural Wales and the interface between the DBRW and the WDA in the location of investment. It is vital that the DBRW continues. There is a feeling in mid-Wales that perhaps its days are numbered. I ask the Minister to ensure that it continues. Indeed, it should be developed and given more powers. The problems facing agriculture should be addressed more clearly by the board. Legislation should be introduced to ensure that that happens.
The boundaries of the DBRW should be coterminous with the objective 5b area of the European Union in Wales. There may be a case for extending the board's boundaries.

245
Many upland farms in Wales produce incomes of £10,000 a year or less. With the green pound devaluation and the halving of ewe premiums, incomes could fall to £5,000 per family. There is a great need to provide employment in rural areas to ensure that members of farming families have alternative employment and an alternative income. That means that economic development must be pushed through to many of the more remote rural areas to ensure that employment opportunities exist.
With the advent of a Welsh Assembly, which we all hope and trust will be set up, there is a great need to make up the democratic deficit. We certainly need a rural strategy that includes not only the WDA but the DBRW, the farming unions and the rural counties of Wales—and not only a policy, but a Welsh Office Minister, devoted entirely to the needs of rural areas. Then there could be a coherent strategy for employment and location.
The needs of rural Wales are great and I should like the Minister to assure us that the DBRW will continue to develop, that its budget will not be cut, as has happened over the past 12 months, and that it will be given a fair deal.
10.39 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): This has been what my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) appropriately described as a happily consensual debate. It is not hard to discover why, when we look at all the empty green Opposition Back Benches where Conservative Members would normally be sitting.
Mr. Nick Aingeir: Where are they?
Mr. Hain: There are none left, because they were wiped out in Wales. That is why we can now, at last, tackle the real issues there, such as those raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), whom I congratulate on securing the debate.
The hon. Gentleman raised several important issues that are right at the top of the Government's agenda for Wales. He also made some apt and sharp observations about the call centres and the need to ensure that a broad-band telecommunications network extends right across into north-west Wales. I shall write to him about that, and perhaps we can have a dialogue later.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on an excellent maiden speech. In fact, I am somewhat jealous because I, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East, was her twin at the election—not that she needed our help, because she secured a bumper majority.
My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about her constituency, which is indeed beautiful. I have good reason to know that, having visited Skomer island with her on Sunday. However, as she eloquently explained, that beauty masks much unemployment and serious economic and structural problems, which the Government will seek to address, but which the Tory Government so shamefully neglected.
246
To be successful, the Welsh Development Agency needs a clear framework of strategic guidance from the Government, incorporating specific targets on job creation—the levering in of private sector investment, the reclamation of derelict land and the generation of new business for Welsh firms.
The WDA's industrial location policy is based on the economic case for promoting inward investment in Wales—and it has been most successful. The new Labour Government are determined to build on that success.
However, it has been easier to attract inward investors to the south-east and the north-east of Wales. I agree with the hon. Member for Caernarfon about that, and we now need to redress the balance between east and west Wales, and between the south and the north. We are also determined, as the hon. Gentleman said, to locate investment up the valleys. I agree with him there, too.
We must be clear that getting investors into Wales, rather than specifying exactly where in Wales they should go, is the absolute priority. There is stiff competition from other regions of Britain and we simply must offer the best package possible. I do not think that there will be any disagreement about that. If that means having 6,000 LG jobs in Newport, or not having them at all, I am sure that we would all agree that the answer is self-evident. So, while I am second to nobody in my desire to spread prosperity westwards off the M4 and A55 corridors, I also ask for hard-headed realism from everybody in that respect.
Mr. Caton: While my hon. Friend is talking about moving investment westwards, will he join me in recognising the excellent work done by the WDA as the lead partner in developing the Felindre old steelworks site in my constituency, close to the boundary with his own? That must now be one of the premier inward investment sites in Britain, and probably in the whole of Europe.
Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I assure him that the Government are doing all that we can to ensure that we get major investment in what he rightly calls a premier site.
Foreign direct investment has been, and continues to be, a vital source of new employment opportunities. For this year, the agency has the target of creating or safeguarding 12,500 jobs, almost two thirds of which—8,000 jobs—will come from inward investment. Half those new jobs will be outside the eastern M4 and A55 corridors.
The benefits are not limited to jobs. Overseas companies have brought new skills, new technologies and new products that have been of wider benefit to the Welsh economy. For example, home-grown firms have entered the supply chains of the overseas companies, thus creating and safeguarding further jobs. The new arrivals have also been able to learn from our businesses, so the benefits have flowed both ways.
We must look forward as well as back. The Welsh economy today faces challenges very different from those of 20 years ago.
Mr. Wigley: Before the Minister moves on to the general forward-looking bit of his speech, may I underline

247
what I said earlier about the guidelines issued by the Welsh Office on 19 March, which said:
"The targets set out below"—
that is, with regard to how many of the jobs should be outside the two pockets—
"reflect this and the Agency is expected to recognise, within the UK and EC limits, the extra costs of locating in areas outside of the eastern M4 and A55 corridors."
That is deliberately specified, to try to attract companies that would otherwise want to go to those pockets—although, of course, as the Minister said, we would not want to lose them altogether. Presumably, that means giving some inducements to meet the extra costs. Can the Minister tell the House what the mechanism for doing that will be?
Mr. Hain: We have a delicate balance to strike here, and we intend to use all the levers available both to the WDA and to the new Government to ensure that we get extra investment in north-west Wales. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I would rather leave it at that at the moment.
It is also vital—
Mr. Martiyn Jones: I am sorry to spoil my hon. Friend's flow, but I have here some figures from the Library, obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane), which suggest that employment and inward investment in north-west Wales are not quite as bad as they were portrayed earlier. There were 1,500 jobs in Anglesey and Gwynedd, and 4,700 in Wrexham and Flintshire.
The real problem area seems to lie in between, in Denbighshire and Conwy, where only 400 jobs were created last year. That is probably something to do with whether the local authorities are submitting projects to the WDA. Will my hon. Friend say something about those problems?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The duty Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), muttered to me earlier from a sedentary position that there was high unemployment in Cardiff, too. Indeed, there is, but we do not want to get into a competitive auction. We must seek to do the best for all parts of Wales, and I think that there will be unity on that subject among Members here today.
The issue, however, is the imbalance of inward investment. The hon. Member for Caernarfon made a valid case.
Dr. John Marek: Can my hon. Friend consider the problems caused in north-east Wales. too? A Western Mail article by Darren Waters quotes the Secretary of State as commenting on the appointment of the new WDA chief executive, Mr. Willott, as follows:
"I want to see more jobs created in the Valleys and in the western and north-western parts of Wales. I want a new focus on the growth of existing businesses".
Of course, that leaves out Cardiff, which is central to the concerns of the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central, and leaves out north-east Wales, too.
248
The Secretary of State also left out the area described by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), the Vale of Clwyd and the areas in between.
The Minister would do a service for all of us in Wales if he gave a categorical—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman should know better. He is making a speech, rather than an intervention.
Dr. Marek: May I finish my sentence, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may go no further.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) speaks eloquently for his constituency. It is a matter not of taking jobs away from north-east Wales, but of ensuring that the imbalance is corrected and that we have an investment strategy that supports all parts of Wales. More jobs will be created in north-east Wales.
I am pleased to make an announcement that will be of particular interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). Comtek Electronics and Lasar Cutting Services are bringing new jobs to north-east Wales. Their projects will create almost 100 new jobs, involve the investment of more than £2.5 million extra finance, and will be welcome additions to the communities in north-east Wales.
Mr. Barry Jones: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench and congratulate him on that announcement and on the hard-headed, realistic way in which those jobs have been steered towards my constituency. They are much needed, because we have considerable long-term unemployment. We also have Deeside industrial park, which we need because we are still coping with the consequences of losing 8,000 steel jobs. I thank the Minister most sincerely.
Mr. Hain: I thank my hon. Friend. One of the reasons why such investment has come to north-east Wales is his diligence on behalf of his constituents.
It is vital that Welsh goods and services are competitive at home and abroad. With Wales exporting twice as much as it imports, it is truly part of the global economy, and we must pay particular attention to our key markets in Europe. Indeed, many United States, Japanese, European and now Korean companies chose to set up in Wales to service the European market. The Government's positive approach to Europe was triumphantly shown in the early hours of this morning by the outcome of the Amsterdam summit. That will provide existing and potential investors with further confidence that Wales is the right place from which to do business in Europe.
Inward investment is, therefore, an important component of the globalisation of the Welsh economy. However, we are pressing for a fairer distribution of inward investment throughout Wales, particularly in west and north-west Wales, but also in the south Wales valleys.
I underlined the importance that I attach to inward investment when I met Mr. Joseph Jun, the European President of LG, together with his colleagues, Mr. C. B. Kim and Mr. S. H. Kim, two days ago. I was impressed

249
with their dynamism and they expressed confidence in the partnership approach that the new Labour Government and their agencies are providing. We agreed that we would like as many LG suppliers as possible to locate in Wales, up the valleys and northward and westward. That could bring a further 15,000 quality jobs. Of the 48 companies so far identified as suitable suppliers to LG, 19 are in south Wales, six are in west Wales and two in north Wales. There is potential for the whole of Wales, and we shall work hard to ensure that the Welsh Development Agency and the Welsh Office have the right strategy.
The Welsh Development Agency's strategic target for the number of jobs created or safeguarded outside the eastern M4 and A55 corridors was increased for 1997–98 from 20 to 50 per cent. of its overall target of 12,500 jobs. I strongly endorse that target.
The hon. Members for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) made powerful points about the state of the rural economy in Wales. The Government are conscious of that problem and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would welcome discussions with hon. Members who represent rural areas in Wales to agree on a concerted approach. I agree with the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy about post offices, which play a vital role in rural communities.
Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister assure us that the Government's policy is the same as that stated by the present Secretary of State on 10 February? He said that he had no plans to abolish the Development Board for Rural Wales. Is that still the Government's policy?
Mr. Hain: We recognise that the Development Board for Rural Wales performs an important job, and we want to ensure that there remains a strong rural focus in economic and investment activity. We are reviewing all the quangos in Wales, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would expect us to, given the loss of public confidence in quangos. The DBRW is obviously one of those that we are reviewing.
I expect the Development Board for Rural Wales to give priority to the west of its area. At least 55 per cent. of its programme expenditure will be concentrated in that area by 1999–2000 and we expect that at least 40 per cent. of the jobs to be created this year will be outside Powys, increasing to 40 per cent. by the millennium.
Mr. Dafis: I am sure that the Minister recognises, as we all do, that higher education—both teaching and research—has a key role to play in revitalising the Welsh economy. He will also be aware that there is deep concern and some bitterness in higher education circles in Wales about the way in which its funding has been cut, which has put it at a serious disadvantage compared with higher education in England. Some of those cuts have been made because of the need to provide significant sums, especially for the LG project. Is that not an example of the imbalance in industrial development strategy?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions in this debate are very long.
Mr. Hain: The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) makes important points, which will be taken into account.
Both the WDA and the DBRW fully recognise the importance of this push to the west and north-west, and both agencies are represented on the North Wales economic forum, which has an important role in co-ordinating these efforts in the region. I look forward to the launch of the new South-West Wales economic forum, which will play a similar role. I think that that will deal with many of the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Preseli Pembrokeshire, for Swansea, East and for Gower (Mr. Caton). The Secretary of State and I will shortly be meeting the North Wales economic forum, with which we want to work closely in regenerating north Wales.
All partners should work closely together to ensure that each region and area of Wales is able to maximise its potential for attracting investment. I will be working to ensure that Wales gets the best deal from any review of the assisted areas map. It is essential that we proceed on that.
However, the most important component of all is the right people with the right skills, as LG's senior managers stressed to me on Monday. The people of Wales are our biggest asset. They are the reason why Wales has been so successful, and that drives the WDA's efforts to bring jobs and projects to Wales. We are keen to upgrade the skills level in the Welsh work force still further. But we need not only a highly skilled work force: it also has to be the most flexible.
There are formidable challenges ahead if Wales is to preserve its position as one of the leading locations for investment in Europe. Our partners in the European Union are now more alive to the benefits of inward investment than they were five or certainly 10 years ago. The economic reforms in eastern Europe make those countries formidable competitors for global investment. Recently in my own constituency, Lucas shifted 500 assembly line jobs from Neath to Poland where wage costs were 60 per cent. cheaper. The only way Wales can rise to this challenge is by being the best—not necessarily the cheapest, but the best. To be the best, we must have the most skilled and flexible work force and be at the leading edge of technological advance.
Our strategy must include rationalising or abolishing quangos and making them more democratically accountable to a new Welsh Assembly. That will strengthen existing partnerships, especially with local government. We want more power and decision making to be devolved to the regions of Wales. That will help to spread inward investment more evenly across the whole of Wales.
We want closer ties between the companies that choose to invest in Wales and the communities that will serve them, so as to boost the prospects of the rural and more remote parts of Wales, which are a priority for the Government.
If inward investment is crucial, so, too, is in-Wales investment. The development of home-grown firms is more important than ever before. Most of the jobs growth in modern economies is in small and medium-sized

251
businesses. I shall meet the North Wales Federation of Small Businesses tomorrow to discuss how the Government can support its activity.
I have also asked the WDA and Welsh Office officials, and the other institutional agencies, to discuss how we can advance the proposals for a new economic powerhouse that will be contained in our White Paper on devolution next month. Businesses and their workers in Wales need a Welsh Assembly to give them a real voice in winning new jobs and investment opportunities; otherwise, Wales will fall behind.
This has been an important debate. The consensus demonstrated in it should now be built on, and a new Welsh Assembly should be formed to secure the extra investment, economic activity and jobs to ensure that Wales becomes a world-beating economy.

Bosnia
10.59 am
Mr. Keith Hill: I congratulate the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd)—who will reply to the debate—on his appointment. He and I have fought shoulder to shoulder on human rights issues in the past, not least in regard to Nigeria. I know that his response will be informed both by personal concern to resolve the human rights tragedy that is Bosnia and by the Government's wider concern to secure peace and stability in that part of Europe. Indeed, the one cannot be achieved without the other.
I do not intend to make a long speech. As I anticipated, the debate has attracted some interest among other hon. Members, and I look forward to hearing the contributions of those who, unlike me, have direct and personal experience of Bosnia.
I am pleased to have secured a debate on Bosnia now. It is nearly a year since the House last had a substantive debate on the subject, and we are evidently at a crucial moment in international decision making on the future of the country. In 12 months' time, the mandate of SFOR, the stabilisation force, runs out, and discussions are under way between Governments on its future. I shall argue strongly in favour of the maintenance of a large and powerful international military force in Bosnia. I know of no observer of the Bosnian scene who believes that withdrawal would be anything other than an unmitigated disaster for the region. I shall also argue, however, not only that the international force should stay but that its mandate should be widened as quickly as possible to allow it to undertake more direct responsibility to support the civil agenda of the Dayton agreement.
There are other reasons why this is the right time for a review of the international community's role and SFOR's mandate in Bosnia. In Britain and France—two of the three main military contributors to SFOR—we now have new centre-left Governments, who might reasonably be expected to take a more positive stance on human rights in Bosnia. At the end of this week, the new United Nations high representative, Carlos Westendorp, assumes his responsibilities. On 24 June, the international donor conference will meet, with the aim of raising £1 billion in economic aid for Bosnia. It is essential for that conference to commit itself absolutely to the principle of conditionality in the aid package. In other words, aid should be disbursed only as a condition of the implementation of the civil agenda of Dayton by the Bosnian entities.
We are also in the run-up to the municipal elections in Bosnia, which are set for 13 and 14 September. The 1996 legislative elections, also conducted under the supervision of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, were deeply flawed, particularly in relation to the right of displaced persons to vote in their place of origin. The OSCE is now asking for, and receiving, additional funds to oversee the elections. It claims that it is only approving candidates who make a declaration of acceptance of the Dayton peace agreement, but that claim needs to be validated. There must be renewed efforts to give voting rights to displaced persons, and the OSCE's work must be subject to intense international scrutiny. It is vital for the municipal elections to meet acceptable

253
international standards, in a way in which the Croatian elections—also monitored by the OSCE this week—evidently did not.
The final and most important reason why this is the right time to review the direction of international policy and the role of SFOR is the evidence of a renewed American commitment in Bosnia. Just over two weeks ago, when she visited Bosnia, the United States Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, suggested that the United States was in Bosnia for the long haul, and left open the possibility that some American troops could remain there after next summer. I hope that the British Government will welcome and encourage those indications of continuing US involvement, which would be best served by a continuing US presence on the ground in the form of combat troops. If, however, the United States will not lead on the ground after mid-1998, it is essential for the major European powers to plan now for their own force in Bosnia for as long as it takes to fulfil the Dayton objectives.
It is right and proper to recognise the important achievements of both the original international force, IFOR, and its successor, SFOR, in fulfilling the military objectives of Dayton. The ceasefire was effected, and has been sustained. In some areas, there has been a transfer of authority. A zone of separation has been created, and the inter-entity boundary has been effectively patrolled and policed. I pay tribute to the thousands of British troops who have played their full part in those achievements.
A number of other military aspects of the Dayton agreement remain unfulfilled, however. De-mining has yet to begin in earnest. It is acknowledged, in the present circumstances, that further progress in implementing the sub-regional arms control agreement will be difficult, with Republika Srpska continuing to resist its obligation to destroy large numbers of tanks and heavy weaponry. The critical weakness in Bosnia, however, has been the near-total failure on the civil agenda of the Dayton peace agreement: the establishment of national institutions, freedom of the media, freedom of movement and, above all, the return of the refugees and the arrest of the war criminals.
The scale of the continuing refugee disaster in Bosnia was described in a recent report by the international crisis group entitled "Going Nowhere Fast". In the 16 months since the Dayton peace agreement came into force, only about 250,000 refugees and displaced persons have returned to their homes, almost exclusively to areas where they form part of the majority group. In the same period, a further 80,000 people have been displaced, largely during the transfer of territory between the two entities. In Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole, some 750,000 people remain displaced, of whom roughly 450,000 are in the federation and 300,000 in Republika Srpska.
It is important to understand that, in seeking solutions to the refugee crisis in Bosnia, we are seeking solutions for Muslim and Serb refugees alike. Nor should we forget the 160,000 Croat refugees who have sought refuge in Croatia, and who are part of a Bosnian refugee diaspora which numbers 250,000 refugees in the Federal Republic of Serbia and 315,000 in Germany. To add to the crisis, in late 1996 the western European states, starting with Germany, began proceedings to deport Bosnian refugees.
254
As a consequence, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees expects up to 200,000 refugees, half of them from Germany, to return to Bosnia and Herzegovina this year. Unless action is taken now to enforce the return home of refugees, the total number of refugees and displaced persons in Bosnia will grow to nearly 1 million by the end of 1997. The situation is getting worse, not better
That further build-up of refugees will mean more human misery and greater political tension, especially in the federation area. Of course, there are physical obstacles to the return of the refugees, such as the destruction of property and infrastructure. Those must be dealt with by the international aid programme, and it goes without saying that all housing and infrastructure reconstruction programmes must be linked to the return of minorities.
The major impediment to the return of refugees is the continuance in power of the nationalist authorities and, in some places, of indicted or suspected war criminals. It is unrealistic to leave the responsibility for guaranteeing the security of returning minorities to local authorities, many of whom ethnically cleansed them from their respective regions in the first place. That is why, first, the international community needs to ensure that there are far more human rights monitors on the ground to oversee and facilitate the return process.
If what the international crisis group describes as the "vicelike grip" of the nationalist parties is to be broken to help minorities go back to their homes, the issue of war crimes has to be tackled head on, and those indicted by the international tribunal for former Yugoslavia must be arrested, surrendered to the tribunal at The Hague and prosecuted. Of 75 indicted war criminals in all parts of Bosnia, only nine have been arrested and two prosecuted so far. More than 50 remain at large in Republika Srpska. Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic are both charged with genocide and crimes against humanity. While such men remain at large and their apparent immunity from arrest confers continuing legitimacy on the ethnic cleansers, there will be no return of refugees.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The question arises, who will do the arresting in that situation? It will not be easy.
Mr. Hill: On this, as on most issues, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a difficult issue and one which I shall address later.
I greatly welcome the Minister of State's recent strong affirmation of support for the international tribunal at his meeting with its president, Judge Cassese, on 10 June. My hon. Friend was right to say:
"Effective implementation of the Dayton agreement will continue to be severely undermined so long as those indicted for horrific war crimes remain free."
However, it is unrealistic to expect the Bosnian authorities to surrender them, because, all too often, these are the very people who are inculpated in the same crimes. In practice, only the international authorities and, specifically, the military authorities can affect these arrests. Nobody who has read the weekly human rights updates from the office of the high representative can help but he impressed by its extensive intelligence about human rights abuses in all parts of Bosnia.
As for the military, the soldiers know when Karadzic is in his villa, they know the roads that he uses and they recognise him when he goes through their checkpoints.

255
They are in a position to arrest him, and that is why I say that either SFOR must interpret its existing mandate more robustly or its mandate must be extended immediately to include the arrest of war criminals. Moreover, I suspect that that is the direction in which thinking in the international community is already moving.
The retiring high representative, Karl Bildt, has made clear his belief that at some point military force will be needed to deliver the war criminals to The Hague. His successor, Carlos Westendorp, has said that every effort must be made to bring them to the court and that he is examining new ways and means of producing results. I note that, at the end of this week, the Assembly of the Council of Europe will carry a resolution calling on SFOR to take immediate action to apprehend and transfer indicted persons to the international court.
Of course, such moves will carry risks, and I have no desire to underestimate them, but risks also result from inaction. If there is no individual accountability for war crimes and no return of displaced persons, who can doubt that a Palestinian mentality will develop among young Muslims, with the likelihood of a return to war in 10 or 15 years? Accepting the status quo of effective partition, which is likely in its turn to encourage moves to further rationalisation of frontiers, would be the least stable option.
SFOR must stay. Its withdrawal in present circumstances would be unthinkable. However, it must do more than just hold the ring. It could hold it for ever if nothing happened inside it, and we all know that the international community would not be willing to keep troops there indefinitely, with all the likely consequences of recurring conflict in the region. To ensure that a term is set for the presence of troops in Bosnia, SFOR must take action now to bring the indicted war criminals to trial and to create a secure environment for the return of refugees.
In their excellent mission statement, the Government have said that they will put human rights at the heart of their foreign policy. We are in a powerful position to do that in Bosnia by playing our full part in the implementation of the civil agenda of the Dayton peace agreement.
11.15 am
Mr. Martin Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate, which some months ago would have seemed a somewhat unlikely scenario. Events in Bosnia do not appear much in our newspapers or on our television screens, but that does not mean that the war is over. More likely, it is like a cancer in remission which may renew itself.
Looking back on that terrible period of three and a half years and the diplomacy that limped alongside it, I was sometimes left with the impression that we were watching a symbolic action, half-measures that were intended only to keep the war off the front page no matter how many people it was killing out of sight. It was Band-Aid diplomacy and it did not work.
I think that we have learnt some lessons: there is no point in enduring such ordeals unless we do. The United Nations now has a lessons-learned department. Perhaps in our minds we, too, should have such a department. There are two lessons that I shall mention at this time when we must look ahead to the continuation of SFOR or, if the
256
worst happens, SFOR walking away. One of the lessons is that in the Balkans force prevails. It was the force of the Serbs which prevailed against the Muslims at the start of the war, and the force of the Croats which prevailed against the Serbs at the end of the war. The force of IFOR imposed a kind of peace.
What is important is not so much the structure of the force as its attitudes. When IFOR came in on 21 December 1991, it did so with exactly the same troops and equipment as had previously been assigned to the United Nations protection force—the UN force that failed. The extra tanks, artillery and troops had not yet arrived. The significant issues were the changes in command, in attitude and in helmets from the blue of the United Nations to the camouflage of IFOR.
The other lesson that we have learnt or must learn is that just as actions have consequences, so has inaction. Decisions that were rolled over, deferred or delayed from one meeting to another of the Security Council or the Council of Ministers cost lives. I was close to the situation on the ground and it seemed to me that the problem did not relate to conspiracy or evil interference from outside; it was a problem of indifference. How else do we account for the bombardment of Vukovar and Dubrovnik in November 1991 without penalty? How else do we account for the European Community decision in December 1991 unilaterally to recognise Croatia, although the likely effect of that in igniting a war in Bosnia had been accurately predicted by Lord Carrington and by Mr. Perez de Cuellar, who was then in his closing days as the distinguished Secretary-General of the United Nations? I just note that the British concession to the Germans on the issue of the recognition of Croatia came within days of the German concession to the British on the opt-out clauses of the Maastricht treaty. Historians will one day have something to say about that.
Again, in these past few days in Amsterdam, we have properly been concerning ourselves with events at the heart of Europe, but let us not forget events at the rim of Europe. There were livelihoods at stake in Amsterdam; there are lives at stake in Bosnia. We now have to discuss the composition of SFOR and possibly its renewal and even its walking away. It is reasonable to suppose that the heavy weapons, the tanks and the heavy artillery pieces can now be withdrawn. They are high-impact weapons and they do not make much difference to the overall mix of forces, but I am convinced that, if SFOR goes, the war will start again and the partition of Bosnia will become permanent.
We should take note of what has been achieved, yes, by the United Nations, the discredited UN. By my estimate, it saved 100,000 lives; 100,000 people would be dead but for the bravery of UN troops, who pushed their mandate to the limit and beyond, and risked their lives to save those people. I pay tribute also to the dedicated soldiers of IFOR and SFOR. Having been close to them for all those years, I have come out with a profound admiration for the British Army, which I would now call, from what it has done there alone, the best little Army in the world.
So much depends now on the leaderships in Belgrade and in Zagreb and on whether they finally live up to their obligations under the Dayton agreement. The test is simple: will they hand over the suspected war criminals whom they harbour? The international war crimes tribunal is running out of momentum and is short of evidence, money and, most of all, arrested suspects. My hon. Friend

257
the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) has given the numbers, which are disgraceful. The two men so far convicted were small fry. Only one man in a leadership position is held in custody—Tihomir Blaskic, the former leader of the HVO, the Bosnian-Croat forces in central Bosnia, in the side war among Bosnians, Croats and Muslims from 1993–94.
As I may be a witness in that case, I will have no more to say about it, but I wish to impress on hon. Members my conviction that if one of the leading figures is not arrested within the next six months, the international criminal tribunal will in effect be out of business, with repercussions for years to come. It may be that there was a time for peace with justice, and that was in the spring and summer of 1992, and that now we can have peace or justice but not both.
Mr. Dalyell: May I ask my hon. Friend for his answer to the question that I put to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill): who is to do the arresting? Does my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton have any qualms about it? He has great knowledge of this subject, and I put that point as a question rather than as an assertion.
Mr. Bell: I thank my hon. Friend. I distinguish between those suspected war criminals at large in the present Yugoslavia and those in Croatia, where there are fully competent authorities and there is no international force to do the arresting. There are grave risks in arresting the two principal figures we are talking about, which is why I said that we may have to accept that there can be peace or there can be justice, but there cannot be both. It would be a risky and dangerous undertaking and there is no good course of action. All we can hope for is to find the least worst. If the right occasion presents itself, and it would be easier in the case of Karadzic than in that of Mladic, something might be achieved at acceptable risk, but that has to be advised by the competent military authorities on the ground and we have to live with their advice.
What can we do in the House? We can support the peacekeepers and the peacemakers and the clearance of mines. We can continue with perseverance and patience and not give up, and we should never again return to a distracted diplomacy or to the politics of inattention.
11.24 am
Mr. Tam Dalyell: One of the truths of the House of Commons is that someone almost always knows a great deal more about a subject than oneself. Never was that more emphatically true than in my relationship with my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) because he is an expert who has educated us all. To be candid, my only reason for speaking is that, over the Whit recess, at their invitation, I visited the Scots Dragoon Guards, my former national service regiment.
I should like to mention my only other contribution on Bosnia. Hansard records me saying this during the speech of the late Julian Amery:
"I am listening with fascination, as I have done on many occasions for the past 30 years. From the right hon. Gentleman's experience, would he say that to commit troops, albeit with United Nations berets, into that mire, would beg the question: in what circumstances could those troops ever be withdrawn?"—[Official Report, 5 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 471.]
258
I speak as someone who, perhaps misguidedly and, perhaps in retrospect, wrongly, was against committing British troops into the mire of Yugoslavia. Five years later, having been there, in no way could I do other than support the assertions of my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Mr. Hill) and for Tatton. It would be totally irresponsible to withdraw British troops in the circumstances.
I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton in saying that inaction as well as action has consequences. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham was clear about that and it is doubtless true. Without wishing to create mischief, I should also like to follow something else that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton said. He said that it was coincidence—he put it very gently—that Maastricht negotiations coincided with agreement on a quid pro quo on Croatia. Having been there and talked to people, one realises that that recognition caused much of the trouble—not all the trouble, but much of the trouble.
It should be said in the House that Douglas Hurd owes if not us, at least history, some explanation of what happened because I am afraid that history will record that it was a very shabby deal that was extremely expensive in terms of human life and human tragedy.
I also share the profound admiration for the effectiveness of the British Army in this situation, which relates to the other question that I should like to raise. It is not of such a momentous nature as those raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham and for Tatton, but it involves the conditions of British service men. I know that this is not a Foreign Office responsibility—it is a Ministry of Defence responsibility. This country honestly should do its best for those in the service of the UN or NATO in situations such as Bosnia. On Monday, I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence:
"Could the difficult old question of local allowances for our service men in the British Army of the Rhine, who have had to leave their families behind in Fallingbostel or elsewhere, be reconsidered? When they go to Bosnia, they lose the allowances that they had in Germany. Can my right hon. Friend imagine the wry smiles of the men of B squadron of the Scots Dragoon Guards when they learn that the Canadians, with whom they are doing manoeuvres"—
in the Baraci area—
"get free telephone calls for as long as they like to Canada, whereas the Scots—
and this goes for all regiments—
"telephone calls are financially restricted?"
In this day and age and in such circumstances, surely we could do something about telephone calls because troops in dangerous situations deserve the best.
I will not bore the House by quoting all my right hon. Friend's reply, but his last sentence was:
"We shall keep these issues under permanent review."—[Official Report, 16 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 5.]
The other issue that I wish to raise relates to local allowances. A married sergeant with no children, living in Germany, receives £11.05 per day. When he is deployed out of theatre, the allowance is £7.39 per day—a reduction of £3.66. It is all very well saying that he does not have the expense of living in Germany, but that is not the whole story because his family remains in Fallingbostel. My understanding is that the expenses for a family are exactly the same, if not more, when the husband is away. It is a minor matter, but I plead with

259
the Government to consider it. We must behave properly towards our troops, whose work my hon. Friends the Members for Tatton and for Streatham and I greatly admire.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton will understand when I say that pictures and descriptions on television or in newspapers cannot convey the horror that is Bosnia. The Scots Dragoon Guards took me to the little village of Geselo, where every house had been systematically and efficiently burnt out. I was told that bodies were systematically and efficiently thrown into the river. It was the eradication of a human community. Until one stands there and sees all that—I do not want to be fanciful, but the proverbial ghost is all around—one cannot imagine the horror of what has happened.
Mr. John Home Robertson: My hon. Friend may be aware that I am an old Bosnia hand. Does he acknowledge that, in addition to the security that has been achieved by IFOR and SFOR, a great deal of vital reconstruction work is taking place? It is a vital element of the Dayton process. Edinburgh Direct Aid, which has volunteers from both my hon. Friend's constituency and mine, is currently involved in reconstructing buildings and making places habitable so that refugees can return to them. It is vital to try to rebuild some sort of civilised society out of the disaster that my hon. Friend has described.
Mr. Dalyell: I certainly acknowledge what my hon. Friend has said.
I will not take up any more of the House's time as I have explained my change of mind from five years ago.
11.33 am
Mrs. Alice Mahon: As a member of the North Atlantic Assembly for the past five years, I have been in a unique position to hear first hand, from both the military and high-ranking officials, about the problems facing Bosnia and the problems of implementing the Dayton agreement. I cannot speak with the same experience and eloquence as the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). I closely followed his work as a journalist in Bosnia and read many of his reports. I agree that someone must take responsibility for the European Union's ill-fated decision to recognise Croatia. History will tell the truth about that shameful episode.
From the beginning, I have believed that Dayton was created out of a desperation to do anything to end the killing. Different roles were assigned to different organisations—for example, NATO was brought in to end the armed conflict. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I was deeply worried about sending in British troops. I do not think that we need to apologise for that because it is an awesome responsibility for a Member of Parliament. I was also deeply worried about NATO's involvement because of certain attitudes towards the Russians. However, at the end of the day diplomacy won and the policy of inclusivity with the Russians has been one of the successes. There has also been some short-term success in bringing the killing to an end and in controlling, to a certain extent, some of the arsenals in accordance with Dayton.
260
I agree with the views of Catherine Walker, deputy chief of the UNHCR mission in Sarajevo, who earlier this year warned:
"The Dayton agreement is only a skeleton, it does not take human nature into account. However, hearts and minds of people do not change so rapidly as Dayton would suppose. The reconstruction of the minds and spirits is very slow and is not really taken care of."
It is a task for not only the civilian organisations but the international community. We must recognise that the healing process will take a very long time.
Any stability that has been established in Bosnia is still fragile and a number of urgent issues must be addressed. For Britain and other NATO members, the question is what would happen if the international forces were withdrawn in 1998. Although the crisis management that NATO implemented has succeeded to an extent, how do we get out of Bosnia? Whenever we send in our troops, I always ask, "How do we withdraw and what do we leave behind?"
We must consider the issues of Bosnia fatigue—the media appear to have lost interest in what is happening in Bosnia—and of public opinion in other countries. How long will the political will to stay in Bosnia remain? One reason why I welcome this debate is that it puts Bosnia back on the agenda. We must be honest about what is happening there and how limited the holding of the line is.
Although the work of the civilian organisations is desperately important, it has been painfully slow and enormous tasks remain. The whole of the former Yugoslavia is moving from a command economy to market-based capitalism, and we need to think about that. There are almost 2 million refugees in the former Yugoslavia, with about 1 million in Bosnia alone. The resources to rebuild that shattered country are scarce. I commend the military for its reconstruction work on schools, on its small-scale infrastructure projects and on getting some of the factories back into operation.
We need to stop ethnic enmities breaking out again. We know that, every now and again, ethnic violence erupts. For example, the Croats attacked the Muslims in Mostar and the Serbs destroyed Muslim homes in Republika Srpska. At one point, I was very concerned about the wholesale attempt to make the Serbs into lepers—the hated people of the former Yugoslavia. That is a tragedy. Of course, the leaders are evil and want locking up, but the people have been subjected to foul propaganda and we should not isolate them. If we do, they will huddle together and follow the same leaders. We should not judge the people; we should have gone over their leaders' heads many years ago and talked to those who want peace. The international community should not have given the leaders the credence that it did.
The police force in Bosnia is a cause of major problems. Some 75 per cent. of all human rights violations in Bosnia are perpetrated by the police, so an international police force is necessary. Annexe 1B of the Dayton agreement mentions arms reduction, which is not going as well as we expected. The last thing we want is more arms entering Bosnia; arms reduction should be at the top of the agenda.
Bosnia, like other parts of the world, has a massive problem with de-mining. That problem should concentrate all our minds. I congratulate the Government on their clear statement on land mines. Nothing heartened me more than that wonderful statement.

261
We must stop allowing withdrawal in 1998 to dominate the agenda. Karl Bildt and others who are more knowledgeable than I have talked about building bridges, and they do not mean just in the physical sense. Conflict prevention is the dominant need, and we all accept that a return to war is not an option. The international community must adopt that as its main theme.
We must also address the war crimes issue. At the recent North Atlantic Assembly meeting, arguments were put from both sides. One side argued for South African-style reconciliation and the other talked about bringing the war criminals to justice. The hon. Member for Tatton said clearly that Bosnia could have peace or justice, but not both. That may be true, but that dilemma should concentrate our minds. The military know where the criminals are, but perhaps we need to rethink the mandates.
Freedom does not come free, and I pay tribute to our forces in Bosnia. Sixty people have been killed and 350 people wounded since IFOR and SFOR went in. Freedom comes at a cost, but we should not give up because the prize is too great.
11.42 am
Mr. Mike Gapes: I had not intended to speak in the debate, but it is important to follow the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) and emphasise that the current situation in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia is fraught with great danger.
One of the problems of the past six or seven years has been that international media coverage, with the exception of the BBC's, has been dominated by soundbite politics. Soundbites have influenced public opinion by demanding instant solutions to complex problems. We have seen that in Africa and other parts of the world. When CNN cameras are not covering what is happening, many atrocities and human rights abuses are not reported.
The hon. Member for Tatton mentioned a possible choice between peace and justice. That is often the choice in international conflicts. We cannot always get everything we want and the world's problems today are more difficult and complex than they were three or four years ago, let alone 10 or 20 years ago. Solutions that some of us might have put forward four or five years ago are no longer applicable today. Similarly, it is sterile to argue about whether certain actions were right in 1992, 1995 or 1996. However, I share the criticisms of the premature recognition of Croatia, which was of seminal psychological importance in its effect on the Serbs and their feelings about what they perceived as the re-establishment of an Ustashe state and the consequent memories of 1941–44.
Anyone who has talked, as I have, to the Serbian community in this country, including those who fled in 1948, who were mostly monarchists, will know that they feel a deep resentment about the demonisation of their community, religion and culture by the actions undertaken by people with whom they do not agree politically. The Serbian community in this country feels emotionally attached to the Serbian church and its culture, and they feel labelled and blamed, unjustly, for what has been done
262
by others in their former homeland. Many of the Serbs in this country came from Krajina. They feel a double injustice because they think that the international community has been less firm in dealing with the Croatian Government and what they did to the Serbian population of Krajina than it has been in addressing other aspects of the problem.
In the past few months, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in the previous Parliament, I had discussions with all the main players when they visited London, including the three Opposition leaders from Serbia, who are now unfortunately squabbling among themselves. I have had discussions with people from Republika Srpska and the joint presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina and with leading Croat politicians. If one speaks to them all individually, one would believe that a reasonable solution were possible. However, we know from what has happened in former Yugoslavia that the hatreds and historical animosities run very deep. Every conversation has a different historical starting point. The date that people regard as important in their history is what determines their attitudes to today's conflict.
The problem that the international community faces—not only in Bosnia but in Cyprus and other countries with intractable problems—is that the American, CNN-driven, quick-fix solution of sending for the cavalry, going in, sorting it out, pulling out and leaving them to get on with it does not work for complex historic problems. I do not wish to attack Mr. Holbrooke for all his effort and the hours he put in, because he clearly played an important role, but his Dayton fix has not achieved a long-term solution. That will require the work that Karl Bildt has been calling for and the long-term commitment of military forces, internationally trained police forces and civilian reconstruction of the infrastructure.
I strongly criticised events of three or four years ago and said so in the House on several occasions. I thought that we were in danger of approaching the problem from only one side and of being bounced into simple solutions. Nevertheless, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill)—I am grateful for the opportunity to make the point today—that premature withdrawal of the international commitment would be absurd and dangerous. We must send that message loud and clear to the United States. If a country makes a commitment to assist in an international conflict or civil war, the commitment must be long term. It cannot be committed one year and pull out the next. What happens if a country pulls out? Weaponry and complicated equipment are left behind, which, in certain hands, can be major force multipliers in a conflict.
We know that, for the best of motives, the American Administration have tried to create a balance of military forces in Bosnia. There were two ways of accomplishing that. The first was to reduce the forces of all sides, and the second—the method chosen—was to pile in more equipment for one side of the conflict. The net consequence has been the introduction of more armaments into a potential battlefield.
There is a further complication. The international community should be much more vigilant about the efforts of some countries—particularly Iran—to play power politics in the region. It is understandable that Bosnia's Muslims feel that international support is necessary, but it would be extremely dangerous if the

263
international community were to turn a blind eye to the developments that have occurred over the past two to three years.
We must move cautiously if we are to keep our commitment to the stabilisation force and commit ourselves to long-term support for Bosnia, which may be necessary for as long 10 or 15 years. We have not resolved the situation in Cyprus, which has had a green line for many years. If we do not watch out and act cautiously, all sides in the Bosnian conflict may continue to rearm for a future conflict, in the expectation that international withdrawal will allow them—theoretically, because they will fail—to settle matters one way or the other.
All we have been given is a messy and possibly unworkable compromise, but we will have to live with it. Although it may take many years, we will have to try to change attitudes, rebuild institutions and create trust and dialogue. It is much easier to destroy such things than it is to build them. We must send that message to the United States and elsewhere. Today, I hope that all hon. Members will unite in doing so.
11.51 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) for proposing today's debate and to all hon. Members who have spoken for the very sober tone in which it has been conducted. We are dealing with an issue which runs to the very heart of the Government's commitment on how to conduct our own foreign policy. The issue runs to the heart also of the United Kingdom's moral responsibility in places such as Bosnia-Herzegovina and in the wider world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham has given us a timely opportunity to discuss an issue which, over the past six years, has weighed heavily on the foreign policy agendas of Europe, the United States of America and the wider world. Today, voices have been raised in the House questioning whether those agendas have always had it right. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) said, although an analysis of the past is important, we must think primarily of the future.
Today—18 months after the signing in Paris of the peace agreement negotiated in Dayton, Ohio—Bosnia-Herzegovina stands at a turning point. We must not delude ourselves about what has been achieved. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) made the point that an absence of war does not mean that peace has been established. The progress of the past 18 months is important, but we must realise that it is not yet irreversible. On the contrary, the opportunity provided by the international presence in Bosnia is drifting past without progress in some of the most crucial spheres of peace implementation.
We must not underestimate the scale of the transformation in Bosnia. Four years of war caused untold human misery and left a wasteland of death and destruction. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) was absolutely right to say that searching for and designating one ethnic group or another as "the victim", and increasing support for that group, is a tragic mistake. The truth is that there were victims on every side of the conflict and it was a tragedy for every side.
264
Thanks to the peace agreement, the fighting has stopped and the rival armies have been separated and demobilised. Moreover—although perhaps not quickly enough—the mine fields are being cleared. The elections that have been held, although not perfect, are a crucial first step in the democratic process. Common institutions have been established, and reconstruction is under way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham mentioned the refugee problem. A quarter of a million refugees and displaced persons have returned to their homes. In comparison with the rate of repair after the second world war, for example, the transformation in Bosnia has been dramatic and rapid. My hon. Friend was right, however, to say that by no stretch of the imagination do we yet have the solution right.
The Dayton agreement recognises that Bosnia has essentially split in half, with the Serbs on one side of the confrontation line and the Bosnians and Croats on the other. We should emphasise, however, that the agreement envisages a process of gradual reintegration. The goal is a single Bosnian state, power sharing between the ethnic groups, freedom of movement, reversal of ethnic cleansing and a state in which the return of peace and prosperity will eventually eclipse the divisions of the war years.
The vision of a united and multi-ethnic Bosnia is one to which the Government are and must be firmly attached. We are attached to it not only because it would be morally wrong to reward the abominable ethnic cleansing conducted during the war but because—as my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax said—there is no place in today's Europe for the narrow-minded nationalism that would take Bosnia down the road to ethnic partition.
After 18 months, the divisions left by the war are still very much with us and can be illustrated by a few examples. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham mentioned the issue of refugees returning. The peace agreement established the right of every refugee to return to his or her home, but that is quite simply not happening. The international community is rebuilding houses for returning refugees, but, before the homes can be occupied, they are burnt down by local thugs and gangsters while the local authorities and police stand idly by.
Every Bosnian citizen should have the right to travel freely around Bosnia, but police checkpoints are being used deliberately to obstruct and harass people exercising that right. It is still not possible to make direct telephone calls from Sarajevo in the Federation to Pale in the Republika Srpska, although they are only a few miles apart. The problem is not technical or caused by a lack of resources—the international community has offered any necessary help—but a political blockage within the Bosnian leadership.
Political control of the media in all areas of Bosnia is at a level that we once associated with the communist regimes of eastern Europe, and it has no place in modern Europe. I could give other examples, but the underlying message is already clear: the cause of peace and the interests of the Bosnian people are being sacrificed at the altar of a divisive political theology.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Does the Minister agree that in view of the genocide—that is the

265
right word—in Bosnia, the British Government should use all their influence to ensure that the leading criminals are arrested and brought to justice as soon as possible?
Mr. Lloyd: In a word, yes—of course that is right. My hon. Friend raises an issue of fundamental importance. If he will allow me, however, I will deal with it later in my speech.
The Government are not prepared for the current situation of inertia and deliberate obfuscation and obstruction by the Bosnian authorities to drag on. That was the very clear message taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs three weeks ago to the meeting in Sintra, Portugal, of the Peace Implementation Council steering board—the body responsible for overseeing implementation of the Dayton peace agreement. The meeting's outcome was an unequivocal message to the Bosnian authorities to the effect that there was no alternative to the vision of Bosnia conceived at Dayton, that further attempts to prevent that vision from becoming a reality would simply not be tolerated and that the continued support—financial and otherwise—of the international community depended on their commitment to a peaceful and democratic future. The Sintra communiqué makes that message clear and I will present to the House one or two of its key passages.
First, it was stated at Sintra that there is no military option for any party or ethnic group in Bosnia in the future. The war is over—having brought death, destruction, and misery for millions—and no one will be allowed to restart it.
Secondly, there is no partition or secession option available. The idea of a new apartheid in Europe, of ethnically separate mini-states, is unworkable, immoral and cannot be accepted.
Thirdly, no single community in Bosnia can hope to dominate Bosnia's institutions. The peace agreement provides for power sharing on a basis of equality. That is the only possible future for Bosnia, and it is time that it was accepted by all the parties involved.
In essence, the steering board Foreign Ministers at Sintra signalled that their patience with Bosnia's leaders had run its course. Those individuals are prepared to put their own short-term political games and ethnic intolerance above the interests of their citizens, who are some of the poorest and most deprived people in Europe. That is unacceptable, and it will not be accepted.
In future, when any of Bosnia's leaders persist in blocking reintegration, or in pursuing options other than that set out in the peace agreement, the international community will find direct ways of achieving results. That could involve, for example, the suspension of any Bosnian media network or programme which promotes ethnic intolerance and refusing to deal with Bosnian ambassadors who represent just one of Bosnia's constituent peoples rather than the country as a whole. It could also involve the international community taking action to unify the telephone systems. It will certainly mean denying economic reconstruction assistance to those who consistently fail to meet their peace agreement obligations.
The Government are already putting the tough new stance into action. We have made it absolutely clear to the Bosnian Serbs that we are not prepared to tolerate
266
their attempts to backtrack on commitments to economic legislation made at Sintra. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has sent extremely tough messages to both President Krajisnik and President Milosevic, emphasising the need for rapid agreement to the legislative package now under consideration by Bosnia's central institutions. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham, I can say that in the absence of agreement, all funds pledged for the Republika Srpska at the forthcoming World Bank and European Commission donor conference will be frozen.
The decisions taken by the steering board Foreign Ministers at Sintra gave new impetus to the process of peace implementation, and the momentum created must not be lost. It is up to the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina to seize the chance that they have been given to rebuild their country on the basis of tolerance, democracy, respect for human rights and reconciliation, enabling it to move slowly but surely towards the European mainstream.
One aspect of non-implementation of the peace agreement, however, requires particular attention and condemnation—that of war crimes indictees. Thanks to the efforts of a courageous and committed group of journalists in Bosnia during the Bosnian war, we learned about the appalling crimes and atrocities of that conflict—events which seemed inconceivable and which my generation believed could never happen in Europe at the end of the 20th century.
The international tribunal was established to bring certain individuals to justice, but to date—this is a matter raised by a number of hon. Members—most of those indicted by the tribunal remain at large in Bosnia and in neighbouring countries, some of them in positions of considerable influence if not of formal, technical power. It is nowhere more true than in Bosnia that without justice there can be no lasting peace. While I understand the juxtaposition of peace and justice mentioned by the hon. Member for Tatton, we must insist that both be pressed for as rapidly as possible.
There can be no lasting peace without justice—an issue to which the British Government must attach the highest priority and one which I was glad to have the opportunity to discuss last week when I met Judge Antonio Cassese. We are, I believe, in the first rank of those helping the tribunal. We have given personnel, resources and evidence, including eye witness reports from British soldiers who served in Bosnia. A British judge, Judge May, has recently been elected to the panel of tribunal judges.
I must emphasise, however, that responsibility for capturing indictees and handing them over to the tribunal must rest with the Governments of the region. There can be no ambiguity or doubt about that, and their failure so far to do so is deplorable. We have increased the pressure on those Governments. As a result of decisions taken at Sintra, the international community will blacklist any municipality in which war crimes indictees hold public office and we shall work with our EU partners to implement a comprehensive travel ban on anyone having dealings with such persons. We shall also look for other ways of pressing those Governments to live up to their international obligations—for example, none will achieve their ambitions for closer relations with NATO or the European Union until they have done so.

267
Hon. Friends have mentioned the role of SFOR. While I repeat for the third time that it must be the responsibility of the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina and their neighbours to deliver indictees to the tribunal, SFOR troops will detain and transfer to the tribunal any indicted person with whom they come into contact in the course of their duties—provided, of course, that the tactical situation permits.
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to continue as I may be about to answer his question.
The London conference in December last year asked the steering board to consider what more could be done to bring indictees to justice. We are following up that remit vigorously, in consultation with our allies. For obvious reasons, it would not be acceptable for me to comment further and no one here would expect me to do so. However, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow that any action to get war criminals to The Hague must, of course, ensure the safety of SFOR troops and other members of the international community.
Mr. Dalyell: I do not expect my hon. Friend to reply off the top of his head as this is basically a defence matter, but on the subject of SFOR troops and their safety some of us feel very strongly that the heavy armour must be retained in Bosnia. We must remember the experience of the Sappers, some of whom were taken hostage. To make the point, especially to the Serbs, the heavy tanks—the Challengers—have to be there.
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend will forgive me as I am simply not qualified to give him a direct response, but I can say that the security of our own troops is very high on any list of priorities that we would draw up. All hon. Members who have spoken have paid tribute to the role of the British troops serving in Bosnia, and I agree with that sentiment. As part of our recognition of that, we have an obligation to ensure that the safety of the troops figures highly on our list of priorities.
On the question of human rights more generally, a decision was taken at last December's London conference to make a sizeable increase in the number of the international police task force expressly so as to allow that force a greater role in investigating human rights abuses. That was a welcome step and has now been confirmed by a United Nations Security Council resolution.
Several hon. Members raised the subject of a possible successor to the stabilisation force currently deployed on the ground in Bosnia. It is too early to say what requirement there will be for a follow-on military presence after SFOR withdraws in June 1998—the key priority now is to focus on achieving as much as we can in the next 12 months—but we have made it clear that we believe that any follow-on force should be NATO led and should involve a sizeable US presence on the ground.
Lastly, we must not lose sight of the regional dimension. The problems of Bosnia are not the only ones in the region: difficulties remain, for example, over the reintegration of eastern Slavonia, the need for progress in Kosovo and the regional refugee crisis. By their very nature, the problems of the region are interrelated and we need a comprehensive regional strategy to address them.
268
I should like to make a topical point. A particular matter of concern throughout the region is the question of free media. The elections in Croatia have highlighted continuing problems with state domination of the media there. Last week in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia we welcomed the launch, with UK and international support, of an independent radio network covering much of the country. Attempts by the FRY authorities to suppress independent political reporting must cease. For all the countries in the region, progress in that respect will be a key factor in deciding how their relations with the European Union develop.
Mr. Hill: The media will obviously play a part in the municipal elections in September, which my hon. Friend the Minister has not yet mentioned. Is he satisfied that the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe has the resources and experience and is the appropriate body properly to oversee those elections? Will he give an assurance that the British Government and the other Governments involved will apply the closest possible scrutiny to the activities of the OSCE in the period leading up to the municipal elections?
Mr. Lloyd: I apologise to my hon. Friend: he raised that matter earlier and although I intended to reply directly, I have not done so.
I sympathise with my hon. Friend's critique of last September's elections. We accept that there were shortcomings, but it was inevitable that there would be difficulties in holding elections less than a year after a ceasefire in a country with relatively limited democratic traditions. The outcome was far from perfect and we have to ensure that the lessons learnt then are put into practice so that future elections in Bosnia conform far more closely to acceptable international standards.
We believe that the OSCE is indeed the proper body to monitor the forthcoming municipal elections, which are scheduled to take place on 13 and 14 September this year. Voter registration is under way and it is important to note that refugees—including those in the United Kingdom—can register to vote, either where they were registered in 1991 or in the municipality in which they intend to live in the future. The UK has so far provided 48 core supervisors, trainers and registration supervisors, two long-term observers and 14 secondees to the OSCE mission in Bosnia. We have also contributed £2 million to the OSCE's budget and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is currently considering what further support we can give.
Those who are monitoring events on the ground in Bosnia are confident that the lessons of the previous elections have been learnt by the OSCE mission and that the forthcoming municipal elections will be more free and fair as a result. However, it is right to say that all of us owe an obligation to the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina to ensure that the OSCE is charged with the importance of monitoring the elections in an acceptable manner and we will play our role in that. The municipal elections must be carried off in an acceptable way as part of the process of civilianisation. I cannot overemphasise the importance of the electoral process and of ensuring that the elections pass without difficulty and are deemed to be as free and fair as possible.
The problems of Bosnia have to be set in the regional context. The European Union has made a good start with the elaboration of a regional approach to the development

269
of relations with the countries of the region, making progress for the individual countries dependent on both their support for peace implementation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and their own internal policies. We must insist on that and build on it.
In the longer term, regional stability will be best served by drawing the countries of former Yugoslavia into Europe's political, economic and security architecture, rather than by keeping them outside it and trying to distance ourselves from the vagaries of that volatile region. The Balkans are European and we must ensure that they are integrated into the processes of Europe. Only through integration, both within the region and between the region and the rest of Europe, can the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the surrounding countries put the past behind them and begin to plan for a peaceful and prosperous future. If we want to build a just and lasting peace in the Balkans—as we do—that regional process is the only way to achieve it.
12.14 pm
Sitting suspended.

European Union Enlargement
12.30 pm
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: My purpose in calling this debate was simple. Having been unable to speak in the European debate last Monday week, I decided to try to hold one of my own. I was lucky in the ballot; and as it turns out, this is a particularly pertinent day for the debate. Yet again, this time in Amsterdam, the leaders of the EU have dragged their feet on enlargement, on which I shall say more in a moment.
This is my maiden speech and I should like to say something about my predecessor. Tony Nelson made an enormous contribution to this House. Talking to hon. Members, I have come to realise how popular he was with his colleagues. He also made notable contributions as a Treasury and then as a trade Minister. But it was while campaigning that I realised the full extent of his contribution to politics, because I met so many people on their doorsteps whom, in his quiet but effective way, Tony had helped over the years. I am fortunate to be taking over from him.
I am fortunate, too, to be able to represent Chichester. The city itself has enormous charm, not least because the restrictions on the height of new constructions have preserved the mediaeval views of the cathedral from most directions. The destructive planning zeal of the 1960s was kept at bay in Chichester.
In terms of population, the city is only a little over a quarter of the constituency, which is primarily a rural seat stretching more than 30 miles, all the way from Linchmere and North Chapel on the Surrey border to Selsey and the Witterings on the south coast. The constituency contains elegant country towns such as Petworth and Midhurst, and incorporates a great swathe of the south downs, sprinkled with some of the most delightful villages in the whole of England.
Certainly, Chichester could scarcely have been more beautiful than it was as the first pink fingers of dawn came up behind the cathedral on 2 May, soon after the declaration. I was also reminded that one is never far from the countryside when, driving the three miles home to Bosham from the count, I disturbed deer on the road.
The need intelligently to restrain the pressure for development and more housing, and the need to conserve the beauty of the area, will no doubt be high on my agenda in the years ahead—as will the concerns of the horticultural and farming communities.
I am also fortunate to have contested Chichester, in the obvious sense that I was standing on a piece of blue ground high enough to avoid the red tide of 1 May—high enough, indeed, to send me here with a majority of nearly 10,000. But I would rather have half the majority and twice the number of colleagues.
The Conservatives were defeated not because they espoused the wrong policies. On the contrary, it was only when Labour adopted both Conservative rhetoric and Conservative policies, lock, stock and barrel—even going as far as to accept the ceilings on public expenditure, programme by programme—that it became electable. The Conservatives were defeated because they appeared divided, above all on Europe.
It is a curious fact, and a tragedy for the Conservative party, that so many of the points made on both sides of the so-called Europe divide are right. I believe that there

271
is much to commend the commonsense approach to many of these issues of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). But there is also no doubt that a huge number of the criticisms of the EU voiced by so-called Euro-sceptics are also correct. The EU's budget is often wastefully, sometimes corruptly, spent, as successive Court of Auditors reports have revealed. Absurd and ill-thought-out regulations pour out of Brussels. EU Commissioners would do well to heed the strictures of that great free trader, Richard Cobden—incidentally, he went to Midhurst grammar school in my constituency—who said:
"With how little knowledge we enter upon the task of regulating the concerns of other people."
As for economic and monetary union, whatever its economic merits—and there are some—the challenge of preparing for it is now bringing about a dangerous competitive deflation between France and Germany.
In the months ahead, the Government may seek to create the impression of a new and more positive policy towards Europe, but I believe that the policy, whatever the tone, will remain much the same. At Amsterdam another opt-out has been negotiated, this time on immigration and asylum—although it is dressed up differently.
There has of course been one change—signing the social chapter. I believe that that is a profound mistake, but I shall develop my reasons for thinking so on another occasion.
The social chapter excepted, I believe that the Government will be forced back to broadly the same policies as the former Government pursued on Europe. That is simply because all the logic points to them. And, despite a good deal of watering down by the Foreign Office, those policies amount to a demand for fundamental reform of the European Union. Above all, the British agenda has been, and should continue to be, to abandon the drive for federalism and replace it with a framework of close co-operation between independent states: a framework loose enough to accommodate the needs of the newly liberated states of eastern Europe.
The European Union desperately needs fundamental reform. It was created to do one job in the post-war period, and it should now be doing another for the 21st century. There were three original tasks: to create an institutional framework for Franco-German reconciliation after the horrors of the last war; to provide an economic framework of co-operation that could prevent a repetition of the economic crises of the 1930s—crises which did so much to bring about the rise of Hitler and Nazism; and thirdly, the European Economic Community, as it then was, was created to act as a bulwark against the spread of communism. It was an economic counterpart to NATO. It is worth recalling that until the withdrawal of Soviet troops from east Germany in the early 1990s, they were as close to my constituency as Aberdeen.
Today, none of these objectives is relevant to Europe's peace and prosperity. Few people believe that the French and Germans are going to start another war, or that we will be plunged into another bout of 1930s-style protection. As for the communist threat, the Soviet Union has collapsed into 16 more or less independent countries.
In my view, the great issues facing the continent of Europe in the 21st century will have little to do with those that led to the creation of the European Community. In a nutshell, there are two of them. First, there is
272
the imperative need to restore Europe's global competitiveness. Britain may be doing better than most, but the whole continent is slipping behind the far east, in particular.
Secondly, the countries of the EU should be finding a way quickly to re-integrate central and eastern Europe in the family of western democracies. That can be achieved only by building institutions that fall short of the federal goal. Only the most lunatic Euro-federalists believe that there could be a federation from Britain to Belarus.
There is plainly an unsustainable tension between widening and deepening. The countries of central and eastern Europe have an understandable desire, for the first time in over half a century, to express their national identity, and the German objective of subsuming Germany's national identity in a wider European framework holds no appeal for them. Their applications for membership are motivated by something quite different: by the need to bolster their new-found independence, by the need for recognition as part of the family of western nations which membership of western institutions brings, and by the fear of exclusion from a zone of economic prosperity.
I believe that it is in both Britain's and western Europe's interests that wider should come before deeper. We all have a huge geopolitical stake in consolidating the stability of eastern Europe.
I speak as a convinced European but one who believes that, of all the post-war institutions, the EU is the one which has shown the least imagination in adapting to the revolutions that have swept across our continent in the past eight years. One of the saddest spectacles of all was the sight of leaders of the EU carrying on with exactly the same agenda for reform of the EC after the Berlin wall came down as the one they had been pursuing before. That is rigidity and myopia on a grand scale. How can it be that at Maastricht and still at Amsterdam the leaders of western Europe are ignoring the dramatic events taking place around them, and instead are carrying on with further bids to complete the outworn agenda drawn up in the 1950s?
The plain fact is that the challenge of completing the 1950s agenda is an act of faith for several of western Europe's leaders, particularly those whose views were moulded by the searing experiences of the last war.
Of course, there are also many practical reasons why the countries of the European Union find enlargement indigestible, among them the fear of increased competition, worries about labour mobility and concern about the cost of enlargement. It is not lost on some countries that they would be turned from net recipients into net contributors.
Real though those concerns are, none of them should be insuperable. Most of the countries of central and eastern Europe have a strong commitment to free markets and a capacity to implement internal market laws at least equal to those of the newer entrants from the southern tier.
As for the budgetary costs, those worries are also an opportunity; many of them are generated by the common agricultural policy and regional policy, both of which desperately need root and branch reform. The European budget is one of the scandals of our time.
The old agenda is also sustained by the varied but very practical objectives of some of the key players in the EC. I saw that at first hand, in my own small way.

273
In 1990 and 1991, shortly after I left my job as adviser in the Treasury, I was sent out to try to sell the so-called "hard ECU proposal".
I well remember a lunch—a very good lunch—in the guest restaurant in the top of the Tresor. When the wine was flowing, the French official said to me, "Look, Andrew, we need EMU because that is the only way we can control the Germans. We must get our hands on the Bundesbank, and Britain must help us." French policy, moulded by three invasions in the past 120 years, is dedicated above all to the need to control Germany.
A few weeks later, I was in Rome, having another excellent lunch—there are some compensations for being a salesman for the hard ECU proposal—and I asked my host, a former senior adviser to the Italian Government, why Italy was pursuing EMU so vigorously, when it would obviously be so difficult for the Italian economy to adjust. He replied to the following effect: "You must understand, Andrew, that government in Rome is little short of a disaster. Even government from Brussels is better than this."
And the small countries have their own motives. How else could Luxembourg, with a population about the same size as that of my birthplace, Southend on Sea, obtain a vote in the Council of Ministers and even a veto on many issues?
In contrast, for most British people there never has been a big political subtext for membership; nor, like Germany, have we needed it as a badge of international respectability. It has always been seen by most in Britain simply as a vehicle for greater economic prosperity.
I began by saying that the Europe issue had a lot to do with my party's defeat at the last election. The future of the European Union, however, is not just a problem for my party or even for Britain; it is Europe's problem. I believe that the countries of Europe should discard the outworn agenda drawn up in the 1950s with an eye on the last war, which is still directing policy.
The EU should start to address the new agenda that I have outlined briefly, and it should do so quickly, instead of offering subtle protection as a reaction to the loss of competitiveness and stalling measures to delay membership to the central European countries. I saw both of those first hand when I was working for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. I fear that more stalling tactics on enlargement were in evidence at Amsterdam.
If the EU does not reform itself, it will at best make itself less and less relevant to the problems of its citizens, and at worst, the pursuit of federal conformity will threaten the social stability which the founding fathers of the EU hoped that it would underpin.
I fervently hope that this Government, like the previous one, will not shirk the task of pressing the EU to change direction and accelerate enlargement; nor should they allow official advice to conjure evil spirits from the notion of a multidimensional Europe.
It is time to discard the idea that members of the EU should move forward together on everything, or not at all. That has long been a myth, anyway. Britain's interests lie simply in being in that ring, tier or dimension—call it what one wants—which is consonant with the greatest degree of market freedom and economic prosperity.
274
I have given some of the reasons why the Government may face an uphill struggle in putting the case for swifter enlargement. Even if the leaders of some other countries are not prepared to address that agenda, I hope that the Government will not be afraid to use all the tools at their disposal to press their case.
Britain's huge financial contributions to the EU are a powerful lever in negotiations. Withholding those contributions may eventually have to be considered. If such a policy were to succeed in triggering reform of the EU and swifter enlargement, then 20 years of large net contributions to the Community would at last be seen to pay a dividend.
12.44 pm
Mr. David Davis: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) on his speech—an excellent speech, from its remarkably honest opening to its perceptive conclusions, as we might expect from an adviser to successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, and from a graduate of the College of Europe which, I remind the House, is of course based in Bruges.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): Where is that?
Mr. Davis: The Minister for Europe asks an appropriate question.
My hon. Friend's warnings on Europe were well informed, and eloquently and clearly expressed. They are particularly timely today, in the aftermath of Amsterdam. I commend my hon. Friend for a brilliant speech at the start, I think, of an outstanding career.
12.45 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): I begin by congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. I have not yet had the opportunity to do so from the Dispatch Box. I have always known that you were a measured man in your previous roles in Parliament, and I am sure that you will continue to be a measured man in your current role, and that we will all be the better for that.
I join the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) in congratulating the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) on his first contribution to the House. He said that he had hoped to speak in the Europe debate. If some of us were disappointed that we did not have the opportunity to hear him then, we were compensated today. His speech was generous to his predecessor and a thoughtful contribution on Europe. It was interesting and its content was excellent, although it contained some mild ambiguity. I may return to that, if the clock permits.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was pleased to represent a rural constituency. I am sure that he is particularly pleased that three quarters of his constituency is rural. I know how beautiful the constituency is.
I had the pleasure of responding to a maiden contribution from the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and I recalled that I had spent a little time in my late teens working in that area. I worked for British Rail for a while, and one of my jobs, to earn a little

275
overtime, was as a train announcer at Redhill station. On occasions, I had the good fortune to read out the stations between Redhill and Bognor Regis and, if my memory serves me correctly, the train stopped at Petworth, Midhurst and other stations.
I know the hon. Gentleman's constituency a little, and of course it is famous also for its cricket ground, a fact that will be appreciated by Mr. Deputy Speaker, who takes a keen interest in such matters.
The hon. Gentleman accused our European colleagues of myopia. He is well placed to understand the way in which Europe works. The hon. Gentleman is also well placed to understand the workings of the Conservative party. I understand why he made certain comments on the day between votes on the Conservative party leadership.
I am bound to correct the hon. Gentleman on one point. If he is present in the Chamber later today, he will hear the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend will confirm that there is no border controls opt-out by Britain in the agreement reached at Amsterdam. The treaty asserts Britain's right to control its borders—an outcome which the Conservatives failed to achieve during 18 years in government.
The hon. Member for Chichester described himself as a European. We are all Europeans because we live in Europe. The hon. Gentleman pointed to some compensation for the European way of life that had more to do with the stomach than anything else—I am sure that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden agrees with him. During my six weeks in Europe, I found it a bit of a bind at lunchtime—although I did not complain in the evenings. I have much in common with my European colleagues, but I do not like long lunches and I understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings in that regard.
The hon. Gentleman showed considerable wisdom in raising several general points—I hope that time will allow me to respond specifically to the enlargement question. He will learn from my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon that negotiations in Amsterdam identified the same crucial priorities. The hon. Gentleman emphasised the need to combat fraud. It is no longer acceptable for public organisations anywhere in Europe to permit incidents of fraud or alleged fraud and to accept them as a way of life. It is incumbent on organisations to take every step necessary to combat fraud. My right hon. Friend's statement will refer to that issue and to how Britain has taken a lead in negotiations in the past six weeks by insisting on the inclusion of a clause about combating fraud. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support on that important issue.
The hon. Gentleman was correct to state that Europe's future relies on the close co-operation of nations and that federalism is not on the major players' European agenda at present. My right hon. Friend will also identify that priority in his statement. We agree about the nature of the global environment: global competitiveness is vital to the British economy and to other economies throughout Europe.
The European Union must also address the important question of employability. Any organisation may draw up regulations to deal with individual matters—and some regulations are necessary in order to underpin basic rights—but the key issue in economic and employment terms, on which my right hon. Friend will reflect this
276
afternoon, is making British people more employable. Politicians are not alone in recognising that fact. People employed in factories up and down the country know that their futures depend on their gaining new skills and on their companies' having good products, being competitive, adapting to new technology and breaking into new markets.
Those factors must form the core of the European Union's employment strategy. The EU must not meddle in every employment issue affecting member states, but must set out a framework in areas where it is wise to co-operate and to exchange best practice. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman identified that vital part of the EU' s employment strategy. I hope that later today his colleagues will show their understanding of the nation's needs—which I hope that the Government have recognised.
We believe that enlargement is crucial to the European Community's future. The countries of western, central and eastern Europe have witnessed many changes in recent years. The European Union has also seen many changes in the 30 years since its inception. Europe must combine its existing challenges with those that it will face in the longer term, particularly in view of the changing position in a wider Europe. Stability, security and substantial trading opportunities are crucial to Europe as a whole.
We must stage a concerted attack against crime, illegal drugs and global pollution. One country cannot solve those problems alone, and neither can the present European Union. It is in member states' interests to extend the European Union's sphere of influence to include other countries that may wish to join the Union in the near future. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of the timetable in that regard: the Commission will consider the applications of 10 would-be member countries by mid-July and express its view regarding their suitability.
As the hon. Gentleman said, countries have different priorities and motivations for joining the EU. However, they will be assessed using common criteria. Parliamentary democracy must be established in any nation that wishes to join the European Union. Human rights and the protection of minorities—a hallmark of any democracy—must be guaranteed before a nation will be permitted to join the European Union. Countries aspiring to EU membership must have established market economies that are sufficiently robust to allow them a good chance of withstanding the pressures that they will inevitably face as they come into line with existing EU member economies.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Does the Amsterdam summit's failure to make any progress on institutional reform as a preparation for enlargement mean that those who wish to put roadblocks in the way of enlargement have won the day?
Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend takes a keen interest in these matters. As I have told the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House this afternoon. While we would have liked to see more progress in establishing the European Union's new institutional framework, some progress has been made. My right hon. Friend will refer to changes that will be made before enlargement occurs. Unfortunately, we could not secure detailed agreement among the nations of

277
the European Union about alterations to the voting system and the Commission's structure. However, a large measure of understanding was reached. I have had extensive talks with European colleagues in the past three days, and I assure my hon. Friend that they agree that the enlargement issue must be addressed. It is a case of making as many changes as we can now in order to establish a structure that will enable further changes in the future.
Mr. David Heath rose—
Mr. Henderson: I am sorry, I cannot give way as I must complete my response to the hon. Member for Chichester. However, I shall remember the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and give way to him generously on another occasion.
All applications for EU membership will be considered, and detailed negotiations will take place with those countries that the Commission believes are ready to enter into them. We must also keep in close touch with other nations that hope to meet the membership criteria at a later stage. EU members should assist them in preparing to make the changes necessary in order to meet those criteria.
There are many implications for the future of the existing nations of the European Union and those who wish to join it. In the time ahead, I hope that those who are truly committed to the future of democracy and to a successful, prosperous Europe of political understanding will work together to meet the challenges. I hope that they will do so regardless of the minor differences that may exist among people about local party political issues. I hope that those people will use their endeavours to meet the challenges to ensure that the enlargement of the European Union takes place. We will then achieve the success and stability that is crucial to our future.

Asbestos Imports
1 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: First, I should like to offer my congratulations to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle). I know that it is a little belated, but this is the first time I have been able to address her in the Chamber. I know that she has a good understanding of environmental issues, good sense and tenacity. I know that she will do a first-class job.
I intend to make the case for banning asbestos. I will put the evidence on behalf of that and then suggest to my hon. Friend a course of action. I believe that the case for banning white asbestos is irresistible. Today, 11 people will die either because they worked with asbestos or because they had contact with it unwittingly. Of those 11, four will die of mesothelioma, four from cancer of the lung and the others from asbestosis or other asbestos-related diseases.
I have not just plucked those figures from the air—they are based on research that was supported by the Health and Safety Executive and published in 1985. It showed that in the next 25 years the number of deaths would increase to reach a predicted death rate of between 5,000 and 10,000. That is a matter of great concern, and when the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission commented on his advice to the previous Government in January, he said:
"Asbestos is one of the biggest occupational health challenges facing us today."
I should like to mention some cases with which I am familiar in which white asbestos has been a factor. In my former job I represented miners who had been injured at work and I still do some medical appeal tribunal work.
In 1980, I dealt with the case of a man who developed asbestosis, having spent all his life working in a colliery as a lamp room attendant. The only link that we could find to relate the disease to his occupation was the fact that as he dismantled and reassembled the oil lamps, he had fitted a small white ring of asbestos above and below the glass in those lamps. Until recently, those lamps were used to detect methane gas. It was that contact with asbestos which caused the man to develop asbestosis in later life.
I am currently dealing with the case of a constituent, Mr. Ted Dudley, who is an elderly miner. In the 1950s, he worked with machines that had asbestos linings. Two years ago, his lungs were found to be full of asbestos material and part of his lung was removed. I emphasise to the Minister that that condition became apparent 40 years after the man's contact with asbestos.
In answer to a written question that appears in the Hansard of yesterday's date, at column 39, I was informed that in 1995–96 there was one award in each year to teaching professionals who contacted an asbestos-related disease. That does not include figures for posthumous claims. I should point out to my hon. Friend that those who have been in contact with asbestos unwittingly are often unaware of their condition and that the disease is generally discovered on death. The same answer reveals that the total number of awards for asbestosis in those two years came to 2,644.

279
Asbestos is one of the most dangerous substances in widespread use. It is, therefore, of great concern that it is still used despite the availability of effective substitutes. It is true that, in general, those substitutes tend to be a little more pricey, but that is because of the market. I suggest to my hon. Friend that if white asbestos were to be banned, the market for substitutes would expand and their price would fall. If there were such a ban, I am sure that the 1,000 people who are currently employed in the manufacture of materials that include asbestos would be absorbed by the expansion of the industry producing non-asbestos alternatives. If we consider the socio-economic costs of asbestosis to society—the cost of compensation, medical treatment and care—those substitutes become considerably cheaper than asbestos.
In September 1996, the World Health Organisation expressed concern about white asbestos and recommended that
"when available, substitute materials should be used."
I am informed by the Association for Manufacturers Against Asbestos that there are alternatives that could be used for the manufacture of most materials that currently rely on asbestos.
Huge amounts of asbestos are imported by Britain from Ireland and Belgium, and an increasing amount is also imported from Poland. In 1995, the value of imported white asbestos materials was £45 million. The major exporter and the largest manufacturer of asbestos materials is ETEX of Belgium, which owns Eternit Belgium, Eternit United Kingdom, Eternit France and Tegral of Ireland. My hon. Friend may find it interesting to know that Mr. Liam Hughes, the chair of the Asbestos Information Centre, is also chief executive of Eternit United Kingdom. That is hardly a recommendation for impartiality, but his evidence is drawn on by the Health and Safety Commission.
Increasing amounts of asbestos sheet is being imported from Poland. The raw material is taken there from Russia to complete its manufacturing process. The increase in those imports is quite alarming. According to Extrastat, which provides the relevant statistics on the industry, between April 1996 and April 1997 imports from Poland increased alarmingly. My hon. Friend should note that those statistics are somewhat bizarre for 1997. Those for 1996 record that in April, 38,180 kg of asbestos were imported by Britain at a value of £9,366. In the year-to-date column of the 1996 statistics we see the same figures. That shows that April is the beginning of the financial year. When a comparison is made with the 1997 statistics, we see that the value of asbestos imported in April 1997 is recorded as being £121,990. The value shown for the year to date-as I have said, the financial year begins in April—is £304,146. It is clear that there is an enormous difference between the two figures. Indeed, a reference states, "Suppressed commodity code."
The figures relate to money value, but weights are not mentioned. I am sure that the Minister is well aware that, because of the value of the pound, the amount of asbestos material that will be imported for the value that I have described will be considerable.
Mr. Tom Cox: My hon. Friend is aware that I am at present the Rapporteur at the Council of Europe for a report on asbestos. My colleagues and I will follow with great interest the points that he is making. We have
280
found that there is an enormous movement of asbestos within the 40 member states of the Council. We are deeply concerned about the inadequate labelling of the materials that are being moved. That is causing enormous problems. I hope that my hon. Friend and the Minister will take that on board.
Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The materials coming in from Poland are poorly labelled. Many construction companies are using roofing slates and other materials imported from Poland, unaware that they contain asbestos. It is alarming that many of those slates will be used in repairing public buildings such as schools.
I am aware, of course, that asbestos materials are already in public buildings and I acknowledge that it is not always appropriate to remove them. It is necessary, however, wherever there are asbestos materials, to ensure that those materials are contained and that work is maintained at the highest possible standard in containing it. Where asbestos material is removed, the work must be done safely in accordance with the HSE guidelines. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that we must regulate some of the cowboy demolition companies.
What should be done in the light of the evidence that I have put before my hon. Friend? Given the overwhelming evidence that white asbestos is dangerous, we must act now. I ask her to consider a complete and immediate ban in the United Kingdom on all white asbestos materials. She will know that France has already imposed such a ban, along with six other European countries. The French ban came into being on 1 January 1997.
Eternit France, to which I have already referred, argued that it would be put out of business. It said that the French ban would be catastrophic for the industry. I note from its January newsletter, however, that it was able to announce the conversion to new technology of its entire production base. It has not taken that company long to adjust to the ban in France. That company, which argues the merits of asbestos through the Asbestos Information Centre, knows full well that its production base is being changed to meet the ban. That says much for the Asbestos Information Centre.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the possibility of moving on from a United Kingdom to a European-wide ban. I ask her also to consider a thorough review of asbestos licensing operations. That is important, because we find that many companies that work in the demolition sector tend to be those which do not care a great deal for their employees. Finally, I ask my hon. Friend whether she would be prepared to consider what might be done to require building owners to survey their buildings to locate asbestos.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): First, I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on his success in securing an Adjournment debate on such an extremely important subject.
I assure the House at the outset that, unlike our predecessors, this Labour Government are determined to deal effectively with the new uses of asbestos once and for all. We have already initiated action. There will be no

281
empty promises from the Government and no palliatives such as those that came from the previous Administration. We value human life and we know that asbestos represents a serious threat to it. We shall take the necessary steps to protect human health.
I hope that my hon. Friend will indulge me a little: this is the first debate that enables me to confirm the Government's strong commitment to health and safety. I shall say a few words about that before coming to his justifiable worries.
We intend to put an end to what we believe has been a progressive erosion of governmental commitment to protecting people's health and safety over the past 18 years. The previous Administration did not, in our opinion, give health and safety the attention that it deserves. Main responsibility was concentrated exclusively at Under-Secretary of State level. We, however, have allocated two Ministers to this important area, the Minister for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), and myself.
We are unequivocal in our support for the important work that is done by the Health and Safety Executive and the commission. We have met their representatives and we have been impressed by their professionalism, expertise and commitment, and especially by the consensual, tripartite way in which they work. I wish to commend also the work of the Trades Union Congress and many individual trades unions in this extremely important area. They have great expertise and provide a mechanism with which to try to educate workers about the dangers of asbestos. That work is priceless.
We intend to be positive and proactive when it comes to health and safety.
My hon. Friend mentioned that the death toll from asbestos-related diseases is horrendous. About 1,200 people were killed by mesothelioma last year and about twice that number died from lung cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. Even worse, as my hon. Friend said, the death toll is predicted to continue to rise over the next two to three decades.
We know that most of those now suffering from asbestos-related disease are suffering as a result of exposure that occurred many years ago. I am determined that strong and effective measures are taken to minimise the risks posed by this killer substance. I am determined also that the death toll from asbestos in the long term should be reduced. Failure to recognise and accept the dangers from asbestos over previous decades, and failure to take all possible action when necessary, leaves us with a legacy of exposure to asbestos that will continue to claim lives for decades to come. We must safeguard the health of current and future generations by taking firm action now.
Large quantities of asbestos have been used in the construction of thousands of buildings—for example, schools, hospitals and office blocks—and work involving asbestos still represents an enormous health risk. That is one problem. Another is the justified concern about the continuing import of asbestos.
I was alarmed by some of the information that my hon. Friend gave the House, both about the bad labelling and about a seeming increase in imports, as well as about
282
some of the rather dubious connections between the organisations that purport to give information and the industry itself. I shall draw those to the attention of the Health and Safety Commission.
The commission has given priority to the asbestos problem in recent years and we all know that the import and supply of blue and brown asbestos—the most hazardous types—have been banned for several years. However, as my hon. Friend pointed out, large quantities of both those types of asbestos remain in buildings, forming a potentially lethal legacy.
I am especially worried about the fact that, as my hon. Friend said, two teachers have now been discovered to be suffering from asbestosis. That demonstrates the danger that lurks in public buildings, and the legacy of the use of such substances. We must do what we can to minimise that danger.
Obviously, there is a considerable risk to those whose work disturbs asbestos during maintenance or other building work, or when the asbestos is removed. Those are the danger times. The commission has run an extensive publicity campaign to raise awareness among building workers, who are the people most at risk—although I recognise the extension of the risk that my hon. Friend described.
The casual nature of the building trade and the culture of sub-subcontracting undoubtedly puts building workers at risk. My hon. Friend talked about "cowboy" employers, and I do not dissent from that opinion. We must consider stronger action than mere publicity.
The Health and Safety Executive will take enforcement action, where that is merited, for breaches of asbestos regulations. Last year, the courts imposed a landmark custodial sentence for breaches of health and safety legislation. I welcome that—but there is bad news, too.
Only recently, fines totalling £3,800 plus costs were imposed by north Surrey magistrates for asbestos-related offences committed by Surrey county council and W. S. Atkins Ltd. on council premises. The Surrey case is worrying because it involved what was thought to be a blue chip company, from which one might have expected higher standards. If blue chip companies are being hauled before the courts for failing to observe existing statutory requirements, I dread to think what the cowboy companies are doing.
We should not be tempted to think that those involved in the Surrey case received a bloody nose. I do not regard £3,800 as much of a bloody nose. Even worse is the fact that the average fine secured by the HSE over the past five years for breaches of the law controlling asbestos at work was a mere £1,120. That is a pretty feeble sum by anyone's standards, given the fact that exposure to asbestos can cause appalling suffering, and even death.
I am determined that breaches of legislation designed to safeguard people's health against the effects of exposure to asbestos should be treated more seriously. Indeed, that should apply to all health and safety offences, to provide an effective deterrent for those who might otherwise contemplate flouting the law. In short, if the penalties are worse, companies will realise that they simply cannot get away with being lax and treating people's health and safety as some kind of afterthought.
In most cases, the fines currently handed down by the courts are pitifully low, which prevents the operation of an effective system of deterrence. We are considering

283
what can be done about that. I welcome the fact that the Health and Safety Commission is already considering a variety of other actions connected with tightening our legislation to protect workers from the effects of working with existing asbestos.
The commission is considering extending the scope of the current statutory licensing scheme covering asbestos stripping to include work with asbestos insulation board, and placing a new duty on owners or occupiers to survey buildings for the presence of asbestos. It is also considering extending the circumstances in which a licence to remove asbestos can be revoked, and how to exert stronger pressure in Europe to extend the existing prohibitions.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who brought to my attention the worrying level of imports and the movement of badly labelled hazardous materials throughout Europe.
Mr. Harry Cohen: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the effective way in which she is putting the case and telling us that the Government will take more action on this important subject. She mentioned Europe, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone, in his excellent introduction, pointed out that France has an import ban. Many other countries also have tighter restrictions on the import of that deadly material.
Surely a Labour Government, keen on the health and safety of workers—my hon. Friend is certainly showing that she shares that attitude—would not want to do less than a country such as France. While we are talking about tightening the rules in Europe, will my hon. Friend ensure that if we achieve tighter restrictions on asbestos here, the banned substances will not be dumped in the third world?
Angela Eagle: I thank my hon. Friend for his sage intervention. He should have a little faith; I hope that he will like what he hears when I reach the end of my speech. However, I have only five minutes left and a lot more to say.
My Department has commissioned an independent assessment of the risks to health from environmental exposure to asbestos, including exposure in homes, schools and public places. I hope that the House will recognise that we are beginning to consider what we can do to give help, advice and some duties to local authorities and to the owners or managers of buildings in which asbestos is present.
Much of what the Health and Safety Commission is doing is good, but I believe that it can do more. I have, therefore, asked it for advice on how more urgent action can be taken, and for that advice to reach me quickly. For example, I believe that a duty to survey buildings for the presence of asbestos is vital, as it addresses an area of high risk and will enable priority to be given to identifying and properly treating the asbestos that remains. It is also important that such a duty will allow the presence of asbestos to be labelled, so that people know where the hazard lurks.
The quantities are being reduced, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone said, we cannot ignore the fact that chrysotiile, or "white",
284
asbestos is still being imported into this country. I am interested in my hon. Friend's information about increases in imports, and I should like to talk to him about it.
Most such asbestos is used in asbestos-cement products, and both of the main uses can be replaced relatively easily with non-asbestos alternatives. Although there are some temporary shortages of alternative fibres, I agree with my hon. Friend that the problem can be overcome.
The Government consider that continued use of products containing asbestos should be forcefully challenged. A prohibition on supply or use will lead to significant reductions in the overall risk to human health, by protecting current generations from exposure, so we want to move to that position with all speed.
The Government recognise, of course, that there are still some very specialised uses for which alternative fibres or processes cannot be used. However, such uses must be strictly limited in number, and allowed only where no viable alternative can be found.
Supply of the most hazardous forms of asbestos has already been banned, and we believe that the time has come to phase out remaining uses of the material altogether. There is a European Union proposal, which has been on the table for some years, for a complete ban on the supply of asbestos, with only limited derogations for genuinely essential uses. We must watch the derogations loophole carefully.
No agreement has yet been reached. It is interesting that, originally, the failure to reach agreement arose because France blocked support. Now, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the French have taken action and we believe that there is now greater urgency and a real chance to achieve an agreement that will ban white asbestos within Europe. Such a move will have our full and active support.
Naturally, we are concerned to ensure that tangible and beneficial action emerges from all that work and we are seconding to the European Commission a senior specialist on asbestos from the HSE, to lead that work and bring the prohibition into Community legislation as quickly as possible.
Irrespective of the work in Europe, we have concluded that the best course now is for us to consider what action is necessary in this country.
The Minister for the Environment and I have discussed with the Health and Safety Commission our wish for a mechanism to be put in place, as a matter of urgency, for introducing a domestic ban on the import, supply and use of all asbestos. We have asked the commission to advise us on how that could be achieved and to what timetable.
We are anxious to see urgent action, but people should understand that the Health and Safety Executive and the Health and Safety Commission have a duty to consult. We shall take speedy action that is consistent with the duty of the HSE and HSC to consult.
The risks posed by exposure to asbestos are serious and require urgent action. We shall take that urgent action and—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Oxfordshire Health Authority
1.30 pm
Mr. Tony Baldry: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the matter of the funding of Oxfordshire health authority. I am grateful to the Minister for being present to respond, given his particularly heavy work load. It may be some consolation to him to know that, when I was a junior Minister, I responded to no fewer than 65 Adjournment debates in one year, so he has some way to go yet.
The national health service budget is huge. Spending on the NHS this year will be about £725 for every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom. This year, spending on health will rise by about £1.6 billion, and spending on hospital and community health services will increase by 3 per cent. over and above inflation. I appreciate that we are dealing with substantial sums of money, which for many years have increased in real terms.
In Oxfordshire, total NHS spending this year will be about £325 million. That works out at about £540 for each man, woman and child in the county. Therein lies the problem. The national average is £725 for each person, as opposed to £540 in Oxfordshire—a difference of £185 for every man, woman and child in the county.
There is an agreed national capitation funding formula: everyone understands what it means and how it is worked out. There is no dispute that, according to the formula and its criteria, Oxfordshire is the third most underfunded health authority in England. Having regard to its population, size and other relevant factors, it is £9.6 million below target.
That underfunding is of considerable concern, given that health authorities understandably have limited scope for carrying forward recurring deficits or shortfalls on their budgets. That, straightforwardly, is the thrust of my request to the Government: that, as soon as possible, a way should be found to get Oxfordshire's funding nearer to the sums that it should receive under the national capitation funding formula.
I appreciate that this problem is not new, and that some funding formula or distribution mechanism is necessary to allocate NHS resources to different parts of the county. I also realise that, wherever and whenever a funding formula is used, there are bound to be variations in spend per head to reflect different needs and different demands. However, the position in Oxfordshire is slightly different.
The nationally agreed and recognised capitation funding formula is used to calculate how much each health authority should receive. Some authorities receive more than they should under the funding formula, whereas some, such as Oxfordshire, receive substantially less. Put simply, the Department of Health should ensure as speedily as possible that all health authorities are treated fairly and that, so far as is humanly possible, vhey are funded according to the national capitation funding formula.
The consequence of Oxfordshire health authority's underfunding is that, last year, it overspent by £4 million. It is required to have a sustained financial balance by March 1998. That £4 million overspend for last year must be put in the context of the £9.6 million that it is adrift from what I consider to be a fair target.
286
In any event, if the health authority is to have a sustained financial balance by March 1998, savings will have to be targeted on managerial and support services just to preserve existing service levels. As a consequence, significant service reductions will have to be made in Oxfordshire during the year in several trusts.
In particular, the community health trust is likely to experience emergency closures of part of one or more community hospitals. Ward closures are likely at the Oxford Radcliffe trust, and the health authority is currently discussing the implications for patient services of financial provisions within the Radcliffe infirmary trust. I am sure that the Minister will not mind if the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) briefly intervenes in the debate and takes a little of my time to explain the problems affecting hospitals in central Oxford.
Not surprisingly, Oxfordshire health authority is concerned about the relative underfunding of the NHS in Oxfordshire. It is also concerned that future formula changes could further work against Oxfordshire. To that extent, I want to put down a marker, because in my experience all Governments review the funding formula. There is a real danger that, if markers are not put down, more money will move away from shire areas, such as Oxfordshire, and into urban areas.
The impact of high wage and housing costs must be given emphasis in any new calculation, as must the impact of hosting a major teaching hospital. There is a compelling case for the NHS nationally to devote more resources to a movement towards national capitation targets; otherwise, authorities that manage their resources best will continue to be penalised.
Moreover, the financial problems experienced by Oxfordshire health authority have consequences for the whole of the country. Oxfordshire medicine is a national and international product: it attracts a high rate of national and international research income. The Oxford medical school is one of a small handful of schools that gained the highest, five-star ranking from the Higher Education Funding Council for England. If those standards are allowed to slip, the losses will not be solely Oxfordshire's, but will affect the overall advancement of medical practice and research throughout the United Kingdom.
Those worries are shared not just in the county but by the British Medical Association, which has written to me expressing concern that one of the consequences of the financial allocation for Oxfordshire will be a reduction in services provided by the Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare trust. It says that the drug and alcohol addictive behaviours unit may have to close, and argues that, given the Government's understandable commitment to addressing the wider problems of drug and alcohol addiction, it would be inappropriate to reduce such a service. All those points reflect the pressures on the health authority's budget.
I have a further specific concern. My constituency contains Horton general hospital NHS trust. Oxfordshire, with Oxford at its centre, has a huge concentration of medical expertise and experience in the John Radcliffe hospital, the Radcliffe infirmary and the teaching hospitals. For many years, there has been a general hospital in Banbury, the second largest town in the county, which is some distance from Oxford—in the north, on the Warwickshire-Northamptonshire border.

287
That hospital serves not just north Oxfordshire but south Northamptonshire, Warwickshire and parts of Gloucestershire. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and I feel that we share Horton general hospital, because so many of its patients come from south Northamptonshire.
I do not expect the Minister to respond in detail to the points that I am going to make—it would be unfair of me to do so—but I want to put down some markers. Compared with the huge central Oxfordshire complex, Horton general hospital has a very small budget—approximately £22 million a year—but it has a recurring overspend of between £700,000 and £800,000 a year, which, given its small budget, is fairly serious.
Concern has been expressed about the hospital's ability to deliver services and to meet the needs of some of the royal colleges. Consequently, an inquiry was set up last year, chaired by Mr. Arthur Davidson QC, a former Labour Member of Parliament. The inquiry took evidence, and made various recommendations. One of those recommendations was that, in the light of Horton's financial difficulties, consideration should be given to trust reconfiguration throughout Oxfordshire, which might reduce overhead costs and safeguard services.
The Davidson report was, however, very clear about the fact that any reconfiguration involving Oxford providers needed to focus on locally managed services to secure the continuation of an appropriate level of service in the north of the county—that is, Banbury—in the future. A general hospital was needed in Banbury, with services by and large managed in that hospital. Other services might be delivered elsewhere—for instance, by one of the Oxford trusts-but a locally managed NHS trust hospital was needed.
Horton general hospital NHS trust fears, given the way in which discussions about trust reconfiguration are going, that it will be asked to merge with the Oxfordshire community health trust, and that that trust will sub-contract the management of acute services at Horton to the Oxford Radcliffe hospital trust. Alternatively, it might be merged with acute hospitals in Oxford, in which case those hospitals would delegate services more appropriately dealt with by the community health trust. That, too, would effectively mean management being sub-contracted by the community health trust. In any event, the Horton trust board—along with many people associated with the hospital—fears that the hospital will effectively disappear as an entity and that all its services will be managed elsewhere.
There is a third option, which the hospital and others have been pursuing: the "Banburyshire" solution. Horton would take under its wing some services from the community health trust and some from south Northamptonshire. Although aspects of that option are administratively unattractive, particularly in Northamptonshire, a viable general hospital in Banbury would be able to continue to provide the services that it has been providing for many generations.
Horton, and people associated with it, are worried about the fact that other trusts in Oxfordshire are projecting major operating deficits. The Oxfordshire community health trust is projecting a deficit of £400,000, and the Oxford Radcliffe hospital trust one of £700,000, rising to £2 million in the next three years. The regional health authority steering group's proposals seem to have
288
concentrated only on trying to eliminate Horton's deficits. If Horton merged, either partly or fully, with the community health trust or an acute trust that continued to experience financial difficulties, the trust involved would naturally be tempted to balance its books by cutting services at Horton.
I hope that if any proposals are conveyed to the Secretary of State about trust mergers in Oxfordshire, he will carefully consider whether they have the support of the Horton general hospital NHS trust board. The legal position relating to the dissolution of trusts, and the establishment of new trusts, is fairly complicated and it would be quite difficult to act against the express wishes of the local hospital.
As recently as 12 June, the Health Service Journal published a report that stated:
"There has been no evaluation of the results of trust mergers, nor is there any systematic study of the advantages and disadvantages of integrated trusts or multi-site acute trusts… Experience from…the NHS suggests that mergers based on a shared vision of the future, and by consent rather than hostile takeovers, are more likely to succeed, take less time to produce benefits, and cost less."
In April, the university of York produced some interesting research that stated that, although concentrating services through trust mergers or service rationalisation may have been seen as a way of enabling NHS purchasers and providers under pressure to reduce management and operational costs,
"there is no clear link between hospitals carrying out larger volumes of surgical procedures and having better outcomes; there is no evidence that cost savings are necessarily made by increasing hospital size above approximately 200 beds; concentrating services may reduce access to hospital care for patients living further away, particularly those who are older and poorer; experience shows that hospital mergers do not always result in the financial benefits that were initially anticipated."
I have two straightforward requests. First, I ask the Government to consider Oxfordshire health authority's funding overall. I am not asking for extra resources generally in the NHS; I am saying that existing NHS resources ought to be allocated more fairly, so that all health authorities are as near as possible to the national capitation funding formula. It seems ludicrous that authorities such as Oxfordshire should be consistently so far from the mean.
Secondly, Oxfordshire's underfunding is putting pressure on smaller units such as Horton general hospital NHS trust. I hope that if proposals are presented to the Secretary of State, he will have regard to the concerns of the trust board, those who work there and the patients whom the hospital has served, and wishes to continue to serve for many more years.
1.48 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) for allowing me time to speak. I am pleased to meet the Minister; I am sure that we will meet again on many occasions, given my interest in health.
As a former employee of the NHS and, indeed, the health authority in Oxfordshire, I have seen some of the problems described by the hon. Gentleman at first hand. I am also a product of the Oxford medical school, to which the hon. Gentleman paid tribute. I think that it is a testament to the ability of its teachers that, despite other interests that I pursued during my medical studies, I was able to graduate and pursue an NHS career.

