Sitting of 4 November 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SCOTLAND

    Criminal Justice System
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: What are his priorities for the Scottish criminal justice system; and if he will make a statement. [12038]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): Our overriding priority is to enable the people of Scotland to live in safety under the protection of the law. We are taking measures to prevent crime, detect offenders, deal with cases quickly and efficiently, assist witnesses and victims of crime and reduce the likelihood of reoffending.
    Mr. Robertson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. I am sure that he will want to confirm that it is his intention that the Scottish criminal justice system should be seen to be independent and free from political manoeuvres. If so, will he explain the context of the transfer of Jason Campbell from a Scottish prison to the Maze in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Dewar: The application by Jason Campbell was made under the Criminal Justice Act 1961. Requests for transfers in the prison system are not uncommon and there is a normal route by which they are dealt with. I naturally regret the fact that, on this occasion, wider considerations meant that consideration of the details of the application was not perhaps as thorough as it might have been. We have instituted a very thorough review of the circumstances and exactly what happened. As a result of that, we are ensuring that there will be ministerial consideration of all transfers between prisons jurisdictions in the United Kingdom. That will, I hope, ensure that there are no difficulties in future.
    I should take this opportunity to say that I have enormous respect for the dignity and restraint that was shown by the victim's family in this case. It must have been a very difficult time for them, as I think everyone in the House will appreciate.
    Mr. Godman: In our criminal justice system, the definition of a vulnerable person includes both a child and a person with learning disabilities. Does my right
    96
    hon. Friend agree that, When such a Person or Someone With a mental health Problem is being interviewed by Police officers, he or she should have the right to be accompanied by an appropriate adult? Does he agree that that ought to be one of his Priorities?
    Mr. Dewar: I certainly have a great deal of Sympathy With What my hon. Friend says. I recognise that he has a long and proven track record of interest in such matters, especially the way in which children and young people are dealt with in the judicial system. I accept entirely that their protection is very important. They must not be put in a position where pressure can—perhaps inadvertently—be brought to bear on them. I am certainly happy to discuss with my hon. Friend how we can improve on present performance.
    Mr. Wallace: The secretary of State may recall that, in the dying days of the Previous Parliament, my hon. Friends and I persuaded his predecessor to include in the Crime and Punishment(Scotland) Act 1997 Provisions which would improve the criminal justice system in Scotland by setting up a criminal cases review authority. Given that there have been much-trailed announcements of State in a Position to make an announcement to the House today?
    Mr. Dewar: I liked the judicious use of the words "persuaded my predecessor" of the value of the proposition. I do not want to be coy, but I do not want to steal anyone else's thunder. If the hon. Gentleman looks at Question 13, he will see that it is of direct relevance to the matter. He has not long to contain his curiosity.
    Mr. Ancram: Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), does the Secretary of State consider that the Scottish criminal justice system was well served by the shoddy Jason Campbell transfer affair? Will he explain why he has been able only to give a holding answer to the 11 simple, factual questions on the matter that I tabled for priority answer more than a week ago? Will he come clean about who took the original decision to transfer Campbell and whether at any stage he consented to that transfer? Does he realise that failure to come clean merely serves to heighten the stench of cover-up and political manipulation that permeates the incident and can only damage the integrity of the Scottish criminal justice system, which he has a duty to protect?
    Mr. Dewar: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should take that rather indignant line. In a previous political incarnation, he had much experience of prison transfers and of the wider implications for the Northern Ireland peace process. We will answer his questions, of course, but he should recognise that everyone acted in good faith in this matter. I have made that clear continually. I take responsibility for what happened and I have made that clear also.

    Welfare to Work
    Mrs. McKenna: What arrangements are in place to ensure high-quality training for young people in the welfare-to-work scheme. [12039]
    The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): Quality will be built into all aspects of the new deal. Rigid monitoring will ensure that standards are maintained in training and in every other aspect of the welfare-to-work programme.
    Mrs. McKenna: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of quality training for young people in the welfare-to-work programme. It is vital that young people feel comfortable with what is on offer and that they can acquire skills for the future. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to discuss with employers the best approach? I had a meeting with the major employers in my constituency, who were positive about the proposals. They wanted to be involved and supported what was on offer. They were happy that they were being consulted and that their expertise was being used to address any problems. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to carry out proper pilots and to involve all the young people and the employers, including local authorities, which are major employers in Scotland?
    Mr. Wilson: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments. It is essential for the credibility of the welfare-to-work programme that everybody agrees that quality is the watchword. Young people are understandably sceptical, because they have seen various schemes come and go without much improvement in their prospects. It is essential to transcend the credibility gap if the welfare-to-work programme is to be a success. The watchword for that is co-operation and we are consulting widely with everybody who will be party to the programme, including local authorities.
    Mr. Rowe: Does the Minister accept that a high proportion of the young people who need most help will enter the scheme well behind many of the other applicants? My inquiries in England show that the scheme makes no serious provision for lengthening the training for backward young people. Will he look into that problem?
    Mr. Wilson: I have established a rule in Scotland—although I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to know about it—that we do not call the welfare-to-work programme a scheme. Incidentally, we also do not call people backward. An extensive programme is built into the gateway, which is crucial to getting everybody working by advising individual clients of the best possible option for them. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants that to succeed. For people with special difficulties in finding employment, we have a further education option to enhance their employability. Leaving aside his terminology, the hon. Gentleman is right to address the problems that such people face and we will address them through the new deal. I should be delighted to give him further information if he requires it.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: My hon. Friend will know that Tayside is a pilot area and that the local authorities, the chamber of commerce and local employers have all been involved. More important, the young people who will be part of the new deal have also been involved. The report card for Tayside shows that Bob Alexander and his Employment Service team have done a marvellous job.
    98
    This week, they will go out to pre-tendering and will have pre-contract meetings with commissioning bodies. We look forward to successful pathfinding for the new deal in Tayside.
    Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend not only for his comments, but for the hard work that both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) are putting into this programme. The pilot areas are crucial to getting things right under welfare to work. In Tayside, as in the pilot areas in the south, the genuine problems and challenges that exist can be ironed out. We must get it right. The private sector is fully involved in Tayside, as is the local enterprise company and all the partners involved in delivering welfare to work with the Employment Service. There is a real opportunity and the Government are putting more than £300 million into the programme in Scotland alone—an indication of how seriously we take it. If we all work together, we have a one-off chance to break the curse of long-term unemployment once and for all.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that high-quality training opportunities should be made available also to young people in rural areas? Will he assure the House that the £300 million programme—which is welcome for a scheme that we support so far as it goes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not 'scheme."] Not a scheme—a programme. Will he assure the House that that £300 million will not be sucked into the central industrial belt? Since there are sanctions in the programme, which worry some of us, will he give an absolute guarantee that people in rural areas will not have those sanctions applied where transport costs are the only thing that makes them turn down opportunities which otherwise would be available to them?
    Mr. Wilson: We are alert to the particular needs of people in rural areas. Some 400 people are eligible for the 18-to-25 aspect of the new deal in the borders and, by definition, they are spread out among a large number of communities. It is therefore entirely right that the hon. Gentleman should ask for the provision to be tailored to those individuals and to the characteristics of the area. Transport is important and should be built into the programme; one of the reasons for choosing Tayside as a pathfinder area is that it encompasses urban and rural areas.

    Council of Ministers
    Mr. Cash: If he will make a statement on his functions within the Council of Ministers. [12040]
    Mr. Dewar: My functions within the Council of Ministers are those of any other Minister of the Crown—to discuss, negotiate and conclude agreements on behalf of the UK Government.
    Mr. Cash: At the moment, the devolution proposals in the White Paper set out a series of devolved functions and reserved functions will be proposed by the devolution Bill. We also have a Human Rights Bill before the House of Lords and the European Communities (Amendment) Bill will come before the House of Commons next week. If there is a contradiction between the policy to be

    99
    pursued by Her Majesty's Government in the Council of Ministers and the proposals that may be made by the Scottish Parliament, which will prevail? Will the irreconcilability between these two positions be resolved by the three Bills to which I have referred?
    Mr. Dewar: I say with some sorrow that the hon. Gentleman is becoming more gloomy about the state of human nature almost by the year. I do not see that irreconcilability built into the system. As he well knows, there is a United Kingdom delegation. No doubt differing points of view can on occasion be discussed, but common ground is reached and everyone joins to put the United Kingdom's case. Exactly the same process will occur. The United Kingdom remains the member state of the EU and the Scottish Executive will have an input in the formulation of policy. When an agreed policy position has been reached, it will be the job of the whole delegation to ensure that it is successfully pursued. I look forward to the opportunities that this process presents.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I suppose that my right hon. Friend has a certain advantage in the Council of Ministers in that he shares the commitment of the rest of the Government to achieving the benefits that will flow from a successful single European currency. Will he convey the views of businesses in Scotland on that subject to all the factions in the Opposition?
    Mr. Dewar: I am anxious to reflect properly the views of the business and commercial community in Scotland. I take the view—it may be thought to be partisan, but it is well founded—that it is easier to defend our position on Europe than the negative and, I would have thought, untenable position on which the Opposition are determined to stand.
    Mrs. Ewing: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most critical industries dealt with by the Council of Ministers is the fisheries industry, which is important to the whole of the Scottish economy as well as to coastal communities?
    Is the Secretary of State aware that a campaign has been launched today to raise the Sapphire from its known resting place in the North sea and that £100,000 has already been raised by the families' appeal? Will he, through the Council of Ministers, consider the possibility of matching funds if those funds will not come directly from Westminster?
    Mr. Dewar: I accept the importance of the United Kingdom fishing industry and that of its Scottish component in particular. My noble Friend Lord Sewel was recently in Europe at a Fisheries Council meeting and will no doubt recognise and press that point.
    I understand the hon. Lady's depth of concern about the Sapphire, as she represents a fishing community. I know from personal experience the deep distress of the families concerned. No one in the House, irrespective of our different political positions, would not feel for them and for their cause. The matter is being considered by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, whose responsibility it is. They are considering a document—a report with which the hon. Lady will be very familiar—and it would not be for me to prejudge the outcome.
    100
    I am not sure of the practicalities of the European matter, so it would be very wrong of me to comment either way, but if the hon. Lady thinks that the proposition is practical and wants to make representations to other Departments, either directly or through me, I am sure that people would be prepared to listen.
    Dr. Fox: When the Secretary of State meets his European colleagues, will he explain why the Scottish Office will have to pay for the fourth year of education for Greeks and the southern Irish but not for the English or the Northern Irish? Will he use the argument of his Minister for Education and Industry—that the English are rich and can afford it? If so, how would he categorise the Germans?
    Mr. Dewar: I do not think that I will have to explain that point to my European colleagues because they will know that the matter is founded on the European agreements and is a responsibility that we accept as a member of the European Union. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want us to recognise our obligations. We are anxious to ensure that there is opportunity in Scottish higher education. That is the point of the changes that are being introduced—to finance and make possible the expansion that we all favour so that this nation can remain competitive and flourish through the depth of its talent and its innovation.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Gorrie: What representations he has received about the resources required by councils to provide their statutory services. [12041]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Chisholm): My right hon. Friend and I have met a number of councils to discuss their financial positions. We have also received letters on the subject from hon. Members, local councillors and members of the public.
    Mr. Gorrie: Does the Minister agree that the Government's insistence on keeping to Conservative spending plans will cause severe cuts in essential services in almost all councils, as they follow year after year of cuts, and that it will be even worse if the Government require some councils to help to bail out others, such as Glasgow, which have a funding deficit?
    Mr. Chisholm: Neither the media nor the hon. Gentleman have understood the issue perfectly. Our proposals have nothing whatever to do with helping Glasgow, with the effectiveness of service delivery in any one authority, or with taking existing resources away from any authority.
    The problem is that many changes in distribution are in the pipeline because of the mismatch and the changes to the formula for distributing social work grant. We are determined to act for two reasons. First, distribution is an imperfect science and it is therefore right in principle that changes should be phased in. Secondly, and more important, distributional changes primarily affect not service levels, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but council

    101
    tax levels. We are determined to protect council tax payers from massive increases flowing purely from distributional changes.
    Mr. Russell Brown: Will my hon. Friend give the House an update on the current discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the recent study of social work allocations? Will he recognise the need for stability for local authorities? Will he bear that principle in mind when looking to future years?
    Mr. Chisholm: The social work changes to which my hon. Friend refers are an important component of the distributional changes. It is right to recognise that there has been controversy about that, but the consensus view is that the changes should be introduced, but further reviewed. We will continue to review and monitor the social work changes and we will continue to review distributional formulas across the board. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who loses?"] There will be some losers and some gainers in terms of distribution. That will affect not service levels, but council tax levels—and it is council tax payers whom we are determined to protect.
    Mr. Ancram: Does the Minister agree that concern about resourcing local councils is balanced by concern about the way in which some of them, including Renfrew and Glasgow, use those resources to conduct their affairs? Does he agree that allegations of sleaze against those councils are rightly matters of public concern? In that context, could he explain why the Secretary of State has not responded to my calls to set up public and independent investigations into the allegations? Does he not realise that in these days of Labour spin doctoring, internal party investigations will carry no credibility? Will he set up a public investigation, or is he frightened of what that public investigation might reveal?
    Mr. Chisholm: There are no grounds for setting up a public investigation because there has been no breach of statutory duty. The Labour party, however, is taking firm and decisive action as a party on all these matters. Moreover, the Government have responded positively to the Nolan committee report on aspects of local government conduct. Following consultation, we will introduce and announce measures that flow from that. In terms of delivery of service, the best-value regime instituted by the Government will result in the continuing better use of resources in local government.

    Prison Places
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: What estimate he has made of the number of extra prison places he expects to create in the next five years. [12042]
    Mr. Dewar: On present plans, some 700 extra prisoner places will be created over the next five years.
    Mrs. Winterton: Bearing in mind the Government's pledge to be tough on crime and the recent statement by the right hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson) that sentences should mean what they say, will the Secretary of State confirm whether it is the Government's policy to follow their predecessors' policy
    102
    and end automatic early release from prison, or have they gone soft on that as well? What are the implications for extra prison places in future?
    Mr. Dewar: We are, of course, looking carefully at the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997 and we have implemented some of the important provisions we felt were justified and could be implemented immediately. The hon. Lady has referred particularly to parole. I am not in favour of implementation of the changes at this stage because I have respect for the Prison Service and because we need to ensure that inmates have an incentive to behave well and to obey the rules. We had very unfortunate experiences in the past—the hon. Lady is, like me, enough of a veteran to remember them—when that incentive was destroyed and I would not like to revisit that experience. We will use our judgment and consider what is right for the criminal justice system of Scotland, for the public and for those working in the system.
    Mr. Browne: A new prison is to be built in my constituency. Welcome as the job opportunities it brings are, I believe that it is about time we moved on from the Tory obsession with prison building and longer sentences. Is it not about time that we started looking at law and order in a much wider context? Is it not a sad reality that the consumption of alcohol is closely related to crime and criminal behaviour? Is it not important, and probably more effective, to have proper public health programmes and social programmes to tackle the causes rather than to concentrate only on prison building and sentencing?
    Mr. Dewar: I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. As the daily prison population in Scotland has risen very substantially, causing considerable problems for the Prison Service, it is important that we should examine sensibly the alternatives to custodial care. That is not a soft option, as Conservative barrackers will shout, but a matter of prevention and of dealing with matters such as alcohol abuse properly; hence the new powers on drinking in public places that we have introduced and our attempts to improve facilities for treating the alcohol problem both in and out of the prison system. We are also considering other measures, such as the tagging system. That was once controversial, but I believe that it is right to have pilot tests in Scotland.
    Sir Robert Smith: On the expansion of prison places, does the Secretary of State yet have an estimate of the date by which he will have tackled the problem of overcrowding in Scottish prisons?
    Mr. Dewar: As the hon. Gentleman recognises, we face a problem in that respect, although it is perhaps not as acute as in other parts of the United Kingdom. That is not an excuse for ignoring or not attempting to tackle it, but I am chary of setting arbitrary dates because I am aware of the increase in the prison population. While the Bowhouse project and the 700 places in the next five years to which I referred should take much of the strain, it may be that the impact on time cannot be exactly judged for the reasons that I have given. I spent some time yesterday with the Parole Board, which brought me sharply face to face with the problems that it encounters and the stress of its increasing work load. I pay tribute to its work, which is largely unsung and often unappreciated by the wider public.

    Health Service
    Mr. Gamier: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health about the use of the private finance initiative to finance new capital projects in the Scottish health service. [12043]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): I meet my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health regularly. We have on occasion discussed the use of the private finance initiative for financing capital projects in the NHS in Scotland.
    Mr. Garnier: Until 1 May, the Labour party opposed the PFI. What has made it change its mind?
    Mr. Galbraith: The hon. and learned Gentleman's memory is vague; he is mistaken. The Labour party originated the PFI, and we are developing it. We consider it a useful way to increase capital in parts of the health service. In the health service in Scotland, we have three substantial projects nearing financial completion.

    Skye Bridge
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: If he will make a statement on progress in reducing the Skye bridge tolls. [12044]
    Mr. Dewar: Since my announcement on 4 July, which was widely welcomed, negotiations have been in progress about the changes to the very complex agreement that we inherited. The principle of reducing tolls is accepted by the parties, but the matters of detail are taking longer to finalise than I had hoped. I am, however, confident that I shall be able to announce the introduction of discounted tolls at an early date.
    Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Secretary of State for that helpful reply and, through him, wish to express my thanks for the helpful and constructive response of the Lord Advocate in dealing with some of the local implications of the matter. I underscore that there is anxiety that the contract—I appreciate that it does not have the signature of the Secretary of State on it and that the problem is not of his making but was inherited from his predecessor—gives stalling powers to the private company, which I suspect is instinctively none too happy about any toll reduction package and its consequent commercial impact. Does he agree that the matter needs to be re-examined? I hope that the Public Accounts Committee will consider it in more detail in due course. The more we see of the matter, the more it commercially and politically stinks.
    Mr. Dewar: I offer this consolation to the hon. Gentleman. Although the details have been difficult and the negotiations have taken longer than I would have liked and are not yet complete, it is fair to say that they were entered into in good faith after an agreement in principle about what we are trying to achieve. I hope that we will not have too long to wait before I can report success in the matter. The important thing is to ensure that we get the discounts, which will be a considerable advantage to regular users, in place as soon as possible. The Public Accounts Committee will consider the technicalities of the contract and the National Audit Office report, but as
    104
    the hon. Gentleman knows this was an early PFI project right at the beginning of the process—and perhaps at the start of the learning curve.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. McAllion: What recent discussions he has held with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities relating to the financing of Scottish local government. [12045]
    Mr. Chisholm: My right hon. Friend and I have discussed the financing of Scottish local government with the convention on a number of occasions. The most recent meetings were held on 13 October and 3 November. We next meet the convention on Friday 7 November.
    Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend will know that the funding mismatch imposed on Scottish local government by Tory reorganisation, allied to the middle-class drift away from cities such as Dundee and Glasgow to adjoining areas with lower council taxes, has left city councils trying to provide what is effectively a regional level of service from a greatly reduced council tax base. Therefore, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on facing those hard realities by trying to broker with COSLA a financial settlement that is fair to all of Scotland? Will he take the opportunity to denounce the simplistic, divisive and dishonest spouting of those who claim that spendthrift councils are being bailed out by penny-wise councils?
    Mr. Chisholm: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the position of Dundee council. As I said in a previous answer, there will be losers and gainers from the changes to the social work formula that are in the pipeline and the phasing out of the mismatch. Without those changes, quite apart from other factors, Dundee council tax payers would face an increased band E tax of £85 next year, council tax payers in Aberdeen would face an increase of £75 and those in the Western Isles would face an increase of £200—far more than in Glasgow. We have taken action because we believe that council tax payers must be protected from the extreme changes in council tax that flow from distributional changes. We support that, as do COSLA and the vast majority of council tax payers across Scotland.
    Mr. Welsh: The Labour policy of underfunding local services is increasing council taxes and massively cutting services, with more cuts to come, quite apart from the massive increases in water service charges. What sort of financial deal is that for Scottish consumers and tax payers?
    Mr. Chisholm: The Government are committed to creating a strong and stable economy. A fundamental way of doing that is to make sure that we put public finances into good order in the early stages of the Government. That is why we said at the election that we would keep within overall public expenditure planning totals during our first two years in office. Even within that, we have managed to find £89 million more for education in Scotland, an extra £26.7 million for capital spending on schools in each of the next four years, and an additional £12.5 million this year and £43.7 million next year for housing. That demonstrates the Government's commitment to local government.
    Mr. Connarty: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the topics that he mentioned, and one that is often

    105
    mentioned by COSLA, is the financing of housing in Scotland? Does he agree that there are still major problems in respect of the quality of existing housing and the lack of housing for homeless people? Can he provide more figures to show that the Government are treating those difficulties seriously, in contrast to their derisory treatment by the previous Government?
    Mr. Chisholm: Unlike the previous Government, we recognise the serious problems of Scottish housing, which were highlighted by the recent house condition survey. We have already taken action on a whole range of fronts to begin to tackle the problem. We announced the awards for the rough sleepers initiative to deal with the visible problem of people sleeping rough on the streets—an extra £16 million was provided for that purpose. We have already put £2 million into the empty homes initiative this year and there will be more next year to deal with the problem of empty homes. We have also earmarked £10 million this year for new housing partnerships and a much larger sum next year to lever in private money to complement the public resources that we are committed to putting into housing. That significant action has been warmly welcomed by the housing lobby across Scotland.
    Mr. Fallon: Does the settlement with COSLA for next year make any provision for a minimum wage for council workers, and what is it?
    Mr. Chisholm: Pay agreements are a matter for local authorities and their work forces. Local authorities know that we are committed to existing expenditure guidelines, apart from the extra money that I mentioned earlier. As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows, our general policy on a minimum wage is that the Low Pay Commission will advise on the rate for that in due course.

    Scottish Parliament
    Mr. Dalyell: What consultations he has had with (a) the Home Office, (b) the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and (c) the Department of Health on representation of the United Kingdom in the European Council by a Minister responsible to a Scottish Parliament. [12046]
    The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): The Government's policy on involvement by Scottish Executive Ministers in meetings of the EU Council of Ministers is set out in the White Paper "Scotland's Parliament". That reflects full collective discussion and agreement.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will chapter 5, paragraph 6 therefore be modified?
    Mr. McLeish: I reflect on the comments made by my hon. Friend. We are optimistic that our position vis-a-vis Europe will be enhanced, not diminished, by the advent of devolution and a Scottish Parliament. It will provide for participation in Council of Ministers meetings and in developmental policy; it will provide much more time in the Scottish Parliament to discuss European Union affairs and for more effective scrutiny; and, of course, it will give us the possibility of a representative office in Brussels to
    106
    ensure that Scotland's voice reflects the excellent service that we already get from the United Kingdom permanent representation.
    Mr. Swayne: The Secretary of State participates in the United Kingdom Government's EU decision making as of right. My reading of the White Paper is that the Scottish Parliament will do so by invitation. How will Scotland's voice be heard when the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Parliament disagree? Can the Minister avoid giving me the same answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)—that we shall always agree?
    Mr. McLeish: I shall set aside the cynical and pessimistic tone in respect of the future of a Scottish Parliament, and instead make it clear that the creation of a Scottish Parliament will enhance our participation in European Union activities. I made the point earlier that members of the Scottish Executive will participate in meetings of the Council of Ministers and in full discussions with the United Kingdom Parliament and Government on aspects of policy. The hon. Gentleman has simply got it wrong.
    Mr. Swinney: Will the Minister speculate that, if the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis had occurred after the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, a Minister for agriculture responsible to the Scottish Parliament would have had the power to negotiate a separate deal for the agricultural community within Scotland?
    Mr. McLeish: It is not wise to speculate in the House. The current responsibilities of Scottish Office Ministers will be transferred to the new Parliament and to the new Executive. It is important to reinforce the Government's central message: that, in our judgment, doing that will enhance the activities of agricultural affairs in Scotland vis-a-vis Europe and in relation to the many pressing issues that we confront in our day-to-day activities in Scotland.

    Health Trusts
    Mr. Donohoe: What progress he has made in respect of the proposals to reduce the number of health trusts in Scotland. [12047]
    Mr. Galbraith: I have made clear my intention to reduce the number of trusts in Scotland. There is, however, no pre-determined blueprint regarding the configuration of trusts in Scotland. Any major reconfiguration will need to await the publication of the White Paper on the NHS in Scotland and the outcome of Sir David Carter's review of acute services.
    Mr. Donohoe: I am grateful for that reply. What savings have already been made in the trusts in Scotland since the Government were elected? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that that efficiency drive will continue?
    Mr. Galbraith: As my hon. Friend will know, at the start of the Government's term of office, we were able to announce £10 million to go towards waiting lists from efficiency savings within the structure of the NHS in

    107
    Scotland. We are also involved in trying to ensure that major efficiencies are achieved within the trusts in relation to such issues as purchasing, accounting, personnel matters and so on. We are making significant progress and shall continue to do so. Our aim is to ensure that every penny spent in the NHS is spent wisely and for the benefit of patients.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: While the Minister is conducting that exercise, will he bear it in mind that Argyll and Bute NHS trust delivers a unique and localised service to remote rural and island areas? Does he recall that, under the last Government, efforts were made to manage the service from the central belt but, when jobs were moved from Lochgilphead to Paisley, it did not work and they were all moved back? I hope that he can give an assurance that that sort of nonsense will never happen again.
    Mr. Galbraith: I am very aware about, and sympathetic to, what the hon. Lady has said. We must avoid what happened last time, when there was a blueprint for the health service in the UK. There are different areas, geographies, social structures and cultures, and we shall have different solutions for those. We shall lay down the principles; it is up to local areas to determine how to implement them.

    Scottish Parliament
    Mr. Canavan: If he will make a statement about progress of the Government's plans for a Scottish Parliament. [12048]
    Mr. McLeish: Our proposals to establish a Scottish Parliament will be introduced in the House as soon as possible. We are also making progress in finding a site for the Parliament. I can today announce that three design feasibility studies have been commissioned into the possible sites at Calton hill, Leith and Haymarket, and quantity surveyors have been commissioned to prepare independent costings. We have also appointed consultants to undertake a transport and environmental impact assessment of the options.
    I shall provide later this afternoon further information in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross).
    Mr. Canavan: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State on the leading part that they played in achieving a magnificent victory in the referendum campaign. Now that a Scottish Parliament is on its way, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be wrong for this Parliament to pre-empt decisions on matters that will be the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament? Therefore, will the Government refer the issue of student grants and student fees to the Scottish Parliament, which will take a more enlightened view than this place does?
    Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend will accept the notion I hope, that we must continue to govern. The Scottish Parliament will have a substantial agenda, but hard choices and decisions that have to be made now will have to be taken. This is the first time that we have been able to celebrate in the House the magnificent victory of 11 September. It is important for the Conservatives to remember that 2.44 million Scots and people living in
    108
    Scotland voted, and that 1.77 million of them—75 per cent. or nearly three to one—voted for a Parliament. I am sure that the Opposition will take that on board.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  The President of the Council was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Modernisation of the House
    Dr. Tony Wright: If she will make a statement on the future work in modernising the House. [12023]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): Following its report on the legislative process and the Order Paper in July, the Committee will consider further voting procedures, the parliamentary calendar, the conduct of debate and the scrutiny of European documents.
    Dr. Wright: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. I congratulate the Committee and my right hon. Friend on the excellent work that they have already done, which can be seen in the quality of the Order Paper before us today.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that how the House has considered legislation in the past has been nothing short of a disgrace? It has enabled party games to triumph over proper scrutiny. Whatever model of reform the Committee comes up with, whether it is Special Standing Committees or pre-legislative hearings, it must achieve the objective of improving legislative scrutiny. It may make life harder for Ministers, but it must improve the quality of what the House does.
    Mrs. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the Order Paper. The changes that we have introduced have been widely welcomed throughout the House. On his main point about the importance of scrutiny of legislation, I agree that we have had insufficient scrutiny on many occasions in the past. I hope that, when we as a Government stick by our commitment to publish seven Bills in draft this year, some Committees will be able to look at those Bills in draft and enhance the quality of the legislation that follows.
    Mr. Boswell: Is the President satisfied that this summer's consideration of the Finance Bill took place over a total of 12 days compared with the 77 days of consideration of the last Finance Bill, under the previous Government? If she is not satisfied, will she take steps with her colleagues to ensure that such a compressed timetable never happens again?
    Mrs. Taylor: The majority of people in the House are satisfied with the scrutiny of the Finance Bill, and it certainly has not been discussed by the Modernisation Committee.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: It is precisely because the previous Government played ducks and drakes with our rights in the House that it is very important that these changes should be only to the advantage of the taxpayer and the voter. Will my right hon. Friend therefore give a simple

    109
    undertaking that no procedural change, especially in the Committee sector, will go ahead that will in any way limit the rights of the Back Bencher either to raise or to examine in some detail any number of points in legislation, or to place probing amendments on the agenda?
    Mrs. Taylor: The recommendations made by the Modernisation Committee were made after discussion of papers submitted by many people in the House—for the most part, people with considerable experience on the Back Benches. I think that the recommendations that we have made do reflect the desire of Back Benchers for change in the way that we propose.
    Mr. Tyler: Will the President address the question of the possible implications of recommendations of the Modernisation Committee that she chairs—a Committee on which I have the pleasure to serve—for the way in which our staff are employed in the House? They give very loyal and very efficient service to the House, but in recent months there have been notable failures in consultation, especially with the doorkeepers and, I understand, with the postal staff. Can the President give us an absolute assurance that no changes to the ways in which the House proceeds will be implemented without proper consultation with the appropriate staff?
    Mrs. Taylor: Such a question would be more appropriately put to the House of Commons Commission than to myself, but I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's points are raised.

    Speeches (Time Limits)
    Mr. Pickthall: What consideration she has given to time-limiting all contributions to debates in the Chamber. [12024]
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Standing Order gives the Chair wide discretion to impose the 10-minute limit when the number wishing to speak justifies it. I am not convinced that there is a need to limit all contributions in that way.
    Mr. Pickthall: Is not one of the most infuriating experiences for any Back Bencher that of, having prepared a contribution for a debate, spending as long as several hours sitting in the Chamber waiting to deliver that contribution, only to find that the opportunity is lost because several senior colleagues, higher up the batting order, have spent 30 or 40 minutes delivering their wisdom to the House? That experience has been the lot of several hon. Members waiting to deliver their maiden speech. Does she not consider that, when many hon. Members wish to speak in a debate, a 20-minute time limit on Front Benchers and a 10-minute time limit for everyone else is reasonable, given that we would need some injury time or time added on?
    Mrs. Taylor: When a 10-minute limit is imposed, it applies to all Members, be they Privy Councillors or the newest Back Benchers. I think there is concern that, on occasion, certain Members tend to speak for excessively long periods when others want to make contributions. The Modernisation Committee will consider the whole subject of the conduct of debate, and it will be for the Committee
    110
    to consider ideas such as that which my hon. Friend has mentioned: injury time to encourage interventions or promote intervention when there is a 10-minute limit. Many people will have sympathy with him on that score, because I believe that we have all, at some time, sat through a debate without being able to participate.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I am glad that the right hon. Lady made her last point. Does she agree that spontaneity is terribly important in debate and that, if Members cannot intervene, the lifeblood of debate drains away? Surely we do not want a series of Members delivering pre-prepared speeches, never giving way and not replying spontaneously to other speeches?
    Mrs. Taylor: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Interventions and spontaneity are important because they are the only thing that ever makes anyone change their mind. If that happens rarely, so be it, but at least an opportunity exists. I believe that the point that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) made about the possibility of injury time should be considered carefully, although we do not want to do anything that would allow abuses of the overall purpose of a 10-minute limit. The Committee can usefully look into that.

    Modernisation of the House
    Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to implement the recommendations contained in the first report of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons (HC190, Session 1997–98). [12027]
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Committee reported on 23 July, and a debate on its conclusions is to be held in the near future.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Given that the Government are committed, as a result of the Labour party manifesto, to making Parliament more relevant and more effective—that was the reason for establishing the Modernisation Committee—does the right hon. Lady not think, on reflection, that the Government's actions since 1 May have had the opposite effect, and indeed diminished Parliament? She must recall that her Government introduced a guillotine before the Second Reading debate on a Bill, changed the format of Prime Minister's Question Time without any consultation with the House, and spin-doctored important statements to the media ahead, and instead, of giving them in the Chamber. On reflection, does the right hon. Lady not think that those issues are more important than the very welcome introduction of a new and easier-to-read daily agenda?
    Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the new and easier-to-read daily agenda. I reject his basic presumption that we have not introduced useful changes. Hon. Members worked extremely hard between the election and the summer recess to pass a record number of pieces of legislation. I think that we are finding ways for hon. Members to make extremely important and useful contributions both to debates and in Select Committees.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not a bit rich for Tory Members to complain about not having sufficient time to consider legislation and about the Government's introduction of guillotines when the House of Commons would have risen at about 7.30 pm one night last week if a succession of Labour Members had not kept the debate going until its usual 10 pm completion? Last night, that great Opposition—as they like to call themselves—allowed the House to rise at 8 o'clock. I have news for them: in the old days, we used to sit all night at least once every week—and sometimes we would have two or three all-night sittings a week. I cannot stomach the idea that Tory Members are so anxious to get away from this place that they cannot stay the course. In the old days, Members of Parliament used to be here for many more days. There is a bit of hypocrisy.
    Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is not showing his characteristic generosity to Opposition Members. He should understand that they have had other things on their minds in recent weeks.

    Thursday Sittings
    Mr. Bennett: If she will introduce proposals to start sittings at 2 pm on Thursdays. [12028]
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: I have no plans to do so at present, but the Modernisation Committee will consider the matter with other suggestions when it examines the parliamentary calendar. My hon. Friend has written to the Committee about the proposal and we shall look at it.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she accept that one of the great successes of the Jopling Committee—I am speaking as one of the few remaining Members of Parliament who served on it—was to convince the House to be flexible with its sitting hours? If the Opposition are so keen to scrutinise constitutional matters on the Floor of the House, will my right hon. Friend give some thought to the possibility of the House sitting on Tuesday and Thursday mornings? Does she accept that, if we sat half an hour earlier on a Thursday, we could rise half an hour earlier? It would make a tremendous difference if those who must travel back to the north of England, Scotland and Wales could leave at 6.30 rather than 7 pm and thus avoid the difficult scramble to get trains and planes.
    Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes a legitimate point, although I am not sure that starting earlier on Thursday would guarantee an earlier finish. That point can be examined by the Modernisation Committee, as can my hon. Friend's very interesting idea that the House could sit in Committee on Tuesday and Thursday mornings. Those ideas are worth further investigation.

    Regional Affairs
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: If she will move to provide for an additional Sub-Committee of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee to consider regional affairs; and if she will make a statement. [12029]
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Select Committee has already been given the power to appoint two Sub-Committees. It is up to the Committee to decide how to choose inquiries within its terms of reference.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response, and I congratulate her on the way in which the Select Committees were established so soon after the general election. I raise the issue of a Sub-Committee for the regions because much importance is attached to the development of the regions. I believe that we should reach a statutory agreement on the way that we approach the regions question. We should be able to take specific evidence to a Sub-Committee regarding the Government's progress in implementing and introducing regional agencies. Against that background, I ask my colleague to consider the matter, which is important to people in the regions.
    Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is aware that the Committee has two Sub-Committees, because it was formed by the merger of two previous Select Committees. I do not deny what he says about the importance of the regions, and there will be legislation on the topic later in this Session. However, I remind him—he is a member of the Transport Sub-Committee—that either of the Sub-Committees or the Committee itself could have an inquiry into any aspect of regional development that was relevant to the policy of that Department, so the Committee is not excluded from the kind of investigation that he thinks may be necessary.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. Lady look seriously at the way in which we can hold regional offices of Government to account? The Government have a proposal for regional government in London, to take place from 2000, which is very welcome, but not as yet in any other regions of England. Civil servants have no direct accountability to anybody, although across all Departments they wield great power. Will the right hon. Lady allow time for thinking through the implications of the question asked by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), as that would be widely welcomed by English Members?
    Mrs. Taylor: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I would not close my mind to considering alternative ways of making people accountable. However, I emphasise again that the Select Committee in question could examine that as a topic and could make recommendations if it considered that appropriate.

UN Observers (Iraq)
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Madam Speaker, you gave me permission to raise under Standing Order No. 24 the dangerous situation in Iraq. This is not a kite-flying statement, but a genuine request to you to consider whether or not the House of Commons should have its say before any blood is spilt, rather than react to horror. I acknowledge the presence of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), who has responsibility for the middle east.
I must persuade you of three things: that the matter is definite, urgent and important. It is definite in that Iraq has refused American observers and investigators. Iraq has threatened to shoot down surveillance aircraft. There are moves in Washington to take unilateral action, and not only the extreme views of Newt Gingrich but those of others make this a dangerous cocktail.
I argue that the matter is urgent in that, by the time the House of Commons meets tomorrow, this country could be supporting military action, if not participating in it. In the public print, we read that 10 Downing street staff have agreed British support with their White House equivalents. This is still a parliamentary democracy, not a presidential country, and the House of Commons ought to be consulted before one British soldier, sailor or airman is committed to armed conflict.
The matter is important because Saddam Hussein may not be averse to military action. In 1993, like every other visitor to Baghdad, I was taken on the first morning there to the Amariya—the shelter where hundreds of women and children were charred and scorched to death by a cruise missile. That is used by the regime—possibly understandably so, but nevertheless used—to support its own view of the world.
When one sees, in the children's hospital in Baghdad, hundreds of infants—I exaggerate not—expiring in one's presence as a result of sanctions, it leads one to think that at least one should talk to the Iraqis about the imposition of sanctions. If not to the Iraqis, one should certainly talk to the French, the Russians and the Chinese, as well as the Arab League. Military action could have reverberations, and the Government ought to hear what the Commons thinks—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been allowed the time allocated to him under Standing Order No. 24. I have, of course, listened carefully to what he has said. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I must give my decision without giving any reason for it. I regret that I do not consider that the matter raised is appropriate for discussion under the Standing Order. I therefore cannot submit the application to the House.

Points of Order
3.34 pm
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the President of the Board of Trade to refuse to answer a parliamentary question—in this instance, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—even though to provide an answer would entail only 10 minutes of the right hon. Lady's diary secretary's time, and would involve neither excessive expense nor any risk to our national security?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must give me details of such a situation. I cannot give him a yes-or-no answer without being fully informed of what he is talking about, which I am not at present.
Mr. James Wallace: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that on Question 1, I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he was able to make an announcement about criminal cases and the review authority for Scotland. I was told to exercise some patience, because his hon. Friend the Minister of State would reveal all when answering Question 13. Of course, we did not reach Question 13. Is there any chance of extra time, Madam Speaker?
Madam Speaker: I wish there were. I shall let the hon. Gentleman into a little confidence, if I may. When the Scottish Office team were leaving, I observed that we did not make the progress on Scottish questions that I had hoped we would. That being so, I make the general point that I hope that we shall make better progress in future on Scottish questions. Perhaps I can be helped by Back Benchers as well as those on the Front Benches. Perhaps, also, those on the Treasury Bench will let the Scottish Office team know what I have said.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Further to the first point of order, Madam Speaker. The question was a simple one, based on how many days the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had spent in her office between 1 August and 5 October. May I have the exact criteria for not answering the question? I understand that national security or excessive cost must be involved. Tracking down the Beckett family caravan surely does not fall into either of those categories.
Madam Speaker: I shall want to know the full situation. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said that he would write to me about the matter. I shall look into it and respond. I have no idea how many hours or days the President of the Board of Trade spent in her office, and I cannot be expected to respond until I have undertaken my research. I open my mouth in the House only when I have a proper answer to give, not to state something that I imagine.

Division No. 79 (Corrected Figures)
MR. JON OWEN JONES (LORD COMMISSIONER TO THE TREASURY) and MRS. MARGARET EWING, who acted as Tellers in Division No. 79 on Monday 3 November, came to the Table.
Mr. Jones: We have to inform the House that the numbers voting "Aye" in Division No. 79 yesterday on the Third Reading of the Education (Student Loans) Bill were reported in error by us as 283. The number voting "Aye" was 293.
Madam Speaker: Thank you. I shall see that the correction is made in the Journal. I hope that this will not happen again.

Prohibition of Bull Bars
3.38 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: I beg to move,
That leave be given bring in a Bill to prohibit the fitting of bull bars to motor vehicles.
Those of us who go into public life are often influenced in our attitudes by our personal experiences. These may turn on the great issues of the day such as the level of taxation and our relationship with other countries or the future of the welfare state, or on something specific.
Nearly five years ago, I stopped my car in Bury St. Edmunds to allow someone else to park. In my rear-view mirror, I spotted a 4x4 vehicle heading towards me. It soon became apparent that it would not stop, and seconds later the inevitable collision took place. I remained calm, because my vehicle, a Volvo estate car, had a reinforced outer steel chassis and was regarded as the safest car manufactured.
I got out of the car to examine the damage. The 4x4 vehicle, fitted with bull bars, was undamaged. On superficial examination, the damage to my estate car did not seem great. It was taken away, however, to be properly examined. I was horrified to be informed subsequently that such was the damage from the bull bars that the chassis had buckled. In fact, the car was effectively written off. I was truly shocked, because it struck me: if bull bars could destroy a Volvo estate car, what could they do to a child's head? As a father of young children, I found the prospect sickening.
In Germany, it has been established that a vehicle could kill a child while travelling at 20 mph. Fitted with bull bars, a death could result at 12 mph, or even as low as 10 mph. The Transport Research Laboratory has indicated that the number of fatalities or serious accidents arising directly from bull bars is quite limited. Others take a different view. The truth is that nobody really knows. What we do know, however, is that, without any doubt, some children have tragically lost their lives through bull bar-related accidents. It has been fully documented.
Bull bars were invented in Australia, in the outback, to prevent serious accidents with kangaroos. Well, there are no kangaroos in Britain. Even in Australia, bull bars are being banned in urban areas.
Given the evidence, it is very disappointing that bull bars are still legal in Britain. Over a number of years, the Department of Transport has sought a way forward with the European Commission, but progress has been lamentably slow. Sweden and Finland object to the ban. Apparently, in Lapland there is a risk of colliding with moose or reindeer. In Britain there are no moose and very few reindeer. It seems extraordinary that the apparent needs of a small corner of Europe should mean no progress elsewhere. Whatever happened to subsidiarity? Jersey and Cyprus have simply gone ahead and banned bull bars, and those bans have not been challenged.
I am delighted that the Department of Transport has issued a comprehensive consultation document. The possibility exists for unilateral national action. The Automobile Association and Royal Automobile Club oppose bull bars. They are not used in royal parks, and large commercial delivery organisations, such as DHL, have banned them. A number of insurers refuse to cover vehicles that are fitted with bull bars. Overwhelmingly,

117
public opinion is moving against them. I applaud the efforts of successive Road Safety Ministers to move towards a ban—now, most notably, Baroness Hayman.
My Bill affords the opportunity to ban bull bars. This is not a party political issue. Sponsors of the Bill come from the three main political parties. I hope that the Government will support the Bill, but, if not, that they will find another route to get them banned. Talking of road safety is like approving of motherhood and apple pie. How can one be against it? In Britain, we have a good track record, which could only be enhanced by the successful enactment of the Bill into law. This is quite specific, and will make a difference.
In other parliamentary traditions, the name of the main promoter of the Bill is sometimes attached to the new law. I say this not for myself but because, if that tradition existed in the House, the Bill, if passed, might well be called the Flynn law, after the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). He has tried twice, unsuccessfully, to move this process on. In so doing, he has greatly highlighted this issue in the public domain. I applaud him once again today.
The time has come to remove these ugly, dangerous and offensive devices from our roads. The blunt truth is that bull bars are not fashion accessories; they are killing accessories.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Spring, Mr. John Austin, Mr. Alan Duncan, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Christopher Fraser, Mr. Andrew George, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Mr. John Hutton, Sir Peter Lloyd, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. David Ruffley and Mr. Desmond Swayne.

Prohibition of Bull Bars
  PROHIBITION OF BULL BARS
  Mr. Richard Spring accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the fitting of bull bars to motor vehicles: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 February, and to be printed [Bill 73].
Opposition Day
[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Student Finance
  Madam Speaker: I must inform the House that, on the two motions tabled by the Opposition, I have had to limit Back-Bench speeches to 10 minutes. I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.44 pm
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I beg to move,
  That this House welcomes the expansion of higher education which has taken place in recent years; shares the view of the Dearing Committee that a further period of expansion is desirable; believes that part of the cost of this expansion should be met by students themselves, but agrees with the Dearing Committee that means-tested maintenance grants make an important contribution to improving access to higher education for students from low-income backgrounds and deeply regrets the Government's hurried decision to reject this advice; and finds incomprehensible the Government's proposal that students from other EU countries should be able to attend four-year courses at Scottish universities on terms more favourable than those available to home students living in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.
  I am pleased that, on the first occasion when the Opposition have the opportunity to choose the subject for debate after our prolonged summer recess, my colleagues and I agreed that we should focus the attention of the House on the shambles that is the Government's higher education policy.
  That subject was last discussed when the Secretary of State for Education and Employment came to the House at the end of July following the publication of the Dearing report. He came to the House within a matter of hours of the publication of that report in order to reject its key recommendations on the future of undergraduate student finance.
  Dearing recommended, first, the continuation of means-tested maintenance grants in order to ease access for students from a low-income background. The Secretary of State announced that the Government were to reject that recommendation.
  Secondly, Dearing recommended against the introduction of means-tested tuition fees, although the report considered it as option C. The Secretary of State came to the House of Commons to announce that, despite the Dearing report's recommendation that it be rejected, he and the Government would introduce means-tested tuition fees.
  Thirdly, Dearing recommended that any income raised from students in order to finance the future growth of higher education should be ring-fenced to go into the higher education system. The Government have made it clear that that recommendation, too, is rejected.
  The Secretary of State came to the House and disingenuously presented his policy as Dearing-plus. His policy was not Dearing-plus; his policy was to reject Dearing and substitute his own, or perhaps I should say the Treasury's, policy instead. His branding of that policy as Dearing-plus has fooled almost no one. I say "almost no one"; a week ago I would have said it had fooled no one, but it appears to have fooled the Prime Minister.

  119
  We saw last week, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is embarrassed by the Prime Minister. I am not surprised. The Prime Minister was asked why the Government had rejected the Dearing report, and his reply was nothing short of astounding. The Prime Minister said:
  "I made it clear throughout"—
  by which he meant the election campaign—
  "that we should abide by the recommendations of the Dearing committee".—[Official Report, 29 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 892.]
  I know that the Prime Minister is not a detail man, but as a statement that beggars belief. It is wrong on almost every count. It is not true that the Prime Minister made it clear throughout the election campaign that the Government intended to implement the Dearing report's recommendations. It is just as well that it is not true, because that is a policy that they will not carry out.
  Last week, the Leader of the Opposition repeated to the Prime Minister his words during the election campaign, when he said:
  "Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education."
  That was not, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) might have said, a remark offered on a wet night in Dudley; it was a remark that was regularly repeated by people who are now senior Ministers.
  On 24 April, not much more than a week before polling day, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), now the Foreign Secretary, said:
  "We are quite clear that tuition costs must be met by the state."
  He went on to say that he was happy to predict that, if the Tories got back for a fifth term, they would start to charge students for tuition. It is a pity that he did not offer a prediction about what Labour would do if it was elected on 1 May.
  Last week, the Prime Minister was wrong in his description of the Government's present policy. Furthermore, he was wrong in his recollection of what either he or his right hon. and hon. Friends said during the election campaign. That shambles at Prime Minister's Question Time last week was symptomatic of a much wider shambles that has pervaded this field of policy since the Secretary of State's rushed statement to the House in July, before the summer recess.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government did not publish their suggestions on how loans are to be paid back until the last day of the Labour party conference? To obtain that information on the day of the conference, Labour Back Benchers had to access it through the internet. The proposal was that, as soon as people earn £10,000 they will have to pay 9 per cent. of their income towards their loan. A student who has been on a four-year course will probably be paying back the loan for 30 years.
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right about the timing of the publication of the details of that proposal. He is a trifle grudging in his representation of the Secretary of State's political skills. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman was right to conceal that information from his party conference if he wanted to get the motion passed on the floor. It was a straightforward exercise in political management.
  120
  More important, my hon. Friend could have pointed out that not only was that information published at the very end of the Labour party conference, but it was denied to people whose opinions were being sought following the publication of the Secretary of State's recommendations at the end of July.
  It is important to understand why this shambles arose. When he took office, the Secretary of State thought that he knew what Dearing intended to propose, and it was supposed to be relatively straightforward. All parties in the House supported the continued development of higher education. One of the aspects of our record in office of which I am most proud is the improved access to higher education between 1979 and 1997. I agree with Sir Ron Dearing and with the Secretary of State that continued development of higher education should be an objective of Government policy.
  Mr. Phil Willis: Is the shadow Secretary of State also proud of the Tory Government's record of a 40 per cent. reduction in spending per student in higher education?
  Mr. Dorrell: The most important thing is to focus on the number of people who have had the opportunities afforded by high-quality higher education. One of the findings of the Dearing review was that the expansion of higher education allowed a dramatically increased number of people to take part, and, furthermore, that they had done so without undermining the quality of the system. That is a Dearing finding with which I agree.
  The Secretary of State thought that this matter would be straightforward, and that there would be support for continued development of higher education. He also recognised that the financing of that continued growth required a contribution from students. He expected the Dearing committee to recommend the end of the maintenance grant as the means by which the student contribution to the growth of higher education would be financed. He hoped to be able to present it to the House and to the world as an uncomfortable but unavoidable fact.
  The right hon. Gentleman expected the support of the Dearing report for that recommendation, and what he and his right hon. and hon. Friends said during the election campaign were weasel words. They made it clear that they would not introduce tuition fees. They were not expecting to do so, as they were hoping that Dearing would let them off the hook by recommending the ending of the maintenance grant.
  The problem that the Secretary of State found when he came to office and actually read the Dearing report was that the Dearing review team did not perform their part of the bargain. They looked at the subject in depth, and concluded that the superficial analysis—to which the Secretary of State is still working—was wrong. The Dearing review is very explicit on that. At paragraph 20.66, it says:
  "In going through that process"—
  the process of review of the options—
  "we"—
  the members of the Dearing review—
  "all changed and developed our views: we did not end up where we started."
  It is a great pity that the Secretary of State did not allow himself and his colleagues in the Government sufficient time to go through the same process. In his anxiety to get

  121
  to the Floor of the House and announce a quick conclusion, the Secretary of State denied himself and his colleagues the opportunity to consider the evidence that led the Dearing team to a different conclusion from the one that they, the right hon. Gentleman and—probably—we expected when the Dearing review was established.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: 1 share the right hon. Gentleman's criticism of the new Government's change of position and the misleading nature of their comments before the election. Just for the record, can it be made clear whether it is Conservative party policy that students should make a contribution to their fees?
  Mr. Dorrell: I have already said—I was slightly surprised by the quiet in the House as I said it—that it was not a subject of dispute between the Government and Opposition Front-Bench teams that, if we are to see the continued growth of higher education, students need to participate in the financing of that growth. The question is how. The Dearing review examined the central options, which the Government have examined, and recommended against the conclusions that the Government reached. Let us examine why the Dearing review reached the conclusion that it did.
  Dearing said that he was concerned about the problem of equitable access to higher education for students from a low-income background. When the Secretary of State came to the House in July, he said that he was also concerned about that subject. It is therefore strange that he should have rejected Dearing's recommendation to continue the means-tested maintenance grant, because Dearing recommended that it be continued precisely in order to address the problems of equitable access for students from low-income backgrounds.
  There are some fairly startling figures in the Dearing report. Let us consider equivalently qualified students with two A-levels prior to entering higher education. Of people taking A-levels and securing two, 77 per cent. of those from high-income backgrounds go on to higher education. The equivalent figure for students from low-income backgrounds is 47 per cent. It is a responsibility of the taxpayer, through the Government, to seek to ensure that the playing field is made as level as it can be for students from low-income backgrounds, yet the Government have set their face firmly against that Dearing recommendation and analysis.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: All that the right hon. Gentleman has said is quite correct. I think that Dearing was absolutely shocked to discover that, although there had been a great increase in the number of people going into higher education, the number of those from lower socio-economic groups had hardly gone up at all. Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore accept that it was a mistake for his Government to move from full maintenance grants to 50 per cent. loans?
  Mr. Dorrell: The issue is not a great inquiry about what happened over the past 18 years, but what the Government are going to do now. From the point of view of the hon. Lady's question, what the Government are going to do is take the record they inherited and make it
  122
  a great deal worse. The Secretary of State's proposals will make it £2,265 more expensive for a student from a low-income background to do a three-year undergraduate course in England than it was on the day that the right hon. Gentleman took office.
  The hon. Lady should address her question to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, whose proposals will make it more difficult for a student from a low-income background to finance a course of higher education than it is for a student from a middle or higher-income background.
  That is the central charge against the Government. A high-income student will face a cost increase of £3,000 for a three-year course, but a low-income student will face a cost increase of £5,265. That is an extraordinary testament to the new Labour Government, and it is the central point that the Secretary of State must explain to his right hon. and hon. Friends, the student body and those who are responsible for managing the university sector, who do not share his analysis.
  Ms Margaret Hodge: The right hon. Gentleman has been on his feet for more than 15 minutes, and we have no idea what policy he would follow if he were Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Does he support the introduction of tuition fees, and does he believe that they should be means-tested?
  Mr. Dorrell: I thought that I had made it clear that I do not support the Government's proposals, which are the subject of our debate today. It is an old tactic for Government Back Benchers—and the hon. Lady is a skilled exponent of it—whenever the Government are in difficulty, to ask the Opposition what they would do. This Parliament has four and a half years to run, and the hon. Lady should inquire of the Secretary of State how he will deliver the combined objectives of improved access to higher education and equitable access for students from a low-income background.
  Mr. John Bercow rose—
  Mr. Willis rose—
  Mr. John Gunnell rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I must move on, but I will give way later.
  The need for equitable access to degree courses is not the only reason why the Dearing proposals differed from those that the Government intend to introduce. The Dearing report also envisaged a more flexible system of higher education, that responded more accurately to the demands of students.
  One of the reasons for Dearing's recommendations is made explicit in paragraph 20.68:
  "We believe that"
  these recommendations
  "will enable students to be more demanding of institutions".
  In other words, institutions should respond more directly to students whose support and custom they seek.
  Dearing expected the creation of more diploma courses and more access to part-time courses, which already charge 25 per cent. of tuition costs as tuition fees. That is why Dearing made the recommendation he did on tuition

  123
  fees. He wished to avoid unnecessary and perverse distortions in the development of the system and, in particular, in the development of more diploma courses and more part-time courses. The Secretary of State's proposals will impede that development.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is curious that the hon. Members for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg)— both former prominent activists in the student movement and long-term opponents of tuition fees—have suddenly, and without explanation or apology, become supporters of the Government's policy? Does he agree that it is therefore significant that both hon. Members are absent from the Chamber?
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is an old sparring partner of both hon. Members. It is significant that they have chosen not to attend today's debate to support their U-turn in person. They are too frightened of the authorities in Millbank tower to raise the voices that they have traditionally raised against the policy being advanced by the Secretary of State.
  The final reason why Dearing recommended the policy is made explicit in the paragraph to which I have referred. Dearing feared that, if the student contribution was raised by the abolition of maintenance grant, the money might never reach the higher education institutions at all. The report stated:
  "We fear that if public subsidies for maintenance are reduced, the funding released would not be redirected to higher education institutions."
  It is not often that an official committee has its predictions proved so triumphantly right within two months of the publication of its report. But that is precisely the policy that the Government have now made clear—or more or less clear—they are to pursue. They will raise extra money from students, but they will not provide that money to the higher education sector.
  Last Friday's edition of The Times Educational Supplement published a memo circulating within the Department which confirmed that the cash raised by the £1,000-a-year tuition fees will be redirected away from higher education. The memo said:
  "The issue is sensitive—
  you are telling me—
  "because the £165 million package for 1998-99 does not allow universities to keep all the funds raised by the new £1,000 fees as extra income".
  The memorandum makes it crystal clear that
  "they retain £125 million out of an estimated £150 million."
  Dearing recommended a set of proposals precisely to safeguard the university system against the manoeuvre that the Secretary of State has engaged in: to raise extra money from students, and use it to finance a deficit somewhere else in public expenditure. That is the charge against the Secretary of State—not only has he undermined equitable access, but he has done so under false pretences.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): That is not true.
  Mr. Dorrell: The Secretary of State says that that is not true. Is he saying that a memorandum circulating
  124
  within his Department and written by civil servants is a Tory plant? These are the figures from the memorandum. Is he denying those figures? Will he come to the Dispatch Box and say that the figures in the memorandum are wrong? Will he explain to the House what the right figures are? I would be interested to hear his comments, and I shall give way to him.
  The Secretary of State stays firmly in his seat. Clearly, he recognises that his officials' memorandum is right, and that the money raised from charging students will not go into the higher education system.
  Mr. Don Foster: I entirely agree with the shadow Secretary of State that we need a clear statement from the Secretary of State on ring fencing. He has stated that the Conservative party's policy is clear—it is to accept Dearing in its entirety, including the £1,000 non-means-tested fees, regardless of income, for all parents. For the sake, therefore, of Tory party unity, will the right hon. Gentleman condemn the Tory party candidate in the Winchester by-election, who has just produced a leaflet which says:
  "Gerry Malone has thrown his weight behind Winchester's students in their campaign against the introduction of tuition fees"?
  Hon. Members: Oh!
  Mr. Dorrell: I am absolutely delighted to endorse Gerry Malone as the Conservative candidate for Winchester, and I look forward to welcoming him back to the House of Commons as the next Member of Parliament for that constituency. He is right to insist that the Government should explain to the electorate of Winchester how they will deliver the objectives set out by the policy that they have introduced.
  The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is wrong to say that I have explicitly endorsed every detail of the Dearing report. The Government made a serious mistake, and I have demonstrated how they have tripped over themselves as a consequence—I have more to say on that. They were so anxious to get to this place to make an announcement that they did not read the Dearing report.
  The Dearing report is a major piece of work and its recommendations should have been the subject of more serious analysis by the Secretary of State and the Government. Instead, at the end of July, we were presented with a few thoughts sketched out on the back of a couple of envelopes, and higher education policy developed on that basis during the summer. That was pretty obvious to any onlooker.
  Let us consider the saga of the gap year students. Within days of the Secretary of State announcing the policy, we heard stories of students who were signed up for courses starting in autumn 1998 shifting to start in autumn 1997 to avoid being affected. Ministers were caught completely unawares.
  On 7 August, the noble Baroness Blackstone, who was apparently left in charge while the Secretary of State took a well-earned holiday, dismissed as "irresponsible scaremongering" the hyping of fears that students who had deferred their entry to university until 1998 would bring it forward a year and be pushed into trying to take up places in autumn 1997. The noble Baroness said:
  "This sort of irresponsible scaremongering helps no-one—neither the students, the universities, nor the admissions service."

  125
  On 11 August, we heard that the Government had changed their position; someone briefed The Times on behalf of the holidaying Secretary of State, and said:
  "It's a one-off and not for those who have decided to go off back-packing. It should not be presented as a U-turn."
  The aide, who no doubt thought that he was being helpful, was of course talking about the proposal to allow students to start a course in 1998 provided that they had signed up to a course of charitable work in the gap year.
  It is just as well that that first concession was not presented as a U-turn, because the true U-turn came three days later, when the Government announced that the fears were not all scaremongering hype, and that the gap year arrangement would be open not only to those who had signed up for charitable work but to all 19,000 students who were expecting to start their courses in autumn 1998.
  Within three weeks of the Secretary of State announcing his gap year policy, there have been three different versions. That was the first example of the noble Baroness's deft political touch.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that confusion was left trailing in the wake of the various U-turns, in that there were further anomalies, as with my constituent who intended to have a gap year but waited until her A-level results had confirmed her university place, and found that she was excluded arbitrarily from the Government's concession?
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We might expect a fourth concession, although I would not hold out much hope for his constituent. That is an example of what happens when a Government introduce a policy within hours of a report's publication, without having thought through the details.
  There are other details that Labour has not thought through. I hope that the Secretary of State will make it clear to the House whether he agrees with Baroness Blackstone or with the Prime Minister about college fees for Oxford and Cambridge. The noble Baroness has made no secret of her view that the Oxbridge college fees system is an anomaly.
  An unnamed Minister, whose views were an uncannily accurate reflection of those of the noble Baroness, was quoted in the Financial Times on 23 October. The Minister said:
  "with the entire sector facing a squeeze, it's becoming increasingly difficult to defend a system which gives extra money to the rich".
  On 24 October, the Financial Times had the headline, "Blair steps into Oxbridge Funding Row". This is a Government who make policy by press leaks to the Financial Times; it is a facility they have used more than once in recent weeks.
  Is the Secretary of State lining up with his noble Friend the Minister of State, or is he lining up with the Prime Minister, who has made it clear that he has no truck with the ending of Oxford and Cambridge college fees? Will the Secretary of State tell us what is going on with the policy on Oxford and Cambridge college fees? Will he tell us who makes policy on the issue? Is it the Secretary of State, Baroness Blackstone or the Prime Minister? If he does not intend to make an announcement this afternoon, will he tell
  126
  us when the announcement will be made? Perhaps he will tell us which copy of the Financial Times we should buy to find the authoritative statement of the Government's policy.
  We now come to the reason for the presence of the Scottish Minister for Education and Industry on the Government Front Bench this afternoon. The shambles over gap year students and the shambles over Oxford and Cambridge college fees are as nothing compared with the shambles the Government have got themselves into on English students, Welsh students and Northern Irish students attending Scottish universities. Let us be clear about the issue.
  Some 27,000 students in Scottish universities today come from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Some 48 per cent. of the student population in Edinburgh, 45 per cent. of the student population at St. Andrews, 36 per cent. in Dundee and 32 per cent. in Stirling are non-Scottish UK students who will now be asked to pay £4,000 of fees for a four-year course that costs the Scottish students studying alongside them in the same seminars £3,000.
  The Secretary of State is a member of a United Kingdom Cabinet. He must explain to the United Kingdom Parliament why the same course, supported by the same taxpayers, should cost his constituents £4,000 in fees, but should cost the constituents of the Scottish Minister for Education and Industry £3,000 in course fees. The Secretary of State must answer that question. Why is the deal that is good enough for the Scottish Minister's constituents not good enough for the constituents of the Secretary of State and of every Member of this House of the United Kingdom Parliament who represents a constituency in England, in Wales, or in Northern Ireland?
  When the Secretary of State has explained that point, he may then like to move on to the second question. Why will Scottish bankers and lawyers get their four-year courses for £,000 of fees, whereas Scottish doctors and dentists will have to pay £4,000 of fees? The position is not entirely clear to the British Medical Association, but it seems clear enough from the press release issued by the Scottish Minister for Education and Industry that Scottish doctors and dentists will pay £4,000 for their course, whereas Scottish bankers and lawyers, who are not noticeably less well paid than Scottish doctors and dentists, will pay £3,000 for their course. I look forward to hearing the explanation of United Kingdom policy from a United Kingdom Minister to the United Kingdom Parliament.
  I have a third question—
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: I have a third question for the Secretary of State, after which I will give way to my hon. Friend.
  When the Secretary of State has finished giving the answers to my first two questions, he may then explain why the course that costs the Scottish student £3,000 and the student from England, Wales or Northern Ireland £4,000 is available to the citizens of southern Ireland and every other European Union country for £3,000. That is the pièce de ré00sistance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Perhaps the Secretary of State can say the same phrase in Spanish, in Portuguese or in Greek to demonstrate how truly communautaire he is being.

  127
  It is an odd policy that requires English students, Welsh students and Northern Irish students to pay £4,000 in fees at Scottish universities for a four-year course when students from every other country in the European Union get the same service for £3,000. I look forward to hearing the Secretary of State explain the objective of this aspect of United Kingdom Government policy.
  Mr. Swayne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when the Secretary of State for Scotland was asked precisely that question not half an hour ago, he replied that he would not have to explain it to Germans or Greeks, because they understood the obligations of the European Union? Perhaps the Secretary of State for Education and Employment could explain to students from Ringwood, Lymington and New Milton why they will be charged an extra £1,000 that will not be charged to Greeks or Germans.
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend puts his point vigorously, and he is entirely right. It is the same question. if it is good enough for the constituents of some Member of Parliament from southern Portugal, why is it not good enough for the constituents of my hon. Friend in Ringwood?
  The effect of the Government's policy on Scottish universities is already clear. The Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals has warned:
  "faced with the prospect of paying 33 per cent. more in fees in Scotland, English and other UK students will simply stay away."
  That is not only the view of higher education principals but the experience of the dean of admissions of St. Andrews university, who said:
  "We have been getting a steady flow of cancellations in the last few weeks and the number is growing. Since the start of the week, we have been getting calls from English students to tell us that they aren't even going to bother coming to see us."
  That is what is happening in the Scottish university system because of the Government's policy. I look forward to hearing why they think that it is the right policy.
  The problem of declining admissions is not confined to Scotland. We have already seen Universities and Colleges Admissions Service figures showing early applications to universities throughout the United Kingdom down by 12 per cent. That reduction in early applications to British universities as a whole reflects the uncertainty and malaise that has settled over higher education policy since the Secretary of State came to the House in July.
  The Dearing report was a major missed opportunity. It was a chance to address the issues facing the higher education system in a serious way. The Opposition agree that we need continued growth in the higher education system, and that we need a more flexible system that responds to the different demands of students; a system in which students fairly contribute an element of the cost of growth; and a system that is fair to students from low-income backgrounds. In his anxiety to rush out his response, the Secretary of State has bungled those issues, and bungled them badly. He should have offered a considered response; he has wholly failed to do so.
  4.22 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  128
  "welcomes the decisive response of Her Majesty's Government to the report of the National Committee of Enquiry into Higher Education and to the crisis of funding in higher education bequeathed by the previous administration; notes with approval the new arrangements for supporting students, including fair repayment arrangements and targeted help for the most disadvantaged; and welcomes the commitment to ensuring that more people will have opportunities to participate in high-quality education to their benefit and to the benefit of the country as a whole."
  The shadow Secretary of State has the barefaced cheek to have served in a Government who cut, on average, 25 per cent. per student from university funding over the past eight years alone, who cut 40 per cent. from the funding available for maintenance for students over the past eight years alone, and who oversaw the collapse of direct funding into research, teaching, equipment and the infrastructure of our university system; and, six months after losing office, to criticise this Government for taking difficult but necessary decisions.
  The previous Government at least set up the Dearing committee in the feeble recognition that there was a problem, even if they were not prepared to face up to it. We signed up to Dearing precisely because we were prepared to face up to reality. The problem is that the Opposition are suffering from two diseases: internal fission leading to impending political disintegration, and chronic amnesia, which means that they forget 18 years of what they were up to while they were the Government.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: In a moment.
  This is the new political animal that hibernates during the summer and comes out in the depths of winter, covered by darkness, blinking into the shadows, continuing in obscurity, unable to distinguish real decision taking in government from the dithering of opposition.
  Mr. Bercow: I should like to test just how the Secretary of State fares on the amnesia count. Is he prepared now, on the record, to acknowledge that the expansion of higher education under the previous Conservative Government was dramatically greater than any that occurred under the Labour Administration between 1974 and 1979? Does he acknowledge that fact or does he seek to deny it?
  Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to learn that, even before the election, I gave the previous Government credit for their one commendable action in respect of higher education—to open up access, which they subsequently sealed by introducing a cap that stopped students entering university even if they had the required standard and capacity to do so.
  On the back of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I should like to welcome the conversion of the shadow Secretary of State and his party. I was delighted to hear his announcement this afternoon that they are in favour of the continued development of the university sector. In other words, the Conservative party is now committed to expansion—first, to overturn the policy that it followed for the past four years, which put a cap on university entrance and, secondly, to overturn the evidence that the previous Government gave to the Dearing committee to the effect that expansion should be blocked, so no extra money would be required to fund universities as the answer was retrenchment.

