Sitting of 6 April 1998

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

    British Forces (Germany)
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: If he will list the annual cost of British forces in Germany (a) gross and (b) net of offsetting arrangements. [36256]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): I estimate the total cost in the previous financial year of our armed forces based in Germany to be about £1.3 billion, the vast majority of which would arise wherever those forces were based. There is no offset agreement with Germany, although the armed forces benefit from barracks, some quarters and training areas, for which no charge is made.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree that that is still a substantial cost across the exchanges for a nation that has a trade deficit with the European Union. The forces were placed in Germany because of the Soviet threat, so the important question is
    2
    this: as that threat no longer exists, as NATO is being enlarged to the Polish border and as the French are about to withdraw the great majority of their forces from Europe, is it any longer right to keep about one quarter of the British Army in Europe? Should we not bring it home?
    Mr. Robertson: It will come as news to the French that they are about to withdraw their troops from Europe—perhaps my hon. Friend's obsession with the subject is getting the better of his grasp of the facts. As I said, the vast majority of the expenditure would have been required wherever the forces were based. Indeed, it is estimated that the additional costs of basing the Army in Germany last year were only about £150 million, in return for which we have leadership of the Allied Command Europe rapid reaction corps, we maintain our substantial influence in NATO, we show solidarity with our allies and we improve the multinationality of training with our allies to face any threat, whether on the continent of Europe or elsewhere.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Does not the disproportionately large cost of stationing a substantial part of, in particular, our Army in Germany distort Britain's defence posture as a whole? Would not at least part of that money be better spent on providing instruments for flexible intervention overseas, such as heavy lift transport aircraft?
    Mr. Robertson: Unless the hon. Gentleman wants to bring all the troops back from Germany and disband the division that is currently located there, he makes no case. The 1st Armoured Division, which is based in Germany, is fully required and plays a positive role. Although there may be scope for changes in the size of our garrison in Germany, we believe that a substantial majority of our troops should stay there. If we brought back our troops from Germany but did not disband the organisations that were there, the British taxpayer would face substantial

    3
    costs in building new barracks. Moreover, many extra training facilities in this country would be needed, as that resource is currently at a severe premium.
    Ms Rachel Squire: I was, indeed, about to ask my right hon. Friend whether he agreed that, if we withdrew all our armed forces from Germany, we would have to find loads of money to build new barracks and other facilities. Would it not also be difficult to find enough training areas, of which, thanks to the previous Government, there is already a shortage?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a perceptive point. It is estimated—by the previous as well as the present Government—that it would cost about £2.5 billion in extra infrastructure and training ground to bring all our troops back from Germany. In addition, we would lose considerable influence in NATO and in the NATO tasks that British troops currently carry out. At a critical time in NATO's history, we would be breaking solidarity with the Americans who are still there, as well as with the Germans and all our other allies.

    Malaysia
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: If he will make a statement about the state of defence relations with Malaysia. [36258]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): The United Kingdom's defence relations with Malaysia are very good. We are both members of the five-power defence arrangements and we also have important bilateral links.
    Mr. Blunt: Was it wise of the Minister for Defence Procurement, when arriving in Malaysia to lead the British delegation to the Langkawi international maritime exhibition, to ignore the Malaysian Government representative waiting to greet him at the aircraft steps and spurn the travel arrangements made by the Malaysian police and the British high commission—whereby he was to travel to his accommodation in the high commissioner's Rolls-Royce with a Malaysian police escort—instead instructing his staff to arrange for a self-drive hire car? When he left the airport in his soft-top daffodil-yellow Fiat Punto, did the Malaysian police follow him through concern for his safety or through curiosity?
    Is it right for the actions of a Minister of the Crown to have to be explained away to senior Malaysian Ministers, by senior figures in the very industry that he is supposed to represent, as those of a harmless eccentric?
    Mr. Spellar: I was going to say that that was not the sort of question that one would have expected from a former adviser in the Ministry of Defence, but perhaps it was. We have had nine months of the strategic defence review. We are discussing the sale of defence equipment with the Malaysian Government, and we are about to sign a memorandum of arrangement on defence with them. We also provide considerable training for the Malaysian forces. Those are the issues that concern the Malaysian Government, with whom our relations are extremely good, especially after the enormously successful
    4
    Asia-Europe summit, in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government played an important role.

    Aircraft Carriers
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: If he will make a statement on fixed-wing aircraft carriers.[36259]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): The requirement for aircraft carriers has been considered as part of the strategic defence review but final decisions have yet to be taken.
    Mr. Hoyle: I welcome that answer. Obviously, there is hope for a fixed-wing aircraft carrier, which would be a major shot in the arm for British shipbuilding and allow us to consider Eurofighter as a Fleet Air Arm variant, which would also bring benefit to British Aerospace.
    Mr. Robertson: That would be considered further down the line, if a decision in principle is taken on aircraft carriers. I saw HMS Invincible coming into Portsmouth last week at the end of a tour in the Gulf and could not but feel proud at the role of the ship's crew and of the embarked Royal Air Force Harriers. They certainly played a substantial part in obliging Saddam Hussein to back down from his confrontation with the United Nations. The issue is deeply important involving not only the, construction of aircraft carriers but the decision about what aircraft are to go on them.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: In order to learn proper lessons for the future, would it not be honest to acknowledge that we only just escaped the serious political and military embarrassment in the Gulf of a British aircraft carrier being unable to operate effectively in combat because of restrictions on the GR7 Harrier aircraft as a result of the climate?
    Do not the lessons of the past six months teach us that, if Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal are to be replaced, there should be three new vessels? To ensure that they are fully effective, is it not necessary to ensure in turn that the aircraft carried are capable of operating in all climatic conditions?
    Mr. Robertson: There is no embarrassment involved in looking carefully at what range of forces we might have in the Gulf at any point. At the end of last week, we simply announced an adjustment in our force levels in the Gulf. We are not letting our guard down for a moment. The danger and the threat have not gone away. We will not reduce our vigilance until we are absolutely satisfied that Saddam has provided the evidence to assure us that he has destroyed all his weapons of mass destruction.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the performance of some aircraft in the extreme heat of the Gulf. That is not new. The effectiveness of Harriers, like that of all other aircraft, declines in the Gulf summer; its ability to hover and land on carriers is affected by the extreme heat. We have made it clear that, by sending additional Tornados to Kuwait, we have in no way diminished the threat that we pose to Saddam if he continues his unnecessary confrontation with the United Nations.
    Mr. Robert Key: Given that there are six shipbuilding yards in the UK capable of building vessels of more than 40,000 tonnes, some of which have state-of-the-art, high-technology, computer-assisted design for naval ships, as I discovered at Yarrow on the Clyde last Friday, will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to deny the persistent information that the Ministry of Defence would consider ordering aircraft carriers from Poland?
    Mr. Robertson: That can only be a delusion held in the hon. Gentleman's mind. I am sure that the management of Yarrow cannot have been the source of that rumour. In the strategic defence review, we are examining the requirement that we might have for successors to our three Invincible-class carriers, and, if we decide to go down that route, what size they might be and what aircraft they would take. We are well aware of the shipbuilding and ship repair capability in this country, which is among the finest in the world.

    Strategic Defence Review
    Sir George Young: What representations he has received from defence equipment manufacturers about the strategic defence review's implications for defence procurement. [36260]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): The strategic defence review has been characterised by its inclusive nature. Detailed work has been carried forward in conjunction with industry in seminars and working groups. I have received views from trade associations, through the National Defence Industries Council, which I chair, as well as contributions from individual companies.
    Sir George Young: Will the Secretary of State apologise to this country's defence equipment manufacturers for his Government's appalling performance in processing export applications for licences? Is he aware that they are fighting with one hand tied behind their back? He inherited a figure of 97 per cent. of applications processed in 10 days. That figure has now slumped to some 60 per cent. Will the outcome of the SDR ensure that we revert to the figure that he inherited—and on delays, can he say when the SDR will be published?
    Mr. Robertson: I am not going to apologise for anything. It takes the biscuit to hear Conservative Members, who are in opposition partly because of their record on arms export licences, complain about the time taken to scrutinise properly the supervision of arms sales. One reason why the right hon. Gentleman and I are in our respective positions is that the Scott report uncovered the way in which the previous Government gave arms licences willy-nilly. They paid a rich penalty for that.
    On the most recent information available, I understand that the position on licences is improving, following the introduction of a much tighter arms licences regime: 52 per cent. of applications circulated to other Departments are now cleared within the 20-day target, compared with 48 per cent. last October. We will continue to take the greatest care possible to ensure that when we
    6
    issue licences we are certain that the equipment will not be used for internal repression or external aggression. The public expect us to do precisely that.
    Mr. Harry Cohen: In respect of the strategic defence review, will my right hon. Friend ensure that his own enthusiasm for defence and the lobbying of defence equipment manufacturers do not result in extra costs for the British taxpayer?
    Mr. Robertson: My enthusiasm for defence and the defence of this country is undiminished—indeed, such enthusiasm on the part of the Government as a whole was one of the reasons why my hon. Friend and I did so well at the last general election. However, I have an obligation to make sure that all the money spent on defence is spent properly and wisely. That point was made by my predecessor, Mr. Michael Portillo, who, in a magazine article at the end of last year, wrote:
    "There is money to be saved in MOD."
    I shall make sure that we use the budget that is there and the budget that was promised during the election for the maximum, most effective defence of this country. That is what we were elected to do and that is what we shall continue to do.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: In an earlier answer, the Secretary of State referred to biscuits; I hope that that is not all he intends to procure as a result of the defence review. On a matter that causes concern to defence manufacturers, will he assure the House that, when evaluating procurement, he will take into account technology and research into technological developments that needs to be carried out in this country?
    Given the decline in the amount of money spent on research and development by the Ministry of Defence and the importance of our staying at the cutting edge of competitiveness in both defence and civil industries, the right hon. Gentleman has a tremendous responsibility to ensure that we do not lose out on a key stage of technological development simply because of cuts that his Department may be contemplating.
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman highlights the fact that, under the previous Government, research expenditure was substantially reduced. I attacked that when in opposition, and I maintain my position in that respect. I am well aware that my Department is one in which research plays a big part in procuring the right equipment at the right price and at the right time. We shall ensure that that priority is maintained and built on.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend remember that it was the previous Government who arranged to put individual manufacturers at risk of prosecution and prison by cheating on the issue of arms permits? Will he make it clear to those involved in the defence industry in this country that the Government have no intention whatever of allowing little deals to be struck between Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry who turn a blind eye and Defence Ministers who have neither responsibility nor morals?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I assure her that our policy is designed to make sure

    7
    that, when the best products of the British defence industry are exported, they are not misused. We shall not turn a blind eye to the end use of that equipment.
    My hon. Friend allows me, at this point, to make a fairly substantial announcement in connection with equipment sales. I am pleased to announce that the Government of Canada have today declared their intention, subject to final negotiations, to lease for eight years all four of the Upholder-class submarines currently berthed in Barrow. That is yet another of this Government's successes in selling something that the previous Government could not sell.
    Canada has chosen to acquire the submarines via a lease with an option to purchase, as that is the most satisfactory solution for it. The arrangement is worth 610 million Canadian dollars to the United Kingdom. Work will be generated for various UK companies in reactivating the submarines and for GEC Marine at Barrow, which will provide technical and logistic support, including the provision of training to Canada. This is a piece of good news for this country, and I am sure that the Opposition will want to share in that good news for Britain.

    Gulf War Syndrome
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What his current estimate is of the number of service men and ex?service men affected by Gulf war syndrome; and if he will make a statement.[36261]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): There is still no medical or scientific consensus about the nature of illnesses among Gulf veterans. Any statistical verification of such illnesses and the difference between Gulf veterans and the general population will have to await the outcome of the epidemiological studies. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, so far, 2,592 individuals have sought a referral to the Ministry's medical assessment programme.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that response and for the written replies that I have recently had from him. I know that he is taking a close interest in this subject, but will he ensure that the reviews and the investigation are dealt with urgently? In the meantime, will he confer with colleagues to ensure that the treatment available for those suffering from that syndrome is the same throughout the UK? At the moment, it is a lottery, as the treatment varies depending on where one lives. Will he pursue a policy that encourages more co-ordination?
    Dr. Reid: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, we have already written to general practitioners throughout the United Kingdom telling them that any Gulf veteran who reports to them should not be dismissed out of hand, and referring them to the medical assessment programme. On the general seriousness with which the Government are treating the matter, even our worst enemies would admit that the effort put into it has been unparalleled in terms of our openness, our dialogue with the veterans, the resources allocated to the medical assessment programme, the continuation of the epidemiological studies already started, the inauguration of new studies into vaccines, and
    8
    the publication of a huge amount of material on organophosphates and vaccines, to ensure that Gulf veterans are kept fully informed.
    Laura Moffatt: Is my hon. Friend in a position to publish the scientific studies on dead animals found in the Gulf? Would that have a bearing on those suffering from Gulf war illnesses?
    Dr. Reid: I am in a position to do so. Earlier today, I published another paper, which details the outcome of the Ministry's review of information relating to dead animals in the Gulf. It had been requested by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), among others. On the basis of contemporary reports and eyewitness accounts, no evidence has been found to suggest that the presence of dead animals in the Gulf—the theatre of operations during the 1990-91 conflict—was related to the use of chemical or biological weapons. We remain of the view that there is no confirmed evidence of the use of chemical or biological weapons by Iraq in 1990-91.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: May I congratulate the Minister on the way in which he and his staff are pushing ahead with what is a fiendishly complicated and difficult project? Does he agree that one of the difficulties of keeping Gulf war veterans accurately informed is that most of the studies, including those started under the previous Government, are very long term because of the complicated nature of the matters that they assess? When does he anticipate receiving the first detailed epidemiological survey relating to the Gulf war veterans?
    Dr. Reid: As a general proposition, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the wide range of the matters under consideration. Almost everyone to whom one speaks has his or her own theory about what may have caused a group of illnesses that may or may not be related.
    It was anticipated that the outcome of the epidemiological studies would be available in a couple of years' time. However, difficulties are being encountered by the Medical Research Council and others in identifying exactly where every Gulf veteran is. We are doing what we can to help, but unfortunately, in our attempts to gain access to the addresses of all those who served in the Gulf, we are coming up against difficulties with the data protection legislation and the agencies implementing it. I urge members of Her Majesty's forces who served in the Gulf to write to the Ministry of Defence with their present address so that we can pass it on to those carrying out the epidemiological studies.

    Smart Procurement Initiative
    Mrs. Betty Williams: If he will make a statement on the Government's smart procurement initiative. [36262]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Smart procurement is a ruthless examination, in conjunction with industry, of how value for money from our procurement programme can be improved to ensure faster, cheaper and better delivery

    9
    of our future requirements. Our improved business practices will be good news for the armed forces, for industry and for the taxpayer.
    Mrs. Williams: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that, whatever the outcome, the strategic defence review will reform the way in which we procure equipment for our forces, and will eliminate as far as possible cost overruns, delays and waste, which were the hallmarks of the previous Tory Government?
    Mr. Spellar: We are all very much aware of the reports from the National Audit Office on cost and time overruns. They have made embarrassing reading not only for Government but for industry as well. We aim to reform that process and get to our armed forces the right kit, at the right time, at the right price.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The Government will be aware of the growing serious threat from long-range ballistic missile systems. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are seriously examining the possibility of setting up a national ballistic defence system?
    Mr. Spellar: Yes, I can certainly assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are keeping this matter constantly under review and are undertaking the necessary studies to that effect.

    RAF Menwith Hill
    Mr. Norman Baker: What mechanism is in place to ensure that information gleaned from interception of communications by US forces at RAF Menwith Hill is not used in a way that is prejudicial to the interests of the UK. [36263]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): United Kingdom personnel are integrated into every level at RAF Menwith Hill, and we can therefore be confident that no activity prejudicial to United Kingdom interests is carried out there.
    Mr. Baker: Can the Minister confirm the veracity or otherwise of the statement in the report prepared for the European Parliament, "Assessing the Technologies of Political Control", which suggests that all telephone, fax and e-mail communications within Europe are routinely monitored by United States forces based at RAF Menwith Hill? Given that such activity is expanding at a rate of knots and given that the cold war is over, it is reasonable to assume that it is done for non-military purposes. Can he confirm that the UK Government have access to all intercepts at RAF Menwith Hill? If he cannot, how could he give the assurance that he just gave?
    Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on a report that I have never seen or, indeed, heard of—far less vouch for its veracity. RAF Menwith Hill is a communications facility, and there is total integration of United States and United Kingdom staff there. There is not only parliamentary accountability but accountability through the Intelligence and Security Committee, and not least from the hon. Gentleman. Of the
    10
    thousands of questions that he has tabled since entering Parliament—at up to £600 a time—more than 20 on this matter have had my personal attention.

    Defence Diversification
    Mr. John Hutton: What representations he has received on the Government's Green Paper on defence diversification. [36264]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): We have so far received three formal representations on the consultative Green Paper since its publication on 5 March. The consultation period runs until 8 May.
    Mr. Hutton: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement today on the sale of Upholder submarines, which is welcome news for jobs in my constituency.
    I welcome the Government's commitment to making their policy on defence diversification a success. Is it not a fact that the previous Government did absolutely nothing to facilitate defence diversification, and that that failure resulted in the failure of British companies to exploit such cutting-edge technology as liquid crystal displays, which were invented in the United Kingdom but exploited elsewhere? Was not that failure to act a total betrayal of defence workers throughout the country who lost their jobs under Tory Governments?
    Mr. Spellar: I regret that I have to agree with my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, it was yet another case in which the previous Administration allowed dogma to override the interests of the industry. That is why our Green Paper on defence diversification has been widely welcomed not only by those who work in the industry but by many of the companies involved in it. It provides an excellent way forward for the defence community, and particularly for the huge amount of technology and scientific research that has been undertaken in our laboratories.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in sending me a copy of the Green Paper at the time of its publication. Owing to a misunderstanding, I was critical of him at that time; let me put things right now.
    Having said that, I cannot allow what the Minister has just said to go without challenge. What we have heard from him, and from his hon. Friend the Minister for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) is a travesty of the truth. Is he not aware that his own Green Paper encourages the Defence Evaluation Research Agency, which is based in my constituency, to continue doing what it has done so effectively up to now—sharing its technology with the civilian industry?
    Does the Minister not realise that what really concerns industry is the future structure of DERA? I wonder whether he agrees with the chief executive of Messier-Dowty, Tony Edwards, who not only described DERA as a vital national asset but said:
    "privatisation would …result in … further competition and distancing from industry."
    Mr. Spellar: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman should take such an attitude to privatisation. It will cause some merriment among certain of his colleagues.
    I thank the hon. Gentleman for the gracious apology that he made at the beginning of his question. Let me point out, however, that DERA is based not just in his constituency—although it has a substantial presence there—but in other constituencies throughout the country, including that of one of his Front-Bench colleagues. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want me to correct that.
    It is undoubtedly true that DERA has been undertaking some useful work in spreading the technology it has, but DERA itself would acknowledge that that work could be much improved. We provide the mechanism for such improvement in the Green Paper, as well as a mechanism to give a much-needed boost to industry. I am thinking particularly of the exciting initiative allowing science parks to be attached to the laboratories. That is good news for constituencies across the country, and particularly good news for the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I hope that he will be more gracious about it next time he asks a question.

    Gulf Presence
    Helen Jones: What representations he has received about the deployment of British troops to the Persian gulf. [36265]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): My Department has received a significant amount of correspondence about the deployment of British forces in the Gulf. I have taken careful note of the variety of views expressed.
    Helen Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he confirm that the temporary withdrawal of HMS Illustrious from the Gulf should not be seen by Saddam Hussein as a sign of any weakening of resolve on the part of either this country or the United Nations? To ram that message home, will my right hon. Friend tell us how he intends to balance the temporary removal of HMS Illustrious with other reinforcements in the gulf?
    Mr. Robertson: I can assure my hon. Friend, the House and anyone who may care to listen that our resolve has not diminished one bit in the Gulf, and in our posture towards Saddam Hussein. The access that Saddam has now given to all the sensitive sites that he blocked earlier this year demonstrates the clear victory that was scored for diplomacy backed by the threat of force. We shall therefore be putting additional Tornado aircraft into the Ali al Salem base in Kuwait—with the kind agreement of the Kuwait Government—to "sharpen" our posture, and to remind Saddam Hussein of his obligation to deliver on what he himself agreed to when the Secretary-General of the United Nations went to Baghdad. We are reviewing the composition of our forces to ensure that we have the best mix for the job, and Saddam Hussein should interpret that in only one way—to mean that our vigilance remains exactly the same as it was, and that our resolve continues to be at the highest level.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Following the work of the UN inspectors, does the Secretary of State still believe that our British troops deployed in the Persian gulf are threatened by nuclear, biological and chemical warfare?
    Mr. Robertson: The fair assessment at present is that, as long as the danger remains, the precautions that have been established must continue. We still want the troops in theatre to take advantage of the anti-anthrax vaccine that has been made available to them. Saddam has still not convinced the United Nations Special Commission, the United Nations or the rest of the world that he has destroyed all his capabilities for producing and using weapons of mass destruction, and that is precisely why we still have forces in the Gulf with those of our allies.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: May I press my right hon. Friend a little further on the question of British troops—and American troops, for that matter—in the Gulf? In the light of the successful inspection of the nine presidential sites by the UN last week, can my right hon. Friend give some idea of the criteria that he will use before British troops are withdrawn? It seems to some of his right hon. and hon. Friends that this is the right time for the withdrawal to begin.
    Mr. Robertson: No. We are not yet satisfied that Saddam has provided clear indications that he will abide by the agreement that he signed, and we have not yet been provided with the evidence to be sure that he has destroyed his weapons of mass destruction. There would have to be a clear pattern of Iraqi compliance over time for our posture to be diminished in any way, because reducing our force posture might give him some indication that he could get away with more by confrontation. Last week, I had a long discussion with Ambassador Butler, the executive chairman of UNSCOM, on that subject. I assure my hon. Friend that the fate of the sanctions against Iraq and of Saddam himself lie in his own hands—all he has to do is comply and provide evidence of it; then the world position would rightly be different.
    Sir George Young: We welcome the deployment of forces that the Secretary of State has announced. Will he say more about the progress that has been made since the agreement between Kofi Annan and Saddam Hussein? How many visits have been made, what banned materials were unearthed, and how much of those materials have been destroyed? Is continued progress being made to broaden support for the alliance in the Gulf, which is led by the United Kingdom and the United States?
    Mr. Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman will know of the support for the posture that we rightly and properly took from the beginning in putting in place the force that made diplomacy work in the agreement signed with the Secretary-General. The right hon. Gentleman gave his support at that time, but since then the Secretary-General has clearly underlined the fact that, although diplomacy can achieve a lot, it can achieve a lot more if it is backed

    13
    by firmness and by force. That is why we joined the Americans in the Gulf, and why a large number of our allies then gave logistical and physical support.
    The right hon. Gentleman will know that most of the sensitive sites inside Iraq have been inspected in the past couple of months. Ambassador Butler is satisfied that the inspections have taken place and that access has been given in a way that was denied until now. UNSCOM reports directly to the United Nations, so I am not in a position to give full details of what was or was not found. We are not yet satisfied that we have the evidence that Saddam has destroyed the weapons of mass destruction and the capability to produce them that he undoubtedly had in the past. Until then, our state of vigilance will be maintained.
    Ann Clwyd: I agree with my right hon. Friend's assessment of the situation in Iraq. There has been a lot of support from Ministers and Conservative Front Benchers for the campaign to indict Saddam as a war criminal for crimes against humanity and for crimes of genocide. It would take only one country to indict him. Why do we not take the lead?
    Mr. Robertson: There is no forum yet established in which we could indict Saddam Hussein for war crimes. The proposed international criminal court, the establishment of which the Government firmly support, would have a remit only over the countries that agreed to abide by it. Sadly, I am pretty sure that Saddam Hussein's Iraq is unlikely to be a signatory, but we shall continue to support the Indict campaign.
    I assure my hon. Friend that we have a number of strategies in relation to Iraq, based not only on the tough military posture of our troops who are giving great service to the country in the Gulf, but on the political front. We are especially concerned to ensure that the people of Iraq realise that our argument is not with them, but with the regime. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is making strenuous efforts to convene an humanitarian conference to ensure that we get through to the ordinary people of Iraq the help that the world community wants to direct to them.

    Royal Air Force (Commemorations)
    Dr. Julian Lewis: What plans the Government have to commemorate in the UK the 80th anniversary of the Royal Air Force and the 50th anniversary of the Berlin Airlift.[36266]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): I am delighted to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the Royal Air Force and to all those who support it. A number of events are planned to mark the 80th anniversary of its foundation and the 50th anniversary of the Berlin airlift.
    Dr. Lewis: I am delighted to hear that the Government plan to recognise these events. Do the Government realise the intensity of pride that the British people take in such anniversaries? Will the Minister be a little more specific about the events that he has in mind? Events to mark these anniversaries have been carried out and are planned in my constituency. It would be a shame if more was taking place in one constituency than in the whole of Whitehall.
    14
    Will the Minister consider the representations of the British Berlin Airlift Association, which wants the Royal Mail to issue a commemorative stamp to mark that crucial turning point in the war? That suggestion has so far been given an idle brush-off.
    Mr. Spellar: I cannot accept that. I have had discussions with the Department of Trade and Industry, which, as the sponsoring Department, is discussing this matter with the Post Office. The Berlin airlift, which was authorised and instigated by that great Labour Foreign Secretary Ernie Bevin and of which we should rightly be proud, should be properly marked. A number of veterans will be going to Berlin, as will the Secretary of State. The 80th anniversary of the RAF is being marked, and both that anniversary and the airlift will be celebrated at the Fairford flying display in July. We tend to mark such anniversaries in blocks of 25 years, so although we shall have a number of events, they will not be on such a scale as for the 75th or the 100th anniversary.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: May I remind my hon. Friend that the RAF museum in my constituency recently celebrated its 25th anniversary? The museum has been working closely with the British Berlin Airlift Association and intends to mount exhibitions at Hendon and at its outstation at RAF Cosford to mark the anniversary of the Berlin airlift. Madam Speaker, you and any hon. Member who can find time in busy schedules to visit the museum to see what is planned will be more than welcome.
    Mr. Spellar: Given my hon. Friend's remarks, I am sure that he will find that it pays to advertise. Those of us who recently visited the museum were impressed by the work that it is undertaking. We were pleased to support its lottery bid, and we believe that it has a great future in representing the proud and noble tradition of the Royal Air Force.

    Territorial Army
    Mr. Keith Simpson: What assessment he has made of the operational effectiveness of the Army if the Territorial Army's manpower were reduced to 40,000 personnel.[36267]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): The strategic defence review is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, looking at a range of options to improve the operational effectiveness of the Army, covering both the regular and reserve forces. No decisions have yet been taken.
    Mr. Simpson: I am sure that the Ministers and hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that the role of the Territorial Army volunteer reserves is of fundamental importance not only for its link with society, but for the active support that it gives to the regular Army. Discussions are taking place within the Ministry of Defence on savings from the Territorial Army through manpower cuts because the regular Army is under such pressure. Does the Minister accept that, if the formed infantry and armoured regiments of the Territorial Army are reduced, perhaps to the level of merely a pool of

    15
    infantry and armour, recruitment will be drastically affected, and the effectiveness of our regular Army will suffer as a consequence?
    Dr. Reid: I fully recognise not only the operational capability that the TA gives the British armed forces, but the regeneration, the assistance of cadets and the military-civil link.
    If the hon. Gentleman starts from the standpoint that savings are to be made and that we must therefore make cuts, he repeats a mindset that is more indicative of the previous Government than of this one. We do not start with a target for cuts nor with a number and then justify it. We start with an analysis of the security and strategic environment in which we find ourselves and from that we derive our planning assumptions, from which we derive force configurations, including those for the Territorial Army.
    Ms Christine Russell: Does the Minister agree that, in the light of changed world circumstances, it is right to re-examine the role of the TA? As I have a large TA presence in my constituency, I should like the Minister to at least consider giving the TA a more heavyweight role.
    Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for her helpful intervention. She is absolutely right. We should consider giving the Territorial Army a more useable, more relevant and, as she says, a more heavyweight role in that context. She is also right to say that the starting point should be the shaping of force structures according to our defence needs. She starts from the point of view of a strategic analysis, and that starting point is shared by all Labour Members and, I hope, many Opposition Members, but apparently not universally.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry: time is up. Time waits for no man or woman.

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

    Working Hours
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: What evidence the Government have submitted to the Modernisation Committee in its examination of the working hours of the House. [36291]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The Government plan to submit a memorandum on the parliamentary calendar to the Modernisation Committee shortly after the Easter adjournment.
    Mr. Morgan: I thank the President of the Council for that reply and assure her that she will get support from virtually all quarters of the House in her efforts to modernise the House and its working hours. The recent all-night sittings may or may not be wondrous examples
    16
    of antediluvian, macho, arm-wrestling exercises, but they certainly do not provide high-class parliamentary legislative scrutiny.
    Mrs. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for his support and for his remarks. I think that there is a great deal of support for the idea of improving House hours, but when it comes to working out the detail of the changes, there is not yet complete agreement.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: When the right hon. Lady submits evidence, will she give some idea of what the Government think is a proper allocation of time for Ministers to spend in the House? Is she aware that there is considerable concern in the House and outside about the rare appearances by the Prime Minister other than on Wednesdays and about the fact that he has voted in about 12 Divisions—5 per cent. of the Divisions that have been held since May of last year? He has treated the House with scant regard and has attended it far less than any of his predecessors this century. What does she intend to do about that?
    Mrs. Taylor: I have no intention whatever of including such items in my memorandum, and I do not recognise the concerns that the hon. Gentleman says exist outside or, indeed, inside the House about the attendance of Ministers. The hon. Gentleman asked about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I should have thought that hon. Members in all parts of the House would realise that he is leading a Government who are making important decisions. At this time when many Ministers are involved in reaching settlements on delicate situations, such as the one in Northern Ireland, it is quite right that the Prime Minister should spend his time on such a matter.
    Mr. David Winnick: I do not remember many Tory Prime Ministers attending the House much over the past 18 years. Does my right hon. Friend find it understandable that people outside cannot understand why we spend many hours in the evening and sometimes during the night, yet break up for a long period, sometimes for as much as three months or more during the summer? Would it not make much more sense to have a working arrangement under which the summer break was six weeks at most? Under such an arrangement, it would not be so necessary sometimes to work through the night.
    Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure that the relationship between the length of the recess and the length of our individual sittings is quite as simple as my hon. Friend suggests. To perform our responsibilities of scrutiny, it is important that we strike a balance between sitting days, sitting weeks and the passage of legislation. We could examine recess dates, which I should like to make more family-friendly. I think that all hon. Members realise that, as soon as we consider changing the hours or weeks that the House sits, there will be knock-on consequences throughout the legislative process. We have to be aware of those consequences.

    Conduct in the Chamber
    Mr. David Amess: What representations she has received on the conclusions of the report on conduct in the Chamber of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons (HC 600). [36292]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): A number of people, within and outside the House, have commented favourably on the report.
    Mr. Amess: Although I broadly welcome the report on conduct in the Chamber—particularly its reaffirmation that the Chamber should be the bedrock of our democracy—does the right hon. Lady share my concern that dress rehearsals seem to be occurring before Question Time? That was clearly demonstrated last Monday, when I myself was invited to such a dress rehearsal for Home Office questions. Does she also share my concern that many commentators are saying that—since 1 May, in the cause of modernisation—the Chamber seems to be slowly dying, as more is now reported first outside the House than to the House?
    Mrs. Taylor: When their party is in government, hon. Members on both sides of the House attempt to get information before Question Time, to make their questions more relevant. There is nothing new in that. No, I do not think that the Chamber is dying. Presence in the Chamber is an important part of hon. Members' day, but it is not the whole of their commitment—not least because we now have more Committees, probably, than ever before. Hon. Members have to balance their time between the House, Committees and their constituencies.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend believe that it would be useful for the House to debate that report, which I think—without bias, as a member of the Committee—is a good one? Does she also agree that, although the report is specifically aimed at conduct in the Chamber, many of its comments are equally important and relevant to behaviour and procedures in Committee?
    Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. He is well aware—not least because of his significant contributions to the Committee—of the wider ramifications of some of the points in the report. I am still hoping that it will be possible, between our return from the Easter recess and the Whitsun recess, to debate the Committee's more recent reports. I hope that that will be possible.

    Oral Questions
    Mr. Norman Baker: What representations she has received on the conclusions of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons in respect of oral questions (HC 600). [36293]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): Although I have received a number of favourable comments on the report generally, I have not received any comments specifically on oral questions.
    Mr. Baker: Perhaps I can ask the President of the Council one now. As she knows, Opposition Members are all great fans of the Minister without Portfolio, and are delighted to have pushed up his Question Time from nothing, to five minutes, and then to 10 minutes. However, there is no slot in which to ask oral questions on his wider responsibilities. Is she aware that, in the previous Parliament, the then Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), had a slot to answer oral questions on his responsibilities for co-ordinating and presenting Government policy? Should not that model be followed by the Minister without Portfolio?
    Mrs. Taylor: I have explained to the hon. Gentleman on several occasions that the Minister without Portfolio answers questions on topics for which he is the lead Minister. He is not the lead Minister on other topics; therefore, other Ministers are accountable to the House for those subjects. Current arrangements are working quite well.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: The right hon. Lady will know that I wrote to her to congratulate her on some of the measures that she has taken already in reforming the House. Does she agree that it is important that new Members should perhaps spend some time in the Chamber and in the House generally before they pass too many comments on how we should conduct our affairs in future?
    Mrs. Taylor: I think that we not only have experience to impart to new Members but something to learn from them. We have found on the Modernisation Committee that, if we take a balance of views between new Members and more experienced Members, it is not always a matter of one group against another. We need a variety of experience, but also the freshness of thought that sometimes comes from new Members.

    Divisions
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What is her policy regarding electronic voting in divisions.[36294]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The Modernisation Committee has recently agreed to circulate a questionnaire to hon. Members seeking their views on the current voting system and a variety of possible alternatives.
    Mr. Robathan: Did not a lot of the pressure to change the voting system come from new Members who were elected last year and imagined that they were coming into a cosy nine-to-five job, but discovered that they were expected to work rather harder? They were bemused to discover how hard they had to work. Have they not now discovered that, in the Division Lobby, they can catch the ear of Ministers—although not, of course, the ear of the Prime Minister, because he is never there—or, in our case, the ear of shadow Ministers, sadly, learn something and get the chance to lobby Ministers? Therefore, will the right hon. Lady please ensure that time-hallowed and extremely valued practices are not ditched just for the convenience of people who do not really understand?
    Mrs. Taylor: I think that the hon. Gentleman's early comments were downright insulting to new Members, who did not come here with any illusions about having a cosy nine-to-five existence. If we can improve our voting procedures, we would be foolish not to look to do so, but he will be aware—because he will have read, I am sure, our earlier reports and comments—that Modernisation Committee members think that we should retain the
    20
    principle of voting in or around the existing Division Lobby, even if we go towards some form of electronic voting. Having the ability to make contact with other hon. Members, be they Ministers or Back Benchers, is important. That is one element that I personally would like to see retained, as would most members of the Committee, but if we can improve the position by using some form of modern technology, that would benefit everyone.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Norman Baker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for rising again. In Defence questions earlier this afternoon, I asked the Minister for the Armed Forces a specific question about a report called "Assessing the Technologies of Political Control", and his answer was that he was unaware of that report. On 26 January 1998, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) asked whether a statement could be made on exactly that report and its application to RAF Menwith Hill. The Minister said:
"I am aware of the report referred to by my hon. Friend".—[Official Report, 26 January 1998; Vol. 305, c. 33.]
Will the Minister now withdraw the comment that he was unaware of the report and arrange to give me a substantive answer?
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I will stand corrected, but, if the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) checks Hansard, he will find that my reply was that I would not verify a quotation from a report that I had not read—[Interruption.] We shall check Hansard. I am sure that I said, "that I have not read". [Interruption.] No: today's Hansard, which the hon. Gentleman might not know has not yet been prepared, but we can read it tomorrow. I am not in the habit of verifying quotations extracted from a document that I do not have in front of me and have not read.
Madam Speaker: I remind hon. Members that there are occasions when a Member does not necessarily approve of an answer that has been given by a Minister. That is not a point of order. If the answer is not approved of by the Member, of course, there is always the Order Paper to explore the question further. I am not responsible for the quality of answers that are given by Ministers.

Opposition Day
[10TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Trade Union Recognition
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.32 pm
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I beg to move,
  That this House urges the Government to define its policy on
  trade union recognition; and urges it to require the support of 50 per
  cent. of the total workforce, rather than 50 per cent. of those voting in ballots, to determine whether union recognition should be compulsory, given the Government's rejection of the Official Opposition's policy of leaving the law unchanged.
  The motion is intentionally narrow. The Government amendment covers a wide range of important subjects, but they are not germane to the subject of trade union recognition, which is the subject that the Opposition seek to debate in the first part of our time today. The Government amendment deals with the minimum wage, the social chapter, works councils and the working time directive. Those are all essential and important issues, but they are different from the subject that we have put on the Order Paper.
  The question this afternoon is simple and straightforward: should the law impose an obligation on employers to recognise trade unions, and, if so, when should that obligation arise? That is the question that the House is being invited to address. Our attitude to it is very clear.
  Like the Confederation of British Industry, we are opposed to the compulsory recognition of trade unions. The provisions imposing compulsory recognition were key elements of the Employment Protection Act 1975. The Government like to argue the benefits of pilot schemes, but we conducted a pilot scheme on those proposals in the late 1970s, and it was a disaster. That is why we are opposed to reintroducing into law the principle of compulsory recognition of trade unions. We abolished such recognition in the Employment Act 1980, and that was one of the key elements in the long-term improvement in employment and industrial relations brought about during the 1980s and early 1990s.
  Mr. David Winnick rose—
  Mr. Dorrell: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, always with pleasure.
  Mr. Winnick: On 25 January 1984, the Tory Government banned trade unions at Government communications headquarters. Does the Opposition spokesperson now agree that trade unions should be recognised at GCHQ, a change introduced by the Labour Government within weeks of coming to office, or does he take the view that the ban was right? If so, would a future Tory Government reintroduce the ban at GCHQ?
  Mr. Dorrell: Again, Labour Members are keen to raise any subject other than that which we are seeking to put before the House. The question that the House is being

  23
  asked to consider is whether the law should impose a requirement for the compulsory recognition of trade unions.
  Mr. Winnick: That does not answer my question.
  Mr. Dorrell: I was going to go on to say that, of course, many employers voluntarily recognise trade unions as the representatives of their workers. There is widespread use of that practice in both the public and private sectors. For the purposes of this debate, the question is not whether trade union recognition is desirable or undesirable in all circumstances or in any particular set of circumstances, but whether the law should impose a requirement to recognise trade unions in a particular set of circumstances, against the wishes of the employer. That gives rise to several consequential questions.
  If one is prepared to accept the principle that recognition should be imposed against the will of one of the parties to the agreement, the question arises—it is one that is causing untold grief within the Labour party and between Labour Front Benchers and the trade unions—what are the circumstances in which the obligation to recognise trade unions should operate? What are the implications if the principle is enshrined in law?
  If recognition is compulsory, how should one treat the non-union staff of an employer who is required to recognise a particular trade union? What issues are covered by a compulsory recognition agreement? We have heard nothing from the Government about that. We have been told about the principle of compulsory recognition, but the Government have not set out the implications for trade unions and employers if a recognition agreement is imposed.
  Mr. Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman again in a moment.
  What would happen if the parties to an imposed recognition agreement failed to agree after negotiation? Would the employer still be free to act as an employer must be free to act, to defend the interests of the firm and therefore the long-term interests of the people who work in it, or do the Government intend to impose a recognition agreement that gives a power of veto to trade union bosses over decisions that affect the viability of a firm? Is that the position that the Government are adopting? They have introduced the idea of compulsory recognition, but have refused to tell not only us but the employers and others who would have to operate the agreements what the implications would be.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman is getting terribly worked up very early in his speech. In effect, what is on the table is nothing other than a version of what has existed in the United States since 1935, wholly supported and endorsed by Republican Congresses and Republican Presidents. If the right hon. Gentleman made the same speech in America, he would be laughed out of the House.
  Mr. Dorrell: That is an interesting principle, which the hon. Gentleman might like to try out on the Prime Minister—that new Labour should sub-contract policy making to the Republican party in the American Congress. I look forward to hearing how he gets on. I am not sure that he will command the support of all his right hon. and hon. Friends on that.
  Mr. John Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, in June 1997, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment told reporters that the Government's White Paper on fairness at work would be published by the President of the Board of Trade by the autumn of that year? Ten months later, it has not appeared. Is that not because the Government are at war with themselves, with the modernisers on one side and the trade union lackeys and recipients of trade union sponsorship on the other?
  Mr. Dorrell: As ever, my hon. Friend is one step ahead of my argument. I was about to raise that point.
  Labour Members thought that they had resolved the issue and had an agreed policy that they could implement immediately after the general election. The Labour manifesto said:
  "People should be free to join or not to join a trade union."
  We have no difficulty with that. However, the manifesto continued:
  "Where they do decide to join, and where a majority of the relevant workforce vote in a ballot for the union to represent them, the union should be recognised."
  The argument among Labour Members is over what those words mean—as we saw in the exchange last week between the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
  Mr. Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dorrell: No, I will not, because I am dealing with the revealing exchange between the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his true hon. Friend, who is sitting on the Bench below the Gangway.
  Mr. MacShane: We are all friends on the Labour Benches.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman can convince us of many things—perhaps even that we can sub-contract policy making to the Republican party—but he will never persuade us of that.
  I am glad to see the hon. Member for Bolsover in his place. At Prime Minister's questions last week, he said:
  "When does the Prime Minister expect to conclude the talks with the Confederation of British Industry about the vexed problem of trade union recognition rights and voting by a simple majority? Is he aware that, the way that they are going on, they will probably take longer than the Northern Ireland peace agreement?"
  That is an interesting parallel. The hon. Gentleman thinks that the disagreements in the Labour party are similar to those in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister's response was revealing.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about the bit at the end?
  Mr. Dorrell: I left that out. In the interest of peace on the Labour Benches, I am going on to give the Prime Minister's reply. He said:
  "In the manifesto we stated that trade union recognition would be given if a majority of the relevant work force wanted it. We said that in government we would consult and negotiate on what that meant".—[Official Report, 1 April 1998; Vol. 309, c. 1254.]
  That is an extraordinary proposition. We have the Prime Minister's word that the Labour party intended to consult and negotiate on the meaning of the words in the manifesto on which it was elected.
  Some Labour Members and their supporters in the trade union movement thought that they knew what the words meant. Mr. John Edmonds said:
  "This was very well discussed before the Government came into office. We worked out all the details. We are rather surprised that we are now a month before the White Paper is due to be published and apparently there are so many issues which haven't yet been settled.… It is a clear manifesto commitment that everybody understood."
  Mr. Edmonds was in for a shock. He went on to say, more threateningly:
  "I think the Labour Government will understand that if it didn't deliver that there would be some very difficult consequences within the party."
  We are beginning to see the disagreements that give the lie to the proposition of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) about everyone being friends.
  Several other issues are at stake over this matter, in the great Labour movement. The manifesto commitment is in truth new Labour in microcosm. At the election, the British people were presented with a coalition that combined, on the same side of the argument, the hon. Member for Bolsover and Mr. Rupert Murdoch. It will not come as a surprise either to Mr. Murdoch or to the hon. Gentleman that that coalition, which defied gravity, is beginning to crumble a little at the edges.
  Mr. Phil Woolas: Does not that coalition simply show just how unpopular the right hon. Gentleman's party was?
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman will need to reflect on the fact that it shows how unairworthy the vessel on which he is flying will turn out to be. He is in the House, but how long will he stay here? As this Parliament progresses, that question will increasingly dominate his thinking and that of many of his hon. Friends.
  The Prime Minister knows that the press know that the coalition that he put together, which includes the hon. Member for Bolsover and Mr. Rupert Murdoch, is, to put it no stronger, a trifle suspect. He knows that the question of trade union recognition throws the spotlight on one of new Labour's key weaknesses. That is of course why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pointed out, the implementation of the pledge in the doublespeak of the manifesto has been delayed.
  Mr. John Monks, of the Trades Union Congress, sought to persuade the Prime Minister immediately after the general election that the commitment was, in the words of Mr. John Edmonds, clear; everybody knew what it meant. He asked why it should not be put into the National Minimum Wage Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham could then have talked about it all night.
  26
  Mr. Monks said that there was an opportunity to put the commitment into a piece of legislation and carry it through, as everybody knew what it meant. The Prime Minister was a little more cautious; he ordered delay. As he had got the hon. Member for Bolsover and Mr. Murdoch on the same side of the argument, he told Mr. Monks to go away and get the TUC on the same side of the argument. That was always, of course, an impossible task.
  The CBI has been crystal clear on the issue. Mr. Adair Turner said:
  "The CBI would quite clearly prefer not to have legislation creating a statutory requirement for union recognition …We don't see the need for change and we would prefer to leave the legal framework as is."
  We on the Conservative Benches whole-heartedly agree with those words.
  Maria Eagle: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Opposition motion exactly reflects the CBI's position? Does he recall that, when his Government proposed that all those who did not vote in ballots for industrial action should be counted as votes against, the CBI opposed that as nonsense?
  Mr. Dorrell: That is another example of Labour Members being intent on talking about every subject other than the one on which they are currently disagreeing. I quite understand the hon. Lady's self-preservation instinct; it is a great deal easier to talk about issues on which they are all on the same side. The motion requires Labour Members to address an issue that is a subject of argument in the Government. The Labour party was elected without having resolved the meaning of the words in its manifesto.
  Mr. Turner went on to say that, if we must have compulsory recognition, which is an undesirable state of affairs, three key issues have to be addressed. I shall touch on two of them briefly before referring to the third, which is the key and by far the most important.
  First, I wish to refer to the position of those who are not members of trade unions, when there is a compulsory recognition agreement. Of those people, Mr. Turner says:
  "there should be a right for individuals working in units covered by collective bargaining agreements to make separate individual contracts with their employers if they so wish."
  That must be right. We cannot have a compulsory recognition agreement that claims to subsume the rights of those who choose not to be a member of a trade union. The rights of non-union members are critical and must be addressed.
  Secondly, I refer to small firms. Mr. Turner says:
  "At the small company level, entrepreneurs should simply be able to say—this is the style by which I want us to work within this company—bargaining based or not, consultative or directed in style—and to attract to that company people who are happy to work in that style."
  Once again, that is a clear enunciation of an important principle.
  We then move to the third and critical question. What majority is required? If we are to have compulsory recognition, what support does the trade union have to show among the work force of the particular part of the company that it claims to represent? That question—raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover with the Prime

  27
  Minister—is in danger of tearing the Labour party apart. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Labour Members say that is rubbish. We shall come back to that.
  This is a key issue of principle. Who can claim the right to speak for, and negotiate and do deals on behalf of, a group of workers? The CBI says—and we agree—that, if we must have compulsory recognition, a trade union must be able to show the support of at least 50 per cent. of those on whose behalf it claims to speak before it can claim that right. That is a simple proposition.
  The trade unions and the hon. Member for Bolsover argue, on the contrary, that, if there is a 20 per cent. vote and 10.1 per cent. of the work force vote for recognition, that 10.1 per cent. can impose their will on 89.9 per cent. of the employees of the company. That is the principle that the hon. Member for Bolsover and the trade unions stand for. The Prime Minister knows which side is right—there is no argument about which side his instincts are on. The question is whether he can carry his party with him.
  This is an acid test of whether new Labour is any different from the Labour party of nearly 30 years ago. Then, it was not the President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who was presenting a paper, but another lady, Baroness Castle, who presented "In Place of Strife" in 1969. Is this to be "In Place of Strife, Volume 2"?
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman's view of legitimacy. Why is it somehow not legitimate for less than 50 per cent. to speak on behalf of the whole, when Governments may be elected by 43 per cent. of the vote and when directors are often elected by a very small number of the shareholders voting, yet speak on behalf of the company?
  Mr. Dorrell: That is a question one dreams of being asked. The hon. Gentleman asks what difference there is between an election and the claim of a trade union to speak on behalf of a group of workers. They are completely different propositions. The claim of a trade unib on to speak on behalf of a group of workers should be based, as a minimum, on commanding the support of the majority of the group of workers on whose behalf the union claims to speak.
  This is not just a matter of principle—trade union bosses understand clearly that it is a matter of straight power politics. Mr. Bill Morris understands that. As long ago as 1991, he was saying:
  "The unions' big problem today is not maintaining the closed shop"—
  that is the old argument—
  "it's getting recognition. If I have to choose between a closed shop and statutory recognition, I'll choose statutory recognition."
  Mr. Bill Morris sees clearly where the interests of his union as an organisation rest. That is why the trade union movement has vacated the field on the subject of the closed shop, recognising that compulsory statutory recognition is more important. That is what the argument is about, and why Mr. Morris is making it crystal clear that it is an issue on which the Transport and General Workers Union intends to stand and fight.
  28
  I can quote more up-to-date words from Mr. Morris, to reinforce that principle:
  "This is a defining issue for trade unionists. There is simply no room for compromise …It's a straightforward choice: either the Government supports the CBI position or the TUC position."
  Mr. Morris says that it is a straightforward choice, with no room for compromise.
  Mr. Tim Collins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it was because of the importance of the issue that so many trade unions made available millions of pounds, not least in kind, through providing professional full-time agents, computers and cars in marginal seats at the general election? Now the trade unions are demanding their payback for what they did last year.
  Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right, and I shall offer some reflections on that linkage in a moment. First, I must dwell on the strength of feeling attached to the principle within the trade union movement. It is not only Mr. Morris who sees how important it is from the unions' point of view. Roger Lyons, the general secretary of the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union has said that the issue could
  "make the split on the lone-parent benefits look like a vicars' tea party".
  He understands the important issues to be decided in politics today.
  Mr. John Monks has said:
  "If this goes …wrong …it will be a decisive moment."
  Furthermore, an unnamed senior figure in the Labour party—someone with good contacts at the New Statesman, so we can draw up an acute short list of who that might be—has said:
  "Someone, somewhere is selling out".
  Those are the words being used within the Labour party to describe the current debate about what the words in the Labour manifesto mean.
  The principles are all clear enough. Labour Members have a problem. The hon. Member for Bolsover does not have one, and we heard last week what he thinks about these issues. I have brought my pager, too and I use it as often as he does—
  Mr. Skinner indicated dissent.
  Mr. Dorrell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman borrowed it. His right hon. and hon. Friends on the Labour Benches have a problem, however. They are in trouble in this debate, because they do not know which way Tony is going. They are sitting like startled rabbits caught in the headlights. They do not know which way to leap, because they have not yet heard on the pager which way the new Labour version is going.
  We know which way the Prime Minister would like to go, and there is no serious secret about that—
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Both ways.
  Mr. Dorrell: Yes, both ways at once, but even for the Prime Minister, that is impossible. His instincts are clear, as we heard from the Lord Chancellor, who is always sent in to bat on an unpopular cause, to see where the bullets

  29
  are coming from. Before the election, the Lord Chancellor made it clear that the Labour party should adopt the CBI position, so that is one piece of evidence about where the Prime Minister is coming from.
  The House will remember that the Minister for School Standards—another licensed Blairite and another tin hat shot up occasionally above the barricades to see what is coming—held a famous dinner party in Blackpool—
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: It is a good place for a conference.
  Mr. Dorrell: Yes, that was the last visit by the people's party to the people's resort—perhaps that is why the Labour party is not going back to Blackpool.
  The Minister for School Standards speculated with a group of journalists about how a new Labour Government might provoke a crisis—[Interruption.] I see Labour Members nodding; they recognise the argument. The Minister almost salivated over his dinner at the prospect of the new Labour Government provoking a crisis in their relationship with the old Labour trade unions, giving new Labour the opportunity to break the trade union link. We know where the Prime Minister's instincts—his private, deepest thoughts—lie. Probably, he sometimes allows himself to dream what The Sun headline would be if Labour made it clear that it was dumping the trade unions and going with the CBI.
  As the Prime Minister steels himself in the still watches of the night to take the decision, other voices, of which my hon. Friends have reminded us, will whisper in his ear, "Listen, Tony. Labour has an £8 million overdraft, and Unison, the TGWU and the GMB have all cut their contributions." The Prime Minister will also be reminded that the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union has withheld £250,000. Sources at the union say that it wants to see the contents of "Fairness at Work" before it gives the money. That is the first cautionary note sounding in the Prime Minister's ear.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: What advice would the right hon. Gentleman give to a constituent who came to his surgery on a Saturday asking about recognition? Let us suppose that the constituent said, "I'm having trouble with my employer at the local factory. We have tried negotiating, but the employer does not want to talk—we seem to have almost no rights." What would he say to that constituent, who had come to him for protection?
  Mr. Dorrell: I would say, first, that he could talk to his employer and, secondly, that he did not need to be a member of a recognised trade union to talk to the employer. I would also tell him that I did not believe that his trade union had any right to speak on behalf of other employees at the firm unless it could show that it had the majority support of the other employees—that is the principle that the House is being asked to discuss.
  I was listing the cautionary voices that will whisper in the Prime Minister's ear, among which, apparently, will be that of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), which will advocate the proposition that we return to the 1970s—that is his slogan—and compulsory recognition.
  Mr. Campbell—Savours: I believe in fair play.
  Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman bellows, "Fair pay." [HON. MEMBERS: "Fair play."] How can he seriously argue
  30
  for fair pay when, in the 1970s, his prescription led to high unemployment and industrial failure, and Britain was the lame duck of Europe?
  Although the Prime Minister's instincts may point in one direction, he has to consider his £8 million overdraft and whether the union dues will keep coming. He must remember the opposition that the trade unions are threatening to mount if he follows his, and Mr. Murdoch's, instincts. Another senior source in the union to which the hon. Member for Workington belongs—the TGWU—said:
  "If the white paper turns out to be as bad as we fear, the movement will need to decide how to build opposition to it inside and outside Parliament."
  The Prime Minister knows that this is the issue that can light the touch-paper to opposition in the trade union movement and on the Government Back Benches. That is why he is handling it with kid gloves.
  The Prime Minister has an even more serious threat in his mind. Barely an edition of the newspapers comes out without our learning of another member of the Cabinet lining up with the hon. Member for Bolsover.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: They are not here.
  Mr. Dorrell: Their instinct for self-preservation is sufficiently developed to ensure that they are absent. The President of the Board of Trade has to be here only through the bad luck of our discussing a matter relating to her Department.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment makes it clear privately, in a non-attributable way, that he is on the unions' side. Goodness knows why, but the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is on the list; perhaps he wants to safeguard his position. The Secretary of State for Health is there, presumably representing all his old friends in the London Labour party. The Secretary of State for Wales is always on such lists. The Deputy Prime Minister is keeping his head down, but his name is there.
  The one the Prime Minister really has his eye on is his next-door neighbour, who is going around burnishing his links with the trade unions. Where has the Chancellor of the Exchequer been on the subject? He has been off to a great shindig with the Transport and General Workers Union, at its 75th anniversary party, no less.
  The brother in arms of new Labour said:
  "If the trade union movement didn't exist today, it would have to be created."
  He certainly did not get that off the No. 10 pager. The Chancellor continued:
  "Let us remember that the trade union movement was born against the odds, it grew against the odds, it developed its strength against the odds and it will succeed against all odds."
  The Chancellor praised the Transport and General Workers Union's former leader, Mr. Jack Jones; not too many new Labour spokesmen volunteer support for him. Perhaps most tellingly of all, he let slip the thought that he was "on their side". He is busy building his position.
  One need not know much Labour party history to have a strong sense of deja vu. In 1969, Barbara Castle knew what had to be done, and the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, was right behind her. It was always dangerous to be out in front of Harold Wilson. The Chancellor of the