289
It is clear that Oxfordshire health authority has a funding crisis, which means that it has a service crisis. My postbag is full of complaints about the time that is taken for people to be seen and about the lack of service provision. The Minister will be pleased to know that I do not blame the current Administration for that, but I add the word "yet".
In its election campaign, Labour committed itself to "saving the NHS". In the light of advice to ask quick questions, I have a one-word question—when? The slogan "14 days to save the NHS" which was used in April is probably optimistic, as is 14 weeks. In the meantime, Oxfordshire may see the precipitate closure of the unit that cares for the young disabled, a tripling of the number of people who have to wait more than 12 months for operations, terrible cuts in the community hospital trust with which Horton hospital is mooted to be merged, and a squeeze on county council and social services spending.
All that causes short-termism. That was alluded to in remarks about threatened cuts at the Chilton clinic, which looks after drug and alcohol abusers in the county. We must also bear it in mind that, when people have to wait for operations, they may enter hospital later as emergencies, which are far more expensive to deal with.
This year, the health authority's crisis was so deep that it almost ran out of cash last month. I did my best to help by taking unpaid leave in April for another purpose, which the House may be able to guess. However, the authority is still £4 million in debt, and it faces increasing pressures and growing waiting lists. As we have heard, Oxfordshire health authority is below its target, and such authorities rely on differential allocation of growth money to move towards targets.
It is important that authorities that have carried out strategic reviews base their future allocation of funding on a presumed rate of growth which is similar to that in earlier years. As Andrew Dilnot of the Institute of Fiscal Studies has explained, we now face cuts in some years, and effectively no growth for the next three years. It will be impossible to develop or preserve services while authorities are under target and there is no growth.
I have three quick questions for the Minister. First, does he accept that, even after the £100 million efficiency savings that have been announced, more funding will be required in the NHS generally to avoid a winter crisis? I disagree with the hon. Member for Banbury on that issue, because I think that more money is needed.
Secondly, in the review of NHS spending and means of resourcing that the Secretary of State is currently undertaking, as new or increased charges are not ruled out, will higher general taxation or perhaps a new top rate of tax for those on very high incomes be considered? Perhaps that is the one measure which has been ruled out.
Thirdly, given the credit card pledge that was made during the election campaign to reduce waiting lists by 100,000, how long must we wait to see that commitment, which we support, being implemented?
1.52 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I congratulate the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) on securing the debate, and on the
290
terms in which he has addressed important issues about the funding of Oxfordshire health authority. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), not least for making some financial sacrifice to ensure that the health authority was better able to put more money into front-line patient services. I shall return to that theme. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the Government inherited extreme financial difficulties, which we do not expect to solve at a stroke.
Our legacy is extremely challenging. For example, waiting lists are rising not just in Oxfordshire but in many parts of the country. That makes our desire to honour our manifesto commitment to ensure that more money is applied to front-line patient services even more imperative.
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have already made rapid progress by cutting management costs by £100 million in this financial year. That is just the start, and we expect to continue to bear down on unnecessary bureaucratic costs in the NHS. The Government's priority and that of all hon. Members is to ensure that cash goes to where it is most needed in the NHS—to patient services. We shall certainly honour our commitment to treat an extra 100,000 patients as soon as we are able to do so.
The Government and everyone involved in the NHS know that this year will be particularly difficult and that it will not be possible to do all we would wish to do in an ideal world. That is one reason why I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate one health authority and the issues confronting it in some detail.
As the hon. Member for Banbury rightly said, Oxfordshire health authority has some financial difficulties. For the current year, it has an integrated revenue allocation of about £236 million. In real terms, that is a growth in income from the previous year of about £5.9 million.
As the hon. Gentleman said, despite that increase, under the current formula that is used for allocating the finite pot of available funds, Oxfordshire health authority remains some way short of its target. Last year, it was short by about 5.24 per cent., and this year, following changes to the resource allocation formula and the increase in funding, the authority is about 4 per cent. short of target. As he said, in percentage terms, Oxfordshire is the third most under-target authority in England.
Much has been said about the effect of the resource allocation formula on the health authority, and I know that it is concerned about the possible effects of any future changes. However, I make it clear that much of that concern is based on pure speculation. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would communicate that in clear and forceful terms to those in the health authority. The Government are committed to looking at how resources are distributed to primary and secondary care to ensure that they fully reflect local population needs, and that they operate as fairly as possible.
We intend to allocate resources on the basis of objective measures of need, so as to provide equitable access to care and therefore to reduce inequalities. Therefore, there may be changes to the formula which is used for allocations for the next financial year—1998–99, but at this stage neither I nor Oxfordshire health authority, despite its speculation, know what these changes amount to. As the authority has indulged in some speculation

291
about possible refinements to the formula and about how that could affect local residents, I shall deal rapidly with some of those points.
Oxfordshire health authority is concerned that insufficient weight is allocated to the problems associated with providing a service in a largely rural area. The hon. Member for Banbury spoke about his constituency in that regard. Research has already been commissioned to investigate the possible extra costs that are associated with the provision of accident and emergency services and ambulance services in these areas. A report is expected in the autumn and the results will be carefully considered.
Oxfordshire has a major teaching hospital, the Radcliffe, and there are certainly higher costs in such hospitals than in those that do not teach medical students. Those additional costs are met from the service increment for teaching levy, which is paid directly to the hospitals concerned. Of all the health authorities that host major teaching hospitals, Oxfordshire has received the highest growth in its general revenue allocation.
In the context of the current formula and allocation, I shall now look at how Oxfordshire health authority is coping with the pressures that face it. As I have said, the Government inherited some financial difficulties from the previous Administration, and Oxfordshire health authority is not exempt from that pain. For the financial year that has just ended, the authority has a net forecast outturn deficit of some £2.9 million. Those are the latest figures and they may be subject to revision. The health authority is planning to rectify that financial imbalance during the current year. Consequently, it will have to face some painful decisions.
292
I understand that the chief executive of the authority has chosen to set the scene for those difficult choices in some colourful language, which was repeated by the hon. Member for Banbury, about the authority potentially "running out of pound notes". That colourful language is unhelpful, not least because it detracts from the serious efforts that are being made by the health authority to achieve financial balance. For example, I was struck by its establishment of a priorities forum, which is a good principle and a good idea. It has already started to reduce costs through the latest round of contracting with local hospitals.
I shall now deal with the issue that the hon. Member for Banbury raised about his local hospital, the Horton. A thorough review of the provision of health services for the people of Banbury and the surrounding areas has resulted in some interesting recommendations and a steering group of wide membership has been established to oversee their implementation. That is a good example of health authorities, trusts and local people working together to find solutions to problems rather than simply calling for more money or jumping to quick and easy solutions.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman and local people will support the review and will participate fully when preferred options are put before them for consultation later in the year. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's points. He has established firm stakes in the ground and we shall bear that in mind.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALE

    Mental Health Services (North Gwent)
    Mr. Edwards: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for the development of mental health services in north Gwent. [2594]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): Gwent health authority is reviewing its mental health strategy. That review will be completed by November, when the authority will consider the options available to it.
    Mr. Edwards: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the rest of the team on their appointment. For the first time in a long time, the Secretary of State for Wales represents a Welsh constituency.
    May I express my concern at Gwent health authority's decision to cancel the Red Barn development—which was to be a new, modern psychiatric facility, following the closure of Pen-y-fal hospital—at the business ethos in the health service and at the way in which the private finance initiative is inappropriately used these days for services for mentally ill patients, including elderly people?
    Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations to the whole Welsh Office team.
    My hon. Friend will appreciate that the Red Barn PFI was taken before we came to power; the fact that it has not been able to proceed seems to show that it was not given the fullest consideration at the outset. However, I assure him that the patients from Pen-y-fal hospital have been moved to Maindiff Court hospital, where there are better facilities. If he has any reservations about what is happening there, I would of course be happy to hear from him. Gwent health authority is consulting widely on its proposals and I will want to be assured that any alternative that it brings forward will meet the needs of elderly mentally ill people in his constituency and throughout Gwent.

    Minimum Wage (Clothing Industry)
    .Mr. St. Aubyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate his Department has made of the number of manual jobs in the Welsh clothing industry that would be lost as a result of the introduction of a minimum wage of £4 an hour. [2595]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): We will ask the Low Pay Commission, before it reaches a recommendation on the level at which the national minimum wage might be set, to take into account all the economic circumstances, including its likely impact on jobs in the Welsh clothing industry. I do not expect any jobs to be lost.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: Is it not clear that the Government have rushed into a commitment to a minimum wage without any clear idea of what the consequences might be? More than 200,000 people in Wales earn less than
    294
    £4 an hour. In, for example, the clothing industry, the likely result of a minimum wage is that businesses will either close or invest in automation, so that, far from there being a minimum wage, there will be no wage at all.
    Mr. Hain: On the contrary, more and more businesses are coming out in support of the principle of a minimum wage. The hon. Gentleman probably has not read this morning's Western Mail, as he is not a Welsh Member of Parliament, but it reports that the Federation of Small Businesses, which I am meeting tomorrow, has welcomed a minimum wage and is willing to discuss how it should be implemented.
    Mr. Wigley: Further to the Minister's comment a moment ago, does he accept that when the Federation of Small Businesses met in Llandudno in March, it voted in favour of a minimum wage order? It wants the minimum wage to be introduced in a coherent manner. Does the Minister accept that no Member of Parliament representing Wales would want people to earn £2 or £2.50 an hour as a means of competing with sweatshops in third-world countries? What we need to do in Wales, in the clothing industry and elsewhere, is to compete on quality, as we do with shops and businesses such as Laura Ashley and as we can do in a range of businesses, given a fair opportunity?
    Mr. Hain: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman, who makes the crucial point that Wales's only future as a world-beating economy is to be the best and not to go down the sweatshop economy route. I do not think that any Conservative Member would dare—perhaps some Conservatives would—pay someone in his employment just £2.50 an hour, yet that is what almost 60,000 workers in Wales earn. It is an absolute disgrace. A low pay strategy, through the minimum wage that the new Labour Government will implement, is designed to tackle that.

    Welsh Assembly
    .Dr. Marek: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the proposed powers for the Welsh Assembly. [2596]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): The Welsh Assembly will provide democratic control of the existing Welsh Office functions; it will have power to make secondary legislation; and it will have specific powers to reform and control the quangos in Wales.
    Dr. Marek: My right hon. Friend knows that I support him in his policy and will be campaigning on his side during the referendum campaign. He knows that he does not have to answer my question or even answer a different one, and he could give me a facetious answer. However, I ask him to give me a rational answer to the question why the Welsh people cannot be trusted with a question on the referendum paper about tax-varying powers for the Welsh Assembly. They should be able to say yes or no to that. After all, it is a power that even English parish councils have.
    Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his promise of support in the forthcoming referendum. It is

    295
    precisely because we trust the people of Wales that we propose to vest in them the power to take greater control of their own affairs.
    In relation to the tax-varying powers of a Scottish Parliament, there are procedures in Westminster for the establishment of a separate body of Scots law. We believe it to be important that that provision, when it is transferred to the Scottish Parliament, is married to the ability to vary tax rates. We are not proposing that such a provision be devolved to Wales, so it follows that we are not proposing that tax-varying powers be devolved to Wales.
    Mr. Hague: If, as the Secretary of State intends, any future Welsh Assembly takes over the powers and functions of the office of Secretary of State, is he proposing that his office will continue in existence and that his salary will remain the same?
    Mr. Davies: I am glad that the shadow Secretary of State is in his place; it looks as though he will continue for some time in that role. I am surprised that he did not take the opportunity of this first Welsh questions to announce yet another policy initiative, as he seems to have developed a remarkable intellectual flexibility.
    I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the excellent speech made in the House of Lords yesterday by a former Welsh Minister, Viscount St. Davids. He made a forceful speech in favour of Welsh devolution. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will be successful in our campaign to get democracy back to Wales. The role of Secretary of State will continue and we have no proposals to vary the salary of the office of Secretary of State.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Is there any substance to the rumour that the original idea of 60 people serving on the Welsh Assembly has changed and the number has been increased to 80? What income levels are proposed for those people?
    Mr. Davies: The proposal for a 60-person Assembly was the product of a lengthy debate in the Labour party in Wales. Our policy was adopted unanimously at our conference, held between 28 February and 1 March. It was included in the proposals that we put before all the people of Britain, which were unanimously endorsed in the general election on 1 May. We will include the detail in our White Paper, which will be published before the start of the recess. We have no proposals to vary our policy. The details of the salaries to be paid to Assembly persons will also be published in the White Paper.

    Devolution
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the question to be put to Welsh local government electors as proposed in the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. [2597]
    Mr. Win Griffiths: We have received several.
    Mr. Jenkin: Can the Minister explain why the Welsh people will not be offered in the referendum the option of an Assembly with tax-raising powers? In Scotland, a Parliament without tax-raising powers is regarded by the Secretary of State for Scotland as a non sequitur.
    Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman had arrived but two minutes earlier, he would have heard a full response
    296
    to that question. I shall explain to him once more that the circumstances of a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly are different. {HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] They are different because we have put the proposals to the people. I remind Opposition Members that they were badly defeated on 1 May. We are happy to hold the referendums, for an Assembly without tax-raising powers in Wales and for a Parliament with tax-varying powers in Scotland.
    Mr. Llwyd: Will the Minister please confirm that the Welsh Assembly will have the power, or be obliged, to consider the overall structural approach in Wales, with regard to the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales? He will know, as all Welsh Members know, that the imbalance between job creation and investment in the east of Wales and that in the west has caused great concern. Is that not one sure subject for the Welsh Assembly to consider as soon as possible?
    Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have already announced that we will make an effort to extend prosperity throughout Wales, concentrating especially on western areas. I am sure that proposals will be made in the White Paper and that the Assembly will wish to pursue the matter with great vigour.

    Public Spending
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his Department's current budget for the level of public spending for the present and next financial year. [2598]
    Mr. Ron Davies: My Department's budget for the current financial year is £6,894 million and, for 1998–99, £6,877 million.
    Mr. Jack: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Can he give me an assurance that those spending ceilings will be adhered to for the next two financial years? Can he also give me an assurance that the ceilings for the departments within that expenditure total will remain unaltered for the next two years? If the Secretary of State is unable to give me satisfaction on those two points, will he undertake to publish details of any changes that he may wish to make over those two financial years?
    Mr. Ron Davies: On the first question, I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. He was a Treasury Minister in the previous Government and followed the matters very closely, so I know that he will be pleased with that answer.
    On the second question, the right hon. Gentleman would expect the Government to review all their spending plans, and we are doing that. My objective in the Welsh Office is to ensure that the expenditure that we will incur in the current year and in the next year better reflects our priorities. It follows from that that any changes we make to departmental expenditure will be published and we will allow hon. Members the opportunity to question the revised figures.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Will my right hon. Friend not listen to the former Financial Secretary or the siren voices

    297
    from the Treasury? There is plenty of money around. The dreaded public sector borrowing requirement is falling even faster than anticipated, the contingency reserve has not been touched and, no doubt, the Treasury mandarins will come up with a few tax wheezes in the Budget. Will my right hon. Friend therefore press for more money for public services in Wales, because the health service, in particular, cannot take any more cuts?
    Mr. Ron Davies: The message from the Treasury is not exactly that the country is awash with money. Details of the Budget are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Any representations made will be from within the ranks of Government and we will all have to wait until Budget day to find out their success or otherwise.
    Mr. Livsey: Will the Secretary of State please assure the House that he will continue with the Barnett formula for funding public expenditure in Wales? In the advent of a Welsh Assembly, will he put the formula into a statutory framework?
    Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Barnett formula deals with the increases in the level of Welsh public expenditure, not with the block grant per se. The matters to which he refers are under discussion and we will make the full details available in the White Paper when we publish it next month.
    Mr. Barry Jones: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and wish him well in the important work that he has to do for the people of Wales. Will he bear in mind the difficulties in primary schools in my constituency, for example, which need more teachers? Will his spending plans for the next year enable such help to be given?
    Mr. Davies: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's good wishes and I know that he will continue to give whatever service he can, both to his constituents and in sustaining the Government. He will know that one of the Government's established priorities is to reduce class sizes in primary schools. The Under-Secretary with responsibility for those matters, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), has already taken early action in Wales to abolish the wasteful, bureaucratic and divisive nursery voucher system. We will move as quickly as we can to put resources into the primary sector, to fulfil our principal objective of reducing class sizes.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I welcome the Secretary of State to his appointment and wish him well in his duties. He will recall that the previous Administration, in their spending plans for Wales, originally made a commitment to spend public money to dual the A55 across the island of Anglesey. He will also know that the previous Secretary of State whipped away that money without telling anyone why he was doing so. Will the current Secretary of State assure me that the Government are committed to completing the programme and tell me how Ministers propose to finance it?
    Mr. Davies: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, during the general election, I took a close interest in progress on the A55, and it is a matter of some
    298
    regret that I was not successful in unseating him in that election. I should say that I make those remarks in a spirit of good humour, and I thank him for his good wishes.
    The Government are committed to completing the A55, and the Under-Secretary with responsibility for those matters, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath, is examining ways in which we can proceed. As I said, we are committed to the project, and I should like it to be completed as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Hague: Can the Secretary of State clarify for the House whether, in future Budgets, the running costs of the proposed Welsh Assembly will be drawn from the Welsh block grant or supplied by all United Kingdom taxpayers?
    Mr. Davies: We have already made those points abundantly clear. In debate on the referendum proposals, the shadow Secretary of State asked several times about meeting the costs of the referendum. We made it—
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Answer the question.
    Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman must contain himself, because I will answer the question. I know that he is an excitable fellow and that, today, there is a particularly febrile mood among Conservative Members. Nevertheless, a question has been asked and I will answer it.
    The shadow Secretary of State will know that, during debate on referendum legislation and funding, we provided detailed answers to his question. He will also know that we have promised a White Paper, which will be available in July and contain full details of the cost and funding of the Assembly. He will undoubtedly still be shadow Secretary of State in July, and we can return to the matter then.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to attract more inward investment into Wales [2599]
    Mr. Hain: Our commitments to improve the skills levels of our people, create a buoyant economy, improve the infrastructure and take a positive attitude towards the European Union and our proposals to create an economic powerhouse will make Wales even more attractive to inward investors.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reasons for the previous Government's extremely successful record of attracting inward investment to Wales were flexible labour policies, the lowest corporation tax in the Group of Seven and a willingness to fight for a free and fair market in Europe? If he does not agree with that analysis, how does he plan to encourage inward investment on the scale shown by LG, creating 6,000 jobs?
    Mr. Hain: The reason LG came to Wales was that it knew that a Labour Government were on the way. The hon. Gentleman is completely ignorant of the reasons for the success of inward investment in Wales. The success

    299
    is due to the Welsh Development Agency, which was established by a Labour Government, pursuing policies of intervention and partnership—which were anathema to the Thatcherite, free-market dogma that, over the past 18 years, has destroyed jobs in Wales. Such dogma is why the Conservative party was wiped out in Wales.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that a new and very positive factor in inward investment decisions is that we no longer have a Government who are involved in Euro-bashing for the purposes of their own internal civil war but have a Government who, as was shown at the Amsterdam Council, are determined to play a full partnership role in Europe?
    Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend, although whether the civil war will continue in the Conservative party remains to be seen. Certainly, the Laurel and Hardy act now about to take over the Tory party bodes ill for it.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House, as his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could not, whether the money that is currently going to the Welsh Development Agency and is helping to bring investment to Wales will be reduced by the costs of having a Welsh Assembly? We know that the referendum will be paid for by the UK taxpayer, but we do not yet know whether it is to be paid for out of the Welsh Office vote and therefore out of the money going to Welsh development.
    Mr. Hain: The answer is no. Indeed, it was the Conservative Government who were responsible in recent years for fleecing the WDA of many of its resources. We intend to strengthen the WDA in a new powerhouse for Wales, working with the Welsh Assembly to bring new investment, jobs, opportunities and prosperity.

    Welsh Development Agency
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his plans for the future operation of the Welsh Development Agency.[2600]
    Mr. Ron Davies: The future of the Welsh Development Agency is being considered as part of our commitment to establish an economic powerhouse for Wales. That economic powerhouse will have a secure future. It will have funding on a sustainable basis and will be increasingly responsive to local needs.
    Mr. Williams: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new responsibilities.
    Notwithstanding the excellent work of the WDA over many years, my right hon. Friend will realise that there has been a substantial imbalance between east and west in its work, to the extent that about 80 per cent. of the inward investment, jobs and resources go to south-east Wales and to Clwyd, and only about 20 per cent. come west of Swansea and to Gwynedd. What steps does my right hon. Friend intend to take to readjust that balance so that we get fair shares across Wales?
    Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his good wishes.
    300
    I acknowledge that, in recent years, there has been an imbalance in the rate of economic development in Wales. I recently met the chairman of the WDA and emphasised to him how important it is that we spread economic prosperity across the whole of Wales.
    Of course, west Wales is one of the priority targets. There are some 620 acres under consideration for development in the west of Wales. The Velindre site is particularly important and is one of the best large-scale inward investment opportunities available in Wales. I want the WDA and the local authorities in the area to agree a joint venture on its promotion. If that comes about, I shall certainly give that site my full backing.

    Post-16 Education
    Mr. Touhig: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his proposals for post-16 education in Wales. [2601]
    Mr. Hain: All young people will be offered part-time or full-time education post-16. Any under 18-year-old in a job will have the right to study on an approved course for qualifications at college. We will also promote learning throughout adult life.
    Mr. Touhig: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new responsibilities at the Welsh Office.
    Is my hon. Friend aware of the report by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs into further education which called for a more coherent strategy in the education of 16 to 19-year-olds? Will he take the steps necessary to end the damaging competition between colleges of further education, school sixth forms and training and enterprise councils, which the previous Government simply failed to do? Will he help to ensure the development of tertiary education throughout Wales, which offers students the widest possible choice of A-level and vocational courses—choices which we shall need if we are to create a highly skilled work force in a modern economy?
    Mr. Hain: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. There is a damaging free-for-all in this sector of education provision which is infected by too much competition, waste and unnecessary duplication. That does not get the best out of the available resources or provide the best opportunities for our people. We shall review the entire sector, and in our White Paper to be published next month we shall propose steps to eliminate all those problems and provide a much better future for our people.
    Mr. Evans: Does the Minister agree that those families who have 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education find the payment of child benefit extremely useful? Will he tell the House whether he will fight to ensure that those payments continue for 16 to 18-year-olds in full-time education?
    Mr. Hain: The real problem for 16 to 18-year-olds is the dreadful legacy left by the Conservative Government, with rising unemployment in many parts of Wales in that section of the work force. We will provide new opportunities, new support, new training, new education opportunities and new jobs under the welfare-to-work programme, which will be financed out of a windfall tax on the privatised utilities.

    Educational Opportunities
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to widen opportunity in education in Wales. [2602]
    Mr. Hain: The Government will widen educational opportunity at every level. We will strengthen nursery provision; we will develop an improved qualifications framework which will prepare young people for employment, as well as for further study; and we will make it easier for adult learners to continue to study throughout their lives.
    Mr. Flynn: I add my "croeso a llongyfarchiadau" to my hon. Friend on his new post.
    New jobs are coming to my constituency from LG's investment, which was made in the certain knowledge that a Labour Government and a Welsh Assembly were on the way. Does my hon. Friend agree that although industry should provide the major part of training for new jobs, the Government must lend a hand, especially in providing for adults whose careers have been broken by redundancy and unemployment? Will he give an assurance today that there will be new initiatives from the new Government, especially in the form of a university for industry?
    Mr. Hain: I thank my hon. Friend—"diolch yn fawr".
    We will certainly do as my hon. Friend urges and pursue active policies to provide new skills and training opportunities. I met the senior managers of LG on Monday and we are working in partnership with them to provide the best skills base for that important investment, so that the Welsh economy in my hon. Friend's constituency and in south Wales can move forward confidently.
    Mr. Dafis: I draw the Minister's attention for the second time today to the predicament of higher education in Wales and the profound concerns arising from the present and predicted cuts in the higher education sector in Wales. Does he recognise that that sector is important, not only as a provider of education but as a component in economic revitalisation? Will the Welsh Office undertake to reverse those cuts next year, so that higher education institutions in Wales can take their place within an integrated strategy for sustainable economic development?
    Mr. Hain: We will review all education provision in Wales, including the sector that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. We will also propose a new way forward for Wales in school education, further education and higher education in our White Paper, which is to be published next month. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's contribution to that debate.

    NHS Trusts (Running Costs)
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the running costs of NHS trusts in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [2603]
    Mr. Win Griffiths: The Government believe that, within the constraints imposed by the need to manage a
    302
    complex organization, management and administrative costs should be reduced to the minimum possible. We are committed to ensuring that savings can be identified and used for patient care; NHS trusts will contribute their share. In so doing, we have already announced the suspension of the extension of the GP fundholding scheme, pointed to practical ways of changing the internal market—[Interruption.]—and announced a review of the number and configuration of trusts in Wales, which should lead to a new pattern of trust-based services. I am glad that Conservative Members cheered my announcement.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Is my hon. Friend aware that, one week after the election, the North Glamorgan NHS trust announced that it had to make savings of £750,000 and that the axe is now hanging over various services in Aberdare, including the rehabilitation ward, respite care and day surgery? May I say to him, very kindly, that the people of the Cynon valley voted Labour for a better NHS, not a worse one?
    Mr. Griffiths: I have undertaken to visit North Glamorgan NHS trust. I am aware of its financial problems, but I have been informed that it intends to carry out a cost improvement programme, which will mean that all its existing contracts can continue to be fulfilled.
    Mr. Burns: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House a categorical assurance that the obscenity of possible charges for hospital stays, for visiting a GP and for some prescriptions for pensioners will not happen in Wales?
    Mr. Griffiths: I assure the shadow Minister that, under our current review of spending in Wales, all those proposals are not within the orbit of our consideration. Any discussion of those matters will be conducted at a United Kingdom level.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Ministerial Visit (North Wiltshire)
    Q l. Mr. Gray: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit north Wiltshire. [2574]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I have no plans to visit north Wiltshire at the present time.
    Mr. Gray: When he does, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to visit Chippenham livestock market to speak to farmers, who are confident that the beef ban will have been at the top of his personal agenda in Amsterdam? If their confidence is well founded, will he explain the omission of any mention of beef in the presidency's conclusions?
    The Prime Minister: I am surprised that any Conservative Member has the nerve to raise the subject of beef, given what we inherited from the previous Government. I raised that matter on several occasions well before the Amsterdam summit. I am pleased to say that we are making progress, but, because we inherited probably the most incompetent mess that any Government

    303
    have ever inherited, it will take a little time. However, I think that the hon. Gent's constituents will get the deal that they need.

    Engagements
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 June. [2575]
    The Prime Minister: I returned from the European summit in Amsterdam this morning. Later today, I shall be making a statement to the House and having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
    Mr. Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend agree with Shelter that homeless people should benefit as more and more council accommodation becomes available as a result of the release of capital receipts?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One reason why we are introducing legislation on capital receipts is to allow local authorities the prospect of making that money work for local people and of building homes for the homeless. In addition, as a result of the windfall tax on the excess profits of the privatised utilities, young people will be given the chance to get decent skills and education. The combination of those two measures will at least begin to put right the appalling levels of homelessness that we inherited from the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Major: Can the Prime Minister confirm that once his Government have completed their review of the national health service, all pensioners will still receive free prescriptions as of right?
    The Prime Minister: This will be the right hon. Gentleman's very last Question Time. I should like simply to wish him well, as I am sure that the whole House will, and to say that, however strong our clashes were, he always behaved good naturedly and with dignity.
    In respect of the review of the national health service, once one starts ruling things out, people say, "You have ruled this in; you have ruled that out." I can assure the right hon. Gentleman of one thing: that, at the end of the review, we shall have a national health service that is fully consistent with the principles that we have set out. Those principles are that the health service will be based on need, not ability to pay, and will be fully consistent with our manifesto. He should not pay too much attention to stories in the press.
    Mr. Major: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's graceful remarks at the outset, but not very enlightened by the rest of his reply. It did not answer my question, and it amounted to a definite "maybe".
    I should like to quote what the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said that
    "charges are nothing more than an alternative form of taxation, regressive and highly damaging. In the case of the NHS, this amounts to a medical poll tax."
    304
    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I do—which is one reason why we want to review many of the charges imposed by the Conservative Government over a period of 18 years.
    Mr. Luff: You are in government now.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, we are. Our big problem is the mess that we were left by the previous Government. We shall be looking, for instance, at the prescriptions fraud, which costs about £85 million a year. We shall also look at another situation we have inherited: 59 out of 100 health authorities are in deficit, as a result of the Conservative Government. That is why it is sensible for any Government to look at getting value for money in the national health service. But we shall make sure that that is consistent with principle and with our manifesto commitments.
    Mr. Major: I am tempted to ask whether anyone in the House has the faintest idea what that nonsense meant. I am even tempted to ask for a show of hands among Labour Members. Let me try and help the right hon. Gentleman. As a matter of principle, will he or will he not rule out prescription charges for pensioners and so-called hotel charges for hospital visits—a straightforward yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: As I have already told the right hon. Gentleman, these matters are the result of press speculation. The review that we will carry out should be open ended. If we rule in this and rule out that, people will conclude that what has not been ruled out is ruled in and vice versa. It is nonsense.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked for a clear statement on the NHS so I shall give him one. We will have a national health service restored to the basic principles of the British NHS—the health service that we founded and the Conservative Government undermined. The right hon. Gentleman's Government spent £1.75 billion on health service bureaucracy. We shall spend that money on patient care. We will also look at the right way of getting value for money in the NHS—not by Tory methods but by ensuring that people get a fair deal once again from the health service.
    Mr. Major: The more the right hon. Gentleman goes off the point, the more he loses the point. I think that we now know the answer: it is yes. If the Prime Minister can get away with it, there will be charges. I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer nodding. I repeat: if the Prime Minister can get away with it, there will be pensioner prescription charges and hotel charges. How does that square with his manifesto promise, which reads:
    "if you are ill or injured there will be a national health service here to help; and access to it will be based on need and need alone"?
    No mention of charges there.
    The Prime Minister: I reconfirm precisely those words here today. The cheek of this lot talking about the health service! Who put up prescription charges 15 times? Who ran the national health service in such a way that people had to take up private health care because they could not

    305
    get proper health care in the health service? Who ended their term of office with 20,000 more managers and 50,000 fewer nurses in the service?
    Mr. Evans: What about the pensioners?
    The Prime Minister: What indeed? We would not have imposed VAT on pensioners' fuel. The idea that the Conservative party can ever have any credibility on the health service is a joke. Ours is the party that built it and will reform it. We will do that in the right way, based on need, not ability to pay.
    Mr. Major: That was all very interesting, but it had nothing to do with my question, which the right hon. Gentleman has dodged time and again. Does not his sorry inability to answer a straightforward, direct question illustrate what we are learning about him daily? During the election, the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to frighten pensioners by saying that their pensions were at risk, and he is now prepared to put their free national health service treatment at risk. Is that what he meant when he asked the British nation to trust him?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman asks why I could not answer his question straight. He asked me whether I agreed with the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, and I said yes. I cannot get much straighter than that. I do agree with my right hon. Friend.
    Who introduced charges for eye tests? The Conservatives did. Who introduced dental charges? [HON. MEMBERS: "They did."] Who ran the national health service in such a way that in many parts of the country there is no NHS dental treatment? [HON. MEMBERS: "They did."] I say to the right hon. Gentleman with great respect that the Conservatives will never be believed about the national health service—not in a million years—because of what they have done. People know that there are difficult choices to be made, and they want a party that believes in the health service to make them.
    Dr. Marek: Has the Prime Minister anything against the Committee that is to consider the modernisation and workings of the House considering the oath that we must take to sit in this place, and possibly providing an alternative oath that Members could swear, genuinely upholding peace, democracy and human rights? If that were possible, it might just help the United Kingdom and make the House of Commons a more inclusive Chamber. [2576]
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already made it clear that there are no plans to change the oath of allegiance. I am sorry if that reply disappoints my hon. Friend, but it is the reply that I must give.
    Mr. Ashdown: May I take a moment to echo the words of the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the leader of the Conservative party and former Prime Minister? The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and I, too, have had sharp words at times—they may have been worse than that sometimes—but in our private dealings he was unfailingly courteous and, more than that, unfailingly straight. He is the fourth longest-serving Prime Minister
    306
    this century, he led the country in time of war, he gave Ireland a chance for peace, and I venture to say that he is the only leader of the Conservative party who might have kept that lot together for the past three or four years. For that, the Conservatives should be grateful to him and we shall miss him—I think.
    I now address the present Prime Minister. May we take it as read between us that everyone in the House will support the Government in bearing down on public expenditure? Do the Government yet realise that unless they can find a way out of the corner into which they have painted themselves, whereby they cannot even use the savings from other areas of Government expenditure to increase expenditure on health and education, the crisis in our schools and hospitals this winter will be as bad as or worse than any that we experienced in the Conservative years?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has raised the matter before. We are making savings and changing resources within the public spending totals—for example, in bureaucracy in the national health service, by phasing out the assisted places scheme to reduce class sizes, and under the windfall tax. The direct increase in expenditure as a result of the windfall tax will have a benefit and will produce knock-on savings in the welfare payments being paid out.
    As I explained to the right hon. Gentleman last week, it is a matter not of painting ourselves into a corner, but of the public finances that we inherited. Under the Conservatives, as he knows, the national debt doubled. We will pay out a substantial amount this year in interest payments on that debt, even more than we will spend on law and order. For that reason, we must make sure that we keep a tight grip on public spending.
    Mr. Ashdown: Let me make the Prime Minister a proposition. The last Government spent almost £1 billion on private consultants. if this Government were able to save £500 million on private consultants, would it then be their policy not to transfer that money in order to save teachers' jobs and prevent a winter crisis in our hospital wards? If so, I assure the Prime Minister that the millions of people who voted for his party and for mine will simply not understand why their hopes for better public services should be reduced to such dogma.
    The Prime Minister: It is not dogmatic. Of course I am not trying to suggest that if there are sensible savings to be made, we cannot use them. The right hon. Gentleman says that we could find £1 billion in savings on private consultants, but there is no evidence of that. Savings can and will be made, but we will not be able to solve all the problems of the education system in the way that he suggests. It is more of a deception to try to pretend that than to face people and the responsibilities of government by ensuring that we do our best to get extra resources into the system. We will do that.
    We can get additional resources because of the choices that we are making. The right hon. Gentleman kindly said that he had a proposition for me; I shall put one to him. If he is serious about doing something to reduce expenditure on waste in the system, would it not be better

    307
    for his party to support the windfall tax to give us the chance to provide young people with the skills and education that they need?
    Mr. Connarty: The Prime Minister will recall in his recent people's question time being asked whether he would ensure that he considers the proposition that the sequestrated assets of criminals be used to finance better witness protection schemes. He may also be aware that I have raised in the House several times the tragedy of a beautiful village in my constituency that has been turned into the village from hell by a few vicious families against whom no one will go witness. Given that many people are now afraid to give evidence in court, will he ensure that the proposition put to him is given serious and urgent consideration? [2577]
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. [Interruption.] I find it extraordinary that Opposition Members seem to find this sort of matter amusing—or the idea that we should go out and talk to the public. They should understand that that is one of the reasons why they lost the last election.
    Yes, I think it important that we examine the best protection that can be given to witnesses. As a result of the suggestions that were made last week when we conducted discussions in Worcester, we shall look specifically at two of the points put to us: first, at how to give better protection to witnesses so that they do not have to sit in the same room as defendants in court—victims occasionally have to do that also; and, secondly, at how the funds reclaimed from the proceeds of crime may be used to benefit people by preventing crime and by tackling some of the problems within the criminal justice system.
    Mr. Maginnis: At a time when two murdered Royal Ulster Constabulary officers are being laid to rest—one of them in my constituency—will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that Sinn Fein-IRA perversely exploit attempts by world leaders, such as President Clinton, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and himself, as they seek to encourage a sincere political process in Northern Ireland? Is the Prime Minister determined that such cruel mockery now necessitates his proverbial peace train leaving the station without Sinn Fein-IRA, who have again and again shown themselves to be ruthless killers and politically irredeemable?
    The Prime Minister: First, may I say in response to the hon. Gentleman that the whole House expresses its sympathy for the victims of the appalling and callous murders earlier in the week. We extend our sympathy particularly to the families and to the young children who have been left without fathers. This was a wicked act for very obvious reasons. However, to respond directly to the hon. Gentleman's point, it was a doubly wicked act as those responsible knew perfectly well about the chances and opportunities being taken to try to put the process back on track and reach a lasting political settlement. I believe—I think that the Taoiseach, the Irish Prime Minister, also believes—that that was done quite deliberately to frustrate this process, so it was a wicked
    308
    and callous act. I agree precisely with the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman has expressed in respect of Sinn Fein-IRA.
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Were there any discussions at the Amsterdam summit about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and its impact on modern Europe, or about any other more contemporary political alliances on the future of Europe between total political opposites in a marriage of modern political public convenience, such as that between the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), which was announced this morning? [2578]
    The Prime Minister: I was sitting at the Amsterdam summit opposite President Chirac and Mr. Jospin, little knowing that when I returned to Britain the concept of cohabitation would have descended upon the British Conservative party.
    Mr. Key: I am sure that the Prime Minister would agree that Britain's tourist industry is extremely important and that our built heritage and natural heritage are the reasons for that industry. Does he therefore agree that the visitor facilities at Stonehenge remain a national disgrace? Given that no millennium money from the national lottery or taxpayers' money will be spent on it, will he consider closing Stonehenge this autumn to give the Government breathing space to think up a sensible solution to what has become a national disgrace and could become a national scandal?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about Stonehenge, which he has expressed over many years. According to the advice that we have received from English Heritage, it is neither necessary nor sensible to close Stonehenge. He will be aware, however, that discussions are going on with English Heritage about how Stonehenge could be improved. We take an interest in that and hope that those discussions will succeed. I believe that half a million people, or perhaps almost 1 million people, visit Stonehenge every year. It is obviously a national monument of great importance and we will do whatever we can to safeguard it. I am advised, however, that its closure is neither necessary nor sensible.
    Mr. McNulty: Does the Prime Minister agree that the repeated assurances of the previous Government that class sizes had no consequence on educational performance defied the instincts of all parents and common sense? [2579]
    The Prime Minister: I agree entirely. There is absolutely overwhelming evidence to suggest that smaller class sizes are absolutely essential for five, six and seven-year-olds to give them a decent education. More than 500,000 children of those ages are in classes of more than 30. I think that anyone would understand that, in those circumstances, a child is less able to get the basic grounding in literacy and numeracy that he needs, and on which we have fallen behind. That is why I urge Conservative Members, even at this late stage, to support our Bill, which would allow us to use public money for public education.
    Mr. Boswell: The Prime Minister will not mind, I am sure, if I return to the important subject of public

    309
    expenditure. In the light of a recent written answer that I received, which suggested that there is no intention of revealing the additional spending commitments of his Government, will he please tell the House whether that is a failure on the part of the machinery of government or simply of inclination?
    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits for the Budget, which will be presented shortly, when we will make any such commitments as we may have perfectly clear to him.

    Sanctions (Libya)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton the consequences for policy in relation to approaching the UN to lift sanctions against Libya of the acquittal of Juval Aviv by an American court. [2580]
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, Juval Aviv has been acquitted by an American court. We are also aware of the allegations that have been made by him, but the advice that I have received is that it does not alter the case that the existing evidence in respect of those who perpetrated the Lockerbie bombing suggests that it was carried out by Libyans.
    I believe that the United Nations Security Council sanctions should remain until the Security Council resolutions are properly and fully complied with; they are not being complied with at the moment.
    Mr. Dalyell: If that is the case, and in the light of last Wednesday's Adjournment debate when I told of the scepticism of Professor Robert Black, professor of Scots law at the university of Edinburgh, and the profound scepticism of Peter Anderson of Simpson Marwick—after all, that firm acted as the lawyers for Pan Am—do we have the Prime Minister's assurance that he is absolutely sure that the Crown Office has the evidence to prosecute successfully, which it has claimed to have? If there is a scintilla of doubt about the advice that he has received, would he consider appointing either a European judge or a judge of the Court of Appeal in England to examine what the Crown Office says that it has?
    The Prime Minister: The short answer is that the advice that I have received is that the evidence is still clear on this point. Partly as a result of the trial of Mr. Aviv, and as a result of many other allegations and counter-allegations that are made, which are sifted carefully, the process is kept under continual review and re-evaluation, as it should be. At present, the evidence is still clear, in so far as there is evidence about who perpetrated the Lockerbie bomb, and it points to Libyan involvement. The United Nations Security Council resolutions are still in place because they have not been complied with. Until they are, in my view those sanctions should remain.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: In view of the real agony sustained by the relatives of those who lost their lives in this dreadful bombing, would the Prime Minister be at least willing to make a positive and constructive approach to Libya to ensure that the trial takes place, especially as Libya has offered to hand over the two suspects to a third
    310
    country? Might not an ideal compromise be a trial in Malta, where it is alleged that the disaster was initiated? Would not the Prime Minister be willing to try to get a trial somewhere and somehow to bring relief to the relatives?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the plain fact is that there is the opportunity of having a trial if the suspects are handed over. I do not believe that it is fair to say that a trial, for example, in Scotland, would be unfair in any shape or form. I think that that would be a wrong reflection on the legal system there. Of course, we continually try every avenue that we can to make progress in this matter, but I do not think that I can hold out some hope to the hon. Gentleman that we will reverse the policy that the previous Government adopted, which, in this instance at least, I support.

    Engagements
    Mr. Kemp: Has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister authorised any of his officials to make a statement that appeared in today's press to the effect that the future of the Conservative party is in the hands of 38 people from the planet Zog? And if not, why not? [2581]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has no responsibility for that. What a waste of a question to the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Yeo: Will the Prime Minister confirm that if any of his Cabinet Ministers are found to have knowingly misled the House of Commons, that Minister will be expected to resign?
    The Prime Minister: I have always made it clear that those Ministers who knowingly, deliberately or seriously mislead the House of Commons should not be in the Government. I have always made that clear and I make it clear again today. I hope that the values that this Government have undertaken to work with are somewhat different from those of the previous Government.
    Mr. Stevenson: Is it not a scandal that thousands of our children and young people are being taught in dilapidated buildings? Is it not a fact that that is a direct result of a deliberate policy of chronic neglect by the Conservative party when it was in government? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that under this Government this completely unacceptable situation will be dealt with as a matter of priority? [2582]
    The Prime Minister: I can confirm that. Of course it is important that we begin to put right the damage done over a period of years. The plain fact of the matter is that the previous Government were one of the very few Governments anywhere to preside over a situation where the proportion of national income spent on education fell, although the social security and welfare bills rose enormously. It is precisely for that reason that we do not see additional expenditure on education as enough in itself. It must be accompanied by measures that reduce the huge and appalling burden of social and economic failure that is the product of the past 18 years. It is both those things going together that allows us to get as much

    311
    money as possible into the areas of productive investment and to get us out of social failure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where from?"] How about by reducing the numbers of young people on the dole? That is where from.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that he spent three years answering questions in opposition—[Laughter.]—asking questions in opposition, slamming the previous Government's record on possible charges in the health service, and that he fought the recent
    312
    election on the basis that the Conservative Government might introduce such charges, yet today cannot rule out prescription charges for pensioners or hotel charges for everybody else when they enter hospital? Is that not a betrayal?
    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits for the outcome of the review. I can tell him that we shall fight the next election on a platform of renewing and improving the national health service after 18 years of Conservative failure.

European Council (Amsterdam)
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council in Amsterdam on 16 and 17 June, which I attended with my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Council conclusions have been placed in the Library and I will place a full copy of the text of the Amsterdam treaty there as soon as possible.
Our aims in the negotiations were to protect our essential interests over immigration, foreign policy, defence and a central role for Britain in Europe, to promote changes of real interest to the British people and to move Europe on to a new and positive agenda. We also promised to bring a fresh and constructive approach to Europe and to the negotiations.
I am happy to tell the House that those objectives have been fully achieved—and they were achieved while at the same time improving both our standing in Europe and our relationships with our European partners.
First, we have obtained legal security for our frontier controls, through a legally binding protocol to the treaty. That is an achievement of lasting value, attained for the first time. The key point in the protocol says:
"The United Kingdom shall be entitled…to exercise at its frontiers with other member states such controls on persons seeking to enter the United Kingdom as it may consider necessary for the purpose."
I know that that will be welcomed by the whole House. We have ensured that we, and only we, decide border policy, and that policies on immigration, asylum and visas are made in Britain, not in Brussels.
Others may choose to have different arrangements, to suit their traditions and geographical position. I see no reason for preventing them from doing so, although such arrangements will continue to be governed by unanimity. Under the treaty, the United Kingdom can also participate in areas of interest to us if we so choose, at our option. That is not an opt-out but an opt-in, as we choose.
In the justice and home affairs area, we have agreed better arrangements for co-operation on police matters, crime and drugs. I attach great importance to more effective international action in those areas of direct concern to people. However, such co-operation will remain intergovernmental and subject to unanimity. Thanks to amendments that we also secured, the European Court will have no authority to decide cases brought in United Kingdom courts on those issues.
We have also ensured continued protection for our essential interests in all the areas in which we sought it. We have maintained, as we said we would, the veto on matters of foreign policy, defence, treaty change, Community finances and tax.
We have prevented the extension of qualified majority voting in areas where it might cause damage. Others wanted to extend QMV in the social chapter, which would have affected our companies even if we had not been party to the chapter. Because we were in it, we were able to stop that. We agreed to QMV where it is in our national interests—for example, on research and development and on action to combat fraud and waste.
314
We have also ruled out other potentially damaging proposals. For example, others wanted to give the European Union explicit legal personality across all the pillars of the treaty. At our insistence, that was removed. Moreover, the treaty spells out that international agreements can be concluded only on the basis of unanimity following a clear Council decision. In addition, we secured a veto over flexibility arrangements which could otherwise have allowed the development of a hard core, excluding us against our will.
Second, for the first time in a decade Britain is setting a positive agenda for Europe. In April, I set out in Manchester our platform for reform: completion of the single market, a new emphasis on flexible labour markets and education and skills, reform of wasteful policies in agriculture and elsewhere, enlargement and a more effective common foreign and security policy. Each of those elements was fully reflected at Amsterdam, in the intergovernmental conference or the Council conclusions. In particular, we successfully promoted support for a new action plan for the single market that echoes key British concerns. That should, in time, lead to further opening of Europe's markets to British companies. Completing the single market will be one of the top priorities for the British presidency.
Third, we have put jobs at the top of Europe's agenda, where they belong. The new treaty chapter on employment recognises the importance of job creation and sets member states and the Community the task of promoting flexible labour markets, and education and skills. That is where Europe must make a difference.
Fourth, the treaty makes Europe more relevant to people: it ensures greater openness; it increases powers to combat fraud and waste; it strengthens environmental protection; it creates power to act against discrimination on grounds of sex, race, religion or disability; it gives subsidiarity—ensuring that decisions are taken at the European level only if there is real added value in doing so—real teeth through a binding protocol; and it imposes an obligation to take into account the welfare of animals.
Fifth, the treaty prepares the institutions of the Union for enlargement. Not as much progress was made on that as there might have been, but we have ensured that, at the time of enlargement, the Council's voting system will be changed to give Britain and other large countries more votes. Europe must now get on with making a reality of the historic opportunity of enlargement. We need to extend our stability and prosperity to the new democracies of central and eastern Europe. The European Council is committed to decisions on the opening of enlargement negotiations at its meeting in December. We shall play a leading role in those negotiations, particularly during our presidency.
Sixth, while retaining our veto, we have taken steps to improve the effectiveness of foreign policy co-operation with better planning and co-ordination. That is an important British interest, but getting Europe's voice heard more clearly in the world will not be achieved through merging the European Union and the Western European Union or developing an unrealistic common defence policy. We therefore resisted unacceptable proposals from others. Instead, we argued for—and won—the explicit recognition, written into the treaty for the first time, that NATO is the foundation of our and other allies' common defence.

315
The House will also be interested to know that the treaty contains provisions to strengthen Parliament's ability to scrutinise European legislation properly, by laying down a minimum six-week period for documents to be available.
We also made real progress in Amsterdam on the problem of quota hoppers—fishermen from other member states who fish against British quotas—even though it was not part of the IGC.
We secured an agreement with the Commission on our two central concerns. First, we are entitled to put into law a clear economic link between boats using our quotas and Britain. Economic benefits from boats flying the British flag should go to British ports, for example through a proviso that 50 per cent. of a boat's catch should be landed locally. We will, with all possible speed, introduce new licence conditions to reflect that. Second, the Commission agreed to bring forward new tougher measures of enforcement to ensure that fishermen landing their catch abroad cannot escape controls. Those measures are agreed by qualified majority voting and so cannot be blocked by another member state.
Taken together, those agreements will mean a major disincentive to quota hoppers, present and future. Commission agreement to the new measures means that their vulnerability to legal challenge—a perennial problem hitherto—should be greatly reduced.
The letters between myself and the President of the Commission setting out those agreements are in the Library. The Commission's letter also confirms that important principles underlying the common fisheries policy, notably relative stability and the provisions on 12-mile limits, should remain when they are reviewed in 2002.
Those commitments allow us to start working with fishermen from around the country to plan a sustainable future for the industry. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make a more detailed statement immediately after this.
On economic and monetary union, the documents discussed by the House on 9 June were approved. I made it clear that the entry conditions should be strictly applied and that sustainable convergence is essential if monetary union is to go ahead successfully.
The European Council also agreed a resolution on employment, with British ideas at the centre of it. We have shown that, alongside low inflation and sound public finances, Europe needs a new approach to employment and growth, based on British ideas for competitiveness, introducing more flexible labour markets and employability. That means creating a more skilled and adaptable work force, better equipped to cope with economic change. It also means a new emphasis on getting people off welfare and into work. It does not mean the old agenda of tax and spend; no new money from the Community budget was agreed at Amsterdam. That is the right approach, in or out of monetary union.
The successful conclusion of the intergovernmental conference enables Europe to put institutional wrangles behind it and to move on to the issues that affect people's daily lives: jobs, the environment, crime. Progress in those areas will be our priority. We are determined not to let Europe get bogged down again in minutiae. If we are to build a people's Europe, we must stay focused on the people's concerns.
316
We said that we would secure our frontiers, and we did. We said that we would preserve NATO, not the European Union, as the cornerstone of the defence of Europe, and we did. We said that we would get a new deal for our fishing communities, and we did. We said that we would put jobs at the top of the agenda for Europe, and we did. We said that we would start to make Europe more relevant to the concerns of the peoples of Europe, and we did.
We made Britain's voice heard at Amsterdam, because, for the first time for many years, Britain spoke as a united Government with a clear direction for Europe. We have proved to the people of Britain that we can get a better deal by being constructive, and we have proved to Europe that Britain can be a leading player, setting a new agenda that faces the real challenges of the new century.
Mr. John Major: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for returning to the House speedily to deliver it.
In some areas, I can support the Prime Minister's statement, although in others the implications of what he has agreed have yet to be more fully set out than he has been able to set them out today. As the House will know, the documentation is extensive, and it is not yet fully available. I hope that the Prime Minister can confirm that the House will have the opportunity of a debate as soon as it has had a chance to study the implications of what he has negotiated.
Will the Prime Minister also confirm that the treaty as originally envisaged is not yet complete, and that large and important areas have not yet been decided and, indeed, were not mentioned in his statement? Can he tell us how many of the points that he has announced today will need legislation? As many of them are constitutional, can he confirm that those constitutional points will be debated here, on the Floor of the House, in due course when the legislation is introduced?
At the outset, let me probe what seems to have been agreed on NATO and on border control. On defence, the Prime Minister is entirely right to resist merging the European Union with the Western European Union, and he has our full and unqualified support for doing so; but may I check precisely what he has agreed to? Notwithstanding his assurances to the House, the draft treaty talks of
"the objective of gradual integration of the Western European Union into the European Union".
When and how is that to happen?
The Dutch presidency has said that
"for the first time Britain has conceded the principle of integrating defence in the European union".
Is that correct? Can the Prime Minister clarify the matter or explain why the presidency should have said that if it is not the case? How does that square with what the Prime Minister has been saying?
On border controls, is the Prime Minister aware that he has our complete and unqualified support in maintaining the control of this House over this country's national borders? There can be no question about that. Is it not a fact, however, that the agreement on border control was effectively achieved by last March, when our partners accepted that Britain would never give up border control? Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Dutch presidency made that clear then? If he cannot, I will hand him the quotes and the reports of the time which illustrate that that was indeed the case.

317
Is not the reality that this outcome—which is very welcome—was achieved by negotiations conducted by the last Government, and that what the Prime Minister has done is apply his usual jackdaw technique of picking up other people's property and claiming credit for it?
Can the Prime Minister also clarify the impact that Amsterdam has had on other elements of justice and home affairs? Is it not the case that the Government have an opt-out only on border controls? Where exactly do they stand on the new title on asylum and immigration that is proposed in the draft treaty? It is not clear from what the Prime Minister had to say. Could he tell me whether the European Court of Justice and the Commission's remit has been extended, as seems to have been done, to cover asylum and immigration? Is it not the case that the Council of Ministers, at a later date, will consider extending qualified majority voting to this area?
Could I ask the Prime Minister to outline the implications of the treaty for the European Court of Justice? Can he confirm to the House that he dropped the previous Government's proposals to reform the European Court of Justice although some of them had support from some of our European partners? Can he also confirm that he has achieved nothing to limit the damaging effect of retrospective application of European Court of Justice judgments?
On qualified majority voting, can the Prime Minister confirm in which areas he has given up the veto and explain how that will be of benefit to the House or the British nation? Can he also tell the House whether there are other areas where our veto has been bypassed or will be revisited at a later date?
The Prime Minister said that jobs were at the top of his agenda. Can he name any precise and practical measures that have been agreed at this summit that will create jobs other than for lawyers interpreting the treaty? Can he confirm that the social chapter will be integrated in the treaty, making a mockery of the claim to extend labour market flexibility? Can he also confirm that, utterly contrary to what he said in the general election campaign, this extends qualified majority voting to a wide range of new and important areas? What precisely has he agreed—an employment chapter with teeth that imposes costs and interferes, or an employment chapter with no teeth that raises expectations that it cannot meet?
Can the Prime Minister clarify what he has agreed on flexibility? He says that he has a veto, but can he indicate what agreement he has reached with his colleagues as to the areas in which he would permit this new flexibility to proceed by unanimity?
On common foreign policy where the Prime Minister's statement was particularly unclear, can he tell the House what is meant by common strategies? To what extent will decisions of the Council on common foreign and security policy be made by qualified majority voting? [Interruption.] Labour Members do not like these questions, but they should have been in the Prime Minister's statement and they were not.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House who will adjudicate on what is national policy and, therefore, to be decided by unanimity? On quota hopping, we look forward to the statement by the Minister of Agriculture,
318
Fisheries and Food in a few moments, but the Prime Minister should know that the Spanish have already poured scorn on his claims to have solved quota hopping. He agreed in the election that it could be effectively dealt with only by treaty changes, but does not his agreement depend entirely on Commission good will and will not it seek to look after the interests of not just this country but Dutch, Spanish and other interests as well? Is not it the case that he made not the slightest attempt to push through the treaty changes that were the only way to guarantee help for British fishermen?
On enlargement, the Foreign Secretary extolled the virtues last week of a wider Europe, and we agree with him on that, but where is the progress on enlargement in the treaty? Where was the agreement over institutional reform, on the number of Commissioners, on voting weights? What practical measures will be taken to ensure that new countries are welcomed into the Community? Is it not a fact that this treaty does nothing whatever to help build the wider Europe that the Prime Minister says that he wishes to see and which I wish to see, but does help to create a deeper and more centrally integrated Europe?
Some of the right hon. Gentleman's agreements we can welcome; others suggest that this is both a botched and an incomplete negotiation that he is reporting to the House. It will certainly cause dismay in central and eastern Europe, as he should know. Much of what the Prime Minister has just won he inherited, and much of the rest was never at risk, as he knows. The Prime Minister has made a series of concessions to the European Union. He has gained nothing that was not readily available and he has done nothing whatever to widen the Community and much to ensure that it is deepened. He has missed the opportunities of the summit. What he has reported is not a triumph but a travesty.
The Prime Minister: Well, that was a good try anyway. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, in all sincerity, that on 9 June he made a speech in the House where he took the Labour Government to task for, he said, being about to sell out and give away a whole lot of things. Apart from issues such as the social chapter and employment chapter, where we are in genuine disagreement, I think that we have secured agreement on every single point that he made in that speech, as well as on certain things that he did not mention, such as legal personality, which he said we would never possibly get taken out of the treaty—and we did.
Anyway, if I may deal with the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made, of course the intergovernmental conference will require legislation. As for debating it on the Floor of the House, that will be discussed by the business managers in the normal way, but, of course, it will be properly debated. As for what he was saying about the WEU and EU and gradual integration, of course, the draft treaty text was precisely what was changed, so we now have a situation where there is no obligation to move into integration at all. That is the very thing that we managed to secure.
What is more, for the first time, we have secured a specific statement in the treaty that says that NATO for us is the foundation of our common defence. That is a huge step forward. It is what we never had before and we have now.
In relation to border controls, the right hon. Gentleman says that last March they had all got an agreement. I have to say that that is not our understanding of it. He was in

319
power for 18 years, during which time they did not secure that at any point—either under him or under the previous Prime Minister.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about asylum and immigration. We have no obligation to be in that at all, but what we have secured, which is important and a better way of going about things, is what I call an opt-in. We have the power within the treaty to go into any of these areas if we want to. If we do not want to, we need not, but if we do, no other country can block us going in. For example, the European Court of Justice role in Schengen, which he was talking about, does not affect us.
It is more sensible to realise that the rest of Europe has a genuine, different interest. In the rest of Europe, people want a uniform system of asylum, immigration and visa policy throughout the continent of Europe—and they want it, in many ways, to toughen their immigration and asylum policy. There are severe problems in many of the countries, not least Germany, because of the asylum and immigration policies that they have.
Our interest is different and there is no harm in recognising that there are different interests. The purpose of the protocol is to secure our legal frontiers, but to allow other countries, if they want to do things differently, to have another system, with our having the power to join them if we want to, but being under no obligation to do so.
In relation to QMV, we secured unanimity in all the areas where we wanted it, such as immigration. We made sure that the national veto was preserved in all the areas that we wanted, but, yes, there were some areas in which I agreed an extension of QMV—research, for example. It is important for this country that we have QMV in certain areas. It is a good thing for us, not a bad thing. Fraud is one such area. It is good that we have QMV in certain areas because we can then prevent smaller countries from blocking our interest.
The curious thing about the psychology of the Conservative party—which has become more curious today in this great new alliance, this meeting of minds—is that the greatest extension of QMV was agreed by the Conservative Government and that the very greatest extension was by Baroness Thatcher at the time of the Single European Act. That was the right thing to do. I do not say that as a point of criticism because if people can block measures opening up the single market, that is an inhibition on the effective working of the EU.
The right hon. Gentleman asks about the employment chapter. Incidentally, we secured a benefit from being part of the social chapter because there were moves by other countries to extend QMV to areas in social security and elsewhere that we did not want. If we were not part of it, they would have done it, and it would have been part of the social chapter. He would say, "Well, we had our opt-out", but experience teaches us that, in fact, these things still affect British companies operating on a European-wide basis. By being part of it, we were able to ensure that the social chapter was drafted sensibly.
On the employment chapter, heaven knows why the right hon. Gentleman's Government opposed that. It is a perfectly sensible measure. I do not know whether he was attacking it for being too prescriptive or for not being prescriptive enough. It provides the opportunity for measures to be taken, for example, to assist small businesses. That is a perfectly good thing. It sets the
320
creation of jobs at the core of the employment chapter, in a way that is responsive to economic change. That is a big step forward for us and for our arguments.
In relation to flexibility, the right hon. Gentleman asked us to secure an emergency brake at Amsterdam, and we secured it. We are protected there, as we are protected in the common foreign and security policy.
The two final points relate to enlargement and to the common fisheries policy. On the latter, when we came to power there was not a single member state that supported the right hon. Gentleman's proposed treaty protocol. It was without any credibility and, incidentally, it would not have dealt with existing quota hoppers. We have secured not the Commission's good will, but its agreement and support for changing the licence conditions for vessels operating in this country, which will allow us to deal with both existing and future quota hoppers. Of course, that does not do everything that we would want to do—
Mr. David Davis: The Spanish may go to court.
The Prime Minister: Yes, the Spaniards may take us to court—but, for the first time, we will have the Commission's support in defeating them. That is what is important. It is considerably better than tabling a protocol—[HON. MEMBERS: "Dream on!"] Hon. Members may say "Dream on", but the truth is that the protocol required the unanimous support of all other countries, but not one of them supported it.
On enlargement, the reform of the common agricultural policy and the single market are mentioned in the conclusions. I should like there to be more progress on the institutional mechanisms. We tried to secure that, but it was not possible. However, we shall continue trying to secure the very best deal possible for Britain and for the process of enlargement. We believe in enlargement. It is important and it is something which we owe the emerging democracies in the east of Europe.
I say to the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) that by playing a sensible and constructive role in Europe, we have a better chance of getting enlargement on our terms.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: In the Prime Minister's not unjustifiably long list of the Government's successes at Amsterdam, I was glad to note that he did not include something that was claimed by his spokesman and some of his Ministers—that the Government were responsible for the rescue of monetary union. The Financial Times has a quotation from Amsterdam:
"You could say we have rescued EMU"—
said a member of the Government; I wonder who that could be—
"although I would be grateful if you did not say it too loudly."
Perhaps I could say, not too loudly, that it is a little bizarre to claim to have rescued an organisation that the Government have not yet decided to join.
The right thing to say about the Amsterdam summit is that it was a modest achievement in the progress that needs to be made in Europe in tackling the challenges that lie ahead of it. Some have called the summit a failure—it was not, it was a disappointment. The Government are entitled to claim success in the things that the Prime

321
Minister listed and we welcome those successes, not least because they were aims that we, too, wanted to be achieved at Amsterdam.
However, there is an exception. I think that the Government misunderstand the process now in place for the integration of European defence and foreign policy. I do not think that the Prime Minister was right to say that NATO has not previously appeared in a treaty text in the way that he described. I note that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), is nodding. If my memory is not wrong, NATO appeared quite explicitly in the Maastricht text, which said that nothing undertaken under the treaty should prejudice the importance of NATO. No one I know in Europe wants to get rid of NATO. However, building a second European pillar—which, over time, must mean the WEU being integrated into the European Union—will not undermine NATO; it will strengthen it.
That having been said, does the Prime Minister agree that the summit is marked not by the work it did, but by the work left to be done? Is it not true that there is a great deal of work to be done, perhaps at some future intergovernmental conference—surely there must be one—to prepare the way for enlargement and to complete the process of institutional change? Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot be satisfied with the progress in, for example, the democratisation and accountability of the European institutions and in other areas that need to be dealt with before Europe can move forward. That is important, and I hope that the Prime Minister will agree.
We should dispose of the leftovers of the Maastricht treaty and move on to the new agenda of creating a people's Europe, which is less about the Europe of political elites and more about the Europe that delivers what people in Europe want. It is only through that that we can bind Europe's institution and move forward sensibly in the process of integration.
The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. On the rescue of EMU, it is not for us to rescue it or otherwise. I thought that he was a great proponent of EMU—
Mr. Ashdown: I am.
The Prime Minister: Then he should be grateful to whoever said it.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a summit of disappointment, but that is not entirely correct. There was progress on jobs, crime and the environment. The summit was more a staging post on the way to try to reshape the European agenda, which is important. I echo what the right hon. Gentleman said about a people's Europe and I have said that myself.
On NATO and the arguments about an EU-WEU merger, I did not say that NATO had never been mentioned in the texts. It was mentioned, but the importance was that common defence and a common defence policy was actually contemplated in the Maastricht treaty that was negotiated by the previous Government. What we have done is put into the treaty words that indicate that we see our common defence as founded on and realised through NATO. That is an
322
important difference, because it defines common defence in the perspective of NATO within the context of the treaty. It is important that we have secured that.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a lot more to do, especially on enlargement. It is important to move that agenda forward and we are better placed as a country to play a proper role in that than we were before.
Several hon, Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The questions and answers from the two major Opposition party leaders have taken more than half an hour. I now seek one brisk question each from Members and I ask the Prime Minister also to make a brisk response. Otherwise, I will not be able to call many Members.
Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that if economic and monetary union proceeds and a single currency comes on to the agenda, there will be a free vote in the House on that matter, so that the decision is made by the people here and not by a political elite?
The Prime Minister: It is more than that. We have said that if the issue of monetary union comes on to the agenda in this Parliament, it will be a matter for a referendum of the British people. We do not know whether that will be the case or not. Our position—to retain the option to join if we wish, and we have already made our statements on that—remains as is and it will not alter.
Mr. lain Duncan Smith: Does the Prime Minister agree, however, that the summit was not a success on defence, because he has conceded—as the Dutch presidency has said—the principle that defence is now in the treaty in the sense that there is a common purpose and direction? In binding NATO in as a reference, the Prime Minister has provided an opportunity for others to build a common defence—albeit around NATO—that was not there before.
The Prime Minister: No, that is simply factually wrong. The first time the ideas of common defence and a common defence policy appeared in European treaties was when they were negotiated by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). We are under no obligation, under the text that we have negotiated, to merge the EU and WEU. Indeed, as I have said, we have the right to have our common defence founded in NATO.
Mr. Giles Radice: Despite the mean-minded response of the previous Prime Minister, does not the successful outcome of the Amsterdam summit show that a constructive approach by Britain yields results for British interests in jobs, border controls, defence, crime and drugs, as well as providing a new hope and dynamism for Europe?
The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for that and he is correct. It is in British interests to be part of Europe. If we are part of Europe, it is in British interests to be constructive and engaged. Of course, we must protect our national interests, and all countries do. The absurdity of the foreign policy of the previous

323
Government was that, in the end, the policy was directed at party and not at the interests of the country. That is what has to change
Mr. Charles Wardle: Will the Prime Minister accept that the exemption on border controls will be widely welcomed because—regardless of who negotiated what, when or how they were prompted—the issue has been fudged since the introduction of the Single European Act? Does he accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House wanted that exemption? Will he tell the House whether the European Court will now have jurisdiction over all European conventions—including, once it is ratified, the external frontiers convention?
The Prime Minister: None of those matters will apply to Britain unless we wish them to do so, and that is the advantage that we have gained. On preliminary rulings of the European Court of Justice, we secured changes to the text that will mean that other states will have to opt in if the European Court is to have jurisdiction. That change is another considerable advance.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the exemption on border controls; it is important that such an exemption is actually written into the treaty. If it had not been written in the treaty, there would have been a danger that, over time, our ability to control our own borders would be eliminated.
Mr. Stuart Bell: While I welcome the Prime Minister's statement on employment and growth, he did not specifically mention completing the single market. Will he confirm that completing the single market will in itself create a fundamental attack on unemployment across the European Union?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. The previous Prime Minister asked me what the employment chapter will do. One of the important things that it has done is to signal a different approach. By placing right at the forefront the single market action plan, which has been championed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by placing action to make people more employable in a different labour market right at the heart of the test on jobs—rather than old-style interventionism, regulation and all the rest of it—we have sent the right message and signal on employment and growth.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Prime Minister went to Amsterdam with the intention of extending QMV to environmental policy. As I understand it, that applies only under article 130s of the Maastricht treaty. Did he succeed?
The Prime Minister: We actually stopped it applying to taxation, thereby ensuring that we were completely protected on that matter. Ultimately, there were very few extensions of QMV, partly because of the considerations of states other than Britain. There were very few—
Mr. Gary Streeter: How many?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will see them.
324
The extensions are very minor, and I should like gently to try to persuade hon. Members of that. It was right for us to agree all the extensions of QMV that have been agreed. I will put the case higher and say that I was arguing for extension of QMV in matters such as research and combating fraud, because British interests are currently being blocked by one or two nations that are acting in a manner that is contrary to the interests of proper finance in either the European Union or the single market. I ask Conservative Members—in their current period of reflection and, perhaps, new spirit of coming together—to liberate themselves from some of the paranoia that gripped them while they were in government.
Mr. Charles Clarke: Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be a welcome in the country for the priority that the Council presidency has given to employment and job creation in the employment chapter and the social chapter? Will he comment on the timing implications of that commitment to employment and jobs for EMU and the 1999 start date?
The Prime Minister: The truth of the matter is that we simply do not know whether that date will be achieved, although other countries are extremely anxious that it should be. What is important for Britain is to keep our own position very clear and unchanged, and to ensure-as we did when the issue arose in Amsterdam—that we get our principles right. Those principles are that there should be no weakening, fudging, botching or undermining of the Maastricht criteria, and, at the same time, to try to shift the focus of the debate in Europe to jobs and employment. Those principles should determine our approach.
Mr.John D.Taylor: Subject to the detail on quota hopping, it seems that the arrangement that has been reached does not stop further quota hoppers joining the British fleet, does not expedite the removal of existing quota hoppers and, in any case, is temporary up to 2002. Does the Prime Minister agree with the recent suggestion by Mrs. Bonino that in the review of the common fisheries policy in 2002, even the issue of the renationalisation of the fishing industry could be considered? Would the Government consider that possibility?
The Prime Minister: I have not seen the remarks of Commissioner Bonino to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but the agreement is not temporary. The revision of the CFP is to take place in 2002, but the agreement holds. In relation to stopping existing and future quota hoppers, the agreement does the most that can possibly be done, which is to give us the ability—or enhance our ability—to impose licence conditions on vessels fishing under our quotas. Obviously, the importance of that is that it discourages further quota hopping and also means that existing quota hoppers are considerably impeded.
In addition, I stress the importance of the Commission agreement to bring forward further enforcement measures. As I understand it, the problem of quota hopping is not merely the fact that people own our quotas but that those who come in from outside and own our quotas take a far bigger catch than they are supposed to, and there are no proper systems of inspection in the ports of nation states at which they land the fish. That is one of the things that we have to tighten.

325
I in no way pretend that the agreement solves the whole problem—that would be a foolish illusion and it would be wrong to suggest it—but it is a significant step of progress. It is now necessary to discuss with the fishing industry what changes are necessary to our licence conditions and then to try to make sure that we develop a forward strategy for the fishing industry so that it has a viable future and so that there is a genuine prospect of people securing their livelihoods in the long term.
Mr. Terry Davis: Will the Prime Minister confirm that although he is rightly opposed to a takeover of the WEU by the European Union and deserves to be congratulated by all parts of the House on his success in resisting that project, it does not mean that the Government are opposed to common defence? Indeed, the whole purpose of the WEU is common defence.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point—that is the purpose of the WEU and, indeed, of NATO. It is important that we do not determine one framework within which common defence is placed. My concern about the proposal to integrate the WEU into the European Union is that it suggests that everything goes through the EU. That is not the case. The debate at Amsterdam was not simply between integrationists and non-integrationists, but about the best way to make progress on common defence among countries that have a genuine co-operative interest. We very largely did that. It was not just about protecting our interests, although that was important, but about trying to suggest to the rest of Europe that there is a different way of looking at the matter.
Mr. John Butterfill: I know that the Prime Minister is aware of the importance to the British economy of the tourism and leisure industries. He will also be aware that they are, by their very nature, large employers of seasonal and part-time workers. What representations did he make on behalf of those industries to ensure that the application of the social chapter and the employment chapter does not cause them undue damage?
The Prime Minister: In relation to the social chapter, we made it absolutely clear that we do not favour an extension of qualified majority voting in respect of any measures that come up. Therefore, under the unanimity provisions, we can make a judgment as we wish.
In respect of the employment chapter, it is important that hon. Members understand that it specifically ruled out the harmonisation of laws. It is not about more regulation or harmonising the laws of member states but, in a sense, about trying to provoke a debate about the best way forward for economic reform in Europe. Of course the tourism and leisure industries are tremendously important, but they would benefit from an open single market in Europe and also from a prosperous Europe.
Miss Melanie Johnson: What lessons does the Prime Minister draw from the fact that, although Margaret Thatcher said, "No, no, no" to Europe, she did not manage to succeed in getting legal protection for our frontiers?
The Prime Minister: What is important is tat we say, "No" when it is sensible to do so, but that we do not spend
326
our whole time saying, "No" as a matter of principle to everything that anyone else suggests. That means that we were able to achieve security for our border controls. That is important and I am pleased that we were able to do it.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The Prime Minister—or at least his publicity machine—has been claiming victory on the issue of quota hopping, but the Spanish say that no deal has been reached and the Commission says that we are only at the outset of reaching a deal.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that current category A licences already contain the stipulation for a 50 per cent. landing and all that is changing is the enforcement? Can he guarantee that, as a result of the changes he has negotiated, the capacity reductions will fall on the flags of convenience fleet and not on domestic vessels? If he cannot give that guarantee, fishermen around the coastline will say that he may be claiming victory, but has been sold a haddie.
The Prime Minister: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The latest information is that Spain was threatening to take Britain to the European Court as a result of the agreement, so, with all due respect, I think that he is wrong. We are able to strengthen the licence conditions and it is important that we do so; it is important also that we bring forward enforcement measures, but nobody can pretend that this subject will be easily dealt with or easily solved.
The hon. Gentleman says that we have been claiming some great victory, but we are not claiming victory at all. What we are claiming is that we have made progress. We have made progress, and that progress stands in sharp contrast to what went before. It is all very well for him, but he has no serious proposals of his own as to how to deal with the issue.
Mr.Dale Campbell-Savours: Irrespective of whether the 1999 start date is realistic, what discussions are taking place about the question of the accountability of a central bank to the European Parliament?
The Prime Minister: This was dealt with in the resolution of the Finance Ministers. It is something of which they are aware and it formed part of the discussion between France, Britain and other countries at the meeting of the Finance Ministers. That process of accountability is, of course, important and that discussion will continue, but what is absolutely essential is that nothing that was agreed at Amsterdam in any way changes the basic criteria. As I have said, whether or not those criteria can be met is another matter.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Has the Prime Minister considered exactly what the budgetary implications for the country and the Chancellor would be if the British Government were outvoted through an extension of qualified majority voting in research and development? By the same token, I understand that he has agreed to a massive extension of co-decision. Obviously, that is happy news for colleagues in another place, but can he explain to us today how he intends to guarantee the sovereignty of this House in those circumstances?
The Prime Minister: The European Parliament cannot actually propose anything that the Council has not agreed

327
to. What I announced in my statement was an enhanced way in which national parliaments, and this Parliament in particular, can study European documents. As for being outvoted through QMV on research and development, the problem is the opposite of that: it is that we will often want measures to be put through by the Commission using QMV—["HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am answering the question. The reason why it is important to have QMV in the area of research is that without it we can be blocked in what we want to do.
Obviously, if a large number of countries are opposed to what Britain is doing, we will not get our way, but the current problem is that, under unanimity, we can be blocked by one country. That is why I say that the sensible approach to QMV is to treat it on a case-by-case basis. Where it is not sensible to extend it, do not extend it; where it is sensible to extend it, do not take an ideological view that QMV in all circumstances is wrong.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that I do not measure success at these summits and common market conferences on the basis of further integration, which I regard as a sort of setback? I hope he will be able to please me as well as all the others who want that sort of advance among those 15 nation states. Will he answer this key question: as the single currency was the big issue among all the others, can he seriously tell me whether the momentum towards a single currency in those few days at Amsterdam was advanced or stalled? Please me.
The Prime Minister: I am habitually trying to please my hon. Friend, as he knows. The short answer is that it is impossible to tell, because in the end it will depend on whether countries meet the criteria. Matters would have been pushed forward in an unhelpful way if the criteria had been changed. We cannot tell what the outcome will be at the moment.
I can say, however, that I believe that the language on employment, jobs and growth was more realistic, and more what I would call people-centred, than most of the language that I have read in previous conclusions.
Mr. William Cash: Will the Prime Minister confirm that in Amsterdam he has agreed, under the resolution in annexe II to the presidency conclusions, that we will enter the exchange rate mechanism even if we do not sign up to EMU on 1 January 1999?
The Prime Minister: No, that is not correct.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his successful visit to Europe and on his negotiations? However, did he have discussions with Chancellor Kohl about the Eurofighter? As thousands of jobs in my constituency and many more thousands in Lancashire depend on that project, I hope that he did.
The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend. I know how concerned he is about this matter on behalf of his constituents. I raised that issue with Chancellor Kohl in Bonn a short time ago and I was pleased that he confirmed that he still desires to proceed with the project. Apparently, budget discussions are going on in Germany
328
at present, but I think it is very important that the project proceeds, for the defence of the country and for jobs and skills.
Sir John Stanley: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the new UK protocol maintaining the UK's borders applies with the same legal force to the nearly 400 million EU citizens as to those who are not EU citizens, given the new treaty wording to which he has subscribed—that
"the free movement of persons is assured"?
The Prime Minister: As I understand it, the position is that they have to produce their documents in the normal way, so that is something that has happened and will continue to happen.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his success in Amsterdam. I am especially grateful as, for the first time in 10 years, I shall be able to visit member states without having to apologise for my Government's intransigence. May I press the Prime Minister on enlargement and ask him whether there was any optimism on the future negotiations for the acceptance of Cyprus into the European Union?
The Prime Minister: No, that did not form part of the discussions. However, on enlargement, there was not as much progress as there should have been and, without doubt, we should have liked there to have been more, but there is still a considerable will to make progress. Some of the institutional methods of doing that are still open for debate, but the conclusions of the Amsterdam summit were very strong on the principle and issue of enlargement. I have made it clear that when we have the presidency of Europe we shall be making progress on that as one of our priorities. I believe that it is essential that we do so.
In response to the first thing that my hon. Friend said, I should say that I believe that, as a result of having a serious position on Europe, which means standing up for British interests whole-heartedly throughout but being serious, not intransigent, we shall get a better deal.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Prime Minister briefly mentioned subsidiarity. Does he agree that subsidiarity means decisions being taken not just at European member state level but at levels below that? How is that principle advanced by the new treaty? Will he confirm that the representatives of the small nations and regions of Europe will have an important part to play, following Amsterdam, in important matters such as the future of regional policy?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I do agree. That is one of the very things subsidiarity is supposed to achieve. That is why we are strongly promoting the agreed protocol. It was made clear during discussions on it that subsidiarity means a far stronger role being played below member state level. That of course applies to the nations and regions of Europe—and below that level, too.
Helen Jones: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the treaty now recognises explicitly

329
the fact that European Union citizenship does not replace national citizenship—something which the previous Government signally failed to secure?
The Prime Minister: That is correct.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The written conclusions to the summit contain pages of Euro-waffle about the need to create more jobs, including some damaging provisions, but they also press for flexible labour markets and lower business costs. How does the Prime Minister reconcile this new-found attachment to market forces with the fact that, at the same summit and in the same treaty, he is signing up this country to the provisions of the social chapter which, by definition, interfere in labour markets and raise business costs?
The Prime Minister: For the first time in the written conclusions to a summit, we got in straight terms the importance of concentrating on the very things on which we wish to concentrate: employment, growth, competitiveness, small businesses, and education and skills instead of old-style regulation.
The right hon. Gentleman says that lower business costs and flexibility are inconsistent with the social chapter. Basic minimum standards at work are not, in our view, inconsistent with economic prosperity. The social chapter, in relation to consultations with workers at a Europe-wide level and parental leave, is perfectly sensible.
I return to the point that I made earlier in response to the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major): as a result of being in the social chapter, we can play our part in shaping any legislation that may come from it. As a result of the Conservative Government's opt-out, the social chapter directive on consultation of workers on a Europe-wide basis came into force. We played no part in shaping it and had no influence over it, yet British companies ended up having to apply it. Half the British companies to which it would have applied, had we been part of the social chapter, ended up having to apply it voluntarily—but with no influence on the process. That is not a sensible way to proceed.
Mr. Bernie Grant: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on two counts. First, he has given us a clear and concise report, in stark contrast to the muddle and acrimony of the former Government. Secondly, he has nailed the lie that he is a poor negotiator—a lie put about by Conservatives during the election campaign. We now know that it was the previous Prime Minister, not my right hon. Friend, who was the poor negotiator.
330
On enlargement, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that our inner cities are suffering from unemployment and a lack of infrastructural development because of the previous Government? But enlargement will mean resources being drained away from the inner cities and poorer regions of Britain to the new countries. Can he assure us that he will consider that seriously in future negotiations?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important to get enlargement on the correct terms. The purpose of enlarging is to draw into the EU the countries of eastern Europe. That is of mutual benefit—it is not simply a one-way process—because we will create a larger trading area. Enlargement should also be used as a lever to reform the common agricultural policy, which is currently a scandal.
It is because we understand the problems of unemployment in the inner cities that we are committed to taking action on it.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: To return to the issue of quota hopping, can the Prime Minister not grasp that west country fishermen do not want tinkering with the licence? They want quota hopping stopped. Is it not a fact that, as a result of the Prime Minister's inactivity at Amsterdam, we will not get rid of a single quota hopper, and British fishermen will not be able to catch one extra fish? West country fishermen were looking to the Prime Minister for an exercise in statesmanship. They found, instead, that he sold their industry down the river.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. The purpose of the agreement that we got is precisely to affect the activities of existing quota hoppers and of future quota hoppers as well. The key to that is the ability to change the licence conditions under which vessels operate.
The treaty protocol of the previous Government, which had not the slightest prospect of ever being negotiated, did not deal with the problem of existing quota hopping.
It is easy for the hon. Gentleman to get up and pretend to people that there is some easy answer in relation to quota hopping. There is not, and he should know that. People may get up and say, "I could have gone to Amsterdam and got the whole thing stopped overnight", but that is simply untrue. [Interruption.] It is said that it did not matter. That is unfair and wrong. It did matter, which is why it was a big part of our negotiation. It is most cruel and most deceiving to tell people that there is a simple solution, when one knows perfectly well that there is not.

Common Fisheries Policy
4.31 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a more detailed statement about the common fisheries policy and the agreement that the Prime Minister has concluded with the President of the Commission.
Fishing has an important place and a long tradition as an industry in this country. The Government intend to work with the industry to ensure its continued and sustainable future. That means devising a strategy to meet the challenges of low fish stocks and over-capacity.
We have inherited a series of profound problems as a result of the previous Administration's handling of fisheries policy, which lacked any sign of direction or support. One of their excuses for failure has been the problem of vessels owned largely by foreign interests which are United Kingdom-flagged and use UK fishing quotas. They give little or no economic benefit from their activities to our own fishing communities, because they are largely operated and crewed from other member states and land a high proportion of their catches outside the UK.
That is a long-standing problem, which the previous Administration allowed to develop and failed to solve. They could have addressed it in 1982, when the common fisheries policy was being negotiated, but they did not. Having failed to act then, they should have addressed the problem when enlargement to bring in Spain and Portugal was agreed in 1985.
However, the previous Government allowed matters to deteriorate and eventually last year proposed a draft treaty protocol which, it became clear, stood no realistic chance of success because they failed to secure support for it—nor is it clear that it would have dealt effectively with the existing situation. Not a single member state was willing to support the concept of a protocol proposed by the previous Administration.
In the weeks since 2 May, we have taken the matter up with the Commission and other member states. Our discussions included my talks with Commissioner Bonino on 20 May, and concluded in Amsterdam this week. The Government's efforts have now secured a constructive outcome.
In an exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the President of the Commission, the Commission has set out measures that we can take, requiring UK-flagged vessels to demonstrate that their activities contribute substantial economic benefits for populations dependent on fishing and related industries in the UK.
The United Kingdom now has a basis for imposing on fishing vessels requirements that they comply with provisions to land a specified proportion of their catch—we envisage 50 per cent.—into UK ports, or have a majority of their crew resident in the UK, or commence a majority of their fishing trips from UK ports, or comply with a combination of measures. At present, many of these foreign-owned vessels contribute little or nothing to the economy of our fishing communities. The new rules would change this and ensure that benefits flow to our fishing communities and processors, by requiring the vessels to demonstrate that substantial economic benefits are secured.
332
We intend to introduce new licence rules to implement these measures as swiftly as possible. We shall be consulting the whole fishing industry about the new rules before asking the Commission to give a formal opinion on them. In this way, we can ensure that our rules are effective, sensitive to the interests of all affected by them, and consistent with the various legal requirements.
Without effective enforcement, all our efforts to ensure the conservation of fish stocks will be undermined. That is why the importance of enforcement has been the second major issue that we have pursued with the Commission. We have insisted that more must be done to ensure effective and consistent application of the rules. It is essential that, wherever fishermen land their catches, they must be subject to equivalent measures. The Commission is committed now to examining improvements in enforcement, including strengthened obligations on member states. It will also look at the role of Commission inspectors. They will report later this year to the Council with proposals as necessary.
Meanwhile, we are taking steps ourselves to tighten various aspects of enforcement. I will announce these in a separate written statement to the House. They concern action to assist the Marine Safety Agency in ensuring that vessels and their crews are properly certified to comply with safety requirements and, in addition, steps to prevent evading quota rules and undermining conservation objectives by discarding fish already stowed on board.
We have also obtained from the Commission assurances about the involvement of local fishing interests in the decision-making process, and about the review of and prospects for the common fisheries policy after 2002. The Commission has confirmed that key elements of the common fisheries policy are widely valued and that it considers it unlikely that the fundamental principle of relative stability would be called into question or that there would be a desire to modify present restrictions on access to waters inside member states' 12-mile limits. We will be building on those assurances during future discussions about the common fisheries policy.
In total, I consider that this is a valuable outcome. We have secured some very positive results concerning the application of economic links, as well as making constructive progress on a range of wider issues, all of which are central to the Government's approach to the common fisheries policy. Because we have agreed a way forward with the Commission, we are in a much better position to avoid legal challenge to the measures we adopt. Measures proposed by the Commission to the Fisheries Council would be agreed by qualified majority voting.
There is much more to be done to put our fishing industry on a sound footing for the future. I now propose to take this action forward urgently. With my colleagues responsible for fisheries in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I am inviting the leaders of the UK fishing industry to participate in high-level talks on the industry's future. The highest priority is to decide the way in which we implement rules to require the economic link. However, there is a much wider agenda. We must address the problems of enforcement, low stocks and over-capacity, as well as looking at other possibilities for change in quota and licence management and the scope for more regional involvement.

333
The Government want to develop a realistic strategy to create a viable future for our fishing industry in the years ahead. These talks will start that process. We shall ensure that the industry is directly and fully involved.
Mr. Tony Baldry: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post, and wish him well.
Outside the House, the Prime Minister's press secretary is claiming the proposals as a victory. It was interesting to note that not even the Prime Minister had the gall to claim them as such; rather, he spoke simply about making progress.
How can an exchange of letters between the United Kingdom Government and the Commission be binding on anyone else? What possible status in Community law does such an exchange of letters have? What is even more curious is that the Minister said that he would be consulting the fishing industry about the new rules before asking the Commission for a formal opinion on them. What is in those letters? [Interruption.] Perhaps they can be put in the Library so that we can all read them.
How can such measures be binding on the Spanish and others? Given the Factortame judgment, any such proposals will almost certainly be struck down by the European Court of Justice. [Interruption.] It is little wonder that the Spanish Government have poured scorn on those proposals, as meaningless and devoid of effect. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) keeps interrupting from a sedentary position, but I suspect that he will find it difficult to convince fishermen in Scotland that the outcome is anything other than a sell-out.
During the general election campaign, the Prime Minister agreed, as did everyone else, that quota hoppers could be effectively dealt with only by treaty changes. Indeed, the Prime Minister went further than that during the campaign, when he said at the time of the Luxembourg Fisheries Council that a Labour Government "would not rule out"—
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley)indicated dissent.
Mr. Baldry: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Labour Government "would not rule out"—I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to look up that quote—the Government using their vetoss at the Amsterdam summit to ensure that quota hoppers were dealt with through treaty changes.
In reality, the Government have made no attempt whatever to get treaty changes. That is a complete sell-out of the United Kingdom's fishing industry. The current proposals will not get rid of a single existing quota hopper; nor will they prevent the transfer of United Kingdom fishing licences to quota hoppers in the future. If there are to be national fishing quotas, it must be right that United Kingdom fish should be for United Kingdom fishermen. The agreement, however, does not give our fishermen one extra fish.
It is also clear from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the Government have failed to defend the concept of relative stability. They have also failed to make it clear that our 12-mile fishing limits are non-negotiable.
334
Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the fishermen of the United Kingdom will be appalled and angry at how they have been so comprehensively sold out and betrayed by the Government? This is a black day for those fishermen—a day when their interests were thrown away for a meaningless piece of paper and a cheap soundbite.
Dr. Cunningham: That long, boring and rather convoluted response barely merits a reply, but I shall deal with at least some of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised.
The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that some progress is not as good as no progress. For 18 years, the Conservative Government made no progress, but, as the Prime Minister has said, we have made some reasonable progress.
Let us consider the hon. Gentleman's repeated reference to a change to the protocol. Not a single member state was willing to vote for the protocol. In any event, it would not have dealt with the existing problem. That is the reality. The hon. Gentleman kept on referring to the protocol, but it was a complete fraud committed on Britishss fishermen. He knows that to be the case.
The Commission letter will be binding. The hon. Gentleman asked why we are consulting. We are consulting our own fishermen exactly because the new rules will apply to them, too. In case the hon. Gentleman is not aware of it, although I am sure that he is, plenty of our vessels land their catch at foreign ports. That is the reality, so we must consult our fishermen before changing the rules because they will be directly affected by them.
The hon. Gentleman said that he would like to see the exchange of letters. They have been in the Library since about noon today. They have been available.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: We had to ask the Library for a photocopy just before 3 o'clock.
Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Lady intervenes from a sedentary position, and I should like to put it on the record that I sent in advance a copy of my statement to the leader or the spokesperson of every party in the House. Every party had a copy of my statement in advance of my making it. I have nothing to hide in making my statement.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) mentioned the consequences of the Factortame case. That case results from a bungled attempt by the previous Government to do something about these matters. The Government are now facing, as a result of the previous Government's bungling, 97 claims for compensation in the courts. That is the result of the previous Administration's incompetence.
The changes that I am announcing will affect both existing and future sales of British quota. The hon. Member for Banbury refers to the problem as if it is in some way the responsibility of the Spanish or Netherlands fishermen. What actually happened? Given the abysmal economic circumstances of the UK fishing industries, fishermen were forced out of business, and they willingly sold their quota to foreign owners. All that happened in three separate phases under the previous Government's administration. If we are apportioning blame today, it lies fairly and squarely with the previous Government's failed fisheries policies.

335
There may be an attempt to challenge the new rules. I would not be surprised if that were to happen—I do not suppose that anybody in the House would be surprised. The fact, however, that we shall agree the detailed changes and implementation with the Commission gives us added strength in our ability to resist any such challenge.
The hon. Member for Banbury finished with a sort of rhetorical flourish in saying that what I have announced would not be welcome to British fishermen and fishing communities. The reality is that we have made some significant progress in seven weeks in office, while the Conservative Government made none in 17 years.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we entered the Community without any agreement on fishing? The Conservative party, when in government under the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), did nothing to defend the distant water, middle water fleet or inshore fleets. When some of us tried to move the Adjournment of the House on that issue—that we should not go into the Community until the matter was settled—we were rebuffed ssby the Government of the day. That should be made extremely clear.
Since then, every Government have been seeking to improve the position of our fishermen. However, they have been playing from a hand that has held very few trumps, because the situation was lost at the outset. Therefore, my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on such progress as has been made so far. It is showing an ability to try to negotiate with the Commission and eventually with our Community partners to try to bring at least some hope for the British fishing fleet.
As for the letters with the Commission, surely it would not be right to say that they are legally binding on it. They are merely a statement of intent on the part of the Commission, and any regulations that are made will be subject always to challenge in the European Court. On that basis, will my right hon. Friend seek to ensure that, in negotiating the new regulations, he bears in mind our fishing fleet and the fleets of other countries that also land in ports other than their home ports, so that we can get as many as possible of our partners in the Community behind us in pushing forward a new policy?
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to say that the problem stems from the complete neglect of the UK fishing industry at the time of our entry into the European Community in 1972, and has flowed on from there. It is—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Banbury is mumbling on from the other side of the Dispatch Box. He had every opportunity to make some progress—his party and he himself—and they failed to do so.
First, the Commission is the guardian of the treaty and of European Union law. It will be in the interests of the Commission, and in this instance the President of the Commission, to ensure that the final details of licences that we shall discuss with our fishermen will be enforced.
Secondly, my hon. Friend's constituents—he represents one of the most important fishing communities anywhere in the UK—can be assured that we shall properly consult them about these changes and about the policy
336
developments that we want to make about the future of their industry, so that they can have a secure and sustainable future.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I acknowledge that the Minister's inheritance in fisheries policy, as in quite a number of other policy areas within his remit, is a sorry one—a fact eloquently underscored by the response by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), the Conservative party spokesman, to the right hon. Gentleman's statement. None the less, will the Minister acknowledge that, perhaps inescapably at this stage in the discussions, his statement almost raises more questions than it can provide immediate answers?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that quota hopping, devilish though it is, is a symptom of the deeper problem—the common fisheries policy itself? Will he therefore commit himself and the new Administration to a fundamental reform of the CFP, with the specific aim, based on the intention behind the discussions that he has outlined, of establishing proper regional management of fisheries, which must be more sane and sensible for the long-term viability of the domestic sector of our industry?
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I congratulate him on his questions, which made far more sense and was far more constructive and realistic than what was said on behalf of the Conservative party. He is right to say that the inheritance is a sorry one, and I am pleased that he recognises that fact. He is also right to say that there are many more questions to which we must find answers. I share his opinion that the sale of United Kingdom quota was a symptom and a consequence of the neglect of our fishing industry. It is not the root of the problem, but we still want to act as quickly as we can in trying to mitigate it.
I share the hon. Gentleman's medium-term objective of reform of the common fisheries policy. We have already had preliminary discussions on that subject, as the Prime Minister and I have both confirmed. Better involvement of fishermen and fishing communities in the future of their industry is one of our primary objectives. I share the hon. Gentleman's attachment to that idea as part of the way forward. Regional management of our fisheries makes sense not only from the point of view of the people in those communities but from that of Ministers, too.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I appeal to all hon. Members, as well as to the Minister, for short questions and short answers. We have not yet even reached the Orders of the Day, and I have the rest of the business of the House to safeguard.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his succession to this bed not of nails but of dogfish and cattle teeth. I congratulate him, too, on doing more about the quota hoppers in his short period in office than the previous Government did in 18 years. None the less, the industry is very dissatisfied with a settlement that will make life more difficult for Grimsby vessels, many of which land overseas to a considerable extent, yet which does not close the door to future quota hoppers.