  129
  I am delighted to demonstrate that my amnesia is more than matched by that of the shadow Secretary of State this afternoon. Let me spell out one or two examples of what we have done. Of course we made a statement on the back of the publication of the Dearing report on 23 July, not merely because parliamentary procedure and practice demanded that we did so, but because it was necessary to ensure that students, universities and those engaged in the admissions process were aware of our policies for 1998. Had we not done so, we would have lost a whole year. Even on existing accountancy rules, we would have lost £100 million in 1999–2000, never mind the opportunities provided by the imaginative programme that I have announced for 1998–99. Let me say a word or two about that, given that I have been challenged on the so-called memorandum within my Department.
  On 23 September, we announced that we would allocate £165 million to the higher education sector. We did not announce that the entire sum would simply be handed over to the universities, but we announced that £125 million—£27 million more than Dearing recommended would be required to ensure that savings of more than 1 per cent. would not be demanded—would go directly to the institutions.
  The rest will be spent on carrying out the policies that I am delighted to reiterate this afternoon. They include ensuring that disabled students are no longer means-tested and will receive an additional grant for the special needs that they have in terms of equipment, reading and so on. We shall begin the process of providing equity between full-time and part-time students by ensuring that part-time students who fall out of work can apply for an additional contribution towards their fees so that they can continue their studies.
  We said that we would find £10 million to provide bursaries for postgraduate teacher training and that we would double the access funds to prevent students in hardship from having to drop out of their courses. I am proud to have agreed to the doubling of access funds as that is the beginning of the process of tackling directly the inequality and injustice of the present system which, as the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) pointed out, has resulted in 77 per cent. of better-off students getting into university compared with abysmal figures in respect of those from the less well-off bracket of society.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will students' supplementary allowances continue to be in the form of a grant, or will they become a loan that is repayable?
  Mr. Blunkett: The additional allowance that we have agreed to make in order to overcome hardship—the extra £250 a year, for which we do not appear to have gained as much credit as I had expected—will be part of the overall loan system. That loan system results in families not having to find more than they currently have to find, because the maintenance and fees elements are bolted together imaginatively to ensure that that is so. The doubling of access funds ensures that provision will be made directly available for those in greatest hardship.
  When we publish our lifelong learning consultation White Paper in a few months' time, I look forward to being able to spell out in more detail our
  130
  recommendations backing up the proposals of the Dearing inquiry for a radical programme of opening up access for socio-economic, geographic and cultural minority groups that have suffered from an inequitable system in the past.
  Mr. Welsh: May I draw to the Minister's attention my great concern that supplementary allowances being in the form of a loan might act as a massive time bomb in the further education system? It would deter anybody with parental responsibilities—mature students, for example—from undertaking studies. That threatens great potential harm to the entire further education system, so I hope that the Minister will take those concerns on board.
  Mr. Blunkett: The difficulty is that further education students are currently denied the opportunity of contingent loans, never mind grants; therefore the contribution made by 2 million adult further education students across the United Kingdom is inequitable in relation to full-time undergraduates. That is one of the issues that we seek to address. We have said that higher national diploma students currently in their courses will not be disadvantaged. In addition, a proportion of the money—£1 million from the £165 million—will be allocated next year to ensure that they are not disadvantaged.
  Out of the £165 million £125 million will go directly to the institutions, with the remaining £40 million spread between investment in ensuring greater equity of access, overcoming anomalies, ensuring that disabled students receive grants and not loans to cover their special needs and are not means-tested, and ensuring that part-time students are treated equitably. That is a major package, which I would have expected the shadow Secretary of State to welcome—especially because, on 23 July, he suggested that there would be no new money for universities. He said:
  "simply another vague promise that will be delivered some time or never".—[Official Report, 23 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 952.]
  The "some time" took us two months from 23 July—two months to deliver £165 million, which the university sector as a whole has welcomed. Let me make it clear that the resources we are identifying will be delivered for lifelong learning for all those who can take advantage of it in further as well as higher education, so that we can bring about equity, invest in our future and take on the challenge of a knowledge-based society for a new century.
  I should also put straight the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce). He might have been able to get the figures for income-contingent repayment on the internet only from 3 October, but I published them—as I did the £165 million package—on 23 September. In fact, I referred to those figures in my speech to the Labour party conference in Brighton on 1 October, in which I spelt out that a student on £17,000 would be repaying only £12 a week, compared with £129 a month under the current loans system. How I could refer to those figures on 1 October when I did not publish them until three days later I do not know. This is just cloud cuckoo land. The so-called confusion or lack of information comes from people taking extraordinarily long holidays and being unable to catch up with the newspapers until it is too late.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if the information was available. However, under his proposals, a student studying for four years in London will, at today's prices, take out a loan in excess of

  131
  £16,000. If that student marries another student, the couple will start their married life with a debt of £32,000. If they are on average earnings, how long will it take them to pay back the loan? Is not such an appalling debt the reason why nobody is coming forward to become a student teacher?
  Mr. Blunkett: The previous Government introduced a mortgage-type loan scheme that demanded draconian repayments of up to £129 a month over five years as soon as the trigger came. We propose an income-contingent loan scheme, repayable over a lengthy period of up to 23 to 25 years, according to an individual's income. It is a progressive principle, espoused by all those—including my colleagues—who believe in the progressive principle of income tax. In that way, students will receive resources when they need them without an up-front top-up fee payment, and will pay back when they can afford it. I am happy to produce other figures and put them on the internet so that everyone can share them.
  Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again, but he appears to miss the essential point: the debt will be at least doubled under his proposal.
  Mr. Blunkett: This may have arisen from a misunderstanding by the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The figures do not involve a doubling. Students in London must already pay back an increased loan. That was part of the previous Government's grant reductions, which is why I find the shadow Secretary of State's eulogy in respect of grants a bit difficult to take. The previous Government eroded grants year after year: 10 per cent. followed by 10 per cent. followed by 10 per cent.—a 40 per cent. real-terms cut in the amount available in grant. It has been instructive this afternoon to see the shadow Secretary of State say that he whole-heartedly agrees with a non-means-tested £1,000 contribution to fees.
  I wish to explain clearly what we have done. We have Dearing-plus. We have Dearing plus our manifesto, which spelt out clearly what we would do in terms of income-contingent repayment for maintenance, but we have changed the Dearing recommendation by exempting those who are worse off from having to pay the fee. We have ameliorated the system for those in the middle-income bracket and we are asking the better-off to pay the £1,000, which they will repay over a period, based on their ability to pay.
  Mr. Willis rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), whom I had the pleasure to hear on my local radio station demonstrating in my great city on Saturday.
  Mr. Willis: It was a pleasure to entertain you, Secretary of State. One of the real issues, to which you started to allude, is that of getting resources into our universities. You made the point about—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order.
  Mr. Willis: I am sorry. The Secretary of State made the point about—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is now correcting himself.
  Mr. Willis: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  132
  The Secretary of State said that £165 million extra will go in next year. He has made it clear that his policy is Dearing-plus. The Dearing report made it clear that we needed £350 million next year and £575 million the year after to save our universities from collapse. Would the Secretary of State be kind enough to square those two issues, because I do not understand how £165 million bridges the gap which Dearing said desperately needed to be bridged?
  Mr. Blunkett: I have not pretended for a minute that we have found for the coming year the amount of money that Sir Ron Dearing had in his checklist. I do not duck that issue at all. We have identified resources from our own Budget, in imaginative ways that previously were not available, which fall within the Government's overall control totals, and which allows us to get the programme into being from September 1998, and immediately to trigger in from 1999 onwards the savings—and therefore the income—which otherwise would not be available.
  If we were not doing that, we would lose £100 million in 1999, increasing to £800 million in 2005–06, even under present accountancy procedures. If we moved to resource accounting, the sums would come much earlier, in terms of just over £1,000 million by 2002–03. This is the programme for raising the resources to lift the cap, to open up access, to target under-represented groups, to give opportunity to those who are denied it and to invest in lifelong learning and the knowledge-based society of the future.
  I was grateful to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) for drawing attention to the interesting division that exists between Conservative Members in their policy on this issue. We have a policy from the shadow Secretary of State, we have a policy from the candidate in the Winchester by-election, and we have a policy from those hon. Members who should know better, who have experience in these areas, such as the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson). Responding to my statement of 23 July, he said:
  "I congratulate the Government on the statement … the Government have taken a courageous decision, which should be supported by everyone who has universities' interests at heart."
  He was an ex-Education Minister, so he would at least have some idea.
  Even the forthright right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the immediate ex-Minister in the Department, said:
  "I welcome the general thrust of the Dearing report and much of what the Secretary of State said".
  What about the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor)? He said:
  "The Secretary of State is to be congratulated on grasping some of'
  Dearing' s
  "radical aspects, including the deferred contribution of students to tuition fees."—[Official Report, 23 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 955-61.]
  I know that there are several Conservative parties on the issue of monetary union and Europe in general. I had not realised, however, that there are three, not two, Opposition parties on the issue of student maintenance and student fees. I do not know what the policy of the former hon. Member for Winchester, Mr. Malone, would be if he were elected for Winchester. I do not know whether he would have a free vote on that issue,

  133
  or whether, if he were co-opted to the shadow Cabinet immediately, it would be demanded of him that he change his mind only when the Leader of the Opposition changes his mind, and never if the ex-Chancellor and ex-Deputy Prime Minister lead him astray. I do know that the shadow Cabinet will remain a shadow for a very long time to come, because it is in a shambles.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: It would be interesting to know whether Conservative Members accept Dearing's recommendation on the move to resource accounting. In that regard, I wish my right hon. Friend good luck in his negotiations with the Treasury because, as he admitted, beyond 1998–99, unless there is a change of that nature, we shall have difficulty in giving the extra resources to universities, the £165 million that Dearing recommended—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that speeches have been limited today to 10 minutes for Back Benchers because time is very limited. That means that all interventions should be extremely brief.
  Dr. Jones: May I briefly ask my right hon. Friend what his projections are for 1999–2000? As he is aware, the extra £165 million was obtained by rephasing student loans.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her good wishes and support in this matter. I have indicated that the immediate yield from the new proposals would have been £50 million in 1999–2000 from Dearing and £100 million under our proposals. We are discussing with colleagues in the Treasury a plan to enable us to ensure that the universities are not disadvantaged and that—as I am sure that hon. Members would want—further education is supported and enhanced as well. It is very important that, in the wider debate, we see higher education in terms of lifelong learning, which has been grossly neglected.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, before he ends his speech, or my hon. Friend the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, give us the latest position on the financing of the four-year Scottish honours course, which greatly bothers Stuart Sutherland, the vice-chancellor of Edinburgh university, and many others in Scottish education?
  Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend the Minister for Education and Industry, in winding up this afternoon's debate, will respond directly on issues relating to the decisions taken by the Scottish Office, but—
  Mr. James Wallace: rose—
  Mr. Dorrell rose—
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall finish my sentence and then give way to the shadow Secretary of State. We are talking about the 25 per cent. of students who would have had to pay the full premium, because others would have had it ameliorated or alleviated anyway; and we are talking
  134
  about a situation in which A-level students from England or Wales, not wholly but substantially, find themselves able to enter the second year of university courses in Scotland.
  Mr. Dorrell: First, can the Secretary of State confirm that the number of students going from England to Scottish universities and claiming exemption from the first year of a four-year course on the ground of their A-levels is 10 per cent. of all the English students entering Scottish universities? Secondly, does he accept that it is not good enough to say that his hon. Friend the Scottish Office Minister will deal with the matter when he winds up? The Secretary of State is the United Kingdom Education and Employment Minister. We are talking about students who live in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and it is for the Secretary of State to explain why, on behalf of his right hon. and hon. Friends, he supports a policy that discriminates against his constituents.
  Mr. Blunkett: I can now see why the right hon. Gentleman got himself into such a tangle when he went to Scotland before the general election, to talk about constitutional issues. The Scottish Office is responsible for the university sector in Scotland; that is the historic difference in terms of responsibilities for education in our country. That was before the referendum, of course; it has nothing to do with proposals for further decentralisation and devolution, welcome although they are. That is why I referred to my hon. Friend the Scottish Office Minister responding at the end of the debate.
  However, I have explained the position. Many more students than those who currently take up the option of entering in the second year could, would be able to and I hope will, take advantage of that option, given that highers—I realise that they have now changed to "higher stills"—and A-levels were and are different. This afternoon we are discussing a package of measures addressing equity, access, the unfairness that has existed and investment in the future of our higher education and lifelong learning system.
  Mr. Wallace: Although the Minister for Education and Industry is responsible for Scottish universities, the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible to local authorities for student awards and student payments made by students in England and Wales who attend Scottish universities. The Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals is expressing considerable concern that the change might frighten away a number of students from England and Wales, to the extent that it says that it could threaten the survival of courses, departments and even, in the long run, whole institutions. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that that matter should be looked at again in terms of English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students attending Scottish universities?
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall address myself entirely to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. He asks whether there is fear, and there is. 1 want to confront that fear head on. Fear is generated by misunderstanding about what the Government will introduce. There is fear among those who believe that they will have to pay top-up fees, when we have explicitly ruled them out. There is fear among people who believe that they will have to find the money immediately rather than paying it back over a

  135
  lengthy period according to their incomes. Many fears have been whipped up. Even those who have the best intentions in seeking to oppose our proposals are contributing to the danger that young and mature students who were contemplating attending university next year may now not do so.
  I have written letters to all students in colleges, in further education, sixth forms and tertiary colleges—which will be delivered in the next few days—advising them of the Government's true proposals and asking them to take up places as they had intended. We ask those students to acquire the resources that will enable them—through the higher average earnings that higher education leavers achieve—to pay a contribution that will enable a future generation to enjoy the benefits and the privileges of higher education. What they have now, others will have in the future.
  We seek to open access to new groups that have been denied it by targeting particular socio-economic, cultural and geographic groups. We appeal to people to take up the challenge to invest in their future and to ensure that both they and the nation gain in the approaching new century.
  4.51 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: There is clearly much disagreement in the Chamber about the Government's proposals for the future funding of higher education. However, it is important to place on record the fact that there is also much agreement.
  I hope that all hon. Members welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of an additional £165 million for education and the uses to which that money will be put. I hope that all parties agree that there is a significant measure of support for many of the proposals in the Dearing report, and we should be pleased that the Government have accepted them. We should also support the Government's proposals to introduce a new, fairer income-contingent loan scheme. Perhaps most important, I hope that all hon. Members welcome the expansion of higher education in recent years, from an elitist system for 5 per cent. to a mass 30 per cent system. We must surely welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to lift the cap and increase the number of students in both further and higher education.
  I hope that we might also agree that the expansion of further and higher education was seriously underfunded by the previous Government. The Secretary of State has already referred to some relevant figures. For example, four fifths of our universities have obsolete or inadequate teaching equipment, and one in six students drop out, many because of problems associated with poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) referred to Sir Ron Dearing's finding that universities will need £350 million next year and £565 million the year after merely to stand still. I hope that we also agree that there is an urgent need to widen access to universities and to attract more people from under-represented groups—particularly those from less well-off backgrounds and from certain ethnic minority groups.
  If we agree on all of those points, we can surely agree that the tests of whether the Government's proposals—or
  136
  any other proposals—are right are: will they truly widen access; will they provide much needed urgent funds to our universities in order to meet the current crisis; and will they avoid creating additional problems and inequalities in the system? Sadly, I believe that, in relation to the Secretary of State's proposals, the answer to all three questions is no.
  First, as to whether the proposals will widen access, I understand the Government's argument that those from lower socio-economic groups and certain ethnic minority backgrounds are particularly averse to debt. Therefore, while introducing fees, the Government propose to means-test parents and offer lower fees and greater maintenance loans to the less well-off. I understand the reasons for it, but I believe that the Government's approach is fundamentally wrong.
  Means testing is socially regressive. The Liberal Democrats believe that, from the age of 18, everyone should be treated as an independent adult. After all, at 18, people are old enough to vote, marry, drive and even to die for their country. However, when it comes to being assessed for paying for their university education, people are treated like little children. It is the students, not the parents, who benefit directly from higher education. Therefore, the students should contribute to their education from future earnings rather than from the family's current earnings. Means testing is good for the factory worker's son, who pays no fees, gets a higher maintenance loan and goes on to a highly paid job in the City. However, it is not so good for the managing director's daughter who becomes a social worker. The system is simply not fair.
  More important, I believe that means testing is wrong because it misunderstands the nature of under-representation in higher education. Those from less well-off backgrounds tend not to attend university simply because they do not stay on in education after age 16. Therefore, the key to widening access to higher education is not means-tested fees, but boosting the staying-on rate post-16.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I have some sympathy with it. The fact is that, according to Barclays' student survey, on average, parents give £631 to their children at university in excess of the parental contribution. It is clear that students from poor families are not receiving that money, so those from affluent backgrounds are receiving far more than £631. The reality is that rich families will not allow their children to start off life in debt, but poor families have no choice.
  Mr. Foster: I have some sympathy with the hon. Lady's view. I do not think that anyone can remove all the inequalities in society. It is a great pity that the hon. Lady makes that point yet supports a Government who are not prepared to change income tax regulations. We proposed helping to remove inequality by increasing the upper rate of income tax in order to support those who are less well off. I am delighted to see that the hon. Lady supports that move, even if her colleagues do not.

  137
  The second test is: will the proposals provide extra funds to meet the current crisis in education? The answer is again no. The current loans system will not begin to make savings until 2015. However, the admittedly better income-contingent scheme proposed by the Secretary of State will not make a cumulative saving to the Treasury until 2092. Worse still—I do not think that this point has been picked up elsewhere—the new scheme may increase public spending because students will need to borrow more and a better repayment system will encourage them to do so.
  At present, 63 per cent. of students take up the option of a student loan. If that figure increases to 90 per cent., for example, lending will increase by £375 million. Furthermore, if 100,000 of the Prime Minister's additional 500,000 students go into higher education, that 10 per cent. increase in students will require a 10 per cent. increase in funding for our universities, which will amount to another £700 million. We do not know where that money will come from, and the Government's proposals do nothing to solve the immediate crisis.
  My third question is: will the proposals avoid other problems and inequalities? Sadly, the answer is again no. As the shadow Secretary of State pointed out, we have witnessed the chaos regarding the gap year students, where there were all the signs of the Government's hastily cobbling together a set of proposals. I warn the Secretary of State—I am delighted to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), is by his side—that the problem in relation to gap year students continues. Even in the Government's latest publication, the Secretary of State says that he will write to all students about his proposals. I hope that when he does so, he will put right an error in his own document. The latest document states:
  "'Gap year' students starting in the 1998/99 academic year whose places have been confirmed by 1 August 1997 will be treated as other students starting in the 1997/98 academic year."
  The Secretary of State surely recalls, however, that the A-level results were not even out by 1 August, so not a single place could have been confirmed. The Secretary of State looks puzzled. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will pass him a copy of the letter that he has been sending to many worried parents about that, in which the Under-Secretary puts right the omission in the Secretary of State's document.
  Other problems that have arisen show that Ministers are creating policy on the hoof—for example, the recent decision on the discounted fee rate for trainee teachers, and the different discounted rate for trainee doctors and dentists. Perhaps the best example of all is the one raised by the shadow Secretary of State concerning the Scottish students, although I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that his defence of the European Union during his remarks on that may well oblige him to consider leaving the shadow Cabinet.
  As the shadow Secretary of State rightly pointed out, Scottish students in Scottish universities get their fourth year free, as do students from other EU countries, but not students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Presumably they have opted out of the EU. The position was beautifully summed up by one Scottish principal, who said that an Umbrian from Italy would pay £1,000 less than a Northumbrian from England. That is the real confusion.
  138
  The problems are not over, and the Secretary of State will have to address them. On the question of up-front fees with no loan, what happens when parents fail to make up the contribution as, sadly, many do? Will there be court cases like the one currently going on in Scotland, in which a student is suing his mother? While they wait for the court judgment, will students be out on their ear? Will our universities have to set up huge debt collection departments?
  Mr. Blunkett: I am intervening so that we do not start with the hares running. The balance that we have achieved between the maintenance and the fee structure is such that people are not being asked to contribute more as a result of the means testing of the family than they do at present. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would concede that that is the case, and that therefore we are not imposing some additional, theoretical burden that makes it more difficult for families to contribute than it is at present.
  Mr. Foster: I concede that point to the Secretary of State, but the mechanism for the collection of the money is now quite different. There is an additional layer of bureaucracy, with the student being responsible for making that payment, in addition to the local education authority fee contribution. That increase in bureaucracy concerns me.
  Perhaps the Secretary of State will intervene and clarify another matter relating to the EU regulations. As he knows, we must treat all our EU partners the same. That means, presumably, that we must have a mechanism for checking on parental incomes for means-testing purposes—for example, the income of the doctor in Dortmund or the fishmonger in Frankfurt. Can the Secretary of State tell the House how he intends that to take place?
  Mr. Blunkett: No, I am not answering questions.
  Mr. Foster: The Government's plan seemed to be that they would hit the ground running, but if they want to do that, they should plan the route first.
  The proposals for means-tested tuition fees fail all the tests, and they are profoundly wrong in principle. My party believes that education should be free and available to all. The Secretary of State knows that many in his party and in the Trades Union Congress agree with me. The Secretary of State rightly picked up my comments about Mr. Gerry Malone in Winchester, then cited various other Tory Members who disagreed with Tory policy, but he should not forget that there is equal division within the ranks of the Labour party.
  At the recent Labour party conference, several constituency Labour parties tabled motions against tuition fees. Many Labour Members know that fees are wrong. Some spoke out at the rallies on Saturday. Some have signed early-day motion 361 calling on the Government to abandon their proposals. The recent Hams opinion poll discovered that 45 per cent. of Labour Members opposed fees, 12 per cent. did not know and only 34 per cent. were in favour of the Government's proposals.
  Ms Margaret Hodge: Is the hon. Gentleman contradicting what he said in 1995 in a Liberal

  139
  consultation paper on higher education, and later in 1996 in Liberal Democrat News where he stated:
  "Leaving aside the extra resources that we want to spend on other areas of education… such an approach"—
  which is an approach not means-tested—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Lady is one of those who is seeking to speak later. This is not helping the debate along. Will she bring her intervention quickly to a close?
  Ms Hodge: I have been told to ask the hon. Gentleman: is he not a hypocrite?
  Mr. Foster: It is frightening how the Labour party has to operate. It asks various hon. Members to ask questions, but does not give them a proper briefing. If the hon. Lady had done her homework, she would know that 18 months ago the Liberal Democrat party changed its policy position. We did it openly and honestly, in a public debate within our party. We made it clear in the resolution that we passed at that time, which I will quote to the hon. Lady, that we would
  "provide state funding for tuition fees for all courses up to and including first degree level, including"—
  as, sadly, her party will not do—"
  "part-time courses."
  I am not a hypocrite. I am someone who is willing to change his mind when he discovers that he has got it wrong.
  Of course the Liberal Democrats believe that our universities need extra funding. There are three beneficiaries—the state, employers and the student. We believe that all three could pay a little more. Students should pay more, through the remaining maintenance grants being turned into loans, as the Government propose, but not through fees. Employers could pay a little more into the system, and the state could do so too, out of general taxation.
  Our proposals for a three-way funding partnership have widespread support. They would help to widen access, provide much needed money immediately and avoid the numerous problems that the Government are creating. They would also end the divide between part-time and full-time students.
  There is another way in which additional funds for our universities could be found—by changing the current inappropriate accounting rules for student loans, which treat lending as spending. If we can instead treat the element of student loans that will be repaid, less administration and subsidy costs, as an investment in the creation of human capital, we could put that money on to the public sector borrowing requirement and reduce the money in the departmental control total, thereby freeing money to be spent on education.
  I know that the Secretary of State has been pressing hard for that change. We give him every support to achieve that. We applaud him for the work that he is doing, but I cannot applaud his stance on means-tested tuition fees. They are a charge too far. They are a student poll tax, and we oppose them.
  5.8 pm
  Helen Jones: I am pleased that the Opposition have given us the opportunity to debate such a vital issue. It is sad that more Opposition Members could not be with us.
  The funding of higher education is important not just to individuals, but to our community. It determines our economic health and our cultural wealth. We ask higher education institutions to do two things: to provide us with intelligent and adaptable men and women, who can solve the country's problems and modernise our industries, and to ensure that they have a broad educational experience which promotes personal development.
  If our universities are to do that effectively, they must draw from the widest possible pool of talent. Sadly, that is not always the case. Too many of our students leave education far too early. The result is not only a tragedy for those involved, whose opportunities and life chances are restricted as a result; it represents an economic disaster for the country. Any proposals for student finance must be judged in that context, and those making those proposals must answer two vital questions: do they improve access to higher education and do they safeguard standards? Neither the system that the Opposition put in place nor the Dearing proposals alone satisfy those tests.
  It is longer than I care to remember since I first went to university. When I did, none of my neighbours knew or understood where I was going or what I could expect there. It is shameful that the same would be true today. Despite the increase in student numbers which the Opposition have rightly mentioned, it is true that throughout the 1990s the increase among socio-economic classes A to C was more than double that among classes D and E, whose members are in any event less likely to participate.
  Anyone who doubts the result of that statistic should speak, as I did recently, to a headmaster in my constituency who was trying to persuade one of his talented pupils, who was destined to get good examination results, to go to university. Her aim in life was to get a job in an office. Research tells us that that pattern is repeated throughout the country. The major disincentive to students staying on in higher education is the desire to go out and earn money.
  The system that the Conservative party promoted when it was in government makes the position worse because it forces many students to be reliant on their parents not just while in education but afterwards. Students must pay back their loans over five years at a time when graduate incomes are at their lowest. Implementation of the Dearing report would not improve that situation because it would require repayments to be made when an income reached £5,000. It would also require all students, including the very poorest, to pay tuition fees. Students from lower-income families would thus be faced with a major disincentive.
  Parents cannot subsidise students from such families when they graduate. There is no money in the bank from which they can draw. Graduates from these families must earn their own keep, and under that system many people are concerned about how they would keep, feed and clothe themselves. No wonder that many such students choose to leave when they are 18.
  We not only fail to attract many students from low-income families into higher education. As the Dearing report makes clear, there are major concerns

  141
  about standards throughout the country. The report refers to evidence of inconsistencies among external examiners. As a result, there is a reference to quality assurance agencies to maintain standards in our higher education institutions.
  Anyone who has been in higher education recently cannot be surprised by what I have said. I returned as a mature student and I saw students who missed meals because they could not afford to eat properly. I saw students who could not keep up with their courses because they were working in the evenings. I saw libraries that were not properly equipped, with not enough books and, in one case, not even enough chairs. I saw overcrowded classrooms and out-of-date equipment. These are direct results of the Conservative party's cutting student funding by up to 25 per cent. per student. If we continue on the course that the Conservative party is proposing, in 20 years' time we shall face a shortfall of £2 billion.
  How would the Conservatives square the circle? There are only two options open to them. Either they would have to increase taxes by as much as 3p in the pound or they would have to restrict student access. We do not need a crystal ball but merely to reflect on their past record to know which option they would prefer. That is why the motion represents crocodile tears from those who in the past have displayed crocodile teeth.
  We shall put in place a system that protects the poorest students so that they do not have to pay tuition fees. We shall ensure that repayments are contingent on incomes. We shall ensure also that no parent has to pay more than he or she is paying now. The Opposition's proposals would not tackle student poverty, would not ensure security of funding and would not ensure a quality of education. Their proposals are a recipe for catastrophe. They would do nothing to improve access and nothing to help poor students. If we accept the motion we shall be failing the present generation of students and future generations. The motion offers a dead-end route, and I urge the House to reject it.
  5.14 pm
  Mr. Graham Brady: The Secretary of State referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who described the right hon. Gentleman's decision as "courageous". That called to mind the excellent comedy programme "Yes. Minister". My recollection is that when Sir Humphrey used "courageous" in relation to his Minister's decision, he meant something quite different. Perhaps the Secretary of State should take that as a warning rather than a sign of encouragement.
  I have nothing against the principle that students, when graduates, should pay something towards the costs of their education. The hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) talked about hypocrisy, but I would not want to use such a word. I remember clearly the strong opposition from the Labour party when the then Conservative Government introduced a modest system of top-up loans for students. Against that background, and given their record in office in the National Union of Students, when some were key figures in the opposition to the introduction of modest student loans by the Conservative Government, I find it remarkable that some Labour Members, who are not now in their places, are able to support the Government.
  142
  As I have said, I have nothing against the principle of students contributing something towards the costs of their education and, therefore, the introduction of some form of tuition fees. There is, however, an important distinction to be made, and that is that a tuition fee must relate to the education of the student. It must relate directly to what the undergraduate is receiving in terms of his or her higher education.
  It is particularly disturbing—I know that this is the view of the university sector—that the Government have flatly refused to guarantee that the funding that is derived from the introduction of tuition fees will go to the institutions that are involved, to the universities at which individual students are studying. That raises serious questions about the Government's intentions. The higher education sector is rightly worried about that.
  If the fee relates to the course and to the institution that the student is attending, what is the position of the Scottish universities? I believe that their circumstances and those of English students studying at them make clear the truth of the Government's policy, which is to introduce not tuition fees but a form of taxation that will be used merely to expand Government revenue. It will not be used necessarily to improve or fund the higher education sector.
  That is wrong in equity and indefensible when put before those of our constituents contemplating going up to university, who may find themselves contributing £1,000 a year or, in the case of an English constituent going to a Scottish university, £4,000 over a four-year period. That is proposed on the pretext that they will be making a contribution to their education when in fact it will be a contribution to general Government revenue. I deprecate any such decision.
  We have heard about resource accounting. There are accounting changes that can be effective, but it is clear that a political decision must be taken. Is there a political will to finance higher education or is there not? I understand that Government accounting is being debated between the Departments for Education and Employment and the Treasury. That does not remove the fact that public expenditure is public expenditure. If there is an increase in Government outgoings through the introduction of the proposed scheme, it must be accepted that that will count in terms of the public sector borrowing requirement.
  The principle of fees is acceptable as long as they go towards the institutions where people are studying. What is not acceptable is where they are a feeble guise for the introduction of a tax that will impact on undergraduates and graduates. It is not acceptable if they are part of a massive, sweeping change in the overall package of student financial support. An important contrast can be drawn between the way in which the previous Administration introduced small top-up loans for students and what the current Administration are trying to do. The introduction of small top-up loans was a gradual approach.
  My main concern at the effect that the Government's proposal will have on access is not necessarily the principle of what will he done, but the enormous shock effect of introducing an expensive new charge to students, through tuition fees, at the same time as abolishing the maintenance grant. There will be a massive increase in the debt that an individual contemplating going into higher

  143
  education will have to accept. The Government have to accept that, under those circumstances, many people will be deterred from entering higher education, particularly those from the lower socio-economic groups.
  5.20 pm
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: I am most grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate.
  Before I came to the House, I was editor of History Today, so I hope that the House will forgive me for having felt some small pride and privilege in making my own little piece of history on 2 May as the first-ever Labour Member of Parliament for Blackpool, South.
  Blackpool and history have always been intertwined. Blackpool has played a central part in the popular culture, history and leisure of our country over the past 150 years. Blackpool's motto is "Progress". Blackpool has been a pioneering and innovatory town in municipal government for more than 150 years. It is worth remembering that its Victorian values introduced the first tuppenny tourism rate, gas and electricity on a municipal basis, the promenade and the tramways, which still work today, and, of course, the tower, with which every visitor to Blackpool is familiar.
  It is a great boon to come before the House as the new Member of Parliament for Blackpool, South, because most, if not all, hon. Members will be familiar with the town through conferences. We have not one but three piers. We have a Golden Mile, where one can encounter such delights as "The World of Coronation Street" or "The Life and Times of Sooty". We have the pleasure beach, which for more than 100 years has been run by the same family and has a saga very similar to that of a Barbara Taylor Bradford novel. We have the Big One and the promise of a dark ride for the millennium, which should perhaps be referred to the Minister without Portfolio. We also have quieter pleasures in the form of Stanley park and Marton Mere, and, of course, the illuminations. We have millions of visitors. My constituency has more than 2,000 guest houses doing bed and breakfast—with a finer cooked breakfast than one will get in many of the grander hotels in North shore.
  When I was a child and was taken by my parents on day trips from Manchester to Blackpool, to see such delights as Zola the Zombie—"She's alive, she's well, she's living in a goldfish bowl"—little did I think that one day I would represent that town. As I reflect on my good fortune, however, it is, of course, customary in the House to pay tribute to one's predecessor, and that I am very happy to do. My predecessor, now the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), was a chivalrous and courteous opponent when I stood against him in 1992, and the case work that I have inherited from him shows that he was assiduous and thorough, as would befit a lawyer with his training. However, I was not aware, until relatively recently, of his keen interest in eastern philosophy.
  The Tory party has had a new leader since the general election, who we believe practises meditation techniques, but it is obvious that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath practised Hagueism avant la lettre. That he has returned to the House is clear evidence of that other piece of eastern philosophy, reincarnation. He has given the House proof positive of the transmigration of souls by reappearing as
  144
  the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. I thank him for his contribution to bridging the north-south divide and offer him many long and happy years in his new constituency.
  Blackpool is not all tourism and holidays. Many of my constituents work in industries outside the town—British Nuclear Fuels, ICI and British Aerospace, where many of them are engaged in the Eurofighter project—and in the civil service, in war pensions, disability living allowance and National Savings, Ernie and premium bonds, which has just celebrated 40 years. All those industries have faced strong challenges in recent years but have come through. At a time of discontinuity and market forces, it is as well to remind hon. Members on both sides of the House of the proud ethos of public service that Fylde civil servants have given over 50 years.
  Blackpool is not all fun and candy floss. Behind the fronts of the streets, some housing conditions are positively Dickensian. Many people in Blackpool earn a poor salary. Seasonal unemployment is high—up to 20 per cent. Many of the young people who come to our town find that the streets are not paved with gold, and the problems of drug and alcohol abuse are severe. Nevertheless, I am enormously proud of the self-help, good humour, enterprise and hard work of my constituents. However, without a personal and social infrastructure to support them, their efforts to make progress and grasp opportunities will always be maimed. That is why education times three is at the heart of our project in government.
  At home, I have a medal struck from the copper of Nelson's first flagship, Foudroyant, which was wrecked off Blackpool 100 years ago this year. That medal was given to my grandfather for being one of the top 10 schoolchildren in a Derbyshire elementary school, when he was 10. He wanted to be a teacher, but time, class and family circumstances meant that he spent his life as a boiler man, although I remember as a child the historical novels on his shelves, which may have stirred my interest in the subject.
  A former leader of our party, when speaking about such people, said that they had been deprived of a platform, and that platform of empowerment in education is at the heart of new Labour's project. It does, of course, involve very hard choices. I must tell Conservative Members that there was never any golden age in the funding of further and higher education, and least of all under their Government.
  I was the first in my family to stay on at school and go to university, and am well aware of how chance, good teachers and family encouragement helped me to come out of Oxford with a history degree. However, I am also aware that dozens of my contemporaries did not have that first, nor second, chance. The existing system of grants did nothing to, support or help them. Therefore, it ill befits the Opposition to come here today to don the cloak of concern and pretend that we are in year zero.
  The Opposition speak of maintenance grants, but it takes some cheek to defend a system that they progressively devalued and cut away during their period in office. In any case, it is not a system that ever benefited all students. One of the fastest-growing areas in the past few years, as Dearing has said, is that of part-time students. For them, a maintenance grant, even tutorial fee support, was never an option. I remind the House that

  145
  the Conservative Government whittled away the voluntary grants that were available in their constant attack on local government funding.
  As one who taught for 20 years as a part-time Open university tutor, I welcome the Government's opening moves to remedy Dearing's deficiencies in the report. I shall look to them to develop—perhaps with tax incentives—funding support to put part-time students, vocational and non-vocational, on a level playing field. The Government's response to Dearing is a responsible and realistic approach. It is one that is shared by the bodies concerned. I quote from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, which says:
  "CVCP accepts that the proposed funding system is realistic and necessary to secure the future of higher education in the UK: CVCP particularly welcomes the introduction of the new income-contingent loans scheme for maintenance."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) referred to the crocodile tears and crocodile teeth of the Opposition. I am equally not fooled by the crocodile waffle of Opposition Front Benchers, whose Government frittered years away when they had the opportunity to address the problems that the Labour Government now face. The Conservative Government were happy to see student numbers expand, but they did nothing to fund them. They did nothing in office to address the problem of pauperising students year by year.
  It was not the Conservative party which created the Open university, admired worldwide as a great British contribution to education. It was not the Conservative party which came before the House with proposals for the Open college and the university of industry. It was not the Conservative party which proposed individual learning accounts which will help and enable people. It is the Labour party in government which has done and is doing those things. We do them as a debt to the dead, but we also do them as an encouragement to the living. We do them because it is part of our central project to enable, to empower, to excite and to energise all our people for the 21st century, in my constituency and throughout Britain. That is why education, education and education is central to our endeavours. That is why the Government deserve support today against the Opposition motion.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) on his maiden speech. It was a great pleasure to listen to him. I have listened to him before today. He mentioned the towers of Blackpool and Millbank. In my memory are the towering spires of Oxford where we were together. I can tell that we shall have as many amicable differences in the future as we used to have in the past.
  The issue before the House can readily be understood only if credit is given where credit is due. Of all the inheritances that the Conservative party handed on to the Government of the day on 2 May, no jewel shone brighter than that of higher education. As Professor Dearing pointed out, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development described our system of higher education as highly efficient. We may not have yet
  146
  achieved the highest levels of access to tertiary education, but we have achieved one of the highest levels of degree status.
  Sir Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman seems to have missed the past 20 years—the cuts in the 1980s when the Conservative Government declared that there were too many students in universities, and the expansion that was declared to be market driven, only for the Government to discover that students were not studying what they wanted them to study; so they introduced quotas, then targets, then capping, then expansion again. They destroyed the whole structure of our higher education. We would have been in a far better state if they had not been so manic in their change of policies every year.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I cannot help noticing that those Liberal Democrats who have spoken so far are passionately against the Government's proposals. It will be interesting to see whether their leader resigns from his Cabinet Committee as a result. Is this yet another example of Liberal Democrats saying one thing while they do something completely different?
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: No, I shall not give way again for a while.
  In Britain, almost twice as many go through the tertiary education system as in France, Germany and Italy. Not only is our system efficient, but it delivers results. Across the G7 economies, the proportion of gross domestic product put into research and development is an average of 2.1 per cent. In Britain it is 2.2 per cent.–1.5 times the proportion in Canada, nearly twice the proportion in Italy, and nearly the same as the proportion in France, Germany, Japan and the United States. Of course we want to be at the top of the league, but we are in there and we have a highly respectable place in it.
  If there is a problem in the jewel that we passed on on 2 May, it is one of success. As has been acknowledged by representatives of all the parties who have spoken today, the Conservative Government widened access. It is that increase in access which has created the immediate problem of funding, which the Dearing report puts at £350 million a year.
  The student loan book is growing at the rate of nearly £1 billion a year. Had the Government simply spent a short time working out how to unlock the value in that student loan book, they could have solved the immediate funding crisis at a single stroke and avoided this rush into a hasty judgment. They could have avoided tens of thousands having to give up their gap year and many more tens of thousands having a gap this year, next year and every year. As a result of the Government's actions, people will be deterred from entering further and higher education.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman alludes to an important issue which goes back to yesterday's debate. The sale of the student loan portfolio for this year of £1.6 billion and for next year of £1.5 billion, to which the hon. Gentleman correctly referred, was the Conservative

  147
  Government's policy. This Government picked up the legislation and got it through the House because it was in the tax and spend plans.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: The hon. Gentleman is completely off beam because we are talking about the growth in the loan book, not the sale of the old loan book.
  The Government propose to raise the typical graduate's debt on leaving university from an average of around £5,000 to £10,000, or even, in areas such as I represent, possibly as much as £15,000. Unlike the Conservative Government's changes to the system, which were phased in over a long period, the Government propose to introduce their changes at a stroke.
  It is surely a measure of the mistake that the Government are making that they have created an enormous flaw in the system. There must be such a flaw when a student leaves university with a debt of £15,000 around his shoulders and yet the value of that debt in the Government's hands, whether it is retained on their books or sold to some third party, or whether they undertake accounting tricks, is not much more than £5,000 or £5,500. That is fundamentally a flaw and a mistake in what the Government are doing.
  That flaw arises because, without thinking the matter through, the Government have chosen to allow the system that they inherited, which was designed for low levels of student loan, to grow into a mammoth system which lends a great deal of money but produces very little for the Government's coffers. It is rather as if a business decided to resolve a cash flow crisis by trebling its prices while at the same time giving such generous credit terms that its cash flow worsened. How little confidence we would have in such a business and how little confidence the House should have in such a Government.
  Had the Government made some modest changes to overcome the immediate funding crisis, they would have had the time that they need. The Government need time. They need time to explain to us how they will control the level of fees. Dearing is specific about that. He proposes that an independent body, involving the institutes of higher education, should be persuaded before any change in the proportion of fees was approved. The Government propose such a change by a resolution of the House in which they have a vast majority.
  As we have already seen, Labour Members have proved to have no conscience, changing their minds when they hear the buzzer of the Minister without Portfolio on their little machines, and dropping their opposition to tuition fees in one fell stroke. No doubt they would drop their opposition to changes in those fees if required to do so by the Treasury. Moreover, if students are to contribute more to the cost of their education, time is needed so that they benefit more.
  The other major weakness of the proposals is that future benefits, such as quality assurance, will require time. We should help rural students to get an education that will cost them a great deal more, and we should try to change attitudes among those in their ninth and 10th years at school, because that is when attitudes must be changed if we are to encourage them to gain access to the system when they leave the sixth form. All those benefits will take time to feed through. The haste in which the Government want to implement their new policy will
  148
  deny us the time that is needed. It is a mistaken policy and will do great damage to the system of higher education that the Government inherited on 2 May.
  5.40 pm
  Ms Margaret Hodge: The speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) shows the depths to which the Conservative party has sunk since the election. The Conservative Government set up the Dearing inquiry because they had created a funding crisis in higher education. Conservative Members now want to wash their hands and walk away. It seems that they are even more shameless in opposition than they were in government, or, as with Europe, that they have abandoned pragmatic good sense for the wilder extremes of knee-jerk opposition.
  Let us consider the facts. It was the Conservative Government, not the new Labour Government, who left universities expecting a £3 billion hole in their funding by 2000. It was under the Conservative Government that vice-chancellors saw their per capita funding cut by a quarter since 1989. The new Government inherited a situation in which the universities are short of money and academic standards are threatened, in which students are poverty-stricken and ever more are dropping out, and in which expansion has been halted just when consensus had developed around the importance of education and training.
  The current student finance arrangements are a mess, and everybody knows it. They have evolved through piecemeal change and through compromises with vested interests. The idea that there ever was a golden age of free higher education for all is a sham. Nothing has ever been done to help either part-time or mature students, whose numbers have tripled since 1980, who often come from the lowest-income households and for whom we want to improve access. They have always contributed to their higher education.
  The Conservative Government expanded student numbers, but they failed to put in place either the funding or the necessary student finance arrangements. They tried to build a higher education system for the next century without pausing to lay the foundations. Their student loans system has been dogged by problems. Repayments are not related to income, so they hit poor graduates hardest.
  When the facade began to disintegrate, what did the Conservative Government do? They froze expansion and ducked the difficult questions. They passed the buck to Dearing before the election, and have now disowned his recommendations.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Hodge: No, I will not, because of the shortage of time.
  I cannot believe that the public will be fooled by the Conservative party's unprincipled scrabbling for votes. Labour Members are prepared to face the hard facts. In the long run, the taxpayer cannot meet the spiralling costs of a mass higher education system. We are spending more than £6 billion a year on higher education, yet it is not enough. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on finding an extra £165 million this year. It is

  149
  much needed, and the previous regime would never even have tried to help. In the long term, a more fundamental approach is required.
  The Government have had the courage to grasp the nettle. Not only are they putting into effect their manifesto pledge on student maintenance, but they have had the courage to implement the Dearing recommendations and introduce tuition fees. They are putting in place a sensible system for funding higher education that is sustainable in the longer term. It will allow us to expand and extend participation to reach the target set by Ron Dearing in his report. That target is affordable, and will protect the quality standards that we value in our higher education institutions.
  Income-contingent loans will mean fairer repayments for graduates. Payment will be based on ability to pay. The scare stories about higher levels of debt are misleading. Pay-back will be spread over a much longer period, and graduates will repay only when they can afford to do so. No student or parent will have to face up-front costs that are higher than those under the present system. Students from low-income families will not have to pay anything towards their fees.
  I believe that the Government's proposals achieve the necessary balance between finding more money for post-18 education and protecting access. Although it is right that, to improve access, those from low-income families should not have to pay tuition fees, it is also right and fair that those who benefit from a university education should contribute towards costs.
  Let us consider the difference between the position of graduates and that of non-graduates. In 1996–97, unemployment among graduates stood at 4 per cent., whereas unemployment among non-graduates was 8.2 per cent. Gross weekly earnings of non-graduates were £237, whereas graduates earned about £457 a week: a massive £220 difference.
  I have one question for those who support the current system, or who advocate a return to the days of full grants. Is the money really being spent where it is most needed? The answer must be no. Fewer than 10 per cent. of university students currently come from a background where parents are unskilled or partly skilled, whereas two out of three come from the top two socio-economic class backgrounds. The current system ensures free education only for those who are already achievers, the majority of whom come from better-off families. That is unfair, inefficient and indefensible.
  For too long, further education has remained the poor relation in the tertiary sector. Further education is vital if we are to make a learning society a reality. Two thirds of those who continue in post-18 education do so in further education colleges. A quarter of FE students pay their own fees, and most receive no financial support from the state for maintenance. We need to strike a new balance between higher and further education: one that recognises the importance of the FE sector, and that offers FE students a fair deal.
  I urge my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to consider two further issues. The first is the means by which graduate repayments are collected. One of the reasons why the current student loans system
  150
  has been such a disaster is the bureaucracy involved in recouping the loans. It would be much simpler if repayments were collected through either the national insurance or the tax system. That would make it easier to track graduates, and would cut bureaucracy. It would also make the loans more secure.
  Like other hon. Members who have participated in the debate, I want a change in the way in which student loans are dealt with in the public accounts. The current system treats grants and loans as the same, which is nonsense. It is true that student loans have to be funded initially by the Treasury, so they should come within the public sector borrowing requirement. But that is not straightforward Government spending. As Bill Robinson, the former Treasury official and adviser to the Treasury Select Committee and to a former Chancellor, said in evidence to the Select Committee on Education and Employment, not all lending is necessarily spending.
  The Government will recoup a large percentage of this debt. Over time, only the interest subsidy and the bad debt will have to be met by the public purse. Most modelling suggests that most Government lending will be recouped. It therefore seems common sense that not all lending should be classified as spending for spending control total purposes.
  That may seem an esoteric point, but it is not. If the accounts could be changed, it would allow the Government greater flexibility. It would allow them to use the money that they know that they will recoup to expand access and improve standards. I hope that my right hon. Friends will be able to examine that issue, which could do much to alleviate the short-term funding crisis facing universities.
  The Government have been left to pick up the pieces that were left by the Conservative party. My right hon. Friends should be congratulated on the way in which they have responded to the Dearing report. In a few short months, they have tackled the problems that the Tories left to fester for years. The challenge for the Government was to reform the system to increase equity, provide the resources—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's time is up.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) accused the Tories of being more shameless in opposition than in government. Her party could be accused of exactly the opposite. In carrying out Tory policies, it seems more shameless in government than it was in opposition. The main issue in this debate is quite clear: Tory hypocrisy matched by Labour hypocrisy. The losers are the students of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  The Tories have some cheek to raise the issue of student hardship. They know their own abysmal record. The previous Tory Government did more than any to increase the financial pressure on our student population. The reality is made clear by the constantly rising student debt—now more than £4,000 for the average student—and the tragic rise in the drop-out rate, which is up by 12 per cent. since grants were frozen and loans were introduced.

  151
  Under the Tories, students faced a constant onslaught of personal cuts, lower grants and loss of housing benefit. For many students, university today is more about survival than about study. Getting to the odd job will become more crucial than missing the odd lecture. The Tories should be ashamed of their record and their backing of a large part of the Government's policy.
  The Labour Government have cheated the electorate by promising education, education, education and delivering debt, debt and more student debt. The Government have acted on the Dearing report's recommendations by introducing tuition fees, but have blatantly ignored much of the rest of the report.
  Dearing proposed that an additional £350 million be spent on higher education in 1998-99, but the Government refuse to spend much more than the Tories. The overall reality of the spending figures is less money for our universities, colleges and students. Dearing proposed the continuance of maintenance grants, but the Government, in their wisdom, have chosen to abolish grants, and in so doing have erected a financial barrier to the aspirations of potential students across the country.
  The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): To clarify the matter, is the hon. Gentleman endorsing the Dearing recommendations on tuition fees?
  Mr. Welsh: The Scottish National party rejects tuition fees and wants to return to student grants. In an independent Scotland we would maintain the Scottish tradition from which the hon. Gentleman benefited. We are opposed to student loans and tuition fees. I am ashamed that our generation, which benefited from that grant system as part of the traditional education system Scotland, is imposing massive debt on future generations of students. It is something about which both he and I should be ashamed.
  Mr. Wilson: Merely on a point of clarification, I take it that, contrary to what the hon. Gentleman may have just led the House to believe, he is not endorsing Dearing on anything.
  Mr. Welsh: Far from it, I was pointing to the parts of the Dearing report which the Government and the Opposition have chosen to introduce. I was also clearly and exactly pointing out to the Minister the SNP's view. In dividing the House last night, we were against not only the privatisation of student loans but student loans on principle. I recommend that the Minister returns to the traditional view of the Scottish education system from which we both benefited and which he is withdrawing from vast swathes of the Scottish population.
  The Government claim that abolishing grants and introducing fees will not be a disincentive to students from low-income families entering universities, but the students and the universities know that that is not true. The prospect of a £15,000 debt will discourage many from considering higher education. Education should not be a privilege restricted to those who can afford to pay, but that is precisely what it will become if the Government go ahead with the proposals.
  The Government have often promised to listen to the electorate. Although they seem happy to listen, they refuse to hear what is being said. Thousands of students
  152
  in cities throughout the United Kingdom protested at the weekend against the Government's higher education policies. Are the Government willing to listen to the voice of students or will they continue to ignore them as they have ignored the Dearing report?
  The gaps and failings in the Government's plans are plain. Their proposals fail to take into account the position of mature students, especially those with family responsibilities. Will the Minister give a clear and absolute guarantee that students who claim supplementary allowances will continue to receive their grants—not as loans which they will be expected to repay? The Government's response, particularly with regard to further education, could cause enormous problems to that very important sector. Further education has tended to be ignored in comments and debates, yet it is the first stepping stone for many in returning to education or moving to higher education such as university. It is very important that students are not deterred from taking advantage of that first step on the ladder.
  The Government's proposals are flawed. Why do proposals for the introduction of tuition fees continue to include a means-tested contribution when the principle of the loans system is that students are responsible for the cost of their higher education? Are the Government not admitting that fees will act as a disincentive to university entry, if not for the poorest people, for those who are just above the means-tested level? The motivation for the Government's policy is not better education but their on-going mission to save money. Theirs is a short-term approach at the expense of students and against the interests of the nation. The SNP believes that higher education is an investment in the future strength and wealth of our society. It is society which will lose out in the long run through the abolition of maintenance grants and the introduction of fees.
  In the face of such education cuts, we can see the Government's true priorities. Over the past few months, they have squandered £210 million on the purchase of seven Trident missiles and the test firing of two others—another broken election promise. That £210 million could have removed the threat of tuition fees from Scots students for at least the next three years, restored student grants to 1990 levels for all Scottish students over the next four years, and restored housing benefit for the next eight years. I know what my priorities are and I am sad to see what the Government's have turned out to be. Education is not the Government's priority, given that they have squandered such precious resources on the ego-boosting but ultimately empty status symbol of the Trident weapons of mass destruction.
  The weakness of the Government's proposals is best highlighted by one anomaly. Scottish-domiciled students studying in Scotland will pay for only three years of their four-year degree courses, while English, Welsh and Northern Ireland students will be forced to pay for the full four years. That will act as a clear disincentive to the thousands of non-Scottish United Kingdom students who have previously chosen Scotland for their higher education and threaten the £200 million spent by that group in the Scottish economy every year.
  The Government must act to sort out the mess that they have created. The cost would be a mere £3 million to £5 million. I hope that the Minister will give a clear answer before this debate finishes. The House faces a choice: we can go down the road of ever-increasing loans

  153
  and higher financial barriers to student entry to higher education or we can invest in the future of our youth and our country. The SNP will give a full and detailed reply to the Dearing report. We have always said that education is a Scottish priority—a system open to all of ability irrespective of wealth or any other background factor. Ability, not the cheque book, should remain the determinant. The SNP stands by that traditional Scottish philosophy; I deeply regret that the Government do not.
  5.59 pm
  Ms Sally Keeble: I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate, which is of great importance to my constituency. I wish to draw in particular from the circumstances of students in Northampton. My constituency contains both a higher education and a further education college. To both, issues of access and opportunity in education are especially dear.
  The Opposition have made much of the recent growth in higher education, but—as often happens—it was growth without spread. It did not bring the participation in higher education by young people from low-income families that I and my hon. Friends would have liked and that would have made education one of the main ladders to personal aspiration and success. Most of the growth in student numbers has been from young people from families with higher incomes. Those from a more disadvantaged background are still held back. The figures given by the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) illustrate that clearly.
  In addition, compared with many of our competitors, participation of young British people in higher education still lags behind. It is no good for the Opposition to applaud themselves on the recent expansion of higher education when their 18 years in government left behind a system with a £2 billion funding crisis and an artificial cap on its expansion and without a breakthrough in the spread of benefits that could have transformed our society and the life chances of our young people.
  It is especially wrong for the Opposition to pretend to champion the cause of low-income students. As a new Member, I have noted that whenever the Opposition come to the defence of any cause it is usually because of some vested interest that has no place in a modern society. That applies especially when we are discussing the chances of children and young people. For example, the Opposition defended the assisted places scheme, which we scrapped to provide funds to reduce class sizes for all children. They opposed the windfall tax, which will fund the new deal and give young people job chances. We now see their opposition to the Government's proposals to provide the expansion that we want to see in higher education.
  The Government's proposals for the funding of higher education will ensure that young people from lower-income backgrounds are given appropriate support—and much more appropriate support than the measures behind the Opposition's weasel words. The Government's proposals for students from low-income families to be exempted from tuition fees will mean that many—probably most—of the students in my constituency will pay nothing at all. It has been calculated that 30 per cent. of students nationally will make no contribution to tuition fees.
  154
  In Northamptonshire, calculations based on the parental income of students applying to the county council for mandatory grants in previous years suggest that some 44 per cent. of students would not have to pay any tuition fees under the new scheme. In my constituency, full-time gross average earnings are £16,670, from which mortgage costs are deducted before there is any liability for tuition fees. Only 10 per cent. of the work force earns more than £27,000, which is well below the limit at which parents have to pay full tuition fees. If there is one message that the Government have failed to get across, it is the extent of the support that they are providing to students from middle-income as well as lower-income homes. I hope that the Secretary of State's letter will address some of the misunderstandings on that point.
  The Opposition's emphasis on maintenance grants is perhaps because of their concern about full-time students doing a first degree straight after school. Increasingly, however, students are not recent school leavers doing full-time degrees. At Nene college in my constituency, 5,000 students aged under 21 do full-time degrees, but 4,250 mature students aged over 21 are financed completely differently and rarely benefit from maintenance grants. Half of those students are part-timers who already pay an average £600 a year in tuition fees, with no form of means testing.
  The Government's proposals cannot be taken in isolation. They form a package that aims to ensure that we get the expansion needed in higher education. As part of that, I hope to see Nene college achieve university status. The only qualification on which it currently falls short is its research status and it should satisfy that criterion next year. After that, it need maintain its position for only three years to become a university. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), is to visit Nene college shortly and I trust that he will be impressed by the standard of the work that it does, including its work building links with local and business communities and extending opportunities to students from a wide range of backgrounds. All those issues feature strongly in the Dearing proposals. I hope that my hon. Friend will also ensure that the criteria for qualifying as a university are not changed before Nene college gets its chance to qualify and to make its contributions to extending the opportunities for young people to obtain university degrees.
  In his opening remarks, the right hon. Member for Charnwood spoke about a shambles. The only shambles in higher education is the one of the previous Government's making. The proposals from the present Government will go a long way to resolve the problems and ensure that higher education becomes—as we all wish—an opportunity for young people to achieve all their hopes and aspirations.
  6.5 pm
  Mrs. Theresa May: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. The Dearing report made a number of recommendations that cover various issues. Two key issues were the need to widen participation in and access to higher education, and funding in higher education. The Dearing report was not some fly-by-night, hastily put together report. It was the result of many months of careful research and analysis of the issues.

  155
  A carefully thought-through package of proposals was put before the Government. Sir Ron Dearing made it clear in his report, and when he came to give evidence to the Education and Employment Committee, that the proposals were a package, and that the Government should not cherry-pick from it by choosing some proposals and discarding others.
  Given the careful analysis behind the Dearing report, the Government had a duty to consider carefully their response to it, especially as their response will affect the future lives of our young people.
  Mr. Öpik: The hon. Lady is right to suggest that the Government should not cherry-pick from the Dearing report. Is she saying that, if she were in government, she would not cherry-pick, but would commit £350 million next year and £565 million the year after to higher education? If so, can she explain where she would find that money?
  Mrs. May: The issue we are debating this evening is whether the people who are in government today are cherry-picking from the Dearing report.
  We might also consider whether the Prime Minister understands his Government's response to the Dearing proposals. At Prime Minister's questions last week, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Prime Minister stated categorically that the Government were implementing the proposals from the Dearing report. When he was challenged on that point, he said that my right hon. Friend was wrong.
  My right hon. Friend was not wrong, because the Government are not implementing the Dearing proposals. They have discarded Dearing and are doing exactly what Sir Ron Dearing suggested they should not. He said they should not take the package of proposals in the Dearing report, tear it apart and put the proposals back together in their own package.
  The fact that the Government came up with an instant response to the report suggests one of two things. Either the Government make policy on the hoof—and given the importance of the issue to the future of young people, that would be reprehensible—or the Government had decided beforehand that they would introduce tuition fees and abolish maintenance grants. In that case, the Prime Minister's statement during the election campaign—
  "Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education"—
  is another example of the Government's betrayal of the people of this country.
  The Government have chosen to move away from Dearing in two particular respects. There is real concern that the Government's decision not to follow Dearing's proposal to introduce tuition fees while maintaining the maintenance grant, but rather to abolish the maintenance grant and replace it with loans will, far from widening access, narrow it.
  Particular concerns have been expressed also by those who represent rural constituencies about the impact on students who traditionally have to go away from home to get higher education. It can be argued that students living in an area with a variety of higher education establishments close by could ease their financial burden by choosing to stay at home. That would be a mistake,
  156
  because the process of going away from home is part of the value of higher education. That opportunity is not open to many young people from rural parts of the country.
  Another issue of concern about the Dearing recommendations is funding: here again we see the Government moving away from the proposals. The Dearing report was clear that resources produced from the introduction of tuition fees should go directly into the universities and higher education, but the Government have failed to confirm that. They give the impression that some money will be taken away from higher education and will go to other forms of education or—who knows?—into the Treasury pot.
  The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) referred to a briefing produced by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, but did not refer to this comment:
  "The CVCP considers it essential that contributions from students towards tuition are ploughed back into universities and lead to a direct improvement in funding for teaching."
  If nothing else, the Minister should make it clear whether the Government agree with that statement. Sir Ron made the point that, if students were paying tuition fees, the money would go into the universities which would be more careful in assessing courses. This would help to raise standards, as has been said tonight. People need to know the Government's intentions, and I trust that the Minister will provide the answer.
  In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) referred to the absolute fiasco with regard to English students who go to Scottish universities. The Secretary of State said earlier that the reason why he chose to make a statement in response to the Dearing report was the need for clarity. We saw over the summer months an absolute fiasco concerning gap year students, and many families suffered uncertainty and worry. Students did not know what lay ahead, because the Government, frankly, failed to get their act together. Obviously, they had not realised that gap year students would be affected by the measure, which shows their incompetence.
  We now have a second fiasco. English students will pay more to attend Scottish universities than Scottish, German, French or Italian students. A National Union of Students spokesman has said that this will "devastate" universities in Scotland which rely heavily on students from outside the country. St. Andrews university has said that it could have a marked effect on cross-border flow, and it may have a significant impact on the entire higher education sector, and not just on the successful importers of non-Scots university students.
  The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), is here to respond to the debate. I trust that he will tell us that the Government have changed their mind and that English, Welsh and Northern Irish students will benefit from the same treatment to be given to Scottish, German and Greek students.
  6.12 pm
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Thanks to the previous Government, we now have mass higher education in this country—well, that is the case for some groups. Sadly, and worryingly, that does not apply to

  157
  social groups IV and V, from which only 8 per cent. of young people go on to higher education. This is quite disgraceful, when one considers that that proportion is scarcely higher than the participation rate in my day, when only one in 10 went to university.
  It is pleasing that the debate has concentrated on that issue, and that hon. Members realise what a waste of our national talent that represents and how we all suffer from the failure to ensure that all young people who are capable of benefiting from higher education get the opportunity to do so. That is the subject upon which I wish to concentrate, although I come to it from a slightly different perspective.
  I do not want the present Government to finish with no improvement having been made to the present situation. I benefited from higher education and a full maintenance grant, and I did not have to pay any fees. I urge my colleagues to look again at what Dearing has said about access to higher education for the lower socio-economic groups.
  I would like to draw the House's attention to another document, published around the same time as Dearing, by the Council for Industry and Higher Education. The report, by Hilary Metcalf, is entitled "Social Class and Higher Education: The Participation of Young People from Lower Social Classes". As one might expect, the report found that a major factor in the lower participation of people from lower-income groups arises because of their poorer educational achievements before higher education. That is an issue on which my Government are strong, and the White Paper "Excellence in Schools" has attempted to address that issue.
  There are other factors which prevent young people from poorer backgrounds from going to university, and the report deals with them. Why do young people with the necessary qualifications to go to university not take up that opportunity? That is something that we should be addressing today. Sadly, the Government's proposals do not address the major recommendation in the report—that we should address the income differential between a young person going into work direct from school and a young person becoming a student.
  If the Government's proposals are accepted, a young student will end up with greater debts than he or she would have done previously. It is true that the student will not have to pay a fee, but he or she will be poorer by the £2,000 that he or she will lose in maintenance grant—something that Dearing was strongly against. He saw the abolition of maintenance grants, and their replacement with loans, as a means of reducing subsidies to the poorer sectors of society and redistributing them to the better-off. In that regard, I urge my hon. Friends to look again at this report.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Lady agree, on the issue of class, that the attraction of higher education for young people who saw their own pals going out and earning money, while they were piling up debt, would be minimal? We must be realistic about that.
  Dr. Jones: That is absolutely right. When I was a young girl living on a council estate, very few of my
  158
  friends went to university, and I was constantly asked whether I did not want to go out and get a job to earn some money, which was what the others aspired to do.
  The report shows that young people from less affluent backgrounds are less likely to see higher education as the route to a higher income. They will be put off higher education by the knowledge that they will start their working life saddled with huge debts. Had I faced the prospect of debts of £5,000 or £6,000 more than the current debts, I cannot imagine that I would have been so enthusiastic about going to university.
  It is not true that the majority of graduates earn more, because women graduates earn less than the overall male average. The logical conclusion of the argument that people who earn more should pay a levy for higher education is that all men should make some contribution; but of course that is nonsense.
  I am deeply concerned about the proposals. There is no doubt that the Conservatives failed to fund the expansion in higher education, with the result that the vice-chancellors in 1996 proposed what they called a "political deficiency levy" of £300. That was the Conservatives' deficiency: their failure to fund education adequately. Industry had real worries about the effect on our national wealth and ability to compete in a technological, global economy.
  We must give a higher priority to finding the resources for an adequately funded higher education system, with appropriately funded research and development in our universities. The previous Government failed to do that. I know that my Government want to address the issues, and that cannot be done without major changes in the Treasury rules and in the way in which universities are funded.
  To those who say that people who benefit from higher education and earn higher salaries should pay more, I say, yes, but perhaps it is better to consider that many people earning higher incomes will have benefited, or will have children who have benefited or want to benefit, from a university education.
  My parents would not have been able to help me out with a penny to finance my education, but I would not want my children to start their working lives saddled with enormous loans; I, as a parent, will find it incumbent on me to help my children to pay off the loans as they go through university. That is true of most parents from affluent backgrounds, who can afford the contribution.
  Mr. Richard Allan: Does the hon. Lady accept that many parents who are expected to pay parental contributions currently do not do so? There is a qualitative difference between paying for tuition fees and paying for maintenance, because maintenance is controllable, but if those parents who have been assessed as affluent enough to pay for tuition fees do not do so, that is a bar to entering university in the first place.
  Dr. Jones: I would not want to say that the parents who do not contribute to their children's education would necessarily make that distinction. I suspect that those who do not contribute are people from lower middle-class backgrounds who find it a struggle to supply that assistance, or people from working-class backgrounds who do not value education—we must do something about that—but the majority of parents give what they can afford.

  159
  Some parents already give large sums in excess of what is required by the parental contribution assessment: the average figure is £631 per student per annum, but I bet that that is heavily skewed—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's time is up. I call Mr. John Bercow.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: It is a pleasure to add my tribute to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden). It was a witty, stimulating and intelligent contribution, of which he can be justly proud. He referred to the availability and calibre of bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Blackpool. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) were here, he would be able readily to testify to the accuracy of those comments, as the accommodation that he found in Blackpool was both high quality and extremely cheap. I am sure that the House will join me in looking forward to many future contributions of comparable calibre from the hon. Gentleman.
  The Government's handling of student finance has not been adroit or sure-footed; it has been faltering and inept from the outset. They got into difficulty first and foremost because their approach was based on a deception. My right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made the point, and it bears repetition, that, during the general election campaign, the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, said on 14 April—it was reproduced in the Evening Standard, so the veracity of the statement is not in question—
  "Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education."
  If that was not enough, the Foreign Secretary, as he is now, amplified the point in an interview with Leeds Student Radio a mere 10 days later. He observed: "We are quite clear that tuition costs must be met by the state."
  If the purpose and effect of those statements was not to persuade people that the Labour party would not introduce tuition fees in any shape or form, it is difficult to know precisely what the intended interpretation was. It is shameful that the Government misled people, and they have got into grave difficulty as a result: they conned people into thinking that continuing state finance would be the order of the day; it is not. They gave no advance notice and they are therefore responsible for a breach of trust, of faith and of understanding with the electorate, whose support they were then inviting.
  A mere 90 days after the Foreign Secretary, then shadow Foreign Secretary, had said explicitly that it was the state's duty to pick up the bill, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment had the brass neck to come to the House and announce the proposal to introduce tuition fees. That is at the root of the Government's difficulties.
  Mr. Willis: Is not it equal brass neck that a shadow spokesman spells out from the Front Bench the Tories' policy on tuition fees while their candidate in the Winchester by-election says exactly the opposite to students? is not that hypocrisy?
  Mr. Bercow: My former hon. Friend, Mr. Malone, was an outstanding Member of Parliament, and I am certain that, after 20 November, he will be so once again.
  160
  Not only have the Government misled people about their intentions: they are guilty on several other fronts. They propose to misuse the proceeds of the new tax that they have introduced—I use the word tax advisedly. Consistently, their rhetoric—I suspect that this is true of the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office as it is of others on the Government Benches—has contained an insistence that higher education is underfunded and that more funds should be ploughed into the sector. One would assume that the logical corollary of that thesis would be that if new funds were raised—in this case through tuition fees—they would be ploughed back directly into the system. So far, however, we have managed to discover that only about £125 million out of the £150 million that is envisaged to be raised will be invested in higher education.
  That information has been dragged out of the Government; they have not offered it voluntarily to the House, which is deeply regrettable. It is inconsistent with the position that they consistently advanced in the past. Higher education will be underfunded. Instead of supporting students, the Government propose to short-change them. That is a serious matter.
  The problem of access to higher education is also serious. There are strong arguments in support of tuition fees, but the idea that there is a justification for a sudden change of policy, of which the public received no notification before the election and which they were assured would not happen, is much less powerful. The dangers are very real. Some Labour Members are deeply dissatisfied with the policy; I think of the hon. Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). I must not leave out the distinguished hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who is profoundly dissatisfied with every component part of the Government's higher education policy.
  The fact that there has been a 16 per cent. downturn in applications ought to be a matter of serious concern to the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends; it should not be lightly dismissed. If people now fear to go into higher education, that is a worrying problem. The Government must reckon with that problem because it is incompatible with their ambition for greater access to, and participation in, higher education.
  The problems that I have described are severe enough, but they have been compounded by two others. First, there was the breathtaking incompetence over the gap year. There was an extraordinary saga of misinformation and tergiversation by the Government. At first, there was going to be no provision for gap-year students. In rushing helter-skelter to make an announcement after Sir Ron Dearing had reported, the Government had not considered what to do. Two weeks later, they said that there would be an allowance for people who were prepared to do three months of voluntary work. They suddenly announced that that was unworkable and that the 19,000 students involved would be admitted on the 1997 arrangements.
  I still have constituents—I hope that there will be a response from the Minister on this in his winding-up speech—who are losing out because, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said, they made considered applications once they had received their A-level results. One such person, who comes from the lovely village of Cuddington in my constituency, is currently working, as she always intended to, at a school

  161
  in Malawi where she helps the boys as a matron. She is doing good work for a year. She got good results and she always intended to go into higher education. However, she will not benefit from the concession the Government have announced. There is no intellectual justification for the arbitrary distinction that Ministers have drawn.
  The Government should have the guts, the political dexterity and the will to stand up to the Treasury, and to secure the outcome that they need and that the interests of our students warrant. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State may chunter from a sedentary position, as has become his wont. I invite him to exercise what modicum of self-restraint he is able to muster in the circumstances.
  I must direct one further gentle salvo at the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office. I understand his predicament. It must be a source of the most stupefying embarrassment to have to come to the House today after his cack-handed, incompetent handling of the situation in Scotland. We assume that the Government's decision is testimony to their disbelief in equal treatment for every resident of the United Kingdom, and it is shameful. St Andrews, Dundee, Edinburgh and the other Scottish universities will demonstrate beyond peradventure the damage that the Minister's misjudgment has caused.
  The Government's approach has been characterised by deception, iniquity and incompetence. The losers are the students and our higher education system. For that reason, I hope—I doubt that this will happen—that the Minister will have the good grace and courtesy to apologise to the House this evening.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: This has been a worthwhile, interesting and revealing debate. We heard a maiden speech by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) on which I congratulate him. I say in a friendly way that I look forward to the days when the conventions of the House allow us to hit back at his speeches.
  We heard a number of powerful speeches by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I think particularly of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), who rightly pointed out the missing faces on the Government Benches today—the dogs that did not bark, the disappeared and those who were told that they had better keep away.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) rightly reminded us of the Conservative Government's record, when we saw the number of students entering higher education increase from one in eight to one in three.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: I am new to the customs of this House. Is it customary for only 12 Opposition Members to be present for the summing up in an Opposition day debate?
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman might count the proportion of Members on the Government side compared with the proportion on our side. One of the difficulties of having a very large majority is that questions such as the
  162
  hon. Gentleman's tend to rebound. We certainly made up for numbers in terms of the quality of the speeches we made.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford made a powerful speech in which he reminded us of the Conservative Government's achievements. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) reminded us that, for all their protestations to the contrary, the Government have not endorsed the Dearing report and that their policies are not on all fours with that report. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made it clear that the Government have misled people about their policies.
  The most extraordinary thing about the debate has been the fact that many speeches made by Labour Members have been consistent in only one respect—that none of them supported the Government's policy of higher tuition fees. Labour Members blamed the previous Conservative Government and talked all around the subject, but they avoided tuition fees like a ghost avoids garlic.
  The worst culprit was the Secretary of State himself. On three occasions, he was asked a question and, on each occasion, he failed consummately to defend the policy, obviously because he is embarrassed by it. The reasons for his embarrassment are also clear. He failed again, as he had previously, to explain what his leader, the Prime Minister meant when, on 14 April—I quote his words, as have many of my colleagues—he said:
  "Labour has no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education."
  We were told the other day by the Prime Minister that he said that because the Dearing report had not yet come out. Why did he not say that the Government would have to wait for Dearing? He did not say that. He said during the election campaign to the people of this country that Labour had no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education.
  What does the Secretary of State believe that students were led to understand by the Prime Minister's statement? Were they to understand that the Government would wait for the Dearing report or that tuition fees would be introduced? Alternatively, were they to understand before they voted that the Government had no intention of introducing tuition fees for higher education? That is an important point, which must be answered.
  Throughout the election campaign and beyond, Labour Members have told us that they are to be trusted, that they have made a contract with the British people and that we can have confidence in their words, yet here we have a blatant example of an undertaking given during the election which has been refuted 100 per cent. by Labour's policies in government.
  I shall now deal with the other question that has arisen during the debate—Scottish students and English students attending Scottish universities. I have had a soft spot for the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, who will respond to the debate, since the days in 1979 when he and I campaigned together on the no side in the devolution referendum campaign. He made a powerful argument then about the need for parity between the respective parts of the United Kingdom. He has obviously changed his mind on devolution, but to judge from Labour's education policy, as enunciated over the past few weeks, he has also changed his mind about parity.