  31
  day was busy burnishing his contacts with the trade unions, and Harold Wilson performed the manoeuvre for which he is best remembered: the strategic scuttle.
  Nearly 30 years on, the Prime Minister faces the same test: will he face down today's trade union bosses and make a principled stand, or is he in reality Harold Wilson mark 2? To govern is to choose, and the Prime Minister has now to choose.
  4.7 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "congratulates the Government for acting quickly and effectively to redress the damaging culture of low pay, job insecurity and the sweatshop economy inherited from the previous Government by adopting a partnership approach to set decent minimum standards for all workers; notes that good standards at work are essential for competitiveness and business success and that the Government has, as part of its strategy for ensuring decent minimum standards and labour market flexibility, involved employers' and workers' representatives on the Low Pay Commission and in discussions on trade union recognition, and in addition has restored union rights at GCHQ, signed the European Social Chapter and made rapid progress on the National Minimum Wage Bill; and further notes that the Government is also committed, as part of that strategy, which enjoys wide support, to implementing the Directives on Working Time, Young Workers, European Works Councils and Part-Time Work, and to fulfilling the Government's commitment to enable workers to enjoy union recognition where a majority of the relevant workforce vote in a ballot for the union to represent them."
  That was a tour de force on the only subject that ever unites the Tory rabble: a fundamental attack on employment rights in the workplace.
  The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) even had the cheek and temerity to complain within 30 seconds that the Government had tabled an amendment to prompt discussion on other issues relating to employment rights, such as the minimum wage, the working time directive, part-time rights and insecurity. He was a member of a Government who created complete insecurity for the work force and undermined workers through low pay. They supported only those employers who wanted to implement poor employment practice, and undermined those who wanted to apply good employment practice.
  We have witnessed the right hon. Gentleman's desperate last attempt to stay in the shadow Cabinet. I noticed at the weekend, under the headline, "Barbie's Hero", that he is for the chop in the next reshuffle and is described as the burnt-out education spokesperson. After that speech, I think that we have a burnt-out shadow Cabinet and a burnt-out Opposition who have learnt nothing from their defeat last May.
  I am glad that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is here. He went on unofficial strike against his own Cabinet; he walked out on his Prime Minister. The Prime Minister decided to look for recognition and went for a recognition ballot. The right hon. Member for Wokingham lost it and went around
  32
  Britain with his Euro-sceptics as flying pickets against every Conservative who stood at the last general election. He is an expert on poor industrial relations in his party.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman wants to calm down. He has a long evening ahead of him. I am sure that he will have an opportunity to contribute at some stage.
  The right hon. Member for Charnwood raised the question of Labour and trade union funding. What a cheek from a party which refuses to give back the money stolen by Asil Nadir. What about the Greek millionaires found guilty of corruption in their country? Did the Tories give that money back? The answer is no. To top it all, they took money from Hong Kong drug barons and still refuse to pay it back. The Labour party needs no lessons from Conservatives about the openness of its funding.
  I am surprised that the right hon. Member chose this subject. Trade union recognition is part of the broader question of the way in which people are treated at work. It is part of partnership at work, part of a fairness culture. It is about whether people at work should have fundamental and democratically exercised rights in the workplace.
  Over the past few years, we have seen all too clearly that the Conservatives are against decent, fair treatment of workers and the exercise of fundamental, democratic rights. They are against fair pay and against people having the protection of a union if they want it. They also campaigned against minimum standards that workers throughout the rest of Europe enjoy as a matter of course. They are against so much that one might think that they were not in favour of anything.
  Mr. Winnick: Is it not interesting that, when I asked the Opposition spokesperson whether the Conservatives remained committed to a ban on trade union membership at GCHQ, he refused to give an answer? Was not the banning of the trade unions there disgraceful? Is it not good that, within weeks of the election of a Labour Government, we carried out our promise and lifted that bad ban?
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is right. As the Conservative Government left Downing street, trade unions were allowed back into GCHQ. I am proud of that decision.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: In the light of the Minister's apparent condemnation of Conservative industrial relations policies since 1979, will he say which of the six major Acts passed since then he proposes to reverse?
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman displays something else: always living in the past. The set of proposals that this Government will introduce is about workers living in the present, about dealing with the fact that the previous Government left us in an horrendous position of low pay, insecurity in the workplace and individuals being sacked at the whim of employers. We intend to deal with that in no uncertain terms.
  The right hon. Member for Charnwood also suggested that the Opposition may change their view on some policy areas. I shall deal with that later. The truth is that the

  33
  Conservative Government wanted to deliver a sweatshop economy for Britain. The Tories always supported bad employers against good employers. They drove down pay and conditions and so undercut good employment practice. Their Government was always on the side of poor employment practice. Never once did they stand up for decent employment standards, employment rights or, in a market position, for good employers investing in their employees, in education, training and good employment standards.
  The Conservative Government always undercut the good employer by supporting the Arthur Daleys of this world. They even abolished wages councils, which provided a minimum of protection against the exploitation of some of our most vulnerable workers. They indulged in a frenzy of privatisation and compulsive competitive tendering, as a result of which thousands of workers lost their job or had their pay cut and their hours increased.
  The Conservatives did all that in the name of deregulation, claiming that those measures were necessary to give employers the opportunity to create jobs, but they presided over the highest level of unemployment since the 1920s. Even on their own fiddled figures, unemployment rose to more than 3 million. I remember a Prime Minister saying that that was
  "a price well worth paying."
  At the general election, the voters did not think so, and elected a Labour Government to make a difference for millions of people in the workplace. I am astonished that a party with such an appalling record should seek to draw attention to that record, by contrasting it with the positive, fair and even-handed action of the Labour Government.
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Is it not true that the previous Government never called the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress together to discuss employment rights? Does my hon. Friend remember the speech by Baroness Thatcher, in which she declared that trade unions were the enemy within?
  Mr. McCartney: The whole raison d'etre of the Conservative party is opposition to partnership in the workplace. Other than the schoolboy politics it contained, the whole basis of the speech by the right hon. Member for Charnwood was opposition to partnership, for the sake of opposition. At no stage have the Conservatives committed themselves to the principle of partnership in the workplace; they believe solely in the principle of hire and fire—the employer's capacity to do anything whatever to the employee in the workplace. That is something the British people rejected by voting against the insecurity and fear of exploitation ushered in by the previous Government's policies. We are going to make a difference.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman is talking about history again, but does he remember the winter of 1978-79? I know that he is very young, but does he remember that winter of discontent? Was that the sort of partnership between employers, employees and Government of which he speaks?
  Mr. McCartney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that I am very young—as the youngest grandfather in the House of Commons, I take his remark as a great compliment. However, the hon. Gentleman has again proved my point—the Conservatives live in the past, three decades ago; they take no account of the changes that have taken place in the workplace.
  The Labour Government were elected, in large measure, to put an end to unfair and shabby treatment of working people. We have already taken great strides towards restoring a fair balance to the world of work. We have a clear, detailed and popular strategy for promoting fairness at work; we have a strategy for promoting partnership and mutual trust; we have a strategy for raising competitiveness by ensuring that workers are well motivated and productive. Ours is an inclusive policy: we want those who want work to be able to get work. The challenge in the workplace is ensuring that Britain is a more competitive and fairer place in which to live and work.
  In part, that is a matter of establishing a fair balance: to have a framework of law that guarantees decent minimum standards, while maintaining necessary labour market flexibility. We need the force of the law to deal with the worst employers—those who pay poverty wages, who force their employees to work excessive hours and who make their workers clock off when business is slack and clock back on when it picks up. Those unscrupulous employers not only mistreat their employees but undermine their competitors who are trying to provide decent terms and conditions. We need tough laws to deal with cowboy employers. We need to protect employees and good employers from unfair competition.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: As we have already heard one or two blasts from the past, would it surprise my hon. Friend to learn that the infamous anti-trade unionist George Ward is chairman of Hendon Conservative association? He has not lost his anti-democratic principles, and that association has, recently been suspended from the national association, on the ground that Mr. Ward, among others, has been trying to infiltrate the Conservative association with his friends and relatives and employees of Grunwick?
  Mr. McCartney: That is another sorry example of infiltration into the Tory party. We have seen Asil Nadir, Greek shipping magnates and drug barons do it, and the tragedy is that the Conservatives take no steps against that sort of thing. Consequently, the British public have largely rejected the Conservative party wherever it still tries to exist.
  The truth is that we need to go beyond the law, and change the climate in our workplaces from one of confrontation to one of partnership. Employers and workers have many common interests. They both need their organisations to succeed, to generate profits and well-paid jobs. Employers need a skilled, motivated work force. Workers want interesting, secure jobs where their talents are properly used and their contribution respected. That already happens in the best workplaces, but in too

  35
  many there is no mutual trust. The values of greed and lack of respect for workers' dignity, preached by the previous Government, are still far too prevalent.
  Mr. Collins: While the hon. Gentleman is on the subject of unfairness at work and bad employers, will he tell us who was right at Wapping: Rupert Murdoch or the print unions?
  Mr. McCartney: That is another pathetic question. This Government were elected on the principle of establishing recognition in the workplace. The discussions that are taking place are about how, not whether, that will operate.
  The Government are setting themselves the long-term task of improving the climate at work, building trust and partnership. It is not just about union recognition, although that is an important and familiar form of partnership in the British industrial tradition. It is about rights and respect, and about involvement in lifelong learning for every worker, including the two thirds who are not union members.
  The White Paper on fairness at work, which we shall publish in the first part of this year, will set out our policy on building partnership and how we intend to pursue it. All the employment measures that we have taken and will take are based on a partnership approach, which is the best way to improve competitiveness.
  A few organisations have long treated employees as partners and equals. A few, but far too few, have share option schemes for all employees, not just for directors. There are encouraging signs that more firms are moving in the right direction. For example, proposals were recently announced for a partnership between Tesco and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which will give employees better representation through the union, new consultation structures and improved communications.
  Another example is the partnership-based approach adopted by Transco, part of the former British Gas. Its approach is to "open the books" to all employees so that they know exactly where the company's financial resources are invested. It is also involving the unions in a partnership council for business improvement. There have been many other examples in the first year of this Government. Employers are looking at a new culture of partnership in the workplace.
  Yesterday, I was pleased to see reports of an agreement between the Alfred Marks employment agency and the Communication Workers Union, which will mean that thousands of temporary workers at BT will at last be covered by the union for negotiating purposes.
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way twice to me. He says that the debate is not just about union recognition, but his speech so far is about anything but union recognition. Will he now tell us whether he supports the CBI or the TUC position?
  Mr. McCartney: That is another silly question. The Government have made it absolutely clear that, in the first part of this year, we shall publish a White Paper that will include matters surrounding union recognition. Following
  36
  the White Paper and consultation, we shall introduce a legislative programme. I do not intend to negotiate with the hon. Gentleman, who is totally opposed to recognition in the workplace.
  Mr. Dorrell: If the Minister will not answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), will he at least, as it is the subject for debate, suggest to the House some of the considerations that others should take into account in seeking to answer that question?
  Mr. McCartney: The question will be answered when the White Paper is published, in view of the consultation that will be carried out. This is the first Government in 18 years who have opened up any consultation and dialogue with employers about partnership in the workplace. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, who is also an employer, will say whether the companies of which he is a director recognise trade unions. I note that he is not coming to the Dispatch Box, so the answer would appear to be that he does not recognise trade unions.
  As a first and vital step, the Government have begun a dialogue with employers' and workers' organisations, seeking their views and involving them in the formulation of policy. Within 90 days of the election, we set up the independent Low Pay Commission to advise us on the level of a national minimum wage. The commission includes representatives of employers and workers, as well as independent members. It has carried out the most extensive consultation on low pay with employers and employees ever seen in this country.
  We then invited the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress to hold discussions on the subject of today's debate—trade union recognition. They did so, and published a joint statement showing considerable and welcome agreement. They agreed that priority should be given to voluntary agreements, with the law as the last resort. They agreed that the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service should have an opportunity to conciliate before the statute procedure is invoked. They agreed that there should be a procedure for derecognition. They agreed that, once an application for recognition or derecognition has been decided, there should be no new application for at least three years. They agreed that unions should be able to make joint applications. They agreed on how the ballot should be organised and conducted, though not on what majority should be required. They agreed that non-union channels of representation can continue alongside recognition.
  I could go on listing the areas of full and partial agreement. Suffice it to say that there is already more about which the CBI and TUC agree than disagree. They have continued talking to us, and I hope that they can find yet more agreement.
  Involving social partners is a completely different approach. The previous Government shunned trade unions, despite the fact that they represent millions of workers—still a third of the work force, despite the efforts of the previous Government to drive down trade union membership. At times, it seemed as though the previous Government shunned employers' organisations, too. It was no surprise when, in November 1996, the then Government's proposals for yet further restrictions on trade union activities were heavily criticised by, among others, the CBI and the Institute of Directors.

  37
  In contrast, we see employers and unions as our allies. We are working with them, involving them in all our policies that affect the workplace. We showed the way in the first few days after the election, by ending the ban on trade unions at GCHQ, restoring the basic right of workers to join a union of their choice—something the previous Government obstinately refused to do, despite national and international criticism.
  Mr. Roger Stott: As I understand it, the Government do not intend to change legislation with regard to balloting trade unions on industrial action, or to change the law on secondary picketing, and they do not intend to change other industrial legislation that was passed by the previous Government. All we are saying is that it is a requirement of our Government to give people in the workplace the legal right to join a trade union.
  Is my hon. Friend aware that giving people the right to join a trade union is not simply giving them the right to take industrial action? It is also to give them the collective protection that the trade union offers people in the workplace.
  Mr. McCartney: I think that we are giving more than that. We want to ensure that people in the workplace have the opportunity to exercise their statutory rights, whether or not they are in a trade union. The Government's whole approach is to give people in the workplace standards and minimum rights, whether they are part time or full time, and we shall continue to do so in conjunction and in co-operation with employers and trade unions. Where trade unions are in the workplace and employees want to be represented by them, that should also be a right. That is why the Government have put forward their proposals, which were accepted at the general election.
  Involving social partners is a completely different approach. During the general election, Conservatives continued their opposition to partnership in the workplace, but we as a party are prepared not only to reject that proposal but to support, in intellectual and practical terms, various measures to promote partnership in the workplace. We introduced the National Minimum Wage Bill to put an end to poverty pay and to curb cowboy employers who drive down standards and undercut decent employers. The Tories failed in an attempt to filibuster in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and the Bill has now completed its stages in the House and gone to another place.
  Perhaps the right hon. Member for Charnwood would like to tell us, and the working people of this country, what he and his hon. Friends would do in the unlikely event that they were ever again on the Government Benches? Would they repeal the national minimum wage and allow wages to fall to the levels that we now see, with security guards and hairdressers earning £2 an hour or less? Does he support his leader, who has clearly suggested that, at the next election, the Tories will not oppose a national minimum wage. Is that correct?
  Mr. Boswell: When the Minister asks us, as he has in the past, about our attitude to the national minimum wage—and, indeed, to the specific issue that we are
  38
  discussing—would it not be helpful, in the light of our motion, if he told us what the Government's proposals are? That is what we are about today.
  Mr. McCartney: I have been setting out the Government's position on partnership and on minimum standards in the workplace since the beginning of my speech.
  It is clear that the right hon. Member for Charnwood will not follow his leader, who, not a week ago, told The Observer that, at the next election, the Conservatives would consider not opposing the national minimum wage. We now see a further split in the Conservative party. It is clear that "Vote Tory in the next election" means "Vote for wage cuts".
  We are about to implement the working time and young workers directives. The previous Government, of whom the right hon. Member for Charnwood was a member, wasted more than half a million pounds of taxpayers' money on a futile legal challenge to the working time directive. That directive will give workers seven new rights. It will give them the right not to work for more than 48 hours a week. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he still opposes that proposal? Will the Conservatives oppose it?
  The directive will give more than 2.5 million workers the right—for the first time—to three weeks' paid annual leave, rising to four weeks in 1999. Will the Conservative party still oppose people's right to paid holidays? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Conservatives still oppose that proposal, or will they drop their opposition? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what his party's position is? The answer seems to be no.
  The directive will give workers a rest period when they work for six or more hours a day. The Tories oppose that entitlement, regardless of how long people work. Will they now drop their opposition, and support the Government? I give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to speak. Will he do so? The answer is no.
  The directive will give workers a right to minimum daily and weekly rest periods. The Conservative party is against giving people one day off a week. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us now whether the Conservatives have dropped their opposition to that proposal, or continue to oppose the principle of giving people equal status in terms of days off during the working week? The right hon. Gentleman still does not want to answer.
  When he was Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Gentleman opposed regular health checks for night workers, and special protection for young workers. Will he now tell us whether he has dropped his opposition to those proposals? The answer is that he has not even concerned himself with whether those rights should continue.
  The truth is that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to have a debate about improving standards in the workplace for millions of British workers. That is because, as an employer, he is implacably opposed to good employment practice—unlike tens of thousands, indeed hundreds of thousands, of employers in Britain who want fair and decent standards, and support the Labour Government's proposals. The right hon. Gentleman is still indicating that the Conservatives oppose minimum standards in the workplace.
  Mr. Collins: As the Minister is on the subject of the working time directive and questions about it, will he tell

  39
  us whether the Government are in favour of reducing the maximum working week to 40 hours, as is now being proposed in Europe? If they are against that reduction, how—now that they have given way on qualified majority voting—do they propose to stop it?
  Mr. McCartney: Again, the hon. Gentleman shows a distinct lack of knowledge of the subject. The Government are introducing the 48-hour week by implementing the working time directive. Consultations are currently taking place about excluded sectors—the eight European employment areas that are excluded from the directive at present. We will consult on that, and, at an appropriate time, Europe will reach a decision that we will support in principle. [Interruption.] We support the principle of decent minimum standards for all workers. Why are the Tories so opposed to that?
  The right hon. Member for Charnwood and the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) have shown their lack of interest in the promotion of decent standards in the workplace. They have tried to have a schoolboy debate. They have tried to suggest, rather fatuously, that there is some disagreement between the Labour party and industry over the concept and the principle of introducing trade union recognition.
  All those measures are part of the broader strategy that I have described for competitiveness through partnership, decent standards and labour market flexibility. So is trade union recognition. As I have said, we asked the CBI and the TUC to try to narrow their differences. They did so, and produced a joint statement. We have continued to have discussions with them, and have achieved a great deal of agreement. Unlike the right hon. Member for Charnwood, I want to congratulate the CBI and the TUC on the spirit of co-operation with which they have approached the issue, to achieve a constructive way forward and to ensure that the White Paper will meet the needs of everyone in the workplace to secure agreement over recognition and representation.
  Mr. MacShane: Surely the whole House should congratulate the CBI and the TUC, especially on their agreement not to go for penal clauses, for fines or for sequestration, which was the vindictive approach of the Conservative party when it was in power. As I understand it, the White Paper will aim for partnership and agreement, not for the use of the heavy hand of the law to victimise one side of industry, as Governments have done in the past.
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The purpose of the White Paper is to encourage and promote partnership in the workplace. The world has moved on since 1975: the structure of industry and employment in this country has changed profoundly; the number of trade unions has dropped from 484 in 1976 to 255 in 1996 due to amalgamations; and trade union membership has dropped from a peak of 13 million in 1979 to just under 8 million in 1996.
  The trade union movement has responded to those and other developments by changing and modernising. Trade unions are now committed to working with management for their mutual benefit, which is why 88 per cent. of the
  40
  FTSE top companies already recognise unions voluntarily, and why inward investors such as Toyota and Nissan have willingly recognised trade unions.
  We have encouraged the CBI and the TUC to pursue their discussions with the Government. The discussions are making good progress: it would be unrealistic to expect social partners to agree on everything, but I am confident that they will agree on a great deal and will help the Government to put forward balanced, practical proposals.
  The proposals will provide a rational, agreed way of resolving disputes. At present, employers are free to ride roughshod over the wishes of their work force. Employers have derecognised or refused to recognise unions against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of the work force, and continue to do so. I do not want to name names or to take sides in disputes that are under way, but that cannot be right—there must be a better way of resolving such disputes than goading trade unions into taking industrial action.
  In future, the vast majority of recognition claims will be settled by negotiation between the parties. Our proposals will be designed to encourage voluntary settlements at every stage—legislation will apply only as a last resort, when the parties have reached an impasse despite the good offices of ACAS.
  I shall not be drawn on the details of our proposals; I must ask hon. Members to be patient for a little longer. We shall publish the White Paper as soon as we can. I assure them that it will be worth the wait, and all the better for the effort that we have put into building a consensus between the social partners. It will be a consultative document, but, as we said in our manifesto, we shall consult on how to implement the recognition agreement, not on whether to do it. Afterwards, we shall move to legislate as quickly as possible.
  The Government are moving quickly and decisively to restore a fair balance of rights and duties in the workplace, to promote partnership and to ensure decent minimum standards. We are well on the way to achieving a national minimum wage, to guaranteed minimum paid holidays, to reasonable rest breaks and an end to unreasonably and harmfully long hours, to equal rights for part-time workers and to a right to reasonable time off for parents, including adoptive parents.
  The White Paper will set out our proposals for the last substantial brick in that edifice—a framework of decent employment law for the 21st century. I urge the House to support the Government amendment.
  4.38 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: In the first half of his speech, the Minister spoke about what Conservative Members did in government; in the second half, he spoke about what we would do when we got back to government, but he did not appear to have read the first line of the motion.
  People rightly criticise the Government for treating the House of Commons with contempt. If he were listening to me instead of consulting hon. Members on the Bench behind him, the Minister might hear the words to which he should have addressed his speech. I should be most grateful if I had his attention. The motion states that the Government should
  "define its policy on trade union recognition".

  41
  The Minister did not do that: he talked about the White Paper and said that Conservative Members had asked a silly question; he then talked about how he wanted to achieve consensus—but he is stuck with his own words about a silly question being asked.
  There are choices to be made about the threshold for union recognition. The Conservative motion makes it clear that the Government have rejected the Opposition's policy. The Confederation of British Industry accepts that the Government's policy will be implemented. Before the Government make a decision, they should spell out their own view, but they have not done so. My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) quoted the exchange between the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the Prime Minister—the "Skinner is innocent, okay" question. The Prime Minister would not give an answer.
  Similarly, Government supporters have to look at their bleepers to discover what they are supposed to be thinking. Shortly after the general election, the Conservative Leader of the Opposition asked the Labour Prime Minister whether he intended to introduce prescription charges for pensioners. As expected, the Prime Minister kicked that issue into this year.
  What was surprising was that 200 Labour Back Benchers did not shake or nod their heads; they did not even turn their heads in circles. Before the election, they would have made their views known if they had suspected that the Conservatives wanted to introduce prescription charges for pensioners, but now they wait until they feel a tremble in their midriff to see whether they are told to talk to each other, to put a question or to distract attention from the key point.
  If any Labour Member present can tell me whether they are in favour of prescription charges for pensioners, will they intervene? Or, to put it a different way, does any Labour Member believe that the Minister of State wants the threshold for union recognition to be a majority of the work force or a majority of those who vote? I shall give way to any Labour Member who can tell me what he or she thinks is in the Minister of State's mind, having listened to half an hour of his speech. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] Not one Labour Member is willing to intervene.
  Mr. Ian McCartney rose
  Mr. Bottomley: I shall give way to the Minister of State if he will answer my question. He presumably knew what he was saying during that half hour.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman must either give way or not give way. He cannot put conditions on it.
  Mr. Bottomley: I shall give way.
  Mr. McCartney: It is very nice of the hon. Gentleman to give way. If Conservative Members were serious, they would have had this debate following publication of the White Paper. The Government made it absolutely clear from the outset—it has never been any clearer—that we will publish a White Paper for consultation. Conservative Members chose to have this debate purely for party political reasons. We will not allow party politics to
  42
  interfere with good employment relations. I will debate this issue with the hon. Gentleman on any platform after the publication of the White Paper.
  Mr. Bottomley: So now we know. The issue that the Minister described as a "silly question" is the subject of disagreement between the CBI and the Trade Union Congress. The Minister says that we should not debate this matter until the details of the Government's policy are published. All I did was ask whether there is a Labour Member present who has an idea of the Minister's view. The TUC and the CBI have a view, and their views have been mentioned. The Minister of State, speaking for the Government, is the only person who does not have a view, or will not tell the House of Commons what it is.
  Of course we shall wait for the White Paper, and we shall have a debate on it when it is published. Today's debate is to ask the Government to define their own view. I do not believe that they do not have a view.
  Mr. Boswell: They have two, actually.
  Mr. Bottomley: Yes, they have two, as my hon. Friend says.
  Mr. Stott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bottomley: I know that I cannot set conditions, but I live in hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell me what he thinks is in the Minister's mind.
  Mr. Stott: For years, the hon. Gentleman has worn a Transport and General Workers Union tie. He has been proclaiming his membership of that union ever since he came to the House. If a group of people in a workplace wanted to join the TGWU but were prevented from doing so, what would he do about it?
  Mr. Bottomley: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is fully on song. In his earlier intervention, he misunderstood the issue, and he now asks what I would do if someone wanted to join the union. I would welcome them, because I believe in trade union membership. Nothing in the law of this land prevents people from joining a trade union if they so want.
  I was elected in 1975, shortly before the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) failed to get elected in a by-election because of the effect of trade union action. At that time, some people were not allowed to join the union of their choice because a Labour majority in the House had forced through legislation that allowed people to be sacked if they were not in the union that Parliament had determined they should join.
  Mr. Robathan: It was not a matter of whether people wanted to join a union: they had to join a union to get a job. Is that morally defensible?
  Mr. Bottomley: No one defends that practice now. The Minister said that that issue would not be raised. Likewise, the Government have said that they do not intend to overturn the other six employment laws passed by the Conservative Government. We should regard that as progress.

  43
  Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have plenty to learn about trade unions. Not many Conservative or some Labour Members understand what was required to establish trade unions in the first place. Some hon. Members came to a meeting in the Jubilee Room to discuss Alexander Bowman, otherwise known as the "people's champion", who helped to set up trade unions in Belfast just over 100 years ago. His biography has been written by his great-grandson Terence Bowman. Hon. Members should also learn about people such as Will Crooks, who represented Woolwich, which I also represented.
  Many hon. Members do not understand what went into the organisation of people at work in the face of apathy, ignorance and sometimes violent opposition. Many of them do not understand some of the inter-union rivalries, and do not realise how much voluntary time people put into representing their colleagues at work, not just over pay and conditions or health and safety, but in trying to combat prejudice.
  Employers may want to take on black car delivery workers, but the predominant group in that trade and in that part of the union say that it must be a whites-only job. Such problems require persistence, courage, sacrifice and service. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) shakes her head, so I assume that she disagrees with me.
  The last time I raised a union issue was when I asked the Prime Minister whether he regretted trying to support the challenger to Bill Morris's re-election as general secretary of the TGWU. The Prime Minister told me that I was wrong, and that he had not supported the challenger. I tabled an early-day motion listing the facts chapter and verse—I did not go into what I had heard at Transport house. He has not said that I was wrong.
  Ann Keen: The hon. Gentleman referred to me shaking my head. Along with my hon. Friends, I am shaking my head in total disbelief that the hon. Gentleman feels he has to lecture us about the rights of people at work and the difficulties they face fighting for those rights. Labour Members know perfectly well why people have such problems.
  Mr. Bottomley: I did not know that I was lecturing: I was trying to share a common understanding of the background to the better side of trade unions. If Labour Members read the earlier part of my speech, they will understand what I mean.
  The Government are trying to duck their responsibility. The Minister spoke about a partnership. What will be the majority threshold if union recognition is to be granted by law? Union recognition is not being granted by agreement with the employer. I said that I believe in unions, and I also believe in union recognition, but we must decide on the threshold.
  One of the problems with the new, modern, model Labour party is that it does not understand what has been going on in the recent past. Reference has been made to trade union recognition at GCHQ in Cheltenham. The unions were recognised at GCHQ before the election; the difference was that national unions were not going to be recognised. [Laughter.]
  44
  Labour Members laugh. In the mid-1980s, we could have asked any Government in NATO—Governments such as those in France, Germany or Italy—"Can your people involved in this sort of work be members of a trade union, and, if so, could they be ordered to strike by their national leadership?" The reply would have been that the question was incomprehensible. First, most of the work that is the equivalent of the work carried out in Cheltenham is done by the services. Secondly, even the most left-wing trade union leaders in other parts of western Europe would not have dreamed of calling for, let alone tolerating, a strike by people in signals intelligence. It is worth remembering those points, and they are worth repeating.
  Let us look at the key part of the motion rather than at the Government's amendment, which concludes by referring to the
  "majority of the relevant workforce".
  That is the dilemma on which the Government are hooked. Our motion asks who will be able to join in the discussions. None of the Labour Members who are in the Chamber will be present, because they do not know what is in the Government's mind and do not know whether they are supposed to agree with what the Government will present.
  The White Paper must be difficult to write. In the past, in responding to a serious issue—not a silly question, as the Minister put it—most Ministers would say, "We know the choices." The Minister of State did not even do that. He uttered not a single sentence about the key issue in this debate. That is not because he does not know the issues: he knows them perfectly well.
  Why did the Minister not address the issues? It is not just because of union influence in the Labour party, although that is part of it, and it is not just because of the threat of losing money, although that may be part of it as well. It is because the Government do not know how to make the decision, and I do not think that they yet know what decision they want to make. That is why the debate is worth while.
  Despite some merits, the Government are full of PR presentation, puff and aggression, and they occasionally raise their voices to above 85 dB. They ought to ask themselves why they have a problem on the issue. The answer is that they do not yet know whom they will offend. My guess is that they will finally come down against the trade union view, and that the unions will accept it. The uncertainty is rather like a Labour Back Bencher standing by the door of the Division Lobby and saying, "I do not want to support you," and the Whip reaching out and pulling him in.
  I do not envy the Government their dilemma. They have caused it for themselves, and they should be big enough to talk openly about it in advance of the White Paper. The Minister's words, "It is a silly question," will be tied around his neck as long as the legislation is before the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.
  Mr. MacShane: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On page 421 of "Erskine May", under the heading "Declaration of interest in debate", it is made quite clear that an hon. Member should declare any direct or indirect interest at the beginning of a debate,

  45
  particularly if it is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests. May we have a general ruling for the conduct of the rest of the debate, so that, if a right hon. or hon. Member has a direct interest through being a director of a company that does not recognise unions and which stands to gain financial benefit one way or the other from the passing of legislation, he should declare that interest?
  Mr. Collins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall deal first with the original point of order.
  First, how Members declare their interests is entirely a matter for them. Secondly, any complaint should be addressed to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, not to the Chair, because such matters are not for the Chair.
  Mr. Collins: I was merely going to ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make it clear in your ruling that the same would apply to any hon. Member who is sponsored by a trade union, because he would equally have a clear interest in the matter.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is a code of conduct, and every hon. Member knows how to conduct himself in the House.
  Mr. MacShane: Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the light of Madam Speaker's ruling before Christmas in respect of the former Department of Trade and Industry's deputy shadow spokesman on a related matter, can you rule whether the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who has remunerated directorships in an industrial clothing manufacturer, one Faithful Ltd., which does not recognise trade unions, would have been better advised—I put it no stronger than that—to declare or refer to that interest when he opened the debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I have said, that is not a matter for the Chair. How each Member conducts himself in such matters is entirely a matter for him. The right hon. Member was in order, and that is all that I need to concern myself about.
  4.54 pm
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I shall start by declaring an interest. I am a member of the Graphical, Paper and Media union, and secretary of its parliamentary group. I can tell the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) that no Labour Members are sponsored.
  We know why the Opposition have called the debate. It has nothing to do with serious involvement in trying to develop an appropriate framework for fairness at work. It has more to do with posturing, mischief making and union bashing, which is what the previous Government did for 18 years. The least we could have expected was an apology for the vindictive policies of those 18 years, which destroyed workers' rights and jobs, and left Britain with the worst employment laws in the western world. It was disgraceful of Baroness Thatcher to describe
  46
  hard-working people in trade unions as "the enemy within". In this debate, Conservative Members have done that again.
  One of the major reasons for the Tories losing the election in May was their complete disregard for workers' rights. They reduced the safeguards for working conditions, removed protection, and allowed the exploitation of women and young workers. They cut wages councils and created an environment in which bad employers were encouraged. The new Labour Government are starting to redress the balance, which went unchecked for 18 years.
  The Government have started to implement Labour's manifesto commitments. Union rights have been restored at GCHQ, check-off has been abolished, the European social chapter has been signed, a national minimum wage has been introduced, and there have been improvements in the conditions for casual and agency workers. Those commitments were not based on political dogma: they were taken on because they were right.
  The Government are committed to work and the work ethic. They are restoring opportunities through programmes such as the new deal, assisting and developing regeneration schemes, and working with social partners to generate job opportunities. Those are key parts in the rebuilding of Britain, which is vital to everyone. Work is undoubtedly vital, and it follows that fairness at work is equally important. The notion of consensus in the workplace is clearly the best way to achieve success, and the Government deserve credit for bringing together the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry. The voluntary arrangements they have agreed are welcome.
  As the Minister of State knows, our manifesto commitment to trade union recognition was the result of detailed consultation. We rightly said that people should be free to choose whether to join a trade union. When they decide to join, and when a majority in the relevant work force vote for a union to represent them, that union should be recognised.
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman is on the crux of the matter. Will he define "the majority" and "the relevant work force", because that is what the motion is about?
  Mr. Sutcliffe: If the hon. Gentleman cares to wait, he will hear me speak about that.
  Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the matter?
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I shall do that later in my speech.
  We said that such a course would promote stable and orderly industrial relations. We were clear about what that meant then, and we are clear on it now. After the election, the Prime Minister asked the CBI and the TUC to meet to narrow the gap. I understand that there have been a number of meetings recently between Ministers and both organisations. That is right, to ensure that the policy is correct. Recognition is vital if unions are to be allowed to do their jobs properly and effectively. All the Government's positive actions so far on employment will be devalued if we do not get the matter right. It is not a question of the TUC winning or the CBI losing: it is a question of what is fair and will work.

  47
  An NOP poll in August showed that 77 per cent. of people agree that employees should have the right to have their union recognised by their employers when a majority want that. The days of macho management are long gone. An NOP poll of senior human resource managers in Britain's leading 100 companies showed that business is relaxed about union recognition law. Three to one, those managers supported dealing with staff collectively, and said that staff were more likely to be committed to business plans and objectives if they were involved.
  More than two thirds of employers said that collective arrangements helped in problem solving, in achieving working flexibility and in winning staff support for change. Furthermore, more than five to one, employers said that collective relationships had improved. An Institute of Management poll of managers showed that 54 per cent. backed a union recognition law.
  The evidence shows that unionised workplaces are more likely to train staff and to have lower staff turnover, and that they are safer, and more likely to practise family-friendly policies.
  Maria Eagle: Is my hon. Friend aware that accidents at work currently cost the United Kingdom £8.5 billion annually, that £4.5 billion of those costs falls directly on employers, and that accident rates are up to 50 per cent. higher in workplaces without union recognition? Union recognition is therefore better for employers and better for employees, as it enables greater efficiency and a safer workplace.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. She is right to say that small workplaces, particularly those with fewer than 50 employees, have more accidents. A 1994 Green Paper, published by the previous Government, showed that most industrial tribunal cases were brought against companies employing fewer than 50 people.
  The Confederation of British Industry and the Opposition—although the Liberal Democrats cannot make up their minds on the matter—say that recognition should be decided by a majority of those eligible to vote, rather than by a simple majority of 50 per cent. plus one of those voting. They think that abstentions should have the same effect as votes against recognition—so that a 70 per cent. yes vote on a 70 per cent. ballot turnout would result in a no vote. If that rule applied to the election of hon. Members, only 14 would have been elected at the general election. Furthermore, no Conservative or Liberal Democrat Members would have been elected. That ballot proposal is absolute nonsense.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that only about 25 per cent. of the private sector work force are in trade unions—most of which are in the larger companies? Does he agree also that, if trade unions are recognised after approval by only a majority of those voting, there will probably be a campaign of creeping unionisation in all Britain's modern industries that currently do not have unions? Does he want that to happen?
  Mr. Sutcliffe: There is nothing wrong with that suggestion—which is why 47 of Britain's top 50 companies
  48
  recognise unions. Contrary to the Opposition's suggestions, we are moving forwards and not backwards. Staff involved in trade unions will be able to act on behalf of other staff.
  A simple majority of those voting should suffice in determining union recognition. There were no trigger mechanisms in the Bills on devolution for Scotland and for Wales. If there is a dispute about "the relevant work force" between an employer and a union, a third agency—such as the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, or a similar body—will have to settle the dispute.
  The agency should also be independent, and should facilitate negotiations between employers and unions in agreeing the matter. If agreement cannot be reached, the agency would adjudicate on what comprises "the relevant work force". It would be wrong for either employers or unions alone to decide the bargaining unit.
  The CBI proposes an exemption for employers who employ fewer than 50 people. The fact is that 90 per cent. of all companies employ fewer than 50 people. If our manifesto commitment is to be implemented, the right must be given to everyone at work, and not exclude 8 million people.
  Employees in small firms need protection because of the stresses and strains of working in small business. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) suggested, most accidents and health and safety problems occur in small companies. Moreover, most industrial tribunal cases involve small companies. I therefore hope that we do not exclude small companies from the provisions.
  The vast majority of employers work well with their employees. However, a small but significant minority of employers bully and intimidate their staff. The Trades Union Congress recently ran a "bad boss hotline", which was swamped by 5,000 calls in only one week. We therefore have to be cognisant of what is happening in the real world.
  The CBI also wants unions to go through two more hoops—another two-hurdle test—which I think would not only be unworkable but invite unscrupulous employers to put pressure on union supporters in their companies.
  As the Minister said, the law's objective must be to create a new climate of industrial relations—and so honour Labour's manifesto commitment to improve employment rights and make stronger economic progress. He has attended many meetings of our Back-Bench committees, and knows the great support among Labour Members for a workable solution to recognition issues.
  How many times have we heard employers and human resource managers say that staff are the biggest asset of any company? Now is the time for them to prove it. Union recognition is not a matter of the Government doing trade unions' will, but of employees deciding that they want to join a trade union, which they want to be recognised. Enabling employees to make that decision should be the Government's objective.
  Union recognition legislation is not about redressing the wrongs of the past. We are dealing with a new situation in a new world. The global economy has increased competition, stress and pressure at the workplace. Inevitably, we will have to ensure that there is greater communication, involvement and understanding in the workplace. Fairness at work legislation will provide a sound foundation for employment policies to take us into the 21st century. It will also be another manifesto commitment that has been honoured.

  49
  It is right to consult on the matter. However, if agreement cannot be reached, Ministers will have the support of the majority of the parliamentary Labour party in doing what is right, in reaching a simple, effective and workable solution. Recognition is not about revenge for spiteful past acts, or for the previous Government's sequestration of union funds. It is also not about seeking favours from a Labour Government, who were elected with trade union support. It is about establishing a modern working environment.
  A modem democracy should not set hurdles for some that it does not require others to go through, but should establish a framework that balances the needs of employers and employees. I hope that the Government will succeed in gaining the confidence of Britain's workers—a confidence that was so badly shaken, and lost, by the previous Government.
  As John Smith said, if trade unions did not exist, they would have to be invented. Ministers are right to try to facilitate consultation, but Britain will be able to achieve its objectives only if we have conciliation in the workplace. If we cannot reach an agreement on union recognition, the Government will have to set minimum standards to stop workers being exploited.
  I am prepared to wait for the White Paper, which I hope will be published in the not too distant future. The Government are getting it right, and they have the support of the vast majority of the PLP.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am very sorry to interrupt the debate, but I should like to raise an issue that relates not to registration or declaration but to advocacy.
  You will be well aware of the rules that have been developed after the Nolan recommendations and the reports of the Standards and Privileges Select Committee. Motion No. 1 on today's Order Paper—on trade union recognition—lists the names of Mr. William Hague, Mr. Peter Lilley, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Mr. John Redwood, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory and Mr. James Arbuthnot. The motion also mentions the issue of recognition, and the need in a ballot for support of 50 per cent. of workplace members.
  Under the rules of the House, as I understand them, the matter of advocacy may arise when an hon. Member who has placed his or her name on a motion on recognition might speak on that issue in the Chamber. The hon. Member will clearly be advocating on the issue. We have already heard one speech from the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), which may well be the subject of a complaint. I do not know whether there will be a complaint, but understand that some hon. Members are already discussing those matters.
  I wonder whether you will rule that any hon. Member who has an interest in recognition should consider whether it is right for them to advocate in the matter in this debate if his or her name is on the motion. That basically means that the five other Conservative Members who can speak in this debate—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have the gist of the hon. Gentleman's point of order. These are matters for individual Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours indicated dissent.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked me to give a ruling, and I am giving him one.
  50
  He may not like it, but I am giving it. These are matters for the individual Member of Parliament. Each individual Member knows how to conduct himself or herself. If there is a complaint from any hon. Member, it can be taken up with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take his seat when I am standing. He is eating into the time of a short debate. In fairness to other hon. Members who are waiting to speak, he must give due regard to them.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it another point of order?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will you then make it clear to the rest of those who are named on the motion simply that they should take advice before they advocate in this Chamber on these matters this evening? That is a matter that rests with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I know what rests with me. Let me repeat: each hon. Member knows how to conduct himself or herself. I have no need to give anyone advice at this stage. They know the rules, and they know how to conduct their affairs.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. David Chidgey: The Conservative Front-Bench team is right to table the motion to challenge the Government's policy on trade union recognition. I congratulate the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry on his frankness in saying that he was not going to tell us what his proposals are tonight—at least he did the House the courtesy of being honest about it—but he did say that it was a question of how recognition of trade unions will operate, not whether it will operate. That is the question: how will it operate? Sadly, we still wait for an answer.
  For far too long, the Government have been prevaricating over that policy, relying on vague promises and even vaguer definitions. To rely on the catch-all phrase
  . "Trade union recognition shall be a legal right where a majority of the relevant workforce votes in favour"
  is not enough. Relevant to what? Relevant to whom? The Government have had time to come to the House and to give us a better understanding of what their policy is.
  Having said that, I think that Conservative Members are wrong to simplify the case of trade union recognition, concentrating on the single issue of the percentage of workers voting in a particular electorate, however it might be defined. One of the things that industrial relations and negotiations over the past 30 years have shown clearly is that establishing trade union recognition is far more complex than that. Negotiations that have taken into account the character of a company, its management structure and the location and skills of the work force, have been the successful negotiations that have led to trade union recognition.

  51
  It is wrong also to suggest, as the motion does, that union recognition will occur only by virtue of compulsion—note the word "compulsory" on the Order Paper—through a majority vote. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, many of the United Kingdom's largest and most respected employers have willingly negotiated union recognition in the interests of good industrial relations and good business sense. All would obviously welcome that.
  The issue is the establishment of a legal right for an individual worker to be represented by a union, should he so wish—note "should he so wish"—a right to be used as the last resort where negotiation proves impossible.
  Mr. Michael Clapham: Is the hon. Gentleman making the point that, although industrial relations procedures have been agreed generally by voluntarism, if a formula is introduced for union recognition that is any different from 50 per cent. plus one, employers would totally unravel the conciliation and consultation procedures that operate in industry now?
  Mr. Chidgey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It was a telling one. I do not think that the issue is as simple as that, although I take his point. I am suffering from a cold, so my speech is not as clear as it would be, but perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will be tolerant of that. As my argument develops, perhaps I can show the hon. Gentleman how those points can and must be addressed by the Government.
  It is equally wrong to assume that the law does not need changing to provide individual rights for the individual worker. There are far too many examples of workers' wishes being frustrated by intransigent firms that refuse to recognise or, even worse, that derecognise established unions. I could mention some classic examples, although I am conscious that other hon. Members wish to contribute. I have to say just "Walkers Crisps" and I am sure that that will raise a few points of recognition among Labour Members. Even Railtrack has basically derecognised its white collar staff, despite the fact that some 92 per cent. of Railtrack's white collar workers wish to stay within the union negotiation machinery.
  The Government's amendment is a disappointment because it still fails to address the key issue. As has been pointed out, many of the initiatives they list are laudable and already attract all-party support. Certainly, the Liberal Democrats support the broad ideals of adopting a partnership approach to setting decent minimum standards in the workplace; how could any sensible person think otherwise?
  We agree that those ideals are essential for competitiveness and business success, but the key issue, which the Conservatives are right to raise, is the mechanism to be introduced to establish trade union recognition. The Government's amendment claims that they should be congratulated on being committed—I must quote this; it is important—
  "to fulfilling the Government's commitment to enable workers to enjoy union recognition where a majority of the relevant workforce vote in a ballot for the union to represent them."
  That is an awful lot of commitment to an undefined and non-specific formula. That lack of precision creates confusion and concern among unions and employers alike.
  52
  I take one example, which is close to my heart because it concerns a local haulier in my Eastleigh constituency. He runs a third-generation family business. He tells me that he employs some 20 drivers, of whom four belong to a union. Most of his drivers have been with him for many years. All are paid on the same pay scale, regardless of whether they belong to a union, as hon. Members might expect from a responsible employer.
  That employer knows his drivers very well; they are obviously friends and have worked together for many years. He estimates that, should there be a ballot on union recognition, no more than six or possibly eight of the 20 would bother to vote, such is their attitude to the issue. That illustrates the predicament of relying on a quick and simple ballot to decide on recognition.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The House is listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman's balanced speech. Does he agree that, from what we have heard from Labour Members, Ministers are willing to talk more openly behind the closed doors of Labour party meetings in this House than in the Chamber? Is that not the difficulty in trying to have this debate?
  Mr. Chidgey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but, as clearly the doors were closed, I cannot possibly comment on what might have been going on behind them.
  It is not good enough to hide behind, if not closed doors, then such phrases as
  "a majority of the relevant workforce".
  The Government know that that is just a smokescreen for masking what is clearly the complex and potentially divisive issues surrounding union recognition.
  It is not good enough, either, to offload the problem on to the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry and expect them to come up with a solution. Although they have done sterling work—they should be congratulated on that—just a cursory glance through the annual reports of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service over the past 20 or 30 years shows that expecting the TUC and the CBI to resolve the problem is not enough. Records of attempts in the 1970s to establish a strategy framework for union recognition through ACAS make it clear that both the TUC and CBI held and still hold totally intractable and different positions.
  I am sure that most hon. Members will have received—in fact, it is clear from the contributions so far in this debate that most Members have indeed received—extensive lobbying packages from both the TUC and the CBI, and they are using them according to their views. It is clear that neither the TUC nor the CBI has shifted its fundamental philosophical position on this issue for more than 30 years, so it is totally unrealistic for the Government to attempt to shift the burden of

  53
  responsibility for defining a consultative and democratic process for union recognition to those two parties, which have held diametrically opposed ideological standpoints.
  Mr. Woolas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Chidgey: Yes, but this will be the last time.
  Mr. Woolas: I listened with interest to the example that the hon. Gentleman gave. To my mind, it is a good example of precisely why the Government are correct to consult both sides of industry. If his starting point is that the two sides have irreconcilable positions, surely the Government are doing the responsible thing. Is not the hon. Gentleman falling into the trap laid by the Conservatives? The Conservatives have chosen to debate trade union recognition at exactly the time the Government are consulting. If Ministers were to lay down precisely how to achieve the commitment that they gave, would he not be complaining about the lack of consultation?
  Mr. Chidgey: The Government might be consulting the two sides of industry—the TUC and the CBI—but I am interested to know whether they are consulting both sides of the Labour party, let alone the rest of the House.
  For Members who believe that union recognition is simply a matter of deciding on a formula, reference to the annual report of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service for 1981 will prove enlightening. In that report, ACAS set out details of its experience of involvement in implementing trade union recognition under the statutory procedures of the Employment Protection Act 1975, with which many hon. Members will be very familiar for various reasons.
  ACAS examined some 1,600 cases involving recognition. It is worth noting that more than 80 per cent. were resolved voluntarily. ACAS found that the key issues included: the level of existing union membership—there were often several unions in the same workplace, each hoping to be the recognised union; what agreement there was for one, two or even more unions to be recognised and involved in the negotiating group; the grading of the work force and their skill base—whether they were blue or white collar; the location of the company—whether it was on multiple sites undertaking the same or different tasks, or undertaking a single task on a single site; and the structure of the company—whether it had a centralised personnel department or bargaining was site-specific.
  It is worth stressing that, to establish a case for union recognition, ACAS surveyed workers, asking, among other things, whether they were union members; whether they supported collective bargaining in general; and, if they supported representation by the applicant union, whether they would join that union or would prefer representation by another union. ACAS took account of all these factors when it came to its conclusions, but the one thing that it did not do was introduce a ballot to establish the case for recognition. In fact, it took the view that a ballot could be useful in applying a test for recognition but could rarely determine the issue by itself.
  In more than 90 per cent. of cases, ACAS received a response rate of more than 65 per cent. On looking more closely at those surveys with low response rates,
  54
  ACAS concluded that in half there was enough evidence to support recognition. However, in some cases, ACAS did not consider that majority support among respondents warranted recognition, thus showing how complex the issue can be.
  It is clear from the report that ACAS was scarred by the experience. Let us remember that ACAS is a tripartite organisation, comprising representatives from both sides of industry, from the CBI and the TUC, and independent representatives. Clearly, ACAS found that its involvement with the statutory process sat uncomfortably with its independent arbitration and conciliation role. It is not surprising that it reported that it was
  "extremely difficult to envisage a statutory procedure for compulsory trade union recognition which could operate smoothly."
  It is not surprising that, in a letter in 1981 to the then Secretary of State for Employment, the chairman of ACAS wrote:
  "The experiences of the last three years of operation of the statutory procedures have shown the difficulties of operating without criteria and the damaging effect on industrial relations which can result from the Court's interpretation of the statutes …The Council wishes me to advise you that in the light of the increasing difficulties which it is encountering it cannot satisfactorily operate the statutory recognition procedures as they stand".
  It is interesting to note that, when the Government were challenged on their position on union recognition during the general election campaign, it eventually emerged that they took the view that any disagreements about recognition would go initially to ACAS and then to a central arbitration committee which would in future be headed by a judge. ACAS has made it clear that it is not keen to undertake that role.
  ACAS clearly tended to favour a voluntary approach, which had been successful in 80 per cent. of cases referred to it, but that still leaves 20 per cent. of cases unresolved. It is to deal with that 20 per cent. that the Government must come up with firm, precise proposals on how they intend to ensure that the individual wishes of workers are not frustrated.
  We believe that the rights of individual workers should be protected. Workers should be able to exercise their wish to join or not to join a union. I can understand the Government's difficulties—
  Mr. Eric Clarke rose—
  Mr. Chidgey: No, I must continue.
  Clearly, positions are entrenched, and people will not budge. There is a record of increasing difficulty in operating statutory recognition procedures. The Government claim that they believe in consultation and in a partnership approach, so let them bring their proposals to Parliament, and let the House consider, deliberate and decide.
  5.25 pm
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I understand that I do not need to declare an interest but, for the benefit of the House, I am happy to declare that I am a member of the Transport and General Workers Union and of the National Union of Teachers.
  It is every worker's right to belong to a trade union. Trade unions were hounded and vilified by the previous Government. We had 18 years of constant, hysterical

  55
  attacks, and we heard this afternoon from the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) that the Conservatives' attitude to trade unions has not changed.
  In May last year, the Labour party won the election, and the manifesto on which all Labour Members fought that election was clear, certainly to me. The manifesto stated:
  "People should be free to join or not to join a trade union. Where they do decide to join and where a majority of the relevant work force vote in a ballot for the union to represent them, the union should be recognised."
  Regardless of the huge majority that we won, the Confederation of British Industry, in its arrogance, remains opposed to the principle of recognition. I am well aware of why the Opposition called this debate today, but it seems that not many Conservatives are interested in attending.
  It is right that the Government now keep their manifesto commitment on union recognition, which is the cornerstone of protection for workers in employment. There must be no compromises. Why? First, it is a basic civil right for people at work to be represented by a union if they so choose. Union recognition is simply the right to be heard. Secondly, there are many cases of exploitation in employment across Britain, with many examples in my own northern region. I appreciate that many companies treat their staff very well, and some treat them reasonably well, but there are shocking examples of exploitation which have been highlighted by the Trades Union Congress's bad bosses hotline which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) mentioned.
  Thirdly, most workers, given the opportunity, would choose to be represented by a union. A TUC-commissioned national opinion poll revealed that 77 per cent. of people make this choice. In such circumstances, employers should be required by law to negotiate with a trade union. I sincerely hope that the rumours are untrue that the Government are backtracking on their commitments after intensive lobbying by the CBI, which has expounded one myth after another.
  Myth No. 1 is that unions hold back business. As we have heard this afternoon, most of Britain's top companies recognise unions; 44 of the top 50 FTSE companies recognise unions; 42 of the 45 companies that employ more than 25,000 workers recognise unions; Britain's biggest employer is also the most heavily unionised of the large supermarket traders.
  Myth No. 2 from the CBI is that negotiations should be left to voluntary arrangements. Unions prefer to negotiate with employers on a voluntary basis, but why should the management veto the democratic rights of a work force? The introduction of a law will encourage the voluntary resolution of recognition claims. Other laws already require employers to consult and deal with their work force on various issues, most notably on health and safety. That rarely causes a problem.
  Myth No. 3 is that union recognition will encourage more industrial action and strikes. That is not true. If an employer refuses to deal with or recognise a union, the only remedy open to the work force is industrial action. A statutory procedure will make it more likely that such disputes can be resolved without industrial action.
  56
  I do not have enough time to go into every detail of the CBI's attempts to frustrate trade union recognition, but I shall concentrate on a few of the worst examples.
  Mr. Bercow: Go on. Go for it.
  Mr. Steinberg: I do not want any comments from the hon. Gentleman, who has a big mouth and should learn to keep it shut occasionally.
  The CBI wants abstentions in a recognition ballot to count as votes against. It argues that a majority of those eligible to vote, not of those who cast a vote, must be achieved. The CBI opposed proposals for that requirement in strike ballots, but that is not surprising. There is no justification for having different rules for trade union recognition ballots from those that apply to other ballots, including the election of Members of Parliament. A simple majority of 50 per cent. plus one of those who vote should lead to automatic recognition. Requiring a majority of those entitled to vote would be a recipe for industrial unrest.
  If the principle that the CBI is in favour of had applied to the recent general election, a large majority of Labour Ministers and Back Benchers would not have been elected. On 1 May, I received 31,102 votes. My nearest rival, the Conservative candidate, got 8,598 votes. My majority was 22,504.
  Mr. Bercow: That was in spite of you.
  Mr. Steinberg: I have told the hon. Gentleman what I think of him.
  The electorate of the City of Durham was 69,417. I would not have been elected under the CBI's destructive proposals. It is a fair bet that no Conservative Members would have been elected, either. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), who has obviously done some research, substantiated that this afternoon, so I think that I would win my bet. However, looking at some Conservative Members, I am beginning to change my mind. Perhaps it would not be such a bad idea to have that system in the House of Commons.
  The proposal is nonsense. A ballot cannot be conducted in that way. Requiring a majority of those entitled to vote would be a recipe for industrial unrest. Workers will accept the result of a fairly conducted ballot under well-understood principles. The CBI's proposals would rig the outcome in advance. They cannot be accepted.
  Those on the Labour Front Bench were scathing about the idea when we were in opposition. In November 1996, my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said:
  "What justification has the right hon. Gentleman for the changes he proposes to make in the balloting rules and procedures to deny people a simple majority? Is it not a fact that, on 1 November, on the Radio 4 'Today' programme, he said that he had got the proposal from his local golf club rules? Frankly, that is an insult to everyone engaged in industrial relations."—[0fficial Report, 19 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 846.]
  That argument promoted by the Opposition Front Bench in 1996 when a Tory Government were in office is equally valid today with a Labour Government in office.
  Another area of disagreement is the CBI's insistence on a minimum threshold under which small businesses would be exempt from recognition procedures. Half of