337
Quota hoppers still constitute 26 per cent. of the British fleet, so, when the time comes to assess our targets for effort limitation, an almost impossible cut in the British fleet will be required if we are to gain access to the European funding that the industry desperately needs, and that competing industries have already had.
Finally, because there is a ridiculously mixed system of capacity and effort limitation under multi-annual guidance programme IV, can the Minister tell us that he does not envisage any kind of limitation on days at sea, such as the previous Government failed to impose on the industry?
Dr. Cunningham: I can assure my hon. Friend that Grimsby fishermen and others sailing from that port will have every opportunity to add to his already formidable representation of their interests. As for conservation and the requirement for reduced effort, when the measures emerge they will affect all licence holders, not only those based in the United Kingdom. I cannot lawfully impose all such reductions on overseas vessels holding United Kingdom licences. I simply would not be allowed to do so
With regard to MAGP IV, we have discovered that part of this miserable legacy is the previous Administration's failure to meet many of the requirements of MAGP III, so we have inherited a huge backlog of work on conservation measures.
Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. I have known him for tens of years and I have never seen him as a Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but none the less I wish him well, because, unless he does well, British agriculture and British fishing will suffer.
Will he overcome my concern that there is nothing in the statement about many of the most interesting and smaller communities of inshore fishermen, such as Seaton, Beer and Sidmouth in my constituency? Many small communities rely on the work of their men. No consideration has been given to many of their concerns—which I do not need to outline, because the right hon. Gentleman will know about them—either in the statement or in the negotiations.
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kindness. I never saw myself as Minister of Agriculture, either, but I am enjoying the responsibilities, and am looking forward to playing an important role in my right hon. friend's Government.
The right hon. Gentleman says that we have given no consideration to small fishing communities. I am pleased to tell him that that is not true. I represent a small fishing community in the port of Whitehaven, so I am keenly aware of the points that he legitimately makes on behalf of smaller fishing communities. When we review the common fisheries policy, it will be important to such smaller communities that we seek some stability, especially the maintenance of the control of the 12-mile limit. We want to make it clear that many of the changes that we shall be required to implement under MAGP III and MAGP IV will not affect the smallest vessels.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: In his further talks with the Commission, will my right hon. Friend
338
build on the Commission's interest, which I was pleased to hear him mention, in regional involvement in decision making? That would be welcome in the south-west, where conservation measures have often been inappropriate to the mixed fish stocks there, and would play an important part in the development of solutions for conservation.
Dr. Cunningham: I accept my hon. Friend's point. As I have said several times already, we intend to make significant changes to improve regional involvement of fishing communities in the policy development that is so important to their health and well-being.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Minister confirm, perhaps for the benefit of the Prime Minister, that category A fishing licences—I have one here—already contain the stipulation that 50 per cent. of catches should be landed at domestic ports? If it is a question of implementation, how is transhipment to be dealt with? For example, are fish that are landed at the port of Buckie in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and taken straight to Spain counted as part of a domestically landed catch?
Am I right in believing that more than 90 per cent. of the crews of flags-of-convenience vessels do not have Marine Safety Agency certification? If so, are they not fishing illegally, and should not the same restraint be used on them as would be used on the crews of boats in my constituency or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray, or on any domestic fishermen who did not have MSA certification?
Dr. Cunningham: I can confirm that, under existing licence rules, vessels that land less than 50 per cent. of a catch in the United Kingdom are required to visit UK ports at least four times in six months for inspection. That is a weak control. We propose a more effective control, which will give us more economic benefit than the existing provisions. The hon. Gentleman is partly, but not wholly, right.
As for enforcement, we should be candid with ourselves and recognise that enforcement measures have not been as effective as they might have been in respect of our own, let alone overseas, fishing effort. That is why the second most important part of what I have been saying, and what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been saying, is that we must toughen up enforcement, and have uniform application of enforcement throughout the European Union. I do not want rules to apply to United Kingdom fishermen and their vessels that are not universally applied. We will continue to press that.
A number of vessels have been heavily fined for breaking the existing regulations. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall be even tougher in the future in enforcing the rules.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: My right hon. Friend is right to condemn previous Tory Administrations. It was the Tory Government led by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) who sold the pass, and others have continued down that sad road. I speak as a member of a fisherman's family.
Apart from the serious problem of quota hopping, there is another problem that I consider equally serious: industrial fishing. Will my right hon. Friend do something

339
about the need to reduce, if not abolish, that wasteful practice? In Scottish waters, the Wee Bankie and the Buckie Man's bank should be protected from the onslaught on the sand eel by Danish fishermen.
Dr. Cunningham: As my hon. Friend says, the problem of the sale of the UK quota—which is what we are discussing—is one of a number of important and difficult problems. It is not—I am candid about this—a problem which will be easily or quickly resolved. People have legally acquired the quota: these were willing sales and legal purchases. No protocol on earth would have obliged those people to give up what they had legally acquired.
As for conservation and closing some areas, the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), is looking into that in some detail. We would not flinch from taking strong action if we concluded that that was the best way in which to improve conservation and prevent the fishing out of our important fisheries. Most sensible fishermen recognise that, if there are no fish, there is no future for them and their industry.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I represent the second largest fishing community in England and Wales, in Brixham. I am anxious to tell the Brixham fishermen exactly what the statement means for them.
Can the Minister tell us whether one extra fish will come to British fishermen as a result of the deal? If no more fish will come to them, will one boat under a flag of convenience come to the British fishing fleet? If that does not happen, will the British quota come back to Britain-even one fish of it?
If that does not happen, what will become of 50 per cent. of the fish that are landed on the Brixham dock? Will they have to be driven all the way to Holland and Spain—which would pollute the environment, and make the fish that arrived three or four days later not fresh for the people of those countries? What is the advantage of the deal to the Brixham community?
Dr. Cunningham: I am not sure what the advantage of the hon. Gentleman's intervention was to the Brixham community.
The advantage is that, for the first time, we have made some progress. We are not making over-the-top claims for progress on resolving the problem of the sale of the UK quota, which took place when the hon. Gentleman was sitting on the Government Benches behind his right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers. I did not hear him say too much about it while it was going on.
We are making some progress, which means that more fish will be landed in Britain. The protocol to which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends gave so much credence would have had no impact on the existing situation—even if it had obtained some support from other member states, which it signally failed to do. If the hon. Gentleman wants to help Brixham fishermen and their communities—and I understand that he would naturally want to do that—he can tell them that this is the first significant step towards regaining some economic benefit for them, following what has happened to fishing in Britain over the past 17 years.
Miss Anne Begg: Inevitably, part of the problem lies with British fishermen who have sold
340
their quotas. Much of the solution to the problem of fish conservation lies in the hands of fishermen. What are the Minister's plans for seeking talks or involving fishermen in an attempt to find solutions to the problems that face their industry?
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. In the context of quota selling, it must be said that the economic circumstances in fishing communities and the neglect of the fishing industry drove many fishermen, in some desperation, to sell their quotas, at a time when the previous Government were taking no notice of their problems—indeed, in some respects they were making them worse.
I assure my hon. Friend that we shall involve fishermen and fishing communities from the outset in the development of new policies to produce a sustainable industry. It would be absurd for the United Kingdom, as a maritime nation, not to have a sustainable fishing industry. We are determined to secure that, and that means taking some tough decisions on conservation, which is all the more reason for us wanting to engage fishermen from the outset. That is why we shall call them to a meeting as soon as possible.
Mr. William Thompson: Can the Minister say how long he expects the consultation process to go on? Can he guarantee that, when the proposals go to the Commission, they will be accepted? Will we get to the position where we are with beef, so that amendments will be sought, time will go on and on, and little advantage will be gained?
Dr. Cunningham: The consultation process will take, I hope, a relatively short period in respect of the licence conditions that I have mentioned. Of course, engaging in talks with fishermen about the future of the industry so that it is viable and sustainable will take considerably longer.
The hon. Gentleman asks about proposals going to the Commission. My right hon. Friend has secured in the letter from the President of the Commission a commitment to those licence changes. I do not think that there is a prospect of the President of the Commission wanting to see that to which he has committed himself in that letter frittered away.
Mrs. Joan Humble: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement. Only last week, I made my maiden speech and urged the Government to include quota hopping in their discussions on Europe. Therefore, I am pleased that today we have the proofs of those discussions. My constituents will be pleased that fishing is at long last at the forefront of Government policy. For many years, it was ignored or pushed behind other issues that were seen as more important. I represent an area that was once—
Hon. Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: Order. I will deal with this. The hon. Lady is a new Member. Let us have a little tolerance. Time is passing, and I asked for quick questions and quick

341
answers, but I have not had any response yet. I should like to have it now. I ask the hon. Lady to put a question to the Minister.
Mrs. Humble: I do apologise.
Madam Speaker: We all know her constituency very well, and we like it.
Mrs. Humble: The question that I shall be asked when I go back and talk to Fleetwood fishermen will be about the nature of the consultation. They will be pleased that there is to be consultation, but they and I would like more details about its nature and its timetable.
Dr. Cunningham: I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) in the House. For that matter, I am delighted to see all my hon. Friends who represent fishing ports. It shows that all the bluff and bluster by the Conservative Government did not save the necks of many Conservative Members who represented fishing communities.
I shall write to my hon. Friend about the consultation process, and give her the assurance that her constituents in Fleetwood will have every opportunity to put their views to me and my colleagues.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Although I think that the House supports the Minister in his admirable objective of trying to safeguard coastal and fishing communities and to conserve our fishing stocks and the integrity of our economic zone, is not, in truth, the real trouble that fishing is a European Union competence—that is where the trouble lies? If the Minister were accountable and responsible within our domain, we would have a more effective fishing and conservation policy. In their discussions, will he and his right hon. Friends consider how and why—in what way—a European Union competence over our fisheries and our economic zone is in our national interest?
Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman is really asking whether it is in Britain's interest to be a member of the EU. So long as we are a member of the EU, we are bound by the provisions of the common fisheries policy and, whether he likes it or not—whether I like it or not—we have to work within the confines of that policy. It is all the more important, therefore, that we do have a constructive, positive approach to EU membership. It is no accident that the new Labour Government's change in approach to dealing with our problems in the EU is showing some results, where none flowed from the belligerent, loud-mouthed and aggressive attitude of the previous Administration.
Mr. Lawrie Quinn: On behalf of the fishing communities of Scarborough and Whitby, it is important that we have broken the deadlock on this whole issue. The reason I am here to represent those communities is that the Conservative party failed to deliver the consultation that it long promised, and its many other promises to fishing communities in Scarborough and Whitby. I should like know in some
342
detail what my right hon. Friend the Minister proposes to do about regional initiatives to ensure that we conserve fishing stock, and about taking a more global approach to ensure that we achieve regional solutions to regional problems. After all, fish do not know any boundaries.
Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend has the distinction of representing two fishing ports; most of us are lucky to represent one. I cannot give him the detail now about how we intend to develop our thinking on regional involvement. It is exactly for that reason that we want to begin talks with fishing community representatives. There would be little point in having talks if I were going there simply to impose on them a blueprint that we had already decided; but, again, I assure him that his constituents in Scarborough and Whitby will have every opportunity to be involved in those discussions.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: What will happen if the Minister imposes regulations in the licence in accordance with the letters that have been exchanged, the case is then taken to the European Court, and his new licences are found to be in contravention of the treaty in the judgment of the European Court? What steps will the Government then take?
Dr. Cunningham: All that is hypothetical.
Mr. Frank Doran: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which will mean genuine progress in the fishing industry. I particularly welcome his announcement that he intends to hold a fishing summit. In Aberdeen, we recognise that the fishing industry is made up not just of the fish-catching side. Many thousands of jobs depend, for example, on the fish processing and merchant side of the business, and of course there is the consumer angle. Therefore, when he pulls together his summit, will he take those interests into consideration, and include them in his discussions?
Dr. Cunningham: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.
Mr. James Wallace: The Minister's statement referred to a number of requirements: 50 per cent. of catch should be landed at UK ports, a majority of the crew should be resident in the UK and a majority of fishing trips should start from the UK port. They are all linked by the word "or". Is it one out of three or two out of three, or is that the sort of matter that he will be discussing?
Dr. Cunningham: It can be a combination of all three in part. That is a matter for discussion in terms of the conditions that we shall apply to the licences.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: Is not the truly remarkable thing about quota hopping the fact that, of all the European countries, the only fleet that has suffered significantly is Britain's? When I ask fishermen in Lowestoft, "Why don't you hop on another country's quota," they say, "You just try. You can't do that."
Therefore, is not the real significance of today's announcement the fact that, for the first time, we have a Government who have achieved something that will not only discourage future quota hopping by bringing in the

343
economic link, but deal with the existing situation? Is it not a fact that more fish will therefore be landed in British ports, which is good for British fish markets, and more British fishermen will be able to be employed on the boats, where previously they were denied access?
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and delighted to see him here, as I played a small part in his campaign. He is absolutely right, of course. The reason why our fishermen cannot buy quota in other countries is simply that it is not for sale: other Governments have ensured that the economic circumstances of their fishing industries make it profitable and secure for their fishermen to hold on to their quota. The previous Government failed to do that in this country, which led to the sale of quota and caused the problem in the first place.
Mr. Andrew George: I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that the announcement is more of a sprat than a prize fish. I know that, throughout the fishing industry, there will be deep disappointment that it does not deal with the fundamental issues. However, I feel sure that he also shares my concern that the fishing industry and fishermen in particular have, over the past year, perhaps been used by certain people of a more xenophobic—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am listening very carefully, but I have not yet heard a question.
Mr. George: The question is coming.
Madam Speaker: Good. Let us have it now.
Mr. George: In the measures proposed here, there are difficulties, in that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) pointed out, if it is a question of either/or in relation to the crewing requirement—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat for a moment. I have asked for a question. I am very tolerant with new Members, as I was with the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble). I explained to the House that this is Question Time, and questions must be put to the Minister. I am now waiting for the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. George: Given the fact that there are difficulties, does the Minister agree that, under the crewing arrangements, it is possible for the crew of quota hoppers simply to use postal addresses in the United Kingdom? It is not possible to impose nationality criteria in relation to crewing arrangements.
Dr. Cunningham: In the part of the world that I was born and grew up in, we were told that, when the boat comes in, little fish are sweet, so I agree that this is by no means the end of the problems faced by the fishing industry and our fishing communities. This is the beginning of a strategy to tackle those deep-seated and long-established problems. The conditions that we shall apply to the licences will meet one of those criteria or a combination of one or more of them, so long as we are satisfied that the resulting economic benefit to the communities concerned is real and can be sustained.
Mr. Calum Macdonald: Given the fact that we got into this mess under the Tories in the first
344
place because they allowed free trade in licences and quotas, will the Minister consider reviewing the whole system of selling quotas and licences to the highest bidder as part of his review of local and regional fisheries management?
Dr. Cunningham: In a single market, I cannot stop people willingly and lawfully selling something that is theirs; that is the reality. We want to achieve circumstances in our fishing communities and fishing industries that make it attractive not to sell quota, but to retain it in those communities because they will obtain significant economic benefit from it.
The economic conditions that prevailed in the communities led to the sale of quota. We hope that, through the changes we shall make and through the development of a strategy for our fishing industries, we will minimize—I will not say eliminate—the sale of quota.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Is not the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) correct to suggest that the key to the problem is the clash between the concept of having quotas and the free market in Europe, which causes a problem with the common fisheries policy?
I want to press the Minister on the legality of what he has agreed. Is not the reality that the Spaniards are pleased because they know that there is no legal binding framework that is justiciable in front of the European Court of Justice? What does he plan to do to rectify that?
Dr. Cunningham: Depending on what newspaper one reads or what broadcast one listens to, our Spanish colleagues are either pleased or hopping mad. Both reports cannot be true. I am satisfied that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has concluded sensible, practical steps forward to deal with the problems. Those steps should be welcomed for what they are—reasonable progress in the circumstances. They give us an opportunity to build upon that progress. I want fishing communities and fishermen throughout the United Kingdom to play a part, with my ministerial colleagues and myself, in building on those important first steps.
Miss Anne McIntosh: The Minister rightly said that enforcement is the key. My concern is that, until recently, there were no inspectors in Spain.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) made a key point: until we have an agreement that is part of the treaty—I understand that this agreement is not—it simply cannot stand up in the European Court of Justice. As my hon. Friend said, our fishermen do not have justiciable rights to rely on before the European Court or, indeed, any court in this country.
Dr. Cunningham: What the hon. Lady says is not true. The requirement to land 50 per cent. of catch already applies in Denmark. That has not been challenged in the European Court. I cannot rule out legal challenges, but I am confident that we can develop licence conditions—and get the agreement and support of the Commission—that we can sustain. That is our objective. The agreement achieved by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Amsterdam will give us the opportunity to secure that

BILLS PRESENTED
  WILD MAMMALS (HUNTING WITH DOGS)
  Mr. Michael Foster, supported by Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. Simon Hughes, Angela Smith, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Ivor Caplin, Mrs. Jackie Ballard, Ms Jackie Lawrence, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Mr. Ian Cawsey, presented a Bill to make provision for the protection of wild mammals from being pursued, killed or injured by the use of dogs; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 November, and to be printed [Bill 7].
  MENTAL HEALTH (AMENDMENT)
  Dr. Julian Lewis, supported by Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. kin Duncan Smith, Mr. Chris Mullin and Mr. John Bercow, presented a Bill to amend the Mental Health Act 1983 to provide greater access to hospital accommodation for mentally ill people; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 December, and to be printed [Bill 8].
  REFERENDUM (ENGLISH PARLIAMENT)
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman, supported by Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. David Amess, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John Hayes and Mr. Peter Luff, presented a Bill to make provision for the holding of a referendum in England on the establishment and tax-varying powers of an English Parliament: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 January, and to be printed [Bill 9].
  PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES (LONDON)
  Sir George Young, supported by Sir Sydney Chapman, Mr. Alan Clark, Ms Margaret Hodge, Miss Kate Hoey, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Piers Merchant, Mr. Richard Ottaway, Mr. Clive Soley and Dr. Jenny Tonge, presented a Bill to provide for the licensing and regulation of private hire vehicles, and drivers and operators of such vehicles, within the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 January, and to be printed [Bill 10].
  ROAD TRAFFIC REDUCTION (UNITED KINGDOM TARGETS)
  Mr. Cynog Dafis, supported by Ms Joan Walley, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Don Foster, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Jim Cousins, Ms Julia Drown, Mr. Stephen Pound and Mr. Andrew Robathan, presented a Bill to make further provision for road traffic reduction targets; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30 January, and to be printed [Bill 11].

  ENERGY EFFICIENCY
  Mr. John Burnett, supported by Mr. Richard Allan, Mr. John Austin, Mr. Tim Boswell, Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Ms Julia Drown, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Ms Joan Walley
  346
  and Mr. Tim Yeo, presented a Bill to make further provision for energy efficiency: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 February, and to be printed [Bill 12].

  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN
  Mr. Chris Pond, supported by Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mrs. Llin Golding, Ms Margaret Hodge, Miss Oona King, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Angela Smith and Mr. Peter Temple-Morris, presented a Bill to make further provision for the protection of persons in employment under the upper limit of school age, by restricting hours of employment, especially on Sundays, and by other means: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 13 February, and to be printed [Bill 13].
  COLD WEATHER PAYMENTS (WIND CHILL FACTOR)
  Mr. Nigel Evans, supported by Audrey Wise, Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. David Ruffley, Mr. Edward Garnier, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. Brian Sedgemore, Mr. Jamie Cann, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Mr. Menzies Campbell, presented a Bill to provide that wind chill factor is taken into account in the calculation of cold weather payments; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 January, and to be printed [Bill 14].
  EMPLOYMENT (AGE DISCRIMINATION IN ADVERTISEMENTS)
  Ms Linda Perham, supported by Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Roger Berry, Ms Yvette Cooper, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Angela Smith, Mr. Don Foster, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Andrew Rowe and Mr. Quentin Davies, presented a Bill to prohibit discrimination on the basis of age in the advertising of employment vacancies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 February, and to be printed [Bill 15].
  PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE
  Mr. Richard Shepherd, supported by Mr. Malcolm Bruce, Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours, Mr. Ross Cranston, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. lain Duncan Smith, Mr. John Healey, Mr. Giles Radice, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Don Touhig and Dr. Tony Wright, presented a Bill to protect individuals who make certain disclosures of information in the public interest; to allow such individuals to bring action in respect of victimisation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 December, and to be printed [Bill 16].

  BREEDING AND SALE OF DOGS
  Mr. Mike Hall, supported by Mr. Nick Ainger, Ms Helen Southworth, Mr. Tim Loughton, Angela Smith, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Helen Jones, Mr. Colin Pickthall, Laura Moffatt, Mr. Andrew Miller, Mr. Terry Lewis and Mr. John Heppell, presented a Bill to amend and extend certain enactments regulating the breeding and sale of dogs; to regulate the welfare of dogs kept in breeding establishments; to extend powers of inspection; to establish records of dogs kept at such establishments;

  347
  and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 30 January, and to be printed [Bill 17].

  DISABILITY RIGHTS COMMISSION
  Mr. Roger Berry, supported by Mr. Harry Barnes, Miss Anne Begg, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Paul Burstow, Mr. Robin Corbett, Valerie Davey, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Lorna Fitzsimons, Mr. Tom Levitt, Rev. Martin Smyth and Mr. Dafydd Wigley, presented a Bill to establish a Disability Rights Commission to make recommendations on legislation to achieve comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 January, and to be printed [Bill 18].
  CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (PROTECTION OF TITLE)
  Mr. Michael Trend, supported by Mr. Andrew Lansley, Mr. Graham Brady, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Nick Harvey, Mr. Richard Page, Mr. James Paice, Mr. Nick St. Aubyn, Mrs. Caroline Spelman and Mrs. Gisela Stuart, presented a Bill to control the use of the title "Chamber of Commerce" and related titles; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 January, and to be printed [Bill 19].
  COMMUNITY CARE (RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION)
  Mr. Marsha Singh, supported by Mr. Andrew King, Mr. Tony Clarke, Mr. Bob Laxton, Ms Kali Mountford, Mr. Paul Burstow, Mr. David Borrow, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. John Austin and Mr. Christopher Leslie, presented a Bill to restrict the amount of a person' s capital which may be taken into account by a local authority in determining whether he should be provided with residential accommodation that would be, or would be treated as, provided under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 November, and to be printed [Bill 20].
  LOCAL AUTHORITY TENDERS
  Miss Oona King, supported by Mr. Chris Pond, Mrs. Ann Keen, Mr. Keith Vaz, Mr. Ben Bradshaw, Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick, Mr. Andrew Love, Mr. Martin Bell, Mrs. Diana Organ, Ms Caroline Flint and Mr. David Lock, presented a Bill to amend the law in respect of non-commercial matters to which local authorities may have regard in awarding contracts; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 January, and to be printed [Bill 21].
  WASTE PREVENTION
  Mr. Piers Merchant, supported by Sir Teddy Taylor, Angela Smith, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Nigel Evans and Mr. Cynog Dafis, presented a Bill to enable certain local authorities to make arrangements to minimise the generation of waste in their areas: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 December, and to be printed [Bill 22].
  PESTICIDES
  Mr. Ben Bradshaw, supported by Ms Candy Atherton, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Fiona Mactaggart, Miss Oona King, Mrs. Gisela Stuart, Ms, Tessa Kingham, Mr. Matthew Taylor and Mr. Simon Hughes, presented a Bill to amend the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 in respect of the power to make regulations concerning pesticides and in respect of the enforcement of provisions relating to the control of pesticides: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 November, and to be printed [Bill 23].
  ENERGY CONSERVATION (HOUSING)
  Mr. Clive Efford, supported by Mr. John Austin, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Clive Soley, Ms Joan Walley, Mr. Cynog Dafis and Mr. Alan Simpson, presented a Bill to make further provision for energy conservation related to housing; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 February, and to be printed [Bill 24].
  FIREWORKS
  Mrs. Linda Gilroy, supported by Mr. Richard Burden, Mr. Ian Davidson, Mr. Patrick Hall, Ms Barbara Follett, Mr. Andy Love, Mr. Piers Merchant, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Angela Smith, Ms Kali Mountford, Mr. Matthew Taylor and Mr. James Wallace, presented a Bill to make further provision about fireworks and other explosives: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 November, and to be printed [Bill 25].
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (BEER AND CIDER)
  Mr. Dennis Turner, supported by Ms Jenny Jones, Mr. Ken Purchase, Mr. John Cummings, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Mr. Mike Hall, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. Colin Pickthall, Mr. George Stevenson, Mr. Stephen Day, Mr. Gerald Bermingham and Mr. Robin Corbett, presented a Bill to amend the law of weights and measures in relation to measures of beer and cider; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 December, and to be printed [Bill 26].
Orders of the Day

  Firearms (Amendment) Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 16 June.]
  [MR. MICHAEL LORD In the Chair]

  Firearms (Amendment) Bill
    Clause 1

      PROHIBITION OF SMALL-CALIBRE PISTOLS
      Question proposed [16 June], That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      5.27 pm
      Question again proposed.
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: I shall be brief, Mr. Lord. As I was saying before I was so politely interrupted on Monday, the Bill is profoundly bad legislation. It is being introduced for all the wrong reasons. It is petty minded, it is mean and it will not do what it is intended to do, which is to protect the public.
      Clause 1 relates in particular to the calibre of pistol that the Bill will exclude from use. The idea propounded by the Home Secretary is that a .22 pistol, especially the single-shot pistol that we are discussing today, is as dangerous as any other weapon. Anyone with any knowledge of firearms knows that a .22 pistol—
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman did not bother to come back to the Chamber for the remainder of the debate on Monday, but he should remember that we are dealing with clause stand part, which does not deal only with single-shot pistols.
      Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman is kind to remind me of that, but I knew it already. However, the amendment and the clause deal with .22 pistols, including single-shot pistols.
      Mr. Michael: We are not dealing with the amendment.
      Mr. Robathan: We are dealing with .22 pistols, including single-shot pistols. The hon. Gentleman, through lack of knowledge and through ignorance, may find it difficult to understand what we are talking about, which is .22 pistols used for target shooting. If they are banned, that will destroy target shooting.
      Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman says that I do not understand. I remind him that we dealt with the amendment relating to single-shot pistols on Monday. The whole clause is before us now. It deals with the generality of .22 pistols and extends the bounds to all .22 pistols. That is the point of what we are debating now.
      Mr. Robathan: The Minister is very kind to inform me of that, but as I have explained to him—perhaps he is being a little obtuse today—that includes single-shot pistols. The idea that a .22 pistol is equally as lethal as other pistols is not correct. When the Minister winds up, I hope that he will confirm whether Mr. Rabin was killed
      350
      with a .22 pistol. I believe that he was, but the point is that a bullet from a .22 pistol does not carry as far as one from other weapons and you have to get close to someone to kill them. The idea that Mr. Hamilton could have gone round and shot everybody in the head close at hand is absurd, because he would not have had the chance.
      My point is whether clause 1 will protect the public. Which weapons are more dangerous than .22 pistols? One could think of pitchforks in "Dad's Army" and many other things. The .22 pistols are not likely to be the chosen weapon of lethality by mental cases such as Mr. Hamilton.
      I would like the Minister to answer one further question, which was put by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) on Monday. Sadly, he cannot be here today. He asked whether it was the Government's intention to do away with the sport of pistol shooting. We should be clear that that will be the effect of the Bill. It will do away with pistol shooting for populist reasons. It will not protect the public, but it will do away with a sport in which many people—not myself—wish to take part.
      Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman asked me to respond specifically to points that are nothing to do with what is before us. His contribution was one of the most fatuous that I have heard in the House of Commons. He has obviously forgotten which issues we are debating. He asked whether it is the Government's intention to do away with pistol shooting. We made it clear in the debate on Monday—as we made it clear in our evidence to Lord Cullen and on Second Reading—that we had originally hoped to allow the continuation of pistol shooting if that could be achieved consistently with protecting the public. We have made that clear from beginning to end. We also made it clear that we did not believe that the public could be protected except by a complete ban on handguns. That is why we are debating the Bill today.
      The banning of .22 handguns, including repeat and single-shot pistols, is the essence of the Bill. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) may understand, if I repeat myself very slowly and clearly, that it was not the Government's intention to do away with the sport of pistol shooting, but we came to the conclusion, having examined all the evidence—including that given to Lord Cullen, and his conclusions—that the way to protect the public was to ban all handguns. We concluded that the public would not be protected by banning only the 80 per cent. that were made illegal by the 1997 Act introduced by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who is in his place, and his colleagues.
      Mr. Mike Hancock: I am grateful for the Minister's response to the points that were made. It was obvious on Monday that several hon. Members had missed the point of the Bill completely. The amendments that were tabled failed to grasp the real issue. For example, someone asked about the point of safety, which was obvious to most people who were interested in the essence of the debate. If handguns were taken out of circulation and there were no legally held weapons, public safety would undoubtedly be increased. Those weapons would not be available for anyone to use.
      The essence of the Second Reading debate was that the resources that police forces would have to use to enforce the previous Government's legislation could—once the Bill has been passed, which I am sure the majority of

      351
      hon. Members hope will happen—be used to try to rid the nation of illegally held guns. As someone who held a gun licence for many years and enjoyed the sport of shooting, I resent the suggestions that were made by more than one hon. Member on Monday that firearms holders would find some illegal way to maintain their ownership of guns after the Bill became law. I find that offensive, as I am sure do the vast majority of people who hold firearms certificates. It is nonsense to suggest that they will find ways around the legislation and try to own guns illegally.
      Clause 1 is the essence of the Bill. The Minister's comments this afternoon satisfied me and, I am sure, the majority of hon. Members and the nation. Public safety will benefit from the Bill. We should welcome it, get on with the vote and give the Bill a swift passage through the House.
      Mr. Harry Barnes: Clause 1 is the heart of the Bill. I am opposed to a measure that will completely ban .22s, and I also disliked the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which confined .22s to gun clubs. I have always argued for the dismantling of .22s and other handguns. I hope that the Minister will respond to the argument today, because it has not been answered effectively, either by the present Government or the previous Government. On Second Reading, the Minister mainly referred to previous answers which he claimed showed that the previous Government's attitude was correct, but they gave only thin answers.
      Because I opposed the Bill on Second Reading, I have received letters from people who have contacted me many times before about the human rights issues with which I am normally associated. They are astonished that, for the first time, my response to an issue differs from their attitudes. For the benefit of those people and of the Committee, I wish to explain how someone who has nothing to do with guns and the gun culture comes to believe that dismantling and not a complete ban is the answer.
      I wish to explain my position by referring to a letter that I wrote to the Dunblane parents. As part of the Snowdrop campaign, the Dunblane parents visited the House during the Second Reading of the .1997 Act. I met them for 25 minutes and had the harrowing experience of presenting a viewpoint to them that they did not agree with, when all my natural sympathy lay with them and their problems. I do not see myself associated with gun activities, and I am not especially pleased that I have received masses of letters from people in gun clubs thanking me for the stance that I have taken. Gun club members accepted the dismantling argument only when they felt that nothing else was left. I have always believed that dismantling was the right option.
      In my letter to the Dunblane parents, I said:
      "I would like to explain to you the evolution of my thought on the need for legislation. You won't agree with my position; but your understanding is more important to me than letters of encouragement from gun clubs—whom I just don't identify with.
      My views developed through the following stages… My initial and lasting response was and is that of any normal person and has been expressed to you many times by people who can explain their feelings much better than I can. It was one of numbness and the deepest fellow human sympathy for the victims, relatives and friends of those involved in the tragedy. I enclose a local newspaper article in which I imperfectly attempted to express such a reaction."
      352
      I am sure that all hon. Members share that feeling and wish to respond to the concerns of the Dunblane parents. I continued with my second point:
      "I then gave support in June to the Dunblane Snowdrop Petition' which, amongst other things said that 'all firearms held for recreational purposes for use in authorised sporting clubs be held securely at such clubs with the firing mechanism removed'. I enclose a press release which I issued in June on the petition."
      I should explain that I had issued a press release, which was not used in my local area, so that newspapers would report that I was supporting the Snowdrop petition, thereby encouraging others to sign it. The petition dealt with the arguments for dismantling—although later, as circumstances changed, those involved with the petition moved beyond the position expressed in the petition.
      In my letter, I went on to state:
      "Labour MPs were issued with a Briefing note in August"—
      which I enclosed—
      "which I made use of in answering constituents. It called for handguns to be used and kept safely at properly run gun-clubs. Although this statement didn't call for the firing mechanism to be removed, I then felt that could be tackled at the Committee stage of the Bill."
      Therefore, at a time when the Labour party was not proposing a total ban, I sent out a letter quite similar to those that hon. Members once attributed to the Minister without Portfolio.
      I went on to write:
      "I believe that the ground moved towards a total or partial ban following the Conservative majority on the Home Affairs Committee publishing their ill-judged report attempting to defend the home ownership of hand-guns. From my stance…above I obviously disagreed with them, but didn't move into campaigning for a total ban, even when it became my party's position."
      I held to the argument on dismantling.
      I continued:
      "When the Cullen report was issued, it reinforced my initial feelings. First, the numbness over the experiences you have all lived through and relived. Secondly, the need to dismantle the firing mechanism of hand guns and come up with an arrangement where no person using hand guns for sporting purposes would have access to a gun they could fire outside of their sports club.
      I honestly feel that Cullen's dismantling recommendation is the best way to tackle this terrible problem."
      The House has never had a chance to discuss Cullen's recommendations because, as soon as the report was issued, we were dealing with a White Paper and proposed legislation, in which the previous Government made their proposals. Hon. Members should been allowed a proper and full debate on Cullen so that we could better understand the situation. Many hon. Members argue that the House's procedures should be changed so that Standing Committees, like Select Committees, can discuss and investigate the issues behind draft Bills. Such a process could have occurred with the Cullen report, and perhaps no other issue was more deserving of such scrutiny.
      I went on to say:
      "Prohibition (especially total prohibition) on hand guns will, unfortunately, lead to the growth of illegally held and operated guns."

      353
      I know some hon. Members believe that such an argument somehow denigrates people who own handguns. I am not attempting to do that. or to suggest that there will be massive growth in such illegal activity —but there will always be reaction to a prohibitive measure. All previous examples of prohibition show that subsequent reaction is likely. I am not associated with gun clubs, but I am—to use prohibition in America as an analogy—rather like a teetotaller who argues against prohibition because of its inherent dangers.
      I concluded my letter by stating:
      "I believe that I'm pursuing a position that is in line with the initial Snowdrop petition. I hope you feel that there is a sense in which I am still with you and always have been."
      In this debate, it is important to hear a view that is not associated with gun clubs or their activity, but which is concerned with the growth of that culture and with containing it and moving it in a different direction. The Bill is not the appropriate measure to achieve those goals. It is a counter-productive and rushed bit of legislation which minors the counter-productive and rushed Act passed in the previous Parliament.
      Mr. David Maclean: We have heard nothing from the Minister, either today or in Monday's debate, to justify the draconian provisions of clause 1. He has advanced no argument suggesting that some great new advantage in public safety will be achieved if the Bill is passed, and he cannot bring himself to admit the truth, which is that the 1997 Act has already secured public safety. The 1997 Act bans all higher-calibre handguns and insists that .22 calibre weapons be contained only in gun clubs secured to a standard with which the police are satisfied. It also provides that such weapons can be fired only in those specially licensed gun clubs and removed from them only in highly specific circumstances.
      Ministers have rejected an amendment tabled by the Opposition, in which we asked whether, with current restrictions, they will exempt single-shot handguns. Ministers said no, and they have adopted an attitude which suggests that they will reject the other amendments that we shall move later in the debate. Their attitude means that pistol shooting as a legitimate, honest sport will be completely eradicated in the United Kingdom.
      The Minister failed to say whether, in even the most highly restrictive circumstances, he sees any future for the sport of pistol shooting in the United Kingdom. Obviously, he see no such future because the Government are unwilling to listen. Therefore, because they will not listen, and because they have rejected our amendment, we have decided to vote against clause 1 standing part of the Bill. I reaffirm the decision that we took in Monday's debate. The Minister has done nothing to change that decision, and I urge hon. Members to support us in the Lobby.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Michael: I am sorry that the shadow Minister has given in to the rottweilers on the Opposition Back Benches. Reasserting his statement does not make it true: we have provided reasons and arguments in response to each of the points that have been raised in the debate.
      354
      I respect the views of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), but he is completely wrong to say that the issue of dismantling has not been examined. I must put him right on that point, because the issue was fully debated during the passage of the 1997 Act when the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) dealt with it. During the passage of that legislation, the House rejected dismantling of large-calibre handguns and—as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I made clear on Second Reading and in Monday's debate—there are no grounds for considering dismantling .22 weapons, with which this legislation is solely concerned. Dismantling is not a practical option and does not provide the degree of safety that the Government want to achieve by banning all handguns.
      The general opposition of shadow Ministers may be sincere, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have already comprehensively dealt with it both on Second Reading and in Monday's debate. The shadow Minister's mention of earlier briefings was irrelevant, because we did not start by arguing for a complete ban on all handguns. We reached our view after a careful and considered examination of all the evidence, which has shown that public safety requires the ban proposed in the Bill. That is why clause 1 should and must stand part of the Bill.
      Question put:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 352, Noes 167.

      Division No. 31]

      [5.47 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Burgon, Colin

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Burstow, Paul

      Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

      Butler, Christine

      Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

      Byers, Stephen

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Campbell—Savours, Dale

      Atkins, Ms Charlotte

      Canavan, Dennis

      Austin, John

      Caplin, Ivor

      Barron, Kevin

      Casale, Roger

      Battle, John

      Caton, Martin

      Beard, Nigel

      Cawsey, Ian

      Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Chaytor, David

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Church, Ms Judith

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clapham, Michael

      Benton, Joe

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Berry, Roger

      Best, Harold

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Betts, Clive

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Blackman, Mrs Liz

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Blizzard, Robert

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Clelland, David

      Borrow, David

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cohen, Harry

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith & Fulham)

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Colman, Anthony (Putney)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Connarty, Michael

      Cooper, Ms Yvette

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Corbett, Robin

      Browne, Desmond (Kilmamock)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Corston, Ms Jean

      355

      Cousins, Jim

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Crausby, David

      Home Robertson, John

      cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hope, Philip

      Cummings, John

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Dafis, Cynog

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Darvill, Keith

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hurst, Alan

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Iddon, Brian

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Illsley, Eric

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

      Dean, Ms Janet

      Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

      Denham, John

      Jamieson, David

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Edwards, Huw

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Efford, Clive

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Ellman, Ms Louise

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Etherington, Bill

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

      Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna

      Kemp, Fraser

      Flint, Ms Caroline

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W

      Flynn, Paul

      Follett, Ms Barbara

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Khabra, Piara S

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Kidney, David

      Foster, Michael John (Worcester

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Fyfe, Maria

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Galbraith, Sam

      King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Galloway, George

      Kingham, Tessa

      Gapes, Mike

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Gardiner, Barry

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Lepper, David

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Leslie, Christopher

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Levitt, Tom

      Godsiff, Roger

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Golding Mrs Llin

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Linton, Martin

      Gorrie, Donald

      Livingstone, Ken

      Graham, Thomas

      Livsey, Richard

      Grant, Bernie

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Lock, David

      Grocott, Bruce

      Love, Andy

      Grogan, John

      McAllion, John

      Gunnell, John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Hancock, Mike

      McDonagh, Ms Siobhain

      Hanson, David

      Macdonald, Calum

      Healey, John

      McFall, John

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McIsaac, Ms Shona

      Heppell, John

      McKenna, Ms Rosemary

      Hesford, Stephen

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      McMaster, Gordon

      Hill, Keith

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hinchliffe, David

      McNutty, Tony

      356

      MacShane, Denis

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McWalter, Tony

      Sheerman, Barry

      McWilliam, John

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mallaber, Ms Judy

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Singh, Marsha

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Martlew, Eric

      Maxton, John

      Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Merron, Ms Gillian

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Michael, Alun

      Soley, Clive

      Milburn, Alan

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Miller, Andrew

      Spellar, John

      Mitchell, Austin

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Stewart Ian (Eccles)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (.B'ham Yardley)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mountford, Ms Kali

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Mudie, George

      Stott, Roger

      Mullin, Chris

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood.)

      Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Stunell, Andrew

      Norris, Dan

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Olner, Bill

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Tipping, Paddy

      Osborne, Mrs Sandra

      Todd, Mark

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Pickthall, Colin

      Touhig, Don

      Pike, Peter L

      Trickett, Jon

      Plaskitt,James

      Truswell, Paul

      Pollard, Kerry

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pond, Chris

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      Pound, Stephen

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Purchase, Ken

      Watts, David

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Webb, Steven

      Quinn, Lawrie

      White, Brian

      Radice, Giles

      Whitehead, Alan

      Rammell, Bill

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rapson, Syd

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Rendel, David

      Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Rogers, Allan

      Winnick, David

      Rooney, Terry

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wise, Audrey

      Roy, Frank

      Wood, Mike

      Ruane, Chris

      Woolas, Phil

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Wray, James

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)

      Salmond, Alex

      Wyatt, Derek

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Sawford, Phil

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mr. Greg Pope and

      Mr. Jim Dowd.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Amess,David

      Baker, Norman

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Barnes, Harry

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      357

      Berrcow, John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Blunt, Crispin

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Boswell, Tim

      Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

      Bottomley,Peter (Worthing W)

      Johnson Smith,

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Brady, Graham

      Keetch, Paul

      Brake, Thomas

      Key, Robert

      Brazier, Julian

      King, Rt Hon tom (Bridgwater)

      Brooke, Rt Hon peter

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lansley, Andrew

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Burnett, John

      Lidington, David

      Burns, Simon

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Butterfill, John

      Loughton, Tim

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Luff, Peter

      Cann, Jamie

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Cash,William

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Chapman Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Mackay, Andrew

      Chope, Christopher

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Clappison, James

      Maclennan, Robert

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensigton)

      Madel, Sir David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh>

      Maginnis, Ken

      Clarke,Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Maples,John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Mates, Michael

      Collins, Tim

      Maude,Rt Hon Francis

      Clovin, Michael

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Cotter,Brian

      Merchant, Piers

      Cran,James

      Moss, Malcolm

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Norman, Archie

      Davis, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Opik, Lembit

      Ottaway, Richard

      Day, Stephen

      Paice, Eric

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Paterson, Owen

      Duncan, Alan

      Pickles, Eric

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Prior, David

      Emery,Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Redwood Rt Hon John

      Evans, Nigel

      Robathan, Andrew

      Faber, David

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Fallon, Michael

      Ruffley, David

      Flight, Howard

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Sanders, Adrian

      Forth, Eric

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Fowler,Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Shephard, Richard (Aldridge)

      Fowler,Christopher

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Gale, Roger

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

      Garnier,Edward

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Gibb, Nick

      Soames,Nicholas

      Gillan,Mrs Cheryl

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Gray, James

      Steen, Anthony

      Green, Damian

      Swayne, Desmond

      Greenway, John

      Syms, Robert

      Grieve, Dominic

      Tapsell,Sir Peter

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Hammond, Philip

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro & St Austell)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Harvey, Nick

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hawkins, Nick

      Thompson, William

      Hayes,John

      Townend, John

      Heald,Oliver

      Tredinnick, David

      Heath, David (Somerton)

      Trend, Michael

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Tyler, Paul

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Horam, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Wardle, Charles

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Waterson, Nigel

      358

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Woodward, Shaun

      Whittingdale, John

      Yeo, Tim

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Willetts, David

      Willis, Phil

      Tellers For the Noes:

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      and

      Mr. Bowen Wells.

      Question accordingly agreed to
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2

      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS
      Mr.Richard Allan: I beg to move amendment No 2, in page 2, leave out lines 11 to 21.
      The amendment would ensure that the compensation arrangements were brought back to the House after the Bill was enacted, as under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. It is essential because the Bill proposes a qualitative change from the 1997 Act that the Government themselves recognise in their business compliance cost assessment, which claims that gun clubs that cater solely or mainly for target pistol shooting will probably have to close. Given that admission, that qualitative change requires further debate.
      I am sure that the Government's response will be that they want to enact the Bill quickly and effectively and that the scheme already exists as an ex-gratia scheme, but further debate is necessary because of that step change and because of its impact on business. I have not heard any significant and serious arguments why that impact should not be recognised in the Bill, and further debate would ensure that Opposition Members can have their say.
      6 pm
      We must be allowed to advance the consistent and coherent argument in favour of recognition being given to the costs to business, especially to those that have incurred debts to set up shooting clubs and shooting associations and will now be left with those debts. Because of the total ban on pistol shooting, no reasonable person could envisage being able to carry on in business if pistol shooting is their sole business. Recognition must also be given to businesses that have lost sales of guns and ancillary equipment. They were going to be harmed by the previous legislation and we felt then that they should be compensated, but that harm will now be compounded in that they cannot pick up compensatory business in .22 sales to replace lost sales of higher-calibre weapons.
      Those are serious issues and we do not feel that our arguments have been responded to seriously. The Government have argued that we might be setting a precedent, but we are confident that precedents exist for compensating businesses, such as those arising from the channel tunnel discussions. Issues of compensation and precedent have been raised, but the Government have given us no coherent and consistent intellectual statement on how issues of fairness and justice—the true issues involved in compensating business—can be addressed under the current ex-gratia scheme.

      359
      The Bill would simply enshrine in law the ex-gratia scheme and go forward with that. The amendment would require the issue of compensation to be brought back to the House and I urge the Committee to accept the amendment so that we get that further debate.
      Mr. Tim Boswell: I strongly agree with the general comments made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). I particularly endorse his adoption of the phrase "a step change"—the use of which is not unique to me—to describe the implications of the Bill.
      I want to focus the Minister's attention on a specific part of the .22 compensation arrangements. If I do not raise it now, it might not be raised at all. The Government have tried to be helpful, but, in doing so, they have created both the potential for a difficulty of principle and a potential rather than a real inequity. It is right to raise the issue now so that the Minister can consider it. It relates to the fact that with the best motives, as was made clear on Second Reading, the trigger date for compensation for .22s will be October 1996, rather than the date of the announcement in May 1997.
      Let me first deal with the point of principle.
      Mr. Michael: I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman. This is an important point, but it is one that I have already clarified and I may be able to prevent him from going down a long road.
      We have chosen the date of October 1996 because that is the fairest point at which to set the level of compensation. It is fairest to shooters and probably means that they will be better compensated than if we had chosen the May date, which was when the decision was taken and entered in the Queen's Speech.
      Mr. Boswell: I am most grateful to the Minister for his clarification. I concede that the Government have proceeded with the best of motives, but I want to draw out two potential problems arising from that.
      The first point is one of principle. I hasten to say that I am not a lawyer, but I know a little about the law of compulsory purchase. The normal way in which compulsory purchase operates is from the date of entry, or of taking possession, or possibly of notice to treat—for example, if one is required to give up one's land for a bypass, the compensation code takes effect with the valuation set at the time at which one's land passes from one's possession or thereabouts. Similarly, the normal practice when tax codes change, although I am sure that counter examples can be cited, is that the law changes with announcements made on Budget day or thereabouts. Any change is not normally applicable to events that occurred before the Budget, although sometimes it has to be.
      My point of principle is that it is an unfortunate departure from a more normal practice of Government that we are not basing compensation on the date when any reasonable person who was the owner of a .22 would have realised that he or she might have to surrender that weapon. That troubles me.
      However, there is a further point—
      Mr. Michael:I am trying to be helpful because the hon. Gentleman is trying to deal with a serious point.
      360
      After October 1996, although the Government at that time intended to ban only the largest-calibre handguns, it must have been obvious that it was increasingly likely that, following the general election, there would be a change of Government, that we would move to a full ban—as we are doing—and that, therefore, values would drop.
      If, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, we used the May date to calculate compensation, it would disadvantage shooters. He should appreciate that we have tried to act in the best interests of the shooters who stand to be compensated.
      Mr. Boswell: Let us not go into whether a specific elector or owner of a gun did or did not believe that there would be a Labour Government in four or five months' time; let us confine ourselves to the reality. The Minister rightly notes—the point was made on Second Reading—that the majority of those pistols will have dropped in value between October 1996 and May 1997. I believe that the Government have proceeded with good intentions, even though there is a technical breach of the usual attitude to compulsory purchase, which I have explained to the Committee. I accept their good intentions, but I want to pause on a couple of points.
      First, I want to mention something that I discovered by accident the other day when reading a short item about the compulsory purchase of land in a journal that came into my hands. In a recent case, Wickham Growers Ltd. v. Southern Water 1997, which I believed is reported in the Estates Gazette,
      "it was held that the compensation payable for disturbance"—
      although it may well apply to other matters as well—
      "may have regard to events which occur after the date of entry, even where those events could not be predicted at the time."
      That might help in relation to setting an earlier valuation, and Ministers should at least consider that point.
      Secondly, I want to express my substantive concern for a specific group of shooters in relation to the compensation statement. I am not an expert on the proposals even of the previous Government, but they consist of the ex-gratia scheme, the specified code under which smaller-calibre weapons as well as larger-calibre ones can be surrendered from 1 July onwards, and option C for specific cases.
      It would have been perfectly open, and not perverse or irrational, to a shooter with a .22 weapon to have enhanced the value of that weapon—to have customised it or for another reason to have increased its value—between the date in October 1996 and 14 May 1997, the date of the Queen's Speech. It is unfortunate and unfair if that cannot be taken into account in the compensation arrangements.
      We appear to be breaching the usual rules under which compulsory purchase is determined. I am sure that the Government seek to do so for the best of motives: they wish to give owners of .22 weapons a better deal than if the literal date of the Queen's Speech were used. I wonder whether it would be more sensible in principle to use the later date, perhaps even to raise the figure, because the further one gets from the date, the more difficult valuation is. However, I am saying that there may be cases where, quite legitimately and properly, a shooter might have enhanced the value of his weapon before the possession

      361
      of that weapon became illegal or became questioned by a firm Government decision, in which case a small inequity might arise. I make the point only to say—
      Mr. Michael: In that circumstance, the shooter would of course be able to go through the alternative route proposed in the Bill, by seeking a valuation. The specific circumstances are covered in the arrangements that we have proposed.
      Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the Minister for seeking to clarify that, but may I have further clarification? In that case, would the valuation be at the date in October or would it be at the last possible date, in May, if the value had been enhanced by then? If that is not so—
      Mr. Michael: The later date.
      .Mr. Boswell: If that is the case, I believe that, although the objection in principle stands and the Minister might like to reflect on that, the objection in practice may not stand. I believe that he and all of us wish to seek the fairest possible deal for shooters in what are bound to be difficult circumstances. I merely pray this issue in aid as a case for a more rounded consideration of the details of the compensation issue, to eliminate any possible unfairness.
      Mr. Michael Colvin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) on the way in which he moved the amendment. I support the amendment, and in my short contribution I shall ask the Minister of State a couple of questions to which I am sure he will reply later.
      6.15 pm
      As recently as last week, we considered compensation when we debated the compensation scheme introduced by the Government under the previous Act, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. In that debate, it was suggested that it might have been sensible to incorporate compensation for .22 weapons in the same draft compensation scheme, but I appreciate that, with all the technicalities involved, that might have been difficult, if not impracticable.
      During last week's debate, we drew attention to the inaccuracies or inadequacies and errors in the original draft compensation scheme tabled on 22 May, which was then withdrawn and re-tabled on 3 June. We put it to the Minister of State that some explanation was required, and we wanted to know why so many changes were required and how many there were.
      I thank the Minister for the answer given on 9 June at column 328 to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) in reply to a question about the changes in that draft compensation scheme. They amount to 37 changes in all, and are a combination of errors, factual errors, and items and values listed in the annexes that were wrong. I now ask, how accurate is the new draft compensation scheme likely to be? I very much hope that when the Government come up with a new scheme, they make a better job of it than they did of the last one.
      362
      How soon are we likely to see the new draft compensation scheme for .22 pistols and for the ancillary equipment that goes with them? When addressing that compensation scheme, would the Minister think in terms of compensating for the loss of business, and so on?
      In the Bill, estimates are made of £12 million for the cost of weapons and £19 million for equipment, but several people have suggested that those figures are underestimates. Perhaps the Minister will give us a more accurate estimate of the likely compensation total.
      Mr. Hancock: I believe that, if they were realistic, hon. Members would concede that most gun owners and certainly people who were trained in guns would say that the value of their weapons and of weapons held in gun clubs and in gunsmiths devalued the day after Dunblane. Once that incident took place, the true value of any weapon was seriously eroded by the hour, if not by the day. That was recognised by gun owners throughout the country.
      The compensation legislation allows the individual gun owner to choose between several ways of disposing of a gun. Most of those options are, in the main, very fair. If hon. Members who know about guns study the comparison prices, they will find that, although some individual gun owners will query the value of their individual gun, the figures give a pretty fair price for guns, bearing in mind the circumstances that forced Parliament to take the decisions that it did.
      The point is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said, that Parliament and the Government should have the chance to look again at the unique difficulties faced by some gun clubs and their members when it comes to compensation. Our amendment is a safety valve to allow for some of those difficulties. On Monday, Members of all parties referred to the problems that they knew gun clubs and members—some of them not active members—would face because of the huge sums of money, sometimes running into hundreds of thousands of pounds, which are at stake. That will leave small groups of members with substantial liabilities and not many assets to dispose of apart from the land on which a club is situated.
      I hope that there will be general support for the amendment. It will at least allow the Government to say that they have re-examined the issue of equitable compensation and will give the Committee a chance to vote for it.
      Mr. Maclean: The Opposition will support the Liberal Democrat amendment. It is intolerable that the Government should not follow the scheme in the 1997 Act. After all, the Minister spent most of Monday saying that he was religiously following the precedent of that Act and did not wish to depart from it. Yet this scheme departs from the one in the 1997 Act, under which the Government would prepare a draft compensation scheme, lay it before the House and, following a resolution, come up with a final version.
      I cannot understand why the Government are afraid to put such a draft before hon. Members. They have an overwhelming majority; they could get it through easily. There would, however, be scope for Opposition Members and Labour Members to point out errors and inconsistencies, and experts from the gun trade would have the chance to make similar points.

      363
      This is another example of the Government riding roughshod over the House—ignoring it, circumventing it, or neutering it—as they tried to do with Prime Minister's questions. In this case, they are ignoring Parliament by not laying the draft before the House.
      In the original draft scheme that we approved last Monday, there were, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) said, 37 errors. I do not criticise the officials responsible for that. With a highly complex scheme, it is quite understandable that mistakes will be made. Neither was there anything sinister about withdrawing it. Some values rose, some fell, and mistakes were corrected. The point, however, is that it gave the Government, the industry and hon. Members a chance to look at those mistakes. Then the Government speedily produced a revised draft and laid it before the House, which had a chance to approve it last Monday night. No one voted against it—everyone agreed with it.
      Why the phenomenal rush? Why are the Government afraid to trust hon. Members by following the procedure in the 1997 Act and letting them have a look at what they propose? They know that they can drive it through. They know that if the proposals are as sensible as the ones we saw last week—and as fair—there will be no opposition from any quarter. So unless the Minister has a compelling reason for not supporting the amendment—I cannot imagine what it would be—we shall join the Liberal Democrats in voting for it tonight.
      Mr. Michael: I regret that opportunism on the part of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and the Opposition. With his experience of government, he will know that there is not a shred of substance to any of his criticisms of the Government. He is wrong to suggest that the compensation element departs from the principles of the 1997 Act.
      The right hon. Gentleman asked what the rush was. It is simply that we want to get .22 guns out of public ownership as quickly as possible. If he had allowed a free vote during the passage of the 1997 Act, such guns would have been banned then. The move would have succeeded on a free vote and we would not have needed this legislation. It is, therefore, his fault that we must deal speedily with the flaw that he left in the legislation by failing to deal properly with a ban on handguns. He had the chance when in government, but he failed to take it.
      The right hon. Gentleman was wrong about virtually everything. He was certainly wrong to refer to errors and mistakes. When trying to put right the wrong that he left behind him, we consulted people involved in the sport and the trade and took their suggestions into account. I am grateful for the Opposition's acknowledgment that that was sensible.
      Referring to errors and mistakes was rather cheap. We did the best we could to carry on consultations right up to the last minute so as to be able to amend the scheme and use the most precise possible figures.
      I have valued the contributions by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). He has enhanced his reputation in the short time he has been here with his constructive interventions. He said that it is possible to query specific estimates but that the general scheme seeks to be fair. The legislation includes the safety valve of allowing for a specific valuation; so—this answers the point made by the hon. Member for Daventry
      364
      (Mr. Boswell)—if a specific piece of equipment is the subject of an error, that error can be rectified. The fact that a specific value is set out in the statutory instrument does not mean that there is no way of getting around it.
      Ours is a sensible scheme. I must tell the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) that he sometimes seems to mix up his speeches as between one debate and another. He has a habit of re-running previous debates, and he does not listen to answers that he was given in those debates. We have already explained the 37 changes to which he referred. It is only sensible to take account of advice from sporting and business interests, even though we are trying to get legislation through quickly, so as to give sportsmen and the general public a coherent scheme that will deal with all sizes and calibres of handgun as quickly as possible. As I have told him several times—he does not seem to have grasped it—the scheme is available in the Library, as we pointed out on Monday last.
      Of course, total costs can be estimated accurately only to a certain degree—by their nature they are based on estimates. The numbers and types of weapons have been gathered from information given by the police around the country. Estimates have been refined during discussions between officials and police, especially those involved directly with firearms, and business interests and the clubs have also been included. Discovering the precise quantity of guns and ancillary equipment is not a precise science. Listing and valuing each and every weapon would cost a great deal and would cause enormous delays.
      I answered most of the points made by the hon. Member for Daventry in interventions because I thought that he was trying to tease out some specific information while making some interesting points about compensation. There are various ways of trying to be fair. Choosing the October date for high-calibre guns, thereby avoiding further declines in value that would come with a later date, is, we believe, the fairest way to approach the valuation of guns and equipment; it is in the interests of shooters. If someone has enhanced his equipment, the alternative route of a specific valuation is available.
      I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about property valuation, but I should have thought this case was more like valuing second-hand cars. There will clearly be a decline in value if someone does not wish to purchase. The likelihood of legislation increases the probability that values will fall, but if that general point does not cover a particular circumstance, specific valuation provides an alternative.
      Mr. Boswell: On the specific point that I raised, I am satisfied with the assurance that the Minister has given in relation to guns that may have appreciated in value because of action by their owners. That is precisely why I did not table a specific amendment. I did not wish to send a signal to the Minister and his hon. Friends suggesting that there might be some general diminution in the compensation payable, on account of one or two particular hard cases. Now the Minister has satisfied me on the hard cases.
      Mr. Michael: I am grateful for that; it takes the sting out of my final point. A later date might be popular with the Chancellor of the Exchequer because it would reduce the sum to be paid out, but I doubt whether it would be a popular move with the shooters who would seek compensation. I am glad that we can now agree on that.

      365
      6.30 pm
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) made some reasonable points when he opened the debate, but the amendment would not bring about the aim that he sought. It would not widen compensation to businesses. Any scrutiny that was undertaken by the House would be scrutiny of the compensation allowed by the Bill, and the Bill does not allow the wider compensation of businesses for loss of business, any more than the 1997 Act did.
      Neither measure allows for that possibility. Scrutinising the way in which the compensation would be paid would not achieve the effects that the hon. Gentleman stressed. The amendment would not reopen that issue. It would allow parliamentary scrutiny only of the way in which we compensate owners and dealers for the .22 pistols and the ancillary equipment.
      I shall explain why I do not think that the amendment would be helpful or good for shooters and the general public. It would require the details of a compensation scheme for small-calibre pistols to be subject to affirmative approval. The effect would be that the Secretary of State could not make compensation payments to owners of small-calibre pistols until the scheme had been approved by both Houses. I see no need for that. Indeed, it could introduce a fresh mischief. It would cause pointless delay and would not be in the interests of the public at large or of shooters.
      As I said last week, when we debated the compensation scheme for the 1997 Act, the scheme for small-calibre pistols will be structured on the same basis as that for the higher-calibre weapons. Why require both Houses to go over the same material? Details of the ex-gratia scheme that will operate for small-calibre pistols and ancillary equipment until the compensation scheme comes into force have already been placed in the Library. Copies are being issued to all claimants at the same time as details of the compensation scheme already approved by the House.
      We are encouraging shooters to hand in their guns at one time, which many have said that they wish to do, rather than to wait until the Bill has completed its passage through both Houses. Requiring the further compensation scheme for small-calibre pistols to be approved by both Houses would mean an unwelcome delay in bringing the Act into force. We want to remove the firearms from circulation as soon as possible. It is clear from the overwhelming majority who voted for the Bill on Second Reading that they would not want any delay.
      It is in the interests not only of the Committee and the public, but of claimants, who no doubt would welcome the introduction of the scheme sooner rather than later so that they can receive their compensation.
      Although I fully understand the sensible and coherent arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that the amendment would have the effect that he seeks. It would introduce a number of fresh mischiefs, which I am sure he would not want to do.
      Mr. Richard Allan: I am grateful to the larger Opposition party —or should I say parties?—for their support of the amendment, whatever aspersions are cast on its motives.
      I support the main thrust of the Bill, which is the complete ban. The step change exists. If it was necessary for the House to give affirmative approval for a scheme
      366
      when we were banning 80 per cent. of handguns, it is even more important that we give prior affirmative approval for a scheme that comes into force when we ban 100 per cent. of all handguns.
      I shall not go over all the motives—I am trying to set my own precedent by keeping speeches to three or four minutes, as I think that helps hon. Members to pay attention. I intend to press the amendment to a Division, and I ask hon. Members to bear in mind that the 100 per cent. ban will have serious knock-on effects which the 80 per cent. ban did not, particularly on the organisations that I mentioned, and that further scrutiny is important.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 190, Noes 305.

      Division No. 32]

      [6.34 pm

      AYES

      Amess, David

      Duncan, Alan

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Arbuthnot, James

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Evans, Nigel

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Faber, David

      Baker, Norman

      Fabricant, Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Fallon, Michael

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Barnes, Harry

      Flight, Howard

      Befh, Rt Hon A J

      Forth, Eric

      Bercow, John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fraser, Christopher

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Boswell, Tim

      Garnier, Edward

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Gibb, Nick

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Gill, Christopher

      Brady, Graham

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Brake, Thomas

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Brazier, Julian

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Breed, Colin

      Gorrie, Donald

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gray, James

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Green, Damian

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Greenway, John

      Burnett, John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Burns, Simon

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Burstow, Paul

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Butterfill, John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Hammond, Philip

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Hancock, Mike

      Cann, Jamie

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Cash, William

      Harvey, Nick

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Hayes, John

      Chope, Christopher

      Heald, Oliver

      Clappison, James

      Heath, David (Somerton)

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Horam, John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Collins, Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Colvin, Michael

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Cotter, Brian

      Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

      Cran, James

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Dafis, Cynog

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Keetch, Paul

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Key, Robert

      Day, Stephen

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Dorell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Kirkwood, Archy

      367

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Lensley, Andrew

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Lidington, David

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

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Soames, Nicholas

      Livsey, Richard

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Loughton, Tim

      Spring, Richard

      Luff, Peter

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      LyelI, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Streeter, Gary

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Swayne, Desmond

      MacKay, Andrew

      Swinney, John

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Syms, Robert

      Maclennan, Robert

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Madel, Sir David

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Matins, Humfrey

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro & St Austell)

      Maples, John

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Mates, Michael

      Townend, John

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Tredinnick, David

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Trend, Michael

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Tyler, Paul

      Merchant, Piers

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Moore, Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Wallace, James

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wardle, Charles

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Waterson, Nigel

      Norman, Archie

      Webb, Steven

      Oaten, Mark

      Wells, Bowen

      Opik, Lembit

      Welsh, Andrew

      Ottaway, Richard

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Page, Richard

      Whittingdale, John

      Paice, James

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Paterson, Owen

      Wilkinson, John

      Pickles, Eric

      Willetts, David

      Prior, David

      Willis, Phil

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Rendel, David

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Ruffley, David

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Tellers for the Aye:

      Sanders, Adrian

      Mr. Richard Allan and

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Mr. Andrew Stunell.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

      Ainger, Nick

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Burden, Richard

      Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

      Burgon, Colin

      Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)

      Butler, Christine

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Byers, Stephen

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Atkins, Ms Charlotte

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Barron, Kevin

      Campbell—Savours, Dale

      Battle, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Beard, Nigel

      Caplin, Ivor

      Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

      Casale, Roger

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cawsey, Ian

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Benton, Joe

      Church, Ms Judith

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clapham, Michael

      Berry, Roger

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Best, Harold

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Betts, Clive

      Blackman, Mrs Liz

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Blizzard, Robert

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Borrow, David

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Clelland, David

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Cohen, Harry

      Coleman, Iain

      368

      (Hammersmith & Fulham)

      Hope, Philip

      Colman, Anthony (Putney)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Connarty, Michael

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Cooper, Ms Yvette

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Corbett, Robin

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Cousins, Jim

      Cox, Tom

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hurst, Alan

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Illsley, Eric

      Cummings, JohnCunliffe, Lawrence

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

      Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare

      Jamieson, David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Dean, Ms Janet

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Denham, John

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Doran, Frank

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

      Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Edwards, Huw

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Efford, Clive

      Khabra, Piara S

      Ellman, Ms Louise

      Kidney, David

      Etherington, Bill

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Fisher, Mark

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna

      Kingham, Tessa

      Flint, Ms Caroline

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Follett, Ms Barbara

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Laxton, Bob

      Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

      Lepper, David

      Foulkes, George

      Leslie, Christopher

      Fyfe, Maria

      Levitt, Tom

      Galbraith, Sam

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Galloway, George

      Linton, Martin

      Gapes, Mike

      Livingstone, Ken

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Lock, David

      Gerrard, Neil

      Love, Andy

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McAllion, John

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McCabe, Stephen

      Godsiff, Roger

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Goggins, Paul

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McDonagh, Ms Siobhain

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Macdonald, Calum

      Graham, Thomas

      McFall, John

      Grant, Bernie

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)

      McIsaac, Ms Shona

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McKenna, Ms Rosemary

      Grogan, John

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gunnell, John

      McMaster, Gordon

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McNulty, Tony

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hanson, David

      McWalter, Tony

      Healey, John

      McWilliam, John

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mallaber, Ms Judy

      Heppell, John

      Mendelson, Peter

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hill, Keith

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Home Robertson, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Hood, Jimmy

      Maxton, John

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Meale, Alan

      Merron, Ms Gillian

      369

      Michael, Alun

      Skinner, Dennis

      Milburn, Alan

      Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Mountford, Ms Kali

      Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mudie, George

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mullin, Chris

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Soley, Clive

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Norris, Dan

      Spellar, John

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      O'Brien, William (Nomranton)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Olner, Bill

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Stott, Roger

      Osborne, Mrs Sandra

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Pearson, Ian

      Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pickthall, Colin

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Plaskitt, James

      Pollard, Kerry

      Taylor, Ms Dart (Stockton S)

      Pond, Chris

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Pound, Stephen

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Todd, Mark

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Touhig, Don

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Trickett, Jon

      Purchase, Ken

      Truswell, Paul

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      Radice, Giles

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Rammell, Bill

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Rapson, Syd

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Watts, David

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      White, Brian

      Whitehead, Alan

      Rogers, Allan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rooney, Terry

      Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Roy, Frank

      Winnick, David

      Ruane, Chris

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Wise, Audrey

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wood, Mike

      Ryan. Ms Joan

      Woolas, Phil

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wray, James

      Sawford, Phil

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wyatt, Derek

      Sheerman, Barry

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mr. Jim Dowd and

      Singh, Marsha

      Mr. Greg Pope.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 21, after `made.', insert—
      (3B) Payments made under this scheme relating to small-calibre pistols or equipment designed or adapted for use in connection with such pistols, shall be received within 30 days of agreement of the valuation.'.
      This is a straightforward amendment. The Opposition believe that the Bill is unnecessary and unfair. Thousands of target pistol shooters up and down the country will be deprived of the sport that they may have enjoyed for many years. Under the legislation as it is currently drafted, Britain's shooters will no longer be able to compete on an international level. Therefore, it is right that the owners of lower-calibre handguns that are banned by this
      370
      legislation should be compensated speedily with a minimum of delay. The amendment will ensure that that occurs.
      We believe that Governments should set an example by paying their bills and debts swiftly. The last Conservative Administration developed a British standard of prompt payment to which all Government Departments and their agencies signed up. As a result, league tables of Government Departments' payment performances are now published. However, the Labour party apparently wishes to go further than that. The Prime Minister has pledged:
      "We will introduce a requirement…for government departments and public agencies to pay their bills within 30 days".
      That is what the then Leader of the Opposition said on 16 September 1996 in a speech to the City of London Corporation.
      Much was said during the election campaign about trust. Quite simply, the Government have the opportunity tonight to support the amendment to show that they honour the promise made by the Prime Minister on 16 September 1996. They have the opportunity to demonstrate that they can be trusted to fulfil that promise.
      We look forward to receiving the Government's support so that the payments of compensation authorised under the Bill can be made within 30 days, thus honouring the Prime Minister's promise.
      Mr. Boswell: To follow on from the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), and given the spirit of our discussions, I invite the Government to consider whether they would be prepared to pay interest should it prove impossible for payment to be made within 30 days in a particular case.
      Mr. Michael: It is intriguing to listen to this debate. I am beginning to enjoy the contributions from the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) from the Opposition Benches because I am starting to contrast them with the contributions he made about the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which he steered through the House.
      Some of the right hon. Gentleman's thought processes are becoming quite convoluted. For instance, if the Opposition are now so keen to specify a time limit on the payment of compensation, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can explain to us why the then Government did not include such a 30-day time limit in the 1997 Act. After all, he was personally responsible for steering that legislation through the House.
      What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If a 30-day limit is reasonable for small-bore handguns and their ancillary equipment, it is similarly reasonable for large-bore handguns and their ancillary equipment. The right hon. Gentleman did not include such a provision in the 1997 Act, but, suddenly tonight, we have a convert to the rapid payment of bills.
      Mr. Boswell: The new Government have set themselves up as the proud possessor of higher standards than their predecessor. The Opposition are merely seeking to help and encourage them to impose on themselves the obligation to meet their own high standards.
      Mr. Michael: It is very nice of the hon. Gentleman, who was a Minister in the previous Government, to feel

      371
      that he has learnt so much during those depressing days that he can now contribute to the quality of the legislation brought forward by the new Government.
      I put it to the hon. Gentleman that there is an inconsistency in the Opposition's argument. If they felt that a time limit of 30 days was reasonable, they had the opportunity to set one in the 1997 Act. If they had done so, that would have been mirrored in our compensation arrangements, because, as I made clear in the debates a week ago, the arrangements that we are making for smaller-calibre guns mirror those in the statutory instrument governing the compensation scheme for larger-calibre guns. The Opposition stand condemned out of their own mouths for not even considering what they now, belatedly, argue is an important provision.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman is under some confusion. He is in government and, therefore, he should be making the decisions. We would like the money to be paid in 30 days.
      Mr. Michael: In an earlier debate, the hon. Gentleman complained that the Government were being too decisive about getting things done by introducing legislation to get rid of .22 handguns, which he is so keen to keep on our streets and in our homes. We are getting on, fairly and reasonably, with that job.
      The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said that we are a Government who believe in paying bills on time. He is right, but the amendment does not attempt to ensure that bills are paid on time. Instead, it would guarantee a short period of time after the agreement on a valuation within which all the money would be received. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could clarify whether he intends to target the amendment only at those claims made under option C, which include individual valuations. If disputed, that might mean that an independent valuation is made.
      I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has thought that through and whether the Opposition's proposal applies only to such cases, or to other options as well. Perhaps he will illuminate the House, now or later, as to his intention in the amendment.
      I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment, although I appreciate its sentiments. As I made clear in debates last week on the compensation scheme under the 1997 Act, payments will be made as quickly as possible. I can assure the House that that assurance applies equally to small-calibre pistols—we wish to deal with the compensation as quickly and as expeditiously as possible.
      As we made clear last week, however, the pressures on police forces and the arrangements made by chief constables will vary. Different arrangements will be needed in urban as opposed to rural areas. Those arrangements and the decisions of chief constables must be respected. Those variations will exert different types of pressure on respective police forces. We, too, will put pressure on those forces. I have discussed the matter with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers and I am certain that they will try to deal with compensation as quickly as possible. It would therefore be unreasonable to include in primary legislation the requirement sought by the amendment.
      The majority of straightforward claims, which will be made under options A and B, will be dealt with quickly. Claims under option C, which will be based on individual
      372
      valuations, will take longer to process because they will need to be considered individually. It is reasonable that that should be done and that proper consideration should be given in each case.
      I am sure that the Opposition, who have argued for the interest of shooters as they see them, would not want us to introduce measures that exerted excessive pressure on the police and others connected with the scheme to rush those arrangements. I stress that adequate time must be given for the scheme to be operated, but, even so, payments will be made as quickly as possible.
      Mr. Richard Allan: Do we take it that the time it will take for people to receive compensation will depend on the efficiency of individual police officers, and the burden placed on them? Does the Minister agree that it is therefore likely to be case that, depending on where one lives, the time taken for compensation to be paid could be dramatically different?
      Mr. Michael: It could depend on a number of factors. The police are endeavouring to introduce arrangements to ensure that everyone can be compensated as quickly as possible so that the receipt of handguns and their ancillary equipment can be completed as expeditiously as possible.
      It is impossible to be sure where a rush might occur. All the members of a shooting fraternity in an area may decide to hand in all their guns quickly. It is quite likely that all members of a gun club would agree on when to hand in their guns and seek compensation. Some of the pressures are unpredictable and that is what makes it unsafe to try to specify a constrained period of days, as proposed in the amendment.
      Mr. Boswell: Will the Minister confirm that the amendment at least seeks to tie prompt payment to the agreed date of valuation, rather than to the date when weapons are handed in? We obviously accept that there is a problem in that regard with option C weapons. We are concerned simply with the administrative delay that might arise after a valuation. No one wishes to put valuers under unreasonable pressure so that they reach a quick, bad decision. Clearly, they must have time to make the right decision.
      Mr. Michael: I accept that. I have spoken to the chief constables and others who will be involved in the exercise, so I understand the pressures to which it will subject them. They accept that it is in the public interest that the necessary arrangements should be made and that they should be implemented as expeditiously as possible. Likewise, we accept that we want the payments to be made as expeditiously as possible. The purpose behind the amendment is to introduce a straitjacket. Conservative Members should accept that the Government will do all that they can—we shall have discussions with the police and everyone else involved about the arrangements that we seek to make—to ensure that, as far as possible, we meet the requirements that are being sought within the terms of the amendment. However, to introduce such a straitjacket in primary legislation is inappropriate.
      7 pm
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I intervene on two points of clarification. The Minister is talking about a straitjacket. As I understand the

      373
      amendment, the purpose behind it is to put in statutory form the Government's intention to make payment within 30 days. That is obviously 30 days of applying the statutory amount of compensation or the agreed amount of compensation if it comes within option C. I am not clear why the police having to make inquiries has much to do with what we are discussing. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide clarification.
      Secondly, is it the intention that interest should arise if someone were left for some considerable time beyond 30 days without compensation? I understand that that lies behind the Government's general proposals for interest on non-payment of debts.
      Mr. Michael: I do not see that such a provision lies within the amendment, which would simply introduce a requirement.
      We are not envisaging or planning for delays in making compensation payments. Pressure, however, will be put on the police and many others as a result of a temporary arrangement. How quickly we can finalise arrangements and have everyone handing in their guns depends partly on how expeditiously the proposed legislation is enacted and implemented. If the Bill passes through Parliament quickly, much will depend on whether we can back the arrangements for whatever weapons people have not handed in voluntarily to be handed in subsequently and quickly by an extension of the compensation scheme. I have in mind the employment of people and the arrangements that are already in hand.
      We are talking of temporary arrangements to deal with specific circumstances. That makes the acceptance of the amendment inappropriate. The general principle is that we should seek to ensure that compensation is paid as quickly as possible and, if possible, within the period to which reference has been made. That might be thought of as aspirational, but it is something that we shall seek to do with the co-operation of everyone involved, if that is at all possible.
      There are a couple of points to be made on a problem that is involved in implementing the compensation process. We are talking of 60,000 claimants, who will all submit claims within a short time. It would not be practicable to set a specific number of days within which individual claimants would receive payments. The sheer volume of claims to be made prevents that. Some claims will be processed before others and some claims might take longer than others.
      There is, sensibly, no time requirement applying to payments under the compensation scheme for large-calibre handguns. There is nothing in logic, therefore, that requires that there should be one within the scheme for small-calibre pistols. That would be entirely inconsistent.
      Mr. Boswell: I raised earlier the issue of interest, and the matter was taken up by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) with greater eloquence. Will the Minister consider, in cases where things go sadly wrong because
      374
      of some administrative error, the payment of ex gratia interest? I do not seek an immediate answer now. Perhaps he will take away the point and think about it.
      Mr. Michael: I hope that there will not be gross incidents of delay, other than those where there might be specific complications on an option C valuation where there is a considerable amount of debate because values are not being accepted. We want to see all cases dealt with as expeditiously as possible. We shall seek to ensure that that happens, and I am sure that we shall receive the full co-operation of the police and all those who are involved in the Home Office. We shall try to ensure that everything goes as smoothly as possible.
      We are dealing, however, with a challenging task. We are progressing rapidly because we believe that it is in the public interest for the guns concerned rapidly to be removed from general public ownership. The Association of Chief Police Officers and others have accepted our objective and supported us in trying to get the arrangements into place. I place on record my thanks to all those concerned, including individual chief constables, in seeking to implement the arrangements.
      I return to a final point of simple logic: no time limit was placed on larger handguns. I accept, of course, that the Bill does not deal with them. That being so, it would be illogical to put a straitjacket on the way in which we deal with .22 handguns. I accept the aspiration that we deal quickly and efficiently with all claims—I undertake that we shall do all that we can to achieve that—but it would not be sensible or logical to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Maclean: This is a matter not of simple logic but of whether or not the Prime Minister's word is to be trusted. There have been some interesting revisions of Government policy this evening from a Minister of State in Her Majesty's Government. We assume that he is speaking with the authority of the Government. We have been told that the policy is not to have payment within 30 days, but to try, with all efforts, to pay as soon as is practicable or as soon as possible, leaving no stone unturned to pay Government debts as soon as they can be paid.
      The Minister said repeatedly that we cannot have 30-day payments because that would impose a straitjacket on the Government. Does that mean, therefore, that the Prime Minister's statement on 16 September 1996 that a requirement would be introduced—it was not a straitjacket then, when the right hon. Gentleman was on the prawn cocktail circuit, wining and dining business men and pursuing their votes—by a Labour Government for the millennium was not a commitment that the Government would pay their bills within 30 days?
      The previous Government did not insert such a requirement in the 1997 Act because we were content to rest with the provisions that we had introduced with the development of the British standard payment. We had decided to publish league tables of the Government's performance, and we were content to rest on that. At the same time, we took the then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), at his word. He went round telling business men that a new Labour Government would introduce a requirement that Government bills would be paid within 30 days.

      375
      That is why we have tabled the amendment. We have been presented with our first chance to test the word of the new Government, and especially that of the Prime Minister. Can they be trusted on the issue of the Government paying their bills?
      Sir Nicholas Lye11: Would I be right in understanding my right hon. Friend to be saying that the word of the Prime Minister for a requirement seems, having regard to the words of the Minister of State, to have become a pious hope?
      Mr. Maclean: My right hon. and learned Friend is correct. It was not even a pious hope. It amounted to, "We shall do our best to pay if we can within 30 days." The requirement that the Prime Minister wanted is now regarded by the Minister of State as a straitjacket into which the Government do not wish to insert themselves. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister is concerned about froth on the top of beer glasses. It seems that his concern for the Government to pay their bills within 30 days was froth before the general election. It seems also that it can be blown away like froth from a beer glass.
      The Opposition will force the amendment to a Division because it goes to the issue of whether the Prime Minister's words can be trusted or whether they can be overruled by a Minister of State, Home Office.
      Mr. Michael: What a surprise. The Opposition have found specious reasons to have another Division. It seems that they need to fill in the time. I have listened with admiration and astonishment to the developing capacity of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) for invention. What a pious intervention from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lye11).
      I have made it clear that we are dealing with a temporary arrangement, which will be dealt with properly by the police and civil servants, under great pressure. The reason for that pressure is that there is pressure to get handguns off the streets and out of people's homes.
      The right hon. Gentleman had to find some specious excuse for not having put in his Bill something that he now requires us to put in ours. His arguments were indeed specious. Of course people can trust the word of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That is why he is Prime Minister, and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border is where he deserves to be—on the Opposition Benches.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 177, Noes 301.

      Division No. 33]

      [7.9 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

      Bercow, John

      Amess, David

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Blunt, Crispin

      Arbuthnot, James

      Body, Sir Richard

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Boswell, Tim

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Baker, Norman

      Brady, Graham

      Baldry, Tony

      Brake, Thomas

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Barnes, Harry

      Brazier, Julian

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Breed, Colin

      376

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Letwin, Oliver

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Lidington, David

      Burnett, John

      Livsey, Richard

      Burns, Simon

      Loughton, Tim

      Burstow, Paul

      Luff, Peter

      Butterfill, John

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Cash, William

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Chope, Christopher

      Malins, Humfrey

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Maples, John

      Collins, Tim

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Colvin, Michael

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Merchant, Piers

      Cotter, Brian

      Moore, Michael

      Cran, James

      Moss, Malcolm

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Norman, Archie

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Oaten, Mark

      Opik, Lembit

      Day, Stephen

      Ottaway, Richard

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Page, Richard

      Duncan, Alan

      Paice, James

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Paterson, Owen

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Pickles, Eric

      Evans, Nigel

      Prior, David

      Faber, David

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Rendel, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Robathan, Andrew

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Flight, Howard

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Forth, Eric

      Ruffley, David

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Fraser, Christopher

      Sanders, Adrian

      Gale, Roger

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Garnier, Edward

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Gibb, Nick

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Gill, Christopher

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

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Gorrie, Donald

      Soames, Nicholas

      Gray, James

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Green, Damian

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Grieve, Dominic

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Steen, Anthony

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Streeter, Gary

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hammond, Philip

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hancock, Mike

      Syms, Robert

      Harvey, Nick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hawkins, Nick

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      Hayes, John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Heald, Oliver

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro & St Austell)

      Heath, David (Somerton)

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Temple—Morris, Peter

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Thompson, William

      Horam, John

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Townend, John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Tredinnick, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Trend, Michael

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Tyler, Paul

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Viggers, Peter

      Wallace, James

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Walter, Robert

      Keetch, Paul

      Wardle, Charles

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Webb, Steven

      Key, Robert

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Whittingdale, John

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Wilkinson, John

      Lansley, Andrew

      Willetts, David

      377

      Willis, Phil

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin

      Woodward, Shaun

      and

      Yeo, Tim

      Mr. Bowen Wells.

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cousins, Jim

      Ainger, Nick

      Cox, Tom

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Crausby, David

      Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Curtis—Thomas, Ms Clare

      Atkins, Ms Charlotte

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Barron, Kevin

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Beard, Nigel

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Dean, Ms Janet

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Denham, John

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Dismore, Andrew

      Benton, Joe

      Dobbin, Jim

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Berry, RogerBest, Harold

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Betts, Clive

      Doran, Frank

      Blackman, Mrs Liz

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Blizzard, Robert

      Edwards, Huw

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Efford, Clive

      Borrow, David

      Ellman, Ms Louise

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Etherington, Bill

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Flint, Ms Caroline

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Follett, Ms Barbara

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

      Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Galbraith, Sam

      Burden, Richard

      Galloway, George

      Burgon, Colin

      Gapes, Mike

      Butler, Christine

      Gardiner, Barry

      Byers, Stephen

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Canavan, Dennis

      Godsiff, Roger

      Caplin, Ivor

      Goggins, Paul

      Casale, Roger

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Caton, Martin

      Graham, Thomas

      Cawsey, Ian

      Grant, Bernie

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Grogan, John

      Chaytor, David

      Gunnell, John

      Church, Ms Judith

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Hanson, David

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Healey, John

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Heppell, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clelland, David

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Coaker. Verrnon

      Hill, Keith

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cohen, Harry

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith & Fulham)

      Hoey, Kate

      Home Robertson, John

      Colman, Anthony (Putney)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Connarty, Michael

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cooper, Ms Yvette

      Hope, Philip

      Corbett, Robin

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      378

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Michael, Alun

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Milburn, Alan

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Miller, Andrew

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Hurst, Alan

      Morley, Elliot

      Hutton, John

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Iddon, Brian

      Mountford, Ms Kali

      Illsley, Eric

      Mudie, George

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

      Mullin, Chris

      Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jamieson, David

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

      Norris, Dan

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Osborne, Mrs Sandra

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Perharn, Ms Linda

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Plaskitt, James

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pollard, Kerry

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Pond, Chris

      Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

      Pound, Stephen

      Kemp, Fraser

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Khabra, Piara S

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kidney, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Quinn, Lawrie

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Rammell, Bill

      King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Rapson, Syd

      Kingham, Tessa

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Laxton, Bob

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Lepper, David

      Leslie, Christopher

      Rogers, Allan

      Levitt, Tom

      Rooney, Terry

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Roy, Frank

      Linton, Martin

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Livingstone, Ken

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Salmond, Alex

      Lock, David

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Love, Andy

      Sawford, Phil

      McAllion, John

      Shaw. Jonathan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McCabe, Stephen

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Singh, Marsha

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Skinner, Dennis

      McDonagh, Ms Siobhain

      Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McFall, John

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)

      McIsaac, Ms Shona

      Soley, Clive

      McKenna, Ms Rosemary

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Speller, John

      McMaster, Gordon

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      McNamara, Kevin

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      McWalter, Tony

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      McWilliam, John

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Mallaber, Ms Judy

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Mandelson, Peter

      Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Martlew, Eric

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Maxton, John

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Meale, Alan

      Tipping. Paddy

      Merron, Ms Gillian

      Todd, Mark

      379

      Trickett, Jon

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Truswell, Paul

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Winnick, David

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Wood, Mike

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Wray, James

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Vaz, Keith

      Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Wyatt, Derek

      Watts, David

      White, Brian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Whitehead, Alan

      Mr. Jim Dowd and

      Mr. Greg Pope.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Michael Howard: The Bill goes much further than the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997: it will kill off pistol shooting and make many gun clubs unviable. The 1997 Act would have allowed pistol shooters to continue with their sport on condition that they used only lower-calibre handguns. During the passage of that Act, we decided against compensating gun clubs for the impact of the ban on higher-calibre guns. An important justification for that view was the fact that shooters of high-calibre pistols could convert to .22s and continue to enjoy their sport. It was difficult to argue that clubs could not continue as venues for pistol shooting while .22 pistols remained lawful.
      A total ban will force some clubs to close, and that fundamentally alters the previous position on compensation. The majority of the 2,118 approved gun clubs throughout Great Britain are non profit making: they were set up and are run by volunteers. It is true that clubs whose members shoot rifles and pistols could survive a total ban on handguns, but that would very much depend on the proportion of pistol shooters to rifle shooters. However, clubs that are almost entirely pistol clubs will, in all probability, face certain closure as a result of the Bill.
      Hon. Members should bear in mind the fact that the majority of gun clubs are non profit making and do not have vast financial reserves to enable them to weather the storm of a total ban. Given that those clubs have mortgages or leases, their members or owners could face significant personal liabilities and loss as a result of closure.
      It is the Opposition's view that, given the extent of the Bill and its departure from the principles of the 1997 Act, which did not bring pistol shooting to an end in this country, the issue of compensation must be revisited. Naturally, we hope that as many clubs as possible will survive, but those clubs that are forced to close as a result of the circumstances created by the total ban on handguns introduced by the Bill should be compensated.
      On Second Reading, we argued that the Bill as it currently stands is unfair. At column 1163, the Home Secretary gave an entirely reasonable response. He said that if the Government had departed from the principles that we had followed, he would consider the point that we had made. I regret to say that the Minister was a good deal less reasonable when he wound up the debate. He dismissed our questions by referring to the debate that had taken place at the beginning of the last week on the compensation arrangements under the 1997 Act, but we
      380
      were not objecting to those arrangements. Our argument is that the total ban introduced by this legislation fundamentally alters the position. That is why we believe that the arrangements proposed by the Government are unfair, and why we do not believe that clause 2 should stand part of the Bill.
      Sir Nicholas Lye11: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on compensation. It would not involve a large number of clubs. Some of them are small businesses. However, a significant number will go out of business. People who are not rich will be left with burdens of debt for which they have no possibility of compensation unless the Government are prepared to reconsider the matter along the lines that the Home Secretary seemed to accept but to which the Minister offered blanket opposition.
      What we are asking for is entirely reasonable. When pistol clubs were denied the use of a heavier grade of pistol, they could have set up afresh or reconstituted themselves as clubs using .22 handguns. There would have been support for that, for reasons connected with the Olympic games and for the more specialised reasons connected with disabled people, which we shall debate in a moment.
      It follows inexorably from the Government's determination to take all pistols out of private ownership and to stop clubs holding pistols that gun clubs that are confined to pistols must close. If they have debts or mortgages, they will be left uncompensated. All I ask of the Minister is that he listens carefully to our argument. If he is not capable, by reason of the instructions that he has been given, to give us the answer that we seek now, I hope that he will he go away and think about it.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: There is a distinction between higher-calibre handguns, such as were used by Thomas Hamilton and which were outlawed under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, and the .22 calibre weapon that we are debating. When decisions were made under the previous Government, one factor that was taken into account was that a higher-calibre handgun is not specifically designed for sport. Many of those weapons have been developed for use in self-defence and by police forces and the military.
      The higher-calibre handgun, which tends to be used against individuals, should be seen in a different context from the .22 handgun, which is used in international sport. Target shooting with .22 guns is accepted as an international sport throughout the world, and recognised as such by the Olympic movement. No doubt there are reasons for that. The .22 is used mainly for sport, and lacks some of the features of higher-calibre handguns to which I have referred.
      7.30 pm
      Against that background, the Committee should view the compensation issue differently. It is one thing to get rid of certain handguns because they are higher-calibre weapons; it is different to say that there shall be no target shooting in Britain when the wisdom throughout the world is that target shooting may occur in particular conditions—and the 1997 Act laid down the strictest possible security conditions. I think that the last Government were right to say, "We are not outlawing the

      381
      sport altogether; if you wish to follow the conditions laid down in the Act, you may continue. You have that option." What is now being said is "There shall be no sport of this kind: every club in the country must close." That is relevant to the question of compensation.
      Apart from being a very authoritarian measure, the proposal should prompt new Labour to think about the fact that every other country, and every international sporting body, is prepared to permit the sport to continue. Is it right for Britain to be the one country which is standing out against it? It is in that context that the considerations relating to compensation in this Bill are so different from those in the 1997 Act.
      All the gun clubs will have to close, and many of their owners—some in my constituency—will be in financial difficulty. Could not the Government meet the Opposition at least half way—perhaps a little further—and make compensation available to clubs?
      Mr. Michael: I have listened carefully to what has been said, but I can respond briefly, because nothing new has been contributed. All the points that have been made have been answered comprehensively, convincingly and repeatedly, on Second Reading and before and since then.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Home Secretary, says that the Bill will kill off pistol shooting and close many gun clubs. Let me remind him that precisely the same argument was advanced by Conservative Members when he introduced the Bill that is now the 1997 Act. There is nothing new in it, and he rejected it then. He should read the speeches that he made when he was in government, because they deal comprehensively with the speeches that he is making in opposition.
      Mr. Heald: Surely even the hon. Gentleman accepts the difference between stopping all target shooting—and therefore closing every gun club in the country—and leaving the option available.
      Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman should heed the arguments that have been advanced by his hon. Friends on other occasions. It is nice of him to join us for a while, but he is making precisely the points that they have made previously. We have been through those arguments time and again; we debated them on Second Reading. We will reject the extension of compensation suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, for precisely the reasons that he gave in government. He was not willing to extend compensation to businesses, and nor are we.
      It comes down to a simple point of disagreement: we simply disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He could have dealt with the proposals in the Bill much earlier in the year if he had allowed a free vote when he was piloting his Bill through the House, but he was not willing to listen then, and we are therefore having to deal with the issue now.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell rose—
      Mr. Michael: Perhaps what the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe gave us was a spare
      382
      speech left over from Second Reading. He does not agree with the Bill; he does not agree with the banning of .22 guns. We feel that it is necessary to ban them, and that his decisions in rejecting that proposition—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) must not remain standing when an hon. Member is addressing the Committee.
      Mr. Michael: I am making a very brief point—
      Sir Nicholas Lyell rose—
      Mr. Michael: I give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the Minister, but will he please address the argument? It is not good enough simply to say that counter-arguments were advanced in the debate on the earlier Bill. The question that we want the Minister to answer is this. As a result of the blanket ban on handguns, which wipes out the .22, small clubs and small businesses are themselves wiped out in certain instances. Is it the Government's policy not to compensate a small club or business in any circumstances? If so, will the Minister please explain why?
      Mr. MichaelWe have explained ad nauseam. Great credit was given to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for being so open and honest on Second Reading about what the effect of the Bill would be, and he was right to be honest. It is better to have the matter out in the open—but that has left nothing for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to chew on at this stage. We rejected the idea of extending compensation to businesses, just as his right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Home Secretary did. We believe that retaining .22 guns would be dangerous, and we are not willing to do it. That is why we are going to vote on the matter. We have presented the measure quickly, so that the change to only .22 pistols—and hence another round of change and compensation—will not be required, as it would have been had we delayed it.
      I am afraid that, again, there is disagreement between us. We believe that it would be unsafe to allow the partial—80 per cent.—ban on handguns introduced by the last Government. We need the ban on .22 guns in the public interest, and it is therefore essential that the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Richard Allan: As I become accustomed to the proceedings of the Committee, I find that I am having to live with a chronic sense of deja vu as arguments are repeated again and again at every stage. We advanced the argument that we wanted to present—about the inadequacy of compensation—in the amendment that we tabled, but, now that we have lost that, I believe that those of us who support the Bill's aims in general, while disagreeing with the compensation scheme, should accept with good grace that the clause should stand part of the Bill. Those of us who disagree with the Bill in principle—and a number of Liberal Democrats do, for good, sound Liberal reasons—will continue to oppose the clause.
      Mr. Howard: Once again, the Minister has completely failed to deal with our arguments. He does not deal with

      383
      them by saying that he has already dealt with them, when he manifestly has not; nor does he deal with them by saying that there is a disagreement between the two sides. Of course there is a disagreement. What we expect from the Minister in these circumstances is some kind of reason justifying the Government's position, but we have heard no reason at all.
      The trouble with the Minister is that he is so obtuse that one never quite knows whether he is deliberately failing to see the point, or accidentally and genuinely failing to do so. Let me repeat the point in the simplest language that I can use—and I will be happy to give way to the Minister if he wishes to answer it at last.
      The point is simply this. There is a fundamental difference between the provisions of this Bill and the provisions of the 1997 Act. The Act did not bring pistol shooting to an end. It was therefore possible for clubs where pistol shooting took place to continue, and .22 shooting could continue in those clubs although the legislation had banned the use of higher-calibre pistols. This Bill brings pistol shooting completely to an end and that means a fundamental difference in the attitude to compensation.
      On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that he would listen carefully to any arguments that sprang from the proposition that the Government had departed from the principles that we had previously advanced. As I said at that time, it was not so much a suggestion that the Government were departing from those principles as that they were failing to apply them to the different circumstances that now pertain. That is the point and, on Second Reading, the Minister, in the most extraordinary way, refused to answer it by referring to the answers that he had given a few days earlier in the debate on the compensation arrangements in the 1997 legislation.
      Our point is that this measure is fundamentally different from the provisions of the 1997 Act for the simple and clear reason that I have given. That is why the compensation arrangements need to be revisited and why the clause should not stand part of the Bill.
      If, at this 1 1 th hour, the Minister is prepared to answer that argument and explain why the Government disagree with us on this issue, I shall be happy to give way to him. So far, we have had no response whatever to our clear and concise argument. That is why we propose to divide the Committee.
      Mr. Michael: The disagreement is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that the legislation is fundamentally different and we do not. Gun clubs will be able to continue: it is just that their members will not be able to use pistols. They will be able to use rifles. To be called obtuse by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a curious form of flattery. He does not create a failing on the part of the Government by asserting that there is a failure: he demonstrates an inability to understand the answers that he has been given.
      The legislation has been introduced on a point of principle. As a result of looking at all the evidence and listening to all the arguments, we think that there is a need to ban the possession of all handguns, and we do not accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says.
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 330, Noes 143.

      Division No. 34]

      [7.41 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cooper, Ms Yvette

      Ainger, Nick

      Corbett, Robin

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)

      Cousins, Jim

      Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

      Cox, Tom

      Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)

      Crausby, David

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Atkins, Ms Charlotte

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Banks, Tony

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

      Barnes, Harry

      Barron, Kevin

      Curtis—Thomas, Ms Clare

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dafis, Cynog

      Beard, Nigel

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Benton, Joe

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dean, Ms Janet

      Berry. Roger

      Denham, John

      Best, Harold

      Dismore, Andrew

      Betts, Clive

      Dobbin, Jim

      Blackman, Mrs Liz

      Dobson. Rt Hon Frank

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Blizzard, Robert

      Doran, Frank

      Borrow, David

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Edwards, Huw

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Efford, Clive

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Ellman, Ms Louise

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Etherington, Bill

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna

      Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

      Flint, Ms Caroline

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Follett, Ms Barbara

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Burgon, Colin

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Burstow, Paul

      Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

      Butler, Christine

      Fyfe, Maria

      Byers, Stephen

      Galbraith, Sam

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Galloway, George

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gapes, Mike

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Campbell—Savours, Dale

      Gerrard, Neil

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Casale, Roger

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Caton, Martin

      Godsiff, Roger

      Cawsey, Ian

      Goggins, Paul

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Chaytor, David

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gorrie, Donald

      Clapham, Michael

      Graham, Thomas

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Grant, Bernie

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Grogan, John

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Gunnell, John

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hancock, Mike

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hanson, David

      Clelland, David

      Healey, John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Heppell, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Hesford, Stephen

      Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith & Fulham)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Hill, Keith

      Colman, Anthony (Putney)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      385

      Home Robertson, John

      McWilliam, John

      Hood, Jimmy

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Mallaber, Ms Judy

      Hope, Philip

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Martlew, Eric

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Maxton, John

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Meale, Alan

      Merron, Ms Gillian

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Michael, Alun

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Milburn, Alan

      Hurst. Alan

      Miller, Andrew

      Hutton, John

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Iddon, Brian

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Illsley, Eric

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

      Morley, Elliot

      Jamieson, David

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

      Mountford, Ms Kali

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Mudie, George

      Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Mullin, Chris

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Norris, Dan

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Osborne, Mrs Sandra

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pearson, Ian

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kemp, Fraser

      Plaskitt, James

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pond, Chris

      Kidney, David

      Pound, Stephen

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kingham, Tessa

      Purchase, Ken

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Rammell, Bill

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Laxton, Bob

      Rapson, Syd

      Lepper, David

      Raynsford, Nick

      Leslie, Christopher

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Levitt, Tom

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Linton, Martin

      Rogers, Allan

      Livingstone, Ken

      Rooney, Terry

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Roy, Frank

      Lock, David

      Ruane, Chris

      Love, Andy

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      McAllion, JohnMcAvoy, Thomas

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Salmond, Alex

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McDonagh, Ms Siobhain

      Sawford, Phil

      McFall, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McIsaac, Ms Shona

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McKenna, Ms Rosemary

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Singh, Marsha

      McNamara, Kevin

      Skinner, Dennis

      McNulty, Tony

      Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)

      MacShane, Denis

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Soley, Clive

      386

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Spellar, John

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Vaz, Keith

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wallace, James

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Watts, David

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Webb, Steven

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Welsh, Andrew

      Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

      White, Brian

      Stunell, Andrew

      Whitehead, Alan

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Swinney, John

      Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Winnick, David

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Wood, Mike

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Wray, James

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Todd, Mark

      Wyatt, Derek

      Trickett, Jon

      Truswell, Paul

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Mr. Jim Dowd and

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Gale, Roger

      Amess, David

      Garnier, Edward

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Gibb, Nick

      Arbuthnot, James

      Gill, Christopher

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Gray, James

      Baker, Norman

      Green, Damian

      Baldry, Tony

      Grieve, Dominic

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Gummer. Rt Hon John

      Bercow, John

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Blunt, Crispin

      Hammond, Philip

      Body, Sir Richard

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Harvey, Nick

      Brady, Graham

      Hawkins, Nick

      Brazier, Julian

      Hayes, John

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Heald, Oliver

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Heath, David (Somerton)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Burnett, John

      Butterfill, John

      Horam, John

      Cash, William

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Chope, Christopher

      Johnson Smith,

      Clappison, James

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Key, Robert

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Collins, Tim

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Colvin, Michael

      Lansley, Andrew

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Letwin, Oliver

      Cotter, Brian

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Cran, James

      Lidington, David

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Loughton, Tim

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Luff, Peter

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Day, Stephen

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      MacKay, Andrew

      Duncan, Alan

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Maclennan, Robert

      Evans, Nigel

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Faber, David

      Madel, Sir DavidMalins, Humfrey

      Fabricant, Michael

      Maples, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Mates, Michael

      Flight, Howard

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Forth, Eric

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Merchant, Piers

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Moore, Michael

      Fraser, Christopher

      Moss, Malcolm

      387

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Norman, Archie

      Steen, Anthony

      Oaten, Mark

      Swayne, Desmond

      Opik, Lembit

      Syms, Robert

      Page, Richard

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Paice, James

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Paterson, Owen

      Townend, John

      Pickles, Eric

      Tredinnick, David

      Prior, David

      Trend, Michael

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Tyler, Paul

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Viggers, Peter

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Walter, Robert

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Wardle, Charles

      Ruffley, David

      Waterson, Nigel

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Whittingdale, John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Wilkinson, John

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Willis, Phil

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Woodward, Shaun

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

      Yeo, Tim

      Soames, Nicholas

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Spring, Richard

      Mr. Simon Burns and

      Mr. Tim Boswell.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New clause 3

      EXEMPTION FOR NATIONAL COMPETITION SHOOTERS
      '.—(1) The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of section 5(1)(aba) of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession or to purchase, acquire, sell or transfer a pistol chambered for .22 or smaller rim-fire cartridges if he is authorised under the Act to possess, purchase or acquire that weapon subject to a condition which complies with subsection (2) below.
      (2) A certificate granted under subsection (1) above shall be subject to the condition that—

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

      (b) the pistol is used by a person approved of by the Secretary of State and who is certified by the recognised governing body of the sport to be a person who has been invited to be a member of the group from which national competitors at international competitions will be selected; and

      (c) the weapon is stored and used only at premises designated by the Secretary of State as approved for the storage and use of weapons to which section 5 of the 1968 Act applies; and

      (d) possession of the weapon outside such designated premises shall be permitted only for transfer to and use at premises at which shooting competition is taking place during an Olympic Games, or qualifying competitions.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Maclean: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Exemption for registered disabled national competition shooters—
      `—(1) The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of section 5(1)(aba) of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession or to purchase, acquire, sell or transfer a pistol
      388
      chambered for .22 or smaller rim-fire cartridges if he is authorised under the Act to possess, purchase or acquire that weapon subject to a condition which complies with subsection (2) below.
      (2) A certificate granted under subsection (1) above shall be subject to the condition that—

      (a) the pistol is used by a person approved of by the Secretary of State and who has a physical disability and is a registered disabled person; and

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

      (c) the weapon is stored and used only at premises designated by the Secretary of State as approved for the storage and use of weapons to which section 5 of the 1968 Act applies; and

      (d) possession of the weapon outside such designated premises shall be permitted only for transfer to and use at premises at which shooting competition is taking place during an Olympic Games, or qualifying competitions.'