  163
  For all the huffing and puffing, the facts are straightforward. Scottish students at Scottish universities will not have to pay the tuition fee for the fourth year of degrees, and nor will Italian, German, French, Spanish Greek or southern Irish students, but English, Welsh and Northern Irish students will. The Government call that fair. They say that that creates equity in the system. Is it fair for a German student to be paid for in a way that a Northern Ireland student cannot be? Is it fair for an English student at Edinburgh to pay £1,000 for the final year when a Greek student gets it for free?
  I have just seen an answer from the Minister to one of my colleagues that says that tuition fees are expected to be £1,000 a year and will be increased in line with inflation for subsequent years. That is an interesting departure. Until now, students had thought that it was bad enough having to find £1,000 a year but, given the previous Labour Government's record on inflation—taking average inflation over their last period of office—students will have to find another £150 a year in their first year, and every year afterwards. Once again, the Labour Government speak with one voice in one direction and another in another. The Government call it fairness when Scots will, rightly, still be able, without penalty of a tuition fee, to come to English universities but English students will have to pay to go the other way. That is the fairness of the madhouse, compounded by the arrogance of the Minister in responding to criticisms.
  I am not going to personalise the debate but I should like to refer to the editorial of The Scotsman on 30 October, which said that the Minister had reacted to criticism with rancour and stated that it
  "would matter less, of course, if Mr. Wilson's job did not matter so much. Yet whether making a hash of statutory appraisal, a botch of national testing, a mess of nursery vouchers, being posted missing during the gap year fiasco, or making a spectacle of himself over tuition fees, Mr. Wilson has at least been consistent in his attitude to opposition: he is right until proven wrong."
  Hon. Members who have spoken today have comprehensively proved that the Minister is wrong. When the principals of the Scottish universities say that their institutions are endangered by the Government's policy, it is not enough for him to say that they are talking "hyperbolic nonsense"; he must address their points. I have some questions that I hope that he will answer in this debate.
  What budget will bear the cost of the fourth-year subsidy? Will it come from the Scottish block, and what will have to be forgone to pay for it? From what budget will the cost of European students in their fourth year come? Will that come from the Scottish budget? If so, what is the expected cost? How can the Government justify that the Scottish block should bear the cost of students from Greece, France, Germany and southern Ireland when it is not prepared to bear the cost of students from England, Northern Ireland and Wales?
  Are the Government really arguing, as I understood from an earlier answer, that the first year of a Scottish degree is not of university standard, so that English students can come to their university degrees a year late? If so, why is not the same argument made for European students who come into Scottish higher education? Is it not an insult to the basis of higher education in Scotland that such a suggestion should be made?
  For four years, I was the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland. How many Northern Ireland students will be affected by having to pay for
  164
  a fourth year? What will that do for the close link between the higher education systems of Scotland and Northern Ireland, which has been a matter of pride for the two countries for many years? Is it the Government's intention ultimately to make Scottish higher education for Scots alone? What will that do for the quality and reputation of Scottish universities?
  Mr. Wilson: Shame.
  Mr. Ancram: The Minister may say that, but it was he who argued last week that the numbers were insignificant. He argued that all that mattered in Scottish education was that Scottish students were supported and devil take the hindmost. If he denies that, what robust calculation has been made about the overall viability of Scottish higher education institutions if students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland stop coming? How many would be threatened with closure? Where would the closures take place? Again, the Minister laughs, but there are people in the Scottish higher education system who predict that that will be the outcome of his policy.
  Mr. Wilson: I did not laugh; I looked astonished because the right hon. Gentleman knows something about Scotland and cannot possibly believe that what is proposed will have a significant effect on the number of students who come from outside Scotland to Scottish universities, not least because more than half of them will not be touched by tuition fees at all.
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is closing his ears to what is being said by the principals of the Scottish universities. We have heard evidence from St. Andrews university that the number of students applying from England is going down as a result of the policy. If he is to be worthy of his office, he must stop blocking his ears and treating the matter with the arrogance of his talk of hyperbolic nonsense. He must start listening to those who know about higher education in Scotland: those who have to operate within it.
  The whole policy has been a saga of incompetence, deceit, indecision, muddle and, ultimately, discrimination. That can serve only to undermine confidence in higher education across the United Kingdom but particularly in Scotland. If that is yet another example of the arrogance of this Government, who believe that rhetoric rather than reality is what counts and that public criticism of them is a new form of heresy, they will learn from us, and, increasingly, from the public, that that is not the case. They have to listen to what people say to them. If today's debate is anything to go by, they will learn it soon enough from their own Back Benchers. If the Minister had looked around, he would have seen that the faces behind him had all the warmth of the gathering storm.
  We welcome the expansion of higher education and recognise the good work that has been proposed by Dearing, but we condemn the Government's deliberate attempt to ignore and distort the report. I ask the House to support the motion.
  6.46 pm
  The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): This debate has been a great intellectual reinforcement of what we are doing.

  165
  As exercises in amnesia allied to brass neck go, even by Tory standards, this has been a classic. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) gives a new meaning to the term cross-border flow. Even though he was a Member of Parliament for most of the 18 years during which the Tories were in power, he made no attempt to explain why the funding crisis in higher education that the Dearing committee was set up to address even exists.
  I congratulate my hon. Friends on some excellent contributions. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) on an excellent maiden speech. I congratulate him not only on being the first Labour Member for Blackpool, South but on being a Labour Member with a majority of 11,616. That may remind some Conservative Members of the realities of the past 18 years. I thought that his contribution, particularly in rebutting the golden age mythology of higher education, was outstanding.
  As was pointed out, I did indeed benefit from the Scottish higher education system but I am mindful of the fact that when I benefited from it, I was the one in 14 of Scottish school leavers who did so. I am acutely and humbly aware that many of the 13 who did not go into higher education were every bit as able and eligible to benefit from it as I was but that the funding regime in place at the time meant that they never had the chance of seeing the inside of a university. Whatever else we can say about the Tories, we cannot deny that they increased the numbers in higher education.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear," but the tragedy, the disgrace and ultimately the hypocrisy of tonight's debate is that the previous Government did not provide the money to follow the students. As a result, Scotland has 44 per cent. participation in higher education, but the funding per student—the money that follows the student into higher education—has dropped by 40 per cent. under the Tories. That is what created the crisis in higher education.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: On the question of funding, is my hon. Friend aware that some of the small to medium-sized institutions such as Stirling, 31 per cent. of whose student intake comes from outside Scotland, are extremely worried? Can he give the House an assurance that due account will be taken of that, as we could experience a drop in student numbers and places not being filled as a consequence of the fourth-year rule? Will he bear that in mind in his calculations?
  Mr. Wilson: I shall come to that later in my speech. I am sure I will satisfy my hon. Friend that those fears have been greatly exaggerated.
  Congratulations are also due to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on producing a splendid leaflet written on behalf of the Tory candidate in Winchester, which portrays a somewhat unrecognisable slimline figure, besweatered on the campus like a latter-day Winchester Daniel Cohn-Bendit and promising to stand four square to back the student fight. It says that a vote for Gerry Malone will ensure that the issue is not allowed to go
  166
  away. Presumably, if Gerry Malone had been here today, there would have been six rather than five Tory Back Benchers behind the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment. That is a true measure of Tory concern for students—[Interruption.] There were only five behind the shadow Secretary of State when he opened the debate. I can count and see. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. There is far too much noise from the Opposition Front Bench.
  Mr. Wilson: Most of them have only just woken up, so they have a lot of energy to get rid of, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  There are three key elements in the Government's policy. First, we aim to put substantial additional funds into higher and further education. We are committed to increasing the number of students in higher education, but because of the Tories' record, the money is not there. Secondly, one third of students in higher education and 40 per cent. in Scotland will continue to pay no tuition fees because of the application of the means test. It shows real political irresponsibility when politicians from any party try to give the impression that every student would be paying £1,000 a year when that bears no relation to reality.
  Mr. Jenkin: It is not fair, is it?
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman says that it is not fair, but we are not talking about what is fair to me or to the Government. We are talking about the fact that it is not fair that people from less well-off backgrounds should be frightened away from higher education by the irresponsible scaremongering of people such as him.
  Thirdly, the vast majority of graduates will repay less than they do under the current scheme which we inherited from the Tories: it is absolutely crucial that people realise that. Taken together, those elements—more money for higher education; 40 per cent. of Scottish students and one third of those throughout the United Kingdom being exempt from tuition fees; and the vast majority repaying less each month—represent a package that need deter nobody from a lower-income background from entering higher education.
  Mr. Dorrell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last time one of his ministerial colleagues with responsibility for education spoke about irresponsible scaremongering, Baroness Blackstone was obliged to make a total retreat from her position a week later? Is he about to make a similar announcement? While he is answering that question, will he also explain to the House whether he is describing the view of the Scottish higher education principals as irresponsible scaremongering?
  Mr. Wilson: Let us be clear about gap funding. There was a statement on gap funding at the conclusion of the discussions on it. However, there was no U-turn because there was no initial statement of the opposite—[Interruption.] Public school histrionics are the privilege of a Tory Opposition, but they do not change the facts. I am interested that the right hon. Gentleman and a number of his colleagues slavishly read out their brief, now appearing to take as gospel truth everything said by

  167
  university principals as if it came down to them on tablets of stone. For a long time under the Tories, university principals were saying that more money should be pumped into universities: the Tories never reacted to that in such a positive way—all they did was cut, cut and cut again.
  Those who know about Scottish education know that St. Andrews is a rather distinctive case because 41 per cent. of its students are from England. That is fine. I am all in favour of diversity. But that is in marked contrast with the position of Paisley university, where 4 per cent. of students are from England, or Robert Gordon university, where 3.5 per cent. of students are from England.
  I know from his political history that the right hon. Member for Devizes is a very naive politician, but even he need not accept as biblical prophesy every word that comes from the principal of St. Andrews university. If he is aware of the geography of Scotland, may I suggest that he goes a little further south and listens to the much more reasoned, rational and measured comments of the principal of Edinburgh university, which has an even higher proportion of English students than St. Andrews? [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says, "It is very worrying." He has made an interesting statement that it is very worrying that the principal of Edinburgh university should take a more rational view of these matters.
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman misheard me. I said that Edinburgh university is very worried. I have spoken to a number of senior people there recently. In the few moments that remain, will he take the opportunity to answer the question from the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) about the fairness of the policy that he is introducing in Scotland?
  Mr. Wilson: If Opposition Members will stop baying and guffawing for a moment, I shall be delighted to do so, but leopards cannot change their spots and I very much doubt whether they will do so.
  I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Devizes has heard of the Garrick report. He looks very puzzled when I mention it. That report contained a request that I ensured equity for Scottish students in universities taking a four-year degree which had parity of esteem with the English three-year degree. That is exactly what we have done.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman clearly wants to use up part of the three minutes that remain. I shall not give way to the silly man. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. I expect Opposition Front-Bench Members to set a good example.
  Mr. Wilson: What we are witnessing is a veneer of indignation built on a very deep trough of ignorance, and Conservative Members do not want to hear anything that threatens to expose that ignorance.
  The Garrick committee recommended that,
  "if a graduate contribution is introduced, the Secretary of State should ensure that the contribution from Scottish graduates for qualifications gained in Scotland is equitable with the contribution for comparable qualifications gained elsewhere in the UK."
  168
  The Government have delivered exactly what Garrick recommended.
  Let me educate the shadow spokesman. There is no perfect symmetry within the United Kingdom higher education system because there are different school qualifications and different higher education qualifications. As soon as we try to match them in order to resolve one anomaly, we run the risk of creating another anomaly. That is the reality, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. We have tried to give the optimum, fairest possible deal to the maximum number of students and we have succeeded.
  Let me turn to the legitimate concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill). Of course there are concerns about numbers, but we can take out various categories of student—the Tories know nothing about this subject. Let us take out the third of students coming from the rest of the United Kingdom who are exempt from means testing for tuition fees; the 10 per cent. who come in the second year to Scottish honours degree courses; and the 10 per cent. of English, Welsh and Northern Irish students who do ordinary degrees. After doing that, we are left with that small minority who are asked to pay the £1,000 tuition fees.
  If the principals and everyone else went out and told the truth, they would frighten away many fewer students and do Scottish higher education a big favour. The important thing is to get more people from a wider range of social backgrounds into higher education in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. The Tories failed to do that, because they did not care. We are going to advance from the position in my day, when only one in 14 students went into higher education. In Scotland, we are going to get more than 50 per cent. of students into higher and further education and they will come from all social backgrounds. None of the scaremongering from Opposition parties will forestall that aim.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 373.

  Division No. 80]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Amess, David

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Arbuthnot, James

  Collins, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Baldry, Tony

  Cran, James

  Beggs, Roy

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Bercow, John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Day, Stephen

  Boswell, Tim

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Duncan, Alan

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Brady, Graham

  Evans, Nigel

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Faber, David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Fallon, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Flight, Howard

  Butterfill, John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Cash, William

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Gale, Roger

  Chope, Christopher

  Garnier, Edward

  Clappison, James

  Gibb, Nick

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Gill, Christopher

  169

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Pickles, Eric

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Prior, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Randall, John

  Gray, James

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Green, Damian

  Robathan, Andrew

  Greenway, John

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Ruffley, David

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Hammond, Philip

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hawkins, Nick

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hayes, John

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Heald, Oliver

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Spring, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Steen, Anthony

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Streeter, Gary

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Syms, Robert

  Johnson Smith,

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Key, Robert

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tredinnick, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Letwin, Oliver

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Viggers, Peter

  Lidington, David

  Walter, Robert

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Wardle, Charles

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Loughton, Tim

  Wells, Bowen

  Luff, Peter

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Whittingdale, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  MacKay, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Willetts, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Wilshire, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Maples, John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mates, Michael

  Woodward, Shaun

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Yeo, Tim

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Norman, Archie

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Paice, James

  Sir David Madel and

  Paterson, Owen

  Mr. John M. Taylor.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Betts, Clive

  Ainger, Nick

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Allan, Richard

  Blizzard, Bob

  Allen, Graham

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Boateng, Paul

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Borrow David

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ashdown Rt Hon Paddy

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ashton, Joe

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Brake, Tom

  Austin, John

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Breed, Colin

  Barnes, Harry

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Barron, Kevin

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Beard, Nigel

  Browne, Desmond

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Burden, Richard

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Burgon, Colin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Burnett, John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Burstow, Paul

  Benton, Joe

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Byers, Stephen

  Berry, Roger

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Best, Harold

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  170

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foulkes, George

  Casale, Roger

  Fyfe, Maria

  Caton, Martin

  Galbraith, Sam

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gapes, Mike

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Chaytor, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Chidgey, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Church, Ms Judith

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clapham, Michael

  Godman, Norman A

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Goggins, Paul

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clelland, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Grocott, Bruce

  Coaker, Vernon

  Grogan, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Gunnell, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Hain, Peter

  Colman, Tony

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hancock, Mike

  Corbett, Robin

  Hanson, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Cotter, Brian

  Harvey, Nick

  Cousins, Jim

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cranston, Ross

  Healey, John

  Crausby, David

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cummings, John

  Heppell, John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

  Hill, Keith

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hoey, Kate

  Dalyell, Tam

  Home Robertson, John

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Darvill, Keith

  Hope, Phil

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Davidson, Ian

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Dawson, Hilton

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Denham, John

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Hurst, Alan

  Dismore, Andrew

  Hutton, John

  Dobbin, Jim

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Illsley, Eric

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Doran, Frank

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jamieson, David

  Drew, David

  Jenkins, Brian

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Edwards, Huw

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Jones, Ms Jennifer(Wolverh'ton SW)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Flint, Caroline

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Follett, Barbara

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Keetch, Paul

  171

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Pike, Peter L

  Kemp, Fraser

  Plaskitt, James

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pond, Chris

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pope, Greg

  Kidney, David

  Pound, Stephen

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Radice, Giles

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rammell, Bill

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rapson, Syd

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Raynsford, Nick

  Laxton, Bob

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lepper, David

  Rendel, David

  Leslie, Christopher

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Levitt, Tom

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rogers, Allan

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Linton, Martin

  Rooney, Terry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Livsey, Richard

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Roy, Frank

  Lock, David

  Ruane, Chris

  McAllion, John

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Salter, Martin

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sanders, Adrian

  Macdonald, Calum

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McDonnell, John

  Sawford, Phil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  McLeish, Henry

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Maclennan, Robert

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McNulty, Tony

  Singh, Marsha

  MacShane, Denis

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Marek, Dr John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

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

  Martlew, Eric

  Soley, Clive

  Maxton, John

  Spellar, John

  Merron, Gillan

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Milburn, Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Moore, Michael

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stott, Roger

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Morley, Elliot

  Stringer, Graham

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mountford, Kali

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mudie, George

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mullin, Chris

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Norris, Dan

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Olner, Bill

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Neill, Martin

  Todd, Mark

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Trickett, Jon

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Truswell, Paul

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  172

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Tyler, Paul

  Willis, Phil

  Vaz, Keith

  Wills, Michael

  Wallace, James

  Wilson, Brian

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Winnick, David

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wood, Mike

  Watts, David

  Woolas, Phil

  Webb, Steve

  Wray, James

  White, Brian

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wyatt, Derek

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Ms Bridget Prentice.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 169.

  Division No. 81]

  [7.18 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Ainger, Nick

  Church, Ms Judith

  Allen, Graham

  Clapham, Michael

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Ashton, Joe

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Austin, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Banks, Tony

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Baron, Kevin

  Clelland, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clwyd, Ann

  Beard, Nigel

  Coaker, Vernon

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Coleman, Iain

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Colman, Tony

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Connarty, Michael

  Benton, Joe

  Cooke, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cooper, Yvette

  Berry, Roger

  Corbett, Robin

  Best, Harold

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Betts, Clive

  Cousins, Jim

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cranston, Ross

  Blizzard, Bob

  Crausby, David

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cummings, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

  Borrow, David

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dalyell, Tam

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Darvill, Keith

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Browne, Desmond

  Davidson, Ian

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Burden, Richard

  Dawson, Hilton

  Burgon, Colin

  Dean Mrs Janet

  Butler, Stephen

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Caplin, Ivor

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Casale, Roger

  Doran, Frank

  Caton, Martin

  Dowd, Jim

  Cawsey, Ian

  Drew, David

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Chaytor, David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  173

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kidney, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ennis, Jeff

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Flint, Caroline

  Laxton, Bob

  Follett, Barbara

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Levitt, Tom

  Foulkes, George

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Linton, Martin

  Gapes, Mike

  Lloyd Tony (Manchester C)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lock, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Godman, Norman A

  Macdonald, Calum

  Godsiff, Roger

  McIsaac, Shona

  Goggins, Paul

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mc Walter, Tony

  Grogan, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gunnell, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hain, Peter

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marek, Dr John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hanson, David

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Martlew, Eric

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Maxton, John

  Healey, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Milburn, Alan

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Miller, Andrew

  Heppell, John

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hill, Keith

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hoey, Kate

  Morley, Elliot

  Home Robertson, John

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hope, Phil

  Mountford, Kali

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mudie, George

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Norris, Dan

  Hurst, Alan

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hutton, John

  Olner, Bill

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Illsley, Eric

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jamieson, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pike, Peter L

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Plaskitt, James

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Ms Jennifer (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Radice, Giles

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Rammell, Bill

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Rapson, Syd

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kemp, Fraser

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  174

  Rogers, Allan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Rooker, Jeff (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Rooney, Terry

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Roy, Frank

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Ruane, Chris

  Timms, Stephen

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Todd, Mark

  Salter, Martin

  Touhig, Don

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Trickett, Jon

  Sawford, Phil

  Truswell, Paul

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Vaz, Keith

  Singh, Marsha

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  White, Brian

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Spellar, John

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wills, Michael

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wilson, Brian

  Stevenson, George

  Winnick, David

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wood, Mike

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Woolas, Phil

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wray, James

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Stott, Roger

  Wyatt, Derek

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stringer, Graham

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Ms Bridget Prentice.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Cran, James

  Allan, Richard

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Amess, David

  Dafis, Cynog

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Day, Stephen

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Duncan, Alan

  Beggs, Roy

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Evans, Nigel

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Faber, David

  Bercow, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fallon, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Flight, Howard

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brady, Graham

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Brake, Tom

  Fraser, Christopher

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Breed, Colin

  Garnier, Edward

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gibb, Nick

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gill, Christopher

  Burnett, John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Burns, Simon

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Burstow, Paul

  Gorrie, Donald

  Butterfill, John

  Gray, James

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Green, Damian

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Greenway, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Chidgey, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Hancock, Mike

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Collins, Tim

  Harvey, Nick

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cotter, Brian

  Hayes, John

  175

  Heald, Oliver

  Robathan, Andrew

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Ruffley, David

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hunter, Andrew

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

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

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Johnson Smith,

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Spring, Richard

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Steen, Anthony

  Keetch, Paul

  Streeter, Gary

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Key, Robert

  Swayne, Desmond

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Swinney, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Syms, Robert

  Lansley, Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lidington, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Livsey, Richard

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Tredinnick, David

  Loughton, Tim

  Trend, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Tyler, Paul

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Viggers, Peter

  MacKay, Andrew

  Wallace, James

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Walter, Robert

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wardle, Charles

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Waterson, Nigel

  Madel, Sir David

  Webb, Steve

  Madel, Sir David

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Malins, Humfrey

  Whittingdale, John

  Mates, Michael

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Wigley, Dafydd

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Wilkinson, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Willetts, David

  Moore, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Öpik, Lembit

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Paice, James

  Woodward, Shaun

  Paterson, Owen

  Yeo, Tim

  Pickles, Eric

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Prior, David

  Randall, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Mr. Don Foster and

  Rendel, David

  Mr. Phil Willis.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the decisive response of Her Majesty's Government to the report of the National Committee of Enquiry into Higher Education and to the crisis of funding in higher education bequeathed by the previous administration; notes with approval the new arrangements for supporting students. including fair repayment arrangements and targeted help for the most disadvantaged; and welcomes the commitment to ensuring that more people will have opportunities to participate in high-quality education to their benefit and to the benefit of the country as a whole.

  Rural Life
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Before I call the first speaker, I inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I remind the House that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  7.32 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: I beg to move,
  That this House expresses its concern about the economic and environmental pressures currently affecting the rural economy and rural life; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to respond to this situation by protecting farmers from the effects of the appreciation of sterling, withdrawing the Government-imposed ceiling on the weight of cattle entering the BSE over thirty months scheme and undertaking without precondition discussions with farmers and their representatives about the level of payments to be made through the 1997–98 Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances scheme; and condemns the proposals to extend access to the countryside by means of a legal right to roam rather than voluntary agreement, not to introduce policies to protect small village shops and rural post offices, to create urban-based regional development agencies, to weaken planning controls designed to protect the Green Belt and the countryside, and to threaten the pursuit of traditional country sports.
  I find myself at the Dispatch Box as a result of the sad resignation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) from the post that I now hold. He carried out his job as shadow Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with distinction following his ministerial career in that Department. He has made his decision for his own reasons, which he has stated. I know that he wishes to contribute to the debate this evening, and I wish him well in the future.
  The motion standing in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends deals with the threats to rural life and the rural economy arising from the Government's actions. We shall address issues such as the decline in farm incomes, the future of the hill livestock compensatory allowance, access to the countryside, country sports, and the situation with rural development agencies. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) will deal with a whole raft of environmental issues that are threatening the countryside at present. It is hardly surprising that the countryside believes that it is under siege, but it is interesting that Labour Members should express surprise about that.
  I note that the amendment put down by the Liberal Democrats—the junior partners in government—which you did not select, Mr. Deputy Speaker, agrees largely with the line that we have taken and that we shall debate this evening. We should not be surprised that the countryside feels under siege as a result of the Government's actions.
  I referred to the Labour manifesto—it is always useful to see where a party is coming from—and, after an assiduous search, I discovered the 20 words in that manifesto that amount to an agriculture policy. One of those words was "Labour" and the other 19 dealt vaguely with agriculture. On the basis of such a thin diet, not only do the Government not have a coherent rural policy but they cannot claim to speak for the countryside, as Labour Members do from time to time.
  It is interesting to consider what the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been up to since May. I used the modern technology of the internet to see if I could find anything that constituted a coherent rural

  177
  policy. The only document I found that used the word "comprehensive" was a spending review. That was the only reference to rural policy to be found in MAFF press releases. The way that Ministers' minds were working is clear from the way in which they caved in to Treasury pressure. The press release entitled "MAFF Conducts Comprehensive Spending Review" states that the Government aim
  "To examine the contribution of HLCAs towards meeting the objectives identified and to examine any other options for achieving those objectives more cost effectively or in ways which otherwise minimise public expenditure"—
  the cat was well and truly out of the bag as long ago as 29 July when the Minister was under pressure to reduce public expenditure—
  "and maximise the positive impact on the economy."
  The Minister wants to boast to the rest of the non-rural world about how he has cut expenditure in that area. He winds up by saying:
  "The consideration of possible options should not be limited to agricultural support measures."
  Goodness knows what is going on. No wonder there is uncertainty in the countryside and that it feels under siege.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is it not hypocritical of the Minister to talk in those terms when Labour inherited a bill for £3.5 billion arising from the BSE disaster?
  Mr. Jack: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman anticipates a rapid change of Government that would translate me immediately to the other Dispatch Box. Would the hon. Gentleman not have afforded that degree of support to farmers as a result of the BSE difficulties? It was right and proper to support the farmers at a time of considerable stress. It is no use Labour Members mocking me. Successive Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the former Conservative Government followed the scientific advice that they were given and acted properly in the interests of food and farming. They fought our corner in Europe until Professor Pattison's announcement. This debate is not solely about BSE, but I am happy to discuss the matter with the hon. Gentleman—perhaps on a Wednesday morning—and to defend our position robustly.
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food claims to speak for the countryside: he claims to be in touch with rural Britain. What was one of his earliest acts? On 28 May, the Minister who wants to be in touch with the countryside scrapped the MAFF regional panels—the one lifeline of communication with the countryside. He replaced it with Ministers having to go hither and thither, the length and breadth of England, listening to farmers and talking to the food industry. They will be breathless if they try to carry out the work of the regional panels. [Interruption.] I hear the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), saying, "We will do it." I suggest that he read the Grower, for example, where his ministerial colleague the noble Lord Donoughue is reported only for cancelling meetings—not a good example of getting out and about so as to be in touch with the countryside.
  Cutting off those rural panels was not a very clever thing to do if the Minister and his team want to keep in touch. The people involved will feel cheated because they
  178
  made a significant contribution to ensuring that the previous Government were kept up to speed about rural and countryside issues and the benefit of that knowledge will no longer be available to the Minister.
  It is hardly surprising that Labour Ministers go about their business in this way. One has only to read the Government amendment that has been selected for debate. It is pretty old, tired politics for the Minister to fall back on words such as
  "deplores the neglect of the countryside and rural areas over the past eighteen years".
  I am delighted that behind me this evening is my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), a distinguished former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whose track record in fighting for the interests of British farmers during a period of reform of the common agricultural policy is second to none. He defended the interests of Britain's farmers, as did the former Member, William Waldegrave, my boss when I was in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. But for his hard work, animal welfare would not be an issue on the European agenda. The Government's tawdry charge that the previous Administration did not look after the countryside for 18 years does not wash.
  I remind the Minister that since 1992, farm incomes went up by 85 per cent. when we were in charge. I remind him that our work on Food From Britain has helped more than 1,000 companies to develop their food exports. We have some of the highest welfare standards in Europe as a result of our stewardship of countryside matters. We brought in massive deregulation and the opening up of agricultural markets with the removal of the Potato Marketing Board and the milk marketing boards. That is a record of which my right hon. and hon. Friends can be proud. I dismiss the first line of the Minister's amendment to my motion.
  The amendment goes on and
  "congratulates the Government on its commitment to the countryside".
  Twenty words in a manifesto do not add up to a commitment, and the cancelling of the regional panels seems more like cancelling a commitment than building one.
  Further on in the amendment, we get to the real issue:
  "the Government's intention to create the conditions necessary to let the rural economy flourish".
  We will speak about declining farm incomes, the tawdry way in which the Government are dealing with hill farmers, the burden on dairy farmers of the work that they have done on the over-30-months scheme, and other issues.
  Then we read the hidden agenda—the Government's intention to
  "enhance the rural environment and to enable everyone to enjoy the countryside".
  If that is not shorthand for the right to roam, I do not know what is.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: My right hon. Friend will realise that hill farm incomes have fallen by 20 per cent. Recently, farmers in Northumberland tackled the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), to ask what he intended to do about hill livestock compensatory allowance payments. The Minister replied:

  179
  "I thought there was some better news around—but I have forgotten what it is."
  Will my right hon. Friend press the Minister of State to see whether he can remember what good news he had for hill farmers?
  Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I tried to find out what the Minister of State said at the Great North Meet. According to a newspaper report,
  "Mr. Rooker told the Great North Meet in North Yorkshire that `there is better news floating around the system than there was in the summer.
  What is this system? Is this some new agricultural world in which Ministers live? It is hardly surprising that they are cut off from the countryside; they are in the system, and there is something floating about in it—probably the Minister.
  The Minister of State went on to make this devastating commitment—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I am sorry if Labour Members do not like the truth, but this is what their Minister is saying. He said that Labour
  "will not walk away from hill farmers—because we recognise the contribution they make to the upland landscape, the countryside"
  and so on. All the soft words in the world do not take away from the fact that, as I shall outline in greater detail, he has already told hill farmers, "I am taking away £60 million from the hill livestock compensatory allowance. You are back to 1996. I do not care what arguments you put, because I am not going to listen to you. You are not going to come and see me—"
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): Later I will welcome the right hon. Gentleman and congratulate him on his appointment, but now I will intervene as briefly as I can. The right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister in the previous Administration. Did they make any provision for continuing that support in this financial year or next year?
  Mr. Jack: As the right hon. Gentleman is not a Treasury Minister, I suggest that he goes back to the Red Book, where he will find that there is a year-on-year increase. I will explain later how he can easily afford that within his budget, as he will also know the way in which the European public expenditure survey works. Let us have none of this nasty business of tripping me up at this stage. I suggest that the Minister does his homework and goes back and looks at the Red Book, where he will see that for the next financial year there is an increase, not a decrease, compared with this financial year.
  Mr. David Maclean: Perhaps in the course of his remarks my right hon. Friend will ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food not whether there was a provision but whether he even asked the Treasury for something for HLCAs.
  Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend is right. That is why under the fundamental expenditure review I concentrated on the fact that the Minister had already given it away before he started on the current exercise of not listening to the hill farmers. I do not think that he bothered to ask the Treasury, and he should speak to his own accounting officer. I shall try to help him out later and find him some money, as I have done a little homework on that.
  180
  I remind the right hon. Gentleman that under our tutelage and our stewardship of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whereas at one time agriculture accounted for 73 per cent. of the European budget, we helped to negotiate that down to 50 per cent. Our record of agricultural stewardship stands examination.
  If the Minister wants to attack us for the past 18 years, why has he, together with his colleague from the Department of the Environment, not had the courage to say that he will produce a parallel to "Rural England 1996", which contains 140 separate commitments from my party to the countryside? It is the only comprehensive record of countryside policy that exists. The Government do not have one.
  Mr. Peter Bradley: The right hon. Gentleman commended to the House his Government's stewardship of the countryside over the past 18 years. How would he account for the fact that the landslide on 1 May was almost as impressive in the countryside as it was in the towns? Some 50 seats there fell to the Labour party on 1 May and several more fell to the Liberal Democrats. Can he account for that phenomenon?
  Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman should look at a map, and he should listen to the voices of disillusion, especially from the hills. He would realise that people understand the message from the Opposition.
  Let us deal with the meat of the debate. The first item that we want to discuss is farm incomes. The Minister knows that farmers face severe problems because of the appreciation of sterling against the ecu. One of my hon. Friends mentioned an increase of some 20 per cent. The Minister seems to have ignored the effect on farm incomes of the two summer revaluations in the green pound, which took place since his party has been responsible for agriculture policy.
  Some of that is connected with the fact that the Government have abrogated their responsibility for the setting of interest rates and given it away to the Bank of England. I am sure that if we had been in charge none of that would have occurred. Labour has some responsibility for what has happened to sterling in respect of the appreciation against the green pound and the reductions in farm income that have taken place.
  Despite the fact that a freeze occurred on certain green rates within some support schemes, the National Farmers Union has calculated that given the effect on prices of agriculture commodities there has been a loss in output value terms of between £1.7 billion and £11.8 billion. Higher estimates have been circulated, but I have chosen to quote lower figures because I believe that they are realistic. It has been suggested that losses could have been as high as £3.5 billion, a sum equivalent to that which we spent on bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
  The Minister will be aware that a new compensation mechanism was agreed under the new agri-monetary regime, which I am sure has been considered in considerable detail. I remember when the matter was debated in the House, when to the best of my recollection the then Labour Opposition did not oppose the adoption by the United Kingdom of the then proposals. I take that to mean that the then Labour Opposition agreed with them.

  181
  It is interesting that the Minister, who appeared before the Select Committee on Agriculture today, admitted under questioning, so it is reported, that about £980 million could be available to the United Kingdom for compensation for loss of value of farm output. That applies to losses incurred in the dairy, beef, cereals and sugar sectors. What do the Government intend to do within the remit of the mechanism?
  So far the Minister has shown no enthusiasm for dealing with the problems now besetting certain agricultural sectors as a result of a severe and sudden drop in income. As the Minister knows, other member states facing circumstances similar to those confronting the United Kingdom have used the mechanism to which I have referred. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will comment on that. Germany, in particular, argued for the implementation of the mechanism when it, too, was facing a similar situation to that experienced by the United Kingdom. The Minister owes it to the House to explain why he chooses not to use the mechanism that was urged especially by Germany to deal with the broad range of issues, and why he is not prepared to do that in compensating farmers for the losses that they have incurred up to January 1998.
  Is the Minister prepared to consider some of the sectoral impacts of the fall in farm incomes? He will know that in spite of the efforts to help the beef sector it continues to face considerable difficulties, certainly in terms of values.
  Dr. John Cunningham: Whose fault is that?
  Mr. Jack: It is all very well for the Minister to ask whose fault it is. The Minister is responsible for these matters and he represents the Government's views. The Opposition are asking questions on behalf of Britain's farmers in the rural community, and he owes them an answer. If the Minister is not prepared to compensate across the board, is he prepared to focus on the hardest-hit sectors? I am thinking especially of beef, sheep and dairy. Milk prices have fallen substantially and given the appreciation of sterling there is considerable import pressure. Surely the right hon. Gentleman can bring himself to focus on the genuine needs of the sectors to which I have referred, given the circumstances that I have described.
  The second and substantive part of the motion relates to hill farming. I have alluded already to the cavalier way in which the Minister appears to be treating hill farmers. It is interesting to reflect on the terms in which the previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced that there would be an additional £60 million for hill and upland farmers. His announcement was the result of the normal discussions with hard-pressed hill farmers, and an additional £60 million was included in the hill livestock compensatory allowance for that year.
  The Minister will know that rates have traditionally been set as a result of discussion between the Minister of the day and territorial representatives of each of the major farming organisations. So far, as I understand it, those representatives have been sent to talk to their territorial Ministers, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food having refused to meet them.
  182
  In a press release last year, the Minister stated:
  "This has been a difficult year for cattle farmers in the less-favoured areas."
  The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged the difficulties that were faced that year. Hill farmers will have reminded the Minister that the year to which they are looking in terms of HLCA will be no less difficult.
  How has the Government's attitude been viewed so far in the farming press? Farmers Weekly on 19 September described the Minister's stance as "wanton vandalism". It stated:
  "There can be no other way to describe the government's decision to abandon hill farming to the chill winds of market economics. It has delivered two, possibly fatal, body blows to the future of hill farming."
  Mr. John Gummer: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is being slightly unfair to the Minister. Surely the Minister is holding his meeting back until he can welcome the representatives of the farming organisations into his new offices, having spent £1 million of taxpayers' money tarting them up so that he can have a meeting. He does not want to have a meeting any earlier as there might then be suspicions that the refurbished offices are merely for his own interests and not to be shared by anyone else.
  Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend is right. Given that the hill farmers are struggling to keep a roof over the Minister's head, I am sure that he has taken careful note of what my right hon. Friend has said.
  I shall put before the House an interesting letter that I received. In 1994 a Labour Member wrote these words to a farmer in Richmond about HLCAs:
  "We in the Labour Party recognise how important this payment is to hill farmers. We recognise the important role hill farmers have, both in terms of rural employment, environmental management and tourism. In that respect we do believe that HLCAs do offer very good value for money and we will strongly oppose any move by the government to reduce them."
  Those comfortable words to hill farmers were uttered by none other than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), in a letter to Mr. Davy of Richmond. How thin that diet now appears as the Minister connives with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to face hill farming with a difficult situation.
  Let us consider what a letter from No. 10 Downing street tells us on the same subject. A letter to the same Mr. Davy of the Hill Farming Initiative contains the following:
  "Let me confirm straightaway that the Government is committed to the idea that hill farmers need special help".
  That shows that the Government are thinking about the issue, but they are not exactly backing up their thinking with very much action.
  The Minister wrote to Alistair Davy on 22 October 1997:
  "I know from my own constituency that incomes are under pressure".
  The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. More than 40 per cent. of hill farmers in England and Wales earn less than £10,000 a year. The Minister is choosing, however, to take a large sum away from these farmers.

  183
  I want the Minister, if he will, to concentrate on the lines that have been put to me by the Hill Farming Initiative. Those involved have made it clear that if the Minister does not recant, hill farmers will be short by about £60 million. The figures show that there will be a 20 per cent. loss in hill farm incomes, and some have suggested that the loss will be even greater. Is it the Minister's understanding that the loss in hill farming incomes projected for next year for those farmers with an average net income of between £10,000 and £16,000 will be between 20 and 25 per cent? Will he admit that there are real problems for hill farmers, especially with the debt load that they are carrying?
  I draw the Minister's attention to an example—
  Dr. John Cunningham: Please draw to a close.
  Mr. Jack: The Minister asks me to draw to a close. When the truth is hurting the answer is no—I shall continue to give the Minister information.
  I pass on to the Minister for his comment some information from the Hill Farming Initiative. Those involved point out to me that a farmer last year with £18,200 of net farm income—38 beef cows, six cows in heifer, 663 ewes and 89 gimmers, which the Minister will recognise as a typical modest-sized hill farm—faced with all the changes that will ensue as a combination of green pound rates and the expected reduction in HLCAs will be about £8,000 down next year. The Minister, so far, has turned his face against the real needs of the most vulnerable in the rural economy. It seems that the Minister is hitting the weakest hardest.
  Mr. Robert Key: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the principal beneficiaries of the work of the Rural Development Commission are hill farmers, who will need all the help that they can get? The RDC has a fuddy-duddy image: that it is only about thatching, shoeing horses and saddlery. It is not; it is about high-tech help for rural communities and assistance for all rural hill farm communities as well as the wider rural community. Is he aware that the RDC is due for the chop under this Government? What a mean-minded trick.
  Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk will deal with that matter when he winds up.
  The changes that the Minister made to the over-30-months scheme bear particularly heavily on hill farmers. How did he calculate the weight restriction that he has imposed? Why did he do it? I have been informed that it was on the basis of an analysis of the Irish cattle market. He seems to have got a very Irish result. He has chosen 560 kilos as a wholly arbitrary figure for the cut-off point for the over-30-months scheme. It is one of those situations where people choose the breed of cow that best suits the marketplace, then the Minister comes along and arbitrarily decides who will get maximum help and who will not. It is about time that he explained himself. It is particularly mean-spirited as far as hard-pressed dairy farmers are concerned. The Minister owes it to the House to deal with that issue.
  There are other issues that cause the countryside to feel under threat at this time. In their amendment there is a clear indication that the Government are still keen on having a legal right to roam, with all the uncertainties that that causes for the countryside. Will the Minister pay attention? These are questions to which we shall want
  184
  answers. What representations will he make to his colleagues in Government about what is to be defined as moorland, heathland and downland in terms of the access schemes to be proposed? For instance, will downland that is currently farmed in a managed way be part of the open access policies? One thing that distinguishes our approach from the Government's approach is that we believed in managing access through agri-environmental schemes to applaud and support landowners who voluntarily made access to the countryside available. The Government's sole solution is to legislate. So far there is great uncertainty in the countryside about that matter.
  The threats to country sports remain. I do not want at this stage to have the debate that will take place on 28 November, but I point out to the Minister that the countryside feels under siege. The pressures on rural sports are a threat to an industry which, in 1997, common resource consultants calculate to be worth £3.8 billion per year. The Government have sought, perhaps, to distance themselves from the Bill on fox hunting, which is to be debated on 28 November, but they will need to do more than that to reassure the countryside and farming interests that they have not got a long-term agenda to take away one of the most valuable contributors to the rural economy.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends will make their own contributions to the debate to fill out some of the arguments that I have made, but the time has come, as the Walrus said, for the Minister to speak of many things. I hope that his reply will be forward looking and that it will respond to the real fears and concerns of country people. I want him to show that the fine words that he and his colleagues have uttered from time to time on the question of hills, the vital role that hill communities face and the work that they do in looking after that aspect of our countryside, will be sustained by his Ministry. I want him to show that he has at least some understanding of farming matters. If he does not do so, it will be absolutely clear to anybody in the country and the farming community that there is only one true voice for countryside matters in this country—the Conservative voice.
  8.5 pm
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Dr. John Cunningham): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "deplores the neglect of the countryside and rural areas over the past eighteen years by the previous administration; congratulates the Government on its commitment to the countryside; welcomes the Government's intention to create the conditions necessary to let the rural economy flourish, to protect and enhance the rural environment and to enable everyone to enjoy the countryside; and further welcomes the start already made, notably on the reform of the CAP, the review of the Organic Aid Scheme, introducing Arable Stewardship, and reviewing the legislation for the protection of hedges and SSSIs."
  I welcome the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) to his new position in the shadow Cabinet. He has taken over from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who has an enviable record in these matters and no doubt will be sorely missed—even though they might not recognise it yet—by the rest of the shadow Cabinet. We just wonder, given the ructions in the Conservative party at the moment and his well-known views on European issues, whether the right hon. Member for Fylde will survive until Agriculture questions on Thursday.

  185
  The right hon. Gentleman displayed a broad sense of humour in his speech and an easy facility for being rather careless with the facts. I remind him that he promised us that in the course of his speech he would tell us where he would conjure up the £60 million that is not in the provisions that we inherited from him and his colleagues in the previous Government. He made no mention of where it would come from.
  Mr. Jack: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me this opportunity. Perhaps between now and the close of the debate he will ask his officials to look at the underspend on the sheep annual premium, which possibly amounts to some £200 million. Will he also confirm that if he wishes to apply to the Treasury, he has, with its agreement, the ability within his budget to redirect the money to cover the £60 million shortfall on HLCAs?
  Dr. Cunningham: Nevertheless it is true, although the right hon. Gentleman refuses to acknowledge it, that the previous Government made provision for one year and one year only. They made no on-going provision for this expenditure. That is the reality.
  Members of the shadow Cabinet have chosen this topic for debate on the forlorn ground that somehow they think it sensible as an area on which to attack the Government. They claim that they represent the countryside and the people who live there. Sadly for them, that is no longer—if it ever was—the case. They misrepresented the countryside. That is true. They misrepresented the countryside so badly that, on 1 May this year, the people in the countryside drove out the Tories in very large numbers and gave huge support to Labour candidates, so much so that Labour Members of Parliament not only represent more rural constituencies than Conservatives these days but represent more rural constituencies than Conservatives and Liberal Democrats put together. If there is any true voice in the countryside at the present time, it is the Labour voice that is speaking up for rural areas.
  In Scotland, in rural areas or urban areas, the Tories have no voice in the House. It is the same in Wales. They have been rejected comprehensively by the Scottish and Welsh people, who have supported Labour, by and large, for a generation. I have represented one of the most rural constituencies in England for 27 years. Labour is the real party representing the countryside. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were driven out because of their incompetence over 18 years in failing effectively to serve rural communities.
  Let us have a brief résumé of the record. Bus deregulation has left rural communities trapped and isolated. That was one of the Conservative Government's brilliant ideas. There was the threat to privatise the Post Office in rural areas and cities, which, fortunately, was headed off by the Post Office workers. There was also a threat to rural railways and housing association homes. The Conservative Government even wanted to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales until they were defeated on that, too, by a combination of the National Farmers Union and the Transport and General Workers Union.
  The Conservative Government left high, persistent, levels of unemployment, low incomes and rural deprivation. All that before we even come to their record
  186
  on agriculture or fishing. They were isolated in Europe, devoid of credibility and support where it mattered in European Councils. Common agricultural policy reform was not even on the agenda when they left office. The fishing industry and fish conservation was left in a shambles. In addition, they failed to act on the sale of fishing quota, which went on under their Administration.
  Mr. Jack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: Not for the moment.
  BSE gave rise to a catalogue of indecision and ineptitude, which is taking billions of pounds to rectify, and resulted in a global ban on British beef. The shambles in which the Conservative Government left the British beef industry cost the British taxpayer £1.33 billion last year and will cost more than £2 billion more in the next two to three years, yet the right hon. Gentleman dares to say that the Conservative party speaks for the countryside.
  There were disastrous failures in food hygiene and a loss of confidence in food safety and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Conservative Government also had an abysmal record on support for organic farming, the worst in the EU. After 18 years of Conservative government only 0.3 per cent. of our farming is organic.
  Labour was elected because of its real commitment to all the British people, including those in the countryside, and to rural issues. We recognise the needs of all those who live and work in rural areas, not just those who wear blue Barbour jackets and green wellies and ride around in Range Rovers, which is the epitome of the forlorn, bedraggled and minor Tory voice left in the British countryside.
  Mr. Jack: Is that the best that the right hon. Gentleman can do when it comes to dealing with those on the lowest incomes, such as the hill farmers? [Interruption.] That is the real substance of the debate and the right hon. Gentleman had better get to it. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a lot of noise in the Chamber. The only voice that I should hear is that of the Minister.
  Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman made a long speech and has already made two interventions. I shall get to the substance of the matter quickly—a lot more quickly than he did.
  We recognise the special needs of those who live and work in rural areas and we shall ensure greater protection for wildlife, as well as people, in our rural areas. We recognise that the countryside requires careful stewardship, enabling the needs of people who live and work in rural areas to be met in a sustainable fashion. The previous Administration failed in that regard too.
  We support reform of the CAP in order to reduce the burden that it imposes on taxpayers and consumers and to free resources to support the rural economy and enhance the environment. In addition, yes, we will give people greater freedom to explore their countryside. There is no doubt about our commitment to that.
  The Government believe that the countryside is a vital national resource and a key part of the economy.
  Mr. Richard Spring: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: No, not for the moment.

  187
  If the countryside is to be protected and enhanced, we must recognise that its purpose and identity are as important as that of towns and cities. The countryside is the workplace or home for many, as well as a place of recreation for many others. It is also the habitat for much of our wildlife. It is essential that we all strive towards sustainable use of the countryside for this and future generations.
  When the right hon. Gentleman said, as he did more than once, that country sports are under threat, he was, again, completely misleading the House. There is no threat to angling or shooting in the countryside. As has already been demonstrated, there is overwhelming support in the House and in the countryside for the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster).
  The Government have set out their commitment to opportunity, fairness and prosperity for all, whether they live in cities or rural areas. At the same time, they recognise the distinctive needs of people in rural communities. The Government intend to make rural areas a better place in which to live and work. That is the background against which policy will be formulated. Now I shall address some specific policies.
  A healthy rural economy is central to the Government's integrated approach to rural issues. It is important for many reasons—to support our economic growth, for conservation and to combat social exclusion and poverty. Wages are still low and unemployment is still too high everywhere as a result of the Conservative Government's approach, and there are pockets of deprivation in the countryside with high unemployment, often because of the scattered nature of rural communities, the narrow economic base and the shortage of employment and training opportunities.
  The Government intend to tackle all those issues in order to help create the conditions necessary to allow rural enterprise to flourish and to develop a diverse and vibrant rural economy.
  Our countryside is defined by agriculture which, in turn, is largely shaped by the current system of support. That is why reform of the CAP is a major priority for the Government. To that end, we will work hard and constructively with the European Commission and our European partners, in all the EU institutions, unlike the previous Government, who were such an abysmal failure in Europe that they had no friends and no support for anything that they wanted to do.
  The Commission's Agenda 2000 proposals are a welcome step towards that reform and are of major significance for rural policy. The package is not as radical as I would have wished and as the Government would have liked and there are elements in it, such as the proposal to retain milk quotas, which are disappointing. Nevertheless, it is important to have proposals on the agenda and we shall work with our colleagues in the Council and the Commission who want to progress them.
  The proposals for rural agri-environment policy are also welcome. In particular, it makes sense to create integrated rural development measures which will apply throughout the Community. That offers the prospect of closer integration between environmental and rural development measures and the availability of a wider range of targeted measures outside those areas qualifying for special help. In those special areas we shall work to ensure that the UK receives a fair share of funding.
  188
  In future, the intention is that eligible rural areas will benefit from objective 1 status, in a similar way to now. Objective 5b, which has benefited a wide range of rural areas, will be phased out, but fragile rural areas will be eligible, along with others, for aid from a new objective 2 proposal. We will work to ensure that the rural parts of those new objective 2 areas receive an appropriate share of the support available.
  In the longer term, further reform of the CAP will be necessary, not least as part of the next round of agriculture negotiations in the World Trade Organisation, which is due to start at the beginning of the new century. It is our intention to secure the phasing out of production-linked support. That would yield consumer benefits and substantial budgetary savings, some of which could be used to support targeted schemes to help rural development, rural economies and the rural environment.
  We heard much from the right hon. Gentleman about expenditure proposals, but he did not put a price on what he had to say. That is quite a change for a former Treasury Minister who, when in government, used to stand at the Dispatch Box and demand to know the cost of every Opposition proposal. He did not do any costings of his proposal, so I took the precaution of doing some for him.
  The right hon. Gentleman misled the House about green pound compensation. I said that £980 million was available under that general heading, but only half of it could come direct from Brussels; the other half would have to come from the United Kingdom. Thanks to the negotiations carried out by the previous Administration, of that Brussels half, 71 per cent. would have to come from the British taxpayer. So the first part of the bill for the right hon. Gentleman's motion is £340 million of extra public expenditure.
  The right hon. Gentleman complained about the changes to the over-30-months scheme. If we went back to the status quo, as he seemed to suggest, that would cost another £40 million minimum. He did not put a price on his demands on hill livestock compensatory allowances, but he mentioned a figure of £60 million, so we will add that to the total. That takes us to £440 million of additional public expenditure, which is the cost of the right hon. Gentleman's amendment. Where does he propose that should come from? Tax increases? Does he want it to be taken from other budget headings, such as health, education or training? He made no suggestion about that, because he knows that the whole proposal is so fraudulent as to be laughable. That is the cost of his menu without prices: with prices it is in excess of £400 million.
  Mr. Jack: I have already supplied an answer to the question of hill livestock compensatory allowances. With great respect, the Minister has not read our motion. We asked him how he intends to respond to the calls from farmers, particularly hill farmers, on these issues. So far, all we have had is an accounting exercise. The Minister will not answer the questions that we posed.
  Dr. Cunningham: It is a bit rich for a former Treasury Minister to call it an accounting exercise. Does he think that we do not have to keep the books? Is that what he proposes?
  Mr. Jack rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: I shall not give way again: I have given way three times already. I am not having any more of his long, boring, convoluted interventions thank you very much.

  189
  The right hon. Gentleman must face the fact that he is demanding that British taxpayers should, one way or another, produce a minimum of an additional £440 million to support the motion. There is no way that we can realistically provide anything like that sum of money.
  Mr. Gummer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: No, I shall not give way for the moment. We shall deal with these issues.
  Mr. Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman is frit.
  Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman flatters himself.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
  Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Member for Fylde suggested that I had failed to talk to farmers about HCLAs.
  Mr. Jack: HLCAs.
  Dr. Cunningham: HLCAs, that is right. I met Sir David Naish and his colleagues to discuss this subject just last week.
  Mr. Jack: For English farmers.
  Dr. Cunningham: Yes, and my Scottish colleagues met Scottish farmers, the Secretary of State for Wales has met farmers in Wales and the same will happen in Northern Ireland. When that round of consultation has finished, we shall discuss the outcome. The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we have already made up our minds about these matters is completely bogus: I have said no such thing.
  As for agri-monetary compensation, I have told farmers exactly what I am telling the House now and what I told the Select Committee on Agriculture this morning. I am not persuaded that the case has been made. I have not said no, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. I shall keep the matter under review, and I have until January next year for some of the potential compensation and even longer than that to make up my mind.
  Mr. Gummer: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he help us on the question of the £200 million underspend? Does that underspend exist? If so, could he apply it? We are not asking him to say now whether he will apply it. Has that £200 million already been taken by the Treasury? If he could help the House, we would know whether or not he has the money.
  Dr. Cunningham: No money from the existing budget has been taken by the Treasury. I shall find out whether the assertion of the right hon. Member for Fylde is true, and we can then consider it. I am not convinced that it is true, but we shall see.
  190
  I shall return to the speech that I was making before the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) intervened. The previous Government's scheme to encourage conversion to organic farming offered the lowest rates in the European Union. We are urgently studying the structure and rates of that aid scheme with a view to raising the profile and quantity of organic farming in Britain. However, organic farming is not the only way to bring environmental benefits, nor will it suit every farmer or every consumer. We have taken broader steps to protect and enhance the countryside. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are currently undertaking a joint review of countryside policy.
  The right hon. Member for Fylde criticised us for not having produced a White Paper on the countryside. It took the Conservative Government 16 years to produce a White Paper, and he criticises us for not having produced one in six months. The criticism is absurd, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. Like the road to hell, their White Paper was paved with good intentions but made no specific proposals that were acted on by the Conservative Government.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the environment. Surely it is most important for the rural environment to remain inhabited. Neither the Government nor the official Opposition have expressed concern about family farms and smallholdings, which are under great threat. Geraint Jones, a farmer, wrote to me and said—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Dr. Cunningham.
  Dr. Cunningham: We know there are problems. I would be the first to acknowledge that there are pretty serious problems, because I represent hill farmers. The idea that we can resolve those problems within six months of taking office, or provide the resources on the scale that the right hon. Gentleman pretends is possible, is frankly absurd, and people know that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) says, from a sedentary position, that we have made matters worse. During the election, we campaigned on a proposal to stay within the previous Government's spending policies. Conservative Members supported and voted for those spending policies, but now that they are in opposition, they criticise them. They pushed their spending proposals through the House of Commons. They supported them then, and within six months of losing office they are criticising them. The right hon. Gentleman's opportunism and that of his hon. Friends is transparent and naked in its vulnerability.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Like me, my right hon. Friend has hill farmers in his constituency. The previous Government's failure is shown by the amount of land that has gone out of production and by the number of farmers who have ceased to farm.
  Dr. Cunningham: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I know that in some of the dales in my constituency, where there were once five or six farms, there are now one or two. People have left the land and others have bought the farms and amalgamated them

  191
  simply because, over years, people could not make even a subsistence living under the previous Government's policies.
  We are committed to supporting the biodiversity action plans that have been drawn up for many of our important and threatened species and habitats. With our encouragement, flax processors have introduced a protocol that should end farmers ploughing up land of conservation value to gain the large subsidy available for that crop. We are looking at ways of strengthening the protection for hedges and sites of special scientific interest with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and her colleagues in the Department.
  We have made major progress on better, more effective animal welfare policies in six months in office. On the problem of BSE and the beef ban, we have made more progress in six months in Brussels than the previous Government made in 18 months.
  We are introducing a pilot arable stewardship scheme to enhance biodiversity in arable areas and particularly address the serious decline of many of our well-loved birds, such as the skylark. We have noted concerns about the protection of various areas of outstanding natural beauty and look forward to receiving advice in the spring from the Countryside Commission.
  This ragbag of an Opposition motion and the speech of the right hon. Member for Fylde—a former Agriculture Minister and a former Treasury Minister—simply beggars belief. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is reading."' If hon. Members really want to know, it does not actually say that in front of me. The suggestion that, somehow, the Government are not concerned about the position of farmers is nonsense. Compensation is not without cost, as I pointed out. The compensation scheme available requires a 71 per cent. contribution from the Government and taxpayers.
  Turning to the point by the right hon. Member for Fylde on the over-30-months scheme, I believe that farmers have had a reasonable amount of time to adapt to the changed circumstances brought about by BSE and the introduction of the scheme. When the changes were made, I met representatives of the National Farmers Union. We invited them to suggest alternative proposals. I said that, if they could come back to me with alternative proposals which suited them and the union's members better, I would be happy to try to persuade Brussels to accept them. The sad reality was that they were unable to reach any agreement on any set of proposals to substitute for the ones that came from Brussels in the first place.
  On HLCAs, I would more than welcome, as I have said to the right hon. Member for Fylde, the Opposition's advice on how they think that we could continue with the £60 million provision which they made for one year only.
  Mr. Jack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cunningham: I am not giving way any more. That provision for one year only was coincidentally in the year before a general election.
  Mr. Jack rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: I am not giving way any more.
  Although we wish to help farmers whenever possible, the Government were elected with a clear commitment to remain within the previous Government's predetermined
  192
  public expenditure totals, for which the right hon. Gentleman voted. Unlike the previous Tory Government, this Government will keep their promises.
  I asked the right hon. Member for Fylde earlier, although he did not reply—
  Mr. Jack rose—
  Dr. Cunningham: No, 1 am not giving way again. It is clearly a waste of time to do so. The right hon. Gentleman did not suggest extra taxation or transferring resources from anywhere else. As I have said, he has tried to get through the debate without putting any price on his proposals.
  The Conservative party's condemnation of the Government for not introducing
  "policies to protect small village shops and rural post offices"
  is an act of desperation rather than a coherent line of policy given its policies in that area, especially Post Office privatisation proposals. The Government will push ahead with our manifesto pledge for greater freedom for people to explore the countryside. Not only is it important to preserve and enhance the landscape and wildlife; it is important that everyone should be able to enjoy it. We are firm in that commitment but we are equally determined to respect the rights of those who live and work in the countryside. We will work closely with all those involved and shortly publish a consultation paper on the matter.
  I have demonstrated the Government's commitment to rural communities. We have taken many issues forward in the past six months. The Government aim to create a healthy, sustainable rural economy. The development of an integrated approach, better use of resources and effective European policies can combine to help us create it. The previous Administration never even tried to do so on that basis.
  With a new Labour Government, the prospects for our countryside and the people who live, work in and depend on it are better than ever. I urge the House to reject the fraudulent Tory motion and support the Government amendment.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. David Curry: I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the real situation in agriculture as seen in my constituency, which is a fragile one of uplands and difficult farming, where there are some of the most difficult conditions in the United Kingdom. What he has said in this debate will not bring one crumb of comfort to farmers in my constituency who fear for their livelihoods.
  If farmers who fear for their livelihoods are forced to quit the land, enormous support of the landscape, the environment and wildlife will go with them. Finding an alternative means of supporting the land, keeping the landscape and enabling people to enjoy it will cost more than the maintenance of farmers on that land. They know about that countryside and that landscape.
  There is a real crisis that affects the lifeblood of my constituency, which is typical of many in the uplands of the United Kingdom—whether in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales or large parts of England. Three elements are fuelling the crisis. Price cuts following revaluation

  193
  have brought the dairy prices for a Milk Marque producer down to 20p, with whatever quality payments might be available.
  Cuts in the over-30-months compensation scheme, especially to the weight limit, are bound to hit suckler herds, which are characteristic of uplands and difficult areas. Farmers there do not have a range of choice of breeds. A Charolais or Belgian Blue-based herd in my constituency suffers immediately from such a cut.
  Cuts in beef prices have been disastrous. I was at the Craven auction mart yesterday—I am afraid that I shall mention it frequently. The following are yesterday's prices; what farmers are getting at the moment; the actual situation to within 24 hours of the present. Farmers in the Craven auction mart are talking not about biodiversity action plans but about the beef price. That is what matters to them.
  For steers, farmers are getting 90p a kilo. Two years ago, it was 115p. Heifers fetch 97p a kilo, but two years ago they were sold for 135p a kilo. The best price for the most fashionable and desirable Belgian Blue is about 138p a kilo, yet the same beef was bringing in more than 200p a kilo two years ago.
  Dr. John Cunningham: That was before BSE.
  Mr. Curry: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I represent hill farmers. He represents hill farmers. I am concerned about their situation now, and appealing to him to do something about it. He understands it.
  Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman should not compare prices now with prices before the BSE crisis. That is just a cheat.
  Mr. Curry: It does not seem a cheat to farmers. The prices affect their income, what goes into their bank balances, their collateral, what the bank manager has to judge. If the right hon. Gentleman told farmers at Craven auction mart that they should not compare prices because it is a cheat, it would not help their bank balances or their livelihoods.
  There is a problem, and I would like to help the right hon. Gentleman to solve it. Plenty of cattle are still being sold at 80p a kilo. He mentioned that there might be a hill livestock compensatory allowance review. It certainly does not feel as if there is to be one to the farmers in my constituency.
  For a dairy farmer, the combination of cuts in cull cow compensation and price cuts for heifers and bull calves means that the farm income for a 55 or 60-strong dairy herd, which is a typical size, especially in Wales, is £13,000 to £15,000 down on last year's profit. In the past few months, no fewer than 15 small dairy farmers in my constituency have sold their whole undertaking at the Craven auction mart. That is the extent of the haemorrhage affecting the dairy herd.
  Of course, that option is not open to many hill farmers, because they are locked into the land and cannot get away so easily. They do not have quotas, as dairy farmers have, which are immediately marketable and, in fact, provide pensions for some of the older farmers. They depend on the HLCAs to the tune of 90 per cent. or more, and they have been hit by the cattle price and the sheep price.
  194
  I am sorry to keep coming back to the Craven mart, but the prices there represent the farmers' incomes, because it is their marketplace. Mule wether lambs were selling for £38 to £42 in August, but the same animals are now £34 to £35. That fall has happened in a matter of months, so the same problem is occurring even in the sheepmeat sector, which is normally regarded as having done well.
  Upland farmers cannot walk out, so we see increasing poverty. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was right about one thing—people in the countryside work for very low wages—sometimes for what we would regard as pocket money. Poverty in the countryside is much less obvious than in the town, because the communities are more remote and it is therefore less easy to treat. The sheer levels of despair that are reached—the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is nodding, because he knows this is true—are very serious indeed. The Government can help.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) mentioned the green pound revaluation and the weight limits. On that subject, I wonder whether the Government have achieved savings on the suckler premium, because that has been affected by the revaluation. The suckler premium savings might enable the Minister to lift the weight limit on suckler herds only, which would be an enormous help, which could be targeted on some of the most vulnerable sectors.
  The Government should conduct a proper HLCA review. The cost of doing nothing may be bearable in the short term, but in the long term the fabric of rural life and landscape—which we value and which the Minister says he values—is at risk from what is happening. That is not just a farmer's whinge. Everybody is used to epigrammatic remarks about farmers always being miserable, but the current problems go to the very heart of their livelihoods and of life in my constituency and other rural areas.
  I can tell the Minister that the hills are bleeding, and, if the Government do nothing, the hills will soon be dying. That is not the only fear. People have fears about access, and the Government could do a service by tidying up the many untidy bits of legislation on access. It is not right for the diversion of a footpath to cost £10,000 and take seven years. There is a good case for tidying up the legislation and introducing voluntary access agreements with landowners.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), I am concerned about the fate of the Rural Development Commission and the absorption of objective 5b into objective 2. Will the Government continue the single regeneration budget universally across the country, or pull it back to the cities? Not a word has been said on that by the relevant Department since the Government came to power. It appears to be one of the few matters that the Government are not reviewing at the moment.
  I am concerned about local authority services. The Government claim to have helped education and health, but personal social services will face a crisis this year. That crisis will affect many elderly people living in residential homes in remote communities.
  What will the Government do about planning? The Minister is a decent man, and he represents an upland constituency. I know that he understands the problems and would like to support his constituents. He knows, because