  57
  Britain's work force is employed in enterprises with fewer than 100 employees. The CBI wants to disfranchise 50 per cent. of this country's work force, excluding them from the protection of legislation on recognition. That is unacceptable.
  The last threat to trade union recognition that I want to mention is the definition of the bargaining unit. That is crucial to the operation of a statutory recognition procedure. The CBI wants the employer to have the sole right to define the extent or limitation of the bargaining unit. That would enable an employer to exclude particular sections of the work force—for example, by separating white collar from blue collar workers—or to define the bargaining unit as the whole company when a trade union is seeking recognition for a specific section. Unscrupulous employers would change the definition to suit their circumstances. The union should have an equal right to define the group of workers it seeks to represent. If that cannot be resolved by negotiation or conciliation, an independent representation agency should rule. The employer should have no veto.
  Our approach to fairness at work is underpinned by three fundamental principles. Access to justice should not depend on the number of people employed at a workplace or the type of work that is undertaken. It should also not depend on hours of work or length of service. The principles should apply to all employees at all workplaces.
  The first principle is the right to representation. Everyone at work should have a basic right to representation in their dealings with their employer. That is a democratic right for every citizen, which should be enshrined in legislation.
  The second principle is the right to recognition for collective bargaining purposes. Trade union recognition should be automatic when a majority is in favour. If the issue has to go to ballot, those voting should demonstrate the majority. There should be no exceptions to the collective bargaining agenda. Trade unions and employers should be free to discuss and negotiate on the whole range of issues that apply to the work force. Trade unions and employers must be involved in a partnership to raise the training and skill levels of the work force.
  The third principle is the right to consultation. All workers must have the right to be consulted on matters that affect their working lives, including pay, working conditions and their future job security. If the CBI's gerrymandering is accepted, the law will be so weak that it will no longer be in line with the manifesto on which I fought the general election. There must be no compromise.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: I declare that I have no pecuniary interest in the debate, but I have an interest in good industrial relations, good working conditions for all employees and employers and the prosperity of this country, furthered by good industrial and business conditions. That is what the debate is about.
  The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) was uncharacteristically discourteous to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). He was also a little off message. He may have to tune in his bleeper later and discuss that with the Whip.
  Mr. Steinberg: I do not have a bleeper.
  Mr. Robathan: In that case, the hon. Gentleman is definitely off message. However, he is not normally as rude as he was to my hon. Friend.
  58
  The hon. Gentleman spoke about myths. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) spoke about the realities of trade union membership. The Minister of State, who, sadly, is not in his place, spoke about progress and said that we must not go back in time. We need to go back a little way and think about the past. Experience of the past colours our view. I fear that we may be going back to the bad old days if we are not careful.
  Among some Labour Members there is a romantic notion that trade unions exist to protect the rights of very downtrodden workers from the wrongs of evil Victorian mill owners and the like. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."' I hear the unreconstructed voice of old Labour responding. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) spoke about trade union history. I accept that trade unions have done much good. Improvements in working conditions and pay owe much to their work.
  At the same time, however, I have seen many who have regarded union power as almost an end in itself—indeed, a route to political authority. My youth was characterised by such marvellous people as Jack Dash. I recall him well, and how he almost single-handedly whipped up London dockers and destroyed the London docks. I recall Red Robbo, as will Labour Members who were in the House in the 1970s. He did lasting damage to the British car industry. At that time, trade union leaders were in No. 10 Downing street, where it was beer and sandwiches all round. I realise that it will be Chianti and Tuscan wine in future. My right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) referred to the White Paper "In Place of Strife". I remember Barbara Castle's dashed optimism on that.
  The past winter has been the first that the country has had to endure under a Labour Government for 19 years. I remember the winter of discontent 19 years ago. The Labour Government under Lord Callaghan, as he now is, went into that winter ahead in the opinion polls, but came out of it to find that the country had at last seen sense. The electorate voted in a Conservative Government because of the chaos of that winter. I give Labour Members due warning that, after the chaos of this Labour Government, the people will be electing another Conservative Government.
  Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend is giving us a fascinating history lesson. Does he recall that "In Place of Strife" was destroyed by a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, who undermined his Prime Minister by putting first his own links with the trade unions? Does he recall that that Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer subsequently became Labour Prime Minister? Might not history repeat itself?
  Mr. Robathan: I must stay in order, so I beware of following too closely my hon. Friend's argument, except to say that I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been making various comments to various union leaders, which have been well reported in the press. Perhaps we shall hear from Government Front Benchers about that matter—although I doubt it.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend has provided the House with some learned reflections on memorable trade union figures of this century. I am sure that he would not want his speech to pass without giving Labour Members the benefit of his confirmation that one of the people

  59
  who made the greatest contribution in the 20th century to British trade unions was none other than our noble Friend Lord Tebbit of Chingford.
  Mr. Robathan: I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that Lady Thatcher did so, too.
  Since the winter of discontent, after 18 years of Conservative government, we have remarkable industrial relations. Indeed, they are the envy of the rest of Europe. We consistently have the lowest number of days lost to strikes—certainly in my memory. Does anybody in the House remember the English disease? That has been cured. We remember the closed shop, which has effectively been destroyed.
  As a result of that excellent record of industrial relations, we have outstanding inward investment, which is praised by Labour Members. They must ask themselves why companies want to invest in this country. [Interruption.] They say that inward investment is declining; it is perfectly evident that that is because of what happened on 1 May. We have a profitable industry—profitable for employees as well as for those awful Victorian mill owners. The interests of employees are best served by prosperous companies and good industrial relations, not necessarily by trade union bosses.
  Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman talks about Victorian mill owners. Will he comment on an employer in Liverpool who pays his staff £2.97 for a 12-hour week? The staff have had no pay rise for six years, and their employer charges them 12p each for a tea-bag. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that is good industrial relations?
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Lady raises a case of which I have no knowledge. Nobody in the House would defend bad employer practices. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are."] On the contrary. Nobody defends Victorian mill owners whipping their employees into work. We Conservatives are saying that employees are better off than ever before because of the industrial relations packages that we implemented.
  The Government have a manifesto commitment on statutory trade union recognition after a ballot. How many people should have to take part in such a ballot? The hon. Member for City of Durham believes that the majority should be 50 per cent. plus one of those who vote. He must get that bleeper soon. The hon. Member for Bradford, South also said that he believed that. He might like to check his bleeper later.
  Now that Labour is in government, we need to know what it is saying about trade union recognition. I asked the Minister of State, but he had nothing to say. The Labour manifesto states:
  "where a majority of the relevant workforce vote in a ballot for the union to represent them, the union should be recognised."
  Surely we must be told what that means. We do not need the Prime Minister to consult on it. Of course unions and employers have different views. I am delighted that the Prime Minister appears to be taking the CBI's
  60
  position—but will it hold under pressure from his Back Benchers? That is what we would like the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry to answer.
  Mr. Boswell: Has my hon. Friend noticed, as I have, that the Minister of State clearly prefers the company of his officials to that of his Back Benchers who have been contributing to the debate?
  Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the Minister's officials are excellent company, although I would have hoped that he found the company of his Back Benchers congenial, too.
  Following the election, before which the unions gave the Labour party such sterling service and support—much of it reflected in the Register of Members' Interests—the unions want their pound of flesh. In this case, that is statutory union recognition. Although the CBI is not always right, it is on this occasion. Good employee relations are not best served by statutory union recognition. Nobody approves of bad employers, but such recognition would not further good employee relations.
  Mr. David Watts: If the hon. Gentleman is so opposed to bad employers, why, following the past 18 years, are there still employers in my constituency and others who pay £1.20 an hour? If Conservatives are so concerned about employee rights, why did not the Conservative Government take action on the matter?
  Mr. Robathan: If the hon. Gentleman would like a long debate on the minimum wage, I should be very happy to participate. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) may go into that in his own speech. I am not defending one bad employer; I am defending good industrial relations after 18 years of Conservative government. Why did we have the winter of discontent after four or five years of a Labour Government if Labour's practices were so good?
  What is the new Government's real position? They raise in their amendment what is likely to be their real position—although it is clouded by other things. They talk about the minimum wage and the social chapter. When unemployment increases following the introduction of the minimum wage and the social chapter, I look forward to hearing Ministers explain why that has happened.
  I urge the House to support the motion. We have prosperous industry, good industrial relations and a well-off work force. Those have been created by not having the form of legislation proposed by the Government. Let us remember the picketing and secondary picketing. Some Labour Members may have been at Grunwick in the 1970s, which I recall, or the Orgreave coking station. Some may have been at Wapping. One wonders whether any Labour Member defended Rupert Murdoch's actions at Wapping, and whether any would now criticise him. I should like to hear Labour Members criticise Rupert Murdoch in later speeches.
  I remember the three-day week, under a Conservative Government, but I remember more than anything the winter of discontent, which has coloured industrial relations since 1979. The new Government have learnt nothing from the past 19 years. They hear threats from

  61
  Bill Morris, who says that there is no scope for compromise. He says that statutory trade union recognition
  "is a defining issue for trade unionists. There is no room for compromise. The Government will not be able to fulfil its commitment to fairness at work by legislation for bad employers, which is what a compromise would mean."
  We know what the trade unions believe, but not what the Government believe. It is fair that we should know. The Government find themselves impaled on a fork—they do not know which way to go.
  I paid a visit recently to a business in my constituency which is the third largest private employer in Leicestershire. I asked employees about their pay and conditions, which they all said were marvellous. Furthermore, each employee has private health insurance—one might say that they should not need it—from the employer, who pays higher wages than his competitors and is more profitable. That is an example to employers and employees. I further believe that good practices by employers lead to profitable businesses, happy employees and no strikes. That is what we are working for, and it is not what recognition will bring.
  Share rights for employees have been mentioned in the debate. Asda—of which my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) has been a distinguished chairman—offers every employee share rights. That is the way forward—that is progress. The Minister's proposals are going backwards to the ideologically bankrupt bad old days. He also mentioned falling membership of trade unions. Are the proposals designed purely to bolster that falling membership? I fear that they might be. We have good industrial relations, good working companies and improving pay for employees. We do not need further statutory union recognition and bad industrial legislation.
  5.52 pm
  Ann Keen: I wish to declare an interest to the House. I am proud to be a member of the GMB, and I am secretary of the GMB group in Parliament. I am privileged to be the vice-chair of the trade union group in Parliament.
  In the short time that the Government have been in power, they have made great steps forward to modernise and support industrial relations and social partnership within the world of work. They have produced a significant—indeed, historic—Bill to introduce a national minimum wage, on which trade unions and employers have campaigned for many years.
  After the general election in May last year, the Prime Minister asked the TUC and the CBI to "narrow the gap" on trade union recognition. Key areas have been discussed with both parties, and great progress has been made. The expected White Paper, "Fairness at Work", will bring about much-needed legislation to bring Britain's business and workers into a modern, thriving economy.
  Sadly, far too many employers do not realise voluntarily that a change of Government means a change of attitude at work. Such a change of attitude is expected. Most employers treat their staff fairly, but too many take advantage of the lack of legal protection to exploit and bully their staff. Without the support of a union, people are often unable to enforce their legal rights.
  I should like to say a few words about a dispute that is taking place in west London, affecting the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, Southall
  62
  (Mr. Khabra) and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), who is in his place. Most of the workers at the company, Noon Products, are part of the west London Punjabi community that extends into my own constituency of Brentford and Isleworth.
  Noon Products provides chilled and frozen ready-made Indian meals for supermarkets, including Sainsbury, Waitrose and Somerfield. Almost all the production workers at Noon Products approached the GMB and voluntarily joined within a three-week period during October 1997. They wanted the GMB to help resolve the many grievances that they had with the company—for example, low pay, excessive hours, favouritism and an unequal pay structure.
  The GMB has continually asked to meet with the company to discuss the grievances, and union rights and recognition. Noon Products continually refuses to meet the GMB, or to acknowledge that more than 80 per cent. of the work force—250 workers—are GMB members. The company has tried to victimise a GMB steward, Rana Hussain, and the pressurise members to leave the union continues. The company has appointed a new senior supervisor to pursue that objective.
  More than 15,000 people in one week signed a petition to protest at the way in which the community and the work force at a local company were being treated. Along with my hon. Friends the Members for Southall and for Hayes and Harlington, I am pursuing the matter, and the petition has been taken to Downing street. The GMB has called upon the company to invite an independent body to ballot the workers on union recognition, and has suggested that the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service or the Electoral Reform Society be involved. The company has stated that it will abide by any industrial relations proposals only when they are made law.
  Many of the work force are, of course, women, and women at work today continue to have a rougher deal than their male colleagues. There is still a pay gap.
  Mr. Dismore: As a fellow member of the GMB, could I refer to the problem of recognition—particularly affecting women workers—in the casino industry, where the GMB has been waging a campaign on recognition? A dispute with Napoleon's casino—where 60 per cent. of the work force are GMB members—has been going on for eight months. The owner, David Allan, and the manager, Kevin Hapley, have been campaigning against union recognition. Through the GMB, there have been two applications to industrial tribunals on trade union victimisation. Is not that another example of bad employers trying to defeat the will of the work force, because there is no law to protect them?
  Ann Keen: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. It is obvious that there is still much to do, and trade union recognition is the only way forward.
  There is still a glass ceiling for women in many organisations. Too few employers operate family-friendly employment practices that make equal opportunities policies a reality. Without trade unions, life at work for many women would be much worse.
  Women make up half the work force. Many work in small businesses or on a casual homeworker or other flexible basis, where they are extremely vulnerable to unscrupulous employers or managers. As has been stated,

  63
  in 1997—towards the end of this century—the TUC felt it necessary to set up a bad bosses hotline. That revealed a catalogue of exploitation, bullying, low pay, long hours and job insecurity. More women than men who worked for firms employing fewer than 50 staff made calls to the hotline.
  The hotline revealed care homes, which are a main employer of women, as one of the three worst industries. More than 500,000 people work in care homes, and 86 per cent. of them are women. I shall give an example from the hotline.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Ann Keen: I will not give way.
  One worker had just had a pay rise—to £2.86 an hour. For that payment, round-the-clock shifts were expected, with no sick pay, pension or holiday entitlements.
  Another example of non-union recognition is the cross-channel ferry industry. Alcohol is big business on cross-channel transport, with staff expected to take the consequences when passengers become drunk and abusive. One of the women who contacted the TUC's hotline worked as a steward for a catering company on a cross-channel ferry—a company that does not recognise trade unions. She and her colleagues regularly have to put up with harassment from drunk passengers, yet, while airlines refuse to serve alcohol to passengers who are drunk, that company tells its staff to continue to serve and sell alcohol even though they may feel unsafe.
  Trade unions have changed a great deal in recent years. Partnerships rather than adversity now dominate industrial relations. Unions have changed how they work and how they campaign. Through campaigning and negotiation with employers, unions have promoted working conditions that help members to balance work and family responsibilities, which is so important in all families, but particularly so when lone parents are at work. Union recognition is good business practice. Macho, top-down management is long past its sell-by date. Organisations that treat staff as partners succeed, and manage change with the best benefit.
  A recent poll of human resource managers in the top companies found that they were relaxed about trade union recognition.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Ann Keen: I am sorry, but I am short of time and cannot give way.
  Such managers value the opportunity that trade unions bring for good communication; they recognise that it is an effective way in which to deliver loyalty and commitment, and that it is good for business.
  Finally, I want the House to recognise the work that has been done at national and European level by the good partnership that the TUC and the CBI have established. They have worked effectively together to draw up policies and directives to benefit women and men at work. Many new opportunities are opening up in the new world of work.
  64
  The new deal for young people had its national launch today. Welfare to work and the much-needed modernisation of the welfare state are encouraging more people to take up work, but some of them are very vulnerable. To help everyone to succeed with new work, we also need new unionism. We have that new unionism. It is emerging at the end of the 20th century, as unionism did in the 19th century, to take up those new challenges.
  I hope that the House will take seriously its business as regards the economy as well as the way in which it represents constituents, many of whom we hope are at work. The TUC and the CBI should be given the best wishes of the House for good and progressive debate, as should our Government, to deliver a modern trade union partnership with industry that will advance fairness and justice for Britain's workers and the business community. As we have said, we may not be the biggest country in the world—we certainly are not the biggest in the world of work—but we could be the fairest, which would make us the best.
  6.6 pm
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I wish to be brief, because I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) an opportunity to speak, as I know he is keen to do so.
  During the debate, we have had a fair number of trips down memory lane, with repeated incantations about 18 years of Conservative rule. I wish that I had £5 for every time Labour Members referred to those 18 years. They think that it is some sort of insult to the Conservative party, but, by referring to that long period in which Conservative Governments were elected, re-elected and re-elected again, they are insulting the judgment of the British people who, time and again, saw fit to re-elect Conservative Governments and reject Labour, often because of its espousal of the very policies that the proposed Government measure would reintroduce into industrial relations.
  We have heard derogatory references to "the enemy within", as an expression used by Margaret Thatcher. I remember when she used that expression and the circumstances in trade union affairs about which she used it. I remember the events in the Civil and Public Services Association, which was infiltrated by the same Militant Tendency—or Revolutionary Socialist League as it really was—that it took Labour so long to gear itself up to expel from its ranks. I remember when Kate Losinska, a genuine trade unionist, was attacked, beaten and tripped downstairs by the enemy within.
  Yes, the Militant Tendency was the enemy within the CPSA, and my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher was right to use that expression. She was right to use it not only about the termites burrowing in from the Fourth International, but about the National Union of Mineworkers and Mr. Scargill and his sponsors—
  Mr. Clapham: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the enormous contribution that those who worked in the mines made during the first and second world wars? Does he realise that, before the first world war, there were more than 1 million miners and that enormous sacrifices were made in mining communities? Is he slighting that contribution?
  Dr. Lewis: On the contrary: it was Mr. Scargill who slighted those brave miners when, time and again, during

  65
  those arguments he refused to give them a ballot on whether they should be conducting an industrial dispute. Mr. Scargill would not give his members the right to a ballot while he used them to pursue his political objectives rather than look after their interests. His campaign was funded by foreign communist regimes, which openly collected huge sums of money—there was no voluntarism about contributing for Soviet trade union members, believe me—to help him undermine British industrial relations while the people of those regimes were being incarcerated for political offences.
  I also remember how a change came about, so I shall move on to the more positive aspects. The introduction of compulsory secret postal ballots was the reason for that change. The measures were partly introduced in the Trade Union Act 1984 and completed in the Employment Act 1988.
  I pay particular tribute to the late Lord Wyatt of Weeford, whose memorial service I had the privilege to attend last week, for his fantastic work to expose communist manipulation in the Electrical Trade Union and to highlight the shortcomings in the Thatcher Government's plan—which did not include making secret postal ballots compulsory until he drew those shortcomings to their attention and the measures were drawn into the legislation. I hope that the Minister will reply to this point, even if it is the only point to which he replies, as even if the Government cannot—
  Mr. John McDonnell: My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) referred to a dispute in which a number of my constituents are engaged. It is important that we use the House for constructive debate and, if we can, to give constructive assistance in that dispute, which concerns 80 per cent. of a work force who have joined the GMB and request that their employer assists them in organising a ballot to ensure that, as a result, the employer recognises the union.
  Will the hon. Gentleman join me in uniting the House to call on the employer to recognise the trade union that now represents 80 per cent. of the work force and, in so doing, assist in the resolution of the dispute?
  Dr. Lewis: The issue relates to the point that I was making, so the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I will not pronounce on that dispute without more information; but we may reach agreement on the following point. Does he agree—and, with due respect, more important, does the Minister agree—that, whatever threshold the Government finally decide on for their legislation—whether it be 50 per cent. of those voting or of those entitled to vote, or some other percentage of either—they should undertake today that the votes will be in a tamper-proof, secret, postal ballot?
  The 1984 and 1988 legislation, to which I alluded, greatly improved the trade union leadership's representativeness of its members because of the introduction of the secret postal ballot, which stopped ballot rigging and led, for example, in the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union to the replacement of a Stalinist such as Ken Gill on retirement by a moderate such as Roger Lyons.
  Mr. Harold Best: I want to deal with the facts. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the
  66
  Electrical Trades Union, of which I was a member. The villainy inside the ranks of that union was exposed not by Lord Wyatt, but by people such as myself—rank and file shop stewards. In 1962, I was elected branch secretary in Leeds as an anti-communist. It is important that the distortions that Conservative Members continue to pour out are put straight. You need to be corrected on another element—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No one needs to correct me on the history of the electrical trade unions.
  Mr. Best: I wanted to say that the virtues of the postal ballot are not all that the hon. Gentleman claimed. Postal ballots can be manipulated, and I was a victim of such manipulation—1,800 ballot papers ended up at the address of one employer, so that the members of the trade union could vote in the comfort of the employer's offices.
  Dr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. With all due respect to his no doubt heroic part in rescuing the ETU, I say that, if we are to give plaudits, we should do so to people such as the late Sir Leslie Cannon, who led that fight. There is no reason to deny the crucial role played by Woodrow Wyatt, whose investigations as a "Panorama" reporter made it possible for people such as, I trust, the hon. Gentleman and, certainly, the late Sir Les Cannon to bring their campaign into the open and eventually to win their court case.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to say that postal ballots can be rigged. Much of the ballot rigging in the ETU occurred despite the postal vote, which is why I said that postal ballots must be tamper-proof and independent.
  Mr. McDonnell: The hon. Gentleman asked about the Noon workers; they have requested an independent ballot, in whatever form is acceptable to the majority and to the employer, on recognition. The dispute is one of the most bitter in west London—it is souring the whole community, and affects the most vulnerable section of that community. I ask the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members to urge the employer to resolve the dispute constructively, so that good community relations can be restored in the area.
  Dr. Lewis: I take those remarks in the spirit in which they were meant, and I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in urging constructive moves by both sides in any bitter dispute.
  Even if the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry cannot tell us today the Government's intentions on percentages—whether the percentage will be of all the work force or of all those voting—will she at least guarantee that any voting mechanism that is established will be tamper-proof, secret and by postal ballot?
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Michael Clapham: I understand that I need not declare my interests, but I shall. I am currently a member of two trade unions. Before I was a Member of Parliament, I was both regional and national officer of a trade union, and I have worked for trade unions for almost 18 years.
  We have heard much about trade unions from Conservative Members, and I certainly shall not go down the route suggested by the hon. Member for New Forest,

  67
  East (Dr. Lewis), who embarked on a union-bashing exercise and added nothing constructive to the debate. I tell him that two centuries of trade unionism in Britain have shown that trade unions are to the betterment of democracy—that argument is accepted by no less a person than Professor Galbraith, who regards trade unionism as a civilising influence. Implementation of trade union recognition will no doubt also be a civilising influence on the shop floor. Trade unions bring great benefits not only to their members, but, as has clearly been shown, to business. I shall expand on that point in a moment.
  If we compare the last quarter of this century with the third quarter, we can see that there have been enormous changes in the industrial scene, arising from the different sizes of industrial units and privatisation. Those changes are well documented, and, although I shall have to skirt over them, I want to put straight the hon. Members for New Forest, East and for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on the facts that they misconstrued.
  We know that there has been a fall in trade union membership in the past 25 years, but that was brought about not by the implementation of Mrs. Thatcher's trade union legislation between 1980 and 1990, but primarily by unemployment. If Conservative Members had done a little research, they would have come across the evidence given to the Select Committee on Employment—it reported in 1995, I think—which stated that the reason for the fall in trade union membership was the decimation of industry caused by the Conservative Government. Between 1979 and 1994, the proportion of people employed in manufacturing industry fell from 31 to 20 per cent. People were displaced not because of trade union legislation, but because of the Conservative Government's policies.
  Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman is being somewhat disingenuous. As I understand it, trade union membership has fallen since 1979 by approximately 6 million, yet unemployment never rose much above 3 million or, at worst, 3.5 million—it is currently under 2 million—so I do not see how he can link those figures. Does he agree that people do not want to be members of trade unions in the way they used to, because times have changed? People certainly do not want membership to be compulsory.
  Mr. Clapham: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, trade union membership is well above 6 million. I accept that there has been a considerable fall, but, as I said, that was caused by unemployment. He said that, under Mrs. Thatcher's Government, unemployment was 3 million. Because of the way in which unemployment was hidden at that time, the actual figure was well above 5 million. The hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do.
  There is no evidence to suggest that individualism has taken over from organisation in trade unions. From 1987, 40 per cent. of the factories that derecognised trade unions did not put in place any alternative mechanism for communicating with the workers, who have been made that much worse off.
  The Tory Government's attitude resulted in companies derecognising. The evidence shows clearly that that created bad management. Workplaces were managed in a way that had a detrimental impact on the economy and was unhelpful to the people on the shop floor.
  68
  Bad management leads to bad health and safety; the figures show that 1.6 million people are injured in industry each year. It is estimated that 2 million people are exposed to conditions that make their health worse. The cost is enormous: about 30 million working days a year are lost through poor health and safety, and the cost to the economy is estimated to be between £15 billion and £18 billion.
  One of the major benefits of recognition will be the extension of the appointment of safety representatives under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. Hon. Members may be aware that there is a statutory obligation on the employer, where there is a recognised trade union, to set up a safety committee, through which the safety representative can work to ensure that the workplace is made much safer.
  Hon. Members have referred to the jobs situation in their various constituencies. Across the Barnsley borough, which contains three constituencies, we need 19,000 jobs merely to bring employment up to the national average. That is because of the massive colliery closure programme that was imposed on the area with no thought whatever for the future.
  The local authority, with help from the Labour Government, is working hard to overcome the enormous obstacles that we have to face in the local economy.
  Mr. John Hayes: I have no prejudice against trade unions: my grandfather was a shop steward and my father was a union member all his life. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Government's support for the coalfield communities. I am a former Nottinghamshire county councillor, and I know that the shire county rate support grant received by counties such as Nottingham was extremely poor. The money was channelled into urban areas, and not into coalfield communities.
  Mr. Clapham: I refer the hon. Gentleman to The Guardian this morning. He will note that the Government are prepared and determined to do something for the coal industry, which the previous Tory Government were not. He should take cognisance of reports in the press this morning.
  Because of the general depression in the local economy, wages in the Barnsley borough are only 50 per cent. of the national average. When I met some young people recently, a young woman told me that she was working at a Barnsley factory for £2.80 an hour; that she was forced to work a 12-hour day, because if she refused to work beyond eight hours she would lose her job; that she was not paid overtime; and that, when her first eight hours finished, she was bussed to another factory to complete the latter part of the 12-hour shift.
  From what Conservative Members have said, I take it that they would be in favour of such a system and of wages of £2.80 an hour. The situation needs to be remedied, and that will happen only if unions are recognised and can negotiate the best possible wages and conditions for those on the shop floor. In such negotiations, they can move the employer on to partnership by consent. Partnership is better for everyone.

  69
  The evidence from my constituency shows clearly that 18 years of Toryism returned us to the Victorian age. The Government are determined to move us on, and trade union recognition is one way of returning empowerment and giving people a greater say, so that they can work in better conditions.
  The 15 countries in the European Union all recognise trade unions in one way or another. The three Scandinavian countries—Sweden, Denmark and Finland—have had the kind of trade union recognition that we are discussing in situ for many years, and it is working well.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman has just conceded that he would like to return to a pre-1979 position. From 1979, there was a consistent reduction in the number of days lost through strikes, and, by 1996, almost 28 million working days were saved. Does he concede that compulsory union recognition, which he favours, will create a persistent and substantial increase in the number of days lost in British workplaces?
  Mr. Clapham: Had the hon. Gentleman been listening, he would have known that I was advocating not a return to pre-1979 but trade unionism in the modern age, which will give people the representation that they need to have a say in their workplace, leading to consent and partnership.
  There has been a long dialogue about the formula between the TUC and the CBI, but they have been unable to bridge the gulf. If the formula proposed by the CBI were accepted, it would lead to an industrial relations crisis. The only formula that would work safely is 50 per cent. plus one, which would result in trade unions being recognised in an orderly way.
  Mr. Collins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clapham: Not at this time, as I have not finished making the point. I want to explain why anything less than a 50 per cent. plus one formula would lead to crisis. The first time that the inevitable confrontation between employers and employees occurred, the employer would say that the conciliation and consultation procedures under which the trade union was prosecuting its claim no longer applied, because they had not been validated under the new rules. The result would be that employers would start to unravel the conciliation and consultation procedures. In some circumstances, it could lead to national, regional and local bargaining procedures being unravelled. That would be to the detriment not only of trade unions but of businesses.
  Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman puts a most sincere and eloquent case against the CBI position. May I take it that, if his Government embraced the CBI position, he would vote against them?
  Mr. Clapham: I believe that the TUC position is based on reason and fairness.
  Trade unions are as relevant today as they ever were, because workers are as vulnerable as they ever were. The way to deal with that vulnerability is through trade union recognition. The way to implement that is via the TUC formula.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Tim Boswell: This has been a revealing debate, opened by the honourable and socialist Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). In his characteristic way, after getting unsteadily into the air, he slipped the controls into auto-rant, and stayed there until he finished; so much so that, when he was asked the central question about whether the Government would adopt the position of the TUC or of the CBI, which are incompatible, he described it as a silly question. Some of his colleagues have definite views on it, but he could not answer it. If he has put his controls on autopilot, I hope that they do not fall foul of the millennium bug. It may be triggered well before the millennium, because even this Government will have to make a decision before then.
  We had solid, thoughtful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). They pointed out some of the historic record, and some of the constraints on this area of industrial relations. We had an interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) about the experience of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service in picking up the pieces after the last episode of statutory recognition of unions.
  We had some most revealing contributions from Labour Members. They may deny it if they wish, but the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) took the TUC's part, and the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) did so explicitly. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) leaned that way, and the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) was a bit that way inclined. Given the present state of the Labour party, I cannot help feeling that the situation is like that shown by the opinion poll once carried out in the staffroom of a well-known school. Twelve male teachers denied wearing long johns, three admitted it, and three did not know.
  If Labour Members were not mindful of the Speaker's views on audible pagers, the air would have been thick with wireless messages bringing them back on message. If we had the compression of time that is a characteristic of the theatre, and this was a play, it would be now that we got the final revelation: a pager message vibrating across the thighs of Labour Members saying, "Jump TUC" or "Jump CBI". Then we would know.
  This is a defining moment for the Government. Sources as varied as Peter Riddell of The Times and Bill Morris of the T and G have made that clear. As
  "a Minister who still hopes Blair will shift"
  is quoted as saying in the New Statesman:
  "It would be a defining moment that sent out ripples and echoes for a very long time in all sorts of unpredictable ways."
  In the preceding paragraph,
  "a union leader with impeccable new Labour credentials"
  is quoted as threatening:
  "We would go into internal opposition."
  Let me repeat in full Labour's election's pledge:
  "People should be free to join or not to join a union. Where they do decide to join, and where a majority of the relevant workforce vote in a ballot for the union to represent them, the union should be recognised. This promotes stable and orderly industrial relations. There will be full consultation on the most effective means of implementing this proposal."

  71
  It could hardly be clearer. It was clear to John Edmonds, Bill Morris and John Monks. However, last week, in reply to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the Prime Minister said that he was consulting not on the means of implementation but on the meaning of his pledge. He finds preaching easy but decision making distressing. We concede that consultation is a good idea, but we begin to doubt whether we can get from the Prime Minister the time of day or the day of the week without still more consultation and delay, and no doubt the employment of yet more expensive focus groups.
  Mr. Sutcliffe: On consultation, did the hon. Gentleman consult the CBI about this debate, and if so, what was its view on whether it would be helpful?
  Mr. Boswell: I took advice from a variety of sources on that matter. It would be useful for the House, which makes decisions on legislation, to be told the Government's position. The hon. Gentleman may be ahead of me, but we seek to find out the truth.
  The truth is that, if the Prime Minister ever found the time, or had the inclination, to come here, he would find staked out waiting for him, all wanting their pound of flesh, a group of Cabinet Ministers. Yesterday's newspapers reported it as including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade, who has not returned for the winding-up speeches; doubtless she hovers. It also includes the Secretaries of State for Health and for Culture, Media and Sport and, bless me, the Deputy Prime Minister.
  There is also a concatenation of the newer intake. I strain my eyes to see the hon. Members for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), who were all fingered in the Sunday newspapers. The hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) was here for most of the debate as a silent onlooker.
  The truth is that, in its manifesto, Labour tried, in this as in many other matters, to be all things to all people. It consciously adopted a studied form of ambiguity, but cannot sustain it, even if it means that it has to give up some of its new-found friends or its old ones. Labour likes preaching at us. It is full of new puritanism, but it must know that its sins will catch it out. The day of judgment is fast approaching.
  Meanwhile, No. 10 goes on with its ridiculous, unattributable waffle, trying to split the difference. A source close to the Prime Minister is reported as saying:
  "Both sides of industry will be disappointed. Neither will get what it wants. But it will be a new Labour solution, not an old Labour one."
  Conservative Members are not disposed to back any solution to Labour's little local difficulties. Our motion was tabled in the interests of finding out what Labour thought it meant, thus providing a service to freedom of information. We are, sadly, little wiser, but we know that, if it is forced to decide—and it will be—it has a clear choice between 100 years of Labour history or upsetting its new associates in the business community. More
  72
  likely, it will have to try to broker a sordid compromise, described so characteristically and aptly as a "new Labour solution".
  The House must remember that any compromise brings its own problems. As the TUC pointed out, in a work force of 100, if there is a minimum turnout requirement of 60 per cent. and a vote of 58 to one in favour, it will not count. If it is 31 to 29, it will. That is the situation that we will get into.
  Possibly in an effort to put us off our stroke, one or two hon. Members started to raise matters of interest, so I can disclose to the House that I am the employer of one employee. There is no specific exclusion in the Labour manifesto for single employees.
  I have not the faintest idea whether my employee is a member of a union, but those circumstances would provide a perfect opportunity for Labour's policy, because it would be possible to know whether one constituted a majority and whether the whole of the relevant work force was balloted on the matter. I mention that as an absurdity, because the view from the Conservative Benches is that it is far better not to go down that road at all.
  Let us not imagine that the practical problems end there. As the Engineering Employers Federation has indicated, for a start many people join a union for the specific purpose of getting insured. We are familiar with that from the teachers' unions, but there are other examples. Are those people, willy-nilly, to have their bargaining rights fully collectivised? Are they to find that they have, in effect, joined a closed shop without being asked? Would an individual be able to make his own contract with his employer, or would such a contract be nullified? Would employers be able to communicate with the work force outwith the collective bargaining process?
  There may also be difficulties where multiple unions are recognised, which would bear closely on the definition of the relevant work force. Different parts of an organisation might vote for different unions, and so take us back to the uncomfortable but familiar days of demarcation disputes and unnecessary industrial disputes. Who is to draw up the definition of the "relevant" part of the work force?
  A pledge that Labour tried to pretend was clear was in fact intended to be a masterpiece of ambiguity—I forget who it was who said that there were six different sorts of ambiguity, but no doubt one of my literary friends will remind me—and it is extremely difficult to implement.
  Mr. Robathan: I hate to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I do not know about the six sorts of ambiguity, although there is one specific sort of ambiguity about which I want to know. Does my hon. Friend believe that those who criticised Rupert Murdoch's behaviour at Wapping in the early 1980s will criticise such behaviour today, given that Rupert Murdoch is, metaphorically speaking, in bed with the Prime Minister and the Labour party?
  Mr. Boswell: The short answer to that is that it all depends on the pager message they receive.
  The Government amendment is particularly revealing, in that it makes it clear that they regard the matter as a sort of partnership agenda. There has been lots of touchy-feeliness and niceness emerging, which would not sit very well in the world of Jack Dash and Red Robbo.

  73
  However, Labour's idea of industrial partnership has about as much relevance to real industrial partnership as people's democracy had to its real equivalent—a forced partnership is no partnership at all.
  The CBI, in the shape of Adair Turner, has called for a real partnership. I would welcome that, just as I have no problem with the concept of trade union membership. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) may be interested in this point, because it may have been in the back of her mind when she spoke.
  Only this weekend, The Observer drew attention in a positive way to the health and safety record of certain companies where there was recognition, and there is probably some evidence of that sort of positive achievement. However, if it is in the real interests of employers to recognise unions, why do they not recognise them anyway? Why should employers be forced by law to recognise unions? When one brings law into all such areas, the danger is that it will merely reignite the industrial relations problems we had hoped were long behind us.
  Maria Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House who brought law into industrial relations in this country?
  Mr. Boswell: It was not, of course, a Conservative Government. The immunities go back to 1909, and the problem has always been to find the right balance.
  It is well known that the number of strikes today is less than 10 per cent. of the figure characteristic of the 1970s. ACAS has just published a good report on industrial relations for the year. However, the strains are already being felt: for example, last week we had irregular action in the postal service and the London Underground, and there was a walkout after a suspension at my local Ford plant. There is real pressure on certain industrial sectors, and it is vital that we do not throw away our competitive strengths. The danger is that the effect of the Government's policy will be to sling another rock at British industry, at a time when it can least afford it.
  The Labour manifesto spoke of
  "stable and orderly industrial relations."
  However, the danger is well set out by the director-general of the Institute of Personnel Development, who says:
  "This is a very good illustration of the sort of irreconcilable nonsense that arises from statutory trade union recognition. The obligation becomes a source of conflict in itself."
  Our motion probes the Government's intentions, because we fear that they will not deliver stability. We believe that their policies caricature industrial partnership and disturb a delicate industrial balance. At their heart is an ambiguity which the Government know exists, but they cannot go on for ever on the basis of, "Don't ask, don't tell." They will have to stand up and be counted, and Labour Back Benchers could make a contribution by joining us in the Lobby tonight.
  6.45 pm
  The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): This has been an interesting debate and a revealing one, because it has said a great deal about today's Conservative party. What it shows is the reason why they are still yesterday's Conservative party,
  74
  and will remain so. Although the debate has been interesting, it obviously has not been interesting enough to attract Conservative Members to the Chamber on their own Opposition day. At one point during the opening speeches, there were about 14 Opposition Members present. I know that the number of Conservative Members is small, but I had not realised that they were so small or so pathetic.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, the Government will produce proposals on union recognition in the first half of this year. Of course, important decisions are to be taken on the details of those proposals, and we are actively engaged in discussions on those issues with both the CBI and the TUC.
  There have been two strands to the debate: there are those hon. Members, especially on the Labour Benches, who wish to engage in a genuine debate about the future direction of policy, and we have heard thoughtful and valuable contributions on the balance to be struck between rights and responsibilities of employees and employees, and descriptions of modern business and modern trade unionism.
  In that strand, there is a common realisation that the existing balance—or, more precisely, the balance as at 1 May last year—is inadequate. It palpably fails to provide fairness; it fails to deliver a sense of security and mutual trust in the workplace; it also fails to encourage workers to see themselves as partners with employers in pursuit of common business objectives.
  That is what this subject is all about—building competitiveness, and an economy in which we can all share. We want to establish a new era of employment relations in this country. We want to break with the past, both from the time when workers and management were constantly at loggerheads, and from the more recent period when many workers have been denied decent standards at work. Our approach is truly a third way. It is designed to achieve flexibility with fairness, enhanced competitiveness with more security, and greater productivity through partnership.
  Mr. Lansley: In the absence of a formed Government policy on union recognition, and instead of waiting for a White Paper and talking to the CBI and the TUC, why do the Government not publish a Green Paper and have a wider consultation with industry more generally?
  Mrs. Roche: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I honestly fail to do so. In our manifesto, we said that we would consult. What sticks in the Conservatives' craw is that the Labour Government really do consult with industry—we consult with unions and with management. I remind Conservative Members that that is what we said in our manifesto we would do, it is what the British people elected us to do and it is what we shall do, and we shall not be diverted from it.
  Mr. Boswell: The hon. Lady was right to say that that was in the Labour party manifesto. Will she now tell the House, without consulting or conferring, what it means? We want a simple answer.
  Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not want consultation. Conservative Members like the old days—they like remembering divisions in industry. They cannot stand the fact that we have consulted the C131

  75
  and the TUC, which have got together to produce joint documents. It sticks in their craw. They will have to wait for the White Paper and until we have listened to what both sides have to say.
  Not for the first time, Conservative Members simply refuse to move with the times. They are in a state of denial. They cannot bear to think of the election result, or to adjust their thinking. They fail to grasp the fact that modern companies need to work in collaboration and partnership with their employees. Managing people by threat or diktat does not produce efficient or profitable business. The intervention and speech of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) are good examples of that.
  As my hon. Friends said time and again, our leading firms fully grasp that point. Unlike the Conservative party, most companies already recognise unions and value the importance of establishing constructive, collective relationships with their work forces.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) rightly referred to the recent NOP survey on behalf of the consultancy People in Business, which found that 67 per cent. of managers in top companies thought that good collective relationships were "important" or "very important" in implementing change at the workplace. That is an important message, but Conservative Members could not care less. They want to return to the past instead of looking to the future.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) said, we want partnership rather than an adversarial relationship. The TUC and the CBI are working together to achieve that. It is all about progressive businesses and modern companies with modern trade unions.
  Our task is to spread good practice beyond the leading companies, and we know that much remains to be done. We need to ensure that as many companies as possible take that message on board. If we believed Conservative Members, we would think that all was well in the best possible world, and that everything could continue as before. We would think that we had nothing to learn and did not need to progress. We reject that.
  Mr. Collins: The Minister says that the Government's task is to spread the word beyond the leading firms. Is she in favour of a minimum number of employees, above which recognition proposals would apply and below which they would not apply? If so, what would the number be?
  Mrs. Roche: Although the hon. Gentleman has been present throughout the debate, he clearly did not listen to the Minister of State's opening speech. We are listening and consulting, and we shall introduce our proposals in the White Paper in our time, not in the hon. Gentleman's.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Roche: I must make progress, but, as the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) is my pair, I always give way to her.
  Mrs. Theresa May: I, too, am conscious of the relationship between us, so I shall be careful what I say. The Minister referred again to consultation. When she stood on the Labour party manifesto in last year's election, what did she understand was the definition of "the majority of the work force"?
  Mrs. Roche: I appreciate the courtesy with which the hon. Lady has framed her question. I understood from the manifesto, on which my hon. Friends and I stood and on which we were successful, that we would carry out a consultation exercise and then make proposals—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may not like that. They cannot stand the fact that we are not only consulting but listening. They left us with a fractured legacy, and we shall ensure that we deal with it.
  It is asserted that workers do not need or want union recognition, but prefer to deal with their employers on an individual basis. We know that that is incorrect. According to the latest British social attitudes survey, 46 per cent. of workers feel that they should have more say at work, 62 per cent. think that management always try to get the better of employees, and 63 per cent. feel that they have little or no influence over decisions that directly affect their work. [Interruption.]
  Opposition Members think that that is amusing. They think that it is great for the state of British industry. It is fine for them to be complacent, but the Government want to change things, so that every worker feels involved in the company that he or she represents, and so that management and unions can progress together to help the productiveness of our economy.
  This afternoon, we heard speeches that took us back in time. The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) was the authentic voice of the Tory Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that my analysis is correct, and that the hon. Gentleman is isolated. if his really is the voice of the Tory party, this Government are in power for a very long time.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: The Minister thinks that I am going to respond to her facile remark, but I am not. I wish to raise a serious point. Will she answer the question posed repeatedly in my speech: can the Government guarantee that, whatever figures they finally light upon in terms of the number of people who must vote for recognition to be made mandatory, the vote will be conducted by a tamper-proof, secret postal ballot? Yes or no?
  Mrs. Roche: I should caution the hon. Gentleman to be a little more patient. I assure him that recognition ballots, like industrial action ballots, will be fairly conducted and subject to independent scrutiny. That has come about because of the joint work between the CBI and the TUC. Conservative Members may knock it, but we recognise that it is productive and extremely useful.
  Our proposals will reduce the scope for disputes over recognition. At present, unions have only two options if an employer refuses to recognise them: they can give in, or they can take industrial action. A statutory recognition procedure provides a potent alternative for both unions and employers to test the support for recognition, and to resolve disputes without industrial action.

  77
  I was a little disappointed by the speech of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), because he seemed to suggest that we were wrong to ask the TUC and the CBI to discuss those issues bilaterally. I thought that that was what the Liberal Democrats stood for, and that they were keen on industrial partnership. The Government believe in partnership, and want to deliver our policy in conjunction with all interested parties.
  The Government have listened closely to the views expressed in today's debate, and we shall reflect carefully on what has been said. The White Paper's aim is to present a package of measures that will guarantee decent minimum standards at work. The standards must be sensible, realistic and fair to both employees and employers.
  Our proposals on fairness therefore need to be clear, and as simple as possible to implement. We must end the situation in which employers can ignore the wishes of their work force by denying recognition, even though most of their employees clearly want it. At the moment, the power to determine whether recognition is granted rests solely with employers. Workers have no rights or say in the matter. Those arrangements cannot continue.
  There are solid democratic arguments in favour of establishing a recognition right. As my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone and for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said, it also makes good economic sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone spoke about health and safety issues as well.
  How can commitment and flexibility be encouraged, when employers ignore the views of their employees on such a fundamental issue as establishing a collective voice at work? Clearly we need to move on, and ensure that we progress.
  We have already done much in our first year in office to create a more just system of employment relations. We are close to enacting the National Minimum Wage Bill. We have signed the social chapter, and are about to set out our proposals for implementing the working time and young workers directives. The forthcoming White Paper on fairness at work will contain our proposals for completing the process.
  Every one of these proposals is resisted by Opposition Members, who have nothing to offer the future. They are stuck firmly in the past, in an age of distrust, insecurity and conflict at work. They talk about the need for businesses to work more flexibly, but, as this revealing debate has shown, it is they and their thinking that are inflexible and outdated.
  Our objective is to create a new and modern system of employment relations in this country—a system in which fairness can truly be combined with flexibility and efficiency; a system that actively encourages a greater sense of trust and partnership in the workplace.
  I urge the House to support the amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friends.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 316.

  Division No. 244]

  [7.1 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Amess, David

  Johnson Smith,

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Arbuthnot, James

  Key, Robert

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Baldry, Tony

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Bercow, John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Leigh, Edward

  Blunt, Crispin

  Letwin, Oliver

  Body, Sir Richard

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Boswell, Tim

  Lidington, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Loughton, Tim

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Luff, Peter

  Brady, Graham

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Brazier, Julian

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Burns, Simon

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Butterfill, John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Cash, William

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Nicholls, Patrick

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Page, Richard

  Clappison, James

  Paice, James

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Paterson, Owen

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Prior, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Randall, John

  (Rushcliffe)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Robathan, Andrew

  Collins, Tim

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Colvin, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Cran, James

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Day, Stephen

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Shepherd, Richard

  Duncan, Alan

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Soames, Nicholas

  Faber, David

  Spring, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Fallon, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Flight, Howard

  Streeter, Gary

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Swayne, Desmond

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Syms, Robert

  Fraser, Christopher

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Garnier, Edward

  Townend, John

  Gibb, Nick

  Tredinnick, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Trend, Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Green, Damian

  Viggers, Peter

  Greenway, John

  Walter, Robert

  Grieve, Dominic

  Wardle, Charles

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Waterson, Nigel

  Hammond, Philip

  Wells, Bowen

  Hawkins, Nick

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Hayes, John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Heald, Oliver

  Wilkinson, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Willetts, David

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Horam, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Sir David Madel.

  79

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Ainger, Nick

  (Copeland)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Dafis, Cynog

  Allen, Graham

  Dalyell, Tam

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Darvill, Keith

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Austin, John

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Banks, Tony

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Barnes, Harry

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Battle, John

  Denham, John

  Beard, Nigel

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dismore, Andrew

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Doran, Frank

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dowd, Jim

  Benton, Joe

  Drew, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Berry, Roger

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Best, Harold

  Edwards, Huw

  Betts, Clive

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ennis, Jeff

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fatchett, Derek

  Boateng, Paul

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Follett, Barbara

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

  Forsythe, Clifford

  (Dunfermline E)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Browne, Desmond

  Foulkes, George

  Burden, Richard

  Galbraith, Sam

  Burgon, Colin

  Galloway, George

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gardiner, Barry

  Byers, Stephen

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Caborn, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Goggins, Paul

  Canavan, Dennis

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Cann, Jamie

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caton, Martin

  Grocott, Bruce

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Grogan, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Church, Ms Judith

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clwyd, Ann

  Heppell, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cohen, Harry

  Hill, Keith

  Coleman, Iain

  Hoey, Kate

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hope, Phil

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cranston, Ross

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Crausby, David

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  80

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hurst, Alan

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hutton, John

  Norris, Dan

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Olner, Bill

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jamieson, David

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jenkins, Brian

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Plaskitt, James

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pope, Greg

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pound, Stephen

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Khabra, Piara S

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Rapson, Syd

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Raynsford, Nick

  Laxton, Bob

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lepper, David

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Robertson, Rt Hon George

  Levitt, Tom

  (Hamilton S)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Rogers, Allan

  Linton, Martin

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lock, David

  Roy, Frank

  Love, Andrew

  Ruane, Chris

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  McCabe, Steve

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Salter, Martin

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McDonnell, John

  Sawford, Phil

  McFall, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sheerman, Barry

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Singh, Marsha

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McWilliam, John

  Snape, Peter

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Spellar, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stevenson, George

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Meale, Alan

  Stott, Roger

  Michael, Alun

  Stringer, Graham

  Michie, Bill (Shef?ld Heeley)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Milburn, Alan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mitchell, Austin

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Moffatt, Laura

  (Dewsbury)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Morley, Elliot

  Tipping, Paddy

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Todd, Mark

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Touhig, Don

  Mountford, Kali

  Trickett, Jon

  Mudie, George

  Mullin, Chris

  81

  Truswell, Paul

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  (Swansea W)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Winnick, David

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Vaz, Keith

  Wise, Audrey

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Wood, Mike

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Woolas, Phil

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Watts, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House congratulates the Government for acting quickly and effectively to redress the damaging culture of low pay, job insecurity and the sweatshop economy inherited from the previous Government by adopting a partnership approach to set decent minimum standards for all workers; notes that good standards at work are essential for competitiveness and business success and that the Government has, as part of its strategy for ensuring decent minimum standards and labour market flexibility, involved employers' and workers' representatives on the Low Pay Commission and in discussions on trade union recognition, and in addition has restored union rights at GCHQ, signed the European Social Chapter and made rapid progress on the National Minimum Wage Bill; and further notes that the Government is also committed, as part of that strategy, which enjoys wide support, to implementing the Directives on Working Time, Young Workers, European Works Councils and Part-Time Work, and to fulfilling the Government's commitment to enable workers to enjoy union recognition where a majority of the relevant workforce vote in a ballot for the union to represent them.

  Manufacturing Industry
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I must tell the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. John Redwood: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the TUC forecast of 200,000 job losses in manufacturing resulting from this Government's economic policies, the fact that so many manufacturers have to make representations about export and trading problems, the absence of a stable and competitive exchange rate, the damage done by tax increases imposed on business and the forthcoming wage and labour relations problems coming from the Government's social and labour law agenda; and urges the Government to put the interests of manufacturing business higher up its agenda, changing policies before factories close and jobs are lost.
  It gives me pleasure to speak to the Opposition motion, and to oppose the Government amendment.
  Labour's policy is hurting, but it is not working. Manufacturing is being gravely damaged. Exporters are losing orders; industry is teetering on the edge of recession. Every day brings more bad news. Today's industrial output figures show a further drop in activity. ICI has forecast a £120 million profit collapse, thanks to the level of sterling. Vickers is experiencing difficulties in obtaining repeat export orders, thanks to the level of the pound. Royal Doulton has announced 330 job losses, and has blamed the exchange rate. British Steel has said that 10,000 jobs must go owing to the state of the currency. Last week, one of the nation's big caravan companies, ABI, went into receivership, blaming the impact of the pound.
  Only a few weeks ago, the President of the Board of Trade went to the caravan exhibition. She told exhibitors there that she was their champion. Some champion! She should have noticed during her visit that Labour's policies for business were damaging. She should have found out that those people did not want all the extra taxes. She should have discovered that sterling was crippling their exports. She has done nothing about the problem, and today she owes the industry an apology and the House an explanation.
  The President of the Board of Trade should explain why she has remained silent throughout the first stages of an industrial collapse, and she should tell us what she intends to do about the high level of the pound. I see that the right hon. Lady is frowning. I wonder whether she frowns because she is completely ignorant of the state of British manufacturing industry, or because she does not know what to do about it. It is no good exuding tea and sympathy, as some new Labour variant of beer and sandwiches. Industry expects the President of the Board of Trade to come up with some answers.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is probably frowning at the cheapjack motion that we are discussing. Twenty years ago, under a Labour Government, 3.6 per cent. of gross domestic product was invested in plant and machinery—in industry. When the Conservatives left office last year, the figure was down to 2.6 per cent. Before that, it had been consistently hovering just above 2 per cent.—lower than the figure in any other industrial

  83
  nation. What does the right hon. Gentleman say about that record of 20 years of failing to help British manufacturing investment?
  Mr. Redwood: During our 18 years in office, we gave manufacturing much more encouragement than the present Government have during the past 10 months. We did not tax manufacturing as this Government are; we did not try to wreck manufacturing by introducing an independent Bank of England, and fiscal policies of the kind introduced by this Government. The hon. Gentleman would be well advised to listen to manufacturers in his constituency, and to speak up for them in the House rather than accepting the brief on the pager and making foolish interventions.
  Mr. Ivor Caplin: As the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Bank of England, perhaps he will tell us whether he thinks that the present Government's policy of independence would be reversed if there were ever another Tory Government.
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman may wish to note that the legislation concerned has not yet gone through the House, and that we oppose it. Indeed, the Chancellor has jumped the gun: he went ahead with the policy without notifying the House in the first instance, and then, having notified the House, went ahead without the necessary legal backing—backing that he is seeking. The Conservative party opposes that legislation.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, many foolish measures are going through the House, and many more may do so over the next couple of years. My right hon. Friends and I will decide which we can and should repeal when we get nearer to the time to write our manifesto. We may well be able to surprise the hon. Gentleman by giving him the answer that he thinks I cannot give tonight, but he must accept that it would be foolish for us to say at this stage what measures we shall repeal when so many more measures are likely to be presented by the Government.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Did my right hon. Friend see the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget Red Book forecast that the rate of increase of business investment is set to halve between 1997 and 1999?
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point, to which I was coming. Of course investment is forecast to plummet under this Government, just as savings are going down. They are hitting savings and investment—the two usually go together—which is the opposite of what they said before the election they would achieve. Labour Members look so glum because they know that the Government are delivering exactly the opposite of the fine words that they offered industry in the run-up to the general election. Does the Secretary of State want to go down in history as a Labour Secretary of State who presided over factory closures, more short-time working and more job losses? That is what the TUC is predicting, let alone independent forecasters or Her Majesty's Opposition.
  84
  In the 1980s, a leading Labour commentator said:
  "The problems of our manufacturing industries remain, and in these circumstances can only get worse".
  He added:
  "it is our ability to produce manufactured goods and to compete in our own and in world markets that is central to our industrial and economic performance."
  Those words are quite right today, and I wish that they would be repeated—they were written by the commentator-turned-Chancellor who is now at No. 11 Downing street.
  Will the Secretary of State remind the Chancellor of his fine words in opposition about how important manufacturing is to our economy? Will she find the strength, at least in the privacy of Government, to condemn the lethal combination of the past two Budgets and the independence of the Bank of England, which is forcing adjustment and the policy against inflation on to manufacturers? They will have to slim down or close down.
  Before the election, the Prime Minister agreed with the Chancellor, but that was a long time ago, and we know that they have since bickered and fallen out. Before the election, the Prime Minister said:
  "Britain won't live by services alone. It needs a manufacturing base".
  After the election, the Prime Minister—a rare visitor to the House—has done nothing to help manufacturing. He is deaf to the pleas of manufacturers about huge tax increases, about the level of sterling and about their having to close factories and go on to short time because of the export position.
  Dr. Nick Palmer: I am a little puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. He appears to be arguing simultaneously that taxes should go down to help industry and go up to help the pound. Which does he favour?
  Mr. Redwood: It is a complete fiction for Labour Members to say that Conservative Members believe that taxes must go up. We believe that savings must go up. The way in which to promote savings is to cut taxes on them instead of putting more and more taxes on savers. That huge error of the past two Budgets was underwritten by the Chancellor's error in taking money out of the tills and cash registers of businesses.
  Yvette Cooper: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he wants to cut taxes on saving and increase borrowing?
  Mr. Redwood: I am saying that the economy would be much healthier if taxes on saving were cut and the tax breaks that we left the Government were restored. More natural tax revenue would come in without the increase in rates, which the Government have wrongly imposed. Higher tax rates are necessary if enough manufacturing is killed, which is what the Government are doing, because a generator of additional tax revenue is being destroyed. They are distorting the economy against their interests and against those of the nation.
  Labour Members always make two replies when Conservative Members stick up for manufacturers.
  Dr. George Turner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Redwood: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what he is about to say, and he can think of something else.