      Mr. Maclean: The Opposition support tough and rigorous gun controls. In office, we gave Britain some of the toughest firearms laws in the world. However, unlike this Bill, our Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 was tough and rigorous, but would have allowed continued controlled use of 22 lower calibre handguns for target pistol shooting. It would have allowed British citizens to continue to compete in .22 calibre pistol events that are recognised in Olympic competition—free pistol, sport pistol and rapid-fire pistol events.
      This country has a long-established tradition of target pistol shooting, which is one of the first of the modern Olympic events; it was introduced in the 1870s. Britain does well at the sport. Over the past 10 years, we have won 23 medals in .22 target pistol events at Commonwealth competitions. The instant effect of the Bill will be to kill off that sport, just like that, for all those law-abiding and decent people who enjoy it and do well at it. British citizens, unlike those of any other major sporting nation, will be prohibited from competing in national and international events.
      We recognise that the Government want to ban all handguns, but we urge Ministers and the Home Secretary to reconsider the position of national competition shooters. The new clause would allow those existing national competition shooters who represent national pistol shooting squads and those identified by the national bodies as suitable to train for Olympic disciplines to continue to train for and compete in national and international .22 calibre pistol competitions.
      The number of competition shooters is small. They are drawn from the national squad, of which there are around 100 members. Before qualifying for the national squad, most shooters will have worked their way up through the 13 squads in the regions covering England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There are around 350 members of those squads.
      The new clause would give the Home Secretary the power to designate specific centers—or, if it comes to it, the Opposition would accept even one specific centre such as Bisley, if he is minded to say that two, three, half a dozen or a large number of centres are too many. He could have complete say over how many centres there are. As I say, we would happily accept allowing one national centre of excellence to survive, so that pistol shooting for those few people could continue in strictly controlled

      389
      conditions. The new clause, therefore, would give the Home Secretary the power to designate specific centres where those competition shooters would be able to train.
      At the moment, such a site would obviously be Bisley and, after the Commonwealth games, could also include Altcar. I presume that something will have to be built for the Commonwealth games at Manchester. One or two more sites could be developed around the country, perhaps based on Army facilities.
      The new clause is not an attempt to subvert the Bill. It is clear that clauses 1, 2 and 3 have gone through. The Government have made absolutely clear—and they won by large majorities in Committee tonight and on Monday night—the main, central purpose of their Bill: to all intents and purposes, no more .22 calibre weapons will be left in the hands of ordinary people in gun clubs. We have lost the vote on allowing gun clubs to continue in this country, even under the most rigorous and strictly controlled conditions. We are suggesting that the Government should allow one or two international centres of excellence. The Home Secretary could impose strict conditions and they would be the only places in the country where .22 weapons could be stored and fired.
      8 pm
      Under the new clause, a certificate to shoot at a designated centre would be granted to those chosen for the national squad. People could not just wander in off the street and say, "I fancy a bit of pistol shooting—can I fire that gun?" The people in the national squad are chosen by the governing bodies of competitive target shooting in the United Kingdom—the National Rifle Association and the National Small-Bore Rifle Association, fulfilling the criteria set out by the Sports Council.
      We have included in the new clause a provision giving the Home Secretary, or people designated by him, extra discretion to approve the squad members. Therefore, I do not think that the Home Secretary can claim that it would mean a glaring loophole.
      We want the sport to survive, in a highly limited way, in Britain. All we are asking for is one or two national centres of excellence, under strict Government control. People using the centres would have to be authorised and licensed to shoot there, and also nominated by the professional associations. They could use only .22 weapons that could not leave the centre, except under strict conditions when shooters are competing at Olympic or Commonwealth competitions.
      The new clause is practical. I accept that drafting amendments may be necessary and perhaps it could be tidied up in another place. I hope that the Home Secretary will accept the principle behind what we are trying to achieve.
      The right hon. Gentleman cannot claim that it would put the public at risk. No pistols would be held or used outside a designated site. That site would have been approved by the Home Secretary for all section 5 weapons, including the most dangerous, so security would be at the highest possible level.
      In addition, competition shooters certified to shoot .22s at a designated site would need a valid firearms certificate, which means that they would have had to pass
      390
      the chief constable's vetting. They would also have had to be approved by the Secretary of State and approved and vetted by the shooting organisations that govern the Olympic sport of target pistol shooting.
      The new clause would allow Britain to continue to compete in target pistol shooting competitions recognised by the Olympic committee. As such, it has been welcomed by Simon Clegg, the general secretary of the British Olympic Association. If the Government do not accept the new clause, for whatever reason, the sport will be destroyed. Then Britain could face absurd and practical difficulties in hosting international sporting events.
      Manchester won its bid to host the Commonwealth games because of its commitment to hold target pistol shooting events. The original proposal was to leave those events out of the games, but that provoked such hostility from the other Commonwealth nations that Manchester relented and included .22 target pistol shooting. That is not a shocking fact, given that shooting is the third most popular sport in the Commonwealth games.
      If there is to be a blanket ban, and no provision is made for our national competition shooters to continue their sport at a top security designated site, in 2002 foreign competitors will participate and win events that are not only illegal under British law, but in which there will be no contestants from the host country. British teams, which are among the strongest, would be relegated to the terraces.
      The Bill as it stands is a Bill too far. We have said repeatedly that it is unfair. We tabled the new clause in an attempt to introduce an element of fairness. I hope that the Government will accept it.
      We are also discussing new clause 4, which relates to disabled shooters. I have already said that thousands of law-abiding, decent, upstanding people will lose their sport. The Government have not produced any justification for their draconian provisions.
      One group that would suffer from a total ban is disabled shooters. Pistol shooting is one of the few sports in which everyone competes on an equal footing—whether young, old, male, female, able-bodied or disabled. There are scores of disabled shooters in Britain. For many of them, target pistol shooting is more than a pastime—it is an activity which helps substantially to improve their quality of life. Pistol shooting can also help them to cope more effectively with their disability.
      The British Paraplegic Shooting Association says that many disabled people are encouraged to take up pistol shooting
      "as a rehabilitation means to help with balance and confidence, primarily in the use of a wheelchair and sport. This provides them with a better quality of life and respect for themselves as disabled people in an able-bodied world."
      British disabled target pistol shooters have achieved staggering success in international competitions. They use .22 calibre pistols for six events in the Paralympics. At the 1996 Atlanta Paralympics, disabled shooters won silver and gold medals and set a new record. At the European championships in 1995, disabled shooters won one gold medal, two silver and one bronze. In the World games in 1994, they won two gold medals, two silver and two bronze.
      I understand that there are about 375 clubs with facilities for the disabled. I think that about 100 disabled people will compete at the fifth annual national

      391
      championships organised by the National Small-Bore Rifle Association. Those figures are the best analysis I can make of the probable numbers of disabled people. I am working on the assumption of 375 clubs, each having, perhaps, one disabled member, with about 100 of those wanting to compete. It is obvious, therefore, that our proposal would not drive a coach and horses through the Bill.
      The Government want to remove the remaining 20 per cent. of handguns from the general population. I have already made a plea for a specially designated top security site where a national shooting squad could train for the Olympics. The new clause deals with registered disabled people and would benefit at most a few hundred people. They would be subject to the most rigorous controls, would have to hold firearms certificates and, if necessary, could keep their weapons only in specially designated and secure sites.
      At this stage in the proceedings, having lost the votes on clauses 1, 2 and 3, we must accept that the Government's main provisions will stand. They will drive them through. Our simple new clause would allow an exemption for registered disabled people so that they could continue shooting lower-calibre pistols at sites designated by the Secretary of State. To ensure that public safety was not jeopardised, the new clause requires each physically disabled shooter to obtain approval from the Secretary of State to shoot at that designated site. They would also have to keep their weapons at that site.
      We tabled the new clause to try to make the Bill fairer in some small respects. We have failed to persuade the Government to make it fairer in all respects for the thousands of innocent, honest shooters who will be severely disadvantaged, and the gun clubs that will receive inadequate compensation. We are giving the Government an opportunity to say that, although they intend to stick to the main thrust of the Bill, they accept that, if they impose the most draconian security precautions on a designated site, they will make it possible for a few hundred people—approved by the Secretary of State, licensed and given a certificate by chief constables and approved of by specialist shooting organizations—to continue to represent Great Britain at shooting events.
      With similarly strict criteria, they could permit a few hundred disabled people, most of whom would be in wheelchairs, to go to a pistol club and fire pistols under strictly controlled conditions to help their rehabilitation.
      If the Home Secretary says tonight that he cannot allow a new clause that would help the disabled, because he believes that it would increase risk and because he wants to prevent massacres such as Dunblane from happening again, in effect he would be saying that he can envisage circumstances in which a disabled shooter would get access to a club, smuggle out a .22 calibre pistol and then, from his wheelchair, carry out the sort of massacre that happened in Hungerford and Dunblane.
      That would be the effect if the Home Secretary said, "I am sorry, I cannot allow the new clause, because it would be too big a risk and would undermine the principles of safety behind the Bill." That is what a disabled person would have to do if, as the Government claim, another massacre could be caused by accepting the new clauses.
      I urge the Government to think carefully about the new clauses. I expect that the Home Secretary will not be able to accept them tonight, but I urge him—in all sincerity
      392
      and, after all, he has won all the other votes tonight—to accept these two simple new clauses. I hope that he will at least come back with similar proposals—no matter how draconian the security measures included—that would, at the last ditch, allow the British national shooting squad to continue and a few hundred disabled people to continue with their rehabilitation.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: I welcome the fact that the Conservatives have tabled new clauses 3 and 4. However, a form of exemption for both categories could have been included in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, in which case I am not sure that the new Government would have been keen to overturn the exemptions in the Bill before us today.
      As someone who is opposed to the ban, I have to say that the Bill, even with the new clauses, severely threatens British participation in shooting sports. I do not see where the new generation of people who are trained and experienced for many years will come from; that is an unhappy state of affairs. I wish to address the position of those who might be sympathetic to a ban, but who should consider what we will do with these two categories of people—those who might represent us at the Olympics or in the Commonwealth games, including those taking place in this country, and paraplegic and other disabled shooters.
      I asked the Home Secretary on Second Reading whether he had completely ruled out using powers that he already has
      "to enable British competitors to participate in the games"—
      the Manchester games—
      "and to have a period of training before doing so?"
      He replied:
      "I have not ruled that out altogether and if realistic representations are made to me, I shall think about the proposal. But I should require a high degree of convincing before going ahead with it."—[Official Report, 11 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 1167.]
      I cannot understand the logic of holding games in Manchester with participants in .22 shooting from every country in the Commonwealth, who will have trained beforehand, yet not allowing British competitors—the pool from which they will be drawn can already be identified—to train for that contest, even for a few days, unless the Home Secretary exercises his power.
      When the time comes, Ministers will find it difficult to defend their position. The press clamour will no longer be for a ban as it was after Dunblane; it will be about what the Government are doing to our British sportsmen. The very newspapers that made such a fuss of saying that the Bill was the answer to Dunblane; which is a controversial contention, will scream at Ministers and ask why they are not giving our boys a fair chance. Ministers should prepare themselves for that. Most ordinary people would think that there was something illogical about the Government's position, even if they were mostly sympathetic to a ban.
      I hope that the Home Secretary will consider further what he said to me on Second Reading and consider the new clauses, which set out sensible conditions that would make it reasonable for him to accept them, and find a way for our competitors to prepare for that competition in Manchester. It will take place within a few miles of his constituency, so he must be aware of the feelings that it will arouse. Clearly it would be illogical to make some

      393
      provision for British competitors taking part in other international competitions, whether held in this country or abroad. The illogicality will be so apparent when the Manchester games take place.
      8.15 pm
      I also hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider the position of disabled competitors, who may be covered by new clause 3 if they take part in paraplegic games such as the Paralympics. We have a superb record in those competitions. I quote from a letter that I have received from the British Paraplegic Shooting Association:
      "Shooting for the disabled was initiated in this country and is now recognised world wide. It would be ironic if Great Britain was the only country to be eliminated from International competitions because of the pressure of media coverage."
      The letter requests that we consider
      "a special dispensation for our disabled pistol shooters to allow them to train at bona-fide clubs as unlike their able-bodied counterparts it is not simple…to go abroad for training purposes. The physical and financial difficulties which disabled people would encounter would 'sound the death knell' for shooters with a disability and end a long and highly successful tradition."
      I ask the Home Secretary to consider that request.
      I do not think that anyone seriously imagines that a disabled shooter in a wheelchair would be the cause of some future massacre. The arrangements would have to be secure enough to reassure everyone, including disabled shooters themselves, that provisions made for them were so well controlled that their facility could not be abused by someone else.
      The Bill provides for exceptions and some people—in specific categories, such as veterinary surgeons and other people using guns for animal welfare—would be able to keep a handgun at home, so it would not be beyond the wit of Ministers and their advisers to find a way to help disabled people to continue to participate in a sport that does them so much good and brings this country so much honour.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in seeking to persuade the Home Secretary to accept our arguments. We have been round the course several times and the Home Secretary accepts that the only reason for a complete ban is public safety. Therefore, as we narrow the focus, it is incumbent on any Government who seek to impose such a ban to be satisfied at each point that the stringency of the ban remains necessary in the public interest.
      The new clauses have focused the debate on two small and highly responsible groups under stringent conditions. The burden on the police to monitor handguns will be massively reduced by the 1997 Act and the blanket ban in the Bill. We are now down to suggestions that a small number of disabled shooters and our national competition shooters, including 100 in the national squad and 350 in the regional squads—let us say, 450 in all—who are all highly responsible people and traceable, should be able to use guns in designated areas.
      I do not believe that the Home Secretary can claim that such a small number of handguns under such tightly controlled conditions represents a sufficient threat to
      394
      justify extending the blanket ban to the categories in the new clauses. If he is still minded to make that argument, I shall expand my case. After the Bill is enacted, a few, comparatively wealthy, shooters will go to train in France or Ireland. They may go further afield, but they will probably cross the Channel or the Irish sea to train. The Government seek to make a virtue of the principle of assisting the many, not the few, but the Bill will go against that principle.
      We are talking only about a small number of disabled people and people who wish to train for high-quality, international competition. Those who wish to become really expert will be banished from our shores. The risk of their continuing to use handguns under highly restrictive conditions has to be balanced against the risks of an evilly intentioned person obtaining a handgun—we are only talking about .22 pistols—from some other source.
      Earlier, I mentioned France because, as I have said in earlier debates, .22 pistols are freely available there. When I spoke in Monday's debate, I was aware that such weapons were generally freely available, but I had not yet spoken to someone who had walked around Calais or Le Touquet and seen just how remarkably easy it is to buy them.
      I have been reprimanded by the Minister of State—who is rather apt to reprimand Conservative Members when we do not agree with him—although I hasten to add that I have not been reprimanded by the Home Secretary, who is always courteous and charming. Conservative Members are attempting to penetrate the Home Secretary's charm and get to his mind, thereby persuading him of our case. I must not go on too long, however, or I shall be counter-productive in that exercise.
      The fact, however, is that an evilly intentioned person can obtain a .22 pistol by going to France and bringing one back. The Home Secretary cannot tell me that such a person is likely to be caught by customs at Folkestone, Portsmouth or any other port of entry, because it is not likely.
      We are balancing a risk that we cannot protect against—because we have no power over the French, not that I should like to exercise power over the French on this matter, because I believe that the Bill goes too far—against a very minute risk in allowing highly responsible national competitors and disabled people, for whom the sport is very important, not only for their sense of sport but for their rehabilitation, to have limited access to .22 pistols.
      I want simply to reinforce the argument that was carefully and cogently made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, and invite the Home Secretary to think again carefully on the subject.
      Mr. Colvin: I, too, should like to support new clause 3 and—like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell)—I am also guilty of having been reprimanded by the Minister of State.
      I was reprimanded for criticising the cynicism of the Home Secretary in applauding Manchester's winning the Commonwealth games. I said that it seemed a bit unfair to applaud that victory, because, whereas overseas shooting teams will be welcomed in Manchester, our own shooters will be denied an opportunity to participate. I refused to withdraw that specific criticism of the Home Secretary.

      395
      I am glad to say, however, that the right hon. Gentleman has an opportunity today to enable me to withdraw that criticism unreservedly—simply by agreeing to new clause 3.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire has pointed out that new clause 3 is narrow and would be a minor change to the Bill. It is even more narrow, however, than hon. Members—other than the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—have described. He asked where shooters will come from to qualify for the 13 regional squads—comprising 350 pistol shooters—from which the national squad of 100 members is drawn. His question puts into much sharper focus the difficulty in which United Kingdom pistol shooters will find themselves.
      As the Home Secretary has already admitted, the Bill will sound the death knell of a sport in which the United Kingdom excels and has been very successful. We may as well draw down the curtains on it. New clause 3 would merely provide a stay of sentence for people who have already qualified for the national squad and for those who are in the qualification pipeline.
      It is worth noting that people who qualify for the national squad have already been in competition shooting for a very long time. Some of them entered the sport as young as 14 years old and worked their way up through the junior ranks of pistol shooters, to age 21, and eventually on to the national team.
      New clause 3 would merely give the Home Secretary the power to enable such people to continue the progress that they are already making towards the national squad and, eventually and hopefully, continue the noble tradition of winning for the United Kingdom more gold, silver and bronze medals in competition shooting. I hope that the Home Secretary will give me a reason to withdraw my remarks about his cynicism.
      New clause 4 applies all the arguments that we have already heard to an even narrower bunch of shooters: disabled shooters. I take very much to heart—as I hope the Committee will—the remarks made on behalf of British Paraplegic Shooting Association.
      There is no doubt that pistol shooting is one of the very few sports in which everyone competes on equal terms—young and old, male and female, the able-bodied and the disabled. Disabled shooters often beat able-bodied shooters because they frequently shoot from a wheelchair, which gives them a degree of stability that may be denied to someone shooting from a standing position. The British Paraplegic Shooting Association has explained very clearly to the Secretary of State why their shooting should be preserved.
      As hon. Members have already said, the sport commences at grassroots level and proceeds to Paralympic level. Paralympians train extremely hard at least four times a week, and every day in the run-up to the Paralympics, and shooting is very much their special sport. After the 1996 Paralympics, in Atlanta, the Paralympic committee removed two air weapons events and increased the number of live ammunition events, because competition in air weapons has reached such a high standard, and more competitive participants are needed.
      396
      Ministers would be very wise to grant special dispensation to that group of people. Moreover, even if Ministers are minded to refuse new clause 3, I hope that they will accept new clause 4.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: On 11 June 1997, I spoke at some length in the House about the specific needs of disabled shooters. I also intervened in the speech of the Home Secretary to ask him about the special position of Bisley, which is a village in my constituency. The Home Secretary said:
      "I shall look at the subject again".—[Official Report, 11 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 1167.]
      I speak in this debate to ask the Home Secretary whether he will accept the new clauses and, before the Bill goes to another place, re-examine the subject. I ask also whether he may be able to introduce a modified version of new clause 4 in another place.
      As my hon. Friends and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) have stressed, we are speaking about a relatively small group of people—disabled shooters and those involved in the highest levels of competition—about whom the Labour party has always been particularly concerned. Labour has always been very proud, as they should be, of their support for sport and for the disabled.
      It would therefore be somewhat surprising for Labour Members, in one of their very first acts in government, to hamper the disabled and damage a very important and successful sport. I ask the Home Secretary to reflect very carefully before he decides on legislation that would be so draconian that it would prevent any effective competition at the highest levels by British sportspeople and by disabled British sportspeople in the Paralympic, Commonwealth and Olympic games.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends have already stressed that these are sports which Britain gave the world and at which we have done conspicuously well. Especially in respect of the Paralympics, it is extraordinary that the Home Secretary should say that it is beyond his ability to help the disabled.
      On 11 June, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) sought to suggest that I and my colleagues who were talking about the disabled were in some way hiding our support for various amendments—support that we had always made quite clear—behind the cause of the disabled. I resent that suggestion. The hon. Gentleman is not in his place at the moment, but he was here earlier.
      I stress that many of us have been working hard for disabled sportspeople—not only those involved in shooting—for many years. We have every right to champion the cause of disabled shooters and the cause of those who have practised for many years.
      8.30 pm
      Many people in my constituency have been involved in shooting at the very highest level. They have cabinets full of trophies which they have won representing their country. As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, many months and years of practice go into winning those trophies, and I suggest that the Home Secretary seriously reconsiders the matter. I hope that he will accept the new clauses, but, if he cannot go that far, I hope that he will at least confirm that he is prepared to reconsider before the Bill goes to another place.

      397
      In pursuance of his promise to me on 11 June, I hope that the Home Secretary will consider the position of Bisley. Sadly, Britain has lost its historic standing in many sports, although we hope that we are regaining it in, for example, cricket at the moment. However, there is no doubt that Bisley is regarded worldwide as the pre-eminent centre of shooting, a sport in which we have an extremely successful record. It is not impossible for the Government to make exceptions, either by accepting the new clauses now or by accepting similar proposals in another place, and to allow competitive pistol shooting, and shooting for the disabled, to continue.
      Mr. Christopher Chope: Like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have high hopes that as the Home Secretary is answering this debate it means that the Government are taking the two new clauses seriously.
      Mr. Maclean: He is a reasonable man.
      Mr. Chope: He has proved on a number of occasions that he is a reasonable man, as my right hon. Friend says.
      On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that it would be possible for pistol shooting competitions to be held within the confines of the Commonwealth games. If public safety can be secured by arrangements that enable pistol shooters from more than 50 Commonwealth countries to come to Manchester and use their pistols in competition, why cannot arrangements be made for British pistol shooters to practise their sport in a centre of excellence with public safety being secured at the same time?
      To get to the bottom of the Government's argument, I tabled a question to find out what detailed arrangements were being planned by the Government in connection with the Commonwealth games in Manchester in 2002. I asked the Home Secretary
      "to place in the Library a draft of the authority and the conditions attached thereto which he intends to grant under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 in respect of competitors in pistol shooting events at the Commonwealth Games".
      I am sorry to have to tell the House that the Minister of State declined to do so. In so doing, he said:
      "Any authority to be issued to competitors for the pistol shooting events…will be a matter for the Secretary of State",
      which we know. He continued:
      "the Secretary of State can attach any conditions which he considers necessary to ensure that public safety or the peace is not endangered. It is … for the Secretary of State to decide the appropriate drafting and conditions".
      We understand that, but if the Home Secretary can be so sure that it will be possible to make those necessary arrangements for the Manchester games, why can he not place in the Library a draft of those arrangements? I am not asking for the final version—only for a draft of how he thinks the arrangements will work in practice.
      Fifty nations will be represented at the Commonwealth games, at which pistol shooting is the third most popular sport. People will attend from the UK, but also from parts within the UK, such as Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man. What arrangements will be made to ensure public safety, given that that is the absolute which the Home Secretary is holding up to us? Has he thought through
      398
      how pubic safety will be secured in those circumstances? If so—I hope that he has—why will he not let us know what those detailed arrangements are? We could then compare the practicalities of arrangements proposed for the Commonwealth games with the proposals in new clauses 3 and 4.
      I also received a disappointing reply from the Minister of State when I asked whether competitors from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be able to use pistols
      "in their ownership which are lawfully held overseas so that they can participate in the games on equal terms with nationals from other countries."
      Again, it is a straightforward question, but the Minister of State responded:
      "The Government appreciate the need for the planning of the games to take place well in advance and we intend to discuss the matter with all interested parties. It is too early to grant section 5 authority at this stage. However, all competitors from the United Kingdom, as elsewhere, will be eligible to be considered nearer the time."—[Official Report, 16 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 3–4.]
      I hope that they are not intended to be the weasel words that they might seem to those of a more sceptical disposition than I.
      I hope that the Minister of State and the Home Secretary will make it possible for British competitors, who use and practise with pistols that are lawfully held overseas, to bring those pistols here and participate in the games on equal terms with nationals from other countries. If not, I despair. It raises the serious problem of whether this country will ever be able to command the support of other countries on the Olympic games or Commonwealth games committee if we are not able to guarantee the future of pistol shooting events.
      Originally, we were not going to have pistol shooting in Manchester, but, after pressure was put on the Manchester organisers, it was agreed that there would be. It is such a popular sport in the Commonwealth games that any country that has no proper arrangements for it is unlikely to enjoy the support of other Commonwealth countries in seeking designation to host the Commonwealth games.
      Mr. Colvin: Unlike me, my hon. Friend is a lawyer. We have been discussing the rights of minorities and I know that my hon. Friend has made a study of the European convention on human rights. I ask him, as I asked the Home Secretary on Second Reading, whether in his view people deprived of the liberty to shoot have the right to appeal to the European Court against this infringement of their civil rights.
      Mr. Chope: I do not give any advice as a lawyer these days. Like me, the Home Secretary is a proud member of the Inner Temple, but we certainly do not give advice—at least not for free—in this House. However, I do know that members of the Christchurch gun club have high expectations of being able to take some of these arguments to the European Court of Human Rights. I do not know whether they will be successful, but it is an indication of their despair that they feel that they will be forced down that path.
      New clause 4 deals with shooting for the disabled, which is a sport that was developed by our country and something of which we should be proud. I hope that the Government's sensitivity towards those least able to help

      399
      themselves will lead them to accept the new clause. What the disabled can achieve by pistol shooting differs greatly from what others can achieve. It is said by the Government, with some justification, that ordinary people involved in pistol shooting can transfer their activities to rifle, shotgun or clay pigeon shooting; for a disabled person, however, such a transfer is not possible because of the recoil and power of those larger guns. That is why pistol shooting for people in wheelchairs has become such a popular sport. Mr. Holdaway, who is a prominent member of the Christchurch gun club, writes that pistol shooting
      "is a sport almost anybody can compete in on equal terms. This is particularly true of pistol shooting as rifles and shotguns can have intimidating levels of recoil. Women can compete against men as can youngsters. A few disabled people with limited upper body strength may be unable to shoot, but being in a wheelchair is no disadvantage in many disciplines. .22 calibre events are especially suitable."
      I hope that the Government will take the new clauses seriously. If they fail to do so, I have every confidence that the debate in another place will ensure that the new clauses are eventually put on the statute book.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): First, I say to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and to other right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken this evening that I take this matter very seriously indeed. It may be that we have come to different conclusions—I shall try to explain why that may be inevitable in this case—but I do not regard what we are doing here as a light matter. On Second Reading, I said that the House has
      "to be very careful before we use our power to prohibit actions that were previously lawful and involved no criminal intent. Simple disapproval can never be a ground alone for prohibition."—[Official Report, 11 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 1164.]
      I have repeated that statement, because it is applicable to today's debate and will be applicable to future debates. It is a principle to which I and the Government of which I am a member seek to work whenever we address the difficult questions of balancing the personal liberty of law-abiding people against wider issues of public safety.
      My second preliminary remark is in answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) about the European convention on human rights, which is a matter that we have considered both in opposition and in government. It was raised initially—and somewhat ironically—by the former hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, Nicholas Budgen, who could not normally get the word "European" out of his mouth without spitting about it. He had worked out that the European convention on human rights had a different—and in his view far more honourable—provenance than the treaty of Rome. It was, after all, a convention which had been developed by distinguished British lawyers, including the distinguished British lawyer who went on to become a Conservative Lord Chancellor. Mr. Budgen kept asking me during the course of the last Parliament whether shooters would be able to exercise their rights under the convention. The best advice that I have received is that neither the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 nor the Bill in any way conflicts with individuals' rights under the convention, but it is open to any British citizen to petition the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Later this year, we shall introduce a Bill to incorporate the European convention
      400
      into British law and I look forward to receiving support for that measure, not least from those who have spoken today about their rights under that convention.
      I have thought carefully about this matter and I shall explain why I am not persuaded to grant the exception that is asked for. While listening to the arguments, I was struck by the fact that the main argument in favour of the exception—which would extend a right to carry on practising to the existing national squad and the 13 regional squads mentioned by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)—was based on another exception that I have already granted. That is my difficulty. I have listened carefully to the arguments and it is for that reason that I announced on Second Reading that we would be ready to use the section 5 powers under the Firearms Act 1968 to ensure that the shooting competitions at the Commonwealth games could go ahead. I believe that we were right to do so, even though it creates a patent anomaly, as was said on Second Reading. It is an anomaly, but we should be able to arrive at conditions which assure public safety and ensure that those games can go ahead.
      That exception having been made, it is now suggested that I must make another exception—that British shooters should be allowed to train before that competition so that they can compete. The problem with new clause 3 is that it does not properly define which members would be members of national squads.
      The competition will be in five years' time. If there were to be a real prospect of British shooters being able to participate in that competition, the next argument would be, logically, that we should ensure that there is a through-put of people who would be available in five years' time to compete. The next question would be why we are excluding some people and not others. That is one reason why I am not persuaded of the case for the new clause.
      8.45 pm
      Given the shooting competitions that will take place at the Commonwealth games and under the aegis of the Olympic games and the Paralympic games, it is striking—and I think not properly appreciated by hon. Members or the public—that, even after the Bill is passed, British residents will be able to train and compete in the vast majority of Commonwealth games and Olympic shooting disciplines.
      To listen to the debate and the remarks of, for example, the right hon. Member for Penrith and the Border, one might be forgiven for believing that, in his words, the sport "will be destroyed." Yes, the sport of target shooting with pistols will end as a result of the Bill's passage. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman meant, he is right, but the implication of some of the less precise remarks that have been made is that shooting as a sport will be destroyed by the Bill. It will not.
      Quite a lot of British people, and many Labour Members, are worried about public safety. The Bill and the 1997 Act will have the effect of removing 200,000 handguns from circulation, but that will leave at least another 200,000 rifles and high-powered air weapons. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may say that that means that there remains a public safety issue.
      In any case, those 200,000 rifles and high-powered air weapons will exist and most of them are held not to carry out any occupational function, such as in agriculture,

      401
      but for sporting purposes. I well understand that some weapons are held for occupational reasons, but most are held for sporting purposes. In addition, there are certificates relating to 1.3 million shotguns. So although the Bill will eliminate the holding of pistols in general civilian use, it will not eliminate firearms.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is really addressing the argument, but it must be apparent to—or at least dawning on—him that the argument is a question not of an anomaly, but of a judgment. It is a question of deciding where to draw the line and what is necessary for the protection of public safety.
      We are discussing a very small number of pistols. We had a debate about single-shot pistols, which I invite the right hon. Gentleman to keep in mind, because one appreciates that a multi-shot pistol is more dangerous, but we are trying to find a way of keeping open a sport practised by legitimate sportsmen under highly controlled conditions. He is making the case against his existing judgment, by pointing out that there are 200,000 rifles and 1.3 million shotguns, which are as lethal as—probably rather more lethal than—these pistols, quite apart from the ease of getting them from France and the existence of illegal ones. I am fascinated to know how the right hon. Gentleman convinces himself.
      Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that it comes down to a judgment of where to draw the line. A rifle may be more powerful than a pistol. Lord Cullen and the former Government were of the view that a pistol is more dangerous because it is more easily concealed; and a multi-shot pistol can be fired more rapidly than the rifles which, these days, are lawfully certified. To those who say that we have some sort of ideological fixation against the use of firearms, I say: look at the facts. There will still be 1.5 million lawfully licensed firearms in this country after the passage of the Bill. Some of my hon. Friends might want to criticise me for allowing that to continue, but it hardly argues for a fixation on our part.
      I want to set out the facts about the number of competitions in which British residents will still be able to compete even after the passage of the Bill. There are 15 shooting competitions in the Olympics. British participation will be adversely affected by the Bill in respect of just three of them. British sportsmen and women will still be able to compete in 12 competitions, involving air rifles and pistols, ordinary rifles and shotguns for clay pigeon shooting.
      The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border referred to the fact that shooting was one of the original disciplines in the Olympics, and he was right about that. But it is also interesting to note that of all the Olympic sports, shooting is the only one for which the number of events that have been discontinued greatly outnumbers the ones currently held. The history of these events is a history of changing perceptions of public safety.
      There was a time when there was a competition in the Olympics with duelling pistols. I suspect that as duelling went out of fashion so it was felt by the organisers of the Olympics that such a competition might offend some more sensitive members of the public. There was also a
      402
      competition for miniature rifles—highly dangerous weapons. I know that animal rights are much on the minds of my hon. Friends at the moment. There used to be a competition of live pigeon shooting. That, too, has been abandoned by the Olympics. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border may have some experience of trying to shoot live pigeons; he suggests that trying to obtain a score at all may have been problematic.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: One of the themes of this interesting debate has been that it is not about the moral high ground: it is about the practical consequences for public safety. Yet here is the right hon. Gentleman lecturing the Committee—I fully understand his point—on the very moral issues which we have been told time and again are not the motivating force behind the legislation. Is there not some confusion here?
      Mr. Straw: The word "moral" has not passed my lips. Where to draw the line is a practical, not a moral issue. For me, the only moral issue is securing the right balance between people's right to engage in a sport and the need for public safety.
      Mr. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that under the arrangements that he proposes there will be no legal bar to British competitors taking part in the Manchester Commonwealth games? If so, will he make some allowance for those competitors to arrive at the competition in a reasonable state of preparedness—even if only gained over the few weeks before the games?
      Mr. Straw: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's points. I hope that he will accept my arguments. I have thought about this a great deal, especially since it was raised in the House last week. In my judgment it will not be possible to allow an exemption which starts now and runs until 2002. As I said, because the exemption would have to run to 2002, I or any holder of my office would be under pressure to increase the number of people who might funnel their way through to become members of a national squad. If the games were to be held tomorrow, it would be a different matter, but we are speaking about an event five years away.
      If there is a British team that wishes to participate in the Commonwealth games in 2002, despite the fact that there will be no possibility of practice between now and then, it will be a matter for the holder of my office to ensure that the same arrangements for training apply to them as apply to any other team participating in the Commonwealth games. I noted what the right hon. Gentleman said. Should I still hold this fine office in 2002—I will almost have beaten the record for any holder over the past 200 years—I shall bear his comments in mind.
      I know that time is pressing, but important points have been raised and I want to answer them. With regard to the Paralympics, before the hon. Member for Romsey raised the matter, I was briefed to the effect that of a total of 15 events, British teams will be ruled out of just two events. The hon. Gentleman gave more up-to-date information. I understand that the Paralympic committee has removed two air weapon events and replaced them with live firing events.
      That makes my point as much as the hon. Gentleman's, and shows that within the ambit of shooting competitions it is possible for the kind of events to be changed,

      403
      sometimes in response to public fashion and public pressure. I suggest that if participation by British residents in .22 live-firing competition were banned it might be possible to persuade the Paralympics to move into other events.
      On the Commonwealth games, the news is even better than that in respect of the Olympics and the Paralympics. There are 28 separate shooting competitions in the Commonwealth games. Of those, British residents will be able to train and compete in 21 disciplines for rifles, air rifles, pistols and shotguns. It is five years before the Commonwealth games take place. I expect that several of the people who have represented this country so finely in pistol competitions will shift their discipline to one of the other four disciplines—rifles, air rifles, pistols and shotguns.
      The passage of the Bill will mean that British participants are unable to compete in six pistol competitions. As the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is aware, the 1997 Act for which he was responsible had the effect of rendering British participation in one Commonwealth games event impossible—that was for .32 centrefire pistols.
      I have dealt with one of the claims made about the Bill, which is that it would lead to British residents being unable to train and compete in shooting disciplines. I think that I have shown that, notwithstanding the Bill, British residents will still be able to train and compete in the vast majority of events in the Olympic and Commonwealth games.
      The second charge that has been made is that we would be unable to host the Commonwealth games in 2002, or the Olympics or Paralympics at some time in the future. I dealt with the matter of the Commonwealth games when I spoke in the House on Second Reading last Wednesday. I or my successor will be able to make an authorisation, subject to detailed practical conditions, under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968.
      The hon. Member for Christchurch asked why my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office has not been able to put in the Library of the House the detailed conditions. That is because we have not got them, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman to set out as far as possible the criteria that we would take into account.
      With regard to the Olympics and the Paralympics, I am assured that the passage of the Bill would not prevent our hosting either of those games at some time in the future, if we were able to win that competition.
      Either of the new clauses is capable of producing loopholes in the control of firearms. I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been advanced. Hon. Members who argued in favour of the new clauses will accept that I have taken their case seriously and have tried to deal with it. I am sorry to tell them, however, that, having weighed the arguments in the balance, I must ask the House to reject both new clauses.
      Mr. Maclean: We have listened carefully to the Home Secretary tonight, and the difference between him and the Minister of State is obvious. When the Minister does not have a logical argument, he reverts to attacking the Opposition and to much bluff and bluster. When the Home Secretary does not have a logical argument, he reverts to ladling out the charm. The Home Secretary
      404
      dispensed charm by the bucketful in his reply tonight, which leads me to conclude that he does not have a very strong argument.
      9 pm
      The Home Secretary is correct to say that there is a delicate balance to be struck between public safety and individual liberty. We all accept that fact. The Committee may be under the impression—perhaps Labour Back Benchers believe it—that the Home Secretary has decided that, in the interests of public safety, pistol shooting will never occur again in this country.
      Mr. Paul Flynn: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Maclean: The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) is wrong. The Home Secretary has exercised his judgment and decided that pistol shooting will be allowed, under strictly controlled conditions, in this country at the Commonwealth games and that competitors from 60 foreign countries will participate. British shooters will not be able to train and shall not participate. It is not a matter of public safety. The Home Secretary cannot base his opposition to the new clause on concern about public safety. He cannot claim that public safety is paramount and absolute and say—in the nicest possible way—that he therefore cannot accept the new clause.
      The Home Secretary has decided to exercise his judgment—which I think is correct—to permit shooting events to be held at the Commonwealth games. The Opposition are asking the Home Secretary not to make another exception and depart from his judgment, but to follow the same principles that he has applied in deciding to permit shooting at the Commonwealth games and allow it to take place at a designated site, such as Bisley. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) put the argument beautifully and succinctly. He said that if public safety can be secured for the shooters from 60 countries at Manchester, why can it not be allowed at a designated, secure, national site, such as Bisley, where the Home Secretary could apply the same strict section 5 guidelines? I expect the criteria that he will publish in due course to be quite draconian in order to ensure public safety, and the Opposition will accept it.
      The Opposition have no option but to press new clause 3 to a Division today. The Home Secretary has been hoist by his own petard—no wonder he wants to shoot some pigeons, because they have dropped some nasty things on him—in the logic that he has tried to apply today. The Home Secretary has exercised his judgment and he will allow pistol shooting to take place in Britain in a few years. In this new clause, we ask him to exercise the same judgment and permit it to take place under the same secure conditions for British as for foreign shooters.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 159, Noes 328.

      Division No. 35]

      [9.2 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard (jShef'ld Hallam)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Atkinson, David

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      405

      Bercow, John

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Blunt, Crispin

      Key, Robert

      Body, Sir Richard

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Brady, Graham

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Brazier, Julian

      Lansley, Andrew

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Letwin, Oliver

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Lidington, David

      Burnett, John

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Burstow, Paul

      Loughton, Tim

      Butterfill, John

      Luff, Peter

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Cash, William

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Chope, Christopher

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Clappison, James

      Madel, Sir David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Maples, John

      Marek, Dr John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Mates, Michael

      Collins, Tim

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Colvin, Michael

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Merchant, Piers

      Cotter, Brian

      Moore, Michael

      Cran, James

      Moss, Malcolm

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Norman, Archie

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Opik, Lembit

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Page, Richard

      Paice, James

      Day, Stephen

      Paterson, Owen

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Pickles, Eric

      Duncan, Alan

      Prior, David

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Rendel, David

      Evans, Nigel

      Robathan, Andrew

      Faber, David

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Fallon, Michael

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Flight, Howard

      Ruffley, David

      Forth, Eric

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Fraser, Christopher

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Gale, Roger

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Garnier, Edward

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

      Gibb, Nick

      Soames, Nicholas

      Gill, Christopher

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Spring, Richard

      Gorrie, Donald

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Gray, James

      Steen, Anthony

      Green, Damian

      Stunell, Andrew

      Grieve, Dominic

      Swayne, Desmond

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Syms, Robert

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Hammond, Philip

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro & St Austell)

      Harvey, Nick

      Hawkins, Nick

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hayes, John

      Townend, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Tredinnick, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Trend, Michael

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Tyler, Paul

      Horam, John

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Viggers, Peter

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Wallace, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Walter, Robert

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Wardle, Charles

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Whittingdale, John

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      406

      Wilkinson, John

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Willis, Phil

      Woodward, Shaun

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Yeo, Tim

      Mr. Simon Burns and

      Mr. Tim Boswell.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Ainger, Nick

      Cousins, Jim

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Crausby, David

      Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Atkins, Ms Charlotte

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

      Austin, John

      Banks, Tony

      Curtis—Thomas, Ms Clare

      Barron, Kevin

      Dafis, Cynog

      Bayley, Hugh

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Beard, Nigel

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Dean, Ms Janet

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Denham, John

      Benton, Joe

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dismore, Andrew

      Best, Harold

      Dobbin, Jim

      Betts, Clive

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Blackman, Mrs Liz

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Doran, Frank

      Blizzard, Robert

      Dowd, Jim

      Borrow, David

      Drew, David

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Eagle, Ms Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Edwards, Huw

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Efford, Clive

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Ellman, Ms LouiseEtherington. Bill

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Flint, Ms Caroline

      Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

      Flynn, Paul

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Follett, Ms Barbara

      Burgon, Colin

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Butler, Christine

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Byers, Stephen

      Foster. Michael John (Worcester)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Galloway, George

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Gapes, Mike

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gardiner, Barry

      Caplin, Ivor

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Casale, Roger

      Gerrard, Neil

      Caton, Martin

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Cawsey, Ian

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Chaytor, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Goggins, Paul

      Clapham, Michael

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Graham, Thomas

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Grant, Bernie

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Grogan, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Gunnell, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clarke, Tony Northampton S)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hancock, Mike

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hanson, David

      Cohen, Harry

      Healey, John

      Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith & Fulham)

      Heath, David (Somerton)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Colman, Anthony (Putney)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Connarty, Michael

      Heppell, John

      Cooper, Ms Yvette

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Corbett, Robin

      407

      Hill, Keith

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mallaber, Ms Judy

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Home Robertson, John

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Hope, Philip

      Martlew, Eric

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Maxton, John

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Meale, Alan

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Merron, Ms Gillian

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Michael, Alun

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Milburn, Alan

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Miller, Andrew

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Hurst, Alan

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Iddon, Brian

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Illsley, Eric

      Morley, Elliot

      Ingram, Adam

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

      Mountford, Ms Kali

      Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

      Mudie, George

      Jamieson, David

      Mullin, Chris

      Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Norris, Dan

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Olner, Bill

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Osborne, Mrs Sandra

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Pickthall, Colin

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pike, Peter L

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Plaskitt, James

      Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Kemp, Fraser

      Pond, Chris

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Pope, Greg

      Kidney, David

      Pound, Stephen

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kingham, Tessa

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Purchase, Ken

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Rammell, Bill

      Laxton, Bob

      Rapson, Syd

      Lepper, David

      Raynsford, Nick

      Leslie, Christopher

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Levitt, Tom

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Rogers, Allan

      Linton, Martin

      Rooney, Terry

      Livingstone, Ken

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Roy, Frank

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Ruane, Chris

      Lock, David

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Love, Andy

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McAllion, John

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Salmond, Alex

      McCabe, Stephen

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Sawford, Phil

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McDonagh, Ms Siobhain

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Macdonald, Calum

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McFall, John

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McIsaac, Ms Shona

      Singh, Marsha

      McKenna, Ms Rosemary

      Skinner, Dennis

      McMaster, Gordon

      Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McNulty, Tony

      MacShane, Denis

      Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      408

      Soley, Clive

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Spellar, John

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Watts, David

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Webb, Steven

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      White, Brian

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Whitehead, Alan

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stott, Roger

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

      Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Swinney, John

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Winnick, David

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Wise, Audrey

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Wood, Mike

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Woolas, Phil

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wray, James

      Todd, Mark

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Touhig, Don

      Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)

      Trickett, Jon

      Wyatt, Derek

      Truswell, Paul

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      Mr. Kevin Hughes and

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Mr. David Clelland.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. As you know, and as the Government know, we could force new clause 4 to a vote. The Opposition wish to make it absolutely clear that we support the principle and the intention behind the new clause, but, as it is clear that the Government are unwilling to listen, and as they have voted down new clause 3, we shall not take up the time of the House with an unnecessary Division—[Interruption.] Unless Government Members tempt us, and make us wish to do so, we shall not take time away from Third Reading. However, the Opposition will return to the important content of new clause 4 in another place.
      Schedule agreed to.
      Bill reported, without amendment.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      9.18 pm
      Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      My party's manifesto made a clear commitment to a free vote on a total ban on handguns. We have delivered on that commitment, and a free vote on Second Reading produced a resounding majority of 203 in favour of an extension to the ban. That is a crystal clear message from the House. We want the ban on small-calibre pistols to be introduced well before the end of the year and I hope that that will prove possible.
      No point of principle or of detail on this short Bill has not been given a full airing on Second Reading and in subsequent debates on amendments and new clauses. We have made the case, we have won the argument and there can be no doubt of our intensions. We have dealt with the unfinished business that remained after the previous Government failed to allow a free vote on a complete ban on handguns. The Bill should now go to the other place for a swift passage into law. I believe that that is not only the will of the vast majority of hon. Members, but it has

      409
      the public's support as shown in the general election and through expressions of public opinion before and since. I commend the Bill to the House.
      9.20 pm
      Mr. Howard: We made our attitude to the Bill clear on Second Reading, and nothing that the Government said then or in Committee has led us to revise it. The Bill is a petty and vindictive measure, and its proposals are unnecessary, unfair and expensive.
      As I said on 11 June, we believe that the Government must always present a clear justification whenever they propose to intervene in the otherwise lawful habits of law-abiding citizens. The principle of individual liberties should dictate that Governments should always take into account the views of minorities and minority interests. As the Bill has gone through its stages in the House, the Government have done neither. Indeed, Ministers have applied a steamroller approach to any reasoned arguments or suggestions put by right hon. and hon. Members.
      The case put by my right hon. and hon. Friends and others that provision should be made to enable Olympic and Commonwealth competitors to compete has gone unanswered. The case put by my right hon. and hon. Friends and others that due consideration should be given to disabled shooters has gone unanswered. The Government's only response has been that the Bill is in the interests of public safety, but they have not produced any conclusive evidence to justify that view.
      The proposal to ban the controlled and limited use of .22 target pistols is unnecessary. The controls that we put in place earlier this year and which have yet to be implemented would have ensured that the public were protected. They would allow not unrestricted use of .22 calibre pistols but only limited use in clubs that police were satisfied met the highest security criteria. The owners of those weapons would even be prohibited from taking them out of a club. The police would have to be alerted as a matter of routine whenever a .22 pistol was removed from a club, be it for competition or repair.
      The Government want to go further. They argue that a total ban is a logical extension of the 1997 Act. The Minister of State said that the difference is not one of principle. But the fact is that the principle and motivation for a total ban are different from our proposals. Our guiding principle was to protect the public. We felt that we could do that without obliterating a long-established sport invented by Britain, enjoyed by many and at which we do well. The Government do not share that principle. That is why the Bill is unfair.
      The 1997 Act would have allowed British citizens to continue to represent their country on the international stage in .22 target pistol events recognised by the Olympic committee. Over the past 10 years, Britain has won 23 medals in Commonwealth .22 competitions. The Bill will make us virtually unique, as our citizens will no longer be able to take part in international competitions.
      The 1997 Act would also have allowed disabled people to continue to participate in a sport which they not only enjoy, but which the British Paraplegic Shooting Association has said is useful as
      "a rehabilitation means to help with balance and confidence, primarily in the use of a wheelchair and sport."
      410
      It believes that it provides disabled people
      "with a better quality of life and respect for themselves as disabled people in an able-bodied world."
      We tried to introduce an element of fairness into the Bill in new clauses 3 and 4. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) explained, the new clauses would have allowed national competition shooters recognised by the national bodies that select for international competitions to continue to train at centres designated by the Home Secretary. Our proposal for designated centres would have enabled Britain to continue to compete in a major Olympic sport.
      We also proposed, in new clause 4, that physically disabled shooters be exempt from the total ban and be allowed to continue their sport at centres designated by the Home Secretary, and, indeed, to continue to represent their country at international competitions. The Government's decision to oppose the new clause will be greeted with much sadness by law-abiding disabled shooters who pose no threat to the public.
      The Bill is also expensive. I said on Second Reading that Opposition Members would not begrudge the money if the consequences would really lead to increased protection for the public and if the Government could provide a clear justification for a total ban on handguns. They have not even begun to do so. They have calculated that the cost of compensating the owners of .22 handguns for the loss of their weapons and accessories would run to more than £30 million. Ministers have refused to tell us where the Government intend to find the money. Which Home Office budget will suffer? Will spending on closed circuit television or the police be sacrificed to compensate law-abiding owners of low-calibre handguns? Moreover, as we have heard today, the Government's estimates do not tell the whole story. The Bill goes much further than the 1997 Act: as has already been acknowledged, it would kill off pistol shooting.
      During the passage of the Bill that became the 1997 Act, we decided against compensating gun clubs for the impact of the ban on higher-calibre guns. An important justification for that view was the fact that shooters of high-calibre pistols could convert to .22s and continue to enjoy their sport. Under this Bill, that option would be denied to them, and many gun clubs would be made unviable. Associations that are—in the main—non profit-making would have to close and their owners or trustees could he faced with heavy liabilities.
      I give the example of the 10th battalion of the Suffolk Home Guard rifle and pistol club, founded when the Government stood the home guard down but instructed it to establish ranges to which the public were to be admitted. The battalion did so, on rented land. It built a clubhouse and raised money by its own efforts. In February 1996, just a few weeks before the tragedy of Dunblane, it bought the land. It managed that with the help of money from the Sports Council, the local district council and the National Rifle Association. The land is owned subject to covenant, so it can be used only as a shooting range. A £15,900 grant from the Sports Council is subject to the condition that the club should continue to function for 10 years. Then there is the matter of a loan of £6,000. None of that is under the control of the trustees of the club, yet each of the four trustees will be held personally liable for a quarter of any debts on the winding up of the club.

      411
      The Opposition believe that, given the extent of the Bill and its departure from the principles of the 1997 Act, the issue of compensation should be revisited. Naturally, we hope that as many clubs as possible will be able to survive, but clubs that are forced to close as a result of the circumstances created by the total ban on handguns should be compensated.
      The Government have completely failed to justify the need for the Bill, which clearly interferes with the liberty of thousands of law-abiding individuals. In their attempts to give reasons for the Bill, Ministers have rarely ventured beyond soundbites. The Bill is an example of the Government's weakness for gesture politics. It is unnecessary and unfair, and that is why we will oppose it.
      9.28 pm
      Helen Jones: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech in this important debate.
      It is a tradition of the House that maiden speeches should be fairly uncontroversial, and I respect that tradition, although I am not sure that it is possible to abide by it completely in a debate such as this. Not only is the tradition of argument and debate in the House honourable in itself, but I follow a long line of Warrington Members who were certainly not afraid to speak their minds.
      The House will know that I have the honour of succeeding Doug Hoyle. Doug was an excellent Member of Parliament, first for Warrington and then for the new seat of Warrington, North. He was extremely active, extremely able and very well liked by his constituents, to whom he was universally known by his first name long before such things became fashionable at Cabinet level. He was also a great supporter of Warrington rugby league football club and ended his career with the supporters singing "There is only one Dougie Hoyle" around the ground.
      Doug Hoyle was robust in the defence of his constituency. In his first speech in the House as the Member for Warrington, North, he was involved in what I think in these days of uncontroversial politics would be described as an interesting exchange of views with the then Secretary of State for Employment, now Lord Tebbit. No doubt they will continue the conversation elsewhere.
      As I have said, Doug Hoyle followed a long Warrington tradition. I have looked at the maiden speeches of my predecessors and they make it clear that they certainly did not shy away from saying what they thought. My predecessors included Tom Williams and, of course, Edith Summerskill who was the first woman to represent a Warrington constituency and whom no one could describe as a shrinking violet.
      To read those speeches is to realise how much has changed—and how little. The language may be different, but the preoccupations of my predecessors are shared by many of us today. They spoke of a need for better housing, for more national health service beds and, in one case, even of the need to preserve water supplies. Perhaps that is a salutary reminder to us all and especially to my hon. Friends of how much work still needs to be done. What comes through most of all from those speeches is a burning hatred of injustice and a desire to represent the constituency well. It is a privilege to follow in their footsteps.
      412
      I confess that I speak with some relief because for my first few weeks in the House I became uncertain about whether I would ever be able to speak in the House at all. I did not receive copies of the Labour whip and I began to wonder what dreadful breach of the disciplinary code I had managed to commit before I got here. I carefully scrutinised my election address and reviewed my whole campaign, and I can honestly say, unlike some hon. Members, that the word "socialism" did not get past my agent's eagle eye.
      After consulting the Millbank computer, I think that it was probably a mistake to allow in my office a poster that stated, "Join dangly earrings for Labour" after a certain dress code appeared in The Guardian. My most heinous offence was probably committed on a very wet day in Warrington when my campaign team, having been soaked to the skin four times, ended the evening completely drenched and with their umbrellas turned inside out, walking along a Warrington street and singing, "Always look on the bright side of life." Therefore, I plead guilty to enjoying the election campaign. I can only say in mitigation that what seems to outsiders to be frivolity is to Warringtonians a demonstration of resistance.
      In my constituency, people have demonstrated time and again their ability to bounce back and even to recover from tragedy. The people of Warrington are among the friendliest, most welcoming people that one could encounter. We brew excellent beer at Burtonwood, and people take part in a wide range of charitable and leisure pursuits, which include the little-known feat of recently breaking the world line dancing record.
      Although many of our traditional industries have disappeared, people have fought back to attract new jobs based on the excellent skills of our work force, our superb industrial sites and our communications facilities, which are second to none. Most of all, when Warrington was visited by the appalling tragedy of the Warrington bombing its people responded not with hatred and bitterness but with a movement to promote peace and reconciliation. There is no better measure of the character of my constituents than that. They are people whom any hon. Member would be proud to represent.
      Pride in one's constituency is not enough. The people of Warrington, North sent me here not just to say nice things about them, pleasurable though that may be, but to make changes. Time and again during the election campaign, people said to me that one of the things that most worried them was the gun culture and the private ownership of handguns. I appreciate the points that have been made by hon. Members who say that, in passing the Bill, we are restricting the rights of many law-abiding gun owners and are interfering with their liberty to practise their sport. Of course we are, but we restrict people's individual liberties on many occasions when we believe that it is for the greater public good. We do not allow people to drive on whichever side of the road they like or to build wherever they like. How much more important, then, is it to consider that possibility when we deal with guns?
      I am convinced by the arguments, particularly that relating to .22 pistols, because those weapons are small, lethal and deadly. They are the weapons that killed Robert Kennedy and Yitzhak Rabin. I am convinced also because no system of regulation and control, however draconian, can ever be 100 per cent. foolproof and if we allow these weapons to remain in private hands, it will be only a

      413
      matter of time before somehow, somewhere they fall into the wrong hands. As has been said many times in the House, but it bears repeating, the massacres at Hungerford and at Dunblane were carried out with legally held weapons. I am convinced, too, by the correlation shown in the Home Office statistics between the legal ownership of handguns and the number of firearm homicides. That has led me to believe sincerely that the more of these weapons we take out of circulation, the better it will be.
      I said earlier that I represent a constituency which knows about senseless and random violence. It is because of that that we sympathise with the people who have suffered elsewhere from our failure to control firearms. The time has come to take another step. The onus is on the people who would keep these weapons to make their case. I do not believe that I have heard that case made convincingly tonight because the right to practise a sport always has to come second to the right to protect life. I say that sincerely not just as an hon. Member, but as the mother of a young child, and I believe that I speak for many more mothers of young children. My son was eight years old this week. The best present that we could give him and his generation is to start to control the gun culture in which they are growing up. The Bill is a step on the road to that and I commend it to the House.
      9.37 pm
      Mr. Hancock: This debate has been interesting for a number of reasons, not least the spawning of such memorable and impressive maiden speeches. The House has been privileged to hear yet another tonight from the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), who is to be congratulated not only on talking so eloquently about her constituency and predecessors, but on the fine way in which she demonstrated her support for the Bill. I offer her my heartiest congratulations on that speech and my best wishes for her time in the House.
      I thought that it was a little sad and slightly shabby of the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), to talk in the way he did about the Bill. He suggested that the Bill had been steamrollered through. I have sat through most of the discussions on it. I have yet to think of a single Member on the Opposition or Government Benches who wanted to speak and was denied the opportunity on Second Reading, in Committee or indeed, I expect, on Third Reading, so to suggest that the Bill has been steamrollered through is an exaggeration.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe forgot to mention the part that he played in nursing the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 through the House, when he denied hon. Members the opportunity of a free vote, which would have brought into being the very thing that we are discussing tonight. Had there been a free vote on that occasion, we would not have sat through these proceedings in the past week or so. There would now have been a law, the compensation would have been dealt with and gun owners, clubs and everyone else would have been well aware of what was going to happen. There cannot be anyone in the country who, after the Dunblane massacre, seriously believed that there would not be significant changes.
      It was also obvious to everyone—except, perhaps, some Conservative Members—that nothing short of a total ban would be acceptable to the overwhelming majority of
      414
      British people. To satisfy the undoubted public demand for Parliament to take action, innocent people have to suffer—not innocent young children being denied the opportunity to grow up, but gun owners and sportsmen being denied the opportunity to pursue a sport. Yet it is not a sport which cannot change and adapt so that those sportsmen can fire other weapons; they are being denied the opportunity to fire specific guns.
      Time and again, the Home Secretary and the Minister have demonstrated conclusively that there is an element of versatility not only among those who want to shoot, but among the organisations that stage events for shooters. The Olympic games, the Commonwealth games and the national championships have changed many times to take account of changes in gun fashion and the sort of events in which people want to participate.
      The Bill is not the end of participation in shooting sports. It is not the end for those who, unfortunately, are disabled and who have chosen shooting as part of their therapy to help them gain their true potential. There will be opportunities for them to adapt and to take on other shooting pursuits, if that is what they want. It is not the end of the world. It will not stop this country staging the Commonwealth games in Manchester. It will not prevent us from making a bid for the Olympic games. Over the past couple of weeks, the Home Secretary, the Minister and many other hon. Members have demonstrated beyond refute that those events will be staged and that the United Kingdom will continue to attract them.
      The House has overwhelmingly responded to what the public demanded after Dunblane, and has done so mindful of the consequences. No one has hidden behind the consequences; indeed, most of us accept the consequences. We feel desperately sorry for those who will be disadvantaged by the Bill, but it was inevitable that action would be taken and that people would suffer. I do not think that anyone who has spoken in favour of the Bill has gloated about it—most people are sad that law-abiding citizens will not be able to continue with a pursuit that many of them have followed for many years. However, it was an inevitable consequence and, from time to time, the House must accept that it is the right price to pay to provide the sort of legislation that the country needs.
      There is no place to hide on this issue. Certainly, the Home Secretary has not tried to hide. The Minister has tried, to the best of his ability, to answer every intervention from those who criticise the Bill. I am delighted to say that, like the Minister, I speak on behalf of my colleagues in saying that there will be a free vote tonight—a free vote expressed by democratically elected Members of Parliament, just a few weeks after the general election.
      Conservative Members showed cynical contempt for the House and the election when they suggested that the Bill would be given a rough ride and possibly overturned in the other place. I hope that that will not happen. If it did, it would be a total injustice in view of the result of the election on 1 May. It is obvious that many people who voted knew that a change of Government would mean tougher gun laws. I do not believe that there is a peer of the realm who could claim that he was not aware of that inevitability.
      For Conservative Members to threaten that their colleagues in the other place might ambush and overturn the Bill shows a cynical disregard for the democratic

      415
      processes. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members take offence at that, but at least two of them said that that would happen. I am passionately in favour of the Bill and I am disappointed that they should take that attitude. I hope that at the end of the debate we give the Bill an overwhelming vote of support and that our colleagues in the other place will take note of that and act accordingly.
      9.44 pm
      Mr. Thomas Graham:I am absolutely delighted that we are having the Third Reading of the Bill and that we will vote to abolish handguns. I remember, not long ago, meeting John Crozier, a father who lost a child at Dunblane, and I have met other folk from Dunblane. It was one of the saddest and most tragic experiences of my life. I remember the feeling in Scotland when the Dunblane disaster happened. The House should not forget our responsibility to those children, and we should act to abolish handguns. We should also ensure that criminals and people who have said that they will go underground and continue to shoot will be punished as severely as possible.
      I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) in his place tonight. I hope that he will dissociate himself from the remarks made by his party's candidate in my constituency during the election. The candidate said that I did not vote to ban handguns in Scotland. I voted to ban handguns in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales. I say emphatically that no one can say that I am not determined in my opposition to handguns and my support for their abolition.
      Since the last time I spoke on the issue, I, like many hon. Members, have been vilified for not supporting the gun lobby. I have seen an article put out by the field sports supporters that says that they should get rid of Tommy Graham, because I had a majority of only 1,700. They had a big poster saying, "Get shot of him." That is a tragic and savage thing to say about anyone in the current climate, because it almost encourages terrorism. I tell those people that I am back with an 8,000 majority and I am as determined as anyone to see the end of handguns in people's pockets.
      I have heard arguments tonight about sport. Every man and woman in the country should sacrifice something to ensure that there is no repeat of what happened in Dunblane and in other parts of the world. The Bill is a step in the right direction to ensure that there are no guns in the hands of fools, vagabonds and criminals. We should take the guns out of circulation and destroy them. The Bill will achieve that.
      People have talked about medals—gold, silver and bronze. What sort of medal has been given to the kids who died at Dunblane? There is no medal for them. I hope that there is a place in heaven for all of them—I am sure there will be. Folk such as Tom Hamilton have denied the pleasure of the sport to people. I am not interested in gold medals.
      Do not give me the patter that I have heard tonight about the disabled. The previous Government had opportunities to support the disabled. They rejected those opportunities, so the Tories should not weep tonight. I have been a defender of the rights of the disabled for years and years and will continue to be. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) is right to say that
      416
      disabled folk will be able to take up some other sports or some other form of shooting. The argument about the disabled does not wash with me and the rest of the country.
      The nation has suffered terribly and tragically over Dunblane, but we can never suffer the way that the families involved have suffered—not in a million years. We must listen to the people of Britain who have told us that they want rid of the guns. They do not want any more Dunblanes, and they do not want the Tommy Hamiltons of this world to have access to guns. Today, I will be proud to walk into the Lobby to vote against what the Opposition are trying to force on us. The public do not want what the Opposition are proposing, because they do not want anyone to have a handgun.
      I have never heard such a fine maiden speech as that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones). It was one of the finest maiden speeches ever made in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and I were saying that we have never heard such a beautiful speech; it was so well made. I hope that she was absolutely right and that the House will give her son, and all the other children in the United Kingdom, the biggest birthday present ever. I congratulate her from the bottom of my heart on her superb speech and its great ending. Let us pass the Bill tonight with a thumping majority.
      9.50 pm
      Mr. Alex Salmond: I welcome the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), who has been elected to the House with a hard act to follow, because Doug Hoyle was a very effective and popular hon. Member. He was also the winner of a celebrated by-election, in which Lord Jenkins had difficulties not only of pronunciation but with Doug Hoyle. She obviously follows very much in the Doug Hoyle tradition.
      The hon. Lady also has courage, because she told a joke about the Millbank computer. She was fortunate that the Minister without Portfolio had left the Chamber by that time. None the less, I applaud her courage in telling such a joke. More to the point, she spoke very effectively and with great knowledge and commitment to her constituency. She also spoke without notes. In our own maiden speeches, many hon. Members probably relied on the notes that we had copiously copied down. She had the poise and confidence not to do so. It was a very effective speech, and I look forward to hearing many more speeches by her.
      The shadow Home Secretary described the Bill as petty and vindictive, and he said that it had been steamrollered through the House. He was wrong on all counts. The Bill is not petty, because it deals with a subject of great and substantial importance. It is also not vindictive, and I do not think that anyone could argue that it has been proposed in a vindictive manner. The attitude of Ministers has been one of more in sorrow than in anger, and one of deep responsibility and regret that such action must be taken. They have shown public responsibility in the manner in which the Bill was introduced.
      As for steamrollering the Bill through the House, the shadow Home Secretary seems to be suffering from a short memory as well as a deficiency of votes in the Tory leadership contest. He was well known for steamrollering

      417
      legislation, particularly earlier in the year, when he imposed a three-line Whip on the previous Government's Bill dealing with the very same issue and refused to allow a free vote—a vote of conscience—on a total ban on handguns. He now seems to be in a particularly poor position to complain about anyone else steamrollering.
      As hon. Members have said, the time allowed for debate has been adequate. I do not think that any hon. Member has felt constrained in their remarks, and the shadow Home Secretary's charge is unfair. Given that I do not have many complimentary remarks to make about the Government's entire range of legislation, I should say that I very much welcome their move to fulfil an election commitment that was shared both by the new Labour party and by the Scottish National party.
      The Bill is much more logical and complete than the earlier legislation proposed by the Conservative Administration. The loophole, illogicality and irrationality of allowing .22 weapons to continue to be used, albeit in gun clubs, but banning every other type of handgun was never satisfactorily dealt with. As hon. Members have said, on many occasions .22 weapons have proved themselves as dangerous and deadly as handguns of a higher calibre. That was the type of weapon used to kill Bobby Kennedy and in the attempt on the life of President Reagan. In the United States, such weapons are often referred to as "Saturday night specials".
      The Cullen report stated:
      "In terms of pure precision the .22 calibre was capable of inherent accuracy beyond the skill of the shooter. Whether high accuracy is obtained depends on the quality of the particular gun, the quality of the ammunition and the skills of the shooter. The .22 rimfire represented the highest precision cartridge which was available. It was highly evolved."
      Lord Cullen could not see the case for separating the .22 from higher-calibre weapons; nor has anyone effectively made that case throughout the controversy surrounding the banning of handguns. It was on that illogicality that the previous legislation failed the test and failed the challenge of Dunblane and, indeed, of Hungerford.
      I remind the House of the gun lobby's own judgment on the weaknesses of the storage proposal in the previous legislation. In its evidence to Lord Cullen, the British Shooting Sports Council said:
      "No matter what system of checks and paperwork is maintained in such circumstances, it would be a simple matter indeed for a shooter intent on recovering his gun to enter a competition, provide evidence to his club secretary that he had done so, recover possession of the complete gun together with ammunition for it, and perpetrate an outrage."
      The BSSC was arguing against club storage at that stage. It felt that that was what it had to resist because it believed that Cullen would move to club storage. However, the logic of the argument does not depend on the circumstances in which it is being argued, and the argument against building caches of guns in gun clubs is the same, regardless of the legislation before us. That is the reason why we should move forward and should ask. the many decent, law-abiding gun owners to sacrifice one part of their leisure time activities for the greater good of society as a whole.
      We have heard a great deal about the Commonwealth and Olympic games. I know that the Home Secretary has in all good faith said that those games can still take place
      418
      in the United Kingdom, but I would rather see deployed the argument that it is perhaps time—or past time—that we should be telling the Olympic Games Committee and the Commonwealth Games Federation that handgun competitions do not have a place in an international athletic and sporting competition, that many tens of millions of children across the world look to these competitions and their participants, and that such competitions perhaps reinforce the gun culture about which many of complain so often. Perhaps the argument against such events taking place at the Commonwealth and Olympic games should now be articulated—we should move on.
      I will be supporting the Bill, as will the Scottish National party. I wish it well in the remainder of its proceedings in another place. It would be incredible if it were ambushed and bushwhacked there. That would be a rank defiance of the clearly expressed public opinion. To use a phrase from another debate, it is the "settled will" of the people that effective action should be taken against handguns. A popular decision has been taken to move against the gun culture. While neither this nor the previous legislation can be said to render impossible another outrage like Hungerford or Dunblane, I think that the Bill reduces the chances of another outrage and represents a move in favour of public safety. For that reason, the Bill should certainly be supported.
      The Bill deserves the support of all parties. It might not get it, but I am sure that it will receive a Third Reading with a substantial majority. I hope that it proceeds quickly onto the statute book.
      9.57 pm
      Mr. Colvin: I join those hon. Members who have congratulated the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on her maiden speech which she made with great confidence and fluency and, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, without notes. That is always impressive, and I look forward to hearing many more contributions from her in due course.
      I also strongly endorse what the hon. Lady said about her predecessor, Mr. Doug Hoyle. On my arrival in this place, I had been told that, as a new Member, the first thing that I should do was find myself a pair. I approached three hon. Members who to me looked and sounded like Labour Members, only to discover that they were Tories. I then tried two more people who turned out to be members of the press lobby. It was only at the sixth attempt that I discovered Mr. Hoyle. On looking him up in the good book which contains hon. Members' curricula vitae, I discovered that he was the president of the trade union to which I then belonged and which was known as the Association of Secretarial, Technical and Managerial Staffs. It was a vain attempt to get the president of my union to pair with a lowly Member of Parliament, because he was already paired with someone else. I nevertheless endorse the hon. Lady's remarks about Doug, who is a great loss to the House. We always enjoyed his company and listened attentively to anything he had to say.
      When the Minister of State in moving Third Reading said that the Government have won the argument and the vote, he was half right. The Government have certainly won the vote, but they have again lost the argument. There were many sensible points advanced by opponents of the Bill that should have been more carefully considered.

      419
      I would endorse what the—
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the Firearms (Amendment) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Jane Kennedy.]
      Question agreed to.
      Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      Mr. Colvin: As I was saying, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan drew attention to the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) about the Government steamrollering this Bill through. I agree entirely with my right hon. and learned Friend, but he is the last person who should accuse the Government of steamrollering a Bill, because when sitting on the Government Benches during the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, he was equally guilty of steamrollering through his measure. At that time, he, too, was opposed with similar vigour by some of us who knew something about shooting.
      I fully understand the passion with which the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham) made his speech and the sentiments he expressed. Those feelings were shared by a great many people following the tragedy of Dunblane, which is entirely understandable. The Snowdrop campaign, which reinforced that feeling and did so much to galvanise public opinion, was certainly responsible for the way in which the public reacted to the issue of handguns.
      However, the initial hostility to handguns was then tempered by the common sense of Lord Cullen's report into the tragedy. It was significant that after the report had been made public, the press had commented on it and there had been debate in both Houses of Parliament about firearms legislation, some of the opinion polls and press comments started to be tempered by a modicum of common sense. For example, in October 1996, a poll in The Sunday Times, while supporting the proposals in what became the 1997 Act, showed only 54 per cent. in favour of a complete ban on all handguns. By December 1996, polls conducted in response to remarks by the Duke of Edinburgh showed that a majority of the public felt that a complete ban was an overreaction which unfairly penalised law-abiding citizens. Three telephone polls published at that time showed that between 68 and 75 per cent. of people were against a complete ban. By February this year, even in Scotland, where the tragedy took place, Market Research Scotland found that 39 per cent. of Scots believed that responsible gun users were being treated unfairly because of the action of one man. We, too, must temper our passionate feelings about Dunblane with an element of common sense
      The Home Secretary has said clearly that, although he will use his section 5 powers to enable the Commonwealth games to go ahead in Manchester, one exception is enough. However, I would point out that there are already other exceptions. Athletics clubs use .32 and .38 calibre guns for starting races. Vets use such guns, as do slaughterhouses.
      420
      It was not unreasonable, therefore, to expect special exception to be made for single-shot .22 guns to be used for competition purposes. They cannot be concealed on a person, as .22s were concealed in the assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy.
      I believe that the House was especially interested to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) about dismantling firearms so that they may be kept in the home, avoiding the imposition of an enormous burden of financial investment on gun club security. If and when the Bill reaches the other place, the whole issue of dismantling .22 calibre weapons should be considered once more.
      If the Government want suggestions as to amendments that they might introduce in the other place, I suggest that they consider including in the Bill a clause requiring that, after three years, a review be held of its provisions, including a review of the impact that they might have had on international competition shooting.
      The other great injustice of the Bill, on which much has been said, is the issue of compensation. I very much hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider that matter, because, although there are provisions in the Bill for compensating people for loss of their handguns and loss of equipment, the clubs, many of which are heavily in debt as a result of the investment that they have made, and the people who have lost their busines, should be compensated as well.
      There are plenty of precedents in this country for such compensation, but the Home Secretary should also consider the precedent of the Australian experience—which teaches us that, although draconian measures may be necessary, people should not be deprived of their livelihood, investment, money and jobs as a result. The Government should seriously reconsider that before proceeding with the Bill.
      10.6 pm
      Mr. Grieve:This has been an interesting debate and I have tried to listen carefully to the Ministers' arguments. In a way, I am grateful to the Home Secretary for saying at the outset that the Bill was introduced on its merits because it dealt with the practical. I believe that he explained that the only morality in the issue was that of trying to ensure that people were not harmed by handguns.
      As we have examined more and more minute applications of the rule to individual instances, it has been interesting to note how woefully deficient the Government have been in coming up with a concrete explanation or reason justifying the outlawing—if I may use that word—of categories of handgun use. Most notably, a strange ambiguity has crept in. Ministers have argued that these are practical considerations, whereas Labour Back Benchers have come up with far more powerful arguments, on a much higher moral plane, saying why handguns must go.
      The extremely powerful maiden speech by the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) introduced reasons for handgun legislation, and its specific application to .22 rounds, that have been wholly absent from the reasons that the Home Secretary and the Minister of State have advanced.
      The Home Secretary has made a series of repetitions, maintaining that the .22 would introduce loopholes that might lead to risks. It has never been explained to the

      421
      House how the restricted categories that we have discussed would produce those loopholes, when the mere fact that we shall also allow handguns into the country at the time of the Olympic games and Commonwealth games shows that exceptions can be created and tolerated. In that regard, the contribution of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to tonight's debate was far more philosophically and intellectually coherent than those of Ministers.
      Instead, we have heard a whole series of arguments being wheeled out, dealing mainly with emotion—one of which, from the Home Secretary on Second Reading, greatly surprised me. We were to go along with his suggestion, he said, because it was endorsed by the Police Federation. I have spent time as a barrister prosecuting for the police, as a lay visitor to police stations, and as chairman of committees of police community consultative groups, and my admiration for the police is great. But if the Home Secretary is going to spend his time telling us to go along with things because the Police Federation want them, he will be the first Home Secretary gently to preside over leading us inexorably into a police state.
      The issue before the House may ultimately be the moral issue for which the hon. Member for Warrington, North argued, but in the meantime I should point out that we live in a pluralist society—an idea to which the Home Secretary, in his civil liberties days, would often have adhered. It is certainly the view to which I adhere. Removing people's rights without good reason or cogent arguments makes for bad law—
      Mr. Dennis Canavan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a child's right to life is far more important than any adult's right to use a gun, even for so-called sporting purposes?
      Mr. Grieve: If the hon. Gentleman could persuade me of any linkage between the two, I would respect his argument—but I have heard nothing to persuade me of it. Instead, throughout the debate Ministers have obfuscated, trying to conceal the fact that shooters in gun clubs are a law-abiding group indulging in a recreational pursuit. Labour Back Benchers, meanwhile, tell us that for moral reasons guns must go. These are the foundations of bad law, and I am sorry that the Minister of State does not see it that way.
      10.11 pm
      Mr. Maclean: The House has been privileged over the week between Second and Third Readings to hear a number of excellent maiden speeches. I heartily congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on her fluent and confident speech. It was made, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, without notes—very impressive for a maiden speaker. We look forward to more, valuable contributions from her in due course.
      I hope that one day the hon. Lady will develop the splendid accent of her predecessor, whom we all thought of with great affection. The story that comes to mind about him concerns the hapless Conservative candidate from the southern counties who, a few years ago, thought he would try his hand as a candidate in Warrington.
      422
      Unfortunately, he had not done all his homework. When asked by the local Conservative chairman, "What do you know about `oyle?", he went on to give a wonderful dissertation on the benefits of North sea oil, and wondered afterwards why he was not selected for the seat. If his successor picks up his accent in due course, that will be a bonus.
      We approached the Bill with deep scepticism and we are still sceptical about it. We felt that it was unnecessary, unfair and costly. As the Bill has gone through all its stages, our initial attitudes have been confirmed and hardened.
      Not only is the Bill unnecessary: it is petty and vindictive. Whenever the state considers limiting the activities of its law-abiding citizens, it must have a compelling justification. The Government have come up with no such justification at any stage of the Bill's progress. They claim that a total ban on handguns would increase public safety. If that were true, we would vote for it—just as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and many other colleagues voted for the 1997 Act. That was the Act which brought about public safety and dealt with the Hamilton-Dunblane evil.
      We challenged the Government to come up with evidence or valid research to back up their view that this Bill adds something in terms of public safety to what the 1997 Act achieved. They have not done so and they will not, because they cannot come up with evidence that the Bill is essential for additional public safety, following the draconian provisions in the 1997 Act.
      Mr. David Winnick rose—
      Mr. Maclean: No, I want to conclude. I know that the Home Secretary wants to speak and the whole House is waiting. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.
      Both on Second Reading and in Committee, reasoned proposals to introduce an element of fairness—by allowing our top national competitors to continue to train and compete, or by allowing the disabled to be exempted from the ban—have been dismissed by Ministers, admittedly graciously dismissed by the Home Secretary, but dismissed all the same. The Government have closed their ears to positive suggestions that try to introduce an element of fairness. They are confident that they can deploy their army of Back-Bench Lobby fodder to ram through any proposals.
      The Bill is unnecessary. The controls that we recently put in place are rigorous. Indeed, the provisions of the 1997 Act were regarded by many people as excessive when they went through. However, they would still have allowed British sportsmen to represent their country in international .22 target pistol competitions and they would still have allowed controlled and limited use of .22 handguns in clubs that met the highest security criteria.
      The hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham), whom I respect immensely for a variety of reasons with which I shall not burden the House, made a wonderful, impassioned speech tonight. All his remarks were relevant to the 1997 Act. That is why we put the 1997 Act through: we did not put medals in front of children's lives. If the Bill were a matter of choice between medals and children's lives, the medals would never come into the equation. Children's lives come first.

      423
      However, we believe that the 1997 Act has ensured that the likes of Hamilton and Dunblane will not happen again. The Bill does not add to the public safety imperative that we enshrined in the 1997 Act. [Interruption.] When the hon. Members for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) spoke on Second Reading or on Monday this week, they exposed the sham of the Labour free vote. It was a free vote in the Lobbies, but a three-line Whip on attendance. As the hon. Member for Stockton, North said, we could all read the semaphore signals by the Whips on the door, so we will take no lessons from the Government on bogus free votes in the House for them.
      Regardless of the fact that the 1997 Act has not yet been implemented, the Government are determined to institute a total ban. We acknowledge that. For that reason, we tabled two new clauses in Committee. They were designed to introduce an element of fairness into an otherwise draconian and unjust Bill.
      As my right hon. and learned Friend said, a total ban will kill off .22 target pistol shooting as a sport. The Government should not say that it is all right for the disabled—they can move on to other forms of shooting instead. Most of them will not be able to do so. They are able to use pistols; in many cases, they would not be able to use rifles.
      We believe that it is still possible to allow our national competitors to continue to train and compete, and to ensure the highest standards of public safety. Indeed, the Home Secretary believes that it is possible to allow people to shoot pistols in this country and he believes that in future they will be able to do so safely and securely. He told the House that he will use his powers under section 5 to allow pistol shooting in this country. The only trouble is that British sportsmen will not be doing it, unless they go abroad for a few years to keep up the practice. Then they can come back and benefit from the powers that the Secretary of State will use to allow such competitions in the Commonwealth games.
      All that we have suggested in the new clauses is allowing the Home Secretary to use the same powers to permit British sportsmen, in the same tightly controlled conditions, to have the same rights to shoot pistols as he will allow those foreign competitors, but the Government rule that out. There was no logic behind their argument.
      The Government have refused to contemplate the reasonable new clauses that we tabled. That is another reason why we will vote against the Third Reading of the Bill tonight.
      The Government have been hazy about compensation. Where will they find the £30 million-plus? My right hon. and learned Friend asked whether it would come out of the CCTV camera scheme. I have a deep suspicion that it will. Will the Government find that sum in the police budget or will it come from some other source? If the Home Secretary is not prepared to cut any other Home Office budget, he will have to go cap in hand to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which will add another £30 million to the Government's £12 billion expenditure black hole.
      The Government have also dodged the question of compensating gun clubs as a result of the total ban on handguns. The total ban will force some clubs to close. The vast majority of gun clubs are non-profit making and pay for facilities with members' subscriptions.
      424
      Club trustees will face enormous liabilities when those clubs are forced to close. As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, we opted against compensating gun clubs during the passage of the 1997 legislation because clubs could remain open for shooters with lower-calibre pistols. Although it would be harder for them, the clubs could still survive.
      The blanket ban imposed by the Bill will force gun clubs to close immediately—they cannot do anything else. Many clubs that cater to rifle and pistol shooting could follow suit. The Government's refusal to revisit the compensation issue is a further sign that they are hell bent on pushing ahead with a fundamentally unfair and harsh measure. That is why we oppose it. If this is the way in which Labour intends to govern, countless lawful groups and legitimate minorities will be the new victims of new Labour.
      People's rights will be protected if they are flavour of the month in the opinion polls or the focus groups, but I send a warning to the country tonight: unless people fit the image created by our politically correct masters of new Labour, they will not have rights in future. It will not matter if their cause is just, because new Labour is not interested in that. Government policy is now driven by appealing to the gallery. We will oppose the Bill not just because it is unnecessary and unjust, but because it is the first in a potentially long list of measures on which the Government will not listen to reasonable arguments and will be determined to get their way, even when there is not the slightest justification for them.
      10.21 pm
      Mr. Straw: As we have just heard, the debate has produced some sharp exchanges. However, the whole House is united on one issue this evening: we join in praising my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) for one of the finest maiden speeches that I have heard in 18 years in this place. I commend her speech to the House—particularly in view of the fact that she delivered it without the assistance of notes and with great poise and fluency.
      Doug Hoyle was well known to many hon. Members. I had the privilege of serving with Doug in the shadow Cabinet for many years and of canvassing for him in the dreary 1982 by-election. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) mentioned Lord Jenkins. It always rains in Warrington whenever I am there—and I travel through the town at least once a week while on my way to Blackburn, where it also rains a lot. That dismal experience of canvassing in Warrington, North in 1982 is fixed in my brain because Mr. Jenkins—as he then was—was the Social Democratic party candidate and I was canvassing in Jenkins road. It was a long time before I found a voter who was willing to support the Labour candidate. Despite my lack of persuasive powers on that occasion, Doug won the seat and he served the House and the Labour party very well. I am sure that my hon. Friend will prove a fine replacement.
      We have been treated to a string of hyperbolic adjectives in support of the Opposition's position, which is that there is a huge gulf between the stance that they adopted in government in respect of the case for banning handguns above .22 calibre and the case that we are making for banning handguns of .22 calibre and below. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) went right over the top as he wound up his speech by suggesting that if we were to pass the Bill, it would somehow mean the end of civilisation as we know it.

      425
      I should just like to remind the right hon. Gentleman of two things. First, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan pointed out, had there been a free vote on the Conservative Benches before the general election, this Bill would not have been necessary. The simple truth was, and remains, that there was an unwhipped majority in the House in favour of a total ban on handguns in general civilian use. Secondly, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border both asked me what is the case for the Bill. Let me remind them that it is one of public safety.
      Under the right hon. and learned Gentleman's measure, 160,000 handguns were taken out of circulation right away; the remaining 40,000—the .22s—could be stored and used in what were described as secure gun clubs.
      Before the general election, the House had to decide on the logical argument that if there were to be secure gun clubs safe enough for guns of .22 calibre and below, why would those gun clubs not also be safe enough for the storage and use of guns above .22 calibre? After all, guns below or above .22 calibre have the common characteristic that each can quickly kill a large number of people. In answer, the right hon. and learned Gentleman argued that those gun clubs could not be secure enough for the storage and use of guns above .22 calibre. He said:
      "higher calibre guns are particularly attractive to criminals and their storage in gun clubs in large numbers, whether dismantled or in one piece, would make gun clubs more attractive targets for theft."—[Official Report, 18 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 787.]
      One of the reasons why the right hon. and learned Gentleman lost that argument before the general election, if he did not quite lose the vote, was that he asked the House to accept that there was something intrinsically less safe in a .32 multi-shot handgun than in a .22 multi-shot handgun, but that is palpably not the case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North said, .22 handguns have been the weapon of choice of assassins and criminals across the world. Robert Kennedy and Yitzhak Rabin were killed with .22 handguns. Had Thomas Hamilton been in possession of .22 handguns rather than .357 magnums he could have achieved exactly the same carnage as he tragically and sadly did on 13 March last year.
      The debate has understandably concentrated on where we draw the line and on the people who will be adversely affected by the Bill if, as I hope, it is passed. We are talking about up to 40,000 people who currently hold handgun certificates for .22 weapons and below. Although their interests are important, we should remember that the Bill was introduced out of the deepest shock and revulsion that was experienced across the country when, on 13 March 1996, Thomas Hamilton ran amok in Dunblane primary and in the space of three minutes killed 16 children and one adult and injured many more children. In the course of that, he traumatised the families and friends of those children and the town of Dunblane.
      Thomas Hamilton shocked the nation. Questions were asked about how we had allowed the situation to develop where there were 200,000 handguns in general circulation, not for occupational use, but for the pursuit of a sport. That terrible tragedy brought us up sharp and brought home to us the question whether this country should ever again allow
      426
      such a large number of handguns to be in general civilian use and pose such a potential danger as that which tragically occurred at Dunblane on 13 March.
      Mr. Colvin rose—
      Mr. Straw: I am sorry, but I am about to conclude.
      The House was almost united in supporting the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 to take out of circulation 160,000 of those 200,000 weapons. But it allowed 40,000 lethal handguns to remain available for use.
      I regret that there are perfectly law-abiding shooters who will be disadvantaged both by the 1997 Act and by the Bill when it is enacted. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, we and he have approached this matter much more in sorrow than in anger. It is the Government's view, however, endorsed by the House, that the right to life must come before the right to practise a sport.
      I believe that we owe the Bill to the parents and the children of Dunblane. It will bring into place tighter controls than those introduced by the 1997 Act. It is the responsibility of government to ensure that the levels of control of handguns are commensurate with public safety. The Bill fulfils that responsibility and I commend it to the House.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 350, Noes 164.

      Division No. 36]

      [10.30 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Butler, Christine

      Ainger, Nick

      Byers, Stephen

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Allan, Richard (Shedd Hallam)

      Campbell, Anne (C'bridge)

      Allen, Graham (Nottingham N)

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Caplin, lvor

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Casale, Roger

      Atkins, Ms Charlotte

      Caton, Martin

      Austin, John

      Cawset, Ian

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Champman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Banks, Tony

      Chaytor, David

      Barron, Kevin

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clapham, Michael

      Beard, Nigel

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh pentlands)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Benton, Joe

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Berry, Roger

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Betts, Clive

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Blackman, Mrs Liz

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Blizzard, Robert

      Coaker, Vernon

      Borrow, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cohen, Harry

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith & Fulham)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Brand. Dr Peter

      Colman, Anthony (Putney)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Connarty, Michael

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

      Cooper, Ms Yvette

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Corston, MS Jean

      Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)

      Cousins, Jim

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Crausby, David

      Burgon, Colin

      Cryer. Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Burstow, Paul

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      427

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hope, Philip

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Curtis-Thomas, Ms Clare

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Dafis, Cynog

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hurst, Alan

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Hutton, John

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

      Iddon, Brian

      Dean, Ms Janet

      Illsley, Eric

      Denham, John

      Ingram, Adam

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampst'd)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jamieson, David

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)

      Doran, Frank

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Dowd, Jim

      Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Edwards, Huw

      Jones, Barry (Deeside)

      Efford. Clive

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Ellman, Ms Louise

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Etherington, Bill

      Jones, Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Fisher, Mark

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Flint, Ms Caroline

      Jowell, Tessa

      Flynn, Paul

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Follett, Ms Barbara

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Keen, Mrs Ann (Brenfford)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Foster, Michael John (Worcester)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Galbraith, Sam

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Galloway, George

      Kidney, David

      Gapes, Mike

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Gardiner, Barry

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      King, Oona (Bethnal Green)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Kingham, Tessa

      Gerrard, Neil

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Godman, Dr. Norman A

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Godsiff, Roger

      Laxton, Bob

      Goggins, Paul

      Lepper, David

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Leslie, Christopher

      Gorrie, Donald

      Levitt, Tom

      Graham, Thomas

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Grant, Bernie

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Linton, Martin

      Grocott, Bruce

      Livingstone, Ken

      Grogan, John

      Livsey, Richard

      Gunnell, John

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Lock, David

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Love. Andy

      Hancock, Mike

      McAllion, John

      Hanson, David

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      McCabe, Stephen

      Healey, John

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McDonagh, Ms Siobhain

      Heppell, John

      Macdonald, Calum

      Hesford, Stephen

      McFall, John

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hill, Keith

      McIsaac, Ms Shona

      Hinchliffe, David

      McKenna, Ms Rosemary

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Home Robertson, John

      McMaster, Gordon

      Hood, Jimmy

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      McNulty, Tony

      MacShane, Denis

      428

      McWalter, Tony

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McWilliam, John

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mahon, Alice

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mallaber, Ms Judy

      Singh, Marsha

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Ms Jacqui (Redditch)

      Maxton, John

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Meale, Alan

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Merron, Ms Gillian

      Soley, Clive

      Michael, Alun

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Milburn, Alan

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Miller, Andrew

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Morley, Elliot

      Stott, Roger

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)

      Mountford, Ms Kali

      Stunell, Andrew

      Mudie, George

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mullin, Chris

      Swinney, John

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs. Ann (Dewsbury)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Norris Dan

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      O'Brien, Mike (Warks)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Thomas, Gareth R. (Harrow W)

      Olner, Bill

      Tipping, Paddy

      O'Neill, Martin

      Todd, Mark

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Osborne, Mrs Sandra

      Touhig, Don

      Pearson, Ian

      Trickett, Jon

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Truswell, Paul

      Pickthall, Colin

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverhampton SE)

      Pike, Peter L

      Plaskitt, James

      Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Pond, Chris

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pope, Greg

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Pound, Stephen

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Wallace, James

      Prentice, Bridget (Lewisham)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Watts, David

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Webb, Steven

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Welsh, Andrew

      Purchase, Ken

      White, Brian

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Whitehead, Alan

      Rammell, Bill

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rapson, Syd

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Raynsford, Nick

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Rendel, David

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Rogers, Allan

      Winnick, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Roy, Frank

      Wise, Audrey

      Ruane, Chris

      Wood, Mike

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Woolas, Phil

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Wray, James

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Salmond, Alex

      Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wyatt, Derek

      Sawford, Phil

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Shaw, Jonathan

      David Clelland and

      Kevin Hughes

      NOES

      Amess, David

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Arbuthnot, James

      Barnes, Harry

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      429

      Bercow, John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fraser, Christopher

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gale, Roger

      Boswell, Tim

      Garnier, Edward

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Gibb, Nick

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Gill, Christopher

      Brady, Graham

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Brazier, Julian

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gray, James

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Green, Damian

      Burnett, John

      Greenway, John

      Burns, Simon

      Grieve, Dominic

      Butterfill, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Cash, William

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Hammond, Philip

      Chope, Christopher

      Harris, Dr. Evan

      Clappison, James

      Harvey, Nick

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Hayes, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth Rushcliffe)

      Heald, Oliver

      Heath, David (Somerton)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Collins, Tim

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Horam, John

      Cran, James

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Day, Stephen

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)

      Duncan, Alan

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Key, Robert

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Evans, Nigel

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Faber, David

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lansley, Andrew

      Fallon, Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Flight, Howard

      Letwin, Oliver

      Forth, Eric

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Foster, Don

      Lidington, David

      430

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Loughton, Tim

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

      Luff, Peter

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      MacKay, Andrew

      Spring, Richard

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Steen, Anthony

      Madel, Sir David

      Streeter, Gary

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Syms, Robert

      Malins, Humfrey

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Maples, John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Mates, Michael

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Merchant, Piers

      Temple—Morris, Peter

      Moore, Michael

      Thompson, William

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tredinnick, David

      Norman, Archie

      Trend, Michael

      Opik, Lembit

      Tyler, Paul

      Ottaway, Richard

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Page, Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Paice, James

      Walter, Robert

      Paterson, Owen

      Wardle, Charles

      Pickles, Eric

      Waterson, Nigel

      Prior, David

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Whittingdale, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Wilkinson, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Willetts, David

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Willis, Phil

      Ruffley, David

      Woodward, Shaun

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Yeo, Tim

      Sanders, Adrian

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Bowen Wells and

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Peter Ainsworth

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

  Breast Cancer (Devon)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]
  10.45 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: An independent review commissioned by the Royal Devon and Exeter healthcare NHS trust identified micro-calcification in nine mammograms that needed further assessment rather than the advice that the patients had been given—that they should return home and wait for the normal recall period of three years for another mammogram. The issue has been raised on the Floor of the House before, but I welcome the opportunity to engage in a fuller discussion tonight, because the matter is of great concern to women and their families living in the Exeter area, including those in my constituency.
  I am aware of the sensitivity of the subject. Cancer in any form can cause fear, and breast cancer causes fear to many women, especially those currently undergoing treatment. I do not intend to spread alarm by raising the matter tonight, but, in view of its seriousness, I would welcome the Minister's recognition of the fact that much wider implications in matters of policy and procedure will emerge from the very necessary investigation that is now to be held at Wonford House hospital in Exeter.
  Now that the Chamber has cleared somewhat, let me express my gratitude for the presence of members of all parties. I note that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) is here, as are Cornwall Members. They are here because they are aware of the wide-reaching implications of what has been revealed following the Exeter hospital announcement.
  Let me put on record that it was the trust's own quality control that identified the problem. I pay tribute to it for having such measures in place and for being extremely frank and open in wanting the matter to be fully investigated and to be brought into the pubic domain. I also fully endorse the recommendation of the hospital's management that women should continue to keep their appointments at the hospital while the matter is being investigated.
  The number of undetected breast cancers among women screened by the east Devon service is within the national average range—30 cancers for every 10,000 in the population. I shall refer later to the implications, the figures and the position as it compares with that in the rest of the country.
  On 9 June in answer to a private notice question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), it was stated that two consultants who were advising those patients were to be retrained. However, it was with concern that I read an article in The Independent on Saturday 7 June this year which identified the case of Miss Simone Renvoize who was treated by one of those consultants in his former hospital, the Treliske, in Cornwall.
  I have received a copy of a letter, which I understand has been sent to the Secretary of State for Health by the cousin of Miss Renvoize, who has now died. I should like to read from a small portion of that letter. Miss Renvoize's cousin, Mrs. Barnes, states that in 1990 her cousin, Simone Renvoize, was sent to one of the consultant radiologists currently suspended for a
  432
  mammogram at Treliske hospital in Truro. It revealed tumours in both breasts. However, she was told that her lumps were purely hormonal, leading to a delay of six and eleven and a half months respectively for mastectomies which she later had. Fellow radiologists who subsequently reviewed those X-rays could see clearly both the tumours. Mrs. Barnes's concern was that the error was known about while this doctor was employed at the Treliske hospital and he was even to move to the Exeter hospital with no suggestion of retraining at that time. She states that her cousin also began a legal case seeking redress for the inadequacies of her diagnosis and that treatment and medico-legal reports were prepared but still no one alerted the Exeter hospital.
  We all recognise and, having worked for a short time in the Wonford House hospital, I certainly recognise, that doctors are not infallible and make mistakes. In cancer diagnosis especially, a doctor may often see grey areas on a mammogram that are not easy immediately to recognise. However, it seems that here the people concerned did not err on the side of caution, which is a reasonable expectation by patients. It is clear that the same procedures were carried out by the same person over a long period.
  I have asked the management of Wonford House hospital what references were taken up and whether anything was drawn to their attention that made it clear that retraining was needed much earlier. I understand that inquiries have been made and that nothing in the references of this person gave any reason for further investigation.
  I have also received a letter from a constituent who is a state registered nurse and who worked at the Wonford House hospital. She expressed concerns about staff in the unit who have been aware of the diagnosis controversy but who, in many cases, felt it difficult to share their concerns with senior management at the hospital. I should like to ask the Minister to consider two matters in relation to the wider implications of this issue.
  First, will the hon. Lady look at the way in which medical references are taken up? That matter bears further investigation, not just in this case but in the case of boards which interview clinicians. Does the way that those interviews are carried out mean that boards can be absolutely sure that they are receiving an accurate account of a person's aptitude and ability to carry out specific tasks? Secondly, as a result of what has been said and written to me by hospital staff, I am aware that the issue of whistleblowers can be controversial and can have adverse effects both ways.
  There must be a structure in hospitals to allow staff to make concerns known to senior management without feeling in any way intimidated or that their positions are put at risk. Obviously, here we have a situation where I am being told by a nurse in that hospital that it was common knowledge that there was concern among other staff that there were problems in this area.
  There is always the question of the clinician, the surgeon, having the final say and using his or her medical judgment about an individual case, and we all recognise their need to be able to do that. If Wonford House hospital in Exeter is, like other hospitals throughout the country, to be designated a specialist centre for cancer treatment, those of us who live in the region and who use the hospital

  433
  must have confidence that we are receiving in that hospital the best possible practice that has been garnered from the best hospitals throughout the country.
  My understanding was that the chief medical officer's recommendations—the Calman response to considering the way in which we take forward specialist cancer centres in the region—envisaged that, instead of those of us who live out in the sticks having to go to the big cities or even to London for specialist treatment for serious diseases, the best that was available would come to us, and that, if it came to us, the hospitals that offered that level of treatment would be able to say that they were specialist cancer treatment centres. I am sure that I speak for many of my constituents—I am certainly speaking personally now—when I say that, if I needed specialist treatment, particularly cancer treatment, I would rather have it at the Royal Marsden hospital and know that I was going to get the best treatment than have someone stick a label on my local hospital, which did not live up to its name.
  In fairness to the people who work in Wonford House hospital, particularly those working in other disciplines and specialising in other areas of cancer treatment, it is vital that an analysis is made not just of the procedures that are carried out there, but of what it is able to offer us in terms of outcomes, if it is to become a specialist centre.
  Sir Peter Emery: In pressing what my hon. Friend is saying, and I have followed it clearly, will she urge the Minister to examine the facts so that the hospital can reassure what must be about 5,000 to 6,000 women who have been tested that they are no longer at risk or, if there is any risk, that they are going to be called back in at the earliest possible and proper time to be re-examined? It is essential that those people should not be left still wondering what is going to happen to them.
  Mrs. Browning: I concur with my right hon. Friend's concern on behalf of his constituents. We want not only quick action and a full investigation of what has gone on, but lessons to be learnt from this. Clearly, there are lessons to be learnt that may have even national implications over a wide area. I hope that this debate will trigger that. It is my intention that we learn from what has been an unhappy experience.
  Women need reassurance that the way in which they are screened, diagnosed and treated for breast cancer should not be a geographical lottery. Where people live should not matter in terms of the sort of service that they receive. We should be considering why different parts of the country produce different outcomes. The Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund charity endorses my view that this country's mortality rate does not compare well with that of other countries.
  We have one of the worst records in the world for breast cancer. It is difficult to identify why that is so. There is research into the matter and various theories are suggested, but the fact is that our rate is 29.3 per 100,000 of population, whereas it is 19.4 in France and 17.3 in Germany. When our rate compares so badly with those of other countries, surely within the whole spectrum of the medical profession dealing with the disease there must be a concentrated interest in the reason for the figures and what can be done to reduce them through screening, diagnosis and treatment.
  434
  Anyone working in the medical profession, whether at consultant or any other level, should be hungry to identify what is happening elsewhere in the country and what new procedures are being adopted. We must gamer the best practice that is available and take that out into the regions.
  When I looked in the Library, I found figures produced by Macmillan showing that mortality rates from breast cancer in the south-west between 1993 and 1995—the latest figures available—were higher per 100,000 of population than was the case in any other part of the country. That, too, is a cause of concern. If the disease is being treated better in other parts of the country, please can we find out what it is that they do better and please can the people who practise is this area of medicine and surgery in my part of the country not be too proud to find out why the rates are better elsewhere? We want the matter to be taken seriously. I know that the Department's guidelines to purchasing authorities say that they should look at outcomes. Right across the spectrum, outcomes involve what happens in screening, what happens when cancer is detected and what happens thereafter.
  I hope that tonight the Minister will reassure us that what has happened in Exeter will be fully investigated and that any lessons to be learned, which may have national implications, will be speedily adopted by the Department. We look to the Minister and the Secretary of State to ensure that no stone is left unturned. Until the matter is investigated and the lessons learned, and until there are changes to put things right, I and other women will not be fully confident about what is being offered to us locally.
  It is devastating for women who have or think they may have breast cancer. We know that doctors cannot always perform miracles, but let us get as near to a miracle as we can.
  11.3 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for raising this subject this evening. I am glad to echo both her feelings of outrage and the regret expressed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week about what happened in Devon. This debate gives us the opportunity to say once again how sorry we are for the women and their families and friends who have been affected in a variety of ways—and in particular, those close to the two women who died because of the events that gave rise to the inquiry.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, one of those concerned was a constituent of mine. It was a tragic case of misdiagnosis at the Treliske hospital in Cornwall. As the hon. Lady said, it is not just people in Devon who are affected by what happened at the Wonford House hospital—there is anxiety throughout the west country.
  The failure of information between one hospital trust and another raises important questions about the relationship between trusts in different parts of the country. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point.
  Ms Jowell: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point and, of course, we regret the distress, further illness, and in two cases the deaths, of patients who had the right to expect better. That is why we have taken rapid action to

  435
  establish precisely what happened in that dreadful business and to learn, as quickly as we can, any lessons that that horrifying story has to teach us.
  I wish briefly to set out the facts as we currently understand them. In February this year, concern was expressed by medical staff about the work of two consultant radiologists, one employed by the Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS trust and the other by the South Devon Healthcare NHS trust at Torbay.
  Contrary to the impression given by some reports in the media, the consultants undertook diagnostic mammography for women with symptoms of cancer, as well as more routine breast cancer screening. Twelve sets of mammograms, including both symptomatic and screening cases, were sent for an external review to an independent consultant who worked in Nottingham. Nine of those mammograms were found to be faulty.
  The review concluded that further assessment should have been undertaken in nine of the cases. It recommended that the doctors concerned should undergo formal retraining and that further audits should be undertaken of the mammograms of all women identified as requiring early recall for screening, and of all cancers that have occurred between screenings in the past five years.
  The doctors concerned are not currently working in the NHS and management action is under way locally to review the management of the breast screening service and the provision of symptomatic services. An audit will be undertaken of the films of women who have been scheduled for recall earlier than the normal three-year screening interval, the films of women recalled for assessment after screening during the previous two years and the films of women with cancer that has occurred between screening invitations.
  There will be a meeting shortly between the trust and representatives from other screening centres to make the necessary arrangements for the audit. I should add that both screening and services for breast cancer are continuing to be provided in Exeter, as locum arrangements have been made.
  I assure the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton that the Government are determined to get to the bottom of what happened at the Royal Devon and Exeter trust. We would welcome any information to help the inquiry from hon. Members who may be able, through constituency cases or other representations, to shed further light on the events that led to the tragedies.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced yesterday, the Government's chief medical officer is undertaking an urgent review of breast services in Exeter, to establish the facts and to report his findings to the Secretary of State, and, in the light of those findings, to consider the implications for breast cancer services as a whole, again reporting his conclusions to the Secretary of State. We hope that his report will be available by mid-July. An interim and immediate report on the inquiry so far will be available by the end of this week and my right hon. Friend will happy to brief the hon. Lady about the interim findings.
  The chief medical officer has assembled a distinguished independent team to assist him, including the president of the Royal College of Radiologists, a consultant surgeon from Huddersfield, a cancer nursing specialist, who is also a member of the expert advisory group on cancer,
  436
  the chief executive of the Royal Marsden hospital, and Miss Polly Toynbee, who will represent lay interests. The team has already started work—it visited Exeter yesterday and began by interviewing a wide range of staff to collect detailed information.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton mentioned the need to take representations from staff who may be reluctant to come forward. It is important that the views and information that staff gain in clinical practice are made available. We realise that some trusts make that task more difficult for staff than others, but we will provide every assistance to staff members, so that their representations aid the inquiry.
  Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I should like to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Minister and to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton for the constructive and tripartisan approach that hon. Members have adopted in dealing with the crisis. I am grateful also for the swift and open way in which the Government and the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital have responded.
  Will my hon. Friend the Minister please continue to encourage women in my constituency to come forward for testing, which is incredibly important? Today, can she tell those women that they can have full faith in the results of current hospital tests? Will she also confirm that the Government's commitment to women's health and the £10 million that Ministers have earmarked to speed up the breast screening process will help to resolve some of the problems that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton mentioned and our poor record nationally in dealing with breast cancer?
  Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend and I entirely endorse his call to women, not only in his constituency but in all constituencies, to continue to attend for breast cancer screening, because screening remains the single most effective way in which to identify breast cancer at a very early stage.
  The Government will not rest until we have applied in practice every lesson that the inquiry shows must be learned and applied. Women should realise not only the importance of regular screening but the fact that screening services will be subject to regular review and quality checks. Those services will be supported and developed further in the light of the best possible information on developments in treatment and screening technology.
  It is therefore important that we identify specifically what happened in a dreadful set of circumstances and ensure that those lessons are applied locally, to restore and rebuild women's confidence. We must also ensure that the lessons learned are applied across the screening service and on a national basis.
  Sir Peter Emery: I cannot do other than praise the Minister for the action that the Government are taking for the future; but how shall I respond to women who write to me saying, "Sir Peter, I have been there; what do I do? I had a test two years ago or 18 months ago—am I at risk? What action should I take? How should I react to this great problem?" Reassurance of those people is of very considerable importance to all constituents, whether they are in Exeter, Totnes or any other local constituency.