  195
  he talks to farmers and the other country people who come to see him and he goes about his constituency, that the problems are the same throughout the country.
  We all accept the financial constraints on Governments—although the Government have had a Budget and the opportunity to change their priorities—but what matters is the livelihood of the people on whom we depend to maintain a certain sort of countryside and way of life. Those people are crucial to the countryside, and we want to preserve them. If the right hon. Gentleman does nothing, we will not succeed. If he is prepared to act, we can look forward to seeing succeeding generations in that precious and vital landscape that we all wish to enjoy.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I crave the indulgence of the House, because I wish to speak on another aspect of the rural economy, which has nothing to do with farming. I speak with reasonable authority, because I was a professional geologist when I had a proper job. I emphasise at the beginning that more than 100,000 people are involved in the minerals extraction industry in this country, much of which is based in rural areas and which contributes enormously to the rural economy.
  Britain is underlain by rocks of an extraordinarily rich variety. Those minerals have been used since pre-history in every facet of this island's social and commercial life. Boxgrove man knapped flints from chalk cliffs 500,000 years ago; Roman colonists obtained gold, silver and lead from Cornubia; Wealden iron made the guns that defeated the Spanish armada; and our coal resources fuelled the industrial revolution. That extraordinary revolution was built on the mineral wealth of this country. It provided the raw materials for the chemical industry, the sand and gravel and limestone for concrete, and the oil and gas that now drives most of our modern transportation system.
  Despite the demonstrable value of the minerals industry to the national economy, the widespread public perception is of an industry that has squandered the earth's resources, despoiled the landscape and polluted the environment. I say to the Government, as I would have said to the previous Government, that they cannot base a policy on the opinions of the last pressure group that Ministers spoke to. We need a properly planned minerals policy. I speak not on behalf of the industry, but on behalf of the more than 100,000 people who are involved in the industry, many in rural areas where there is no other option for work.
  Apart from the jobs and prospects in rural communities, the industry is enormously valuable to the country. The total value of minerals production in the United Kingdom is some £17 billion a year, including industrial minerals such as fluorspar, barytes, salt, potash, fuller's earth and special clays, and construction minerals such as crushed rock, national aggregates, gypsum and common clay. Many hon. Members have quarries and works in their constituencies that extract those vital minerals for our economy.
  Mineral production in Britain is now dominated by oil, followed by coal, but other vital non-metallic minerals are very important, including crushed rock, limestone, sand and gravel. They are essential to our construction industry and in the development of our cities, which are probably the greatest despoilers of the environment, especially when the Government allow intrusion into the green belt.
  196
  Britain is a major minerals producer on a world scale. More than 80,000 people are employed directly by the industry, and many are employed, especially in the rural communities, in transporting the minerals to the consumer through heavy road vehicles and rail freight haulage. In addition, much of the revenue generated and derived from mining and quarries supports secondary industries in their areas, which often have few alternative sources of employment.
  Negative perceptions of the industry are often trotted out by certain pressure groups. The first is that it squanders the earth's resources. That is simply not true. The record of mineral production through time shows clearly that, while individual mineral deposits can be worked out, known reserves have increased with time.
  The second charge levelled at the industry is that it despoils landscapes. That also is not true. The industry may be an unwelcome neighbour in some areas—particularly for people who have come from the city to live in the country. They may not want to see any development of the rural economy, but, on the other hand, most people who live in rural communities welcome this way of earning a living outside agriculture.
  An unavoidable fact at the heart of this debate which needs to be tackled by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is that Britain is a small and crowded island with many different demands for land use. The limits of free market principles and deregulation, which were the wont of the Tory party when it was in power, need to be closely addressed.
  Having listened to the shadow spokesman, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), I must say that I was amazed by his attitude and his calls for Government intervention—this is the only industry in which the Conservatives want the Government to play a part. Certainly, when the Conservatives were decimating British industry, I wished that they had interfered positively.
  Planning decisions are desperately important, but they must be balanced with land use and the reconciliation between local desires and the national interest when an application is called in by a Department and examined at a public inquiry. The effect of minerals operation on the local environment in an aesthetic sense has to be balanced against the value to the local economy and whether the mineral is vital and is not available elsewhere.
  It is important to recognise that aggregates extraction takes up only a minute area of the British landscape—something like 0.3 per cent. Oddly enough, the figure is declining rapidly, because the process of rehabilitation currently exceeds the present extraction rate. After mineral planning guidance 6 in 1994, the then Government were positive and said that there ought to be a rundown of primary extraction and greater use of recycling material.
  There are some who say that MPG6 did not go far enough, and they would like to see the closing of limestone quarries and gravel workings, for example. They say that, if we cut the road building programme, it would reduce the demand for road stone.
  The important thing to remember is that road building under the Conservatives was cut by such a degree that, in England, only one national scheme was started in 1995-96, and there is a huge backlog of maintenance

  197
  need. If no new roads were constructed by 2010, the demand for primary aggregates would be likely to increase by about 25 per cent.
  I mention that because it is important to remember that 80 per cent. of the demand for primary aggregates leads not to road construction but to improvements in housing, schools, hospitals, railways, factories, inner cities, recreational facilities and amenities, sewage treatment works and a host of other essential uses. That is a positive contribution by the countryside economy to those who live in urban areas.
  There is a conflict between landscape and the use of the countryside in this positive sense. But this must be balanced, and it can be balanced only by the Government adopting a constructive policy on mineral extraction. It is right for the industry to seek to create wealth from our natural resources, and it is equally right that neighbours should be entitled to object to activities which impinge—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am a last minute stand-in for my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) who is undertaking duties in the Standards and Privileges Committee. Any shafts of wisdom in the next few minutes come from me, while anything of a more prosaic nature comes from my hon. Friend's script.
  I know that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) has had to leave the Chamber for another engagement. I have made my apologies to him, because I must congratulate him on his speech and thank him not only for his contribution to tonight's debate, but for the way in which he has suggested how much better the debate would have been if he were still on the Conservative Front Bench. All of us who represent hill farmers and less-favoured areas know that the right hon. Gentleman sincerely believes that we can work together to help them. That is in sharp contrast to the new Conservative spokesman, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Jack), who seemed to be suffering from the most extraordinary case of amnesia.
  The countryside is under siege—we all know that. What is extraordinary about the motion is that, for some incredible reason, Conservative Members seem to think that that siege started on 2 May. That is patently ridiculous. How they have the nerve to table the motion, I do not understand. To his credit, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon did not speak in those terms, but instead spoke about trying to help those who have been hardest hit by many years in which hill farmers have been decimated by Government policies. Many in those communities would have been more impressed by the speech by the right hon. Gentleman than by the absurd attack by the right hon. Member for Fylde.
  The countryside is under siege because of successive policies over a long period by urban-minded Governments from both sides, and we would do well to recognise that. Time after time in this House, Liberal Democrats have stood up for hill farmers, and we have had support from hon. Members from all parties. Indeed, some notable
  198
  Labour Members have supported us on those occasions. I hope that we will have their support in a few weeks' time.
  I take the Minister's point that the review of HLCAs has not yet taken place and that he has not come to a conclusion. We shall hold him to that, and we expect him to respond to the facts being put before him, not just by the fanning unions but by the Country landowners Association and the Hill Farming Initiative.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: Does my hon. Friend welcome the Minister's assurance that no decision has been made yet about HLCAs? I represent an area that is not only less favoured but severely disadvantaged and if our hill farmers do not receive positive help in the near future, many will go out of business.
  Mr. Tyler: That is the case in many less-favoured areas. We look to the Minister to live up to the impression that his predecessors gave when in opposition, that they would be the hill farmers' champions.
  The Conservatives have a miserable record in that respect: they cut, cut and cut again, even when the figures showed that, merely to compensate for reductions in income, which is what the hill livestock compensatory allowance is all about, payments would have been increased. We led the charge year after year—we shall do so again this year—and we look to the Government to live up to promises made in opposition.
  Hill Farming Initiative estimates that, in this twelvemonth, there will be a cut of one fifth, on top of the previous cuts in incomes. We are determined to restore the real level of the HLCA to what it was in 1992, and we expect the Labour party to come with us.
  The green pound revaluation has been mentioned several times and the figure is clearly considerable. The Minister rightly says that not all the money will come from Brussels, but a substantial sum can come from Brussels and is sitting there waiting for us. If we do not pick it up, our competitor countries in the European Union will use it to put their farmers in a better competitive position than ours. Every day that goes by with our Minister failing to pick up what is rightly ours gives British taxpayers' money to our competitors, making the famous level playing field even less level.
  The same goes for the cut in the over-30-months scheme payments. I find it extraordinary that the right hon. Member for Fylde had nothing more to say about BSE. It is incredible. After the 18 months of dither, delay and shambles—as the farmers kept saying—over BSE, it is extraordinary that a Conservative spokesman can say that increasing OTMS payments is all that needs to be done to help the livestock sector and beef producers in particular.
  There is a major problem with the weight system, and farmers in the lowland areas, where animals are fed on grass, will be especially disadvantaged—that will feed through the entire livestock sector—but to alter that will not be enough.
  The Minister recently said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West that he is actively considering a full-scale inquiry into what went wrong with BSE. I hope that there will soon be an announcement about that, because it is about time that we exposed the 18 months of confusion caused by the

  199
  Conservative Government and their 10 years of mismanagement of BSE. On several occasions in the previous Parliament, I pressed Ministers to come clean, but they failed to do so. I hope that we shall now get the full-scale inquiry that the farming community deserves, so that we can identify what went wrong and ensure that it does not happen again.
  The pressing issue of the BSE crisis is not the export ban but the failure to act effectively and vigorously to ensure that imports are of the same standard that we insist on from our own producers. The Minister announced a welcome initiative in the summer when he told us that he would introduce restrictions to ensure that products imported from other European Union countries, and countries outside the EU, were monitored to the high standards that we insist on in this country. We understand why the previous Government were only too happy to let in cheap imports for their friends in food processing and supermarket chains, but there is no excuse for the present Government not to act.
  The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon mentioned prices. Prices in the market are affected far more by those imports than by the export ban. Of course we want to get rid of the export ban, but it would be a real start if we achieved parity throughout the European Union in controls, monitoring, restrictions and effective steps to ensure that no BSE-affected meat could ever again reach consumers in this country. It is a scandal that imports are allowed in from countries that have declared instances of BSE and are not operating on a level playing field.
  I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), will respond more fully on the general issue of development and jobs. I regret deeply the threat to the Rural Development Commission, which will have an extremely important role, regardless of whether there are regional development agencies. The Government, like the previous Government, seem not to understand that there are rural environmental considerations that are completely separate from the urbanisation that has so often caused such difficulty.
  That is also true, for example, with the jobseeker's allowance. All of us who represent rural constituencies must know that young people have great difficulty in meeting the constraints of the allowance because of transport problems but, as I understand it, the Government have made no attempt to adjust what they inherited from their predecessors and to adapt the requirements to the needs of rural communities.
  The same is true of rural training, help for rural businesses, and advice on premises and finance. Jobs in rural areas are invariably less well paid, often give less choice, and are difficult to plan for in the new environment that the Government have inherited and seem not to be prepared to change.
  Clearly, there needs to be a better balance in planning. In recent months, we have seen the Government's failure to come forward with a national plan to cope with the anticipated increase in households.
  Mr. Tom Brake: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was unfortunate that Ministers said that rural land was up for grabs? Does he agree that the matter of 4.4 million homes needs to be
  200
  treated with great sensitivity and in consultation with the rural and urban communities that will be affected by that massive development?
  Mr. Tyler: I agree very much with my hon. Friend and I hope that the Under-Secretary will examine that point when she replies.
  The Government face a major problem, but it is a problem of their own making. In an admirable confession a few minutes ago, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that he had had to adopt the previous Government's spending restrictions. Who said that he had to adopt them? [HON. MEMBERS: "The electors."[The electors said nothing of the sort. Did the electorate say that the new Government had to adopt those expenditure limits for two years? Of course they did not. What bunkum! Every councillor in the country knows that that is not true. The suggestion that the Minister had to adopt the expenditure constraints is ludicrous. By cloning the Tory Budget, the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues have adopted a straitjacket in agriculture as in so many other areas of public policy.
  The Minister referred to the common agricultural policy reform programme. Clearly, far too much of his predecessor's menu has, again, been swallowed hook, line and sinker. We must achieve some subsidiarity over issues such as modulation so that we can have more local and regional control over the way in which they operate. It would be fatal for the Government to go into negotiations on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and to find themselves landed with modulation at European level. That would be absurd and would not fit the circumstances in the United Kingdom.
  I acknowledge that the Government are looking positively at ways in which European funding arrangements can be adjusted to suit our needs. I hope that that is true of the new objective 2 status areas. There is, however, a real problem about which those of us in 5b areas already know. I refer to the absurd red tape, the maladministration and the slow administration of existing funding in 5b areas.
  We shall find that, at the end of the full period of 5b status, we have taken up about 50 per cent. of the money available to us from British taxpayers as well as other taxpayers. My colleague the Member of the European Parliament for Cornwall and Plymouth West has calculated that we have got only about a quarter of what we deserve and can draw down from Brussels, although we are already halfway through the programme. If that happens again with objective 2, the Treasury may save a few million pounds, but little will be done to help the rural communities for which the programme is intended. It is vital that we speed up the process. If we do not, the whole programme will work to the advantage of our competitors in Europe and will do little to help us.
  It is sometimes said that there is a conflict between environmental policies and those designed to help employment in rural areas. I do not believe that that is true. The work being done by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is particularly helpful in that respect because it demonstrates that, in agriculture and other country activities, there is a real chance to improve employment by the use of more explicit environmental programmes. The society says:
  "RSPB believes that maintaining wildlife is entirely compatible with better living standards for rural communities: a healthy countryside and strong local communities go hand in hand.

  201
  The needs of wildlife and their habitat are often regarded as an obstacle to rural development. What has become clear in our research on rural issues, is that the environment is a foundation stone for a healthy thriving rural community."
  Nowhere more so than in the hills.
  The right hon. Member for Fylde had somewhat more notice to prepare his speech than did I. It was not much more time but I find it mind-boggling, breathless cheek that he could describe the present dispensation on HLCAs as tawdry. Where was he for the past five years when his Government colleagues cut and cut and cut again? We then had a bit of staggering amnesia when he talked about the treatment of beef farmers. Where was he last year when they were hammering on the doors of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food calling for the resignation of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)? Presumably, like most of the ostriches in the Treasury, he had his head in the sand.
  Farmers have longer memories. They will not forget or forgive the Conservatives playing partisan politics this evening. We should have heard from their spokesman a speech along the lines of that of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, who discussed the practical concerns of the countryside. If we had had more of that from the Conservatives, not only the House but the farming community would hold them in more respect.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: For one and a half hours of a three-hour debate to be taken up by the three Front-Bench spokesman is unacceptable, and an abuse of those of us on the Back Benches who have been trying to get in. Having said that, I was much diverted by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who represents probably the flattest constituency in England, lecturing my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who represents probably the most mountainous, on the problems of hill farming.
  In the last Parliament, it was irritating to be told over and again by the Conservative Government that they represented rural interests about which the Opposition parties knew nothing. The right hon. Member for Fylde did not mention the document that the Labour party produced in the lead-up to the general election, "A Working Countryside", which ranged across the whole gamut of rural life and showed how the quality of life in rural areas such as mine depends not only on farming incomes, important though they are, but on the health service, transport systems, social services and education. The countryside is not set in aspic, as the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) once memorably said, but is part of a continuum with urban areas. There is no simple division between country people and urban people. They have different problems but they are not different species, as the Tories like to pretend. They often talk as if towns were surrounded by mediaeval walls and the people in them never went outside.
  The debate has mainly been about farming, but I should like to make some disparate points, with which I hope my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will be able to deal at some point. I am glad that, with her wide brief, she is responding to this debate.
  The countryside is under siege. An important point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) must be emphasised. We are told that we need an extra
  202
  4.4 million homes. I do not believe that such a quantity is needed, but that figure was adopted by the previous Government, and, as far as I know, is accepted by the present Government as an assumption. Please let that not involve huge developments in our villages. My constituency, for example, includes the beautiful village of Newburgh, where there was an attempt to bribe the community and the councils into building nearly 400 houses in a village that did not have so many to start with in return for a bypass provided by the developer. It was a great temptation for the village because it is pounded to pieces by traffic.
  Brown land and the land surrounding new towns such as Skelmersdale should be the first areas to be considered for new housing and other building development. In north Wales, for example, the only piece of prime agricultural land is about to have factories built on it. It is currently farmed by one of my constituents. Right next to it are hundreds of acres of brown land in the form of the old steelworks which will not be developed. That is plainly crazy. The Country landowners Association was quite correct in its briefing paper on the need to take action to secure developers from future claims and to give further help in the clean-up of brown land and land that might be contaminated. We cannot have the green belt, which occupies most of my constituency, plundered by developers any longer.
  I welcome the Government's plans to reduce investment in major roads and motorways, but small bypasses to deal with terrible bottlenecks in villages and small towns still have to be considered. All too often, ancient and beautiful old towns such as Burscough, Newburgh and Parbold in my constituency are being pounded to pieces.
  There are also problems with public transport. There are enormous problems with isolation in rural areas, particularly for elderly people and those who do not possess cars. Under the Conservative Government my part of the world experienced the collapse of rural bus services almost into oblivion and the seemingly deliberate rundown of rural rail services. We need more halts and more stations, but the few that are being provided, such as that at Euxton in Lancashire, are not being provided by the railway companies: it is the county councils that have to find the money. We need more regular trains, later trains and trains on Sundays to enable people to communicate. The same applies to bus services. There is a great deal of scope for the integration of planning so that any domestic development in rural areas is concentrated around railway stations to encourage both the use of the station and less use of private cars.
  Another completely separate problem in west Lancashire, part of Fylde and certainly part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) is the collapse of moss roads that were built over peat. Over the years, the peat has dried out, shrunk and collapsed, so the roads are collapsing. The county councils cannot—no highway authority could—fund the rebuilding of that elaborate road network, and, certainly since I have been involved in the county council and then in Parliament, there has been no Government help whatever to tackle the problem of moss roads. As farm vehicles get bigger and heavier, the problem becomes worse.

  203
  I could continue for hours, but as time is short I shall simply flag up the uglification of parts of our countryside and the plethora of road signs. Why do local authorities seem to require a separate post for every sign instead of putting them all on the same post? Why are signs getting bigger? Why are we providing public money to build wind turbines in environmentally sensitive areas such as Kirby moor in south Cumbria and, as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) knows better than anyone, on Longridge fell? We have to tackle those idiotic planning monstrosities in our countryside.
  Over the past 18 years many economic calamities have hit our villages and rural areas. They include the blow suffered by rural sub-post offices—because of some idiocy by the Government at the time—from which many have never recovered.
  There are also tremendous problems with village schools. As people increasingly drive their children to schools in nearby towns, small village schools, which are usually the centre of the community, start falling to bits. The same problem affects village pubs, which are also centres of community life. They are hit by supermarket competition and by beer smuggling and the problems that arise from it.
  It would be churlish not to mention that there has been some attempt to help village shops and sub-post offices through rate relief and grants from the Rural Development Commission to some small shops in select parts of the country. However, the full implications of almost every policy that applies to rural areas—or, indeed, every policy—should be put through a rural filter and through an environmental filter. That is what "A Working Countryside" sought to prefigure and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport deserve great credit for that document and the new direction it gave to Labour party policy.
  The great advantage of urban living is the convenience of facilities provided to meet the needs of the critical mass available there. The great advantages of rural living are better air, relative quiet, relative isolation and so on; the downside is sparsity of services. The palliative—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. John Gummer: I would go along with much of what was said by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), especially his remarks about the need to protect the countryside from large-scale incursions of new housing. I wish that the Minister for London and Construction were here, because this is one of the few areas of environmental affairs where the present Government have departed significantly from the position that obtained before. The Minister said that we were naive to say that those 4.5 million houses could be built on brown land. Despite his attacking me for naivety, I am happy to be as naive as the Round Table on Sustainable Development and the Council for the Protection of Rural England in saying that we should be siting at least 75 per cent. of those new homes on brown land. I should like us to go further than that.
  Mr. David Drew: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No, I have only 10 minutes.
  204
  I should like to go further than that because it is good for the countryside and for the town to build on brown land. Indeed, I do not see how we can have a sensible regeneration policy for our urban areas if we allow people to take the easy option of building on green-field—especially green-belt—sites.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) is not here to explain why, at the time when she has been lucky to be able to buy a new house for herself, others are now facing the destruction of their rural area because Hertfordshire county council has declared by one vote—a vote over the Conservative minority—that it will release 800 acres of green-belt land between Stevenage and Hemel Hempstead, which are hardly kept apart at the moment, so that many new homes will be built on that land. Such decisions are damaging to our cities and to the countryside and I am sorry that the Government have decided to turn their backs on the policy that formerly obtained, which was that the green belt would not be damaged in that way.
  I can recall only one occasion when I was Secretary of State when I gave permission for a substantial development in the green belt. People knew, therefore, that there was no point in asking for permission, so they had to get on with developing brown land. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will dissociate herself from the attacks on the protection of the green belt that we have heard from the Minister for London and Construction, who should look far more carefully at his policy if he is to be in tune with what I understand Government policy to be.
  I also agree with the hon. Member for West Lancashire about the road signs. The only contribution made by the Liberal Democrat party in Suffolk was to put up a large number of signs. One entered a small village to be greeted by a great yellow sign saying "Peasenhall" and underneath it said, "Village", in case one did not know it was a village and might think that it was a combine harvester. The Liberal Democrats may have felt that they needed to tell people that it was a village because most of them were not country people representing the countryside but needed to be told about it. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) did himself no good at all with his comments about my right hon. Friend—
  Mr. Tyler: Which one?
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well which right hon. Friend I am referring to. He knows as well as I do that Liberal Democrat party policy on the countryside depends entirely on the constituency—[Interruption.] We all know that, and Labour Members know that it is true. Indeed, it does not even change from constituency to constituency; it changes from ward to ward. Where there is a vote to be garnered, a policy can be changed. If the vote of somebody who thinks differently can be gained, the principles can be changed, for nobody will notice. Comparisons seat by seat show perfectly well where the Liberal Democrats stand: where they think that they might win a vote. That is the only principle that has ever obtained in the Liberal Democrat party.
  It is therefore reasonable to ask the Labour party, now that we have heard the less than eloquent speech by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, why it has

  205
  not yet explained to the House how, in times of such difficulties with money, it was possible to find £1 million to re-do the Agriculture Minister's offices. That sum might have been spent better on farming, but I do not know from which part of the budget it was taken. It was certainly not in the Red Book; nor was it part of the tight collar of which he spoke in respect of the previous Government. However, it is unusual for an Agriculture Minister who has been in position for six months not to know whether any money was left over from the sheep annual premium. He must be the first Agriculture Minister for many years not to have such a figure at his fingertips.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley)rose—
  Mr. Gummer: I should tell the hon. Gentleman who is rushing to the Minister's aid that I was not about to say something rude. I was simply going to mention why previous Agriculture Ministers always had that figure at their fingertips. 1 knew that if I did not have it, the Treasury would have pinched it and I wanted to defend it against the Treasury. I always knew the figure because the Treasury was always out for any little "candle ends", as it would say. I am worried that, if the current Agriculture Minister does not know the amount, it has probably gone already because the Treasury will have got its sticky fingers in there very rapidly.
  Mr. Morley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No, I really should not give way because I promised to be brief. There will be plenty of time for summing up.
  I understand that £200 million is available and I hope that the Agriculture Minister will sort that matter out rapidly. I hope that he will also look at the fact that the last Government put in train an operation that would have given special help to rural post offices and small shops in villages with only one shop. That would not have been affected by the regulations about how much money was available because we were going to use the same totality but put a little more into the countryside by helping those shops. We have heard nothing of that from the Labour party. There was silence when Labour Members were asked about it and I want to know where they stand. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will doubtless be able to tell us.
  We then had a story about how the Government would reform the common agricultural policy, a matter of which I have some experience. I was unhappy about the Agriculture Minister's statement, which said that the Government wanted to take the money that was now used for production support and use it for the environment. I am very much in favour of that but did not like the sentence, which was dangerous. He said that "some" of the money "could" be used to help "targeted" environmental purposes. I do not like that at all. Some of it? Perhaps, but how much? Does "could" mean "will", or "only if we can get away with it"? Most people in rural areas listening to the Agriculture Minister will probably say that he is not standing up for them. They will say to themselves, "He does not know whether he has any money in his back pocket; he is not on top of the job; he obviously does not know the figures."
  206
  People will also say to themselves that the Minister lacks the fire to battle in the European Union. No one could be more enthusiastic about our place in the European Union than I am, but undoubtedly, because one believes in it one must battle there and fight for Britain. If the right hon. Gentleman is woolly about the funds that could be used to target, he will not get tuppence, or even a penny. He does not have a chance. He must go and fight.
  I have heard from the Labour party no evidence of a desire to fight for the rural areas. I have heard no fire from Labour. Until we have a Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who believes in them, feels for them and fights for them, we shall not have a hope in the rural areas.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. David Drew: Because of the shortage of time allocated to me, I shall concentrate on the planning issue, following the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who talks a lot about planning and about brown-field development. The problem is that when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, he did not take the opportunity to question the figure of 4.4 million households that was quoted, and he made no proposals on how brown-field sites might be pressed into use. Now we are confronted with a very difficult problem, which we shall in due course debate and study to search for solutions.
  I was intrigued that, although the word "planning" appears in the Opposition motion, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) mentioned it only superficially. That shows the depth of the Conservatives' concern about that key issue, which was taken up subsequently. Obviously, it is not as important in some respects as agriculture, but we must consider how it fits into the rural economy.
  I, for one, will say that I question the numbers. I question the need for 4.4 million new households and I wish and hope that there will be a debate on the subject. My criticism is based on two presumptions.
  First, it is not good enough to say that the figures for the previous 20 years will be replicated during the next 20 years. Major sociological changes are taking place, which need to be reflected in the forecasts. Secondly, in my area, much of the requirement is based on migration and I am pleased that, with colleagues, I have been able to do research to show that migration, which is the driving force, is slowing down. Unfortunately, that is not reflected in the figures.
  I would ask this of the Government—and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, when he is listening: if and when this debate is taken up, I hope that we can get some genuine understanding of what the numbers mean and especially the implications of those numbers. I am one of the 170 Labour Members mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who represent a truly rural area, and my area is under development pressure. Those development pressures cannot be hidden from or escaped from; they must be dealt with rationally. Development must take place when it is needed and according to rules that are open and understood—not at the whim of developers.
  The right hon. Member for Fylde failed to mention rural poverty—an issue that many hon. Members representing rural constituencies know too well from our surgeries, our mailbags and discussions with individual constituents.

  207
  It would be nice to think that hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench would feel guilt for what they did in the past 18 years. We have heard listed the policies that have increased poverty instead of reducing it: the deregulation of buses, the continuing decline in the number of shops and other services in the rurality, the imposition of signing on through jobseeker's allowance, which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned. The list goes on and on. It would be nice to see some remorse from Conservative Front Benchers. They have offered no solutions; they have not mentioned poverty or attempted to address the root cause of the problem by advancing ideas to deal with it. Poverty exists in our rural areas as well as in our inner cities, and we must introduce policies that address that terrible problem.
  I am pleased, even at this late stage, to say that the Government will introduce a coherent platform not just on agriculture and rural areas, but on the whole development issue. The Government will deal with the saddest issue of all: rural poverty. I hope that all hon. Members have some understanding of how those matters can, and should, be addressed.
  9.35 pm
  Mr. Tim Yeo: This has been a very significant debate that has raised many issues of enormous importance to the rural community. However, it has also been a desperately sad debate as it has exposed with brutal clarity the truth about Labour's attitude to the countryside. That attitude is founded on ignorance, riddled with prejudice, expressed without sympathy and is bordering on outright hostility. Labour's total lack of understanding of the needs and aspirations of the men, women and children who live in the countryside is nothing less than frightening.
  Unfortunately, I do not have time to respond to all the points raised in the debate. However, I gladly pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), whose expertise on the subjects studied during many years of service at both MAFF and the Department of the Environment was clear from his speech. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) struggled—as he and his colleagues usually do now—with the dilemma of whether to attack the Government or the Opposition. As a result, most of his punches missed their targets.
  I shall focus on four issues, the first of which is planning. On Radio 4 last week, the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), said:
  "The green belt is up for grabs".
  They are chilling words, but we cannot say that we were not warned. It is no use the Minister shaking her head: that is what the hon. Gentleman said live on Radio 4. We were warned last August by the Deputy Prime Minister, who overturned the recommendation of an independent planning inspector and approved the industrial development of a 140-acre site in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). Incidentally, that site was owned by the Labour-controlled Birmingham city council—not that I am suggesting that that was a factor in the Deputy Prime Minister's thinking.
  When the Minister replies to the debate, will she repudiate the extraordinary comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central? Will she confirm categorically,
  208
  without qualification, that the rigorous protection of the green belt—which was a cornerstone of planning policy under the Conservative Government—will be maintained without any relaxation? Is she aware that if she refuses to give that assurance to the House today alarm will spread through millions of people, the quality of whose lives has been enhanced immeasurably by the green belt? They know—even if the Minister and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central do not—how eagerly developers will eye up the countryside that was protected previously by Conservative policy.
  A wider planning issue is where the new homes will be built. I accept that there is a debate about how many there will be. Perhaps we shall not need 4.4 million new houses in the end, but we shall still need quite a lot. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) question the 4.4 million figure as he attempted to clothe himself in some kind of green mantle. I am obliged to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) for reminding me that the hon. Gentleman's remarks would be better addressed to the Labour-controlled local council in Stroud, which is proposing to despoil large areas of his constituency.
  The Round Table on Sustainable Development recommended that 75 per cent. of those new homes should be built on sites that had been previously developed. At present, the country is achieving a figure of 50 per cent. Contrary to the comments made by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), the previous Government were ready to raise that target. Indeed, I have no doubt that the consultation document that they published earlier this year was the prelude to a significant increase in the target.
  The question now is what the Labour Government will do. Will they set a higher target for the proportions of homes that should be built on previously developed sites? If they fail to do so, and if they weaken the existing controls over the development of green-field sites, their decision will cause dismay in the countryside.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal rightly pointed out, it is not just the countryside that suffers when such development takes place in green-field sites; the inner cities suffer as well, because allowing new homes in the countryside leads to an exodus of the very people whom the inner cities need if the process of regeneration, in which the Conservative Government played such a distinguished part, is to continue.
  I shall deal with one of the Government's socialist proposals. It was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)—the right to roam. This trespassers' charter sits ill with new Labour's proclaimed agenda. I am not surprised that it has few champions. Apparently they include that well-known specimen of new Labour, the Minister for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher).
  Will the Minister confirm, when she winds up, that the consultation paper on the right to roam has not appeared because her Department's proposals have run into trouble elsewhere in Whitehall? Does she recognise that the right to roam is potentially an extremely dangerous threat to the cause of conservation and the environment in many parts of the country and could destroy many previously undisturbed and valuable habitats?
  Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman condemn with me the action of

  209
  absentee landowners, such as the Garendon estate in north-west Leicestershire, which for decades deny public access to wild, beautiful, lonely, unfarmed places on the ground that it would damage those places and yet the moment mineral operators want to come and quarry they welcome them with open arms and open wallets? In those circumstances, is not profit being given a higher priority than preservation, and contamination more common than conservation?
  Mr. Yeo: I am sorry that I gave way. I understand that the family concerned has a distinguished record of conservation and far from being an absentee landlord is resident in the constituency of one of my hon. Friends.
  I suggest that instead of publishing the right to roam consultation paper the Government should abandon their policy and devote the resources to encouraging the voluntary agreements that have been so successful in extending access in the past few years.
  On resources, the Minister has a chance this evening to allay the fears that the Government may tamper with the formula on the revenue support grant to take cash away from rural councils. Any caving in by the Labour Government to unjustified demands from their allies in the towns for extra money at the expense of the rural community will not pass unchallenged. Will the Minister confirm that the countryside will be no less favourably treated by Labour when the revenue support grant is announced next month than it has been in the past?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) mentioned the Rural Development Commission. Will the Minister confirm that the commission's budget will not be plundered and that it will be fully protected? Does she recognise that the Rural Development Commission's rural regeneration work, which accounts for £22 million of its spending, is not a suitable source from which to take away resources and give them to the regional development agencies, whose focus is inevitably likely to be more urban? Perhaps the Minister will tell the House what the regional development agencies will contribute to the countryside.
  On accountability, I was dismayed to learn that the Government are abandoning their predecessor's tradition of publishing an annual update of the White Paper "Rural England". Is the refusal to continue to monitor the widely welcomed initiatives in the 1995 White Paper because the Government do not intend to continue with the policies contained within it, or is it simply that despite all the rhetoric about open government Labour is terrified of further scrutiny of its failure to serve the countryside? Is it that the Government know full well that by publishing regular updates of the White Paper they would expose the cuts in resources that they are planning and the consequences of those cuts?
  The House has learnt today what many outside have begun to suspect, and that is that the Labour Government, with their urban-based majority—[Interruption.]—neither understand nor care about the countryside. The Prime Minister's claim that Labour is governing Britain in the interests of all the people is nothing more than a hollow sham. I commend the motion to the House.
  9.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): It is always a pleasure to listen to the rants of the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), and we had a vintage performance tonight. I shall get round to answering some of his questions in due course. Initially, I shall deal with the rather virtual reality view of politics that Conservative Members seem to be propounding. It is a myth, and it is perpetuated with increasing desperation by the Conservative party, that Labour does not represent the interests of the countryside. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was at it in Farmers Weekly recently when he said that we, Labour, did not represent those interests. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) has similarly ranted.
  Following the general election, wherever the Conservative party has representation the Tories do not represent the countryside. Labour has 170 county constituencies while the Conservatives hold 135 and the Liberal Democrats 32. Labour now represents more county constituencies than both Opposition parties put together. In the general election, Labour enjoyed a national swing of 10.7 per cent., which was almost equalled in county constituencies with a swing of 10.4 per cent.
  I shall not bore the House by going through the swings against Conservative Members who have contributed to the debate, all purporting to represent the countryside. Suffice it to say that on 1 May the countryside turned against the Conservative party in the same way as urban areas. The rump that the Tory party parades as an outdated caricature of town versus country can do only damage to the countryside while Labour is the one-nation party. It is Labour which seeks to unite the country and to create partnerships for progress. The Conservatives seek to divide the country in an attempt to set one part of it against the other. Before we take any more pious lectures from Conservatives about the needs of the countryside, it would be wise to remember the legacy that they left us to struggle with after 18 years of their stewardship of rural areas.
  What was that legacy? I shall pluck a few examples out of the air to give the House the flavour of it. Between 1979 and 1996, there was a 144 per cent. increase in crime in the English and Welsh shire counties. There was a 29 per cent. cut in bus journeys after deregulation and 75 per cent. of rural parishes now have no daily bus services.
  The Conservatives tolerated low pay and failed in their attempt to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board—a proposal that was opposed by everyone but the free market zealots in their own ranks. There are plenty more examples—I could go on.
  There was the BSE fiasco, which devastated many rural communities, put public health at risk and cost the country billions of pounds. It was a Tory legacy. That debacle was almost as awful as the poll tax, which helped a few large landowners in the other place but caused massive hardship in our rural communities.
  It is no wonder that the Tories lost so much support in the countryside on 1 May. It is no wonder that the swings against them in the rural areas were nearly 10.5 per cent. It is no wonder that they do not represent so much as a tree or a blade of grass in Scotland and Wales.

  211
  The people gave them their verdict on 1 May, after 18 years of Conservative stewardship in our rural areas, and it was a damning verdict.
  I will now deal with specific points that were made in the debate. [Interruption.] I gave up some of my time so that Opposition Members could make their speeches.
  The idea that somehow the Rural Development Commission has no future was raised by several right hon. and hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon and the hon. Member for South Suffolk. Ministers have fully discussed the rural role of the regional development agencies with Lord Shuttleworth, who is chairman of the Rural Development Commission. I can assure the House that the commission's views will be given due weight when the Government consider the role of RDAs. Decisions on this will be announced when the White Paper is published later in the year.
  I also assure any hon. Members who may be worried about this that the RDAs will not be urban based. They will have a remit to look after the economic good of the entire areas that they cover—not just urban areas but rural areas. That will be central to their reason for existing.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned a possible inquiry into the BSE legacy. That is under active consideration. I hope that my assurances about the RDC and its future satisfy his worries.
  Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and the hon. Members for South Suffolk and for North Cornwall mentioned household growth. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) made an extraordinary speech, given that the figure of 4.4 million was his. Those figures were published by the previous Government. We are currently examining the 700 responses to the Green Paper that he published. We do not dispute the figures, and neither does he.
  Mr. David Ruffley: Does the Minister agree or disagree with the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), who said that the green belt is up for grabs—yes or no?
  Angela Eagle: That is not what he said. I will read exactly what he said. I have a transcript. He was asked by an interviewer:
  "So the green belt is up for grabs then?"
  My hon. Friend then said:
  "The green belt is up for grabs as much as it ever was."
  That is what that means: as much as it ever was, which is true because the Government have not changed the policy introduced by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal.
  Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Angela Eagle: No, I shall not give way. The right hon. Gentleman has had his chance to make his views known. It is interesting that he now talks about a 75 per cent. brown-field site target when his Government were considering 50 per cent. and seeing whether they could
  212
  achieve 60 per cent. Out of government, he immediately finds another 15 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman made a disingenuous contribution to the debate.
  Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Angela Eagle: No, I will not give way.
  Mr. Gummer rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the hon. Lady is not giving way. Let the debate be completed in the good order in which it has been conducted so far.
  Angela Eagle: The right hon. Gentleman's speech was particularly disingenuous in the light of his previous responsibilities in government. In misrepresenting our policy on green-belt and brown-field sites, the right hon. Gentleman is simply scaremongering.
  Are those Conservative Members who are worried about our policy prepared for us not to build the houses that we are required to build and to put up with the homelessness, the rising land prices and the dislocation in society that failure to make provision for the people who will need housing in the future will create?
  Through the planning process, the Government will create as much brown-field site development as possible. However, we must remember that even in rural areas there are population and housing formulation changes. A smaller number of people are living in individual households and people are living longer in single households because of the success of our health services. We must ensure that new householders and young people have the chance to live in the areas in which they were brought up. Those living locally account for 90 per cent. of the predicted housing need. It is not the result of mass migration into the countryside. Conservative Members are simply scaremongering if they try to present it in that way.
  The hon. Member for South Suffolk said that the right to roam was a socialist policy: good—I am glad that he recognises that. The hon. Gentleman is a well-known socialist theorist, possibly to rival Marx, so we all listen to what he has to say about what is a socialist policy. However, there will be no indiscriminate right to roam—rather a right to access. The right to access was in the manifesto on which we were elected and which was supported by many rural and urban voters.
  We must balance the right of access to land with the responsible use of that right. The consultation paper will appear shortly and there will be a two to three month consultation period. We shall listen extremely carefully to the views of all those involved and we expect legislation on the issue in the next Session. I emphasise that, unlike Conservative Members who do not understand the meaning of the word consultation, the Government will take their duties in the consultative process extremely seriously.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Angela Eagle: No.
  Mr. Sayeed rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must make clear her intentions.
  Angela Eagle: In my usual polite way, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Sayeed: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Angela Eagle: No. Is that clear enough?
  In my usual polite way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I then realised that he had not even done the House the courtesy of being here for the debate. He may be a new Member, but he must not expect to walk in at the end of a debate and be heard. [HON. MEMBERS: "Retread."] Even though the hon. Gentleman is a retread or a recycled Member, if he wants to intervene he should do the House the courtesy of being here for the debate.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Angela Eagle: No.
  The debate has shown that Labour is the party of the countryside, and that Labour understands and represents the interests of rural people the length and breadth of the land.
  Mr. James Arbuthnot rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 371.

  Division No. 82]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clappison, James

  Amess, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Baldry, Tony

  Collins, Tim

  Bercow, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Boswell, Tim

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Day, Stephen

  Brady, Graham

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Duncan, Alan

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Burns, Simon

  Evans, Nigel

  Butterfill, John

  Faber, David

  Cash, William

  Fabricant, Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Fallon, Michael

  Flight, Howard

  Chope, Christopher

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  214

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Paice, James

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Paterson, Owen

  Fraser, Christopher

  Pickles, Eric

  Garnier, Edward

  Prior, David

  Gibb, Nick

  Randall, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gray, James

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Green, Damian

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Greenway, John

  Ruffley, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hammond, Philip

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hayes, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Heald, Oliver

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Spring, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Steen, Anthony

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Streeter, Gary

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hunter, Andrew

  Syms, Robert

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Johnson Smith,

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Key, Robert

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Townend, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tredinnick, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Letwin, Oliver

  Viggers, Peter

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Walter, Robert

  Lidington, David

  Wardle, Charles

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Loughton, Tim

  Wells, Bowen

  Luff, Peter

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  MacKay, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Willetts, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Madel, Sir David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Woodward, Shaun

  Maples, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Mates, Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Norman, Archie

  Mr. John Whittingdale and

  Ottaway, Richard

  Mr. James Cran.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Ainger, Nick

  Benton, Joe

  Allan, Richard

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Allen, Graham

  Berry, Roger

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Best, Harold

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Betts, Clive

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ashton, Joe

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Boateng, Paul

  Austin, John

  Borrow, David

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Banks, Tony

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Barnes, Harry

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Barron, Kevin

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Bayley, Hugh

  Breed, Colin

  Beard, Nigel

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Beggs, Roy

  Browne, Desmond

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Burden, Richard

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Burgon, Colin

  215

  Burnett, John

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Fisher, Mark

  Byers, Stephen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Follett, Barbara

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Foster, Michael, Jabez (Hastings)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Michael, J (Worcester)

  Casale, Roger

  Foulkes, George

  Caton, Martin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Cawsey, Ian

  Galbraith, Sam

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gapes, Mike

  Chaytor, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Chidgey, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gerrard, Neil

  Church, Ms Judith

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clapham, Michael

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Godman, Norman A

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Goggins, Paul

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clelland, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Grocott, Bruce

  Coaker, Vernon

  Grogan, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Gunnell, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Hain, Peter

  Colman, Tony

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hanson, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Harvey, Nick

  Cotter, Brian

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cousins, Jim

  Healey, John

  Cranston, Ross

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Crausby, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Heppell, John

  Cummings, John

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

  Hill, Keith

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hoey, Kate

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Home Robertson, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Hope, Phil

  Darvill, Keith

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Davidson, Ian

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Dawson, Hilton

  Hurst, Alan

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Hutton, John

  Denham, John

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Illsley, Eric

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jenkins, Brian

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Doran, Frank

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Drew, David

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Ms Jennifer (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Edwards, Huw

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  216

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pearson, Ian

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keetch, Paul

  Pike, Peter L

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Plaskitt, James

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Pond, Chris

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pope, Greg

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pound, Stephen

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Radice, Giles

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rammell, Bill

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rapson, Syd

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Raynsford, Nick

  Laxton, Bob

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lepper, David

  Rendel, David

  Leslie, Christopher

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Levitt, Tom

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Linton, Martin

  Rogers, Allan

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rooker, Jeff

  Livsey, Richard

  Rooney, Terry

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lock, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  McAllion, John

  Roy, Frank

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruane, Chris

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Salter, Martin

  McDonnell, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Sawford, Phil

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McLeish, Henry

  Sheerman, Barry

  MacShane, Denis

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McWalter, Tony

  Singh, Marsha

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marek, Dr John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Merron, Gillian

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

  Michael, Alun

  Snape, Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Soley, Clive

  Milburn, Alan

  Spellar, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mitchell, Austin

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Moore, Michael

  Stevenson, George

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Morley, Elliot

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mountford, Kali

  Stringer, Graham

  Mudie, George

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mullin, Chris

  Stunell, Andrew

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Norris, Dan

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Olner, Bill

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Timms, Stephen

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Todd, Mark

  217

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Touhig, Don

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Trickett, Jon

  (Swansea W)

  Truswell, Paul

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Willis, Phil

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wills, Michael

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Winnick, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Wood, Mike

  Vaz, Keith

  Woolas, Phil

  Wallace, James

  Wray, James

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Watts, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Webb, Steve

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  White, Brian

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 171.

  Division No. 83]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Ainger, Nick

  Chaytor, David

  Allen, Graham

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Church, Ms Judith

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clapham, Michael

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Austin, John

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Banks, Tony

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Beard, Nigel

  Clelland, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clwyd, Ann

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Coaker, Vernon

  Beggs, Roy

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Coleman, Iain

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Colman, Tony

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Connarty, Michael

  Benton, Joe

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corbett, Robin

  Berry, Roger

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Best, Harold

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Betts, Clive

  Cousins, Jim

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cranston, Ross

  Blizzard, Bob

  Crausby, David

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Borrow, David

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cummings, John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Browne, Desmond

  Darvill, Keith

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Burden, Richard

  Davidson, Ian

  Burgon, Colin

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Byers, Stephen

  Dawson, Hilton

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Denham, John

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Canavan, Dennis

  Dismore, Andrew

  Caplin, Ivor

  Dobbin, Jim

  Casale, Roger

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Caton, Martin

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Cawsey, Ian

  Doran, Frank

  218

  Drew, David

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Edwards, Huw

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Khabra, Piara S

  Fatchett, Derek

  Kidney, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Flint, Caroline

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Flynn, Paul

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Follett, Barbara

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Laxton, Bob

  Foulkes, George

  Lepper, David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Leslie, Christopher

  Galbraith, Sam

  Levitt, Tom

  Gapes, Mike

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gardner, Barry

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Linton, Martin

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Livingstone, Ken

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Godman, Norman A

  Lock, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  McAllion, John

  Goggins, Paul

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McDonnell, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  McIsaac, Shona

  Grogan, John

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Gunnell, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hanson, David

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mallaber, Judy

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Marek, Dr John

  Healey, John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Heppell, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Maxton, John

  Hill, Keith

  Merron, Gillian

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Michael, Alun

  Hoey, Kate

  Milburn, Alan

  Home Robertson, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hope, Phil

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Morley, Elliot

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Mountford, Kali

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mudie, George

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mullin, Chris

  Hurst, Alan

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hutton, John

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Norris, Dan

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Olner, Bill

  Jenkins, Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Ms Jennifer (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Plaskitt, James

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  219

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Purchase, Ken

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Stott, Roger

  Radice, Giles

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Rammell, Bill

  Stringer, Graham

  Rapson, Syd

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Raynsford, Nick

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Robertson, Rt Hon George

  (Dewsbury)

  (Hamilton S)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Rogers, Allan

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Timms, Stephen

  Rooney, Terry

  Todd, Mark

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Touhig, Don

  Rowlands, Ted

  Trickett, Jon

  Roy, Frank

  Truswell, Paul

  Ruane, Chris

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)

  Salter, Martin

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sawford, Phil

  Vaz, Keith

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Sheerman, Barry

  Watts, David

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  White, Brian

  Singh, Marsha

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wills, Michael

  Winnick, David

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Woolas, Phil

  Snape, Peter

  Wray, James

  Soley, Clive

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Speller, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mr. Jim Dowd and

  Stevenson, George

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Allan, Richard

  Collins, Tim

  Amess, David

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Cotter, Brian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cran, James

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Baldry, Tony

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Halternprice)

  Bercow, John

  Day, Stephen

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan, Alan

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Evans, Nigel

  Brady, Graham

  Faber, David

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  Breed, Colin

  Fallon, Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Flight, Howard

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Burnett, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Burns, Simon

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Butterfill, John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Fraser, Christopher

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Garnier, Edward

  Cash, William

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Chidgey, David

  Gibb, Nick

  Chope, Christopher

  Gill, Christopher

  Clappison, James

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  (Rushcliffe)

  Gorrie, Donald

  220

  Gray, James

  Pickles, Eric

  Green, Damian

  Prior, David

  Greenway, John

  Randall, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Rendel, David

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hammond, Philip

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Harvey, Nick

  Ruffley, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Russell, Bob Colchester)

  Hayes, John

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Shepherd, Richard

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

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

  Hunter, Andrew

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Spring, Richard

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Steen, Anthony

  Johnson Smith,

  Streeter, Gary

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Stunell, Desmond

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Syms, Robert

  Keetch, Paul

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Taylor, John M (Esher & Walton)

  Key, Robert

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Lansley, Andrew

  Townend, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Tredinnick, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Trend, Michael

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tyler, Paul

  Lidington, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Livsey, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Wallace, James

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Walter, Robert

  Loughton, Tim

  Wardle, Charles

  Luff, Peter

  Waterson, Nigel

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Webb, Steve

  MacKay, Andrew

  Wells, Bowen

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Madel, Sir David

  Whittingdale, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Maples, John

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Mates, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Willis, Phil

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Moore, Michael

  Woodward, Shaun

  Norman, Archie

  Yeo, Tim

  Öpik, Lembit

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Paice, James

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Paterson, Owen

  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House deplores the neglect of the countryside and rural areas over the past eighteen years by the previous administration; congratulates the Government on its commitment to the countryside; welcomes the Government's intention to create the conditions necessary to let the rural economy flourish, to protect and enhance the rural environment and to enable everyone to enjoy the countryside; and further welcomes the start already made, notably on the reform of the CAP, the review of the Organic Aid Scheme, introducing Arable Stewardship, and reviewing the legislation for the protection of hedges and SSSIs.

  Roads (East Sussex)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland]
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise an issue of massive importance to my constituency and to East Sussex. It is of no small importance to those of my colleagues who made the trek to Eastbourne recently for what the press deemed to be our bonding session. It is a great pleasure to see the Minister in her place, with her minder.
  The importance of the issue to East Sussex is borne out by the presence in the Chamber of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). I have also had a note from the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster). Almost all parties are united by the need for a variety of improvements to our local roads. I know, for example, that my right hon. and hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye feel strongly about improvements to the A259 and related schemes. I pay special tribute to our former colleague, Tim Rathbone, who was Member for Lewes until the general election and a doughty fighter for the road schemes about which I am going to talk.
  The first scheme involves the A27 between Lewes and Polegate. My preference would have been for complete dualling of that stretch, which is a massive traffic bottleneck. After much investigation, the previous Government produced a scaled-down project involving three schemes: the A27 Wilmington bypass, the Selmeston bypass, and the Southerham-Beddingham improvement. In his announcement of the scheme the then Minister responsible for roads noted:
  "The A27 is a vital artery for Sussex."
  How right he was. Had those improvements been pushed forward, they would have not only increased dramatically the road's effectiveness for business and tourism but made it a much safer carriageway for local people and visitors.
  In a letter about the A27 to a local paper, the then county engineer stated:
  "There are significant safety gains to be made from the provision of a modern dual carriageway",
  which was all that the scheme involved and which would have produced an accident rate of approximately one third of that of the present single carriageway. The scheme would also have addressed all substantive environmental objections to the original A27 plans. As far as I can tell, that scheme lies a long way ahead and may have to wait for the next Conservative Government to see the light of day.
  This evening I want to concentrate on the Polegate bypass, which in turn was part of the Weald and Downland design, build, finance and operate scheme. As the Minister will know from her briefing, the bypass is not a new idea but was envisaged before the war. Polegate is no longer in my constituency. In its wisdom, the boundary commission moved it into Lewes. The routes that go through Polegate are vital to my constituents. There are almost always major traffic problems in and near Polegate. The road is vital to our local road system, linking it to the M23, M25 and the port of Newhaven.
  222
  Those wider connections are the reason for the presence of my right hon. and hon. Friends and of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye. The issues go far wider than just Polegate.
  I have taken delegations to meet more than one Minister. Most recently, in early July I took a delegation of constituents to meet Baroness Hayman to go through the issues. We represented a wide range of bodies: all the local authorities without exception; business organisations, including Sussex Enterprise; and representatives of the tourist industry, which is, of course, very important in our part of the world. That was backed up by hundreds of letters from large employers and others.
  I pay tribute to Councillor Peter Wallis, chairman of the transport and environment committee in East Sussex county council and his excellent director Mr. Bob Wilkins, both of whom have been very supportive of my efforts and those of my colleagues.
  In a recent document which was available to Baroness Hayman, East Sussex county council made the following point:
  "Proposals to develop a Polegate bypass have been inextricably linked from the very beginning with the construction of the A22 new route from the A27 at Dittons to Seaside, Eastbourne as part of an overall strategy for the Eastbourne area."
  It says that in the public inquiries over the scheme the inspector made it clear that
  "the Orders for the A22 should be confirmed unless the Polegate Bypass was removed from the National Roads Programme."
  The new A22 route in my constituency, that would take traffic from the industrial areas and the Sovereign Harbour area of Eastbourne up to Dittons Corner by Polegate, is a major road project costing £28 million which is nearing completion. If it linked up with the Polegate bypass, if that were built, there would be considerable benefits for the area. According to the county council, there would be immediate benefits of some 1,500 jobs in the new business parks in the Eastbourne Park area as part of the Eastbourne borough plan. As the county council points out, these sites are currently landlocked and need to be opened up by the development of the new route.
  High-quality office developments will create about 1,000 jobs in Sovereign Harbour, the new marina development incorporating many berths for yachts, houses and in due course shops and a hotel. There is also the possibility of commercial development.
  It is no exaggeration for the county council to say:
  "The strategy for sustainable development in East Sussex would be fundamentally undermined if the proposed trunk road improvements in the county associated with the Weald and Downland Network DBFO package were now to be withdrawn … Such a decision would have a devastating impact on the county's prospects for economic recovery."
  We need a dual carriageway paralleling the south coast between the A23 and the A21.
  The improvements are supported by every local authority in the area and by Sussex Enterprise. The Polegate bypass scheme had gone through all its statutory stages and was ready to start construction at the time of the general election. The Polegate bypass must be a dual carriageway as it not only carries east-west traffic around Polegate, but north-south traffic into Eastbourne.
  Hon. Members can imagine my concern and that of the councils involved and many residents in the area when, as part of the Government's roads review earlier this year,

  223
  it was decided that the scheme would be put on hold at least until next spring and possibly would never see the light of day. As the county council said, that would have a devastating impact on the area.
  I have received hundreds of letters of support for the project and expressions of disappointment and distress at its suspension or possible cancellation. A company called T. Cox & Son Ltd. wrote:
  "The cancellation of a new A27 Lewes to Polegate trunk road was a major consideration in our decision to relocate … from Eastbourne to Tonbridge."
  One of our major local employers, Anglo Dutch Meats, employing more than 300 people, wrote:
  "We have continued to invest in the area because of the previous Government's commitment to improving the road system. However, if this commitment is now not to be honoured, we will be forced to consider relocation of our factories which will result in an increase in unemployment for Eastbourne and Hastings."
  Mr. Charles Wardle: May I assure my hon. Friend that his important message will be endorsed by every sensible thinker in the county? May I link with his remarks about Polegate the importance of the Hastings eastern and the Hastings western and Bexhill bypasses and, with them, the Marsh road link over the Pevensey levels? Those matter to local development as well as to through traffic to and from the channel tunnel.
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—this is a seamless robe of projects that hang together.
  Another letter I received came from the leading surveyors and valuers Stiles Harold Williams and referred to one of its clients. The letter states:
  "I think there is little doubt that until the Bypass is built our client's development, which has planning consent which would create 250-500 permanent jobs will not go ahead."
  Just to show that there is almost total unanimity on the subject of the Polegate bypass, I have a press release issued by Councillor Roy Martin, who is not only town mayor of Polegate and someone with whom I have worked from time to time, but a leading local Liberal Democrat. He writes:
  "I now consider it is time for the silent majority in Polegate who are concerned about the lack of a dual carriageway By-Pass around the town to relieve the intolerable noise, vibration and air pollution problems experienced by residents, to speak up."
  I entirely agree with that.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I should add that those in the industrial estates to the north of Eastbourne have told me in strong terms that they regard it as a bad decision to postpone these improvements, seemingly indefinitely.
  Mr. Waterson: My right hon. Friend and I have received correspondence on this subject from many of the same companies.
  I have three important questions for the Minister. First, how much compensation is being paid, or is to be paid, to the successful contractors—money that could be spent on the bypass itself? I have seen a variety of figures quoted. The Times, referring to the Paymaster General, spoke of
  "a compensation bill of more than £6 million".
  224
  A local newspaper quoted a figure of £143 million, but I believe that that covers all the projects that were put on hold at the same time. Both are amazing figures, nevertheless.
  Secondly, does the Minister accept that there are substantial benefits for the local communities from the project going ahead? On that subject, it is interesting to see the document attached to the very press statement announcing the Minister of Transport's decision on 28 July. On safety, that document states:
  "Improvements in standards of routes have been forecast to bring accident savings"
  and on environment, it states:
  "Lamberhurst Bypass, Polegate Bypass and the A259 Hastings schemes would remove through traffic from settlements"—
  settlements being that rather unsatisfactory word used to mean places where people live.
  Thirdly, when can we expect a decision? I know that the Government are all about rolling programmes of reviews and more reviews, but sooner or later—surely—there has to be a decision. Originally, we were told that the review would be completed by next spring, yet, only last week in the Sussex Express, fears were expressed that
  "a decision on the Polegate bypass could be further delayed"
  because of an announcement by the Minister of Transport, who said that
  "the Polegate scheme is one of eight 'case studies' to be reappraised in an attempt to find a better way of taking decisions on new roads."
  I can tell the Minister a better way, which is to take a decision of some sort.
  In conclusion, the Minister must be aware from all the representations, letters and other documents that she and her colleagues have received that there is anger and disappointment, which I share, among my constituents on this subject. It is no good fobbing us off with talk of yet another review. We need the Polegate bypass now. If we do not have it now, first we shall have contractors who will be paid not to build it; secondly, we shall have spent £28 million of taxpayers' money on the new A22, which ends in the middle of a field—the biggest and most expensive cul de sac in Europe and a monument to the Government's inability to make decisions; and, thirdly, my constituents will face ever more job losses in a shrinking local economy, not to mention a massive inconvenience to both local residents and visitors to the area. Furthermore, my constituents living along or near the existing A22 can expect no improvement whatever—indeed, a deterioration—in both road safety and the local environment.
  I urge the Minister to give us some hard indication tonight that that project and the whole of that DBFO scheme will be taken out of the review and initiated so that work can start as soon as possible.
  10.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): Before I respond to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), may I offer my apologies to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the whole House and particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) for my failure to be present in the House for last night's Adjournment debate. I can offer neither excuse nor reason, simply my most humble apologies.

  225
  I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne for raising these important issues, and for being so generous in affording time to his hon. Friends on issues that are clearly important not only to Eastbourne but to East Sussex. I also thank him for setting his concerns on infrastructure improvements in East Sussex strongly and clearly within the context of community needs, regeneration and safety.
  I understand the hon. Gentleman's desire for early decisions on the schemes that he mentioned, but he will know that the Government have embarked on a fundamental review of transport policy. This is not a "fobbing off' exercise. Our objectives are for a strong economy, a sustainable environment and an inclusive society. As he pointed out, transport is a vital part of all those aims.
  The backdrop to our fundamental review is a candid recognition that we need a shift in direction. Revised national road traffic forecasts published last month show traffic increasing by nearly 40 per cent. over the next 20 years. If current policies continue, congestion will get worse, the impact on the environment will be even more severe, and those who have no access to private transport will find it even more difficult to get around.
  We must develop an integrated transport system that makes the best use of the contribution that each mode can make; ensures that all options are considered on a basis that is fair and is seen to be fair; and takes into account, from the outset, considerations of accessibility, integration, safety, the environment and the economy. Above all—I have little doubt that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me here—an integrated transport system must be sustainable. One of the encouraging aspects of what is, indeed, an ambitious task is the degree of consensus on the need for change.
  It is a feature of the policy development work now under way that we are involving a wide range of external advice and expertise, including local authorities, business, trade unions, transport professionals and transport users. That is the context for the roads review, examining the role that trunk roads should play in an integrated and sustainable transport policy. Against the background of increased congestion, we have three broad options for roads: first, to make better use of existing infrastructure; secondly, to manage demand; and thirdly, to provide new infrastructure.
  To make best use of existing infrastructure is the obvious first choice. It has been provided at substantial cost in both financial and environmental terms, and we must make the best use of that investment. Technologies old and new can help in making better use of our roads network. A number of measures can also bring safety benefits, and we will need to ensure that these are given proper priority. We need, however, to be realistic about what the various options can deliver.
  We must also look seriously at other harder options: managing demand and providing new infrastructure. Managing demand is a vast topic. It encompasses reducing the need to travel, by land use planning for example, an assessment of the extent to which a shift to other modes can be encouraged, and inevitably the question of controlling demand by pricing or rationing mechanisms.
  226
  At a local level, many local authorities are seeking, by means of integrated transport packages, to combine these measures, so that mobility is maintained but adverse consequences of that mobility are reduced.
  The Highways Agency's programme of small safety schemes is continuing, but major new construction is under review. Providing new infrastructure is a very difficult option, financially and in terms of the impact that it may have on the environment. Our starting point is that we shall not proceed with major new road construction unless we are satisfied that there is no better alternative; even then, there will be difficult choices to be made within the limited resources available.
  There is no substitute for rigorous case-by-case examination of the options. Volume II of our consultation document "What Role for Trunk Roads?" sets out, region by region, the perceived traffic problems and the roads programme inherited from our predecessors.
  Mr. Wardle: As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) has already asked, how long is all this likely to take?
  Ms Jackson: We have given a clear commitment that the White Paper, which will be fundamental to our policy for integrated transport, will be published early next year.
  The existence of a scheme in the inherited programme is seen as prima facie evidence that there is a transport problem. We are seeking from our regional consultations a view on whether these are the most important problems or whether others deserve greater priority. We envisage two outputs from that part of the review: a firm, short-term investment programme and a programme of studies to consider the remaining problems out of which the medium and long-term investment programme will emerge.
  The Government office for the south-east has held three day-long seminars as part of our consultation process on integrated transport. A seminar in Ashford on 14 October considered transport corridors in the east of the region, including the south coast route and north-south routes between the M25 and the south coast.
  Points that the hon. Member for Eastbourne has made about the importance of the Polegate bypass, the improvements between Lewes and Polegate, and other trunk road schemes in terms of safety, regeneration, environmental relief and integration with local transport investment and land use planning objectives, were strongly made at that seminar, and we shall be taking those views into account along with the written and other representations that we have received.
  I recognise the importance of the A22 scheme from Dittons to Eastbourne town centre in terms of the relief it provides to the existing A22 and the access it affords to expanding commercial and industrial areas. However, we cannot allow a decision on the Polegate bypass to be driven by this alone. Should the bypass not go ahead, we would, of course, need to consider alternatives with the Highways Agency and local authorities.
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne and other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), have also supported other schemes, which, together with the Polegate bypass, made up the Weald and Downland DBFO—design, build, finance and operate—project, considered this summer as

  227
  part of the accelerated review. I take the opportunity to offer an assurance that the points that he and others made will be fully taken into account in the current review.
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne mentioned some local concern at the announcement that the Polegate bypass scheme is one of eight case studies being analysed as part of a project to develop a new appraisal framework. The aim is to define a method capable of looking at all potential solutions to transport problems, and identifying options that best meet the objectives of integration, accessibility, safety, economy and environmental impacts. The purpose is to develop a new appraisal methodology rather than to study a specific case per se. The Polegate bypass is one of the eight because it was felt to be a good example of its type, and had already been studied in some depth.
  Developing a forward-looking integrated transport policy that supports a strong economy, contributes to a sustainable environment and helps to create a just and inclusive society is, as I have said, a huge challenge.
  228
  Through the work now under way on trunk roads, we want to achieve a robust short-term programme and a system for planning future investment in the road network—whether measures to make better use of the existing network or to provide new infrastructure—which is fair and seen to be fair, which allows a proper opportunity for all concerned to make their contribution, and which looks at transport problems squarely in the context of an integrated strategy.
  Of the three questions that the hon. Member for Eastbourne posed, I trust that I have covered the last two. However, if he believes that I have failed to respond to some issues in detail, he should write to me, and I shall be happy to reply. As to compensation, all bids will be reviewed on their merits. The amounts to which he referred are mere speculation. We are examining such bids and, as I said, they will be reviewed on their merits.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o 'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Child Labour
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on progress at the Oslo Conference on preventing the exploitation of child labour in third world and developing countries. [13359]

  Clare Short
  The Conference was organised by the Norwegian Government with the joint support of the ILO and UNICEF. Building on an earlier conference in Amsterdam, as well as three subsequent regional conferences in Asia, Africa and Latin America, its purpose was to achieve agreement on an Agenda for Action, to be taken forward by governments—41 were represented, the majority from developing countries; representatives of multilateral organisations, trades unions, employers associations and NGOs were also represented at the conference.

  The Conference was a success. It produced a sensible and balanced agenda for action; it provided the opportunity for the different constituents to understand each other's viewpoints and agree more collaborative ways of working together. While some further work will be required to achieve agreement next year on the new ILO Convention on Intolerable Child Labour, the Oslo Conference will have strengthened in-country and international partnerships for tackling the problem on the ground.

  The Conference was largely devoted to working sessions on the themes of legislation, education and social mobilisation. Views on priorities and sequencing between these themes depended largely on each participant's constituency and country of origin. Cutting across each working group was a discussion of how to take measures to end child labour while protecting the livelihoods of working children and their families.

  In my statement to the Conference I said that the industrialised world should re-read its own history concerning our own past exploitation of children and then approach this subject with due humility. But our own history reminds us how destructive child labour can be. It stunts childhood and damages health, and the deprivation of education it entails sentences the child concerned to a lifetime of poverty. At the same time, child labour undermines the wages of adults and entrenches families in poverty. If the poor countries are to develop, they must ensure that the children are in school and their parents at work.

  I mentioned the great public concern in the UK about child labour. UK consumers are increasingly supporting ethical movements and are not prepared to buy goods produced by exploiting children. But we have learnt that boycotts or over-night exclusion of children from
  92
  industries can drive the children into worse exploitation. So we must devise strategies that benefit the children and their families. Football stitching is not the most intolerable type of work for children in Pakistan, but it is one which drew international attention. We have to start work where we can. I therefore announced our intention to fund Save the Children to implement a social protection programme in Sialkot so that when, at the end of next year, children stop working in the football stitching industry, they are not forced into more hazardous and exploitative work. We intend that the model developed in Sialkot will then be adapted and applied in another province, focusing on removing and protecting children from more intolerable forms of work which are less susceptible to pressure form international consumers.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will publish the action plan, due by 1 October 1997, for resolving the computer millennium problem in her Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which she is responsible; if such was fully completed on time; and if she will make a statement. [13627]

  Clare Short
  Because of the extent of public interest in the issue, DFID's costed action plans, along with that of other government departments, will be reported first to Parliament after analysis by the Central Information Technology Unit (Cabinet Office) and Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency to which DFID's plans were notified in October 1997. They will be available thereafter.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when her Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which she is responsible completed the millennium computer compliance audits of systems; and if she will make a statement. [13630]

  Clare Short
  An audit of DFID's systems was completed in June 1997 and identified a small number of departmental systems that were not millennium compliant in addition to those corporate systems that had already been identified.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which(a) Minister and (b) civil servant has overall responsibility for ensuring millennium computer compliance in her Department and its associated public bodies. [13631]

  Clare Short
  As Secretary of State I have overall responsibility. The responsible official within the Department is Mr. A. Davis, Head of the Information Systems Department.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on what funding provision has been made to accommodate the expenditure needed to resolve the computer millennium problem; and if she expects to have sufficient funding to pay for the work necessary to achieve complete millennium compliance by 1 January 2000. [13629]
  93
  Clare Short
  For 1997–98 we have made provision for £145,000 consisting of £100,000 for purchasing assistance and £45,000 of departmental staff's time working on year 2000 issues. For 1998–99 provision of £65,000 has been made to cover departmental staff time testing changes. The budgets are adequate unless there are unforseen difficulties.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her latest estimate of the total cost of resolving the computer millennium problem in(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which she is responsible; if she will state in each case (i) expenditure incurred to date, (ii) expenditure planned for 1997–98, (iii) expenditure planned for 1998–99 and (iv) expenditure planned for 1999–2000; and if she will make a statement. [13628]

  Clare Short
  The figures of expenditure to date are not available for the corporate systems already made millennium compliant. This is because they were being transferred to a new system for resource accounting and no separate costs for staff input were kept. An estimated £10,000 of staff time establishing inventory, planning and reporting on other systems has been incurred to date.

  Ethiopia
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the effect of the lack of rule of law in southern Ethiopia on the delivery of United Kingdom supported aid programmes to that country. [13750]

  Clare Short
  There has been no disruption to UK supported aid programmes in southern Ethiopia arising from legal or security problems in that region.

  Banana Imports
  Ms Jennifer Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the World Trade Organisation's ruling on Caribbean banana imports to the EU and its impact on overseas aid to the Caribbean. [14048]

  Clare Short
  The EU bananas regime represents a serious attempt to meet our obligations to our trading partners and developing countries. We are obviously disappointed that parts of it have been found incompatible with the WTO, but accept that the Community must now set about revising the EU arrangements to bring them into conformity with the WTO's rules.

  The Government is considering the WTO findings on the EU banana regime in liaison with the Commission in Brussels, which have the principal responsibility for proposing a new WTO compatible regime. We intend to play a major role as leading advocates of the legitimate interests of those developing countries in the Caribbean which have traditionally supplied the UK market. They can rest assured that we have their interest high on our agenda.

  The Windward Islands, already have large allocations of aid from the European Union under the Stabex facility. These are being deployed to strengthen the competitiveness of the banana industry, assist economic diversification and develop social safety nets. The case
  94
  for additional finance from the European Union will be examined as the implications of the WTO findings become clearer.

  Papua New Guinea
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to his Department's letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow on the peoples of the New Guinea highlands, what measures he is taking to help the victims of drought in Papua New Guinea. [14414]

  Clare Short
  As stated in the letter of 20 October to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, we have already provided £50,000 for the purchase of food, medicines and water containers. We are now considering the 28 October appeal from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and are expecting proposals from CAFOD and World Vision.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Market Testing
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the 12 guiding principles for using market testing and contracting out. [14544]

  Dr. David Clark
  Following consultation with the Council of Civil Service Unions and the CBI, I have published "12 Guiding Principles in Using Market Testing and Contracting Out" for central Government Departments, including their agencies. I am grateful for the assistance of the Council of Civil Service Unions and the CBI. Wherever possible I have incorporated their suggestions.

  The "12 Guiding Principles" have been very well received. They will also apply to private finance initiative projects that involve staff transfers.

  The Government's "12 Guiding Principles" are as follows.
  1. Our aim is to develop modernised, high quality, efficient, responsive, customer-focused central Government services. Our approach to this is pragmatic not dogmatic.
  2. We will work in partnership with the private sector, extending the circle of those involved in public service.
  3. We will use market testing and contracting out when in individual cases these can be shown to offer better value for money, that is: better quality services at optimal cost. Our approach to this is pragmatic not dogmatic.
  4. Existing plans for market tests and contracting out, therefore, should proceed, unless the Minister is satisfied that in the circumstances of an individual case, better value for money can be achieved by other means, which will enable a Department to live within its running costs ceilings. This judgment should be based on a robust and objective comparison of the particular market test or contracting out exercise and the alternative means available.
  5. Ministers remain accountable for services contracted out to the private sector. (That is the Carltona principle is replicated).
  6. The energy, skill and commitment of staff are our best assets in modernising public services. They should be properly trained to carry out market testing, contracting out, benchmarking, restructuring and other means for achieving better value for money that is: better quality services at optimal cost.