  85
  Labour Members tell us that we have no right to stick up for manufacturers because some businesses were damaged and jobs were lost in 1991 and 1992.
  Fiona Mactaggart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Redwood: I shall make this point and then give way, as I always do.
  Labour Members are right to say that mistakes were made in that period, and that damage was done. The Conservative party has apologised for those mistakes; more important, we have learnt from them.
  The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): When?
  Mr. Redwood: The Leader of the Opposition made a fulsome apology for the exchange rate mechanism difficulties, from which the Conservative Government and this Government should have learnt. Unfortunately, this Government have not learnt from that experience, and have amnesia about the early 1990s. Over the Conservative years, that was the only time that I remember the Labour Opposition supporting the economic policies of the day. Why do not Labour Members apologise and show that they have learnt something from the experience? They are foolish to keep highlighting it.
  Dr. George Turner: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman publicly apologised for the industrial scars that he left in my constituency—factories in King's Lynn closed and have still not reopened. Does he recognise that, under this Government, we are experiencing the smack of a firm Chancellor who is determined that interest rates will not go to 15 per cent. and that saving rates will not go down to 6 per cent., which are the figures over which the right hon. Gentleman presided?
  Mr. Redwood: That is a helpful intervention, because it illustrates the point: mistakes were made in the early 1990s and many factories have not reopened, which is why we say to the Government, "Don't let it happen again." Do the Government at least have the decency to accept that they fully supported those policies and have still not apologised or implied that they have learnt anything from that experience?
  Fiona Mactaggart: I find it odd that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that what happened in the early 1990s was a tiny blip. Between the election of the Conservative Government in 1979 and the election of the Labour Government, manufacturing industry in Slough did not decline by only 5 or 10 per cent. By the time that I was elected, manufacturing industry in the town was a third of what it had been. That is the Tory legacy. Let us not pretend that there was a little blip at the beginning of the 1990s; there was devastation, and many people in towns such as Slough lost their livelihoods as a result.
  Mr. Redwood: There were enormously successful economic conditions throughout most of the 1980s and after we came out of the exchange rate mechanism. In the Conservative years, the motor industry was restored to
  86
  some of its former glory after the devastation of the 1970s and the Labour Government. The figures that the hon. Lady produces for Slough are incredible. I know Slough fairly well; there was not a two-thirds decline in manufacturing activity over the Tory years. She should visit it more often; if she did so, she would realise that a large number of successful new-generation businesses came to the town and created considerable prosperity.
  Mr. Andrew Reed: The right hon. Gentleman knows from the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who is sitting close by him, that Loughborough suffered throughout the 1980s. I can give him the job figures: a brush factory employed 6,500 people when the right hon. Member for Charnwood was elected in Loughborough in 1979. It was the largest employer in the town, but it now employs only 2,500 people. That is what happened in the 1980s, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will apologise to every one of those people who lost their jobs, whom I meet regularly on their doorsteps because I live in the constituency.
  Mr. Redwood: I trust that the hon. Gentleman recognises the great advances made by Conservative policies in new industries such as communications, high technology and computing, which came to this country or grew here in the 1980s and the middle 1990s. We are worried that even some of them, let alone the more traditional industries, are under threat from the Government. Labour Members would be well advised to discuss the present and the future, rather than go over the past, which has been much debated in the House and with the electorate at large.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the right hon. Gentleman say exactly how many industries closed in that appalling period between 1991 and 1992, and how many thousands of jobs were lost throughout the country? Will he say exactly what job he was doing at that time?
  Mr. Redwood: I should be happy to research the answer to those questions after the Labour party has apologised for its part in those events.
  The Labour party also says that, in the long term, everything will work out fine. It says that its policy is based on a stable and competitive exchange rate. Do Labour Members not realise that the long term is made up of a series of short terms? Even the fig leaf of their policy is blown away in the foreign exchange hurricanes that have been raging.
  The President of the Board of Trade owes business a new policy. Are the Government out to create a stable currency at this very high level, which business thinks is uncompetitive, or are they out to create a competitive currency, which in the eyes of business should be at a lower level? She must concede that the Government cannot have a stable and competitive currency. Why do the right hon. Lady, the Chancellor and all those on the pager service keep mouthing this nonsense about having a stable and competitive exchange rate, when it is clearly unstable and uncompetitive?
  Let us consider how unstable the currency has been. Since Labour came into office, the pound has risen 9 per cent. against the French franc, 10 per cent. against the

  87
  deutschmark, 20 per cent. against the drachma, 55 per cent. against the Malay dollar and 62 per cent. against the Thai baht. Those are our competitors, and they will undermine our manufacturers.
  Ms Oona King: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that 70 per cent. of sterling's appreciation took place under the Conservative Government? Does he recall ever complaining about that at the time?
  Mr. Redwood: It is true that sterling rose in the latter months of the Conservative Administration. It is also true that many manufacturers would now like to get back to that level, because they think that that would be a fair level for their businesses. What I am talking about, and what the hon. Lady should be concentrating on, is the huge increase in the value of the pound against certain Asian currencies and the substantial increase against continental currencies since Labour came to office. If Labour Members do not know that that has happened, heaven help this country. They should read the financial pages and understand the difficulties that the high rate of sterling is creating.
  Labour Members may think that the good news is that we can take cheaper foreign holidays, which is true. However, the bad news will be counted by every British leisure business in fewer foreign visitors, and by every exporter in fewer foreign orders.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: If the right hon. Gentleman were in government, what would he do about the yen, which has reached a six-and-a-half-year low? Does he deny that the value of sterling is linked to the Asian economies, the yen, the prospects for the euro and the recession in Europe? Is he in the isolationist world of fish-and-chip-shop Britain?
  Mr. Redwood: I do not know where the fish and chips came from, but we are some way from enjoying them tonight, as there is much debating to be done. The Opposition believe that the problem of Japan should be handled by Governments collectively working through international bodies. We would support any sensible measures that the Government proposed in that connection. I shall come to the problems of euroland, because they are relevant to the present position.
  Why is the pound so strong? The Governor of the Bank of England has warned that fears of a weak euro are partly to blame. He is right. The Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that a fudged euro does not help. He is obviously right. People around the world who are looking for a good investment are worried that the new euro may be weak or may be strained by the failure of Europe to keep to the requirements of the Maastricht treaty.
  The Prime Minister has made two contradictory statements about this crucial issue. He has said that the euro must not be fudged. The Opposition agree with that proposition. He has also told us that Britain cannot object to all 11 candidates going ahead in the first wave, yet most of them can do so only with a liberal helping of fudge. Will the President of the Board of Trade clear up that confusion? Does she agree with the Prime Minister
  88
  that a weak and fudged euro makes sterling more attractive, and of itself adds to the misery of British industry? Does she agree that a lot of fudge is required to pretend that Italy and Belgium, which have both borrowed more than twice the limits permitted in the treaty, have qualified for the single currency? Will she persuade the Prime Minister to do something about that when he goes to important meetings to settle these issues?
  Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the 15 European Community countries have borrowed £660 billion more than is permitted under the Maastricht treaty? That does not include Britain, because it is below the reference level. Has she any idea how the member states that want to go ahead with currency union will repay £660 billion in the next couple of years in order to qualify, or does she think that the treaty requirements do not matter?
  Does the President of the Board of Trade agree that, as Sweden is ruled out because it has not belonged to the exchange rate mechanism for two years, Britain is ruled out for the same reason? What do the Government intend to do about Britain' s membership of the exchange rate mechanism? Will she explain how Ireland qualifies, given that its currency has been too strong for the exchange rate mechanism and has recently had to be revalued? Is that not fudge in the prime ministerial sense of that word? If not, what would be fudge? Perhaps the right hon. Lady will take us into the Government's sweet shop and tell us.
  How do the Government intend to influence Europe for the better, as they believe that expressing any different opinion from the rest will, in the Prime Minister's words, cause "mayhem"? The truth is that the Prime Minister will wield no influence whatever over decisions on the single currency.
  Yvette Cooper: Does the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the single currency mean that he has now abandoned the position, as set out in his book, that the role of Britain should be to try to derail the system and to ruin the single currency before it starts? If so, should we expect a further softening of his position on the single currency in the future?
  Mr. Redwood: I am delighted that the hon. Lady wishes to give my book the publicity of the Hansard record: it is very gracious of her. If she looks at the date of that book, she will see that it was addressed to the Conservative Government at a much earlier stage in the development of this scheme. It was good advice for those days, given where we then were. I shall explain shortly the advice of Her Majesty's Opposition in the new circumstances, and I hope that she will be patient, because I shall tell her what she wants to know.
  According to the Prime Minister, we have the prospect of mayhem if we try to influence matters, but he has also said that he does not like fudge. It has, in effect, already been decided that 11 countries will go ahead with liberal helpings of fudge. That is against the Government's stated policy, it is against Britain's interests and it is against Europe's interests, yet the Prime Minister thinks that he can do nothing. He will do nothing and he admits that he will have no influence. What a tragedy for Europe and for our country.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: It has taken the right hon. Gentleman nine minutes to get on to his

  89
  favourite theme of Europhobia, which is miles away from the motion on the Order Paper. As he is in the mood for apologies, will he take the opportunity to apologise for the gratuitous and unpleasant insult he offered to Chancellor Kohl, on whom the business men of Britain conferred the freedom of the City of London? Is the right hon. Gentleman capable of saying sorry in any language for that insult?
  Mr. Redwood: I offered no insult to Chancellor Kohl, so I have no need to apologise. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) clearly does not like the fact that his Prime Minister is isolated at the Euro X meeting. The Prime Minister will be isolated in his indecision over this matter: he will be isolated by his prevarication and British industry will suffer as a result. That is central to the debate, but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the argument. The Governor of the Bank of England has warned that a fudged euro is one of the pressures leading to a strong pound. Surely the Prime Minister should want to sort that out by taking the fudge out of the euro and helping to relieve some of the pressure on sterling.
  Why will not the Prime Minister warn Europe that fudging will cause damage, as the German central bank has done? Why will he not go to the meeting and say that only those countries that meet all the requirements can be allowed in? He could congratulate Luxembourg and Finland: I am sure that they would be very happy together. Has he read the Commission's convergence report, which is a devastating document that finds problems in the case of all the other member states?
  Of Italy, the Commission says:
  "There must be an ongoing concern as to whether the ratio of government debt to GDP will be 'sufficiently diminishing and approaching the reference level at a satisfactory pace' and whether the sustainability of the fiscal position has been achieved."
  In other words, Italy does not meet the requirements. Similar words are used of Belgium. The Commission states:
  "the debt to GDP ratio is far above the 60 per cent. reference level."
  Going along with a mechanism that one cannot bring oneself to join without explaining one's reservations is not impressive or statesmanlike, and it is certainly not heroic. It is weak and pathetic, and it leaves Europe to fudge. My argument is certainly in order, because part of the strength of sterling relates to the lack of Government policy on the issue of the single currency.
  At a time when British manufacturing is on the rack, business is offered lectures by the President of the Board of Trade on how it should do better. The Foreign Office offers business an exhibition of how cool Britannia is or should be. The odd bouncy castle in Whitehall will not win back the lost markets that were destroyed by economic policies. I do not mind watching middle-aged men trying earnestly to re-create their youth, but I object to Ministers trying to do it at public expense. It is not seemly, and it is not helpful to British business.
  Business does not need rebranding by the Government: it needs backing. It does not need subsidies and sympathy: it needs a sensible exchange rate policy, and to get that we need a sensible tax policy that backs savings rather than undermines them. It should not take too much money from manufacturers who need it to invest in the future. There is no point in lecturing business on the need for
  90
  new products and new investment while taking £25,000 million away from business over the lifetime of this Parliament. It is no good the Government saying that they want business to succeed while taking away the means to do so, and there is no point in saying that there will not be a return to boom and bust when the Chancellor has the distinction of creating boom and bust at the same time.
  In July 1997, the Chancellor let the cat out of the bag in one of his Budget texts. He stated:
  "There is now an imbalance between strong growth in the consumer and service sector and weak growth in the manufacturing and exporting sector."
  All his actions then and since have reinforced that crisis rather than tackling it or making things easier. It is not just the weakness of the fudged Euro-currencies that is causing trouble, because, at home, a hole was dug by the Chancellor when he took business money away and let the consumer spend and spend. He told the Bank of England to sort it all out, but it has its hands tied behind its back.
  As usual, Labour Members will doubtless want us to answer the question, "What can be done?" There is a threat of more inflation: that is why the Bank increased the interest rate. I do not blame it for the problem, unlike some of the Chancellor's friends and spin doctors who, when an independent Bank was created, decided that everything that went wrong would be the Bank's fault and everything else would be the joy of the Chancellor.
  I liken the Bank's problem to that of someone who is asked to play golf and given only a driver. He will find it an exceedingly difficult game. The Chancellor holds the other clubs, and he has put the player's ball in the bunker. No wonder the Bank is finding it difficult to get the ball out with only a wood. When an economy is as distorted as this one, with services in boom and manufacturing in decline, irons and a putter as well as drivers are needed to get out of trouble and hole the ball. The Chancellor does not seem to understand that, and lets his advisers blame the Bank.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, although about a quarter of exporting manufacturers have had a turndown in orders, they have lower input costs for raw materials? The domestic market is booming, about a third of manufacturers are showing major growth, and employment continues to rocket. Manufacturing is not doing badly at all. After all, there was a trade surplus last year.
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is half right. Much of the consumer sector has been booming, but manufacturing is in trouble. He should understand that. Today's industrial output figures and the statements from the companies that I have been citing and others show that exporters are in grave trouble. Asian and continental companies are coming into the home market and undercutting domestic manufacturers who would otherwise be able to sell products in our domestic market.
  Mr. Lansley: The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) quoted some figures. Birmingham is a centre of exporters. Has my right hon. Friend observed that Birmingham chamber of commerce and industry in its announcement of its recent survey results on 1 April

  91
  stated that not only were exporting companies on the brink of recession, but that the slowdown in the home market for manufacturers was another legacy of the high pound? It stated:
  "a third of companies listed overseas competition as being of major concern".
  Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I did not see that quotation, but it is an effective example for my case.
  There are two ways in which to take some heat out of the domestic and service economy without having to put up interest rates and sterling. One way is to tax consumption rather than manufacturing, and the other way is to promote saving. The Opposition support the savings route. We recommend a big savings package from the Chancellor. He should reverse the tax on pension savings. He could increase the interest and the tax-free allowances on national savings. He could make the tax relief on ISAs more generous and encourage an answer to the welfare review that would draw on the Conservative scheme for a second pension based on proper savings. He should sell more long-dated bonds to mop up surplus money, instead of issuing short-dated paper.
  Those are positive proposals, which we mean well because we want to see our country and our manufacturers do well. Labour Members would be wise to listen carefully to our sensible proposals. The Chancellor should tell the markets that he intends to lower inflation by encouraging more saving. While he is about it, he should lift the threat of higher wage inflation resulting from the Government's legislation.
  The economy faces difficult times. Many businesses and individuals are doing well while manufacturing is in grave trouble. There are still worries about inflation at a time when industry is on the brink of recession. Only this Chancellor could pull off that unique double. I say to Labour Members, "I do not expect you to back me or to praise my views. By all means follow the Whips and the spin doctors and make your routine criticisms of past Conservative policies if that makes you feel better. But understand that your manufacturing constituents in fear of their jobs and people who fear for their businesses expect you to speak for them. You have a duty in this debate to tell the Government before it is too late of the threat to industry from the high pound. If you do not do that, you will find it difficult to face yourselves tomorrow morning, you will have let down your constituents, and you will have failed to do your job."
  7.46 pm
  The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "deplores the Opposition's attempt to criticise the economic management of the Government as a feeble attempt to cover up their own appalling record of economic mis-management; notes that under the Conservatives Britain slumped in the world prosperity league, saw the slowest period of growth since World War II, saw higher average inflation than in any other major industrialised country bar Italy, and had the lowest level of investment of any of the 24 OECD countries; also notes that the Conservatives left office with manufacturing investment lower than it was when they came
  92
  to power, left Britain's share of world trade at its lowest ever, gave Britain a deficit on manufacturing trade for the first time ever, saw thousands of manufacturing firms go under due to their boom and bust policies, more than doubled the level of unemployment in their period in office, and left behind not a golden economic legacy, but an economy and public finances facing real difficulties; congratulates the Government on its prompt actions such as promoting the competitiveness agenda and fostering investment in R & D and innovation, and creating an open and transparent framework for monetary and fiscal policy to secure a platform of stability for growth and employment; and notes that the Government is addressing the problems which the Conservative Government left behind with positive practical proposals to take the nation into the 21st century."
  This is a truly remarkable day and an even more remarkable debate, because in their motion the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor, let alone the shadow President of the Board of Trade, are all calling for manufacturing to be higher up the Government's agenda and for a change of policy
  "before factories close and jobs are lost."
  That is incredible. Where have they been for the past 18 years?
  Where were they 10 years ago when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, as a deliberate act of policy, drove sterling above the level that it is at today? Where were they when Britain registered the first deficit in trade on manufactures since the industrial revolution; when interest soared to 15 per cent., twice today's rate; when factories closed; and when jobs were lost the length and breadth of Britain as a direct result of deliberate Government policy?
  The then Chancellor told us that manufacturing no longer mattered. At that time they were in direct control of interest rates, a policy that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) says would solve manufacturing's problems. They were in the Government and some of them were in the Cabinet. When the interest rate was 15 per cent. the right hon. Gentleman, who claimed a little bit of amnesia, was a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry. He now presumes to attack us for an interest rate that is half that level. He asked why I had not spoken out against high interest rates. Where was he? What did he say about interest rates and about manufacturing when interest rates were at twice today's level?
  Mr. Barry Jones: May I remind my right hon. Friend that, when the shadow President of the Board of Trade was Secretary of State for Wales, he did nothing at all?
  Mrs. Beckett: I know that the right hon. Gentleman rarely visited Wales—so it might have been a bit difficult to do anything there. Today, the right hon. Gentleman has claimed that the Government were wrecking manufacturing by giving independence to the Bank of England. All I can say is that the previous Government managed to wreck manufacturing without giving independence to the Bank.
  Before the general election, when the exchange rate was climbing, most hon. Members who signed today's motion were in the Cabinet. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) said, two thirds of the recent increase in sterling occurred in 1996 and 1997—preceding not only the Government's election but the decision to place handling of interest rates in the

  93
  hands of the Bank of England and business tax changes. It is therefore difficult to decide whether the Conservatives' belated discovery of the importance of manufacturing represents a deathbed conversion, or simply mass hypocrisy, based on complete memory wipe.
  I do not attempt to tag the entire Conservative party with that label, as there were always honourable—although only a few—exceptions. Although some men and women in the Conservative party supported British manufacturing However, they were lone voices crying in the wilderness in their party's utter neglect of—and sometimes outright hostility to—manufacturing.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: Indeed I will, although the hon. Gentleman was not one of the exceptions.
  Mr. Paterson: As someone who spent the 18 years of the Conservative Government travelling the world, selling abroad for British manufacturing industry—unlike virtually every Labour Member—I bitterly resent the crass and ignorant comments on Conservative policies, which enabled British industry to turn itself round. Will the right hon. Lady tell the House whether British industry is happy and can prosper with a deutschmark rate of 3.05?
  Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman was selling his exports, but he certainly was not in this country seeing the demise of British manufacturing industry. Indeed, because of the policies pursued by the Conservative party, we sometimes feared the almost complete extinction of British manufacturing industry.
  Down the years, Conservative Members who supported British manufacturing industry called, as we called, for recognition of the damage being done by the boom and bust cycle resulting from the crass incompetence of Tory economic management. They called, as we called, for support for policies encouraging long-term investment, particularly in research and development. They called in vain.
  Mr. Paterson: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: No
  Under the Conservative Government, manufacturing investment fell—
  Mr. Paterson: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: I shall not give way again to the hon. Gentleman, but will wait for another Conservative Member to intervene. His previous intervention was not so impressive as to make me feel inclined to listen to him again.
  Mr. Philip Hammond rose—
  Mr. Lansley: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: Not for the moment.
  Under the Conservative Government, manufacturing investment fell to an all-time low. Expenditure on research and development fell compared to that of our
  94
  competitors. As a proportion of our economy, manufacturing dropped by one quarter. Factories closed, and jobs were lost in their millions. None of the Conservative Members who have just intervened in the debate were in the House in that period. Presumably, all of them were out in the country, hopefully in some prosperous undertaking. Where they were not was in the House, watching British manufacturing being destroyed by the activities of the previous Government.
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way on this occasion, if not on previous ones. She seems very keen to explain to the House her views on what is happening today. Will she therefore be sure not to move on without telling us about today's announcements on precisely what is happening in manufacturing output and production output? What figures have been announced today, and what view does she take of them?
  Mrs. Beckett: I shall deal with that later in my speech.
  After the first recession under the previous Government—I realise that Conservative Members wish not to think about their record in government, but they will have to—in the early 1980s, manufacturing output did not return to the level that they had inherited until 1988. In their second recession, in the early 1990s, manufacturing output fell again. In their entire period in office, manufacturing output grew annually on average by only 0.5 per cent.
  The instability that devastated output also discouraged long-term investment, which lays foundations for the future. As a share of gross domestic product, manufacturing investment fell to its lowest level since 1955, and it rose again by an average—in the previous Government's entire period in office—of only 0.5 per cent. a year.
  It is very important to keep putting those simple facts on the record: first, because the Conservative party—as usual—is trying to rewrite its history; secondly, and more importantly, because it is part of the context in which the British people and British manufacturers should judge the credibility of Conservative Members' comments in this debate. They should be judged not only on the worth of their current proposals but on their record in office.
  Mr. Sheerman: Some of us have been puzzled by the Opposition's opening speech, in a debate chosen by the Opposition, as they have spent so little time dealing with the issue of the United Kingdom's core manufacturing capacity. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the fact that only 9,725 robots are currently being used in British manufacturing—compared with 400,000 in Japan, 55,000 in the United States and 48,000 in Germany—is the mark of the sophistication of our manufacturing industry? Over 20 years, the previous Government left us with very little of that sophistication.
  Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has a long and honourable record of campaigning for British manufacturing. He is entirely right to identify the many difficulties that were left to us by the previous Government.
  The previous Government's record stretches over 18 years, whereas this Government's record extends over fewer than 18 months. However, in that short period, we have begun to tackle the deep-seated ills besetting British manufacturing industry.

  95
  The very action of which Conservative Members now complain—placing control of interest rates in the hands of the Bank of England—was taken to foster confidence in the long-term stability of economic management. In the run-up to the general election, that confidence was damaged by the political manipulation of interest rates by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who preferred to risk higher inflation, and the damage that that would cause, than to risk political unpopularity.
  Long-term interest rates are already lower, and only the crassly irresponsible would suggest that a return to the boom and bust over which the Conservatives presided would be in Britain's interests.
  We have not only taken that major step to promote stability, but our commitment to stable economic management, to a sound framework for discipline in public finances, to a reduction of public sector debt—which the previous Government ran up to unmanageable levels—are helping to create a sound and stable framework in which business can take decisions based on long-term judgments.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: If our public sector debt is at unmanageable levels, how can the Prime Minister support the applications for euro membership of all those other countries?
  Mrs. Beckett: Unlike the right hon. Member for Wokingham, I shall not spend all my time in this debate talking about Europe rather than British manufacturing industry. However, I shall deal later in my speech with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.
  The decision to abolish dividend tax credits, the agreement—responding to calls from business—to abolish advance corporation tax, the introduction and continuation of enhanced capital allowances for small firms, cuts in corporation tax rates and changes in capital gains tax will all help to stimulate and support the investment that British manufacturers need for long-term success. Our commitment on business tax rates over this Parliament and our consultation paper on research and development both embody an approach sought by manufacturers for so many years, which, under the previous Government, they sought in vain.
  Sir Robert Smith: As the right hon. Lady is talking about stability and long-term investment, does she accept industry's estimates that about 20 per cent. of manufacturing investment is connected to activity in the North sea oil industry? Does she also realise the concerns among many of those in the contracting sector about the instability caused by the Chancellor's continuing indecision in his plans for oil taxation? Those concerns are affecting investment decisions, which may be put off for another year.
  Mrs. Beckett: With respect to the hon. Gentleman—who takes a great interest in those matters—he must be aware that that industry has itself asked for consultation on the Government's proposals for taxation, and for its views to be taken into account. Furthermore, the industry
  96
  specifically asked for the Chancellor not to introduce changes in the North sea regime without consultation, as the previous Government did. Therefore, I understand the point that the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) makes, but he will recognise that it is a bit of swings and roundabouts in that respect.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the President of the Board of Trade acknowledge that higher interest rates, increased business taxation and a soaring pound damage British industry, in some cases lethally, depriving businesses of export orders and getting rid of jobs? If she acknowledges that, why does she not have the decency to admit it, instead of skirting around the subject for the first 13 minutes of her speech?
  Mrs. Beckett: I am not skirting around anything. The hon. Gentleman clearly has not been listening. Apart from anything else, I have pointed out how much more damaging was the record of his party in government. Interest rates were at twice the level that they are today.
  Mr. James Cran rose—
  Mrs. Beckett: I am going to get on a little further, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
  Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: Of course.
  Mr. Redwood: The President of the Board of Trade is all charm, as always.
  I am delighted that the right hon. Lady now agrees that the policies of her Government are damaging. She has just said that she thought that Conservative policies were more damaging, but she has conceded that the policies that this Government are following are damaging. Does she agree with the TUC forecast that 100,000 to 200,000 jobs will be lost as a result of the Government's policies in manufacturing, and is she or is she not going to do something about it?
  Mrs. Beckett: I have had a chance only briefly to check on the figure that the right hon. Gentleman gives, but I think that he will find that he has added together two figures in the TUC's forecast that are not meant to be added together. It is not making the forecast that he claims. Nor did I say that I accepted that the Government's policies are damaging British business; I do not accept that. What I did say was that I accepted that there is concern, understandably, about the level of sterling and of interest rates. However, I pointed out that interest rates were at twice today's level when he was at the Department of Trade and Industry.
  Mr. Cran: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry. I must get on a little more. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman perhaps a little later.
  Mr. Cran: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: No, not at this moment. Sorry.

  97
  Apart from the tax framework that we have begun to deliver, British manufacturers have also long sought further investment in education, in skills and in transport infrastructure. Slowly and steadily, that too is beginning to flow. The new deal, the university for industry, the emphasis on lifelong learning, the investment in education for the early years, the improvement in standards—
  Mr. Cran:Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: No. In fact, if the hon. Gentleman does not give me a moment to finish this paragraph, I will not give way to him at all.
  The improvement in standards, the extra money for schools, including for long-needed capital investment—all those sit alongside other measures in the recent Budget such as investment in the transport infrastructure and the university challenge fund, a new venture capital fund, to encourage development of the new ideas flowing from British universities.
  Mr. Cran: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: I was willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but, as he is persistently and rudely interrupting me, I am afraid that I no longer intend to do so.
  Mr. Cran rose—
  Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What sort of rules do we have in this Chamber, where someone who sits as a Whip one moment is sent by the Front-Bench spokesperson to sit behind him and barrack and intervene on a Labour Member, who is making a serious speech about manufacturing industry?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): There has always been some flexibility on these matters for the Opposition.
  Mr. Cran: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since when has even a Whip not been able to stand and speak for his constituency? In this case, I wanted to ask why—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that that is a totally bogus point of order.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) because he has answered a little problem that was puzzling me. When the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran) began to intervene, I was slightly surprised because I did not remember seeing him sitting there, and I almost accused him of not having been in the debate, but I thought that that was unfair and that I must be mistaken. However, my hon. Friend has answered the mystery for me. The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness was here, but not in that place.
  Mr. Cran: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: No, I will not.
  98
  Within the DTI, one of our first steps was to set up the partnership with British companies, including British exporters, which we promised before and during the last election. The early establishment of the export forum allowed us to draw on the experience and expertise of British exporters. We reversed the wildly unpopular decision to abolish trade fair support, accepted its recommendations for a more focused effort in the key markets that they identified, put in place the largest programme ever of trade fairs and trade promotion campaigns, and recently published a package of proposals that are specifically targeted to help the small exporter.
  All that is especially relevant to manufacturers, because they represent the lion's share of our international trade. That trade has undoubtedly been and could continue to be affected by the strength of sterling. The picture, however, is far more patchy—and hence more difficult to read and judge for its policy implications—than the Conservative party pretends.
  Mr. Howard Flight: The right hon. Lady went through the economic history of the past 20 years. Does she accept, as most economists do, that the recessions of the early 1980s and early 1990s were caused primarily by the overvaluation of sterling? That is the very point that Conservative Members are seeking to make: the risk of an overvaluation of sterling can cause precisely what we went through before, which is not stability.
  Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been listening. Although I understand the concern about sterling's level—the Government have made it plain that, although we want a stable sterling rate, we also want a competitive rate—it is not just for Conservative Members to make that complaint, as they took interest rates to twice today's level and sterling to above today's levels.
  Mr. Cran: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Cran: The right hon. Lady is frit.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry, but I do not even remember precisely who the hon. Gentleman is, so the notion that I am frightened of him is extraordinary.
  Although exports of goods fell—in value and volume in January—on the latest figures, they are still running above the levels of a year ago; in volume, in fact, exports are a full 6 per cent. up. Although the deficit on trade in goods with the world as a whole rose over the past quarter from £3.5 billion to £4 billion, with a fall in exports and a slight fall in imports, in that same period, the deficit with European Union countries fell. It was the deficit with non-EU countries that rose.

  99
  An important part of that patchy picture is that against, for example, the dollar, sterling has remained relatively steady. It is against EU countries that it has risen so much and so sharply.
  Mr. Cran rose—
  Mr. Paterson rose—
  Mrs. Beckett: I give way to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson).
  Mr. Paterson: If the right hon. Lady had read the Evening Standard tonight, she would have seen that industrial production has dropped for the sixth month out of seven, but will she please go back to my first question, which she has not yet answered? Is she happy with an exchange rate of DM3.05 to DM3.10 to the pound, and what representations is she making to the Chancellor, whenever she meets him, on that?
  Mrs. Beckett: I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point repeatedly and I do not propose this second to return to it, although I may do so later in my remarks.
  As I say, the point is that sterling against the dollar has remained relatively steady, yet that is the sector of trade that has fallen. Trade with EU countries has certainly not been affected in the same way, although it is against the currencies of EU countries that Conservative Members complain sterling is too high.
  I do not suggest for a second that that means that sterling's level against the deutschmark and other EU countries' currencies is unimportant. I point out just that the picture is more complex and not entirely clear. Even the factors influencing manufacturers' costs do not give us a simple picture. The official statistics suggest that the overall price of raw materials and fuels that are used in manufacturing has fallen by a sixth over the past two years and by a tenth over the most recent year. Moreover, according to the most recent statistics, manufacturing output has little changed. In fact, over the past quarter, it was higher than a year ago and, in March, it grew at the fastest rate since May 1997. New orders also grew.
  The March CBI monthly trends survey shows that the balance of manufacturers expecting to increase output over the next four months has risen slightly to reach the highest levels since October, and the CBI's forecast projects growth both in exports and manufacturing output over the year. Nevertheless, it remains the Government's long-term objective to achieve a stable and competitive exchange rate. We shall continue to pursue the policies that have already been outlined, in the belief that they will contribute to achieving that goal.
  But what about the prescription urged upon us by the Conservative party? First, what is it? The shadow President of the Board of Trade says that the Government should do three things: first, they should take back control of interest rates; secondly, they should reverse the changes made in business taxation; and thirdly, they should take steps to increase savings. Let us take them one by one.
  100
  The first suggestion is a move to take back control of interest rates so that they can, I presume, be reduced, in the hope—
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Hear, hear.
  Mrs. Beckett: That is extraordinarily helpful. The hope is that that will reduce the level of sterling. Yet again, that runs the risk of weakening the fight against inflation and reawakens precisely the spectre of boom and bust that characterised the right hon. Gentleman's party's record and decimated British manufacturing in the 1980s and 1990s.
  Secondly, the shadow President of the Board of Trade calls on us to reverse any and all steps taken in a balanced package of taxation changes, including the windfall tax, which laid the foundation for the new deal, and for increased investment in skills and infrastructure—all things that manufacturers want carried out. Presumably they would all have to go. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Lady, but I have to tell the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran) that sedentary comments are not an acceptable substitute for proper interventions, and the right hon. Lady has refused to take any interventions from him.
  Mrs. Beckett: If the shadow Secretary of State resists all our changes in business taxation, he must be calling either for a still greater tightening of public expenditure—no more money for health and education—or for increases in VAT or personal taxation. There is simply "no other 'ole to go to".
  In fact, the right hon. Gentleman claimed today that there were two ways to tighten the economy other than through interest rates and sterling. He claimed that they were merely to promote savings or to tax consumption—that is presumably to extend or increase VAT, which we all know is the Conservatives' tax of choice. Of course, that is the tax policy that the Tories pursue but do not admit in advance. There cannot be much doubt that, given half a chance, they would put VAT on fuel back to the 17.5 per cent. that they proposed, and slap VAT on a range of other items.
  Mr. Redwood rose—
  Mrs. Beckett: I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he will deny that.
  Mr. Redwood: The Opposition have made it clear that we are not proposing any taxes on consumption—we are proposing improvements in savings. I do not know how many times we have to say that, but it is clearly our policy. Of course I and my colleagues are recommending a lower level of public spending than the Government—one has only to consider the number of things that we have opposed already which have needlessly been consuming public expenditure, including all the referendums, devolution administration and so on. They are all things on which we would not have spent money.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman is confirming that he supports a lower level of

  101
  public expenditure than the Government are prepared to allow. He may claim that he is going to save money on things like referendums but, viewing the record of the Tory party, most of the British public will recognise that what they are talking about means not pursuing the increases in health and education spending which this Government have introduced.
  I had not forgotten that the right hon. Gentleman's chief answer was that the Government should increase savings. It seems to be his main, if not his only, solution. He has expressed concern—for example, in the Budget debate—at a predicted savings ratio of 9 per cent., but, as was pointed out in an intervention, the savings ratio fell to 6 per cent. under the Tories. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that savings as such are falling; in fact, they are going up.
  Let us take the right hon. Gentleman's prescription at face value. What steps is he proposing to stimulate savings? The usual incentives would generally be higher interest rates. That would be consistent with the Tories' record—including their record when the right hon. Gentleman was at the DTI—but it seems unlikely to reduce the level of sterling. Today he called for more interest to be payable on national savings, and for more generous tax allowances. That of course means a fiscal loosening, while those who have argued that the Chancellor is not doing enough are arguing for a fiscal tightening. It is certainly contrary to what most commentators who criticise my right hon. Friend, as the right hon. Gentleman has done, are saying. The right hon. Gentleman's prescription makes no sense.
  Let us consider what might follow if we were to take the prescription at face value. It rests most heavily on the call on the Government to cut interest rates and, in order to do so, to take back control over them. As has been pointed out several times today, two thirds of the rise in sterling took place before interest rates rose, and while interest rates were in fact controlled by the previous Government. There is certainly a widespread and increasingly strong view that it is a combination of the Asian crisis and nervousness about the soundness of the euro which is attracting investors into sterling, because Britain will not be in the first wave.
  The right hon. Gentleman spent most of his speech talking not about manufacturing industry but about the euro. If he agrees with those who argue that one of the things that is putting pressure on sterling is the fact that Britain is not going in, should not he be calling for an early announcement that Britain will go in? That is the logical outcome to the argument that he deploys, and I am surprised that he failed to notice that that is where 10 minutes of his speech were taking him.
  Mr. Redwood: The right hon. Lady was not listening to what I said. I said that it was a fudged euro that was putting the extra pressure on sterling, as the Governor of the Bank of England identified. Going in at this high level of sterling would simply lock British exporters into a prison from which they could never escape, and it would mean that we never recaptured the industrial activity that is already at risk.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am not advocating going in at this point or at this level of sterling. It is the right hon. Gentleman's argument that leads inexorably to the
  102
  conclusion that that is one of the ways to weaken the pressure on sterling. The Liberal Democrat party may be somewhat unrealistic in ignoring the clear statement of the Governor of the Bank of England that Britain could not go in in the first wave as a result of the folly in government of the Tory party, but at least it is consistent in so arguing.
  The message of the right hon. Member for Wokingham is muddled, inconsistent and, frankly, crazy. It risks the worst of all worlds. A politically driven interference with interest rates would certainly foster inflation, and if, as some of the evidence suggests, it is not Britain's interest rates but Britain's absence from economic and monetary union which is driving up sterling, it would also fail to bring down the exchange rate as he suggests—yet another double whammy.
  The Conservatives have tabled an opportunistic motion, based on an unconvincing argument and on the assumption that the rest of the world suffers from their amnesia. Their record on British manufacturing is appalling, their prescription at best ludicrous, and at worst damaging. They offer sound without substance. Their arguments and policies put them where they are now and, on the evidence of this debate, will keep them there for years.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: I am a vehement and ardent supporter of manufacturing, and my record over the past 18 years proves it. I have never forgotten that this country's wealth was based on the industrial revolution and the manufacturing that flowed from it, although, at times, various Governments have taken their eye off the ball.
  I believe that the Department of Trade and Industry is the second most important Department of Government. The sophisticates will have us say how important the Department of Social Security, the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health are because they spend billions of pounds, but I am always conscious of the fact that it is the manufacturing sector that creates the wealth that enables them to spend that money.
  There has been some swapping of reminiscences, but I remember being in the House during the humiliating visit from the International Monetary Fund to bail out the Government when they got their spending out of kilter with their income. As the President of the Board of Trade said, quite correctly, we have to look forward and not rewrite history, although I think that for quite a few Members of Parliament the temptation to do just that will prove irresistible.
  I said that some Governments take their eye off the ball, but I do not include the previous Government under the premiership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), with my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) as President of the Board of Trade. During that time, there was a welcome return to focusing attention on manufacturing, competitiveness and quality of production.
  The current Government are losing out a bit. I do not blame the Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry, because, with the exception of Lord Simon, who seems to have vanished without trace, they have little manufacturing managerial experience. That is not their

  103
  fault, and we cannot blame them for it, but if they had had experience, they would have seen the warning signs about manufacturing a few months earlier.
  I shall not trample over the ground covered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on the strong pound, but I should like to counter the simplistic argument that, because Germany and Japan have learnt to live with a strong currency, so should we. We can, but it must be on the same time scale.
  In 1984, the exchange rate was DM3.74 to the pound. Compared with the current rate, German manufacturers have had to deal with a 1.5 per cent. per year to strengthening of the deutschmark since then. Taking the value of two or three years ago, that figure rises to 3 per cent. Our manufacturers have had to swallow a 25 or 30 per cent. strengthening of sterling over the past couple of years. No manufacturer can claw back that increase through productivity improvements over such a short time. With our interest rates running at twice the level of those of most of our major competitors, that is a double blow.
  This debate is important, because it underlines the basis of our economy and how it will develop in the coming years. The Conservative motion correctly concentrates on those issues. The Government amendment is largely a tendentious account of the past, with some wishful thinking for the future. It does not recognise the serious problems that the British manufacturing sector faces, and it does not come up with any proposals to tackle those problems.
  It is in nobody's interests to ignore the facts. There has been—dare I say it—a lot of infantile shouting across the Chamber, which has not contributed greatly to the debate. After 1992, our manufacturing output increased year by year. Unfortunately, there are now signs that it is peaking and starting to go the wrong way. If everything was marvellous, we would not be reading in the papers about the difficult choices facing General Motors and its work force in the United Kingdom. To make matters even more complicated, wage costs continue to rise as the sterling price of exports runs into trouble.
  In 1994-95, and in the latter part of 1996 and the early months of 1997, output grew strongly. Gains in productivity were secured and unit costs came down. However, there are now problems with our output. There could be stagnation or a decline in productivity. Those trends can be reversed only if manufacturers consider ways of trimming the size of their work force, laying off those who have recently left the unemployment register. We do not like that uncomfortable truth, and I am sure that Labour Members do not either.
  It is no good saying that the problem can be addressed through an open and transparent framework for monetary and fiscal policy. The Governor of the Bank of England has been given control over the one lever with which to control monetary policy without a matching fiscal policy from the Chancellor. That is less than sensible. It will prove to be another financial theory that bites the dust.
  Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting and constructive speech. Does he accept that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken £17 billion out of the economy? Does the hon. Gentleman think that
  104
  he should have taken £20 billion or £25 billion? Does he agree with his Whip, who said, "Hear, hear," when the abolition of the Monetary Policy Committee was suggested, with control over interest rates reverting to Whitehall? That is not a provocative question. I am genuinely interested in the hon. Gentleman's response, because I respect his point of view.
  Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The Chancellor has bitten into the economy in the wrong place. We wanted to cool the activities in the marketplace, to reduce internal inflation. The Chancellor has put an extreme burden on industry, which will work its way through with the double whammy of high interest rates and a high exchange rate.
  I am not surprised to read reports that the Chancellor is hoping that the Bank of England will give a signal later this week that interest rates have peaked and will not rise further. That has all the characteristic subtlety of a Treasury spin doctor. Unfortunately, it is too late. Manufacturers will intensify switching production abroad, because—as I think we all accept—the exchange rate is too high.
  We should skip all the childish banter and get to the reality. AG Holdings, our largest drum manufacturer, is moving production to France. The engineering group Haden Maclellan will buy half its paint shop components and one quarter of its fasteners abroad. Others will follow those two. That means that jobs are being exported from the United Kingdom, helping the economies in other countries rather than ours.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: If things are so bad, how does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that last year we had the first trade surplus since 1985, and the largest since 1982, at £4.5 billion? In 1996, we had a deficit of £1.8 billion, when, as others have pointed out, 70 per cent. of the sterling appreciation had already occurred. The hon. Gentleman seems to be describing a different world from that in which we are living.
  Mr. Page: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever worked in business or industry. He should know that there is a time lag in business. The current figures should show what will happen tomorrow if measures are not put in place to correct them. We believe that the higher rate of sterling will have a damaging effect on manufacturing. That effect will intensify unless action is taken to rectify the situation. Action a few months ago would have reduced the pain. Action now will reduce the pain. However, if we go on blindly, there will be further unemployment and even more pain. We are trying to point out delicately that something should be done.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that a week ago I had lunch with the chairman and chief executive of Nestle, which exports £300 million of produce. They pointed out that, while the level of sterling obviously causes difficulties for their export business, the Government's long-term policies are correct to create a healthy context for buoyant growth for Britain in the global economy.
  Mr. Page: I hope that the hon. Gentleman had a satisfactory and enjoyable lunch. Nestle is a large company with plants all over the world. Undoubtedly

  105
  it will take certain strategic decisions. Many British-based companies do not have the same options and flexibility as larger companies. The hon. Gentleman does not help his cause by pleading on behalf of a large multinational. With the high rate of sterling, our splendid record of inward investment is starting to dip. Companies abroad are not going to invest in Britain. A year or so ago, however, we had the enviable record of the highest investment percentage of any European country.
  The fundamental problem we must face cannot be tackled by the old sticking-plaster approach of Labour Governments, yet that is exactly what is beginning to be contemplated. Ordering electricity generators to buy up to 30 million tonnes of coal from UK producers, irrespective of prices on the world market, will not help the productivity of British producers or make them more competitive. Labour Members should remember that, when the Conservatives came to power in 1979, we were putting our hands in the taxpayers' pockets for £50 million every week, and that, now, approximately £50 million is being given to the Exchequer in taxes.
  We have heard a great deal about the Government's policy towards the young and the young long-term unemployed. I am concerned that any benefits that might flow from such a policy will be offset by what is happening with the high price of sterling. I was therefore not surprised to read that, when Mr. Christopher Kelly, the Treasury's head of economic briefing and analysis, was asked whether the manufacturing sector was likely to go into recession, he replied that the Treasury was forecasting zero growth this year. Today, a report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research Ltd. said:
  "Strong pound means a mini-recession and rising unemployment."
  It is therefore not surprising that the TUC expects unemployment to rise by 200,000. Perhaps figures are being added together, but as far as I am concerned, the figure is 200,000 unless somebody can prove that the TUC did not make such a statement. If such a number of jobs were lost, there would be further deterioration and we would go into a downward spiral, as opposed to the virtuous upward spiral that the Conservatives achieved, giving the Labour party its golden legacy.
  If we start on such a downward spiral, Labour Members will be back to the old routine. They will be calling for full-scale programmes to stimulate public expenditure and to help the economy to generate growth—whatever the implications for inflation. Unless The Times is mistaken today, there are already Cabinet splits, with mention of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, whose names are of course attached to the Government amendment.
  The sad fact is that, despite all the Government's fine words, they cannot escape from the economic cycle that they have created. They have happily tightened taxes on business in the past year, while allowing sterling's rise to weaken our export performance and increase the attractiveness of imports. Now the Government are caught between those two rocks of contradiction, and we shall see unemployment rise and companies fail. It is no good Labour Members throwing their hands in the air and claiming that it is all somebody else's fault. Undoubtedly, they will all go into the Lobby to vote for the Government amendment.
  I think that it was the playwright Alan Bennett who said that he had always felt that the past was over, that somehow he had missed it, and that now it was starting
  106
  all over again. New Labour will find that the spectre of old Labour has not been exorcised, but is alive and well. The strong pound might give the Prime Minister a little extra spending money in Tuscany this summer, but driving our manufacturing into recession is too high a price to pay.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Denis MacShane: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), who was a most excellent Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry—that is not quite what I said at the time—but, alas, does not represent his party's Front-Bench policy. That is a great shame.
  We heard a magnificent speech from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who has left the Chamber. His speech was one of a valiant shadow Foreign Secretary, since two thirds of it was on Europe. His speech was also one of a valiant shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, since he told us what the Chancellor should do. I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in the reshuffle. Perhaps, instead of a job share, he can combine both posts and fit everything into his head. His speech was not remotely about British manufacturing or remotely relevant to the motion.
  As I am a great friend of the Trades Union Congress, I am very pleased that the Conservatives pray it in aid. Conservative Members ought to look at the TUC's prognosis that, on a simple linear projection—we can all do that—200,000 jobs could be lost in manufacturing and services. Only 90,000 of those could be in manufacturing over the next two years, which, although that would be 90,000 too many, has nothing to do with the poorly worded motion.
  The past is another country. I agree with the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire that running over it is not helpful. In the previous debate, we were taken right back to the White Paper "In Place of Strife", and we have had a run around what happened in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. I shall try not to do that, although it is rather difficult to avoid just the teeny-weeniest tip-toe back—not too far. I am a reasonably new Member—there are many new Members—and what happened under previous Governments can be left in the past.
  We need to consider the fact that the significant rise of sterling that is worrying us all took place between May 1996 and May 1997—when it rose by 20 per cent. As the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire rightly said, we cannot simply pray in aid the German, Swiss, Dutch or Japanese experience of living with a strong currency over time. Believe me, I am taking us into the 1970s and not trying just to make an anti-Conservative point; as everybody knows, I am a bipartisan kind of fellow.
  We have suffered from a yo-yo currency. Between May 1990 and May 1997, under two Prime Ministers and four Chancellors, the rate between sterling and the deutschmark changed no fewer than 87 times. No business person can seriously plan or deal with that. The dollar was relatively stable. There was a great deal of money to be made by the George Soroses of the world or on for-ex trading, but for the business man, the manufacturer, who was trying to plan his output and draw up a macro-economic plan that would make sense, such permanent instability was one of the most damaging factors.