  437
  I had hoped that we would find a way in which to give such reassurance to those women as soon as humanly possible.
  Ms Jowell: It is obviously a matter of concern. I advise the right hon. Gentleman to refer his constituents who may have those concerns to the helpline that was established immediately after the events were disclosed. I also assure him that a further audit of mammograms and diagnostic investigation is being conducted to establish that no further mistakes were made. I would in the first instance suggest that the right hon. Gentleman refers his constituents to the helpline, so that they get the reassurance and information that they might want.
  We shall certainly continue supporting the implementation of the Calman/Hine model of cancer service, which we believe provides the best and safest basis for the delivery of cancer services in Devon and Exeter, as well as across the country. We also intend to produce a series of evidence-based guideline documents responding to some of the points raised by the hon.
  438
  Member for Tiverton and Honiton in relation to the importance of lessons learned in practice being applied to future clinical development. We are determined to ensure that those lessons are applied for the benefit not only of her constituents but of people across the country.
  The hon. Lady asked about local cancer centres. The Plymouth Hospitals NHS trust and the Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS trust have both been designated as cancer centres, but it was agreed that the Plymouth Hospitals trust would take responsibility for clinical leadership.
  The hon. Lady will also be aware that we are moving to the implementation of clear treatment protocols, which will be a very important step in ending the geographical lottery and ensuring that there is a national breast cancer service for all women—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Hillsborough Disaster
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reopen the inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster; and if he will make a statement. [4160]

  Mr. Michael
  My right hon. Friend is considering the representations which have been made, calling for a next inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster. He will announce his decision as soon as he can.

  Fire Services
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Government's policy towards the use of the 1979 pay formula to determine firefighters' pay. [4233]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The pay of firefighters is negotiated between the employers and employees in the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades. The Government have no proposals for changing the present arrangements.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the pay of firefighters. [3967]

  Mr. Howarth
  The determination of firefighters' pay is a matter for the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review Circular 5/92 to take account of the interpretation of his powers under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 made by the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority in 1996. [3970]

  Mr. Howarth
  My right hon. Friend will wish to consider whether generally there is a need to update and amend existing fire service legislation. This will be among the matters to be addressed.

  Fire Risks
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the criteria for identifying fire risk areas A to D in London. [3968]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Guidance on fire risk is given in Fire Service Circular No. 4/1985, which was issued on 22 May 1985. A copy is held in the Library.

  Au Pairs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the criteria determining privileged nationalities for the purpose of admission of au pairs; and what plans he has to review these criteria. [3966]
  156
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Past criteria for inclusion in the au pair scheme reflected restriction to unmarried young people mainly from western European countries and the exclusion of countries which proved a significant source of immigration abuse. We have no plans at present to review the scheme.

  Prison Service Budget
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the prison service budget for 1996. [3792]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  The provision available to the Prison Service in 1996–97, as set out in the Main and Supplementary Supply Estimates presented to Parliament, was £1,642,316,000. Details of expenditure against this provision will be contained in the Appropriation Account for Class VII, Vote 2 (Prisons, England and Wales) due to be published towards the end of 1997.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of Colchester's role as a garrison town in evaluating the sums to be provided to the town for CCTV; [3977]

  (2) if he will provide Colchester borough council with £100,000 to complete the town's closed circuit television system. [3915]

  Mr. Michael
  Bids under round three of the closed circuit television challenge competition were assessed against the criteria set out in the published bidding guidance. Colchester was awarded £135,000; no bid received more. No more funds are available from the Home Office for CCTV in the current financial year. A decision on whether funds will be available in 1998–99 will be made later in the summer.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the percentage of prison inmates who were unemployed immediately prior to their incarceration. [3788]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  No information is available centrally on prisoners' employment status immediately before reception into prison.

  However, the National Prison Survey, conducted in January and February 1991, found that 49 per cent. of prisoners were not in paid work just before they came to prison; this included 33 per cent. who said they were unemployed. No more up to date figures are available.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the prison population in June 1996 and what is the prison population currently; and if he will make a statement. [3791]

  Ms Quin
  The prison population in England and Wales on 30 June 1996 was 55,256. Provisional information for 13 June 1997 shows the prison population to be 60,871.

  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were accommodated at(a) Camphill, (b) Albany and (c) Parkhurst prisons on the Isle of Wight on 1 April in each of the last five years. [4083]
  157
  Ms Quin
  The available figures detailed in the attached table show the population recorded on 31 March on each of the last five years in the three Isle of Wight prisons.

  Isle of Wight prison population

  31 March 1993

  31 March 1994

  31 March 1995

  31 March 1996

  31 March 1997

  Camp Hill

  327

  377

  411

  406

  471

  Albany

  247

  378

  425

  423

  430

  Parkhurst

  205

  239

  222

  266

  289

  Parkhurst Prison
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the capital expenditure at Parkhurst prison on the Isle of Wight in each of the past five years; and if the capital expenditure was required to maintain the prison's former category or current category. [4080]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  Capital expenditure at Parkhurst for the past five years was:

  Financial year

  £000s

  1992–93

  6,387.7

  1993–94

  2,583.3

  1994–95

  12,230

  1995–96

  9,032.1

  1996–97

  2,627

  Of the £32,560,200 spent on capital projects between 1992 and 1997, £9,600,000 can be directly attributed to security and of this £5,423,000 was specifically spent on maintaining Parkhurst's former category A status.

  Prison Categories
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are his plans in respect of the categorisation of(a) Camphill, (b) Albany and (c) Parkhurst prisons. [4082]

  Ms Joyce Quin
  The Prison Service has no present plans to change the security categories of the three Isle of Wight prisons. These will remain as:

  Camp Hill: category C training prison

  Albany: category B training prison

  Parkhurst: category B training prison

  Football (Arrests)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests have been made at(a) Premier League and (b) Football League grounds in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [4167]

  Mr. Michael
  The available information is as follows:

  Season

  Arrests at Premier League matches

  Arrests at Football League matches

  1991–92

  2,114

  2,892

  1992–93

  1,647

  2,941

  1993–94

  1,630

  2,597

  1994–95

  1,713

  2,127

  1995–96

  1,697

  1,740

  158

  Season

  Arrests at cup matches

  1991–92

  1,372

  1992–93

  1,739

  1993–94

  1,296

  1994–95

  1,265

  1995–96

  897

  Season

  European matches

  Play offs

  Other matches

  1993–94

  36

  80

  171

  1994–95

  97

  126

  297

  1995–96

  22

  134

  320

  All the above figures are for arrests both inside and outside the grounds and have been provided by the National Criminal Intelligence Service. Figures for 1996–97 are currently being collected and will be available in due course.

  Public Houses
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend the right to object to the granting of pub licences to persons in addition to the police. [4078]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Under the existing licensing law, anyone may object to an application for a liquor licence.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the Next Steps Agencies currently in operation, indicating the number of civil servants employed in each. [3736]

  Dr. David Clark
  The Next Steps Agencies currently in operation and the number of civil servants employed in each is set out in the table.

  Total civil servants working in Agencies and on Next Steps lines (including Northern Ireland Civil Service and Forestry Commission)

  Agencies

  Number of civil servants1

  Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency

  845

  Army Base Repair Organisation

  2,950

  Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency

  3,695

  Army Individual Training Organisation

  4,410

  Army Personnel Centre

  1,270

  Army Technical Support Agency

  800

  Business Development Service

  245

  Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments

  180

  CCTA

  175

  Central Office of Information

  305

  Central Science Laboratory

  520

  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science

  410

  Civil Service College

  230

  COASTGUARD

  655

  Companies House

  800

  Compensation Agency

  110

  Construction Service

  625

  159

  Total civil servants working in Agencies and on Next Steps lines (including Northern Ireland Civil Service and Forestry Commission)

  Agencies

  Number of civil servants1

  Court Service

  9,200

  Defence Analytical Services Agency

  115

  Defence Animal Centre

  60

  Defence Bills Agency

  655

  Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency

  530

  Defence Codification Agency

  145

  Defence Dental Agency

  110

  Defence Estate Organisation

  1,170

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency

  12,220

  Defence Intelligence and Security Centre

  105

  Defence Medical Training Organisation

  80

  Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency

  330

  Defence Secondary Care Agency

  585

  Defence Transport and Movements Executive

  140

  Defence Vetting Agency

  55

  Disposal Sales Agency

  65

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  3,500

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing (Northern Ireland)

  235

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  290

  Driving Standards Agency

  1,940

  Duke of York's Royal Military School

  100

  Employment Service

  29,180

  Employment Tribunals Service

  625

  Environment and Heritage Service

  310

  Farming and Rural Conservation Agency

  435

  Fire Service College

  215

  Fisheries Research Services

  205

  Forensic Science Service

  1,185

  Forensic Science Service of Northern Ireland

  120

  Forest Enterprise

  2,585

  Forestry Commission Research Agency

  310

  Government Car and Despatch Agency

  225

  Government Property Lawyers

  105

  Government Purchasing Agency

  65

  Health Estates

  120

  Highways Agency

  1,550

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  445

  Historic Scotland

  585

  HM Land Registry

  7,865

  HM Prison Service

  37,705

  Industrial Research and Technology Unit

  150

  Insolvency Service

  1,285

  Intervention Board

  975

  Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre

  135

  Land Registers of Northern Ireland

  210

  Logistic Information Systems Agency

  165

  Marine Safety Agency

  315

  Meat Hygiene Service

  795

  Medical Devices Agency

  120

  Medical Supplies Agency

  215

  Medicines Control Agency

  390

  Meteorological Office

  2,085

  Military Survey

  705

  Ministry of Defence Police

  3,730

  National Savings

  4,290

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  50

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation

  1,535

  Naval Bases and Supply Agency

  9,170

  Naval Manning Agency

  85

  Naval Recruiting and Training Agency

  1,580

  NHS Estates

  145

  NHS Pensions Agency

  365

  Northern Ireland Child Support Agency

  910

  Northern Ireland Prison Service

  2,995

  Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency

  120

  Office for National Statistics

  2,895

  Ordnance Survey

  1,810

  Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland

  175

  Patent Office

  710

  Pay and Personnel Agency

  900

  160

  Total civil servants working in Agencies and on Next Steps lines (including Northern Ireland Civil Service and Forestry Commission)

  Agencies

  Number of civil servants1

  Pesticides Safety Directorate

  195

  Planning Inspectorate

  630

  Planning Service

  380

  Property Advisers to the Civil Estate

  200

  Public Record Office

  430

  Public Record Office of Northern Ireland

  60

  Public Trust Office

  550

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  50

  Queen Victoria School

  70

  Radiocommunications Agency

  510

  RAF Logistics Support Services

  445

  RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency

  4,455

  RAF Personnel Management Agency

  215

  RAF Signals Engineering Establishment

  565

  RAF Training Group Defence Agency

  2,135

  Rate Collection Agency

  235

  Registers of Scotland

  1,065

  Rivers Agency

  460

  Roads Service

  2,140

  Royal Mint

  985

  Royal Parks Agency

  220

  Scottish Agricultural Science Agency

  125

  Scottish Court Service

  815

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  255

  Scottish Office Pensions Agency

  155

  Scottish Prison Service

  4,510

  Scottish Record Office

  120

  Security Facilities Executive

  575

  Service Children's Education

  750

  Ships Support Agency

  2,300

  Social Security Agency (Northern Ireland)

  4,630

  Social Security Benefits Agency

  72,005

  Social Security Child Support Agency

  7,860

  Social Security Contributions Agency

  7,380

  Social Security Information Technology Services Agency

  1,930

  Social Security War Pensions Agency

  1,195

  Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  120

  The Buying Agency

  135

  Training and Employment Agency (Northern Ireland)

  1,180

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  375

  UK Hydrographic Office

  745

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  1,405

  Valuation and Lands Agency

  280

  Valuation Office

  4,375

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  75

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  1,460

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  985

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  100

  Water Service

  2,180

  Wilton Park

  35

  Crown Prosecution2

  5,665

  HM Customs and Excise2

  23,070

  Inland Revenue2

  50,045

  Serious Fraud Office2

  165

  Total staff

  385,695

  1April 1997 figures for civil servants including Northern Ireland and Forest Enterprise on the basis of full-time equivalents. Casuals are excluded. Figures are founded to the nearest five.

  2Departments operating fully on Next Steps lines. Staffing figure for Inland Revenue excludes the Valuation Office.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many and what percentage of civil servants have been employed by Next Steps Agencies in each of the years since their establishment; and if he will make a statement. [3734]
  161
  Dr. Clark
  The figures show the number and the percentage of Home Civil Servants working in Next Steps Agencies and on Next Steps lines as at 1 April of each year from 1 April 1988 to 1 April 1997.

  Year

  Number of home civil servants working and on Next Steps lines as at 1 April

  Proportion of home civil servants working in Agencies and on Next Steps lines as at 1 April (per cent.)

  1988

  0

  0

  1989

  5,844

  1

  1990

  155,660

  27

  1991

  206,870

  37

  1992

  291,969

  51

  1993

  240,036

  61

  1994

  339,621

  63

  1995

  345,342

  67

  1996

  350,408

  71

  1997

  364,563

  77

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many Next Steps Agencies have been in operation in each of the years since their establishment; and if he will make a statement. [3735]

  Dr. Clark
  The first Next Steps agency was set up in August 1988. The figures listed show the number of Next Steps Agencies which have been in operation since 31 December 1988 and in each year to 31 December 1996.

  Year

  Number of Agencies as at 31 December

  1988

  3

  1989

  10

  1990

  34

  1991

  157

  1992

  278

  1993

  294

  1994

  2104

  1995

  2111

  1996

  2131

  1Figure includes HM Customs and Excise which is a department operating fully on Next Steps lines.

  2Figure includes HM Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue which are departments operating fully on Next Steps lines.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what studies his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the efficiency of the Next Steps Agencies; and if he will make a statement. [3732]

  Mr. Clark
  In the first instance, it is for the Minister responsible for each particular agency to ensure that it is operating efficiently and the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review will help this process. In addition, agencies submit their proposals on efficiency as part of the efficiency planning process and in the 1996 Next Steps Review published in March, there is a great deal of comparative data for agencies including an evaluation of their performance against their efficiency targets. We are committed to providing government which costs less and delivers more which includes Next Steps agencies operating efficiently by emphasising the need for training and enhancing the use of benchmarking and target setting.
  162
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action he proposes to reform the Next Steps Agencies; and if he will make a statement. [3733]

  Dr. Clark
  The Government will continue to develop Next Steps Agencies by improving performance and efficiency in order to deliver high quality services.

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment he has made of the results of the recent LSE study into performance-related pay in the Civil Service; and if he will make a statement. [3660]

  Dr. David Clark
  The LSE study into performance-related pay looks at only one Department, that of the Inland Revenue. The study was sponsored by the Public Services Tax and Commerce Union and covers perceptions about performance management and performance pay amongst 1,200 of the Inland Revenue's 55,000 staff. The study is not yet complete and has not been released. I am therefore unable to comment on it at this stage. If the study does raise issues of general staff concern, the Inland Revenue, as a good employer, will discuss these with the staff and trade unions involved.

HEALTH

  NHS Spending (Managers' Salaries)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS spending is absorbed by managers' salaries. [3700]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is given in the table:

  1995–96

  Salaries and wages—General and senior managers

  £789,507,000

  As percentage of total salaries and wages

  5.28 per cent.

  As percentage of total revenue expenditure

  3.30 per cent.

  Source:

  Financial returns of health authorities and National Health Service trusts.

  Notes:

  1Information is provisional.

  2Salaries and wages figures are based upon gross costs and include Employers National Insurance and Superannuation costs.

  3The figures given are for hospital and community health services only. Family health services authorities and other health bodies are excluded as comparable figures are not collect centrally.

  Obesity
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for tackling levels of obesity and obesity-related illnesses in the United Kingdom. [3515]

  Ms Jowell
  Tackling obesity is a particularly challenging problem. "The Health of the Nation" target is to reduce the percentages of men and women aged 16 to 64 who are obese 6 per cent. for men and 8 per cent. for women by 2005. However in 1995 15 per cent. of men and 16.5 per cent. of women were obese, highlighting the gravity of the problem. Obesity is a long-term problem and needs a long-term strategy. We will continue to
  163
  support the action on obesity and obesity-related illness initiated by the Nutrition Task Force and the Physical Activity Task Force which addresses:

  (a) prevention of increasing fatness in the whole population;

  (b) the particular problems of high risk groups e.g. those already overweight;

  (c) treatment of those who are already obese.

  We also recognise how important a balanced diet is for giving young people a healthy start in life. This is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has recently proposed the introduction of nutrition standards for inclusion in school meals contracts.

  Fluoridisation
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about fluoridisation of water; and if he will make a statement. [4063]

  Mr. Milburn
  None.

  Asthma
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for health what was the incidence of asthma(a) in the Colchester parliamentary constituency and (b) nationally in each year since 1987. [4178]

  Ms Jowell
  According to the available data provided by North Essex Health Authority, the number of in-patient finished consultant episodes for asthma, for people whose home address was in Colchester, was as follows:

  1994–95: 909

  1995–96: 1,023

  1996–97: 1,075

  1996–97 is a forecast figure as data are only available until end of February 1997. Nationally, there are no comprehensive data on the number of people with asthma.

  According to data collected by the Royal College of General Practitioners, the mean weekly incidence of new GP episodes of asthma per 100,000 population in England for each year since 1987 was as follows:

  1987: 27.2

  1988: 33.3

  1989: 34.0

  1990: 37.3

  1991: 46.3

  1992: 48.3

  1993: 50.3

  1994: 49.2

  1995: 40.3

  1996: 38.2

  Food Additives
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of food additives in use in the United Kingdom are(a) proven and (b) suspected animal carcinogens, teratogens or both; and if he will make a statement. [2635]

  Ms Jowell
  Food additives are not included in permitted lists unless there is a technological need for them and they are considered safe-in-use. Currently, a164
  number of regulations made under the United Kingdom's Food Safety Act 1990 control the use of food additives, which are approved through the European Commission's Scientific Committee for Food (SCF). Safety is the paramount consideration and positive evidence of this, including the results of specified toxicological tests, is required before approval is given. Known human carcinogens or teratogens are not permitted for use as food additives.

  It is not possible to give a percentage of additives which may have been suspected of being carcinogenic or teratogenic in animals, nor are internationally agreed classification systems available that permit the categorisation of food additives as proven animal carcinogens or teratogens.

  Research into food additives is kept under constant review and if any adverse evidence should come to light the SCF would be asked to reconsider their advice.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Jubilee 2000
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received from Jubilee 2000; and if she will make a statement. [3807]

  Clare Short
  Jubilee 2000 have been in touch with me on a number of occasions, most recently on 11 June, when I met representatives of the Debt Crisis Network to discuss their latest proposal for reducing the debts of the poorest countries.

  I welcome the efforts of the Debt Crisis Network, and other non-governmental organisations, in raising awareness in the UK and elsewhere of the debt problems faced by many developing countries. We share a common objective—the eradication of poverty in developing countries. The Heavily Indebted Poor Countries debt initiative, which aims to reduce the debts of qualifying countries to affordable levels, will play an important part in helping to achieve this. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I shall be pressing for early and flexible implementation of this initiative in the appropriate fora, such as this week's G7 Summit in Denver.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time persons employed by her Department and its agencies are paid (i) less than £4 an hour, (ii) less than £3.50 an hour and (iii) less than £3 an hour. [4197]
  165
  Clare Short
  The table provides the figures requested:

  Numbers earning less than £4.00 per hour

  Numbers earning less than £3.50 per hour

  Numbers earning less than £3.00 per hour

  Full-time

  27

  21

  Nil

  Part-time

  3

  1

  Nil

  Kenya
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what development assistance is being provided by the government to Kenya in the current year. [4040]

  Clare Short
  Development assistance is being provided for a range of activities, in particular those which will improve access by the poor to essential health services and basic education and increase incomes of smallholder farmers and the urban poor. Support for the Government of Kenya's economic reform programme is also being provided to fulfil a commitment made by the previous British Government. Total bilateral aid expenditure is expected to be about £30 million in the 1997–98 financial year.

  Women (Rights and Status)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the progress made in respect of the rights and status of women since the 4 UN World Conference on Women in 1995. [3755]

  Clare Short
  The Beijing Conference was a landmark for gender equality. We are building on the progress previously noted in the development section of the UK's National Report published by DfEE last November, copies of which were placed in the Library of the House. We assess and address inequalities between women and men, girls and boys in relation to all the strategic objectives established in the Beijing Platform for Action. Progress has included more systematic tackling of gender inequalities as part of all our development co-operation activities. We have also increased the number of focused initiatives to enhance women's empowerment and strengthened our dialogue with multilateral organisations. I will outline future plans in my speech at the Commonwealth Institute later this month.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will place in the Library a copy of the correspondence referred to in paragraph 40 of the National Audit Office report,"Aid to Indonesia", relating to aid proposals and defence sales. [2278]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) will write to the hon. Member shortly. Copies of the letter will he placed in the Libraries of the House.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Sustainable Development
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has for consultation with women about appropriate ways to promote sustainable development; and if he will make a statement; [3747]

  (2) what plans he has to ensure opportunities for women to participate in decision-making on environmental matters; and if he will make a statement. [3748]

  Ms Angela Eagle
  Our sustainable development strategy involves environmental, economic and social goals and is about improving the quality of life for all. Women's groups will be consulted with others as we draw up proposals for revising the strategy over the coming months and we will continue to consult widely—including with appropriate women's organizations—as the Department works up its environmental programmes. As part of our initiative to increase the influence of women in decision-making we are in the process of setting targets for higher levels of representation by women in our public bodies.

  OECD Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how the Government will ensure that environmental protection is fully integrated into the OECD Multilateral Agreement on Investment; [3962]

  (2) what is the Government's policy on (a) the formal consultation of non-Governmental organisations by OECD Governments on the OECD Multilateral Agreement on Investment and (b) an immediate, independent review of the environmental, social and consumer impacts of the OECD Multilateral Agreement on investments; [3958]

  (3) if the OECD Multilateral Agreement on Investment will have precedence over existing multilateral environmental agreements to which the UK is a signatory on the ozone layer, climate and biodiversity. [3961]

  Ms Angela Eagle
  The Government would not want to see a Multilateral Agreement on Investment which damaged our commitment to sustainable development and to environment protection. We shall also want to ensure that obligations under multilateral environmental agreements are fully safeguarded. We are aware of the concerns raised by environmental non-governmental organisations and support both formal and informal consultation with them as negotiations continue. We will discuss with negotiating partners in the OECD whether there is a need for an impact study of the Agreement.

  Council Tax (Oxfordshire)
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations he has received from council tax payers in Oxfordshire concerning the level of the council tax levied by Oxfordshire county council for 1997–98. [3801]
  167
  Mr. Raynsford
  We have received three letters from local tax payers complaining about the level of council tax set by Oxfordshire County Council for 1997–98.

  Fly Tipping
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to monitor the incidence of illegal fly tipping of waste following the introduction of the landfill tax; and if he will make a statement. [3779]

  Ms Angela Eagle
  Responsibility for monitoring illegal fly tipping, clearance of the wastes involved and pursuing offenders, lies with a number of organisations. The Environment Agency is actively working with these organisations to gather reliable information on fly tipping and other forms of illegal waste disposal.

  Most notably a co-operative exercise is planned between the Environment Agency, Local Government and the Tidy Britain Group to survey the incidence of fly tipping twelve months on from the introduction of the landfill tax. A report summarising the finding is due to be published in the first half of 1998.

  Further co-operative surveys are planned with the emphasis on improving the quality of data collected by using standard definitions of waste types and quantities.

  The evidence of increased fly tipping gathered to date is not conclusive, and may reflect increased public awareness and concern over fly tipping rather than a demonstrable increase in incidents. Nevertheless the Environment Agency are treating this matter very seriously and are working with local authorities to co-ordinate any necessary enforcement action.

  City Challenge
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many City Challenge schemes are currently in train; how many(a) public and (b) private money has been received by each; and if he has received (i) the exit strategies and (ii) the date of the completion of each scheme. [4007]

  Ms Angela Eagle
  There are 20 City Challenge schemes currently in train.

  The latest published figures for the total amount of public and private money received or attracted by each of these schemes are:

  Partnership

  Actual public funding to 31 March funding to 31 March 1996 (£000)1

  Actual private sector funding to 31 March funding 1996 (£000)

  Barnsley

  57,545

  23,611

  Batley (Kirklees)

  54,651

  49,579

  Blackburn

  48,020

  98,984

  Bolton

  47,653

  33,843

  Bootle (Sefton)

  42,894

  101,161

  Brixton (Lambeth)

  46,006

  34,547

  Dalston (Hackney)

  92,404

  52,415

  Derby

  49,232

  18,371

  Harlesden (Brent)

  37,616

  107,579

  Hartlepool

  40,781

  40,431

  Leicester

  27,956

  34,301

  Newtown South

  70,152

  45,305

  Aston (Birmingham)

  168

  Partnership

  Actual public funding to 31 March funding to 31 March 1996 (£000)1

  Actual private sector funding to 31 March funding 1996 (£000)

  North Kensington

  66,227

  29,705

  (Kensington and Chelsea)

  North Tyneside

  77,255

  174,171

  Stockton on Tees

  55,273

  47,837

  Stratford (Newham)

  89,224

  73,732

  Sunderland

  70,032

  30,153

  Tipton (Sandwell)

  52,574

  48,546

  Walsall

  40,337

  50,430

  Wigan

  43,708

  57,960

  1This comprises funding from City Challenge Grant: other DOE programmes; other Government departments; local authority main programmes; and Housing Corporation grant.

  The Exit or Forward Strategy is an integral part of each Partnership's annual Action Plan. The Plan is discussed and developed over the lifetime of City Challenge.

  The five year period of Government funding for the 20 partnerships ends on 31 March 1998 but, exceptionally, approval has been given for one partnership—North Tyneside—to implement its programme over 6 years. There will be some, limited, grant-funded expenditure taking place in the year after the main funding period ends.

  Water Treatment
  Mr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress by the water companies in cleaning bathing water on British coastlines, and what further measures he proposes to obtain higher standards of effluent treatment disposal by water companies. [3814]

  Ms Angela Eagle
  The improvement programme undertaken by the water companies in England and Wales, the water authorities in Scotland and the water service in Northern Ireland has led to 90 per cent. of UK bathing waters meeting the EC Bathing Water Directive's mandatory coliform bacteria standards in the 1996 bathing season. This compares with compliance rates of 67 per cent. and 80 per cent. in 1988 and 1993 respectively. Compliance rates should further increase as more schemes are completed over the next few years under this Directive and under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.

  Climate Change Convention
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposed amendments have been tabled by the Dutch Presidency on behalf of European Union member states to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in preparation for the review conference in Kyoto on the convention. [3818]

  Ms Angela Eagle
  I have placed a copy of the European Union proposal for a Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, together with a copy of a proposed EU amendment to the Convention itself, in the library of this House.

  Transmitter Masts
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will give greater powers to local planning authorities to restrict inappropriate siting of transmitter masts for cellular phone networks more than 10 metres in height. [4018]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local planning authorities already have adequate powers to influence the siting of transmission masts for cellular phone networks that are more than 10 metres in height. Under the prior approval procedure of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, local planning authorities have the opportunity to say whether they wish to approve, within 28 days, details of the siting and appearance of permitted mast development of up to 15 metres high proposed by licensed telecommunications code system operators outside protected areas. The authority is able to refuse approval if it considers there to be a serious threat to amenity. A full planning application must be made to the local planning authority for all masts proposed in protected areas, such as a National Park, area of outstanding natural beauty or conservation area, and for all masts of more than 15 metres in height elsewhere.

  Air Quality (London)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the air quality in London in relation to that of other EU capitals; and if he will make a statement. [3664]

  Ms Angela Eagle
  The Department in co-operation with local authorities, currently monitors air quality at 24 automatic, and over 100 non-automatic stations in Greater London. A variety of pollutants are monitored at these sites including nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, fine particles (PM10), hydrocarbons and lead. Levels of these pollutants, in London and other UK cities, together with exceedences of air quality standards and guidelines, are presented in the Department's 18th Edition of the Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics. A copy of the Digest is available in the House of Commons Library. The 19th edition of the Digest, containing information on air quality during 1995 will be published in July.

  Information on levels of pollution in major cities elsewhere in the European Union is not held centrally. A European Topic Centre on air quality has been established by the European Environment Agency to improve the availability and comparability of information on air quality at the European level, including urban air quality, and to report on key issues on a regular basis. The Agency is expected to publish a report entitled "Air Pollution in Europe in 1997" during the summer.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if information on hedgerow removal notices being held on public registers by local planning authorities will be co-ordinated centrally and published on a regular basis. [4161]
  170
  Ms Angela Eagle
  My officials are consulting representatives of local government about the collection of information on hedgerow removal notices. Decisions will be taken in the light of the consultation.

  Cement Manufacture
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government plans to issue its response to the House Environment Select Committee's third report of the 1996–97 session, on the environmental impact of cement manufacture. [4830]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's response to the Environment Committee's Report has been issued today and copies have been placed in the Library. The response addresses the Committee's conclusions and recommendations relating to Government policy on pollution control, planning, waste management and health issues. It also comments on the Committee's criticism of the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency has issued its own response, which covers the majority of the Committee's recommendations, since these concern the Agency's enforcement role.

  The Government has welcomed the Select Committee's careful consideration of this issue and sees the report as a very valuable contribution to public debate, not only on this important subject, but also on broader issues of environmental protection. The Government's response affirms its commitment to regulation industry to prevent harm to human health and minimise impacts on the environment as a whole. The Committee has made a number of trenchant criticisms of the Environment Agency's regulation of the cement industry. In particular it found inadequacies in the Agency's public consultation procedures, lack of consistency in application of environmental standards and deficiencies in the regulation of Castle Cement's Clitheroe works. The Government is deeply concerned that the Committee should have felt it necessary to make such criticisms. The Environment Agency has accepted the Committee's criticism and responded to it positively, with an extensive plan of action designed to bring about better public consultation, improve research and guidance and contribute to further studies of the health effects of pollutants.

  I have made clear in discussions with the Agency that the Government expects it to be a fair and rigorous regulator in all its dealings with industry. It must set appropriate standards which fully protect public health and the environment, and then enforce them firmly. The Agency's management has assured me that it is committed to the changes which are needed to ensure that industrial pollution is controlled in a manner which will command the full confidence of Parliament and the public. I can assure Members of this House that I intend to hold the Agency to that promise.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the current United Kingdom target of 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010 is dependent on other EU countries meeting their targets; and if he will make a statement. [3209]
  171
  Mr. Meacher
  The Government has set itself a challenging domestic target to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. from 1990 levels by 2010 and we are currently looking at the policy options which could contribute towards that target.

  Backed by our target, we shall press for an agreement at the Kyoto Climate Change Conference which sees challenging targets for all developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2000. However, we do not propose to take on a higher, legally-binding target under the Climate Change Convention so that other EU Countries can have lower targets.

  Channel Tunnel Safety Authority
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the channel tunnel Safety Authority to publish its annual report for the year 1995–96. [4574]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Channel Tunnel Safety Authority has today published its eighth Annual Report, covering the period from 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996. Copies of the Report have been placed in the Library.

  Traffic and Pollution (London)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to reduce traffic(a) levels and (b) pollution in London; and if he will make a statement; [3666]

  (2) what plans he has to encourage the use of public transport in London; and if he will make a statement; [3656]

  (3) what plans he has to meet representatives of environmental organisations to discuss the level of traffic congestion and pollution in London and other major United Kingdom cities; and if he will make a statement. [3657]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government announced earlier this month that it was launching a fundamental review of the actions required to deliver an integrated transport policy which meets the environmental and transport needs of all regions of the country, including London. The need to address the problems caused by increasing traffic levels and opportunities to encourage the use of public transport will be central to this work. Ministers have already met representatives of a wide range of bodies with an interest in transport issues, including environmental organisations, and will continue to do so throughout the course of the review.

  Driving Licence Holders
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many and what percentage of eligible(a) men and (b) women hold a current full driving licence, in each 10 year age band; and if he will make a statement. [3661]
  172
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The number of male and female full driving licence holders by 10 year age band is as follows:

  Male

  Female

  Total

  16–20

  614,431

  470,576

  1,085,007

  21–30

  3,412,350

  2,895,369

  6,307,719

  31–40

  4,057,396

  3,345,138

  7,402,534

  41–50

  3,725,406

  2,905,747

  6,631,153

  51–60

  2,983,777

  1,995,056

  4,978,833

  61–70

  2,409,678

  1,253,960

  3,663,638

  71–80

  1,097,860

  497,021

  1,594,881

  81–90

  242,753

  90,914

  333,667

  91–100

  6,538

  2,043

  8,581

  Total

  18,550,189 (85.3 per cent. of total adult male population of 21,572,667)

  13,455,824 (57.9 per cent. of total adult female population of 23,004,762)

  32,006,013 (70.4 per cent.of total adult population of 44,576,429)

  Some of the population are ineligible to apply for a driving licence on medical grounds. Figures for the total number of men and women eligible to apply for a driving licence are not available and a percentage comparison between those who hold and those who are eligible to apply for a driving licence could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Waste Transport
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what is the Government's policy towards the transport of radioactive nuclear waste by air; [3851]

  (2) what legislation governs the transport of radioactive nuclear waste by air over the United Kingdom. [3852]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The transport of all radioactive material by air is governed by The Air Navigation (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1994 SI No. 3187, as amended by The Air Navigation (Dangerous Goods) (Amendment) Regulations 1996 SI No. 3100. As a Contracting State to the Convention an International Civil Aviation, the UK is obliged, under Annex 18, to ensure compliance with the latest edition of the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air, published biennially by the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

  Car Clocking
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for legislation to make illegal the practice of car clocking; and if he will make a statement. [3855]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 already makes it an offence to sell a car, in the course of a business, with a false odometer reading. Some prosecutions are also taken under the Theft Act 1968. However, I am concerned that there can be difficulties in gathering the necessary evidence of a car's true mileage, and in tracing previous owners, and the Government is looking at ways of tackling these problems. The Director General of Fair Trading is expected to report shortly on the outcome of his recent consultation exercise on
  173
  problems concerning used cars, including clocking. I and Ministerial colleagues will consider his findings and recommendations extremely carefully.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from trading standards chairmen calling for action against the practice of car clocking. [3836]

  Ms Jackson
  The Institute of Trading Standards Administration and the Local Authorities Co-ordinating Body for Food and Trading Standards responded in 1995 to the consultation paper on new arrangements for vehicle registration. They supported the proposal that the provision of mileage information to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency when a vehicle changes hands should be made mandatory.

  The question of making the provision of mileages a mandatory requirement of the registration system is currently under review.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will visit Wyre Piddle, Worcestershire, to discuss the case for the proposed bypass. [3999]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I hope to visit the West Midlands Region at some point in the future and shall bear in mind the possibility of a visit to Wyre Piddle when planning a programme. I should stress, however, that resources are tight and it appears unlikely that there will be funding available in this year's Local Transport Settlement for any new major scheme starts.

  Road Tax
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) of 2 June,Official Report, columns 55–56, concerning evasion of road tax, if he will negotiate an agency agreement with those authorities who employ their own staff for parking enforcement to monitor unlicensed vehicles in the same way as traffic wardens do. [4065]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) already operates a scheme with London boroughs where local authority parking attendants report unlicensed vehicles to the Agency. Parking attendants detect such vehicles in the course of their day to day duties. Negotiations with a further six London boroughs are in hand and there are plans to extend the scheme to other local authorities outside London who are implementing their own parking enforcement regimes under the decriminalised parking powers now available across the country.

PRIME MINISTER

  Quangos
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Prime Minister what are his plans for reducing the number of quangos. [2587]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government believes that the previous Administration created too many unelected, undemocratic quangos. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has announced a review of quangos with the aim of reducing overall numbers.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Indonesia (Defence Exports)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure that British companies do not undermine current US restrictions on the supply of specific military, security and police transfers to Indonesia; and if he will make a statement. [3586]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We announced on 22 May,Official Report, column 135, an urgent review of the detailed criteria used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms worldwide. Current US policy in this field will be taken into account. All countries will be judged against the new criteria.

  Visas
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 2 June,Official Report, column 82, on waiting times for visa applications, when he expects the Under Secretary of State to write to the hon. Member for Leicester, East. [4014]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The information the hon. Member requested is as follows. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will therefore not be writing to the hon. Member.

  Post

  Waiting time for a straight forward visit application

  Waiting time if an interview is required for a visit visa

  Waiting time for a settlement interview

  Bombay

  same day

  same day

  6 months

  Islamabad

  same day

  14 days

  Q1 3 months

  Q2 wives

  18 weeks

  Q2 husbands 7 months

  Q3 6 months

  Q4

  11.5 months

  New Delhi

  same day

  same day

  Q1 same day

  Q2 11 weeks

  Q3 19 weeks

  Q4 6 months

  Calcutta

  30 minutes

  2 days

  7 days

  Karachi

  same day

  3 days

  5 months

  Dhaka

  same day

  same day

  Q1 3 months

  Q2 6 months

  Q3 3 months

  Q4 8 months

  Washington

  same day

  same day

  within 24 hours

  New York

  same day

  4 days

  same day

  175

  Post

  Waiting time for a straight forward visit application

  Waiting time if an interview is required for a visit visa

  Waiting time for a settlement interview

  Dar-es-Salaam

  same day

  same day

  same day

  Nairobi

  same day

  17 days

  3 months

  Lagos

  next day

  11 days

  4 months

  Entry clearance posts in the Indian sub-continent receive a heavy volume of applications to join families in the United Kingdom. People applying for an indefinite stay (known as "settlement") are divided into separate queues for interview. This allows posts to deal more quickly with those who may have a claim to compassionate treatment. The queue groupings are:

  Q1: Spouses and children under 18 of British citizens; elderly relatives (maximum waiting time—3 months)

  Q2: Spouses and children of non-British citizens (maximum waiting time—3 months)

  Q3: Fiance(e)s and other first time applicants (maximum waiting time—6 months)

  Q4: Re-applicants (maximum waiting time—9 months)

  Military, Police and Security Equipment Exports
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment was made of the human rights record of the country for which the trans-shipment of electro-shock batons was licensed in 1993. [3943]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  A search of departmental records has so far not revealed any details of assessments made prior to the granting of this license. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Leeds Central will write to the hon. Member once officials have completed their enquiries. Copies of the letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what formal procedures there are to monitor the use of military, police or security equipment supplied subject to assurances that the purchasers would not use such hardware for internal repression. [3944]

  Mr. Lloyd
  No such formal procedures have previously existed. But we are considering how best to take forward our commitment to prevent British companies from manufacturing, selling or procuring equipment primarily designed for torture and strengthen the monitoring of end-use of defence exports.

  Iraq
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to obtain the balance of compensation owed by Iraq to former British hostages held in Kuwait, following the Iraqi invasion in 1990; and if he will make a statement. [4171]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Payment of outstanding compensation depends on the flow of money into the Compensation Fund under UN Security Council 176
  resolution (SCR) 986 (oil for food). The UK co-sponsored the renewal of this resolution on 4 June (SCR 1111) permitting Iraq to export up to US$2 billion of oil for a further six months.

  Minister Without Portfolio
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role the Minister without Portfolio has in the formulation of policy relating to the European Union. [4206]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Minister without Portfolio is a Member of the sub-committee on European issues of the Cabinet Ministerial Committee on Defence and Overseas Policy (E) DOP.

  Algerian Elections
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports the United Kingdom observers to the Algerian elections have made to his Department concerning the conduct of the elections. [3766]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  As members of the UN-coordinated election observer team, the two observers from the UK participated in the formulation of the United Nations report on the Algerian legislative elections. The overall conclusion of the UN report was positive although a number of concerns were noted, including on the question of special/mobile polling stations and on the number of ballot boxes.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom observers to the Algerian elections were allowed the freedom usually accorded to international observers at domestic elections; and if they were allowed access to the count. [3767]

  Mr. Lloyd
  The two British observers who participated in the UN-co-ordinated election observer team in Algeria were able to exercise their role within the confines of the extensive and necessary high level of security provided by the Government of Algeria: and they were allowed access to the count.

  Disability Discrimination (European Union)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations his Department (i) has already carried out and (ii) plans to carry out with organisations of and representing disabled people in relation to incorporating references to disability discrimination into the treaty on European Union. [3618]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We strongly supported a reference to non-discrimination on the grounds of disability in the revised Treaty text. The Department for Education and Employment, who have the policy lead on this issue, have consulted a number of non-governmental organisations representing disabled people about both the proposed language on non-discrimination and to ensure that the Community's institutions take the needs of the disabled into account when framing single market legislation.

  General Affairs Council
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the General Affairs Council held on 2 and 3 June. [4573]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The 23 A Points listed in document 8568/97, the text of which will be placed in the House Library, were approved.

  The Council noted the resolutions adopted by the European Parliament, listed in Documents 7145/97 and 8018/97. A copy of these documents will also be placed in the House Library as soon as they are available.

  The Presidency gave a brief presentation on the themes for the European Council in Amsterdam on 16–17 June, emphasising that the priority would be bringing the Inter-Governmental Conference to a successful conclusion.

  Conclusions were adopted on improving trade access for the Least Developed Countries. HMG hopes that other WTO members will respond positively to the Council's call that they make similar commitments.

  The Commission reported on the outcome of negotiations with Canada and Russia on a Framework Agreement on Humane Trapping Standards. The Council Conclusions welcomed progress made, noted the Commission's intention to issue proposals for concluding an Agreement and urged the Commission to report on progress in similar negotiations with the USA. A final decision will be taken at the 19–20 June Environment Council.

  The Council adopted the Regulation creating a Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia. The Council also adopted the directives for negotiation between the Community and the Council of Europe concerning co-operation between the Monitoring Centre and the Council of Europe. It was decided that the Monitoring Centre will be based in Vienna.

  The Council welcomed the results of the 28 May EU/US summit in The Hague, and noted preparations for the EU/Canada summit at Denver on 20 June. The EU/US summit was a success: key agreements were reached including on customs co-operation; there were detailed discussions also on drugs and crime as well as democracy and human rights. The EU/Canada summit will provided an opportunity to assess the implementation of the EU-Canada Joint Declaration and Joint Action Plan.

  The Council noted the forthcoming EU/Japan Sixth annual summit in The Hague on 25 June. Political dialogue will focus on the Korean peninsular and Hong Kong. The Commission will raise Japan's deregulation programme.

  The Council agreed Conclusions setting out the EU's future policy towards Hong Kong after the transfer of sovereignty on 30 June. The Council welcomed the recent Commission Communication on future relations with Hong Kong and said that future policy should be based on a number of key guidelines, including Hong Kong's continuing high degree of political and economic autonomy under the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration.
  178
  The Presidency announced its intention to present a compromise solution to the Mid Term Review of the Agreement with Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs).

  The Council welcomed the outcome of the Ministerial Steering Board in Sintra on 30 May 1997 which had sent a clear message to the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina that further obstruction to peace implementation would not be tolerated. The Council paid tribute to Carl Bildt for his efforts in consolidating peace in Bosnia and promoting lasting stability in the region. It offered its full support to Carlos Westerndorp as his appointed successor.

  The Council welcomed the decision by the Albanian authorities to hold elections on 29 June and emphasised that responsibility for the future of the country lay with the Albanian people. The Council adopted a Common Position which provides that the EU will help Albania, within the coordinating framework of the OSCE, to promote the democratic process, a return to political stability and internal security and the holding of free and fair elections. The EU will continue to support economic reforms and to provide humanitarian aid as needed in accordance with the conditions developed in its regional approach.

  Having reviewed the recent EU mission to Kinshasa, the Council reiterated the EU's support for democratisation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and for the holding of elections, due in two years' time. The Head of the EU's electoral unit will visit DRC shortly. The Council urged the DRC to give full and unhindered access to refugees by the UN and humanitarian agencies. A Ministerial troika will visit DRC at an appropriate time to discuss democratisation, humanitarian assistance and the future relationship.

  The Council discussed relations with Iran and concluded that the conditions were not yet suitable for the return of the EU Ambassadors to Tehran.

  The UK supported the Presidency's proposal for an EU declaration responding to the recent announcement by ASEAN to admit Cambodia, Burma and Laos as full ASEAN members in July. The declaration reaffirms the EU's commitment to the EU-ASEAN dialogue process but reiterates Member States' concern about the situation in Burma.

  The Council recalled the close ties between the EU and Latin America and the Caribbean. It welcomed the proposal to organise a Summit of Heads of State. A recommendation on possible dates, participation and follow up was requested.

  The Council adopted a Common Position on conflict prevention and resolution in Africa. In many parts of Africa, progress towards sustainable development had been undermined by conflicts. African countries must take the lead in conflict prevention and resolution in Africa. The EU in turn had a responsibility to support African efforts. An effective policy necessitated a coherent mix of political, economic, development, social and environment instruments.

  The Council welcomed the proposal that an EU/Africa Summit should take place not later than the year 2000.
  179
  The Council recognised the lack of progress towards respect for human rights and the restoration of accountable, democratic government in Nigeria, and secured agreement to roll over the EU Common Position intact for a further six months. The Council also agreed a more consistent approach to the implementation of the EU visa restrictions.

  A Ministerial session of the Intergovernmental Conference took place on 2 and 3 June. It was preceded by an exchange of views with the President and representatives of the European Parliament. Discussion then progressed on the basis of the revised Presidency texts of 31 May (copies of which have been placed in the library of the House.) Subjects covered included Justice and Home Affairs; Flexibility; Common Foreign and Security Policy; Defence; Institutions; Employment.

  Schengen Agreement
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the technical and operational documents relating to implementation of the Schengen Agreement; and if he will make a statement. [4230]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have examined a number of documents relating to implementation of the Schengen Agreement, in connection with the proposal of the Inter-Governmental Conference to incorporate the Agreement into the structures of the European Union. The Government have no intention of signing the Schengen Agreement because it would require the removal of United Kingdom frontier controls with other member states.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sport (Tobacco Sponsorship)
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what discussions his Department has had with other Departments on the proposed ban on tobacco companies' sponsorship of sport; [4131]

  (2) what consultations he has had with sports organisations and participants who may be adversely affected by a ban on tobacco sponsorship. [4134]

  Mr. Banks
  We are looking very carefully at how best to achieve an end to the advertising and promotion of tobacco at sports events in a way which will minimise any damage to the sports concerned. Discussions are underway within Government on how best to achieve this and I will be consulting the sports concerned shortly. The Government will publish a White Paper later this year setting out their plans for this and other measures to tackle tobacco consumption. Any legislation will include a transitional period.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of(a) the number of people employed in sports which receive sponsorship from tobacco companies and (b) the likely consequences on employment of a ban on sponsorship by tobacco companies. [4132]
  180
  Mr. Banks
  I have made no assessment of the number of people employed in sports which receive sponsorship from tobacco companies. We intend to minimise any damage to sports. Discussions are underway within Government on how best to achieve this, and we will be consulting the sports concerned shortly. The Government will publish a White Paper later this year. Any legislation will include a transitional period.

  Darts
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action he intends taking to make darts a sport recognised by his Department. [1554]

  Mr. Banks
  I would like to see greater recognition of the enjoyment and recreation the game of darts brings to its millions of followers. Grants to individual sports come mainly from the English and United Kingdom Sports Councils, and they decide which activities and organisations should be eligible. The Sports Councils keep priorities under review.

  I urge them to recognise the hugely popular sport of darts and I hope to discuss this matter with them.

  Sporting Facilities
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans the Government have for improving the range and accessibility of sporting facilities throughout the country for young people. [3159]

  Mr. Banks
  The Government will take the lead in extending opportunities for participation in sport through a national strategy for sport which will embrace all sections of the community regardless of where they live, social background, age or ability. This strategy will embrace facility provision and the accessibility of sports facilities.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals he has to increase inner-city school children's access to sporting facilities; and if he will make a statement. [2708]

  Mr. Banks
  The Government will take the lead in extending opportunities for participation in sport through a national strategy for sport which will embrace all sections of the community regardless of where they live, social background, age or ability. We will aim to build on the range of existing initiatives aimed at providing access to sporting facilities for inner city school children, including the Lottery Sports Fund which provides support to deprived areas through the Priority Areas Initiative and the School Community Sports Initiative.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to encourage year-round tourism in national parks. [4016]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  My Department encourages efforts to promote year-round tourism so as to maximise the economic benefits to, and spread the pressure of visitor numbers on environmentally sensitive areas. The National Park Authorities have a statutory duty to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of their areas by the public. They are
  181
  encouraged to develop policies for visitor management, in co-operation with local authorities, Tourist Boards and others with tourism or recreational responsibilities in their areas. In doing so they take into account the need to conserve the special qualities of the Parks and the principles for sustainable tourism.

  National Lottery
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many Lottery grants have been awarded to organisations and groups in Cleethorpes constituency; and what are the values of those grants.[3165]

  Mr. Banks
  As at 10 June 8 grants totalling £654,635 Had been made to organizations and groups in Cleethorpes. The details are as follows:

  Distributing Body

  Award date

  Recipient

  Award amount £

  Arts Council of England

  15 November 1995

  Cleethorpes Borough Council

  286,199

  National Lottery Charities Board

  17 December 1996

  Cleethorpes Help the Aged

  92,535

  National Lottery Charities Board

  11 August 1996

  Senior Citizens Club

  47,976

  National Lottery Charities Board

  19 December 1995

  Grimsby and Cleethorpes Pathfinder Project

  44,043

  National Lottery Charities Board

  11 August 1996

  Grimsby and Cleethorpes Home-Start

  7,175

  National Lottery Charities Board

  11 August 1996

  4th Cleethorpes (St. Peters) Scout Group

  725

  Sports Council

  02 August 1995

  Cleethorpes Borough Council

  169,920

  Sports Council

  05 February 1997

  Humber Mouth Yacht Club (Sailing School)

  6,062

  Total

  654,635

  Sports Council
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the members of the United Kingdom Sports Council, the countries and sports they represent, their period of tenure of office and any moneys paid to them as members. [2754]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 9 June 1997]: The UKSC's Royal Charter provides for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for National Heritage, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to nominate one member each from their respective Home Country Sports Councils as a member of the UKSC. Other members of the UKSC are appointed in a personal capacity, solely on the basis of merit and their suitability for the post, and not to represent particular countries or sports. While the Royal Charter provides for the remuneration of the Chairman and members of the Council, if the Secretary of State so directs, no members of the UKSC currently receive remuneration for their services.

  The current members of the United Kingdom Sports Council are:

  Sir Rodney Walker—appointed as a member on 19 September 1996 for 3 years and Acting Chairman since 14 May 1997.
  182
  (Chairman of the English Sports Council, Chairman of the Rugby Football League).

  Mr. Don Allen—appointed 19 September 1996 for 3 years.

  (Chairman of the Sports Council for Northern Ireland, former Irish League footballer).

  Mr. Graeme Simmers, OBE, CA—appointed 19 September 1996 for 3 years.

  (Chairman of the Scottish Sports Council, former Chairman of the Championships Committee of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews).

  Mr. Ossie Wheatley, CBE—appointed 19 September 1996 for 3 years.

  (Chairman of the Sports Council for Wales, former Chairman of Glamorgan County Cricket Club).

  Mr. Craig Reedie—appointed 19 September 1996 for 3 years.

  (Chairman of the British Olympic Association, former Chairman and President of the International Badminton Federation).

  Professor Sarah Springman—appointed 19 September 1996 for 3 years.

  (Vice-President of the International Triathlon Union).

  Dr. Mary Nevill—appointed 1 October 1996 for 3 years.

  (former British hockey player, Olympic medallist and international coach).

  Mr. Adrian Moorhouse, MBE-appointed 06 February 1997 for 3 years.

  (former British swimmer and Olympic medallist).

  Ms Judy Simpson—appointed 06 February 1997 for 3 years.

  (former British heptathlete, Commonwealth medallist, and President of the Women's Sports Foundation).

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  National Marriage Week
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Lord Chancellor's Department has to support National Marriage Week 1998. [3161]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has made a grant of £75,000 to Marriage Resource to organise National Marriage Week 1998. This is one of 13 projects in a pilot programme running for the financial year 1997–98, at a total cost to the Department of £521,032.

  Files (Royal Household)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received on the arrangements for the release as public documents of files relating to the royal household, which are between 30 and 100 years old; and if he will make a statement. [3418]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have not received any representations on this subject.
  183

  Official Documents
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the date and title of the oldest document in the possession of the Government which has not been released in whole or in part as a public document. [3416]

  Mr. Hoon
  Three items containing information from 1873 are the oldest public records still closed to public inspection. They are Office of Land Revenue Records and Enrolments: Enrolments by Books: Office of Woods, Forests, Land Revenues, Works and Buildings and Successors: Purchases, 1873–1910; Office of Land Revenue Records and Enrolments: Enrolments by Books, Board of Trade and Successors, 1873–1928; and Office of Land Revenue Records and Enrolments: Enrolments by Deposit, Office of Woods, Forests, Land Revenues and Successors: Schedule of Rents and Arrears Discharged, 1873–1902. These records are closed for 100 years on grounds of continuing commercial sensitivity, the closure period being calculated from the last date of each item.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will estimate how many files containing documentation wholly or mainly dating from before 1900 have not been released as public documents(a) in part and (b) as a whole. [3415]

  Mr. Hoon
  Twenty-seven volumes of boxes of Enrolled Deposited Leases, and associated documents, of the Office of Land Revenue Records and Enrolments, which date partly or wholly from before 1900, are closed in the Public Record Office for 100 years, on grounds of continuing commercial sensitivity.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the titles of the files containing documentation wholly or mainly dating from before 1900 where part or all of the contents have not been released as public documents.[3414]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are records in five classes of Enrolled and Deposited Leases, and associated documents, of the Office of Land Revenue records of enrolments, which fall into this category. The classes are Enrolments by Books, Office of Woods, Forests, Land Revenues, Works and Buildings and Successors (LRRO 13); Enrolments by Books, Office of Works and Successors (LRRO 14); Enrolments by Books, Board of Trade and Successors (LRRO 15); Enrolments by Deposit: Office of Woods, Forests and Land Revenues and Successors (LRRO 16); and Enrolments by Deposit, Board of Trade (LRRO 17). The items in these classes are described simply by the range of years that they cover, apart from the Schedule of Rents and Arrears discharged, referred to in my earlier Answer.

SCOTLAND

  Kintore Bypass
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what reason topsoil was buried by contractors constructing the bypass at Kintore in Aberdeenshire. [3513]
  184
  Mr. Chisholm
  Top soil was retained as part of the foundation of some sections of the road for geotechnical reasons. In all other sections top soil has been stripped and stockpiled for later landscape use, in accordance with normal practice.

  Creagan Bridge
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the timetable for the construction of the Creagan bridge, what are the financial resources involved; and if he will make a statement. [3794]

  Mr. Chisholm
  Preparation of this scheme is well underway to permit a construction start in February 1998, subject to finance being available. Construction is estimated to take 18 months and the estimated scheme costs are £6.3 million, including VAT.

  European Union Funding
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to discuss with interested bodies the future of objective 1 funding for the Highlands and Islands; and if he will make a statement.[3795]

  Mr. Chisholm
  The Government have not put forward detailed submissions at this early stage of the reform of the structural funds. We expect to put forward proposals after the results of the inter-governmental conference are known. In the meantime Scottish Office officials are in discussion with those from the local authorities and Highlands and Islands Enterprise about the future options.

  Hopetoun House, Linlithgow
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the public funding made available to Hopetoun house, Linlithgow, over the last five years; what use was made of those funds: how they were invested; and what interest has accrued on them. [3655]

  Mr. Chisholm
  Awards under the Historic Buildings Repair Grant scheme to Hopetoun House Preservation Trust over the past 5 years have amounted to £272,400. In addition, Lothian and Edinburgh Enterprise have provided £72,600 towards refurbishments. These sums, paid from programmes for which I am responsible, have contributed towards work which has been satisfactorily completed.

  I am also aware that sums of £190,465 and £4,000,000 have been awarded by the European Regional Development Fund and the National Heritage Memorial Fund respectively.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of(a) female and (b) male children leave school at 16 in Scotland, broken down into local authority areas; and if he will make a statement. [3658]

  Mr. Wilson
  Percentages for 1995–96, the latest year for which information is available are as follows. Pupils are regarded as having left on achieving the school leaving age in 1995–96 if they: reached age 16 between I March and 30 September 1996 and left school on 31 May 1996;
  reached age 16 between 1 October 1995 and the end of February 1996 and left school at the end of the winter term in 1995–96.
  185
  These arrangements therefore allow some pupils to leave school while they are still 15 years old.

  Local Taxation
  Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce proposals to allow Wales and Scotland to introduce different systems of local taxation from that being operated in England; and if he will make a statement. [2933]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 16 June 1997]: The Government's proposals for devolutions to Scotland and Wales will be announced in White Papers in due course.

  Housing (Energy Efficiency)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average energy efficiency rating for Scotland's housing stock; and if he will provide a breakdown by(a) local authority, (b) private sector and (c) housing association dwellings. [3305]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 17 June 1997]: This information is not yet available but the report of the 1996 Scottish House Condition Survey, which is expected to be published by Scottish Homes in the autumn, will include information on the energy efficiency rating of the housing stock surveyed.

  Rough Sleepers Initiative
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to alter the framework for the distribution of funds under the rough sleepers' initiative. [3306]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 17 June 1997]: No decisions about the distribution of funds under the rough sleepers initiative will be taken until local authorities have submitted bids and I have received a report from the advisory group which has been established to advise on the merits of the bids received. The deadline for submission of bids is end-July. We have, of course, increased the amount available under the initiative this financial year by £1 million to £4 million.

  Percentage of leavers who left at school leaving age 1995–96

  Male

  Female

  Scotland

  33.0

  24.9

  Local authority

  Aberdeen City

  37.3

  30.0

  Aberdeenshire

  28.0

  20.6

  Angus

  35.0

  25.2

  Argyll and Bute

  28.7

  20.1

  Clackmannanshire

  24.7

  24.4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  41.6

  30.7

  Dundee City

  37.3

  30.5

  East Ayrshire

  37.3

  25.5

  East Dunbartonshire

  32.8

  23.1

  East Lothian

  32.6

  27.6

  East Renfrewshire

  18.7

  19.6

  Edinburgh, City of

  24.4

  20.9

  Falkirk

  37.0

  26.4

  Fife

  29.6

  0.4

  Glasgow, City of

  39.1

  33.3

  Highland

  28.7

  21.4

  Inverclyde

  27.9

  27.5

  Midlothian

  30.6

  26.2

  Moray

  34.7

  23.3

  North Ayrshire

  31.7

  23.3

  186

  Percentage of leavers who left at school leaving age 1995–96

  Male

  Female

  North Lanarkshire

  38.8

  26.0

  Orkney Islands

  38.8

  21.9

  Perth and Kinross

  22.5

  16.6

  Renfrewshire

  36.7

  29.1

  Scottish Borders

  36.7

  29.7

  Shetland Islands

  42.4

  21.4

  South Ayrshire

  32.0

  20.7

  South Lanarkshire

  32.0

  22.1

  Stirling

  25.4

  21.7

  West Dunbartonshire

  41.3

  23.9

  West Lothian

  35.7

  28.2

  Western Isles

  23.2

  6.6

  Sources:

  GRO(S) Mid-Year Population Estimates.

  SOEID Annual Survey of School Leavers.

  Primary School Class Sizes
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are(a) the average and (b) the maximum numbers of children in primary school classes in (i) Inverclyde and (ii) Scotland; how many children are taught in classes with a number in excess of 30 pupils; and if he will make a statement.[3460]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 17 June 1997]: The latest information for 1995 is as follows:

  Inverclyde

  Scotland

  Average class size

  25.1

  25.3

  Maximum number in class

  34

  35

  Number of pupils in classes of 31 or more

  867

  76,913

  The information excludes the small number of classes which consist of a large group of pupils being taught by more than one teacher. It covers single and two stage classes in publicly funded schools only.

  Class sizes are a matter in the first instance for local authorities and the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee for teachers in school education The Government have made clear the priority it attaches to raising standards in Scottish schools. I expect to work closely with local authorities to help achieve that objective. Last month I made available fl 3 million for early intervention and raising standards in primary schools.

  I will arrange for comparable information for each education authority in Scotland to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from institutions conducting research on E. colirelating to lack of funding.[3614]

  Mr. Galbrith
  [holding answer 17 June 1997]: We have received no such representations.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department has budgeted for research into food-poisoning in 1997–98, broken down to show the funds dedicated to(a) E. coli, (b) campylobacter and (c) salmonella. [3616]
  187
  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 17 June 1997]: The information requested is set out in the following tables. The majority of research in this area is funded by the Departments of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  E. coli £

  Campylobacter £

  Salmonella £

  The Scottish Office Department of health

  80,468

  —

  —

  The Scottish Office, Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department

  634,221

  106,657

  395,511

  The Scottish Office Education and Industry Deparbnent

  The Aberdeen Protein Analysis facility has been awarded £495,000 (£418,000 in 1997–98) for new medical research that will include work on E. coli 0157.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the research grant applications which have been submitted to the Scottish Office for funding into the causes of E.coli, indicating which of these have been(a) accepted and (b) rejected within the last six months; what was the date when each was accepted or rejected; and if he will make a statement on the financial costs relating to each application. [3608]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 17 June 1997]: Eleven applications have been submitted to the Scottish Office since December 1996 of which eight were successful and one was unsuccessful. A further two applications are still under consideration. The applications are listed in the following table.

  The Scottish Office Department of Health

  (£000s)

  Time of application

  Decision

  Date of decision

  Amount

  Epidemiology and

  Accepted

  18 April 1997

  30

  Laboratory Studies of

  Escherichia Coli 0157

  Fine Structure Analysis

  —

  18 April 1997

  126

  of VTEC in Scotland1

  1This project was neither accepted nor rejected, but deemed to be more appropriate to Research Council funding.

  The Scottish Office, Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department

  Title of application

  Decision

  Date of decision

  Amount

  Prevalence of E. coli 0157:

  Accepted

  14 March 1997

  9

  H7 in Scottish Livestock (Part I)

  Prevalence of E. coli 0157:

  Accepted

  Not yet commissioned

  382

  H7 in Scottish Livestock (Part II)

  Molecular typing of the WL subclone of E. coli 0157: H7

  Accepted

  2 April 1997

  21

  Molecular typing of the WL subclone of E. coli 0157: H7

  Accepted

  2 April 1997

  21

  188

  The Scottish Office, Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department

  Title of application

  Decision

  Date of decision

  Amount

  Characterisation of commensal and pathogenic E. coli populations in cattle

  Accepted

  30 April 1997

  180

  Improved techniques for the rapid detection of Escherichia coli 0157 in foods

  Accepted

  30 April 1997

  300

  Intestinal microbial community structure in VTEC and non-VTEC carrying cattle

  Accepted

  Not yet commissioned

  45

  Proposal to investigate the virulence of Escherichia coli 0157

  Rejected

  17 March 1997

  125

  Laboratory studies with verocytotoxigenic E. coli, particularly serogroup 0157

  Under consideration

  —

  approximately 85

  Consumer perception of risk in relation to food safety

  Under consideration

  —

  approximately 200

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department has spent on research into food-poisoning in each of the last five years, broken down to show the funds dedicated to(a) E. coli, (b) campylobacter and (c) salmonella. [3615]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 17 June 1997]: The information is set out in the following tables. The majority of research in this area is funded by the Departments of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  (£000's)

  E. coli

  Campylobacter

  Salmonella

  The Scottish Office Department of Health

  1992–93

  39

  4

  —

  1993–94

  25

  —

  —

  1994–95

  5

  21

  —

  1995–96

  58

  33

  —

  1996–97

  14

  11

  —

  The Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department

  1992–93

  48

  —

  —

  1993–94

  48

  —

  —

  1994–95

  50

  —

  32

  1995–96

  70

  —

  251

  1996–97

  183

  102

  420

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to undertake a new Scottish House Conditions Survey. [3309]

  Mr. Chisholm
  [holding answer 17 June 1997]: The 21 second Scottish House Condition Survey was carried out in 1996 and the results are expected to be published by Scottish Homes in the autumn.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Sub-post Offices
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will lay down minimum standards for proximity of local communities to sub-post offices. [3380]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  No. I have instituted a review of options for implementing our election manifesto pledge to grant the Post Office greater commercial freedom, and against this background the Post Office have agreed to suspend their Crown office conversion programme. However, whilst the Government are committed to a nationwide network of post offices, the location of individual post offices must remain an operational matter for the Post Office.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she intends to publish the revised draft firework safety regulations. [4831]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  I propose to publish my proposals for new firework safety regulations tomorrow. Copies of the consultation document will be sent to a wide range of organisations with an interest in firework safety, including consumer groups, enforcement authorities, industry, firework user groups and other groups who use fireworks during religious and cultural festivals. Copies of both the consultation document and the draft regulations are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Energy Council
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the outcome of the Energy Council meeting held on 27 May. [4832]

  Mr. Battle
  The Council considered several issues and received reports on matters of interest. I represented the UK.

  The Council discussed gas market liberalisation and the renewable energy green paper. First, the gas liberalisation directive: progress was made which I believe puts us on course to achieve a liberalising measure. Discussion centred on three key issues; a framework for market opening, take or pay contracts and emergent markets and regions. I emphasised the Government's commitment to the single market and called for a positive commitment to gas liberalisation through an effective third party access regime as well as market opening so that customers can get the benefits of competition.

  On the basis of the views expressed the presidency concluded that on market opening a qualitative approach with quantitative criteria could form the basis for a compromise. This should include power generators and large industrial customers as eligible customers; a minimum percentage opening of gas markets; the possibility of Member States limiting market opening above a certain level; and a progressive market opening. On take or pay contracts discussion focused on the possibility of derogating from the directive if problems arose with future contracts. The presidency concluded that there was support for a system characterised by transparency, well formulated criteria and the involvement of national independent gas authorities and
  190
  the Commission in any such decisions. On emergent markets the presidency concluded that there was broad support for the proposal to allow Member States only now developing a gas market and those not directly connected to another EU system and having a single external supplier, to derogate from parts of the directive. On emergent regions there was support for further consideration of an approach whereby regions eligible for derogations were listed in an annex.

  The presidency's proposals were recognised as a step in the right direction and a good basis for progress in further discussions at a possible second Council on 24 June.

  Council also reached agreement on a resolution on the Commission's Green Paper on a renewable strategy. There was some discussion of the Commission's proposal for a Council decision concerning a multiannual programme for the promotion of renewable energy sources in the Community-ALTERNER II. I emphasised that the UK was very positive about renewable and keen to achieve increased targets for renewable energy electricity generation.

  There was an exchange of views on the Commission communication on an overall view of energy policy. I welcomed the communication as a first step in the review of Community programmes with an energy component and supported the concept of a framework programme to provide greater transparency for the citizens of Europe and value for money. In order to dovetail with this framework, I suggested ALTERNER II should be limited to a tighter two year programme. The Commission is expected to present a further communication before the end of 1997.

  Council conclusions were agreed on climate change and energy policy. They recognised the contribution of actions towards climate change commitments particularly in the development of a renewables strategy, energy efficiency standards, long-term agreements with industry and an electricity industry initiative to address environmental concerns. The conclusions call for further analysis, the preparation of a post-Kyoto action programme and a strategy for the promotion of combined heat and power.

  The Commission will submit a revised proposal on energy objectives which will take into account the European Parliament's comments.

  The Council noted Commission progress reports on the external dimension of energy networks, the Energy Charter Treaty, the Euro-Mediterranean partnership and information on agreements with industry on energy savings and on co-generation.

  The first structured dialogue on energy with the countries of central and eastern Europe (CEECs) focused on energy efficiency and Trans European energy Networks (TENs). CEEC ministers outlined the measures they were taking to increase energy efficiency, develop renewable and meet EU standards. The progress being made with the help of EU programmes, particularly in the areas of TENs, was welcomed and it was agreed that co-operation should continue.

  Encryption Services
  Mr. Otttaway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to make an announcement on the proposals put forward in the consultation document "Licensing of Trusted Third Parties for the Provision of Encryption Services.[3975]

  Mr. Battle
  An analysis of the responses to the Consultation Paper is currently underway. As soon as this process has been completed, and following discussion with ministerial colleagues, a statement will be made.

  ACAS Report
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to receive the annual report for the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. [4829]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The ACAS Report for 1996 has been laid before both Houses of Parliament. Copies are available from the Vote Office.

  Travel Industry
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to introduce legislation which prohibits discrimination by the travel industry against single people. [3948]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The practice in the travel industry of charging single people supplements is based on commercial considerations and I have made the travel industry aware of this matter.

  Caviar and Shark Meat Imports
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what quantity of(a) caviar and (b) shark meat is currently imported into the United Kingdom per annum; and if she will make a statement. [2700]

  Mrs. Roche
  In 1996 the UK imported 31 metric tonnes of caviar (sturgeon roe) worth £5.6 million. Information on shark meat is not available.

  The convention on International trade in Endangered Species (CITES) will be holding its biennial meeting between the 9—20 June, in Zimbabwe. During the Conference proposals on the listing of sturgeon and monitoring of shark species will be discussed. The UK will consider all conference proposals carefully and in consideration with our colleagues from the other EU Member States.

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to prohibit the sale of non-millennium compliant computer systems; and if she will make a statement. [2537]

  Mr. Battle
  The century date change is a particularly serious issue, but I do not believe that prohibiting the sale of non-millennium compliant computer systems is necessary.
  192
  It is for a well informed, individual purchaser to decide for himself what he needs in his own particular case. As for any other hardware or software supply issue, the details of conformance and performance are best covered in a discussion or specification and agreed by commercial negotiation. The law already provides a remedy for the purchaser of defective goods under The Sale of Goods Act 1979 and for services under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, and I see no need for fresh legislation.

  Radioactive Discharges
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the components of the liquid and gaseous radioactive and chemical discharges which have been released from(a) Sellafield and (b) Dounreay, stating the activity and mass of each chemical, since these plants became operational. [1845]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 2 June 1997]: I refer my hon. Friend to the BNFL publication "The Annual Report on Radioactive Discharges and Monitoring of the Environment" and in the case of Dounreay, the figures for liquid and gaseous discharges are contained in the HMSO publication, Radioactive Waste Discharges form UKAEA Establishments and Associated Monitoring Results", both of which are available from the Library of the House. The amount and content of material discharged from Sellafield and Dounreay are subject to limits set by the Government's regulatory bodies.

  Indonesia (Exports)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the practice of granting export licences for the export of military, security and police equipment or services to Indonesia; if she intends to continue with the practice; and if she will make a statement. [3384]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  We announced on 22 May, Official Report, column 135, an urgent review of the detailed criteria used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms worldwide. All countries will be judged against the new criteria.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Class Sizes (Colchester)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the total additional expenditure needed to reduce class sizes to 30 or under for(a) all five, six and seven-year-olds and (b) all eight, nine and 10-year-olds in the Colchester parliamentary constituency. [4177]

  Mr. Byers
  Our pledge is to phase out classes of over 30 for all five, six and seven year olds during the lifetime of this Parliament. We will be discussing with local education authorities and others the implementation of our policy following the publication of a White Paper this summer.

  Class Sizes (Bolton)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the(a) average and (b) maximum numbers of children in primary school classes in (i) Bolton West, (ii) Bolton North-east and (iii) Bolton South-east; and how many are educated in class sizes of over 30 pupils.[13081]

  Mr. Byers
  The available information is shown in the following table.

  The information in table 2 puts into context the information on maximum class sizes in table 1.

  Table 2: Numbers of classes and pupils by class size for classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in the Bolton Parliamentary constituencies in January 1996

  Size of class

  1–20

  21–30

  31–35

  36–40

  41 or more

  Total

  Number of classes

  Number of pupils

  Number of classes

  Number of pupils

  Number of classes

  Number of pupils

  Number of classes

  Number of pupils

  Number of classes

  Number of pupils

  Number of classes

  Number of pupils

  Bolton West

  27

  412

  115

  2,996

  75

  2,465

  16

  590

  2

  82

  235

  6,545

  Bolton North-east

  22

  361

  150

  3,917

  95

  3,133

  17

  641

  5

  259

  289

  8,311

  Bolton South-east

  31

  506

  141

  3,680

  100

  3,326

  28

  1,029

  4

  194

  304

  8,735

  School Exclusions
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many(a) primary and (b) secondary-aged children have been permanently excluded from school in each local education authority area in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement; [4169]

  (2) how many children in special schools have been permanently excluded from school in each local education authority area in each of the last five years. [4170]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The numbers of primary, secondary and special school pupils permanently excluded from school in the 1994–95 school year in each local education authority area are set out in the following table. Details of exclusions in 1995–96 are currently being collated and will be available later in the year. Information on exclusions in previous years is not available centrally for each local education authority area.

  Permanent exclusions from maintained primary, secondary and special schools and non-maintained special schools in the 1994–95 school year

  Number of permanent exclusions

  LEA area

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  City of London

  0

  1—

  1—

  Camden

  7

  41

  6

  Greenwich

  9

  45

  3

  Hackney

  8

  9

  6

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  9

  63

  1

  Islington

  7

  58

  2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  4

  27

  0

  Lambeth

  12

  39

  4

  Lewisham

  15

  46

  7

  Southwark

  12

  82

  2

  Tower Hamlets

  8

  46

  5

  Wandsworth

  9

  69

  12

  Westminster

  6

  53

  0

  Barking and Dagenham

  9

  47

  1

  Barnet

  15

  92

  1

  194

  Table 1: Average and maximum class size and number of pupils in classes of 31 or more pupils for classes taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in the Bolton Parliamentary Constituencies in January 1996

  Average class Size

  Maximum class size

  Pupils in classes of 31 or more

  Bolton West

  27.9

  41

  3,137

  Bolton North-east

  28.8

  60

  4,033

  Bolton South-east

  28.7

  60

  4,549

  Permanent exclusions from maintained primary, secondary and special schools and non-maintained special schools in the 1994–95 school year

  Number of permanent exclusions

  LEA area

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Bexley

  6

  47

  2

  Brent

  9

  93

  2

  Bromley

  9

  86

  6

  Croydon

  11

  118

  5

  Ealing

  3

  70

  0

  Enfield

  9

  75

  1

  Haringey

  2

  17

  0

  Harrow

  6

  47

  2

  Havering

  2

  58

  0

  Hillingdon

  11

  47

  7

  Hounslow

  7

  80

  0

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  2

  24

  0

  Merton

  1

  31

  3

  Newham

  11

  43

  0

  Redbridge

  2

  47

  3

  Richmond upon Thames

  3

  31

  0

  Sutton

  4

  31

  2

  Waltham Forest

  8

  81

  2

  Birmingham

  65

  199

  2

  Coventry

  6

  95

  3

  Dudley

  9

  42

  4

  Sandwell

  9

  109

  2

  Solihull

  11

  24

  6

  Walsall

  7

  49

  2

  Wolverhampton

  10

  57

  3

  Knowsley

  2

  26

  1

  Liverpool

  14

  114

  14

  St. Helens

  2

  27

  1

  Sefton

  6

  41

  0

  Wirral

  10

  39

  3

  Bolton

  7

  86

  2

  Bury

  7

  56

  0

  Manchester

  26

  116

  10

  Oldham

  5

  42

  2

  Rochdale

  3

  26

  2

  Salford

  13

  102

  0

  Stockport

  1

  30

  9

  Tamside

  9

  52

  0

  195

  Permanent exclusions from maintained primary, secondary and special schools and non-maintained special schools in the 1994–95 school year

  Number of permanent exclusions

  LEA area

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  Trafford

  6

  37

  4

  Wigan

  6

  47

  2

  Barnsley

  0

  16

  0

  Doncaster

  6

  92

  7

  Rotherham

  4

  45

  1

  Sheffield

  16

  73

  5

  Bradford

  2

  125

  1

  Calderdale

  4

  20

  0

  Kirklees

  14

  38

  2

  Leeds

  15

  159

  8

  Wakefield

  15

  85

  4

  Gateshead

  2

  31

  1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  18

  74

  3

  North Tyneside

  6

  53

  1

  South Tyneside

  1

  65

  1

  Sunderland

  8

  40

  1

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  1—

  Avon

  49

  171

  26

  Bedfordshire

  12

  117

  8

  Berkshire

  23

  167

  14

  Buckinghamshire

  17

  83

  4

  Cambridge

  7

  107

  1

  Cheshire

  16

  152

  10

  Cleveland

  16

  66

  8

  Cornwall

  11

  70

  0

  Cumbria

  9

  70

  0

  Derbyshire

  23

  136

  8

  Devon

  22

  101

  16

  Dorset

  17

  93

  6

  Durham

  9

  100

  5

  East Sussex

  24

  114

  13

  Essex

  29

  174

  7

  Gloucestershire

  18

  96

  5

  Hampshire

  44

  308

  24

  Hereford and Worcester

  10

  116

  1

  Hertfordshire

  24

  155

  9

  Humberside

  13

  91

  4

  Isle of Wight

  1

  12

  0

  Kent

  52

  289

  21

  Lancashire

  41

  272

  13

  Leicestershire

  21

  158

  5

  Lincolnshire

  9

  104

  4

  Norfolk

  14

  87

  3

  North Yorkshire

  10

  71

  7

  Northamptonshire

  15

  125

  9

  Northumberland

  6

  53

  7

  Nottinghamshire

  25

  209

  4

  Oxfordshire

  10

  36

  3

  Shropshire

  7

  99

  7

  Somerset

  13

  46

  3

  Staffordshire

  25

  226

  5

  Suffolk

  13

  103

  1

  Surrey

  25

  176

  17

  Warwichshire

  11

  60

  6

  West Sussex

  22

  94

  4

  Wiltshire

  13

  88

  12

  England

  1,307

  8,870

  492

  1No schools of this type in LEA area.

  Secondary Schools (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many secondary schools in Staffordshire offered the teaching of more than one foreign language to(a) GCSE level and (b) A level in the latest year for which figures are available; what assessment he has made of the advantages of all such
  196
  schools offering more than one foreign language to these levels; and what plans he has to change the national curriculum requirement in respect of the number of foreign languages to be offered. [40321]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The latest figures we have are for the 1995–96 school year and relate to pupils attempting GCSE or GCE A level examinations in two or more foreign languages. We do not have separate information on how many pupils were actually taught the languages. All of the seventy-one secondary schools in Staffordshire had pupils tgaking at least two GCSEs in foreign languages. The most popular languages were French, German and Spanish. Forty-six had pupils taking at least two GCE A levels in foreign languages. French and German were by far the most popular languages at that level.

  All secondary schools must now teach pupils at least one modern foreign language, and they are free to offer more than one if they have the resources to do so and the demand is there. Foreign language learning is important in promoting international understanding, and in providing insights into other cultures, and our own. For the United Kingdom as a trading nation, competence in modern foreign languages is of crucial importance in an increasingly competitive world. Nineteen modern foreign languages are eligible to be National Curriculum foundation subjects.

  We have promised stability in the National Curriculum at key stages 1 to 3 until the year 2000. The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority are currently monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the revised National Curriculum introduced in schools in 1995, and will provide advice to Ministers in due course on the need for and nature of any future modifications.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of people whom it will be necessary to recruit for teacher training in 1997–98 for the proper future staffing of schools. [4031]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The targets for recruitment for teacher training in 1997–98, which were published in November 1996, are shown in the following table. Targets for future years will be reviewed in the autumn.

  Initial teacher training intake targets in England 1997–98

  Subject

  Number

  Mathematics

  2,250

  English

  1,950

  Drama

  200

  Science

  3,300

  Modern Languages

  2,650

  Technology

  3,200

  History

  900

  Geography

  900

  Physical Education

  1,550

  Art

  950

  Music

  600

  Religious Education

  700

  Other

  350

  Total secondary

  19,500

  Total primary

  11,000

  197
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people were recruited for teacher training in all main subject areas in each of the last five years; and what are the projected figures for the 1997–98 academic year. [4030]

  Initial teacher training actual intake in each subject area since 1992

  England only

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Primary

  16,658

  15,775

  13,743

  13,603

  12,465

  Secondary

  Maths

  1,699

  1,790

  1,950

  1,795

  1,653

  English

  1,368

  1,483

  1,829

  1,877

  2,093

  Science

  2,148

  2,397

  2,918

  2,794

  2,937

  Languages

  1,384

  1,550

  1,789

  1,790

  1,720

  Technology

  2,216

  2,160

  2,133

  1,854

  1,963

  History

  598

  680

  927

  872

  937

  Geography

  474

  600

  636

  696

  842

  PE

  1,153

  1,084

  1,309

  1,311

  1,384

  Art

  579

  704

  754

  818

  904

  Music

  422

  461

  490

  548

  507

  RE

  353

  368

  448

  494

  647

  Other

  457

  415

  327

  378

  378

  All Secondary

  12,849

  13,689

  15,509

  15,226

  15,965

  Total

  29,507

  29,464

  29,252

  28,829

  28,430

  From 1993–94 includes School Centred Initial Teacher Training (SC1TT). English includes Drama.

  Technology includes Business Studies and Home Economics.

  Other includes Classics, Economics and Social Sciences.

  Source:

  1992–93 to 1993–94 DfE Recruitment Survey, 1994–95 HESES, 1995–96 to 1996–97 TTA Survey of ITT Providers.

  Post-16 Education
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to encourage children to remain in the education system after the age of 16 years; and if he will make a statement.[3669]

  Dr. Howells
  We are currently developing a range of measures to encourage young people to continue their education after the age of 16, which will carry forward the commitments made in our election manifesto within the limitations of current public expenditure plans. This will be our Target 2000 programme. I hope to be able to make an early announcement on the details of a number of initiatives.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of(a) female and (b) male children leave school at 16 years, broken down into local authority areas; and if he will make a statement. [3668]

  Dr. Howells
  The following table shows the percentage of 16 year olds who had left school by LEA in 1994–95. Many who leave school at 16 will continue with their education and training, for example in further education colleges, sixth form colleges or in the workplace. Figures for males and females separately could only be made available at disproportionate cost.
  198
  Ms Morris
  The following table shows the number of new entrants to teacher training for the years 1992–93 to 1996–97. The Department does not make projections of future entrants.

  School leavers aged 16 by LEA, England, 1994–95

  Percentage

  London

  Inner London1

  61

  Barking

  60

  Barnet

  43

  Bexley

  58

  Brent

  60

  Bromley

  39

  Croydon

  71

  Ealing

  61

  Enfield

  49

  Haringey

  64

  Harrow

  82

  Havering

  82

  Hillingdon

  50

  Hounslow

  41

  Kingston upon Thames

  38

  Merton

  68

  Newham

  92

  Redbridge

  40

  Richmond upon Thames

  66

  Sutton

  39

  Waltham Forest

  85

  Metropolitan authorities

  Birmingham

  70

  Coventry

  59

  Dudley

  96

  Sandwell

  84

  Solihull

  71

  Walsall

  57

  Wolverhampton

  56

  Knowsley

  85

  Liverpool

  52

  St. Helens

  73

  Sefton

  61

  Wirral

  56

  Bolton

  76

  199

  School leavers aged 16 by LEA, England, 1994–95

  Percentage

  Bury

  87

  Manchester

  82

  Oldham

  79

  Rochdale

  85

  Salford

  99

  Stockport

  83

  Tameside

  98

  Trafford

  73

  Wigan

  94

  Barnsley

  95

  Doncaster

  58

  Rotherham

  70

  Sheffield

  81

  Bradford

  55

  Calderdale

  57

  Kirklees

  78

  Leeds

  60

  Wakefield

  72

  Gateshead

  68

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  49

  North Tyneside

  64

  South Tyneside

  93

  Sunderland

  88

  Counties

  Avon

  56

  Bedfordshire

  59

  Berkshire

  43

  Buckinghamshire

  47

  Cambridgeshire

  66

  Cheshire

  62

  Cleveland

  93

  Cornwall (including Isles of Scilly)

  73

  Cumbria

  60

  Derbyshire

  70

  Devon

  59

  Dorset

  52

  Durham

  76

  East Sussex

  67

  Essex

  72

  Gloucestershire

  54

  Hampshire

  90

  Hereford and Worcester

  60

  Hertfordshire

  40

  Humberside

  80

  Isle of Wight

  49

  Kent

  48

  Lancashire

  83

  Leicestershire

  62

  Lincolnshire

  64

  Norfolk

  63

  North Yorkshire

  60

  Northamptonshire

  52

  Northumberland

  52

  Nottinghamshire

  66

  Oxfordshire

  48

  Shropshire

  73

  Somerset

  69

  Staffordshire

  69

  Suffolk

  52

  Surrey

  58

  Warwickshire

  64

  West Sussex

  62

  Wiltshire

  66

  England

  65

  1Data for individual boroughs are not reliable.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for education and Employment what plans he has to help secondary school children who suffer from dyslexia. [3973]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We need first to ensure that dyslexia is picked up before children reach secondary school. The Code of Practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs emphasises the need for the early identification of special educational needs. The proposals for a national curriculum for initial teacher training and baseline assessment will help teachers identify children with dyslexia when they first start school. Beyond that, the Department is currently funding a number of research projects directly related to dyslexia. One in particular at the Manchester Metropolitan University, aims to establish those practices for assessment and intervention which teachers have found effective for use in the ordinary classroom. We will make sure that the findings from these projects are disseminated to teachers.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on future funding of specialist education for children at secondary school who suffer from dyslexia. [3974]

  Ms Morris
  Each local education authority is responsible for setting its own budget and deciding its priorities between and within services, including special educational needs. The Government's role is to set the overall framework for the funding of local authority services nationally, and to determine the way in which national "standard spending" totals are distributed between local authorities, through the standard spending assessment system. The way in which we propose to develop policy on provision for special educational needs will be set out in the forthcoming education White Paper.

  Education White Paper
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will announce the publication date of the Education White Paper; and if he will make a statement on the timetable for consultation relating to it. [4211]

  Mr. Byers
  The White Paper setting out the Government's agenda for raising standards in schools will be published in early July. We are planning a period of consultation going well into the Autumn term. We want all those involved in education to join in that process and are seeking the most effective ways of making sure they are aware of and can respond to the proposals. We will be setting out details of the consultation process when the White Paper is published.

  Quangos
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what changes he plans to make(a) the role and responsibilities of quangos and (b) the accountability of quangos in the education sector; and if he will make a statement. [4212]

  Dr. Howells
  We are currently examining the role and responsibilities of each of our Non-Departmental Public Bodies, or quangos, as part of the Department's spending review. Our policy proposals concerning the
  201
  accountability of quangos, including those in the education sector, will be set out in the White Paper on Better Government announced on 3 June by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Secondary School Performance Tables
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will publish the next secondary school performance tables. [4253]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We expect to publish the tables in November.

  Technology, Languages, Arts and Sports Colleges
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will announce the next round of technology, language, arts and sports colleges. [4254]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I am announcing today the names of the schools that are to be designated as Technology Colleges and Language Colleges as from September 1997. I hope to announce the names of those schools successful in the sports and arts competitions in early July.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the schools which have applied to his Department in the latest bidding round for technology, language, arts and sports school status. [4255]

  Ms Morris
  The following table are schools that have applied for specialist school designation in each of the current competitions.