  95
  7. The concerns of those affected by change should be fully taken into account and properly addressed.
  8. Where the relevant circumstances apply when work transfers, staff will be protected by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) and the consultation and information requirements of those regulations should be followed scrupulously. To avoid a successful claim for constructive unfair dismissal when staff transfer from Crown employment in circumstances to which TUPE applies, Departments should ensure that the new employers offer broadly comparable occupational pension provision or suitable compensation.
  9. Full, effective and continuous communication is a key to successful improvement and change. It should begin as soon as a review which might lead to change is mooted and it should continue afterwards to share what has been achieved. It should happen even when there may be little to report. That way, staff, and their recognised trade union representatives, can be engaged throughout and rumours can be avoided.
  10. There should also be full and open information and communication with Departments' customers and stakeholders.
  11. Relations with the private sector need to rest on two-way openness and trust. Until the Government's new arrangements on freedom of information are in place, Departments should apply a liberal interpretation to the existing "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information" and its "Guidance on Interpretation." Unsuccessful bidders need to know why they were unsuccessful and how they could succeed next time. For the public, it is important to know how much central Government services cost, no matter who provides them. Commercial confidentiality must not be used as a cloak to deny the public's right to know.
  12. Senior management in Departments must give leadership in all these areas and should encourage innovation and continuous improvement.

  The guidance on market testing and contracting out, by central Government departments, is being up-dated to reflect these 12 guiding principles. The Council of Civil Service Unions and the CBI are being involved in this work.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) what is his estimate of the total cost of the United Kingdom public sector of resolving the computer millennium problem; and if he will make a statement; [13229]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the progress being made by departments towards computer millennium compliance; if he expects all departments and public bodies to have achieved complete computer millennium compliance prior to 1 January 2000; and if he will make a statement. [13231]

  Dr. David Clark
  I have asked Government Departments to provide me with detailed and costed plans for dealing with the year 2000 date change problem as soon as possible after 1 October 1997.

  I am awaiting an analysis and report on these plans from the Central Information Technology Unit and the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency so that I can form an overall picture of progress, costs and future plans. Once I have done so I will inform Parliament.
  96
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those Departments and agencies which did not respond to the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency questionnaire regarding progress towards millennium computer compliance, sent out in December 1996 to January 1997. [13230]

  Dr. David Clark
  In December 1996 and January 1997, the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency issued a year 2000 questionnaire to a sample of 133 central government departments, executive agencies and other public sector organisations. The majority of large departments and agencies responded to this questionnaire. Departments and agencies which did not respond are listed in the table. Most of these have responded to a follow-up survey carried out in the summer. All departments and agencies are required to complete a full and detailed costed action plan as soon as possible after 1 October 1997.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department;

  General Register Office for Scotland;

  Intervention Board;

  Legal Aid Board;

  Lord Chancellor's Department;

  Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department;

  Serious Fraud Office;

  The Royal Parks;

  UK Passport Agency.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the action plan, due by 1 October 1997, for resolving the computer millennium problem in his Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible; if such was fully completed on time; and if he will make a statement. [13632]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The action plans for resolving the computer millennium problem in the Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service, its agencies and associated public bodies are complete. These plans will be published by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when he has completed his analysis of the situation across Government as a whole.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his latest estimate of the total cost of resolving the computer millennium problem in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which he is responsible; if he will state in each case (i) expenditure incurred to date, (ii) expenditure planned for 1997–98, (iii) expenditure planned for 1998–99 and (iv) expenditure planned for 1999–00; and if he will make a statement. [13633]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Estimates of the total cost of addressing the computer millennium problem within the Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service, its Agencies and associated public bodies are:

  To date

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  (a) Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service

  minimal

  £27,600

  minimal

  minimal

  (b) Office of Public Service Agencies

  £61,128

  £50,520

  £136,457

  £99,350

  (c) Other public bodies

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  97
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when his Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible completed the millennium computer compliance audits of systems; and if he will make a statement. [13635]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  In the Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service, its Agencies and associated public bodies for which I am responsible, millennium computer compliance systems audits were completed between 1994 and September 1997.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on what funding provision has been made to accommodate the expenditure needed to resolve the computer millennium problem; and if he expects to have sufficient funding to pay for the work necessary to achieve complete millennium compliance by 1 January 2000. [13634]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The expenditure required to address the computer millennium problem will be met from within existing planned expenditure totals.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which(a) Minister and (b) civil servant has overall responsibility for ensuring millennium computer compliance in his Department and its associated public bodies. [13636]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Within the Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service, its agencies and associated public bodies, ministerial responsibility for ensuring millennium computer compliance rests with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Cabinet Office civil servant with responsibility for this work is the head of infrastructure. Responsibilities within the agencies are as follows:

  Responsibility

  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency

  Year 2000 Programme Manager

  The Buying Agency

  Director of Finance and IT

  Property Advisers to the Civil Estate

  Director of Corporate Services

  Security Facilities Executive

  Director of Finance and IT

  Civil Service College

  Head of IS Services

  Government Car and Despatch Agency

  Director of Finance

  Central Office of Information

  Principal Establishment and Finance Officer

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Protection from Harassment Act 1997
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he intends to implement sections 3(2) to 3(9) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. [13005]

  Mr. Hoon
  Subsections 3(3) to 3(9) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 introduce, among other things, a system whereby the breach of an injunction granted by a civil court may be dealt with as a criminal offence. Rules and forms have been drafted for use by the High Court, county courts, the crown court and magistrates 98
  courts to ensure that the process works effectively. Consultation on these is under way, and as soon as it is complete the outstanding subsections will be commenced.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average time taken by his Department to give full answers to letters received from hon. Members. [13958]

  Mr. Hoon
  For letters received since 1 May 1997 the average time is approximately 23 days, including weekends and bank holidays.

  Access to Neighbouring Land Act
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to extend the provisions of the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992 to Northern Ireland. [11995]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are no such proposals. The differences between the land laws of Northern Ireland and of England and Wales make such an extension impossible.

TREASURY

  Euro Symbol
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research his Department has undertaken into the ease with which the euro currency symbol will be distinguishable from that for sterling. [12534]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: The Royal Mint and Bank of England have been closely involved in preparatory work with other member states and national central banks on the design and specifications of euro coins and banknotes. On the basis of the provisional specifications for euro coins and the specifications for banknotes agreed in the European Monetary Institute they will be easily distinguishable from sterling coins and banknotes.

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the suppliers to his Department who are owed outstanding amounts, indicating the amounts and the due date on which the account should have been settled. [13551]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: At 29 October, there were 24 invoices outstanding with a value of £9,002. This represents 2·4 per cent. of invoices paid in a typical month. The value represents less than 1 per cent. of the typical average value of invoices paid per month.

  The following table lists the 24 payments that are due to suppliers on 29 October, that will be paid more than 30 days after the receipt of the invoice and which are not in dispute.

  99

  Supplier

  Number of invoices

  Amounts due (£)

  Due date

  Ariane Languages

  2

  506

  11 October 1997

  Avis Rent a Car Ltd.

  1

  345

  19 October 1997

  Business Systems Group

  1

  100

  17 October 1997

  Corporate Express

  3

  802

  2 October 1997

  Corporate Express

  2

  3,072

  26 October 1997

  GBM Services

  1

  243

  9 October 1997

  Mitie Maintenance

  1

  1,079

  2 October 1997

  OHSA Ltd.

  1

  80

  17 October 1997

  Spkoectrum Computer Supp.

  1

  144

  24 October 1997

  Spectrum Computer Supp.

  2

  9

  29 October 1997

  Sykes and Son Ltd.

  1

  760

  12 September 1997

  Terminix Peter Cox Ltd.

  2

  197

  13 September 1997

  The Green Alliance

  1

  55

  24 October 1997

  The Royal York Hotel

  1

  70

  26 October 1997

  The Stationery Office

  1

  644

  21 September 1997

  Tigemeyer

  1

  244

  24October 1997

  Vodaphone Corporate Ltd.

  1

  37

  12 October 1997

  University of Durham

  1

  615

  15 October 1997

  Total

  24

  9,002

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount allocated in each budget of the European Community for information relating to implementation of EMU; on what occasions such expenditure was authorised by the Economic and Finance Council; and what(a) observations and (b) votes were made by Ministers on each occasion. [12965]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: Funding for information relating to the implementation of EMU has been made available since 1996 under the European Commission's information programme for European citizens (Prince). The relevant budget line is B3306.

  The EC Budget does not break down the overall level of Prince by individual programme. I would suggest that the hon. Member approaches the European Commission directly for this information.

  The Budget Council have so far considered the budget allocation for Prince on four occasions—during their second reading of the 1996 budget on 17 November 1995, their first and second readings of the 1997 budget on 25 July 1996 and 19 November 1996, and their first reading of the 1998 budget on 24 July 1997.

  On each occasion the Budget Council, supported by the UK, have reduced the budget allocation for Prince. However, since this spending is not obligatory under the treaty it has been the European Parliament that has in each case set the final level in the budget.
  100
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent Government investment in(a) additional building for maintained schools, (b) the national health service, (c) London Underground and (d) new roads counts within the totals of Government revenue, expenditure and borrowing used for the European monetary union convergence criteria.[12944]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: All current and capital expenditure by central and local government contributes to the general government financial deficit (GGFD), the Maastricht measure of the budget deficit. This includes all government grants to maintained schools and London Underground, and all Government spending on the national health service and new roads.

  Government lending and government transactions in shares are not included in the GGFD. For example, government lending to London Underground, NHS trust hospitals and students does not increase GGFD. However, the government has to finance such lending through higher taxes or increased borrowing. Increased borrowing would add to general government gross debt—the Maastricht measure of Government debt.

  Similarly, receipts from repayments of government lending, and from privatisation proceeds, do not reduce the GGFD but would reduce gross debt.

  Taxation (EU)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to preserve the protection of the British veto on tax matters in the European Union. [12843]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government has made it clear that EU tax matters will continue to be subject to unanimous agreement.

  Savings
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what tax regime and investment allowances he proposes to apply to individual savings accounts; and if he will make a statement; [13031]

  (2) if he plans to allow existing personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts account holders to retain their current tax incentives and annual investment allowances, under these schemes, following the introduction of the individual savings account in 1999; [13033]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the annual cost or benefit to the Exchequer of introducing the individual savings account; [13039]

  (4) if the introduction of the individual savings account will alter the contractual obligations between savers and saving institutions; and if he will make a statement. [13032]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  Consideration is currently being given, with interested parties, to the scope of tax-privileged savings from 1999. The matters referred to will be covered in a consultative document to be published later this year.

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations his Department has received on insurance premium tax for the travel industry. [13123]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have received a number of representations on this subject.

  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's review of insurance premium tax; and what is the timetable for the review. [13122]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have asked officials in Customs and Excise to monitor the effect of the introduction of the higher rate of insurance premium tax and this will include the impact of the differential tax treatment on travel agents. It is too early yet to draw any firm conclusions from this process and I anticipate that the monitoring will continue for some time. The issue of the application of the higher rate to travel insurance sold by travel agents will also be the subject of a judicial review hearing on 4 November. The conclusions of that hearing will clearly need to be taken into account when considering whether changes are necessary to this measure.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his Department's review of the impact of different rates of insurance premium tax as between travel agents and brokers. [14006]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have asked officials in Customs and Excise to monitor the effect of the introduction of the higher rate of insurance premium tax and this will include the impact of the differential tax treatment on travel agents. It is too early yet to draw any firm conclusions from this process.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with banks on the need for their computer systems to be millennium compliant. [13157]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This subject has been raised in Treasury discussions with the British Bankers Association, which has issued guidance and a timetable to the industry. The Bank of England has been talking to banks about their implementation of the timetable.

  Trade Statistics
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) proportion and (b) value of Britain's trade was conducted in (i) German marks, (ii) United States dollars and (iii) other European currencies in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [13764]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The following two tables show the most recent official data on currency of invoice other than sterling, relating to 1984–1988. The data requested are only available for US dollars. Data for individual European currencies other than sterling are not available, although a special exercise to determine Deutschmark usage suggested that, in 1987 and 1988, this was 4 per cent. for exports and 14 per cent. for imports.102

  Percentage of UK trade denominated in dollars and currency of partner country

  Year

  Denominated in dollars

  Denominated in currencies of partner countries

  Exports2

  Imports3

  Exports

  Imports

  1984

  15

  25

  22

  41

  1985

  18

  24

  23

  43

  1986

  20

  17

  26

  46

  1987

  19

  13

  24

  46

  1988

  15

  16

  24

  41

  1Including US for US/UK trade.

  2Export data based on November transactions except for 1987 which is based on May data.

  3Import data based on September transactions, except for 1987 which is based on March data.

  Value of UK trade denominated in dollars and currency of partner country

  £ million

  Year

  Denominated in dollars

  Denominated in currencies of partner countries1

  Exports

  Imports

  Exports

  Imports

  1984

  13,745

  24,440

  20,159

  40,083

  1985

  18,367

  23,757

  23,469

  42,565

  1986

  19,577

  17,207

  25,450

  46,562

  1987

  20,215

  14,526

  25,535

  51,399

  1988

  16,091

  19,967

  25,745

  51,166

  Source:

  "British Business" 17 January 1986 and 24 April 1987 (DTI) and "Business

  Bulletin"

  15 December 1989 (CSO).

  Note:

  1Including US for US/UK trade.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) proportion and (b) value of Britain's trade was denominated in sterling in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [13763]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The following table shows the most recent official data on currency of invoice, relating to 1984–1988.

  Proportion and value of UK trade denominated in sterling (1984–1988)

  Proportion of trade (Per cent.)

  Value of trade (£million)

  Year

  Exports1

  Imports2

  Exports

  Imports

  1984

  63

  34

  57,728

  33,239

  1985

  59

  32

  60,204

  31,676

  1986

  54

  37

  52,858

  37,452

  1987

  57

  40

  60,646

  44,695

  1988

  62

  43

  66,509

  53,662

  Source:

  "British Business" 17 January 1996 and 17 April 1987 (DTI) and "Business Bulletin" 15 December 1989 (CSO).

  Notes:

  1Export data based on November transactions, except for 1987 which is based on May data.

  2Import data based on September transactions, except for 1987 which is based on March data.

  Elderly People (Winter Mortality)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the excess winter mortality deaths for elderly people in the winter of 1996–97. [14208]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 3 November 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. Chris Ruane, dated 4 November 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to your recent question on the number of excess winter deaths among the elderly in the winter of 1996–97.
  Based on the latest available data, there were an estimated 37,800 excess winter deaths among people aged 75 years and over, and 44,800 excess deaths among people aged 65 years and over, in England and Wales during the winter of 1996–97.
  Excess winter deaths are defined as the number of deaths in the four months from December to March less the average of the numbers during the preceding autumn (August to November) and the following summer (April to July).

  EC Spending
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government intends to pursue the four challenges made by the United Kingdom in the European Court of Justice to spending without a legal base by the European Commission. [14576]

  Mrs Liddell
  The Government has decided to continue with the four cases currently before the European Court of Justice. These cover expenditure on social exclusion projects, for both the 1995 and 1996 budget years; and, for the 1996 budget year, measures in favour of older people and the "pilot action" for a European Voluntary Service.

  I should like to make it clear that in choosing to retain these challenges the Government is seeking to uphold an important matter of budgetary principle. We believe that it is essential for the proper and effective control of public expenditure that the European Commission should be bound by the same rules of propriety that apply elsewhere in the EU.

  At the same time, I am anxious to stress that this decision in no way reflects our views on the policy content of the challenged measures nor calls into question the Government's commitment to Community action in the social field where this is agreed by the Council. Our support for the new treaty provisions agreed at Amsterdam, which allow the Council to adopt small spending programmes on employment and social exclusion by QMV, is evidence of this.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the latest list of signed PFI projects. [14578]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  Yes, I have done so today.

  International Meetings
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the international meetings he attended in September. [14577]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I attended the Commonwealth Finance Ministers Meeting in Mauritius on the 15–17 September. I then attended the first meeting of Asian and European Finance Ministers on 19 September in Bangkok. This was followed by a series of meetings in Hong Kong. The G7 was held on 20 September with the G10 Finance Ministers and central bank governors meeting on 21 September. The IMF's interim committee meeting was also held on 21 September, and was followed by the IMF/World Bank annual meeting on 23 September. I also attended the IMF/World Bank Development Committee with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development on 22 September.

  My over-arching priorities for these meetings were the reduction of developing country debt and the promotion of the benefits of openness and transparency in economic policy.

  I announced the UK's "Debt 2000" initiative at the Commonwealth Finance Ministers meeting. This initiative, which has now been dubbed the "Mauritius mandate", is designed to resolve the debt problems of poor countries once and for all and set them on a path to sustainable growth. It proposes that every poor country eligible for debt relief should have at least embarked on the process of securing the full relief they need by the year 2000. This will contribute to the international target of halving the proportion of the world's population living in absolute poverty by 2015.

  I stressed that the success of this mandate depends not only on the commitment of the creditor countries but also on solid action by the debtors. Debtor countries must adopt and maintain sound economic policies which are necessary for sustainable economic development. Each country is unique and no one policy will be right for every country. But accountable economic decision-making and a focus on productive expenditure, including basic health and education, will be vital aspects of their economic programmes. My right hon. Friend, the Minister for International Development announced that the UK is willing to cancel the remaining aid debt due to the UK from poorer Commonwealth countries. These countries could be relieved of the need to repay as much as £132 million.

  I encourage other creditors to provide the maximum possible relief to ensure a robust exit from unsustainable debt to those countries who focus on transparency and productive expenditure. I expressed my desire for these countries to receive the necessary debt relief in less than the maximum six years that is presently envisaged under the rules of the initiative. The Mauritius mandate was well received and was supported by other Commonwealth Ministers.

  I also launched a new initiative on openness in economic decision making at the interim committee. My central proposal was that the IMF should develop a code of good practice for promoting openness in fiscal and monetary policy. I believe that this should focus on basic principles that apply to all IMF members. As such, I

  105
  proposed that the IMF should, as a matter of course, comment on such practices in their IV consultations with all member countries. I also suggested that this code could be used operationally in the design of IMF programmes for financial assistance. These proposals attracted considerable interest and the fund is now developing such a code on the fiscal side.

  I stressed that long-term stability in monetary and fiscal policy is necessary to achieve sustainable growth. But, the role of government must also be to equip individuals and companies to succeed in the ever more competitive global market-place. Part of this entails ensuring that policies which provide economic stability are combined with institutions and procedures which create the confidence that stability will be maintained. It was agreed that greater openness and transparency would enhance policy credibility and limit the potential for corruption.

  In keeping with this, I announced that the UK would publish a full set of annual accounts and a quarterly report on the region exchange reserves detailing the UK's outstanding forward position.

  Another key feature of the discussions at these meetings was capital flows. It was agreed that private capital flows can bring substantial benefits and as such, the report of the Commonwealth working group on private capital flows was endorsed by the Ministers. The importance of sound macroeconomic policies and financial systems, strong regulatory and supervisory frameworks and political stability were recognised as essential for encouraging inward investment.

  There was general agreement that the international financial institutions also have a key role to play in putting in place multilateral arrangements and mechanisms for promoting and coping with private capital flows. More specifically for the Commonwealth, Ministers agreed on the key elements of a code of good practice for national policies that attract and sustain private capital flows. The secretariat was asked to develop these elements into a full code as soon as possible.

  The interim committee adopted the statement on "The Liberalisation of Capital Movements Under an Amendment of the Fund's Articles" and considered that an amendment of the fund's articles will provide the most effective means of promoting an orderly liberalisation of capital movements consistent with the fund's role in the international monetary system. The proposed amendment to the articles will also ensure that liberalisation can be phased in at a country's chosen pace and that controls can be reintroduced on a temporary basis.

  The first ever meeting of Asian and European Finance Ministers represented an important addition to the Asia-Europe Meetings (or ASEM) process which began only last year, and reflected the growing co-operation between two regions whose economic and financial interests are rapidly converging.

  The meeting began with an exchange of views on the macroeconomic outlook and developments in foreign exchange markets. I offered my full support to the programmes of adjustment which Thailand and the Philippines have agreed with the IMF, and stressed how crucial it would be to adhere to these programmes. Asian
  106
  partners were keen to learn more about the implications of EMU, and we agreed that every opportunity would be taken to keep them fully informed on latest developments.

  In the second session on financial sector issues, I stressed the need for close co-operation, and the importance for both Asia and Europe of sharing and learning from each other—especially through a greater openness, in the trade in financial services and a welcoming attitude to foreign capital. We agreed a number of useful initiatives, including closer co-operation on financial supervision and the fight against money laundering.

  The Government places great importance on the ASEM process, and the Prime Minister very much looks forward to welcoming Asian and European Heads to London next April as host of the second ASEM summit. The G7 meeting considered recent developments in south-east Asia in the context of surveillance. We were informed of international efforts to assist Thailand and expected the Thai authorities not only to implement the Fund program but also to continue to co-operate with the other international financial institutions. We agreed on the importance of minimising contagion and will continue to monitor closely developments in south-east Asia. In accordance with this, the importance of increased transparency within and supervision of financial systems was stressed. We also discussed recent developments in exchange and financial markets and agreed to monitor developments in these markets and cooperate as necessary.

  My colleagues were interested in the plans that we have for our presidency of the G7 and G8 next year. I informed them that employability will be one of the main themes of the UK presidency.

  The G10 meeting welcomed the broad endorsement given to the concerted strategy to promote financial stability in emerging market economies that has been developed in collaboration with representatives of these economies. The finalisation of the Basle core principles of effective banking supervision was welcomed and the importance of their endorsement and implementation by national authorities was stressed.

  I was nominated as Chairman of the Group of Ten for the coming year. At the interim committee, I welcomed the agreements in the executive board on the eleventh review of quotas which provides a 45 per cent. increase for the fund—$;90 billion—and the special equity allocation of 21·4 billion SDRs which was formally approved at the meetings.

  Both the Secretary of State for International Development and I attended the Development Committee meeting where we stressed that corruption and weak governance undermine macroeconomic stability, private sector activity and sustainable development objectives, and may erode international support for development objectives, and may erode international support for development cooperation. We supported calls for criminalisation of bribery and the abolition of tax deductibility of bribes, and for the fund to examine the effects of corruption in governance on countries macroeconomic performance.

  A package to alleviate the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency's resource constraints was agreed.
  107
  At the joint IMF/World Bank annual meeting I outlined the changes we have made to both monetary and fiscal policies in the UK. I outlined the benefits of giving operational independence to the Bank of England and the benefits clear rules, a new discipline, openness and accountability will bring to fiscal policy. I explained that our task is to secure high and sustainable levels of growth and employment in the UK as well as in the rest of the world.

  I stressed the importance of our dependence upon each other and the importance of international cooperation to maintain an open economy. Although we are committed to a constructive partnership with Europe, we must remain open and outward looking to the rest of the world. And above all, regional concerns must never replace international commitments.

  Copies of my speeches and the communiqués of these meetings have been put in the Library of the House. There was no G7 communiqué.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Welfare-to-work Programme
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what work opportunities the tourism industry can offer under the welfare-to-work programme. [13397]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  Tourism is well placed to play a key role in the new deal/welfare-to-work initiative. It already supports some 1·7 million jobs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has invited around 200 people involved in tourism, hospitality and leisure to a conference later this month to hear more about the proposals and the opportunities they present for the industry to meet its own staffing needs while offering young people real jobs leading to long-term, worthwhile careers.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which(a) Minister and (b) civil servant has overall responsibility for ensuring millennium computer compliance in his Department and its associated public bodies. [13611]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  As with all matters relating to the running of the Department, ultimate responsibility for ensuring millennium computer compliance for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport rests with the permanent secretary who is supported in this matter by the head of information systems. Responsibility for the Department's sponsored bodies rests with the individual accounting officers.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) when his Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible completed the millennium computer compliance audits of systems; and if he will make a statement; [13610]

  (2) what is his latest estimate of the total cost of resolving the computer millennium problem in (a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which he is responsible; if he will state in each case
  108
  (i) expenditure incurred to date, (ii) expenditure planned for 1997–98, (iii) expenditure planned for 1998–99 and (iv) expenditure planned for 1999–00; and if he will make a statement. [13608]

  (3) if he will publish the action plan, due by 1 October 1997, for resolving the computer millennium problem in his Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible; if such was fully completed on time; and if he will make a statement. [13607]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has submitted its costed action plan to CCTA. This plan along with those of other Departments will be analysed by CITU and CCTA. The conclusions will be reported to my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who then will inform Parliament.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on what funding provision has been made to accommodate the expenditure needed to resolve the computer millennium problem; and if he expects to have sufficient funding to pay for the work necessary to achieve complete millennium compliance by 1 January 2000. [13609]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The cost of preventive and remedial action on Year 2000 will be met from existing PES provision.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the average time taken by his Department to give full answers to letters received from hon. Members. [13953]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since 1 May 1997, my Department has received 1,647 letters from hon. Members. The average time taken to give full answers is 15 working days.

DEFENCE

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his latest estimate of the total cost of resolving the computer millennium problem in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which he is responsible; if he will give in each case (i) expenditure incurred to date, (ii) expenditure planned for 1997–98, (iii) expenditure planned for 1998–99 and (iv) expenditure planned for 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [13598]

  (2) which (a) Minister and (b) civil servant has overall responsibility for ensuring millennium computer compliance in his Department and its associated public bodies.[13601]

  (3) if he will make a statement on what funding provision has been made to accommodate the expenditure needed to resolve the computer millennium problem; and if he expects to have sufficient funding to pay for the work necessary to achieve complete millennium compliance by 1 January 2000. [13599]
  109
  (4) if he will publish the action plan, due by 1 October 1997, for resolving the computer millennium problem in his Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible; if such was fully complete on time; and if he will make a statement. [13597]

  (5) when his Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible completed the millennium computer compliance audits of systems; and if he will make a statement. [13600]

  Mr. Spellar
  In accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines, an audit of all computer-based systems across MOD, including the Defence Agencies, has been under way since mid-1996. The audit is being used to identify and assess the Year 2000 compliancy of systems that process date-related information and to measure progress in modification or replacement of affected systems. The audit covers equipment ranging from office systems to front-line military hardware. The audit is one component of the MOD action plan for managing the Year 2000 problem. As is the case with other Departments, a costed action plan has been provided to the Cabinet Office, who are preparing a report for my right hon. Fiend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who will then inform Parliament of the conclusions. The plans are exempt from disclosure under Category 2 of the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information which permits non-disclosure prior to an announcement. However, once the announcement has been made the plans will be available to the public.

  No new money is available for resolution of the Year 2000 problem, the costs of which will be met from within existing financial resources.

  The Minister with responsibility for Year 2000 action is the Minister for Defence Procurement, Lord Gilbert. Within MOD all budget holders have been made responsible for ensuring that affected systems within their departments are modified or replaced. Overall responsibility for managing the MOD response to the Year 2000 problem lies with the Director General of Information and Communication Services, Major General W. J. P. Robins.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he(a) has had and (b) plans to have with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Western European Union counterparts on the problems facing computer systems through the century date change; and if he will make a statement. [13504]

  Mr. Spellar
  The MOD initiated a departmental programme 18 months ago to address Year 2000 date change problems within its computer systems. During this time, the Year 2000 question has been raised with our counterparts in NATO and Allied Nations. They are fully aware of the serious nature of the problem and the actions being taken within UK MOD to ensure that Defence operations are not at risk from failure of systems to process date-related information correctly. We are discussing with our Allies the need for a collaborative approach to ensuring the continued effectiveness of the interconnection between systems on which allied operations depend. Senior-level discussions have taken place with the US Department of Defense on solutions to 110
  the Year 2000 problem, which has also been raised within the NATO Command, Control and Communication Board, the most senior committee in NATO dealing with Command and Control Systems, and is being raised within the WEU information systems forum. This will be kept as a high-priority topic within NATO and the WEU, and established as a regular agenda item on the appropriate committees so that progress can be monitored.

  Equipment Exhibition (Indonesian Delegation)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Indonesian delegates attended the Government's Royal Navy and British Army equipment exhibition in September. [13970]

  Mr. Spellar
  The official Indonesian delegation referred to in the answer that I gave to the hon. Member on 23 June 1997,Official Report, column 344, did not attend the Royal Navy and British Army Equipment Exhibition. The Indonesian Defence Attaché in London did, however, attend the exhibition.

  Appointments
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by appointment the officers who constitute the selection board for three and four star appointments in the(a) Army, (b) Royal Navy and (c) Royal Air Force. [14233]

  Dr. Reid
  The officers who constitute the Services selection boards for promotion to 3 and 4 star appointments are:

  Army

  Chief of the General Staff,

  Commander in Chief Land Command,

  Adjutant General,

  Quartermaster General,

  Master General Ordnance.

  Royal Navy

  Chief of the Naval Staff,

  Second Sea Lord and Commander in Chief Naval Home Command,

  Commander in Chief Fleet,

  Chief of Fleet Support.

  Royal Air Force

  For 3 star appointments the Board comprises:

  Chief of the Air Staff,

  Air Officer Commanding-In-Chief Strike Command,

  Air Member for Personnel/Air Officer Commanding-In-Chief,

  Personnel and Training Command,

  Air Officer Commanding-In-Chief Logistics Command.

  For 4 star appointments, the Chief of the Air Staff makes recommendations to the Secretary of State.

  Trident
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current estimate of the(a) running costs, (b) service life expectancy and (c) de-commissioning costs of Trident [13988]

  Mr. Spellar
  Our latest estimate of the running costs of Trident remains as stated by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces in his answer of 23 June,
  111
  Official Report, column 356. As was stated, that estimate included an element for de-commissioning and disposal costs; this represented some 3 per cent. of the total. Trident is currently programmed to have an overall service life expectancy of some 30 years.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost per unit of the Eurofighter. [13103]

  Mr. Spellar
  The current estimated unit cost of Eurofighter for the UK is £40·2 million at today's prices.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Eurofighter will enter squadron service with the Royal Air Force. [13102]

  Mr. Spellar
  The first Eurofighter is scheduled to be delivered to the Royal Air Force in December 2001.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Eurofighter will enter service. [13864]

  Mr. Spellar
  The first Eurofighter is scheduled to be delivered to the Royal Air Force in December 2001.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Eurofighter aircraft have been ordered by(a) the UK, (b) Germany, (c) Italy and (d) Spain; and what is each country's workshare. [13862]

  Mr. Spellar
  The declared aircraft offtake requirements of the nations is: United Kingdom 232, Germany 180, Italy 121 and Spain 87 and these give workshare entitlements of, United Kingdom 37·42 per cent., Germany 29·03 per cent., Italy 19·52 per cent. and Spain 14·03 per cent.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the advantages of Eurofighter over(a) Refale, (b) Gripen (c) Mig 29. [13859]

  Mr. Spellar
  Studies by the Ministry of Defence have confirmed that Eurofighter is the most cost-effective option to meet the Royal Air Force's currently assessed future needs.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the original estimate of the cost of the Eurofighter project to each of the partners; what are the current projected costs in equivalent terms; and how much each country has already spent. [13863]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence does not have all the information requested in respect of our Eurofighter partners. On the basis of a requirement for 232 aircraft, the UK's estimated procurement cost for Eurofighter at the start of development in 1988 amounted to £13·2 billion at 1997 prices, and the current estimate is £15·9 billion at 1997 prices. Up to 30 September 1997 we have spent a total of £2·8 billion.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current estimate of the costs to his Department of(a) research, (b) construction and (c) commissioning in respect of the European fighter aircraft. [13987]
  112
  Mr. Spellar
  The latest estimated costs to the UK of the Eurofighter programme are £4·4 billion for the full development phase, which includes the costs of earlier phases. Further, we currently estimate that it will cost £11·5 billion for the procurement of 232 aircraft. This figure includes the cost of initial support for the aircraft.

  NATO Expansion
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the increased defence burden and resulting financial costs placed on(a) Poland, (b) Hungary and (c) the Czech republic as a result of NATO membership. [14003]

  Dr. Reid
  By joining an alliance whose essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members by collective means, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic will lighten their defence burden, as no single Ally is forced to rely on its own national efforts alone in dealing with basic security challenges.

  The costs of enlargement to the three invited countries will fall into two categories: the development of their ability to operate alongside other NATO countries on the full range of Alliance missions; and their contribution to NATO common-funded budgets.

  The countries concerned were, in any case, intending to modernise and restructure their Armed Forces. Their contribution to NATO common-funded budgets is being discussed.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the costs of NATO expansion for Britain. [14004]

  Dr. Reid
  NATO staff are currently studying the military and financial implications of enlargement, and a report will be made to NATO Ministers in December.

  NATO Heads of State and Government stated in the Madrid Declaration:
  "We are confident that, in line with the security environment of the Europe of today, Alliance costs associated with the integration of new members will be manageable and that the resources necessary to meet those costs will be provided."

  That remains our assessment. If additional spending is required, Britain will pay its share.

  Arms Exports (Indonesia)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom armed forces or Ministry of Defence personnel are involved in the servicing and maintenance of British Aerospace Hawk aircraft sold to Indonesia; and if he will make a statement. [13969]

  Mr. Spellar
  None.

  Ships (Names)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the criteria for selecting names for new ships of the Royal Navy. [13701]

  Mr. Spellar
  Proposals for ships names for both the Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary are initiated by the Admiralty Ships Names and Badges Committee which takes into consideration a number of criteria, including the promotion of links with communities, the
  113
  geographical spread of names and opportunities to revive those with an honourable history. Selected names are submitted, through the Controller of the Navy and the First Sea Lord, to the Secretary of State for approval. In the case of major vessels, final approval is sought from HM The Queen.

  Defence Diversification Agency
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what funding his Department intends to allocate to the Defence Diversification Agency. [14202]

  Mr. Spellar
  No decision on funding has yet been taken. This will depend on the outcome of the consultation period on our forthcoming Green Paper on diversification.

  Naval Forces (Gulf)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what United Kingdom naval forces are currently on station in the Gulf. [14300]

  Dr. Reid
  The Royal Navy currently has a destroyer and a frigate deployed in the Arabian Gulf engaged on Armilla Patrol duties. They are ably supported by a Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

  Contingency and Operational Procurement Exhibition
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to public funds of the Ministry of Defence police presence at the COPEX exhibition in 1997. [13995]

  Mr. Spellar
  The cost of the Ministry of Defence Police presence at the COPEX exhibition has not yet been fully assessed. I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average time taken by his Department to give full answers to letters received from hon. Members. [13947]

  Mr. Spellar
  Statistics are not held in the form requested. My Department has a target of replying to letters from hon. Members within 15 working days of receipt. Since the start of the Session Ministers have replied to 65 per cent. of letters within this target and to 80 per cent. within 20 working days.

  Equipment Exhibition
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons questions were not allowed at the press conference at the Government's Royal Navy and British Army equipment exhibition in September. [13672]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Royal Navy and British Army Equipment Exhibition (RNBAEE) was opened formally by my noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement on 1 September. In light of the tragic death of Diana Princess of Wales the previous day, my noble Friend decided to make only a brief opening statement.
  114
  At the opening of the press day on 31 August, the Head of Defence Export Services gave a short presentation on the work of his organisation and outlined the key themes of the exhibition. This was an address of welcome and was not planned as a press conference. In the event, in view of the death of the Princess only a few hours earlier, he also severely limited his opening remarks.

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the suppliers to his Department who are owed outstanding amounts, indicating the amounts and the due date on which the account should have been settled. [13543]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: This is a matter for the Chief Executives of the Defence Bills Agency, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, the Meteorological Office and the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office. I have asked the Chief Executives to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from I. S. Elrick to Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, dated 4 November 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about outstanding debts to suppliers as, in the main, this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Bills Agency.
  Departmental policy is to pay bills promptly within agreed contract terms or, where no such terms exist, within 30 days from receipt of the goods/service or a valid invoice, whichever is the later. The Defence Bills Agency pays very high volumes of bills and individual instances where these payment targets were not met could only be listed and valued at disproportionate cost. During the period 1 April–30 September 97, this Agency received 1·75 million bills of which 188 narrowly missed their due 30-day target. Howeve,r I can assure you that these bills were paid shortly after 30 days.
  I hope this is of assistance.

  Letter from John Clarke to Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, dated 4 November 1997:
  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Defence a Parliamentary Question about outstanding debts to suppliers. As this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office, I have been asked to reply to you directly.
  All departments are required to pay their bills within agreed contract terms, or 30 days from receipt of the goods or service or a valid invoice, whichever is the later, where no such terms exist. Such detailed information on payment performance for the current financial year could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Treasury will shortly be publishing a league table of departmental payment performance for 1996–97.
  I hope the information provided has been of some assistance.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, dated 4 November 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency to reply to your question about suppliers who are owed outstanding amounts.
  The Agency's policy is to pay bills promptly within agreed contract terms or, where no such terms exist, within 30 days of receipt of a validated invoice. DERA currently pays 98% of invoices without queries within these targets; during the month of October 1997, 98·2% of cleared invoices were paid on time. Detailed data on individual suppliers could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  The Treasury will shortly be publishing a league table of departmental payment performance for 1996/97.
  115
  Letter from Peter Ewins to Mrs. Cheryl Gillan, dated 4 November 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about outstanding debt to suppliers. For the Meterological Office, this matter falls to me as the Chief Executive.
  Our payment policy is to pay suppliers within 30 days of receipt of the invoice within the Meteorological Office, or of the delivery date if later. For the period 1 June 1996 to 31 March 1997, over 90% of the valid invoices were paid within 30 days of receipt. We will continue to work to improve this performance. The Treasury will shortly be publishing a league table of departments payment performance for 1996/97. Detailed information on payment performance for the current financial year could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Delegated Legislation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list all(a) secondary, (b) other delegated legislation and (c) all deregulation orders his Department made during the summer adjournment. [14376]

  The Attorney General
  None.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Drugs
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement about the Government's policy to curb the misuse of drugs. [12033]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The Prime Minister announced last month that Keith Hellawell—currently Chief Constable of West Yorkshire—would be the new UK anti-drugs co-ordinator, and will take up his post early in the New Year. He will be supported by a deputy, Michael Trace. The co-ordinator's first priority will be to review existing action against drugs across the board, and then make recommendations to Ministers for further developments.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Council what assessment she has made of the result of the Government's strategy on the reduction in the use of illegal drugs. [12037]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The most recent national data on the prevalence of drug misuse are from the 1996 British Crime Survey (BCS). The report concludes that between the 1994 and 1996 BCS, there was essentially no change in levels of drug misuse across England and Wales as a whole. I have asked Keith Hellawell to consider the implications of these findings.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Probation Studies Diploma
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the proposed diploma in probation studies will require a full-time course of study; how long the course will last; and at which institutions it will be available. [12731]
  116
  Joyce Quin
  The new arrangements for the recruitment and training of probation officers, which I announced in a reply to the hon. member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) on 29 July,Official Report, column 151, will be employment led. Trainee probation officers will be employed by their local probation services while they work towards the new combined diploma and national vocational qualification. The length of the training period will vary according to trainees' previous work and academic experience. Work is under way to implement these new arrangements, but it is too early to say which institutions will offer the diploma.

  Remand
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to limit the period for which people accused of non-violent crimes may be held on remand prior to cases coming before the courts; and if he will make a statement. [13324]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government are determined to ensure that defendants should spend as little time as possible on remand awaiting trial. The period for which those charged with indictable offences may be held in custody on remand is already restricted by statutory custody time limits. Unfortunately, it is clear that in far too many cases it has been necessary for the courts to extend those time limits and the Government intend to introduce stricter criteria in the forthcoming Crime and Disorder Bill to govern the court's decision to grant extensions to limits.

  The remand decision, whatever the offence charged, is, of course, a matter for the court in the exercise of its judicial discretion in accordance with the Bail Act 1976. That Act establishes a statutory right to bail for all defendants involved in criminal proceedings, subject to certain exceptions. Bail may be withheld only in the case of a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment if the court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, if released on bail, that person would abscond, commit an offence, interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.

  In taking a remand decision, the court has to consider the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character, antecedents and community ties of the defendant, his past record under any previous grants of bail and the strength of the evidence against his having committed the offence, as well as any other considerations which appear relevant.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reform the remand system; and if he will make a statement. [13720]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: The consultation paper, "Tackling Delays in the Youth Justice System", published on 15 October, sets out a number of legislative proposals which are intended to remove obstacles to the speedy and efficient handling of cases, introduce new and more effective procedures and establish greater discipline in the processing of cases through the setting up of statutory time limits. The deadline for comments on the paper is 12 November 1997.

  The consultation paper, "Reducing Remand Delays", was issued on 23 October 1997. It sets out the time limits proposals in the context of the adult courts. It provides a little more detail on the procedural aspect of the new

  117
  measures—for example, the mechanics of reinstituting proceedings—than the "Tackling Delays in the Youth Justice System" paper. For the sake of completeness, the "Reducing Remand Delays" paper also includes the other non-Narey legislative measures aimed at reducing delays in all courts: the two new bail measures and the power to conduct pre-trial hearings by live television link. The deadline for comments on the proposals in this paper is 14 November 1997.

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

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the Bail Act 1976 to ensure that courts take notice of the effects that remands in custody may have on the mental and physical health of defendants; and if he will make a statement. [13723]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: The remand decision is a matter for the courts in the exercise of their judicial discretion in accordance with the Bail Act 1976. That Act establishes a statutory right to bail for all defendants involved in criminal proceedings, subject to certain exceptions. Bail may be withheld only in the case of a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment if the court is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, if released on bail, that person would abscond, commit an offence, interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice. In taking a remand decision, the Bail Act requires courts to consider the nature and seriousness of the offence, the character, antecedents and community ties of the defendant, his past record under any previous grants of bail, and the strength of the evidence against his having committed the offence as well as any other considerations which appear relevant. Courts may seek information from the probation service and advice of health care professionals to assist them. They will also have regard to any representations made by the prosecution or defence. In addition, courts may use the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983 to enable appropriate mentally disordered persons to be remanded to hospital rather than prison.

  I have no plans to alter these arrangements but will consider ways of improving the information available to the court on the mental health of defendants the better to inform decisions, including an assessment of risk to the public.

  Firearms Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average time taken to process compensation payments for people who have handed in handguns to the police; [13904]

  (2) what action he is taking to reduce the time it is taking to process compensation payments for people who have handed in handguns to the police. [13905]

  Mr. Michael
  Claims submitted under options A and B of the compensation scheme are being processed in 12–14 weeks. The more complicated option C claims will be processed when the bulk of these have been cleared.
  118
  More than 37,800 compensation claims and ex gratia applications under the small calibre pistol scheme have been received since 1 July, and the volume is such that some delays are inevitable. More than 14,200 payments have been made to a value of more than £17 million.

  It has always been recognised that the pressure of claims received over a short hand-in period was bound to lead to processing delays, and claimants were advised that they may have to wait several weeks before receiving any payment. Despite that, an additional factor in delay is the burden of telephone enquiries about the progress of claims. A recent survey showed that the Home Office was receiving around 2,000 such calls a week.

  As I promised in July, everything possible is being done to process claims in the shortest time possible. For instance, weekend overtime is being worked and staff have been temporarily promoted to boost examiner numbers. I wish to record my thanks to everyone who has contributed to the efforts to date including officials and the police officers involved.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about non-payment of claims submitted under the firearms compensation scheme which have been agreed by the receiving constabulary; and if he will make a statement. [14049]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: A number of inquiries have been received about the progress of individual compensation claims. The firearms compensation section is dealing with claims as quickly as possible, and in the order in which they are received. It has so far made over 14,200 payments to the value of over £17 million. The sheer number of claims received over the three-month hand-in period means that some processing delays are inevitable. That was explained to the House when the scheme was approved, but, as promised, we are doing all that we can to keep these to a minimum.

  New Prison (Colchester)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment exercises his Department has conducted into the possibility of establishing a prison in the Colchester constituency during the past five years. [13700]

  Joyce Quin
  The Prison Service has had a long standing interest in developing a new prison in the east London/Essex area. This will provide new prison places to meet the population increases now being projected and help reduce the overcrowding currently being experienced within London prisons, to which large numbers of young offenders and adult prisoners from the Essex area are sent.

  A number of sites in the east London/Essex area have been looked at by the Prison Service in recent years. One site in the Colchester area was investigated some two years ago, but was considered too small for a prison development.

  Another possible site in Colchester has been recently drawn to the attention of the Prison Service. This is now being assessed, but it is too early to say whether it will prove suitable to be pursued further.

  Feltham Young Offenders Institute
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Prison Service about alleged assaults by prison officers against Mr. Carlos Pulgaria at Feltham young offenders institute on 5 September; if the officers against whom the allegations were made are still on duty; and if he will make a statement. [13971]

  Joyce Quin
  Mr. Carlos Pulgarin has alleged that while he was in Feltham young offender institution in September he was assaulted by prison officers. Because of the seriousness of the allegations, the governor referred the matter to the police to investigate. I understand that the police have sent their report on the incident to the Crown Prosecution Service, who are considering what action to take. The officers against whom the allegations were made are at present on special leave.

  Butane Gas
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend the terms of the Intoxicating Substances Supply Act 1985 so as to introduce a strict liability clause with regard to the sale of Butane gas lighter refills to under 16-year-olds, if he will nominate an enforcement agency for the application of the act; and if he will make a statement. [13703]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have no plans to amend the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs undertook a study into volatile substance abuse, the results of which were published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in 1995. A copy of their report is in the Library. They concluded that there were no acceptable legislative changes that would do more than the Act already does to protect young people. Responsibility for enforcement of the provisions of the Act rests with the police.

  Daylight Saving
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the evidence of the effect of the end of British summer time on levels of crime. [13760]

  Mr. George Howarth
  A 1996 Home Office analysis suggested that an extra hour's light at the end of winter days might slightly reduce overall notifiable offences. However, this assumed no offsetting changes in offenders' and the general public's behaviour. If there were, some opportunities for crime might increase.

  Intrusive Surveillance
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what circumstances MI5 operatives are allowed to undertake intrusive surveillance without first obtaining a warrant.[13781]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: There are no circumstances under which Security Service officers would be allowed to carry out intrusive surveillance involving entry on to or interference with property which would otherwise be unlawful, except under authority of a warrant issued by the Secretary of State under the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time taken by his Department to give full answers to letters received from hon. Members. [13952]

  Mr. Straw
  The average time taken to reply to letters from hon. Members is 25 working days. The target response times in my Department are 15 days for the Home Office, 25 for the immigration and nationality directorate, the United Kingdom Passport Agency and Her Majesty's Prison Service. Departmental performance is shown in the annual statistics that were published on 17 June 1997 in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on 17 June 1997,Official Report, columns 107–12. Some targets were shortened earlier this year. These will be reflected in the 1997 annual statistics that will be published in due course.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish the action plan, due by 1 October 1997, for resolving the computer millennium problem in his Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible; if such was fully completed on time; and if he will make a statement; [13572]

  (2) what is his latest estimate of the total cost of resolving the computer millennium problem in (a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which he is responsible; if he will state in each case (i) expenditure incurred to date, (ii) expenditure planned for 1997–98, (iii) expenditure planned for 1998–99 and (iv) expenditure planned for 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [13573]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department's costed action plans will be sent to the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) this week. The plans will be analysed by the Central Information Technology Unit and CCTA and the conclusions reported to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who will then inform Parliament. The plans will be exempted from disclosure under the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which permits non-disclosure prior to an announcement. However, once the announcement has been made the plans will be available to the public.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on what funding provision has been made to accommodate the expenditure needed to resolve the computer millennium problem; and if he expects to have sufficient funding to pay for the work necessary to achieve complete millennium compliance by 1 January 2000. [13574]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department is proceeding on the basis that the cost of preventive and remedial action on the millennium problem will be met from existing public expenditure survey provision.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible completed the millennium computer compliance audits of systems; and if he will make a statement. [13575]
  121
  Mr. Straw
  My Department's main information technology service provider—Sema Group—completed an audit covering the bulk of our systems in late 1996. Since then, business areas have been reviewing, updating and prioritising their inventories as part of the process of preparing their costed action plans.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which(a) Minister and (b) civil servant has overall responsibility for ensuring millennium computer compliance in his Department and its associated public bodies. [13576]

  Mr. Straw
  I am the Minister responsible for ensuring millennium compliance in my Department. The civil servant with responsibility for this work is the director of corporate resources.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) dates of and (b) participants in meetings he has held with the cosmetics industry and researchers to discuss a voluntary ban on cosmetic testing on animals. [13679]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The industry has been consulted through representative groups and by informal means. no meetings have been necessary. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will be in a position to make an announcement on Thursday about developments concerning cosmetics testing, the use of great apes in scientific procedures, welfare committees in designated establishments and the composition of the Animal Procedures Committee.

  Car Boot Sales
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received requesting the introduction of a licensing system for car boot sales. [13309]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department has received seven letters making such a request since May 1997. We are currently considering whether further controls are required over temporary markets, such as car boot sales, which are currently permitted for up to 14 days in any calendar year under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Answers
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Council what discussions she has had to encourage greater transparency in the answers to parliamentary questions. [12031]

  Mrs Ann Taylor
  Ministers are under a duty—set out in the ministerial code—to be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest, which should be decided in accordance with relevant statute and the code of practice on access to Government information.

  WPC Yvonne Fletcher
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Council if she will set up a Select Committee on the re-analysis by the Metropolitan police of the circumstances surrounding the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher. [12034]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  No, this would not be appropriate in the circumstances. The police investigation is continuing. The necessary analysis and inquiries are complex; and the police will complete them as soon as is possible.

  Semicircular Seating
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Council what progress she has made on assessing the advantages of a semicircular seating arrangement for the House. [12035]

  Mrs Ann Taylor
  None. As I said in the House on 17 June at column 111, I believe that we are a long way from any consensus that the shape of the Chamber should be changed. I have no proposals to make any structural changes to the Chamber.

  Modernisation of the House
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the progress made in respect of the proposals from the Modernisation of the House Committee.[12036]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The Committee reported on 23 July and a debate on its conclusions is to be held shortly.

  Recesses (School Holidays)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to arrange parliamentary business so that recesses coincide with school holidays. [12030]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern. As I previously told the House, I am in favour of our periodic Adjournments coinciding with school holidays whenever possible.

  I remain mindful of hon. Members' views and of the representations that have been made. The Modernisation Committee will soon be looking at the parliamentary calendar, and school holidays and half-terms will be one of the issues to be addressed.

  Advisory Committee on Works of Art
  Sir Patrick Cormack
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what are the membership and terms of reference of the Advisory Committee on Works of Art. [14034]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  I understand that Madam Speaker has appointed the following Members to the Advisory Committee on Works of Art: the hon. Members for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), for Staffordshire, South (Sir P. Cormack), for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston), for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) and for Windsor (Mr. Trend).
  123
  The terms of reference of the Committee are:
  to advise the Speaker generally on matters relating to works of art, including acquisitions; and to advise the Accommodation and Works Committee on the policy on, conservation of, and curatorial management of the collections of pictures, statues, murals, historic furniture and furnishings and decorative interior of the Palace; and advise on the decorative interiors of other buildings in the Parliamentary Estate when requested by that Committee.

  Members' Staff
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals she has to increase the numbers of staff available to hon. Members. [12025]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  None. Members can employ staff out of their office costs allowance, which was reviewed by the SSRB in July 1996.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Council how many Statutory Instruments have been made since 31 July without parliamentary scrutiny; and if she will make a statement as to the future arrangements for dealing with these instruments. [13956]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The number of Statutory Instruments laid was 153. I have no plans at present to make a statement on the future arrangements for dealing with these instruments.

  Student Visits
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will take measures to assist(a) hon. Members, (b) members of the press gallery and (c) officials of the House in giving access to the precincts of the House to work experience/school students. [12032]

  Mrs. Roe
  The Administration Committee has no responsibility for(a) and (b). With respect to (c), I wish to advise the hon. Gentleman that the Establishments Office of the Finance and Administration Department co-ordinates a work experience scheme through which Departments of the House accommodate students who wish to spend a period of time working at the House of Commons.

  Students who express an interest in such work experience are asked to supply details of the type of work in which they are interested and the dates on which they are available. Details are then circulated to departments to ascertain the availability of suitable opportunities.

  The Establishment Office endeavours to place 12 students each year for periods of between one and two weeks—more than 20 students have been placed within departments of the House in the last 12 months. The students are not paid, but travelling expenses are re-imbursed.

  The education unit has for 17 years arranged a special programme of autumn visits for senior school students, and an extension to this scheme, to run on sitting Wednesdays, was approved in March this year. This is in addition to the large numbers of tours given by hon. Members themselves for individual school parties.

  Smoking
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will seek to extend non-smoking policies to the division lobbies and other Members' facilities in the House. [12026]

  Mrs. Roe
  Hon. Members should be aware already that smoking is not permitted in the Division Lobbies at any time. The Administration Committee has no responsibility for smoking policy in hon. Members' offices—this is a matter for the hon. Member or Members concerned. Similarly, smoking policy in Refreshment Department outlets is a matter for the Catering Committee. However, I shall draw to the attention of my Committee any proposals from hon. Members concerning the possible extension of non-smoking policies to other Members' facilities in the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Coal Board Housing
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will investigate what records of the disposal programme of houses by the Coal Board have been retained by British Coal. [13662]

  Mr. Battle
  British Coal retains records relating to property sales as long as there remains a prudent commercial reason for so doing. This is generally for a period of 12 years to ensure that British Coal can assess any claims made against it by a purchaser.

  Cornish Tin Mining Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action her Department is taking to assist the Cornish tin mining industry. [13225]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: Following the announcement on 7 August by South Crofty plc of the intention to close the South Crofty tin mine, officials from the Government Office for the South West have been working closely with the mine on a range of proposals. A delegation led by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) met my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms on 10 September. An application from South Crofty plc for regional selective assistance was received by the Department of Trade and Industry on 20 October 1997. The assessment of the application is being given the highest possible priority so that an early decision can be reached. It will be considered against the normal criteria for the scheme. These include demonstrating the viability of the project.

  Bank of Credit and Commerce International
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she plans to meet the liquidators of BCCI; and when she expects the next payment to be made to the creditors of BCCI. [14252]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have no plans to meet the joint liquidators. The timetable for future payments to creditors is a matter for the liquidators but I understand that they hope to pay a substantial further dividend as soon as possible.

  Yemen (Trade Mission)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the recent trade mission to Yemen led by HRH the Duke of Gloucester. [14228]

  Mrs. Roche
  HRH the Duke of Gloucester visited Yemen from 28 September to 3 October in his capacity as President of the British Consultants Bureau. He was accompanied by 29 representatives of UK companies on a DTI supported trade mission jointly sponsored by the BCB and the Middle East Association. The DTI export promoter and country officer for Yemen were also in attendance.

  During this high profile and successful mission, HRH met the President and Vice President of Yemen, the Governors of Taiz and Aden as well as five Ministers, senior Government officials, businessmen and diplomats. HRH attended the missioners' meetings with the Sana' s chamber of commerce and the seminar organised by BCB. He also visited Taiz and in Aden he inaugurated the premises of the new consulate-general and opened the new British Council teaching centre. Missioners held a meeting with Aden chamber of commerce and attended briefings on Aden's infrastructure development needs and the port/free zone development.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she is taking to encourage the establishment and growth of small firms in Staffordshire. [13890]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: The Government recognises the vital role that small firms play in a successful enterprise economy and is firmly committed to providing the right conditions for the sector to compete and grow.

  Government funding supports initiatives which help both the establishment and growth of small firms in Staffordshire.

  Under the first round of the single regeneration budget challenge fund up to £1·28 million over six years has been committed towards establishing 2,000 new businesses and 3,600 jobs in Staffordshire. The Government Office for the West Midlands has contracted with Staffordshire training and enterprise council to manage this programme.

  The Government Office also holds an annual contract with the training and enterprise council, worth approximately £1·7 million, to fund Business Link Staffordshire. The purpose of the Business Link is to help small businesses become more competitive, more successful and better able to meet challenges of the next decade. The Business Link offers independent specialist advice to help businesses identify and address their problems through a tailored package of support.

  Partnership Legislation
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when further progress is planned on limited liability partnership legislation. [14580]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  We are working towards a policy announcement and publication of draft legislation as soon as possible next year.

  Regional Challenge
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if there will be a further round of the regional challenge competition for the allocation of European structural funds grants.[14582]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Government has decided that the further round of the regional challenge competition will not go ahead and the prize fund of £160 million will return to the regions eligible for structural funds grants. This will restore decision-making on funding allocations to the regions and relieve local partners of the considerable burden involved in the administration of the challenge approach.

  The first round of regional challenge did, of course, produce some imaginative projects with potentially significant regional benefits, and we wish these projects every success. However, the original aims of the challenge can now be achieved through other mechanisms. The new "action plan" approach, to be introduced on a flexible basis in England, will encourage a strong strategic focus on high quality projects which can make a real difference to the regional economy and attract private sector contributions, whilst avoiding the additional administrative burdens of regional challenge.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which(a) Minister and (b) civil servant has overall responsibility for ensuring millennium computer compliance in his Department and its associated public bodies. [13586]

  Mrs. Roche
  The President of the Board of Trade has overall responsibility for the Department's work including that related to the year 2000 compliance of its computer systems. The Department's director of information management and technology, Dick Wheeler, has management responsibility for the core Department's programme of compliance projects and related activities. Chief executives of agencies and other public bodies have similar responsibilities for their programmes.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she plans to consult United Kingdom businesses on the enlargement of the EU to the countries of central and eastern Europe. [14579]

  Mrs. Roche
  Today Lord Simon is publishing a consultation document which seeks the views of UK businesses, consumers and employees on the enlargement of the EU to the countries of central and eastern Europe.

  The Government is committed to successful EU enlargement. It will not only enhance the security and stability of the continent, but also introduce 100 million extra consumers into the internal market, bringing greater opportunities for British businesses and greater choice and value for British consumers. We think British businesses appreciate this—indeed, they are already increasingly turning towards these important emerging markets. But enlargement presents major challenges as well as great opportunities for the EU, and we want to be sure that we are representing the interests of UK businesses, employees and consumers as accurately as we can in

  127
  discussions in Brussels and elsewhere. So I urge all those with an interest in the future development of the EU to take this opportunity to let us know what they think.

  I have placed a copy of the consultation document in the library of the House. Copies can be obtained from:

  EU Enlargement Consultation

  EU Enlargement Unit

  Department of Trade and Industry

  66-74 Victoria Street

  LONDON

  SWIE 6SW

  Tel. 0171 215 4407

  Fax 0171 215 4469

  Comments should be sent to the same address, to arrive by 20 March 1998.

  The document can also be found on the DTI internet homepage at: http://www.dti.gov.uk

  Bio-Technology
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date the ethical and welfare review of bio-technology and the patenting of animals began; and if she will make a statement.[13678]

  Mr. Battle
  A report produced in 1995 by a committee chaired by Professor Michael Banner and appointed by the then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food produced a report which considered the ethical implications of emerging technologies in the breeding of farm animals. The committee's review included the question of patenting genetically modified animals.

  The DTI is in the process of consulting widely on the question of animal patenting in the context of the proposed directive for the protection of bio-technological inventions.

  Export Forum
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will publish the conclusions of the Export Forum. [14581]

  Mrs. Beckett
  "Towards an Export Initiative"—the report of the Export Forum—has today been published and a copy placed in the Library of the House.

  The Export Forum was established by the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in July of this year. Its remit was to examine the effectiveness of current Government support for UK exporters and to make recommendations for a new export initiative.

  The forum has concluded that government has a vital and essential role to play in export promotion. It recommends that the Government could discharge this role more effectively by taking action in the following areas.
  focusing additional effort on a small number of key overseas markets, as opposed to dividing all its effort between 80 "priority markets";
  selecting these markets both with a view to the needs of the new and inexperienced exporter and with a view to helping all exporters attack difficult but promising markets where the UK is currently underperforming;
  128
  incorporating the strengths and priorities of key sectors of UK industry into the planning process, with a better focus on service industries in particular;
  enhancing the support that it gives to UK firms seeking to invest overseas;
  ensuring greater consistency and improved quality in the export services delivered by Business Links and in the chargeable work of FCO posts;
  strengthening the marketing and branding of Government export support to obtain greater coherence and a more customer-friendly interface;
  making greater use of IT and the Internet in delivering services to UK exporters;
  restructuring and strengthening the British Overseas Trade Board as the Government's key advisory body on export promotion.

  The Government welcomes the forum's report and the thrust of its recommendations. We will be looking to respond positively and to start work now in many of the areas outlined by the forum as requiring change. Our response in respect of some of the forum's recommendations will need to await the completion of the DTI and FCO comprehensive spending reviews.

  European Council
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what documents Her Majesty's Government intends to place before the European Council due to meet in Luxembourg on 21 to 22 November to discuss employment in the European Community; and if he will place in the Library any such submission at least 10 days before that event. [13386]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  In the context of the remit established at the Amsterdam European Council, the Government has submitted two papers: "Employment Policies and Initiatives in the UK", July 1997, and "United Kingdom Employment Action Plan", October 1997. Copies of both these papers are in the Library.

WALES

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the cost of prescribing beta interferon in each year since 1995 for each health authority. [13476]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The expenditure on Beta Interferon across the NHS in Wales since 1995 is £8,764. This figure excludes clinical trials for which there is no data available. There is a risk that to provide a more detailed breakdown of this figure might breach patient confidentiality.

  Schools (Funding)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the amount of extra funding which will be available for Welsh school education in 1997 as a result of the windfall tax. [14175]

  Mr. Hain
  £5,025 million capital funding is available this financial year for repair, refurbishment,improvements to school buildings; improvements to school security; and improvements to information technology facilities.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures(a) in total and (b) by county for the number of dental practitioners in practice in Wales offering treatment on the national health service; and if he will make a statement. [14082]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information is given in the following table. The information is collected on a health authority basis.

  General dental practitioners who treat at least some NHS patients at 30 June 1997

  Health authority

  Number

  North Wales

  198

  Dyfed Powys

  142

  Morgannwg

  173

  Bro Taf

  221

  Gwent

  173

  Wales

  907

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many dental practitioners were in practice in Wales in(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement; [14086]

  (2) how many dental practitioners offering treatment under the national health service there were in practice in Wales in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [14090]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Information on the number of general practitioners who treat at least some NHS patients is given in the following table. Information on the number of practitioners only treating patients privately is not collected centrally.

  General dental practitioners who treat at least some NHS patients

  Number

  September 1992

  831

  September 1993

  843

  September 1994

  849

  September 1995

  876

  September 1996

  900

  June 1997

  907

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many jobs were created or secured by inward investment in each North Wales county in each of the last five years. [14211]

  Mr. Hain
  The following statistics relate to companies' intentions at the time of the decision to invest and do not take account of any subsequent changes. The employment figures—safeguarded and new combined—are forecasts, not actual, and relate to inward investment from elsewhere in the United Kingdom as well as from overseas.

  Year

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Clwyd

  2,414

  3,072

  1,256

  752

  1,337

  Gwynedd

  1,009

  885

  654

  89

  231

  130
  Information on a unitary authority basis is not yet available; the statistics are for the areas covered by the former counties of Clwyd and Gwynedd.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which(a) Minister and (b) civil servant has overall responsibility for ensuring millennium computer compliance in his Department and its associated public bodies. [13626]

  Mr. Ron Davis
  As Secretary of State I have overall responsibility for ensuring compliance in my Department. The civil servant responsible for Millennium issues within the Department is Dr. A. G. Thornton. In the case of public bodies it is the responsibility of the relevant chief executive.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement on what funding provision has been made to accommodate the expenditure needed to resolve the computer millennium problem; and if he expects to have sufficient funding to pay for the work necessary to achieve complete millennium compliance by 1 January 2000; [13624]

  (2) what is his latest estimate of the total cost of resolving the computer millennium problem in (a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which he is responsible; if he will state in each case (i) expenditure incurred to date, (ii) expenditure planned for 1997–98, (iii) expenditure planned for 1998–99 and (iv) expenditure planned for 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [13623]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  My Department has made an assessment of the effect of the millennium date change. I do not expect there to be any major costs involved in ensuring that my Department's computer systems can cater for the year 2000. Cost of future preventative and remedial action on year 2000 will be met from existing PES provision.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the action plan, due by 1 October 1997, for resolving the computer millennium problem in his Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible; if such was fully completed on time; and if he will make a statement. [13622]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The costed action plans for all Departments will be analysed by officials in the central IT unit at the Cabinet Office and the CCTA and the conclusions reported to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who will then inform Parliament. The plans will be exempted from disclosure under the open government code of practice on access to government information which permits non-disclosure prior to an announcement. However, once the announcement has been made the plans will be available to the public.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when his Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible completed the millennium computer compliance audits of systems; and if he will make a statement. [13625]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The central IT unit at the Cabinet Office and its agent the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency set a model timetable for
  131
  Departments to follow. The Welsh Office has followed this timetable and completed by January 1997 a full survey of the work which needed to be done.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food and Drink Industry
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact on United Kingdom food and drink producers of(a) a national minimum wage, (b) the Government's welfare-to-work proposals and (c) economic and monetary union. [13379]

  Mr. Morley
  We are aware of some early assessments of policies within the responsibility of other Departments and where many decisions both of principle and of detail remain to be taken. Although we have not at this stage undertaken separate studies of the impact of such policies specifically on United Kingdom food and drink producers, we carefully consider the likely implications for all the sectors for which the Department is responsible.

  Bananas
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list in respect of imports of bananas into(a) the European Economic Community and (b) the United Kingdom (i) the Community quotas in percentage, approximate tonnage, and value of imports of each of category A, B and C of imports, together with the principal producers in each category, (ii) the approximate difference between the production and selling price to consumers of dollar, category A, and African, Caribbean and Pacific country, category B, African, Caribbean and Pacific country, bananas and (iii) the tonnage and value of banana exports from each Commonwealth source exported to the United Kingdom in the year before and each year since the introduction of the 1993 banana regime. [13388]

  Mr. Morley
  (i) Twelve African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries which traditionally supplied bananas to the EU have individual export allocations under the EU regime. These total 857,700 tonnes of bananas. The countries are Dominica, Grenada, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Jamaica, Belize, Suriname, Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire, Somalia, Cape Verde and Madagascar.

  Other imports of bananas enter the EU within an annual tariff quota; since the enlargement of the EU in 1995 this has been set at 2·553 million tonnes. This figure includes a small allocation for ACP imports outside the traditional quotas. There are three types of licences for importing bananas within the tariff quota: Category A licences (66·5 per cent. of the tariff quota) are allocated on the basis of past trade in third country and non-traditional ACP bananas; Category B licences (30 per cent. of the tariff quota) are allocated on the basis of past trade in EU or traditional ACP bananas; Category C licences (3·5 per cent.) are allocated to traders who do not have a record of trade in bananas before 1993. The tariff quota licences can be used freely to import third-country or non-traditional ACP bananas, i.e. their use is not linked to imports from a particular supplying country. The principal
  132
  suppliers of bananas within the tariff quota are Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Panama.

  The table shows imports from ACP and third country sources into the EU and UK between 1992 and 1996:

  UK and EU1 imports of ACP and non ACP2 fresh bananas Value (in thousands of ECU3) and volume (in tonnes)

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  ACP imports

  UK

  Value

  224,921

  232,142

  216·610

  216,987

  239,559

  Volume

  363,274

  377,734

  348,488

  381,315

  411,857

  EU

  Value

  407,970

  437,728

  439,612

  417,394

  437,442

  Volume

  680,185

  748,109

  728,064

  765,489

  802,055

  Non ACP imports2

  UK

  Value4

  37,901

  33,034

  45,899

  46,880

  47,653

  Volume

  92,524

  77,113

  93,241

  100,769

  88,347

  EU

  Value4

  973,392

  902,595

  1,088,005

  1,279,786

  1,390,653

  Volume

  2,367,348

  2,220,521

  2,122,999

  2,399,162

  2,689,041

  Notes:

  The above figures were extracted from the EUROSTAT Comext database on 30 October 1997 and may be subject to future amendment.

  1Up to 1994 figures are for the EU12, thereafter the EU15.

  2 Not including the Canary Islands, Guadeloupe and Martinique, which are part of the EU.

  3Animal ECU/£ exchange rates are as follows: 1992: 0·7376; 1993: 0·7800; 1994: 0·7736; 1995: 0·8290; 1996: 0·8108;

  4Values do not include import tariffs.

  Source:

  European Commission.

  (ii) Information on production prices of bananas for ACP suppliers or dollar suppliers is not available. Average UK retail prices for bananas from all sources since 1992 were as follows:

  Pence per pound

  1992

  47·99

  1993

  45·56

  1994

  45·15

  1995

  41·48

  1996

  42·17

  I regret that no information is available on the average price paid by EU consumers.