  107
  British Steel, of which I know something as one of its biggest plants is in my constituency, saw a massive 50 per cent. drop in profits, from £1.1 billion to £450 million, when they were announced halfway through the summer. In other words, its profit hit was a result of the previous Government's policies.
  Dr. Palmer: Conservative Members are quite persuaded of my hon. Friend's point about the need for stable exchange rates, because they were pressing the President of the Board of Trade to quote an exact rate that she would think appropriate—DM3.05, DM3.02, or whatever. If that is what they want, they clearly want a fixed exchange rate.
  Mr. MacShane: Playing the game of what the rate should be is interesting and useful—we do it with our children—but I am not sure whether it is a realistic contribution. We must create the conditions across the economy that back manufacturing and achieve what may be an impossible double goal—stability and competitiveness.
  I put these questions regularly to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), when he was Chancellor, and to his minions at the Treasury, and answer came there none. He said that the free markets decide. In March 1997, he said that he did not control the value of the pound. That is official Conservative policy, and is no different from the remarks of the putative shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Wokingham.
  When the right hon. Member was asked whether he would renationalise the Monetary Policy Committee—whether he would abolish it and send all the economists and Dr. DeAnne Julius back to work—and bring control of interest rates back to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) seemed to agree, while the right hon. Gentleman shook his head vigorously. I thought that it was a cardinal virtue of modern Tory faith that there should be independence for the Bank of England. I invite Conservative Members—we have some experienced business people and City experts in the Chamber—to raise their hands if they think that the Monetary Policy Committee should be abolished and control returned to the Bank of England. The House has the answer it deserves.
  If that is not an answer, what is? I am passionately in favour of manufacturing. The right hon. Member for Wokingham made some unpleasant and snide remarks about Powerhouse UK and the bouncy castles now open in Horse Guards parade. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry to stretch the public sector borrowing requirement by a little to provide free passes for all hon. Members. I went there on Sunday, and I was delighted to see the creativity, the new talent and the energy of which British manufacturing is capable.
  One of the great myths with which we have to deal—what we may call the Lawson myth—is that trading a pound, and making a pound by trading a pound, is just as good for the economy as making a thing and making a pound by selling the thing. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for leather goods—the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson)—would agree with that
  108
  philosophy, although some of the experts in rentier capitalism did very well under the Lawson philosophy. That is complete and utter rubbish. The thesis that we are entering a so-called "weightless economy" in which all that counts is the service industry is not supported by the facts.
  Britain imports and exports six times more in tonnes of goods than it did 30 years ago. If one looks through our newspapers and magazines, what does one see? The pages are full of advertisements for things; for goods such as the hon. Member for North Shropshire and his company make—I did not mean any offence in my remark. Long may the British leather industry flourish.
  Mr. Flight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacShane: To an expert in the field, of course.
  Mr. Flight: Will the hon. Member acknowledge that, in a world of relatively free trade, goods will be produced where the cost is lowest, and that the mixture in countries such as Switzerland of good international services with industry is perhaps ideal? The argument that one is more virtuous than the other is not valid.
  Mr. MacShane: I am glad to see that, even without a beeper, the hon. Gentleman is completely on the new Labour message. That is exactly the point which the Prime Minister and the Chancellor make all the time. I know a little about Switzerland, which is a good example. Some 10 per cent. more of Switzerland's working population are in the manufacturing sector. A strong manufacturing sector is what supports strong financial, service, insurance and banking sectors.
  I want some re-balance and an end to the Lawson years. We must refuse to embrace the new, fashionable and pernicious thesis of the weightless economy. I want a commitment to manufacturing—which, I must say, was not in evidence during the Conservatives' period in government. Over the past six years, Britain's manufacturing exports have increased more than the export of services. We are a wonderfully creative and talented country, capable of making wonderful new products.
  The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) is a proponent of the Adam Smith theory of free trade and comparative advantage. It is remarkable that the hon. Member for South?West Hertfordshire prayed in aid the example of a company that moved to France, when, only a few hours ago, we heard that nobody would go to France because the social and labour costs were too high.
  Where are many of the goods that we buy in our giant shopping centres manufactured? Most of the computers are made in Taiwan, whose GDP per capita is a bit lower than that of the UK. However, it has a statutory minimum wage set at 70 per cent. of average industrial earnings in Taiwan. I am not remotely suggesting that such a recklessly high figure should be put into the debate here. A huge number of goods are imported from Singapore and Hong Kong, as was, where the GDP per capita?the standard of wealth of those countries?is above that of the UK. It is a myth that manufactured goods only belong in low-wage economies.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: Before the hon. Gentleman waxes too eloquent about the economic

  109
  success of Taiwan—like him, I greatly admire that country's achievements—will he remind the House that a great deal of what Taiwan sells is now made by their cousins in Fukien province on the mainland at very low wage rates and low direct labour costs, and is then brought to Taiwan and exported to the rest of the world, contributing to Taiwan's success?
  Mr. MacShane: Alas, I have visited Taiwan only once—although I have travelled and worked widely in Asia. I was deeply impressed by the remarkable combination of technological know-how and a commitment to manufacturing on the island, in addition to the sub-contracting that takes place. As someone who believes passionately in free trade, I support those developments.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: The hon. Gentleman has just referred to Taiwan's high technology. Not only is Taiwan facing higher unit labour costs—which is why so much of its manufacturing is now done in mainland China at one twentieth of the cost it would be in Taiwan—but it lacks some of the high technology. That is why the developing countries of the far east are trying hard to attract from the west the advanced technology that will enable them to combine lower wage costs with high technology. If that happens, we will have a problem in the west.
  Mr. MacShane: I was born an optimist and I shall die one. I have confidence in our country and in its abilities, and in the abilities and talent of the west to continually move upstream. At the same time, we must not ignore the fundamental contribution that basic manufacturing makes.
  I mentioned steel, a subject to which I shall return at the end of my speech. I represent a steel constituency, and steel is a profoundly environmentally friendly product. It now involves the latest technology. If one visits a steel mill, one does not see men cowering in front of furnaces, although the plants are still tremendously dramatic places to visit. Now, the majority of the men sit behind computer screens. That is exactly the sort of high-tech industry in which we need to invest, but it has not had the backing of the country as a whole—again, I say this on a bipartisan basis—that it deserves.
  I will briefly suggest three measures to support manufacturing. First, we must continually invest in training. In Edinburgh the other week, I was impressed to hear Hans-Olaf Henkel, the president of the German employers federation, who is a great fan of the deregulated, flexible labour market in Britain, make a powerful speech saying that the one thing that the Germans would never give up was their commitment to training. Whenever I or my hon. Friends have argued for an equivalent commitment by employers to training in this country, we have been told that we would be imposing an unbearable additional cost on them.
  I am delighted that the new deal contains a strong training component and excited by the concept of the university of industry. When it gets off the ground, it will help to connect many of our skilled people.
  Mr. Hammond rose—
  Mr. MacShane: I mean no discourtesy to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to allow other hon. Members to speak in the debate, so I want to finish my remarks.
  110
  The second necessary development is to break the centralised power of London over so much of our economy. One of the most exciting aspects of the new Government has been the move towards decentralisation. I welcome the creation of regional development agencies. Like the successful economies of the world—the United States, with 50 states setting their own tax levels and attracting their own investment, Germany with its Lander system and Switzerland, with its 24 cantons—we must have a local economic response and give my region of South Yorkshire, for example, the power to control more of its economic destiny. Watch us take off if that happens. We have to break completely with the centralised Tory state set up in the past 20 years.
  Thirdly, we need a relationship with Europe. I have no doubt in my mind that the contribution from the shadow President of the Board of Trade was disgraceful—that obsessive, bubbling Europhobia burst its banks. We need a relationship with what is loosely called Euroland—that is now the technical term for the countries entering European monetary union—and it will require a fundamental decision by the people of this country.
  A great signal was sent last May, when the Europhobic policies of the Tories were utterly rejected at the ballot box, and the Chancellor sent good signs in his statement in November. What has been the reaction of the Conservative party? Instead of grappling with that debate, we read—
  Mr. Paterson rose—
  Mr. MacShane: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way, as I want to finish my speech.
  We read in The Daily Telegraph today that a group of rather elderly, anti-European business men are setting up a new campaign against European monetary union. Who is to launch their conference? The Leader of the Opposition. Once again, the Europhobic virus is uncontainable in the Conservative party. I see that Conservative Members are waking up and becoming excited at that. We need to sort out our relationship with Europe.
  Mr. Paterson rose—
  Mr. MacShane: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman had a chance to speak, and I have given away generously.
  I urge Ministers to look hard at what needs to be done for our steel industry.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. MacShane: I am sorry not to give way, above all to the hon. Gentleman, but I have not given way to his hon. Friends, and I must treat hon. Members equally. I must sit down in a minute or so.
  I appeal to the Minister who is to reply to look seriously at what needs to be done to back one of our most modern industries. The British steel industry could set on extra shifts. Last Friday, I met a nuts and bolts manufacturer from the Rotherham-Sheffield border who is hiring new people because the company has the orders. The evidence

  111
  about this famous recession is far from clear. If we can get certain parameters of a pro-manufacturing policy in place, our firms will take off.
  We are setting targets for education and for health. I would have no problems with the development of a long-term infrastructure target for the United Kingdom. The other day, I was astonished to find that I had to climb up the steps from the tube to King's Cross and on up to St. Pancras station, as there was no escalator. It placed old people, those with children and the wheelchair-bound in an impossible position. Surely there cannot be another railway station in Europe that requires people to climb up on foot. Let us have a proper 10-year infrastructure investment plan.
  I am shamelessly patriotic on this subject, so let us also have an encouragement not to fly the flag overseas, as the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office do that together very well, but to fly it internally, so that, where possible, without breaking tender or competition rules, people can be encouraged to buy British-made products. I was delighted to see that Mr. Paul Smith had one of his suits in Powerhouse UK and would urge all hon. Members to let go of their Armani suits and put away their German—made Boss suits and buy Jasper Conran and Paul Smith. I try to wear Mr. Conran as often as I can—I wish that I could afford to eat in his daddy's restaurants.
  We also need cheaper energy prices. That is one of the big problems facing manufacturers and, again, it is an inheritance—I can feel myself being dragged back to the subject of history. The way in which the energy utilities were privatised gave the domestic consumer privileges, but industry was heavily sacrificed.
  We also need to encourage partnership politics in industry. I must pay tribute to a union with which I work—the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, which works well for the British steel industry. In 15 years, it has not had one strike. Unfortunately, all we heard in the debate two or three hours ago was the old adversarial language of them and us—"Treat 'em mean; keep 'em keen"—and hire and fire politics. We need a new approach to partnership in manufacturing industry, particularly in the steel industry.
  In conclusion, I must make a rather odd appeal, perhaps one that runs against the adversarial nature of the House, which is that, where possible, we should find common cause, particularly on our relationship with Europe and EMU, and on reforming the way in which our country is governed and administered, so that people in the regions can support manufacturing without some giant development plan, which never works, as we have seen. We should give up the ideology that manufacturing does not count—the ideology that says that only service industries count and that we can live in a weightless cyberworld. We should back our creative industries, but we should not forget that steel exports amounted to four times the exports of all the music industry of the United Kingdom put together.
  British steel workers do not smoke dope or snort coke, they are not called Rumbaba and do not dump pails of water over the head of the Deputy Prime Minister, but they are working hard for Britain, just as our car workers are, by exporting £8 billion-worth of steel last year, along the lines of partnership, a positive engagement with
  112
  Europe and a commitment to regional development. If my hon. Friend the Minister could encourage those ideas and policies, British manufacturing will win in the next century.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you draw to Madam Speaker's attention the fact that out of a two and three quarter hour debate, the first hour and three quarters has been occupied by four speeches? Can that be right for the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): That is not a matter for the Chair.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Charles Wardle: I intend to be brief, but I agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I do not want to waste too much of my time in responding to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), but, in talking about the Bank of England's freedom to set interest rates, he missed the point—the question is not whether allowing the Bank of England that freedom is right, but whether the Government's fiscal policy is aligned with that freedom.
  The President of the Board of Trade spoke scornfully about past boom-and-bust cycles, but she gives the same hostage to fortune as the Prime Minister does time and again. Unless they heed the warnings of major—and many smaller and medium-sized—British manufacturing companies about the strength of sterling, they will find themselves in precisely such a cycle.
  I remember the 1970s as well as 18 excellent years of Conservative rule. During much of the 1970s, I was involved in manufacturing in the west midlands. Labour Members should remember the conditions that obtained between 1976 and 1979, and remind themselves of a book written by the then general secretary of Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs, Clive Jenkins—it was called "The World of Work", I think—in which he predicted, before the winter of discontent and the 1979 general election, that unemployment would rise in the early 1980s to 6 million as a result of the collapse of manufacturing industry. To believe that what happened was all down to Conservative policy is to ignore the facts.
  Over the past 25 years, there have been seismic shifts in world manufacturing, prompted by inflation, the technology revolution and the emergence of highly competitive third world and Pacific basin suppliers operating with dramatically lower direct labour costs than have proved possible in the strongest European economies.
  In the world recessions of the early 1980s and at the start of this decade, the best British manufacturers survived. They embraced the realities and exploited the advantages that the changing scene presented. Leaner, fitter and hungrier companies thrived in the Conservative climate of market liberalisation, privatisation, less regulation, less Government intervention, high inward investment and—by the mid-1990s, at least—rapid growth in gross domestic product, with low inflation and falling unemployment.
  Since last May, however, there have been worrying signs that the positive scenario for British industry that was created by the Conservative Government is being drastically undermined. First, the Government have an

  113
  instinct for intervention. Secondly, there are fundamental flaws in their economic policy. Thirdly, they fail even to try to check the European scramble to introduce a single currency without sufficiently stringent disciplines over economic convergence.
  New Labour may have consulted its focus groups and learnt that business-friendly noises are what voters want to hear, but the Government's actions have not been business-friendly. Signing up to the social chapter was only the beginning. Social partnership is a euphemism for Government dictating how employees and employers should interact, instead of allowing them to get on with it themselves. Conservative Members will certainly strongly challenge the much-heralded "Fairness at Work" White Paper when it is published next month.
  The threat of a return to the bad old days of a Government-enforced system of employee representation in the workplace will destroy hard-won competitiveness and job security. The fact that the Government are pressing ahead with the National Minimum Wage Bill defies belief—unemployment in the rest of the European Union demonstrates the dangers that will befall the British economy if the minimum wage is pitched at anything above a nominal level.
  Similarly, the enthusiasm for business improvement districts and town and city improvement zones points to a return to the weaknesses in the previous Labour Government's thinking in the late 1970s, when companies that were arbitrarily excluded from the geography of development zones were tempted to close factories, disrupt local communities and move into those zones because of the artificial inducement of Government subsidies. The only result was that one town's gain was another town's loss, with no obvious benefit to British industry as a whole. Equally, giving local authorities a freer hand on business rates will have a disruptive effect, as it did in the late 1970s.
  The proposals for the board membership of regional development agencies will mean that industrialists will be in a minority on those boards, and so unable to prevent the rubber-stamping actions of the RDA directors, who will do the Government's bidding for yet further intervention. Why, for example, change the role of English Partnerships, which has done so well nationally, or be tempted to intervene in the Invest in Britain Bureau? Why suck into the RDAs the job done so well by the Rural Development Commission, which has been so successful in promoting micro-industrial development in rural areas?
  Worse still is the Government's assumption that industry will somehow benefit from Government-sponsored working parties. I remember a Minister saying that the Government were seeking ideas about the way in which Britain could become more competitive, but industry needs not another export forum or talking shop, but simply the freedom to get on with its job of wealth creation with as little bureaucratic interference as possible.
  Much has been said this evening about economic policy, so I shall be brief. The Government's pre-election pledge not to touch income tax has already begun to look short-sighted. The Chancellor's raid on pension funds and the added cash flow pressure that he has imposed on business—by proposing that advance corporation tax be collected quarterly—were misguided and mistimed. At the
  114
  very time that he has given the Bank of England a free hand, he has failed to encourage savings or to dampen consumer demand, much of which is now being directed towards imports that are artificially cheap as a result of the strength of sterling.
  The Prime Minister's words at the weekend about helping Japan and the rest of Asia rang hollow. He and the Chancellor seem unprepared to face up to the dangers of an imminent recession in United Kingdom manufacturing that will arise because of their failure to co-ordinate their fiscal policy with interest rate management at the Bank of England, despite the fact that, compared with Japan, Britain relies on exports for twice the percentage of its GDP.
  Labour Members seem to suggest that the European single currency will have no effect on British manufacturing industry, but that is not so. The Government's failure to speak out during the UK's presidency of the European Union about the dangers of a headlong rush to monetary union, with insufficient concern about economic convergence, will create a weaker euro, which is bound to be preyed on in the currency markets. The effect will be economic stresses and tensions among member states that are certain to impinge on Britain's trade with the rest of Europe, at the very least.
  One has only to imagine the plight of a hypothetical single Pacific currency. It would have been undermined by Japanese economic failure, having first been softened up by the related problems in South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand or Malaysia, and then it would have gone through the floor, dragging down good regional economies along with bad ones. Unless the EU deals with the structural deficiencies in its member economies that are being masked by a lax interpretation of convergence criteria, further trouble lies ahead.
  We should also consider the conflict of interest that faces so many EU countries that are determined to introduce the single currency without delay. That is the conflict between growing unemployment and the need for a tougher fiscal stance. Many influential voices in Germany, France and elsewhere in the European Union recognise the rod for their own back that is being created by politicians and bureaucrats hell-bent on political union via monetary union and the single currency.
  Our priority should be not scepticism about Britain's fate in the single currency, but the effect on British industry of the economic instability and tension that are bound to follow the first wave of entrants into the single currency if they disregard the prerequisite of genuine economic convergence. The Government's failure to get that message across to our EU partners during Britain's. presidency bodes ill for British industry.
  The Government make brave noises, but fail to understand the realities of the sharp end of line management in British industry, and the wealth creation that goes with it. Their failure to resist interventionist temptations, their muddled economic thinking and their inability to say boo to the rest of Europe when boo should be said, will create further problems and destroy British competitiveness.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Brian Cotter: The Conservatives are to be congratulated on securing this important debate. The Government forecast growth in

  115
  manufacturing output this year of only zero per cent. to 0.5 per cent., and with the very strong pound, the risk is that there could even be a mini-recession in manufacturing this year, with falling output. The situation in Asia has increased the risk, and makes it all the more important to debate the prospects for manufacturing industry.
  However, that is where my congratulations to the Tories end. No one can forget their record in government over 18 long, hard years. I did not get elected to the House to forget that record, which affected not only my constituents but myself, as managing director of a manufacturing company in the plastics industry.
  The nation experienced a severe slump in 1980-81, with substantial exchange rate over-valuation, and a recession in 1990–92. Both busts were caused by irresponsible Conservative policies, and they led to muscle as well as fat being lost from industry. It was hypocritical of the Conservatives to table the motion, when many members of the shadow Cabinet agreed to the implementation of the measures that led to the decimation of manufacturing industry.
  The Tory record does not hold up. So bad were the Tories at promoting British manufacturing that, in 1993, after 14 years of Tory rule, manufacturing output was at the same level as it had been 20 years earlier, in 1973. Between 1979 and 1981, manufacturing output fell by 18 per cent. in real terms. There had not been a similar collapse in industrial output since 1920-21. All that from a party that has consistently claimed that the economy is safe only in its hands.
  The facts get worse. The motion refers to employment in manufacturing industry, but the hard fact is that manufacturing employment fell by 2.682 million jobs between 1979 and 1996; four jobs in every 10 disappeared under the Tories, yet they call on the Government to change policies
  "before factories close and jobs are lost."
  If we Liberal Democrats did not know better, the startling arrogance of the official Opposition would almost beggar belief. This is not the first occasion in this Parliament when they have made U-turns on policies.
  Those statistics represent the average. Let us consider the worst years. In 1980–81, 650,000 manufacturing jobs were lost; in 1982, another 320,000 were lost; and in 1983, another 307,000 went down the drain. In only three years, an astonishing 1.277 million jobs were lost in manufacturing.
  Mrs. Thatcher's monetarist policies created those losses, and many of the current shadow Cabinet supported them at the time. In 1981, she said:
  "Of course I am deeply concerned about the plight of the unemployed and those businesses which are suffering severely. We shall do everything we can to help them. What we cannot do is change our essential strategy."
  It was a strategy for job losses. It was her inflexibility that caused so many to suffer. The Government should learn from her crucial mistakes.
  Those episodes were caused largely by exchange rate over-valuation and instability. In the early 1980s, sterling rose by 18 per cent. against the deutschmark, in spite of higher UK inflation. That is why the Liberal Democrats
  116
  regard the current situation so seriously. In the past 18months, sterling has risen 30 per cent. on a trade-weighted basis, which has had a profound effect on our manufacturing industry.
  Figures released today show that manufacturing output is down. In the three months to February, output fell by 0.5 per cent. compared with the previous three months. Just over half manufacturing industries have shown decreases in production, as I know from my company. There was a 1.8 per cent. decrease in the output of the textiles, leather and clothing industries; 1.6 per cent. in chemicals and man-made fibres; and 1 per cent. in the pulp, paper, printing and publishing industries. The signs of impending danger are there. The Government have a duty to listen seriously to the manufacturing industries, and to take action to avoid a devastating repeat of 1980–81 and 1990 to 1992.
  The Government talk much about stability. We welcome operational independence for the Bank of England, and the fiscal stability code. Both those policies were in our manifesto, if not in Labour's. We applaud the Government for adopting our policies. Meanwhile, the Tories are hopelessly incoherent on the Bank of England. They have already been asked, and I ask again, whether they would take back political control over interest rates. We would like to hear their answer. The former Conservative Chancellor berates the new monetary system in the UK while supporting the single currency, which would also require an operationally independent central bank.
  The Tories clearly have much thinking to do, but so do the Government. To tax and interest rate stability, we must add exchange rate stability. That is why a clear decision for early economic and monetary union entry would be advantageous to Britain and to industry.
  Mr. Flight: Not at this rate.
  Mr. Cotter: Such a decision would cap the pound's rise and help industry. Businesses are irritated by the lack of a clear timetable for the single currency. The hon. Gentleman says, "Not at this rate." Had the steps I described been taken at the right time, we would not have the present rate.
  The Government should have done a better job on fiscal policy. They claim to have tightened fiscal policy, but most of those measures will not cool the consumer boom in the short term. Raising extra taxes on savings and businesses may seem like good policies, but they are bad economics.
  The consumer taxes that the Chancellor has spoken of are modest, or offset by other measures. When asked by the Treasury Select Committee last week to list the actions that he has taken to dampen consumer demand, he could point only to a reduction of mortgage tax relief, which is only just taking effect; a reduction in tax relief via the married couple's allowance, which will take place in 1999; higher stamp duty on highly priced properties; and a higher petrol tax.
  Those measures will have only a limited effect on consumer demand. We are back to having only one mechanism. Interest rates alone are being used to dampen the economy, at the cost of a stronger pound and higher costs on industry.

  117
  Is the Chancellor feeling somewhat chastened after strong criticism from the Engineering Employers Federation? If not, he should be. The EEF is right to say that the Treasury is "not listening enough" to industry about the damage that the strong pound is doing to UK manufacturers. The EEF also agrees that the problem should be tackled through taxes targeted at the consumer—otherwise, it predicts, up to 50,000 jobs will be lost in the engineering sector alone.
  What should the Government do? We Liberal Democrats have consistently argued that money should be devoted towards training and education. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) made a constructive speech, the tenor of which we can support. He spoke about crossing the political boundaries to come up with solutions, the importance of training and education, and the important role that rural development agencies should have in future in regeneration at local level. He also spoke of adopting a rational approach to the European Community.
  I fully support many other initiatives, including the foresight initiative, which links science and technology with industry, although many are now saying that it is underfunded. I am glad to see the Government embarking on a programme to help small businesses with exports, but we Liberal Democrats believe that, overall, the Government should have made a stronger commitment toward a single currency.
  I could make other constructive points, but I conclude by saying that tonight we have debated a cynical motion from a party that has neither principle or policy. The Conservatives' suggestion that labour standards should be undermined is unacceptable to Liberal Democrats. It may be a bitter pill for the Tories to swallow, but the previous Conservative Government were responsible for much of the decline of manufacturing industry.
  However, the Labour Government must learn that flexibility is not a weakness; they must learn to listen, and to change course if a disaster for our manufacturing industry is to be averted. The Chancellor needs to get to grips with a problem that requires the minds and application of politicians of all persuasions, people in industry, trade unions, the City and every other institution that is engaged in productive activity. These are early days for the Labour Government, and they have a chance to develop our economy to support manufacturing industry. We shall judge them on their record, and on their response to the situation we face today.
  9.21 pm
  Dr. Nick Palmer: I have noticed in previous debates on industry the curious fact that few leading Conservatives have any personal experience of manufacturing industry. Let us look at the backgrounds of the six signatories to the motion in the dim and distant days before they fell on evil times and became professional Conservatives.
  The Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), was a business consultant. The shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), was an oil analyst. The shadow President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), was an investment adviser. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was a
  118
  barrister, as was the hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was a farmer, an accountant and a finance director.
  All those professions are extremely respectable—if I had a daughter who wanted to marry one of them, I should say, "By all means. My son-in-law the oil analyst—why not?"—but it is curious that the parliamentary Conservative party is unable to find a single manufacturer in its ranks to sign the motion.
  That might explain why the previous Government and the current shadow Cabinet have managed to get so far out of touch with British industry. I shall not go into the question of sterling, because almost all the other speakers have addressed it; but I have spoken with many managers in Broxtowe, and I should like to say a couple of words about the other points on the charge sheet assembled by the Opposition.
  The motion claims that managers are worried about taxes, but not one of the Broxtowe managers to whom I spoke cited tax as an issue that worried them—on the contrary, they feel that the reduction in corporation tax is helpful to industry. Taxation does not appear to be a problem for them.
  The motion also alleges that managers are alarmed by social and labour law legislation. None of the Broxtowe managers has evinced any such concern, with the exception of a firm run by an exclusive Christian group called the Brethren, which believes that the Bible forbids it to recognise trade unions. If Conservative Members wish to promote that group, that is fine, but I have not heard them mention it. Perhaps they are saving that argument for the wind-up speech.
  The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) made an interesting point. He said that he wondered whether, in the present regime, overseas companies would wish to pursue inward investment in Britain.
  Unlike the sponsors of the motion, I have recent experience of management in a large overseas-based multinational manufacturing company. I spoke to the chairman after seeing advertisements placed in the local press by the former Conservative Government, which said that companies should invest in Britain because our wage rates were low and there were few restrictions on employers.
  I felt a little ashamed that we should be openly advertising ourselves as an ideal home for sweatshops, but I asked the chairman whether those arguments would persuade him to increase UK investment. His reply was revealing. He said that, other things being equal, lower wage rates were welcome, but that, at that time, there were two problems in Britain which were significant barriers to investment: the poor state of infrastructure, especially in the universities; and the low average quality of education, which made it hard to get the staff needed for high-quality precision manufacturing.
  Given that background, I whole-heartedly welcome the new Government's focus on creating an environment for education and training that surpasses that of our foreign competitors. I particularly welcome the emphasis on support for research and development, which the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry has made his own.
  British business needs four things from Government, regardless of the Government's political complexion. First, it needs a stable economic environment focused on

  119
  long-term growth, as emphasised so many times by the Chancellor. Secondly, it needs an education system that delivers the expertise needed for competitiveness. That is the focus of the policies put forward by the Department for Education and Employment. Thirdly, it needs a financial environment that rewards enterprise and venture capital investment, as stressed by the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry when we debated that matter a few weeks ago. Finally, it needs a social and environmental policy framework that makes clear what is expected of it, and is not subject to constant change. That is another commitment of this Government.
  The new Labour Government are committed to all four elements, which is why business in Broxtowe, as in Britain in general, is predominantly behind the Government as they take our country into a future that matches the industrial glories of the past.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: It was kind of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) to go into the biographical details of those who signed the motion, but he was wrong to assert that none of us has manufacturing experience. He mentioned that I have a business background, but I spent 10 years in manufacturing before coming to this House, and am now a director of a manufacturing company, an interest that I am proud to declare in such a debate.
  More generally, almost all my right hon. and hon. Friends who signed the motion have more manufacturing and business experience than the entire Department of Trade and Industry Front Bench. Therefore, Conservative Members think that we know what we are talking about, and we have heard some excellent speeches from my right hon. and hon. Friends this evening.
  We have on our hands a betrayal of everything for which Labour said they stood when in opposition. We are used to broken promises from Labour on taxation, but their betrayal of the manufacturing interest is probably the greatest. When they were in opposition, no speech made by Labour Members was complete without reference to the central importance of the manufacturing sector. They always called for lower interest rates, more investment, intervention of one sort or another, but now that they are in office, they have no strategy whatever. That has been noticed not just by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, but more generally.
  I was interested in a debate in another place last week, in which Lord Paul—a new Labour peer—finished his speech by saying:
  "There is a cynicism creeping into the minds of UK manufacturers that this Government are indifferent to the fate of manufacturing industry".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 April 1998; Vol. 587, c. 298.]
  That has been shown again this evening.
  The President of the Board of Trade, in her somewhat petulant and shrill speech, showed that she had no idea whether she was on the side of those who still believe manufacturing to be important, or whether she thinks that manufacturing is no longer sufficiently cool to engage the interest of Ministers. I personally thought that it was one of the weakest performances from the Dispatch Box that
  120
  I have ever heard on a subject of this importance. It showed the shallowness of the Government's entire approach. They have no strategy.
  On reflection, perhaps we should not be too surprised at that, because one of the first things that the Government did, four days after the general election, was to give away the power to decide interest rates—a central lever of the economy. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer transferred the decision-making power to the Bank of England, he did so without telling the House, without consulting anyone outside, and in defiance of what was in the Labour manifesto.
  In Labour's business manifesto, which we all know was more important than their main manifesto—
  The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle)rose—
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I give way to the Minister.
  Mr. Battle: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he prefers that decision? Is it not the case that many companies, including his own, welcome it?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall come to the attitude of companies in a moment. I make the point—it is interesting that the Minister does not deny this—that, in its business manifesto, Labour said that it would set up an advisory committee in the Bank of England, but that decisions would continue to be taken by the Treasury; so it was another broken promise when, four days after the general election, the Chancellor transferred these powers to the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, in advance of any legislation.
  We warned of the dangers, and the confusion that we predicted in the Monetary Policy Committee has occurred. It has broken up into two unarmed camps: the hawks and the doves. The hawks believe that further increases in interest rates are required. The doves believe that interest rates should remain the same.
  The Monetary Policy Committee's discussions are conducted semi-publicly, but it has raised in the minds of economic commentators and the markets the probability of further interest rate rises to come, which has further strengthened the pound and further damaged exporters and the manufacturing sector generally. That point was graphically made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), who has long experience of these matters. We are the fifth biggest trading nation in the world, and markets that are relinquished by the failure to compete on price are difficult to re-establish.
  Dr. Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me? He has made his speech. I hope to reply to some of his points in due course.
  There are reports that the Government, and more specifically the Cabinet, have split on this issue into those who still believe that something should be done about manufacturing, and those who do not. The attitude of the President of the Board of Trade remains a mystery.

  121
  We also warned at the time that there was a danger that monetary policy would diverge from fiscal policy; that the MPC would have an overriding concern to counter inflation by higher interest rates, while the Chancellor and the Government would pull policy in another direction. Those warnings came not just from my party, but from other parties. Indeed, I recognise one or two Labour Members who made precisely the same points.
  The Government did not listen. That is hardly surprising, because Labour Members do not take the House seriously any more: they never attend debates such as this. But it has happened again. There is now a divergence between what the Chancellor, in two Budgets, has done in regard to taxation—and in regard to savings in particular—and what the Monetary Policy Committee is trying to do in the Bank of England.
  In those two Budgets, we have seen an attack on savings. The £5 billion raid on pension funds—which is now to be an annual event—is the precise opposite of what the Government should have done last year. They should have encouraged savings, especially in the light of the huge windfalls that consumers were receiving from building societies and insurance companies following flotations.
  The Government compounded the problem with the muddle over tax-exempt special savings accounts and personal equity plans. They relented on that, and we had a U-turn; but individual savings accounts will still be subject to an annual limit that is less than half what people can currently save through PEPs and TESSAs. By taxing savings and deterring savers, the Government put all the burden of the anti-inflation strategy on to the Bank of England. That is why we have had five interest rate rises since the election, and an uncompetitively high pound. It has been bad for mortgage holders, bad for investment and bad for exporters.
  All that is described in the finer print of the Red Book—the Financial Statement published at the time of the Budget. It is laid out in the Red Book that the savings ratio is
  "expected to decline over the next three years."
  The Red Book also mentions business investment, about which we have heard so much criticism this evening. Apparently it has been
  "rising as a share of GDP since 1994."
  So much for the assertion that it fell constantly during our term of office.
  The Red Book also states:
  "Overall, business investment is forecast to decelerate this year".
  "Decelerate" is one of those wonderful words that actually mean something different. "Decelerate" really means that business investment will be cut this year. It is one of the understatements for which the Treasury is famous.
  On page 95, the Red Book says:
  "the outlook for the traded goods sector is difficult … with imports of goods in the fourth quarter of 1997 up 10¾ per cent. on a year earlier."
  There we have it. We know that the Prime Minister has not read the Red Book, but we have. We know from the Chancellor himself that savings are set to decline, that investment is set to decline, that imports are going up, that industry is contracting, and that the Government's inflation targets—even on their own figures—will not be met until the end of next year.
  122
  We have a highly distorted economy. Services and consumption are buoyant, while manufacturers and exporters are on the brink of a recession. In today's debate, one or two hon. Members said that everything would be all right, because we now have stability. Indeed, the Chancellor has said more than once that he wants to end the cycle of boom and bust. He has done so by having both simultaneously: we have a boom in the consumer market, and a potential bust—certainly, we are on the brink of a bust—in the manufacturing and exporting sector.
  There is another point, which again has been made by my hon. Friends. According to the Governor of the Bank of England, about half the rise in sterling can be attributed to the weakness of the euro. In other words, sterling is now a currency of refuge. Quite simply, a fudged euro will be a weak euro, which means a relatively strong pound.
  What are the Government doing? Nothing. Despite holding the six-month presidency of the European Union, neither the Prime Minister nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer shows the slightest interest in ensuring that the treaty convergence criteria are adhered to. The Bundesbank report lays out the fudging in graphic detail. Italy will have to run a budget surplus of 2.2 per cent. for the next 10 years to reach the required 60 per cent. debt level, but it is not even planning a balanced budget, so the chance of meeting the entry criteria is extremely remote.
  The Prime Minister says that a range of criteria must be considered. Cannot the Government understand that fudging the entry criteria may do terrible, or even irreparable, damage to our manufacturing industry? If the Prime Minister and the Chancellor do not at least try to insist during their chairmanship of meetings that treaty requirements must be adhered to, we shall conclude that their reputation as European fixers is more important than their aim of preventing damage to the constituent economies of the European Union or that of the United Kingdom.
  Damage is caused directly to the manufacturing sector not by the high value of the pound, but by taxation and regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) graphically described the damage caused by over-regulation. I must mention the £20 billion extra tax burden on British industry laid out for the duration of this Parliament, the pensions tax, the early instalments of corporation tax, the double increase in diesel duty, and the stamp duty increases, all of which hit businesses harder than home owners and add to the burdens on the manufacturing sector when the Government have announced a welfare-to-work programme that relies on such firms to deliver jobs.
  The Government have the cheek to claim credit for the competitiveness, flexibility and success that British firms have built up over the past 18 years, but trade union reforms, privatisations and the creation of a dynamic and flexible labour market were opposed throughout by the Labour party. The only reform or policy it supported was our entry of the exchange rate mechanism. The Conservative party has learnt the lesson about that, but the Labour party has not.
  The Government have been lucky. They have inherited a golden legacy, but their response is to tax savings and businesses, to regulate and to interfere. Alongside that is

  123
  neglect of and indifference to the damage that is being caused by the strength of the pound—almost fatalism about it.
  If there is even a vestigial concern among Labour Members about the manufacturing sector, they should show it by joining us in the Lobby.
  9.43 pm
  The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): After 11 years as a Member of Parliament, I am amazed at the Opposition's new-found interest in manufacturing—although it is welcome.
  Conservative Members have used the word "manufacturing" as a cover for a debate on the euro: most of the speech of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) was against the single European currency, and the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) resigned as a Treasury Minister before the last election because he disagreed with the then Chancellor's policy—but tonight he said how marvellous it was. After a cursory introductory reference to manufacturing, the shadow President of the Board of Trade moved on to his usual hang-up with the euro. The debate has been a run-out for the Eurosceptics, in case they find that their leader is backsliding again. It is a little late in the day for Conservative Members to promote manufacturing, given the fact that, for almost two decades, they deliberately ran down, if not wrote off, the manufacturing sector.
  The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) was a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry. In my 10 years in the House, I do not recall him mentioning the word "manufacturing" in his speeches, yet he claims that he regularly reminded us that manufacturing created the wealth that the nation needed.
  Mr. Page: Would it be convenient for me to send the hon. Gentleman copies of all my speeches on manufacturing, and would he please acknowledge receipt of them?
  Mr. Battle: As the President of the Board of Trade said, one or two lone voices in the Conservative party spoke up for manufacturing, but the hon. Gentleman was not one of them. I should be delighted to receive the full raft of his speeches in the House on manufacturing, because I am confident that he did not make many.
  When the noble Lord Young was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, he was challenged on Tory policies that undermined manufacturing. In my own city of Leeds, engineering, printing and textiles provided employment for more than 100 years. In the early 1980s, he advised great manufacturing centres such as Leeds to abandon manufacturing and to concentrate on services. His immortal words were that the centres of manufacturing would thrive if only more people would eat out. That was his policy. He advised us that we would economically survive by cutting each other's hair and eating at McDonald's. In the meantime, there was a slump in manufacturing from 52 per cent. of the economy to 22 per cent.
  I am glad that, late in the day, the Conservatives are telling us that manufacturing is crucial to economic prosperity. We have known that for decades. Some of the
  124
  industries to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) referred were written off by the Tories as traditional, but the steel industry has moved towards the 21st century with new technology. What did we get from 18 years of Conservative government? We had bust, boom and bust again: short-term expediency rather than long-term commitment. Manufacturing under the Tories was hammered by two savage recessions, and damaged by an unsustainable boom in between.
  The Tories kept telling us that their macro-economic policy was set within a medium-term financial strategy. The problem with the objectives of their monetary and fiscal policies was that they changed with bewildering frequency. Nowhere was their confusion greater than on the subject of exchange rates. First Chancellor Nigel Lawson went, and then Norman Lamont resigned. The Tories believed that the exchange rate would find its own level, and that it was an important indicator of monetary conditions. That led to the shadowing of the deutschmark. Then they argued that we could not buck the market, and they joined the exchange rate mechanism. Two years later, we were ejected from the ERM at a cost to the country of £10 billion in a single afternoon. They now have the nerve to tell us about economic policy.
  As a result of the confusion, the pound went on a rollercoaster ride. Under two Prime Ministers and four Chancellors, the rate of sterling against the deutschmark changed a mere 87 times. That is the Tory record.
  Mr. Hammond: Does the Minister acknowledge that there is an immediate problem for manufacturing industry? What advice would he give to manufacturing companies that are on the brink of having to make substantial redundancies because they are becoming uncompetitive? That is happening now, not in history.
  Mr. Battle: I shall willingly deal with the hon. Gentleman's point if he will allow me to continue my speech. We should put it clearly on the record where the Conservative party comes from, because the boom and bust cycle that it created between 1989 and 1993 cost us 1 million manufacturing jobs. The last thing that the industry wants now is a return to those short-term, boom-bust, stop-go policies of the past.
  The Conservative Government did little to promote manufacturing, and many of their actions were damaging. As a result of 18 years of Conservative Government, manufacturing shrank by a quarter in relation to the economy as a whole. Some 2.5 million jobs were lost, and the Conservative Government were totally indifferent to that. They did not say a word about manufacturing.
  Of course we fully recognise the worries of manufacturers about the current exchange rate. I met representatives of the worsted textile industry in my constituency on Saturday. We appreciate that they are under pressure, but it is accepted that we need a stable and competitive framework over the medium and longer term. We have the right policies to achieve that. I recall the freely given and much publicised expert advice in the months before the general election. What did all the experts advise and agree on? They claimed that the only certainty other than death if a Labour Government were elected was that the pound would sink. They said that it would go through the floor.

  125
  The experts all predicted a fall in the pound consequent on the election of a Labour Government. To be fair, there was some precedent. Every previous Labour Government have come under incredible economic pressure, and everyone expected downward pressure on the pound. Conservative Members spelled that out day after day in the election campaign. What has happened? Who predicted that a Labour Government would face the problem of the pound being too strong?
  The Conservatives do not know where they stand on the issue. On 30 October 1989, just after Nigel Lawson resigned, the then Prime Minister, now Baroness Thatcher, declared on television:
  "I like a strong pound."
  Now the shadow President of the Board of Trade campaigns for a weak pound, but at that time, he claimed that Baroness Thatcher was right. He has obviously changed his mind. Conservative Members with their selective amnesia seem to forget that sterling's value against the deutschmark increased by 20 per cent. between May 1996 and May 1997. Some 70 per cent. of the present increase is due to the actions of the Government at that time, and, of course, we have inherited that sterling time bomb.
  Mr. Graham Brady: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister's rampage through history. Is he not aware—I presume from his complacent performance that he is not—that some of my constituents with businesses in Trafford Park are already laying people off because of the Government's policies? They will not be satisfied by the complacent remarks of the Secretary of State and the Minister. Will the Minister tell us what the Government intend to do about that problem?
  Mr. Battle: Some of us recall the lay-offs in Trafford Park under the previous Government. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will remember the words of a former Conservative Chancellor who, just before the election, said:
  "We have a floating exchange rate at the moment and, for that reason, I do not control its level. Finance Ministers do not control the level of exchange rates in today's deregulated … markets."—[Official Report, 13 March 1997; Vol. 292, c. 491-92.]
  We are entitled to ask Opposition Members whether they agree with that or whether they now take a different view. As usual, they are at sixes and sevens. Some of them say, "Join the EMU early," while others are mortally opposed. Some say, "Put taxes up," while others say, "Put taxes down." Some say, "We want further fiscal tightening," while others say, "Not any more." They are all over the place—deeply divided, uncertain and never sure which way to face. Their position is muddled, inconsistent and incredible.
  Mr. Paterson: The Minister's historical rant is simply not good enough. [Interruption.] People working in businesses and on farms are worried sick that they will become unemployed because the Minister and the Secretary of State will not give the Chancellor a clear recommendation about what will do manufacturing good. At what level would they like to see the exchange rate?
  Mr. Battle: I seem to recall that today's debate is on an Opposition motion.
  126
  In 1995, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—during his perennial leadership campaign—said:
  "at my first Cabinet meeting, I'd ask what could we cease doing".
  After demonstrating that smack of firm, threatening leadership, he went on to declare:
  "Those who answer well will have good prospects under me."
  There we have it. The right hon. Gentleman may regale us with his empty rhetoric, but he will do nothing.
  What action would the right hon. Member for Wokingham take? He mutters about savings, but—despite those mutterings—the personal savings ratio is rising under our Labour Government. Would he tighten even further the Government's fiscal stance, and cut spending on education and health? Is that what he is telling us? Would he increase personal taxation? He is a do-nothing man, whose practical advice is worthless.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the savings ratio. May I refer him to the Government's own document—the Red Book—which clearly shows the savings ratio peaking in 1997, falling in 1998, falling further in 1999 and falling even further in 2000, when it runs off the map?
  Mr. Battle: That intervention was made by a man who was a Minister in a Government under whom savings fell to 6 per cent. Tell us about it.
  The Government understand the worries of manufacturers. Moreover, since day one, we have been providing an environment in which businesses can prosper. We have cut the main corporation tax rate and exempted small and medium-sized companies—about which some hon. Members have expressed some concern in this debate. We have reformed capital gains tax, and established a new enterprise investment scheme. We are investing in skills and training, and have established a university for industry. We have also introduced a university challenge fund. We are introducing major initiatives to get investment in research and development and to encourage longer-term investments. We shall stick with our strategy, and not be bounced by cribbing Conservative Members—who have not a clue what to do, and cannot even make up their own minds.
  Long-term investment rates are already lower, and manufacturing output is holding up. Yes, although we share some concerns with industry, we are determined to build a stable economic framework and to break the boom-bust cycle.
  Mr. David Prior: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Battle: No.
  I should like to know how Conservative Members have the gall, nerve and bare-faced cheek even to mention manufacturing. The right hon. Member for Wells mentioned cynicism. However, Conservative Members—who belong to a party that is without principle or policy—have tabled a cynical and opportunist motion. Conservative Members cannot even make up their minds what to do on those matters. For them to table that motion really takes the biscuit. In

  127
  government, Conservative Members worked to eliminate manufacturing, although they did not mention that today.
  I got the impression from the speech of the shadow President of the Board of Trade that he wants to set our exchange rate in a vacuum, as if we could do that in the context of a world economy. Such a desire is simply bizarre, and a case of, "Don't adjust your brain; there's a fault in reality."
  Our policies are designed to rebuild our manufacturing base and to ensure that it has a future. I hope that hon. Members will reject the cynical words in the Opposition's motion, which are simply a cover to allow the Eurosceptics another ride. Conservative Members' interest in manufacturing is as shallow as the words of their motion.
  I urge hon. Members to vote for the Government's amendment, which states how our policies will rebuild our manufacturing base and establish skills and training, which are a factor in our manufacturing's ability to compete. Our policies will ensure that there is investment in research and development, which declined under the previous Government. They left office with less investment in research and development than when they came to power. It is our policies that will rebuild our manufacturing base and ensure that it has a future, not the cynical opportunism that we see in the Conservative party motion. I recommend the amendment in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 333.

  Division No. 245]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Amess, David

  Collins, Tim

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Cran, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Davies, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Baldry, Tony

  Day, Stephen

  Bercow, John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Duncan, Alan

  Blunt, Crispin

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Body, Sir Richard

  Faber, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Fallon, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Flight, Howard

  Brady, Graham

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Brazier, Julian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fraser, Christopher

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gale, Roger

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Garnier, Edward

  Burns, Simon

  Gibb, Nick

  Butterfill, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Cash, William

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Green, Damian

  Chope, Christopher

  Greenway, John

  Clappison, James

  Grieve, Dominic

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Hammond, Philip

  (Rushcliffe)

  Hawkins, Nick

  128

  Hayes, John

  Prior, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Randall, John

  Horam, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Johnson Smith,

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Shepherd, Richard

  Key, Robert

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Spring, Richard

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Steen, Anthony

  Leigh, Edward

  Streeter, Gary

  Letwin, Oliver

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Syms, Robert

  Lidington, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Luff, Peter

  Townend, John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Tredinnick, David

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Trend, Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Viggers, Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Walter, Robert

  Madel, Sir David

  Wardle, Charles

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mates, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Wilkinson, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Willetts, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Norman, Archie

  Yeo, Tim

  Ottaway, Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Page, Richard

  Paice, James

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Paterson, Owen

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Pickles, Eric

  Mr. Oliver Heald

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Browne, Desmond

  Ainger, Nick

  Burden, Richard

  Alexander, Douglas

  Burgon, Colin

  Allan, Richard

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Allen, Graham

  Caborn, Richard

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Baker, Norman

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Cann, Jamie

  Barnes, Harry

  Caplin, Ivor

  Battle, John

  Casale, Roger

  Beard, Nigel

  Caton, Martin

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Chidgey, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Church, Ms Judith

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clapham, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Benton, Joe

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Bermingham, Gerald

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Berry, Roger

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Best, Harold

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clelland, David

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Coaker, Vernon

  Brake, Tom

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Breed, Colin

  Coleman, lain

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Colman, Tony

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  129

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hope, Phil

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cotter, Brian

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Crausby, David

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  (Copeland)

  Hurst, Alan

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hutton, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Illsley, Eric

  Darvill, Keith

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Doran, Frank

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dowd, Jim

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Drew, David

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kemp, Fraser

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ennis, Jeff

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Laxton, Bob

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Lepper, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Levitt, Tom

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Foulkes, George

  Linton, Martin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Livsey, Richard

  Galbraith, Sam

  Llody, Tony (Manchester C)

  Galloway, George

  Lock, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Love, Andrew

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCabe, Steve

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Godsiff, Roger

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Goggins, Paul

  McDonnell, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Grocott, Bruce

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Grogan, John

  McLeish, Henry

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hanson, David

  McWalter, Tony

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McWilliam, John

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marek, Dr John

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marshall, —Andrews, Robert

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Martlew, Eric

  Hill, Keith

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Meale, Alan

  Hood, Jimmy

  130

  Michael, Alun

  Sheerman, Barry

  Michie, Bill (Shef?ld Heeley)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Singh, Marsha

  Milburn, Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Moore, Michael

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

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

  Morley, Elliot

  Snape, Peter

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Spellar, John

  Mountford, Kali

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mudie, George

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mullin, Chris

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stevenson, George

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Norris, Dan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Oaten, Mark

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Stott, Roger

  Olner, Bill

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Öpik, Lembit

  Stunell, Andrew

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Pearson, Ian

  (Dewsbury)

  Pendry, Tom

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pike, Peter L

  Todd, Mark

  Plaskitt, James

  Touhig, Don

  Pope, Greg

  Trickett, Jon

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Truswell, Paul

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Dennies (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Tyler, Paul

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Vaz, Keith

  Rapson, Syd

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wallace, James

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rendel, David

  Watts, David

  Robertson, Rt Hon George

  Wicks, Malcolm

  (Hamilton S)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Rogers, Allan

  (Swansea W)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Rooney, Terry

  Williams, Mrs Betty

  Rowlands, Ted

  Winnick, David

  Roy, Frank

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wise, Audrey

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Wood, Mike

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Woolas, phil

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Wray, James

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Salter, Martin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sawford, Phil

  Mr. Clive Betts and

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr.Robert Ainsworth.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House deplores the Opposition's attempt to criticise the economic management of the Government as a feeble attempt to cover up their own appalling record of economic mis-management;

  131
  notes that under the Conservatives Britain slumped in the world prosperity league, saw the slowest period of growth since World War II, saw higher average inflation than in any other major industrialised country bar Italy, and had the lowest level of investment of any of the 24 OECD countries; also notes that the Conservatives left office with manufacturing investment lower than it was when they came to power, left Britain's share of world trade at its lowest ever, gave Britain a deficit on manufacturing trade for the first time ever, saw thousands of manufacturing firms go under due to their boom and bust policies, more than doubled the level of unemployment in their period in office, and left behind not a golden economic legacy, but an economy and public finances facing real difficulties; congratulates the Government on its prompt actions such as promoting the competitiveness agenda and fostering investment in R & D and innovation, and creating an open and transparent framework for monetary and fiscal policy to secure a platform of stability for growth and employment; and notes that the Government is addressing the problems which the Conservative Government left behind with positive practical proposals to take the nation into the 21st century.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

  COMMISSION WHITE PAPER ON RENEWABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY AND ENERGY FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5140/98, a Commission White Paper entitled Energy for the Future: Renewable Sources of Energy, the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum on the Council Resolution on Renewable Sources of Energy submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 16th March 1998, and European Community Document No. 13035/97, Annex I (a draft Decision adopting a multiannual framework programme for actions in the energy sector (1998–2002)), Annex IV (a draft Decision adopting a multiannual framework programme for the promotion of renewable energy sources in the Community: ALTENER II (1998–2002)), Annex V (a draft Decision adopting a multiannual programme for the promotion of energy efficiency (1998–2002): SAVE II), and Annex VI (a draft Decision adopting a multiannual programme of technological actions promoting the clean and efficient use of solid fuels: CARNOT (1998–2002)); and supports the Government's view that actions should be taken to promote a greater use of renewable energy within Europe, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, and that measures to promote renewables should be compatible with the need to restrain public expenditure and avoid disproportionate costs for consumers and industry; and supports the Government's view that EU spending programmes with an energy component should, as far as practicable, be brought together in a framework programme to improve co-ordination and transparency.—[Mr. Allen.]
  Question agreed to.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Wednesday 8th April, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until she shall have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Allen.]

PETITION

  Green Belt (Surrey)
  10.12 pm
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I beg leave to present a petition signed by more than 5,000 residents of east Surrey, expressing their concern about the threat of large-scale new developments in the green belt and countryside. The petition states:
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to ensure that more homes are built in city areas, instead of the countryside or Green Belt, to breathe new life into our cities and to protect valuable countryside for future generations.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Electronic Government
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]
  10.13 pm
  Ms Margaret Moran: At the outset, I should make clear that I am not an information technology anorak—with the greatest respect to all those who understand the details of all things technological and digital. I secured this debate because I believe that we are on the cusp of a quiet revolution—a revolution in which electronic government can enable us to reinvent government in the way in which we provide public services and reinvigorate democracy. The opportunities of electronic government can enable more efficient delivery of services, greater transparency and access to information, and have potential to empower the citizen and transform democracy.
  My passion for the potential for electronic government dates from 1994. It arose due to my concern, as the then leader of Lewisham council, about low levels of participation in local government and low voter turnout. I recognised the need to transform our services, breaking down old departmental divisions and bringing services closer to people. The need to enhance our citizens' role in decision making is also key.
  In 1994, we started the democracy project—the "Lewisham Listens" experiment—using new technology to put citizens at the heart of government and enhance local democracy. The experiment included community forums, one of the first citizens' juries, a community plan, video boxes, one of the first council community websites, an award-winning European funded teledemocracy project using interactive IT, and teletalk, using video conferencing in libraries to increase access to services and receive our citizens' views on any aspect of our work.
  Subsequently, GALA was developed, providing interactive television kiosks around the borough and in shopping centres, covering health, education, local environment, transport and tourism. Although I was accused by some of my colleagues of encouraging couch-potato democracy, I believe that we learned a great deal and showed that local government is on the leading edge of electronic government.
  Since then, of course, electronic government has moved on, with Bristol's plans for a digital city, for example. In my constituency, the Ladman partnership involving Luton and South Bedfordshire councils, Cabletel, Luton university and Luton airport will assist economic regeneration by training and networking local and worldwide business. It also plans to provide free e-mail for all.
  Until now, local government's attempts to develop electronic government have been hindered by lack of support from central Government—but no longer. The new Labour Government are promoting new government using new technology, as demonstrated by the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to ensuring that 25 per cent. of all services are electronically delivered by 2002.
  The Government are already encouraging greater use of new technologies by business, such as the electronic form for the self-employed, which I saw piloted recently at NatWest in Luton. In education and training,
  134
  £350 million has been committed to the national grid for learning and the forthcoming university for industry, and in Luton alone, we received one of the largest grants in the country for our central library to increase access to IT. All that signals a Government who are committed to bringing information technology access and skills to all our community for the millennium and beyond.
  The big picture is not just a series of IT initiatives. The Government could lead a global revolution in electronic government. While some countries are galloping ahead in electronic government, such as the Malaysian Government with Malaysia on-line, our United Kingdom information and communication technologies infrastructure is peerless, we are information-rich, and we lead our European counterparts by several leagues. The real challenge for us now is to harness the full potential of the information society to get maximum gain for all our people. The "Better Government" White Paper offers such opportunities. It could lead the way in a fundamental change in the relationship between citizen and government.
  The deep sense of disillusionment with government, which prompted my democracy project in 1994, remains. Restoring faith in and reinvigorating democracy remains the most important challenge for all politicians.
  Transforming public services via electronic government to provide "joined-up " government will be crucial in that democratic renewal. However, that alone is not enough, and therein lies the real challenge in which electronic government has a key role. The challenges seem to be—first, how do we re-engineer government in a way which has a bottom-up approach and which allows Government to maximise citizen participation?
  Secondly, how do we ensure that information is available to citizens in a way which empowers? In the last few weeks, we have seen the development of intelligent mark-up so that citizen access could be improved. Government must have a strategy on this, and recognise, for example, that it may mean that the old methods of civil servants drafting Green and White Papers is obsolete. More important may be how information is tagged, so access, usable information and maximum use of IT infrastructure are key.
  Thirdly, the Government need to use the developments in technology. IT' s development has a hard commercial edge, but the Government should be hitching a ride to advance electronic government. They can do so by providing vision and leadership and by acting as a kind parent, setting down guidelines for the industry to govern itself and using opportunities to enhance public service and democratic participation. The development of digital broadcasting is such an opportunity. Interactive television in every living room could be used for lifelong learning and citizen participation, particularly by usually excluded groups.
  The opportunities are endless. It is not just about voting at Tesco or consultation by cashpoint—there is the development of e-democracy, electronic town meetings, interactive participation and priorities for local government, or using our plans for pre-legislative scrutiny to include electronic and digital consultation. The rewards are great, as we discovered in assessing the democracy project. Using new technology to involve citizens in decision-making works. The proof that it overcomes apathy and is an important new democratic tool is the 95 per cent. satisfaction rate recorded.

  135
  The fourth challenge to the Government—one which they are already seizing through investment in IT in schools and libraries—is access. However, the IT-rich and poor are not as obvious as some would believe. Digital broadcasting will revolutionise access, but there is evidence that, where IT access is promoted, it is young people, women and older unemployed citizens who get involved. The Lewisham democracy project showed that teletalk and teledemocracy pilots were particularly well used by people with disabilities and people with English as a second language, and that over half the teletalkers were over 50, with black and ethnic minorities over-represented.
  It is no coincidence that the school most advanced in IT in my constituency—for which I performed a virtual launch of its website recently—is Dallow junior. Some 98 per cent. of the pupils are Kashmiri or Bangladeshi, who live in one of the most deprived areas in the UK, where, in some homes, an inside loo is a luxury, let alone a computer. I also welcome the initiative of schools such as Stopsley junior, which is opening its doors to the community to take part in the IT revolution.
  The final challenge is to Parliament. We are in danger of becoming the IT-poor. Can we lead electronic government while this place is so far behind? I believe that it is not just for the Government but for each of us to lead in the electronic government project. For those who wish to lead by example, I would say, "Please help, not hinder." For example, I hope that we will make it easier for all Members to develop community websites. My website—the Luton democracy pages, at www.enablis.co.uk/margaret moran—is a small contribution.
  My thanks go to the pupils from Surrey Street school, who won my competition to design a website poster. My website and my on-line interface between Westminster and my constituency attempt to provide links to local businesses and schools and to provide community networks. I will be holding virtual surgeries on the site soon. Watch out, Luton—I have plans for a cyber soap box in Luton town centre. Eat your heart out, John-boy. So, is the next step the virtual Member of Parliament? My answer is resoundingly no—not if we take up the challenge of the electronic and digital world.
  10.24 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) for initiating this debate on electronic government. I readily share her enthusiasm for new technology and how it can be used to improve the quality and efficiency of public services. I must confess that, like her, I am not an expert, but nevertheless it is our function as elected representatives—certainly for those of us in government—to recognise the opportunities presented to us by developments in electronics, to increase the efficiency of our public services.
  In particular, I congratulate my hon. Friend on her time as leader of Lewisham council which, as she remarked, used the teletalk project to pioneer the use of electronic kiosks, to provide information about local services. I do not think that she will mind if I say that Lewisham is
  136
  quite an advanced council in that context. Certainly, it has also set up a citizens panel that bears marked similarities to the people's panel that we have established. As she also pointed out, she is a keen on-line Member of Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was one of the judges of the competition that she set up for local kids, to design a poster advertising her parliamentary website.
  Developments in information technology make what we call joined-up government possible in ways not even imagined 10 years ago. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his speech to the Labour party conference last October, we are planning an IT revolution with the aim that a quarter of the services that Government provide can be delivered electronically within five years. We must remember that our economic competitors are doing likewise. The United States certainly has ambitious aspirations for the delivery of electronic government.
  Clearly, people want efficient and effective service that is easy to access and flexible enough to deal with their particular situation, and it is equally clear that the public sector is being left behind by advances in the range and quality of the services provided by the private sector. We recognise that the plain fact is that ordinary users of public services—services with which people come into contact almost every day—do not differentiate between the parts of Government that provide them.
  It is not important that it is the local authority or Government agency, one Whitehall Department or another. What the citizen and small business want is more effective service, with greater and more user-friendly access to information and services. It is no secret that, for the vast majority of people in Britain, Government services could be that bit better. They could be that bit more modern and that bit more like the private sector services to which people have become attuned.
  As a Government, we are determined to see an end to the current situation, when people on benefit have to inform up to six agencies if they move house, businesses have to cope with up to 10 different inspectors and young people have 11 bits of Government to go to for help and assistance. That is why the forthcoming "Better Government" White Paper will be about simplifying those encounters. It will be about turning government the right way up—starting with the individual, family or business that needs a service rather than with the professional, the administrator or indeed the politician who provides it.
  Above all, "Better Government" will be about redesigning Government services, so that they truly focus on the citizen, and we intend to use technology to achieve that. The Government see internet and intranet services and technologies as the key to the successful delivery of user-friendly Government services to the citizen and business, particularly the small business. We are already widely using intranet technologies within Departments.
  In addition, central Departments now have the potential to access the newly established Government secure intranet, which enables secure interconnections across a range of departmental IT systems. The GSI will facilitate a more coherent, customer-focused and integrated electronic service delivery to citizens and businesses, by providing security for information that is entrusted to the Government and by allowing unrestricted access to the internet where required. The service is currently being used by a number of Departments, and others are expected to join during 1998.