  Applications for technology college designation

  School

  LEA

  Addey and Stanhope School

  Lewisham

  Admiral Lord Nelson School

  Portsmouth

  Amery Hill School

  Hampshire

  Anfield Community Comprehensive School

  Liverpool

  Ashfield School

  Nottinghamshire

  Astley Community School

  Northumberland

  Balcarras School

  Gloucestershire

  Balshaw's CE High School

  Lancashire

  Barclay School

  Hertfordshire

  Barnwood Park School for Girls

  Gloucestershire

  Beardwood School

  Lancashire

  Bedlingtonshire Community High School

  Northumberland

  Beverley High School

  East Riding

  Bicester Community College

  Oxfordshire

  Bishop David Brown School

  Surrey

  Bishop Douglass RC High School

  Barnet

  Bishop Luffa School

  West Sussex

  Bishop of Herefords Bluecoat School

  Hereford and Worcester

  Brighouse High School

  Calderdale

  Broughton Hall High School

  Liverpool

  Bury St. Edmunds County Upper School

  Suffolk

  Bushey Hall School

  Hertfordshire

  Castleford High School

  Wakefield

  Cheam High School

  Sutton

  Chesterton Community College

  Cambridgeshire

  Christ The King Catholic School

  Nottinghamshire

  Christleton High School

  Cheshire

  Clacton County High School

  Essex

  Cleeve School

  Gloucestershire

  Clough Hall School

  Staffordshire

  Cressex School

  Buckinghamshire

  Davison C of E High School for Girls

  West Sussex

  202

  Applications for technology college designation

  School

  LEA

  Deanes School

  Essex

  Deben High School

  Suffolk

  Ernulf Community School

  Cambridgeshire

  Featherstone High School

  Wakefield

  Gable Hall School

  Essex

  Gordano School

  North Somerset

  Great Yarmouth High School

  Norfolk

  Greenhead Grammar School

  Bradford

  Hampstead School

  Camden

  Harper Green School

  Bolton

  Hartsdown School

  Kent

  Haybridge High School

  Hereford and Worcester

  Hazel Grove High School

  Stockport

  Highams Park School

  Waltham Forest

  Ilfracombe College

  Devon

  John Port School

  Derbyshire

  John Roan School

  Greenwich

  King Edward VII Upper School

  Leicestershire

  King Harold GM School

  Essex

  King John School

  Essex

  Kingsway High School

  Cheshire

  Longbenton Community College

  North Tyneside

  Longsands Community College

  Cambridgeshire

  Lutterworth Grammar School

  Leicestershire

  Lytham St. Annes High School

  Lancashire

  Mellow Lane School

  Hillingdon

  Moor Park High School

  Lancashire

  Moseley School

  Birmingham

  National School

  Nottinghamshire

  Oak Farm Community School

  Hampshire

  Oakwood High School

  Manchester

  Okehampton College

  Devon

  Plessington Catholic High School

  Wirral

  Princess Margaret Royal Free School

  Berkshire

  Priory Community School

  North Somerset

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar

  Cumbria

  Queen Mary's Grammar School

  Walsall

  Queensbury School

  Bedfordshire

  Raines Foundation School

  Tower Hamlets

  Reigate School

  Surrey

  Richard Challoner School

  Kingston upon Thames

  Richard Lander School

  Cornwall

  Robert Smyth School

  Leicestershire

  Rudheath County High School

  Cheshire

  Sacred Heart Comprehensive School

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Salesian College

  Wandsworth

  Saltash Community School

  Cornwall

  Shaw House School

  Berkshire

  Southfields Community College

  Wandsworth

  Southlands High School

  Lancashire

  Speedwell School

  Bristol

  St. Anthony's Girls School

  Sunderland

  St. Thomas Becket RC School

  Knowsley

  St. Birinus School

  Oxfordshire

  St. Georges School

  Hertfordshire

  St. John's School

  Wiltshire

  St. Marks West Essex Catholic School

  Essex

  St. Mary's RC High School

  Wigan

  St. Matthews RC High School

  Manchester

  St. Michael's RC School

  Stockton on Tees

  St. Thomas More Catholic Comprehensive School

  Walsall

  Steyning Grammar School

  West Sussex

  Stockport School

  Stockport

  The Ridings High School

  South Gloucestershire

  Thomas Alleynes High School

  Staffordshire

  Thomas Sumpter School

  North Lincolnshire

  Thornton Grammar School

  Bradford

  Tideway School and Sixth Form Centre

  East Sussex

  203

  Applications for technology college designation

  School

  LEA

  Varndean School

  East Sussex

  Wade Deacon County High School

  Cheshire

  Wilsthorpe School

  Derbyshire

  Withywood Community School

  Bristol

  Wollaston School

  Northamptonshire

  Woolwich Polytechnic

  Greenwich

  Applications for language college designation received

  School

  LEA

  All Saints RC School

  Sheffield

  Aston Manor School

  Birmingham

  Bournmouth School

  Bournemouth

  Carisbrooke High School

  Isle of Wight

  Cliff Park High School

  Norfolk

  Cromer High School

  Norfolk

  Didcot Girls' High School

  Oxfordshire

  Helenswood School

  East Sussex

  Hollingworth High School

  Rochdale

  Hockerill Anglo European School

  Hertfordshire

  Imberhorne School

  West Sussex

  King Edward VII School

  Sheffield

  Little Lever School

  Bolton

  Our Lady's Convent High School

  Hackney

  Our Lady's RC High School

  Lancashire

  Parrs Wood High School

  Manchester

  Penrice School

  Cornwall

  Saint George's CE School

  Kent

  Slough Grammar School

  Berkshire

  St. Mary's RC High School

  Derbyshire

  St. Nicholas RC High School

  Cheshire

  Thorncliffe School

  Cumbria

  Greenford High School

  Ealing

  Haydon School

  Hillingdon

  The Douay Martyrs School

  Hillingdon

  Monks Park School

  City of Bristol

  The Grey Coat Hospital

  Westminster

  Sir Thomas Rich's School

  Gloucstershire

  Applications for arts college designation received by 16 May

  School

  LEA

  Aylwin Girl's School

  Southwark

  Brakenhale School

  Berkshire

  Brentwood Ursuline Convent High School

  Essex

  Bridgewater County High School

  Cheshire

  Chestnut Grove School

  Wandsworth

  France Hill School

  Surrey

  Fred Longworth High School

  Wigan

  Heathfield Community School

  Somerset

  Intake High School

  Leeds

  John Masefield High School

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  Lealands High School

  Luton

  Newall Green High School

  Manchester

  Shirley High School

  Surrey

  St. Marylebone High School

  Westminster

  Stantonbury Campus

  Milton Keynes

  Westfield Community School

  Somerset

  Wrockwardine Wood School

  Shropshire

  Applications for sports college designation received by 16 May

  School

  LEA

  Altwood School

  Berkshire

  Angmering School

  West Sussex

  Ashton on Mersey School

  Trafford

  204

  Applications for sports college designation received by 16 May

  School

  LEA

  Biddick School

  Sunderland

  Cardinal Newman Catholic School and Community College

  Coventry

  Chatham Grammar School for Boys

  Kent

  Crown Woods Chool

  Greenwich

  Deane's School

  Essex

  Desborough School

  Berkshire

  Haydon Bridge High School

  Northumberland

  Herne Bay High School

  Kent

  Ivybridge Community College

  Devon

  Langdon Comprehensive School

  Newham

  Lostock High School

  Trafford

  Marple Hall School

  Stockport

  Meadway School

  Berkshire

  Newport Free Grammar School

  Essex

  Oldfield School

  Bath and North east Somerset

  Park House School

  Berkshire

  Poltair Community School

  Cornwall

  Sittingbourne Community College

  Kent

  Wright Robinson High School

  Manchester

  Wye Valley High School

  Buckinghamshire

  Sex Equality Branch
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if officials from the sex equality branch of his Department will be transferred to the Department of Social Security. [4257]

  Dr. Howells
  The secretariat of the independent Women's National Commission has been transferred to the Department of Social Security along with five other officials from the Sex and Race Equality Division in my Department. The rest of that Division will continue to deal with issues affecting equality of opportunity for men and women (and racial equality) in education, training and employment.

  Class Sizes (Buckinghamshire)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each primary school in Buckinghamshire the current numbers in each class at ages(a) five, (b) six and (c) seven years. [4258]

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

  School Attendance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he plans to take against parents who do not ensure that children under 16 years attend school. [4259]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Unauthorised absence blights pupils' educational chances. With our partners in the education service we will be examining the scope for reinforcing parents' understanding of their legal responsibilities for ensuring regular attendance at school, including wider use of home/school agreements. We will also be consulting about new guidance for schools and LEAs drawing on good practice in effective follow-up of unjustified absences and will encourage greater use of existing enforcement powers where appropriate.

  Surplus School Places
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by local education authority the number of surplus places at(a) primary and (b) secondary level schools. [4260]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the then Member for Hornchurch, gave to the former Member for Eltham, now the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) on Monday 27 January 1997,Official Report, columns 99–102.

  Travellers' Children
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what resources he will make available to ensure that travellers' children attend school; and what action he will take to ensure their attendance. [4261]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In the current financial year 1997–98, the specific grant paid under Section 488 of the Education Act 1996 will be supporting some £10 million of expenditure to meet the additional educational needs of Traveller children. The grant provides in the main for the employment of specialist teachers and education welfare officers to help ensure that Traveller children have full access to school, and that parents know and comply with their responsibilities for their children's attendance.

  Nursery Education
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the cost to local education authorities of gathering and documenting the necessary evidence from providers to justify payments for nursery children. [4153]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 17 June 1997]: The costs to local education authorities of administering the new arrangements for early years education should be less than those of administering the nursery education voucher scheme.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Identity Documents (Elections)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will include passports from New Zealand and other commonwealth countries in the list of identity documents required to allow an elector to vote in Northern Ireland elections. [1317]

  Dr. Mowlam
  There are currently 53 members of the Commonwealth all of which issue passports in differing formats and numerous languages. Adding some or indeed all of these documents to the list of specified documents would place an unreasonable burden on polling station officials who already have to be familiar with the standardised passport issued by member states of the European Union. It would be unrealistic to expect the Chief Electoral Officer's staff to recognise and verify the authenticity of such a range of documents which could increase the opportunities for forgery and abuse of the system.

  Job Creation
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs were created by the Industrial Development Board from 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997; how many were the result of inward investment contracts; and what are the locations of these jobs. [3062]

  Mr. Ingram
  Information on job creations is not available in the manner requested or by location. However, details of jobs promoted by the Industrial Development Board in 1996–97 are available by district council area and are set out in the table. The Industrial Development Board's own research shows that companies create approximately 70 per cent. of all promoted jobs over a period of three to five years after acceptance of the Industrial Development Board's offer of assistance.

  Jobs promoted by the Industrial Development Board 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997

  District council area

  Total jobs promoted

  Inward investment jobs included in total jobs

  Antrim

  35

  20

  Ards

  —

  —

  Armagh

  11

  —

  Ballymena

  290

  290

  Ballymoney

  73

  73

  Banbridge

  40

  —

  Belfast

  930

  781

  Carrickfergus

  76

  —

  Castlereagh

  85

  44

  Coleraine

  68

  —

  Cookstown

  39

  —

  Craigaon

  132

  45

  Derry

  543

  340

  Down

  38

  —

  Dungannon

  434

  344

  Fermanagh

  95

  —

  Larne

  369

  369

  Limavady

  789

  759

  Lisburn

  706

  566

  Magherafelt

  51

  —

  Moyle

  —

  —

  Newry and Mourne

  152

  131

  Newtownabbey

  805

  779

  North Down

  14

  —

  Omagh

  115

  —

  Strabane

  115

  100

  Total

  6,005

  4,641

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement about job creation and industrial development in Northern Ireland, with particular reference to inward investment in South Down. [3061]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government attaches a high priority to strengthening the Northern Ireland economy and a key component of this is the activity of the Department of Economic Development and its Economic Development Agencies to help Northern Ireland companies become internationally competitive and to attract high quality internationally mobile investments leading to growth in durable employment.

  The industrial development board's remit of attracting inward investment extends to all parts of Northern Ireland, including the South Down area. Under this remit

  207
  particular emphasis is placed on encouraging investments to locate in disadvantaged areas and parts of the South Down constituency fall within these designated areas.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the inward investment projects where there is a reduction in the number of jobs in 1996–97. [3064]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is quite normal for company employment to fluctuate in response to market forces and technological developments. This is reflected in the individual employment patterns of nearly 220 externally-owned companies of which 95 per cent. experienced increases or decreases during 1996–97, resulting in a net employment increase of over 400 jobs.

  Three externally-owned companies closed during the year, detailed in the following table:

  Company

  Employment at 31 March 1996

  AVM Telecom Ltd.

  7

  Benelux Manufacturing (NI) Ltd.

  231

  Blackers Mill Ltd.

  54

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many visits were made to each(a) parliamentary constituency and (b) district council area by potential inward investors in each financial year since 1992; and how many of the potential investors were brought by the Industrial Development Board to South Down. [3063]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information required to answer part (a) is not available and would involve disproportionate costs to extract. Visits arranged by IDB to Northern Ireland District Council Areas for potential investors in the last four years are detailed in the attached table. Comparable figures for 1992–93 are not available and would involve disproportionate costs to extract.

  Visits to district council areas by potential investors

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Antrim

  15

  26

  18

  34

  Ards

  4

  5

  3

  10

  Armagh

  0

  1

  1

  4

  Ballymena

  5

  13

  3

  0

  Ballymoney

  0

  3

  1

  3

  Banbridge

  0

  2

  3

  1

  Belfast

  63

  65

  55

  62

  Carrickfergus

  6

  13

  7

  22

  Castlereagh

  4

  1

  8

  6

  Coleraine

  12

  5

  3

  7

  Cookstown

  2

  4

  17

  10

  Craigavon

  7

  12

  16

  15

  Derry

  19

  18

  30

  32

  Down

  2

  10

  2

  3

  Dungannon

  12

  13

  9

  4

  Fermanagh

  5

  3

  11

  15

  Larne

  4

  6

  4

  1

  Limavady

  4

  3

  2

  7

  Lisburn

  8

  19

  41

  31

  Magherafelt

  1

  2

  4

  0

  Moyle

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Newry and Mourne

  8

  15

  16

  9

  Newtownabbey

  27

  17

  19

  22

  North Down

  8

  4

  9

  3

  Omagh

  1

  2

  6

  8

  208

  Visits to district council areas by potential investors

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Strabane

  0

  2

  9

  10

  Total

  218

  265

  297

  319

  Visits to District Council Areas for other than inward investment purposes are not included in these figures, e.g. visits to tourist attractions.

  Beef Export Ban
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions she had with(a) ministerial colleagues in the EU Agriculture Council of Ministers and (b) the European Commission concerning the removal of the export ban on beef produced in Northern Ireland; and what was the outcome of the discussions. [3065]

  Mr. Murphy
  To date I have not had the opportunity to meet either with Ministerial colleagues in the EU Agriculture Council of Ministers or with the European Commission. However, my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Food, who represents the UK on agricultural matters in the EU, met with Commissioner Fischler on 12 May, and with Commissioner Bonino prior to his attendance at the Agriculture Council of Ministers on 20–21 May. He also visited the European Parliament. At these meetings, Dr. Cunningham indicated the Government's determination to secure a lifting of the ban for all regions of the UK in accordance with the Florence Agreement. The Minister has also met with the Dutch President of the Council and has further plans to meet individual Council members. Further meetings with Commission officials are taking place in the wake of the Scientific Veterinary Committee's report of 11 June.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of(a) female and (b) male children leave school at 16 in Northern Ireland, broken down into local authority areas; and if he will make a statement. [3659]

  Mr. Worthington
  The information requested is as follows:

  Percentage of 16-year-old pupils leaving school in 1994–95 (expressed as a proportion of all pupils in year 12)

  Per cent.

  Education and Library Board

  Female

  Male

  Belfast

  25

  42

  Western

  50

  61

  North-eastern

  50

  69

  South-eastern

  54

  66

  Southern

  46

  62

  It should be pointed out that many young people who leave school at 16 enter further education. in 1995–96 the proportion of 16 and 17-year-olds in full-time education (at school or FE college) in Northern Ireland was 71 per cent., and the proportion of young people entering full-time higher education by the age of 21 was 40 per cent.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Desmond Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Planning Service in 1997–98. [14568]

  Dr. Mowlam
  For 1997–98 the following performance targets have been set for the Planning Service.

  Volume of Output

  1. To adopt the Larne Area Plan by 31 March 1998.

  Quality of Service

  1. To raise customer satisfaction relative to the determination of planning applications by 5 per cent.

  2. To take 75 per cent. of minor planning applications to District Council within eight weeks of receipt.

  3. To take 60 per cent. of major planning applications to District Council within eight weeks of receipt.

  4. To issue 50 per cent. of all decisions on planning applications within seven working days of final Council consultation.

  5. To reduce the proportion of invalid planning applications by 10 per cent.

  6. To issue responses to 92 per cent. of property enquiries within 10 working days of receipt.

  Efficiency

  1. To achieve efficiency gains of 3 per cent. in running costs expenditure.

  2. To establish by June 1997 targets for reducing unit costs for determination of planning applications and processing property enquiries.

  Financial performance

  1. To maintain expenditure within cash limits and to approved budget plans.

  2. To maintain full recovery of the costs of determining planning applications.

  3. To maintain full recovery of the costs of responding to property enquiries.

  Mr. Desmond Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Roads Service in 1997–98. [4569]

  Dr. Mowlam
  For 1997–98 the following performance targets have been set for Roads Service:

  Finance

  1. To maintain expenditure within cash limits and to approved budget plans.

  2. Within the provision allocated, deliver an overall efficiency saving of 3 per cent. in running costs.

  Output/effectiveness

  3. To maintain the Motorway network so that the proportion with a residual life' of more than five years exceeds 85 per cent.

  4. To maintain the Regional Route Network so that the proportion with a residual life of more than five years exceeds 75 per cent.

  5. To maintain the condition of other roads so that the overall Road Condition Index' does not exceed 85 per cent.

  6. To reduce by 40 per cent. the total number of injury accidents occurring at treated sites over the three years following the works.

  Quality of customer service

  7. To achieve consistently the key standards of service set out in the Road User's Charter Statement.

  Efficiency

  8. The unit cost of managing the road network to be 2 per cent. lower, in real terms, than the 1996–1997 outturn figure.

  1The maximum period remaining before the road will require major reconstruction. The higher the residual life figure, the better the condition.
  210
  2Obtained from analysing the results of inspection surveys covering a sample of the network. The lower the condition index figure, the better the condition.

  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Department of the Environment's Environment and Heritage Service in 1997–98. [4570]

  Dr. Mowlam
  For 1997–98 the following performance targets have been set for EHS:-

  Volume of output

  1. Further develop effective regulation of discharges from Water Service installations including the preparation of effluent standards for 20 water treatment plans and placing these on the public register.

  2. Bring about a 10 per cent. reduction in the number of "high" and "medium" severity pollution incidents by the year 2000 on 1996 figures.

  3. Complete independent audit of all 32 municipal waste landfill sites and produce recommendations for compliance with new controls.

  4. Submit proposals for the designation of four additional Special Protection Areas under the EC Birds' Directive and declare 25 Areas of Special Interest.

  5. Undertake details habitat survey of 1,500 hectares.

  6. Schedule 70 historic monuments to bring the total to 1,295.

  7. Complete the re-survey of historic buildings in 30 wards.

  8. Develop and produce 50 new information/education products (including publications and exhibitions).

  Quality of customer service

  9. Produce a round the clock response for all water pollution incidents reported and begin investigation of such incidents within 24 hours.

  10. Respond to 90 per cent. of written enquiries or requests for information within 15 working days.

  11. Issue 82 per cent. of licences, registrations, authorisations and consents within the timescales quoted in customer service guides.

  Efficiency

  12. Achieve 3 per cent. efficiency gains on running cost expenditure.

  Financial performance

  13. Monitor and maintain expenditure within cash limits.

  14. Develop unit cost measures for appropriate activities.

  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland in 1997–98. [4571]

  Mr. Mowlam
  For 1997–98 the following key performance targets have been set for the Agency:

  Output

  1. To dispatch 96 per cent. of Registration Books for new vehicles in 16 working days from receipt.

  2. To dispatch 95 per cent. of Refunds of vehicle excise duty in 10 working days from receipt.

  3. To dispatch 94 per cent. of vehicle excise licenses in 5 working days from receipt of postal applications.

  4. To dispatch 95 per cent. of Duplicate Vehicle Registration Books in 6 working days from receipt of applications.

  5. To dispatch 90 per cent. of ordinary Driving Licenses in 9 working days of receipt of applications.

  6. To dispatch 90 per cent. of vocational Driving Licenses in 9 working days from receipt of applications.

  7. To dispatch 90 per cent. of provisional Driving Licenses in 9 working days from receipt of applications.
  211
  8. To dispatch substantive replies to 96 per cent. of written enquiries for information from the drivers and vehicles registers in 3 working days from receipt.

  Efficiency

  9. To limit maximum waiting at Local Vehicle Licensing Offices so that 95 per cent. of customers are attended to within 22 minutes during peak periods (the first eight and last two working days of each month) and within 10 minutes at other periods.

  10. To meet an overall efficiency gain of 2.5 per cent. Financial

  11. To reduce the unit cost per vehicle excise enforcement case by 0.5 per cent. in real terms compared to 1996–97.

  Quality

  12. To limit the error rate (errors on any item sent out by the Agency) to a maximum of 0.5 per cent. of total Agency output.

  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Construction Service in 1997–98.[4572]

  Dr. Mowlam
  For 1997–98 the following performance targets have been set for Construction Service:

  Quality of service

  1. To achieve a 90 per cent. compliance in customer assessments of Agency performance against Service Level Agreements.

  2. To place 75 per cent. of orders within 7 days of receipt of customer requests in the maintenance and supplies business areas.

  3. To achieve a 90 per cent. positive response in customer assessments in project evaluation reports.

  4. To respond to 80 per cent. of customer advisory enquiries within 6 weeks.

  Efficiency

  5. To achieve 3 per cent. efficiency gains on running cost expenditure.

  6. To ensure that overhead costs as a percentage of chargeable time value come within the agreed percentage.

  7. To ensure that staff time charged to customers is within the agreed percentage of total staff time.

  Financial

  8. To maintain expenditure within cash limits and to approved budget plans.

  9. To recover the full cost of Agency operations from customers.

  10. To ensure that actual costs as a percentage of approved target costs in project work does not exceed the agreed percentage.

  11. To ensure that staff costs as a percentage of construction spend in the maintenance and supplies business areas does not exceed the agreed percentage.

  Mrs. Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Rivers Agency for the financial year 1997–98. [4719]

  Dr. Mowlam
  The following Key Targets have been set for the Rivers Agency for 1997–98:To construct or refurbish 2.0 km of urban flood defences.
  To increase the length of designated sea defences having appropriate standards of protection to 29 per cent.
  To accommodate increased storm run-off from 350 hectares of development land.
  To replace/refurbish 2.1 km of dangerous culverts.
  To complete maintenance works on 376 km of urban watercourses and 1,370 km of rural watercourses.
  To provide new water recreation facilities at 25 sites throughout Northern Ireland.
  212
  To issue substantive replies to 80 per cent. of written enquiries within 15 working days of receipt.
  To respond to 100 per cent. of Schedule 6 applications within 3 months.
  To aim to have all navigation locks operable for at least 90 per cent. of the period.
  To control programmes expenditure to within 0.5 per cent. shortfall of the final control total.
  To control DRC expenditure to within 1 per cent. shortfall of the final control total.
  To achieve 3 per cent. efficiency savings in the 1997–98 financial year.
  To implement Phase II of the development of Management Information Systems and databases to establish unit costs for protecting land from flooding and maintaining drainage benefit to agricultural land.

  The Rivers Agency Business Plan for 1997–98 will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament at a later date.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much her Department has spent on research into food poisoning in each of the last five years, broken down to show the funds dedicated to(a) E. coli, (b) campylobacter and (c) salmonella. [3605]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 17 June 1997]: The amount spent on research into food poisoning in each of the areas listed is as follows:

  Year

  E. coli

  Campylobacter

  Salmonella

  1992–93

  24.9

  25.3

  6.7

  1993–94

  37.2

  99.4

  5.1

  1994–95

  55.8

  110.4

  4.0

  1995–96

  38.5

  117.4

  8.8

  1996–97

  45.0

  58.0

  5.4

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much her Department has budgeted for research into food-poisoning in 1997–98, broken down to show the funds dedicated to(a) E. coli, (b) campylobacter and (c) salmonella. [3606]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 17 June 1997]: The amount budgeted for research into each of the areas is as follows:

  Year

  E. coli

  Campylobacter

  Salmonella

  1997–98

  80.2

  88.0

  5.6

SOCIAL SECURITY

  War Pensions Agency (Conference)
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations she has received about the cost of the recent conference of War Pensions Agency staff in Windermere; and what assessment she has made of the value for money of that conference. [4150]
  213
  Mr. Denham
  One of our key aims is that delivery of service should be simpler and more efficient. Queries on operational matters concerning the War Pensions Agency are for its Chief Executive Mr. Kevin Caldwell. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from K. C. Caldwell to Mr. Hilton Dawson, dated 7 June 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the recent conference of war pensions staff.
  The Secretary of State has received no representations regarding the conference.
  As Chief Executive of the War Pensions Agency, approval of a conference of this nature falls within my authority. My approval of the conference followed normal Departmental guidelines and I am content that the conference represented good value for money.
  The Agency does not maintain on-site facilities that would he appropriate for a conference of this nature.
  The conference, involving 26 delegates of all grades within the Agency, was designed to identify how the Agency could improve the levels of service offered to war pensioners. As you may be aware, the Agency has made significant recent improvements in service levels as measured against Secretary of State targets and to continue this improvement it is important that we seek to identify and resolve any significant barriers to service or performance improvement. The action plans and detailed task lists which were created will help the hundreds of staff in the operational group at the Agency to sustain improved performance. Another great advantage of this event was the opportunity to enthuse and motivate the people who attended—as an accredited Investors in People organisation we look for opportunities to do this.
  Events of this nature are extremely rare in the Agency (this is the first in my term as Chief Executive) and are strictly limited to circumstances where the benefit clearly outweighs the cost. I have no hesitation in providing my personal assurance that the conference represented good value for money.
  I hope you find this information useful.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people(a) in total and (b) under the age of 25 years have lost entitlement to benefit following the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. [1465]

  Mr. Bradley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  Transitional provisions ensured that people who were in receipt of Unemployment Benefit and/or Income Support for the unemployed at the point of change kept entitlement to Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA).

  Jobseekers lose entitlement to JSA if they fail to be available for work, to seek work actively, or to have a jobseeker's agreement in place. Just under 7,000 people lost entitlement for these reasons between 7 October and 31 December 1996, the latest date for which information is available. Additionally JSA payments (but not underlying entitlement) cease if jobseekers are sanctioned. There were just over 21,000 sanctions in this same period. Separate figures for under 25 year olds are not available.

  Jobseekers who can demonstrate that they would otherwise suffer hardship can receive hardship payments.

  Our welfare to work programme will help get young unemployed people, long term unemployed people and lone mothers off benefit and into work.
  214
  Notes:

  1. Discretionary sanctions of up to 26 weeks may be imposed for voluntarily leaving employment, for misconduct or for refusal of employment.

  2. Fixed period sanctions of 2 or 4 weeks may be imposed, for example, for refusing an employment programme or failure to comply with official directions.

  Source:
  Analysis of Adjudication Officers Decisions: Quarterly Publication.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to change the regulations covering the formulae used by the CSA to assess liability for payments; and if she will make a statement. [1652]

  Mr. Bradley
  We are aware of the concerns which have been expressed about the child support formula. We will be looking closely at this area over the coming months as part of our wider consideration of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what analysis she has made of the proportion of absent parents with a full maintenance assessment who are paying maintenance through the Child Support Agency.[4508]

  Mr. Bradley
  Recent figures show that only some 32 per cent. of absent parents with a full maintenance assessment and making payment through the Child Support Agency are paying the full amount due.

  Children are entitled to the support of both parents wherever they live. Absent parents need to fulfil their responsibilities. It is not acceptable that so many do not pay the maintenance they owe. Over the coming months we will be looking closely at all aspects of the operations of the Child Support Agency to ensure that it provides an efficient and effective service.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to issue a national definition of the habitual residence test. [2360]

  Mr. Bradley
  We are committed to a wide ranging review of Social Security. We aim to restore confidence in the system and reduce levels of poverty. The habitual residence test will form part of this work.

  Mortgage Benefit
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to introduce a mortgage benefit to enable people with mortgages, who are on income support, to afford to return to work.[2361]

  Mr. Bradley
  We have no immediate plans to introduce a mortgage benefit. However, this Government is committed to streamlining and modernising the tax and benefit systems to fulfil the objectives of promoting work incentives, reducing poverty and welfare dependency, and strengthening community and family life.

  We recently announced that Martin Taylor (the Chief Executive of Barclays PLC) will lead a Whitehall Task Force to look at the problems caused by the interaction of the tax and benefit systems. The review will consider the difficulties people face on moving from welfare to work.

  Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will review the link between the basic pension and prices. [3275]

  Mr. Denham
  We will shortly be announcing details of a review of the central areas of insecurity for elderly people. We are committed to the Basic State Pension and will retain it as the foundation of pension provision. It will be increased at least in line with prices. All aspects of the basic pension will be included in our review.

  Minister for Women
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the responsibilities of the Parliamentary Secretary for Women; and how many officials and at what grades have been appointed with responsibility in this area. [4256]

  Ms Harman
  As Minister for Women, I have been given the responsibility to co-ordinate and drive forward policies which will make a real difference to women's lives. I will chair the new Cabinet Sub-Committee for Women, which will review and develop the Government's policy and strategy on issues of special concern to women and oversee their implementation, and I will examine economic and social papers going to Cabinet Sub-Committees to monitor their impact on women. My objectives are to create a new bond of trust between women and Government and to ensure that the Government delivers its promises to women, including manifesto commitments on issues such as family-friendly employment, a national childcare strategy and domestic violence.

  I will be supported in this role by Joan Ruddock MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and at official level by a new Women's Unit. The resourcing of the Women's Unit is still under consideration but the current staff profile (full-time equivalents) is as follows:"

  1 Grade 5 (Head of the Women's Unit)

  1.8 Grade 7s

  2.4 SEOs

  1 HEO

  3 EOs

  1 AO

  2 AAs

  1 Personal Secretary

  This includes the six staff that make up the Secretariat of the Women's National Commission.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is supported by a Private Office consisting of 1 HEO, 1 EO and an AO.

  Single Claimants
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to review the regulations restricting the eligibility of single claimants other than young people to accommodation costs; and if she will make a statement. [4205]
  216
  Ms Harman
  I gave a commitment before the last election that I would review the regulations which extend the single room rent to people aged 25 or over. These limit housing benefit to the average market rent for a single non-self contained room.

  I have considered carefully the view of the Social Security Advisory Committee that without a thorough review of the effect of the existing single room rent rules—which were only introduced in October 1996—the Government should not extend them. I have also taken account of representations from hon. Members, the Local Authority Associations and others.

  In order to avoid local authorities incurring unnecessary costs, I can announce today that I propose to revoke the extension of single room rent to those aged 25 or over.

  In line with the manifesto commitment, the cost of this change will be met in full by other measures from within the Department's programme. A further announcement will be made at the time of the Budget.

DEFENCE

  Water Jets (Sheep's Eyes)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the findings of the Porton Down research programme into the effect of high pressure water jets on sheep's eyes. [2785]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mrs. Ann Clwyd, dated 18 June 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the findings of the Porton Down research programme into the effect of high pressure water jets on sheep's eyes as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
  Porton Down are not aware of any research programme to investigate the effect of high pressure water jets on sheep's eyes. Some research work of this type involving another animal species was conducted during the 1970's as I said in my letter to you of 5 February. I am, however, unable to give you any additional information or to release the study report, since it remains classified.
  I am sorry I cannot be more helpful.

  Trident
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the cost to his Department of ordering Trident missiles from the United States of America in US Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999. [3339]

  Mr. Spellar
  Final decisions have yet to be taken on further UK orders for Trident missiles. For an indication of missile costs, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on 11 June 1997,Official Report, columns 486–87.
  217
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to order Trident missiles from the United States of America in US Fiscal years 1998 and 1999. [3340]

  Mr. Spellar
  The present planning assumption is that the UK will order 7 missiles in each of US Fiscal years 1998 and 1999. This assumption will be tested during the Strategic Defence Review before final decisions are made.

  Caerwent Military Base
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement about contamination at the Caerwent military base; [3574]

  (2) what representations he has received about the future use of the Caerwent military base; [3575]

  (3) what plans he has for the future of the Caerwent military base. [3573]

  Mr. Spellar
  No decisions have yet been taken on the future of the RAF Caerwent site. Consideration of the way forward will include an assessment of the contamination of the site and take into account the wishes of the local community. The site contains some residual contamination resulting from its former use as a propellant factory and ammunition depot and some buildings contain asbestos. A land quality assessment is currently being conducted.

  My Department has received numerous representations regarding the future use of the RAF Caerwent site; notably from the previous hon. Member for Monmouth and the Monmouthshire county council as well as from local interest groups, land owners and private companies.

  COPEX Exhibition, Farnborough
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will identify by name, rank and unit, such Indonesian(a) military, (b) security, (c) police, (d) paramilitary and (e) special forces personnel invited by the British Government or private companies to attend the forthcoming COPEX Exhibition at Farnborough in September 1997. [3590]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Society of British Aerospace Companies (SBAC) have a licence from the Ministry of Defence to put on exhibitions at Farnborough Airfield. The Ministry of Defence is playing no part in organising the COPEX Exhibition, or in issuing invitations to the Exhibition. The Ministry of Defence has sought and received assurances from the organiser of COPEX that nothing will be allowed at the Exhibition which runs counter to the Government's policy regarding the sale of military or dual-use equipment to countries under a United Nations or European Union embargo or restriction. COPEX has confirmed that it upholds all national, local and international laws and conventions regarding these matters and that any exhibitor that is found to be acting in contravention of these laws would be reported to the relevant authorities.

  Portsmouth Naval Base
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to visit Portsmouth dockyard; and if he will invite local hon. Members to accompany him on future visits. [3283]
  218
  Dr. John Reid
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State currently has no plans to visit Portsmouth Naval Base.

  British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each of the last five years the sums the Government have paid to(a) British Aerospace and (b) Rolls-Royce for defence products. [2183]

  Mr. Spellar
  Sums paid to British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce for each of the last 5 years by the Defence Bills Agency on behalf of the Secretary of State for Defence are shown in the following table. These figures do not include any sums which may have been paid locally including by those Defence Agencies for which figures are shown separately.

  British Aerospace £ million

  Rolls Royce £ million

  1992–93

  1,045

  321

  1993–94

  1,006

  297

  1994–95

  820

  312

  1995–96

  683

  290

  1996–97

  801

  282

  These figures were the amounts paid in the years in question and include VAT, and were obtained from the annual Expenditure With Industry Report produced by Defence Bills Agency.

  British Aerospace £ million

  Rolls Royce £ million

  DERA

  1992–93

  6.3

  6

  1993–94

  6.9

  5.3

  1994–95

  7.5

  11.9

  1995–96

  11.5

  4

  1996–97

  12.9

  3.7

  Total sums for goods and services.

  British Aerospace £000

  Rolls Royce £000

  Hydrographic office

  1993–94

  45,825

  nil

  1994–95

  66,002

  nil

  1995–96

  54,003

  nil

  For provision of consultancy support.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Minster of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures the Government intends to introduce to ensure that United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels comply with the law; and if he will make a statement. [4296]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The Government propose to take a range of initiatives designed to ensure that all fishing vessels in the UK abide by the rules.
  219
  The Fisheries Departments will continue to give priority to fair and effective enforcement. In 1997–98 some £24 million will be spent on enforcement, including surface and aerial surveillance. We are determined to bear down on those who disregard the law. If fish stocks are to be conserved fisheries regulations must be respected.

  We have considered whether the existing conditions of fishing licences need to be strengthened to assist enforcement. A matter of particular concern is the practice of allegedly discarding, after inspection at sea but prior to landing, marketable fish which have been sorted, stowed on board and recorded in EC logbooks. This practice appears to be used to evade the proper operation of quotas and is inconsistent with the conservation of fish stocks. Subject to consultation with the Commission and our fishing industry, we propose to introduce as soon as possible a new licence condition which addresses this problem.

  The Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen has powers to terminate a fishing vessel's registration if, taking into account any requirement of merchant shipping legislation relevant to its safety or that of its crew, he considers that it would be inappropriate for the vessel to remain registered. In the interests of safety, it is proposed that the Registrar General will serve notice of the intention to terminate the registration of any fishing vessel which fails to hold a valid safety certificate.

  In addition, we shall be making arrangements for British Sea Fishery Officers to assist the Department of Transport by detaining in port fishing vessels which do not have valid fishing vessel safety certificates, as well as checking that fishing vessels are manned by crew holding the appropriate certificates, including UK Certificates of Equivalent Competency (CECs) in the case of foreign qualified crew.

  Finally, the Department of Transport and Fisheries Departments have reviewed the requirements for masters and officers of larger fishing vessels to be competent in the use of English. It has been concluded that these provisions are adequate. Certificates of competency, including CECs, already require a sound knowledge of English. The more rigorous checking of officers' certificates will help to ensure that these requirements are properly complied within the interests of safety.

  Poultry Meat
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is proposing to take in the interest of consumer safety to ensure that adequate controls are put in place to cover the production of poultry meat in premises processing fewer than 10,000 birds per year; and if he will make a statement. [4778]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have asked for a review to be conducted of the exemption from Poultry Meat, Farmed Game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 of premises slaughtering fewer than 10,000 birds per year.

  As part of that review, I will be seeking urgent advice from the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF) on the health risks associated with the continued sale of New York Dressed (NYD) and effile poultry from unlicensed premises.

  Sustainable Livestock Production
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research the LINK programme on sustainable livestock production has evaluated on the competitiveness of free range(a) egg and (b) pork production relative to intensive production; and if he will make a statement. [3580]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are no LINK projects on the topics referred to in the question. However, the Government's role within the LINK programme is to respond to research proposals put forward by industry for joint funding. If projects of this kind were to come forward, they would be considered on their merits.

  Beef Production
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the application of the early marketing and the calf processing schemes within the United Kingdom beef sector. [3925]

  Mr. Rooker
  Under EU law, member states must operate either the Calf Processing Scheme (CPAS) or the Early Marketing Scheme for veal, or both. The aim of both schemes is to reduce oversupply on the EU beef market following a decline in consumption. The UK has opted for the CPAS because it more directly tackles the problem of the sudden loss of markets for UK calves following the imposition of the beef export ban. As at 13 June 1997, a total of 636,471 calves had been slaughtered of which 597,044 were dairy and 39,427 non-dairy breeds.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the advantages of giving special compensation for lowland beef farmers. [3924]

  Mr. Rooker
  All beef producers have been affected in varying degrees by the current low market price for finished cattle. Thus all producers, regardless of their geographical location or farming system, would urge the case for affording them special assistance. In considering any case put to us for such assistance, the Government have to be mindful of the tight constraints which currently apply to public expenditure and the extent to which the provision of such assistance would distort the proper functioning of the market. Such distortion might simply insulate producers from the realities of the market-place and encourage unrealistic expectations of the level of future returns.

  Milk
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tests his Department has authorised to determine the percentage of milk on sale which contains measurable quantities of(a) medicines, (b) illegal antibiotics and (c) hormones; and if he will make a statement. [3413]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1995, as amended, require manufacturers to carry out checks to ensure that dairy products do not contain residues of substances having pharmacological or hormonal action, antibiotics or other substances, which are harmful to human health, or might be harmful if those residues exceeded permitted tolerance limits laid down in legislation.
  221
  Local authority environmental health officers are responsible for ensuring compliance with the Regulations; this may include sampling and analysis. Enforcement action is taken where appropriate.

  The Veterinary Medicines Directorate tests whole milk collected at the retail point of sale under their non-statutory surveillance scheme. They look for residues of a number of antibiotics and also substances prohibited under EU legislation. In 1996 they completed 1,434 analyses and, consistent with the experience of previous years, found no detectable residues.

  Animal Cloning
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on the cloning of animals. [3412]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Ministry's policy on the cloning of farm animals is guided by the recommendations of the report of the Committee to Consider the Ethical Implications of Emerging Technologies in the Breeding of Farm Animals—the Banner Committee—which reported in 1995.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to withdraw clearance for the commercial use of organophosphates. [3389]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 16 June 1997]: We have considered this very carefully. The Government act on the scientific advice of the independent advisory committees set up by the Medicines Act 1968 and the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. Their current advice is that organophosphourus sheep dips and pesticides can be used safely in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions. Further work is in hand to emphasis the importance of using and disposing of these products safely including an updated leaflet "Sheep Dipping" which will be sent to sheep farmers later this year. The Government attach great importance to this work.

WALES

  Housing Repair Grants
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to increase the resources for local authority housing repair grants. [2605]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  £164 million is available from the Welsh Office to Welsh local authorities for private sector renewal this year. Provision for future years will be subject to the outcome of the annual Public Expenditure Survey.

  The Bill on Supplementary Credit Approvals, which had its Second Reading on 17 June, will provide local authorities with the capability of applying at least some of their Supplementary Credit Approvals to housing repair programmes.

  Community Hospitals and Ambulance Services
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on community hospitals and ambulance service provision in Wales. [2606]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Community hospitals and ambulance services play an important role in the delivery of health services. In Wales these services are provided by NHS Trusts.

  Road Improvements (Anglesey)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the starting date of the A55 improvements across Anglesey. [2607]

  Mr. Hain
  Since the decision to progress the scheme under the Private Finance Initiative was announced in July 1996, the Department has received 43 representations about the start of work to-date.

  Welsh Assembly (Monmouthshire)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the representation of Monmouthshire in a devolved Welsh Assembly. [2608]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Monmouthshire, like other parts of Wales. will be represented in the Assembly by both directly-elected and additional Members. Details of the proposed Additional Member System will be set out in the White Paper to be published in the summer.

  Economic Priorities
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his economic priorities for Wales. [2609]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I intend to publish an economic development strategy document later this summer. This will set out my general approach and priorities.

  Devolution
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the annual cost of a Welsh Assembly; and if the cost will be met from the existing Welsh Office Vote. [2610]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  We will publish this information in the Devolution White Paper next month.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the White Paper on devolution for Wales is to be published. [2615]

  Mr. Davies
  We aim to publish the White Paper before the summer recess and certainly well before the Referendum.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the effects of the single currency and the convergence criteria on public services in Wales. [2611]
  223
  Mr. Hain
  The Government have made it clear that any decision on the single currency will be made in the interest of the UK economy as a whole. This includes our ability to deliver a level of public service which we deem desirable.

  Ministerial Visit
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to visit North Wales to discuss health issues. [2612]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to visit North Wales, but as Minister with responsibility for health issues in the Welsh Office, I will be visiting trusts in the area tomorrow.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate the has made of the number of jobs that will be lost in Wales as a result of increased employment costs arising from the minimum wage and social chapter. [2613]

  Mr. Hain
  We will ask the Low Pay Commission, before it reaches a recommendation on the level at which the National Minimum Wage might be set, to take into account all the economic circumstances, including its likely impact. I will not speculate about the possible effects of hypothetical levels before the Commission has had a chance to consider the issues. Current Social Chapter directives do not impose significant burdens on business.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of GP fundholding in Wales. [2614]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  We are committed to a comprehensive and equitable health service and to the abolition of the two tier system and internal market. We have deferred approval of the 8th wave of fundholding in Wales until July 1998 to provide a breathing space to allow the development of alternative commissioning models. We have also asked GMSC Wales and the Welsh Association of fundholding Practices to work with us to determine the direction of Health Care in the Principality, building on current best practice. Changes are needed to the existing arrangements but it is important that they are the right changes.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will asses the implications of the outcome of the intergovernmental conference for Welsh agriculture; and if he will make a statement. [2616]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  An announcement on the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference will be made in due course.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement as to the allocation of ministerial responsibilities for environmental and rural matters. [2617]
  224
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I have been allocated these responsibilities.

  Small Businesses
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to encourage more small businesses to set up in Wales. [2618]

  Mr. Hain
  Our Manifesto for Wales identified a comprehensive package of measures in support of small firms. This includes action to encourage more new good quality enterprises, particularly high technology start ups which could help to revitalise parts of the Valleys and other disadvantaged areas. The TECs in Wales have also been set a target of assisting the unemployed to establish 1,500 new businesses in 1997–98. This total should be boosted by the New Deal package to help tackle youth and long-term unemployment.

  Regional Policy
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he proposes to reduce the current economic regional imbalance in Wales. [2619]

  Mr. Hain
  We intend to publish an economic development strategy document later this summer. This will set out our general approach and priorities.

  Angling
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the benefits of angling to the Welsh economy. [2620]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  We fully recognise the popularity of angling in Wales and its benefit to the Welsh rural economy. We have a long-standing commitment to angling and the protection of the aquatic environment. We intend to review legislation on salmon and freshwater fisheries in England and Wales covering all aspects of policy and management governing inland fisheries.

  Beef Export Ban
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of when the export ban on beef from Wales to the EU and world markets will be lifted. [2621]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The export ban has been in place for over a year now. We have fulfilled the Florence pre-conditions and we now need recognition for the measures taken and the sacrifices made. Lifting the ban will not be easy, but we hope the present Government's constructive and positive approach will pay dividends. We are exploring with the Commission how we can most quickly get the export ban lifted. As well as certified herds proposals we will be considering other options.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps the Government are taking to encourage more investment from foreign firms in Wales. [2622]

  Mr. Hain
  Our commitments to improve the skills level of our people, create a buoyant economy, improve the infrastructure, and take a positive attitude towards the
  225
  European Union, as well as our proposals to create an economic powerhouse, will make Wales even more attractive to inward investors.

  Education
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary Wales what changes he plans to make to Wales.of State for education in Wales [2623]

  Mr. Hain
  The Welsh Office will publish its proposals for education in Wales in a White Paper in July.

  NDPBs
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the gross and net budgets of non-departmental public bodies in 1992–93; what are the estimated budgets for 1997–98; and what percentage increase or decrease has taken place. [2707]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The information is as follows:

  Budget 1992–93 £

  Estimated budget 1997–98 £

  Percentage change

  Gross

  517,693,000

  826,268,700

  37.3

  Net

  347,742,000

  701,773,700

  50.4

  1. The figures provides are cash prices.

  2. There are 18 Executive non-departmental public bodies in existence. The Arts Council of Wales, the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales, the Residuary Body for Wales and the Welsh Language Board were not in existence in 1992 and cannot be taken into account for the figures for 1992–93. The Further Education Funding Council for Wales and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales were established in May 1992 but did not become fully operational unitil April 1993.

  Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of remuneration to members appointed by the Secretary of State to non-Departmental public bodies in 1992–93; and what is the estimated cost for 1997–98. [2706]

  Mr. Davies
  The cost of remuneration to members appointed by the Secretary of State to Executive non-Departmental public bodies is contained in the annual publication "Public Bodies", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  The cost for 1992–93 was £729,914 and the estimated cost for 1997–98 is £948,750.

  Referendums
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much public money at current prices was made available for the "Yes" campaign and how much for the "No" campaign in each referendum, since 1979; how much will be available for each in the forthcoming referendum; and if he will make a statement. [3287]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  There have been no referendums in the United Kingdom since 1979. No public money will be made available for "Yes" or "No" campaigns for the forthcoming referendum.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of(a) female and (b) male children leave school at 16 in Wales, broken down into local authority areas; and if he will make a statement. [3667]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is shown in the following table. The figures include children continuing in full-time education outside the school sector.

  Percentage of children leaving school at age 161

  Per cent

  Leaving rate

  Local education authority area

  Males

  Females

  Blaenau Gwent

  71

  63

  Bridgend

  59

  53

  Caerphilly

  75

  70

  Cardiff

  65

  65

  Carmarthenshire

  66

  58

  Ceredigion

  46

  35

  Conwy

  49

  41

  Denbighshire

  60

  51

  Flintshire

  57

  57

  Gwynedd

  79

  70

  Isle of Anglesey

  63

  50

  Merthyr Tydfil

  61

  48

  Monmouthshire

  38

  33

  Neath Port Talbot

  91

  89

  Newport

  58

  50

  Pembrokeshire

  50

  43

  Powys

  54

  46

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  58

  53

  Swansea

  76

  77

  Torfaen

  76

  71

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  57

  53

  Wrexham

  88

  84

  Wales

  65

  60

  1Includes maintained secondary and special schools and independent schools. The leaving rate is estimated using figures from the Schools' Censuses of 1995 and 1996. It should be noted that the percentage leaving school in a locality will be influenced by the provision for further education in the locality.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) men and (b) women receive the jobseeker's allowance in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [1997]

  Mr. Bradley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is in the table.

  Reforming the welfare state is one of our key priorities. Our welfare to work programme will get young unemployed people, long term unemployed and lone mothers off benefit and into work.

  Unemployed Jobseeker's allowance claimants by sex and benefit position: February 1997

  Thousand

  All

  Men

  Women

  All

  1,763

  1,352

  411

  Contribution-based JSA

  247

  163

  83

  227

  Unemployed Jobseeker's allowance claimants by sex and benefi position: February 1997

  Thousand

  All

  Men

  Women

  Income-based JSA

  1,363

  1,085

  278

  No JSA in payment1

  153

  103

  50

  Notes:

  1Claimants not entitled to contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) or income-based JSA who qualify for national insurance credits. This category also includes claimants who might be entitled to contribution-based JSA, income-based JSA or national insurance credits but has not had this established at the time of the enquiry.

  1. Excludes claimants on Government Training Schemes.

  2. Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  Source:

  JSA summary statistics: February 1997 QSE.

TREASURY

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 3 June,Official Report, column 147, if he will state numerically what constitutes high and stable levels of growth and employment for the British economy for the financial years (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [3333]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member on June 2,Official Report, column 147.

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what authority operational responsibility for setting official interest rates has been transferred to the Bank of England. [3602]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 16 June 1997]: The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 6 May that operational responsibility for setting interest rates would be transferred to the Bank of England; that legislation placing this responsibility on a statutory footing would be introduced as soon as possible; and that, during the intervening period until the legislation came into force, all aspects of the new arrangements for making and announcing decisions on monetary policy would operate on a de facto basis.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he expects the Bank of England monetary policy committee to give to(a) existing and (b) announced fiscal policy measures in setting interest rates. [4274]

  Mrs. Liddell
  It is the job of the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee to set interest rates to achieve the Government's inflation target. In doing that the Committee will take into account a wide range of information, including fiscal policy measures.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the increase in interest rates since 1 May on(a) inflation, (b) growth, (c) employment and (d) the exchange rate. [3233]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government have put in place a monetary framework designed to achieve economic stability. Economic stability is a precondition for high and stable levels of growth and employment. The Chancellor's assessment of the impact of the interest rate increase of 228
  6 May was set out in a Treasury press release (40/97) of 6 May. The Bank has been given operational responsibility to set interest rates at a level to achieve the Government's inflation target.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) by what means the interests of(a) manufacturing industry and (b) British regions are taken into account by the Bank of England in determining interest rates; [3263]

  (2) how the views and needs of manufacturing industry in (a) Scotland and (b) the English regions in respect of interest and exchange rates are to be assessed by the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee; and if he proposes to incorporate representatives of Scotland and the English regions in the process of considering interest rate changes. [4036]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In determining 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.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those OECD countries where central banks determine interest rates(a) without regional representation to the Bank and (b) without a contract between bank and Government setting out the bank's targets. [3264]

  Mrs. Liddell
  All central banks tend to take regional developments into account when setting interest rates. The form of regional representation, however, varies across countries with independent central banks. For example, in Germany and the US regional central bank presidents sit on the Committee determining interest rates. In contrast, there is no such regional representation in other countries, such as New Zealand. With regard to contracts, in some countries, for example Germany, central banks determine interest rates without formal agreement with the respective government. In other countries, more less formal agreements exist, as in the case of Canada.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he proposes to co-ordinate demand management and fiscal and monetary policy following the transfer of decision-making on interest rates to the Bank of England. [3196]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government aim to achieve lasting economic stability through prudent economic management and sound finance. Co-ordination of fiscal and monetary policy will be assisted by having the Treasury representative on the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee in a non-voting capacity.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what instructions and targets he has given to the Bank of England in respect of levels of(a) growth, (b) unemployment and (c) inflation in its determination of interest rates; [3231]

  (2) if he makes representations to the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee about his intentions and aims in respect of (a) growth, (b) unemployment, (c) growth in demand and (d) fiscal policy before its meetings. [3213]
  229
  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government's central economic objectives are high and stable levels of growth and employment. The Bank of England is responsible for taking the operational decisions necessary to meet the Government's inflation target of 2½ per cent. A copy of the remit for the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee and background notes can be obtained from the House of Commons Library.

  Foreign Exchange Reserves
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the reason for the division of responsibility for the management of foreign exchange reserves between the Bank of England and the Treasury. [3713]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 16 June 1997]: The purpose of the bank having its own separate pool of foreign exchange reserves to use at its discretion is to allow it to intervene in support of its monetary policy objective.

  Halifax Bank (Disabled Savers)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations his Department has made to the Halifax Bank in relation to its policy on distributing windfall payments to disabled savers. [3229]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 17 June 1997]: None. The broad framework with which distribution schemes must conform is set out in the Building Societies Acts. The detailed nature of any particular scheme is for a society's board and members to determine.

  Bank of England Governor
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make the appointment and reappointment of the Governor of the Bank of England subject to approval by this House. [3762]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 16 June 1997]: The Governor of the Bank of England is appointed by Her Majesty the Queen. As the Chancellor said in his letter of 6 May, the Governor will be appointed for a five-year term.

  Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if verbatim minutes of the monetary committee of the Bank of England will be published; and if individual members of the committee will be permitted to make dissenting statements prior to their publication. [3764]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 16 June 1997]: The monetary policy committee has agreed that the minutes will not be a verbatim record of the discussion. The committee is considering what guidelines its members should adopt in their public comments.

  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if non-voting members will be permitted to take part in the deliberations of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. [4242]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Treasury representative on the Monetary Policy Committee can take part in the discussion, but not in the decision on interest rates.
  230
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the minutes of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee will attribute to individual members of the Committee the comments made by them during the Committee's discussions; and after what interval he proposes that the minutes will be published. [3054]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The votes of individual members will be recorded, and if there are dissenting votes the reasons for them will be attributed. The minutes will be published within six weeks of each meeting.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he will measure the success of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee in meeting his inflation target. [3322]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Chancellor wrote to the Governor of the Bank of England setting out the remit for the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee on June 12. A copy of the remit can be obtained from the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will invite hon. Members to make representations to the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. [3195)

  Mrs. Liddell
  The new arrangements will ensure that the Monetary Policy Committee is fully accountable for its interest rate decisions to the Government, Parliament and the people. It will be accountable to Parliament through the Treasury Select Committee, which will have the opportunity to examine the Bank's performance on monetary policy on a regular basis.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the performance of the Bank of England in managing the Government's cash reserves. [3240]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Currently, the Government's cash management is handled by the Bank of England as a part of its money market operations by which short-term interest rates are influenced. It is therefore difficult to separate the costs of cash management from the costs of administering monetary policy. However, the total cash needs of Government are automatically managed through coordination of the Exchequer's accounts at the Bank to minimise the amount of gross overnight borrowing required by Government.

  EU Budget
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual net budgetary contribution by the United Kingdom to the EU; and what plans he has to discuss with his EU counterparts ways in which the size of the United Kingdom's net contribution can be reduced in the future. [3765]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 16 June 1997]: The latest estimates of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Community Budget for the financial year 1997–98 to 1999–2000 remain as set out in the Departmental Report published by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer on 20 March 1997 (Cm 3617) and are reproduced below:

  1997–98: £2,750 million

  1998–99: £3,000 million

  1999–2000: £3,400 million

  231
  The Government are committed to tight control of public spending in the EU as in the UK. We shall work constructively with other Member States and the European Parliament to achieve this.

  VAT (Sanitary Products)
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider removing value added tax on women's sanitary products. [2259]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No. In a broadly based tax like VAT many essential goods and services are taxed, and it is not possible to single out sanitary protection for special treatment.

  VAT on sanitary protection is included into the category of products which have been taxed at the standard rate since VAT was introduced. The EC 6th Directive, agreed in 1977, prohibits extensions of zero-rates.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in(a) the real and (b) the nominal exchange rate against the (i) dollar and (ii) the deutschmark in the year after each change in interest rates over the last four years. [4276]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The data are available from the following published sources:Real exchange rate: OECD Main Economic Indicators
  DM exchange rate: Table 7.1A, Financial Statistics (code AJFH)
  Dollar exchange rate: Table 7.1A, Financial Statistics (code AJFA)
  Interest rates: Table 7.1O, Financial Statistics (code AMIH) also Table 7.1J.

  Inflation
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlie his target of no more than 2.5 per cent. inflation. [3232]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government's inflation target is 2½ per cent. Price stability is an essential precondition for the Government's objectives of high and sustainable levels of growth and employment.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's policy for controlling inflation. [3246]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the Government's policy for controlling inflation in his statement to the House of 12 June and in his Mansion House speech of 12 June.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government have taken to agree a standard definition of inflation for use throughout the European Union; and when he plans to introduce such a definition for use. [3541]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Eurostat (the statistical office of the European Communities) has been publishing annual inflation rates based on the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) since March 1997. The HICP has been designed expressly for comparisons of consumer price indices across all the European Union member 232
  states, although the Retail Prices Index (RPI) remains the best indicator of UK consumer price inflation. The Office for National Statistics has been closely involved in developing the specification of the HICP.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the methodology he will employ to determine his inflation target in future years; and if he will give details of each of the economic indicators he will be monitoring prior to making such a judgment. [3365]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Chancellor set out his inflation target in the remit to the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. A copy of the remit and background notes can be obtained from the House of Commons Library. In the Mansion House speech the Chancellor said that if the Government succeeded in strengthening the ability of the British economy to sustain growth with low inflation, and if international conditions permit, he would hope to lower the inflation target.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what intervals he intends to review the inflation target; and if he will make a statement. [3549]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The inflation target will be confirmed in each Budget. In his Mansion House speech the Chancellor said that if the Government succeeded in strengthening the ability of the UK economy to sustain growth with low inflation, and if international conditions permit, he would hope to lower the inflation target.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the economic benefits derived from a long run inflation rate of 2½ per cent. which a rate of inflation of 1½ per cent. or less would not deliver. [4184]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Low inflation is an essential pre-condition for high and stable levels of growth and employment. The evidence suggests that higher inflation rates bring no long-run benefits, and are likely to involve long-term costs.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer further to his instruction to the Bank of England to pursue an inflation target of 2.5 per cent., in which stages of the economic cycle an inflation rate of 2.5 per cent. is compatible with(a) a rise and (b) a fall in unemployment. [4037]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The remit for the Monetary Policy Committee and background notes can be obtained from the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the rate of inflation at the time of each increase in interest rates in the last three years and the projected figures for inflation on each date for one year ahead. [3230]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The table lists the latest available inflation figures and latest published Treasury forecast for inflation for retail prices excluding mortgage interest payments (RPIX), at the time of each increase in interest rates over the last three years.
  233

  One year ahead forecast

  Date

  Size of base rate increase (percentage point)

  New base rate (percentage)

  Latest published inflation rate (RPIX) (percentage)

  Publication1

  RPIX

  Period

  12 September 1994

  ½

  5.75

  2.2 (July 1994)

  SEF 94

  2¾

  95Q4

  7 December 1994

  ½

  6.25

  2.0 (October 1994)

  FSBR 94

  2½

  95Q4

  2 February 1995

  ½

  6.75

  2.5 (December 1994)

  FSBR 94

  2½

  96Q2

  30 February 1996

  ¼

  6.00

  2.9 (September 1994)

  SEF 96

  2¼

  97Q4

  6 May 1997

  ¼

  6.25

  2.7 (March 1997)

  FSBR 96

  2½

  98Q2

  6 June 1997

  ¼

  6.50

  2.5 (April 1997)

  FSBR 96

  2½

  98Q2

  1SEF denotes Summer Economic Forecast and FSBR denotes Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the correlation between the independence of the Central Bank and the rate of inflation in different countries over the last 15 years. [3234]

  Mrs. Liddell
  There have been numerous academic studies of the correlation between central bank independence and inflation, based on different groups of countries and assessed over different time periods.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what indicators he keeps under scrutiny in forming his estimates as to the future rate of inflation. [3248]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Chancellor makes a comprehensive assessment of economic developments, taking account of all relevant indicators, in forming a view of inflation prospects. A full forecast for the economy will be published with the Budget on 2 July.

  Debt Management
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) for what reasons he plans to transfer responsibility for debt management from the Bank of England to the Treasury; [3262]

  (2) if he will list the advantages of having the Treasury manage the Government's debt; [3237]

  (3) for what reasons he plans to transfer management of the Government's cash reserves from the Bank of England to the Treasury; [3265]

  (4) if he will list the advantages of the Treasury managing the Government's cash reserves. [3241]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The decision to give the Bank of England operational responsibility for setting interest rates means that it is important to separate the Government's debt and cash management from the conduct of monetary policy to avoid conflicts of interest. The separation is intended to ensure that debt and cash management decisions continue to be taken in such a way as to minimise the cost of financing the Government's borrowing needs subject to risk and are not influenced by short-term monetary policy considerations (and vice versa).

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the Bank of England's performance in managing the Government's debt. [3239]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Ultimate policy responsibility for the Government's debt management has always rested with Treasury Ministers and policy is currently expressed in an
  234
  annual gilts remit to the Bank. The Bank has offered valuable policy advice with regard to debt management and has conducted operations for the Government in the gilts market in an efficient and professional manner. The Bank has taken the lead in recent reforms to gilts market structure, notably gilt repo and preparations for gilt stripping, that have been widely praised by market participants.

  Economic Indicators
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the quarterly level of(a) interest rates, (b) M3 and MO, (c) economic growth and (d) nominal exchange rate against (i) the Deutschmark, (ii) the Dollar and (iii) the real exchange rate for each quarter since 1987 together with the figures for inflation and growth in the quarter one year later. [3284]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The data are available from the following published sources:

  Interest rates: Table 7.1O, Financial Statistics (code AMIH).

  M4: Table 3.1D, Financial Statistics (code AUYN). N.B. The M3 broad money aggregate has not been published since 1989.

  M0: Table 3.1C, Financial Statistics (code AVAE).

  Deutschmark: Table 7.1A, Financial Statistics (code AJFH).

  Dollar: Table 7.IA, Financial Statistics (code AJFA).

  Real exchange rate: OECD Main Economic Indicators, page 30.

  Output: Table 2.2, Economic Trends (code CADP).

  Inflation: Table 3.1, Economic Trends (code CZBH).

  Single Currency
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the minimum time required by the Royal Mint to mint sufficient coins for the United Kingdom to be ready to introduce a European single currency. [3538]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The European Council in Madrid in December 1995 agreed that the introduction of euro banknotes and coins in any individual country should take place up to three years after it adopts the single currency, and up to almost four years after the decision on whether it meets the necessary conditions to participate. The Royal Mint has estimated that sufficient coins could be produced within this timescale.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from British industry on the desirability of the United Kingdom entering a European single currency. [3326]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from British industry, on a wide range of subjects.
  235
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of progress toward meeting the criteria for the single currency on the ability of the Treasury to be millennium compliant; and if he will make a statement. [3139]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Treasury has work in progress to identify and test its computer system to ensure that they will operate correctly at the turn of the century. This work is currently within the model timetable set down by CCTA.

  The Government will seek to provide an economic environment built on the solid foundations of prudent economic management, sound finance and active employment measures to enhance job opportunities and employability. These policies are consistent with the Maastricht criteria of low inflation and sound public finances. Pursuing these policies has no impact on the ability of Treasury's computer systems to operate correctly at the turn of the century.

  Regulation
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding his proposed changes to City financial regulation from(a) legal organisations and (b) accountancy organisations; and if he will make a statement. [3684]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government are open to representations from everyone with an interest in financial regulation. Decisions have yet to be taken on the details of the arrangements that will be made under the enhanced Securities and Investments Board in relation to the bodies the hon. Gentleman refers to.

  Gilt Market
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what facilities he has established in the Treasury for managing those Government operations in the gilt market which are being transferred from the Bank of England; [3250]

  (2) how many staff will move from the Bank of England to the Treasury in connection with the transfer of responsibilities for managing the Government's operations in the gilt market. [3249]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Details of the transfer of debt management functions to the Treasury are currently being worked out with the Bank. Once identified, these proposals will be offered for consultation.

  Securities and Investment Board
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of establishing the enlarged Securities and Investment Board. [3421]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In his letter to Sir Andrew Large of 20 May, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor invited the Securities and Investments Board (SIB) to project manage the process of transition to the new arrangements set out 236
  in his statement of the same date. The cost of this work is a matter for SIB, and will be disclosed in their annual report in the usual way.

  Demand Management
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on managing demand in the economy. [3328]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Monetary and fiscal policies will be set to deliver lasting macroeconomic stability. This is a precondition for high and stable levels of growth and employment.

  Public Finances
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 3 June,Official Report, column 147, if he will define numerically what constitutes sound public finances for the financial years (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [3334]

  Mr. Darling
  The Government's fiscal policy will be spelt out in the Budget, along with forecasts and projections for government borrowing.

  "European Community Finances"
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to publish the 1997 edition of "European Community Finances". [3336]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 10 June,Official Report, column 394.

  National Debt
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the consequences of his recent announcement that Her Majesty's Treasury will be responsible for the management of the national debt will be for the Registrar's Department at the Bank of England. [3536]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Details of the transfer of debt management functions to the Treasury are currently being worked out with the Bank. Once identified, these proposals will be offered for consultation.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his targets for the PSBR as a percentage of gross domestic product. [3706]

  Mr. Darling
  Forecasts and projections for the PSBR will be set out in the Budget and accompanying statement on 2 July, which will also spell out the Government's fiscal policy.

  Inflation and Growth
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instructions he has given the Governor of the Bank of England about the balance between his inflation target and prospects for growth. [3323]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Chancellor wrote to the Governor of the Bank of England setting out the remit for the Bank's
  237
  Monetary Policy Committee on June 12. A copy of the remit can be obtained from the House of Commons Library. The Chancellor set out his approach to monetary policy in more detail in his Mansion House speech on June 12.

  Ministerial Advice
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he or any of his ministerial team are receiving advice from persons working in the Treasury or with access to any official papers, but who are not being paid for their services from public funds. [3361]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Yes. Ministers may receive advice from a variety of people who are not being paid for their services from public funds.

  Building Society Assets
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if we will review controls on the distribution of building society assets in circumstances of conversion or merger to protect(a) women who are normally second names in joint accounts and (b) those with learning difficulties who must have an authorised signatory who may be a signatory on behalf of several account holders but may claim only one payment on their behalf. [3740]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have no plans to do so. Both areas were addressed by Private Members' Acts in the last Parliament:(a) by the Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Act 1995 and (b) by the Building Societies (Distributions) Act 1997.

  Economic Model
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish details of each of the mathematical, economic and other quantitative assumptions which are being used by his Department in running its economic model of the economy. [3363]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Treasury model and associated documentation is available through the Library of the House.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the qualifications of each of the special advisers in the Treasury and on how those qualifications are relevant to their work inside that Department. [3681]

  Mrs. Liddell
  All Special Advisers are appointed to advise Ministers on the development of Government policy and its effective presentation. My right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, made his appointments against these criteria.

  Knight Williams
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the circumstances of the Knight Williams investors; and if he will make a statement. [3422]
  238
  Mrs. Liddell
  Knight Williams and Co. has been declared in default by the Investors Compensation Scheme and claims by investors are being considered. Regrettably, progress has been slowed by a number of factors but there is no need for a review.

  Economic Activity
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the economic indicators which he will use as the lead indicators of changes in economic activity. [3373]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I will make a comprehensive assessment of the current state of the economy, taking account of all relevant indicators in forming my view of the prospects for economic activity.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the United Kingdom contribution to, and public sector receipts from, the EC budget for(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999 in pound sterling. [3337]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The latest estimates of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Community Budget are those set out in the Departmental Report published by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in March this year (Cm. 3617). These cover the financial years 1997–98 to 1999–2000 and are as follows:

  1997–98: £2,750 million

  1998–99: £3,000 million

  1999–2000: £3,400 million

  These estimates were produced under the revised methodology announced in the 1996 Financial Statement and Budget Report and explained further in the Departmental Report. They estimate the trend in the UK's net contribution over the period in question, incorporating the UK's gross contribution, abatement and public sector receipts, and do not identify the individual elements which the right hon. Member has requested. An estimate of the UK's gross contribution to, and receipts from, the 1997 EC Budget will be included in the annual White paper on the EC Budget which the Government will publish before the recess.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the(a) contributions to, and (b) total public sector receipts from, the EC budget for each member state for each year from 1993 to 1996 in pound sterling. [3338]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The tables set out the information requested for the years 1993 to 1995. These figures are derived from ecu figures contained in annual reports of the European Court of Auditors and have been converted
  239
  to sterling using the annual average exchange rates shown. Information on 1996 will not be available until the Court of Auditors publish their report on the 1996 Community Budget later this year.

  Gross contributions by member states 1993 to 1995

  £ million

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Belgium

  1,864

  2,184

  2,195

  Denmark

  939

  1,003

  1,061

  Germany

  14,851

  16,532

  17,463

  Greece

  787

  768

  807

  Spain

  4,027

  3,651

  2,985

  France

  8,988

  9,711

  9,726

  Ireland

  442

  494

  544

  Italy

  7,991

  6,004

  5,252

  Luxembourg

  130

  128

  137

  Netherlands

  3,138

  3,285

  3,562

  Austria

  n/a

  n/a

  1,444

  Portugal

  708

  941

  708

  Finland

  n/a

  n/a

  727

  Sweden

  n/a

  n/a

  1,358

  Receipts paid to Member States 1993–95

  £ million

  Belgium

  Denmark

  Germany

  Greece

  Spain

  France

  Ireland

  Italy

  Luxembg.

  Nethrland.

  Austria

  Portugal

  Finland

  Sweden

  UK

  1993

  1,911

  1,233

  5,641

  4,008

  6.433

  8,195

  2,288

  6,804

  278

  2,105

  n/a

  2,661

  n/a

  n/a

  3,504

  1994

  1,944

  1,157

  5,981

  3,748

  6,062

  7,679

  1,850

  4,038

  324

  1,869

  n/a

  2,354

  n/a

  n/a

  4,069

  1995

  1,940

  1,311

  6,464

  3,664

  8,896

  8,312

  2,090

  4,749

  101

  1,920

  702

  2,658

  592

  590

  3,711

  Source:

  Court of Auditors Reports, converted to sterling using £=1.2845 (1993), £=1.2924 (1994) and £=1.2211 (1995).

  It should be noted that the European Community Budget is denominated in ECU but that the figures in this table have been converted to sterling using the annual average exchange rate for each of the years. These figures should, therefore treated with caution.

  Notes:

  Due to a change in the basis of the Court of Auditors report figures, administration payments to Member States, including other institutions. are not included in the amounts shown for 1995. This mainly effects Belgium and Luxembourg.

  Euro
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated number of euro coins that would need to be minted if the United Kingdom adopted the euro; and what would be the estimated cost. [4048]

  Mrs. Liddell
  It is estimated that 18 billion euro coins would be needed if the United Kingdom were to adopt the euro. The costs if the UK were to join would depend on the detailed coin specifications.

  Unemployment (Greenock and Inverclyde)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list by each year of age, the number of(a) male and (b) female 18 to 24-year-olds currently unemployed in (i) the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Inverclyde and (ii) the Greenock travel-to-work area; [3461]

  (2) how many (a) males and (b) females have been unemployed in (i) the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Inverclyde and (ii) the Greenock travel-to-work area for more than (1) six months, (2) 12 months, (3) 18 months and (4) 24 months. [3463]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 17 June 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  240

  Gross contributions by members states 1993 to 1995

  £ million

  1993

  1994

  1995

  UK

  5,937

  4,965

  7,576

  Source:

  Court of Auditors Reports, converted to sterling using £=1.2845 (1993), £=1,2924 (1994) and £=1.2211 (1995).

  It should be noted that the European Community Budget is denominated in ECU but that the figures in this table have been converted to sterling using the annual average exchange rate for each of the years. These figures should, therefore, be treated with caution.

  Notes:

  1. Figures for gross contributions are after account is taken of the UK's abatement and the bringing to account of surpluses and deficits in respect of Member States contributions in earlier years.

  2. These figures exclude 10 per cent. collection costs in respect of contributions for sugar and agricultural levies and customs duties—Member States deduct this from their contributions for levies and duties before making their contributions available to the Community.

  3. The revenue available to the Community also includes relatively small amounts of miscellaneous revenue derived from such sources as the sale of publications, disposal of property etc.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 18 June 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent questions (3461, and 3463) on unemployment in the Greenock and Inverclyde parliamentary constituency and the Greenock travel-to-work area.
  The measure of unemployment, 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 last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained. However, the LFS cannot provide estimates of unemployment for local areas.
  ONS also publishes the monthly claimant count, which is based on the administrative system and includes all people claiming unemployment-related benefits (i.e. Jobseekers Allowance, Income Support or National Insurance credits) at Employment Service offices on the day of the monthly count, who on that day had signed on as unemployed and available to do any suitable work. Essentially, all people who attend an Employment Service office to sign are counted, irrespective of whether they are actually receiving benefit.
  The information requested can only he derived from the claimant count, accessible from the Nomis database at the House of Commons Library.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) males and (b) females aged 18 to 24 years are currently unemployed in (i) the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Inverclyde and (ii) the

  241
  Greenock travel-to-work area; and what percentages of the national total for those of this age group in each case these figures represent. [3464]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 17 June 1997]: The Information 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 Dr. Norman Godman, dated 18 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 (3464) on unemployment in the Greenock and Inverclyde parliamentary constituency and the Greenock travel-to-work area.
  The measure of unemployment, derived from the quarterly Labour Force Survey (LFS), is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and counts as unemployed people who are: a) without a paid job; b) available to start work within the next two weeks and c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained. However, the LFS cannot provide estimates of unemployment for local areas.
  ONS also publishes the monthly claimant count, which is based on the administrative system and includes all people claiming unemployment-related benefits (i.e. Jobseekers Allowance, Income Support or National Insurance credits) at Employment Service offices on the day of the monthly count, who on that day had signed on as unemployed and available to do any suitable work. Essentially, all people who attend an Employment Service office to sign are counted, irrespective of whether they are actually receiving benefit.
  The information you have requested can only be derived from the claimant count and is given in the attached table.

  Unadjusted claimant unemployment aged 18–24 years as a percentage of the total unemployed in this age group in April 1997 (most recently available date)

  Males

  Females

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Parliamentary constituency

  Greenock and Inverclyde

  394

  0.13

  121

  0.10

  Travel-to-work area

  Greenock

  587

  0.20

  175

  0.14

  Low Pay
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in Lancaster and Wyre constituency were paid at rates below:(a) £4, (b) £3.50 and (c) £3 per hour, at the latest date for which figures are available. [4054]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 17 June 1997]: The Information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Hilton Dawson, dated 18 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 earnings in Lancaster and Wyre parliamentary constituency.
  The latest information, from the New Earnings Survey April 1996, which preceded the creation of the Lancaster and Wyre
  242
  parliamentary constituency, is given in the table below. Data for the area prior to the last General Election are given instead.

  Employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey pay-period was not affected by absence, new earnings survey April 1996

  Percentage of employees with hourly earnings (excluding overtime) less than:

  £3.00

  £3.50

  £4.00

  Lancaster

  Full-time

  0.0

  2.0

  5.4

  Part-time

  9.1

  23.6

  36.4

  All

  2.5

  7.9

  13.9

  Wyre

  Full-time

  3.8

  13.8

  20.0

  Part-time

  16.2

  29.7

  43.2

  All

  7.7

  18.8

  27.4

  Unemployment
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the relative rates of unemployment in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Germany, (d) Italy and (e) Spain. [3426]

  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. Andrew Lansley, dated 18 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 the relative rates of unemployment in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Germany, (d) Italy and (e) Spain.
  The measure of unemployment, 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 last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained.
  The latest available ILO unemployment rates published by the Statistical Office of the European Community (SOEC), for March 1997, were 7.3% for the UK, 12.5% for France, 9.7% for Germany, 12.2% for Italy (for January 1997) and 21.4% for Spain.

  Earnings (Burnley)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the number of people in Burnley earning less than(a) £3.50 per hour and (b) £4.50 per hour. [2889]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Peter Pike, dated 18 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 earnings in Burnley.

  243
  The latest information, from the New Earnings Survey (NES) April 1996, is given in the table below:

  Employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey pay-period was not affected by absence, new earnings survey April 1996

  Percentage of employees with hourly earnings (excluding overtime) less than:

  £3.50

  £4.50

  Burnley

  8.1

  20.4

  Balance of Payments
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the balance of payments statistics for the United Kingdom will continue to be collected via a survey. [3535]

  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.
  244
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mrs. Theresa May, dated 18 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 whether the balance of payments for the United Kingdom will continue to be collected via a survey.
  The United Kingdom balance of payments are compiled from a number of different sources including administrative sources and a variety of surveys conducted by the Office for National Statistics and the Bank of England. There are no plans to move away from the use of surveys as a source of data for the United Kingdom balance of payments.

  Local Government Finance
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have to review the timetable for setting levels of standard spending assessment and revenue support grant for local authorities. [3537]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government currently have no plans to review the timetable for setting levels of standard spending assessment and revenue support grant for local authorities.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

Lord Howell of Guildford
The Right Honourable David Arthur Russell Howell, having been created Baron Howell of Guildford, of Penton Mewsey in the County of Hampshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Chalker of Wallasey and the Lord Tugendhat.

Lord Baker of Dorking
The Right Honourable Kenneth Wilfred Baker, having been created Baron Baker of Dorking, of Iford in the County of East Sussex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Hanson and the Baroness Thatcher.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

NATO Enlargement
2.57 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their plans to put to the British Parliament and public the advantages of the enlargement of NATO.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Ministers will be reporting on the outcome of the NATO summit in Madrid on 8th and 9th July when the allies will invite one or more countries of central Europe to start accession negotiations. We shall continue to set out the case both in Parliament and in public for NATO enlargement, and the benefits of it, as part of our strategy for European peace and security.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that most people in this country are totally unaware that any proposals for NATO enlargement are currently on the agenda and that the very small number of people who are so aware are mostly either sceptical or opposed? Given that NATO is the foundation of British defence policy, does the noble Lord accept that the Government need to do a great deal more to explain the rationale for the proposals?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that I would put it quite as the noble Lord has done, but as compared with developments within, and the enlargement of, the European Union, the enlargement of NATO has been less a subject of public debate. Nevertheless, I think that the public are aware that NATO has helped to give us
1230
and our partners peace and security since 1949. The countries of eastern and central Europe share our aspirations for both security and democracy. The public will recognise that those countries have demonstrated their willingness to share NATO's collective responsibilities. It must be our responsibility to allow those countries emerging from totalitarianism the opportunity of joining NATO. Of course, the enlargement of NATO is only part of our approach to peace and security within Europe. Our relations with Russia and the Ukraine are also part of it.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House what military advantage Hungary and the Czech Republic can bring to the alliance?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the advantage of bringing such countries into the alliance—noble Lords will be aware that no decision has yet been taken about which countries—is to broaden security and the sharing in that security. The specific commitments of any particular country will need to be assessed by the allies as a whole, but it must be right that the countries which are committed to democracy and security in Europe can share in the responsibilities and the duties of membership of the NATO alliance.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my honourable friend agree—
Noble Lords: Noble!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I beg your Lordships' pardon. Does my noble friend agree that so far as this country is concerned the advantages of the enlargement of NATO are difficult to discern whereas the disadvantages and dangers are very real?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand why my noble friend is unaccustomed to addressing me in the form used in your Lordships' House. I sometimes find it difficult myself. On my noble friend's point about the benefits of NATO, I believe that the involvement of the eastern and central European countries in some sort of relationship with NATO must benefit us all and the peace of Europe as a whole. I trust that the dangers will be taken care of in terms of developing a much more positive relationship with Russia and with the other countries of the former Soviet Union.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—I am sure that he is—that whatever decisions are taken at the Madrid summit there will be some difficult issues to resolve on the funding of NATO enlargement? Can the noble Lord give the House any up-to-date news on the NATO command structure and the progress being made towards reorganising it? Does he agree that that structural reorganisation needs to yield some worthwhile savings in order to mitigate the costs of enlargement?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Earl will be aware that we and our allies are looking for savings through the review of NATO's structure. However, the decisions

1231
on enlargement are not directly related to the cost assessment in that form. There have been various estimates of the cost. It has to be borne in mind that the costs of enlargement will depend on the number of countries to which NATO membership is extended and on the timescale. Furthermore, the costs will be spread over a dozen or more years and between 16 or 20 countries. I am not in a position to give up-to-date estimates of the cost until the decisions at Madrid are clearer.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, can my noble friend give some assurance that when the time comes to negotiate the burden-sharing of the cost, which will be considerable, the new members' ability to pay will be most carefully and sympathetically assessed? Furthermore, if the United States Government, in order to be able to gain passage of the necessary legislation through the Senate, seek to reduce to the minimum the cost to the United States, is my noble friend aware that not only the burden falling on existing members will be very considerable but that, proportionately, it will be much larger on the new members who have to finance very important economic and social programmes which, in the long run, are a better guarantee of security in the region than is the enlargement of NATO?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, to some extent I agree with the final point my noble friend makes. Clearly, the expansion of NATO is secondary to the development of economic prosperity and democracy in eastern and central Europe. As far as concerns the sharing of the burden by the United States, the decision will be a collective one reached by all of the allies in NATO. That will become clearer following Madrid. The costs will be shared equitably. Part of the assessment of the criteria against which applicants are judged will be their ability to meet part of the cost, but the bulk of it may well fall on the existing members of NATO for the reasons outlined by my noble friend.
Lord Elton: My Lords, to revert to the form of address adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, does the noble Lord recognise that while he is always honourable he is not necessarily right? Does the noble Lord accept that there is a need for the public to be convinced of the rectitude of this policy which spreads into civil as well as military areas? Does he agree that this is a form of education which is required and which should be pursued?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, neither I nor any of my noble friends has ever claimed infallibility, and therefore I accept the first point. However, I believe that the whole question of peace and security in Europe, of which this is but one part, requires further explanation to the British public. I trust that when the decisions and the strategy are clearer—as is now the case in relation to the European Union—the Government will engage in a public education programme to help explain these matters more widely.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, given the understandable reluctance of the United States to accept Romania, how does the noble Lord balance the need to reintegrate France into NATO?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that the two matters are connected. The application of Romania will be decided against the same criteria as any other application. Decisions on French reintegration have already been taken. The two issues are not a trade-off.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is my noble friend completely assured that the addition of these eastern European countries to NATO will not encourage the emergence in Russia of nationalistic forces that we do not particularly wish to see?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is precisely why I said that the enlargement of NATO should be seen in a wider context in which the improvement of relations with Russia, the founding act and the accord between NATO and Russia must be regarded as an integral part. It would be extremely dangerous were the expansion of NATO to create negative reactionary moves within Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union.

Cancer: Treatment and Research
3.5 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have for dealing with the increasing incidence of cancer.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the Government have already signalled their commitment to make cancer a priority. We will direct immediate savings from cuts in the costs of the NHS internal market into patient care. As a first step, £10 million has been made available for breast cancer services to speed access to diagnosis, reduce waiting time for treatment and support networks of specialist teams.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her positive reply. The conclusion that I draw from it is that the Government will continue the policy of the previous Government and treat increasing numbers of cancer cases. That will give comfort and confidence to those who suffer from this particular disease. Will my noble friend join with me in congratulating and expressing our appreciation to centres of excellence, such as the Christie Hospital in Manchester and the Royal Marsden in London, on some of the treatments they have pioneered that are now put to beneficial use? Further, does my noble friend agree that these two hospitals and other cancer centres predict that they will be able to treat a greater number of people, which means that we can draw much comfort and benefit from what the Government are doing today?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am very happy to join my noble friend in congratulating the two hospitals that he mentions on their excellent record for treatment and research in this particular area. The whole basis on which the extension of cancer services will be arranged is to establish both cancer units and cancer specialist centres which it is hoped will bring all centres up to the level of the hospitals to which my noble friend has referred.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are many centres in the country and that those two cannot be singled out as the only ones that do such valuable work? Does the noble Baroness also agree that research is perhaps one of the most important matters, because all of us look for prevention rather than just a treatment for cancer?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that just two hospitals cannot be singled out. There is good work going on all over the country. The aim of the Government is to bring the practice of those right up to the practice of the best. I am sure that this afternoon one could produce an enormous list if one wanted to pick out particular hospitals or units. I agree with the comment of the noble Baroness about research. As the noble Baroness, as chairman of a hospital trust, will be aware, the causes of cancer are enormously complex. The range of research that is required to undertake a specific approach to a cure or any improvement in therapy is very expensive. We intend to support all of the work that is going on in that field.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, in view of the notable lack of progress in treating the major cancers over many decades, it is high time that the research agenda was widened to include complementary approaches, such as dietary, herbal, psychological and spiritual methods, which so many patients report they find effective?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Earl and I share a positive interest in the importance of complementary medicine. I agree with him that many patients report feeling better as a result of combining complementary therapies with orthodox methods. I also agree with him that there is a possibility of carrying out more extensive research that will produce greater evidence-based results of the impact of complementary medicine. He will be aware of the establishment of the Research Council for Complementary Medicine. We very much hope that that will succeed.
Lord Winston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the problems with the rising incidence of cancer is the fact that the NHS is the victim of its own success? The rising incidence is due partly to the increasing age of the population, and, as the researches of Professor Donald show, partly to improved diagnosis. Does my noble friend further agree that reforms in the health service have posed a problem in that with decentralisation there has been the risk of less expert
1234
attention for cancer victims? Given the statement in the gracious Speech about decentralisation, would she be kind enough to tell us whether she intends to ensure that there will be specialised centres which maintain expertise in these treatments?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we will, as I said, try to expand the approach of having a network of cancer units to which people can be referred initially and cancer specialist centres of the type to which the noble Baroness and my noble friend referred in earlier remarks. I agree with my noble friend that something which breaks down the national approach to expertise in therapy and research is not to be encouraged. That is why we believe that the approach of establishing networks of care, which will also underpin research, is the best way forward.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, bearing in the mind the remarks the Minister made in response to the noble Lords, Lord Dean and Lord Winston, can I interpret them as the new Government endorsing the previous Government's visionary policy encapsulated in the framework for cancer services? If that is the case, will she undertake to give the House a report within six months as to the progress of that policy? Lastly, the Minister mentioned £10 million going into cancer services, in which I am sure we all rejoice, but will she say how many jobs that will cost in terms of managers and administrators in the health service who, after all, are often the oil that keeps the machine going?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked several questions. On the first point about the beginnings of the policy, it is indeed the case that the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Kenneth Calman, who served under the previous Government, and continues to serve under this one, was the author of the policy of establishing networks of care which we are anxious to develop. One of the problems with regard to breast cancer is that, although Sir Kenneth and his colleagues had developed a theoretical framework, there had been no funding to establish it in practice. We have given this early indication of resources to bring it to fruition. As to the noble Baroness's third point about the number of job losses that may result, I am afraid that I do not have that information. If it is possible to obtain it, I shall of course let the noble Baroness know.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, as there is more and more proof, as the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, said, that diet plays a contributory role in the increased incidence of cancer, will the Government's new agency, mentioned in the gracious Speech, look after that?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sorry I am not sure to which new agency the noble Baroness is referring. If she is referring to the whole exercise of the public health programme—
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the food standards agency.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thought the noble Baroness was referring to the public health programme. The food standards agency will of course need to look at the whole area of nutritional safety and its role in the underpinning of health education, which we all hope will be expanded by that agency and by the Minister responsible for public health.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the House recognises that due to research, screening and tests that have taken place there have been encouraging results with breast cancer? Is she further aware of the thousands of elderly men suffering from prostate cancer? What research into prostate cancer are the Government planning? Could they introduce a screening and test system for prostate cancer?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Prostate cancer and other cancers such as colon, rectal and ovarian, are the subject at the moment of continuing work, both in the theory of the research that is needed to produce prevention techniques and on the most efficacious treatment for them. We hope to be able to report soon to Parliament and to anyone, such as my noble friend, who has a particular interest in this matter, on the development of a system to deal with them similar to that for breast cancer.

Scottish Parliament: Proposed Tax Powers
3.14 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions have taken place between the Treasury and the Scottish Office on the impact of the tax-varying powers for the proposed Scottish parliament on government income from income tax.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's interests and concerns on this issue. He raised them in yesterday's debate. From that debate noble Lords will be aware that the Government intend to publish before the Summer Recess a White Paper setting out their devolution proposals for Scotland. I can however reassure him that Treasury and Scottish Office Ministers and officials are fully involved in the Government's collective consideration of their devolution proposals. That includes discussions on the tax-varying power for the Scottish parliament. Noble Lords will understand that I am unable to pre-empt those discussions.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I apologise for bringing him to the Dispatch Box again in place of the Treasury Minister, Lord Simon of Highbury, especially as he brings the Answer that he has just given to the House? If the noble Lord will look at yesterday's debate, he will see that I did not raise the matter then; I raised it in the debate on the gracious Speech. Is he aware that his
1236
Answer is no advance on the unsatisfactory answer I received later from the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington? The question is simple. I shall try to put it again. If the Scottish parliament reduces tax by 3p in the pound, the take by the Inland Revenue from Scottish taxpayers will be £450 million less. To make up that deficit will the Exchequer impose additional tax on English taxpayers or will it reduce the Scottish block grant under the Barnett formula by £450 million? It is a simple question. I have waited for 18 years to put it in that way. Will the Government come clean?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the noble Lord did ask my noble friend Lady Jay that question. Her letter stated:
"The Government is committed to seeking the endorsement of the Scottish people for the proposal to give the Scottish parliament financial powers to vary revenue. These powers will be defined and limited. The exact mechanisms for this process still have to be finalised, but as you know a clear proposal will be put before Parliament in a White Paper.… In the White Paper we will provide details of the proposed tax varying powers and their implications for spending levels in Scotland".
Lord Marsh: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a related question? To what extent will the costs of devolution and the Scottish parliament be borne by Scottish taxpayers?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, devolution will bring real benefits for the people of Scotland and Wales and the costs will be met from within the spending totals approved by Parliament for Scotland and Wales. They will come out of the block grants or revenue raised.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, there is a misunderstanding for which I apologise. I am not asking about the block grant. I am merely asking to what extent there will be a charge on Scotland as opposed to England?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I repeat my reply. The costs will be met from within the spending totals approved by Parliament for Scotland and Wales. Scotland and Wales have their block grants. The costs of the exercise will be met from those funds.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that if the block grant, which is agreed by this UK Parliament, is a given amount and that if the Scots decide to reduce taxation in Scotland by, say, threepence, then that will have no bearing on English taxpayers who will not have to pay additional tax to finance additional spending or reduced taxation in Scotland? That is the question: the English want to know the answer.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, if the Scottish parliament were to vary the tax rate downwards, Westminster would lose a possible £450 million of revenue but could deduct that from Scotland's block grant.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, should know that a decrease in taxation often leads to such a rise in prosperity that revenue goes up?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I agree entirely.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the only reasonable interpretation of his response to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is that the costs of the Scottish parliament or assembly—whatever it is finally called—will be a charge on the taxpayers of the United Kingdom rather than those of Scotland for whose benefit, one assumes, it is to be brought into being? Does he consider that to be a reasonable approach?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, taxation in Scotland is part of an integral UK tax system. We are dealing here with devolution, not with independence.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister—
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe that we must move on. I am sure that all noble Lords are keen to hear the fate of British fishermen.

British Fishermen and the EU
3.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will seek to exempt British fishermen from inclusion in European Union working conditions schemes, in the light of that industry's exemption from the working time directive.
Lord Carter: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are committed to policies which will ensure the health and safety of people at work and prevent the exploitation of vulnerable members of the workforce. The European Commission has been considering how to extend the scope of the working time directive for some time. If proposals are made to include British fishermen in European Union working condition schemes such as this they will be considered on their merits.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reassuring Answer. I am glad that his experience of agriculture and fisheries is being used, despite the demanding duties of his job as Government Chief Whip.
Will the Government ensure that the Commission is aware that most British fishermen are no longer employees of large trawler-owning firms but are share fishermen or self-employed individuals, and that fish do not conform predictably to routines so that at times fisherman have to work long and irregular hours?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome. I am the departmental Whip for MAFF as well as being Chief Whip.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Carter: The industry has not been able to get rid of me that easily! As the noble Lord knows, a share fisherman is someone who is a master or crew member of a British fishing boat manned by more than one
1238
person and is paid some or all of his wages by a share of the boat's profits. It is estimated that there are some 12,500 share fishermen, which is about half the number of people employed or self-employed in the sea fishing fleet. Obviously that has a marked effect on the application of any extensions that there might be—I emphasise "might be"—in the working time directive, because it does not apply to the self-employed.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this is a very important issue to British fishermen? If he has not seen their representatives, will he give the House an assurance that he will do so? If he has seen them, will he continue to see them because this is an extremely important issue to British fishermen?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the answers are yes, yes and I agree.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if eventually the Government have to accept some European Union working conditions for our fishing industry, will they make certain that the same conditions are applied to the Spanish fishing fleet?
Lord Carter: My Lords, we have not yet even seen the White Paper. It would be no kind of negotiating stance to indicate now what our position might be. However, I am sure that from long experience of the subject the noble Lord is aware that there are derogations under the working time directive—I can read them out if he would like—and that is just the kind of issue that we shall be taking into account.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether these decisions are likely to be taken by a qualified majority vote or unanimity in Brussels and what hope he has of achieving success under either system?
Lord Carter: My Lords, in order to forestall a thought which might be in the noble Lord's mind, perhaps I might say that extension of the working time directive has nothing to do with the common fisheries policy or the social chapter. Therefore, it will be taken under the rules which apply to the working time directive.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as regards safety, is the Minister aware that periods of watches and rest periods can be safely arranged within crews, whose situation is not similar to that of long-distance lorry drivers or factory workers?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. In the eight sectors which have been excluded from the working time directive there are areas such as air, rail and road where safety factors for the pilots and drivers apply. That would certainly be the case if we were considering the directive for fishermen.

1239
As regards fishing, if there were to be—I emphasise "were to be"—an extension of the working time directive, we would have to consider the fact that fishermen must work when the fish are running and must get the fish back to port in the best condition. All such factors would be taken into account when we started negotiating. But we have not yet even seen the White Paper.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord said, and it is a reasonable enough stance, that the Government would not wish to show their hand in negotiations on this matter. However, will they show their hand immediately as regards one aspect of the working conditions directive? I refer to others who work at sea; namely, in the offshore oil industry. Is it not already clear to the Government that if the directive were to be applied to their working activities, far from improving safety there would immediately be a real risk to their lives, not least as a result of the increased number of necessary helicopter flights? In those circumstances, cannot the Government immediately signal the fact that we are not prepared to tolerate an extension in respect of that industry?
Lord Carter: My Lords, that question is wide of the Question on sea fishing, but the noble and learned Lord is right. Those are exactly the kind of facts which must be borne in mind in such considerations. Although we have not seen the White Paper, there have been extensive negotiations with the Commission in its preparation. Although we have not seen the final document, that is exactly the kind of point that has been hammered home.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell us when he last spoke with representatives of our fishermen?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the last time was during the election, when I campaigned in Filey and had a very good time.