  (iii) Volumes and values of imports from Commonwealth countries into the United Kingdom since 1992 are set out in the table below:

  UK imports of fresh bananas from Commonwealth countries Value (in thousands of ECU1) and volume (in tonnes2)

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Dominica

  Value

  28,926

  28,336

  22,761

  17,577

  21,633

  Volume

  44,658

  46,498

  37,819

  31,773

  39,307

  St. Lucia

  Value

  70,810

  65,878

  51,062

  53,758

  61,982

  Volume

  111,348

  106,224

  85,741

  99,599

  106,670

  133

  UK imports of fresh bananas from Commonwealth countries Value (in thousands of ECU1) and volume (in tonnes2)

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  St. Vincent

  Value

  35,746

  32,538

  17,455

  25,593

  25,476

  Volume

  56,233

  53,380

  28,236

  46,852

  44,175

  Grenada

  Value

  3,850

  4,039

  3,265

  2,394

  1,133

  Volume

  6,011

  6,720

  5,325

  4,556

  2,007

  Jamaica

  Value

  46,625

  46,932

  52,424

  49,699

  52,594

  Volume

  74,775

  77,057

  76,401

  83,824

  89,496

  Belize

  Value

  15,064

  23,643

  28,172

  24,215

  25,402

  Volume

  28,323

  38,366

  46,980

  42,033

  52,130

  Cameroon

  Value

  5,127

  5,999

  13,184

  13,217

  19,473

  Volume

  6,702

  10,847

  25,046

  20,457

  25,008

  Ghana

  Value

  118

  255

  166

  50

  233

  Volume

  91

  181

  139

  51

  189

  Total value

  206,806

  207,618

  188,490

  186,502

  207,926

  Total volume

  328,140

  339,273

  305,686

  329,146

  358,982

  Notes:

  The above figures were extracted from the EUROSTAT Comext database on 30 October 1997 and may be subject to future amendment.

  1Annual ECU/£ exchange rates are as follows: 1992: 0·7376; 1993: 0·7800; 1994: 0·7736; 1995: 0·8290; 1996: 0·8108.

  2Volumes released into free circulation in the UK.

  Source:

  European Commission.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to protect the Caribbean banana producers market in the United Kingdom and Europe; and if he will make a statement. [13664]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: The Government are considering the World Trade Organisation (WTO) findings on the EU banana regime in liaison with the Commission in Brussels, who have the principal responsibility for the Community's response.

  UK fishing fleet: MAGP III objectives (as revised for MAGP IV) and position at 31 December 1996

  Segment

  MAGP III objective

  Position at end 1996

  MAGP III objective

  Position at end 1996

  Shortfall from revised objectives (per cent.)1

  GRT

  GRT

  kW

  kW

  GRT

  kW

  Over 10 metre vessels

  Pelagic gears

  24,323

  27,801

  82,168

  71,876

  13

  –14

  Beam trawls

  19,004

  22,104

  91,140

  117,616

  14

  23

  Demersal, seines, nephrops2

  78,195

  75,570

  422,876

  400,127

  —3

  —6

  Lines and nets

  13,134

  13,613

  67,364

  51,977

  4

  —30

  Shellfish mobile

  8,394

  8,504

  51,232

  55,648

  1

  8

  Shellfish fixed

  5,264

  5,387

  35,895

  44,463

  2

  19

  Distant water

  10,204

  12,423

  22,384

  26,853

  18

  17

  Under 10 metre vessels3

  22,697

  20,851

  286,154

  286,367

  –9

  0

  Total

  181,216

  186,262

  1,059,212

  1,054,927

  3

  0

  1A negative percentage figure represents the over-achievement of the objective.

  2 For MAGP III, there were separate segments for demersal trawls and seines and for nephrops gears. The revised objectives and positions at end–1996 were:

  Demersal trawls and seines—GRT objective: 59,470; GRT position: 64,534; Power objective: 316,399; Power position: 332,337.

  Nephrops—GRT objective: 18,725; GRT position: 11,036; Power objective: 106,477; Power position: 67,790.

  3 The previous non-active/non-TAC segment has been eliminated by redistributing the vessels and related objectives across the remaining over 10 metre segments.
  134
  We are disappointed by the WTO ruling but we accept that the Community must now set about revising the EU arrangements to bring them into conformity with WTO rules.

  The UK's commitment to banana production in the Caribbean is a long-standing one. This Government are in no doubt about the vital importance of the banana industry to the Caribbean and will continue to ensure that the interests of the Caribbean banana growers are fully recognised in the negotiations on the new WTO-consistent arrangements. The Caribbean must be given the opportunity to prove that it can sustain a viable industry committed to providing a good quality product at a competitive price to the European consumer.

  Multi-annual Guidance Programme
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the European Commission proposes to apply financial penalties following the report on multi-annual guidance programme III; and if he will make a statement. [13869]

  Mr. Morley
  Under the terms of Council Regulation 3699/93, Member States which have not complied with their Multi-Annual Guidance Programme (MAGP) objectives are not eligible for EU funding in respect of vessel construction or modernisation grants. It is also open to the European Commission to invoke the provisions of the Treaty in respect of any failure to meet obligations which they consider sufficiently serious.

  As far as the Commission's Report on MAGP HI is concerned, the section devoted to the UK refers to two outstanding requests for adjustments to our objectives and to the need for certain discrepancies in fleet registers to be corrected.

  The Commission subsequently put proposals to the Fisheries Management Committee on 27–28 October which are expected to be adopted shortly. They have the effect of amending the UK MAGP III objectives for the purposes of setting new objectives for MAGP IV. These changes would meet all the points which we have put to the Commission. Details are given in the table.

  Sheep
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that sheep exported from the United Kingdom are identified in such a way that they can be traced back to the holding of birth in accordance with the requirement of EC directive 92/102; and if he will make a statement. [13932]

  Mr. Rooker
  A consultation letter was issued on 13 October 1997 to GB trade organisations seeking their views on changes to the legislation in Great Britain which would enable better tracing of sheep to the holding of birth. The consultation period ends on 24 November 1997. Legislation came into force in Northern Ireland from 1 August 1997 requiring sheep moved from the holding of birth to be identified with a flock or herd mark.

  Cows
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total number of cows of each identifiable breed in(a) the national dairy herd and (b) the national suckler herd. [14178]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department collects no information
  on the breakdown of cattle by breed, but the provisional results for England from the 1997 June Agricultural Census show that there are a total of(a) 1,701,000 cows in the national dairy herd and (b) 798,000 cows in the national suckler herd.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the total cost of resolving the computer millennium problem in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which he is responsible; if he will give in each case (i) expenditure incurred to date, (ii) expenditure planned for 1997–98, (iii) expenditure planned for 1998–99 and (iv) expenditure planned for 1999–00; and if he will make a statement. [13588]

  Mr. Morley
  The current best estimate of cost for resolving the computer problem for each financial year is as follows:

  £

  Expenditure incurred to date (1996–97)

  354,000

  Expenditure allocated for 1997–98

  2,710,000

  Expenditure estimated for 1998–99

  4,514,000

  Expenditure estimated for 1999–2000

  1,813,000

  Making a total of

  9,391,000

  Including Agencies, non-IT "embedded chip" aspects and possible replacement of scientific equipment, total final costs are expected to exceed £11 million.

  Non-Departmental Public Bodies' costs are not included; all have been contacted and asked to progress required action.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible completed the millennium computer compliance audits of systems; and if he will make a statement. [13590]
  136
  Mr. Morley
  Audits of all the Department's major business-critical systems are now complete. Although the scope of the overall millennium programme continues to widen, all residual audit activity (including that relating to non-IT "embedded chip" aspects and scientific equipment) will be completed by the end of 1997.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on what funding provision has been made to accommodate the expenditure needed to resolve the computer millennium problem; and if he expects to have sufficient funding to pay for the work necessary to achieve complete millennium compliance by 1 January 2000. [13589]

  Mr. Morley
  It is currently planned that funding for preventive and remedial action to resolve the computer millennium problem will be met from existing PES provision. The estimated costs are shown in the table in the reply given to the hon. Member today; current financial plans include coverage for these figures.

  However, some aspects of the programme are still largely an unknown quantity. There is a likelihood, therefore, that some non-critical work may need to be deferred beyond the end-December 1998 target set by the Central IT Unit of the Cabinet Office, that additional funds may need to be sought, or a combination of both.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the action plan, due by 1 October 1997, for resolving the computer millennium problem in his Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible; if such was fully completed on time; and if he will make a statement. [13587]

  Mr. Morley
  In compliance with the Government-wide target set by the Cabinet Office's Central IT Unit (CITU), MAFF has submitted an action plan, required by October 1997. The costed action plan will be analysed by CITU and the CCTA and the conclusions reported to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who will then inform Parliament. The plans will be exempted from disclosure under the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which permits non-disclosure prior to an announcement. However once the announcement has been made the plans will be available to the public.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which(a) Minister and (b) civil servant has overall responsibility for ensuring millennium computer compliance in his Department and its associated public bodies. [13591]

  Mr. Morley
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has overall responsibility for ensuring millennium computer compliance in his Department and its associated bodies. The Director of IT is in charge of the Department's overall Millennium Programme which consists of a number of parallel projects covering different aspects of the Department's computer systems and associated technical infrastructure. The Director (Estates) co-ordinates all aspects of a separate project which has been established to address 'non-IT' equipment containing embedded microprocessor chip technology.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average time taken by his Department to give full answers to letters received from hon. Members. [13957]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department receives in excess of 10,000 letters a year from hon. Members. The figures for 1996 were published along with those of other Departments on 17 June 1997,Official Report, column 107–12. So far this year, the Department has received about 6,000 letters, 77 per cent. of which have been replied to within our target of 15 working days.

  Cattle Passports
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average length of time taken to process cattle passport applications(a) nationally and (b) in each of the west country offices of MAFF. [13944]

  Mr. Rooker
  The average processing time for cattle passport applications in England is six working days. The average processing time in each of the west country offices of MAFF is three days (Bristol) and eight days (Exeter).

  Poultry (De-beaking)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to outlaw the de-beaking of poultry for non-veterinary reasons; and if he will make a statement. [13687]

  Mr. Morley
  The current welfare codes make it clear that beak trimming of poultry should be carried out only where necessary to avoid a worse welfare problem such as might be caused by outbreaks of cannibalism in laying hens. We are addressing through our research programme the need to develop commercial systems which can reliably meet the welfare needs of poultry without recourse to this procedure.

  The results of these studies will be taken into account in any revisions to the welfare codes and when reviewing the need for further legislative controls.

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department has taken to improve the conditions of animals in the fur farms; and if he will make a statement. [13686]

  Mr. Morley
  We have already put in place improved arrangements for the monitoring of compliance with existing national legislation protecting the welfare of animals farmed for fur. Internationally we are participating actively in the review of the Council of Europe's recommendation with the aim of ensuring adoption of the highest possible standards consistent with scientific evidence and expert opinion.

  Following completion of our recent consultation exercise, we are considering how best to take forward our proposals for ending fur farming in the United Kingdom as soon as practicable.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the total expenditure on official hospitality by his Department in the current Session. [12583]

  Angela Eagle
  Total expenditure by my Department and its agencies for the previous parliamentary session, ending in July 1997 was £75,000.

  Diesel Fuel Subsidies
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what information his Department has collated concerning the subsidy policies of EU countries with regard to diesel fuel used by heavy goods vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [13037]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government collects information concerning taxation and subsidy policies of EU countries on diesel fuel used by heavy goods vehicles from a range of sources. These include the European Commission, other member states, the oil industry, and road haulage industry representatives. An important source of information is the EC Working Document, "vehicle Taxation in the European Union 1997", a copy of which is to be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Rivers and Canals (Safety)
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure adequate provision of life-saving equipment near rivers and canals. [13328]

  Angela Eagle
  Provision of life saving equipment is governed by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. This places a duty on operators of canals and waterways towards members of the public who may be affected by the way in which they carry out their work. The extent to which operators must safeguard the public depends upon the nature of the risks involved and the cost and effectiveness of possible precautions. Relevant factors include the costs of installing life saving equipment, the practicalities of maintaining and protecting it against vandalism and theft, and the availability of someone nearby to deploy it. British Waterways has set up a user safety programme to review the risk to any groups who use its canal network.

  "Rural England" White Paper
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the next annual update of the countryside White Paper, "Rural England". [13129]

  Angela Eagle
  We have no plans to publish an update of the commitments set out in the previous government's Rural White Paper "Rural England".

  Jet-skis
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, transport and the Regions what
  139
  representations he has received urging greater control over jet-skis and similar powered water craft; and if he will make a statement. [13327]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Some 150 responses have been received to wide-ranging consultation exercises intended to establish views on possible improvements to the control of personal watercraft and other non-regulated pleasure vessels. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is in an excellent position to bring together those dealing with marine safety, harbours and coastal authorities to review means of improving safety. The responses are being analysed and recommendations are expected to be made to Ministers within the next few months.

  Train Services
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list by train operating company for each of the last 12 months the(a) punctuality targets and (b) levels achieved. [13132]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information is published in the Opraf bulletins, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Transport Services (Mill Hill Broadway)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the transport service from Mill Hill broadway; and if he will make a statement. [13118]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have received one representation from the hon. Member, about a decision by Thameslink Trains in respect of a morning peak rail service, and one representation about the price of rail fares which relates to journey from Mill Hill Broadway. I have received no representations relating to bus services in the area.

  I expect franchised train operators to alter service patterns over time to respond to demand, and to do this in the interests of their passengers. I understand that Thameslink Trains have made a change to the morning peak timetable in order better to accommodate the passengers expected at that time and to mitigate overcrowding. Thameslink have to meet the Franchising Director's standards in respect of overcrowding, and plan a timetable which complies with their passenger service requirement. Decisions about how they achieve this are a matter for them.

  Sea Transport (Fuel)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which ships have been licensed for the sea transport of Mox fuel assemblies to(a) other European Union member states, (b) Japan and (c) other countries from the United Kingdom. [13749]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There is no requirement for United Kingdom ships to be licensed for this purpose. However, the International Maritime Organization has adopted the "Code for the safe Carriage of Irrradiated Nuclear Fuel, Plutonium and High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Flasks on board ships"—INF code. United 140
  Kingdom companies involved in transporting MOX fuel assemblies by sea use ships complying with this code, irrespective of destination.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the level of Government revenue support grant allocated to each local education authority in each metropolitan and London authority for each child in secondary and primary school. [13872]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Revenue support grant is paid to authorities in support of their general revenues. It is not allocated for particular purposes. The total revenue support grant allocated to each education authority in metropolitan areas and London is shown in the table.

  Table showing revenue support grant (RSG) for London and Metropolitan Authorities in 1997–98

  Local authority

  RSG (£m)

  Greater London

  City of London

  59·755

  Camden

  141·305

  Greenwich

  143·598

  Hackney

  180·699

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  94·795

  Islington

  142·351

  Kensington and Chelsea

  66·642

  Lambeth

  176·797

  Lewisham

  157·724

  Southwark

  176·612

  Tower Hamlets

  199·884

  Wandsworth

  129·395

  Westminster

  151·614

  Barking and Dagenham

  78·249

  Barnet

  101·958

  Bexley

  73·585

  Brent

  144·644

  Bromley

  77·609

  Croydon

  114·926

  Ealing

  127·934

  Enfield

  118·790

  Haringey

  137·723

  Harrow

  63·369

  Havering

  64·408

  Hillingdon

  85 ·037

  Hounslow

  102·656

  Kingston upon Thames

  37·496

  Merton

  53·036

  Newham

  192·196

  Redbridge

  94·657

  Richmond upon Thames

  27·506

  Sutton

  57·157

  Waltham Forest

  119·635

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton

  100·720

  Bury

  50·727

  Manchester

  268·020

  Oldham

  101·999

  Rochdale

  84·894

  Salford

  100·575

  Stockport

  63·835

  Tameside

  79·722

  Trafford

  69·735

  Wigan

  97·588

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  87·136

  Liverpool

  263·399

  Sefton

  97·851

  141

  Table showing revenue support grant (RSG) for London and Metropolitan Authorities in 1997–98

  Local authority

  RSG (£m)

  St. Helens

  65·703

  Wirral

  124·227

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  74·107

  Doncaster

  117·119

  Rotherham

  99·665

  Sheffield

  195·941

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  81·913

  Newcastle upon tyne

  123·810

  North Tyneside

  70·692

  South Tyneside

  67·806

  Sunderland

  126·001

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  537·660

  Coventry

  124·904

  Dudley

  87·233

  Sandwell

  133·469

  Solihull

  52·074

  Walsall

  117·194

  Wolverhampton

  108·220

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  225·916

  Calderdale

  70·653

  Kirklees

  131·230

  Leeds

  259·101

  Wakefield

  105·616

  Education Expenditure, Derbyshire
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money has been given to Derbyshire county council in respect of education for each year since the introduction of revenue support grant. [13754]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The table below shows the education SSA figures for Derbyshire county council, along with Derbyshire's share of the national total, since the introduction of revenue support grant in 1990–91.

  Year

  Education SSA for Derbyshire (£)

  Percentage of national total

  1990–91

  271·798

  1·84

  1991–92

  311·313

  1·82

  1992–93

  329·858

  1·80

  1993–941

  296·017

  1·79

  1994–951

  302·673

  1·80

  1995–961

  302·839

  1·78

  1996–971

  319·922

  1·80

  1997–981,2

  236·431

  1·33

  Occupational exposure limits and guidelines for formaldehyde

  Country or region

  Year

  Concentration

  Interpretation

  (mg/m3)

  (ppm)

  Australia

  1991

  1·5

  1·2

  TWA; probable human carcinogen, sensitizer STEL

  3

  2·5

  Austria

  1982

  1·20

  1·00

  TWA

  Brazil

  1978

  2·30

  1·90

  TWA

  142
  1SSA figure is not comparable with that for the previous year as a result of changes to the Education SSA formula e.g. removal of further education in 1993–94 from local authority responsibility.

  2 SSA figure is much lower following reorganisation in Derbyshire on 1 April 1997. The total Education SSA of Derbyshire CC and the City of Derby is £320·622 million (1·80 per cent. of the national total).

  Wood Dust and Formaldehyde
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the research centres whose work has been evaluated by his Department in respect of research into(a) exposure to fine wood dust and (b) exposure to formaldehyde particles; what contact his Department has had with them; and what contact is planned in the future. [13866]

  Angela Eagle
  Comprehensive reviews of the international scientific literature were undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and considered by the Health and Safety Commission when advising on the setting of Maximum Exposure Limits for formaldehyde and softwood dusts under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations.

  Studies have been carried out on formaldehyde for HSE by the Medical Research Council toxicology unit. HSE has also commissioned work on wood dust with the Health and Safety Laboratory. Future contact will depend on the nature of the new research commissioned and the findings that emerge.

  Studies on non-occupational exposure have been carried out for my Department by the Medical Research Council's Institute for Environment and Health and by the Building Research Establishment, where long term studies are continuing. My Department will maintain contact with these research organisations.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the safety exposure limit, in parts per million, for formaldehyde emissions set by(a) the Health and Safety Executive and (b) other EU member states; and what international figures his Department has evaluated. [13865]

  Angela Eagle
  Formaldehyde has a maximum exposure limit (MEL) of two parts per million for an eight-hour time weighted average and for a 15-minute reference period under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH).

  The occupational exposure limits for other EU member states and worldwide, where information is available, is in the table below. Under COSHH, employers are required to control exposures to formaldehyde to a level as low as is reasonably practicable and in any case below the MEL. It is therefore misleading to compare the numerical value of the MEL with limits in other countries, where limits have different definitions and applications.
  143

  Occupational exposure limits and guidelines for formaldehyde

  Country or region

  Year

  Concentration

  Interpretation

  (mg/m3)

  (ppm)

  Belgium

  1991

  1·2

  1

  TWA; probable human carcinogen

  2·5

  2

  STEL

  Bulgaria

  1984

  1·00

  0·80

  TWA

  chile

  1983

  2·40

  2·00

  Ceiling

  Chine

  1982

  3·00

  2·50

  TWA

  Czech Republic

  1991

  0·5

  0·4

  TWA

  1

  0·8

  STEL

  Denmark

  1991

  0·04

  0·03

  STEL; suspected carcinogen

  Egypt

  1959

  6020

  5·00

  TWA

  Finland

  1993

  1·30

  1·00

  STEL, 15 min; significant absorption through skin

  France

  1991

  3·00

  2·50

  STEL

  Germany

  1993

  0·60

  0·50

  TWA; suspected carcinogenic Potential; local irritant; sinsitizer

  Hungary

  1991

  0·60

  0·50

  Ceiling; Probable human carcinogen; irritant; sensitizer

  India

  1983

  3·00

  2·50

  Ceiling

  Indonesia

  1978

  6·00

  0·50

  Ceiling

  Italy

  1978

  1·20

  1·00

  TWA

  Japan

  1991

  0·61

  0·50

  TWA; suspected carcinogenic Potential

  Mexico

  1983

  3·00

  2·50

  TWA

  Netherlands

  1986

  1·5

  1·2

  TWA

  3

  2·5

  Ceiling, 15 min

  Norway

  1990

  0·6

  0·5

  TWA; allergen; suspected carcinogen

  1·2

  1

  Ceiling

  Poland

  1991

  2·00

  1·60

  TWA

  Romania

  1975

  4·00

  3·00

  MAX

  Russian Federation

  1991

  0·50

  0·40

  TWA; senginificant absorption through skin

  Sweden

  1991

  0·6

  0·5

  TWA; sensitizer

  1·2

  1

  Ceiling

  Switzerland

  1991

  0·6

  0·5

  TWA; sensitizer

  1·2

  1

  Ceiling

  Taiwan

  1981

  6·00

  5·00

  TWA; significant absorption through skin

  United Kingdom

  1992

  2·5

  2

  TWA; maximum exposure limit

  2·5

  2

  STEL, 15 min

  USA

  ACGIH1

  1993

  0·37

  0·3

  Ceiling; suspected human carcinogen

  0·02

  0·01

  TWA; potential human carcinogen

  NIOSH2

  1992

  0·12

  0·1

  Ceiling, 15 min

  0·9

  0·75

  TWA

  OSHA3

  1993

  2·5

  2·0

  STEL

  Key

  1ACGIH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists—This is a non statutory body and the limits they prescribe are only a recommendation.

  2NIOSH: National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health: A research institute whose limits are only advisory.

  3OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration: The statutory agency whose limits apply by law.

  MEL: Maximum exposure limit. MELs have a particular status under COSHH. Under the Regulations, there is a duty to control exposure to substances with a MEL to a level as low as is reasonably practicable, and in any case below the MEL. This duty to reduce exposures thus does not stop once the MEL level has been achieved, but continues until all that is reasonably practicable has been done. This special status of MELs means that it is misleading simply to compare the numerical value of a MEL with a limit that applies in another country, where limits have different definitions and applications.

  TWA: Time weighted average. Both the long-term and the short-term exposure limits are expressed as airborne concentrations averaged over a specified period of time. The period for the long-term limit is usually eight hours; the short-term exposure limit (STEL) in the UK is 15 minutes but may be different elsewhere.

  Fibreboard
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the health risks associated with medium density fibreboard. [13867]

  Angela Eagle
  The Health and Safety Executive is conducting a literature review into the health effects of medium density fibreboard (MDF). My Department has commissioned the Medical Research Council's Institute for Environment and Health to carry out a preliminary assessment of the potential risks from the domestic use of MDF. Both those studies complement earlier extensive research and reviews on the possible health risks to which MDF could give rise. Machining of MDF can result in exposure to formaldehyde and wood dust.
  144
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning the health risks associated with medium density fibreboard; and if he will publish these. [13868]

  Angela Eagle
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has recently received many enquiries about the use of medium density fibreboard from employers, employees, the self-employed, members of the public, trade associations, trade unions and the press.

  Two representations have also been received by HSE, one from an individual and another from a trade union. Such representations are normally treated in confidence

  145
  and HSE will disclose them only with the prior consent of those who made them. These will, however, be taken into account in any future action that may be proposed.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many local authority homes have been transferred since the inception of the stock transfer policy; what capital receipts have been received as a result of the stock transfer policy; if he will make a statement on the impact of stock transfer policy since 1988; and how much private finance has been attracted to the stock transfer policy. [13977]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since 1988, 58 local authorities have completed 63 large scale voluntary transfers of all or part of their housing stock. These transfers have led to the transfer of over 252,000 dwellings, many of the tenants have benefited as a result of increased investment in their homes. So far, transfers have generated over £2·4 billion in capital receipts and raised over £4 billion in private finance for the acquisition, repair and maintenance, and management of the properties.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of(a) the capital repair backlog to council housing in each London borough and (b) the capital spending approved for the current year. [13495]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: Authorities' estimates of the cost of the capital work required to their housing stock on 1 April 1996 and the allocations made to local authorities in London for the current financial year under the housing improvement programme are listed in the table.

  £ thousands

  Column 1

  Column 2

  Column 3

  Estimated need for capital work to council housing in London

  Total capital work required at 1 April 1996

  Housing annual capital guideline 1997–98

  Barking and Dagenham

  1130,848

  3,944

  Barnet

  37,553

  3,704

  Bexley

  24,226

  1,485

  Brent

  49,013

  8,002

  Bromley

  2—

  1,329

  Camden

  —

  9,924

  City of London

  18,164

  342

  Croydon

  92,385

  7,118

  Ealing

  70,642

  5,689

  Enfield

  46,241

  3,266

  Greenwich

  99,069

  8,459

  Hackney

  495,000

  12,451

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  78,457

  7,325

  Haringey

  38,962

  8,692

  Harrow

  40,981

  1,613

  Havering

  91,394

  2,144

  Hillingdon

  175,750

  4,431

  Hounslow

  74,383

  3,879

  Islington

  216,768

  9,255

  Kensington and Chelsea

  35,029

  5,519

  Kingston upon Thames

  21,999

  1,570

  Lambeth

  938,443

  12,308

  Lewisham

  164,744

  10,086

  Merton

  21,523

  2,322

  Newham

  207,562

  10,394

  Redbridge

  23,993

  2,335

  Richmond upon Thames

  91,742

  2,059

  146

  £ thousands

  Column 1

  Column 2

  Column 3

  Estimated need for capital work to council housing in London

  Total capital work required at 1 April 1996

  Housing annual capital guideline 1997–98

  Southwark

  3—

  11,540

  Sutton

  160,155

  2,058

  Tower Hamlets

  162,605

  8,608

  Waltham Forest

  158,080

  5,435

  Wandsworth

  77,980

  7,429

  Westminster

  77,377

  9,619

  Local housing authorities are required to submit returns from which the data in column 2 is collected. Local authorities use different methods to produce their estimates. The figures in column 3 are net of allocations for renewal of private sector stock and for disabled facilities grants.

  1Indicates that authorities were unable to provide precise information, but they were able to provide their best estimates of the need for capital work to their stock.

  2Indicates that authorities have transferred their entire council housing stock to a registered social landlord and are no longer required to submit the return from which this data is collected.

  3Indicates that authorities were unable to supply an estimate of the need for capital work to their stock.

  The Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill provides the legislative framework for the Capital Receipts Initiative, under which the Government expects to provide additional resources to support local authorities' capital expenditure on housing. The Government plans in the current financial year to make available £174 million under the Initiative to local authorities in England.

  Local authority housing benefits from resources provided under other programmes such as the single regeneration budget challenge fund and the estates renewal challenge fund. Local authorities can also use their own resources to support capital expenditure on housing.

  Bus Companies
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many national bus companies and municipal bus undertakings were privatised; and how many are still owned by the first owners following privatisation. [13712]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The 72 subsidiaries of the National Bus Company and the 10 companies in the Scottish Bus Group were privatised; 31 municipal bus companies have been sold by the local authorities concerned.

  There is no requirement to report to this Department subsequent changes of ownership, which are a matter for the commercial market and, where relevant, the competition authorities.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what decisions were taken at the International Atomic Energy Agency annual general conference held in September in regard to assessment of the adequacy of existing IAEA regulations covering the transport of plutonium and high-level radioactive waste. [13699]
  147
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The general conference requested the IAEA to prepare, for its board of governors, a report on legally binding and non-binding international instruments and regulations concerning the safe transport of radioactive materials and their implementation.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to ensure that no local authority will be financially disadvantaged as a result of the scrapping of nursery vouchers. [13898]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The combined effect of the revenue support grant allocations and specific grants to be given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will ensure that all authorities are treated fairly, following the abolition of the scheme for nursery vouchers.

  Paper Pulp Waste
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the guidelines for controlling the tipping of paper pulp waste from paper manufacture on farmland, upland and moors. [13691]

  Angela Eagle
  The previous Government's response to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's Nineteenth Report on the Sustainable Use of Soil—C0428, January 1997—stated in paragraph 28 that the Water Research Centre and ADAS had been commissioned to develop further the criteria that determine in what circumstances the spreading on land of particular wastes benefit agriculture or result in ecological improvement; and that it would issue for public consultation good practice guidance reflecting the outcome of that research.

  The Government plans to fulfil these commitments on receipt from the Environment Agency of the results of the research project. The original research project has been extended by the Environment Agency and is now expected to be completed by the end of March 1998.

  Music (Sound Levels)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list those regulations governing the level of sound played in clubs where music is played; [13706]

  (2) what assessment he has made of measures to encourage voluntary limitation of exposure to high decibel noise levels in clubs where music is played; [13708]

  (3) what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the long-term effects of unprotected exposure to high levels of sound in clubs where music is played; [13707]

  (4) what plans he has to extend existing legislation on noise safety at work to clubs where music is played. [13709]

  Angela Eagle
  Risks from noise exposure to people who work in clubs are covered by the Noise at Work Regulations 1989, while the health and safety of members of the public who attend clubs is governed by the general 148
  requirements of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. There are no plans to change this legislation in relation to clubs.

  The licensing of clubs where music is played is the responsibility of the relevant licensing authority. It is for them to attach to licences such conditions as they consider necessary to protect the interests of both those attending the venue and those living nearby.

  There has been substantial worldwide research on the effects of noise exposure on hearing, including work commissioned over many years by the Health and Safety Executive. In particular, the Health and Safety Executive published in 1985 a review by the Medical Research Council Institute of Hearing Research of the literature on damage to hearing arising from leisure noise, including noise in discotheques.

  There has been no assessment of measures to encourage the voluntary limitation of exposure to high decibel noise levels in clubs where music is played.

  Solar Panels
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is considering to increase the installation of solar panels in domestic property and public buildings; and what part he expects this to play in meeting renewable energy targets. [14290]

  Angela Eagle
  My hon. Friend the Minister of Science, Energy and Industry announced a review of new and renewable energy policy on 6 June, including consideration of what would be necessary and practicable to achieve 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity needs from renewables by the year 2010. The Government's support for solar panels will be considered in the context of this review. It is hoped that solar energy will be able to make a worthwhile contribution to UK power needs. However, currently the installation of photovoltaics in the UK is not cost-effective compared with other power generation options.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the number of representations he has received concerning regional development agencies. [14243]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have received around 1,500 responses to the issues paper on regional development agencies which we published on 11 June.

  Al Red Route (Accidents)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the accident rates on the A1 red route for each of the last four years. [13990]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  For the section of the Al red route from Stirling Corner to its junction with Pentonville Road the accident rates (in injury accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometres) are:

  1993: 90

  1994: 98

  1995: 99

  1996: 88

  Zoo Directive
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to support the EU zoo directive; and if he will make a statement. [13683]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government supports efforts to improve zoo standards throughout the Community, which are long overdue. We believe that a directive would be the most effective way to achieve this. In deciding whether to pursue a directive in the Environment Council, we will need to consider whether it would attract sufficient support from other member states to secure its early adoption. We are discussing this with other member states as part of the groundwork for the forthcoming UK Presidency. If a directive is unattainable, the main alternative is to finalise a Council recommendation on zoos, which would be a significant step forward.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures his Department has taken to protect hedgerows; and if he will make a statement. [13682]

  Angela Eagle
  Regulations for the protection of important hedgerows in England and Wales came into force on 1 June 1997. They control the removal of such hedgerows through a system of prior notification to the local planning authority. Although an important first step, we have instigated a review to consider how the regulations might be strengthened so that they give better protection for hedgerows. The review is being undertaken by a group which includes the statutory agencies, local authorities and the main farming and conservation bodies. It has been asked to report its recommendations by the end of December 1997.

  Expenditure planned for

  Latest estimate of total of cost (£)

  Expenditure incurred to date (£)

  1997–98 (£)

  1998–1999 (£)

  1999–2000 (£)

  DETR (a)

  3 million

  0·2 million

  1 million

  1·5 million

  0·5 million

  Executive agencies1

  15·5 million

  0·095 million

  2·2 million

  13·3 million

  Other public bodies (b)

  375 thousand

  25 thousand

  70 thousand

  210 thousand

  95 thousand

  1For Highways Agency (HA) the Latest Estimate of Total Cost is £15 million, mainly the cost of traffic control systems and the like. HA has not been able to break down Expenditure Planned between 1998–1999 and 1999–2000.

  Figures are currently not available for:

  (a) Government Offices (GOs).

  (b) London Transport (LT). The Chairman of LT has been asked to write to you on this matter.

  London Regional Passengers Committee (LRPC)

  Northern Lighthouse Board (Scotland and IOM).

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the action plan, due by 1 October 1997, for resolving the computer millennium problem in his Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible; if such was fully completed on time; and if he will make a statement. [13557]

  Angela Eagle
  The costed action plans will be analysed by the central IT unit (CITU) and the CCTA and the conclusions reported to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who will then inform Parliament.
  150
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to take steps to bring the height of hedges under planning law; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the height of hedges. [13945]

  Angela Eagle
  We have no plans to bring the height of hedges under planning law, but are considering whether there could be a case for some form of Government intervention in what, in general, are disputes between neighbours.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which(a) Minister and (b) civil servant has overall responsibility for ensuring millennium computer compliance in his Department and its associated public bodies.[13561]

  Angela Eagle
  The Minister responsbile is the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hull, East (Mr. Prescott).

  Each central directorate in DETR, executive agency and individual public body is responsible for ensuring compliance for the systems under its control. The Head of DETR' s information technology services division has overall responsibility for co-ordinating the central Department's millennium computer compliance.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his latest estimate of the total cost of resolving the computer millennium problem in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which he is responsible; if he will state in each case (i) expenditure incurred to date, (ii) expenditure planned for 1997–98, (iii) expenditure planned for 1998–99 and (iv) expenditure planned for 1999–00; and if he will make a statement.[13558]

  Angela Eagle
  The figures are provided in the following table:

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible completed the millennium computer compliance audits of systems; and if he will make a statement. [13560]

  Angela Eagle
  In DETR, auditing was completed in October 1997.

  In the Government offices for the regions, scoping of systems is being finalised and audits will follow.
  151
  In the executive agencies, half had completed their audits in the first half of 1997. Some agencies have conducted audits in two stages with a high level audit already complete and a second more detailed investigation either under way or planned for early 1998.

  In the other public bodies, auditing has been completed in a minority, is under way in others, and, in all cases, is planned to be completed by mid 1998.

  Mr Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on what funding provision has been made to accommodate the expenditure needed to resolve the computer millennium problem; and if he expects to have sufficient funding to pay for the work necessary to achieve complete millennium compliance by 1 January 2000. [13559]

  Angela Eagle
  The cost of preventive and remedial action on year 2000 will be met from existing PES provision.

  Traffic Speed (Central London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish his Department's estimates of traffic speed in central London for each of the past 10 years; and if he will give the estimate for the current year so far. [13989]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Published estimates of average traffic speeds (mph) in central London since 1968 are as follows:

  Morning peak

  Daytime off-peak

  Evening peak

  1968

  12·7

  12·1

  11·8

  1971

  12·9

  12·6

  12·7

  1974

  14·2

  12·9

  13·2

  1977

  12·3

  12·6

  11·9

  1980

  12·1

  11·6

  12·2

  1983

  11·8

  11·9

  11·5

  1986

  11·5

  11·0

  11·0

  1990

  10·3

  10·6

  10·3

  1994

  10·9

  10·9

  10·8

  Morning peak: 7·45 am-9·15 am

  Daytime off-peak: 10·00 am-4·00 pm

  Evening peak: 4·45 pm-6·15 pm

  Speed surveys in central, inner and outer London are conducted on a rotating basis, with each of these areas surveyed every three to four years. Data from the recently completed 1997 central survey are currently being validated and the survey results will be available later this year.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the average time taken by his Department to give full answers to letters received from hon. Members. [13949]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department seeks to answer letters from all hon. Members within 15 working days. As indicated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his reply to the hon. Member for Walsall, North, (Mr. Winnick) on 3 November,Official Report, column 5, it has been customary for the Government to publish
  152
  annual statistics showing Departments' and agencies' performance against their targets for reply to ministerial correspondence. The 1996 figures were published on 17 June 1997, Official Report, columns 107-12.

  Genetically Modified Maize
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will support the stance of Austria and Luxembourg on GM maize at the article 21 Committee meeting on 5 November; and if he will make a statement. [13689]

  Angela Eagle
  I am considering the UK's position and I will write to the hon. Gentleman once we have reached a conclusion.

  White Rock Business Park, Paignton
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce the result of the inquiry into the proposed White Rock Business Park, Paignton. [13245]

  Mr. Caborn
  As the hon. Member will now be aware, my letter of 29 October 1997 announced the Secretary of State's decision to refuse consent for a planning application by Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd for a business park at White Rock, Paignton.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has issued concerning the erection of telecommunications masts. [14543]

  Mr. Caborn
  Current planning policy guidance on telecommunication development is set out in planning policy guidance note 8 (PPG8 revised December 1992). That guidance reflects the importance attached to keeping to a minimum the number of telecommunications masts, and of sites for such installations. At paragraph 27, the PPG states that the sharing of masts will help to achieve this aim, where such sharing is practicable, as will the use of existing buildings to site new antennas. Telecommunications operators, licensed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under the Telecommunications Act 1984, are required by their licence conditions to take all reasonable steps to investigate the possibility of mast sharing. We already advise local planning authorities in the PPG that they may reasonably expect applicants for planning permission for large masts to show evidence that they have explored the possibility of erecting antennas on an existing building, mast or other structure.

  It will henceforth be our policy to extend this guidance to the development of smaller masts, particularly those which are permitted under Part 24 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. Where an operator seeks a prior approval determination for a mast under that Order, clear evidence should be presented to the local planning authority that the operator has investigated carefully the siting of antennas on existing buildings or other structures, including masts. This is a further factor to consider alongside the sitting factors set out in appendix E to Department of the Environment circular 9/95. If the evidence regarding the consideration of such alternative

  153
  sites is not considered satisfactory, the planning authority, or the Secretary of State on appeal, may be justified in refusing approval to the mast's siting.

  Operators will be assisted in exploring alternatives to new mast development by the register of mast sites maintained by the Radiocommunications Agency. Operators and local planning authorities can now access that information which should help in the consideration of alternative sites that have already been cleared for radio transmission purposes.

SCOTLAND

  Health Living
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State what discussions he has had with the Greater Glasgow health board and other bodies in Glasgow on healthy living initiatives. [12049]

  Mr. Galbraith
  My right hon. friend has had no discussions with the Greater Glasgow Health Board or other bodies in Glasgow in healthy living initiatives. However, within the context of the Glasgow Healthy Cities Partnership, which provides a focus for community-based health promotion action within the East End of Glasgow, he is aware of a number of initiatives such as the Fossil Stress Centre and I have myself visited the Centre for Women's Health and Eastbank Health Promotion Centre. These are all initiatives which I commend.

  The hon. Member's record of campaigning against drugs is well known and he is to be commended for it. I was pleased to receive a proposal from COSLA to provide funding for two years for the appointment of a drug misuse co-ordinator. I am pleased to announce that the Government supports this proposal and I have asked officials to discuss the arrangements with COSLA in order to bring it about.

  Criminal Cases Review Authority
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State when he expects to establish a criminal cases review authority; and if he will make a statement. [12051]

  Mr. McLeish
  My right hon. Friend is aiming to have the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in operation by 1 April 1999.

  Fisheries (Quota Hopping)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State when he last met European Fisheries Ministers to discuss the problem of quota hopping in Scottish waters. [12052]

  Mr. Chisholm
  My noble Friend, the Minister for Fisheries at The Scottish Office attended a meeting of the Council of European Fisheries Ministers on 30 October. Quota hopping was not on the agenda and was not discussed. Fisheries Departments are continuing to develop proposals to tackle this issue, in consultation with industry and the Commission, following the exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the Commission President in June.

  Devolution
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the additional costs to public funds which would stem from the devolution proposals. [12053]

  Mr. McLeish
  The costs of the devolution proposals will be met from within existing public expenditure provision.

  Dearing and Garrick Reports
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many submissions he received in response to his Department's consultation on the Dearing and Garrick reports. [12054]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received 46 submissions in response to his Department's consultation on the Dearing and Garrick reports.

  Scotch Whisky Association
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Scotch Whisky Association to discuss the future development of the industry in Scotland. [12055]

  Mr. Wilson
  I and my right hon. Friend are in regular informal contact with The Scotch Whisky Association. In addition my right hon. Friend is due to meet the Association on 21 November.

  Health Boards
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State when he next plans to meet the chairmen of the health boards in Scotland to discuss the reduction of bureaucracy. [12056]

  Mr. Galbraith
  I meet Chairmen of Health Boards regularly to discuss matters of current interest including the reduction of bureaucracy.

  New Prisons
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State what discussions he has had with the Home Secretary about the use of the private finance initiative to finance new prisons. [12057]

  Mr. McLeish
  Discussions on this issue are still taking place between officials, including whether the use of private finance would offer value for money where custodial services were provided by the public sector. It is as yet too early to predict the outcome of this work.

  Nursery Education
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the future availability of nursery education combined with day care. [12059]

  Mr. Wilson
  Our first priority is to offer pre-school education to all children in their pre-school year, as we undertook in the Manifesto and I shall be issuing a major consultation paper on pre-school education later in the autumn. We shall move as soon as practicable thereafter to consider associated daycare needs, as well as the extension of pre-school education to younger children.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to discuss Scottish agriculture with his European Union counterparts. [12060]

  Mr. Chisholm
  My noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for Agriculture, the Environment and Fisheries has recently met both Commissioner Fischler and the Finnish Agriculture Minister to discuss Scottish agriculture. He also attended the October Agriculture Council. He will undertake further discussions and attend further meetings of the Agriculture Council as appropriate.

  Referendum
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Scots not currently resident in Scotland who were excluded from voting in the recent referendum. [12061]

  Mr. McLeish
  Around 100 representations have been received in writing together with a number of telephone enquiries seeking clarification about eligibility to vote.

  Eligibility to vote in the referendum was determined by residency in Scotland. This reflected the fact that the Scottish Parliament will mainly affect people resident in Scotland.

  Eligibility to vote was debated at length during the passage of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill earlier this year.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State when he expects to meet his target for class sizes of 30 pupils. [12062]

  Mr. Wilson
  Our intention is to achieve class sizes of 30 pupils or fewer in the first three years of primary school by the end of this Parliament.

  Funding
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State what discussions he has had with Her Majesty's Treasury regarding the size of the Scottish block. [12063]

  Mr. Dewar
  The size of the Scottish block is set for this year and next by the published expenditure plans and the July Budget announcements. The figures for subsequent years will depend on the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review in comparable English departments, which will feed into the block through the normal operation of the Barnett formula.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State what are his plans for the Forestry Commission after Scottish devolution with particular reference to its responsibilities outside Scotland. [12064]

  Mr. Chisholm
  After devolution, the functions of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, in relation to forestry, will be transferred to the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly respectively. The Commission will, however, continue to be the Government Department with responsibility for forestry throughout Britain.

  Caledonian MacBrayne
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State what plans he has to meet the managing director of Caledonian MacBrayne to discuss its ferry services. [12065]

  Mr. Chisholm
  My right hon. Friend met with the Managing Director of Caledonian MacBrayne on 1 August, and I met with the Chairman and previous Managing Director on 24 June. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend are planning to have a further meeting with the company's Managing Director at the present time. However, Scottish Office officials maintain frequent contact with the company's executive directors in connection with all aspects of Caledonian MacBrayne's business activities.

  Health Service
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his planned increased in health expenditure in Scotland for 1998–99. [12066]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Net expenditure in Scotland in 1998-99 is planned to be £4,581 million, which is an increase of £205 million or 4·7 per cent. over 1997–98 planned expenditure.

  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to modify the regulations governing the registration and inspection of residential and nursing homes for the elderly. [12067]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Scottish Office issued guidance to Health Boards and interested parties on 8 July this year on national core standards for the registration, operation and inspection of nursing homes. Following consultation, guidance will be issued soon to local authorities on the registration and inspection of residential care homes. Legislation on the regulation and inspection of residential and nursing home care and domiciliary care will follow when a suitable opportunity presents.

  Degrees Course Tuition Fees
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the annual tuition fees for a four-year degree course at universities in Scotland from September 1998 for students from(a) Scotland, (b) England and Wales and (c) EU countries. [13363]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: The tuition fees which will apply to new students entering higher education in session 1998–99 are expected to be £1,000 and will be increased in line with inflation for subsequent years. New entrants in session 1997–98, existing students and those with a confirmed place by 1 August 1997 for 1998 will not be affected. For Scottish and EU students undertaking an Honours degree course at a Scottish university, which is a year longer than comparable courses elsewhere in the UK, The Scottish Office will waive the student's tuition fee in the final year and pay the fee to the institutions directly. Some students will be exempt altogether from making a contribution toward tuition fees throughout their higher education,

  157
  dependent on family circumstances. Further details will be made available in a leaflet, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Health Education
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the findings of the project funded jointly by his Department and the Health Education Board for Scotland to formulate the planning and provision of health education, including drug education, in Scottish teacher education institutions; and if he will make a statement. [13219]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 30 October 1997]: The project referred to is not a research project. Its purpose was to make it easier for teacher educators and their students to acquire the relevant knowledge and insights to deliver health education in schools. Health education and promotion are central to the curriculum and ethos of primary, secondary and special schools in Scotland. Our new teachers must, therefore, be well prepared for their responsibilities in teaching their pupils about health and in encouraging them to develop healthy styles of living. The project has been under way since April 1996 and will be completed in April 1998. From the start, it has been a co-operative venture involving staff from each of the teacher education institutions (TEIs), and representatives from the Health Education Board for Scotland (HEBS), the General Teaching Council and the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department (SOEID). The materials developed are to be made available to each of the TEIs to be adapted to fit their own courses. The materials, which are based on existing good practice in health education, will be relevant to students preparing to work with all children and young people of primary and secondary school age.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State if he will make a statement on the proposed powers of the Scottish Parliament in relation to European Union matters. [12058]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Government's proposals for involving the Scottish Parliament in relations with the European Union are set out in Chapter 5 of the White Paper, "Scotland's Parliament".

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on progress in choosing a site for the Scottish Parliament. [14674]

  Mr. McLeish
  We will select a site for the new Scottish Parliament as soon as possible, in the light of the best available information. This information must include independent costings of building construction or conversion projects on the possible sites. My Department has today commissioned design feasibility studies, an independent costing exercise and a transport and environmental impact assessment.

  Page and Park Architects of Glasgow will look at how best to fit the needs of the Scottish Parliament into and around St. Andrews House on Calton Hill. Benson and
  158
  Forsyth Architects, will look at how an appropriate building could best be placed on the site at Leith. RMJM (Scotland) will consider the design of a building for the Haymarket site.

  The Glasgow office of quantity surveyors and cost consultants, Davis Langdon and Everest, is being asked to prepare comparative costings on the basis of the design feasibility studies.

  Scott, Wilson, Kirkpatrick and Partners of Glasgow have also been commissioned to carry out a transport and environmental impact assessment on the sites under consideration.

  The firms concerned have been asked to complete their work by mid-December. The total cost of the various studies is estimated to be about £250,000. This is a small fraction of the estimated cost of the building and will help the Government to reach a much better-informed view on the suitability of the possible sites.

  Health Trust Deficits
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) actual deficits and (b) projected deficits of each health trust as a percentage of their budgets for the last three years. [14273]

  Mr. Galbraith
  In 1994–95, one Trust reported a retained deficit as a result of a loss on disposal of fixed assets. In 1995–96, two Trusts reported retained deficits, which were technical in nature, as a result of a loss on disposal of fixed assets. In 1996–97, three Trusts reported retained deficits. Fife Healthcare experienced a deficit of £1·9 million as a result of a funding gap and the Victoria Infirmary's deficit of £6 million was caused by a combination of loss on disposal of fixed assets of £4·2 million and £1·8 million due to financial difficulties. One other Trust had a deficit which was technical in nature as a result of loss on disposal of fixed assets.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when his Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible completed the millennium computer compliance audits of systems; and if he will make a statement. [13595]

  Mr. Dewar
  My Department and associated agencies completed audits for Year 2000 computer compliance purposes on 8 October 1997. Responsibility for ensuring millennium compliance in other public bodies rests with the bodies themselves.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the action plan, due by 1 October 1997, for resolving the computer millennium problem in his Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible; if such was fully completed on time; and if he will make a statement. [13592]
  159
  Mr. Dewar
  The Scottish Office has sent an updated report on the computer millennium problems to the Central Computing and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA). Reports from all Departments will be analysed by the Central Information Technology Unit and the CCTA. The conclusions will be reported to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who will then inform Parliament.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is his latest estimate of the total cost of resolving the computer millennium problem in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which he is responsible; if he will give in each case (i) expenditure incurred to date, (ii) expenditure planned for 1997–98, (iii) expenditure planned for 1998–99 and (iv) expenditure planned for 1999–00; and if he will make a statement; [13593]

  (2) if he will make a statement on what funding provision has been made to accommodate the expenditure needed to resolve the computer millennium problem; and if he expects to have sufficient funding to pay for the work necessary to achieve complete millennium compliance by 1 January 2000. [13594]

  Mr. Dewar
  It is not possible at this stage to predict accurately the total cost of resolving the computer millennium problem across my Department, its Agencies and other public bodies. However it is expected that the cost of Year 2000 preventative and remedial action will be met within existing planned financial provision.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which(a) Minister and (b) civil servant has overall responsibility for ensuring millennium computer compliance in his Department and its associated public bodies. [13596]

  Mr. Dewar
  I intend to retain overall responsibility for millennium computer compliance matters within my Department. The Director of Telecommunications is responsible for the compliance programme within The Scottish Office. Responsibility for ensuring millennium compliance in other public bodies rests with the bodies themselves.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Medical Students
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students applied for admission to medical schools this autumn, and how many were admitted; how many of those admitted, achieved three A grades at A level; how many had lower grades; and how many students with three A grades failed to secure a place. [13310]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is not held centrally or is not yet available. Information on applications received up to May 16 by subject were released by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) in their press notice in June 1997. Fuller information on applicants by subject together with information on acceptances by subject and entry qualifications will be published by UCAS in their annual 160
  report in spring 1998. These figures will not, however, analyses the entry qualifications held by applicants who were not accepted.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what assessment he has made of(a) the effectiveness of the Employment Service's preferred supplier system for administering contracts with third-party suppliers and (b) the reaction of the agencies which deal with young people to the administrative processes involved; [13510]

  (2) how much it cost the Employment Service on average to place a young person in work through a jobcentre in the last year for which figures are available; [13511]

  (3) how many young people the Portsmouth jobcentre has placed in work through jobcentre notices in the latest 12-month period for which figures are available; [13512]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the planning undertaken by Employment Service managers in each district in Hampshire in relation to delivery of the new deal. [13513]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for replies to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 4 October 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question regarding the average cost of placing a young person into work. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive.
  The Employment Service does not separately monitor the average cost of placing a young person into work. It is required, by its annual agreement with the Department for Education and Employment, to monitor and report the average cost of placing an unemployed person into work (regardless of age). The last year for which this figure is available is 1996–97, when the average cost was £234.
  In addition to this, the Employment Service also monitors the average cost of placing a long term unemployed person into work (£431 in 1996–97) and the average cost of placing a person with a disability into work (£321 in 1996–97). Neither of these unit costs are analysed by age of client and there are, at present, no plans to do so.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 4 October 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the effectiveness of the Employment Service preferred supplier system and the reaction of agencies who deal with young people to the administrative processes involved.
  I am satisfied that the preferred supplier system being used by the Employment Service is effective in helping both it and potential contractors to make the best use of their resources. The Employment Service benefits from the ability to invite competitive tenders from a manageable number of organisations, while potential contractors benefit from knowing that their bid will be taken seriously.
  This approach is being used for Employment Service programmes designed to help unemployed people of all ages to improve their prospects of finding work. The Employment Service, is not, however, operating a preferred supplier system for the New Deal initiative for young people aged 18–24.

  161
  Organisations have generally accepted the rationale behind the preferred supplier system in relation to established programmes, and I am not aware of any problems—either from agencies dealing with young people or from others—about the administrative processes involved. I would, of course, be happy to look into any specific issues of which you are aware.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 4 October 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question requesting information about young people placed into employment by Portsmouth Employment Service Jobcentre during the latest 12 month period. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The two Employment Service Jobcentres in Portsmouth—Portsmouth North and Portsmouth Central—placed 920 young people aged 16–24 into employment in the 12 months ending September 1997.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 4 October 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question relating to the planning undertaken by Employment Service managers in each district in Hampshire with respect to New Deal delivery.
  All New Deal district plans are due to be assessed by regional assessment panels starting next week. These panels, which will include senior Employment Service management, Government Office Directors and senior employer and voluntary sector representatives, will assess plans against agreed criteria to establish whether they represent robust and realistic proposals to implement New Deal. Where necessary, the panel will require plans to be amended or, in extremis, recast to ensure that this is so.
  Delivery planning for New Deal in all Employment Service districts has been subject to progress monitoring and reporting on a fortnightly basis since the end of August 1997. The latest fortnightly progress reports (for the period ending 20 October 1997) show that the Employment Service Hampshire districts of Mid-Hants, Portsmouth, Southampton and Guildford, which covers parts of Hampshire, are all on course to submit their delivery plans on time for regional assessment. All plans, once approved, will be published.
  If you have any specific concerns my Director for London and the South East, Richard Foster (tel: 0171 211 4395), will be happy to discuss them with you.
  I trust that this is helpful.

  School Meals
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much has been spent on subsidising school meals in Derbyshire in each of the last 10 years. [14200]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not collected centrally in the form requested. The following table shows Derbyshire local education authority's total net expenditure on its school catering service from 1986–87 to 1995–96, the latest year for which data are available.

  Derbyshire County Council school catering services—net expenditure

  Cash terms

  Year

  £000s

  1986–87

  12,432

  1987–88

  14,525

  1988–89

  15,759

  1989–90

  15,064

  1990–91

  15,312

  1991–92

  18,695

  162

  Derbyshire County Council school catering services—net expenditure

  Cash terms

  Year

  £000s

  1992–93

  18,319

  1993–94

  13,908

  1994–95

  13,456

  1995–96

  12,698

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much has been spent on subsidising school meals in each shire county over the last 10 years, arranging the counties in descending order of expenditure. [14199]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not collected centrally in the form requested. The following table shows in descending order each shire county's total net expenditure on its school catering service between 1986–87 and 1995–96, the latest year for which outturn figures are available.

  School catering services total net expenditure from 1986–87 to 1995–96

  Cash terms

  LEAs

  £000s

  Derbyshire

  150,168

  Lancashire

  132,156

  Humberside

  129,490

  Nottinghamshire1

  99,096

  Avon

  95,627

  Cleveland

  92,944

  Hampshire

  88,751

  Essex

  71,106

  Leicestershire

  69,166

  Devon

  65,969

  Cheshire

  64,996

  Staffordshire

  64,356

  Hertfordshire

  63,476

  Kent

  61,902

  Durham

  59,873

  Norfolk

  50,028

  Bedfordshire

  42,253

  East Sussex

  40,523

  Surrey

  39,502

  Cambridgeshire

  38,877

  Cumbria

  35,797

  North Yorkshire

  35,724

  Northamptonshire

  33,530

  Warwickshire

  33,349

  Oxfordshire

  31,499

  Wiltshire

  31,430

  Cornwall

  30,757

  West Sussex

  28,525

  Shropshire

  28,345

  Suffolk2

  28,158

  Somerset

  26,848

  Northumberland

  24,798

  Gloucestershire

  23,083

  Buckinghamshire

  21,712

  Berkshire3

  17,734

  Dorset

  17,397

  Hereford and Worcester

  16,199

  Lincolnshire

  15,073

  Isle of Wight

  9,491

  1Excludes net expenditure for 1991–92.

  2Excludes net expenditure for 1989–90.

  3Excludes net expenditure for 1987–88.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will publish the action plan, due by 1 October 1997, for resolving the computer millennium problem in his Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible; if such was fully completed on time; and if he will make a statement; [13577]

  (2) what is his latest estimate of the total cost of resolving the computer millennium problem in (a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which he is responsible; if he will state in each case (i) expenditure incurred to date, (ii) expenditure planned for 1997–98, (iii) expenditure planned for 1998–99 and (iv) expenditure planned for 1999–00; and if he will make a statement; [13578]

  (3) if he will make a statement on what funding provision has been made to accommodate the expenditure needed to resolve the computer millennium problem; and if he expects to have sufficient funding to pay for the work necessary to achieve complete millennium compliance by 1 January 2000; [13579]

  (4) when his Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible completed the millennium computer compliance audits of systems; and if he will make a statement; [13580]

  (5) which (a) Minister and (b) civil servant has overall responsibility for ensuring millennium computer compliance in his Department and its associated public bodies.[13581]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department has assessed carefully and systematically the extent to which its processes and outputs would be vulnerable to disruption from the computer millennium problem. We have defined the scope of the problem and realistically assessed the risks; planned for the effective testing of solutions; initiated the preparation of contingency plans and are taking steps to strengthen contracts with suppliers. Compliance audits of 164
  the Department's IS/IT systems were completed in August 1997: those for the Employment Service were completed in September 1997. Steps have been taken to ensure that all of the agencies and non-departmental public bodies that are answerable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment are adopting a comparably rigorous approach.

  The estimated cost of securing full millennium compliance of DfEE's IS/IT is £4·55 million, of which £1·08 million will be spent in 1997–98 and the remainder in 1998–99. The current comparable estimate for the Employment Service is £23·15 million—£0·95 million in 1997–98, £20·7 million in 1998–99 and £1·5 million in 1999–2000. The cost of securing millennium compliance of embedded chips in the Department's building control and associated systems is estimated at £0·25 million, which will be spent in 1998–99. The necessary funding is being found from existing financial provision.

  I am the Minister with overall responsibility for the Department's year 2000 compliance programme. The civil servant with overall responsibility in DfEE is Mr. Kenneth Jordan, the head of procurement and contracting who is also responsible for assessing the extent of the vulnerability to year 2000 problems in the key parts of the Department's supply chain. The civil servant with overall responsibility in the Employment Service is Mr. Ray Phillips, the director of policy and process design.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average time taken by his Department to give full answers to letters received from hon. Members. [13948]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 3 November,Official Report, column 5.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Six-month Entry Visas
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many six-month entry visas to the United Kingdom were granted by the entry clearance section in Bangkok in each of the last two years for which statistics are available; and how many applications were rejected. [12574]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The majority of visas for the UK are valid for presentation at a port within six months of date of issue. It is then for an immigration officer to determine the period of stay. The total number of visas including settlement visas issued in Bangkok was as follows:

  1995: 50,433

  1996: 50,696

  Of these, the total number of non-settlement visas issued and refused was:

  1995

  1996

  Granted

  49·863

  50,253

  Refused

  830

  1,138

  The number of multiple entry visas valid for presentation for six months granted and refused in Bangkok was:

  1995

  1996

  Granted

  7,830

  8,927

  Refused

  72

  116

  Cuba
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Cuba. [12763]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have normal diplomatic relations with Cuba and support normal trade relations in civil goods and services. UK firms are encouraged to exploit the growing civil market opportunities which arise as Cuba undergoes a process of economic liberalisation. We continue to urge the Cuban Government to reach an early settlement of outstanding debt to ECGD and UK firms.

  We and EU partners share the goal of a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba. We favour constructive engagement not isolation. The EU adopted a common position on Cuba on 2 December 1996, reaffirming the EU's commitment to promoting political, economic and human rights reform in Cuba. This was presented to the Cuban Government on 21 July and we look forward to furthering this dialogue.

  Israeli Service Men
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will endeavour to locate the Israeli service men Zachary Baumel, Yehuda Katz, Zvi Feldman and Ron Arad, to obtain news of their welfare and to negotiate for their release from captivity.[13111]
  166
  Mr. Fatchett
  Efforts to establish the fate of missing Israeli service men have been hindered by the lack of information about which organisations are holding them.

  Nevertheless, we support all efforts to obtain information on their fate. This message was underlined when I took part in a satellite link-up with members of the Knesset in May to mark Ron Arad's birthday. I also raised the case when I visited Syria later that month.

  We shall continue to raise the cases of these service men whenever the opportunity arises.

  Immigration Correspondence
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the staffing levels of the migration and visa correspondence unit on 1 October(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997. [13998]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The answer is as follows:

  (a) 13

  (b) 12

  (c) 12 permanent, four temporary.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will create a dedicated unit to deal with hon. Members' correspondence at the migration and visa correspondence unit. [14001]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The migration and visa correspondence unit's primary role is to deal with members' correspondence, which accounts for the greater part of its workload.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many complaints have been received about the level of service of the migration and visa correspondence unit in the last 12 months. [14002]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our correspondence statistics are not broken down in a way that enables complaints to be identified separately. To provide the information requested would involve disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average time taken by the migration and visa correspondence unit to answer correspondence from an hon. Member. [14000]

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average time between hon. Members writing on behalf of constituents in immigration and related cases and the reply being sent to the hon. Member. [13198]

  Mr. Fatchett
  As the result of a 35 per cent. increase in correspondence from Members since the general election the migration and visa correspondence unit has been unable to maintain its normal target of a reply within 15 working days. The average time for non-urgent correspondence is currently five weeks. Extra staff have been deployed with the aim of eliminating delays.
  167
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many letters were received by the migration and visa correspondence unit in each month of 1997. [13999]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The migration and visa correspondence unit has received the following number of letters from Members:

  Number

  January

  556

  February

  517

  March

  459

  April

  600

  May

  427

  June

  982

  July

  1,278

  August

  1,158

  September

  956

  Total

  6,933

  In addition, 4,461 letters were received during the same period from other correspondents.

  Congo
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will investigate human rights abuses relating to the disappearance of refugees from the camps south of Kisangari in rebel-held Congo-Zaire; and if he will make a statement. [13976]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We fully support the mission of the UN human rights inquiry team in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The inquiry team will investigate alleged human rights violations between 1993 and 1997—including the disappearance of refugees from the Kisingani area—throughout the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo; what diplomatic relations the United Kingdom has with that country; and if he will make a statement. [13501]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: We enjoy normal diplomatic relations with the Democratic Republic of the Congo. HM ambassador and diplomatic staff in Kinshasa are in regular contact with all levels of the Government, and I met President Kabila during the EU ministerial troika visit to Kinshasa on 4–5 August. We have made clear that our future relationship with the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, including the resumption of development assistance, is conditional upon respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

  NATO Expansion
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the(a) civilian and (b) political elements of NATO expansion.[13917]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  At the Madrid summit in July NATO member states invited the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to begin accession discussions. We expect these to 168
  be completed in time for my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to be able to sign accession protocols at the North Atlantic Council on 16 December. After ratification of the three Protocols by all 16 NATO allies the three new members would enter the political, military and civil structures of the alliance. NATO's existing political consultations, civil emergency planning, economic, scientific and environmental activities will all involve the new member states.

  UN Disarmament Debate
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters in regard to the retention of nuclear weapons by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have been raised by nations addressing the United Nations First Committee on Disarmament and International Security in its annual debate. [13748]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Questions of nuclear disarmament were widely discussed in the First Committee's general debate. Progress by the US and Russia on reductions of their nuclear forces through the bilateral START negotiations was widely welcomed. Other issues relevant to the retention of nuclear weapons by the nuclear weapon states included the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, a fissile material cut-off treaty, the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion on the threat or use of nuclear weapons, nuclear weapon free zones and security assurances.

  Kenya and Uganda
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current human rights situations in Kenya and Uganda. [13927]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We strongly believe that the Governments of Kenya and Uganda should meet their obligations under the international human rights instruments to which they are parties. I raised the human rights situation in Kenya, including the concerns set out by Amnesty International, with President Moi and Attorney General Wako when I visited Nairobi in June. In Uganda we have condemned atrocities committed by the Lord's Resistance Army against the Acholi people in the north. We continue to make clear to the Ugandan Government that operations by their security forces must conform with international human rights standards.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United Kingdom's European partners on the repeal of article 223 of the treaty of Rome. [13857]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There have been no such discussions.

  Sea Level Rises
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what decisions were taken at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Scotland to assist small low-lying island states threatened by sea level rises. [13751]
  169
  Mr. Fatchett
  Small island developing states are particularly vulnerable to rise in sea level as a result of global warming. Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh discussed the threat of climate change and called for developed countries to pursue significant reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions at December's Kyoto negotiations. They also agreed to initiate action in the international community to strengthen assistance to small states which suffer the effects of natural disasters.

  Arms Exports
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United Kingdom's European partners on the development of a common policy on arms exports. [13858]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have discussed the possibility of a code of conduct informally with a number of partners, and will formally take forward an initiative during our Presidency of the European Union in early 1998.

  Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy towards the expansion of the OSCE. [13918]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are committed to strengthening the OSCE's role in conflict prevention, including through support for the work of its Missions in the field. Together with EU partners we are also contributing actively to the development within the OSCE of a security model for Europe.

  United Nations Day
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives Her Majesty's Government took in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) British overseas territories, (c) the United Nations in New York and (d) the United Nations in Geneva to mark United Nations Day on 24 October. [13747]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Staff at the United Nations in New York and Geneva attended special commemorative events. We took no specific initiatives to mark United Nations Day.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 28 October,Official Report, columns 700–02, if Her Majesty's Government have had sight of that part of the Lockerbie evidence held by the United States. [13934.]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, told the hon. Member on 30 October, Official Report, column 876, there has been very full co-operation throughout the investigation between the Scottish and United States authorities. Appropriate arrangements have been made for the sharing of information and evidence.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 28 October,Official Report, column 700–02, what
  170
  evidence he has now evaluated to establish that, with the exception of Mr. and Mrs. Cohen, the majority of US relatives do not want a trial outside the US or Scotland. [13936]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: Our embassy in Washington is in touch with a number of American Lockerbie relatives, some of whom represent groups of other families. I understand that most favour trial in Scotland or the United States, in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions.

  "Victims of Flight 103"—the group which represents the largest number of American relatives, shares this view.

  The US Administration, on the basis of its contacts with a wide range of the families, also believes that the overwhelming majority are opposed to a trial outside the United States or Scotland.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral statement of 28 October,Official Report, columns 700–02, for what reasons it is not possible to mount a prosecution of Libyan suspects for the Lockerbie bombing in Scotland without the co-operation of the US authorities. [13935]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: The UK and US authorities have co-operated closely throughout this investigation. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House on 28 October, Official Report, column 700–01, it would not be possible to mount a prosecution without the co-operation of the US authorities who hold part of the evidence.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have been held with the Government of Ghana concerning human rights abuses; and if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Ghana. [13665]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: We have not held any recent discussions with the Government of Ghana concerning human rights. We continue to monitor the human rights situation in Ghana closely, and raise specific issues with the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice.

  We have excellent bilateral relations with Ghana.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the Government of Sri Lanka concerning the conflict with Tamil groups; what mediation services have been offered; and if he will make a statement. [13667]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: We have regular discussions with the Sri Lankan Government on a range of issues, including their efforts to find a resolution to the ethnic conflict. We have said publicly that we stand ready to help in those efforts if both sides ask us to play a role.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by the Government to the Government of Algeria concerning human rights abuses; and if he will make a statement. [13488]
  171
  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: I continue to be seriously concerned about the security situation in Algeria. I condemn the violence unreservedly and call on those responsible to end the appalling atrocities which have been inflicted on innocent civilians for much too long. We urge the Algerian Government and all interested parties to find early solutions to this major internal problem. I was concerned to learn about reports of fraud in the local and municipal elections held on 23 October 1997 and hope that the Algerian Government will continue to make active progress in its programme of democratisation.

  Individual Cases (Ministerial Meetings)
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many requests since 1 May he and his Ministers have received from hon. Members to discuss individual cases; and how many of these have been granted. [13878]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 3 November 1997]: I regret that we do not keep records that would enable us to answer this question. Requests from hon. Members to discuss individual cases are not declined.

  European Court of Justice
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations were made by Her Majesty's Government after 1 May concerning reform of the European Court of Justice. [14411]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  None. There was little support for such reform in the intergovernmental conference.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the additional areas in which the European Court of Justice will gain jurisdiction as a result of the Amsterdam treaty; [14408]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice over the third pillar of the European Union following the Amsterdam treaty. [14409]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) on 18 July,Official Report, column 360.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average time taken by his Department to give full answers to letters received from hon. Members. [13950]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 3 November,Official Report, column 5.

  In 1996 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers replied to 10,674 letters from hon. Members, of which 94 per cent. were replied to within the target of 10 working days.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of the powers available under the social chapter of the treaty of European Union are subject to qualified majority voting. [14406]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The agreement on social policy allows for legislation to be adopted in 10 different areas. Five of these are subject to qualified majority voting.