  137
  The GSI enables Departments to communicate securely by e-mail and to benefit from access to, and the ability to receive communications over, the internet. It will also support directory and other intranet services. It should enable the Government to exploit more fully their knowledge and databases, to search the internet and to communicate more effectively with key users. It will also provide a means of linking up and promoting the increasing volume of Government services that are available electronically.
  The infrastructure to deliver intranets is growing rapidly in the private sector. The Government believe that full advantage should be taken of that technology to link Departments to one another and to the populace at large.
  The GSI is the result of a successful partnership with a private sector contractor—a partnership that offers a model for further co-operation between the public and private sectors. For that to happen, we need to work in partnership not only with IT companies, but with local government.
  We are keen to encourage closer working between central and local government. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been asked to chair a ministerial committee, including local government representatives, which is specifically charged with building on our respective strengths and with delivering linked services to the ordinary person.
  In initiatives such as the new deal, we are mobilising partners to deliver key changes. We have also been holding a series of seminars with participants from academia and the media, as well as from the public, private and voluntary sectors. The discussions have been stimulating, and many positive ideas have been raised. Moreover, we have invited the public sector unions to come forward with ideas on how to involve front-line staff in shaping the "Better Government" programme.
  There are bound to be different organisations delivering public services, but IT will provide, first, more scope for public servants to guide people across the gaps and round the systems and, secondly, the chance for the public to do that themselves. As my hon. Friend reminded the House, central Government can learn much from localised projects and local authorities in understanding what people want from public services and how best to deliver them. That is why we established direct.link to act as a forum for public sector and voluntary bodies that are engaged in projects to provide electronic services to the citizen.
  There are already many such projects throughout the United Kingdom—many of them involve local authorities, which have gained valuable experience. They are not only
  138
  willing to share that experience, but want to learn from others' experience. Direct.link is the forum in which that can happen. It creates a link in the chain that we are forging to deliver better public services.
  As the House will be aware, we have set up a series of pilot schemes to test public reaction to electronic service delivery. In December, we launched the latest of those projects—the intelligent form—which is being piloted in six locations, including my hon. Friend's constituency.
  The new pilot uses clever-forms software, the internet and digital signatures. It helps someone to register as self-employed, by cutting down on the unnecessary duplication of effort and on the number of forms to be filled in. In the not too distant past, people wanting to register as self-employed had six forms to complete for three Government Departments—the intelligent form enables them to do that in one go.
  The intelligent form is also a partnership. The Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Contributions Agency worked not only with Microsoft and Electronic Data Systems, but with banks, in whose branches the citizen can access the service.
  The intelligent form is an example of "Better Government" in action, working across public and private boundaries to focus on a particular life episode. Not only does that allow people to submit information to Government over the internet securely, quickly and accurately, but for the first time complex legal, administrative and technological obstacles have been overcome to produce the first Government-recognised electronic signature. Of course, the potential for application elsewhere is huge.
  Last week, we published the interim report on our market research into public attitudes towards electronic government. Respondents were extremely positive about the possibility of electronic delivery of Government services. The message to us is clear: the public expect Government to use information technology to enhance the quality of their lives, not only to make things easier, but to open up new opportunities for them.
  That is precisely what we intend to do. We are confident that our "Better Government" programme, with its emphasis on new technology, will set the pace not only in this country but overseas, as we turn our vision for the 21st century of electronic government into a reality at the service of all our people.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Hospitality
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list planned expenditure on hospitality for April and May, indicating the date, location and purpose of each event. [35121]

  Angela Eagle
  Hospitality expenditure in April and May 1998 by this Department will be as follows:

  Date

  Location

  Purpose

  Estimated cost(£)

  3–5 April

  Leeds Castle

  Informal meeting of G8 Environment Ministers

  8,800

  24–26 April

  Chester

  Informal meeting of the EU Transport and Environment Ministers

  71,000

  Bicycles (Transport on Trains)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the rail companies which ban the conveyance of bicycles at any time on their trains. [35968]

  Dr. Strang
  Anglia Railways, Gatwick Express, Great North Eastern Railways, Great Western Trains, Island Line, Midland Main Line and North Western Trains allow bicycles on all of their services. Passengers may need to book in advance. The other operators ban bicycles on some of their services, typically during peak hours. The Government are keen to promote the use of bicycles, and to ensure that as far as possible the railway provides suitable facilities for cyclists.

  Headquarters Staff
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) of 18 March 1998,Official Report, column 608, what percentage of staff in the headquarters element of his Department is based in (a) London, (b) the South East and (c) Scotland; and what percentage of salary and running costs relate to buildings in (i) London, (ii) the South East and (iii) Scotland. [37014]

  Angela Eagle
  At 1 January 1998, the percentage of staff in the headquarters element of my Department based in(a) London, (b) the South East and (c) Scotland was 80 per cent., 10 per cent. and 1 per cent. respectively. The percentage of salary and running costs for these locations could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  2

  Connex South Central
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations have been received by his Department in respect of the train services operated by Connex South Central between London and Brighton since that company was awarded its franchise; and if he will summarise their content. [36759]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Correspondence was not recorded by Train Operating Company until February 1997 (the Connex South Central franchise commenced in May 1996) and correspondence now identified by Train Operating Company is not recorded by route. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The number of letters about Connex South Central in general that have been received since February 1997 is 306.

  Jubilee Line
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the cost to London Underground in each quarter of the last five years of compensation payments triggered by delays caused by defective trains on the Jubilee Line. [37200]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Underground do not have the information readily available in the exact form requested. The table shows the total value of all Customer Charter claims on the Jubilee Line in each four week period for each of the last four financial years. Information for the year 1993/94 is not readily available.

  Period

  1994/95

  1995/96

  1996/97

  1997/98

  1

  106.8

  52.8

  999.2

  375.2

  2

  280.1

  493.9

  110.6

  44.4

  3

  74.7

  196.5

  124.0

  253.0

  4

  146.9

  185.9

  138.1

  355.0

  5

  5,874.1

  152.6

  18.8

  398.0

  6

  1,299.8

  257.3

  50.4

  63.0

  7

  579.9

  10

  134.9

  49.10

  8

  105.4

  10

  388.5

  146.8

  9

  834.1

  10

  763.7

  68.5

  10

  297.0

  37.7

  41.2

  54

  11

  33.7

  127.7

  40.8

  1,348.6

  12

  88.2

  444.3

  102.5

  1,072.8

  13

  204.4

  1,817.6

  1,839.8

  2—

  Total

  9,628.1

  3,766.3

  4,634.0

  24,228.7

  1No claims were processed P7 to P9 in 1995/96 due to computer problems

  2Figures for P13, 1997/98 are not yet available.

  Note:

  Figures are in pounds.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many delays of over two minutes there were to Jubilee Line underground trains in each month of the last five years caused by defective trains on the Jubilee Line. [37203]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Underground do not have the information readily available in the exact form requested. The table shows the number of delays of over
  3
  two minutes which have been caused by defective rolling stock in each four week period for the last five years.

  Period

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1

  80

  96

  79

  72

  66

  2

  108

  100

  68

  83

  66

  3

  102

  68

  83

  92

  63

  4

  91

  83

  103

  71

  58

  5

  90

  96

  127

  72

  81

  6

  109

  86

  118

  78

  70

  7

  101

  66

  86

  53

  71

  8

  74

  52

  79

  54

  73

  9

  68

  59

  91

  82

  80

  10

  54

  53

  67

  41

  63

  11

  65

  73

  86

  86

  129

  12

  71

  82

  95

  57

  180

  13

  68

  72

  88

  78

  1143

  Total

  1,081

  986

  1,170

  919

  11,143

  1Period 13 ended on 31 March and the final figure was not available for this answer. This figure is therefore provisional.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many delays of over two minutes to Jubilee Line underground trains have been caused by defective new trains on the Jubilee Line in each week since their introduction. [37202]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  New rolling stock has been phased into service since December 1997. This stock has suffered from a number of teething problems, but London Underground are working hard to overcome them. The need to maintain safety standards means that faults are rectified as they occur, which can result in delays.

  London Underground do not have the information readily available in the exact form requested. The table sets out the number of delays of over two minutes which have been caused by defective rolling stock in each four week period since the start of the 1997–98 financial year.

  Period

  Number of delays

  1

  66

  2

  66

  3

  63

  4

  58

  5

  81

  6

  70

  7

  71

  8

  73

  9

  80

  10

  63

  11

  129

  12

  180

  13

  1143

  1 Period 13 ended on 31 March and the final figure was not available for this answer. This figure is therefore provisional.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many compensation payment claims have been triggered in the last five years because of delays to the Jubilee Line underground journeys caused by defective Jubilee Line trains. [37201]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Underground do not have the information readily available in the exact form requested. The table shows the total number of customer 4
  charter claims of all types on the Jubilee Line in each four week period for each of the last four financial years. Information for the year 1993–94 is not readily available.

  Period

  1994/95

  1995/96

  1996/97

  1997/98

  1

  43

  29

  367

  128

  2

  115

  207

  50

  19

  3

  45

  82

  56

  107

  4

  97

  88

  55

  139

  5

  2,087

  69

  6

  149

  6

  442

  114

  23

  26

  7

  252

  10

  52

  20

  8

  52

  10

  150

  58

  9

  346

  10

  243

  32

  10

  115

  20

  17

  22

  11

  22

  56

  15

  481

  12

  38

  151

  43

  420

  13

  180

  457

  614

  2—

  Total

  3,719

  1,273

  1,541

  21,601

  1 No claims were processed P7 to P9 in 1995–96 due to computer problems.

  2Figures for P13, 1997–98 are not yet available.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 1998,Official Report, column 222, to what depth (a) the area surrounding the site of the Millennium Dome and (b) the remainder of the Greenwich peninsula have been cleared of contaminants. [37079]

  Angela Eagle
  The whole of the Greenwich peninsula site has been remedied to render it safe for the known end uses. The remediation includes the removal or treatment on-site of contaminated soils, to depths of up to 14 metres in selected areas. Some of the treated material is re-used on the site and the remainder has been removed for disposal to suitable licensed landfill sites.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 1998,Official Report, column 222, what steps have been taken (a) to prevent contaminants from leaking to the surface and (b) to draw attention to the presence of contaminants below the surface on the Greenwich peninsula. [37076]

  Angela Eagle
  Contamination that remains in the soil and groundwater is prevented from rising to the surface by a layer of coarse crushed concrete, which has been recycled from old building foundations. Free from fine material, this prevents the natural capillary rise of the groundwater into the overlying clean clay capping. This clay capping, in turn, prevents contact between the site users and any residual contamination in the ground. Full records of all investigations undertaken, and site remediation works carried out, are kept by English Partnerships, the current site owners, as part of the Health and Safety file, as required under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994. In accordance with the regulations, this documentation will be made available to any future site owner, or occupant, including contractors and will inform them of any potential hazards on the site.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 1998,Official Report, column 222,

  5
  what certification has been provided by (a) the Health and Safety Executive and (b) the Environment Agency concerning the removal of contaminants from the Greenwich peninsula. [37078]

  Angela Eagle
  No certification process is operated by the Health and Safety Executive with regard to contaminated land. They work with contractors to ensure that contractors' site activity is conducted in a safe manner and in accordance with the current regulations.

  The Environment Agency have been consulted at all stages of the investigation, design and construction of the remediation works and have confirmed their satisfaction with the remediation strategy.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 1998,Official Report, column 222, if (a) cyanide and (b) arsenic were among the contaminants removed from the site of the Millennium Dome or any other area on the Greenwich peninsula. [37077]

  Angela Eagle
  The contaminated soils removed from the site have, on occasions, included arsenic and cyanide in various forms. All such soil has been disposed of, under strictly controlled procedures, to licensed landfill sites suitable to received it. These operations are part of the overall remediation strategy as agreed with the Environment Agency and London Borough of Greenwich.

  Rented Housing
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 27 October 1997,Official Report, column 726, on rented housing, what would be the gross cost to the public sector if all local authority rents were to be cut by (a) 20 per cent., (b) 30 per cent., (c) 40 per cent., and (d) 50 per cent.; and in each case what would be the cost net of savings in housing benefits. [37197]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A reduction in Guideline Rent in 1998–99 for Housing Revenue Account local authorities in England would have the following estimated effects:

  Present value (discounting to 1996–97) of effects from 1998–99 to 2027–28.1996–97 prices discounting to 1996–97

  £ million

  Guideline Rent reduction in 1998–99

  Loss of gross rental income

  Saving in rent rebates

  Saving in public expenditure linked to the RPI

  Net public expenditure cost

  20%

  11,639

  8,643

  2,722

  274

  30%

  17,459

  12,785

  4,083

  590

  40%

  23,278

  16,816

  5,444

  1,018

  50%

  29,098

  20,726

  6,805

  1,567

  Note:

  Figures in the table have been rounded to the nearest £l million. The calculations are derived from LAMOD, the Department's model for estimating the public expenditure effects of a change in Guideline Rent policy for local authorities. The results from LAMOD are sensitive to assumptions which are kept under continuous review. The housing stock is assumed to fall by about 114,000 dwellings each year, until 2007–08, as a result of Right to Buy sales, transfers, voluntary sales, new build completions and demolitions. This assumed annual decline in stock is in line with the present rate of change. The model assumes that the level of stock is constant after 2007–08 with no further decline.
  6

  London Underground
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what forecast his Department has made of how the number and extent of delays on London Underground will be reduced following the start of the new investment programme in 1998 and for each year over the next five years. [37269]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No such forecast has been made by my Department. We recently announced additional funding of £365 million for London Transport over the next two years. This will boost total investment in the existing network to £1 billion over two years. It is now for London Underground to assess how best to tailor its investment programme. The need to improve the service to passengers by reducing delays will be a key factor in this assessment. In the longer term, our plans for a public-private partnership will result in the elimination of the Underground's investment backlog, address the root cause of delays, and result in an improved service for all passengers.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many delays to London Underground services have been caused by(a) broken rails, (b) signal failures, (c) obstructions on the track and (d) all causes in total, for each of the last five years. [37271]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand from London Underground that the information requested is as shown in the table.

  Cause of delay

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Broken/cracked rails

  31

  8

  30

  22

  147

  Signalling

  1,783

  1,718

  1,862

  1,891

  9,435

  Objects on track

  217

  208

  248

  327

  314

  All causes

  35,952

  34,150

  34,463

  34,767

  38,840

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what initiatives he has taken to assist(a) women with young children and (b) pregnant women who must find alternative modes of transportation due to the travelling conditions on the London Underground. [37501]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is the Government's aim to make the Underground available to all, and our plans for a public-private partnership will help achieve that aim. But we do recognise that the Underground can currently be difficult for some groups of passengers to use. London Underground staff make every effort to assist passengers to use the system, but some still prefer to use other modes of transport. These passengers benefit from the substantial improvements to the capital's bus network which London Transport is making. Over 400 new single-deck, low-floor vehicles are already in service. These buses have no steps at the doorways and "kneeling" suspension which means that passengers can get on and off more easily. Low-floor double-deck buses are scheduled to enter service for the first time later this year.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the conditions for(a) women with young children and (b) pregnant women travelling on the London Underground. [37502]
  7
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Underground is the oldest, and one of the deepest, underground systems in the world. Virtually the entire network was designed at a time when little or no thought was given to personal mobility. The Government recognise that, combined with the backlog of essential maintenance which has built up and the very crowded conditions on some parts of the network at peak times, this means some passengers find the Underground less easy to use than they would wish.

  The Government wish to see a modern, high quality Underground which is available to everyone. That means tackling the investment backlog and improving accessibility. The Jubilee Line Extension will feature step-free access at all the new stations. London Underground also has plans for developing a network of 60 fully accessible stations and my right hon. Friend, the Deputy Prime Minister has asked them to look at how these plans can be accelerated. But to achieve a radical improvement will require a massive long-term investment programme. This will be delivered by our plans for a public-private partnership, under which the private sector will raise the funds needed to modernise the network and provide improved conditions for all.

  Roadworks
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what system of monitoring is in place to secure the most rapid possible completion of authorised roadworks in order to minimise disruption to traffic. [37276]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  On trunk roads, major highway works are normally subject to the lane rental form of contract, which gives the contractor a direct financial incentive to complete the works as quickly as practicable, usually by combining a bonus for early completion with a daily charge for late completion. The equivalent works on local highway authority roads are the responsibility of the authority concerned and information about them is not held centrally.

  Works by statutory undertakers and licensees are governed by the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. Street authorities are empowered by Section 66 of that Act to take action where the works are taking longer than reasonably necessary, but information about the use of the power is not held centrally.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what sanctions have been applied against those found in breach of the 12 month rule for the co-ordination of roadworks; [37275]

  (2) how often over the last 12 months a breach of the 12 month rule for roadworks has been reported; and what follow-up action was then taken. [37277]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what procedures apply in respect of the co-ordination of road work activity between repair, construction, cable and utility providers. [37278]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 the street authority (usually the local highway authority) is responsible for co-ordination of its 8
  own works and undertakers' street works in its area. The co-ordination machinery is set out in the Code of Practice for the Co-ordination of Street Works and Works for Road Purposes and Related Matters, published under the Act.

  Charity Shops
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to change the rate relief available to charity shops. [37500]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government are currently reviewing all aspects of charity taxation including business rates. We will consider all representations that we have received on the subject before reaching any conclusions and will consult on any proposals before implementing them.

  Rural Pubs
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Government will extend to rural pubs the new village shop rate relief. [37344]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Under the village shop rate relief scheme, billing authorities already have the discretion to grant rate relief to public houses providing that certain conditions are met.

  Countryside Commission
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the members of the Countryside Commission, indicating the date and terms of their appointment. [37295]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 2 April 1998]: The information requested on current members of the Countryside Commission is provided. Further appointments will be made from time to time as vacancies arise.

  Countryside Commission members

  Name

  Date first appointed

  Date current term of appointment expires

  Richard Simmonds CBE (Chairman)

  11.10.95

  30.09.98

  Rodney Swarbrick CBE

  1.08.93

  30.06.99

  Lord Denham KBE

  1.08.93

  30.06.99

  Rt. Rev Alan Chesters

  1.10.95

  30.09.98

  David Barker MBE

  1.10.95

  30.09.98

  Dr. Susan Owens

  1.07.96

  30.06.99

  David Woodhall CBE

  1.07.96

  30.06.99

  Wyndham Rogers-Coltman OBE

  1.07.96

  30.06.99

  Dr. Victoria Edwards

  1.04.98

  31.03.01

  Prof. Allan Patmore CBE

  22.9.92

  30.06.98

  1As Chair

  Railway Stations (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to ensure that railway station platforms are made accessible to wheelchair bound passengers. [37786]
  9
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Access to railway stations and other transport infrastructure will be covered by the access to goods and services provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Government intend to implement the remaining provision of that Part of the Act and a further announcement will be made about implementation dates in due course.

  John Pointon and Sons
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 12 December 1997,Official Report, column 727, when the Environment Agency expects to be able to determine whether to pursue the prosecution of Pointon and Sons over the spreading of waste from their abattoir in Cheddleton, Staffordshire. [37940]

  Angela Eagle
  I understand that the Environment Agency wrote to my hon. Friend on 25 March to explain where matters stand. I also understand that she has been invited to meet the Agency very shortly.

  Landfill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what incentives exist to encourage the location of new landfill sites for(a) inert waste and (b) other wastes on rural brownfield sites. [37521]

  Angela Eagle
  There are no specific incentives for this purpose. However, my Department encourages planning authorities to make appropriate use of previously developed land for all forms of development, including waste management.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on the finances of local government of the increase in landfill tax; and if he will make a statement. [37523]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department will consider the implications of the increase in the rate of landfill tax from April 1999 as part of its discussions with the Local Government Association on the local government finance settlement.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the money raised as a result of the increase in landfill tax will be used to assist the work of environmental groups in the same way that funds currently raised from the tax are. [37552]

  Angela Eagle
  The same proportion—20%—of the increased revenue generated by the increase in the higher rate of tax as of April 1999 will be available for distribution to environmental bodies as is available under the current scheme. The Government will also be considering whether the environmental bodies scheme could be enhanced, and in particular examining how it could be used to encourage more recycling.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the recent landfill tax increase on the incidence of fly-tipping within the countryside; what steps he is taking to help councils minimise this; and if he will make a statement. [37522]
  10
  Angela Eagle
  There is as yet little firm evidence either way of the impact of the landfill tax on fly-tipping. Responses to a recent survey of local government officials from the Tidy Britain Group seem to suggest that the incidence of fly-tipping has been lower than local authorities feared when the tax was introduced. We will continue to work with the Environment Agency, local authorities and the police, to monitor and tackle fly-tipping.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his policy to apply the precautionary principle to the release of GMO into the environment. [37518]

  Mr. Meacher
  Yes. A thorough assessment of the risks to human health and the environment must be carried out before a consent is granted to release a genetically modified organism into the environment. If the assessment reveals areas of uncertainty and if these are associated with significant potential damage, a precautionary approach would be adopted.

  This policy is discussed in more detail in "A Guide to Risk Assessment and Risk Management for Environmental Protection" published by the Department in 1995. A copy is in the library.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that(a) the Rail Regulator and (b) Railtrack take into account the potential growth in rail freight traffic when considering the allocation of access paths. [37986]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Rail Regulator is under a statutory duty to promote both passenger and freight traffic. He must therefore take this into account when considering proposed access agreements. Railtrack have set out their latest plans for rail freight in the Network Management Statement, published on 25 March. Encouraging more freight by rail will be an important element of our integrated transport policy on which we will be publishing a White Paper shortly.

  Aggregates
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the report of the work he has commissioned into the environmental costs of the quarrying of aggregates. [37553]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We expect to publish the report on the research into the environmental costs and benefits of aggregates supply later this month.

  Local Government (Ethical Framework)
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish his proposals for a new ethical framework for local government. [38310]
  11
  Ms Armstrong
  I intend to publish tomorrow the Government' s proposals for a new ethical framework for local government in England. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  This paper is the last in the series inviting discussion on the Government's agenda for modernising local government in England. It sets out our proposals for a new framework of conduct for councillors and council staff. These proposals are built on the Third Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, presented to Parliament in July 1997 (Cm 3702).

  Through our modernising agenda we are seeking to build and maintain a culture in which councils are open and readily accountable to their local communities. We believe our proposals for the new conduct regime will play a vital part in building up that culture, and restoring that essential bond of trust between local people and those who serve them in their local councils.

  Canbury Gardens, Kingston
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if Kingston Borough Council was permitted to amend its UDP to enable the construction of flats in Canbury Gardens; and if he will make a statement. [38124]

  Mr. Caborn
  No. I understand that the flats are constructed on the site of the former Kingston Power Station.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the removal of tree preservation orders on poplar and chestnut trees in Canbury Gardens, Kingston; and if he will make a statement. [37852]

  Mr. Caborn
  None. I am not aware of the removal of any tree preservations orders on trees in Canbury Gardens, Kingston.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the cost of the planning inquiry, appeals and removal of trees in Canbury Gardens, Kingston. [37853]

  Mr. Caborn
  The planning application for the development of housing on the site of the former Kingston power station has not been subject to an appeal to the Secretary of State or to a public local inquiry. 14 representations have been received objecting to the removal of trees at Canbury Gardens.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the increase in the number of shadow road toll schemes to be made under the private finance initiative arrangements. [37862]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The only road scheme approved and being taken forward in England under private finance since May 1997 is the A13 Thames Gateway DBFO project. The payment mechanism for this project is being developed so that there will be no incentive to the operator to encourage commuting by car. The emphasis of the payment mechanism will be on efficient management of 12
  the road, to provide a good service for buses and Heavy Goods Vehicles, with scope for additional payments to reward a good safety record. We will consider whether it would be appropriate to take forward further DBFO projects in the context of the review of trunk roads in England which is currently underway.

  Sites Of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to offer greater protection to sites of special scientific interest. [37860]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government are currently considering how best to improve the protection and management of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Officials are preparing a consultation paper seeking views.

  Housing (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps have been taken by his Department in respect of the initiative proposed by Coventry City Council for the development of a local housing company under the stock transfer programme. [37866]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Coventry City Council submitted an application for the 1998–99 housing stock disposals programme for the transfer of all 20,500 of their dwellings to a new local housing company. This scheme was not accepted because it presented us with a number of difficulties that could not be resolved in the short term—not least that the number of properties affected substantially exceeded the 12,000 threshold which the Government have set for transfers to a single new landlord. My officials do, however, intend to work closely with Coventry over the coming months to try and resolve these issues so as to make the scheme workable.

  High Explosives
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 3 March 1998,Official Report, column 543, what was the outcome of the discussions between the dangerous substances industry, environmental agencies and his Department on accidents involving storage facilities and dangerous substances to which the Seveso II Directive applies; and if he will make a statement. [36621]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department and the Health and Safety Executive, together with the Environment Agency and Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, have undertaken wide informal consultation with industry associations, trades union representatives and local authorities likely to have duties under legislation implementing the Seveso II Directive. Their comments have been taken into account as proposals for legislation have been developed.

  I will shortly consider publication of a public consultation document describing the proposed legislation and guidance. A period of four months will be allowed for comment before the legislation is finalised.
  13

  Acidifying Pollutants
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the damage caused by acidifying pollutants in the United Kingdom. [37868]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department has sponsored research into the effects of acidifying pollutants over the last ten years. Research expenditure, in this area, is currently about £2.7 million per year. This has contributed to reviews by two expert UK groups, the United Kingdom Review Group on Acid Rain (RGAR) and the Critical Loads Advisory Group (CLAG). Copies of the most recent produced by RGAR and CLAG, which include information on critical loads and critical levels, acid deposition and the acidification of lakes and rivers, have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Drinking Water Quality
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he is taking to reduce levels of lead in drinking water. [37687]

  Angela Eagle
  The present national standard for lead in drinking water is 50 g/1; this is a more stringent standard than required by the 1980 EC Drinking Water Directive. New standards for lead will be introduced when the new EC Drinking Water Directive is adopted later this year. Member States will be required to achieve lead standards of 25 g/l within 5 years of adoption and 10 g/l within 15 years. The water in many properties already meets the new long term lead standard. At other properties, usually where there are lead pipes, lead concentrations in drinking water have been reduced significantly in recent years. Where appropriate, water companies are required to treat water to reduce its ability to dissolve lead and in many cases this will reduce lead concentrations to about 25g/l. A leaflet is available from the Drinking Water Inspectorate to help people determine if they have lead pipes and giving advice on measures that they can take to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water.

  Health And Safety
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to implement framework directive 89/391/EEC concerned with health and safety of the workforce. [37591]

  Angela Eagle
  The health and safety framework directive 89/391/EEC has been implemented in the UK primarily by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 and by existing health and safety law, including the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

  Discussions are continuing between my officials and the European Commission about our implementation of this directive, following which the Health and Safety Commission may consult later this year on some minor modifications to UK health and safety regulations.

  Fly Posting
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what sanctions 14
  are available to local authorities to deal with organisations which fly post on (a) walls, (b) windows, (c) telephone equipment and (d) bus shelters, where the materials carry no imprint but identify the organisation and provide publicity for goods and services. [38074]

  Mr. Raynsford
  It is an offence, under section 224 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and Regulation 27 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992, to display an advertisement without the prior consent of the owner of the land, or premises, on which it is displayed. It is then immediately open to the planning authority to bring a prosecution in the Magistrates' Court. The present maximum fine on summary conviction of this offence is £1,000, with a daily penalty of £100 on conviction of a continuing offence. The level of fines is kept under review by the Home Office and updated periodically.

  Section 224 also provides that people whose goods, trade, business or other concerns are given publicity by an unlawful advertisement may be prosecuted unless they can prove that it was displayed without their knowledge or consent.

  District Councils and London Boroughs also have powers under Section 225, of the Act, to remove or obliterate any illegally displayed placard or poster after giving two days' notice of their intention to do so.

  In addition, local highway authorities have powers, under section 132 of the Highways Act 1980, to remove unlawful advertisements attached to any trees, structures or works in the highway.

  Highways Agency
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what targets he has set for the Highways Agency. [38205]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is currently conducting a number of major policy reviews. In the light of the conclusions, particularly of the Integrated Transport White Paper and the Roads Review we will be setting the Highways Agency new objectives. In the interim, the Secretary of State has set the Highways Agency the following key targets; they are to:Provide a service achieving five out of six (and missing the sixth by no more than 10 per cent.) of the targets set in accordance with the Whitehall Standards (as set out in Annexe E of the Plan);
  Submit to the Secretary of State a proposal for a revised Road User's Charter, in line with the Government's published Integrated Transport Policy by the end of the third quarter;
  In the interim, improve performance against the Road Users Charter Targets, set out in Annexe E of the Plan, where achievement levels were below target in 1997–98;
  Complete 2100 lane kilometres of surface renewal, including reconstruction, overlays, resurfacing, inlays and surface dressing;
  Comply with the EU directive which requires that the trunk road network is available for use by 40 tonne vehicles on 1 January 1999;
  Achieve 80 per cent. of National Scheme milestones set out in Annexe F of the Plan;
  Complete 20 projects, each costing less than £3 million, aimed at improving journey time reliability and/or reducing the impact of roads on the environment;

  15
  Complete 25 Network Control Projects;
  Contribute to the Government's target of reducing road casualties by one third by the year 2000 (compared to the annual average for 1981–85) by ensuring that accident rates between 1996 and 1998 on the motorway and all-purpose trunk road network do not exceed 21 accidents involving personal injury for every 100 million vehicle kilometres of travel and by completing 200 projects, each costing less than £3 million, aimed at improving road safety;
  Publish congestion monitoring information, including National Road Network Assessment system (NARNAS) maps and TrafficMaster data;
  Review the Agency's environmental reporting requirements, to agree changes as necessary with DETR and submit the results to the Secretary of State by the end of the third Quarter;
  Agree a revised Environmental Strategy for the Agency in line with the Government's published Integrated Transport Policy and in consultation with DETR, and submit the results to the Secretary of State by the end of the third Quarter;
  Manage its Programme and Running Costs within the agreed financial allocation;
  Deliver better efficiency and effectiveness throughout its business activities and achieve the two aggregate indicators and 80 per cent. of the Programme performance measure targets listed in Annexe C 4.2 of the Business Plan;
  Apply Value Management and Value Engineering guidelines to all National Schemes at prescribed stages of preparation.

  These targets are included in an interim Business Plan for 1998–99, which will be published shortly. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Incompetent Builders
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he proposes to take to deal with incompetent builders. [38368]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am today launching a consultation paper 'Combating Cowboy Builders', which sets out a range of measures aimed at protecting householders from incompetent or dishonest builders. I am placing copies in the Library.

  The Government's aim is to protect consumers who want to find a competent builder but, through no fault of their own, suffer as a result of a "cowboy" builder. The first object is to help householders distinguish between the good and the bad builders. Then it is necessary to ensure that the householder, having selected a reputable builder, gets an assurance of good quality work underpinned by a means of redress if things still go wrong.

  The Government have always made it clear that tackling the cowboys was one of their priorities for the construction industry. There is no simple, single solution to the problem. However, the Government believe that the package of measures proposed in this consultation paper will bring real benefit to householders and make life much harder for the cowboys.

  The proposals contained in the document include:
  encouraging local authorities or other local agencies to offer their residents lists of reputable builders who operate in their areas;
  opening up Constructionline, the Government's own database of approved contractors, to the private sector and householders;
  developing the Construction Skills Certification Scheme (which records craft skills on an ID card) and familiarising householders with it;
  16
  developing a construction industry kitemark to denote builders who will work to an agreed set of standards;
  strengthening warranties for use in the event of inadequate work;
  the possibility of broadening the Building Regulations regime so that it is better able to support quality across a wider range of repair and maintenance work;
  finding ways in which lenders and insurers can play a greater role in helping householders to keep their homes in good repair using reputable tradesmen.

  The paper invites comments and ideas from consumer groups, the construction industry and anyone with an interest.

  Private Landlords (Accreditation)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce a national scheme to provide accreditation for private landlords. [37843]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We support the initiative taken by local authorities and others to develop voluntary accreditation schemes for landlords. We have no plans to establish a national scheme. Establishing, monitoring and enforcing such a scheme would be bureaucratic and costly. However, we are concerned about the problems of poor stock condition and management in the sector. Our Manifesto proposals for licensing Houses in Multiple Occupation will tackle those properties where the risks to health and safety tend to be the greatest.

  Coastguard
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many rescue vehicles belonging to Her Majesty's Coastguard have had their bonnets overpainted yellow and had the words 'HM Coastguard' written on them in the last 12 months; and at what cost; [36886]

  (2) when he expects to receive a report from the Coastguard Agency on the response to the consultation document regarding the future strategy of Her Majesty's Coastguard; and if he will make a statement. [36887]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In the last 12 months (1 April 1997–31 March 1998), 169 HM Coastguard vehicles had their livery changed at a total cost of £45,000; an average cost of some £266 each. The new livery includes a change to yellow bonnets with reverse lettered "HM COASTGUARD" and yellow/blue chequered stripes on either side of the vehicles more appropriate to their emergency service status. In addition to this, the new livery much improves the visibility of the vehicles to other road users and, therefore, improves the safety of drivers when proceeding to an emergency. The change promotes a more corporate image and a higher profile for HM Coastguard.

  I have received a report on the 5 year Strategy consultation and am currently considering it. A decision on the strategy will be announced in due course.

  Building Regulations (BAA)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement regarding his future policy concerning
  17
  BAA plc's exemption as an entity under the Building Regulations under section 4 of the Building Act 1984. [37554]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Proposals for amendments to Section 4 of the Buildings Act 1984 in relation to the buildings of statutory undertakers were the subject of a public consultation document issued by the previous Government. I intend seeking the views of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee on how to take this matter forward. However, since primary legislation would be required to repeal or amend Section 4, it is unlikely that any change can be implemented quickly.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Developing Countries (Education)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what role her Department is undertaking in the promotion of education for children in developing countries. [38134]

  Clare Short
  As our White Paper makes clear, we are strongly committed to the key international targets of Universal Primary Education by 2015 and gender equity in primary and secondary education by 2005. We are currently spending over £100 million a year on education projects and expect this to rise as new programmes are agreed with our partner countries. For example we have begun implementation of major new basic education projects in India, Kenya, Malawi, Pakistan and South Africa costing in excess of £100 million and new substantial projects are being developed in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Tanzania and Uganda.

  A new Department for International Development education policy paper will be issued later this year which will further elaborate our policies and endorse our commitment to the promotion of education for children in developing countries.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of her Department's budget was spent on youth training and education in developing countries in each of the five years up to 1997. [38135]

  Clare Short
  The percentage of identifiable expenditure under my Department's bilateral programme spent on training and education (including scholarships) for developing countries in each of the five years up to 1997 is 11 per cent. in each year. It is not possible to:

  i. disaggregate figures between youth and adult training; and

  ii. identify the percentage of expenditure spent on youth training and education under our contributions to multilateral programmes.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her Department's policy on aid to the tobacco sector. [37977]

  Clare Short
  My Department does not use development assistance for any purpose which supports the tobacco sector. We support initiatives to help reduce tobacco consumption and to assist farmers who are 18
  dependent on tobacco production to diversify into alternative activities. We also seek to ensure that multilateral institutions pursue similar policies.

  Bhutan
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has in respect of future levels of aid via the Bhutanese Refugee Assistance Programme. [37715]

  Clare Short
  My Department is a major contributor to the work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) which is supporting 93,000 refugees from Bhutan in Nepal. We have also contributed over £250,000 to the work of Save the Children Fund (SCF) with Bhutanese refugees in Nepal.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Government of Bhutan, in relation to aid to Bhutan, concerning the human rights of Bhutanese citizens, with particular reference to those in refugee camps in Nepal. [37714]

  Clare Short
  My Department has had no recent discussion on development assistance with the Government of Bhutan. We shall continue to use every opportunity to encourage the government of Nepal and Bhutan in their dialogue to resolve the refugee issue.

  Colombia
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what initiatives are being pursued to assist the street children of Colombia. [37456]

  Clare Short
  The Government recognise the severe problems faced by street children in Colombia who are often victims of sexual abuse or involved with drug problems. Over the last few years we have supported a number of Colombian NGOs working with street children and child prostitutes through our Department for International Development (DFID) Small Grants Scheme. In addition last year DFID voted in support of a 6.4 million ECU programme to help street children and young people in Colombia being financed under the European Commission's development programme.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the findings of the study he commissioned into section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 in respect of the payment of grants to support members of ethnic minorities. [37257]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The findings of this study will inform our further consideration of the matter. We expect to be in a position to make an announcement in the summer.

  Motor Insurance
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were prosecuted for driving a vehicle while uninsured for the last three years for which figures are available. [37283]
  19
  Mr. Michael
  Information on the number of proceedings at magistrates' courts for the offence of using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks, for the last three years for which figures are available, are given in the table.

  Number of proceedings at magistrates' courts for the offence of using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks—England and Wales

  Year

  Number of offences

  1994

  446,559

  1995

  441,241

  1996 (provisional)

  415,015

  Firearms
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many previously licensed handguns have not yet been handed in following the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. [37274]

  Mr. Michael
  Under the terms of the commencement of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, certificate holders were required to dispose of their handguns lawfully by 1 October 1997 unless they were covered by the specific exemptions set out in Part 1 of the Act. The majority of certificate holders chose to hand in their weapons to designated police stations, thereby becoming eligible to receive compensation from the Government. However, other certificate holders chose instead to export their weapons and store them abroad permanently, some to sell them and some to have them deactivated to the required national standard and so retain them at home. There is no central record of those weapons not surrendered to police forces.

  From 1 October 1997, all chief officers were advised by the Association of Chief Police Officers to follow up their records of certificate holders and make checks on those certificate holders who had chosen not to surrender their weapons to the police. The subsequent prosecution of anyone found in possession of a prohibited weapon without lawful reason would be a matter for the police force and prosecution authorities concerned.

  My officials have conducted a sample of a small number of forces and all have confirmed that they duly followed up their records of certificate holders and established that all guns recorded were accounted for.

  In addition, we have asked all forces in England and Wales for a report on their success with the hand-in of 22 handguns which ended on 28 February. I will make the results available to the House once this information has been collated.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the timeframe for settlement of outstanding claims for compensation made under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997; [37289]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the number of claims and payments relating to compensation paid to former owners of handguns obliged to hand in their weapons under the terms of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. [37288]
  20
  Mr. Michael
  Current estimates are that all remaining payments under Options A and B of the large-calibre handgun compensation scheme should be completed by about the end of May. The aim is to complete most, if not all, payments under Option C of the scheme by the end of the year. At 31 March, 38,592 claims under the large-calibre handgun scheme had been registered on the Firearms Compensation Section (FCS) computer system and 29,236 payments made. Around 2,000 claims are still to be registered, the majority of which will be under the large-calibre scheme.

  The figures for claims and payments in this answer are lower than those normally quoted, as they exclude those made under the ex-gratia scheme for small-calibre pistols.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff have been allocated to process claims in categories A and B under the Firearms Compensation Scheme. [37459]

  Mr. Michael
  The Firearms Compensation Section at present employs 62 staff, 53 of whom are working directly on the examination and authorisation of compensation claims. Currently the bulk of the effort is concentrated on processing claims under Options A and B of the compensation scheme, although a number of claims under Option C are being processed in parallel.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time currently taken to process claims under categories A and B of the Firearms Compensation Scheme. [37458]

  Mr. Michael
  The Firearms Compensation Section is currently dealing with claims received from the police on 25 September 1997, giving a current turn-round time of 27 weeks. The average processing time for claims dealt with since the start of the compensation scheme in July 1997 is just over 15 weeks.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people under categories A, B and C of the Firearms Compensation Scheme have received full compensation for their claims. [37460]

  Mr. Michael
  The information at 2 April 1998 is as follows:

  Claimants under Option A paid in full: 28,085

  Claimants under Option B paid in full: 27,168

  Claimants under Option C paid in full: 261.

  Since an individual may claim under more than one option, the total number of payments under all the options is greater than the total number of claimants participating in the scheme. The figures include applications under the ex gratia surrender scheme for small-calibre pistols.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department has taken in respect of procedures relating to the revocation of gun licences following the Dunblane tragedy. [37463]

  Mr. Michael
  Under section 30 of the Firearms Act 1968, the chief officer of police may revoke a firearm certificate at any time if he is satisfied that the holder is prohibited by law from possessing firearms, or is of intemperate habits or unsound mind, or is otherwise unfitted to be entrusted with a firearm. Following the
  21
  Dunblane tragedy, the Government considered Lord Cullen's report carefully, to see how any weaknesses in the firearms licensing system might be remedied.

  Lord Cullen's Report suggested that the power to revoke a certificate should be extended to allow the police to revoke partially a certificate in relation to any firearms which the owner no longer has a good reason for possessing. This recommendation was carried forward through the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and was brought into force on 1 July 1997.

  The Government have also taken steps to ensure that the police receive a proper flow of information on which to base their decisions. Under the 1997 Act, those who hold firearms principally for target shooting must be a member of a shooting club approved by the Home Departments. Each club must appoint a liaison officer to keep the police informed of members' activities, and the club is obliged to inform the police if any member has not shot with the club for over a year.

  Lord Cullen also recommended that the arrangements under which an individual could appeal to the courts against the revocation of his certificate should be revised and clarified. The 1997 Act now makes it clear that an appeal is to be determined on its merits (that is, as a full re-hearing rather than as a review).

  Domestic Violence (West Midlands)
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of domestic violence were reported to the police in the West Midlands Region in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [37245]

  Mr. Michael
  The latest available information on domestic violence incidents recorded by the police, obtained from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary 1996–1997 Annual Statistics Return, is shown in the following table.

  Domestic violence incidents

  Police force

  1996–1997

  Staffordshire

  1,744

  Warwickshire

  493

  West Mercia

  1,867

  West Midlands

  14,011

  Anthrax
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he was first notified of the Iraqi threat to infiltrate British ports with the anthrax virus. [37255]

  Mr. Straw
  As I indicated in my reply to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 24 March 1998,Official Report, column 180, initial information about possible anthrax smuggling was received in the Home Office on 5 March. That information was assessed thoroughly alongside all other relevant information and an assessment of Iraqi intentions. I was notified on 21 March.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) boys and (b) girls aged
  22
  (1) less than 15, (2) 15 to 16, (3) 17 to 18 and (4) 18 to 21 years were held as convicted prisoners in (i) local authority secure accommodation, (ii) young offenders' institutions and (iii) adult prisons at the latest date for which figures are available and at the same date in each of the previous four years; [37539]

  (2) how many (a) boys and (b) girls aged (1) less than 15, (2) 15 to 16, (3) 17 to 18 and (4) 18 to 21 years were held on remand in (i) local authority secure accommodation, (ii) young offenders' institutions and (iii) adult prisons at the latest date for which figures are available and at the same date in each of the previous four years. [37536]

  Ms Quin
  The available information on the number of young persons remanded to local authority accommodation in England is published in a Department of Health publication entitled "Children accommodated in secure units" (reference A/F 97/21). This information is presented on a financial year basis with the last report covering the year ending 31 March 1997.

  Information on the number of young persons held in Young Offender Institutions and adult prisons is given in the table. Many "adult" establishments contain separate units or designated accommodation of young offenders and such persons are normally accommodated separately from adult prisoners. In the tables such establishments have been classed as "adult" establishments.

  Information on the population of young offenders by age and type of custody is also published in successive volumes of "Prison statistics, England and Wales" (Table 3.2 of 1996 edition, Cm 3732), copies of which are in the Library.

  Population of young offenders in Prison Service establishments by age, type of custody, type of establishment and sex, 1994–1998

  Age

  Establishment type

  Under 15

  15–16

  17–18

  19–21

  Males

  28 February 1998

  Remand:

  YOI

  -

  233

  1,242

  1,216

  Adult prison

  -

  3

  54

  67

  Sentenced:

  YOI

  -

  709

  2,570

  4,721

  Adult prison

  -

  2

  22

  75

  28 February 1997

  Remand:

  YOI

  -

  262

  1,169

  1,303

  Adult prison

  -

  12

  100

  134

  Sentenced:

  YOI

  -

  649

  2,260

  4,216

  Adult prison

  -

  3

  42

  93

  29 February 1996

  Remand:

  YOI

  -

  185

  955

  1,110

  Adult prison

  -

  38

  248

  280

  Sentenced:

  YOI

  -

  531

  1,678

  3,622

  Adult prison

  -

  4

  55

  176

  28 February 1995

  Remand:

  YOI

  -

  134

  949

  1,165

  Adult prison

  -

  49

  247

  280

  Sentenced:

  YOI

  -

  441

  1,401

  3,380

  Adult prison

  -

  3

  60

  119

  23

  Population of young offenders in Prison Service establishments by age, type of custody, type of establishment and sex, 1994–1998

  Age

  Establishment type

  Under 15

  15–16

  17–18

  19–21

  28 February 1994

  Remand:

  YOI

  -

  158

  1,136

  1,453

  Adult prison

  -

  1

  46

  100

  Sentenced:

  YOI

  -

  375

  1,502

  3,197

  Adult prison

  -

  -

  4

  43

  Females

  28 February 1998

  Remand:

  YOI

  -

  -

  7

  4

  Adult prison

  -

  -

  46

  64

  Sentenced:

  YOI

  -

  28

  73

  130

  Adult prison

  -

  8

  46

  62

  28 February 1997

  Remand:

  YOI

  -

  -

  1

  3

  Adult prison

  -

  -

  37

  43

  Sentenced:

  YOI

  -

  22

  54

  89

  Adult prison

  -

  10

  20

  61

  29 February 1996

  Remand:

  YOI

  -

  -

  5

  2

  Adult prison

  -

  -

  30

  42

  Sentenced:

  YOI

  -

  11

  41

  77

  Adult prison

  -

  3

  10

  49

  28 February 1995

  Remand:

  YOI

  -

  -

  5

  7

  Adult prison

  -

  -

  17

  45

  Sentenced:

  YOI

  -

  15

  31

  90

  Adult prison

  -

  4

  18

  32

  28 February 1994

  Remand:

  YOI

  -

  -

  -

  -

  Adult prison

  -

  -

  28

  37

  Sentenced:

  YOI

  -

  7

  22

  59

  Adult prison

  -

  6

  8

  35

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what obligations are placed on the Government in relation to the use of adult prisons for young offenders by(a) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and (b) the Children Acts; and if he will make a statement. [37538]

  Ms Quin
  Article 37(c) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child requires that every child deprived of his or her liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child's best interests not to do so. The United Kingdom has entered a reservation to the Convention to the effect that the mixing of children and adults is permitted where there is at any time a lack of suitable accommodation or adequate facilities for a particular individual in any institution, or where the mixing of adults and children is deemed to be mutually beneficial.

  The Children Act 1989 does not apply to those in prison custody but the Prison Service is planning to reflect the principles and guidance of that Act in the new regime standards it is drawing up for juveniles.
  24
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the circumstances under which a young person under the age of 18 years should be held in an adult prison rather than in a young offenders' institution or local authority secure accommodation; and if he will make a statement. [37540]

  Ms Quin
  All young offenders sentenced to detention in a young offender institution (YOI) must be and are held in accommodation designated as a YOI. An unsentenced young person aged under 18 cannot be held in a YOI but must be held in a prison under Prison Rules although almost all unsentenced young people are held in accommodation with other young people. The Government's policy is to move towards a situation where it is no longer necessary to hold juveniles on remand in adult prisons. The Crime and Disorder Bill will enable the courts to remand vulnerable juveniles to local authority secure accommodation. The Prison Service is drawing up plans to hold all juveniles separately and to establish new regime standards for juveniles. We believe these measures will help protect the public and the welfare of these young people.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action the Government are taking to encourage courts to make greater use of alternatives to custody when sentencing young offenders. [37537]

  Mr. Michael
  In reforming the Youth Justice System, the Government's key focus, and the statutory aim it will impose on youth justice agencies, is to prevent offending. By acting to intervene with young offenders earlier and more effectively we will stop them offending before they get to the stage where the courts have to consider custody. We are strengthening the range of community penalties available to the courts when sentencing. By putting in place local Youth Offending Teams to supervise offenders serving these sentences and the Youth Justice Board to set standards for supervision and inspect performance, we are acting to improve the quality of community sentences. All this will give sentencers more options in imposing community sentences and greater confidence to use them as alternatives to custody.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to establish continuity in the proposed youth offending teams. [37364]

  Mr. Michael
  Youth offending teams will build on existing good practice in the work of youth justice teams and will ensure that work with young offenders is undertaken effectively and consistently across England and Wales.

  The Government will publish guidance on the establishment and operation of youth offending teams. The guidance will address the staffing and functions of the teams. The Youth Justice Board, which is to be established under clause 35 of the Crime and Disorder Bill, will monitor the operation of the youth justice system and the provision of youth justice services which will be co-ordinated locally by youth offending teams.

  Drug Dealers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards the establishment of(a) maximum and (b) minimum sentences for repeat convicted drug dealers. [37256]
  25
  Mr. George Howarth
  We believe that severe punishment is appropriate for drug dealers. The maximum penalty for trafficking in Class A drugs is life imprisonment, and for Class B drugs 14 years' imprisonment. The Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 provides for a minimum sentence of 7 years' imprisonment for third and subsequent convictions for trafficking in Class A drugs. This provision was implemented on 1 October 1997.

  Security Service
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's policy towards the publication in the press of disclosures by former MI5 officers. [37669]

  Mr. Straw
  I deplore any publication of unauthorised disclosures of information on security or intelligence matters.

  Former Security Service officers are bound by a duty of lifelong confidentiality arising out of their employment by the Security Service. They are also liable to prosecution under section 1 (1)(a) of the Official Secrets Act 1989 if, without lawful authority, they disclose information relating to security and intelligence obtained by virtue of their membership of the Service.

  Where the Government become aware of any plans by a former member of the Security Service to disclose such security or intelligence information without authority, we shall take such steps as are open to us, including seeking restraining injunctions against the individual in question and the relevant publisher, to prevent such disclosures. Investigation of possible offences under the Official Secrets Act arising from unauthorised disclosure is a matter for the police.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards the funding of MI5. [37670]

  Mr. Straw
  The budget of the Security Service is carried on the Single Intelligence Vote (Class XVIII Vote 2).

  Provision for the security and intelligence agencies is agreed collectively by Ministers when setting public expenditure plans.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to allow individuals on whom files are held by MI5 to see those files in cases where it is intended that such files be destroyed. [37874]

  Mr. Straw
  No. In order to safeguard the operational effectiveness of the Security Service, it has been the policy of successive Governments not to disclose information about the operations of the Security Service, including whether the Service holds or has held files on any individual.

  Drug-related Crime (Gwynedd)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate his Department has made of the levels of drug-related crime in Gwynedd in(a) 1990 and (b) 1997. [37599]
  26
  Mr. George Howarth
  No estimates of the total amount of drug-related crime in particular counties have been made, although statistics on offences against the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in each police area are published annually by the Home Office.

  Animal Research
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many wild-caught primates, broken down by species, are currently held in the United Kingdom for the purpose of animal research; and if he will indicate in each case the purpose of the procedures for which they are being used. [37879]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Rules banning the use of wild-caught primates (unless exceptional and specific justification can be established) were introduced in 1996. Before then, records relating to the acquisition of wild-caught primates for use under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 were not kept centrally.

  We do know, however, that three wild-caught Rhesus macaques, imported before 1996, are still undergoing regulated procedures in neuroscience studies.

  The only wild-caught primates imported since 1996 and currently held in the United Kingdom for use under the terms of the 1986 Act are two baboons. These are for use in heart xenotransplantation research. One of these two baboons has already been used in a regulated procedure. The other has not yet been used.

  Lewes Prison
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends to take to replace the health care centre at HM Prison Lewes. [37873]

  Ms Quin
  The Governor of Lewes prison and senior representatives from the Prison Service will be meeting in May to discuss how to improve the facilities in the health care centre and the provision of health care services.

  Canbury Gardens, Kingston
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the expenditure by the Metropolitan Police in the operation to remove protesters from Canbury Gardens, Kingston, to enable the local authority to cut down trees; and of this, how much was borne by(a) the Metropolitan Police, (b) the Sheriff and (c) the local authority. [37854]

  Mr. Michael
  The Metropolitan Police Commissioner tells me that it is not possible in the time available to make a full and accurate calculation of the costs.

  The cost of the police operation was wholly borne by the Metropolitan Police. The four day operation required 855 officer days, at a cost of £168,073. In addition, £51,058 was incurred in overtime. No account has been taken of additional support services costs involved.

  Mark Darren Day
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Criminal Cases
  27
  Review Commission will conclude its consideration of the case of Mark Darren Day, convicted of murder on 26 March 1993 at the Central Criminal Court. [37508]

  Mr. Michael
  I understand that the Criminal Cases Review Commission has completed its initial assessment of Mr. Day's application, which is now awaiting the availability of staff time for a detailed review. Applications at this stage are regularly reviewed for the priority that can be given within available resources and Mr. Day was last informed of the position on 23 March. The Commission cannot say when it will conclude its consideration of his case; this will depend on the issues raised in the case and the work identified to be done, both initially and as the case progresses.

  Runaway Children
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of children aged under 16 years who have run away from home. [37686]

  Mr. Michael
  The available information is from the National Missing Persons Bureau, which was set up by the Home Office in 1994 as a national resource for information on vulnerable people who go missing. The Bureau maintains information on people who have been missing for over 28 days. Cases of persons missing for shorter periods may also be referred to the Bureau if the referring police force has particular cause for concern. At present, the National Missing Persons Bureau has records of 125 children under 16 who have been missing for more than 28 days and 36 children who have been missing for shorter periods. It is not known whether they are runaways or if there are other causes for their disappearance.

  Slot Machines
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if slot machines in pubs fall under his Department's definition of hard gambling; what recent research on this subject his Department has evaluated; and if he will make a statement. [38063]

  Mr. George Howarth
  How hard or soft a particular form of gambling is depends on its intrinsic features and the statutory controls which are applied.

  Project Title

  Status

  Publication

  Age limits for Mother and Baby Units

  completed

  Not yet published. Research findings planned

  Assessment and management of work related stress among Prison Service staff

  Completed

  Not yet published—article to go in prison service journal

  Attitudes of ethnic minorities to crime and criminal justice

  ongoing

  Findings to be incorporated on "Young People in multi-ethnic Britain"

  Attrition of racial incidents cases

  deferred because of the introduction of new legislation

  —

  Classification systems for sex offenders (Part I)

  ongoing

  Final report received —Home Office will publish a research findings shortly

  Community Sentence Demonstration Projects

  ongoing

  Comparative costs and performance of private and public prisons

  completed

  Review of Comparative Costs and Performance of Privately and Publicly Operated Prisons 1996–97, Prison Service Research Report December 1997

  Conceptual Framework for Crime prevention

  ongoing

  —

  28
  Gaming machines in pubs allow rapid re-staking, but to control the risks that poses they have relatively low maximum stake and prize levels (30 pence and £ 10 respectively). Also, in pubs £10 machines are allowed only as an ancillary facility and only in the bar area; and they require specific authorisation by the licensing justices, who normally allow only two or three per establishment.

  With these restrictions, such machines have hitherto been considered as relatively soft gambling, but the Government keep the risks under review. We are carefully considering a February 1998 study by Dr. Sue Fisher, published by OFLOT, which identified as problem machine gamblers some 4 per cent. of a sample of nearly 10,000 schoolchildren aged 12– 15 in England and Wales. More of those problem gamblers had played machines in pubs than in any other venue.

  We have also expressed support for a proposal by GAMCARE—the national problem gambling charity—to commission a large-scale independent study of gambling of all kinds among people aged 16 and over.

  UN Committee Against Torture
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the UK Periodic report to the UN Committee Against Torture to be completed; and if he will place the report in the Library. [37222]

  Mr. Straw
  The United Kingdom's Third Periodic Report under Article 19 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture has been submitted to the United Nations by the United Kingdom Mission in Geneva. Copies have been placed in the Library and have been sent to organisations with a known interest in the subject area. The report is also available on the Internet.