Business
3.27 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it never stops! At a convenient time after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the European Council in Amsterdam. That will be followed by my noble friend Lord Donoughue, who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on the common fisheries policy.
I wish 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 in the discussion should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Borrie set down for today shall be limited to three-and-a-half hours.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industry: Competitiveness
3.28 p.m.
Lord Borrie Lord Borrie rose to call attention to the case for improving the competitiveness of British industry; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, four weeks ago today this House was engaged in the fifth and final day of its debate on the gracious Speech. That day's debate was largely concerned with the economy and industry. I was most struck by the fact that during that debate speakers from all sides of the House referred to the speed and determination with which the new Government had set about their tasks in the days following the general election. In other words, the Government had indeed hit the ground running. One of the speakers in the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, paid tribute to the "whirlwind start" of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, congratulated the Government on what he called the "robust actions" which they had taken in the first few days of office.
The two noble Lords, both active in the City of London, were particularly interested in macro-economic policy and referred to the announcements about the responsibility of the Bank of England for setting interest rates and the new, tougher regulatory structure proposed for financial services. I believe that these developments are highly relevant to the competitiveness of British industry. After all, the CBI and others from the world of business have emphasised repeatedly the value of economic stability and a high level of predictability about the future in order to give industry that basis of faith in the future on which it can build its strategic plans for investment and growth.
Business men do not want a stop-go economy, and ensuring a high reputation for integrity, which an effective and efficient regulatory regime can bring, is extremely relevant to the success of UK financial services as provided so pre-eminently across the world by the City of London. I need hardly remind your Lordships that that reputation has received a few knocks in recent years. I mention Barings and BCCI. It is most important for UK competitiveness that the integrity of the City of London's financial services is maintained and enhanced.
I do not suppose in this debate that anyone is likely to dispute the objectives of competitiveness. Competitiveness is vital to the prosperity of every individual in this country. I pay tribute to the previous government, whose White Papers on the subject stressed this country's ongoing dependence on the sale of goods

1241
and services in all the markets of the world. But—and it is a big "but"—too often the rhetoric of those White Papers was not matched by action and there were serious inconsistencies of approach.
The efforts of many in recent years, including Ministers in the previous government, civil servants here and abroad, and ambassadors and business men here and abroad have done a great deal to further the export of British goods and services but they were hardly assisted when certain high-ranking Ministers made extremely xenophobic speeches at party conferences which were widely reported in other countries.
As I have had a long and particular interest in competition policy, perhaps I am somewhat biased in saying that, during the period of the previous government, that was the most glaring aspect where their words were not matched by action. The previous government said—and were widely supported for it—that competition provides the spur and incentive for firms to be efficient in giving customers value for money and for being competitive abroad. A White Paper was published in 1989 which promised a radical strengthening of competition policy along the lines of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome: to prohibit anti-competitive cartels and to prohibit the abuse of monopoly power. For seven successive years, seven successive parliamentary Sessions after that White Paper, the promises of implementation were made by the then government and were broken. It is a sorry tale.
The excuse made by the previous government in successive parliamentary Sessions was a lack of parliamentary time. According to the all-party Trade and Industry Select Committee in another place, that was "wearing a bit thin" by 1995—from whose report I take those words.
In this country we have had some measure of competition law to combat price-fixing cartels and the abuse of monopoly power for nearly 50 years, starting with an Act of the Attlee Government in 1948. But surely we have all known for some years—and the previous government said they knew for some years—that the present law was weak. It provided inadequate deterrents against misbehaviour. A lack of investigative powers and inevitable long-delayed consequences for malpractice were also serious deficiencies. It was especially weak when compared with the laws of our major competitors, especially the United States, and certainly weak compared with the laws of the European Union. Of course, our major companies which trade in the European Union are extremely familiar with and subject to European law when they engage in the inter-state trade. I know that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade will be promoting a Bill on the subject in the autumn, and the Government could hardly be quicker than that. That is an excellent comparison with the record of the previous government.
Competitiveness must be an objective that is given the highest priority throughout government, and not just in the DTI and the Treasury—departments to which I have referred. It is not just a matter of ministerial pep-talks to business men, completing the common market or trade missions to South America, or
1242
congratulating a British company when it receives an international design award. Of course, all those are extremely important. but we need to go beyond the confines of trade policy. The weakness of our transport infrastructure and skills base are among the basic underlying weaknesses that constantly pull Britain back from the maximum competitiveness that it could and should achieve.
It should be recognised too that our country cannot attain real and sustainable economic success if it allows deprivation and large-scale unemployment to take a substantial hold, as indeed they have. I am interested that The Times seems to be what I might call a late convert to the view that many of us on this side of the House have held for a long time: namely, that a fractured society is not just socially divisive and harsh; it is—and I quote from a leader in The Times on 10th June—
"economically inefficient and expensive for those in work … it also holds back Britain's potential for growth".
That is part of the subject of this afternoon's debate. Hence I believe the enormous importance of the welfare-to-work programme being pursued now and in the forthcoming Budget by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Social justice and economic success are not alternative objectives. I believe that they are necessarily complementary.
I say that it is no good talking about partnership between management and workers—another phrase which in the past governments have often stressed—if trade union leaders are treated as pariahs, excluded from involvement in discussion with business. Trade unions today do not represent as many members as they once did, but they represent and speak for 7 million people. Seven million workers cannot sensibly be left outside when consideration is given to UK prosperity, competitiveness and growth.
If competitiveness is to be really successful, it must be inclusive of all those who can contribute and it must take account of the long term. Education seems not to have been regarded by the previous government as part of the real economy, I suppose because it is largely in the public sector. It seems to me to be crazy to down-grade in resources, status and esteem such vital institutions and people as those engaged in education at every level.
I have been acting recently as an independent pay commissioner for the pay and conditions of all grades, from manual workers to professors, within our universities and colleges. I was appointed by the employers and by the seven trade unions which are involved. Well-known, reputable management consultants were engaged to make comparative studies of comparable posts in the private sector and in other parts of the public sector. At almost all levels pay and conditions in universities were worse, and have been worse for some time. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there has been severe erosion of standards of pay. That must surely have a serious spin-off effect in eroding over time standards in teaching and in research, including scientific, engineering and professional skills of all kinds which are so important for the UK in the high-tech, high-skilled world in which

1243
we must compete. I look forward to hearing the speech of my noble friend Lady Lockwood, who has great experience in university matters, later in the debate.
In his Mansion House speech last week, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he expected business men to take a longer-term view of investment. Research to be published shortly by the University of Leeds reveals that at present UK business has been too short-sighted in its strategic thinking, mapping out corporate direction for only two to four years ahead. Of course, companies often blame lack of economic stability; they blame the alleged short-term perspective of the City of London. The Government can certainly help business and give that confidence in the future that will encourage it to plan much further ahead. Nowhere is this more important than in planning for the skills that will be needed. Skills cannot be acquired and learned overnight.
I recall the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who is to speak shortly in today's debate, saying only recently in this House that, as they come out of recession, many firms have found skill shortages and have had to go elsewhere and abroad to buy those skills. We surely want to avoid that in the future in this country. In moving the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I look forward to hearing the many and varied contributions from noble Lords who have tabled their names to speak. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

European Council, Amsterdam
3.42 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, with the leave of the House, and with apologies to my noble friend Lord Borrie for interrupting his debate, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the meeting of the European Council in Amsterdam on 16th and 17th June, which he attended with my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my honourable friend the Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Council conclusions have been placed in the Library of the House. I shall also place a full copy of the text of the Amsterdam Treaty in the Library as soon as it is available. The Statement is as follows:
"Our aims in these negotiations were to protect our essential interests over immigration, foreign policy, defence and a central role for Britain in Europe; to promote changes of real interest to the British people; and to move Europe on to a new positive agenda. We also promised to bring a fresh and constructive approach to Europe and to these negotiations.
"I am happy to tell the House that our objectives were fully achieved. And they were achieved while at the same time improving our standing in Europe and relationships with our partners.
1244
"First, we have obtained legal security for our frontier controls, through a legally binding protocol to the treaty. This is an achievement of lasting value, attained for the first time. The key point in the protocol says, and I quote:
'The United Kingdom shall be entitled … to exercise at its frontiers with other member states such controls on persons seeking to enter the United Kingdom as it may consider necessary for the purpose'.
"I know that this will be welcomed by the whole House. We have ensured that we, and only we, decide border policy, and that policies on immigration, asylum and visas are made in Britain, not Brussels. Others may choose to have different arrangements, to suit their traditions and geographical position. I see no reason to prevent them doing so, although these arrangements will continue to be governed by unanimity. The United Kingdom can participate in areas of interest to us if we so choose—at our option. No opt-out. An opt-in as we choose.
"In the justice and home affairs area, we have also agreed better arrangements for co-operation on police, crime and drugs. I attach great importance to more effective international action in these areas of direct concern to people. But co-operation will remain inter-governmental and subject to unanimity. Thanks to amendments that we secured, the European Court will also have no authority to decide cases brought in UK courts on these issues.
"We have also ensured continued protection for our essential interests in all the areas where we sought it. We have maintained the veto—as we said we would—in foreign policy, defence, treaty change, community finances, and tax. We have prevented the extension of qualified majority voting in areas where it might cause damage. Others wanted to extend QMV in the social chapter, which would have affected our companies even if we were not party to the chapter. Because we were in it, we were able to stop this. We have agreed to qualified majority voting where it is in our national interest; for example, on research and development and on action to combat fraud and waste. We have also ruled out other potentially damaging proposals. For example, others wanted to give the European Union explicit legal personality across all the pillars. At our insistence, this was removed. Moreover, the treaty spells out that international agreements can only be concluded on the basis of unanimity following a clear Council decision. In addition, we secured a veto over flexibility arrangements which could otherwise have allowed the development of a hard core excluding us against our will.
"Secondly, for the first time in a decade Britain is setting a positive agenda for Europe. In April in Manchester, I set out our platform for reform: completion of the single market, a new emphasis on flexible labour markets and education and skills, reform of wasteful policies in agriculture and elsewhere, enlargement and a more effective common foreign and security policy. Each of those elements was fully reflected at Amsterdam, in the IGC or the Council conclusions. In particular, we successfully

1245
promoted support for a new action plan for the single market which echoes key British concerns. This should in time lead to further opening of Europe's markets to British companies. Completing the single market will be one of the top priorities for the British presidency.
"Thirdly, jobs. We have put these at the top of Europe's agenda, where they belong. The new treaty chapter on employment recognises the importance of job creation and sets member states and the Community the task of promoting flexible labour markets, and education and skills. That is where Europe must make a difference.
"Fourthly, the treaty makes Europe more relevant to people: it ensures greater openness; it increases powers to combat fraud and waste; it strengthens environmental protection; it creates power to act against discrimination on grounds of sex, race, religion or disability—another area where Britain has taken the lead; it gives subsidiarity—ensuring that decisions are taken at the European level only where there is real added value in doing so—real teeth through a binding protocol; and it imposes an obligation to take into account the welfare of animals.
"Fifthly, the treaty prepares the institutions of the Union for enlargement. There was not as much progress on this as there might have been. But we have ensured that, at the time of enlargement, the Council's voting system will be changed to give Britain and other large countries more votes. Europe must now get on with making a reality of the historic opportunity of enlargement. We need to extend our stability and prosperity to the new democracies of central and eastern Europe. The European Council is committed to decisions on the opening of enlargement negotiations at its meeting in December. We shall play a leading role in those negotiations, particularly during our presidency.
"Sixthly, while retaining our veto, we have taken steps to improve the effectiveness of foreign policy co-operation with better planning and co-ordination. That is an important British interest. But getting Europe's voice heard more clearly in the world will not be achieved through merging the European Union and Western European Union or developing an unrealistic common defence policy. We therefore resisted unacceptable proposals from others. Instead, we argued for—and won—the explicit recognition, written into the treaty for the first time, that NATO is the foundation of our and other allies' common defence.
"The House will also be interested that the treaty contains provisions to strengthen Parliament's ability to scrutinise European legislation properly, by laying down a minimum six week period for documents to be available.
"Though not part of the IGC, we also made real progress in Amsterdam on the problem of quota hoppers—fishermen from other member states who fish against British quotas. We secured an agreement with the Commission on our two central concerns. First, that we are entitled to put into law a clear
1246
economic link between boats using our quotas and Britain. Economic benefits from boats flying the British flag should go to British ports, for example through a proviso that 50 per cent. of a boat's catch should be landed locally. We will be introducing new licence conditions to reflect this with all possible speed.
"Secondly, the Commission agreed to bring forward new tougher measures of enforcement to ensure that fishermen landing their catch abroad cannot escape controls. These measures are agreed by qualified majority voting and cannot therefore he blocked by another member state. These agreements, taken together, will mean a major disincentive to quota hoppers, present and future. And Commission agreement to the new measures means that their vulnerability to legal challenge, a perennial problem hitherto, should be greatly reduced.
"The letters between myself and the President of the Commission setting out these agreements are in the Library. The Commission letter also confirms that important principles underlying the common fisheries policy, notably relative stability and the provisions on 12 mile limits, should remain when they are reviewed in 2002. These commitments allow us to start working with fishermen from around the country to plan a sustainable future for the industry. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be making a more detailed Statement immediately after this.
"On economic and monetary union, the documents discussed by the House on 9th June were approved. I made clear that the entry conditions should be strictly applied and that sustainable convergence is essential if EMU is to go ahead successfully.
"The European Council also agreed a resolution on employment with British ideas at the centre of it. We have shown that, alongside low inflation and sound public finances, Europe needs a new approach to employment and growth, based on British ideas for competitiveness, including more flexible labour markets and employability. This means creating a more skilled and adaptable workforce, better equipped to cope with economic change. It means a new emphasis on getting people off welfare and into work. It does not mean the old agenda of tax and spend—no new money from the Community budget was agreed in Amsterdam. This is the right approach, in or out of EMU.
"The successful conclusion of the IGC enables Europe to put institutional wrangles behind it and move on to the issues which affect people's daily lives: jobs, the environment, crime. Progress in these areas will be our priority. We are determined not to let Europe get bogged down again in minutiae. If we are to build a people's Europe, we must stay focused on the people's concerns.
"We said we would secure our frontiers; and we did. We said we would preserve NATO, not the European Union, as the cornerstone to the defence of Europe; and we did. We said we would get a new deal for our fishing communities; and we did. We said

1247
we would put jobs at the top of the agenda for Europe; and we did. We said we would start to make Europe more relevant to the concerns of the peoples of Europe; and we did.
"We made Britain's voice heard at Amsterdam, because for the first time for many years Britain spoke as a united Government with a clear direction for Europe. We have proved to the people of Britain that we can get a better deal by being constructive, and we have proved to Europe that Britain can be a leading player setting a new agenda that faces the real challenges of the new century".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.54 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the House will be extremely grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement with his usual panache and style. Nevertheless I feel that the Statement raises more questions than it answers. However, I welcome parts of it and I draw the attention of the House to what may seem to be some of the more detailed parts: the reference to the free movement of goods and the question of legal personality in the conclusions.
I am sure the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal will be aware that the documentation is extensive and does not yet appear to be fully available. On those grounds alone, let alone the importance of the subject which today's Statement addresses, will the noble Lord undertake that there will be an opportunity to debate these matters in your Lordships' House as soon as the papers are available and we have an opportunity to study the detail? I hope that the usual channels will be able to agree a suitable length of time for such a debate and that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal will be able to give the House an undertaking that we shall have an opportunity to debate these matters before the House rises for the Summer Recess.
Will the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal also undertake to bring any necessary legislation to this House so that the British Parliament has an opportunity to vote on it and to enact it? I seem to remember in the days when the noble Lord was speaking on occasions such as this from this Dispatch Box that he always advised me to read the Presidency conclusions rather than the Government's version of them. I always try to follow the noble Lord's advice whenever possible in spite of the inevitably rather restricted amount of time available to the Opposition for preparation for these occasions.
I was pleased to see that both in the Statement and in the Presidency conclusions the question of unemployment quite rightly takes priority. However, I have to say that particularly on page 8 the conclusions read rather like a restatement of the old corporatist line that has produced such splendidly effective results for unemployment in Germany and France. I suspect that is rather different from the claim in the Statement as regards flexible markets. When he replies will the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal confirm that flexible markets will be possible, in particular in the context of what
1248
seems to me to be the less than clear claims about the effects of the social chapter and its integration into the treaty?
I have asked the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal the following question before and I hope he will forgive me for asking it again. Whatever is introduced into the QMV provisions of the social chapter, will the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal please confirm that the only way—short of extraordinary negotiating skill, which may be even beyond the capacities of the present Prime Minister under certain circumstances—in which the Government can pick and choose which elements of the social chapter they wish to apply is to maintain our opt out and to put those provisions in parallel through the British Parliament? If that is not so, I should be extremely interested to hear it. If it is so, I wonder how the noble Lord reconciles that with the claim in the Statement that he has just read.
I move on to the question of enlargement. Is the noble Lord aware that the Labour Party manifesto stated that the enlargement of the Community would be a high priority? The Statement stated that there was not as much progress as there might have been. All I can say to that is, indeed. Where, for instance, is the agreement on the institutional reform that points towards future enlargement? What new practical measures will be taken to bring in new members as a result of this treaty? Is it not a fact that this treaty does nothing to build a wider Europe, only—as is all too predictable to some of us—a deeper, more bureaucratic Europe which therefore will be less competitive, unlike, I fear, what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said before we began these exchanges, and therefore one that is less likely to create jobs which, quite rightly, the Government regard as the highest priority for all Europeans at the moment?
Can the noble Lord clarify precisely what has been said on a question of flexibility? Is he aware that if flexibility can be agreed by QMV it could constitute a major step towards a deeper integration in Europe—something of which I understand the Prime Minister is no longer in favour? Therefore in what areas has the Prime Minister agreed to allow new flexibility? Might this not be a veto bypass to allow greater centralisation even if Britain wanted to stop it?
Did the Prime Minister raise the issue of the beef ban during the talks? Is it not the truth that no progress whatever has been made towards lifting the ban, whether in other forums which have been more properly used for that debate or in this forum in view of the lack of progress in other forums? In that context, what is the Government's attitude towards importing European beef which appears now not to be subject to the same stringent controls as British beef?
What exactly has the Prime Minister agreed on defence? Can the noble Lord confirm that the draft treaty talks of,
"the objective of the gradual integration of the WEU into the European Union"?
Is he aware that on defence a Dutch presidency spokesman has said that this is,
"the first time Britain has conceded the principle of integrating defence in the European Union"?

1249
I hope that when the noble Lord answers these questions he will be able to deny that claim from his Dutch colleague.
There is deep suspicion in all parts of the country, despite the glorious honeymoon being enjoyed by the party opposite, that the United Kingdom has entered these negotiations, in particular on the social chapter, perfectly prepared to give ground in exchange for dubious returns. It seems to me that in agreeing to the provisions of the social chapter, to a new employment chapter, and on surrendering our veto in a number of areas, the innocence of the Government in the shark-infested waters of European negotiation is becoming all too obvious.
Will the noble Lord also tell the House what benefits were secured for this country's national interest as a result of what has happened? Will he confirm that as a result of the agreements made today there will indeed he more qualified majority voting? Will there he more powers for the European Parliament and more influence for the European Union and its institutions over foreign and employment policy? It looks as though that is so. That is fine so long as the objectives that are being peddled are consistent with the competitiveness and employment objectives that we all wish to see achieved.
Will the noble Lord confirm that the remit of the European Court of Justice and the Commission has not been extended to cover asylum and immigration? Is it true that the Council of Ministers will consider at a later date extending QMV to this area? As regards the European Court of Justice, will the noble Lord tell us what, if anything, has been done to limit the damaging effect of the retrospective application of ECJ judgments?
On common foreign and security policy, the noble Lord read from the Statement that we have maintained our veto. Can he confirm that the decisions of the Council on common foreign and security policy would indeed be by majority vote? I refer to the decisions on the implementation of the policy with,
"a possibility for a member state to take a position of constructive abstention or only in the case of important reasons for national policy to block a vote".
Can the noble Lord tell the House who will decide those important reasons of national policy? What guarantees do we have that a national judgment will be recognised and respected? Indeed, how does that square with the claim that the Government have maintained the veto which is, after all, a bald assertion which appears not to be qualified half enough in the Statement?
All in all, at the risk of perhaps sounding a little churlish—I welcome some of what is in the Statement—there is increasingly apparent a gap between the Government's rhetoric about flexible markets and what they are prepared to sign up to but, more importantly, to resist in Europe. It seems to me that the Government are caught between a desire to be loved in Europe at almost any cost and their gradually dawning realisation that what I can only describe as Tory policies deliver jobs. I hope that a debate can help us to clarify where
1250
the Government really stand and that the Lord Privy Seal will enable us to have that opportunity at an early date.
Lord Jenkins of Hilihead: My Lords, I, too, thank the Lord Privy Seal for having repeated the Statement. I believe that a fair summary of the Prime Minister's report on Amsterdam would be that it shows he has already vastly improved Britain's working relationship with our European partners but has not yet, hardly surprisingly, solved all the difficulties of Europe. But it is something that Britain has moved from being the problem of Europe to perhaps offering at least a part of the solution, at the same time showing how relatively easy it is with a little good will to achieve quite a lot of what are thought to be Britain's special interests, some of which I am more enthusiastic about than others.
The contrast with the previous Government's ineffective mixture of braggadocio, humiliating retreat and maximum ill will could hardly be greater. In the circumstances the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, although opening in a more muted way than he has sometimes done recently, was perhaps a little ungracious. I particularly treasure his statement that there is deep suspicion throughout the country of the Government's attitude to the social chapter. I am reminded of "My Fair Lady" and references to parts of Hertford, Hereford—rather doubtful—and Hampshire. It could just possibly be true of those three counties. Broadly, throughout most of the country, I believe that the Government are enjoying an almost over-heady honeymoon. I do not find much touch with reality in what the noble Viscount said. Representing a party which handled the European issue in such a way as to wreck Britain's influence in Europe and at the same time nearly destroy itself was a remarkable feat which might have been expected to produce a little humility.
However, there was one service which the previous Government rendered to Europe. By uniting everyone else against ourselves, it made them somewhat artificially patch over their own differences. This time, the uniting bogey man having been removed, or at least some of his features having been modified, the more cross currents begin to emerge. That is not in itself unhealthy and gives us a position of greater influence. However, I think that it should be subject to two important provisos. First, to attempt to sunder in recrimination the Franco-German partnership would be an act of gross irresponsibility which could have grave consequences not only for Europe and ourselves but also for the world. Secondly, whether we are in or out, for the single currency to fail at this stage would be like the juddering halt of a vast airliner whose engines had been reversed at the very last moment. The mood would be sullen throughout Europe. I do not think that the next great challenge and important British interest—that of the enlargement to the east—could then be faced and overcome.
It was in regard to preparation for enlargement that Amsterdam accomplished least. If the Community is to be enlarged to 20-plus, it is essential that the number of commissioners be reduced from the present basis. Already in my day, with a Community of nine, there

1251
were one or two too many commissioners. It is essential, too, that the decision-making process in the Council of Ministers is strengthened. These were the unsolved issues of Amsterdam.
Amsterdam as a whole, however, I count as a good beginning for the Prime Minister; although it leaves him with many tests to face in the future. It was neither a disaster nor a triumph for the European Union—although such modified success and partial disappointments should be seen in perspective as having always been part of the rhythm of Europe.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks of the Lord Privy Seal, at least for the beginning of his remarks—
Noble Lords: You are the Lord Privy Seal!
Lord Richard: My Lords, there it is. One is concentrating so much on other matters. I shall try again, and I shall not make that mistake again. I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition—at least for the beginning of his remarks. I am also grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.
The noble Viscount gave us a short lecture. In his kind, avuncular way he said that perhaps we were innocents in shark-invested waters. Speaking as one of the former sharks, I do not think the Government are innocent. In any case, for the Leader in this House of the party opposite to attempt to give anybody lectures on how to handle Europe and European policy is a little rich. Given that his party reduced British influence in Community institutions to the depths in which it was found by us on 1st May, I really should have thought that a decent period of silence on the part of Members opposite would be more appropriate.
The noble Viscount asked me a number of detailed questions. Some I can answer and some I cannot. I will write to him about those that I am unable to answer now. He said that the summit was a little weak on enlargement. The position on enlargement is this. The Commission will present its papers next month covering not only enlargement but also the related issues of the common agricultural policy, structural fund reform and the future financing of the European Union. It looks as though negotiations will start relatively soon thereafter. Frankly, that is not being slow on enlargement. In addition, the principle that was agreed is that there should be a reduction in the number of commissioners on the one hand but that there should be a re-weighting of the votes in the Council of Ministers on the other. That principle was agreed. To return from an international summit with those measures on enlargement in one's pocket was a distinct success and did not deserve the muted words of the noble Viscount opposite.
The noble Viscount asked me about the social chapter. He and I, and the party opposite, examined the social chapter on many occasions. My views on it are pretty well known. We have not agreed to any extension of qualified majority voting in the social field.
1252
Unanimity still applies in areas vital to competitiveness, in particular social security, co-determination in the boardroom and dismissal rights.
Qualified majority voting does apply in some other areas under the social chapter. However, it does not mean that we shall not be able to influence legislation. Of course we shall; we shall be there in order to influence it. A constructive approach overall means that one's partners are rather more likely and willing to listen to one's specific concerns.
Let us be clear. There is no half-way house between opting in and staying out. If we want to be able to influence the social and employment agenda and promote competitiveness across the European Union, we must be there at the table arguing our case. For example, if the working time directive demonstrates anything, it demonstrates that the previous Government's opt-out in no way protected them from being out-voted on measures with which they disagreed.
United Kingdom prosperity as a whole depends on the competitiveness of the European Union as a whole. Staying on the sidelines is no answer. The only way to ensure that Europe develops in the way in which we want it to develop is to persuade others of our case. The recognition by the Amsterdam Council of the importance of flexible labour markets and employability demonstrates that that is possible.
The noble Viscount asked me about the wording in the conclusions on jobs, which he found a little "padded". I do not think that he could have read the annexes to the presidency conclusions. One of them, the resolution of the European council on growth and employment, states:
"In addition, we will need to strengthen the links between a successful and sustainable Economic Monetary Union, a well-functioning Internal Market and employment. To that end, it should be a priority aim to develop a skilled, trained and adaptable workforce and to make labour markets responsive to economic change. Structural reforms need to be comprehensive in scope, as opposed to limited or occasional measures, so as to address in a coherent manner the complex issue of incentives in creating and taking up a job".
That does not seem to me to smack very much of corporatism. On the contrary, it seems to illustrate quite clearly what we were aiming for and succeeded in achieving.
The noble Viscount asked about defence, and about remarks made by a Dutch presidential spokesman. I should not dream of commenting on a report in a British newspaper. I am certainly not prepared to comment on a report of what might eventually appear in a Dutch newspaper. I have not seen what the Dutch spokesman is supposed to have said. I shall make a point of looking at it.
To turn to common defence and foreign policy, the noble Viscount asked whether we have preserved the veto. Yes, we have preserved the veto. We are in favour of closer co-ordination and co-operation in these areas, but we are not in favour of giving up the British veto on action in these two areas. That we have preserved.
I hope that the House will have an opportunity at some stage to examine this matter in greater detail. I cannot this afternoon give any commitment at all as

1253
to whether, or when, a debate will take place. I can only give the same reply as the noble Viscount used to give to me. It is a matter for the usual channels, and I will consult with them.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he give an undertaking that the House will have an opportunity to debate in full this enormously important Statement, and that the debate will be given a full day without diminution in view of the general interest and importance of the matter?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord any answer other than the one I just gave to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition. I heard what he said, and I hear what the noble Lord says. I will consult with the usual channels, having listened very carefully to comments made this afternoon.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, perhaps I may press my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal on one point regarding the Western European Union. I quite understand that the Prime Minister has returned from the conference with the question of NATO confined within a legal framework which previously did not exist. I am confused, however, as to whether the Western European Union will continue to be the European defence arm. If the Western European Union is to begin to merge with the European Union, and the European Union is to be its own defence body, then I should like to know what is the Government's position regarding membership of the Brussels Modified Treaty. One thing is certain: the signatories to that treaty could not be brought together today and agree to sign. It seems to me that it would be a step back, were we to move from the modified Brussels treaty.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I obviously did not make myself clear. There were moves at the conference for a closer relationship between the European Union and the Western European Union. Those moves we resisted and they therefore did not take place. We see the role of the WEU in the future as it has been in the past. We do not see a defence role for the European Union.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, as regards Europe and the fishing industry, the Statement seems to claim that decisions have been made which would improve the situation in relation to the dangers of quota-hopping. Can the noble Lord tell me what new arrangements were agreed that are different from the regulations which already existed before the meeting took place?
Lord Richard: My Lords, we now have the right to make further regulations. However, before the noble Lord comes back at me, immediately I sit down my noble friend Lord Donoughue will repeat in this place the Statement on quota-hopping and fish which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
1254
I have no doubt that my noble friend will be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, on all his difficulties.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, there will be considerable satisfaction at what my noble friend said, particularly about retaining national control over our frontiers, immigration and asylum policy. There will also be satisfaction that the European Union's ambitions to take over defence have at least been temporarily checked.
Apart from that, is the Minister aware that there is still a major contradiction between what we are saying about giving priority to the creation of employment and the continued pressing ahead with the restrictive and deflationary policies of economic and monetary union? Nowhere is that contradiction more evident than in the unfortunate position of the French Prime Minister. He was elected in the hope that he would reverse the policies previously pursued of squeezing the French economy and maintaining the high levels of unemployment. Yet once he was elected, he found himself pursuing exactly the same policy of going ahead and giving the same priority to the single currency as his predecessor. Is there not by now a recognition of the fundamental contradiction between pressing ahead with deflation and a single currency and at the same time saying, "We are going to give top priority to the creation of jobs"?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful for what my noble friend said at the beginning of his question. I can only tell him that the contradiction he perceives between the moves towards a common European currency and the creation of employment does not seem to exist in the minds of most of our partners inside the European Union. Nor does it exist in mine.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal is a tiger shark or a basking shark; I leave him to make that judgment. It is reasonable that we should all congratulate the Prime Minister on his views on employment in Europe. He makes himself sound like a cross between Lord Tebbit and John Bright, and that can only be cause for congratulation.
We all believe that expansion of the eastern European countries into Europe is vital for Europe's prosperity. A committee of your Lordships' House found that that would be totally impossible without there being a complete reform of the common agricultural policy. There is no sign, except wishful thinking, that that will happen. Yes, we want to change the common agricultural policy. It is easy to stop new clauses being inserted into a new treaty, but it is totally impossible to extract clauses from an old treaty. We all agree with what the Government want to do: to make Europe's jobs freer and to reform the common agricultural policy. What expectation do they have that the common agricultural policy can be changed, bearing in mind all the vested interests in keeping that ridiculous and, if I may say so, evil policy in existence?
Lord Richard: My Lords, again I did not make myself clear earlier on. The position is that the Commission is producing detailed reports on the expansion of the Community by including some of the applicant countries in July. One of the issues which the Commission is charged with examining is the effect of enlargement on the common agricultural policy. So it is a live issue and will no doubt get livelier as the time for enlargement approaches.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in connection with employment, will the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal confirm that it will be an important part of the Government's policy to ensure that the single market is completed? It was effectively introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. I was in Copenhagen yesterday to witness the start of the construction of a unique enterprise to build a tunnel and a bridge between that part of Denmark and Sweden. I am glad to say that British firms are playing a large part in it. There should be many more such opportunities in the single market. Would it be part of the Government's policy to encourage that?
Lord Richard: My Lords, not only is it part of the Government's policy to encourage that, but it was one of the specific issues raised at Amsterdam. It found its way into the eventual conclusions: that the completion of the single market is one of our priorities and a priority of the European Union as a whole.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I wish to pursue the point raised by my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney. Is the Minister aware that in the draft treaty provisions relating to unemployment, the whole section which was to be put after Title VI in the original treaty is made specifically subservient to Article 103 of the original treaty? The article laid down the strict macro-economic conditions which are being complied with at the moment.
If the noble Lord regards the provisions on unemployment as now being satisfactory, were those sections in the draft treaty repealed or rather taken out of the treaty in the course of negotiations? If not, it still means that any policies to cure or ameliorate unemployment are still conditioned to the rigid conditions laid down by Maastricht on macro-economic policy, as set out in Article 102. Those conditions apply today and are largely responsible for the grossly excessive unemployment throughout Europe, now amounting to 18 million, and unemployment here which is nearer 3.5 million than the phoney figure that has been put forward so far.
Lord Richard: My Lords, with his usual vigour my noble friend makes a powerful debating point. However, with respect, it is no more than that. A large number of the countries of the European Union seem to be bent upon moving to European monetary union by 1999. In those circumstances, of course the relevant provisions of the treaty were not repealed at the Amsterdam Summit, and I am sure that my noble friend would have been staggered if they had been.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I think I heard the noble Lord say that the Government had agreed to qualified majority voting extending to areas where it is in our national interest and that they had agreed to that extension in the case of research and development. Can the noble Lord tell us why it is in our national interest that qualified majority voting should apply to research and development, which is an important part of our economy, so that we can be outvoted as a country by a group of countries where it is perhaps less important?
Lord Richard: My Lords, it is because we perceive that more countries in Europe are in tune with our views on the increase of research and development than are opposed to it. Therefore, the extension of qualified majority voting in that area would be directly to Britain's benefit.
Lord Monson: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal say whether any action was taken behind the scenes to put Spain in the dock, so to speak, over its disgraceful bullying—which is not too strong a word—of the people of Gibraltar, who are, of course, fellow members of the Community?
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me a question which I cannot answer.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal used the words:
"have Europe as competitive as a whole".
I have two questions to put to him. First, how high a priority is it that we endeavour to be more competitive than our partners? Secondly, will he take into account regional costs of living when establishing minimum wage rates in order to maintain local competitiveness?
Lord Richard: My Lords, with great respect, I do not think I understood either of the noble Viscount's questions. So far as concerns the first one—am I in favour of the extension of competitiveness in Europe as a whole?—the answer is clearly yes. Am I in favour of Britain becoming more competitive than the rest of Europe? The answer to that would also be yes. Am I in favour, when minimum wage rates (I believe he said) are being negotiated, of regional variations being taken into account? There is not a word in either the Maastricht Treaty or indeed this treaty about minimum wage rates. If that is a question which is concerned with the possible introduction of a minimum wage for the workers of the United Kingdom, then it is a question better addressed to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, in considering enlargement of the Community, everybody accepts the need to revise the CAP. But was consideration given to the need to tighten up on fraud, particularly at the point of entry into the Community? The Budget Control Committee of the European Parliament has undertaken

1257
a massive and very worthwhile report which shows enormous losses that will only be accentuated if we enlarge without previously tightening up.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's question is yes. Indeed, specific proposals by the British Government were made at Amsterdam in relation to fraud. They found a fair wind. Indeed, we agreed to the extension of qualified majority voting specifically on action to combat fraud, as otherwise it might be very difficult to get Community action as a whole taken if one country—perhaps more than one—is in a position to veto the action.

Common Fisheries Policy
4.32 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 common fisheries policy which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement is as follows:
"Fishing has an important place and a long tradition as an industry in this country. This Government intend to work with the industry to ensure its continued and sustainable future. This means devising a strategy to meet the challenges of low fish stocks and overcapacity.
"We have inherited a series of profound problems as a result of the previous administration's handling of fisheries policy, which has lacked any sign of direction or support. One of their excuses for failure has been the problem of vessels owned largely by foreign interests which are UK flagged and use UK quotas. They give little or no economic benefit from their activities to our own fishing communities because they are largely operated and crewed from other member states and land a high proportion of their catches outside the UK.
"This is a long-standing problem which the previous administration allowed to develop and failed to solve. It could have addressed it in 1982 when the common fisheries policy was being negotiated. Having failed to act then, it should have addressed it when enlargement to bring in Spain and Portugal was agreed in 1985.
"But they allowed matters to deteriorate and eventually last year proposed a draft treaty protocol which, it became clear, stood no realistic chance of success because they failed to secure support for it. Nor is it clear that it would have dealt effectively with the existing situation. Not a single member state was willing to support the concept of a protocol.
"In the weeks since 2nd May we have taken this up with the Commission and other member states, including my talks with Commissioner Bonino on 20th May and concluding in Amsterdam this week. The Government's efforts have now secured a constructive outcome. In an exchange of letters
1258
between the Prime Minister and the President of the Commission, the Commission has set out measures which we can take requiring UK flagged vessels to demonstrate that their activities contribute substantial economic benefits for populations dependent on fishing and related industries in the United Kingdom. The UK now has a basis for imposing requirements on fishing vessels that they comply with provisions to land a specified proportion—we envisage some 50 per cent.—of their catch into UK ports, or have a majority of their crew resident in the UK, or commence a majority of their fishing trips from UK ports, or comply with a combination of measures. At present, many of these foreign owned vessels contribute little or nothing to the economy of our fishing communities. The new rules would change this and ensure benefits flow to our fishing communities and processors by requiring the vessels to demonstrate that substantial economic benefits are secured.
"We intend to introduce new licence rules to implement these measures as swiftly as possible. We shall be consulting the whole fishing industry about the new rules before asking the Commission to give a formal opinion on them. In this way, we can ensure that our rules are effective, sensitive to the interests of all affected by them, and also consistent with the various legal requirements.
"Without effective enforcement all our efforts to ensure the conservation of fish stocks are undermined. That is why the importance of enforcement has been the second major issue that we have pursued with the Commission. We have insisted that more must be done to ensure effective and consistent application of the rules. It is essential that wherever fishermen land their catches they must be subject to equivalent measures. The Commission are committed now to examining improvements in enforcement, including strengthened obligations on member states. They will also be looking at the role of Commission inspectors. They will report later this year to the Council with proposals as necessary. Meanwhile, we are ourselves taking steps to tighten various aspects of enforcement. I am announcing these in a separate written Statement to the House. They concern action to assist the Marine Safety Agency in ensuring that vessels and their crews are properly certified to comply with safety requirements and in addition steps to prevent evasion of quota rules and undermining of conservation objectives by discarding of fish already stowed on board.
"We have also obtained from the Commission assurances about the involvement of local fishing interests in the decision-making process and about the review and prospects for the common fisheries policy after 2002. The Commission has confirmed that key elements of the common fisheries policy are widely valued and that it considers it is unlikely that the fundamental principle of relative stability would be called into question, or that there would be a desire to modify present restrictions on access to waters inside

1259
member states' 12 mile limits. We will be building on these assurances during the future discussions about the common fisheries policies.
"In total, I consider that this is a valuable outcome. We have secured some very positive results concerning the application of economic links, as well as making constructive progress on a range of wider issues, all of which are central to the Government's approach to the common fisheries policy. Because we have agreed a way forward with the Commission, we are in a much better position to avoid legal challenge to the measures we adopt. And measures proposed by the Commission to the Fisheries Council would be agreed by qualified majority voting.
"There is much more to be done to put our fishing industry on a sound footing for the future. I now propose to take this forward urgently. With my colleagues responsible for fisheries in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I am inviting the leaders of the United Kingdom fishing industry for talks on the industry's future. The highest priority is to decide the way in which we implement rules to require the economic link.
"But there is a much wider agenda. We have to address the problems of enforcement, low stocks and overcapacity as well as looking at other possibilities for change in quota and licence management and the scope for more regional involvement. The Government want to develop a realistic strategy to create a viable future for our fishing industry over the years ahead. These talks will start the process. We shall ensure that the industry is directly and fully involved".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. It is always an enormous pleasure to listen to the noble Lord in the House. This was no exception.
Perhaps I may start with a question which fascinates me and, I know, many of my colleagues. Does the noble Lord believe that he will be taking this process forward post-Scottish devolution; will it be taken forward by Scotland independently, it being very largely a Scottish interest; will it be taken forward jointly; or will this process remain a United Kingdom, and therefore a Westminster Parliament, responsibility?
Straying back to the Statement for a moment, I cannot but say that, in my brief experience of listening from this side of the House to Statements, I have not heard a more fatuous and empty Statement taking longer to say nothing. This is a complete sell-out of the British fishing industry. What is the noble Lord doing in trying to maintain that what has been achieved is in any way binding on anyone? Certainly, it will not be binding on the Spanish, who have already expressed their opinion of it, and quite accurately too: nor will it be binding on the European Court of Justice—unless what we are seeing. which is what I expect, is a Statement which signifies precisely nothing.
1260
The noble Lord knows—and his party admitted it before the election—that to achieve anything significant on quota-hopping required treaty change. He will have been advised of that by his officials and doubtless they will have said the same thing to him today. Now we are asked to believe that a letter from the Commission is enough to see off the European Court of Justice. To quote the Statement:
"Because we have agreed a way forward with the Commission, we are in a much better position to avoid legal challenge to the measures we adopt".
What an astonishing leap forward in jurisprudence! The Commission is now sovereign over the European Court of Justice, and where it expresses an opinion, the ECJ will bow to it. I hope that this is not true. I am sure the noble Lord realises that there is very little substance in that statement.
What are the proposed measures: 50 per cent. landing in UK ports, majority UK crews and fishing to start from the United Kingdom. The noble Lord must realise that all those go straight to the basic questions addressed by the ECJ—restraint on trade and employment. We already have much of what is promised here extant in British arrangements and British law. We have gone as far as we were able to. We have taken it to the limit. How can the noble Lord contend that it is possible to take it further without running into severe problems with the ECJ? What the Government propose, if one takes it at face value, would be wonderful if it worked. But it will not.
The fishermen have gained nothing and there is nothing in the other parts of the Statement that represents progress. The Statement says that the Commission is committed now to examining improvements in enforcement. Where does the word "now" come from? If one reads the letter from M. Santer it is clear, first, that it is something the Commission has been looking at for a long time and, secondly, he explicitly in his letter makes no such promises. He just says, "We might think about it sometime. We might do something. We may". There are no promises. Nor are there promises about the involvement of local fishing interests. M. Santer says, "This is something we are thinking about". There are no promises to take it seriously or to reach any such conclusions.
The Statement says:
"The Commission has confirmed that key elements of the common fisheries policy are widely valued".
What the Commission has confirmed is that, as has previously been stated many times, it feels this. That is what it says in the letter. There is no justification for parading this as something new. All we are looking at is the old position of the Commission as we long knew it. All we are looking at is the old position of the European Court of Justice as we have long known it. There is nothing here for fishermen. There is nothing to make any advance in dealing with quota-hopping, which will remain and will increase.
The Government say that they will address these matters as swiftly as possible. I hope we see this quickly. I hope that by "as swiftly as possible" the

1261
Government mean this year and not perhaps the back end of next year, so that we will have an opportunity to see at an early stage just how little has been achieved.
The Statement also looks forward to 2002 and to the changes that will take place then. Will the noble Lord confirm that the basic, fundamental position in 2002 is that all derogations from the underlying legislation will end? As doubtless the noble Lord knows, we will then go back to Council Regulation 101/76, under which there is no common fisheries policy, no derogations which will allow six and 12-mile limits, quotas and licences will be settled by Europe and the Spaniards will have the right to fish up to the British shores. There is nothing in that basic regulation to protect us. It is all a matter of negotiation and the starting position is one which reflects the importance of local fishing communities.
Fishing communities as such are what we have been trading away with the quota hoppers. Quota hoppers as they exist now, be they Spanish or Dutch, will be part of the Spanish and Dutch interests in 2002. If we go ahead with the MAGP and reduce our fleet by a further 30 per cent.—presumably mostly our boats, because who will compel quota-hoppers to decommission theirs?—we will be left in 2002 with our basic position being that we have rights to half the fish that we fish at the moment, half the fish that we regard as ours under our quotas.
That is the position the Government have landed us in by not taking the matter of quota-hopping seriously and by not obtaining the treaty changes to which we had committed ourselves had we remained in power. That is the position from which the Government will have to fight back. I shall be fascinated to know whether the noble Lord has any proposals as to how they will do it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, if I had wholly disapproved of the Statement and was totally against the Government, the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would have reversed my view completely in favour of the Government and the Statement. I have never heard such extraordinary arrogance from a Government—a former Government, thank heavens—who have led the fishing community into the position in which it finds itself.
I thank the noble Lord the Minister for repeating the Statement. I think it offers some hope. I, too, read the letters between the Prime Minister and the head of the Commission. I thought that there was a great improvement in relations, which one needs before one can make progress. We all know the problems of quota hopping and we know why they arose. It was because full advantage was not taken of our decommissioning policy. We did not take advantage of the European regulations to buy out the quotas and the ships at a decent price so the equipment was sold. Some progress has already been made in this Statement.
However, it will be difficult. Three issues are set out; namely, the landing of 50 per cent. of the catch in the flag state, employing the majority of the crew in the flag state and commencing the majority of trips from flag state ports. That will help. It will be difficult, but it will
1262
be useful. It is true that British fishermen land their fish abroad and they may be less keen on more fish being landed here while the processors might welcome it. Nevertheless, there are possibilities. The co-operation of the Commission in this area does offer hope.
I was heartened by the fact that the Statement looks forward to the year 2002 when something more radical might well be done. The problems are great. Enforcement has been a problem from the start. The degree of enforcement in this country is much greater than it is in Spain relative to the size of the fleet, yet even in this country "black fish" are being landed at the ports and merchants admit buying that fish. So even in this country we need better enforcement, and certainly it is needed in Spain and elsewhere. If the Government can persuade the Commission to concentrate on enforcement that of itself will be a great help.
The Government must tackle the problem of discards. The Norwegians have shown the way forward on that and there is no reason why we should not do so in Britain and in the European fisheries policy. I also hope that the Government will concentrate very much on co-operation with fishermen on any measures for the future, particularly as concerns research because there is always a conflict between fishermen and scientists. If they get together more and information from all over Europe is properly pooled and researched, then fishermen will be much more inclined to accept the fact that the stock of fish is limited even though they may be getting good catches at the time. That is also an important point.
I would like to hear the Government's views on this matter. The Government should be looking forward to operating properly a decommissioning policy, which will include buying out the quota because at the end of the day, such are the skills and methods available, that there is no question but there will have to be fewer fishermen and ships fishing for the same amount of fish. That will involve buying out people who are fishing now. That is a policy which has been advocated in agriculture and there is no reason why it should not apply to fishing. There will be fewer fish and there are far better methods of catching and finding fish. Therefore, we need a policy to satisfy those who want to leave the industry. I hope that the Government will pursue their efforts to co-operate with the Commission in solving the problem.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite for their comments. As regards what the noble Lord said about our policies being fatuous and empty, I believe that it is fair and modest to say that we have achieved more in six weeks than the previous government achieved in 17 years. What has been announced constitutes good progress. It is far from the end of the line of achievements that we wish to attain, but it is a solid step forward. The establishment of the economic link between fishing and the fishing community is very important. It is what noble Lords opposite in the previous Administration were seeking in their ill-fated protocol. What we are

1263
proposing in terms of enforcement is, as the noble Lord said, considerable progress. What we are proposing relates both to the national front and the European front.
My right honourable friend has announced today three further measures to tighten enforcement, including especially the question of discards. The Commission is now committed to looking at achieving better, harmonised enforcement on the Continent, particularly imposing stronger obligations on the member states and strengthening the use of the inspectorate. Therefore, perhaps tomorrow morning, when the noble Lord reads what he said, he may think that he could have expressed his view better than describing what we have done as empty and fatuous.
As regards the legal aspects, we all know that there are legal problems. They are not as great as the political problems that the previous Administration had when their proposed protocol did not have the support of a single member state and had not a cat in hell's chance of going through. We have the statement of the President of the Commission concerning his interpretation of the legal position and what is possible under the law. That is significant and practical progress. It gives us a reasonable chance of avoiding legal confrontation.
Quota hoppers exist in other countries, but for us the acuteness of the problem derives from the failures of the previous government and their one-time belief in the working of the free market. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, for his kind remarks, for his comments on the arrogance of the party opposite and for recognising the progress that we have made. I shall look again at what he said about decommissioning, which we know is a very important question. I shall also look at what he said about the way forward. We shall indeed be working towards the year 2002 and hoping to make further progress then. Certainly, we shall be working with the fishermen. My right honourable friend has announced immediate meetings with the fishing industry and we propose to go forward with those. I was not personally aware of the problem with scientists, but one always learns, especially from the noble Lord. I agree with him that the key is enforcement, and that is at the centre of what we have announced today both in what we propose to do and in what we believe is now the commitment of the Commission.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down will he answer the question that my noble friend asked about the position in Scotland and Wales? The noble Lord and his colleagues have been negotiating in Europe on behalf of the whole of the United Kingdom and for the fishermen of Scotland, England and Wales. If, after devolution, these responsibilities are devolved to the parliament or assembly in Scotland and Wales, who will speak for them and to whom will that person be accountable: a Scottish parliament or the Westminster Parliament?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, this area of policy will be a national one for some time to come. When we deal
1264
with devolution our proposals on this front will be set out in the White Paper and noble Lords opposite will have many opportunities to discuss them.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, it is a little confusing to have two separate Statements on what is virtually the same subject. That caused me inadvertently to put my question to the Lord Privy Seal a minute or two ago. If I had heard the Statement on agriculture separately my view as to what was happening would have been slightly different. All that I can do now that I have heard it is to wish the Government well in being able to achieve what the Statement said that they hoped to achieve, but it is only a hope.
The noble Lord has just said that what the Government have done in six weeks has been quite amazing. However, as regards the fishermen, precisely nothing has been done in those six weeks. The arrangements under which the Government can renegotiate are exactly now as they were before. It is when the Government have amended those arrangements and can bring to fruition all of the hopes and aspirations that were mentioned in the last Statement that one can start to be pleased about it.
The first Statement made it clear to the House that some improvement had been made which could be recognised and identified. However, there was no evidence in that Statement that the inclusion of that sentence could be justified. The second Statement put things on a slightly different plane. The Government have said that they recognise the dangers and the criticisms that I have made and that they hope to do something about it. They have laid much stress on an exchange of letters which commits nobody to anything. Until those letters have been used in a constructive way that produces results we are entitled to continue to be worried about the rough deal under which our fishing industry has to live at the moment.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. What he said was constructive and I have a lot of sympathy with it. The noble Lord said that he had been confused. Perhaps I may advise him that I have become very familiar with that state of mind in the past six weeks. I know exactly what it is like.
As regards a separate Statement, I am sure that the noble Lord understands that this agreement is not central to the IGC. It took the form of an exchange of letters with the President and, as such, it seemed appropriate to deal with it separately. It is also a complex matter and would not have been appropriate for inclusion in a Statement which was very much centred on other matters.
The noble Lord is absolutely right. There is still much more to be done. The noble Lord is right to be concerned and we share that concern. We shall try to meet those concerns and to achieve more.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I am sorry, I should have said "the noble Lord opposite", but I hope that I still regard the noble Lord as a friend—that he is now making the same sort of noises which my noble friend Lord Lucas made when he occupied that position? It is interesting, however, that my noble friend Lord Lucas is, in effect, a sinner reformed. He hath repenteth. Surely in this

1265
agreement there has been no addressing of the problems of the basic faults of the common fisheries policy, including the appalling discard rate, which the Norwegians and the Canadians can cut by 95 per cent; and there has been no change in the regulations on cod ends or landings of discards.
What has happened is that there has been an exchange of letters. That is exactly the same as me writing to the noble Lord stating, "Dear Lord Donoughue, we do not mind you speeding down the Guildford bypass and we shall ignore it", but a court will say that that is totally unlawful. It is certain that the Spaniards and the Dutch, who have at least 50 per cent. of the quota-hopping vessels, will go to the European Court and say, "Okay, Mr. Blair has written to M. Santer and they have come to an agreement", but that would be outside the treaty, and if something is outside the treaty, whatever Mr. Blair and M. Santer write to each other will not make a ha'p'orth of difference. That is what has gone wrong in this agreement. We have not addressed the basic faults of the common fisheries policy. The Namibians, the Canadians and the Norwegians all run much better fisheries policies. All that we have done is to write letters, hoping to avoid a problem.
I absolutely accept that what the Government want to do represents a major advance, but what they will actually achieve is not worth the paper that the letters have been written on. It is a great advantage that my noble friend Lord Lucas is a sinner who hath repenteth, but the Government have not advanced one jot or tittle from where we were last April.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I have particular sympathy for sinners, whether or not they have repented. However, I believe that the noble Earl is wrong to dismiss the letters out of hand. An exchange of letters between the British Prime Minister and the President of the Commission is not like an exchange of letters between the noble Earl and myself. I cannot think of the parallel, but on the Kingston bypass the chief constable of Surrey might be more appropriate. The President of the Commission is not an ordinary citizen. He and the Commission are the guardians of the treaties and the law of the European Union. A commitment from the President and the Commission has much greater significance.
We have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Earl says about the faults of the common fisheries policy. However, it was the previous Administration who negotiated that common fisheries policy. They have missed every opportunity to improve it since. We have to live with what we inherited. However, we shall bear in mind what the noble Earl said and shall do our best to attempt to correct some of the policy's obvious and undisputed failings.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, when the noble Lord repeated the Statement he mentioned as one considerable gain the fact that there was now economic linkage and that the quota hoppers would be required to land in the order of 50 per cent. of
1266
their catch in British ports. That is not new. I have here a fishing licence which is dated 1993, the conditions of which specifically state that,
"In each 6 month period … at least 50 per cent. by weight of the total landings of all stocks",
should be landed at British ports. That licence is out of date by four years, so even the miracle workers of this Government can hardly claim to have achieved something that was not in place before. I wonder, therefore, whether some of the other things for which the Government are now claiming credit are as hollow. Perhaps the noble Lord can reassure us on that point.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord. That was, indeed, a condition in the previous licence, but we have built on and extended that. The noble Lord has given one condition, but an alternative requirement was that a foreign quota-hopping boat could call at a British port four times in six months and that would be all right. We have now stitched together a series of conditions going far beyond that. Together, they constitute a link between fishing, the fishing communities and their economic health. The condition is now 50 per cent. of landings with no evasion through dropping in at a port a few times every six months, or 50 per cent. of crew being resident in the UK, or 50 per cent. of the fishing trips originating in British ports. Those conditions are much more significant and go much wider than the condition quoted by the noble Lord. That was, indeed, the case previously but we have built heavily on it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I find that answer particularly interesting, but the fact remains that the licence conditions to date included 50 per cent. by weight, with the second criterion being that,
"evidence is provided of the vessel's presence in ports [in this country] on at least 4 occasions of at least 8 hours duration".
With the best will in the world—and I really mean that because I am hugely interested in the wellbeing of the fishing industry and this has been a very difficult problem which is, I suspect, much more difficult than the noble Lord yet appreciates—I do not see that the conditions that are laid out in the letter to the President of the Commission are significantly different from those already contained in British fishing licences. I must ask the noble Lord to check the conditions in those licences at present and to check on the straightforward fact that the problem has arisen not because of the Commission's involvement, but because the European Court has clearly stated that the treaty overrides the common fisheries policy. That is the central problem and until we get the Commission and the other member states to agree to a change of policy, I am afraid that there will be another Spanish quota hopper in here tomorrow.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, indeed Spanish quota hoppers can come in given the existing situation. The noble Lord has read from the licence conditions to which I have referred. It is true that they referred to a 50 per cent. catch or eight hours or four visits within six months. But I believe that that is a much slimmer condition than that which we are applying. He is quite right that in the end we must see what happens in the

1267
European Court. It is our view that the assurances given by the President of the Commission as to his interpretation of the legal position represent progress on what we had before, because there was no prospect at all of the approach through the protocol being passed.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I understand the motive behind the new condition that 50 per cent. of crews should be from the flag country. However, does the Minister see any possible conflict between that and the priority at the IGC to achieve a more flexible labour market in Europe?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, no. What we have proposed is fairly flexible. One of the reasons is not to conflict with those requirements of flexibility and impose inflexible constraints on our fishermen who may wish, flexibly, to fish abroad.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is not the reality that the Government faced an extremely difficult problem when they came into office and had to deal with this issue? Most of us recognise that the idea that this problem can be solved in six weeks is nonsensical. Many of us congratulate the Government on what has so far been achieved, recognising that a great deal more must be done?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what in my view is a totally accurate and helpful description of the situation. We have not attempted to oversell it. The Statement says quite specifically that what we have done is a valuable step forward, but there is very much more to do.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether his discussions with the Commissioner, with which he is so well pleased, or the exchange of letters included The Hague preference which gives Northern Ireland fishermen great concern as it allows the Irish to have quotas that they do not even fish? If they did include The Hague preference, what was the outcome; if not, when does the Minister intend to raise the issue?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I confess that in my mind the name "Hague" is otherwise associated. As I recall, it does not refer to that matter. My impression is that it makes no change in the Northern Irish situation. However, as before, we shall continue the stream of letters to the noble Baroness.

Industry: Competitiveness
5.13 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, when the Lord Privy Seal began to repeat the first Statement—about a couple of years ago it seems to me—he apologised to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for interrupting his debate. With
1268
respect to the noble Lord, I consider that a little odd. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, had finished speaking. I have been sitting here for some time and have become increasingly confused by the Statements and their effect on what I might wish to say. All I can do now is to keep my fingers crossed that I do not commit some solecism and that the optimism that was clearly shown by the Lord Privy Seal's right honourable friend will be justified by the facts and what happens to business as a result of what he hopes will be achieved in the coming years.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for having introduced this debate, which is very timely. It comes at a time when the former Conservative Government have handed over the British economy to Labour in a most excellent condition. Of course, it is not so excellent that no further improvement is called for. The means of improvement have been highlighted today in the speech of the noble Lord, although he spent a good deal of time going back into the past. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is particularly eligible to speak on this subject. He has the highest credentials as a past Director General of Fair Trading and a lifelong student of consumer affairs and consumer law.
However well the economy is doing we must strive to do better. No doubt during the course of the debate many noble Lords, some of them with experience of what was achieved during the course of the previous Government, will be able to give the new Ministry some worthwhile advice. During the election, and before, repeated but unjustifiable claims were made by Labour politicians that the Conservatives had somehow damaged, if not destroyed, Britain's industrial base. The past 18 years have been a period in which the British economy has moved an immense distance from the position where the previous Labour Government had to apply for help from the International Monetary Fund. The competitiveness of the British economy was transformed beyond recognition under the Conservative Governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major.
On entering office this Government have inherited the most favourable economic climate for more than a generation. Labour is again in power but at a time when everything is working economically in its favour, unlike the world it left behind it in 1979. Inflation is low and under control. It has been below 4 per cent. for over four years—the longest period of low inflation for half a century. The former Government's target of getting inflation down to 2.5 per cent. or less was achieved. Unemployment at 5.8 per cent., although obviously still much too high, is at its lowest level for seven years and is well below the European Union average. Britain is top of the inward investment league, winning about one third of all inward investment into the European Union. There can be few clearer illustrations of a country's competitiveness than the amount of inward investment that it attracts. The billions of pounds invested in Britain by thousands of foreign companies give an indisputable concrete demonstration of the position that Britain holds in the world today.
I give some facts on which to base this argument. The Economist Intelligence Unit reported in May that Britain had the second most favourable business environment in

1269
the world ahead of Singapore, the United States, Japan, Germany, Switzerland and New Zealand and behind only Hong Kong, although it expressed some fear that Hong Kong might not for long be in the lead. However, it did not suggest that this country would go to the top. In March of this year the International Institute of Management Development reported that the United Kingdom had jumped from 19th to 12th in the world competitiveness league, moving ahead of Germany and becoming the highest European G7 member. The UK has had the strongest growth of any EU economy since 1992. It exports more per head than Japan. It is Europe's largest exporter of televisions and computers, and one third of the small businesses started in Europe start in Britain.
This has not come by chance. It has needed hard work and a clear and coherent policy. Incidentally, I wonder what the figures would have been, and may be in the future, if Scotland and Wales were untimely ripped from their mother's womb.
The Conservative Party has made it clear that it will offer nothing but constructive opposition to the Government's programme. Where their policies have a positive impact we will give them our support. Indeed, many of them look very familiar. I am reminded of the advice given to Neil Kinnock before the 1992 election to ignore traditional Labour policies and traditional Labour voters, who would never vote for another party. The adviser said that he should go for the middle class waverers and middle class policies. In that way he could win. Kinnock ignored that advice; Blair did not. What happened?
Nevertheless, there are certain areas of Labour policy which pose a threat to our nation's competitiveness. These have been much talked about but they seem a potential incubus on enterprise. The agenda is already familiar: a national minimum wage, the European social and employment chapters and, something that makes me particularly shudder—new powers for trade unions.
In a debate in this House last week, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pointed out that these policies were what the electorate had massively voted for on 1st May. That is true, but I wonder whether many of the electorate, in their clear wish for a change, really understood what they were laying themselves open to.
Of those policies I shall speak of the trade unions first since I suffered the most bitter personal experiences in the 1970s and very early 1980s. Those were the times when 29 million working days a year were lost through strikes. I do not think that the unions were then particularly pro-Labour or anti-Tory. On the Daily Telegraph we suffered the most convoluted and tongue-in-cheek attempts to get round the regulations on wage restraint introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Castle. The unions were shameless. The print unions and their members were all that mattered. The country and everyone else could go hang.
At that time my wife had a horse called Union Card, by Good Bond out of Season Ticket. I thought it was rather well named. Having benefited from its success, the National Graphical Association's Imperial Chapel in the composing room gave me a union card of my own. It was a good joke, but what was not a joke was the
1270
large, conspicuous monogram on the reverse which in normal hands showed that the owner had not opted out of the political levy. At that time whenever the card had to be shown at a meeting the member's financial support for the Labour Party—the party which later opposed all proposals for trade union reform—could be seen, and the absence of the logo showed the courage of those few who did opt out.
The Conservative Government in 1993 undertook reforms which made the payment of a political levy by the workforce more equitable. Today's debate is particularly timely as it is reported in The Times this morning that Mr. Ian McCartney, the Minister for Trade and Industry, has said that the Government are to introduce legislation to make it easy for the trades unions to exact payments from the workforces. That again makes me shudder.
Times have undoubtedly changed. We have many worker/shareholders who have a broader understanding of investment and business problems, but the policies of the late 1990s are suspiciously like the facts of the 1970s. For instance, we have proposals in the manifesto for compulsory union recognition with new rights for strikers. I have no comment on the rights or wrongs in the current dispute on what was Southern Railways, but, already, here we go again.
There is wide agreement that a minimum wage will destroy jobs. The chairman of the Low Pay Commission, Professor George Bain, has admitted this in an article in The Times this month, when he surprisingly added that some jobs would be better lost anyway. Which jobs? Part time women workers supplementing their husband's incomes? First jobs for the young? Jobs held by those re-entering employment after a period on the dole? These are the categories of the workforce on the lower rates of pay, but they usefully allow flexible working patterns or a first job where new skills can be acquired.
Apart from job losses we will be forced back to one of the most dreaded of the trade union cries, "differentials". No union official and few workmen will accept a rise of a pound or more for the lowest paid without the more skilled workers' differentials above that rate being maintained with an increase of a pound plus being demanded. It is not necessary to underline what this will do for inflation. The DTI calculated last year that a minimum wage of £4.15 an hour, with a 50 per cent. restoration of differentials, which I believe to be optimistic, would destroy a million jobs. I hope that it is wrong.
Labour's commitment to sign up to the social chapter is another blow to Britain's hard won competitiveness. The two pieces of legislation which have been passed already on works councils and parental leave are not benign. The DTI has calculated that the parental leave directive would cost industry £200 million a year.
A great deal of legislation can be passed under the social chapter by QMV. As I say, I have not studied the recent Statement so I am not clear as to the degree to which that is possible. The Prime Minister cannot pick and choose. He has no veto. What he can do is not sign up for the social chapter in the first place. Let us do

1271
what a Cabinet Minister is alleged to have done when taking the Oath in another place: keep our fingers crossed.
The Labour Government's determination to ape the ailing European social model by handing over employment to Brussels, a policy which is destroying jobs throughout the Continent, seems bizarre. If we sign up to the employment chapter, Brussels is where job policies will be made—made on the basis of qualified majority voting. Here, no individual EU member can veto a proposal. New measures to be brought forward under the employment chapter would have to be approved by QMV and, almost worst of all, we would adopt a "co-ordinated strategy for employment" which requires member states,
"to regard promoting employment as a matter of common concern."
What is this? Compulsory job sharing with the rest of Europe? It looks like it.
Padraig Flynn, EU Social Affairs Commissioner, has announced that the Commission is to press ahead with legislation to require small and medium-sized companies to introduce bureaucratic works councils (bureaucratic? Ha!) with a right to impose sanctions on those who do not consult adequately. Flynn is also suggesting a reversal of the burden of proof in sex discrimination cases. Employers will be guilty until proved innocent. But all that, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, told your Lordships, is what the electorate voted for. In the words of Lord Walpole:
"they now ring the bells, but they will soon wring their hands".
There are worrying signs that the Commission is failing to honour the legally enshrined principle of subsidiarity—the principle whose prominence is yet another testimony to the previous Government's negotiating success in Europe. Do not let us lose it.
All of this is immensely depressing: depressing, because the British economy is undoubtedly now leaner and fitter than at any time in recent memory. Businesses in Britain now enjoy an excellent climate of low inflation, low taxation, minimum social costs and a flexible labour market. These were not gained easily and we must continue to look at ways in which we can improve, for improve we still must.
One lesson that has been learnt is that there is no "quick fix". If in this debate we can underline the problems which appear likely to arise as a result of the Government's plans and urge the Prime Minister and his colleagues to look very carefully at proposals which seem suspiciously like the old Labour which we have all been told is now dead, we have a chance.
The Government must concentrate on ways of reducing, not increasing, burdens on business. Until they do so, they cannot expect their competitiveness agenda to be taken seriously.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, pointed out, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is to be congratulated on introducing this subject for debate today, particularly at this early stage in the life
1272
of the new Government. This is, after all, a crucial issue upon which the objective of sustainable growth, to which all parties are committed, depends. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, was right in saying that the previous Government had indeed devoted a great deal of attention to the subject, and many White Papers and interesting documents were produced. What we must discuss today are the policies which will be pursued by the present Government.
I believe that this is an occasion, at this seminal period in our post-war history, with a new government with a substantial majority, when we should be considering the role of government in relation to industry. I have in my career served in an industrial capacity throughout the whole of the post-war period. To start with it was in a nationalised industry, and, subsequently, in the private sector. I have been much involved in and concerned with government policy towards industry. The Attlee Government of 1945 introduced what was patently an interventionist policy. They introduced nationalisation of the basic industries, and interventionism spread into other sectors. That was felt at the time to be a desirable policy. My one worry about that policy, having served in a nationalised industry, was that that process of intervention in fact contradicted what was the understanding in setting up the nationalised industries on the Morrisonian principle, that they should be operated at arm's length. In fact that was never so—not under Labour governments or Conservative governments. To my mind, the concept of nationalisation was not defective in itself but in the way in which governments constantly intervened.
That period of intervention in industry was pursued in varying degrees, according to the nature of the Government, right up to the end of the 1970s. As we well know, after that there was a total change of direction when, through the privatisation and deregulation programmes, there was a progressive move on the part of government to disengage and to leave things to market forces. Indeed, many believe that the proper role of government is to keep in the background, to concern themselves only with basic macro-economic matters and to leave things to take charge of themselves. The young Mr. Hague at the age of 16 made his debut in the Conservative Party by making an impassioned speech asking for the Government to withdraw from our lives.
However, I do not believe that at present either the policies of direct and constant intervention or of disengagement are appropriate. I would like to believe that at this late stage in the 20th century we are entering a new phase in which government should act as a stimulator. I would like to indicate where in relation to the subject of our debate the Government should stimulate.
First, we must deal with the question of the basic framework within which industry must operate. There are a number of main areas in which any government must set the scene. Without question, in terms of macro-economic policy, the first is inflation. The Government have moved with commendable speed to introduce a system of controlling inflation which will remove it from political intervention. By giving greater

1273
operational independence to the Bank of England, the Government have done word for word what was contained in the CBI document issued in July 1996 entitled Prospering in the Global Economy. It strongly recommended that it should be the role of government to set an inflation target and for the bank to be accountable for its delivery. It indicated that in countries in which there was such an independent operational role for the central banks inflation had been kept under better control.
The test of whether that system works will come when inflationary pressures generally begin to manifest themselves. We are living in a period in which not only in the UK but in all the other countries of the EU inflation has been kept at a very low level. Therefore, we must ask how the system which has now been introduced will act when circumstances and pressures change. At any rate, what has been put in place appears to be eminently sensible, certainly to the CBI and many others.
The containment of public expenditure, which ran out of control in recent years, but more recently came under control, is another essential issue. Undoubtedly, it is part of the role of government. There certainly should be a commitment to keep public expenditure below 40 per cent. of GDP. There is every indication that it could fall below that, but it must be maintained at below that level. The borrowing requirement should be kept within, and below if possible, the Maastricht limit of 3 per cent.
Within those limits of public expenditure there must be prioritisation. I am pleased that the Government have moved to introduce a comprehensive expenditure review, which we discussed last week and which I hope will identify not only the areas in which savings can be made but also the areas which require increased expenditure and where efforts must be found to fund the increased requirements.
Thirdly, there is the issue of currency stability. Sterling is riding high and at one time that was believed to be a good thing. In practice, it is very difficult for many enterprises. Today we have seen the financial results of British Steel, one of our most successful enterprises. In spite of all it has done to improve its efficiency, because it exports so much of its product it has lost out as a result of the high level of sterling.
I was a Member of the Select Committee on Overseas Trade, presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, in 1985. One of the steps we took in looking at ways in which trade and therefore industry could be promoted was to ask business respondents we interviewed for their views on currency. The first comment they made was that they would like to have a stable currency. We went a bit further and asked, "What do you think the relationship between sterling and the other main currencies should be?". They told us—and it was the common view—that in the case of the dollar it should be 1.5 dollars to the pound and in the case of the deutchsmark it should be 2.5. I believe that those views are as relevant today as they were 12 years ago. Unfortunately, we have the dollar at 1.64 and the deutchmark at 2.85.
1274
It is difficult to control levels of currency in a free-moving area where there are floating currencies. The problem that we must face—and I hope that the Government will be considering it—is that if the single currency were to be introduced at the scheduled time and if the UK were not to be in the first wave, we must think seriously about our relationship with that currency. There could be the risk that sterling could be regarded as a refuge for currencies escaping from the single currency if it were potentially weak, and our currency could go sky-high. The reverse could also be the case. We must be thinking of ways in which we can protect the currency against that kind of major fluctuation.
There is also the issue of competition policy. I shall not deal much with that because the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, one of our leading experts on the subject, spoke wisely on it.
Finally, I hope that we shall soon see some draft legislation. I wish to speak briefly about investment, which undoubtedly must be stimulated. The trouble with the British economy is that in times of boom that boom has tended to be based on increased consumption expenditure and our investment has tended to lag. That is already happening on this occasion, boosted by the windfalls from the building societies.
I hope that we will be able to describe the forthcoming Budget as one for investment and for rebalancing the ways in which we use our resources. We must create the right investment in industry, in essential parts of the public sector and, above all, in skills training. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, was kind enough to refer to my remarks about the skills shortages which are already emerging. I know that my noble friend Lord Thurso will be developing that issue. If the forthcoming Budget deals with these issues of macro-economic policy, we can look forward to the maintenance of the positive economic conditions under which we presently operate and to which the previous government contributed.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Borrie not only for introducing this rather timely debate but also for recognising that academics are badly paid. I can entirely support his judgment on that. I congratulate also the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. It is the first time that I have seen him on the Front Bench and I congratulate him on a very fine performance. He promoted my honourable friend Mr. Tony Banks to a Cabinet position, which will no doubt please us all.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the minimum wage. I was not going to speak about that, and some of the things which the noble Lord said were no doubt well taken. If one takes a static view of the economy, a minimum wage set too high would cause a loss of jobs. I teach that to first-year undergraduates and I have no problem with that. But in a dynamic economy other effects should be considered. For example, the most dynamic economy in the world today is that of the United States and the United States has a minimum wage and has had a tremendous growth in employment.

1275
There is a lot of work being undertaken in this area at present, but academic evidence is divided because it is extremely difficult to take into account all the other factors. The United States has a minimum wage which is roughly 40 per cent. of average earnings and yet it still has growing employment. I do not deny that a high minimum wage may cause unemployment but other factors should also be considered when looking at the problem of a minimum wage. I shall say nothing more about that.
Moreover, I shall not go down the path followed by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, as regards the macro-economic framework for competitiveness. I wish to take up the point of how we define, interpret and understand competitiveness. There are a number of points to be made. A major characteristic of economic policy in Britain—at least post-war policy—is that different governments tried to find the holy grail of competitiveness or economic efficiency. Once upon a time we believed that nationalised industries, large-scale industries, were efficient. Then when the Conservative Government came to power in 1951 they introduced what they understood to be laissez faire. There is a difference between competition and laissez-faire. When the Wilson Government came to power, they believed that we were not performing to our best ability because British firms were too small and that scale was very important. Therefore, there were mergers and large corporations were built up. That Government believed that largeness by itself would make us competitive with the United States and we went down the path of the IRC. The Heath Government went back to competition and Selsdon man. After that, we had deregulation, and so on.
Partly, different strategies work at different times. But also in a sense my worry is that we are always looking for one particular definition, structure, theory of competitiveness which often is based on economic thinking that is slightly out of date. Moreover, it is often static. A lot of work is currently being done in that area and my noble friend Lord Currie is better qualified to speak about that than I am. But economists have had a problem with defining competitiveness. I shall not bore noble Lords with the various exegeses of the literature, but, by and large, we think of monopoly and competition in terms of the numbers of competitors and the level of concentration; and that is extremely static.
What works—and I do not know why it works—is to have an economy in which a sufficient number of innovating firms make sufficient profits to keep a dynamic economy going. Let us look again at the United States. About 15 years ago people were saying that the US would lose its economic power with its low productivity and all sorts of other problems. Professor Paul Kennedy wrote a book about it. Look at the United States now. It is the most dynamic economy in the world. I am not saying that this is the only answer, but there are firms in the United States which are innovative and which have the ability to borrow venture capital and break through established markets. Size does not matter. Microsoft, which was a very small company, practically broke IBM, which was an extremely large company. If
1276
we had looked only at size and concentration, we should have thought that IBM was a big, bad beast and poor Microsoft would be crushed by it. But innovation was very important.
We should create a climate for innovation. I return to what my noble friend Lord Borrie said. We have not appreciated fully the important role of basic research in universities which eventually feeds into industrial innovation. I know that tomorrow we shall discuss a report on that topic. Unfortunately, I cannot take part in the debate due to another engagement. But we should think positively about restoring the research base of engineering, science and technology. That may give us the opportunity to get back into an innovative framework.
What really matters is what makes an economy dynamically efficient. One factor must be innovation. Secondly, we should think about competitiveness of the economy and not just industry. Far too often we become hung up on the manufacturing industry. I have nothing against the manufacturing industry but there is a tendency to have a misplaced concreteness in our minds so that if there is not anything solid coming out at the end of the process, we are deeply suspicious. We feel uncomfortable if we see people making profits and nothing concrete is being produced. But that is not the way an economy works.
For example, in the British economy, one of the paradoxes is that the service sector is and has been much more profitable. The rate of return in the service industry is substantially higher than it is in manufacturing. We should ask ourselves why that is. Is it because the service sector is easier to enter and it is easier to borrow money because the commitments may be only short term. In a number of sectors—fashion, design, pop music—Britain has an extremely innovatory economy. If we think of the innovations that we have in pop music, design or fashion, we can see that Britain is a world leader. We should try to understand why those sectors are so successful and learn from them.
As we advance, the economy will not be frozen into the old structure of making solid things and nothing else. Not only shall we not be able to make solid things because there is fierce competition from, for example, east Asia, where highly skilled people can make those products much better than we can make them. It is also partly because products and processes are changing so that what people buy nowadays is not a solid product but an abstract one. People pay a great deal more for design, advertising or promotion than for the solid, material things.
Let us think of when you buy a pair of Nike trainers. You are not merely buying the material which goes into making the shoe but buying the design. Indeed, you are buying fashion, design and endorsement. It turns out that in the production cost of a pair of those shoes labour costs represent only 10 per cent. That is not surprising because anyone can make a pair of shoes once its computer design has been sent over the network from here to China, Thailand or wherever the shoes are being made. Making the shoes is no longer the trick; designing them in a way so that sophisticated consumers buy them is the source of profitability.

1277
If we are to make our economy more competitive, we must understand that encouraging schools of design and fashion is as important as old-fashioned engineering or technology. Indeed, very often that is the leading edge of competitiveness in the world economy today. We must ensure that we do not get into a single solution mentality again. We must also avoid a single sector obsession—manufacturing and nothing else. It must be made quite clear that, whatever we do, the most difficult thing is to change what we have started. As the world economy evolves, any solution that we have today will become out of date within a very short time. Therefore, flexibility in our policy-making and in our thinking is as important as flexibility in labour markets.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on his introduction of this important debate. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Burnham on his elevation to the Opposition Front Bench.
Efforts to improve Britain's industrial efficiency will fail unless safety and health are placed near the top of today's business agenda. Doubtless there are those who disagree arguing that, desirable though they may be for social reasons, health and safety measures serve only to increase costs and to stifle innovation. After all, they say, does not safety just "get in the way", and is not "risk taking" at the very heart of competition and business decision-making? Those are views which many of us will have heard from time to time. They are ones that I personally encountered in business long before I became president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, an interest that I now declare.
While it is often said that Britain, in comparison with many other developed countries, has a very good health and safety at work record, there can be no room for complacency. Thankfully, due to consistent preventive work, there are now relatively few accidental deaths in workplaces. However, about one in 12 workers every year will suffer some kind of injury while at work. Death early in retirement, due to work related health damage, is still a massive problem in this country. Exposure to asbestos alone is estimated to cause up to 6,000 deaths a year, and that figure is set to rise beyond the millennium.
The human cost, including the impact on families, is massive. For that reason alone, as a civilised nation, we should take effective action to protect people who contribute towards building our national wealth. But there is also a powerful economic reason why we should take action, and that is because accidents—and ill health caused through work—damage individual businesses and our entire national economy.
The Health and Safety Executive has calculated that workplace accidents and ill health are costing Britain up to £16 billion annually—nearly 3 per cent. of our GDP. That is equivalent to one average year's economic growth being thrown away, in the main, as a result of failure to put safety first. But government expenditure in 1996–97 on the Health and Safety Commission and
1278
Executive is surprisingly modest at some £178 million, representing less than 2 per cent. of the cost of accidents and workplace ill health to UK plc.
Only last week, Frank Davies, Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, warned companies, saying:
"Dealing with the causes of accidental losses is not an unnecessary overhead—failure to do so will eat into the profitability of a company".
The publication that he was relaunching, The Cost of Accidents, highlights major events such as the "Piper Alpha" explosion which cost 167 lives and £2 billion; and the 1987 BP oil fire, in which only one life was lost, but which cost BP £100 million. The same publication shows that for every pound of accident costs which companies recover through insurance, between £8 and £36 are lost, never to be recovered.
In smaller businesses, injury to a key employee, or a major accident causing business interruption, can quite literally spell the end of that firm. By contrast, action to build the existing management systems benefits efficiency, stimulates innovation, and boosts staff involvement and morale.
Despite the great strengths of Britain's occupational health and safety regime, further action is still urgently needed to improve the management of work-related risks. I will focus on just three specific issues to illustrate this point. First, stress at work is estimated by the Industrial Society to be costing Britain £13 billion every year, and is possibly the biggest single cause of absenteeism. The solutions are not difficult. Good practice guidance has been produced by the HSE, and others, to show businesses how to identify symptoms and root causes, and how to tackle stress problems at source. Very often, that can be done simply by adopting straightforward and low-cost changes to management practice. But such action will not happen on a wide scale without sustained high level publicity and practical support to business.
Secondly, there is the need for organisations to adopt a modern risk management approach to reduce what RoSPA has termed "occupational road risk"—that is, the risk of accidents faced by those who have to drive as part of their job. Available evidence suggests that deaths of drivers, passengers and other road users in accidents, involving vehicles being driven for business reasons, probably account for up to a quarter of the 3,500 fatalities occurring on Britain's roads every year. That is at least double the number of fatalities occurring in all other kinds of work-related accidents.
Risk levels are really quite high. For higher mileage business car drivers, the risk of being killed, in effect while they are working, is as high as in coal mining. An estimated 77,000 people every year sustain injury due to an accident while driving for business reasons. Action is needed to persuade employers to adopt a modern risk management approach, and to tackle the issue as a mainstream health and safety at work question.
Evidence from RoSPA shows that firms, such as British Oxygen and Texaco, which invest in defensive driver training for their staff, can achieve rapid and substantial improvements in their fleet safety performance—meaning that training. pays for itself very

1279
quickly. The potential to improve road safety generally—for both employees and the wider public—is immense, and yet this will not happen unless we see much closer co-operation on the issue between the Department of Transport and the Health and Safety Executive.
A third area concerns help to small firms, many of which face real difficulties in understanding the requirements of modern health and safety law. Despite the excellent work done by Frank Davies and his colleagues, much more is still required; for example, to get personal business advisers working for Business Links to give better advice on health and safety for small businesses.
There is also a need to integrate health and safety into schemes such as Investors in People. We must also ensure that health and safety receive high priority in the Government's continuing work on the national curriculum, and in their plans for the university of industry and business schools.
The creation of a thorough-going health and safety culture in this country is an indispensable prerequisite for industrial growth and regeneration. Those businesses which are successful, irrespective of size or sector, are ones which have grasped this principle, and have learnt how to turn it to their advantage.
Put simply, good safety is good business. Yet safety does not happen by accident. Whether in a family business, a blue chip plc, or the nation as a whole, it has to be led from the top. It cannot be a bolt on extra; it can only be achieved by making it an integral part of business planning and management processes.
Improved safety and improved competitiveness go hand in hand. I hope that the Government will integrate health and safety into their business support and development processes, and that Ministers will promote the highest level of co-operation between all government departments involved.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Currie of Marylebone: My Lords, I shall not follow the previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, in discussing health and safety issues as I found his analysis both informative and illuminating.
I return to the broader question of competitiveness. I start by underscoring the need for this debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Borrie on introducing this debate. There was a tendency before the election for those who are now on the Benches opposite to say that the British economy was in wonderful shape. It is in good shape, but I am afraid that it is not in good enough shape. If one takes a comparison on OECD figures of GDP per capita on a purchasing power basis, we are ahead of almost no country with which we should like to compare ourselves. I could give noble Lords the list but it is a long one. Most of the major countries we should like to compare ourselves with have a higher per capita income. Even the Republic of Ireland overtook us last year. That must give us pause for thought as to why it is that the British economy is not performing as well as we would like.
1280
There has been a great deal of discussion—and no doubt there will be more in this debate—about the flexibility of labour and product markets. There is a great deal of ambiguity as regards the interpretation of that term. One interpretation is that flexibility is simply about the removal of unwarranted and intrusive government interference and regulation—the agenda that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to as being the agenda that was pursued in the 1980s. I believe there is growing appreciation that that is not enough; that the freeing up of markets is partially effective and important. However, it is equally vital to ensure that employees, managers and companies have the skills and capacity to take full advantage of the resulting freedom; otherwise, greater freedom may well result in significant losers, and that takes away some of the benefits.
We need flexibility in product and labour markets which encourages innovation and performance. I wish to illustrate that by referring to a number of aspects. I start with the managerial perspective. The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, referred to the industrial relations scene of the 1970s. I think we can all agree that we do not want to return to the confrontational attitudes on both sides—I emphasise the words "on both sides"—of British industry that occurred in that period. I must say in passing that I think that the noble Lord grossly exaggerated the risks of the modest proposals on trade unions that are contained within the Labour Party manifesto. Managers could not and did not manage in that period and there was confrontation. Now they can manage but there is a further problem; namely, the quality of British management does not match international performance. I declare an interest here as my salary is paid by the London Business School and therefore I have an interest in arguing the need for management education.
I speak to many business people on many occasions and many of them are of the best. The UK has many first-rate companies that are well-managed and match the performance of any in the world. However, the fact of the matter is that we also have a longer tail of rather poorly performing companies—more than most of our competitors. That is why our overall productivity performance, taken across the economy as a whole, is lagging behind—measured in level terms—what is happening elsewhere. If we could raise the performance in that tail to even the average of international performance, let alone the best, the British economy would really thrive. That is an objective. It is not just the objective of management to ensure short-term efficiency—I shall return to that—but also to manage innovation and the development of new products that meet the needs of customers and open up new markets. There is one other depressing fact about this tail; namely, the further one goes down it, the more complacent companies become and the more the badly performing managers do not know how badly they are performing relative to international performance.
In improving managerial quality one has to recognise that the scene is moving on. Twenty years ago there was quite a lot of discussion about how many companies could not perform a simple net present value calculation; they would muddle real and nominal values together in

1281
a rather confused way and get the wrong answer. It is probably the case now that pretty well every company can do such calculations well. That is routinely taught in the first year finance course of any business programme. Unfortunately not many managers are acquainted with what is taught in the next stage of finance courses, Finance 2. Few of us understand options and similar matters. We think it has something to do with financial companies. I suspect that a lack of understanding of options has been the downfall of as many industrial companies as financial companies. I shall illustrate what I mean by that.
In the early stages of new product development, including design, if one simply applies standard investment appraisal techniques—in the way that most companies do—one gets the wrong answer. R&D and new product development are all about keeping in the game and keeping one's options open. It is worth investing in those processes even when, on a straight routine calculation, that may appear to be unprofitable.
My colleague, Professor Gary Hamel, in his book Competing Pr the Future, argues that many companies have focused too much on cost-cutting and in the process have weakened their capacity for innovation and new product development. My other colleagues, Andrew Sentance and James Clarke, recently carried out a study for the Design Council which made the point that investment in design—this was the point that my noble friend Lord Desai made—can be fundamental to the performance of companies and of economies. The evidence is that investments in R&D and design promote growth at company level and in industry and the economy. An over-emphasis on downsizing—cutting costs at the expense of those functions—can lead to inflexibility with companies failing to adapt to changing circumstances and new market opportunities. Downsizing may well have its down side; and companies are increasingly realising that.
In the employment area, it is undoubtedly desirable to remove excessive regulation of the labour market. We have gone a long way in that direction. That agenda needs to be pursued further in the European context. It may be necessary, but it is not sufficient for good economic performance. Flexible labour markets can all too often mean a flexible move into unemployment not into other sources of employment. The problems of youth unemployment and long term unemployment are with us. They need to be tackled and that is why it is important that the Government's welfare to work programme is undertaken and pursued.
Over many years Professor Sig Prais at the National Institute has pointed to the problems as regards skills and the weaknesses of investment in training and skills in the British economy which hold us back in that area.
Professor Stephen Nickell has undertaken an interesting piece of research into the factors underlying unemployment of male manual unskilled workers across a range of countries. It is true that excessive regulation can cause unemployment in those groups to be high. But there is another factor. The evidence is that those countries which do not invest well in their basic skills and education also have a bad performance in that area.
1282
Deregulation may be helpful, but without the positive aspects of investment in skills and training it is not enough.
Let me take another example. The previous Government made much play of the fact that we were the enterprise centre of Europe. We certainly were open to inward investment and have attracted much inward investment. But again that is not enough. How does one explain the fact that France, held up as an example of rigidities and inflexibilities, attracted more foreign direct investment over the five years from 1991 to 1995 than did the UK? The amount of inward investment rose considerably compared with the previous five years whereas our inward investment was down. That involves other factors including our position in the world economy, infrastructure, and investment in education and skills.
That is a prognosis of some of the difficulties. What about remedies? The Government are committed to an agenda which will point us in the right direction: a commitment to macro-economic stability, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out; avoidance of the instabilities that lead to the necessity for savage downsizing and the problems that arise from it; reform of competition, referred to by my noble friend Lord Borrie; reform of City regulation; the welfare-to-work programme; and, above all, a commitment to training, skills and education across the spectrum. We must close the gap with our competitors. I hope very much to see that start to happen over the next five years.
6.13 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, during the debate on the gracious Speech, I said that education and training were vital to the UK's competitiveness. I wish to return to that theme today and to the question of partnership between industry and education.
There is no doubt that partnerships are the flavour of the day. I was interested in a special and quite substantial section of last week's Times Educational Supplement on the subject of school links. There is much support in industry for those links and a considerable amount of money has been invested in them by both individual companies and partners generally. A number of points in that section of the TES were of particular interest. The first was that companies clearly see their own interests very much involved in those links. For instance, an article on Cadbury stated that,
"One of our major priorities is investing in education, with a need to keep in touch with future markets for recruitment and consumers."
The article listed a number of benefits which it saw for the company in those links.
Marks & Spencer has been quoted on a number of occasions as saying that,
"prosperous high streets need prosperous back streets".
That throws an interesting light on the subject of the minimum wage, about which the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, seemed to have a number of problems. Marks & Spencer employees are not likely to live in the worst

1283
of the back streets, but as a company Marks & Spencer needs the people who live in those back streets to have a job and to be able to earn sufficient in order to make their purchases in Marks & Spencer high street stores. As a consequence, as a company it is prepared to invest in schemes which help to jack up the standards of low paid workers and find jobs for the unemployed.
There is also the question of who should benefit from the schemes. Again, I was interested in an article by Sir lain Valiance. He said,
"It is no longer enough to focus exclusively on basic literacy. Interpretative, analytical and communication skills are likely to be at a premium. Most important will be flexibility, wanting to adapt and learn as the environment evolves around us".
We hear sometimes of a different kind of flexibility from the Benches opposite. The article underlined for me the importance of business links stretching across the board from the low achievers to the academic high flyers. I agree that industrial links should not be regarded as exclusively for the under-achievers because if they are they will be devalued. We need links between the high flyers who can provide some of the leadership that will be required in the future.
There is a proliferation of schemes. Not all deliver to the same level. A report within the DfEE refers to a lack of co-operation and coherence across the country, and the fact that the best practices are not disseminated. It refers to many other weaknesses. Therefore I welcome the fact that the new Secretary of State is now looking in a holistic way at the whole range of products with a view to making them more cohesive and more evenly spread. Perhaps I may add that in reframing some of the schemes we should not over-bureaucratise the system. It is important that individual firms should have scope for their own initiatives.
Those are some of the things that are happening at school level. But, as I have said on a number of occasions, it is important, too, for partnerships and links to be established at universities. Again, that is happening, but in a patchy way. Not all universities make an equal contribution. I must say with some pride that my own university, Bradford, has an excellent record in this respect. And it is not entirely altruistic. It brings a number of benefits to the university as well as to the community—benefits and links with local companies; the sharing of resources; a better understanding of problems so that the university can help to respond to some of them; and an increasing link between particular departments and appropriate companies. I refer to engineering departments and to our optometry and pharmacy departments all of which have important links with local communities. It is important that those links should be encouraged and that they should not be overlooked when we consider the importance of the contributions of universities at national level. National level links are vital, and there are a number of ways in which they are taking place.
Again, perhaps I may use Bradford as an indication. We have a number of tailor-made courses with some of the important national companies such as Ford, Rover and the BBC, meeting the specific needs of those companies. The university is also involved in the
1284
Teaching Company Scheme which is operated by the DTI. I understand that, like other links, that scheme is also being reviewed. However, I suggest that the annual report of that body indicates how successful such schemes can be in terms both of opportunities for the academics in the institutions involved and also in terms of the increased effectiveness and profitability of the firms that are involved.
In all these activities universities are more and more showing a full awareness of the needs of companies in terms of the type of courses to be offered, and in terms of in-company training programmes and the innovations with which firms need help in order to increase wealth and job creation. For all that to be maintained and increased, the future funding of the higher education system needs to ensure the present high quality of our products coming from the universities. Core funding for teaching is one of the major issues emerging at the present time.
So, too, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Desai, is the future of research funding. I should like to comment particularly on that since there has been discussion in the media as to the future of research funding post-Dearing. I believe that the dual support system should be maintained since it seeks to provide infrastructure support through the higher education funding councils for universities and the provision of the well-founded laboratory within the university on the one hand and grant support for specific research projects through the research councils on the other.
Perhaps I may illustrate that point by again referring to the University of Bradford. Last year, a new company, Bradford Particle Designs Ltd., was set up. It arose out of the blue skies research of a young PhD student who experimented in making powder from liquids, a safer powder than that currently used by the pharmaceutical companies. The pharmaceutical companies showed interest in the research and, as a result, the research has been patented, bringing welcome income to both the university and the new company that was set up, as well as to the pharmaceutical companies that became involved.
A second example is also based on blue skies research in one of our engineering departments dealing in polymers and the production of the kind of synthetic materials referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. It started in a simple way within a department, but was later taken up by the research council and is now part of an important inter-disciplinary research centre, one of the centres of excellence in this country. Those are two examples that could be duplicated in many universities and in many other ways. They underline the importance of giving universities the opportunity to contribute in this way, not merely confined to some of the excellent projects foreseen under the Foresight programme but pushing the barriers further forward so that universities can make a unique contribution to the future competitiveness of British industry.
6.26 p.m.
Earl Kitchener: My Lords, there are many types of goods which are best made in low-wage countries or

1285
which we in this country have no tradition in making. But there is something odd about seeing our policemen on BMWs and not on Triumphs. I shall refer to customers and retailers, but the ideas can be extended to buying and selling on a larger scale.
Our manufacturers could do more to help themselves, and the most important thing is informative labelling, on the lines of, "Made in Sheffield at the Britannia works of the General Engineering Company, 1997. If you are satisfied, tell your friends; if not, tell us". Among other things, that would encourage the people who make the goods to take a pride in their work and would stimulate dialogue between makers and users. I have been told that directors need to watch for buyers who may well prefer a visit to Paris to one to Birmingham.
Retailers obviously cannot stock everything, but they could have copies of catalogues of British-made goods. I often ask shops selling foreign versions of items that might well have been made in this country whether they receive visits from UK salesmen, but the usual answer is no. Many people have to buy what is offered, and even a small effort by retailers to sell British would be helpful. Usually I find almost no interest among retailers in selling British goods.
Customers who want to help their unemployed fellow countrymen can ask if there is a UK product and, if so, why it is not stocked; and then pass the information on to a UK maker. I have done that in some cases. The most extreme related not to an item I bought but to a pack of cards that I saw which had on it a picture of Buckingham Palace. I asked about it, and found that it had come from the shop there. It was marked, "Made in Switzerland". I wrote to the manager of the shop, who was very polite. He replied that it was bought before his day, but he did try to give some preference to goods made in this country. When I said that there was no cheap labour in Switzerland, I was told that perhaps they had cheap Turkish guest workers. I do not know the cause of that but I hope it is not still going on. What it looks like to foreigners if they buy something at Buckingham Palace made in Switzerland I do not know.
What should the Government be doing? I hope that they will want to hear. Not legislation, noble Lords may be glad to hear, but they and the other bodies over which they have influence must be buying large quantities of almost everything. They could offer information on UK manufacturers. I had quite some correspondence about that which I am afraid I looked at only this morning. I must admit to not having brought myself up to date about something called the Regional Supply Network, but like railway timetable inquiries, I feel that such information should have nothing to do with regions; it should be centralised. Soon it will probably come in an electronic form, which has the advantage of making searching much easier.
Another thing the Government might do is to form an opinion on the question of the usefulness of informative labelling. Manufacturers may not read Hansard and they might be inclined to take more notice of the Government than of me. It may be objected that "Buy British" is
1286
unfair to other countries, but where something can reasonably be made here, that is where we should look first.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, like other noble Lords I welcome the debate and draw attention to the careful way in which the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, phrased the terms of the debate. It is worth reminding ourselves that they are:
"To call attention to the case for improving the competitiveness of British industry; and to move for Papers".
We should recognise the background to the debate. It is that we suffer, and have suffered for a number of years, from a deficit in international trade in industrial production. We are talking about how Britain competes with the rest of the world. The only way in which we can do that effectively is by all working together. We need to instil a sense of co-operation. A number of noble Lords on this side highlighted that. We also need to learn the lessons of the past.
Since the election I have been accosted by people who say: "How can you support the new Government who are adopting all those Conservative policies?". The answer is simple: if the policies are right, it is right that we should adopt them. I take as my text that the old policies of the Conservatives are having an effect on the floor for wages. We talk now in terms of having a minimum wage; that is our policy and we shall implement it. But it is an old Conservative policy, it goes back to Winston Churchill and the early part of the century. It was then recognised that, unless there is a floor for determining wages, we get ridiculously unfair competition between employers. I believe there is a phrase that the bad undercut the good and the totally unscrupulous undercut the bad. That is an example of Conservative policy which I am happy to support.
It is also worth looking back at our real experience. The situation in the 1970s described by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, was quite different from the situation I remember as someone who worked in industry during that period. I can remember a situation where it was recognised by management that if changes were required the sensible way of achieving those changes was to discuss them with the workforce, usually through the organised trade unions.
However, we were also subjected to external pressures. One was the competitive pressure from Japan where people took a long-term view in developing their industries; we saw the development of, for example, the motor cycle industry and the television production industry, funded with low long-term interest rates. In this country there was a lack of investment in those areas and we lost out because of lack of foresight.
We were also subject to the buffeting of external stimuli. I can remember one event which affected the company for which I worked—Massey Ferguson, which builds tractors and combine harvesters for the agriculture industry. A decision by Jimmy Carter in the late 970s that America would no longer feed the world resulted in a 30 per cent. drop in the demand for

1287
agricultural equipment. That had an enormous effect all round the world. The reaction to that decision was significant.
One of the difficulties that we faced with the Conservative Government that came to power in 1979 was that, instead of providing support for the long term, they made the situation worse. We had incredibly high levels for the pound which raised our export prices through the roof. There was effectively a reduction in UK home demand and my company was subjected to enormous pressures. I remember asking our managing director, "Why don't you go down to London and tell the Conservative Government what they are doing to us?". He said: "I have been part of a delegation which met the Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry". At the time that happened to be Keith Joseph. He went on, "It was like talking to a brick wall. He could not understand the effect that government policies were having on our industry". I am sure that we have learnt quite a few lessons from that.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, pointed out how well the American economy is doing and a number of noble Lords suggested that the British economy had done well over the past few years. It may be useful to consider one of the major events of a few years ago that affected the British and American economies. I suggest that the end of the Cold War may have had some effect because of the significant reductions in defence expenditure that occurred on both sides of the Atlantic. Perhaps that has had a stimulating effect on our economies. I see the noble Lord, Lord Desai, nodding. It might be interesting to conduct some academic research to see whether the idea is right.
We have seen a roller coaster ride through the 1980s and 1990s in terms of trade. Immense problems have been created for British industry because of the way in which the value of the pound has increased and decreased and interest rates have gone up and down. We can credit the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, with the iron will to eradicate that up and down factor in financial terms with its effect on trade that besets British industry. I am sure that we all wish Mr. Brown success. Many of the things he is doing suggest that he will have that success.
We are a small country in world terms. I postulate that the only way in which we shall achieve lasting success in a global situation is to be part of the European single currency. Obviously we must ensure that it is run and organised on a sensible basis. But make no mistake, my Lords, outside the single currency we shall not survive. I can imagine Mr. Soros periodically taking £500 million out of the British economy when the whim takes him. It is too horrible a prospect to consider.
With that stable economic framework, which I believe is so important, we have to think in terms of how British industry competes, so to speak, on a level playing field and in terms of supply and demand. I hope that the demand side will be sustained and developed through injections of economic activity at the lower level, where it is needed: the minimum wage policy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, pointed out, if people's incomes increase at the lower end, they can
1288
buy the goods and services that British industry and commerce provide and thereby generate even more economic activity.
We can also look at the policies of the new Labour Government in terms of the supply side. Other noble Lords have spoken of education as a priority and that is, perhaps, the supply of human talent that is so essential. But there is also a need for the supply of investment. Long-term investment policies are essential to ensure that a supply of new capital is available to British industry, so that industry can invest not only in research and development, in new machinery and new technology, but also in new markets and be able to invest in the worldwide distribution networks that are important in delivering our products to the marketplace.
In conclusion, I take great pleasure in the remarks made yesterday by the President of the Board of Trade. She explained that over the next few months an audit will be conducted by the Department of Trade and Industry into all the strengths and weaknesses and all the assets and liabilities of the British industrial scene; and that out of that will come a long-term project to ensure that British industry and our society are fit, capable, willing and enthusiastic about entering the 21st century.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, first, let me congratulate my noble friend Lord Borne on giving us the opportunity in this debate to talk about competitiveness. I apologise for having missed his opening contribution. Nevertheless, I believe that he will be pleased to hear that my boss decided that my own company's competitiveness was better served by me going and making some of the net present value calculations that my noble friend Lord Currie extolled in his speech. I must explain that I worked out how to do those calculations from a book and not by attending one of his institutions.
I wish also to concentrate my remarks on education and the general need to raise standards. Yesterday I had the privilege of visiting a corporate research centre just outside Cambridge. The company is one of the largest oilfield service companies in the world. It has research centres in Japan, Europe and America. The centre was everything that one might expect it to be: modern, well resourced, flexible and with staff who were highly qualified, international in origin, extremely mobile and, no doubt, well paid. At this end of the education spectrum, Britain can and does compete at the highest level. Only last week we heard about Microsoft's intention to set up its own research centre. That centre will be next door to the centre that I visited yesterday.
But to be successful at the high end of the education spectrum is not enough. In fact, I believe that that masks our lack of success in educating the majority of people for the challenges of working within industry. Last week, I was disturbed to read an article in the Financial Times by Professor Alison Wolf of the Institute of Education. The article was about her reports on GNVQs from 1993 to 1997. It explained that the failure of the

1289
NVQ and GNVQ qualifications was due to the very high drop-out rate and the very narrow embrace of the qualification itself.
Britain is already near the bottom of the international skills league. We have fewer 16, 17 and 18 year-olds in full-time education than any industrial nation except Turkey. Nearly two-thirds of the British workforce do not have good educational qualifications compared with a third or less in the Netherlands and France and a quarter in Germany or Switzerland. Britain's skills deficit is crippling British industrial competitiveness. Vocational qualifications need to be upgraded and, above all, employers need to believe that they mean something and have achieved that raising of standards at the lower end of the education spectrum.
I know that the Government are very concerned about this issue and are introducing their Target 2000 programme and their University for Industry. Those are exciting measures and deserve to succeed. Almost every Peer who spoke in this debate referred to the importance of education. I simply echo that call. We have also heard about the importance of innovation, health and safety and flexibility. Those are all parts of the jigsaw and are necessary to build a competitive economy.
But I should like to make a simple point, which I believe is so blindingly obvious that nobody has yet made it; namely, that competitive success is most dependent on economic strength. It is a simple point which is constantly brought home to me in my working life, when I work in Russia. The company with which I am associated develops oilfields in Siberia. We have about 1,000 Russian employees and produce oil which is sold internationally. I know from my working experience in Russia that our Russian employees are on at least an educational par with British people. The company has spent a great deal of money putting up-to-date computer technology into its operations—in fact, computer technology is cheaper in Russia than it is in Britain. We have put money into training. The transport systems, although antiquated, are relatively reliable. However, we are operating in an economic environment that is bankrupt by western standards. That single fact completely overwhelms our operations. Even though all those elements of the jigsaw are present, we are not competitive by western standards. So, I make my single, simple, blindingly obvious point that economic strength is the overwhelming factor in building a competitive economy.
I close by saying that I could not help noticing that I seem to be the only contributor to today's debate who is currently working in British industry. I stand to be corrected on that and maybe the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, if he were in his place, would correct me on that point. I do not know what that means—whether it means that I should be working harder or that people who work in industry tend to work too hard so that they cannot listen to the experts and what they have to say. Nevertheless, I look forward to any legislation that this Government may seek to bring forward as a result of the work of my noble friend Lord Borrie.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Wedgwood: My Lords, I join all noble Lords in welcoming this debate and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on introducing the subject in such a timely manner. I must declare an interest as I represent a company, based in Staffordshire, by the name of Wedgwood, a manufacturer of solid things, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. Travelling globally to support marketing and sales efforts, we are often presented alongside a number of other companies that exude the elements of which we are justly proud, elements such as quality and design.
In fact I have just returned from the United States. My tour included a visit to San Francisco where we participated in an event appropriately called "Britain meets the Bay". Thanks to the efforts of Her Majesty's Consul-General, a number of companies were encouraged to showcase their products in the San Francisco Bay area, which includes Silicon Valley. The highlight of the events was the visit of His Royal Highness the Duke of York. His Royal Highness seemed to be extremely well briefed, and his enthusiasm added considerably to the occasion. I cannot speak for all who participated, but sales have increased, not to mention the vast amount of good will generated in great part through the local press and media.
In 1996 a similar event took place in Salt Lake City entitled "The UK/Utah Festival". The honoured guest on that occasion was my noble friend Lady Thatcher. My noble friend will be pleased to hear that sales have increased considerably as a result of her efforts.
It is events like these that give us the winning edge in a very competitive global market. I applaud the Government for their initiative to increase support for regional offices that are designed to help drive the sales and heighten the awareness of British products on an international level. Hopefully these agencies will work closely with Her Majesty's trade representatives in all continents.
I have said in your Lordships' House before that there have been occasions of disappointment when industry has not benefited from the full support of embassy and consulate staff. Perhaps with greater encouragement and co-operation from regional offices the examples of San Francisco and Salt Lake City can be repeated. I am interested to note the recent appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, as Minister with responsibility for trade and competitiveness in Europe. Should we not consider such a position on a more global basis?
We are experiencing tremendous growth in several countries that require a serious focus. The Japanese are an example of a consumer obsessed by the tried and true manufacturers of quality and design. Companies that have conveyed this to the customer in Japan have been successful. The rewards go beyond Japan, as retailers who carry our products wherever the Japanese travel will attest. In a recent survey by the Corporate Intelligence on Retailing it was shown that the Japanese department store, Mitsukoshi, here in London sells more per square feet than any other store, including the great emporiums of Harvey Nichols, Selfridges and Harrods.