  Amsterdam Treaty
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the additional powers gained by the European Parliament as a result of the treaty of Amsterdam. [14412]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) on 18 July,Official Report, column 361.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional legislation will be required in the United Kingdom to implement the provisions of article 141 of the treaty establishing the European Community, as amended by the treaty of Amsterdam, relating to equal pay for work of equal value; and if he will make a statement.[14310]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The amendments to the EC Treaty provided for in the treaty of Amsterdam will be implemented in the UK by the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has consulted other departments in assessing the legal implications of article 137 of the treaty establishing the European Community as amended by the Amsterdam treaty as concerns increased litigation in the areas so covered. [14270]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  All Government departments with an interest were involved in preparing our negotiating position for Amsterdam.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals are currently being prepared at European Union level to assist harmonisation in the fields of the promotion of(a) employment (b) improved living conditions and (c) improved working conditions, under article 136 of the treaty establishing the European Community, as amended by the treaty of Amsterdam. [14312]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No proposals are planned under article 136.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if decisions to impose sanctions under the common foreign and security policy of the European Union under the provisions of the Amsterdam treaty will be taken by qualified majority voting. [14410]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Under the Amsterdam treaty unanimity will remain the general rule for decision making in the common foreign and security policy, including for the imposition of any sanctions. However, the treaty also provides for the Council to act by qualified
  173
  majority when taking decisions based on a common strategy, or when implementing a joint action or common position. But any member state may block such a decision for important and stated reasons of national policy.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the status of the agreement on quota hopping reached at the Amsterdam summit. [14407]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In an exchange of letters at Amsterdam between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission, the Commission set out measures we can take to address the problem of quota hopping. The Commission confirmed that the UK can require UK-flagged vessels to demonstrate that their activities contribute substantial economic benefits for populations dependent on fishing and related industries in the UK. Fisheries departments are currently working up a package of measures based on the Commission guidance in consultation with the fishing industry.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the institutions referred to as management and labour in section 4 of article 137 and section 1 of article 139 of the treaty establishing the European Community as amended by the Amsterdam treaty, include institutions other than the Social Partners; and if he will make a statement.[14311]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Social partners is simply another way of describing representatives of management and labour.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with other departments on article 140 of the treaty establishing the European Community, as amended by the treaty of Amsterdam; what reservations were expressed; what study is currently being undertaken on projects to be undertaken under this article; and if he will make a statement. [14309]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  All Government Departments with an interest were involved in preparing our negotiating position for Amsterdam and were content that we should agree article 140 (ex article 118c). Article 140 is not yet in force and no projects under it are planned.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what cost-benefit analysis he has undertaken of programmes planned to be introduced under article 137 of the treaty establishing the European Community, as amended by the Amsterdam treaty. [14313]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Article 137 is not yet in force. But it is likely that measures under discussion under article 2 of the agreement on social policy when the Amsterdam treaty came into force would subsequently come under article 137. The costs and benefits of any such proposals would be assessed in the normal way.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which(a) Minister and (b) civil servant has overall responsibility for ensuring millennium computer compliance in his Department and its associated public bodies. [13571]
  174
  Mr. Fatchett
  Responsibility within this department for millennium compliance rests with myself and Roy Dibble, director general services.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his latest estimate of the total cost of resolving the computer millennium problem in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which he is responsible; if he will state in each case (i) expenditure incurred to date, (ii) expenditure planned for 1997–98, (iii) expenditure planned for 1998–99 and (iv) expenditure planned for 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [13568]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The cost of resolving the computer millennium problems in this Department is estimated at £4,100,000.(i) expenditure incurred already is £193,000.

  Annual planned spends are:
  (ii) 1997–98: £750,000
  (iii) 1998–99: £1,907,000
  (iv) 1999–2000: £1,250,000

  These figures could be reduced by up to £1,050,000 if no slippage occurs in existing strategic Information Systems infrastructure replacement plans.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on what funding provision has been made to accommodate the expenditure needed to resolve the computer millennium problem; and if he expects to have sufficient funding to pay for the work necessary to achieve complete millennium compliance by 1 January 2000. [13569]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We expect to achieve millennium compliance by the year 2000. Provision has been made for £2,857,000 for resolution of millennium problems within this Department. There is an additional contingency provision of £1,050,000 to cover the costs of remedial action to existing systems should the planned replacement of strategic systems incur any slippage. Both these sums will be met from the existing PES provision.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the action plan, due by 1 October 1997, for resolving the computer millennium problem in his Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible; if such was fully completed on time; and if he will make a statement. [13567]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The costed action plans will be analysed by the Central Information Technology Unit (CITU) and the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) and the conclusions reported to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who will then inform Parliament. The plans will be exempted from disclosure under the open government code of practice on access to Government information, which permits non-disclosure prior to an announcement. However, once the announcement has been made the plans will be available to the public. Information systems department submitted this Department's plans to CCTA on 17 October 1997.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department,
  175
  its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible completed the millennium computer compliance audits of systems; and if he will make a statement. [13570]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We completed an initial scoping study in June 1996, followed by a detailed study of the problem and its likely impact on this Department's core IT systems in August 1996. Since then analysis and remedial work on individual systems is being carried out in priority order on those systems for which millennium-compliant replacement is not already planned.

  European Movement
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total of public funds given to the European Movement in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; and what record is kept of payments to this organisation by the EU. [14213]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No Government funding has been made available to the European Movement in the current financial year. The European Commission does not publish a list of grants made to organisations providing information about Europe.

  Bull Fighting
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to meet representatives from the Spanish Government to encourage a ban on bull fighting; and if he will make a statement. [13685]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There are no plans to do so. We are committed to higher standards of animal welfare and will continue to work to achieve improved welfare protection at the EU level.

  Australia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Government of Australia concerning proposed changes in aboriginal land title. [13994]

  Mr. Fatchett
  None.

  India
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received urging him to apologise to the Indian people for the Amritsar massacre of 1918; and if he will make a statement. [13985]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There were a number of representations over the 1919 massacre, whether addressed to the Queen or Her Majesty's Government, in advance of Her Majesty's successful visit to Amritsar where the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh laid wreaths at Jallianwala Bagh.

  France
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the meeting between his Department and the French Minister for European Affairs on 16 September. [14269]
  176
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  On 16 September I met Pierre Moscovici, French Minister for European Affairs, during his visit to London. We discussed a range of European issues, including employment and enlargement in particular. I outlined our approach to the Employment Agenda and in particular the need to address the real problems of competitiveness and employability facing workers in European countries and to make this agenda attractive to citizens. We discussed preparations for the British-French Summit and Luxembourg Special European Council, both of which focus on employment policies. British and French views on enlargement and handling the European conference are similar. I stressed the importance of related issues such as reform of the common agricultural policy. I also raised the urgent need for a solution to the problem of illegal immigrants arriving via Eurostar.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made at the United Nations concerning the proposed referendum on the future of the Western Sahara. [13997]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have not made any representations at the United Nations concerning the proposed referendum in Western Sahara.

  As a permanent member of the Security Council, and a member of the Friends of Western Sahara Group at the United Nations, we are directly involved with the international efforts to secure a lasting solution to the dispute over Western Sahara led by Mr. Baker. We have assisted, and will continue to support, the UN Secretary General and his Personal Envoy.

  Kenya
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has held with the Government of Kenya concerning human rights abuses; and if he will make a statement. [13986]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) on 29 October,Official Report, column 824.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Housing Improvement Grants
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications have been made to each regional division of the Housing Executive for each type of improvement grant; if she will indicate the length of time taken to process a grant application; and how long an applicant has to wait within each division for an inspection of property from the time of submission of an application form. [12554]
  177
  Mr. Murphy
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The chief executive has advised me that the information requested is as follows, in respect of the period April to September 1997:

  Region

  Number of preliminary inquiries received1

  Average time for inspection—weeks2

  Average time taken to process—weeks3

  Belfast

  1,296

  16

  29

  North East

  850

  28

  29

  South East

  596

  52

  25

  South

  616

  79

  31

  West

  1,062

  72

  32

  1 The grants scheme requires the completion of a preliminary inquiry form. This is not an application, but is the "trigger" for an inspection of a property. Figures are not held by grant type.

  2 These figures represent the average time lapse between receipt of a preliminary enquiry and the date of inspection and only relate to the main "improvement" (i.e. renovation and replacement grants).

  3 These figures represent the average time lapse between the date of inspection and the date of approval for a full application for renovation or replacement grant.

  The executive regularly reviews performance standards across its regions and has allocated additional resources to those regions where inspection times are particularly lengthy. Present performance is influenced by the backlog of applications which exists due to unprecedented demand for grants. It is anticipated that performance standards will improve as the benefit of additional resources takes effect. In addition, performance on renovation and replacement grants has been severely effected by the diversion of financial and personnel resources to the administration of repairs grants. These grants are mandatory, on foot of public health notices issued by local councils. Recent years have seen an unprecedented demand for this grant. Very recent legislative changes have led to a significant reduction in repair grant applications. There are already signs of small improvements in performance on other grants as the impact of this reduction takes effect.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if she will make a statement on what funding provision has been made to accommodate the expenditure needed to resolve the computer millennium problem; and if she expects to have sufficient funding to pay for the work necessary to achieve complete millennium compliance by 1 January 2000; [13619]

  (2) what is her latest estimate of the total cost of resolving the computer millennium problem in (a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which she is responsible; if she will state in each case (i) expenditure incurred to date, (ii) expenditure planned for 1997–98, (iii) expenditure planned for 1998–99 and (iv) expenditure planned for 1999–00; and if she will make a statement; [13618]

  (3) when her Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which she is responsible completed the millennium computer compliance audits of systems; and if she will make a statement; [13620]

  (4) if she will publish the action plan, due by 1 October 1997, for resolving the computer millennium problem in
  178
  her Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which she is responsible; if such was fully completed on time; and if she will make a statement; [13617]

  (5) which (a) Minister and (b) civil servant has overall responsibility for ensuring millennium computer compliance in her Department and its associated public bodies. [13621]

  Mr. Murphy
  The cost of preventative and remedial action on Year 2000 will be met from existing PES provision. Action is planned to be completed before the year 2000.

  The Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments had completed their system audits by early summer 1997 and are working to a local target date for submission of detail costed plans to the department of finance and personnel of 1 December 1997. Until these plans have been completed and collated it will not be possible to provide estimates of the costs likely to be involved.

  Following analysis of the plans, Parliament will be informed of the outcome. The plans will be exempted from disclosure under the open government code of practice on access to Government information, which permits non-disclosure prior to an announcement. However, once the announcement has been made the plans will be available to the public.

  The Northern Ireland Office, Northern Ireland Departments, their agencies and other public bodies are responsible for ensuring millennium compliance for their own systems. The role of the department of finance and personnel is to provide advice and guidance under my direction. In this I am supported by the head of central IT unit within my Department.

HEALTH

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of prescribing beta interferon in each year since 1995 for each health authority. [13475]

  Mr. Milburn
  The available information is shown in the table. Comparable information for the complete 1997 year is not yet available. In order not to disclose information that may relate to an individual patient, information is only provided where 50 items or more have been dispensed. In no health authority in 1995 were 50 or more items dispensed.

  The cost of prescribing beta interferon in hospitals is not available.

  Net ingredient cost of prescriptions for beta interferon dispensed in the community

  £000

  1995

  1996

  Berkshire

  —

  80

  West Surrey

  —

  113

  East Surrey

  —

  52

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  —

  69

  England

  132

  681

  179
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints his Department has received concerning the prescribing of beta interferon in each year since 1995. [13473]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department of Health has received a number of representations about the prescribing of beta interferon, by letter and telephone. However, a central record of all such representations is not available.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of beta interferon to the NHS in(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997. [13808]

  Mr. Milburn
  The available information is shown in the table. Comparable information for the complete 1997 year is not yet available.

  1995

  1996

  England

  132

  681

  The cost of prescribing beta interferon in hospitals is not available.

  Roads (Al2–A134 Junction)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost, including consultancy fees, of preparing plans for a proposed junction between the A 12 and A134. [13306]

  Mr. Milburn
  The junction onto the Al2 is part of a phased development for a new major road in North Colchester. Costs for producing the master plan for the road have been borne by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and the local authority for the area. Generally the costs of preparing the design for the junction itself has been the responsibility of the local authority. Information relating to the precise costs should be sought from the local authority.

  Health Service Management Savings
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of additional patients the NHS will be able to treat due to management savings between 1 October 1997 and 31 March 1998. [13323]

  Mr. Milburn
  We set targets to reduce National Health Service management costs in 1997–98 by £100 million. Many of the savings achieved will already have been re-invested locally in direct patient care services. In addition, we have directly invested £10 million of the savings from deferring the 8th wave of general practitioner fundholders in improving breast cancer services, so that all women have speedy access to high quality diagnosis and treatment. We have also invested a further £5 million in strengthening paediatric intensive care services in readiness for the winter. It is estimated that at the start of this financial year health authorities were planning to purchase an additional 66,000 elective episodes—cases treated from waiting lists—in 1997–98 when compared with 1996–97.

  Public Health Laboratory Service, Colindale
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement consequent on the recent visit of the Minister for Public Health to the public health laboratory service, Colindale. [13121]
  180
  Ms Jowell
  I am pleased to note that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) also visited the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) at their headquarters in Colindale, and trust that he was as impressed as I was by my visit in June. The PHLS has provided microbiological and epidemiological services for fifty years and plays a key role in protecting the population from communicable disease threats. We expect this key role to continue to be central to the Government's emphasis on public health.

  Emergency and Elective Treatments
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) emergency patients the NHS plans to receive and (b) elective finished consultant episodes the NHS plans to complete between October 1997 and 31 March 1998. [13321]

  Mr. Milburn
  Plans are only collected on an annual basis. The table gives the 1997–98 plans for elective finished consultant episodes (FCEs) and non-elective finished consultant episodes and first consultant episodes. Non-elective first finished consultant episodes have been collected for the first time this year as a measure of the number of non-elective hospital spells.

  Elective and non-elective FCEs: 1997–98 plans, in thousands

  Regional office

  Elective plan—FCEs

  Non—elective plan —FCEs

  Non-elective plan—first FCEs

  Northern and Yorkshire

  735

  629

  533

  Trent

  507

  521

  455

  Anglia and Oxford

  481

  422

  346

  North Thames

  648

  540

  469

  South Thames

  582

  527

  455

  South and West

  733

  562

  485

  West Midlands

  499

  469

  432

  North West

  845

  710

  589

  England

  5,030

  4,380

  3,764

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many emergency patients the NHS planned to receive between 1 October 1996 and 31 March 1997; and how many were received. [13319]

  Mr. Milburn
  Plans are only collected on an annual basis. The table gives the non elective activity plans for 1996–97 as a whole. The activity is the total number of finished consultant episodes.

  Non-elective FCEs: plans in 1996–97 and activity in last two quarters of 1996–97, in thousands

  Regional office

  Plan 1996–97

  Activity 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997

  Northern and Yorkshire

  597

  322

  Trent

  492

  263

  Anglia and Oxford

  397

  215

  North Thames

  524

  278

  South Thames

  504

  268

  South and West

  540

  284

  West Midlands

  449

  238

  North West

  665

  353

  England

  4,168

  2,221

  181
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many elective finished consultant episodes the NHS planned for between 1 October 1996 and 31 March 1997; and how many took place. [13320]

  Mr. Milburn
  Plans are only collected on an annual basis. The table gives the elective activity plans for 1996–97 as a whole and the elective activity that took place during the period October 1996 to March 1997. The activity is the total number of elective finished consultant episodes and is expressed in thousands.

  Regional office

  Plan 1996–97

  Activity, 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1997

  Northern and Yorkshire

  734

  356

  Trent

  498

  249

  Anglia and Oxford

  474

  243

  North Thames

  631

  324

  South Thames

  633

  295

  South and West

  707

  350

  West Midlands

  503

  251

  North West

  819

  412

  England

  4,999

  2,480

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the total financial surpluses held by general practitioner fundholders on 1 April 1997. [13175]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on the balance of general practitioner fundholder savings on 1 April 1997 is not yet available. I therefore refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 26 June 1997 at column 620.

  Health Authority Budgets
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the likely pressures on health authority budgets arising from the High Court ruling in R v. North Derbyshire health authority ex parte Fisher. [13474]

  Mr. Milburn
  We do not expect the ruling in the recent judicial review to have any impact on health authority budgets. The ruling requires health authorities, in deciding how best to allocate their available resources to meet the health needs of their population, to have regard to Departmental guidance. It does not require them to give any particular degree of priority to any particular treatment.

  Crime Victims (Guidance)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to issue guidance to social services and NHS staff on procedures they should adopt in relation to the advice and support they should offer to people with learning difficulties within their care who have been a victim of a crime. [13383]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have no plans to do so at present. However, we will be considering what, if any, guidance should be issued in the light of a substantial programme of projects the Department of Health has funded on the 182
  issue of abuse of people with learning disabilities, a forthcoming consultation seminar on abuse of vulnerable adults in residential services and the work of the Home Office's inter-departmental group on vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. The group is seeking to identify measures that will help vulnerable people including people with learning disabilities who come in contact with the criminal justice system as a result of being a victim of, or a witness to, a crime.

  Dental Services
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adults and children in Great Britain were registered with a dentist on 30 September. [13329]

  Mr. Milburn
  In England and Wales 20,558,282 adults and 7,804,254 child patients were registered with a General Dental Service dentist on 30 September 1997.

  For Scotland the latest available data are for 1 September 1997 when 2,098,734 adults and 754,012 child patients were registered.

  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has funded into chronic fatigue syndrome; what plans he has to commission further research; and what steps have been taken to inform doctors of the results of such research. [13919]

  Mr. Boateng
  The main agency through which the Government supports medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council. The MRC is an independent body which receives its grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology, which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry. The Council currently supports one project grant in the area of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. This is being undertaken by Dr. R. K. Morriss at the University of Manchester and is entitled "The role of noradrenaline in the neuropsychological pathogenesis of the chronic fatigue syndrome". The total amount awarded is £37,000. The Council is always willing to consider new ideas for research and will consider applications on their scientific merits.

  The Department of Health has also funded a research project through the National Health Service Research and Development programme called "Should GPs manage chronic fatigue syndrome? A controlled trial", the report of which is expected shortly. Comprehensive information is not available centrally on all expenditure in the NHS on research into chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis.

  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the present research projects funded by the Government into the causes and effects of ME, indicating the Government's research objectives in this area. [13965]

  Mr. Boateng
  The main agency through which the Government supports medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council. The MRC is an independent body which receives its grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology, which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry. The Council currently supports one project grant in the area of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. This is being undertaken by Dr. R. K. Morriss at the
  183
  University of Manchester and is entitled "The role of noradrenaline in the neuropsychological pathogenesis of the chronic fatigue syndrome".

  The Department of Health is also funding a research project through the National Health Service Research and Development programme called "Should GPs manage chronic fatigue syndrome? A controlled trial", the report of which is expected shortly. Comprehensive information is not available centrally on all the activity in the NHS on research into chronic fatigue syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the sixth annual report of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to be published; and if he will announce changes in the membership of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. [14542]

  Ms Jowell
  We have received the report and copies have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of section 7(3) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  I am pleased to announce the following appointments made on behalf of the United Kingdom Health Ministers:
  Mrs. Ruth Deech, Principal of St Anne's College, Oxford, re-appointed as Chairman until 6 November 2000.
  Mrs. Jane Denton, Nursing Director of the Multiple Births Foundation and currently a member of the HFEA, appointed as Deputy Chairman until 27 October 1998, when her existing term of membership ends.
  Professor Allan Templeton, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Aberdeen, re-appointed as a member until 6 November 2000.
  Professor Andrew Grubb, Professor of Health Care Law, King's College, London, appointed as a member until 6 November 2000.

  I am very grateful to Lady Brittan, CBE, Mrs Angela Mays and the right Rev. Richard Holloway who are retiring on 6 November having served with the Authority since its inception in 1990. I also wish to thank Professor Rory Nicol who has asked to leave the Authority on 6 November.

  The new appointments and re-appointments have been made in accordance with guidance issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  Three vacancies remain, about which we shall make an announcement in due course.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure uniformity of treatment for multiple sclerosis sufferers across the United Kingdom. [13785]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are keen to ensure a greater degree of equity in the availability of treatment for people with multiple sclerosis, wherever they may live. Existing guidance requires all health authorities to develop policies which allow the prescribing of beta interferon, in relation to alternative uses of available resources, in suitable cases.
  184
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients suffering from multiple sclerosis were offered beta interferon by each heath authority in(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997. [13807]

  Mr. Milburn
  We do not know how many patients were offered beta-interferon, but the number of prescription items for beta-interferon products dispensed in the community in England is shown in the table. In order not to disclose information that may relate to an individual patient, information is only provided where 50 items or more have been dispensed. In no health authority in 1995 were 50 or more items dispensed.

  Prescription items for beta-interferon dispensed in the community in England

  1995

  1996

  Berkshire

  —

  75

  West Surrey

  —

  142

  East Surrey

  —

  81

  Ealing Hammersmith and Hounslow

  —

  85

  England

  182

  806

  Comparable data for 1997 are not yet available.

  The cost of prescribing beta interferon in hospitals is not available.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the total real level of his Department's budget, in 1995–96 prices, in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; and if he will estimate what such figures were for (i) 1997– 98 and (ii) 1998–99 following the November 1996 Budget on the basis of the estimates of the GDP deflator contained in the Budget. [13232]

  Mr. Milburn
  The figures requested for the Department's spending plans within the Control Total are as follows:(a) £33,306 million, (b) £33,516 million, (1) £33,422 million and (2) £33,174 million. (Source: Treasury).

  Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of expenditure by(a) his Department, (b) NHS trusts and (c) other health bodies for which he has responsibility, on tax advice; and if he will make a statement. [13236]

  Mr. Milburn
  For the expenditure on tax advice by the Department, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health has given him today. National Health Service trusts and other health bodies provide analyses of their expenditure to the department but expenditure on tax advice is not shown separately.

  Tax Avoidance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on the purchase of tax avoidance advice by the NHS; what directives he has issued on the purchase of tax avoidance advice by the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [13237]
  185
  Mr. Milburn
  Last month we agreed that an Executive Letter should be sent to all National Health Service bodies setting out the Government's policy on this. This will be issued shortly.

  Health Trusts (Deficits)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) actual deficits (b) projected deficits of each health trust in England as a percentage of their budget for the last three years. [14272]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested has been placed in the Library. Percentages have been given with respect to the income or turnover of each trust.

  Health Authorities (Deficits)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) actual deficits and (b) projected deficits of each health authority in England as a percentage of their budget for their last three years. [14276]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested has been placed in the Library. Percentages have been given with respect to the income or turnover of each health authority.

  Private Medicine (Tax Reliefs)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the effects on demand for NHS treatment of the decision to abolish the tax relief on private medical insurance payments; and if he will make a statement. [13239]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have made available substantial additional resources to the National Health Service, both this year and next, which dwarf any additional demand created by the abolition of tax relief on private medical insurance premiums.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the action plan, due by 1 October 1997, for resolving the computer millennium problem in his Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible; if such was fully completed on time; and if he will make a statement. [13602]

  Ms Jowell
  Year 2000 plans covering the Department of Health were sent to the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) in October 1997. The plans and supporting documentation will be analyzed by the Central Information Technology Unit and the CCTA and their conclusions reported to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster who will then inform Parliament of his findings. The plans are exempted from disclosure under the Open Government Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, prior to an announcement.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the total cost of resolving the computer millennium problem in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which he is responsible; if he will give in each case (i) expenditure incurred to date, (ii) expenditure planned
  186
  for 1997– 98, (iii) expenditure planned for 1998–99 and (iv) expenditure planned for 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [13603]

  Ms Jowell
  Information on planned expenditure by the Department will be sent to the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency as a part of the action plan requested by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and as such will become available once a statement on this activity has been made to Parliament.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which(a) Minister and (b) civil servant has overall responsibility for ensuring millennium computer compliance in his Department and its associated public bodies. [13606]

  Ms Jowell
  The Minister responsible for ensuring Year 2000 compliance is my Noble Friend the Minister of State, Baroness Jay and the work programme within the departments is being coordinated by the head of the applications development and support who reports to a senior departmental information system steering committee on the Year 2000 issue.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which he is responsible completed the millennium computer compliance audits of the systems; and if he will make a statement. [13605]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department and its Agencies have completed their millennium computer compliance audits, with the exception of National Health Service Estates who expect completion by 31 January 1998.

  For each separate NHS organisation, by 31 December 1998, all critical systems should be ready and fully tested, or detailed plans made for coping with those systems or equipment that cannot be repaired or replaced in time. We will require that any trust or health authority which has not got its systems ready and fully tested should notify the Department by 31 December 1998.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on what funding provision has been made to accommodate the expenditure needed to resolve the computer millennium problem; and if he expects to have sufficient funding to pay for the work necessary to achieve complete millennium compliance by 1 January 2000. [13604]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department is committed to resolving any Year 2000 problems on business critical systems by the Central Information Technology Unit recommended deadline. The cost of preventative and remedial action will be met from existing financial provision.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average time taken by his Department to give full answers to letters received from hon. Members. [13951]

  Ms. Jowell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 3 November,Official Report, column 5.

  Figures for 1997 are not yet available.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of trends in hospital waiting lists over the next six months; and if he will make a statement.[13233]

  Mr. Milburn
  Our predecessors left the National Health Service with rising waiting times and a record number of patients waiting to be treated. It will take time to turn around the situation we inherited. The £269 million redirected to the NHS in England for 1997–98 will help health authorities and trusts to begin to restrain the growth in waiting lists and times as will the £1 billion increase for next year announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in July.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken on the relationship between NHS funding and hospital waiting lists; if he will publish such research; and if he will make a statement. [13235]

  Mr. Milburn
  Waiting lists are influenced by a number of factors, of which funding is only one. New treatments are becoming available all the time and new techniques are being introduced which enable people to undergo surgery who previously could not have been treated. We are working with health authorities and trusts to ensure that the best possible use is made of the resources available to them and that more of each pound spent on the National Health Service goes on direct patient care. The £269 million we have re-directed to the NHS in England for 1997–98 and the £1 billion increase for next year announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in July are significant steps towards fulfilling our commitment to shorten waiting lists.

  NHS Capacity
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his assessment of the ability of the NHS to deal with seasonal demand pressures this winter [13238]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have made clear that the first priority of health authorities and National Health Service trusts, above all other, is to make adequate provision for emergency care. Health authorities, NHS trusts and local authority social services departments around the country are working hard to prepare for this winter. The Government has made available an additional £269 million for the NHS in England in the current year to help in this task. In addition in 1998–99 there will be a · per cent. real terms increase in general revenue allocations to health authorities, the largest for five years.

  Diabetic Pen Needles
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what factors are being considered in determining whether pen needles for insulin dependent diabetics should be available on prescription; [13240]

  (2) what representations he has received about pen needles for the use of insulin dependent diabetics; and if he will make a statement. [13242]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have received representations from the British Diabetic Association and others which we are considering, taking all relevant factors into account.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are her plans for the out-of-hours payment service operated by the Benefits Agency. [14018]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, The Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 3 November 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the plans for the out-of-hours payment service operated by the Benefits Agency.
  In line with the Government's commitment to modernise the Social Security system a consultation exercise between officials from the Benefits Agency (BA) and other Departments on the future of the current Out of Hours Service has recently been undertaken.
  As a result of those discussions there are no plans at present to change the way in which the current service is administered. BA offices will therefore continue to provide an Out of Hours Service.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mortgage Interest Payments
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations she has received about the level of the mortgage interest rate paid to those on benefits; and if she will make a statement. [13243]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) on 30 October,Official Report, column 856.

  We have received 562 representations from hon. Members, members of the public and national organisations.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the guidelines for the minimum levels of income which absent parents should expect to live on following calculations by the CSA. [13735]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  For those in work, child support assessments made under the maintenance formula ensure that an absent parent is generally left with at least 70 per cent. of his net income and at least £30 a week more than he would have if claiming income support. Most absent parents are left with significantly higher amounts, though lower figures may apply where, for example, an interim maintenance assessment has been imposed in an effort to secure the absent parent's co-operation or the absent parent is in arrears with his payments.

  Absent parents who receive income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance are generally required to pay a standard weekly amount, currently £5·00, unless for example they are sick or disabled or have a dependent child living with them. This payment recognises that absent parents are important to their children and should normally be expected to contribute to their maintenance.
  189
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if travel to work costs are taken into consideration by the CSA in making assessments of payments by an absent parent; and if she will make a statement. [13734]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Travel to work costs are taken into consideration under the standard maintenance formula. Where the straight line distance of journeys from home to work exceeds 150 miles per week an allowance of 10 pence per mile is made for each excess mile.

  Parents may apply for a departure from the standard assessment where they face high travel to work costs of more than £15·00 per week. This gives the flexibility to take account of individual circumstances in the minority of cases where the formula assessment does not give a fair result.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will publish the action plan, due by 1 October 1997, for resolving the computer millennium problem in her Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which she is responsible; if such was fully completed on time; and if she will make a statement. [13612]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The costed action plan produced by the Department of Social Security was submitted to Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) on 30 September 1997. This plan, together with the plans of other Government Departments, will be analysed by Central Information Technology Unit (CITU) and the CCTA and the conclusions reported to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who will then inform Parliament. The plans will be exempted from

  £000

  Total cost

  Cost to date

  1997–981

  1998— 99

  1999–00

  Benefits Agency

  7,326

  533

  2,574

  4,181

  571

  Contributions Agency

  3,107

  87

  708

  1,974

  335

  Child Support Agency

  3,442

  42

  1,744

  1,656

  42

  Information Technology Services Agency

  26,861

  40

  6,801

  10,562

  9,498

  War Pensions Agency

  279

  22

  32

  242

  5

  Headquarters

  3,469

  211

  94

  2,456

  919

  ISBs/NDPB

  261

  14

  91

  170

  —

  Central Project costs

  1,037

  491

  594

  239

  204

  Departmental Totals

  45,692

  1,440

  12,638

  21,480

  11,574

  1 Total expenditure for the year which includes seven months costs to date.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on what funding provision has been made to accommodate the expenditure needed to resolve the computer millennium problem; and if she expects to have sufficient funding to pay for the work necessary to achieve complete millennium compliance by 1 January 2000. [13614]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  This work has been afforded the highest priority across the Department. Business Cases to secure the necessary funds from existing PES provision have been produced and a Corporate Business Case seeking approval to spend will be submitted to HM Treasury in November 1997.
  190
  disclosure under the open government code of practice on access to Government information, which permits non-disclosure prior to an announcement. Once the announcement has been made the plans will be available.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when her Department, its agencies and other public bodies for which she is responsible completed the millennium computer compliance audits of systems; and if she will make a statement. [13615]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The year 2000 compliance audit of the Department's systems, comprising its agencies and other public bodies, was completed by 31 March 1997.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which(a) Minister and (b) civil servant has overall responsibility for ensuring millennium computer compliance in her Department and its associated public bodies. [13616]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I have ministerial responsibility for the year 2000 compliance work and Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Information Technology Services Agency, is the civil servant accountable for this work on behalf of the Department of Social Security, reporting to the departmental board and the permanent secretary.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her latest estimate of the total cost of resolving the computer millennium problem in(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which she is responsible; if she will state in each case (i) expenditure incurred to date, (ii) expenditure planned for 1997–98, (iii) expenditure planned for 1998–99 and (iv) expenditure planned for 1999–2000; and if she will make a statement. [13613]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is in the table.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations her Department has received on benefit payments to asylum seekers. [13992]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on 27 October,Official Report, columns 728–29.

  Reciprocal Pension Agreements
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to extend reciprocal pension agreements to other countries; and when she expects such arrangements to be made. [13946]
  191
  Mr. Denham
  The Government has no plans to extend reciprocal pension agreements to other countries.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment her Department is currently undertaking into the lower age limit for mobility allowance; [13241]

  (2) what representations she has received regarding the upper and lower age limits for mobility allowance. [13244]
  192
  Mr. Denham
  There have been 95 representations from hon. Members, members of the public and national organisations, since June 1997, of which 61 related to the rules about the upper age limit for the benefit as a whole.

  The comprehensive spending reviews in this Department, which were announced in June, include those benefits paid to sick and disabled people. The reviews will include an examination of the entitlement rules to disability living allowance to ensure that help is provided to those people with greatest needs.

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Baron Orme
The Right Honourable Stanley Orme, having been created Baron Orme, of Salford in the County of Greater Manchester, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Murray of Epping Forest and the Lord Merlyn-Rees, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
Dame Joan Christabel Jill Knight DBE, having been created Baroness Knight of Collingtree, of Collingtree in the County of Northamptonshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Young and the Lord Knights.

Baroness Pitkeathley
Mrs. Jill Elizabeth Pitkeathley, OBE, having been created Baroness Pitkeathley, of Caversham in the Royal County of Berkshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Carter and the Baroness Flather.
Earl De La Wan—Took the Oath.
Lord Hemingford—Took the Oath.

Quarantine: Animal Welfare
2.50 p.m.
Lord Waddingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
When a pet dog, which has been vaccinated against rabies and is entering the United Kingdom from another country internationally recognised to be rabies-free, will no longer have to undergo quarantine.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 2nd October a scientific assessment of the current quarantine arrangements and alternatives to them. The assessment is to be carried out by an independent team and will be published. A full public consultation will then be held. Unless and until the law is changed following the assessment and consultation, the existing quarantine laws remain in place.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, as the Government are not prepared to remove this cruel practice of
1314
quarantine, even in the case of vaccinated dogs coming from areas which are certified by the World Health Organisation as being rabies-free, will they at least ensure that in the meantime there is proper inspection of quarantine kennels and supervision of the vets who operate with those quarantine kennels? What on earth is the use of the Ministry of Agriculture issuing guidance to kennel owners telling them to inform pet owners if their pets are ill, if the kennels are so inefficient that they do not even know that a dog is dying in front of their very eyes so that it has to be put down within 48 hours of its release from its six-month sentence? It was my dog and in that sense I declare an interest.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, naturally, I was sorry about the death of Basil. However, the reports from our veterinary inspectors of the kennels do not entirely coincide with what the noble Lord implies. The veterinary inspectors inspected the dog on three occasions and found no signs of disease. The kennels in question are considered to be among the better ones. There have not been any complaints. The kennels were inspected last week and have been recommended for relicensing.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is there any enforcement procedure apart from mere recommendations of practice; and if so, who enforces it, what are the standards, and what are the sanctions?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the kennels operate under statutory standards in relation to the physical security of the animals and disease in order to ensure that any diseased animal does not mix with other animals. In terms of welfare, the statute does not apply, but the department has introduced a voluntary code of welfare applying welfare standards. Of the 79 kennels, 74 have accepted the welfare code. Two are still to reply.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, is the noble Lord in touch with Sweden, which I understand has been extremely successful in reducing the period of quarantine that dogs have to undergo?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I have not vet had any connection with Sweden. However, the department is in close contact with Sweden and is studying the Swedish reforms introduced in 1994. We shall assess the effectiveness of those reforms. The new independent scientific assessment committee will take into account all that has happened there.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, should not criticise him because attempts to get quarantine restrictions lifted during the period of the previous Government were totally unsuccessful, although I understand many attempts were made? Can my noble friend say whether, if the restrictions are lifted, consideration will be given to the introduction of a dog registration scheme? It will be necessary to register dogs

1315
that are brought into this country under such conditions; but would it not be rather odd to have a registration scheme for those dogs but not for others?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her question and for what she has said. It is the case that in the previous 18 years nothing was done and that in five months we have introduced these proposals. My noble friend makes a helpful suggestion on the registration of dogs. I shall see that it is taken into account.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is it not the case that veterinary and scientific opinion no longer overwhelmingly believes that quarantine is necessary? The alternatives, which may involve a considerable expansion of the state veterinary system, would mean a great deal of public expenditure. Is that not the real problem?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, scientific standards have improved a little since this system was introduced in 1902. It is quite appropriate that we should look at the matter again from that point of view. The costs of any revised scheme will be borne by pet owners as they are under the existing scheme. I am sure that the vets will continue to do quite well out of it.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State is holding discussions with the European Commission and members of the EU with regard to the way forward in changing quarantine laws? Does he agree that in the future it will be a change in European law that will bring about a resolution of the problems over quarantine rather than a change to British law?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to the Dispatch Box. Her intelligence and charm, which have already been demonstrated, will make a great contribution. She is spot on here. She has put her finger on the important question of the European attitude to this issue. The European Commission has already expressed considerable interest and appears to intend to have a European approach to pet imports. We are proceeding on our own basis and with our own scientific assessments. We shall have a public consultation after that; and, if need be, and if the results of the committee point that way, we shall introduce our own changes. It appears that this is likely to be wrapped up in the European changes, but we wait to see how that works out.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I welcome the independent scientific assessment announced by the Minister. But does he not agree that the Agriculture Select Committee in another place some three years ago recommended overwhelmingly that the quarantine laws should be reviewed? Does he not further agree that unless action is taken soon the chances of pets being smuggled over borders will become very much greater?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I agree that is a danger. We are aware of the 1994 Select Committee report and
1316
it will be borne in mind by our scientific committee. However, I should point out that the Select Committee's report was not solidly based on scientific advice, as our report will be.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what will be the timescale for this assessment?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, to some extent that is out of our hands in that the assessment will be carried out by an independent body. We hope that it will proceed rapidly; we assume that the matter will take a few months. We shall publish the independent body's report and there will then be public consultation. So it is unlikely there will be a result earlier than the second half of 1998. Whether that encompasses the holiday season for going abroad with pets remains to be seen.

European Union Budget
3.00 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Doningtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the EU budget documents for 1998 were not deposited in the Library until 15th July.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the key volume of the 1998 Preliminary Draft Budget, Volume 4 on the Commission was deposited in Parliament on 18th June. This covers 98 per cent. of Community expenditure. Volume 1, which relates to revenue, and Volume 7, which covers the expenditure of the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, were deposited in Parliament on 11th July. Copies were placed in the Library on the same day. It is necessary to deposit the different volumes as they are received. To do otherwise would unnecessarily hold up the proper scrutiny of the European Community budget. However, the Government recognise my noble friend's concern that Parliament should have enough time to scrutinise the budget and they are looking for ways to improve matters.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the latter part of his reply. Does he agree that it is a budget for the expenditure of a very considerable sum of money, of which the United Kingdom was due to bear out of the taxpayers' money some £3.4 billion during 1998? Does he further agree that when the budget documents eventually arrived there was no time for any scrutiny by Parliament and consequently the budget was confirmed in draft by the Council of Ministers, including our own Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 24th July, without the benefit of any observations of authority from either House of Parliament? Does the noble Lord agree that that is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs which the people of the United Kingdom will expect the Government to deal with more satisfactorily in the future?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend has a valid argument. As regards the delays

1317
experienced so far, these are very substantial documents. Volume 4 itself runs to 1,154 pages, all of which have to be translated. That length is required by the treaty. All the volumes together amount to about 1,600 pages. As regards the timescale this year, I understand that the committees of both Houses were reconvened on 23rd July, which was only one day before the budget had to be adopted.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that whatever extension of time there may be, there will never be sufficient time for the budget to be looked at in any depth in this House? Does he therefore agree that it is worth considering the setting up of a committee such as the Public Accounts Committee in the other place, where this House could probe in some depth certain aspects of European expenditure?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion. There are committees of both Houses—the Scrutiny Committee in another place and the European Communities Committee in this House—which do that job, but perhaps not quite in the way that the noble Lord is suggesting. It is a valid point that that scrutiny of the European budget should continue throughout the year and not be concentrated on a few days or weeks in the summer.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I find myself in the unique position of agreeing with my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington on a European Union matter. He is, of course, quite right. But is my noble friend the Minister aware that the matter goes much deeper because the committee, which I have the honour to chair and of which the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, is a distinguished member, does not have anything like enough time? We have recently carried out investigations into the consequences of EMU whether we are in or out; we have also carried out investigations on structural funds, and we are in the middle of a further investigation on enlargement and its financial consequences. All that makes it quite impossible for the committee to look at the budget even if we received it very much earlier, as I and my noble friend would like. Is the Minister aware that I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, that we need a separate Select Committee to deal purely and simply with the budget? After all, it is going to grow with the growth of the single currency, whether we are in or out, and with enlargement. Therefore, will the Minister consult with the usual channels, wherever they are, to try to ensure that we have such a committee?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course my noble friend has the experience and the authority, and he also makes a very valid point. It is, however, a matter for the House and not for the Government. As I understand it, the Liaison Committee is meeting in two weeks' time and there is no reason at all why
1318
that matter should not be on the agenda for that committee and we should not seek to provide year-round scrutiny of the Community budget.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, it is not often that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, but on this matter we are in complete agreement and, more particularly, have been so for a very considerable length of time. Is the Minister aware how frequently this matter has been raised in previous years with very little discernible effect? We understand it is not a matter for the Government alone; it is clearly a matter for the European Community. Will the Minister undertake to press further in Brussels to get a better resolution of this very unsatisfactory situation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we will and we do. If one looks at the programme for the budget, it starts in January and finishes at the end of December. If the formal programme were used, as laid down in the treaty, it would be much worse. In the hope that some noble Lord will ask what we intend to do to try to improve the situation, may I try to answer the question which has not quite been asked? Although propositions have not yet been put to Treasury Ministers, officials are looking at the possibility of improving the explanatory memorandum to explain what decisions the Council has already made—for example, the agriculture budget which is determined by the Agriculture Council. We are also looking for better communications with the Scrutiny Committee of both Houses of Parliament. We do not see why the overview volume, which could be very helpful, and which is supplied to the chairman of the European Communities Committee, should not be placed in the Library as well.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I suppose we ought to take these questions and answers seriously. Can my noble friend say whether the noble Lords who have spoken are really proposing to look at 1,500 pages, which amounts to about 15 centimetres in height for such documents, and that we actually commit ourselves to that kind of scrutiny? I used to take an interest in economic affairs, but it never occurred to me for one moment to start ploughing my way through these documents. I do not know of any other noble Lord, other than my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, who was even aware of their existence. Are we now moving towards devoting our lives to such things or am I being cynical in assuming that this is all just talk?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend Lord Peston and I will abstain

1319
from doing so, but he is quite right in suggesting that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington really does read them all.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does the Minister agree—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, with respect, it is getting a little late.

Prescription Fraud
3.8 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswickasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are taking any further measures to curb or eliminate fraud relating to prescription charges within the National Health Service.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, in June the Government announced decisions to implement recommendations of the Efficiency Scrutiny on Prescription Fraud. These included developing proposals for a new criminal offence of evading payment of the prescription charge with a fixed penalty for non-payment and developing a business case for sending prescriptions by electronic data interchange, known as EDI. Further changes are being planned and will be announced shortly. On 17th October the Government also announced plans for a senior appointment of someone with specific responsibility for fraud. The so-called "fraudbuster" will lead a small team to intensify the Government's campaign against fraud in the family health services.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that Answer will be welcomed by everyone who has the interests of our National Health Service at heart? I have had discussions with both appointed members of trusts and with doctors in the National Health Service who think that the repeat prescription formula is wide open to abuse. Will that problem fall within the remit of what my noble friend termed the new "fraudbuster?"
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the problem of trying to identify those who have legitimately asked for and been given prescriptions and of ascertaining whether the same person then presents the prescription is under consideration. One suggestion is that there should be computer markings on prescription forms which should tally with the patient's other records. That is being considered in the development of the computer processes which may be adopted.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am in possession of a certificate
1320
of prepayment of prescription charges issued by the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster family practitioners' committee? Is the Minister also aware that that committee does not send out reminders when one's prepaid prescription form is about to become out of date? Nor, so far as I know, does any other committee. It means that people, unlike myself, I hasten to add, could use the prescription form for another six months, thereby costing the National Health Service a lot of money. Will the Minister consider asking those who issue the cards to send out reminders?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is a most helpful suggestion. It is precisely the lax operation of the prescription system in the past that has led to the extraordinary situation in which we now reckon that £100 million a year is being wasted through prescription fraud in the NHS. As the noble Lord suggests, it is clearly not conscious fraud. But we shall need to look into such lax practices.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the Minister say how much of the £100 million fraud is perpetrated by patients and how much by doctors and pharmacists who appear to be in league with each other?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am not sure that I necessarily support that last remark of the noble Countess. There are difficulties in establishing precisely the outcome of patient fraud and distinguishing that from the fraud which occurs because individual pharmacists may not be fulfilling their professional duty. As I understand it, the best estimate is that about £70 million of the 00A3100 million to which I referred is fraud by patients.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, will the Minister consider, if she has not already done so, the point that when a patient passes on he often leaves behind cupboards full of expensive medicines? Is anything done to reclaim those medicines if, indeed, they could be used?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is a helpful point. The noble Baroness may be aware that one of the changes that we made during the summer was to restrict the sales pack size of, for example, paracetamol drugs. That was intended primarily as a safety measure, but we also thought that if people had fewer drugs in their cupboards they might be used more effectively.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Minister said that the total of prescription-related losses is estimated at£100 million a year. What proportion of that total do the Government realistically hope to recoup in the next financial year—that is, in 1998–99?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that question is still open because the speed with which we can implement some of the changes that I mentioned in my Answer will affect the final outcome. In the announcement which my right honourable friend the

1321
Secretary of State for Health made in another place about the additional money for the NHS which has been agreed between the Treasury and the Department of Health, he mentioned that £30 million of it would come from efficiency savings. We hope that a large proportion of that will come from changes relating to prescription practices.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a national identity card would help in this instance?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is slightly wide of the Question, but the problem of trying to identify prescription possession with individual patients by some form of computerised system is, as I said, being considered.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, has not the new idea of issuing repeat prescription forms increased the danger of the misuse of prescriptions unless people can be identified by something such as a national identity card or the use of their national insurance number?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is precisely the point. We are trying to identify more closely the person who is issued with the prescription and the person who receives it. The problem arises not so much with repeat prescriptions where someone genuinely receives that prescription but where people seek to evade the charges on their first or second prescription, or whatever.

Counselling
3.14 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce regulations for the new profession of "counselling", to include registration and requirements for training and standards of proficiency.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we have no plans to introduce statutory registration. We believe that the existing mechanisms for voluntary registration and the regulation of professional practice are sufficient to ensure that the public and employers can know who is trained for work in this field and who is not. However, we continue to work actively with the professional bodies concerned and with health service staff to maintain and develop mechanisms for registration and regulation which are in the public interest.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Excluding counselling prescribed by the medical profession, can anyone put up a notice and offer counselling without any qualifications or any form of licence? Is the Minister aware that
1322
inexperienced counsellors, although often well meaning, have sometimes created more stress than was present in the first place?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord's last point may be correct where inexperienced persons offer counselling. It is true that in the private sector anybody can, as the noble Lord said, put up a sign and offer their services. However, in the NHS, employers and those medical or other practitioners who refer people to counsellors, clinical psychologists or psychotherapists must ensure that the person to whom they refer the patient is qualified. Individuals could approach one of the professional bodies which regulate in this field. Two professional bodies which offer the registration of counsellors are the British Association for Counselling and the British Psychological Society.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is often confusion about the distinction between on the one hand a psychiatrist, who is a medically qualified individual concerned with the treatment of disorders of the mind, and, on the other hand, the graduate psychologist, who is concerned more with examining mental processes? In the specialty of psychology, there are those who receive postgraduate training in counselling and there are those who receive it in educational psychology and clinical psychology. Is it not therefore right that, as the British Psychological Society would wish, the profession of psychology should soon be subject to statutory registration and regulation?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clear explanation of the confusion of titles in this area. Representatives of the British Psychological Society recently met my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, Mr. Boateng, who has ministerial responsibility in this area, and he took the view that the case for registration was persuasive. However, given the very full parliamentary timetable, he thought that it was unlikely that time would be found to take the matter forward into legislation in the near future. I understand that he assured the society's representatives that officials will continue to work with the society to ensure that the existing systems of regulation and promotion are maintained.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the services offered by the people from Cruse, which offers bereavement counselling, are well appreciated all over the country?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point. It is sometimes easy to ridicule some aspects of counselling, but I am sure that we all know of people who have been greatly helped by supportive contact with professionals or in the more formal psychotherapy setting which the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, described
Lord Annan: My Lords, is there not a danger of over-bureaucratisation in this matter? We already have

1323
large numbers of quangos; do we want to add yet another? Is it not true that over-registration could create a situation where if I tried to comfort a widower who had recently lost his wife and my comfort unfortunately resembled that of Job and the widower committed suicide, I might then be prosecuted because I do not have a diploma in counselling?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has indicated precisely the difficulty of establishing a professional watershed in this field. As I said in response to the previous Question, this is an easy area to over-bureaucratise or to ridicule. But the point with which the British Association for Counselling is concerned is the registration of individual professionals practising in this field, which is slightly different from setting up another quango.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the Minister accept congratulations for resisting any temptation to regulate the torrent which exists?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe that the torrent is fairly free-flowing as it is. When I asked for advice in this matter, I was informed that there were 17 national bodies representing people working in this field. One can understand the difficulties of trying to regulate that situation, even if one wished to.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with me that counselling is not a new profession? I trained as a counsellor at the Tavistock Centre 20 years ago. I am disappointed. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that this is not a flash in the pan or something that has suddenly appeared. Newspapers have begun to talk about counselling. Counsellors have been working successfully in very difficult circumstances. I speak as a vice-president of the British Association for Counselling. Will the Minister make it clear that that body has a registration scheme and anyone who is in doubt can turn to it and ensure that he or she gets a trained and properly accredited person? That body accredits people all the time.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving an authoritative account of the development of this particular skill. As I hope I made clear in an earlier response, the British Association for Counselling and the other very important national body, the British Psychological Society, maintain registers to which people can apply.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
3.21 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Delegated Powers and Deregulation Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Mayhew of Twysden be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Kingsland. —(The
Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government (Contracts) Bill
Read a third time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.;(Baroness Hayman.)
Lord Bowness: My Lords, we on this side of the House supported the aims of the Bill; namely, to clarify and remove doubt about the powers of local authorities to enter into private finance initiatives and partnership deals. We had concerns about some aspects, particularly the circumstances in which discharge terms might be challenged. But that matter was debated fully in Committee. I believe that distinguished legal opinion in your Lordships' House did not altogether share my concerns. I hope that that proves to be correct.
I thank the Minister for her detailed explanations of the provisions and the amendments introduced by the Government at Committee stage. We on this side of the House hope that the Bill succeeds in its aims, as private finance initiatives and partnerships are vitally important to local government. They are matters which the Conservative administration and the Conservative Benches support.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, first, I should like to apologise on behalf of my noble friend Baroness Hamwee, who has been involved in the discussions on this Bill, for the fact that she is not able to be present this afternoon. We support the Bill and its central objectives. We look forward to the Government dealing rather more boldly with the issue of local government powers. This Bill aims to provide reassurance to the private sector which is involved in the private finance initiative. We hope that the Government will be sufficiently bold to address the wider issue of local government powers in accordance with the spirit of the European Charter of Local Self Government. We congratulate the Government upon having signed that charter. We hope that the Government recognise the merits of local government having powers of general competence—in computerspeak, that its default mode is full power unless specifically limited by statute, rather than the other way round.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have contributed for their support. This

1325
is a non-contentious but quite technically challenging Bill. I was most grateful for the courteous and extremely patient way in which your Lordships dealt with the Bill throughout all its stages, particularly the way in which noble Lords considered a large number of government amendments. Those amendments reflect the Government's response to suggestions from experienced practitioners and legal experts as well as issues raised in another place.
I was grateful to both the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, for their constructive approach. Their questions provided me with the opportunity to clarify the purpose and effect of the Bill. I should also like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, and my noble friend Lord Mishcon for their expertise at Committee stage. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, has admitted, that had a helpful effect in maintaining the Government's position.
The Bill was introduced in response to demands from the private sector for the Government to clear up uncertainties about local authority powers to enter into partnership contracts. I am confident that the Bill as it now stands will satisfy those demands. I am grateful for noble Lords' patience in dealing with the large number of government amendments tabled in this House. I am sure that local authorities and their private sector partners who wish to do business together will also be grateful for the care that has been taken to ensure that this Bill meets its purpose.
As to the wider question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I hope that he will not be disappointed by the Government's performance in this field. This is a small measure but it is a token of the way in which the Government wish to work effectively with local government in future. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Plant Varieties Bill
3.27 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 48 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 20, line 9, at end insert—
("() Before making any regulations or order under this Act, the Ministers shall consult such organisations as appear to them to be representative of persons likely to be substantially affected by the regulations or order.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1 requires Ministers to consult organisations that represent persons who are likely to be substantially affected before making regulations or orders. The Plant Varieties Registration Office (PVRO) always consults widely on all proposals for secondary
1326
legislation before submitting them to Ministers. This amendment will therefore not affect existing practice in any way. The Government have no difficulty in making this practice a legal requirement.
At Committee stage the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, tabled an amendment which would have required consultation with bodies representing plant breeders, farmers and growers. Although we welcomed the amendment in principle, I pointed out that the amendment was not sufficiently wide to encompass all interests. I therefore undertook to table a government amendment at Report stage. This amendment discharges that obligation. It requires Ministers to consult organisations representing those who are likely to be substantially affected before making orders and regulations under the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the amendment. It meets the objective that I hoped to achieve in the amendment I tabled at Committee stage. His wording is perhaps more felicitous than mine. I had not intended to exclude from consultation any relevant party. We support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Consequential amendments]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 20, line 32, at end insert—
("() In section 2(4) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, after paragraph (g) there shall be inserted—
"(h) the Plant Varieties Act 1997;".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 3. These two amendments correct some drafting omissions. Section 2(4) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 provides that any description or mark applied in pursuance of Acts of Parliament listed in it is deemed not to be a trade description. The Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964 is listed. The first amendment adds the Plant Varieties Act 1997 to that list so that the variety names continue to be deemed not to be trade descriptions.
Amendment No. 3 repeals redundant wording in the Resale Prices Act 1976. Currently, that Act refers to protective directions under the 1964 Act. The Bill does not provide for protective directions, and this wording will therefore become redundant once the Bill comes into force. The amendments have no practical effect other than to keep the statute book tidy, which I am sure your Lordships will agree is a thoroughly worthy objective. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sure that it is an admirable objective to keep the statute book tidy. However, how are we to know that the Bill will become an Act in 1997 rather than in 1998?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I do not have the Bill in front of me; therefore I am not sure of its

1327
commencement date. The Bill enters the statute book and becomes law next week when we have the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 29, line 12, at end insert—

("1976 c. 53.

The Resale Prices Act 1976

In section 10(4)(b), the words from "or" to the end.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Social Security (Lone Parents) (Amendment) Regulations 1997
3.30 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations (S.I. 1997/1790), laid before the House on 30th July, be annulled.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I look forward with eager anticipation to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. It is a challenging assignment to make a non-controversial maiden speech on this subject, but the noble Lord is an experienced parliamentarian even if as yet only in one House. We look forward to his continuing experience in this House. Whether it is impossible or not, I am sure that he will succeed.
The regulations against which I pray cut benefits for lone parents. Lone parents are easily stereotyped, as I am sure the Minister agrees; indeed, I have heard her say so. In thinking of that point, I was moved to remember a moment in my life which I would normally prefer to forget. It is of sitting through a very long afternoon in the wing of a maternity hospital waiting to find out whether I had become not merely a parent but a lone parent.
Fortunately, that period did not last long enough for me to need to take any decisions, but it did last long enough for me to contemplate some of the choices. They are not particularly easy. Had I decided that it was my duty to give up one responsible job in order to undertake another and become a full-time parent it would, of course, have been a wrench. Had I then been told that I was a scrounger, a sufferer from welfare dependency and an exploiter of taxpayers, I might well have replied, like the former President Nixon, in words from which the expletives would have had to be deleted. But as it is, now that the Conservative Party has had such a welcome conversion to the cause of compassion for single parents, I hope that I need not develop that point further.
The regulations abolish the single parent premium; that is, the extra payment for the specific expense of being a single parent. It was formerly paid with income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. Because of the inclusion of housing benefit and council tax benefit, they apply to those in work as well as those out of work. The average loss for those in work ranges from l£10.40 a week to £6.05 a week. The loss for those on income support is £4.95 a week.
In the words of the Department of Social Security, the aim of the regulations is "more even-handed treatment" for couple parents and for single parents. The Social Security Advisory Committee stated that it ends the tradition of special support for single parents which goes back to the Finer Committee. The Social Security Advisory Committee has understated its case; it should have said that it ends a tradition that goes back to the book of Exodus.
I believe that the regulations will worsen hardship in an area where it is already particularly severe. They cause considerable concern to the Social Security Advisory Committee, which advised that they should not be proceeded with until there had been further research on the costs, income and expenditure of lone parents. The department dismissed that argument, saying that all evidence remained inconclusive.
The research for which the Social Security Advisory Committee asked appeared within a few days of its report. It was published by the Rowntree Trust and was entitled Small Fortunes by Sue Middleton and others. That established the interesting point that when we three debated that issue in the past we were all barking up the wrong tree. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, clearly remembers a good many exchanges about whether special costs are attached to being a single parent. I continue to believe that the answer to that question is yes. The problem of fox, goose and cabbage is an old one, but, because it depends on exceptional circumstances, it is in its nature difficult to prove.
The Small Fortunes Rowntree research has left that argument on one side. It shows that the child premium on income support is a good deal less than the cost of bringing up children. It states that on average the premium is about 70 per cent. of the cost. Therefore, all children need to be subsidised out of their parents' income support. Where there are two parents there are two to share the subsidy. Where there is only one parent inevitably in practice the parental subsidy is twice as big. Inevitably there will more poverty among lone parents than among couple parents.
Since then, two further pieces of research have appeared and both are worth mentioning. One is by Alex Bryson and others, published by the Policy Studies Institute. It found that income support appeared inadequate to maintain stable family living standards where the head of the household was a lone mother. That is a strong finding and it should have been known to the DSS since the research in which it was included was funded by the DSS.
The other piece of research was published by the Office for National Statistics and entitled Social Focus on Families. It found that between 1981 and 1991 the proportion of single parents at below half average income had increased from 13 per cent. to 52 per cent. That is a fourfold increase in 10 years. That finding does not suggest to me that if we lack a level playing field it is tilted in favour of single parents. Indeed, it suggests the reverse. It seems to me that there is considerable hardship among lone parents and if these regulations go ahead it will become significantly worse.
The Government's answer is set out in the Secretary of State's speech to NCH's "Action for Children" on 22nd October. That speech was as good as the Treasury allowed it to be. Lest that sounds like the 18th century tourist who said that Switzerland was a very nice country except for the mountains, I will say that since 1st May my opinion of the Secretary of State has consistently gone up and my opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has consistently gone down. That is an unambiguous statement. The Secretary of State said:
"Work is the best form of welfare for people of working age and this Government have already taken action to get lone mothers off welfare and into work, where they want to be".
The Minister knows that I shall not argue about the conceptual framework of that argument. She has certainly heard me develop it many times before, most recently on 3rd June. But what the Secretary of State said needs qualification. She said that lone mothers should be,
"into work, where they want to be".
"They" in fact means 80 per cent. of single parents. The other 20 per cent. are not insignificant because the right of a parent to remain at home with the children is fundamental. I do not wish to see that challenged or threatened.
Also, we must remember the finding of the Policy Studies Institute that those parents who suffer severe hardship while at home with their children are less likely to obtain work later on. That is a credible finding. Malnutrition is not an assistance to the exhausting task of actively seeking work.
There will also be a number who, although they want to work, will not succeed in doing so, some of them for transport reasons. The ONS research Social Focus on Families found that 51 per cent. of lone parents have no access to a car as against 10 per cent. of married couples who have no access to a car. In many areas, not all of them rural, no access to a car means no opportunity to work. In some cases, there will be no job and in some cases there will be no childcare. More generally, I believe that the Minister will agree that no policy brought into effect by any government, however competent, has ever been 100 per cent. effective.
Therefore, I am not happy with a policy which helps to get single mothers back to work, however good that objective may be, if that is done at the price of starving the remainder. If the Minister invokes, as I think she must and probably will, this Government's adherence to their predecessors' spending limits, I shall ask her to tell me and the whole House why the Government have decided to adhere to their predecessors' spending limits because, of course, that was a pledge that Mr. Kenneth Clarke, who is a prudent man on occasions, never gave. Why his successor felt the need to do so is something which I should like to have explained to me.
At this stage I say nothing about the arguments for and against voting on the Motion. I do not like to take final decisions on a vote before I have heard the Minister's reply. For the moment, I shall mention only the Resolution of this House on 20th October 1994 that this House affirms its unfettered freedom to vote on subordinate legislation.
I shall leave the House with one or two statistics from the Rowntree Report. First, 63 per cent. of the income support allowance for children of single parents goes on food. That research measured poverty by a list of indicators and classed as severely poor those who were without five of them. The department argues that the use of indicators measures tastes and not needs. But many of those indicators, such as meals, a warm coat or single use of a bed, I do not count to be a matter of taste; I would regard them as a matter of need. I do not think that there will be much disagreement about that.
It was found that 13 per cent. of children over the age of 10 share a bedroom with a sibling of the opposite sex. Children of single parents who are not working are 7½times more likely to lack five of those basic necessities than children with two parents who are both not working. That is a remarkably precise quantification of the extra hardship in single parent families. All of those who lacked all three food items were in single parent families and of those who were without one of the three food items, 24 per cent. were in families of single parents with no work and 25 per cent.—the larger number—in families of single parents who had part-time work.
Work is not by itself a wholly adequate answer, however welcome it may be. I shall leave the House with a quotation from the Prime Minister's party conference speech. The Prime Minister said:
"Children should not have to go hungry to school".
We agree with the Prime Minister's aspiration, and therefore we do not agree with these regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Regulations (S.I. 1997/1790), laid before the House on 30th July, be annulled—.(Earl Russell.)
3.46 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the Guinness Book of Records has no reference to the fastest time taken for a Member of your Lordships' House to proceed from being introduced to making a maiden speech on the Opposition Front Bench. But since it is barely 24 hours since I had the great privilege of entering your Lordships' House, noble Lords will understand that I feel a little intimidated this afternoon, even though I find opposite me at least two faces I have encountered on more Finance Bills than any of us would probably wish to recall.
I trust that the House will be kind and indulge me as a maiden speaker. I have always taken the view that it is right that a maiden speaker should seek to be uncontroversial and brief. Having said that, I thought it appropriate to carry out some research before engaging in today's debate. One thing emerges very clearly; namely, that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is assiduous in proposing Motions of this kind regarding statutory instruments and is immensely expert in the area we are discussing. I am most grateful to the noble Earl for the extremely generous remarks with which he began his speech.

1331
The fact is that, more and more in legislation, the details and even large chunks of the proposal are embodied in statutory instruments but less and less is given adequate scrutiny either in this House or the other place. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that we should have this opportunity and I am grateful to the noble Earl for providing it.
The quick research I was able to carry out also reveals that the regulations which we are discussing appear to be, so far as I can ascertain, in every respect similar to those which the previous government were likely to introduce. Therefore, I do not recommend my noble friends—although it seems presumptuous of me at this stage—to vote against the regulations. The arguments previously put forward remain valid and appropriate, although I shall comment in a few moments about the point made by the noble Earl as regards the influence of the Treasury.
However, I have discovered that the arguments put forward by the opposition previously seem somewhat inconsistent, if I may say so, with the regulations now before us. The Library, to which I am very grateful, provided me with a large number of quotations from the noble Baroness who is to reply to the debate. It would be inappropriate, in a non-controversial speech, to refer to them extensively. Perhaps, on Second Reading of another Bill, there may be that opportunity.
The essence of the noble Baroness's argument, which she has put consistently, was that the benefits we are discussing today, which the Government are—I was going to say proposing to reduce but, more accurately—proposing to eliminate, are extremely valuable in as much as the recipients find that they are not means-tested and therefore, if moving from welfare to work, retain them. I believe that that was the essence of the Minister's argument, repeated in a number of speeches. As the essence of the Government's case now is to have a system which operates from welfare to work it would seem entirely appropriate that the noble Baroness should have pursued those arguments rather than do what appears to be a clear "U" turn. It is possible that I have misunderstood the point, but it seems to me to be one of very considerable importance.
Similarly, so far as concerns the noble Earl's point, it is true that the Government have said that they will remain within the limits of public expenditure specified by the previous government. However, if I am correct—and I believe that I am—the noble Baroness objected to the measure that she now proposes when she was well aware that that restraint had already been put forward by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was in opposition.
I should like to pose a few specific questions for the Minister. On the back of the regulations that she has signed an "Explanatory Note", says:
"These Regulations do not impose a charge on business".
However, it is surprising that there is no mention of the likely effect on public expenditure. Can the Minister clarify for the benefit of the House and myself what the effect of the measure is likely to be as regards public expenditure? I well understand that that will require an
1332
estimate. The regulations are not retrospective; indeed, they are concerned with the situation in the future. However, it would seem that the effect of the regulations, together with the related clause in the new Social Security Bill in another place, will be well over £250 million. That is not a small amount of money. Therefore, can the Minister say what the Government's estimate is of the actual savings in public money which will result from the measure? In particular, can the Minister say whether or not that is greater than the amount of money—I believe some £200 million—which it is said she has obtained from the Treasury as a result of the windfall tax? I believe that noble Lords would be interested to know.
I have a further point to make. It relates to the extremely helpful report from the Social Security Advisory Committee which was commissioned by the previous Secretary of State for Social Security. He received a reply; the election intervened; and the Government have now published the report together with their comments. As the noble Earl pointed out, the committee made some remarkably modest proposals both with regard to the provision of greater data upon which we could base decisions in such matters and a very modest proposal to help with transitional arrangements. However, both proposals have been rejected by the Government. Indeed, they reject both proposals, then thank the committee for its advice. Therefore, despite the fact that something like 60 organisations and individuals were consulted, the Government have not felt able to accept these reasonably modest proposals. No doubt the Minister will be able to tell us why.
I should like to make one final and perhaps rather broader point. The Government are engaged in a great many studies concerning the welfare state. I must confess that I have somewhat lost count of them. I believe that there are between seven and 11 of them, depending on whether one is concerned with those of the Department of Social Security or those which also involve the Treasury. I am sure that we all look forward with great interest to studying all of them, not least one which I see is related to a tax credit scheme which, had we not lost the election in 1974, we would have introduced. Alas, the incoming Labour government did not implement it.
From my personal point of view, and as I am conscious of the responsibilities which fall upon me in my new role, perhaps I may point out that many years ago I had the privilege of studying economics at Cambridge and of working in the Marshall Library. Marshall was, I suppose, one of the greatest economists who ever lived. I am glad to see that at least I carry the noble Baroness with me in that respect. It is said that Marshall used to work in the library with a portrait of a poor man in front of him so that, however mathematical his calculations, he would, at the same time, have in the forefront of his mind the effect that they might have in benefiting those who were impoverished, be they lone parents or whatever. That is something I learnt at that time.

1333
I know that the noble Earl and the Minister are very concerned with the analytical side of such matters. It is tremendously important that we should go in great depth into what are at times very complex matters to ensure that we get the right answers. As the results of reviews come back to us and we consider them, I hope that I shall be able to play some small role in analysing such problems so that the whole House will manage to improve the lot of those whom we seek to help.
I am grateful to noble Lords for their patience and kindness in hearing me this afternoon. As I said, we are discussing a difficult issue and one which we clearly need to return to when we come to discuss the Social Security Bill on its arrival from another place. However, on this occasion, perhaps I may express the hope that we are able to improve matters. I look forward very much to hearing the answers that I hope I will receive from the Minister.
3.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, my first pleasure is to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to the Opposition Front Bench. He brings to the task of official Opposition spokesperson for social security his vast experience in the Treasury as a Minister and then of course as chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury and on the Civil Service. That experience will not only enrich proceedings but will, I am sure, continue to stretch the acumen and experience of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and certainly myself on this Front Bench, as the experience of his predecessor the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, always did. So the House is indeed enriched. I believe the evidence for that is to be found in the contribution that the noble Lord made this afternoon. I think that the noble Lord was perhaps helped in being less controversial than he might otherwise have felt the need to be given the fact that, as he noticed himself, this is a hangover measure. Therefore, to that extent, it took the noble Lord away from that embarrassment, although he would like to think that it has now shifted to me. Perhaps I may address that point at a later stage.
I should like to respond to this Prayer against the regulations by first putting the measures in context. The Government's objectives for the social security system are clear. We believe—and I doubt whether there is any dissent in the House—that work is the best and most independent form of welfare. It raises the living standards of families and is the best route out of a dependency on benefit. In addition, a working parent provides a positive role model for future generations as their children see that work brings not only financial benefits but satisfaction, fulfilment and self-respect.
More than that, a recent research study suggests that children of working lone mothers are more likely to get a job; that their daughters are more likely to do well at school; and that the daughters are themselves less likely to become lone mothers. In other words, work breaks some of that inheritance of deprivation. The Government believe that a life on benefit, at whatever level, cannot satisfy the aspirations of lone mothers to
1334
provide the best possible life for their children; nor can the example of that way of life be a healthy one for children. We know—and I am sure that no one disputes this fact—that lone parents themselves want to achieve independence and to regain personal control over their lives. Our policies are on the side of what they themselves wish and want to do as they tell us.
For too long the welfare state has excluded lone parents from the rest of society, writing them off to a life of dependence on benefit and ignoring both their aspirations and responsibilities. We start with a policy of social inclusion because we believe that lone parents should have the same opportunities as everyone else to take up work or training and to improve their standard of living. Independent research suggests that the average additional income for lone parents who are in work and supported by family credit is over £50 a week above the estimate of their out-of-work incomes. Promoting social inclusion benefits all of society.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, but I wish to seek a point of clarification. As regards the figure of £50 a week better off, is that before or after childcare?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is before childcare, and that is precisely why in the previous Budget and the statements of the Chancellor we have always supported the childcare disregard which ensures that the cost of childcare does not negate family credit.
As I say, we know that lone parents want to be included in society. We know that promoting social inclusion benefits the whole of society. The Government inherited a society which over the past 18 years has seen dramatic increases in the gap between rich and poor. Some 20 per cent. of households of families of working age have no one in work; a quarter of all children in Britain now live in families where no one has a job; 1 million out-of-work lone mothers bring up 2 million children on income support; and expenditure on lone parents on income support costs £8 billion a year. Although 20 per cent. of families are headed by a lone parent, and 90 per cent. of lone parents want to work, up until now there has been no recognition that the best way to improve the living standards of those families is through work and there has been little on offer to help them.
Our priority for lone parents is to help them achieve what they themselves want; namely, an increased standard of living for their families and increased personal independence through work. We are turning those words into action. The key to helping lone parents into work and improving their income is practical help with job search, with finding the right childcare, with building confidence and motivation and with developing skills. We are already addressing those issues. The first phase of the New Deal for Lone Parents was launched in July this year. This is a joint initiative by the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service to provide support for lone parents in moving from welfare to work. It offers the option of using an individual caseworker to provide advice and guidance, and a package of help, including job search, training and after-school childcare.