  Home Affairs Research and Statistics Directorate
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the titles of projects(a) undertaken and (b) completed by the Home Affairs Research and Statistics Directorate in the past six months, indicating which of these have been published and how their findings have been made available. [37221]

  Mr. Straw
  The following projects were either ongoing or completed during the period October 1997 to March 1998. Where a project has been completed, the publication reference is given:
  29

  Project Title

  Status

  Publication

  Coroners

  Completed

  HORS to be published on 20 April

  Council of Europe Sourcebook

  ongoing

  —

  Crack cocaine and criminal lifestyles

  ongoing

  —

  Crime and opiate misuse

  ongoing

  —

  Crime recording practices (HMIC review)

  Completed

  Instruction books issued to police forces on 20 March 1998

  Demanding Physical Programmes for Young Offenders

  ongoing

  —

  Developing a Risk/Needs Assessment Scale for the Probation Service

  Completed

  Published in Home Office guidance "Management and Assessment of Risk in the Probation Service, June 1997

  Domestic violence

  Ongoing

  —

  Drugs Throughcare

  Ongoing

  —

  Electronic Monitoring of Curfew Orders: year two

  Completed

  HORS 177 and Research Findings 66

  Entry into the CJS

  Ongoing

  —

  Ethnic monitoring by police forces

  Ongoing

  Information for 1996–97 published for the police in Home Office publication "Race and the Criminal Justice System"(December 1997)

  Ethnic Monitoring by police forces

  completed

  HORS 173, December 1997

  Ethnicity and victimisation

  Completed

  HOSB 6/98–3 April 1998

  Evaluating the effects of the bail process projects

  Completed

  HORS 184 to be published in April 1998

  Evaluation of a link worker scheme to help deal with the mentally disordered at the police station

  Ongoing

  —

  Evaluation of court psychiatric assessment schemes for mentally disordered offenders

  Ongoing

  —

  Evaluation of Home Office cautioning circular 18/1994

  Completed

  Research Findings 53

  Evaluation of Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) Scheme

  Completed

  Not yet published. Research findings planned

  Evaluation of pilot projects for new community measures

  Ongoing

  —

  Evaluation of Pilot Regimes for Young Offenders: Colchester YOI and Thorn Cross HITP

  Ongoing

  —

  Evaluation of Sex Offender Treatment Programme (Part I)

  Completed

  Research findings in preparation for June 1998

  Evaluation of the new PACE codes of practice

  Completed

  HORS 174 and Research Findings 62

  Evaluation of the public order provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

  Ongoing

  —

  Evaluations of projects funded under European Year against Racism

  Ongoing

  —

  Exclusion from School, Criminal Careers and Effective Interventions

  Ongoing

  —

  Fast Tracking for Juveniles in the courts

  Completed

  Research Findings due in April 1998

  Firearm offences

  Ongoing

  —

  Imposition and discharge of restriction orders

  Ongoing

  Report prepared for publication—May 1998

  Knowledge of sentencing. Mike Hough & Julian Roberts

  Completed

  HORS 179 and Research Findings 64–5 January 1998

  Lay Visitor Schemes

  Ongoing

  —

  LIPS/Surrey Probation Employment Initiatives

  Ongoing

  —

  Local Voluntary Activity Surveys

  Ongoing

  3 LOVAS papers and 4 LOVAS Area Reports 1997. Other reports due soon

  Maintenance and Operation of Police Funding Formula

  Ongoing

  Police Grant Report (England and Wales) published 2 February 1998

  Mandatory Drug Testing evaluation

  Ongoing

  —

  Misuse of Drugs

  Completed

  HORS 172,September 1997

  Monitoring of Charities' incomes before and after the National Lottery

  Ongoing

  Due May-June and October-November 1998

  Monitoring the right of silence provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

  Ongoing

  —

  Neighbourhood Watch co-ordinators

  completed

  Research findings 64 [full report available on request]

  New Methodology for Prison Population Projections

  Ongoing

  Paper at Or39 Conference of Operational Research Society—published in Operational Research Insight—January-March 1998

  Notified addicts

  Ongoing

  —

  Offending on bail

  Ongoing

  Publication of Research Findings 72 expected April 1998

  Offensive weapons

  Ongoing

  Statistical Findings in preparation

  Operation of s.48 of the Mental Health Act 1983

  Ongoing

  Publication of Research Findings expected in May-June 1998

  Perpetrators of racial harassment

  Completed

  HORS 176, November 1997

  Police and ethnic minorities

  Completed

  Research Findings 59

  Police recording practices

  Ongoing

  —

  Prison Service staff stress audit

  Ongoing

  —

  Prisoner activity expansion

  not yet started

  —

  Probation Motor Projects: a reconviction study

  Ongoing

  —

  30 31

  Project Title

  Status

  Publication

  Public attitudes to drug-related crime

  completed

  Research Findings 67, January 1998

  Reconviction rates after sentence at the Crown Court

  completed

  Report made available in January 1998

  Reconviction studies

  Ongoing

  —

  Reconviction study of those given community penalties: the effect of social variables

  Ongoing

  —

  Recording of racial incidents

  Ongoing

  —

  Relations between police and minority communities

  Ongoing

  —

  Review of Deterrence

  Ongoing

  —

  Sentencing practice in the courts following the CJAs 1991 and 1993

  Ongoing

  To be published as a HORS, May 1998

  Serious Offences

  Ongoing

  —

  Sex Offenders Treatment Programme for Rapists (Part II)

  Ongoing

  —

  Sexual victimisation

  Completed

  Academic Journal, Autumn 1997

  Study of attrition process in rape cases

  Ongoing

  —

  Survey of absconding from hospital by restricted patients

  Ongoing

  —

  The admissibility and sufficiency of evidence in child abuse prosecutions

  Ongoing

  —

  The police and victims

  Completed

  Research Findings 60, December 1997

  The Use of Pre-Sentence Information (school reports) in the Youth Court

  Completed

  Journal article in preparation; publication date not yet confirmed

  Third party disclosure

  Ongoing

  —

  Treatment of drug misusers in the community

  Ongoing

  —

  Urine testing of arrestees

  Completed

  Scheduled for publication April 1998

  Victim statements and 'one stop shop' pilot projects

  Ongoing

  —

  Victims and witnesses in magistrates Courts

  Completed

  Research Findings 68 January 1998

  Video violence and young offenders

  Completed

  Research Findings 65

  Voluntary supervision of released prisoner

  Completed

  Publication due in next two months

  Vulnerable or Intimidated witnesses

  ongoing

  Publication planned in May as annex to Review group's report

  Work aimed at improving the quality of police incident data

  ongoing

  HMIC letter to Chief Constables issued 12 March 1998

  Young offenders from different ethnic groups

  ongoing

  —

  Young people in multi-ethnic Britain

  ongoing

  —

  Note:

  HORS = Home Office Research Study

  HOSB = Home Office Statistical Bulletin

  The research programme for 1998–99 will shortly be made available on the Home Office web site [http://www.open.gov.uk/home—off/rsd/rsdhome.htm] and a copy will be sent to the House of Commons Library. The list of current publications from the Research and Statistics Directorate is also available on the Home Office web site or from my department on request. All Research and Statistical publications are sent to the House of Commons Library as a matter of course.

  Immigration
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 December 1997,Official Report, column 559, what plans he has to publish the instructions to Immigration Service and Home Office staff on dealing with immigration cases. [37964]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am pleased to announce that a copy of the disclosable version of four of the six volumes of the Immigration Directorates' Instructions (IDIs) is being placed in the Library. The material is subject to periodic review and revision. We shall arrange to provide the Library with any necessary amendments or new instructions.

  The IDIs consist of internal guidance to staff about the handling of on-entry and after-entry immigration
  32
  casework. They are being made available in accordance with the principles of openness in the White Paper on Freedom of Information and in the existing Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. A small amount of material cannot be disclosed, either on the grounds of national security or because disclosure would prejudice the effective operation of immigration controls.

  Arrangements are now in hand to make this information available on the Internet. Because of the volume of material and the technical arrangements involved, it is likely to take approximately six weeks before this process is complete. I shall make a further statement in due course. In the meantime, members of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's After-Entry User Panel are being consulted about other suitable ways of facilitating access to this information.

  Separate sets of internal instructions on asylum, enforcement, European Economic Area and nationality casework will be made available in due course. We are also examining disclosure of the remaining two volumes of the IDIs insofar as they relate to immigration casework. Much of the material in those volumes relates to internal administrative matters, such as general guidance on the drafting of letters, which would not normally be relevant to those outside the Home Office.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Leisure Centres
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the adequacy of local authority leisure centres; and what recent reports he has evaluated on this subject. [36850]

  Mr. Banks
  The English Sports Council (ESC) has collected extensive facilities data and is creating a Facilities Planning Model (FPM) which will enable it to undertake assessments of community sports facilities across England. Reports on a total of ten regional assessments, based upon the FPM and individual National Governing Body Strategies, should be available in the autumn. My Department will also be producing guidance to all local authorities on developing and publishing leisure strategies to improve planning and policy making, following examples of the best.

  Commonwealth Games
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the forecast level of central and local government financial support for the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002. [37366]

  Mr. Banks
  Manchester City Council's bid document to host the Commonwealth Games in 2002 outlined the fact that the public funding requirement was estimated at £114 million. My Department, along with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, are currently reviewing the level of funding required to stage a highly successful Games, in conjunction with Manchester City Council and the English Sports Council.

  Sportsmark Scheme
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the progress of the second round of applications for the sportsmark scheme. [36618]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 1 April 1998]: The English Sports Council has received a total of 413 applications for this round of the Sportsmark scheme, 363 for Sportsmark award and 50 for Sportsmark Gold. This includes applications from special schools. The applications are currently being considered and we hope to announce in June those schools which have been successful.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which piers he has visited in the North West of England since May 1997. [37280]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not yet visited a pier in the North West.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which theatres he has visited in the North West of England since May 1997. [37281]

  Mr. Fisher
  As Minister for the Arts, I have made several visits to the region—most recently meeting the Artistic and Administrative Directors of the Octagon 34
  Theatre in Bolton on 18 March. In February I was a guest of Braham Murray at the Royal Exchange Theatre in Manchester, and I had the pleasure of speaking at the Manchester Evening News Theatre Awards in December 1997.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on earnings generated from tourism from overseas visitors in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [37247]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  Spending by overseas visitors in the United Kingdom in the last three years is estimated to be (a) £11.8 billion in 1995, (b) £12.4 billion in 1996 and (c) £12.7 billion in 1997. Overseas visitors' spending in 1997 was some 15 per cent. higher in real terms (taking account of inflation) than in 1994.

  Millennium Commission (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the projects in Staffordshire which have been allocated funding by the Millennium Commission. [37585]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to my hon. Friend in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Library.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Solvent Abuse
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Council if the United Kingdom anti-drugs co-ordinator will meet individuals or organisations to discuss the prevention of solvent abuse. [36295]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  Keith Hellawell, the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator, met Warren Hawksley, the Director of Re-Solv—a national charity concerned with Volatile Substance Abuse— on 2 April as part of his ongoing extensive consultation process.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill
  Mr. Russell
  To ask the President of the Council what representations she has received on the allocation of additional time for the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill. [36296]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  I have received a number of letters, as well as oral questions on the subject. The procedures and time available for all private Members' bills are well established. Whether a bill passes during the time available is a matter for its supporters and opponents.

  Statements
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the procedures relating to arrangements for oral statements. [36297]
  35
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The Modernisation Committee, in its recent report on Conduct of Debate, recommended no change in procedure but said statements should normally last no more than ten minutes and that the questioning following them should be brisk.

  Private Members' Legislation
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make more time available for private Members' legislation. [36298]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The amount of time for private Members' legislation is set out in the standing orders and the days for its consideration are agreed by the House at the start of each session. It would be wrong to change these arrangements at a time when bills are already going through the procedure. The amount of time allocated overall in future sessions is something which could be looked at by the Modernisation Committee.

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Council if she will increase the opportunities available for debating Select Committee reports. [36299]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  I am prepared to consider increasing the number of opportunities for such debates it if is clear that the demand for them really does exceed the current supply. Any increase under current arrangements would have to come on Wednesday mornings and would therefore be at the expense of other adjournment debates.

  Allowances (Chamber Attendance)
  Mrs. Bottomley
  To ask the President of the Council if she will take steps to link the payment of hon. Members' allowances to hon. Members' attendance in the Chamber. [36300]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  No. The House has no system for recording attendance in the Chamber. It is up to individual Members to decide how best to carry out their parliamentary and constituency duties.

TREASURY

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total number of families who are eligible for the maximum childcare credit for(a) one child and (b) two or more children; and what proportion of these he estimates will take up the childcare credit for each of the first five years of its operation. [36360]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 March 1998]: I refer to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 1 April 1998, Official Report, columns 533–54. Families are eligible for the childcare tax credit only if they have eligible childcare costs. Those with eligible childcare costs below £100 a week (for one child families) and £150 for two or more children will not be entitled to the maximum childcare help.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his estimates of the additional employment which will result from(a) the working
  36
  families tax credit and (b) the childcare tax credit in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000, (iii) 2000–01 and (iv) 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [36396]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: The Government expect that their programme of tax and benefit reform to make work pay will, like their New Deals, help people move off welfare and into work.

  Taxation
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update Table 3.3 on page 48 of the Red Book to include the numbers of people affected by high marginal deduction rates of 50 per cent. or more. [36444]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Members for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 31 March 1998, Official Report, columns 447–48.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to 1.2.1 on page 10 of the Red Book, for what reasons higher tax revenues in 1997–98 are not assumed to carry forward fully into future years. [36450]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: Table B 10 of the March 1998 FSBR shows changes in the forecasts of tax receipts between the July 1997 and March 1998 Budgets. Receipts from income tax, corporation tax, VAT and social security contributions are all likely to be higher in 19977–98 than forecast last July. In the case of income tax, VAT and social security contributions, these higher receipts do carry through to higher forecasts of receipts for 1998–99. However, the forecast for non-oil corporation tax receipts has been revised down by £2.2 billion in 1998–99, mainly because of a much lower than expected outturn for company profits in 1997, and the forecast of North Sea revenues has been revised down by £0.8 billion in 1998–99, because of lower oil prices.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a revised version of the information in Table 3.3 of the Red Book separately identifying the marginal rates of each individual in a two-earner couple. [35864]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 23 March 1998]: The information requested is contained in the table. It shows that the number of people facing very high marginal tax rates has been significantly reduced. The number facing marginal rates above 70% has been reduced by about two thirds, including the effect on both partners within a couple.

  000s

  Before

  After

  Heads

  Spouse

  Heads

  Spouse

  100 per cent. or more

  5

  5

  0

  0

  90 per cent. or more

  130

  60

  20

  10

  80 per cent. or more

  300

  150

  200

  100

  70 per cent. or more

  740

  400

  260

  110

  60 per cent. or more

  760

  420

  1,010

  240

  37
  Figures are for families where at least one partner works 16 hours or more, and are based on 1997–98 caseload and take-up rates. Figures are based on Family Expenditure Survey data.

  Figures in the table do not reflect the NICs reforms which reduce the high marginal rates for those just below the Lower Earnings Limit.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out which measures relating to pensions in the Budget will(a) increase and (b) decrease the incomes of pensioners. [35882]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 23 March 1998]: The Government's commitment to today's and tomorrow's pensioners should be in no doubt. Ensuring an adequate income in retirement is key to the Government's Strategy. We have already taken action to help all pensioners—especially the poorest.

  One of the Chancellor's first actions was to reduce VAT on domestic fuel. In the Pre-Budget report the Chancellor announced help for winter fuel bills for pensioners for this winter and next. A payment of £50 is being made to pensioner households receiving income support and £20 to other pensioners, in addition to any Cold Weather payments they may receive. And we are spending £15 million looking at ways of encouraging the poorest pensioners to take up their entitlement to income support.

  Control total by department in real terms (1996–97 prices)

  £ million

  Outturn

  Previous plans1

  Estimate

  Plans

  Changes from previous plans

  1996–97

  1997–982

  1998–992

  1997–982

  1998–992

  1997–982

  1998–992

  Defence

  22,345

  21,250

  21,040

  21,260

  21,040

  10

  0

  —sale of married quarters

  -962

  -680

  0

  -680

  0

  0

  0

  Foreign Office

  1,053

  1,040

  1,000

  1,060

  980

  20

  -20

  International Development

  2,344

  2,130

  2,200

  2,200

  2,190

  70

  -10

  Agriculture, Fishers and Food

  4,229

  3,660

  3,230

  3,520

  3,180

  -140

  -40

  Trade and Industry progs

  3,064

  2,970

  2,860

  3,060

  2,800

  90

  -60

  Trade and Industry—Nat Inds

  -394

  -20

  -170

  -140

  -130

  -120

  40

  ECGD

  15

  10

  0

  40

  50

  30

  50

  DETR

  12,975

  12,380

  11,480

  12,270

  11,500

  -110

  20

  DETR—Local government3

  31,321

  30,550

  30,190

  30,550

  31,000

  0

  820

  of which education SSA4.

  17,764

  17,880

  17,550

  17,880

  18,340

  0

  790

  Home Office

  6,486

  6,700

  6,460

  6,700

  6,520

  0

  60

  Legal Departments

  2,674

  2,650

  2,550

  2,660

  2,540

  20

  -10

  Education and Employment5

  14,495

  13,530

  12,690

  14,240

  12,370

  710

  -320

  Culture, Media and Sport

  959

  860

  870

  890

  860

  20

  -10

  Health

  33,816

  34,000

  33,750

  34,410

  35,170

  410

  1,420

  of which NHS

  33,043

  33,450

  33,210

  33,780

  34,550

  330

  1,340

  Social Security6

  76,905

  77,690

  78,580

  77,530

  79,130

  -170

  540

  Scotland

  14,421

  13,960

  13,630

  14,130

  13,800

  170

  170

  Wales

  6,817

  6,720

  6,500

  6,770

  6,590

  60

  90

  Northern Ireland

  8,026

  8,010

  7,810

  8,070

  7,950

  60

  140

  Chancellor's Departments

  3,190

  3,080

  2,970

  3,170

  2,930

  80

  -30

  Cabinet Office

  1,157

  1,010

  1,280

  950

  1,240

  -70

  -40

  European Communities

  1,717

  2,190

  2,260

  1,740

  2,310

  -450

  50

  38
  The Chancellor also ensured, in his recent Budget, that pensioners on modest incomes would be protected as the forthcoming changes to the Married Couple's Allowance take effect.

  Finally the Social Security Green Paper reaffirmed the Government's commitment to the Basic State Retirement pension as the foundation of pension provision, and to increase it at least in line with inflation. A green paper on pensions later this year will set out how we intend to encourage increased saving for retirement.

  Environmental Sustainability
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a green book on environmental sustainability to accompany the Financial Statement and Budget Report in future budgets; and if he will make a statement. [36372]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: It is intended that future Financial Statement and Budget Reports will incorporate assessments of the environmental impact of the Budget.

  "Financial Statement and Budget Report"
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update Table B18, page 128, of the Financial Statement and Budget report, to give the figures in real terms, using 1996–97 prices. [36373]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: The table shows the Control Total by department in real terms in 1996–97 prices and comparisons with previous plans, consistent with the cash figures published in table B18 and the GDP deflators in table B1 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report, March 1998.
  39

  Control total by department in real terms (1996–97 prices)

  £ million

  Outturn

  Previous plans1

  Estimate

  Plans

  Changes from previous plans

  1996–97

  1997–982

  1998–992

  1997–982

  1998–992

  1997–982

  1998–992

  LASFE

  13,182

  12,700

  12,800

  13,200

  500

  400

  Allowance for shortfall

  -

  -

  -

  -400

  -

  -400

  -

  Reserve

  -

  2,200

  4,700

  -

  2,900

  -2,200

  -1,800

  Control total

  259,834

  258,700

  258,700

  257,200

  260,200

  -1,500

  1,400

  1Previous plans have been adjusted for transfer and classification changes and deflated to 1996–97 prices using GDP deflator forecasts from March 1998 FSBR.

  2 All figures are rounded to the nearest £10 million except for the Reserve, Control Total and local Authority self-financed expenditure (LASFE) which are rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  3Includes payments of Revenue Support Grant and National Non-Domestic rates to English local authorities. These finance, at local authorities discretion, a range of local services, including education, social services and other environmental services.

  4Previous plans for education SSA in 1998–99 estimated as a proportion of total SSA.

  5Does not include local authority Total Standard Spending on education, shown under DETR-Local Government. Figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are distorted by the effect of sales of student loans and abolition of nursery vouchers.

  6 Excluding cyclical social security.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will redraft Table B18, page 128, FSBR, March 1998, to show expenditure in each year as a percentage of forecast GDP; and if he will add to Table B18 a line to cover total estimated expenditure of United Kingdom education, expressed as a percentage of GDP. [36374]

  Control total by department as a percentage of GDP

  Outturn

  Previous plans1

  Estimate

  Plans

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Defence

  3.0

  2.7

  2.7

  2.7

  2.7

  —sale of married quarters

  -0.1

  -0.1

  0.1

  -0.1

  0.0

  Foreign Office

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  International Development

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  0.6

  0.5

  0.4

  0.5

  0.4

  Trade and Industry progs

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  Trade and Industry—Nat Inds

  -0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  ECGD

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  DETR

  1.7

  1.6

  1.5

  1.6

  1.5

  DETR—Local Government1

  4.2

  3.9

  3.8

  3.9

  3.9

  of which education SSA2

  2.4

  2.3

  2.2

  2.3

  2.3

  Home Office

  0.9

  0.9

  0.8

  0.9

  0.8

  Legal Departments

  0.4

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  Education and Employment3

  1.9

  1.7

  1.6

  1.8

  1.6

  Culture, Media and Sport

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  Health

  4.5

  4.4

  4.3

  4.4

  4.5

  of which NHS

  4.4

  4.3

  4.2

  4.4

  4.4

  Social Security4

  10.2

  10.0

  10.0

  10.0

  10.0

  Scotland

  1.9

  1.8

  1.7

  1.8

  1.7

  Wales

  0.9

  0.9

  0.8

  0.9

  0.8

  Northern Ireland

  1.1

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  Chancellor's Departments

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  Cabinet Office

  0.2

  0.1

  0.2

  0.1

  0.2

  European Communities

  0.2

  0.3

  0.3

  0.2

  0.3

  LASFE

  1.8

  1.6

  1.6

  1.7

  1.7

  Allowance for shortfall

  -

  -

  -

  -0.1

  -

  Reserve

  -

  0.3

  0.6

  -

  0.4

  Control Total

  34.5

  33.3

  32.8

  33.2

  33.0

  Memo:

  Total UK education spending5

  4.9

  4.7

  4.6

  4.7

  4.7

  1Previous plans have been adjusted for transfer and classification changes and ratios calculated using GDP forecasts in FSBR March 1998.

  2 Includes payments of Revenue Support Grant and National Non-Domestic rates to English local authorities. These finance, at local authorities discretion, a range of local services, including education, social services and other environmental services.

  3Previous plans for education SSA in 1998–99 estimated as a proportion of total SSA.

  4Does not include local authority Total Standard Spending on education, shown under DETR-Local Government. Figures for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are distorted by the effect of sales of student loans and abolition of nursery vouchers.

  5Excluding cyclical social security

  6 The 1997–98 and 1998–99 figures for total UK education expenditure exclude the proceeds from the sale of the student loanbook portfolio, and are based on estimates of Local Authority education spending.

  40
  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 30 March 1998): The table shows the Control Total by department as a percentage of GDP for current and previous plans, consistent with the cash figures published in table B18 and the GDP figures in Table B1 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report, March 1998. It also shows a memo item for total UK education expenditure as a percentage of GDP.
  41

  Family Credit (Owner-occupiers)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the current number of claimants of family credit in each region and nation; what proportion of this number are owner occupiers; and if he will estimate the number of beneficiaries of the working families tax credit in each region and nation on the basis of present proposals and incomes, separately identifying the proportion who would be owner occupiers. [36393]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: Estimates of the number of claimants of Family Credit by region appear in the Family Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiry (Table 9.1). The Government have made no regional estimates of the number of beneficiaries of the Working Families Tax Credit.

  The Government estimate that about half of those entitled to the Working Families Tax Credit will be owner-occupiers.

  Museums (Free Admission)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many national museums he expects to retain free admission as a result of Budget proposals; and for how long. [36778]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: Five national museums and galleries will retain free admission for the financial year 1998–99 following the creation of a Challenge Fund to promote access and education initiatives in museums. Extra money has also been made available for museums in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Future levels of funding will be announced as part of the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Resuscitation Dummies
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make resuscitation dummies eligible for exclusion from VAT; if he will provide incentives to charities to purchase resuscitation dummies; and if he will make a statement. [37267]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The supply of resuscitation dummies has always been subject to VAT. This position is the subject of a challenge to the VAT and Duties Tribunal, which is the proper forum for resolving questions of liability.

  Casinos
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how much was contributed to the Treasury by the casino industry through overseas earnings in the last year for which figures are available. [36824]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 31 March 1998]: There are no official data on which to base such an estimate.

  EU Contributions
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the(a) net and (b) gross British contribution to the EU on a per capita basis for each of the last four years, indicating the savings resulting in (a) and (b) from the British rebate. [36344]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  United Kingdom gross and net contributions, per capita, 1993 to 1996

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Gross contribution1 (£ million)

  7,985

  7,189

  8,889

  9,133

  Abatement2.3 (£ million)

  2,539

  1,726

  1,207

  2,412

  Gross contribution after abatement (£ million)

  5,446

  5,463

  7,682

  6,721

  Receipts3 (£ million)

  3,291

  3,253

  3,665

  4,369

  Net contribution (£ million)

  2,155

  2,211

  4,017

  2,352

  Population (millions)

  58,191

  58,366

  58,480

  58,680

  Gross contribution per head (£)

  137

  123

  152

  156

  Gross contribution after abatement per head (£)

  94

  94

  131

  115

  Net contribution per head (£)

  37

  38

  69

  40

  Value of abatement per head3 (£)

  44

  30

  21

  41

  1 Annual contributions include corrections and adjustments in respect of amounts paid in earlier years.

  2 The UK's abatement is paid a year in arrears, so that it reflects the UK's excessive net contribution in the previous year. The abatement made available to the UK during the year also takes account of corrections and adjustments made in respect of earlier years.

  3Indicates negative amount.

  Sources:

  Gross contribution, abatement, receipts and net contribution taken from the Government's annual White Paper, Statement on the EC Budget.

  Population figures taken from European Economy (1996 Broad Economic Policy Guidelines) published by the European Commission.

  Air Quality (Budget Measures)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total annual reduction of(a) carbon dioxide, (b) other greenhouse gases, (c) nitrogen oxide and (d) carcinogenic particulates which will arise from measures contained in the Budget. [36941]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) on 30 March 1998,Official Report, column 436.

  Population Statistics
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each of the past 20 years, the number of(a) males and (b) females in each of the

  43
  age groups (i) 0 to 18, (ii) 19 to 60, (iii) 60 to 65 and (iv) over 65-year-olds; and what are his projections of their numbers for each of the next 20 years. [37524]

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

  Population estimate figures for the United Kingdom for the last 20 years

  Figures in 000s

  Year

  Total persons

  Total males

  0-18

  19-59

  60-65

  Over 65

  Total females

  0-18

  19-59

  60-65

  Over 65

  1977

  56,190

  27,345

  8,276

  14,488

  1,695

  2,887

  28,845

  7,860

  14,425

  1,939

  4,621

  1978

  56,178

  27,330

  8,177

  14,601

  1,619

  2,932

  28,848

  7,768

  14,542

  1,861

  4,678

  1979

  56,240

  27,373

  8,101

  14,740

  1,553

  2,980

  28,867

  7,689

  14,661

  1,785

  4,732

  1980

  56,330

  27,411

  8,013

  14,768

  1,599

  3,031

  28,919

  7,605

  14,688

  1,829

  4,797

  1981

  56,352

  27,409

  7,909

  14,798

  1,630

  3,072

  28,943

  7,501

  14,737

  1,856

  4,849

  1982

  56,318

  27,391

  7,797

  14,837

  1,666

  3,090

  28,927

  7,381

  14,782

  1,889

  4,875

  1983

  56,377

  27,429

  7,672

  14,963

  1,703

  3,091

  28,948

  7,260

  14,882

  1,924

  4,882

  1984

  56,506

  27,511

  7,537

  15,140

  1,764

  3,070

  28,995

  7,139

  15,009

  1,982

  4,865

  1985

  56,685

  27,611

  7,449

  15,296

  1,810

  3,057

  29,074

  7,053

  15,146

  2,024

  4,851

  1986

  56,852

  27,698

  7,373

  15,430

  1,761

  3,134

  29,153

  6,981

  15,278

  1,954

  4,940

  1987

  57,009

  27,789

  7,307

  15,560

  1,718

  3,203

  29,220

  6,917

  15,393

  1,895

  5,015

  1988

  57,158

  27,876

  7,252

  15,680

  1,686

  3,258

  29,282

  6,863

  15,498

  1,850

  5,071

  1989

  57,358

  27,989

  7,214

  15,803

  1,673

  3,300

  29,368

  6,828

  15,600

  1,825

  5,115

  1990

  57,561

  28,118

  7,182

  15,943

  1,664

  3,329

  29,443

  6,792

  15,707

  1,808

  5,136

  1991

  57,808

  28,246

  7,179

  16,040

  1,661

  3,366

  29,562

  6,788

  15,814

  1,797

  5,163

  1992

  58,006

  28,362

  7,175

  16,137

  1,648

  3,402

  29,645

  6,795

  15,892

  1,776

  5,181

  1993

  58,191

  28,474

  7,188

  16,220

  1,632

  3,433

  29,718

  6,813

  15,959

  1,752

  5,193

  1994

  58,395

  28,592

  7,220

  16,298

  1,622

  3,451

  29,803

  6,848

  16,035

  1,732

  5,188

  1995

  58,606

  28,727

  7,254

  16,375

  1,620

  3,478

  29,878

  6,884

  16,083

  1,718

  5,193

  1996

  58,801

  28,856

  7,298

  16,435

  1,620

  3,503

  29,946

  6,926

  16,120

  1,707

  5,193

  Note:

  Figures may not add exactly because of rounding.

  Source:

  ONS, Annual Mid-Year Population Estimates for England and Wales.

  GRO(s) for Scotland, NISRA for Northern Ireland.

  Population projection figures for the United Kingdom for the next 20 years

  Figures in 000s

  Year

  Total persons

  Total males

  0-18

  19-59

  60-65

  Over 65

  Total females

  0-18

  19-59

  60-65

  Over 65

  1997

  59,002

  28,983

  7,344

  16,482

  1,622

  3,536

  30,019

  6,971

  16,155

  1,700

  5,193

  1998

  59,170

  29,089

  7,349

  16,546

  1,634

  3,560

  30,081

  6,979

  16,209

  1,708

  5,184

  1999

  59,323

  29,187

  7,339

  16,617

  1,654

  3,576

  30,136

  6,970

  16,272

  1,727

  5,168

  2000

  59,473

  29,283

  7,329

  16,690

  1,671

  3,593

  30,190

  6,959

  16,338

  1,744

  5,149

  2001

  59,618

  29,377

  7,322

  16,773

  1,665

  3,617

  30,241

  6,953

  16,413

  1,739

  5,137

  2002

  59,759

  29,468

  7,311

  16,835

  1,677

  3,646

  30,291

  6,943

  16,467

  1,750

  5,131

  2003

  59,896

  29,557

  7,299

  16,868

  1,711

  3,678

  30,339

  6,932

  16,492

  1,786

  5,130

  2004

  60,029

  29,643

  7,270

  16,900

  1,757

  3,715

  30,386

  6,904

  16,515

  1,832

  5,135

  2005

  60,159

  29,727

  7,236

  16,939

  1,799

  3,754

  30,432

  6,872

  16,542

  1,873

  5,145

  2006

  60,286

  29,809

  7,196

  16,976

  1,847

  3,789

  30,477

  6,834

  16,569

  1,923

  5,152

  2007

  60,414

  29,890

  7,144

  16,928

  2,008

  3,810

  30,524

  6,784

  16,511

  2,084

  5,145

  2008

  60,541

  29,970

  7,097

  16,913

  2,108

  3,851

  30,571

  6,738

  16,484

  2,187

  5,162

  2009

  60,669

  30,049

  7,048

  16,925

  2,159

  3,917

  30,620

  6,690

  16,486

  2,238

  5,206

  2010

  60,799

  30,128

  6,991

  16,958

  2,182

  3,997

  30,671

  6,633

  16,510

  2,261

  5,267

  2011

  60,929

  30,206

  6,937

  16,996

  2,200

  4,073

  30,723

  6,581

  16,541

  2,275

  5,327

  2012

  61,062

  30,284

  6,900

  17,027

  2,205

  4,152

  30,778

  6,543

  16,564

  2,279

  5,392

  2013

  61,197

  30,361

  6,863

  17,051

  2,128

  4,320

  30,836

  6,508

  16,580

  2,198

  5,550

  2014

  61,333

  30,438

  6,840

  17,059

  2,089

  4,450

  30,895

  6,486

  16,580

  2,153

  5,675

  2015

  61,469

  30,513

  6,825

  17,065

  2,069

  4,555

  30,956

  6,474

  16,578

  2,129

  5,775

  2016

  61,605

  30,587

  6,803

  17,066

  2,072

  4,645

  31,018

  6,453

  16,573

  2,128

  5,863

  Note:

  Figures may not add exactly because of rounding.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.
  44
  Letter from Tim Holt to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 6 April 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question asking for the number of (a) males and (b) females for the past 20 years and projections for the next 20 years.
  The attached two tables provide the information by the ages and gender requested for the United Kingdom.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which age group the highest number of new cases of breast cancer as a proportion of the total number of women in that age group was diagnosed in the last year for which figures are available. [37731]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Stinchcombe, dated 6 April 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on new cases of breast cancer.
  The information requested is given in ONS Monitor `Registrations of newly diagnosed cases of cancer, England and Wales, 1992', MB1 97/1. A copy of this publication is held in the House of Commons library.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which illness caused the highest number of deaths of women in the 35 to 54 years age group in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are avail able. [37721]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Stinchcombe, dated 6 April 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on which illness caused the highest number of deaths of women in the 35 to 54 years age group in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available.
  In 1996, the illness which caused the highest number of deaths to women in the United Kingdom aged 35 to 54 was breast cancer with 2,593 deaths.

DEFENCE

  RAF Stations
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the Strategic Defence Review in respect of RAF stations. [36268]

  Dr. Reid
  Since the launch of the Strategic Defence Review we have received a number of representations on a wide range of matters concerning the Royal Air Force.

  Ethnic Recruitment Initiatives
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress made on the ethnic recruitment initiatives in Newham and Sandwell. [36271]

  Dr. Reid
  It is our aim that the Armed Forces should better reflect the society they seek to defend. To this end, contact with the local communities, including the police, further education colleges, religious and community 46
  leaders in both Newham and Sandwell is continuing. We very much hope that through these initiatives recruits will be attracted from all sectors of the local communities.

  Training Areas
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the availability of training areas. [36273]

  Dr. Reid
  The majority of training land held by my Department is used by the Army. An estimate of the availability of Army training land was made in a study, the results of which were reported to the House in March 1997. The study concluded that there was a shortage of land for training in the United Kingdom in comparison with the requirement.

  Gulf Presence
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the deployment of British troops to the Persian Gulf. [36274]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones).

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Territorial Army. [36275]

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Territorial Army. [36269]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer the hon. Members to the oral answer I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) earlier today.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) peacetime, (b) wartime and (c) estimated actual strength of the TA as a total and by individual corps, together with actual strengths for the infantry and yeomanry or such of this information as is readily available. [38136]

  Dr. Reid
  The volunteer strength of the TA as at 1 February 1998 is 55,786 against an establishment of 59,000.

  The detailed information requested is presented below. Figures detailing Arm/Service strength are available only for non-Regular personnel and it has therefore been possible only to present strengths excluding Regulars.

  Peacetime establishment is composed of Regular personnel, Non-Regular Permanent Staff (NRPS) and TA personnel. The wartime establishment is achieved by augmenting units with individual reservists, namely ex-Regulars.
  47

  Arm/Service

  TA

  Reg

  NRPS

  Establishment

  Strength1

  Peacetime

  Wartime

  Household Cav and RAC2

  2,568

  112

  101

  2,781

  3,219

  2,171

  RA

  4,025

  136

  118

  4,279

  4,756

  3,130

  RE

  6,251

  248

  134

  6,633

  9,204

  5,456

  R Signals

  5,362

  382

  153

  5,897

  7,277

  4,447

  Infantry

  16,602

  411

  546

  17,559

  22,710

  15,890

  AAC

  157

  25

  14

  196

  306

  155

  AMS

  4,786

  159

  67

  5,012

  7,237

  4,423

  RLC

  9,968

  293

  130

  10,391

  14,111

  9,315

  REME

  2,190

  89

  27

  2,306

  5,168

  3,542

  AGC

  1,170

  22

  15

  1,207

  1,571

  2,477

  Int Corps

  729

  12

  27

  768

  772

  642

  OTC

  3,500

  103

  58

  3,661

  3,661

  4,953

  RAChD

  117

  0

  0

  117

  117

  103

  RAVC

  14

  0

  0

  14

  14

  12

  TA Bands3

  840

  0

  24

  864

  864

  -

  Others4

  721

  0

  112

  833

  833

  472

  Total

  59,000

  1,992

  1,526

  62,518

  81,820

  57,188

  1Figures by Arm/Service are only available for non-regular Personnel. The total of 57,188 comprises 1,402 NRPS and 55,786 volunteers. It excludes all regular personnel.

  2 These units relate to the Yeomanry.

  3The TA Band establishment is shown separately, but actual strength of Band Personnel is included within Arm/Service.

  4Includes TA Public Information Officers, Staff, Northern Ireland NRPS Guards.

  The future size and shape of the Territorial Army is being considered in the Strategic Defence Review. Prior to this, volunteer strengths had been planned to fall to 54,000 in 1998.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the planned and actual strength of all arms of the Territorial Army in 1998. [37742]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier).

  Royal Air Force (Germany)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what review he has conducted of the proposed date for the withdrawal of the RAF from Germany. [36276]

  Dr. Reid
  It remains our intention that the RAF withdraw from RAF Laarbruch in 1999 and from RAF Bruggen in 2002.

  Gulf War Veterans
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Government's new beginning policy for Gulf War veterans. [36277]

  Dr. Reid
  The policy statement "Gulf Veterans' Illnesses: A New Beginning" which was published last July set out three fundamental principles which underpin the Government's approach to this issue: first, that all Gulf veterans will have prompt access to medical advice from the MOD's Medical Assessment Programme (MAP); second, there will be appropriate research into veterans' illnesses and factors which might have a bearing on these; and third, the MOD will make available to the public any information it possesses which is of potential relevance to this issue.

  Since last July, considerable progress has been made in implementing measures in these three areas. Additional resources have been made available for the MAP, and
  48
  the waiting time for new appointments is now within the timescale set out in the New Beginning statement. Additional research to investigate the possible interactions between the medical countermeasures used in the Gulf is now in its preparatory phase and the MOD recently announced funding for a series of clinical tests to be carried out on randomly selected Gulf veterans. Information papers have been published on the background to the use of medical countermeasures, about an incident at the Kuwaiti Girls School at which chemical agent was alleged to have been present and, earlier today, about reports of dead animals in the Gulf.

  I have also published today a progress report which sets out in more detail our success in implementing the twenty key points which were listed in last July's New Beginning statement. Copies of this report, and of the report on dead animals, have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest assessment of the possible causes of Gulf War syndrome. [36278]

  Dr. Reid
  Since returning from the Gulf War in 1991, some UK veterans have become ill. Many believe that this ill-health is unusual and directly related to their participation in that conflict. However, there is still no medical or scientific consensus on this subject and important research is still in progress.

  The Government are funding two major epidemiological studies to investigate the health of Gulf veterans and their families. A further epidemiological study into UK Gulf veterans and association with increased illness is being funded by the US Department of Defense. In addition, the Government are funding a programme of clinical tests on a group of randomly selected Gulf veterans and also a research programme to investigate the possible adverse health effects of the combination of vaccines and tablets which were given to British troops in the Gulf to protect them against the threat of biological and chemical warfare.
  49
  It would be premature to speculate on the possible causes of Gulf veterans' illnesses before the results of these research programmes become available. We currently expect that preliminary results from some of these studies will appear during 1999.

  Women
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government have taken to improve employment opportunities for women in the armed forces. [36279]

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress the Government have made in improving employment opportunities for women in the armed forces. [36281]

  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government have taken to improve employment opportunities for women in the armed forces. [36285]

  Dr. Reid
  We are committed to widest possible employment opportunities for women, consistent with the need to maintain the combat effectiveness of our Armed Forces. Women can already serve in 73 per cent. of Naval Service posts and 96 per cent. of posts in the RAF. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced during the Defence Debate on 27 October 1997,Official Report, columns 615–616, that the number of posts open to women in the Army would increase from 47 per cent. to 70 per cent. as of 1 April this year. We are also reviewing the remaining areas of employment currently closed to servicewomen across all three Services to see whether it is possible to extend employment opportunities still further.

  Medical Services (Gulf)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of defence medical services in the Gulf. [36282]

  Dr. Reid
  Regular Defence Medical Services (DMS) personnel are serving afloat in RN ships deployed to the Gulf Region and ashore in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. In addition, regular DMS personnel are deployed to the Gulf Region on a temporary or intermittent basis for particular tasks as necessary. A 25 bed hospital in the UK is at a five days readiness to deploy.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. Martin Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the role and procedures of the Ministry of Defence Police. [36283]

  Dr. Reid
  The Ministry of Defence Police is a civilian police force constituted under the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. Ministry of Defence Police officers are subject to the same laws and procedures as their Home Department and Scottish Office police colleagues. In common with the rest of my Department, the Ministry of Defence Police have been the subject of a number of reviews in recent times and also stemming from that of Sir Patrick Sheehy. Apart from any considerations arising from the Strategic Defence Review, I have no plans to initiate any further reviews of the role and procedures of the Ministry of Defence Police.
  50

  NATO Russia Founding Act
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the NATO Russia Founding Act. [36284]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Since the NATO/Russia Founding Act was signed in May 1997, good progress has been made on the agreed areas for consultation and cooperation. The mechanism for achieving this progress is the Permanent Joint Council, which is due to meet again at Ministerial level in May and June when we will take stock of progress against an agreed work plan for 1998. The UK encourages the implementation of the Founding Act to include as much practical activity as possible on the agreed basis of transparency and reciprocity.

  Smart Procurement Initiative
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's smart procurement initiative. [36286]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams).

  Chatham Dockyard Workers
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with the counselling scheme for ex-Chatham dockyard workers he announced in June 1997. [36287]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since I announced the extended counselling arrangements on 4 June 1997 and up until 26 March, there have been 245 inquiries from former Chatham Dockyard workers to the Radiation Counselling Registry. Of these there have been 233 requests for radiation dose information and 131 applications for counselling. Two hundred and twenty two replies have been made to these requests and 112 persons have been counselled.

  Air Training Corps
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the future of the air training corps. [36288]

  Dr. Reid
  I am not aware of any representations having been made to my Department about the future of the Air Training Corps (ATC). As with the other Cadet organisations, this Government greatly value the work of the ATC which helps many young people in the development of such qualities as good citizenship, self reliance and self confidence.

  Social Class
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will investigate the influence of social class on promotion in, and the composition of the armed forces. [36289]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government are determined that the Armed Forces should be fully representative of all sectors of the community. Armed Forces careers are therefore open to all suitably motivated and qualified young people with the right talents, skills, and determination. The Government are also committed to the principle that all
  51
  personnel are recruited entirely on their individual merits, and that their subsequent careers, including promotion, are governed entirely by merit in comparison with their peers.

  Susan Hunter
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the case of Susan Hunter. [36290]

  Mr. Spellar
  The regrettable incident of racial abuse to which Mrs. Hunter was subjected, during a social function held at Oakington Barracks on 9 August 1995, was thoroughly and fully investigated by the Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police. After reviewing the evidence, the Army Prosecuting Authority determined that Private Bragg should face trial by District Court-Martial. Private Bragg pleaded guilty to the charges brought against him, and was sentenced to 112 days detention and dismissed from the Service. The sentence reflects the serious and genuine commitment which the Army has to eliminate racism.

  The commitment of Ministers and the Chiefs of Staff fully to eliminate racism from the Armed Forces is unequivocal. All three Services have either issued or revised their equal opportunity policies and directives which leave all personnel absolutely clear on where their personal responsibilities lie. Any personnel who continue to practise racist behaviour will be dealt with severely and, depending on the circumstances of the case, dismissed.

  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to visit the Royal Naval College at Greenwich to discuss its future. [36270]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Since I May I have already visited the Royal Naval College Greenwich twice and I have no immediate plans for a further visit. I continue to keep a very close interest in its future arrangements and I hope that negotiations can be concluded soon, to allow the Greenwich Foundation for the Royal Naval College to take responsibility for the site.

  Shoeburyness Training Unit
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce a decision on the proposal to transfer a training unit to Shoeburyness; and if he will make a statement. [36272]

  Dr. Reid
  I expect to be able to announce, before the summer recess, the findings of the study into the possible relocation of the Defence Explosive Ordnance Disposal School from its present site in Kent.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current estimate of the cost of the European fighter aircraft. [36280]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 19 January 1998,Official Report, column 416.
  52

  Strategic Lift Capabilities
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on current UK strategic lift capabilities. [36257]

  Dr. Reid
  Our Strategic Lift requirement, in terms both of airlift and sealift, has been scrutinised closely in the Strategic Defence Review. This scrutiny has been, of course, informed by my Department's assessment of the adequacy of our currently available assets. No decisions have yet been taken.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what responsibility COMAX has for the payment of the costs of the Ministry of Defence Police at Pendine and other DERA bases; and what are the additional costs of that responsibility. [37908]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency. I have asked the Chief Constable to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Walter Bore ham to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 6 April 1998:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the payment of costs for Ministry of Defence Police at Pendine and other DERA bases as this falls into my areas of responsibility as Chief Constable/Chief Executive of the Ministry of Defence Policy Agency.
  Negotiations are taking place between COMAX and the Ministry of Defence Policy on the terms and costs of the continued presence of the Ministry of Defence Police at six DERA sites. Until those negotiations are completed I am unable to answer the question. However, the costs for the services now provided meanwhile are being met by COMAX.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the demand from the customers of DERA ranges for depleted uranium firings; and if he will make a statement on the extent to which these facilities have been used to date. [36390]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 26 March 1998]Discussions with customers during the land ranges rationalisation study indicated the need to retain a depleted uranium firing capability in the UK. The firing facilities for depleted uranium rounds ats Eskmeals were last used in 1995.

  United Kingdom Hydrographic Office
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for the last available year the (i) running costs (ii) salary costs of the head office, (iii) total and percentage of(a) staff, (b) salary costs and (c) running costs incurred at sites in (1) England and (2) Scotland and (iv) the total budget of the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office. [37695]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Hydrographic Office. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
  53
  Letter from John Clarke to Mr. Alasdair Morgan, dated 6 April 1998:
  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Defence a Parliamentary Question concerning several cost and budget issues relating to the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (UKHO). As the matters you raise fall within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the UKHO, I have been asked to reply to you direct.
  I should preface this response by pointing out that we have made the central assumption that your question relates solely to the UKHO and not to the Ministry of Defence as well. In addition, as your question contains a number of subsidiary questions, I felt it might aid both clarity and presentation if the information you require is

  Annex A: The UK Hydrographic Office 1996/97

  Staff

  Expenditure

  Total expenditure

  Number

  %

  Salary costs (£ million)

  %

  Other running costs (£ million)

  %

  (£ million)

  %

  HQ

  828

  98.10

  18.400

  98.25

  15.022

  99.97

  33.422

  99.02

  Other England

  12

  1.42

  0.259

  1.38

  0.003

  0.02

  0.262

  0.78

  Scotland

  4

  0.47

  0.068

  0.36

  0.001

  0.01

  0.069

  0.20

  Total

  844

  100.00

  18.727

  100.00

  15.026

  100.00

  33.753

  100.00

  Britannia
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what inspections and safety checks are being made to ensure the Royal Yacht 'Britannia' is protected from(a) damage, (b) fire and (c) deterioration. [37260]

  Dr. Reid
  BRITANNIA is berthed inside Portsmouth Naval Base and is regularly checked by Base staff and MoD police patrols. She is locked up with access on board strictly controlled. All portable artefacts and many stores, including as much as possible of that which presents a fire hazard, have been removed. Fire, intruder detection and partial dehumidification systems have been installed. The hull and superstructure are washed regularly to help arrest salt corrosion and maintain condition.

  Ex-service Men
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 13 March 1998,Official Report, column 427, what alterations to the regulations for submission of complaints by ex-service personnel were introduced in October 1997; under what statute; and for what reasons. [37396]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 2 April 1998]: The Armed Forces Act 1996 amended the Services Discipline Acts (the Naval Discipline Act 1957, the Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955) to provide a statutory right, for the first time, for ex-Service personnel to submit a complaint to the Defence Council. At the same time, provision was made for a time limit of not less than three months to be prescribed in Queen's Regulations for the submission of complaints from both serving and ex-Service personnel. Prior to this, there was no statutory provision for ex-Service personnel to submit complaints although complaints were accepted for investigation on a discretionary basis. This change was made to ensure that ex-Service personnel were afforded the same rights as serving personnel. Queen's Regulations now provide for
  54
  provided in tabular format. Accordingly, the answers to your questions can be found at Annex A to this letter.

  By way of amplification, I should just explain that the staff numbers quoted are in fact average figures for the whole financial year 1996/97. The United Kingdom Hydrographic Office is situated at Taunton, Somerset and as you will see. 98.1% of UKHO staff are based there. There are, however, a number of staff—16 in total—housed in Chart Maintenance Units (CMUs). These CMUs are located in major Royal Navy bases throughout the UK. In terms of Scotland there are 4 UKHO staff based in the CMU at Faslane; these are the only UKHO staff located in Scotland as I hope reference to Annex A will explain.

  I hope this reply has been of assistance. Please do not hesitate to get in touch should you need any further amplification.

  a time limit for the submission of complaints of three months from the date of the action complained of. These new provisions came into effect on 1 October 1997.

  IT Staff
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the current shortfall in established information technology staff, consultant and contractor support posts within his Department; and if he will list the posts by grade indicating for each post how long it has been vacant and when it is expected to be filled. [37483]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 2 April 1998]: Management of the majority of the Department's civilian staff, including IT staff, consultants and contractor support personnel, is delegated to individual budget areas and agencies. Navy, Army and Air Force personnel are managed by their respective Services. Details of vacancies are not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which projects, not related to the year 2000 compliance problem, are being(a) restricted and (b) terminated in order to free information technology resources. [37482]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 2 April 1998]To date, no projects have been cancelled in order to free IT resources for work on the year 2000 problem. To release resources, some lower priority work has been delayed, either by commencing the work later than planned or by extending the duration of existing projects.

  Service Men (Criminal Offences)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many serving or former members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Irish Regiment
  55
  officers in each year since their formation have been (a) arrested, (b) charged or (c) convicted of criminal offences. [37815]

  Dr. Reid
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Infantry
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 March 1998,Official Report, columns 314–15, on the infantry; if he will list the peacetime establishments of each of the divisions listed. [37931]

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

  Irish Sea (Ships Logs)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will release the ships logs of vessels engaged in search operations in the Irish Sea on 24 March 1968 and the days following. [37223]

  Dr. Reid
  Four MOD vessels were involved in the initial three day search for the Aer Lingus Viscount which crashed into the Irish Sea on 24 March 1968. Of these, my Department holds only the log book for HMS Penelope. Extensive searches have not revealed the whereabouts of those of the other three ships involved. I am placing a copy of the relevant pages of this log in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Libraries
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future organisation and location of his departmental libraries and their collections. [37608]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are no plans specifically relating to the organisation or location of departmental libraries overall. Any future plans for the reorganisation, relocation or closure of individual buildings, establishments or sites would take account of existing libraries and their collections.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the disposal of books from his Department's libraries which are regarded as surplus to requirement. [37607]

  Mr. Spellar
  In accordance with HM Treasury guidelines, it is the Department's normal practice to sell surplus material including library books so as to achieve a return to the public purse. However the department does have delegated authority to make gifts in certain circumstances and as a rule surplus library books have been disposed of in this way. In most instances surplus library books are given to the British Library where they pass into the public domain.

  With regard to documents and manuscripts formerly held by MOD which fall within the category of public records under the terms of the Public Record Acts 1958 and 1967, their disposal is the responsibility of the MOD Records organisation in accordance with the routine departmental procedures involving the Inspecting Officer
  56
  of the Public Record Office. Record material has been and is being transferred to the Public Record Office, Approved Places of Deposit and appropriate Service museums, allowing proper public access under the Public Record Acts.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will name the departmental committee responsible for advising him on the disposal of books and manuscripts from his departmental libraries. [37605]

  Mr. Spellar
  There is no committee responsible for advice on the disposal of books and manuscripts from MOD libraries.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the collections of books and manuscripts disposed of by his departmental libraries since 1994. [37606]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Upholder Class Submarines
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the disposal of the four Upholder Class submarines. [38328]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I am pleased to say that the Government of Canada have today announced their intention, subject to final negotiations, to lease all four of the Upholder class submarines for a period of eight years. Canada has chosen to acquire the submarines via a lease with an option to purchase as this is the most satisfactory solution for them.

  During the period of the lease the submarines will still be owned by the UK but Canada will have full and unrestricted use and control of the submarines and will indemnify the UK from any claims that may arise from Canadian operation. At the end of the lease period the Canadian Government will have the option of purchasing the submarines outright. If Canada does not take up this option Canada will dispose of the submarines on our behalf. This arrangement is worth some 610 million Canadian dollars to the UK. Work will be generated for various UK companies in reactivating the submarines and for GEC Marine at Barrow who will be providing technical and logistic support, including the provision of training to Canada.

  This opportunity represents the most practical and cost effective manner of securing the future of the submarines and is a strong indication of the close relationship between the UK and Canada. The links between our armed forces are traditionally strong, both bilaterally and within NATO. I hope this deal will lead to further co-operation between the two Navies and enhance Canada's contribution to NATO.

  Middle East
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change force levels in the Middle East; and if he will make a statement. [38327]
  57
  Mr. George Robertson
  We remain fully committed to ensuring that Saddam Hussein honours the agreement he made with the UN Secretary General on 23 February, subsequently endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 1154, giving free and unfettered access to UNSCOM and IAEA inspectors. Saddam has complied so far, but access alone is not enough. Saddam has not yet provided the evidence we need to be sure that he has destroyed all his weapons of mass destruction. It is therefore too soon to relax our vigilance or reduce our military capability in the Gulf.

  We have been reviewing the composition of our forces to ensure we have the best mix for the job and have decided that as temperatures in the Gulf increase we should deploy additional Tornados to replace the Harrier GR7s embarked on HMS Illustrious, since Tornados are better suited to operations in extreme heat than Harriers operating from aircraft carriers. With the generous agreement of the Kuwaiti Government we will therefore be increasing to 12 the number of Tornados based at Ali Al Salem Airbase in the middle of April. HMS Illustrious will then depart the Gulf, prior to entering a major refit programme in July, which will include a number of enhancements to her capability to conduct joint air operations.

  Overseas Training Areas
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what overseas training areas are available to the Army and Air Force for the current year. [37743]

  Dr. Reid
  During 1998 Army and Air Force collective training and exercises have taken place or are planned to take place in the following countries:

  Belgium

  France

  Greece

  Portugal

  USA

  Slovakia

  Australia

  Brunei

  Fiji

  Kenya

  Mauritania

  Oman

  Singapore

  Canada

  Italy

  Netherlands

  Spain

  Hungary

  Slovenia

  Bahamas

  Botswana

  Jamaica

  Kuwait

  Morocco

  Qatar

  Denmark

  Germany

  Norway

  58

  Turkey

  Poland

  Ukraine

  Belize

  Cyprus

  Jordan

  Malaysia

  Nepal

  Senegal.

  Training is also carried out on the Ascension Island, in the Falkland Islands and in Gibraltar.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the job description and terms of reference of the new Director of Action 2000. [35101]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Director's particular responsibilities are:

  (a) To provide support to the Chairman of Action 2000 in making an assessment of the state of preparedness of UK business to cope with the Millennium Bug, and developing and implementing programmes to encourage business to make suitable preparations.

  (b) To manage the day to day operations of the Company, including the Millennium Bug Campaign, launched on 22 January.

  Specific activities and objectives will be determined from time to time by the Chairman.