1291
In the same survey, Wedgwood was number one of the top ten buys in luxury goods which also included Burberry and Dunhill. Japan heads the list of other Asian countries that are emerging with excellent opportunities to market our products; to name a few, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines—not all without their own problems, but with enormous potential and increasing demand.
For most of us it is very difficult to predict the development of trade in China. No doubt His Excellency the Governor of Hong Kong will have an interesting insight on his return at the end of the month. Also, India, which recently lifted some very restrictive tariffs on certain luxury products, presents us with a market with which we have close links.
This is all very well, but we live in a global market that is in itself very competitive. The legacy of our forefathers spanning many generations, even those of this century, is not sufficient to bring success. Our competitiveness must start in the workplace, as many noble Lords have said, and on the shopfloor.
The painful exercise of downsizing and reducing overheads has been essential for many companies in recent years. For those that have accepted this challenge and been successful the rewards are significant. No longer is it acceptable to have numerous management layers with complicated reporting systems. Individual responsibility and accountability is the required direction. This can be achieved with a number of programmes and initiatives. Educating the employee through programmes like NVQ has gone a long way to improving professional skills in the workplace and, in turn, providing greater efficiency. Sadly, as has been pointed out, the NVQ programme has been subject to some criticism recently. The value of these awards to a wide variety of employees is enormous and should not be underestimated. This continuous process of training and improving skills should be constantly re-evaluated to ensure that vigorous standards are maintained together with the value and prestige of the awards.
In the area of production alone many companies have had to focus on reorganisation. The rapid development of technology and information systems is available universally. To remain competitive—and even the Japanese are price conscious—it is necessary to reinvest in equipment and machinery, and because of the expense it must be maximised. In other words, responsibilities are brought right down to the shopfloor and the individual employee's motivation takes on an even greater significance.
By improving the competitiveness in British industry, we could better respond to the rapidly changing demands of customers on a global basis, but there can be no compromise on quality and design.
We should avoid preserving any legislation that restricts our companies from operating on a level playing field. While we agree that, for example, health and safety standards are essential—an area well covered by my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever—we must ensure that British companies are not penalised for
1292
following the law while other European companies pay scant regard. I hardly need remind the House that we compete on a global basis, not just in Europe.
We would do well to consider how other nations support their valued manufacturers. The Irish are fiercely proud of Waterford Crystal, a company with which I have a unique corporate association. From its dynamic chairman, Dr. Tony O'Reilly, downwards, the product is championed the world over by the widely dispersed Irish family. We have much to be proud of in British industry. The legacy can continue but it requires considerable vision, vigorous support and direction. In this instance we can competitively continue to make quality products here in Britain and not in some far-flung country in east Asia. In fact we can further create demand in those countries for our products. It is my fervent hope that the Government are equal to the challenge.
6.57 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I wish to join my colleagues in thanking my noble friend Lord Borrie for introducing this timely debate on the topic of Britain's industrial competitiveness. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Haskel for challenging some of his more reluctant colleagues, including myself, to speak on this topic for 10 minutes without repetition, hesitation or deviation.
I must say at the start that I may fail this test since, instead of grappling with abstract notions of industrial competitiveness, I intend to tell a story. The story is to illustrate the thesis that many of the policies that have been pursued by large industrial corporations in the past two decades have been utterly inimical to our long-term economic prospects. The new Government are mindful of the need to enhance the skills of our industrial workforce; but I fear that, without a fundamental change in the industrial policies of large corporations, their efforts will not be rewarded.
I will declare three propositions. The first is that the unbridled pursuit of profit is liable to be self-frustrating, even in the short term. The second proposition is that industries which are based on sophisticated technologies need to be managed by technologists. The third proposition is that the industries themselves must play a major role in training their workers and in sponsoring their careers.
In telling my story, I shall conceal the true identities of the parties concerned. Three years ago, I was invited by two friends to accompany them on a routine engineering inspection of a large industrial plant. The plant in question is the brewery at Merton-on-Weir which is owned by the multinational conglomerate corporation Grand Amalgamated Brewers. Since the interests of the corporation nowadays extend far beyond brewing, its directors prefer it to be known simply as Grand Amalgamated; but it is commonly known on the stock market by the acronym GRABS.
The brewery itself was founded in the 1850s; and the original building still stands as a brick precipice on the bank of the river. Set behind this facade and towering above it is a massive steel-girdered structure erected in

1293
the 1970s to house a state-of-the-art continuous-process plant. The plant was modelled on a brewery in Hamburg and it resembles a small petrol refinery.
I am told that the design was unprecedented in this country. The German firm responsible for its construction reproduced most of the features of the prototype plant in Hamburg with the consequence that the plant was expensive and overspecified in engineering terms. There were in fact no industrial designers of such plants on the payroll of GRABS, nor could any be found to give independent advice to the directors, and it seems that a considerable amount of money was wasted.
I visited the plant during one of the monthly inspections which my colleagues had contracted to undertake. My own interest is in the electronic technology which is used in inspecting the machinery. We were using electronic sensors to transduce a record of vibrations from the outer casings of machinery. The aim is to determine its fitness much as a doctor aims to assess the health of a patient with a stethoscope. A so-called spectrum analysis of the vibration record is liable to highlight any aberrant vibrations which are due to excessive wear in the bearings of the rotating parts or to the loosening of some of the fixtures.
I should say that our high-tech apparatus is simply a substitute for a well-trained human ear. In truth, our task could have been performed more easily and more effectively by the resident engineers of the brewery given their intimate knowledge of the machinery in question. However, some five years ago, Grand Amalgamated sacked its resident engineers in favour of the seemingly cheaper solution of contracting-out. They reduced their workforce to a skeleton. This sort of policy was, in fact. the basis of many of the much-vaunted productivity gains of the later years of the Thatcher administration.
I should describe the plant itself. This consists of three parallel production lines, each of which encompasses a process which begins with the milling of the grain and which ends with the piping of a premium lager—Steinpilz—into waiting tankers. The original intention was that, at any time, two of the three lines would be in process whilst the third would be undergoing maintenance. More recently, the brewery has been running all three lines simultaneously in pursuit of greater efficiency and against the advice of engineers.
During our visit, only one of the lines was operating. The other two were awaiting the attentions of an engineering task force—engineering mercenaries if you will—who had been called for in desperation but who, at the time, were tied up in another job. The delay was entailing a considerable loss of profit. The sad conclusion was that the value of the lost production was so great that it could have easily financed a meagre resident force of engineers who could have averted a mechanical breakdown—but it has to be admitted that it is difficult these days to find the engineers to employ in some capacity. Companies such as Grand Amalgamated—which is nowadays best described as a holding company—no longer have any interest in training them.
My two engineering colleagues both have personal histories and work experiences which are characteristic of a bygone era and which cannot be reproduced. They both
1294
owe their training to their former employers, who were the Coal Board and British Aerospace respectively. Both of them started as 15 year-old apprentices and one of them was sponsored by his employer to attend a university engineering course. Few such avenues of training survive these days and the conclusion is that the very skills on which Grand Amalgamated has been predicating its modern industrial policy are no longer in adequate supply.
As regards the brewery itself, this is scheduled for closure. For the reasons that I have already alluded to, its profitability has fallen far below expectations. It is now proposed that on the site of the dismantled plant a new bottling plant should be established. This facility, which would be highly mechanised and computerised, would be installed by the Esel Machine Tool Company of Milwaukee. The beer itself will be imported in tankers from Hamburg.
I believe that this story speaks for itself, but I should add a few observations. My first observation is that any attempts by the Government to enhance the productivity and the competitiveness of British industry are in danger of being stymied by the gentlemanly and the not-so-gentlemanly pursuit of immediate profit of which the directors of GRABS are exemplars.
Next, I would contend that we cannot expect any great improvements in industrial competitiveness until the control of industry is devolved to some considerable extent to the workplace. One measure which might be adopted is a legal requirement for the appointment of worker-directors. Such a requirement has existed for many years in West Germany where it is regarded as unexceptional.
My final assertion is that I believe that the emphasis on labour mobility and flexibility which has characterised some of the recent political debate is misplaced and that such precepts may be inimical to the acquisition of industrial skills.
My two friends, whom I have mentioned, both envisaged giving lifelong service to their companies until their careers were cut short by redundancy. From the start, they were able to identify their personal interests with those of their employers; and, in return, the employers were keen to invest heavily in their training. Nowadays we seem to expect individuals to acquire such skills independently and in advance of their employment. Then we expect them to market their skills. These are unrealistic expectations.
Of course labour mobility is highly desirable if it serves to mitigate the effects of industrial failure; but it cannot be argued that it is a precondition of industrial success. Job security is doubtless a bugbear in failing industries which require restructuring, but to suggest that it is an impediment to industrial recovery is nonsense.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, this is the speech that all noble Lords have been waiting for: it is the one before the winding-up speeches. I am delighted to follow the excellent opening to the debate given by my noble friend Lord Borrie. We are indebted to him.

1295
On Monday I attended a conference organised by the Fabian Society. It was launching a pamphlet called Sold short: Government and retailing. Around the table were representatives from Tesco, Sainsbury, Marks and Spencer, Superdrug, the Civil Aviation Authority and others. The raison d'être for the conference was that over the years governments, when talking about industry, were really talking about manufacturing industry and exports. Retailing as an industry has perhaps been neglected. The argument was not that it needed hand-outs and financial incentives because, as we all know, the major retailers are well able to look after themselves. What they were really pleading for in the Fabian pamphlet and in general around the table was that the retailing industry ought to be taken more seriously for its contribution to the national economy.
Britain's retailers have a massive impact on our daily lives. Be it prices, opening hours, location or wages, we are all affected by the way stores are run and regulated. Yet our politicians seem to have little to say about one of the key sectors of our economy. I was delighted to hear the contributions of the noble Earl, Lord Kitchener, and the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, who certainly did not neglect the contribution that retailing can and is making to the general economy. Therefore, I am very pleased about that. They will share my view that retailing adds real value to the economy. It has been the backbone of our economic growth for much of the past 20 years. Politicians should recognise that simple fact and act in the best interests of all sectors rather than pine after the "manufacturing good old days" which are unlikely ever to return.
Any political party which claims to protect the interests of consumers needs to work with the retailers who directly serve them. Many of the policy issues on the horizon—the protection of quality standards along the food chain; the regeneration of town centres; and the introduction of the single currency—will depend on effective collaboration between government and retailers. I believe that this Government (my Government) should seize the opportunity to develop a new partnership with the sector. We are not primarily concerned with the past. I believe that we start from a bright new beginning. Retailers and retailing are waiting and eager to make that partnership a vibrant, living thing.
One of the issues raised at the conference was the lack of a strategy. Most of the big companies have their own strategy. They know where they want to get to and the market penetration they want to achieve in various parts of the country, but nobody can point to what one might call a national strategy for retailing. Of course, that is difficult because we are talking about both big and small businesses. However, I detect a willingness on the part of major retailers to involve themselves with the Government in working on the development of the retail sector of our economy over the years.
Reference was made to the disparate way in which planning applications are considered. Of course, the ministry gives guidance on town-centre, edge-of-town and out-of-town developments, but decisions are left very much to the local councils. Speaking as a local councillor, like many noble Lords present, I say that that
1296
is right but that there is a positive lack—if that is not a contradiction in terms—of direction from the centre on how we can achieve a more vibrant and more efficient retailing industry. Many retailers are blamed for social and economic changes which are beyond their responsibility and control. Encouraging examples suggest that local authorities can work with retailers through town centre management to the benefit of local residents and shoppers. Best practice should be disseminated to stimulate urban regeneration and partnership between local authorities and retailers.
The expansion of the economy in the past 20 years has come largely through the service sector, including retailing, and not from the manufacturing sector. That trend has been matched across all OECD countries. Between 1975 and 1995 the output of UK service industries grew by 57 per cent. in real terms while the output of manufacturing industries grew by only 17 per cent. The service sector now accounts for almost two-thirds of GDP while manufacturing accounts for less than one-quarter. Within the service sector, retailing and distribution account for more than 10 per cent. of GDP. Those figures ought to impress.
I have the great pleasure of being the honorary secretary of the All-Party Group for the Retail Industry. Naturally, we look to the views of the British Retail Consortium, which represents 90 per cent. of retailers—all of the large ones and many of the small ones. In a Budget submission earlier this year, the consortium said that an efficient and competitive retail sector is a valuable contributor to the health of the UK economy in two important areas—control of inflation and job creation. The appreciation of sterling has lowered the cost to retailers of goods sourced abroad. Fierce competition in the retail sector has resulted in those savings being passed on to the customers. Annual retailed goods inflation in March and April was just 0.9 per cent., with the prices of many goods lower than a year earlier. Retailers can continue to play their part in controlling the rate of price increases if the Government avoid changes which impose extra costs on, or hamper the efficiency of, the retail sector. The existing cost and tax burdens need to be kept to an absolute minimum.
In addition to their influence in containing inflation, retailers are also significant employers, accounting for over 2.3 million jobs or about 11 per cent. of employees. Retailers created 75,000 new jobs in 1996 and there is scope for further employment growth in the sector if the costs of hiring labour do not become a disincentive.
The British Retail Consortium would welcome the early introduction of a competition Bill. It shares the view that the current UK system is ineffective and that a new Bill is therefore needed to address both restrictive agreements and the abuse of market power as well as the structure and operation of the competition institutions.
Retailing impinges on a great many of our social problems. That is why retailers in general welcome a review of the criminal justice system. The House will be aware that the retail industry arrests some 1.6 million customer-thieves a year, of whom 49,000 are convicted in a magistrates' court, from an estimated 5 million known offences. That situation clearly sends the wrong

1297
message and undermines any moral authority that retailers, schools and others may wish to instil. One way forward could be a "civil recovery" system which would address the fact that there are currently no tangible disbenefits for the majority of shop thieves. Such a system would not devalue crime; nor divert from it those who should be so diverted. Only retailers really appreciate the brake on efficiency and competitiveness suffered by retailers and, ultimately, by the consumer as a result of thefts. The Government should take that point on board.
Retailers in general would welcome a strategy to bring together policy making and implementation covering the environment, transport and the regions. They believe that that will be vital in developing the integrated planning and transport system which this country needs. An example is the vitality and viability of town centres. Retail outlets are subject to planning controls, but a key ingredient in the success of a town centre is accessibility. Retailers will be pleased to see that decisions about development and the infrastructure will no longer be taken in a vacuum. That is why they would welcome an integrated transport policy.
Much could be said about improving the competitiveness of British industry. We need to find a way to look more closely at the employer/employee relationship. There needs to be a rethink and that is why, through the BRC, retailers welcome and participate in the industry forum. That demonstrates that under new Labour partnerships with business can be constructive.
Finally, I should like to refer to a speech made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Mrs. Margaret Beckett, on 4th June this year, when she laid out a series of propositions upon which the Government's policy in this vital area will be predicated. Mrs. Beckett told the audience that the department often looked as if it was there for big business and not much else. She said that she would change that and that the Department of Trade and Industry would be looking to assist everyone. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, in his place. When speaking for the Opposition, he made a splendid opening address and was bullish about the state in which the economy had been left. However, Mrs. Beckett told us to remember that we are the poorest of the G7 countries and that GDP per head in the UK is 8 per cent. below the OECD average. Despite many excellent firms, productivity in both the manufacturing and the service sectors lags substantially behind the productivity rates of our major competitors. Our share of world trade has fallen below 5 per cent. Despite welcome falls in claimant unemployment, the fact is that employment is still more than 400,000 below its 1990 level and nearly one in five households currently has no one in work. All that shows that while the noble Lord may select his statistics, I can select mine too. They are not incompatible; they are part of the overall picture.
I warmly endorse what has been said today. What we need is a fresh look arising from a fresh opportunity. Forget the past: there is a great deal of good will towards the Government from all sectors of industry. I very much hope that they have the courage to build upon it, not least because of tonight's debate.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for inviting me to make a brief contribution in the gap. I apologise for not being in the House earlier to hear the other excellent speeches. There are many routes to competitiveness. The particular route to which I wish to speak briefly is the exchange rate. I believe that this matter was raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I recall that during the early part of the previous Conservative Administration the policies being followed created a situation in which the pound went to two dollars. The effect of that dramatic rise in the exchange rate at that time was to obliterate the competitiveness of a great many British companies. Paradoxically, for somewhat comparable reasons, in the past six months the exchange rate has swung by a factor of 20 per cent. against many of our competitors. However good and efficient a company may he, very few have a profit margin that can absorb a swing of 20 per cent. in the exchange rate when it comes to making a deal overseas. Although the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is absolutely right to state the importance of retailing to the GNP today, it does not contribute much to the balance of payments or to our overseas tradables. It is for that reason that the competitiveness of the exchange rate is so vitally important.
The purpose of my brief contribution is merely to express the hope that this will be well considered when this debate is assessed and government Ministers are debriefed in their appropriate departments. Perhaps they remember that this time last year British Steel was, and still is, regarded as one of the most efficient steel-makers in the world. It has had to cut its prices dramatically and its profits will be cut dramatically. That is due entirely to the exchange rate. That will put pressure upon it to become even more competitive, but it cannot do so overnight. It will take some years to absorb a swing in costs of that magnitude. I hope that our policymakers, when looking at all the other factors that have been mentioned this evening to make British industry more competitive, will conclude that there are only three ingredients to national success and prosperity: productivity, productivity and productivity. In seeking to promote it, I hope they will remember that behind it all hangs the backdrop of the importance of the exchange rate and that our fiscal and monetary policies are so tuned to ensure that the price of sterling remains competitive.
7.23 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I also begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for bringing this extremely important matter to our attention. While agreeing with the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, about the exchange rate, I cannot accept his comment about retailing. Retailing makes a very strong contribution to our balance of payments. As someone who has been greatly involved in tourism all of my life, I have spent much time trying to persuade retailers in London to contribute to the tourism marketing budget. Overseas tourists spend substantial amounts of money in Oxford Street and Bond Street.

1299
Some people have difficulty realising that overseas visitors to this country are an export and British tourists who go overseas an import. If I may, I should like to correct the noble Lord on that point.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, on his arrival on the Opposition Front Bench. He painted an extremely rosy picture of the economy over the past 18 years with a majestically straight line of growth. I just happened to have in my hand as he spoke a paper entitled Economic Indicators that I obtained from the Library. It contains all kinds of wonderful graphs; I do not have a clue what they mean. I do not know a great deal about economics. I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Currie of Marylebone, would make far greater sense of them. However, I am struck by the fact that every single graph is like a yo-yo; it wings up to the top and then whizzes down to the bottom. The period covered is from 1975 to 1996. Even I can work out that if the graphs are winging up and down it can hardly be claimed that they show stable management of the economy.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, reserved his best shots for the minimum wage. There are a number of points that should be considered. First, average earnings in this country currently run at about £20,000 a year. If one takes an hourly rate of £3.50, for example, it produces an annual salary of about £7,000. If one takes a rate of £4 per hour the annual salary works out at about £8,300, if my mathematics are right. I believe that the noble Lord suggests that in order to have a competitive economy it is necessary for a certain number of people to be paid at a rate that is so low as to be virtually institutionalised slave labour. I cannot accept that. I am wholly in favour of the minimum wage.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for giving way. The specific point I sought to make was about the effect of the minimum wage on inflation. No workman at the current level would accept an enormous increase paid to someone who was coming up to the minimum wage without taking the same increase plus a differential for himself.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making that point, but I disagree. I put in place in my own company a minimum wage of £4 per hour just over a year ago. I told my workforce that I believed that it was a just thing to do and that I was not increasing the wages of anyone else. My workforce fully understood the justice of the argument. I am confident that other workforces throughout the country will also understand it. There is absolutely no moral defence for the management of an economy whose legacy, however good the figures, is one of poverty and division such as we have in this country on an almost unprecedented scale. That is the true legacy of 18 years of Conservative management of the economy.
When I decided to intervene in this debate I asked one of my colleagues if we had a particular policy on competitiveness. His light-hearted answer was, "We are all in favour of it, but not too much." That light-hearted
1300
response, however, contains within it an extremely serious point and one which I would like to touch on before moving to the main points of the debate. We want to increase the competitiveness of British industry in order to ensure its success both at home and abroad, which in turn makes us more efficient in creating wealth and consequently delivers a better standard of living for our citizens. Thus, what we do in the wealth-creating process generally, and in particular in making ourselves more competitive, must be within a framework that combines long term and sustainable economic growth with social cohesion and a satisfaction of the aspirations of our citizens. It is important to remember that wealth creation is not an end in itself but a means of helping to deliver a socially cohesive and just society.
Noble Lords will, I am sure, recall the excellent report by the commission chaired by my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf entitled Wealth Creation and Social Cohesion in a Free Society which was debated last year. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, touched on the very point in his opening remarks. I know that my noble friend would have liked to be in his place today; he was prevented from doing so by a long standing engagement. I am sorry that he is not with us as he would have made the point far better than I can. When we seek to increase our competitiveness and to become more efficient at wealth generation, it is essential that that is for the benefit of all our citizens and that we do not fall into the trap of either jobless growth or the creation of the working poor.
There is a huge range of factors that can impinge on the nation's industrial competitiveness. My noble friend Lord Ezra spoke about macro-economics. A number of other noble Lords have touched on other points. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, mentioned the transport infrastructure. I believe that there are three key areas that, more than any others, determine the wealth-creating ability of the nation: first, the economic environment; secondly, the availability and cost of capital; and, finally and probably most importantly, the quality and abilities of the human resource. I should like to touch on each of them.
It is generally accepted that stable economic conditions are a pre-requisite for successful long-term industrial growth. I believe that all three parties in their manifestos made that point. We on these Benches had long advocated that a main plank of achieving that stability was the creation of an independent central bank, as my noble friend said. It was with pleasure, a sense of flattery, and some amusement that we observed that virtually the first act of the Chancellor was to enact our policy. However, as already mentioned, monetary policy is but one part of the control of the economy. It is equally important to use fiscal policy to ensure the correct balance in the economy and a sustainable level of economic growth.
There is no doubt that the current strength of sterling, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, in the past six months, has caused real problems for our exporters. I urge the Government therefore to look closely at fiscal policy. I have no doubt they will do so. I confidently expect an increase in taxation in the Budget.

1301
I turn to the subject of capital. The second major plank to which I referred relates to the cost and availability of capital. In a speech, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, the President of the Board of Trade, on 4th June, used one phrase which caught my ear. She said:
"The DTI too often looks like the department not for all business hut for big business. Under my leadership … we will do everything we can to promote enterprise and to assist small firms".
I am glad that the Government have recognised the importance of small business. I was staggered to discover that 99.5 per cent. of all businesses in the UK employ fewer than 100 people and that those businesses account for 29 per cent. of turnover and 51 per cent. of employment.
In terms of contribution to employment, small and medium enterprises are key to our future. In a Bow Group research paper published in March, the author clearly highlights the difficulties that SMEs have in raising finance, being so much dependent on overdraft finance. As a result, SMEs in the UK have often paid much higher interest rates than their main competitors and have been particularly vulnerable to recession.
Finally, I turn to the subject of people. I have kept this point to the end because I believe it to be the most important. By far the most effective way of improving competitiveness in British industry is through the development and training of the human resource. There is no quick fix, and nothing can be achieved overnight. It is of course essential that we invest in and improve our education system so that when our young citizens leave school they are properly educated and equipped. No one pretends that that objective can be achieved overnight by waving a magic wand. It will be a long haul. We on these Benches believe that it can be achieved only by a considerable increase in resources. The Government should look at the possibility of putting a penny on income tax to fund education. Were they to say openly and honestly to the people that the problem in education is greater than they supposed and that they intend to put another penny on income tax, I have no doubt that they would receive the full support of the vast majority of our citizens. Furthermore, that would have a beneficial effect on our fiscal policy.
The point upon which I should really like to touch concerns those already in work and what we can do to improve the quality of our current workforce. The noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, mentioned management education. I am currently chairman of the Master Innholders, a trade body of hoteliers which operates under the patronage of the Worshipful Company of Innholders. Last year I suggested to the worshipful company that a worthwhile way of supporting the industry would be to put together a series of bursaries to send middle and senior managers to management colleges before they were promoted to general managers. That idea was accepted and we had four bursaries for Ashridge and Cranfield. That was a great success. My point in telling your Lordships about that is not to blow my own trumpet but rather to draw attention to the excellent management colleges we have in this country, and, more important, to the rather sad
1302
fact that they are used almost exclusively by big business. The opportunities for managers to learn are ignored by smaller firms.
Cranfield recently sent me a fascinating paper entitled Developing Businesses Through Developing Individuals. Because I am running out of time I cannot tell noble Lords a great deal about it. I would recommend anyone interested in management education to get hold of that paper. It deals with wonderful things called "meta abilities", which are the cognitive skills of managers. It is well worth reading.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on having brought this matter before your Lordships. These are incredibly important challenges. I return to my main point of departure, which is that competitiveness must be within a framework of social cohesion. The wealth-generating process must be the servant, not the master. Above all, we must be clear that the objective which we are seeking to fulfil is to give all our citizens an inclusive, socially just life of dignity.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for initiating this debate and those noble Lords who have participated in it, proving once again that this House is an unequalled depository of knowledge and experience which always brings added value to any subject. I, too, share noble Lords' pleasure in the speech of my new colleague at the Dispatch Box.
I hope that industry will read the debate and that someone will ensure that the Treasury reads it, because the Treasury will set the climate in which British industry is competitive and flourishes or wilts. It is not an easy task, but one thing is certain: it is on a global scale. Being the best in Britain is not to be sufficiently competitive. To achieve its objective of winning, British industry must be the best in the world. It must also be of size. Competition policy must be based on global not national standards.
Holding inflation is important, but not while letting the pound run away, as my noble friend Lord Vinson said. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said that giving the Bank of England control of interest rates would give business the stability that it wants. I agree that that is what business wants, but I fail to see that handing over decision-making gives stability. If you are to be competitive you learn never to say "never". The noble Lord, Lord Desai, might bring some of his flexibility aims to the attention of the Chancellor.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said also that inward investors were put off by the xenophobic speeches at Conservative Party conferences. I have never met an inward investor so naïve as not to understand the nature of party conferences. I wonder how they will regard the noble Lord's statement this afternoon that it is wrong for skills to come from other countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Currie, drew attention to the weakness of British management. We need to benefit from competitiveness in all skills and we require openness in the exchange of skills. Much skill training is in place, but I hope that we will not say to those who

1303
qualify that they can only work in this country. That would be to their detriment and would not be along the lines of the Government's new friendly European policy.
I always recall that on the day I stood up to make my maiden speech, sheet of paper trembling in my hand, words honed and polished over several hours, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, stood up subsequently and made a brilliant maiden speech with his hands behind his back. Today he fluently said much of what I believe: competitiveness must be based on innovation.
The great news is that we are good at it. We used to struggle with the subsequent processes, and we gave away the opportunities because of that. Now, much too slowly, but steadily, design is valued. In Northern Ireland I saw unique creativity in software—the skills which had brought forward music and poetry in that island showed by the production of software a whole new medium in which innovation and creativity flourished. I share the admiration for retailing of the noble Lord, Lord Graham. That is an industry which skills people who often failed to benefit from their earlier education. It is sharp edged and globally competitive. I believe that it grows because it lets its young people through—it grows talent based on pure skill and not on age.
Manufacturing has suffered because it has not always done that. It has believed that somehow age and not ability brings skills. The attitude is slowly changing, but for the sake of competitiveness I should like to see it change more quickly. It will be valuable to encourage schemes such as Young Enterprise which share with children the excitement of industry. I still think that too many parents believe that the professions and the Civil Service, not the creation of wealth, hold the future.
If we are to be competitive we must accept that there will be winners and losers. I fear that we are close to the development of a culture of envy. As was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, it is important that in creating wealth we create a safety net. We must allow people to create wealth. I believe that Camelot and the windfall tax bring severe challenges to management. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Currie, believes that a windfall tax is downsizing by legislation. I certainly share his fears of downsizing and believe that the tide has swung in recognising that that is not the way to grow. I believe that the Government could afford to carry out their programmes by encouraging the creation of wealth and not its restriction. One certainly needs every management skill one has in facing retrospective taxes of an unknown size.
Returning to competitiveness, when IBM and General Motors lost their way they invested in garden-shed operations. It worked. Companies must be left with resources to invest in research in partnership with academia. I heard some not so subtle pleas for increases in university salaries, but I am sure that I did not hear the requirement to be fat cats in ivory towers. As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, research is best done in partnership with business. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, confirmed that competitiveness comes from working together; from
1304
working as a team and sharing the message. I believe that every Member of the House was filled with horror at the story of the gold watch recipient who, after 50 years, said, "Well, that was for the use of my hands. With a little more understanding you could have had my brain for free". I am not convinced that it is for the Government to legislate on what should happen. One of the best directors at Harland and Wolff is its senior trade union member, but that would not have worked a few years ago. There is a part of every company's growth which is best left to be flexible.
It would be wrong of me to stand here today without mentioning the area of my affections where I spent the past three years; indeed, it would be impossible. In many ways, Northern Ireland ideally shows the importance of competitiveness because politics work against growth. Yet Northern Ireland continues to grow. I was pleased to leave the Province with more people in work than ever before and with exports up 50 per cent. on 1992–93. It has benefited not only from the Government targeting assistance to companies capable of improving their international competitiveness but also from business taking up the challenge, rejecting a dependency culture and forming the Northern Ireland Growth Challenge in order to plan strategies in sectors in which Northern Ireland is competitive. It works in many areas, including, my noble friend Lord Astor will be pleased to learn, exercises to reduce the cost of industrial injuries. There can be nothing better than industry recognising its needs and then organising itself to meet them.
Perhaps I may move to another favourite topic, which is the role that women can play in industrial competitiveness. If a nation uses only half of its resources there is no way it can be competitive. At the recent CBI dinner there were about 1,200 men and 50 women. We must change that. It means more encouragement in the education system, in training and in flexibility in the work place and more opportunities for women as their families grow up to return to a career, not just to a job. It is important that their skills are harnessed if we are to be globally competitive. However, I cannot resist asking noble Lords opposite how they reconcile their minimum wage policy with the appointment of a Minister for Women who is not paid.
I believe that there is a whole debate to be held on the competitiveness of small firms. The noble Viscount. Lord Thurso, drew attention to the part those companies play in industry. There is a need to recognise what will work for them in terms of the size and timing of their programme. My definition of a small firm is not the number of its employees but a company in which at the end of the day work comes first and no one else does the work tomorrow. It is where there is great pressure on resources and there is a need to concentrate on programmes for that sector. I pay tribute to the DTI regional supply network which helps the local sourcing of materials, parts and components and encourages the linking of small and large companies to the benefit of both.
In order for British industry to be competitive, government and industry must work together. They must talk to each other and listen to each other. That is

1305
why we were happy to see the Government appoint to their Front Bench a senior industrialist and were pleased when he was named Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe. But will there ever be a debate in your Lordships' House more relevant to that Minister's role than today's debate, and yet again he is not here to reply. I worry that our expectations of the role might be too high.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, explained that we cannot build competitiveness for industry with only one government department. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will recognise the fact that, if he does not give industry the roads and the airports that it needs and does not contain the fuel costs, if he does not ensure environmental changes are brought in at a speed which industry can absorb, and if the planning process is too long and expensive, we shall never encourage competitiveness, whatever the skilling levels. If the Prime Minister cheerfully accepts all the demands of the social chapter without close and regular consultation with industry, I fear that we may lose competitiveness.
I believe that today has seen a useful debate and that this has been an afternoon well spent.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, this is a subject in which I have been passionately interested for many years. Therefore, I too am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for tabling the Motion on competitiveness. I congratulate him on his role in the Competition Policy Advisory Group as one of the three wise men. He knows that a strong competition policy is vital for the competitiveness of our economy. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, to the Opposition Front Bench.
In our Manifesto for Business, we indicated that there is no issue more fundamental to the prosperity of this nation than the competitiveness of our firms. Not only does it enable us to sell our goods and services on world markets, raise living standards and improve our public services, but competitiveness is essential to create a fairer society in which opportunities are available for all.
This Government recognise the importance of competitiveness for commercial and social reasons. We shall work in a new partnership with business—employers and employees—to improve our competitive position. We have brought the competitiveness unit back where it belongs: to the DTI to reflect our commitment to working with business to achieve improved competitiveness in Britain.
Some noble Lords may say that there is nothing new about that commitment to competitiveness. After all, the previous government published three competitiveness White Papers. Those, however, were based on a partial view of our economic circumstances, and offered a narrow set of solutions.
Our approach to competitiveness will start from an honest appraisal of Britain's strengths and weaknesses. Not that everything the last government did was wrong. They got some things right and we shall not make changes where that is the case. But their competitiveness White Papers tended to gloss over some of our
1306
weaknesses. We do have fundamental structural weaknesses which must be addressed. Many noble Lords have listed them. We have many excellent firms but, although we have narrowed the gap, productivity in manufacturing remains 25 per cent. below that of France and Germany and even further behind the USA. As my noble friend Lord Graham reminded us, employment is still over 400,000 below its 1990 peak. The previous government's skills audit showed that our workforce is less well educated and skilled than that of our main competitors. In the past decade income inequality has grown faster in the UK than anywhere else in the OECD, except for New Zealand.
By not properly acknowledging those weaknesses, the previous government's efforts to improve competitiveness, while welcome, did not go far enough. In addition, they failed to build common ground with all those involved in industry, seeming to forget that employees are just as vital a part of business as employers. They often talked as if improving workers' pay and conditions was always bad for competitiveness. Perhaps with the notable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, they forgot that to be competitive productivity is as important as hourly wage rates. And, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, reminded us, quality is even more important. They forgot that a competitive economy needs to provide opportunity for all people to use their talent in the economy. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, remembered that.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, says that all is well, but clearly there is an ongoing challenge. The extent of competition accelerates every year. As we improve so do our competitors: in Europe, in south-east Asia, in the Americas and elsewhere. We must run to stand still. The challenge is all the greater because we cannot compete with countries like China on wages but we can on quality, service and innovation. That is the way forward. We must build an innovative, high skilled, high technology economy.
Many noble Lords have spoken of flexibility. We need what the Government call flexibility plus—flexibility plus investing for the long term: in people as well as in equipment. We must have flexibility plus innovation and flexibility plus creating a culture in which we face up to weaknesses and maximise our strengths. Flexibility is not just easy hire and fire in the absence of regulation but the ability of people to be flexible at work.
Unlike the Opposition, the Government recognise that the economy is both social and commercial. Our vision is of one nation sharing our increasing prosperity, of opportunity for all, not just the few. We simply cannot afford to waste any of our workforce. After 18 years of widening income equality and marginalisation this is indeed a radical vision. Through measures such as welfare to work and initiatives to improve the skills of the workforce we will ensure that all our people contribute towards Britain's improved competitiveness and have a stake in it.

1307
So that is the task. The Government cannot do it alone. We must pursue it in partnership—Government, business, the workforce together. To be a government for business we must also be a government for all our people. And Britain works best when we work together.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, that it certainly is not the job of government to tell people how to run industry. We will not try to do the job of industry. Where we are different from the previous Government is that we will not fail to do our own job. This Government will listen, then act. The President of the Board of Trade has invited a range of businesses to take part in an advisory group on competitiveness. She will host a competitiveness summit in July, where a new competitiveness audit will be launched. This will be the benchmark for our competitive position. Where progress has been made, this Government will be pleased to report it. But we shall also face up to current and potential problems. Future achievements will be judged against this audit.
Various aspects of our competitiveness will be examined by a working party, some sessions of which will be chaired by DTI Ministers. Their task will be to produce advice which will be taken into account in a new competitiveness White Paper to be launched early next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, spoke about the relationship between government and industry. He spoke of stimulation, and I agree with him. As I said, the Government cannot and should not tell industry what to do, but it can provide the right market incentives and the right institutional structures to produce competition and growth. I agree with the noble Lord that the most important contribution that the Government can make to business is economic stability with low inflation.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, told us how well the economy is doing now, but business has experienced enough boom and bust under the previous government. I assure my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that we are committed to long-term stability which contributes to lower inflation, higher investment and an improvement in most other economic indicators, including the containment of public expenditure. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already laid the foundations for that and many noble Lords have congratulated him on his actions.
As well as stability, there are many other facets to competitiveness. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, mentioned integrity and many noble Lords have mentioned the long-term view. To build the innovative, high skilled, high technology economy that I have described, we need to improve the performance of individual firms and individual workers. We have excellent firms, but too many firms do not live up to their potential. Noble Lords will recall that while in Opposition praised the DTI's work with sectors of practice. Including more effective of technology. Much good work has been, done here and I am the first to say so. This Government
1308
will build on that to create a genuine and constructive partnership to improve industry's competitiveness and increase national wealth and employment.
We shall work with all sectors of manufacturing and service industries, including retailing, to build on their strengths and to tackle their weaknesses. As my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade said in her speech on 4th June, there will be precisely targeted support and small firms will be a priority for us.
On education and training, we shall lay foundations for the long term. I agree with my noble friend Lady Lockwood and others that the demands on those in the workforce increase all the time as layers of management are removed and the concept of empowerment takes root. We shall equip our workforce to cope with that by making the raising of standards in schools a key priority. We shall set new targets in relation to the three Rs. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby that we shall address the variability mentioned in the recent report about NVQ and GNVQ standards by improving quality assurance and assessment.
Many noble Lords mentioned management as the key element in competitiveness. I agree with them. A commitment to innovation, a willingness to invest resources in the long-term, the vision to unlock the potential of the workforce—these are all aspects of management which can make the crucial difference between mediocre performance and excellence by companies. Many British companies have world-class management. One sure sign of that is their recognition that they need to improve continuously. However, as my noble friend Lord Currie told us, many more, particularly among the smaller firms, are weak in this area. Many firms of all sizes are complacent and underestimate how much they need to raise their game.
This Government will continue to help business to help itself by spreading best practice, creating standards and providing bench-marking measures. We must ensure that people have the opportunity continuously to upgrade their skills. The University of Industry will make a vital contribution to lifetime learning. Our overall approach to education and training can be summed up in one word—improvement.
Many noble Lords spoke about the need for competition policy. My noble friend Lord Borrie reminded us of the previous government's poor record in that regard. There is a need to bring forward long overdue legislation to introduce prohibitions on anti-competitive agreements and abuse of power. This Government will introduce a competition Bill in its first parliamentary Session. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has made it clear that competition will be the primary consideration in her reference decisions on merger cases.
I agree with noble Lords that competitiveness must apply to all aspects of our economy to complete the jigsaw, as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby put it. Certainly we need economic strength, design, innovation and health and safety. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord on his work with RoSPA. I also agree that there is a need for management education and for links between

1309
the universities and companies, about which my noble friend Lady Lockwood spoke. Similarly, I note what the noble Earl, Lord Kitchener, said about better labels and catalogues. He also spoke about products made in Britain. Incidentally, I was very much involved with the first "Better made in Britain" exhibition which took place in 1978 and which was opened by the then Prime Minister, my noble friend Lord Callaghan. That was an important initiative on the part of the retailing industry. Indeed, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, that we need trade shows to improve our selling and marketing overseas. There is no single solution; we must get the balance right. The problem is that the balance is changing all the time as markets change.
My noble friend Lord Monkswell and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, spoke about the need for investment. Our manifesto made clear our commitment to consider how the tax system could promote longer term investment. My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has invited the new Advisory Group on Competitiveness to report on the most effective way to stimulate and promote investment, including investment in manufacturing, in the present economic climate. I have in mind investment in design, in innovation, in training and in new equipment. I agree with noble Lords who spoke about the need for no investment in down-sizing.
My noble friend Lord Currie, and others, spoke about the need for skills. We recognise that the economies of countries that have higher skills levels grow faster than those of other countries at the same level of income. Indeed, several noble Lords reminded us that some firms are looking overseas for the skills that they need. If we harness the vitality, dynamism and the many talents of the British people, I have no doubt that our economy will move from strength to strength. I should tell the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, that we are not concerned about people taking their skills and training abroad. Training and skills belong to the individuals concerned and they can take them anywhere they like. That is an important part of a free economy.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Hanworth that good companies have undertaken training and broader education to enable staff to be more flexible and to demonstrate that they value people as individuals and as employees. Indeed, I take careful note of his cautionary tale.
My noble friend Lady Lockwood, and other speakers, emphasised the importance of school and industry links. There is a mutual benefit involved which we will encourage. We shall continue the work of the previous government. I welcome the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby about research and I heed his wariness about NVQs and GNVQs and the need to upgrade vocational qualifications.
Several speakers mentioned the social chapter. By signing up to the chapter we are playing our full part in Europe and ensuring fairness for our workers. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that by doing so we are merely transferring decisions to
1310
Brussels. The Government have undertaken to examine any new measures proposed under the social chapter to see whether they will have an impact on competitiveness. Where a measure would threaten competitiveness the Government will oppose it. We will deploy our influence in Europe to ensure that the social chapter develops so as to promote employability and competitiveness, not inflexibility and high social costs. In the past few weeks there has been a major shift in priorities throughout Europe in that direction. I can only say that my 30 years' experience of running a business has taught me that people work better in an atmosphere of trust and co-operation rather than in one of fear.
Competitiveness is part of our policy of inclusion and fairness. It matters because only by being competitive can we ensure that there is the opportunity for everyone to participate fully in our economy. It is also the only way to ensure that all consumers get the best value-for-money products and services. That is the real "trickle-down".
There are no easy answers and no quick fixes. It is a long-term issue that requires serious analysis and an ongoing consensus. It involves all sectors of the economy, including services and manufacturing. There is also an international dimension. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, I welcome the appointment of my noble friend Lord Simon as Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe. It shows our commitment to the need for constructive policies at the European Union level, as well as at the national level. We will work in partnership with business to identify what needs to be changed and the best way of making those changes. Decisions will be based on what works, rather than on dogma. We shall certainly be open to ideas from all.
If there are any points to which I have not responded this evening, I shall write to noble Lords within the course of the next day or two. In conclusion, I should stress that everyone has a role to play in this effort and everyone will be able to share in the prosperity that will result.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him whether he can give us some guidance on timetabling as regards policy implementation. There is an advisory group which is due to report, an audit in process and a White Paper to be published. Are we to assume that the Government will collect the information from those sources before their precise targeting on allocation of resources is under way?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I should tell the noble Baroness that such matters are still under consideration. The various advisory committees have yet to meet and the timing of their work is very much a matter for them. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade is most anxious for this work to be carried out quickly. Some committees are already meeting and the intention is that this work will be carried out quickly.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I thank my noble friends and indeed noble Lords from all parts of the House for their effective contributions. Indeed there was a series of contributions covering a wide range of matters relevant to competitiveness. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, on his first appearance on the Opposition Front Bench.
I wished the word "industry" in the Motion to be treated widely, and I am delighted that it has been. Retailing industry, services and financial services have been covered as well as manufacturing industry. I was delighted that noble Lords took a broad view as regards the matters which are relevant to competitiveness, including human resources—as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, put it—skills training, education and even matters which I must admit I had not contemplated but which I now fully understand are relevant to competitiveness. I refer to safety which the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, mentioned. I am grateful for the contribution in the gap by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, on the importance of currency stability as regards competitiveness. We have had an excellent debate. It only remains for me to withdraw the Motion standing in my name. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Tourism
8.11 p.m.
The Earl of Bradford The Earl of Bradford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what measures they propose to take to ensure the continued growth of tourism to Britain.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me for once again returning to a subject that is dear to my heart, and occasionally to my wallet, which is why I must declare an interest as president of the Wrekin Tourism Association, owner of Porters Restaurant, chairman of Weston Park Enterprises and president of the Master Chefs of Great Britain.
First, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to his position on the Front Benches opposite. His daughter-in-law, a delightful and lovely young Australian lady, worked for some time at my Porters Restaurant, so I feel we already have something in common.
Secondly, I thank in advance all the noble Lords who are taking part in the debate this evening. It illustrates the importance of the subject that we have as many speakers as in the previous debate. I note that there seems to be a slight imbalance in that nearly half the speakers come from Scotland—it is quite a notable gathering of the clans—but I feel that they should take notice of the fact that Scotland receives considerably more in grant for promotion per head of population than does England.
Unfortunately the previous Government never seemed to understand the difference between investment that paid back, as in funding the promotion of tourism, and spending, as in "kiss it goodbye" with no actual visible financial return. Always one heard that blandly quoted
1312
excuse, "no hypothecation"—the method by which the Treasury absolves itself from any responsibility in making positive decisions by continually stating that it needs to keep government spending under control.
Now we have a new Administration which I hope is receptive to sensible proposals, and which is certainly prepared to stand up for its pre-election pledges. It is already quite apparently demonstrating that it has different ideas from those of previous Labour Governments. The Government have a clearly stated commitment to bring down unemployment which, although it has decreased considerably from former high levels, is still well above the post-War average. The Government particularly wish to get the youth and long-term unemployed back into jobs. I wish to demonstrate to the Government an easy and relatively inexpensive way to achieve that laudable aim, and at the same time ensure the continued growth of an industry projected to become the world's largest by the year 2000. It is an industry that already produces 5 per cent. of gross domestic product in Britain, and employs over 1.7 million people.
Regrettably, tourism to Britain went through a period of relative decline under the previous Administration. I refer to its falling share of world tourism, its poor standing in the European league tables of growth in tourism, and its appalling balance of payments performance, from being in the black in the early 1980s to a still increasing deficit of £3.9 billion.
Professor Stephen Wonhill of Cardiff University has demonstrated that it takes an increased tourism spend of only £28,500 to produce one new full-time job. If we had merely maintained the previous balance of payments position, we would have expanded employment in Britain by over 150,000, as opposed to effectively exporting the jobs instead. All in all, that was an exceedingly negative performance. Yet estimates by the World Travel and Tourism Council suggest that the UK travel and tourism industry presently contributes well over £25 billion in tax revenue to the Exchequer.
Some people have stated that, given the size of the industry and its relative success, it should raise the money for its promotion from the private sector. However, 175,000 of the 225,000 tourist businesses are owner operated. How would they ever manage to promote effectively unless it was done centrally and paid for by the Treasury? In fact the niggardly amount allocated to the statutory bodies to promote tourism to Britain is a paltry £93 million in the current year; a figure that has not been raised in real terms for the past 18 years. Surely, given all the evidence, including that of the previous Select Committee, chaired by Gerald Kaufman, a Labour Member in another place, the argument for increasing this sum has been proven time and time again.
During that same period tax upon tax has been loaded onto the industry. VAT increased from 8 per cent. to 17.5 per cent. There was the imposition of the airport tax, which is now raising £400 million a year, many times the annual grant, and which is about to double as a result of the previous Budget. There is also the horrendous financial effect of business rates. Now is the time for the Government to stop just taking and instead to support; to

1313
spend sensibly to achieve some necessary ends. However, there are certain factors that also need to be taken into account. Tourism is not necessarily a boon to everyone, as one business's or town's benefit can be another person's nightmare. It must be sustainable and produce a satisfactory return in compensation for the undoubted burden that it can create on this country's infrastructure, whilst the effect on the local population must also be considered. After all, how many people would have predicted that some simple amusing stories written by a vet or a television series about three elderly gentlemen behaving irresponsibly would have transformed life in two rural Yorkshire villages and altered their character for ever?
It is absolutely vital that we look at re-orientating how we target potential visitors and stop the constant pursuit of ever-increasing numbers. Instead we must turn our attention to raising the overall spend by attracting the business traveller and the more upmarket tourist. As many of our attractions are what might be termed "real history", they can only cope with limited numbers going round their facilities before they begin to suffer under the strain. If one of the important aims of attracting tourists is to pay for the upkeep and improvement of our great buildings and institutions, we have to be careful that the patient is not overwhelmed by numbers, and ultimately succumbs under the overload.
Surely it is self-evident that Great Britain plc derives greater benefit from catering to one person splashing out £5,000 on a luxury trip than from 100 parting with just £100 each, or even 1,000 spending just £5. This is not being elitist, merely practical. However, on studying the reaction to my recent statement that we might need to consider limiting low spending cross-Channel day visitors to London, who even bring their own packed lunches, one might have thought that I was a latter day Marie Antoinette saying, "Let them leave their baguettes at home and buy British cakes"!
We must encourage the development of more out of season tourism, as we shall derive greater benefit by boosting full-time employment. Most importantly, we need to educate potential tourists that Britain is not just London and persuade them to be adventurous and move out to other parts of the country.
Another geographical problem is that the two major airports, the ferry ports and Eurostar are all based in the south east of England. We would all gain, and spread the benefits of tourism, if more visitors could be persuaded to enter Britain through gateways in the rest of the country.
That is why projects like Manchester Airport's second runway are so important. Perhaps Swampy might feel slightly differently about it if he realised how much unnecessary traffic the project will remove from the roads by giving people in the north of England better and more convenient services nearer to where they live, while also providing an entry point to Britain which should be closer to many visitors' ultimate destinations.
Let us hope that salutary lessons will have been learned by scrutinising the previous Government's attitude towards tourism promotion, and that by examining the reasons for their relative failure the new Administration will produce a very different plan of action. After all, it
1314
would seem that increased spending on tourism promotion would be in accord with all their aims. Surely there cannot be any other kind of government expenditure which achieves all the following: a net effect of actually raising revenue; a reduction in unemployment; and a positive impact on our balance of payments.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, what a splendid opening to a reunion of the old lags—the repertory company is assembled once more! The only difference is that the Government have changed. Let us hope that the attitude of the new Government will also have changed. However, I congratulate the noble Earl on his opening remarks.
I have the needs of the consumer much in mind, with my background in the Co-operative movement to guide me. I wish to share with your Lordships what has happened as a result of the impact of tourism upon a not inconsiderably-sized business, the Co-operative movement.
Over the past five years there has been considerable rationalisation within the travel industry. This has led to formal links being developed between the major high street travel agency chains and the key tour operators. Those links are between Thomson Tour Operator and Lunn Poly, Airtours and Going Places, Sunworld and Thomas Cook, and Inspirations and A.T. Mays. That is vertical integration.
In order to counter that move, the majority of the retail co-operatives formed an alliance under the banner of Co-op Travel Limited. That created a group of 432 travel agencies which is the only truly independent group of any size within the United Kingdom. The function of the alliance is to negotiate with tour operators as a group, improve the commercial terms, and thereby reduce the costs of holidays to Co-op clients. The retail trade industry has been discount led over the past few years, and therefore without the ability to enhance our commercial terms the Co-ops would not have been able to compete in the high street and as a result consumer choice would have been restricted still further.
Let me illustrate the changes that have been made. In 1974 the Co-op travel turnover was £12.6 million; this year it has grown to £680 million. In 1974 it employed 220 people; it now employs 2,400. That indicates that when we talk of the tourist industry it is a very disparate, wide organisation, a point mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Bradford. People think of package holidays, going abroad or visiting this country, but there is a great deal more to tourism.
I was delighted to see earlier this year that the Labour Party has produced a strategy for tourism and hospitality called Breaking New Ground. I am sure that the Minister will comment on that. I am delighted to note that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will speak as a Minister for the first time in this debate. He will

1315
have noted the intention of the Government to produce a new development of tourism Act. We are told that,
"The new Act will build upon the sound foundations of Labour's 1969 Act. [It will concentrate on] updating tourism structures, enhancing standards in service and provision, introducing a co-ordinating mechanism for overseas tourism marketing [and] encouraging partnerships between local authorities, tourist boards and the private sector including hospitality interests"—
whatever all that means.
We have had not just promises but assurances that everything will be all right. The noble Earl touched upon the point of the ludicrous amount of spend by the Government direct to the tourist boards out of the enormous sums of money which tourism brings into this country. We know that the figure is ludicrous. I believe that it is £90 million to the tourist boards, and that has to be sub-divided to the regions.
Perhaps I may conclude with a renewed plea for a Ministry for Tourism and a Minister of Tourism. Many of our major competitor countries have such a structure. It concentrates the mind wonderfully. It elevates and enhances the stature of tourism and indicates that those countries believe that tourism is vital to the economy. I, too, believe that it is vital to our economy.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to comment on three issues. I refer, first, to the unfairness of the recently imposed insurance premium tax whereby a tax rate of 17.5 per cent. is levied on policies sold by travel agencies but only 4 per cent. on policies sold direct to the public by insurance companies. Whoever that benefits, it is punishing travel agents. Why?
Secondly, are the Government concerned at the growth of the Internet, with its dangers to consumer protection compared with that provided in the high street?
Thirdly, and finally, can the Minister comment on the situation if and when Scotland and Wales secure devolved powers? Will he agree that there will still be a need to maximise co-ordinated marketing overseas with a strengthened BTA? I thank the noble Earl for allowing us to air an important topic.
8.27 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, for drawing my attention to this short debate. I must declare a non-pecuniary interest. I am a member of the Council of the National Trust for Scotland and the Clackmannanshire Heritage Trust.
There is no doubt that tourism makes a substantial contribution to the Scottish economy, achieving at least an annual turnover of £2 billion. Clearly tourism demands that visitors must be attracted to a locality in preference to other locations, have a range of places in which to stay, have many things to see and do and have a means of both getting to the area and getting around. Similarly, any visitor attraction needs to provide three basic services: somewhere to park, a "loo" and a cup of tea. After that, visitors are ready for whatever the attraction can offer them.
1316
In Clackmannan we have the historic background and layout of a medieval village built on a crag-and-tail hill, with a 15th century tower-house related to the Bruce family, and local walks which take in parts of the Mar and Kellie estate. There is adequate parking space. There are nasty public loos, and nowhere for a cup of tea. The issue of the dismal public loos raises an often ignored fundamental of a tourist economy: residents in the area must want tourism. Having strangers poking around may not suit everyone. The residents need to believe that they benefit from what they may feel is an intrusion.
The off-putting public loos are mainly the result of vandalism. Of course I do not suggest that vandalism to these facilities is directly aimed at stifling an embryonic tourist economy. It is obviously the result of much deeper problems. That there is no tea room is something of a commercial Catch-22 situation. I have no doubt that an entrepreneur would open a tea room if the tourist market was there, but we cannot market Clackmannan as a tourist venue until there is one. There is a solution in the form of temporary intervention by the state, either by the local tourist board or by the Clackmannanshire Council.
I now turn to experience of the early stages of running a tourist attraction. Ten years ago my late father and the chief executive of the then Clackmannan District Council drew up an agreement to repair and bring into public use the Erskine family's historic home, Alloa Tower. The district council backed the project and appointed a dynamic project officer, in the person of Mr. Andrew Millar, to make it happen. It has happened, and Alloa Tower will be opened by Her Majesty next month.
In the interim, the Clackmannanshire Heritage Trust has been opening the tower on a daily basis in the summer months, under the management of the National Trust for Scotland. Funding from the lottery has been delayed by a year, so we are left to run the tower without the tea-room in the stables. I tell this story to draw out the operating problems of a tourist attraction. We have parking, loos, facilities for taking people's money and completely unbiased stories to tell the visitors about the tower and the contribution of the Erskine Earls of Mar and Kellie to Scotland's past, and no doubt the mess we are currently in!
It is the temporary lack of a tea-room that shows up. As the leader of what feels like a thousand guided tours, I feel the missing link of not being able to sit down with the visitors afterwards and speak with them informally or even listen to them. Curiously, during the nine-year repair phase this was accepted as I led tours around the ever less derelict towerhouse.
I look forward to the reply of the noble Lord to the Question. I have not troubled him at all. I hope that increased and well targeted investment in the tourist industry will be part of the new Government's strategy.
My noble friend Lord Thurso, who is an undoubted professional in this industry, will be glad that I have not distorted the tourism strategy that he has developed for these Benches. May our tourist industry flourish.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, for asking this important Question tonight.
I must declare an interest as my home is open to the visiting public and I am chairman of the Historic Houses Association for Scotland, which represents 40 of the largest privately owned stately homes and castles open to the public and last year we were enjoyed by 2 million visitors thus generating major public benefit.
Scottish tourism generated £2.4 billion last year. This included £389 million from within Scotland, £1,100 million from the rest of the UK and £935 million from overseas. So these figures prove how vital the tourism industry is and prove how important it is for the Government to continue to support it. In the past five years overseas tourism in Scotland has grown from £578 million to £935 million, an increase of 62 per cent. There cannot be many other industries which can claim such an increase.
Last year. Scottish tourism sustained 177,000 people in employment, which is some 8 per cent. of the Scottish workforce. It is hoped that with government support a further 20,000 jobs will be created before the turn of the century.
Many of Scotland's traditional industries—coal, steel, textiles, fishing—have declined and now country sports are also under a very real threat. Country sports keep the countryside alive and well—without them the countryside would literally die. Country sports sustain 60,000 full-time jobs and indirect employment is estimated at a further 31,000 full-time jobs; and I urge Her Majesty's Government to give no support whatsoever to Mr. Foster's Bill to outlaw hunting. The countryside rally in Hyde Park on 10th July will prove just how many people depend on country sports for their livelihoods and their very existence.
In many areas of Scotland tourism is the only growth industry with the prospect to create and safeguard future jobs on any meaningful scale. It has the potential of becoming the industry upon which the future of many of Scotland's small and medium-size enterprises depend. It is for that reason that government support is so vital.
Tourism regenerates local culture, providing amenities and benefits for visitors and residents alike. It is no surprise that tourism features so strongly in the Scottish economy, in the industry portfolio of the Scottish Office, and in the economic development plans of all local authorities.
Scotland has a rich inheritance, and her national assets are world-class in tourism terms. Her heritage, her environment, her natural history, and her culture provide a product which can stand beside the leading destinations of the world.
Scotland has a unique and distinctive brand image, evolved over years of emigration, pageantry and, crucially, the resourcefulness and success of the whisky industry. Doctors the world over have endorsed it for its medical qualities!
1318
A recent survey of "Tourism Futures" by the Henley Centre concluded that tomorrow's tourist is looking for: a genuine heritage; a quality environment; active leisure; and a fulfilling experience. All these things Scotland can and does supply. The same research indicates that tourists also expect: good quality accommodation; appetising food; quality service; and affordable and efficient transport.
In the field of training we have been most deficient in the past. However, more than 26,000 people have completed the Scottish Tourist Board's "Welcome Host" scheme and a further 3,500 have completed "Scotland's Best".
Seasonality remains an Achilles Heel; more than half of the overseas visitors to Scotland are here during the three-month period June/July/August. A genuine 12-month tourism season is needed to ensure the success of many of the smaller businesses, and to provide quality and viable employment for those in the industry. This again is where country sports are so vitally important for Scotland.
We know that change lies ahead and so far as Scotland is concerned we look forward to an understanding of the extent to which a Scottish parliament will be involved in the promotion and development of this vital industry to the Scottish economy.
There are exciting times ahead for the UK tourism industry and for Scotland in particular and I hope and pray that the Government will give the tourism industry the support it so rightly and justly deserves.
8.35 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, while not in any way dissenting from anything that has so far been said in this splendid debate on what is a vast subject, I want to move away from the tribal areas, controversial though they may be, and concentrate on two issues which arose in the debate on licensing reform introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, on 29th January. I have spoken many times in this House on licensing reform. It is an issue that directly affects the restaurant trade, which plays a major role in tourism in the United Kingdom. I must declare a non-pecuniary interest as Patron of the Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain.
The first issue concerns supper hours certificates. The RAGB hopes that the permitted hours for serving drinks with meals can be extended to midnight on weekdays and 11.30 p.m. on Sundays, without the need for a supper hours certificate. In practice, such certificates are rarely refused, so the requirement is merely a bureaucratic imposition on what are, generally speaking, extremely small businesses.
The second issue concerns extended hours orders (EHOs). At present, if a restaurant wishes to serve drinks with meals up to 1 a.m., there is an even more complicated procedure. First, a restaurant needs a supper hours certificate, and then has to provide entertainment with a minimum of two live musicians. That is costly, impractical and severely limits consumer choice since

1319
many customers want to dine late and have quiet meals. The RAGB hopes that the entertainment requirement can be dropped in order to qualify for an EHO.
In the debate on 29th January, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, then speaking for the Government, stated (at col. 1238) that the matters to which I just referred were being studied and that possibly a short licensing amendment Bill might be required. We now have the splendid and robust noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on the Front Bench speaking for the Government. That is very welcome. I know that he has a great deal of knowledge on this subject. I have already given him notice of these matters, so I hope that in replying he will be able to comment as to whether there has been any progress and when we might expect a solution. There are a whole number of other licensing issues which need simplification. I appreciate that the noble Lord may not have enough time in replying to mention them; perhaps in those circumstances he could write to me, and to others who are interested in the subject subsequently.
The proposals that I have mentioned are part of a most desirable move towards deregulation. They would simplify life for an industry which plays a major role in our national life and provide a better service to tourists, both national and international, and to the community at large.
As I have two more minutes, I shall stray on to one other subject which I have not talked about before; namely training, which was mentioned by other noble Lords. The RAGB runs an annual event to award a major prize to the young chef and young waiter of the year. This award attracts enormous attention and is a great stimulus to people who usually go on to other successes. Likewise, the Academy of Food and Wine Service—and here I have to declare yet another interest in that I am its honorary President—runs a wine waiter award and also provides training packs on service skills to promote training in a large industry. I think those are important organisations which do valiant work in improving standards in a vast industry. I am sure that this is something which the Government much appreciate.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, the number of Peers speaking in this debate tonight possibly reflects the expertise in this House on tourism rather than self-interest. These days we live in an age of political reviews, but I do not think we can blame the present Government for the current tourism reviews which have been going on for about two years. It was, after all, a previous Secretary of State, Stephen Dorrell, who first acknowledged that Britain was losing its world share of tourism to our competitors. After that, much good work was done by his successor, Virginia Bottomley, and my noble friend Lord Inglewood in raising the profile of publications on accommodation quality standards, human resources and bench marking. The appointment of senior industry representatives to the Tourism
1320
Advisory Forum was helpful in improving the dialogue between government and the industry, and the interest of the CBI in tourism has further raised the profile.
The Conservative strategy document, Successes Through Partnership, setting out the Government's intentions, was launched last February. It took into account the comments of the advisory forum, whose 30-plus members ensured a broad consensus on its proposals. It fairly reflects the status quo on tourism but was not on its own a strategic plan, although it set out a programme of work and consultation. Some were impatient with this approach, but after so many years without a definitive government-backed national policy on tourism it was necessary to engage in fairly widespread consultation on the key issues to be addressed in the future strategy.
Consequently, the major ETB consultative exercise entitled "Agenda 2000" was commenced, aiming at consulting the tourism industry and local authorities. Never before had the ETB engaged in such a widespread, open, consultative exercise. To engage in such a comprehensive consultation in England at this key time was a major and laudable commitment by a board with scarce resources.
The timing of this exercise was such that it continued beyond the election, but it was indeed commendable that after the election the Labour Party approved the process, the findings of which will soon land on the desk of the present Secretary of State. Labour's post-election record is of immediate progress in pursuit of its mandate promises. It pledged "New Labour—New Development of Tourism Act". Now perhaps it is time to move forward on that promise. Tourism is the world's biggest growth industry which presents unparalleled opportunities, matched by growing global challenges, which even the Labour Government's massive parliamentary majority may not readily or easily resolve.
However, the Labour Party has a good precedent, as Labour's decision in 1969 to introduce the first Development of Tourism Act coincided with the first jet taking to the air, starting the revolution in international mass tourism. The Act established the framework for government sponsorship of tourism, creating the British Tourist Authority to market Britain overseas and the boards for England, Scotland and Wales. These national boards subsequently set up the non-statutory regional and area boards. I must declare my interest as President of the Southern Tourist Board. That has achieved many otherwise unattainable benefits such as information collection and dissemination, research, quality standards, IT and networks for advice and co-ordination—all vital to the industry's operational efficiency, especially because it is fragmented, comprising over 200,000 businesses, mostly small.
Over recent years the BTA budget has been maintained in real terms but the ETB funding has been cut, coupled with a directive that most of its grant in aid should go to its regional boards. This has seriously weakened the central infrastructure, yet England is the dynamo that drives all of Britain's tourism. Introverted nationalism is often divisive. The national boards for

1321
Scotland and Wales have been administered by the Scottish and Welsh Offices, with no structured co-ordinating mechanism with ETB, although they have board representation on the BTA. The original clarity that BTA would promote Britain overseas has been weakened by allowing Scotland and Wales to spend some of their grant independently.
Labour has announced that it will, if necessary, introduce statutory classification and grading of tourist accommodation. After two years attempts to amalgamate the AA, RAC and tourist board schemes have failed. Scotland has opted out and confusingly intends to adopt the same symbols with different definitions. How does such independence square with the demands for devolution? There can be no justification or right for any national or regional entity to frustrate the effective co-operation of these systems if they are publicly funded. Here lies a tourism devolution puzzle for Labour.
Labour plans to create regional development agencies with a remit for tourism. Regional tourist boards must adapt to work closely with the new bodies at regional and national level. Perhaps the number of regional tourist boards and their boundaries should be looked at anew to see whether they can fit more closely with the new regional development agency areas. Certainly their relationship must be defined.
Finally, this disparity encourages national differences to persist, and I believe that they do great damage to tourism as a whole. Tourism should not be a politically divisive subject. All parties believe that tourism has great potential and there is a vital role for the Government to play.
8.46 p.m.
The Earl of Dundonald: My Lords, may I also thank my noble friend Lord Bradford for initiating this short and useful debate. I should like to stray north of the Border to Scotland and to re-emphasise the points made by my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein on licensing and licensed premises in particular. I disclose at this time an interest in the sector as a director and founder of a small family entertainment business which provides licensed entertainment in a number of towns and cities in Scotland.
Tourism, as we have all heard this evening, is a major employer and critical part of UK plc. Scotland as a whole is probably more dependent on tourism than other parts of the UK. We have benefited in the last few years from increased awareness of what Scotland has to offer, in part from a weakened pound and a number of Hollywood blockbusters. Last year was a record for Scottish tourism. This year has been disappointing in the areas of Scotland where we are located. I should be surprised if the financial returns for this year for the industry as a whole are not substantially down on the previous year. No Hollywood blockbusters and a much stronger pound have certainly played their part.
I am certain that the new Government are keen to show their credentials to small business in this sector. It is, after all, these businesses which provide a large proportion of the licensed premises in Scotland. Perhaps
1322
tonight I can tempt the Minister in his reply to demonstrate them in a positive way by taking action in the area of licensing law.
As the House will be aware, the previous Government made an attempt at reforming our Dickensian system by consolidating and tidying up previous legislation in this area. While that has helped, it has in no way solved the problem. If you operate licensed premises in Scotland you can apply for a public house licence, an entertainment licence, a restaurant licence, a family licence—the list goes on and on. The licence has to be renewed annually at one of the quarterly board meetings. One can apply for regular hours, regular extension to hours, further extension of hours, special one-off extension of hours—the list is endless.
If one wishes to make a material change to one's premises, not only must one seek planning approval—building warrant—but also consent of the full board. That can only be done at the quarterly meeting. It makes making even minor alterations a nightmare. Even moving an AWP requires the board's consent.
If one is opening new premises, one applies for a site licence which is then confirmed by a board member once all statutory authorities approve the building: environmental health, building control, planning, licensing police and the fire brigade. No one person is in charge of the process and unless the licensee arranges the whole process himself it can take weeks. Meanwhile a building stands empty, fully staffed, while the various departments take their time—or not, as the case may be. While it is critical that the premises meet current standards, I can see no reason why the system that delivers the results has to be so cumbersome and bureaucratic.
Different boards use different procedures, different time periods and different forms. Nothing is standard and everything is up to the individual board's interpretation of the law.
When you open premises you cannot be granted a regular extension to trading hours. You have to wait until the next quarterly board meeting to make the application. Businesses usually succeed, or not, in the first three months. In the licensed trade, a new operation, even if the licensee has an exemplary record in the area or in another board's area, is precluded from competing on a level playing field on day one. That is not very helpful, as I am sure your Lordships will agree.
The tourist, whether he is a British citizen or comes from overseas, expects and increasingly demands good quality licensed facilities. Today's regulations and licensing law do not help matters. I do not criticise the licensing boards. They put in their time voluntarily and do the job to the best of their ability. The trouble is that the system is cumbersome, open to too much procedural interpretation and is non-standard throughout the country.
I hope that the new Government can be persuaded to look again at that whole area of the law and greatly simplify it, so that the licensed leisure industry can concentrate on improving its standards and its training and as a result make the UK a more comfortable and convivial place to visit. I have no doubt that that would

1323
help to attract more tourists to the UK, and Scotland in particular. I look forward to the Minister making a positive reply in relation to the matter I have raised. I know that it will be greatly welcomed in the industry.
8.52 p.m.
Lord Rathcavan: My Lords, last year I completed eight years as chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and a member of the British Tourist Authority. That experience has left me always alert to the efficient development of this hugely important industry.
I wish to make only two points in the short time available. The first concerns the classification and grading of hotels, which my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu mentioned briefly.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House gets justifiable pleasure from often quoting to us his party manifesto and its endorsement by the electorate. I should like to remind the Minister tonight of his Government's commitment in their manifesto, for Wales and Scotland as well as England, to bring in new quality assurance for hotel accommodation. In fact, in a Labour Party policy document last year, that proposal was set out more clearly. I quote:
"Labour … will introduce statutory registration of all accommodation premises in the country".
If the various organisations do not voluntarily agree and harmonise internationally recognisable classification and grading schemes, then:
"Labour will … [introduce] a statutory national accommodation grading scheme".
I hope that the Government will do just that and do it as soon as possible.
The English Tourist Board has recently gone out on its own to introduce a voluntary star grade scheme with the AA and the RAC, a scheme based on physical facilities and not on quality. Scotland has broken away, as the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, mentioned, to launch a new and voluntary star grade scheme with a quality-led approach. It is rumoured that Wales may follow Scotland. So we shall then have in Great Britain the confusing situation in which grades and stars indicate different standards. The real problem remains in London, where much accommodation is not even registered and cowboy operators continue to fleece the visitor. Surveys show that one third of visitors to Britain are unhappy with the standards of accommodation, as are over 50 per cent. of visitors to London.
In Northern Ireland we introduced a scheme which is now common to the whole of Ireland, with statutory registration and classification to an international standard. It has done an enormous amount to improve standards, encourage investment in better facilities, make hotels concentrate on which area of the market they wish to serve and join in joint marketing schemes orchestrated by the tourist boards. In Ireland it is illegal to offer to visitors accommodation which has not been registered, inspected and graded. There are no cowboys. Such is the attraction and strength of the scheme that it has not been necessary yet to take anyone to law.
1324
It is clear that the voluntary approach is not working in Great Britain, as England, Wales and Scotland go their different ways and so many hotels are still neither registered nor classified. I hope that the Minister will confirm tonight that the Government will soon introduce the statutory quality assurance scheme that they promised, so that the bad standards of so much visitor accommodation in London at least can be tackled.
The second and final point that I wish to make concerns the future of the British Tourist Authority and its branding of Britain in overseas markets. The further away one gets from home, the more important an easily recognised brand becomes and the Far East is now the fastest growing market for inward tourism to Europe. There have been suggestions that the Government are proposing to give a more important role in tourism promotion to local authorities and councils. To promote Hull, Cumbria or even Wales in the Far East is not practical. The launch of the British Tourist Authority's new Branding of Britain, which starts this autumn, will be very important in the whole development of selling Britain overseas. It would be folly to dilute that effort.
The BTA is now recognised worldwide as the most effective and efficient tourism body. The devolution proposals may make the Wales and Scottish Tourist Boards even more independent of the BTA, but England is where 80 per cent. of visitors to the UK go. I hope that the Minister tonight will give his full backing to the BTA as the pivotal body to market Britain overseas.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, first, I must thank the noble Ear] for drawing up such a tightly defined and useful Unstarred Question. Secondly, I must declare an interest. I have been engaged in a caravan industry family business for some 25 years. It is a great pity that, on a subject of such importance, time is so short.
I must reluctantly take issue with the previous speaker, my noble kinsman Lord Rathcavan. After long study, I am convinced, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is also, that a mixture of the two methods of definition of standards, classification, and grading, in the accommodation business is inevitable and that the only symbol that the public recognise—which is due to the pioneering work of the AA over many years, far longer than my lifetime—is stars. Therefore, I fully support the decision of the Scottish Tourist Board to go down that road. I am sure that it is right.
I gave the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, notice that I proposed to speak on an exceptionally complicated and indeed rather boring issue. But it has enormous implications for the tourist industry in that it deters tourists from coming into this country and encourages our indigenous tourists to leave the country. It arises as a result of the distortions caused by the Tour Operators' Margin Scheme. I assure the noble Lord that if he does not want to reply to me tonight, I shall be happy to receive a letter, which I am sure he will agree to publish.
The effect of that scheme, which is part of a Brussels directive, would be neutral if VAT rates were uniform across the European Community. It sticks in my throat

1325
to call it a federation or anything else. There is a huge difference between 5 per cent. VAT in much of the Community and 17½ per cent. in this country. That has the effect of making it artificially—or apparently—cheaper to go abroad from this country to another EC country and correspondingly more expensive (because our VAT rate is higher) for other citizens of the European Community to come into the country. Surely that cannot be sensible.
There have been numerous protests about that situation. The British Tourist Authority has raised the issue on numerous occasions with the Treasury, which has always said that the tax base would be eroded if it were to reduce the applicable rate of VAT. I suggest that that is nonsense—my Lords, nonsense. What would happen would be that the cost of holidays in this country to foreigners—that is to say, other citizens of the European Community—would fall. More of them would come here.
As is well known, and as the previous speaker said, the tourism industry has plenty of spare capacity available at marginal rates, so every extra chap you get works directly through to your profit and loss account. The result is that tourism businesses, whether large or small, would become more profitable and employ more people, and the Government in due course would receive more tax from those businesses, whether by corporation tax or individual taxation. The amount disbursed through the social security budget in unemployment pay and suchlike then falls. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that that would be even better news than a windfall tax, which apparently will prevent, among other things, the modernisation of Paddington Station.
With those words I commend this change in the VAT scheme to give a level playing field. I apologise for that cliché. I am sorry that so far it has been resisted. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us good news in due course.
9 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, five minutes a head concentrates the mind wonderfully and so I shall start with three brief bullet points. First, I must declare an interest as an occasional consultant to the British Tourist Authority. Secondly, I must thank my noble friend Lord Bradford for tabling this Unstarred Question and for the speech with which he introduced it. He has attracted, as usual, a good list of speakers, a select club, if I may say so. Thirdly, I join him in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to our club; select, I have said, and small, but, as I am sure the noble Lord will have gathered, well informed and wide ranging, reflecting an industry which has a great deal of which to be proud. Much has been said by other speakers and much has been positive, but that does not mean that there are no problems which need to be addressed. I should like to raise two of these. The first is the balance of payments deficit on tourism and the second is devolution.
On Monday of last week a Written Answer in another place (cols. 310 to 312 of the Official Report) highlighted the success of our inward tourism industry
1326
but also underlined the ever increasing sums we spend on travel overseas. Going beyond the Written Answer I found a yet to be published study. Balance of Payments and Travel Account—Surplus or Deficit. It was written by the British Tourist Authority's Chandra Sonpal and was funded by means of a grant from the British Travel Education Trust.
Chandra Sonpal's figures show that in cash terms the travel account had a deficit of £23 million as long ago as 1946. In 1985 the surplus—our profit—peaked at £571 million but by 1994 the deficit was £4,600 million, reducing to a provisional 1995 figure of £3,700 million. Income—the thing we are very good at in terms of selling ourselves abroad and welcoming overseas visitors—had risen 637-fold since 1946 but, sadly, the amount we spend on travel abroad—our import figure—started with double the base and had risen 373-fold.
Governments have done well by the industry. Our attractions have been improved. The commercial sector started by getting its act together and continues to enhance its act. Transport costs have fallen. Our habits have changed. I can remember being best man at a wedding in 1964 when the Channel Islands were the honeymoon destination. That was going abroad. It was venturesome. Nowadays a honeymoon couple can reach almost the whole of the known world in 24 hours. The numbers I have quoted are horrifying. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, what plans the Government have to address them.
I turn to devolution, which was touched on just once in yesterday's debate. For decades we in the tourism industry have enjoyed a bipartisan approach—for as long almost as the figures I have quoted, and I started in 1946. Harold Wilson was President of the Board of Trade during the Attlee Government and embarked on establishing the framework of statutory tourism as we now know it. During his premiership the Labour Government passed the Development of Tourism Act of 1969. This established the BTA as a primus inter pares and as the overseas promotional arm. It also established the English, Scottish and Welsh boards as both product development organisations—through Section 4, now alas lost in England—and as promoters within the domestic market. On our side of the House we can take pride in giving the Scottish Tourist Board overseas marketing powers in 1984 and doing the same for Wales in 1992.
On both occasions there were reservations—I do not mean bookings, I mean concerns—that this would rather wreck things. But in practice that sequence of legislation has given us a model to consider. It is illustrated by the inputs that the national boards achieve through their chairmen being ex officio members of the British Tourist Authority and, at a lower level, by national board staff being fully involved in the development and execution of BTA's marketing plan each year. The national boards have the product knowledge while the BTA's specialty is the market place.
Last, we have national board evidence to the Select Committee of another place last year, a point touched on by other speakers, welcoming the ability to have

1327
implants in BTA's overseas offices—a synergic benefit—and expressing no wish to set up overseas offices on their own account. BTA was by implication welcomed as an umbrella organisation—a 1969 concept that I hope the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, can confirm by reminding us of the Labour Party's document Breaking New Ground, which recognised the need for a pan-Britain approach. Better still, may I hope that the devolution White Paper, which was mentioned rather more frequently—probably 100 times—yesterday, will recognise that fact?
I have gone over time. I cannot argue that all is for the best; I cannot say that all is Panglossian. I remind your Lordships of the British Tourist Authority's annual report and a quote from Richard Branson on the competence of the British Tourist Authority and, two pages earlier, a factor which my linguistic and mathematical knowledge does not quite cope with; namely, that two plus two equals fünf. Britain is best sold as Britain and not as its separate constituents.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Bradford for introducing this debate. I would like to add my name to those who welcomed the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to his new position. As we are so short of time and I have only five minutes, I must attempt to gallop through a series of soundbites and I ask your Lordships' pardon for that.
The splendid river on which this palace sits is one of the most important tourist attractions, or should be. Why do we not restore direct access from the river to the palace? The line of route, up the steps, through the security barrier and round the palace, would take quite a lot of pressure off the local road network, which needs it. It would also encourage the proper use of a vital facility of this city, which has not been properly utilised for over 100 years. London's attitude to the Thames is so inexplicably different from that of Paris to the Seine.
Adding to what the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, said, why is it that, whatever the authority, whether it is the British Tourist Authority or the English Tourist Board, at entry ports it publicises almost exclusively London, Windsor, Stratford and Bath when these main centres, throughout the whole of the tourist season, are grossly overcrowded whereas nearly all tourists coming to England will want to come to London to shop otherwise their wives will be extremely angry? With a selective and imaginative marketing campaign it should be possible to persuade far more of our visitors to travel to the North, the Midlands and the West. A friend of mine was lecturing to 900 Americans at Williamsburg, Maryland, recently and he asked them how many had visited England. The answer was all 900. To the question how many had visited points north of Stratford, the answer was precisely three.
It has long been a bugbear to me that we in this country have some of the finest scenery, features, buildings, museums and galleries yet our motorway network is almost completely neglected as a means of persuading tourists to divert. I am sure that many noble
1328
Lords will have driven down European motorways, particularly in France, where hardly a mile—or should I say a kilometre—goes by without some local feature being depicted on a large brown sign. Some are perhaps overlarge, but they certainly work. Windsor on the M.4 and Hardwick on the M.1 are the only ones that I can call to mind in this country and they are very poor by French standards. There must be many more which are also not very good, because I cannot remember them.
Tentatively, I remind the Government in relation to their difficult problem over what to do about the millennium project at Greenwich that we must surely provide a show at least as good as those that our European competitors in the tourism field will certainly stage, as I am quite sure that in the year of the millennium tourists will decide which country to visit largely on the basis of the attractiveness or otherwise of that individual country's millennium show. A watered down scheme—or worse, some diversion to the regions of a collection of small schemes of no interest to foreigners—will be a disaster. I ask the Government, who have made a very good start in their ideas about vision and daring, to go all the way with Greenwich.
As an example of an organisation which really goes for the international aspect, perhaps I may mention the Royal Show of the Royal Agricultural Society of England. That is our premier agricultural event. It attracts some 20,000 foreign visitors over four days every year. That provides an example to many similar organisations of what can be done, with effort.
I conclude by saying that one of the greatest advantages that we have in Britain compared with some other tourist destinations is that in this country places which say that they will be open to visitors at a particular time are open to visitors at that time.
9.12 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, as always, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for bringing to your Lordships' attention the importance of tourism and for setting out in his opening remarks, with his customary elegance, the case for tourism. I have spoken on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House on the subject of tourism. My interests are fairly well-known and in the interests of time and of not wishing to bore your Lordships, perhaps I may take those as read.
On the last day of the debate on the humble Address I had the opportunity to express my concern to the Government that they were not placing tourism as high on the agenda as their policy document Breaking New Ground had indicated. I am delighted to be able to tell your Lordships that the Secretary of State for National Heritage has written to me making very clear the Government's commitment to tourism and indeed his own enthusiasm. I would like to take this opportunity to ask his noble friend whether he will be kind enough to pass on my gratitude both for his response and for the reassurances which it contains.
Given the shortage of time, I should like to concentrate briefly on just two points. First, we should ask ourselves exactly what we want from tourism, as the noble Earl mentioned when he opened the debate. It may

1329
seem a rather self-evident statement, but tourism is an economic activity which, just like any other economic activity, has a downside. The objective of tourism must be to provide maximum economic benefit for the minimum disruption to the local community and the environment in which that activity takes place. That point was well made by my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie.
Shortly before the election, the last government produced a policy document entitled Success Through Partnership. It contained a number of interesting statistics, showing that the inbound tourist's average spend per visit has steadily declined since 1989, with the exception of one year, from £561 per visit to £504 per visit in 1995. The downward trend is also largely mirrored by domestic tourism trips of one night or more. Although the number of visitors has increased, the overall value of tourism over the period 1989–95 remained largely static. That leads me to the conclusion that the number of visitors is a false measure of the prosperity of the tourism industry and that we should turn our attention from numbers of visitors to the yield given by those visitors. In order to do that, we need a clear and well understood strategy for tourism.
That brings me to my second point, which is that the extremely fragmented nature of the tourism industry, with virtually all businesses within it being either micro or small businesses, makes it extremely difficult for the industry to formulate a clear strategy. It is imperative that the Government provide that leadership. I give one example of why I believe that such a strategy is important. There are a great number of tourism assets in this country which have become outdated and run down. I am thinking particularly of our seaside resorts. We need to look at those assets, in both physical and human resource terms, to see how best we can revive them.
Furthermore, if the BTA and the ETB are to have a clear understanding of what is required of them, there must be an easily understood and coherent strategy which all the players in the industry can follow. To do that, we on these Benches have proposed a tourism commission. It would be a body led by the Minister responsible for tourism and would have representatives from other key departments, such as the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; the Department of Trade and Industry, and the Department for Education and Employment, together with some representatives of the industry. The commission would report to the Secretary of State and would be required to develop and recommend a national tourism strategy and to monitor its prosecution. It would have four key objectives: first, to analyse existing assets and to recommend the best policies for their revival; secondly, to examine the role and the work of the BTA and to recommend measures to create a coherent and effective national marketing policy; thirdly, to examine the current local and regional tourist board structure and to recommend measures for improving their effectiveness in selling local and regional tourism products; and fourthly and finally, to advise the Government on which areas of the industry are most suited for future development towards achieving the goals of supportable and sustainable growth.
1330
We believe that the tourism and hospitality industry is an essential plank of the future economic development and prosperity of the United Kingdom. We believe that it is essential to the strategic development of the industry to have an agreed, integrated national strategy. I very much hope that that is what the Government will do.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, one of the characteristics of your Lordships' House is the regularity with which we debate tourism, and I should like to add my thanks to those already given to my noble friend Lord Bradford for tabling this Unstarred Question. In our tourism debates, some things change and I should like to welcome the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to the Dispatch Box where I served for two years. Sadly for me, I now find myself on this side of the Chamber. Other things, however, do not change; for instance, I have noticed the tie worn by the noble Lord, Lord Graham—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It is a Co-op tie.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, not only do we debate these matters more frequently than the other place, but I believe that, on the whole, we do it better with our more consensual approach. Before going any further, I must declare my interests. My own family home is open to the public and I am involved in my family's hotel business.
The point at the heart of all my remarks tonight was first mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bradford. I refer to the fact that the tourism, hospitality and leisure industry has very much come of age. It is a central part of our national economy and is very important to the country as a whole. Its importance is recognised by economists, and politicians, and is axiomatic to this debate.
There are a number of important consequences for the industry. I should like to touch on one briefly. I make the following remarks in a spirit of amity, not hostility. The case is often made for there to be almost a quantum leap in the amount of public money that is made available by the Treasury for the institutions through which the industry is organised. My right honourable friend the then Secretary of State and I advanced those arguments to the Treasury because we recognised as well as anybody that a bit more money would be of considerable benefit. While the Treasury accepts that there is some market failure in this area, it is illusory for the industry to believe that there can be some kind of sea change as opposed to additional money being made available to it in the way I have described. After all, when viewed in comparison with the demands of hospitals, schools and so forth, the Treasury will say, "Well, if it is such a good deal why not do it yourselves?"
I believe that in looking for leadership from government one should not focus on the money but on other aspects so long as the industry is not starved. The Government cannot deliver tourism, but what they can and should do is set the framework and provide the context. One is talking about an industry that is not homogeneous. It has a multiplicity of players with different needs and different relationships with other people involved. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie,

1331
gave a very good example of that. Partnership must be at the centre of policy for tourism in this country. When we were in office the success through partnership emphasised this point. I was very pleased that the Secretary of State made the same point in his speech to the British Resorts Association in Sunderland on 4th June.
The Department of National Heritage should act as intended—as the focus in Whitehall for the industry and as a sponsorship department in the manner described by my right honourable friend Michael Heseltine. I believe that it and the government agencies for the industry—the ETB and the BTA—should focus on positive practical steps to help it.
I should particularly like to touch on the classification and grading schemes and pay a tribute to the work of David Quarmby. Many of the establishments in our country can compare with the best in the world. But, sadly, there are those—many of them not very far from where we are today—that are not good enough. That should concern not only them but the industry as a whole. I believe that the work that has been done to try to find a way to produce a classification scheme that is understandable to visitors to this country is of the greatest importance. As I understand it, the description provided by the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, of the differences between the English and Scots schemes is not accurate. We have heard about the differences between the English and the Scots. All I say is that I understand the constitutional reasons that lie behind them. At the same time, I urge those involved not to focus on minor points of theology. There is something much more important at stake. As a number of your Lordships have said, what are the implications of devolution? I believe that we should focus on practical matters.
I should also like to mention briefly some work that I carried out in the Department of National Heritage on the relationship between government and the other responsibilities of that department: museums, theatre, the lottery, film, design and so on. They are terribly important to the tourist industry. The money and support that they give is of paramount significance in the long and medium terms.
I have already spoken for five minutes. There are many other matters on which I would have liked the opportunity to speak but I shall not. I conclude by saying that it is often thought to be the hallmark of the cynic to say that business succeeds despite governments. That view may be born of cynicism but nonetheless it is realistic. We all recognise that in the world in which we now live governments must raise tax, set rules and provide proper consumer protection to enable the market to work properly. At the same time they must resist the temptation—I urge it on this Government—to overdo it, contain their impulse to do too much and remember that the best may be the enemy of the good. If those on the Benches opposite
1332
do that they will earn the gratitude of the industry, because the industry will flourish and the Government will have treated it right.
9.25 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, referred to the participants in this debate as a club. He welcomed me to the club. I am not sure that I am being welcomed unequivocally to this club. What is happening is that I am being put through a tribal initiation ceremony. Those noble Lords who have a vast experience, which they have properly declared in introducing their contributions to the debate, have so much to teach me that it will be difficult for me to continue, when noble Lords have heard me through, with the kind of response that I am expected to make. I express my appreciation to the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, and all who have taken part in the debate for the great expertise that has been shown and the considerable degree of wisdom which has permeated many of the contributions.
Let there be no doubt, the Government are fully seized of the importance of tourism to our economy and to our society. My noble friend Lord Graham and other noble Lords referred to the Labour Party document Breaking New Ground and challenged us to give effect to that document. I have to say that in a period of fewer than six weeks, for all practical purposes, in which the Government have been formed, it is not realistic to expect that we will have made real progress towards the implementation of all of those policies. I fear that our response will be, as is the response of so many departments, that there will be reviews of existing policy; that we will consider our position; and all the cant phrases that go with that.
However, we do not for a moment yield to other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate in our appreciation of the importance of tourism and coherent policies to deal with it. That is not necessarily to say—here I follow the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood—that the measure of government action should be direct spending on tourist facilities or, indeed, even on tourist promotion.
I am not sure that there is such a thing as a tourist industry. It seems to me as an outsider that what we have is a ganglia—if that is the correct number for such a thing—of interdependent sectors—the hotel sector, the hospitality sector, the entertainment sector, transport and many others—which come together in a consumer-defined concept; in other words, their own expertise can be different but they come together because they are looking to the same customers.
What is characteristic of that ganglia is that we have imperfect competition. Some people have used the words "market failure". I think that that is going a bit far. We have imperfect competition mainly because of imperfect knowledge. There is inadequate guidance to consumers on the products and services and the best way to take advantage of what is on offer.
Under those circumstances, the role of interventionism—it is interesting that so many noble Lords from the Conservative Benches are looking to

1333
government interventionism—is entirely justified. But we would not necessarily be justified in spending money directly on the provision even of the tea room of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, to take a specific example. It is much more likely that we will achieve what we want in partnership with the industry rather than by subvention to it. That is my outsider's starting point in relation to government support.
A number of noble Lords have particular expertise on Scotland—it is notable that there do not happen to be any who are interested in Wales—and have raised the prospect of devolution. It is true that the interrelationship of the British Tourist Authority—to which I pay tribute, as I am invited to do—and the country tourist boards is complex. However, it will not become more complex or difficult after devolution comes into effect.
After all, what happens now with the Scottish and Welsh tourist boards? They voluntarily collaborate with the British Tourist Authority; they participate in the preparation of the marketing strategy; they contribute their own ideas to it; and where the two coincide they can contribute financially to overseas promotion. As the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, they are not looking to set up their own overseas trading posts but seek to use the advantages of a British Tourist Authority. Surely that can and will continue after the establishment of a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly. The relationship between the British Tourist Authority and the tourist boards is a good example of the way in which the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly will want to take part in nationwide—Great Britain-wide—public sector activities.
I readily acknowledge that employment and training are critical to the economic and financial success and contribution to our economy and society of tourism. It is not adequately recognised how closely the demands of noble Lords from other Benches coincide with our policies on this matter. It is almost as though our welfare-to-work policies were devised in order to encourage people to come into the tourist industry. The whole concept of attracting young people into the industry which was referred to by noble Lords on other Benches fits in so well with what we want to do in taking young people off the dole and giving them an effective guarantee of training and work. It is surprising that there should be any question about that. The tourism industry already provides 1.6 million jobs. Without wishing that our young people should unnecessarily go into uniform, it is a critical part of what we want to do that we should be providing exactly the kind of jobs which tourism can provide.
There was no particular reference to the minimum wage. Even the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, did not refer to it, although he usually does. However, I am delighted to recall that he referred to it in the previous debate. The minimum wage can be a contributor to the guarantee of quality in our tourism industry that we all want. I am delighted to welcome noble Lords to that recognition, which I believe is widespread in the industry.
1334
The membership of the Low Pay Commission is not yet established, but I have no doubt that the tourism and hospitality industries will put forcefully to the commission their case for the setting of a suitable minimum wage and the evidence it submits will be carefully considered. I am grateful in particular to the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, for his remarks on that issue.
I turn to the issue of accommodation rating. Noble Lords will know that the English Tourist Board is on the point of going out to consultation on its proposals, together with the AA and RAC, for accommodation rating which will combine rating of quality, facilities and services. I believe that that is absolutely critical. If that works, we can provide something comparable to the Nomenclateur National in France together with the Michelin and other quality grading. In the past, there has always been a lack of a conjunction of those three important elements—qualities. facilities and services. A number of noble Lords referred to that.
I was asked whether we should be moving rapidly towards a statutory accommodation rating system. We shall certainly be moving towards statutory registration but we should first like to try a voluntary rating system before we see whether we are forced to move to a statutory system. In the first instance, it can apply only to England, although it will he available for Scotland and Wales. But 80 per cent. of visitors to this country come to England and I believe that the system will be very successful and will leapfrog rating provision in other countries.
I have great difficulty, in the time available, in referring to the points made in particular by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, about licensing. From my previous contributions from the other side of the House, it is no secret that I am no friend of having regulation in that area. But it is a matter for the Home Office, and Home Office Ministers are considering whether and how any changes should take place to our existing licensing regulations. I shall certainly draw to their attention the particular points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, about supper hour certificates and EHOs and what seem to me the horror stories of the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, as regards the way in which licensing works in his part of the world.
I do not have time to respond to the questions of my noble friend Lord Graham about tax but I shall write to all noble Lords on the points made in their very constructive speeches which I have not been able to cover in the debate.
I am asked how quickly we should move towards a new development of tourism Act to upgrade and, if necessary, replace our own 1969 Act. My answer can only be that we are consulting like mad. We are seeing everybody who wishes to see us and we are going around the country to talk to people in the tourism industry. But we must legislate now for the 21st century. It would be extremely foolish to do so

1335
without having considered fully all of the issues and views which are available to us. For example, it would be very foolish to do so without having considered fully the results of the English Tourist Board Agenda 2000 consultation process which has been one of the most widespread in the tourist industry for a very long time.
1336
The well-informed and constructive contributions which have been made in this debate by many noble Lords will be of great value to us in considering what future steps should be taken. The Government are very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before ten o'clock.

  General Affairs Council, 2–3 June
  General Affairs Council, 2–3 June
  Ottawa: Deputy High Commissioner's House
  Ottawa: Deputy High Commissioner's House
  War Pensions Applications
  War Pensions Applications
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Primary School Class Numbers: Reduction Costs
  Primary School Class Numbers: Reduction Costs
  Devolution: Forestry Responsibilities
  Devolution: Forestry Responsibilities
  Mr. and Mrs. Kelly: Costs of Litigation
  Mr. and Mrs. Kelly: Costs of Litigation
  Isle of Man: Detention of Child Offenders
  Isle of Man: Detention of Child Offenders
  UK Fishing Vessels: Compliance with the Law
  UK Fishing Vessels: Compliance with the Law
  No. 11 Downing Street: Charitable Events
  No. 11 Downing Street: Charitable Events
  Friends Provident Investment Advertisement
  Friends Provident Investment Advertisement
  Channel Tunnel Safety Authority: Annual Report
  Channel Tunnel Safety Authority: Annual Report
  Defence Diversification Agency
  Defence Diversification Agency
  NHS Waiting List Cuts
  NHS Waiting List Cuts
  Oaths of Allegiance
  Oaths of Allegiance