1335
We are seeking innovative solutions to the problems lone parents face. For example, in Cambridge and Peterborough kiosks are available that allow touch screen access to update information about jobs, childcare and training via the Internet. I have attended interviews between caseworkers and lone parents. I have seen the change of mindset that occurs as the interview progresses, as the options become open and possible and as the active support of that caseworker is available to help the lone parent with the interview, with finding childcare while the interview is in progress and with obtaining the information that the lone parent needs. I have seen that process transform people's lives. We shall extend that facility to 20 more of the first phase offices by early 1998. Early results from the New Deal are encouraging, although there is as yet insufficient data to draw firm conclusions. A report of the first three months of the programme was published on 23rd October. This showed that over 2,000 lone parents have already had an initial interview, four in five are taking part in the programme and are working with their advisers to find employment and a quarter have already found work.
One crucial area—which was referred to earlier—where lone parents need support is in ensuring that childcare is available and affordable. Access to high quality, affordable and accessible childcare is essential to help families, and above all lone parents, to balance the demands of family and working life. The National Childcare Strategy, which we promised in our manifesto and which we are delivering, will ensure that provision of childcare is planned to meet the needs of parents. The Government will announce the details shortly but we have already made a number of commitments. We are committed to providing a nursery place for every four year-old in Britain. Midweek lottery money is available for homework centres, with up to half the places containing an element of childcare. We have already announced improvements to the childcare disregard. From June 1998 we shall extend help with childcare charges in family credit, disability working allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit to ensure that greater financial help is available for families with more than one child. We shall also extend help to families with older children. As a result, families will be able to receive help up to a maximum of £95.50 a week towards the cost of childcare.
While the support is available to all families who meet the qualifying conditions, I am sure that we all recognise, as the noble Earl has stressed, the particular benefit these measures will have in supporting lone parent families, given their particular needs. The receipt of regular child maintenance is also a key part of our strategy for helping lone mothers into work. Maintenance is a portable income which lone mothers keep when they start work and they need to know that the Child Support Agency will take every action to ensure that it is paid. We are therefore reviewing all aspects of the operations of the CSA to ensure that it provides a fair, efficient and effective service. I am taking part in that review. We are determined to ensure that cases are processed faster, backlogs are cleared,
1336
non-resident fathers who pay irregularly are helped to pay regularly and non-resident fathers who avoid paying altogether are chased. We have also allocated an additional £15 million to the agency from April 1998 to be used specifically to get more non-resident fathers to pay the maintenance they owe. They must recognise that they have a responsibility for that maintenance. Lone mothers, and the children they care for, have a right to receive that money which can help them get back into work, to become more independent and to improve their standard of living.
Why are we implementing this measure? I have taken some time to set out our priorities for lone parents. We are promoting work as the best means of supporting family life. We are also promoting policies of social inclusion to fulfil the aspirations of lone parents who for too long have been marginalised and have been excluded from prosperity, from work and from the wider personal and social benefits that independence, an improved standard of living and increased self-esteem can bring. We are delivering the practical support which lone parents need to overcome the real barriers they can face in re-entering the world of work. The measure we are debating today is one of a number of measures we inherited from the previous government which had not been implemented but were already included in our expenditure plans. We are committed to live within those expenditure plans, but staying within expenditure limits involves tough decisions. That is the context in which these measures must be viewed.
We have set out our priorities which we believe constitute the only way to offer lone families genuine and sustainable improvements in their standard of living and their standard of life. As I have said, we have a commitment to live with expenditure limits. It was against that background that the decisions to carry forward these measures—already scored by the previous government—were made. I should make it clear, before addressing the points raised by the two speakers in this debate, that all existing lone parents in receipt of the higher rate of premium will continue to receive it as long as they continue to satisfy the entitlement conditions. No lone parent will suffer a cash loss at the point of change.
In the course of his opening speech the noble Earl, Lord Russell, made, I believe, two main points. If I have overlooked any others I shall, of course, write to him. The first point he made was that in the past I, like him, have resisted the stereotyping of lone parents. I go further and say that, like him, I resisted the stigmatising of lone parents. I do not think that anyone in this House would disagree that the most worthwhile job that any parents can do—whether they are lone parents or are part of a couple—is to bring up their children well and successfully. However, to do that—this was the point of my rather long introduction—most lone parents will want also to work. They will wish to do so for the money certainly and certainly for the benefit of the children, but also to fulfil their own sense of gregariousness, sociability and self-esteem. That is what they tell us they want and that is what we want to offer them.

1337
The second point made by the noble Earl—I do not think that he and I disagree on it—was the reliance on research and the suggestion by the Social Security Advisory Committee that further research should be conducted to see whether a definitive answer can be reached on whether lone parents should receive only the same financial support as couples, which is the effect of the proposal. I have looked at a lot of the research. I find that it is not all that easy to draw firm conclusions from it. Given the difficulties that all researchers face, there is research that supports the retention of a premium for lone parents, as the noble Earl mentioned. Work by Middleton, Ashworth and Braithwaite, referred to in Small Fortunes, suggests that lone parent families are more deprived than couple families. Yet against that, research by Oldfield and Yu, contained in The Cost of a Child, and by Bradshaw, in Household Budgets and Living Standards, found that lone parent families were relatively less disadvantaged on income support than couple families.
Other research is open to different interpretations. Work by Dickens, Fry and Pashardes, The Costs of Children and the Welfare State, last year shows that lone parents are under-compensated by the benefit welfare system in relation to some family types but over-compensated in relation to others. I have read the research to assure myself of what I am saying.
What is clear is that the research does not produce the conclusive evidence that a lone parent family requires greater financial support than a couple family, partly, I suspect, because, as the noble Earl said and as I have argued, to some extent we seek to compare qualitative and quantitative issues. What lone parents do not have is the qualitative support and shared time and labour of a second adult in the household. In some senses one seeks to set that against the quantitative, somewhat lower overall levels of benefit arising from income support which supports one adult rather than two. I think that the jury is out. However, from the work that I have seen, I am not sure that further research can give us a clear-cut answer.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in an immaculate, polished, informed and incisive maiden speech. He made two points. The second was a series of questions about the effect on public expenditure. The first was whether on these Benches we have done a U-turn. If I may, I shall take them in reverse order.
I refer to the effects on public expenditure and savings. The scored savings for the withdrawal of lone parent premium for new lone parents is £55 million the first year, £125 million the second and £170 million the third. If in addition one adds in—the noble Lord referred to this benefit; it is not the subject of these regulations but will come up through the social security Bill—one-parent benefit, there are additional savings of £5 million, then £15 million, then £25 million. In total over three years we expect to see £400 million in savings from reducing lone parent benefits to the level of that enjoyed by couples. Two hundred million pounds of expenditure funded from the windfall tax will go into the new deal. That is the balance of the equation.
1338
The noble Lord's second point was that in Opposition we opposed these and similar cuts in benefit. In Opposition we certainly opposed any situation which worsened the position of lone parents and where there was no way for lone parents to take their path out of poverty. The difference between being in Opposition and in Government is that we have had the opportunity, as I sought to spell out earlier, of developing a new deal for lone parents, a childcare strategy for lone parents and, in due course, a minimum wage for lone parents. Those three developments were not proposed or supported by the party opposite. Members opposite fought fiercely the minimum wage. All those developments will directly benefit lone parents as they move into work.
It is within the context of a new deal, of a childcare strategy and in due course of a minimum wage that we feel that this is the right way forward for the future. Had Members opposite when in Government produced those proposals, we should have been able to explore them on their merits. They chose not to do so. We now have the opportunity to promote them and put them forward.
Finally, before I finish, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to another issue which is perhaps even more important than the measures that I have outlined; that is, the constitutional implications if the House votes on these regulations this afternoon. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that he was not sure whether he proposed to push the matter to a vote. However, I wish to remind the House of this. It is essential that we accept the convention of this House—it has been long observed—that we do not vote against statutory instruments.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene, there was an express resolution of this House negativing the proposition that the noble Baroness has just enunciated.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the House made a distinction between the unfettered paper right, if I may so put it, of this House to exercise its powers in the same way as the elected House: that an unelected, largely hereditary House has the right on paper to overturn an elected House. But we also said that we thought it wise that this House should respect a self-denying ordinance, which it has respected over the past 15 years, and should not exercise that right to thwart the will of an elected House.
We made a distinction between the conventions that this House observes, by which this House runs, which we ask the House to continue to accept, and its theoretical rights, which are wisely in abeyance.
Perhaps I may wind up. We believe that if the issue were pressed to the vote and your Lordships were minded to reject the measure, it would mean that whatever the elected House did would be irrelevant because the instrument could not proceed. Unlike an amendment to a Bill, the Commons could not reject and overturn a decision by your Lordships' House. In the colloquial phrase, there could be no ping-pong. I accept that on paper we may have the unfettered right, but if we did so we should create a situation where the view

1339
of this unelected and largely hereditary Chamber would prevail over the elected Chamber. Whatever the elected Chamber wished to do, it could not because we had thwarted it. The effect would be to force the withdrawal of the regulations.
The House of Commons will not debate the regulations until 12th November. We do not believe that it is right to deny the other House the right to determine the outcome of these regulations. This reflects our consistent position in Opposition when we always abstained on such matters.
As far as I understand, the last time the House of Lords annulled regulations was in the late 1970s—naturally it was against a Labour Government—on issues of town planning and national parks. On several occasions since then I have been in this House when the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has led the Liberal Democrats, or the Cross-Benchers have been moved, to annul regulations. Often I have supported their policies but never felt it right to seek to veto the Commons.
Your Lordships will recall that on local government reform in Cleveland in January 1995, or in Berkshire in July 1996, we on these Benches made it clear that, although we were deeply hostile to the Government's handling of some of those issues, we would not vote to overturn a regulation. Even when we debated housing benefit changes in May 1996 we made it clear that we would not vote against a statutory instrument. Similarly in July 1996, when the noble Earl brought forward a Prayer to annul the child benefit regulations, we on these Benches refused to overturn the convention, the self-denying ordinance of this House, by joining him in the Lobby. We amend, we revise, we debate but, I suggest to your Lordships, we do not thwart irrevocably. It is a long established self-denying ordinance which I ask the House to respect tonight. Therefore I ask the House to agree these regulations.
4.19 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before I say anything else, it is my great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on a distinguished and extremely skilful maiden speech. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord on proving me right, not once, but twice. I said that his task was impossible, and that he would pull it off. He did, and I am lost in admiration at the skill with which the job was done. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord in this House many times in future, and to hearing that skill deployed with a much greater freedom than he was able to enjoy today. It will be a pleasure for us all.
To turn immediately to the noble Baroness's remarks about constitutional conventions, first, the practice of voting on Prayers is not in abeyance. It was done twice during the previous Session: first, by my noble friend Lord Avebury on the regulations on the Port of Ipswich
1340
Authority; and secondly, by myself, again on the subject of benefits for single parents. So it has been done twice, and the roof has not fallen in.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if the noble Earl will give way, that was because, on his Motion he did not carry many Members of this House with him.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness challenges me to take on the part of Gideon and say that it is yet too many. However, she might consider what happened next. It might not be quite as she wishes.
As to the point that there is a convention, as the noble Baroness says, I have in front of me the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, speaking without any thought of advantage to any party, for he has no party and that is one of his glories in this Chamber. The noble and learned Lord said:
"I can find no evidence of its acceptance by your Lordships … Nor is it recognised by any of the authorities that I have been able to find. I have looked at Shell on the House of Lords, at Erskine May, at Griffiths and Ryle on Parliament, which had the participation of one of the Clerks of your Lordships' House. None of them mentions any such convention; nor does the leading authority on constitutional conventions—Marshall on Constitutional Conventions—mention it. On the contrary, they all mention the instances on which your Lordships' House did vote against subordinate legislation";—[Official Report, 20/10/94; cols. 357–358.]
I also have in front of me the speech made on that occasion by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, speaking for the Opposition as they then were. Speaking on a Motion that the House had an unfettered right to vote on subordinate legislation, the noble Lord said:
"This House must continue to preserve the unfettered right. However, the use of that unfettered right must be a last resort".—[Official Report, 20/10/94; col. 367.]
I do not disagree with that conclusion. I do not believe that I am doing anything against it. What has been happening in the field of regulation is that the convention outlined by the Donoughmore Committee in 1932 that regulation is kept for minor matters has, because of the increasing press of business, altogether broken down.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, speaking on 20th October 1994, drew attention to that point and prayed in aid a letter from the late Mr. Bob Cryer, chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, as the noble and learned Lord said,
"complaining that subordinate legislation was now going well beyond what he, in his homely phrase, called the 'nuts and bolts' of legislation".—[Official Report, 20/10/94; col. 358.]
That means that the right of this House to express any effective opinion if it cannot vote is rendered nugatory. The power of another place to check what is done by the Executive is being very much diminished. This Parliament does not represent the great age of the Government Back-Bencher in another place. So, if this House does not retain a residual power, to be used rarely and only in relation to points of great importance, then the Executive's will is law. I find that a more unacceptable conclusion than any that the noble Baroness describes.

1341
I accept what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, also said on that occasion; namely, that there is a party imbalance in this House. It is right that anybody who seeks to win a Division in this House should be forced to persuade those to whom they talk. One should not be able to win a Division simply by the deploying of a party majority. But in my position, the parallel of Gideon is a good deal more acceptable than the parallel of an overwhelming party majority. We on these Benches do not win Divisions unless we succeed in persuading other people—and that is what I have tried to do.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is the noble Earl saying that his party does not have a Whip on this issue?
Earl Russell: No, my Lords, I am saying that my party by itself does not command a majority in this Chamber. That is a proposition which I do not believe the noble Lord disputes. We win Divisions only when we persuade people outside our own party.
To turn to the noble Baroness's argument, I congratulate her on the skill with which it was done. She was in a position that I would not have been put in for £1 million, and she discharged that position with consummate skill. What she gave us amounted only to what New Labour calls "warm words"—so warm, indeed, that I wondered whether they should be liable to VAT! But they were extremely skilfully deployed. They concentrated particularly on the theoretical background of our attitude to lone parents, on which, as the noble Baroness knows, there is very little, if anything, between us. On that framework, upon which she wisely concentrated, I agree with her remarks. The question is: how much does it add up to?
Most of the noble Baroness's remarks came under two headings: either pilot schemes—and while I do not object to pilot schemes, they do not as yet have any great substance; or the childcare disregard, which I have in the past welcomed. But my honourable friend Mr. Webb in another place has since done more work on the exclusion conditions of those disregards. They apply only to the use of registered childminders. There is a cut-off edge, a cut-off amount which means, according to Mr. Webb's calculations—which have not been disputed by the Government—that under the exclusion conditions only 2,000 single parents in the country are eligible to benefit. This does not yet amount to colossal new policy. I repeat what I said about the Secretary of State: she is as good as the Chancellor of the Exchequer allows her to be. I do not find that good enough.
Nor do I believe that the Minister has given enough weight to the finding of the Policy Studies Institute that people who suffer severe financial deprivation find it much harder to get work than those who do not. That is a research finding; I believe it also to be a finding of common sense. It is entirely intelligible to me. So, for all the noble Baroness says about her dislike of social exclusion—and I was glad to hear her say it—by going ahead with these regulations she is considerably worsening the social exclusion of some of the most
1342
under-privileged people in the whole country. If that is not a major policy issue, I do not know what is. I commend the Motion to the House.
4.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: contents, 48; Not-Contents, 100.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Alderdice, L.

McNally, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Meston, L.

Annan, L.

Razzall, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Renton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Brookes, L.

Rochester, L.

Caldecote, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Calverley, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Carlisle, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Clancarty, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Sandwich, E.

Exmouth, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Geraint, L.

Strafford, E.

Grey, E.

Taverne, L.

Hampton, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hooson, L.

Tope, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Tordoff, L.

Ludford, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wigoder, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Gallacher, L.

Barnett, L.

Gilbert, L.

Berkeley, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Blease, L.

Glenamara, L.

Borrie, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gregson, L.

Burlison, L.

Hardie, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Haskel, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hayman, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Chandos, V.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Chorley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hoyle, L.

Cooke of Thorndon, L.

Hughes, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord

Davies of Coity, L.

Chancellor.]

Davies of Oldham, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Jeger, B.

Dixon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Donoughue, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Eatwell, L.

Lockwood, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

McCarthy, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

[Teller.]

1343

Mallalieu, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Marsh, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

St Davids, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Sewel, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Shepherd, L.

Molloy, L.

Simon, V.

Monkswell, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Morris of Manchester, L,

Strabolgi, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Nicol, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Northfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Orme, L.

Varley, L.

Paul, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wharton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Whitty, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

Student Fees in Scotland
4.39 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether their proposals for fees at universities in Scotland offer equality of access to students across the United Kingdom.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as an honorary graduate of two universities affected by the Question: the Universities of St. Andrews and Dundee. I also warmly welcome to this short debate a most knowledgeable list of speakers, particularly my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas who has chosen this occasion to make his maiden speech. I am sure we all look forward to hearing him.
Details of the Government's proposals for higher education students' tuition fees are so far only partly known. Much, we understand, is still to be decided. My Question is focused on a single point regarding a decision that has been made and which seems to me to require urgent further attention from the Government. Alarming implications of that decision are already arising:—implications for students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland aspiring to go to a Scottish university next year but now having serious doubts and cancelling exploratory visits; implications for the universities themselves, which may lose those students; considerable implications for the Scottish economy; and, most importantly, for the way United Kingdom devolution is likely to develop in the future.
I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is to reply to the Question. As a Scottish Office Minister and a previous Vice-Principal of Aberdeen University, he will speak for the Government as a whole but will clearly understand the Scottish perspective.
When, just before the Recess, the Dearing Report was published, the Government announced simultaneously that from 1998 undergraduates without means-tested exemption would be required to contribute £1,000 a year
1344
towards their tuition fees. The Government added that they would be looking in particular at the circumstances in Scotland, where the honours degree takes four years as opposed to three years elsewhere.
Last week, on 27th October, Mr. Brian Wilson, Minister for Education at the Scottish Office, announced that, for the sake of equity, honours degree students living in Scotland would only be required to contribute for three years of their tuition at Scottish universities. The fourth year would be free, and for medical and dental students the fifth and sixth years would also be free. That welcome decision—it is extremely welcome in Scotland—did not apply, Mr. Wilson stated, to students from England, Wales or Northern Ireland, his comment being,
"The question of whether students from elsewhere in the United Kingdom coming to study in Scotland will receive a similar concession will depend on those who provide their support"—
whatever that means.
The questions I ask the Minister this afternoon are as follows. First, it seems strange that a student from Dover can be charged more for a given course than a student from Calais or a student from Scotland. Is the decision legal under domestic law, human rights law or the Maastricht Treaty? I shall be grateful if the Minister can give me an answer to that question. Secondly, legal requirement or no, do the Government consider it right or indeed wise not to include all United Kingdom students taking an honours degree in Scotland in this United Kingdom taxpayer funded concession?
Writing in this week's House Magazine, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, reminds us that, in considering funding reform for universities, fairness is at the heart of government thinking and equity is their watchword. Is this fair? Is it equity? And is it wise?
In an article in the Scotsman on 29th October, Mr. Brian Wilson, far from accepting that there was any principle at stake, dismissed the many protests as "hyperbolic nonsense". His grounds were that the numbers affected would be small; a third would be exempted through means testing and, of the rest, a high proportion would find the extra £1,000 "a mere inconvenience". With respect to Mr. Wilson, that is not the point. At this moment 6,000 or more young people at school south of the Border are considering the pros and cons of applying to Scots universities. No one can tell them precisely what the tuition will cost them. In any case, the word has gone round that for non-Scots Scotland may be a more expensive option.
Currently 17 per cent. of Scots undergraduates—23,000 or a little less—are United Kingdom incomers. But at Edinburgh (Mr. Gordon Brown's university) they represent 48 per cent.; at St. Andrews 45 per cent.; at Dundee (Mr. Brian Wilson's university) 36 per cent.; and at Stirling 32 per cent. If young people's reaction is to diminish that mix, what will that do to the Scottish educational experience? What will it do to universities that depend on incoming students' residence fees, to the Scottish economy which gains some £100 million a year from their spending, and to the Scottish community where many of them stay on to live and work?
It is not possible to say precisely how many students south of the Border will stay away. My submission is that, whatever that number may be, the Government's position on this is wrong, particularly at this moment when legislation is awaited for a devolved Scots parliament—a parliament which will be 95 per cent. funded by United Kingdom taxpayers as a whole. Surely at this time the Government should be demonstrating to all our people the potential advantages to them of devolution and the increasingly varied opportunities it will offer to citizens across the United Kingdom.
If between now and the setting up of a Scots parliament the Prime Minister is to allow Scottish Office Ministers to proclaim "Fortress Scotland" in this way, if he is to allow—as may well be the problem in this case—Ministers in departments like education and employment south of the Border to refuse to co-operate with a devolved parliament north of the Border, even if that department is willing to pay, it is a poor outlook for devolution.
Likewise, if the Prime Minister is to allow that sort of behaviour, one can see an erosion of the open, welcoming encouragement of cross-Border flow which is the key to Scotland's character, to its universities and, incidentally, a key to incomers' enjoyment of Scotland. It is also, to my mind, a key to making devolution a success.
On this matter the Government are sending out depressing signals. Only the Scottish Nationalists are smiling. I look forward with great interest to the Minister's reply.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I was delighted to be able to add my name to the list of speakers in this important debate. I did so in order to beg the Minister to convey to his colleagues the feelings of this House on the matter and the feelings of the people of Scotland, particularly the academic community.
I live in St. Andrews. Its university is not large, but it is a university founded in 1410. The intake of non-Scottish students to the University of St. Andrews is 41 per cent. That is good for St. Andrews; it is good for the educational community to have that kind of mix in their courses. St. Andrews provides a broader based degree course which is not repeated in most of the English universities. Students who wish to take advantage of that course and who live in England will have to pay the extra £1,000 per annum.
The noble Baroness pointed out that there are 22,000 full-time UK undergraduate students of non-Scottish domicile in Scottish higher education. That is not a very large number. Mr. Brian Wilson said, "We are concerned with a small number". If it is a small number, why make a fuss about it? If it is a small number, why make Scottish education more expensive than studying in England? Thirty per cent. of students at Dundee University come from outside Scotland. Of those, 14 per cent. come from Northern Ireland. The students who come to Dundee University from Northern Ireland will be required to pay the extra £1,000. However, students
1346
who come from southern Ireland will not be required to pay the extra £1,000. That is anomalous and totally indefensible.
It has been said that students who come up to Scottish universities from England are well able to pay the extra £1,000. That is not the experience of St. Andrews University. The great majority of students who come up from England to study at St. Andrews University are not from public schools and are not necessarily from homes where the parents can afford to pay the extra.
Anything that makes Scottish education more expensive affects their ability to recruit students. Recruiting students is a highly competitive business. The funding of universities depends on attracting a sufficient number of students to make the courses viable. This proposal makes Scottish education less attractive and to that extent affects the academic community and the whole provision of education in Scotland.
Lots of people admire, and some even prefer, Scottish education. There is no reason in the world why it should be made less attractive. As has been said, this is a gift to the SNP. I regard the SNP as a great menace, politically and socially. Anything that encourages its kind of propaganda should certainly not be encouraged by the Government. I am therefore delighted to support the proposition so admirably presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, in speaking to this Unstarred Question, I must first declare an interest as an honorary lecturer in the medical faculty of Queen's University, Belfast. It might be assumed from that remark that I would be rather glad to try to find any reason why students should stay in Northern Ireland and not be attracted away to universities in Scotland. However, there are two reasons why I feel extremely unhappy about the proposition that has come forward.
First, there has traditionally been a considerable run of students to Scotland from Northern Ireland. It is not just a matter of our recent difficulties. Indeed, in the early days the two key pillars of Queen's University, Belfast, were theology and medicine. In both cases those who established the courses took their initial training in Scotland and came across to Northern Ireland. That long and distinguished tradition considerably informed the philosophy of education in Northern Ireland, and for the better. In more recent years there have been other reasons for students going to Scotland and other places. Parents and families, particularly in the Protestant community, began to feel there was little long-term future for young people and so encouraged them to leave. That was not a happy circumstance but, in the view of many, it was not an entirely unrealistic one either.
The number of students involved is quite considerable. Currently, around 5,500 students from Northern Ireland attend institutions of higher education in Scotland. From a population of 1.5 million, that is a considerable proportion. To be disadvantaged in the way that has been announced will not improve the morale of

1347
young people and their families in Northern Ireland; it will make them feel a little more unwanted in a part of the United Kingdom where they have always felt extremely welcome.
It is not the case that the young people who have sought education in Scotland have done so because they were unable, because of their academic ability or lack of it, to find places in Northern Ireland. On the contrary: as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, many have sought it because they appreciate Scottish education and value it very much. It is also the case that some of the courses available in Scottish education are not available in the smaller pool of courses in Northern Ireland. In effect, this measure will deny to young people in Northern Ireland the opportunity to continue their education. As already stated, that will place them at a disadvantage compared with young people in the Republic of Ireland. It is an extraordinary proposition.
Secondly, I am concerned about medical students. Medicine courses are longer than other courses. What is often forgotten is that by the time it comes to year three, and certainly year four, the academic courses last, not for 30 weeks, which might allow medical students to earn some money during the other 20 weeks, but continue for 40 and in some cases for 50 weeks, making it completely impossible for medical students to earn money to help them continue through their courses. Is it the case—I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify the point because the medical profession is unclear about the implications even of the more recent statements—that it will be into year five before medical students receive any assistance? That will be much too late. They will have operated without the level of sustenance other students receive.
It will mean that in medicine, already in difficulties in terms of recruitment to general practice, academic medicine, and some of the other hospital specialties, those who can afford to enter will do so because it is a good and rewarding career. But it is not likely to ensure doctors coming forward in sufficient numbers and with a particular interest in working in the inner city areas which have considerable problems attracting doctors. Will this not result in medicine being outside the reach of those who have all the abilities, skills and aptitudes but not the financial resources? That is an extraordinary position for a Labour Government, new or otherwise.
I entirely support moves towards devolution. But if a devolved Scottish Parliament made a decision of this kind, I would remonstrate with it and try to persuade it otherwise. I might even hope there was a Northern Ireland Parliament from which I could do so. But I would rely on the United Kingdom Parliament to ensure that the different regional assemblies were paying attention to each other, working together and ensuring some commonality and harmony throughout the United Kingdom as a whole. I find it remarkable that it is the United Kingdom Parliament whose duty, increasingly
1348
with devolved governments, will be to keep the United Kingdom together, is bringing forward such a proposition on the way ahead—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, may I respectfully remind the noble Lord that the speaking time limit is five minutes and that when five minutes shows on the Clock the time is complete.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I look forward to the replies and elucidation that I trust will come from the Government Benches.
5 p.m.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I am very glad to be here as a new Peer and it is an honour to participate in today's debate. While serving as an MP in the other House I had an uncle in this House, Lord Selkirk, and I benefited from his wise counsel. I remember a former Prime Minister suggesting to me that Government Whips in the House of Commons should be able to influence the votes of their relatives in the House of Lords, but I must confess I never had any success on that score.
I realise that convention demands that maiden speeches should not be too controversial and I would not wish to depart from that convention, but in relation to this subject there are clear issues of principle. I speak in today's debate because I was for three years responsible for this subject at the Scottish Office. The detailed differences between Scots and English educational systems and student support gave rise to many lengthy conversations, and indeed these were not always straightforward. But always the test we applied was to ensure fairness and to avoid discrimination against any particular group.
One of the ironies of this debate is that many more school-leavers in Scotland are staying on an extra year at school. There is therefore a trend for school-leavers in Scotland to opt for a three-year degree course as many are now going to university a year later. But the difficulty has arisen in relation to four-year honours degree courses in Scotland, as the noble Baroness has said. I hope that Ministers will be prepared to look at this issue again, for three reasons.
First, the proposed arrangements are clearly discriminatory. For example, as has been pointed out, a student from Umbria in Italy would pay less than a student from Northumbria. It would be seen as an unfairness for students on the same course to have to pay different amounts depending on which side of the Border they happen to live, and it would give rise to a grievance and a feeling of being less than welcome.
Secondly, as well as the issue of unfairness, students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland bring in an enormous amount of income to Scottish universities. The McNicoll Report identified that the actual amount of income received by the Scottish universities from the students concerned from other parts of the United Kingdom was in the region of £110 million. But one has to add over and above that an extra £100 million which those students spent in or around university towns. If

1349
this perceived unfairness acted as a disincentive and deterred students from outside Scotland from attending Scots universities, that would undoubtedly damage Scots universities through loss of income. There is undoubtedly evidence that this is already happening, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has pointed out.
The Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals believes that the imposition of 33 per cent. more in fees will turn English, Welsh and Northern Irish students away, threatening the survival of courses and departments, and would be seen as an unwelcome signal.
Thirdly, the proposed decision would be subject to challenges in the European Court of Justice. The National Union of Students has already said that it would support any student who decided to take on the Government, and the principals of the Scots universities are also seeking legal opinion on this issue. I recall that I once had occasion to report a Secretary of State for Scotland to the Equal Opportunities Commission for discriminating against women. Not very long afterwards he decided to change his policy in that particular respect. I cannot help believing that it would be better if the Government took steps to look at this matter again before the European Court of Justice becomes involved.
It has, of course, been suggested that the numbers affected are small, but in 199–97 the figures were as high as 26,900 students from the rest of the United Kingdom studying in Scotland. So the numbers potentially affected are probably not so small. But whatever the numbers, it is the principle of fairness that matters. Universities should be universal for those who have the ability and inclination to achieve their full potential. They should provide the passport to jobs, fulfilment and success. We have outlawed discrimination against race, religion and sex. In this case, with Ministers of good will in their respective departments, resolving this specific problem really should not prove insurmountable. Surely this is the time for Ministers in the Department for Education and the Scottish Office to look again at this issue with a view to preventing discrimination in education with particular reference to university fees.
I thank the noble Baroness very much for the fact that she has raised this issue in debate as a Question today. I am grateful for the opportunity to have addressed the House.
5.5 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for the whole House in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, on his maiden speech. As would be expected from a former Scottish Education Minister, it was well informed. It is always nice to welcome a fellow Scot to the House, and as I note that he has been in most of the departments of the Scottish Office, I am sure that he is very well informed on a number of other subjects. I hope that it will not be too long before we hear him again.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for asking this Question. I shall listen with considerable interest to the Government's reply on how
1350
they expect their proposal not to pay fourth-year fees for United Kingdom students other than Scots studying at Scottish universities to escape a legal challenge.
I declare an interest as the father of two university-aged children, but neither will be affected by the Government's proposals. I also have the honour to hold an honorary doctorate from the University of Aberdeen, an ancient Scottish university, from where the Minister who is to answer the Question is on professorial leave of absence from a distinguished career as a teacher and leader.
Surely the answer to the noble Baroness's Question is that the Government's proposals for fees at universities in Scotland do not offer equality of access to all United Kingdom students. Few English, Welsh and Northern Irish students will consider coming to a Scottish university if they know that their fourth year of study is unfunded and that they may have to find £1,000 to complete their course. In the highly competitive environment of attracting the best students, Scottish universities will thus lose out, but much more significantly, the non-Scottish UK students and UK Limited could miss out on valuable qualifications.
I refer to the geology and petroleum geology course offered at Aberdeen University. Because the oil industry is based in Aberdeen, the university is probably one of the few British institutions with the technical, practical and geographic justification for offering this degree. But it must be available to all UK students, not just Scots.
The reasons for this are that the course is probably only offered at one other institution, so it is almost a national course, and because geology is an A-level subject, which results in an above-average proportion of professionally oriented students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland wishing to take the course.
I understand that there are already quite a lot of unfunded activities directly related to that course and if a further £1,000 had to be found, there is a danger that UK non-Scots students would cease to apply, with devastating results for the course and for the whole of the reputation of the United Kingdom for providing world-class, appropriately qualified, graduates for the oil industry.
I hope that the Government's reply will not include a proposal that non-Scottish UK students with A-levels should come in to the Scottish honours degree courses at the start of the second year. Sir Ron Garrick, who chaired the Dearing Inquiry in Scotland, queried why so few students took that route and was told that the A-level students wanted themselves to take the full course. Statistics reveal that students from south of the Border taking a four-year course gained markedly better qualifications than the average and got worthwhile jobs. Sir Ron Garrick went on to comment:
"That to me sounded like a wonderful selling point for the Scottish institutions—do the four years because look at the results you get".
Unless another speaker says something untoward, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will persuade his honourable friend Mr. Brian Wilson, the Minister responsible for Scottish education in another place, that he should fund the full 120-weeks' study which is

1351
traditionally associated with the well-rounded Scottish honours degree for all UK students and that the 90-week study period has no place in the Scottish first degree.
5.10 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Carnegy for tabling this important Unstarred Question. I should like to add my congratulations to those that have been paid to the maiden speaker, my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas, whom we were delighted to hear.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy stated the problem clearly and I shall not repeat what she said. Perhaps I may advise the Minister that since the Government announced that a tuition fee of £1,000 is to be paid, this is the second difficulty that they have encountered, the first being over what is known as the "gap year", which I think that they have at last sorted out. We now have what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, described as a totally indefensible proposition.
I have a particular interest in this debate as one of my daughters went to St. Andrews University. Like many other English students at Scottish universities, not only did she receive an excellent education but she made lifelong Scottish friends. She had opportunities at St. Andrews to take up outdoor pursuits such as mountaineering, in which she became very interested, and even skiing, which are not generally available at English universities.
As we know, thousands of English students go to Scottish universities and I am glad that many Scots are now coming to English universities. That is as it should be. Everyone interested in education knows the value of getting to know and of mixing with people of different cultures and backgrounds. It must surely be the right of any student to go to any university in the United Kingdom, provided that they are properly qualified for the course that they want to follow. They should not be financially penalised in any way. To discriminate in this extraordinary fashion against the English, the Welsh and students from Northern Ireland is not just unfair to them—although it is—but it seems to me that the fundamental difficultly is that such discrimination is against the best interests of the whole university system. There will be no winners anywhere from this proposition—in Scotland, in England, in Wales or in Northern Ireland.
However, I believe that the problem goes wider than that, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy pointed out. During the course of our long debates on the referendum in Scotland on devolution we were told time and again by the Government that it was not a precursor to an independent Scotland. I hope that that is true. However, a measure such as this sits very uneasily with what was said then. To someone like myself, it suggests that, far from looking outward, Scotland will be looking inward. When we know the importance of young people growing up and being influenced by each other's culture, that seems dangerous and damaging.
We have heard a great deal about the numbers involved. Before speaking, my attention was drawn to an article in the Scotsman, written by Mr. Brian Wilson,
1352
in which he took a rather emotional approach. He talked about 5,000 non-Scottish but UK graduates from Scottish universities. However, a letter that I have received from the acting principal at St. Andrews refers to 12,000 non-Scottish domiciled UK students. Today we have heard mention of 22,000 and 26,000 such students. This is a serious matter and it would be helpful to know exactly what number we are talking about.
I do not think, however, that it is a numbers game. It is serious for anybody to be denied an opportunity on financial grounds and I am bound to say that I find it very surprising that a Labour Government, even a New Labour Government, should adumbrate this extraordinary policy which is bad for individual students, bad for the university system as a whole and in which, as I said earlier, there will be no winners.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, like one or two previous speakers, I must declare an interest—nothing as grand as being awarded an honorary degree from a famous Scottish university, but simply the fact that I am a professor at the coalface at the University of St. Andrews—I hasten to add that it is an unpaid professorship—and that that has enabled me on visits there to assess the very high quality of its academic community. In addition, I have a granddaughter who is an undergraduate there. As she is in her fourth year, she is unaffected by the proposals. I have therefore seen a little of how this looks from the other end.
It seems a most extraordinary proposition to limit one of the factors which I think give particular quality to the University of St. Andrews, to Edinburgh University which, again, has a high proportion of students from other parts of the United Kingdom, and to Dundee University which, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, pointed out and as was pointed out to me by a very eminent figure in Northern Ireland, has very particular relations with that Province. After all, Scotland now has a complement of universities with very varied histories and of very different kinds. The University of St. Andrews is the third oldest university in the United Kingdom; others are quite new. The University of Glasgow is a very eminent institution and has been so since Adam Smith's day at least. It is true that there it is not a question of a £1,000 tuition fee because I understand that students there customarily brought a sack of oatmeal as the fee for their professor! The direct payment of professors might at least ensure that such an imposition as this would benefit the university and not merely fill holes in the Treasury. It seems extraordinary that anyone should wish—that any Scot or that any friend of Scotland should wish—to see an inroad made into that great feature of Scotland and its particular ways of handling higher education which, as the noble Earl said, are somewhat different from those in England and Wales.
The proposition that the privilege of escaping the fees should be extended from Scottish students to students in the European Union is peculiar. It is peculiar to give a preference to Dublin over Belfast. However, I am not at all sure that it is legal. I would be the last person to regret it if it were suddenly announced that the

1353
United Kingdom, including England, was ceasing to be part of the European Union, but the fact is that it is part of the European Union and therefore if the privilege of Scottish students is extended to citizens of other parts of the European Union surely that must include England. I would defy any lawyer to find a hole in that argument.
I therefore appeal to the Minister to tell his colleague in another place, whose statements on higher education suggest that he is not fully aware of the complexities inherent in the problem, that there is in this House and probably in the country unanimity in the view that in matters of higher education the United Kingdom is a single unit, and that the financing of it, whatever form it takes, must take that fact into account.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for introducing this subject and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, on his excellent maiden speech. His qualities in the other House were well recognised. It is a great advantage to this House that he now sits on the Benches here. As is the wont with maiden speakers, the noble Lord said that his contribution was non-controversial. Given the consensual views that have been expressed so far, he has certainly fulfilled that obligation. However, he was far too controversial for me. I shall put a point of view different from those expressed so far in this debate.
I emphasise that the deterrent effect of this aspect of the fees with regard to Scottish universities can be greatly exaggerated. One is talking about £1,000 spread over a 20-year repayment period under the Government's proposal. That £1,000 must be seen against the background where anyone who undertakes a four-year course at a Scots university already incurs substantial costs: the loss of earnings for the year in which they could have been employed if they had pursued a three-year course; the costs involved in maintaining themselves at university; and the additional cost, which is not insignificant in these days of privatised rail and the uncertain fare structure, of travel from England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland to Scottish universities. There are substantial costs of which this particular feature is quite marginal.
I agree that if throughout student bodies and parents there is considerable alarm that students will undertake obligations that they cannot be expected to fulfil, then the cost will be borne by students, by Scottish universities and by the wider society. In replying to the debate it behoves the Minister to emphasise how the Government will succeed in communicating to students the fact that the introduction of fees is made necessary by the key priority of this Government to expand higher education further, not least among students or young people who come from deprived homes. They will not be put off by the costs of tuition because by definition they will be exempt from such fees. Those fees come into play only where parental income is £23,000 a year.
I assure the House that there is a large number of students who, if they were given the kind of support that they deserved at the age of 16 to sustain themselves in
1354
school—priorities that the Government have identified—and the support necessary in further education to get the necessary qualifications, would be in a position to enter higher education, including Scottish higher education where neither they nor their families would face additional costs because the resources of the household would be too low to bear those costs at the present time.
If there is a fear that the introduction of these fees will somehow produce a superfluity of places in British universities, in particular Scottish ones, with large numbers of students not taking up places which would otherwise be available, the answer lies in the Government producing policies that encourage wider participation by students from social groups who at present feature all too little in higher education.
I respect the points that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, as to the value of four-year degree courses. But the reason why Scottish higher education is different is that the preparation for it is different. One English student identified this aspect when writing in The Scotsman. She said that she had started in the second year of her degree. She did not believe that her education had suffered as a result and could not see why others could not do likewise. She said that she had gone to Scotland, as others would, because she valued the institutions and the courses, not their length. She identified the fact that her preparation on the basis of English A-level qualifications, particularly for anyone who spent three years in the sixth-form of an English school, had adequately prepared her for Scottish higher education. One must recognise the difference between the two.
Far from Ministers being criticised today for having introduced what is regarded in some areas as a major deterrent to young people entering Scottish higher education, Ministers have succeeded in protecting Scottish university degrees by ensuring that Scots have access to them on the basis of four years' support.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, first I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Carnegy for introducing this important matter, which I believe has wider implications than for Scotland alone. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Selkirk on his admirable maiden speech.
I declare a personal interest, although not a financial one. One of my sons graduated from St. Andrews. So much did he enjoy the experience that currently I have a second son at St. Andrews who is greatly benefiting from the experience and thoroughly enjoying it. I support what has been said about the excellence of Scottish universities, and certainly the proportion of students who are not Scottish—about 40 per cent.—greatly benefit from the experience.
Initially, I was shocked by the real anomaly announced by the Government. When I read the debate in Hansard on 30th October I was impressed by a number of the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. The majority of Scottish students take four-year courses, whereas the majority of

1355
English students take three-year courses. Maybe there is a certain lack of justice in that in general Scottish students have to pay four times £1,000 whereas in general English students have to pay three times £1,000. I noted the logic that increasingly A-level students attending Scottish universities with those qualifications entered in the second year and therefore incurred only three years' worth of expenses.
As an aside, I am disappointed not to see the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in her place this evening. There are no doubt excellent reasons, but the noble Baroness is the Minister responsible for higher education. It seems that part of the anomaly in this affair arises from the circumstance that it is in part a higher education matter and in part a Scottish matter. Therefore, we shall hear the noble Lord with responsibility for Scottish affairs in this House answering the debate. One wonders whether one is already entering an area of anomalies. If this represents the first fruits of devolution, bring me back the days of Queen Anne!
There are further anomalies. We have not yet heard about the Scottish students who attend English universities. I have always regarded it as a sad aspect of the educational system that a limited number of Scottish students attend English universities because of the differences in the school system. I have always regretted the fact that we do not see more Scottish students. There are many science courses in English universities that are four-year courses. Will Scottish students who attend four-year courses in English universities be paying their fourth £1,000 or not? No doubt a factual answer can be provided to that question.
I understand the problem as outlined by the noble Baroness. Lady Blackstone. The main point I make in this debate is that by setting up differentials at the margin a financial market in educational matters is being created. This is the first or perhaps the second example. We saw the difficulties produced by the gap-year enterprise; the sudden switch in the number of applications and students deciding to take up their places. The noble Lord opposite said that the £1,000 will be multiplied by other factors and added to a larger debt paid over 20 years and that difference will scarcely be noticed. I assure your Lordships that impoverished students notice the difference of £1,000 and these issues operate at the margin. It is to be anticipated that many students, probably wrongly, will be making their decisions on relatively small matters; that is, the £1,000 at the margin.
I wish to draw the attention, in particular of noble Lords opposite, to the fact that if we introduce £1,000 here and £1,000 there we shall be introducing a series of distortions into the educational system which will have serious effects. Applications in some universities have declined for next year. I see much of the logic of the Government's response to the Dearing Report and I am not arguing against it now. However, if by accident we introduce market forces into the British educational system we will be setting up a situation which will have
1356
dire consequences. Anomalies exist: we shall be playing at Scottish sixes and English sevens, and it will not add up.
5.31 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Carnegy, for introducing the debate. It is an important subject which deserves an airing. Furthermore, I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Selkirk on his admirable speech. We look forward to hearing more from him.
Perhaps at the outset I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, who dismissed the issue of an extra £1,000 as derisory. Tell that to the students! The noble Lord entirely missed the point that the issue is one of unfairness; we are discussing the application of a policy of differential rates for the same course. The noble Lord also ignored the point that the proposal comes on top of the wholesale abolition of the maintenance grant and students from low income families will be most disadvantaged by the policy.
As recently as 14th April, in an article in the Evening Standard, Mr. Blair pledged that Labour had no plans to introduce tuition fees for higher education. Indeed, during the election campaign—and I know because I was there—an unsuccessful Labour Party candidate spoke to a hall of sixth-form school-leavers and made the same pledge.
The Dearing Report was received, considered and rejected in unseemly haste. As a result of the Government's policy, those who have most to lose will be those about whom the Government purport to be most concerned—the least well off. There has also been a lack of openness and honesty in the debate. If it is the Government's intention to save all of the grant from maintenance costs and to levy £1,000 per student per year as a tax without guarantees that the money will be returned to higher education, they should say what their plans are—or is that a closely guarded secret of the Treasury? Perhaps the Minister will clarify the issue by telling the House the extent to which higher education will benefit from moneys saved at the expense of students and their families.
We have also seen a number of knee-jerk reactions since the introduction of the policy. First, we had the incredible gap-year fiasco. How could the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, not have predicted the reaction from students who had delayed taking up places at university for one year? Not for the first time did the Prime Minister have to come to the rescue of the noble Baroness by agreeing to delay by one year the introduction of fees for those gap-year students. Although we shall be discussing the issue at greater length next week, it is strongly rumoured that the Prime Minister has had to intervene in the plans of the noble Baroness to remove money from the Oxford and Cambridge colleges. Again, we look forward to clarification on that point.
However, the latest and, frankly, most absurd knee-jerk policy adjustment is the concession to Scotland. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, recently used the argument that some English students

1357
are entered in the second year of a Scottish degree course. Even if that were so, it is cold comfort for the students to whom it does not apply. The consequences of applying a two-tier policy will be to create wholly foreseeable inequalities. As was said most eloquently by my noble friends, Scottish, southern Irish, continental and European students will sit alongside English, Welsh and Northern Irish students on similar courses on the basis of differential fees. Not only is that unfair, the policy will act as a deterrent for many young people and that will impact adversely on our great Scottish universities.
I repeat a question which was posed by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. Is it within both the letter and the spirit of the Government's obligation under domestic and European laws of equality of access for students throughout the European countries to be charged differential fees for the same course? It would be most interesting to know precisely what was the legal advice on that point.
Do the Government envisage any decline in applications for places at universities? If so, do they have any contingency plans? Will the money saved and income raised from fees be returned to higher education, or will it simply be tax revenue for disposal by the Chancellor? What was the legal advice as regards differential fees? What system is in place to verify whether or not a gap-year student has undertaken three months voluntary work in order to qualify for the 1998–99 concession? How will the Government know that someone has undertaken voluntary work, and who will be administering the system? Is there any plan to legislate against higher education colleges charging top up fees?
As suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and my noble friend—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the time!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am finishing—this is my last sentence. As suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and my noble friend Lady Carnegy, this policy plays into the hands of the SNP. The smile on the face of the SNP when the result of the Scottish referendum was announced was very wide indeed. However, the smile has positively broken into a look of pure ecstasy as a result of this ill-advised concession to Scottish, southern Irish and continental Europeans—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, order! It is now seven minutes!
5.38 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Carnegy for tabling this important debate. She has posed a question which has far-reaching and worrying implications for many people, none more so than medical and dental students on whose behalf I venture to intervene tonight.
In that context, two main issues arise: first, the impact of tuition fees south of the Border and, secondly, the apparent inequality of treatment between
1358
Scottish medical students and those who live or study in other parts of the United Kingdom. Students of medicine and dentistry find themselves encumbered in a number of ways unique to those disciplines. Unavoidably, they have to go without professional earnings for five or six years. As was rightly pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, the length of their academic term combined with the intensity of their work means that they have little chance of supplementing their income through part-time employment. Their working expenses tend to be much higher than those of other students and when they take up their period of elective study, often overseas, medics have to fund themselves. For a whole host of reasons, the medic is disadvantaged—indeed, sometimes deterred—by the cost of his or her course of study.
Encouragingly, the Government went some way towards recognising the special features of medical training with their announcement on 23rd September that the tuition fees of medical and dental students from year five onwards will be met by the Department of Health and that new bursaries and loans will be available for those who most need them. Those are welcome initiatives as far as they go, although the adequacy of the bursaries and loans remains to be gauged once the details emerge. However, south of the Border we still have a yawning anomaly as regards tuition fees.
I deplore the Government's decision to introduce their proposals in the way that they did. But to have a situation where students doing a conventional three-year degree course pay one amount but medical students, who have to fund four years fees, pay one-third more is not only inequitable; it is a huge further deterrent to people contemplating a medical career. That is the last thing that we should be expecting them to do in the face of the special burdens which they already have to carry.
If we are to require students to contribute to the cost of tuition—and it seems that we are—will the Government re-examine the position of medical and dental students so as to ensure that at the very least they are treated fairly in comparison with other students?
That brings me to the Scottish dimension. There is a great deal of confusion in the medical community about the inequalities which the new system looks set to engender. On 27th October, the Scottish education Minister, Mr. Wilson, in a news release, conceded the principle that the fee contribution from Scottish graduates, who typically study for four years rather than three, should be on a par with the contribution for comparable qualifications gained elsewhere in the UK. He announced that to relieve Scottish students of the burden of paying for more than three years' worth of contributions, the Student Awards Agency for Scotland will pay the additional £1,000 arising in the final honours year. Where does that leave dental and medical students?
It would seem from the Government's proposals so far that Scottish medics will be exempt not only from the fifth and sixth years' fee contributions but from

1359
the fourth years' as well. In other words, medical students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland will have to pay four years' worth of fees but those from Scotland only three. Furthermore, when we refer to Scottish students in that context, we should remember that the preferential treatment in Scotland applies only to those whose home is in Scotland.
Those are gross anomalies. But somewhere along the line it is possible that misunderstandings may have arisen. Therefore, I ask the Minister, not necessarily today, to clarify in writing the following issues. Is it the case that all Scottish students will have to pay towards three years of their degree—in other words, a maximum of —3,000—whatever that degree may be? Will non-Scottish students studying at a Scottish medical school be eligible for treatment equal to that of their Scottish counterparts? If so, who will fund them?
Finally, on a more detailed point, I refer the Minister to the announcement in Mr. Wilson's press release that Scottish medical and dental students will be eligible for an NHS 50 per cent. means-tested bursary towards living costs in the fifth and sixth years. That is 50 per cent. of what?
The backdrop to that is the worrying picture of the declining recruitment that we are seeing currently in general practice, in academic medicine and in a number of hospital specialities. The last thing that we want—and by "we" I mean the country as a whole—is a set of funding arrangements which exacerbates those difficulties and creates manifest unfairness in different parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Government will be able to provide some reassurance.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for initiating a debate that has been of great interest and markedly one-sided. I look forward to hearing the Minister's answer. I join in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, on his maiden speech which I listened to with particular interest because he speaks with a great deal of knowledge and experience of the subject which I do not claim to have.
I need to say at the outset, lest I should give the impression otherwise, that my party remains opposed to the imposition of tuition fees. That is a debate for another day. I shall not pursue the matter now except to say that were the fees not to be imposed it would not be necessary to have this debate today and the Government would not be in the mess in which they clearly find themselves again.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and, indeed, every other speaker except one in the debate, has made the case very well and has in effect answered very fully the noble Baroness's Question. How can there be equality of access within the United Kingdom when a student from Dover has to pay more than a student from a Scottish town? A comparison was made between Dover and Calais and between Umbria and Northumbria. I was going to make a comparison
1360
between Umbria and Cumbria which seemed to go better. But the comparisons are there. It cannot be right that students from Paris, Rome or Athens pay less for tuition fees at a Scottish university than those from Carlisle. A colleague of mine remarked to me that that is perhaps why Edinburgh is described as the Athens of the North.
That cannot be equality of access. It has been suggested by other noble Lords that it also cannot be legal. We look forward to the Minister's answer on that point which must be forthcoming. I should have thought that it must fall foul of discrimination legislation, whether in this country or within the European Union. Indeed, I understand that the European Union is to introduce legislation next year which will enable people to take their own governments to court on grounds of discrimination. I know that the NUS and other interested bodies will undoubtedly pursue that course unless something is done.
Others have spoken with greater knowledge about the effect on Scottish universities. The figures have been given and I need not repeat them. I was pleased to hear the point made also that it is not only the profound effect on Scottish universities that has to be considered but also the effect on Scottish university towns. Too often, sometimes, in an education debate, we forget the wider picture. We forget that a local economy may depend greatly on a local university.
There is no doubt in my mind that an extra £1,000 will have a deterrent effect on students in relation to their decision whether or not to go to a Scottish university. None of us knows the extent of that; it is in the nature of things that those who oppose the measure will tend to exaggerate the effect while those who support it will say that the effect is negligible or there is no effect at all. That is not the point. The point is one of principle. Whether it is one person, 100 or 5,000 people being discriminated against, it is the principle which is the issue.
There is evidence to show that the effect will be significant. My noble friend Lord Alderdice spoke with great knowledge and experience of the probable effect in Northern Ireland and on students from Northern Ireland. I need not repeat that. I have said that I have no connections with Scottish universities. I have a connection with an English university in that my son is studying at one. No mention has been made in the debate of the possible effect on English universities. If students are discouraged in any numbers from going to Scottish universities and instead go to English universities, the effect on what is already overcrowding in a number of those universities will be even greater.
I heard today of the position at one university, not my son's, where the overcrowding is such that there are three students to a room without wardrobe accommodation and that some students are currently sleeping on the floor in the library. I am not in a position to suggest that that is typical. I hope very much that it is not. But that is direct personal experience at one English university. If we add to that, the situation will become worse.

1361
This whole problem results from a failure by the Government to think out competently the effects of their policies. Others speakers have referred to the fact that it is not the first such example; it is the second. The infamous gap year was the first. But this measure demonstrates clearly that the Government have not thought through the effects of their policy. It is dividing country against country, student against student and university against university. The matter could be cleared up tomorrow if the Government would only stand up to the Treasury and abandon this iniquitous policy.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I too start by congratulating my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour on raising this important topic this evening. Also, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas on his maiden speech. I am sure that we shall hear a great deal more from my noble friend, just as we heard a great deal from his noble kinsman Lord Selkirk in his day.
I am certain that this afternoon has not been a good afternoon for the Government. First, we had the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, trying to defend a policy which, had she been standing on this side of the House, she would have described as an abomination. And now we have the poor noble Lord, Lord Sewel, sent here to defend an education policy which, I am sure, if it had been put forward by a Conservative Government, he would have been lambasting from pillar to post. I am sorry for the poor noble Lord because I am sure that he has had little to do with the discussions. It should be his honourable friend Mr. Brian Wilson or the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who is responsible for higher education. But it is the poor noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and I hope that he does not take too personally anything that has been said.
Mr. Brian Wilson, who is the Minister in charge of such matters at the Scottish Office, wrote an interesting article in The Scotsman recently in which he said that what he had heard—and I have no doubt he would encompass what has been said today—was "hyperbolic nonsense". Well, it takes one to know one. Over the years, Brian Wilson has written more hyperbolic nonsense than anyone else I know. If that is the best argument that he can put forward, it suggests to me that he is on quite weak grounds.
I thought it rather noticeable that the Government could not find a single Scottish Back-Bench Peer to come to talk in defence of this policy: I repeat, not a single one. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will remember my problems regarding my daughter in Italy during the referendum Bill. Perhaps I may pose the question that we have heard in a number of ways like this. I have two granddaughters. One lives in Italy and the other in Kent. If, in the fullness of time, they decide to follow in the footsteps of their parents and of their grandparent and attend the University of Glasgow, the one from Italy will be charged £3,000
1362
and the one from Kent will be charged £4,000. When that proposition was put to Mr. Brian Wilson on the programme "The World Tonight" last week when he was debating with Professor Colin Vincent (an old friend of mine from my Glasgow University days), he clutched at straws. He was asked, "Why this anomaly?"—in that case regarding France—and replied, "Well, France is in the Common Market". The interviewer on the programme, who obviously had not been cleared by Mr. Alistair Campbell, responded, "Yes, but isn't England?".
I make that point seriously to the Minister. Is not England in the Common Market? Further, is this not the most ludicrous position? Coming as it does from a Minister in the Scottish Office who I genuinely believe is a unionist to the marrow of his bones, is this not a particularly silly position for him to find himself in simply because of the general incompetence of the Department for Education?
However, there is more to that unfairness. Let us consider the abolition of maintenance grants, which means that students from the West Highlands—which is where I come from and, indeed, where Brian Wilson and a number of other people involved in the Government come from—who have to leave home in order to go to university and pay away-from-home expenses will actually accumulate during their university degree a lot more debt than their cousins whose parents migrated from, let us say, Lewis to Glasgow and can go to their local university. Is that fair? I can tell the House that if a Conservative Government or any other government had proposed that, Brian Wilson would have been vitriolic on behalf of the students of Lewis and Harris and the West Highlands against that kind of discriminatory policy. He would have been vitriolic in the columns of the Herald and, indeed, in the West Highlands free press. Although I am being short in my remarks this evening because of the time limit imposed upon me, I also feel pretty vitriolic on behalf of people who have no option but to leave home in order to study at university.
There is an even dafter proposition behind the Government's policy; namely, that they will take parental income into account when it comes to deciding whether a student should pay the fees. But it is not on the parental income that one will have to pay back: it is on one's own graduate income during the years after leaving university. Do the Government have any evidence that students from an economically poor background do not graduate and do not in fact end up earning the same as or more than those students from an economically better-off background? I can see a situation where some graduates will actually be paying back far larger debts than their better paid bosses purely on the basis of their parents' income.
Whether it be because of the daftness of the position of English students at Scottish universities, the gross inequity as regards the students who live in rural areas or this amazing decision on pay back, I believe this to be a badly thought-out policy and, frankly, yesteryear the students of this country would

1363
have been marching in the streets in protest. When defending the student loan system at the beginning, I should confess to the House that, when I visited a university in Scotland I was slapped across the face by one indignant young lady student. I have to point out that that is the only time that a lady has slapped me across the face and that related to government grants. Frankly, the Government deserve to be slapped about the face by every student and every potential student in the country for this iniquitous policy.
5.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, perhaps I may begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, on providing the House with the opportunity to debate this issue. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, on his maiden speech and welcome him to the House. There is often a difficulty when people join this House because, in some cases, the names change rather radically. Indeed, in this case, there has been such a radical name change. The noble Lord is well-known—fondly and warmly known—in Scotland throughout the whole of Scottish public life as Lord James. It will be quite difficult to stop using that particular nomenclature in the future. The noble Lord comes to us as a man who is known for his love of Scotland and also for his love of our parliamentary institutions. We welcome him most warmly.
When I came to study the Unstarred Question and observed the speakers' list, given my particular background and provenance I thought that perhaps the most prudent thing to do would be to answer it by saying, "Yes", and then throw myself upon the mercy of the examiners. However, I shall try something a little more robust. I should also make it clear that my noble friend Lady Blackstone is attending an important international conference with delegates from 60 countries. She is, quite rightly, attending that conference and it is only right, therefore, that I should be here answering the Question in this House because it is a Scottish Office matter. I have no difficulty or problem with that, although I may have with the answer.
We have had a deliberate, responsible, and, for the most part, well-informed debate. Indeed, I would have expected nothing less. Before I respond to the specific points raised, I should say that I hope to be able to take up most of them in my reply but, if not, I shall write to noble Lords separately. However, perhaps I may begin with a few general remarks.
First, why are we here? We are at this particular juncture in the issue of higher education financing because the Government are determined to put the whole of our higher education sector on a sound financial footing. That was not the case for many years under the previous administration when growth was encouraged. Of course, there is nothing wrong with encouraging growth in student numbers, but it far outstripped the growth in funding. The unit of
1364
resource per student went down and down and created the crisis which we inherited. We are dealing with that crisis and doing so effectively and robustly.
The changes which we have announced also lay the basis for resolving the paradox which the previous government failed to grasp; namely, that we have moved from an elite system of higher education which could relatively easily be funded on the basis of public taxation to a system of mass participation in higher education where, basically, the burden on public taxation would be too great. It is therefore quite proper that we now look to those who are beneficiaries of higher education to make a direct contribution. That is what we are doing in the proposals that we have put forward.
The bold and, I believe, inevitable decision to introduce a contribution to tuition fees would always have been difficult to implement technically, even if the country had one school system and one qualifications framework for entry into universities. But in Britain we do not have one school system. The Scottish school system is distinct, and the qualifications framework is also different in Scotland. People enter university at different stages of their intellectual development in Scotland and England and, I suspect, in Wales and Northern Ireland. The prevalence of the longer honours course in Scotland is the result of that. Our Scottish based students have traditionally entered university a year earlier than has been the case in the rest of the United Kingdom. Their entry qualification is broader. It is usually now about five highers, with each higher being taken over two terms, as opposed to the three A-levels in England which are taken over two years. Therefore we have breadth but we do not have the same degree of depth. That is the heritage that the Scottish student takes with him or her when he enters higher education.
At present we have these distinct systems but they interact flexibly. The Government wish to maintain that interaction and that flexibility. However, to do so the Government recognised that they had to remove the major anomaly, which was that many Scottish students would be left in a position of contributing more towards their tuition for a similar qualification as a result of simply following through the Scottish school system and the longer honours course. Resolving that major anomaly has, however, created a smaller one. I recognise that and I shall not argue that there is no problem. However, I shall argue that the problem has been exaggerated out of all proportion.
Let us begin at the beginning. The Question raised in this debate stems from the Garrick recommendation. Let us be clear precisely what Garrick said. His recommendation was the following. He stated:
"We recommend to the Secretary of State for Scotland that, if a graduate contribution is introduced, the Secretary of State should ensure that the contribution from Scottish graduates for qualifications gained in Scotland is equitable with the contribution for comparable qualifications gained elsewhere in the UK".

1365
That was the considered opinion of the Garrick Committee, whose members were drawn from higher education and the business sector in Scotland. The announcement made by the Government last Monday fulfilled that recommendation 100 per cent. We have lived up to the advice and recommendation that Garrick gave us.
The main Dearing Committee's recommendation was that only students entering higher education direct from the fifth year at school should be given such an exemption. A consequence of that recommendation is that it would favour the academically more able. One of the great successes of Scottish higher education in recent years has been the growth in participation from those who have taken a little longer to gain entry qualifications, either through longer attendance at school or through following a slightly different route such as an HNC or HND course at a further education college, or indeed entering higher education much later in life. The equity issue with which we in Scotland have least difficulty is that all of those groups should be given equitable treatment to those entering higher education direct from the fifth year.
Ensuring equity of treatment between students on different courses on each side of the Border, whatever their original domicile, is much more difficult. Concerns have been raised about the threat to cross-Border flows of students from elsewhere in the UK into Scottish higher education. Neither Dearing nor Garrick raised the issue of cross-Border flows as one of great concern, although they were clearly aware of it, as have been the Government in their deliberations on the issue. Let me make it absolutely clear that the Government and Scottish Office Ministers support the great cultural benefits that students from elsewhere in the United Kingdom, Europe and the rest of the world bring to our higher education system. We should like to see those flows maintained and, if possible, increased, and perhaps not necessarily concentrated at the University of St Andrews! They provide an important cultural diversity to student life that influences and remains with Scots students throughout their lives.
Despite these benefits and our encouragement for them, we are not fully convinced that equity is a driving argument behind giving a one-year concession to all students studying in Scotland. The Garrick Committee's recommendation for equity for comparable qualifications is based clearly on the consequences of the Scottish schools system. The principle of equity should stem from the fact that Scottish domiciled students, by and large, have school qualifications geared to entry into Scottish higher education institutions. That is why they do not tend to go to England in large numbers. We send comparatively few people south to England to study compared to those coming in the other direction. Scots must generally study four years for the typical honours degree as compared to three years in England. In this case when I refer to England I mean Wales and
1366
Northern Ireland, too. Equity, in our view, demands that those Scots should pay only £3,000 in Scotland because they are graduating with the comparable qualification of a student graduating from an English university with an honours degree. The qualification is the same and therefore the contribution should be the same.
There would be a great anomaly if Scottish students were required to pay £4,000 while English students paid £3,000 for the same level of qualification—the first honours degree. The Government were clear that this major anomaly had to be resolved, and we have done so. The announcement last Monday resolved the problem. However, there is a remaining anomaly; namely, that students with A-levels come to Scotland to study in a system not specifically tailored for them. That is the heart of the difficulty. As has been observed, this means that an English student could potentially pay £4,000 compared to only £3,000 for a Scot, or £3,000 if that English student had studied in England.
Of course we need to keep this in perspective. Those who are less well off do not need a special concession. They will already be exempt from tuition fees because of the means test. About 40 per cent. of students each year will gain total exemption. A further 30 per cent. will not pay the full amount. Many English students wish to benefit from the broader Scottish degree and are already willing to make a decision that costs them more. At the moment that extra year will cost them about £4,000 to £5,000 for their maintenance, plus a year of income forgone. Taken together that is about £20,000—much more than the maximum fee of £1,000. As I said, a small proportion will pay that maximum fee.
I now turn to an issue which has been raised by a number of noble Lords; namely, that of medical and dental students. They will face precisely the same contribution to tuition fees wherever they study and wherever they are from. The BMA was incorrect in its report in The Scotsman this morning. I repeat that the process is exactly the same as in England. There will be no difference in the way that medical students are treated in England, Scotland or anywhere else.
Sir Ron Garrick has said that students with A-levels may still wish to study for four years and benefit from the extra year. As a businessman his advice seems to be that Scottish universities would be better served making the case to potential applicants of the value of the four-year honours degree and not following their present course of telling potential customers that their product is not worth the extra! Our university principals should have confidence in their product and market it aggressively. Of course the structure of university degrees may change as time goes on. That is a matter for the universities and for the students as regards what they demand.
I return finally to the point made by my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham. He referred to a letter in The Scotsman from an English student who had

1367
studied at Edinburgh University. She wrote that she could not see what all the fuss was about concerning student fees. She considered that the English education system was geared to the needs of English students and the Scottish system to the needs of Scottish students and that that explained the four-year system in Scotland and the three-year system in England. She said that anyone coming to Scotland was fully aware of that situation and they came for the quality of Scottish education. That student succeeded. She came to Scotland. She enjoyed Scotland. She entered in the second year.
That is part of the solution. If more universities and more students recognised that because of the difference of entry qualifications and the structure of Scottish degrees good A-levels could mean entry into the second year of an honours course, the problem would be largely resolved. That, I believe, is one of the challenges that Scottish higher education faces.
1368
But I am sure that it will continue to flourish; that it will continue to be an attractive option for students from England and elsewhere.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is it possible to ask a question for clarification on medical fees before the noble Lord sits down?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we have now exceeded the time allotted for the debate.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Baroness.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain of the amendments disagreed to with a reason for such disagreement and with the remaining amendment agreed to; the reason ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.

  China: Family Planning
  China: Family Planning
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Development Education Expenditure
  Development Education Expenditure
  Tribunal Case 13528
  Tribunal Case 13528
  OECD Agreement on Investment
  OECD Agreement on Investment
  EU Enlargement: Consultations
  EU Enlargement: Consultations
  Unemployment Comparisons
  Unemployment Comparisons
  Mentally Ill Patients and Crime
  Mentally Ill Patients and Crime
  Foetal Pain
  Foetal Pain
  Vitamin B6 Prescriptions
  Vitamin B6 Prescriptions
  European Fisheries Council, 30 October
  European Fisheries Council, 30 October
  Vitamin B6: Sales Restrictions
  Vitamin B6: Sales Restrictions
  Organophosphate Exposure: Scientific Studies
  Organophosphate Exposure: Scientific Studies
  North East Coast Drift Net Fishery
  North East Coast Drift Net Fishery
  European Council: Future Programme
  European Council: Future Programme
  Export Forum Report
  Export Forum Report
  Pregnant Women: Seat Belt Wearing
  Pregnant Women: Seat Belt Wearing
  London Bus Routes
  London Bus Routes
  Hammersmith Bridge
  Hammersmith Bridge
  Road Safety: Unpublished Research
  Road Safety: Unpublished Research