  Media Ownership
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what thresholds her Department uses to determine the levels of concentration of media ownership which would trigger her Department's intervention. [37020]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: Under the newspaper merger provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973, proprietors of newspapers circulating in the UK must obtain my prior consent to acquire a newspaper or newspaper assets where the total paid-for daily circulation of the newspapers involved is 500,000 or more.

  Under the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Director General of Fair Trading keeps a constant eye on United Kingdom markets and has the power to refer a monopoly situation to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for investigation. The legislation defines a monopoly situation as one where a company or group supplies or purchases 25 per cent. or more of all the goods or services of a particular type in the United Kingdom or in a defined part of it.

  The limits on broadcast media ownership and cross-media ownership are set out in the Broadcasting Acts, which are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received from(a) Mr. Rupert Murdoch and (b) News International in respect of media shareholdings in the United Kingdom. [37017]
  59
  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]I have received no such representations.

  Green Transport
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date she plans to introduce a green commuting plan. [36667]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]: The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions circulated to all Departments in September last year a "Guide to Green Transport Plans". My Department is considering how to respond to its recommendations.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what specific changes to departmental transport arrangements have to date been implemented following the receipt of the Green Transport Plan. [36647]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]: The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions circulated to all Departments in September last year a "Guide to Green Transport Plans". My Department is currently preparing green transport plans for key headquarters buildings.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her estimate of the value of defence export licence applications withdrawn since 1 May 1997 after contracts were cancelled by customers due to delay in licence proceedings. [35389]

  Mrs. Roche
  Between 2 May 1997 and 6 March 1998, 554 applications for Standard Individual Export Licences and 21 applications for Open Individual Export Licences were withdrawn by the applicants. There is no requirement that the applicant should give a reason for withdrawing an application and it is therefore not possible to give an estimate as requested.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total number of export licence applications processed by the Export Control Organisation in each of the four-week periods used by her Department from 5 April 1997 to that commencing on 7 February 1998, broken down into(a) those circulated to other Government departments and (b) those not circulated. [36712]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information is as follows:

  period

  Applications circulated to other Departments according to their policy requirements and completed during the period

  Applications not circulated to other Departments and completed during the Period

  5/4/97–2/5/97

  767

  191

  3/5/97–30/5/97

  1,019

  425

  31/5/97–27/6/97

  531

  191

  28/6/97–25/7/97

  677

  174

  26/7/97–22/8/97

  798

  131

  23/8/97–19/9/97

  898

  244

  20/9/97–17/10/97

  692

  142

  18/10/97–14/11/97

  794

  184

  60

  period

  Applications circulated to other Departments according to their policy requirements and completed during the period

  Applications not circulated to other Departments and completed during the Period

  15/11/97–12/12/97

  883

  143

  13/12/97–9/1/98

  662

  62

  10/1/98–6/2/98

  818

  137

  7/2/98–6/3/98

  776

  163

  This information was taken from the Export Control Organisation's management data, which are compiled in order to monitor performance at processing applications for Standard Individual Export Licences. The performance measures do not apply to applications for Open Individual Export Licences (due to the very wide variations between goods and country coverage of such licences) or licences for exports which are subject to control solely because of United Nations sanctions.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licence applications were refused by the Export Control Organisation during each of the four-week periods used by her Department from 5 April 1997 to that commencing on 7 February 1998. [36599]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the numbers of applications for Standard Individual Export Licences and Open Individual Export Licences refused in full in each period are as follows:

  Applications for individual export licences refused in each 4-week period

  Period

  Standard individual export licences

  Open individual export licences

  5/4/97–2/5/97

  8

  0

  3/5/97–30/5/97

  4

  0

  31/5/97–27/6/97

  6

  1

  28/6/97–25/7/97

  2

  1

  26/7/97–22/8/97

  7

  0

  23/8/97–19/9/97

  4

  0

  20/9/97–17/10/97

  13

  0

  18/10/97–14/11/97

  4

  0

  15/11/97–12/12/97

  3

  1

  13/12/97–9/1/98

  11

  0

  10/1/98–6/2/98

  11

  0

  7/2/98–6/3/98

  5

  0

  This information should be considered in light of my answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of applications for export licences were processed by the Export Control Organisation in accordance with their targets as to time in the four week periods beginning(a) 3 May 1997 and (b) 7 February 1998. [36497]
  61
  Mrs. Roche
  The Export Control Organisation's management data on processing applications for export licences for these periods, to the nearest percentage point, are as follows.

  percentage

  3 May 1997 to 30 May 1997

  7 February 1998 to 6 March 1998

  Applications circulated to other Departments according to their
  policy requirements and completed within 20 working days

  48

  56

  Applications not circulated to other Departments and completed in 10
  working days

  41

  76

  Utility Markets
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what will be the impact of her Department's policy on concurrent powers for the utility regulators and the Office of Fair Trading on the organisation which will make the final decision on investigations concerning the utility markets. [37386]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Competition Bill provides for the utility sector regulators to exercise concurrently most of the functions of the Director General of Fair Trading in applying and enforcing the prohibitions in relation to their sectors. As set out in the Green Paper "A Fair Deal for Consumers"[CM3898], the Government believe it is important for the development of sectoral regulation that each of the regulators should be able to exercise concurrent powers in their respective areas.

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps the Government have taken to consult local authorities on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment; and if she will publish the representations received. [37391]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 2 April 1998]: We have been in contact with the Local Government Association, as well as with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices. They have not as yet identified any problems or any need for exceptions. We remain in touch: if any problems do come to light we will of course take account of them. It would not be appropriate for us to publish accounts of these consultations which have been carried out on a private basis. But we have no objection if the Local Government Association wish to publish the correspondence.

  Carpet Industry
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals have been put forward by Russia to(a) restrict and (b) limit the export from the EU to Russia of carpets and associated products; and what assessment she has made of the impact of such restrictions on the United Kingdom carpet industry. [35950]

  Mrs. Roche
  In January 1998 Russia announced the intention of imposing quota restrictions with effect from the end of March on its imports of carpets from the European Union, in response to the EU' s long standing restrictions on Russia's textile and clothing exports.
  62
  However, at negotiations held on 26 and 27 March, the European Commission and Russia agreed to remove all quantitative restrictions maintained on each other's textile trade with effect from 30 April 1998.

  Victims of Nazism
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how much money has been set aside to pay claims from victims of Nazism for restitution of assets; [36756]

  (2) what remedies are available to those who claim unfair treatment in respect of their claims for restitution of assets as victims of Nazism. [36751]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I wish to make it clear that the Government are revolted by Nazi persecution, and have the greatest sympathy for its victims and their relatives. When the circumstances relating to the confiscation of enemy property and the issues that it raises today were first drawn to my attention and that of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary I was keen to shed as much light on the matter as I could, so a detailed historical analysis of the subject was commissioned from FCO historians.

  A first but incomplete draft of the report was produced just before the Nazi Gold Conference, but it required extensive further work and cross-checking for the accuracy and fulness of the information it contained. There is no truth in the suggestion that, as some press reports have implied, publication has been deliberately delayed.

  As the report shows, most of the assets seized under the Wartime legislation have either been returned to the original owners or been used to compensate British nationals under the post-War peace treaties.

  Treaty signatories undertook to compensate their own nationals whose property was confiscated in the UK. Special provision was made for the relief of those whose property had been confiscated and who had also suffered under the Nazis. But some of the documents examined show that although these schemes were well-intentioned, those who dealt with these matters after the War were sometimes insensitive to the plight of Nazi victims.

  The present Government deeply regret this, and I would like to apologise to those individuals and to their relatives and descendants. A different attitude would be expected now.

  The general principle must be that confiscated assets placed in the UK by victims of Nazi persecution should be returned to them by the UK where practicable and where claims can be validated.

  The inadequacy of many of the records will make this no easy task. So although the Government have decided to set up a claims procedure, they have also accepted the suggestion that a suitable independent individual, with the right stature and experience, should undertake an assessment of the report, consulting all interested parties, and, as a matter of urgency, advise on the form of the scheme the Government should adopt.
  63
  To aid this work the Government will publish on the internet a list of the 25,000 names of people for whom some records still exist and are prepared to make available an initial £2 million for the claims procedure. If this sum is not taken up, the balance will be given to an independent body for disbursement to people suffering hardship and who were victims of Nazi persecution.

  I have placed copies of the report in the libraries of both Houses.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she received on the impact of the level of sterling on manufacturing when she visited the Caravan Exhibition. [37696]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I do not recall receiving any representations on the level of sterling during my visit to the Caravan and Outdoor Leisure Show last November.

  Post Office
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has for the future financing and organisation of the Post Office; and if she will make a statement. [38232]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Following consultations last year with the main interested parties and in the light of the Third Report of the Trade and Industry Committee, I have commissioned the next phase of the review of the Post Office.

  Our objective is to establish a framework for the Post Office that will enable it to meet successfully the challenges and opportunities ahead. It is important that we have an effective postal service which meets the commercial and social needs of the country.

  The terms of reference of the next phase of the review are:
  The Government are committed to the Post Office remaining in the public sector and continuing to provide a universal postal service at a uniform tariff and a nation-wide network of post offices. Against that background, the review will make recommendations on the Post Office's future organisation, structure and financing which will best deliver:
  greater commercial freedom to enable it to compete effectively in the UK and overseas; and
  improved efficiency, effectiveness and service standards.
  The review is to take account of the ways in which overseas competitors and analogous organisations are facing, or being set to face, the challenges of the changing market, and is to consider in particular:
  a range of options for partnership with the private sector (such as joint ventures) and for the involvement of employees and customers;
  how best to ensure fair competition in postal services;
  the role of Post Office Counters in the delivery of Government services; and
  the Crown Office conversion programme.
  The Government hope to announce their proposals in the Autumn.

  In the meantime, to help it meet the challenges that are already evident, I am extending the current limited freedom that the Post Office already has for international joint ventures to the domestic market.
  64

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list by date the overseas trips undertaken by the Minister for Trade since 18 November 1997. [37828]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The information is as follows.

  Date

  15–24 November 1997

  Qatar (MENA summit), UAE and Yemen (Trade Promotion)

  1–2 December 1997

  Barcelona and Madrid (Trade Promotion)

  7–11 December 1997

  Poland/Czech Republic/Hungary (Trade Promotion)

  12–13 December 1997

  Conclusion of WTO Financial Services Negotiations, Geneva

  16–18 December 1997

  OECD Bribery Convention Paris and Rome (Trade Promotion/Policy)

  15–16 January 1998

  East-West Conference in Prague

  30 January 1998

  Hungary (Trade Promotion)

  2 February 1998

  European Parliament Committee (REX) Brussels

  3–6 February 1998

  Zimbabwe (Trade Promotion)

  27 February-13 March 1998

  Australia and New Zealand (Trade Promotion)

  29–30 March 1998

  General Affairs Council—Brussels

  5–9 April 1998

  Japan (re-launch of Action Japan) (Trade Promotion)

  British National Space Centre
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the(a) locations, (b) running costs,(c) salary costs and (d) total Government financial assistance to the British National Space Centre. [36235]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]: The British National Space Centre (BNSC), located at 151 Buckingham Palace Road, London, leads a partnership of Government Departments and research councils. The centre's direct running costs are funded as follows:

  £000

  Running Costs

  Staff Costs

  DTI

  277

  1,179

  MOD

  12

  129

  Meteorological Office

  8

  15

  Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council

  40

  102

  Natural Environment Research Council

  12

  52

  BNSC co-ordinates civil space expenditure by the partnership estimated in 1997–98 at £200 million. Approximately two-thirds of this expenditure supports European Space Agency programmes.

  Export Credit Guarantees
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria are used to assess(a) market risk and (b) political risk when determining ECGD support for UK exporters; and if she will make a statement. [37008]
  65
  Mrs. Roche
  When evaluating country or market risk, ECGD analyses factors which impinge on a country's capacity and willingness to meet its external debt commitments. Factors include the external debt burden of the economy and how it is likely to evolve over time as well as the country's ability to withstand internal and external economic shocks. A country's vulnerability to political risks such as civil wars, coups, etc. is also assessed when determining ECGD's support.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment is made of a country's human rights record when allocating ECGD support for United Kingdom exporters; and if she will make a statement. [37009]

  Mrs. Roche
  ECGD's function is to underwrite payment risks associated with capital goods and project exports. Where an export licence is required, ECGD cover will become effective only on condition that the exporter has obtained the licence.

  In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), 28 July 1997, Official Report, columns 26–29, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out the criteria used in considering applications for licences to export goods entered in Part III of the Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, and licence applications for the export of dual-use goods where there are grounds for believing that the end-user of such goods will be the armed forces or the internal security forces of the recipient country.

  Research Councils
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the(a) locations, (b) running costs, (c) salary costs and (d) total Government financial assistance to (i) the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, (ii) the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, (iii) the Economic and Social Research Council, (iv) the Medical Research Council, (v) the Natural Environment Research Council, (vi) the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and (vii) the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils; and what percentage of staff are based in (1) England and (2) Scotland. [36236]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]: Details of the locations of the Research Councils and their research establishments are as follows.

  Apart from the MRC (London) and CCLRC (Didcot), the Headquarters of the Councils are all located in Swindon. In addition, Councils, have sites at the following locations:
  BBSRC: Aberystwyth, Bristol, Bury St. Edmunds, Cambridge, Compton (near Newbury), Edinburgh, Harpenden, Norwich, Okehampton, Pirbright, Reading, Roslin, Silsoe, Trecastle (Brecon);
  CCLRC: Chilbolton (Hampshire), Warrington;
  MRC: Brighton, Bristol, Cambridge, Didcot, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leicester, London, Newcastle upon Tyne, Nottingham, Oxford, Southampton, Warrington, Banjul (The Gambia), Kingston (Jamaica);
  NERC: Aberystwyth, Banchory, Bangor, Cambridge, Earlyburn, East Kilbride, East Stoke (Dorset), Edinburgh, Eskdalemuir, Exeter, Furzebrook (Dorset), Hartland, Keyworth, Oban, Oxford, Penrhos, Plymouth, Southampton, Staylittle (Wales), Tan Hinon (Powys), Tulloch Lodge, Wallingford, the Wirral, Windermere;
  66
  PPARC: Cambridge, Edinburgh, La Palma and Hawaii;
  EPSRC and ESRC have no establishments other than their Headquarters.

  Data on the Councils' running costs and salary costs are not readily available in the form requested. In 1995–96, the last year for which full figures are available, the Councils' total spend on central administration and at their scientific establishments was as follows:

  Council

  £ million

  BBSRC

  75.018

  CCLRC

  101.608

  EPSRC

  18.032

  ESRC

  6.158

  MRC

  152.058

  NERC

  167.870

  PPARC

  25.603

  Details of the total Government financial assistance to each of the Councils from the Science Budget in 1998–99 were given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry on 15 January 1998, Official Report, column 271, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy).

  In 1996–97 the percentages of Research Council personnel based in England and Scotland were as follows:

  Council

  England

  Scotland

  BBSRC

  84

  8

  CCLRC

  100

  -

  ESRC

  100

  -

  EPSRC

  100

  -

  MRC

  87

  13

  NERC

  85

  13

  PPARC

  69

  31

  Total

  88

  10

  Further details of Research Councils' spend will be given in the Department's Expenditure Plans Report to be published shortly.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of spent fuel have been delivered under contract to Sellafield from Japanese utilities to date; what further quantities of irradiated fuel are due to be delivered to British Nuclear Fuels under the same contracts; and what measures concerning(a) physical safety and (b) emergency preparations cover such shipments. [37847]

  Mr. Battle
  Specific details relating to contractual quantities of spent fuel delivered, or still due to be delivered, to Sellafield are a matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc and its customers.

  United Kingdom companies involved in the transport of nuclear material by sea use ships which meet the International Maritime Organisation's Code for the Safe Carriage of Irradiated Nuclear Fuel, Plutonium and High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Flasks on board Ships (INF Code). All international movements of nuclear material carried out by the United Kingdom comply fully with the requirements of the Convention on the Physical

  67
  Protection of Nuclear Material and with the international guidelines on physical protection published by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when BNFL plans to return to Japan the(a) low, (b) intermediate and (c) high level radioactive waste arising from the reprocessing of contracted spent fuel; how many shipments per year are required to return to Japan each category of radioactive waste from reprocessing; what quantities of reprocessed plutonium are planned to be returned to Japan each year; and over what period this return transport is planned to take place. [37848]

  Mr. Battle
  Since 1976, all British Nuclear Fuels plc new contracts for the reprocessing of overseas spent fuel have contained options for the return of wastes. The Government intend that such options should be exercised and that wastes arising from reprocessing be returned to countries of origin.

  The detailed arrangements for implementing these waste return options and for returning plutonium are an operational matter for BNFL and its overseas customers in accordance with the terms of the contracts between them.

  Electrical Goods
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what preparations her Department is making to meet the requirements of the proposed EU directive on end-of-life procedures for electrical and electronic goods. [37732]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Member States have not yet received the first draft text of the European Commission's proposal for a Directive on end of electrical and electronic equipment. The DTI has, however, commenced discussions with a wide range of industry bodies and other interested parties, as well as with the European Commission, in order to influence the development of the expected Directive. In the context of the Government's Producer Responsibility initiative, the DTI is also encouraging the electrical and electronic equipment industry to take action to increase recovery and recycling levels in this sector.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment her Department has made of the environmental efficacy of a deposit system on new electrical white goods, returnable upon responsible disposal at the end of their useful lives. [37733]

  Mr. Battle
  The application of deposit systems on new electrical white goods, which may involve a refund to the consumer when the appliance reaches the end of its life, is not widespread in Europe. The Department is collecting information on the instances where legislation exists or discussions are taking place to establish such systems, and will be assessing their effectiveness in due course. Within the UK, it is estimated that over 50 per cent. of new white goods are sold with the opportunity to take back the old appliance free of charge.

  Coal Miners Pension Funds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the sum which the Government have taken from the coal miners' pension funds(a) in total and
  68
  (b) attributable to miners living in Wales; on what basis the money was transferred; when the actuarial advice was given to the Government concerning the proportion of the pension fund which needed to be withheld; and if she will make a statement. [28992]

  Mr. Battle
  In 1994, prior to coal privatisation arrangements were put in place to safeguard the interests of members of the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme (MPS). In exchange for providing a comprehensive guarantee that pension and deferred pension entitlements at privatisation will rise at least in line with the retail price index (RPI), the MPS Trustees agreed that the Government should receive 50 per cent. of any surpluses identified at periodic Scheme valuations. From its share of the Scheme surplus as at 30 September 1996 (identified by the Government Actuary in his report of May 1997) the Government have to date received £113 million. This sum cannot be attributed to any particular regional group within the Scheme membership.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hospitality
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list planned expenditure on hospitality for April and May, indicating the date, location and purpose of each event. [35112]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 31 March 1998,Official Report, columns 472–73.

  Media Ownership
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had in the last 10 days under the United Kingdom Presidency of the EU relating to media ownership issues within the EU; what were the purposes of such discussions; and if he will make a statement. [36499]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]: None.

  Quangos
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Prime Minister how many quangos have been set up since 1 May 1997; what public money each has received; and if he will list each body set up, indicating the number of appointments he has made to each. [36979]

  The Prime Minister
  Since 1 May 1997, 19 new non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) have been set up. Many of these new bodies are essential in helping the Government to deliver their Manifesto commitments. The bodies are listed, together with the grant or grant-in-aid each has received, and the number of appointments I have made to each. The large majority of bodies are advisory, supported by staff in sponsor departments and do not receive any direct funding.

  The Government have abolished 22 NDPBs since 1 May 1997 and are committed to keeping the number of NDBPs to a minimum. Ministers are currently examining

  69
  the NDPBs they sponsor with a view to identifying further candidates for abolition.

  NDPBs established since 1 May 1997

  NDPBs

  Number of appointments made by Prime Minister

  Grant or grant-in-aid 1997–98(£ million)

  Better Regulation Task Force

  0

  -

  Civil Justice Council

  0

  -

  Civil Procedure Rule Committee

  0

  -

  Commission for Racial Equality (NI)

  0

  -

  Disability Rights Task Force

  0

  -

  Expert Group on Airborne Particles

  0

  -

  Expert Group on Cryptosporidium in Water Supplies

  0

  -

  Football Task Force

  0

  10.050

  Government Panel on Sustainable Development Education

  0

  -

  Historic Royal Palaces2

  0

  -

  New Deal Task Force

  0

  -

  Police Information Technology Organisation3

  0

  -

  Potato Development Council

  0

  -

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority4

  0

  532.572

  Royal Commission on Long Term Care of the Elderly

  0

  -

  Security Vetting Appeals Panel

  6

  -

  Skills Task Force

  0

  -

  Spectrum Management Advisory Group

  0

  -

  Treasure Valuation Committee

  0

  -

  1£50,000 grant received from the English Sports Council.

  2HRP took over the functions of Historic Royal Palaces Agency on 1 April 1998.

  3Established on 1 April 1998.

  4The QCA was established on 1 October 1997. It replaced the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications which were both wound up on 30 September 1997. The total notional grant-in-aid paid to all three bodies in 1997/98 was £52.27 million (subject to audit).

  5 Notional figure subject to audit.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the responsibilities of(a)the Deputy Prime Minister and (b) the Minister without Portfolio in respect of (i) advice to him, (ii) initiation of Government policy and (iii) presentation of Government policy. [37037]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. He is chairman of several Cabinet Committees. As Secretary of State he is responsible for the overall direction of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, its policies and their presentation.

  My hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio is responsible for the strategic implementation and effective presentation of Government policy and has Ministerial responsibility for the Millennium Experience.

  Green Procurement
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he is taking under the UK presidency of the EU to promote initiatives on green procurement. [36883]
  70
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: The environment is one of the UK's key themes for its Presidency. A Communication issued by the European Commission on 11 March "Public Procurement in the European Union" examines, among other things, the role that public procurement can play in protecting the environment. The Communication sets out the Commission's proposal to issue an interpretative document on the issues which arise. The Government will seek to ensure that public purchasers can continue to specify their requirements appropriately.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set a date by which the environmental policy and practice of firms competing for public contracts will become an essential element in the assessment of all bids for Government contracts. [36880]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: The Government's policy is that the procurement of goods and services should be based on value for money. In specifying their requirements, departments will take account of the Government's environmental policies and their own "green housekeeping" strategies. In deciding which offer represents best value for money, departments will take account of whole life costs (for example, energy consumption).

  Nuclear Energy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he expects(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the European Union to take in order to take forward the agreement, set out in the joint Japan-European Union statement of 12 January to expedite stable co-operation on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. [37089]

  The Prime Minister
  According to procedures set down in the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), it is for the European Commission to negotiate such agreements. The member states of the European Union are currently discussing at working-group level a negotiating mandate that will be issued to the Commission by the Council of Ministers. The UK is keen to make progress on this dossier during the UK Presidency and hopes it will prove possible to reach agreement on the mandate in the Council of Ministers by June.

  Briefings
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister when he first established,(a) for his office and (b) in public, standards relating to (i) the accuracy of information to be provided in briefings and (ii) conduct in answering inquiries for (1) permanent civil servants, (2) appointees and (3) others acting on his behalf; and what subsequent changes he has made to such standards. [37290]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 April 1998]: The duties and responsibilities of civil servants including special advisers are set out in the Civil Service Code, in the Model Contract for Special Advisers and in the Guidance on the Work of the Government Information Service. The principles governing the employment of civil servants and special advisers have applied under successive Administrations.
  71

  Mr. Rupert Murdoch
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the accuracy of(a) off the record and (b) official (i) briefings and (ii) answers to inquiries given by his office in respect of Mr. Rupert Murdoch's inquiries to his office relating to media investment in Italy. [37292]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 April 1998]: Briefings to the press on this subject have been conducted on the record, by my official spokesman, and on the record in response to telephone inquiries. They have been accurate.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister when he was first notified that Mr. Rupert Murdoch wished to discuss the reaction of the Italian Government to News Corporation investment in Italian media; and what transcripts and recordings of articles and broadcasts relating to this subject have been circulated to his staff. [37291]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 April 1998]: It is not my practice to detail confidential discussions with any businessmen about their company, nor to discuss internal government correspondence.

  First Home Buyers
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) of 18 March 1998,Official Report, column 1287, if he will introduce a scheme to help married couples with the cost of setting up their first home. [37454]

  The Prime Minister
  I believe that the approach set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement is the right one—it makes support for those caring for children the primary aim, and provides help for families at a time when the financial demands on them are the greatest.

  Welsh and Scottish Secretaries of State
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Cabinet positions of the Welsh and Scottish Secretaries of State are to be retained after the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are elected. [37525]

  The Prime Minister
  The Devolution White Papers—A Voice for Wales (Cm 3718) and Scotland's Parliament (Cm 3658)—made clear that there would be a continuing role for both Secretaries of State after devolution.

  Oral Questions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is his policy to permit Ministers to supply Labour hon. Members with suggested oral questions. [37403]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 April 1998]: It is for hon. Members themselves to decide on the questions that they wish to raise. If they choose to do so having spoken to other Members, including Ministers, that is a matter for them.

  Foreign Policy
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those occasions when he has discussed the ethical foreign 72
  policy of Her Majesty's Government with (i) the European Commission and (ii) his counterparts in other EU countries. [37769]

  The Prime Minister
  The UK's approach is well known to our EU partners. At the Luxembourg European Council in December 1997, EU Heads of Government discussed and agreed a declaration on the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We have also agreed the importance of making progress on the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 3 February 1998,Official Report, column 581, on ministerial visits, if he will list the references to travel arrangements for (a) partners and (b) officials accompanying Ministers in (i) the Questions of Procedures for Ministers (May 1992) and (ii) the Ministerial Code (July 1997). [37817]

  The Prime Minister
  The rules on Ministers' visits, including the size and composition of delegations, are set out in paragraphs 68–86 of the Ministerial Code and 63–81 of Questions of Procedure for Ministers.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his speech to the Midland Bank Conference on the Millennium, how many times and on what dates the Cabinet Sub-committee Misc 4 has met. [37478]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 April 1998]: We have a full programme of action to tackle the computer year 2000 "Millennium Bug". However, in accordance with longstanding practice, information about proceedings of the Cabinet and Cabinet Committees is not made public.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received on millennium computer compliance issues. [37960]

  The Prime Minister
  My office has received approximately 100 letters about millennium compliance issues.

  Foreign Heads of State
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the foreign heads of state and heads of Government whom he has met since 1 May 1997, and the city in which each meeting took place. [37572]

  The Prime Minister
  In addition to the heads I have met at Summit meetings, I have had positive and constructive bilateral discussions with foreign heads of state and heads of government from around 50 different countries from all parts of the work, on at least 90 separate occasions. Just over half of these have been in places other than London.

  Strategic Communications Unit
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the work programme completed by the Strategic Communications Unit since its launch on 14 January. [37514]
  73
  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 25 February 1998,Official Report, column 254.

  Newspaper Proprietors
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the names of newspaper proprietors he has met in 1998, indicating the dates and venues of the meetings. [38107]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) in the House on 1 April 1998,Official Report, column 1253.

  Contacts With Foreign Leaders
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list(a) the foreign leaders he has contacted on behalf of businessmen since 1 May 1997, (b) the contracts involved and (c) the dates of the conversations. [37578]

  The Prime Minister
  It is the job of the British Prime Minister to promote and support British companies abroad. I have done this on many occasions and will continue to do so.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy Lancaster if the proposed legislation on freedom of information will regulate the operation of(a) the No. 10 Press Unit and (b) the Strategic Communications Unit. [37872]

  Dr. David Clark
  In common with other parts of Government, both of the Units referred to will fall within the scope of our proposed Freedom of Information legislation.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will estimate the rates of absenteeism in his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98 to date; and if he will make a statement. [26580]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 March 1998,c. 217–18]: I regret that the previous reply was misleading in one respect; it showed separately from the Cabinet Office, figures for Her Majesty's Stationery Office. HMSO is no longer an Agency, since the privatisation of the great bulk of it in 1996. Since then, the name HMSO refers to the small residual body supervising Crown Copyright and related matters, which is now incorporated within the Cabinet Office (OPS). Its absenteeism figures should more appropriately have been included within the figures for the Cabinet Office rather than shown
  74
  separately. For the purpose of this answer the Cabinet Office includes the Prime Minister's Office and the Office of Public Service. On this basis the figures are:

  Department/Agency

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Cabinet Office

  8.7

  9.4

  7.2

  Civil Service College

  5.7

  8.1

  5.9

  Security Facilities Executive

  3.5

  7.6

  4.8

  The Buying Agency

  12.3

  14.2

  13.5

  Property Advisers to Civil Estate

  8.7

  14.2

  8.1

  Government Car and Despatch Agency

  1—

  1.2

  0.6

  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency

  6.6

  7.5

  5.6

  1Not known.

  Absence rates represent total days absent divided by total number of staff.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which incidents of paramilitary violence since 1 March the police have indicated to her were attributable to an organisation associated with a party represented at the peace talks; and if she will list the name of the party concerned. [35066]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 March 1998]: The following number of incidents have been recorded between 1 March and 14 March 1998.

  No.

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Other

  Murder

  2

  2

  -

  -

  Assault

  7

  4

  3

  -

  Shooting

  3

  2

  1

  -

  Bombing

  6

  4

  2

  -

  Totals

  18

  12

  6

  -

  There is no evidence at this stage to link any of these incidents to an organisation associated with a party represented at the Talks. As the Government have already made clear any party in breach of the Mitchell principles will be removed from the talks.

  Attribution figures are subject to confirmation and possible adjustment.

  Confidence-building Measures
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the confidence building measures undertaken to encourage the Unionist community in Northern Ireland since the commencement of the current talks process. [36711]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Government are committed to building confidence throughout the community in Northern Ireland. We have considered carefully the views put forward by a wide range of people, including in the Liaison Sub-Committee on Confidence Building Measures, on measures which would benefit the community as a whole. The steps we have taken include: continuing to work towards an agreement in the talks which is supported by a majority of Unionists and
  75
  Nationalists, to be put to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum; putting in place all the necessary machinery to ensure that there is no obstacle to the decommissioning of illegal weapons as soon as those holding them accept the need to decommission; the establishment of a Commission on Victims; proposals for the reform of firearms legislation to reflect the local circumstances in Northern Ireland; and proposals for an Equality Commission. We believe that a widely acceptable agreement in the political talks would be the best way to build confidence among both communities.

  Driving Instructors
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) qualifications and (b) experience are required of driving examiners employed by the Department of the Environment (NI) to conduct check-tests on driving instructors. [36814]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. B. Watson. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. B. Watson to Mr. David Trimble, dated 6 April 1998:
  The Minister for the Environment, Lord Dubs, has asked me to reply to your question about the qualifications and experience required of driving examiners.
  Examiners who conduct check tests on driving instructors must hold a current category B (motor car) driving licence, which is free of endorsements, and have successfully undertaken both the six-week Driving Traffic Examiners Course and the eight-week Supervision of Approved Driving Instructors Course conducted by the Driving Standards Agency.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will introduce an appeals procedure for driving instructors who fail(a) one and (b) two check-tests conducted by Department of the Environment (NI) driving examiners. [36815]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There are no plans to introduce additional appeals procedures for driving instructors' check tests. The existing system allows driving instructors three attempts to demonstrate their competence before they are considered by the Registrar for removal from the register, and the Registrar's decision is then subject to appeal. An instructor who is unhappy about any aspects of a check test may also seek redress through the complaint procedure. The cost of additional procedures, which would be time-consuming, cumbersome and unwieldy, could not be justified.

  Devolution
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the impact of the devolution proposals on the prospects for establishing an Assembly in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [36867]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  [holding answer 30 March 1998]: The discussion of the Government's proposals for devolution to Scotland and Wales has provided a helpful backdrop to the negotiations on new arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland. The establishment of devolved institutions in Scotland, Wales and, I hope,
  76
  Northern Ireland will open up interesting possibilities for developing the totality of relationships among the peoples of Britain and Ireland.

  Bloody Sunday
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if medical records of those persons killed and wounded on Bloody Sunday will be made available to Lord Saville's inquiry. [37177]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Monday 30 March 1998,Official Report, column 378.

  Maze Prison
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will place the report on HMP Maze by Martin Narey in the Library. [37179]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The report was placed in the Library on 2 April.

  Mr. John Stokes
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date the Independent Commission for Police Complaints completed its investigation into the death of Mr. John Stokes; and what were its findings. [37176]

  Mr. Ingram
  The RUC are investigating this case under Independent Commission for Police Complaints supervision. The investigation is at an advanced stage.

  Public Record Office
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland in 1998–99. [38203]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  For 1998/9, the following performance targets have been set out for PRONI:

  Financial Performance
  1. To meet the challenge of managing the Agency's workload by:

  (a) continuing to maintain efficiency, having absorbed a 13.3 per cent. reduction in staff numbers, and having then restructured to fill vacancies more cost-effectively;

  (b) providing for an estimated 4 per cent. increase in on-site readers; and

  (c) ensuring that expenditure is within the financial limits approved by the Department.

  Output
  2. To appraise at least 4,500 linear metres of records, including the reappraisal of records so as to eliminate low-grade material.
  3. To list and index at least 550 linear metres of records, including ensuring that 100 per cent. of all "open" material is thus processed within one year of receipt.

  Quality of Service
  4. To maintain extended opening hours.
  5. With the help of the computerised document request system, to improve the speed of on-site production to the public by reducing waiting time from 37 minutes to 34 minutes or less in 90 per cent. of cases.

  77
  6. To process customer queries within 10 working days of receipt in 90 per cent. of cases and within 14 working days in 96 per cent. of cases, thus maintaining PRONI's Citizen's Charter commitment.
  7. To ensure the smooth completion of the annual release for 1999—c. 4,500 records —as well as the on-going release of identified blocks of records at earlier than 30 years.
  8. As part of a 10-year storage improvement programme, to survey the conditions in which 10 per cent. of 33,360 metres of records are stored; and, in related exercises, to take remedial action on upgrading c. 1,800 linear metres of records as presently stored on mobile shelving or in plan cases at Balmoral Avenue so as to bring them up to defined standards of archival protection.
  9. To provide standards of service which ensure that the number of unsatisfied customers does not exceed 3 per cent. as reflected in signed customer satisfaction questionnaires.

  Efficiency
  10. To reduce PRONI's composite Unit Cost in the areas of selecting and accessioning, records listing, records storage, document production and reader service, by 3 per cent. from £96.95 to £94.

  Land Registers
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for Land Registers of Northern Ireland in 1998–99. [38204]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  For 1998–99 the following performance targets have been set for Land Registers of Northern Ireland.

  Quality

  1. To achieve a customer satisfaction rate of at least 98.5 per cent.

  2. To achieve a registration accuracy of at least 98.5 per cent.

  Efficiency

  3. To process regular Land Registry dealings in an average of 14 days.

  4. To process regular Registry of Deeds dealing in an average of 4 days.

  5. To process regular Statutory Charges Registry dealings in an average of 11.5 days.

  6. To process pre-completion land information applications in an average of 5 days.

  7. To achieve a weighted unit cost target of £26.13. Output

  Output

  8. To process 106 application units per member of staff per month.

  Finance

  9. To increase overall productivity by at least 1.5 per cent.

  10. To cover Agency costs out of fee income.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Dome (Air Conditioning)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what representations he received from(a) the Deputy Prime Minister and (b) the Minister for the Environment after deciding to use HFCs to power the air conditioning system within the Millennium Dome. [37252]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 1 April 1998]: 1 refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 26 March 1998, Official Report, column 247. I have had no representations from my colleagues at the DETR, since
  78
  the Deputy Prime Minister and I both accept that in the particular circumstances of this project the New Millennium Experience Company's preferred option, with stringent safeguards, is the best in the time available.

  Millennium Dome Construction Workers (Health)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio (1) if he will list the recorded complaints from workers on the Millennium Dome site in respect of adverse health reactions; [37388]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the cause of the recent occurrence of skin complaints among workers on the Millennium Dome site; [37389]

  (3) what recent assessments he has made of the health dangers to those working on site at the Millennium Dome. [37390]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 2 April 1998]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) have received two recorded complaints on site. In October 1997, a worker from Watson Steel Limited with blistered lips returned to work after two days' absence. Last month, a worker from O'Rourke Civil Engineering complained of swollen feet. He is no longer working on the site. The Health and Safety Executive have been informed.

  The NMEC have also received one verbal complaint regarding a rash to the wrist of two operatives from O'Rourke Civil Engineering. This appears to have been caused by the type of safety gloves used. When the gloves were changed the rash disappeared.

  In order to ensure the safety of those working on site, the NMEC are continuing to review health risks as part of an ongoing risk assessment process. They regularly monitor noise levels, and test soil and air samples for potentially harmful substances. Results are well within safety levels as laid down in the Health and Safety Executive guidance `EH4O— Occupational Exposure Limits'. The NMEC will continue to monitor conditions on site.

  Millennium Dome (Wind Resistance)
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio (1) what plans the Government have to lift the health and safety restrictions on the insulation material proposed for the Millennium Dome so that it will not have to reach the present standards of wind resistance; [37689]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the problems faced by the contractor for the covering of the Millennium Dome with regard to wind resistance. [37694]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) on 26 February 1998,Official Report, columns 346–47.

  Millennium Dome (Covering)
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio for what reasons the original contractor for the Millennium Dome covering was not invited to supply the preferred environmentally friendly covering. [37690]
  79
  Mr. Mandelson
  Koch Hightex submitted tenders to the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) for both PVC and PTFE roof covering. The NMEC concluded, however, that the bid from Birdair for the supply of PTFE represented better value for money.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what arrangements for compensation for the original contractor for the covering of the Millennium Dome have been made; and what sum is involved. [37691]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Provisions for compensation in the event of termination were contained in the contract between Koch Hightex and the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC). Negotiations are underway between Koch Hightex and the NMEC as to the amount.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Public Opinion Research
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many contracts for public opinion research his Department has awarded since 1 May; if he will indicate the(a) purpose, (b) cost, (c) value and (d) duration of each contract; and which companies (i) bid for and (ii) were awarded each contract. [28879]

  Mr. Morley
  Contracts for public opinion research commissioned by the Department since 1 May 1997 are as follows:Perceptions of MAFF: A survey conducted among opinion leaders, journalists, farmers and the general public. Placed with MORI.
  Research to assess the effectiveness of the MAFF food safety exhibit at the Good Food Show. The contract was commissioned via the Central Office of Information (C01) who placed the work with Sample Surveys Ltd.
  Research to assess the effectiveness of the MAFF Christmas food safety radio campaign. The contract was commissioned via the COI who placed the work with RSGB.
  Research to identify the most effective method of communicating nutrition information to teenage girls. Placed with MORI.
  Survey of pet owners: To ascertain the increase in importation of pets should guarantee regulations change, and to see if pets would be taken on holiday under a number of difficult import options. Place with DRSM/Framework.
  Complementations and conflict between farming and incomers to the countryside in England and Wales. Placed with Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education.
  The cost of the surveys totals £310,000.

  Animal Growth Promoters
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he intends to take following the new evidence linking the development of antibiotic-resistant superbugs to the use of antibiotics as animal growth promoters. [37270]

  Mr. Rooker
  No additive is permitted for use in animal feedingstuffs unless it has satisfied criteria for safety and efficacy set out in Council Directive 70/524/EEC. Denmark, Finland and Sweden have provided information in support of unilateral bans on certain antibiotic feed additives. The European Commission is consulting its 80
  independent Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition (SCAN) and SCAN's reports will be considered in the Standing Committee for Animal Feedingstuffs.

  In the UK, the independent scientific Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) keeps the question of antibiotic resistance under review and its advice will inform the Government's position in EC discussions in Standing Committee on SCAN's reports. We shall support the eventual outcome of those discussions, provided they are based on sound science.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the expenditure under European Communities budget line "B2—5122, Enhancing Public Awareness of the Common Agricultural Policy", in the United Kingdom; which organisations received funding for 1997; what role his Department played in determining the awards; and if he will make a statement. [36947]

  Mr. Rooker
  The following organisations received funding under B2—5122:European Council of Young Farmers (CEJA) and exchange programme for young farmers (PEJA)—1,000,000 ecu.
  Rural Women's Union/European Rural Women's Congress and other organisations of women working in the rural sector—400,000 ecu.
  Fund to promote organic agricultural methods in the European Union (IFOAM)—150,000 ecu.
  European Network of Alliances for Sustainable Agriculture (REPAS)—150,000 ecu.
  Committee of Agricultural Organisations in the EC (COPA)— 300,000 ecu.
  European Training and Promotion Centre for Farming and Rural Life (CEPFAR), International Cooperative Alliance (ICA), REFAR and CEDIA—800,000 ecu.
  Association of Agricultural Education in Europe (Europea)— 150,000 ecu.
  European Training Association for Farming and Rural Life (AEFPR)—300,000 ecu.
  Information for and training of workers, including participation in projects of the European Federation of Agricultural Workers' Unions within the Community (EFA)—650,000 ecu.
  Funding of an information service (rural counselling service). This also covers the helpline for the farming profession (`SOS countryside')—1,500,000 ecu.
  Other organisations pursuing the same aims, with particular emphasis on problem areas within Member States and the countries of central and eastern Europe—100,000 ecu.

  Responsibility for the administration and allocation of these funds under this budget line rests with the European Commission. This Department plays no part in determining awards.

  The Government generally oppose use of EC funds for promotion. This is especially true of the Common Agricultural Policy, which they believe to be in need of fundamental reform and are opposed to any expenditure on promoting it in its current form.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to achieve the UK's objectives in the discussions on the Common Agricultural Policy. [37577]
  81
  Mr. Rooker
  The Commission's proposals for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy were presented to the Agriculture Council on 31 March. In most respects, these proposals go very much in the direction that the Government have advocated. The Government will progress discussion of them as far as possible during the UK Presidency and will thereafter seek to negotiate an outcome which reflects UK priorities.

  Beef on the Bone
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will assess the benefits of lifting the ban on beef on the bone in respect of animals born after a threshold date set after the improvements in safety standards were introduced. [33006]

  Mr. Rooker
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to cattle born after 1 August 1996, the date on which the mammalian meat and bone meal ban became effective. We considered whether it would be practical to exclude these animals from the provisions of the Beef Bones Regulations 1997 but decided that it would not be possible to identify reliably meat and meat products from such a source once it had entered the human food chain. Of course, the matter will be kept under review, and any decision to lift it will be taken in the light of scientific developments and progress with the eradication of BSE.

  Vitamin B6
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to await the outcome of the inquiry of the Agriculture Committee into vitamin B6 before reaching decisions on the retail sale of B6 supplements. [37347]

  Mr. Rooker
  The draft regulations required to implement the proposed controls on dietary supplements containing vitamin B6 were issued for consultation on 2 April with a deadline for responses of 26 June. If the Agriculture Committee have by then published the results of its inquiry into issues of concern in relation to vitamin B6 we will, of course, take its findings into account when deciding how to proceed.

  BSE
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support groups have been established to assist farmers in respect of the current BSE crisis. [37374]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are not aware of any support groups established specifically to assist farmers in respect of the BSE crisis. But the Rural Stress Information Network, formed in May 1996, aims to be an authoritative source of information and advice concerning initiatives to alleviate rural stress caused by a variety of factors. This of course includes assistance to farmers affected by the BSE epidemic.

  New Technologies
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives his Department is taking to assist farmers introducing new technologies in agriculture. [37375]
  82
  Mr. Morley
  The Department supports roadshows aimed at transferring technology to cereals and grassland farmers, works closely with agricultural levy bodies to ensure that MAFF funded strategic research underpins industry's technological needs, supports with industry LINK programmes promoting pre-competitive research and associated technology transfer, encourages the publication of up-to-date research findings in the farming press and promotes publicity on technology at farming-related exhibitions.

  Livestock Subsidies
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the total payments of financial subsidies to farmers in relation to(a) the beef sector and (b) the sheep sector in the most recent year for which figures are available. [37297]

  Mr. Rooker
  Final figures for 1997–98 are still being collected, but the direct subsidies paid in that year are expected to total £613 million to UK beef farmers and £346 million to UK sheep farmers.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made within the EU upon the regulation of genetically modified organisms, including plans for segregation and labelling. [37674]

  Mr. Rooker
  A comprehensive EU wide framework exists to regulate all activities relating to genetically modified organisms (GMO) providing for the protection of human health and the environment. The principal elements of this are:

  (a) the Contained Use Directive (90/219) which controls the use of genetically modified microorganisms in any facility. A proposal to amend this is currently being considered by the European Parliament.

  (b) the Deliberate Release Directive (90/220) which controls the release of GMOs into the environment. A proposal to amend this has recently been published by the EU Commission.

  (c) the EC Novel Foods Regulation (258/97) which controls the use of GMOs in the production of foodstuffs. A Commission proposal setting out detailed dfrules for the labelling of GM soya and maize is currently being discussed in Brussels and is expected to be agreed shortly.

  A requirement to segregate a crop when it has been approved following an extensive safety assessment would contravene World Trade Organisation rules. Companies are however, perfectly entitled to reach commercial agreements with suppliers to obtain GM free materials. A list of non-GM soya suppliers which was published by this Department on 30 March, is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his policy to apply the precautionary principle to the public availability of genetically manipulated foods. [37519]

  Mr. Rooker
  Genetically modified foods are made available to the public only if they have been approved following a rigorous safety assessment. This assessment is carried out in the UK by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes which always takes a precautionary approach in arriving at its conclusions.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish his response to the EC questionnaire on the future of the Common Fisheries Policy. [37787]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have not responded to the European Commission's questionnaire because it was not addressed to Governments.

  Correspondence (Quarantine)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the letter of 4 December 1997, Reference 109690, from the Minister of State, on quarantine regulations, what interim recommendations have been received from the Kennedy Committee, in relation to quarantine for pets; what discussions have taken place with the European Commission; and when he expects to bring forward proposals to amend quarantine rules. [36526]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Advisory Group on Quarantine has not been asked to make, and has not made, interim recommendations. It follows that there has been no discussion of interim recommendations with the European Commission. The Group is expected to report by late Spring, after which the Government will move to full public consultation on the options which then appear most promising. This process is likely to take a further few months. We expect discussions with the European Commission at this stage.

  Supermarkets (Surplus Food)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will encourage supermarkets to donate all edible surplus food to charity. [37143]

  Mr. Morley
  I am confident that the firms concerned have company policies on the disposal of surplus food which take into account the important food safety and public health considerations which arise. A number of them already participate in a voluntary scheme for the distribution of such food to charitable bodies.

  Farm Bankruptcies
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farming businesses in England went into bankruptcy during each of the financial years 1989–90 to date. [37507]

  Mr. Morley
  The data for bankruptcies and company insolvencies are available only for England and Wales combined. 1 therefore refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to our hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) on 18 March 1998,Official Report, column 658.

  Pig Farming
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the 84
  impact on the competitiveness of UK pig farming in Europe of the UK's ban on bone meal feed for pig rearing. [37576]

  Mr. Morley
  An assessment specific to the ban on the use of meat and bone meal (MBM) in pig feed has not been carried out. However, the Department has commissioned ADAS to produce a Report on the competitiveness of the UK pig industry in relation to some of its main competitors in the EU. This will be available shortly. Reactions to the MBM ban in the retail sector and by consumers indicate that producing pigmeat products from non-MBM fed stock presents the industry with a major marketing opportunity.

  Organophosphates
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further evaluation he is making of the use of organophosphates; and when he will report on it. [37589]

  Mr. Rooker
  Ministers have established an interdepartmental high-level group of officials to report on organophosphorus (OP) products. Its terms of reference were to monitor the processes by which information on OP products is shared between Government Departments, to draw together scientific evidence relevant to the policy issues, to advise on whether there are gaps in scientific knowledge, and to examine licensing procedures.

  Ministers have recently received the detailed report of the Group and will publish it as soon as possible.

  Pesticides
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evaluation he has made of the effects of bromoxynil on infants. [37587]

  Mr. Rooker
  Bromoxynil is approved as a herbicide for a variety of professional uses in agriculture and horticulture. The compound was reviewed by the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides in 1989 following the submission of new data by the approval holder. The review found no grounds for concern about the effects of bromoxynil residues in food on infants.

  However, the Committee advised that the new data showed reduced safety margins for those using certain products and the Government took action to restrict exposure to acceptable levels.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he is undertaking on the presence of vinclozolin in wine, fruit and vegetables. [37588]

  Mr. Rooker
  This Department is not undertaking any specific research projects regarding the presence of vinclozolin in food. However, the Working Party on Pesticide Residues carries out an annual monitoring programme for pesticide residues, including vinclozolin, in food. In the 1998 programme, it is proposed to seek residues of vinclozolin in wine, 8 kinds of fruit, 11 kinds
  85
  of vegetables and 7 other commodities. The results of these surveys will be available in the Working Party's Annual Report for 1998, to be published in 1999.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the costs to(a) farmers and (b) others accruing from pesticide use. [37590]

  Mr. Rooker
  The direct cost to farmers purchasing pesticide products in 1997 is estimated at about £460 million. In setting price limits for 1995–2000, the Office of Water Services (OfWat) assumed £530 million of capital expenditure on measures to reduce pesticide contamination to meet EC drinking water quality standards. In addition, there will be significant operating costs but these are not identified separately from other treatment programmes. These costs are met by water customers. My hon. Friend will see therefore that a policy of using less pesticides is in everyone's interests.

  Farmers Markets
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to encourage the establishment of farmers' markets. [37744]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply gave to him on 18 February 1998,Official Report, column 719.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the powers and responsibilities of the Food Standards Agency in respect of(a) pesticide clearance and review of clearance, (b) pesticide usage, (c) clearance and usage of genetically modified crops and (d) clearance of genetically modified foods. [37875]

  Mr. Rooker
  Our proposals on the role and responsibilities of the Food Standards Agency in these areas are set out in the White Paper "The Food Standards Agency: A Force for Change" (Cm3830) which was published for consultation on 14 January.

  Flood and Coastal Defences
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy in relation to the proposal of the MAFF Working Group that responsibility for flood and coastal defence should be transferred from local authorities to the Environment Agency. [38070]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have yet to take decisions on the Comprehensive Spending Review. These are expected to be announced during the Summer.

  Food (Veterinary Residues)
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the review of the arrangements for reporting surveys on veterinary residues in food has been completed; and if he will make a statement. [38206]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are committed to informing the public about all food safety matters. Following the changes announced in July last year, I agreed to further improvements in the reporting of surveillance results. To continue to improve openness and 86
  information to consumers, the brand names of products tested in veterinary drug residue surveillance exercises will now be published on a regular basis.

  The UK has in place a statutory national sampling and surveillance scheme to fulfil its Community obligations to monitor whether veterinary drug residues remain in animal products for human consumption in unacceptable concentrations. This, and a complementary non-statutory programme, is operated by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD). Under the programmes some 35,000 samples will be collected in 1998 and subjected to around 50,000 analyses. The VMD reports the results of its surveillance quarterly in the Medicines Act Veterinary Information Service (MAVIS). This will continue and as much information as is available at the time of publication will be presented on positive results in this newsletter. Full information on these will then be presented in the VMD Annual Report on Surveillance for Veterinary Residues, published in July each year. Under the statutory scheme, however, certain information on results that may eventually be the subject of criminal prosecutions will not be able to be published until the necessary investigations have been completed. If, however, an issue of public health arises from a sample or group of samples, the results and any necessary consumer advice will be made public immediately. Under the non-statutory programme, the VMD has developed a special arrangement under which some retailers voluntarily provide a wide range of samples, selected by the VMD, with a complete audit trail. The rest of the programme collects samples under randomised arrangements. This strategy delivers significant efficiencies without compromising the consumer and I have decided that while the results of all samples provided under this scheme must be reported, the brand name of samples collected under the special voluntary arrangements will not. I shall, however, keep this issue under review.

  Planned surveys for residues of veterinary drugs will continue to be announced in advance in MAVIS, as has been our practice for some years. However, the sheer scale of the programmes precludes releasing the brands to be sampled in advance. We are committed to giving consumers the maximum possible information on the presence of residues in food and will ensure that this is provided with appropriate advice on the public health significance of any results. Consumers will, therefore, be able to make a more informed choice about the food that they buy. We will, of course, made every effort to ensure the fairness of any tests and not seek to favour, or criticise, one manufacturer or source over another. I am confident that the results will continue to show that the incidence of veterinary drug residues from all sources in food is very low and poses no significant health risk to consumers.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Pay
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people employed by(a) his Department and (b) the agencies for which his Department is responsible earn (i) less than £3.20 per hour,

  87
  (ii) between £3.20 and £3.60 per hour, (iii) between £3.60 and £ 4.00 per hour and (iv) between £4.00 and £4.62 per hour. [30749]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 23 February 1998]: This Department employs six members of staff on annual pay scales which translate into hourly rates between £l3.60 and £4.00; and one member of staff on a rate between £4.00 and £4.62.

  One member of staff in an Agency is employed on an hourly rate between £4.00 and£4.62.

  No full-time staff are employed on salaries below these levels.

  Israel
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 March 1998,Official Report, column 100, on UN Security Council Resolutions, how many of the resolutions concerning aspects of Israel's dispute with its neighbours have been complied with by the Government of Israel. [36632]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]: We consider that Israel has complied with the following UN Security Council Resolutions: 108 (1955), 114 (1956), 235 (1967), 350 (1974).

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex on 24 March relating to compliance by Israel with UN Security Council Resolutions. [37746]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I have replied to the hon. Member today.

  European Programmes
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his Department's policy to obtain in consolidated form an annual breakdown from the European Commission of programmes operating in the United Kingdom for the promotion of(a) the European Union and (b) economic and monetary union. [37094]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Commission provides information on the single market, the Amsterdam Treaty and the single currency under the EU's PRINCE programme. We already receive breakdowns of spending under this programme. The Commission also produces a range of information material on other EU policies and helps fund a variety of information outlets, including the EUROPA internet site, in order to respond to requests for information from the public and from specific groups such as schools or SMEs. No breakdown of this spending by Member State is available.

  Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role and present activities of the Common Foreign and Security Policy working groups on(a) global disarmament, (b) nuclear non-proliferation, (c) OSCE, (d) planners, (e) protocol, (f) security, (g) terrorism and (h) the United Nations. [37466]
  88
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Common Foreign and Security Policy working groups listed meet regularly to discuss topical issues and areas for cooperation within their respective remits.

  On the matter of the present activities of the working groups I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on Friday 27 March 1998, Official Report, column 311.

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the impact of his Department's ethical foreign policy on the Common Foreign and Security Policy Working Group for(a) Africa, (b) armaments policy, (c) Asia, (d) Central Europe, (e) conventional arms exports, (f) Eastern Europe and Central Asia, (g) Euro-Mediterranean, (h) human rights, (i) Mashreq/Maghreb, (j) Middle East/Gulf and (k) South East Europe. [37467]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Human Rights Working Group (HRWG) is the central focus for the Government's efforts to promote human rights in the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). During our Presidency priority has been given to preparation and co-ordination of EU positions for the UN Commission on Human Rights currently underway in Geneva, and for the UN Commission on the Status of Women in New York last month. The effectiveness of the UN's human rights mechanisms has also been discussed.

  We have also taken forward human rights-related issues in other CFSP Working Groups, for example:
  in the Conventional Arms Exports Working Group, we have proposed together with France an EU Code of Conduct which will set high common standards for arms exports from all Member States, reflecting the UK's national criteria which state that a licence will not be issued if the proposed export might be used for internal repression or international aggression.
  in the Africa Working Group we are close to agreeing a common position on human rights and good governance in Africa. In March EU Foreign Ministers agreed a common position on Rwanda setting out the criteria, including on human rights, on which the EU will base its contribution to reconstruction and reconciliation.
  the Mashreq/Maghreb Working Group prepared a Troika Ministerial mission to Algeria in January led by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), to further the EU/Algeria dialogue, including on human rights issues.

  China (Prisoner)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the punishment procedure in respect of Deng Qilu in Guangdong, China. [37504]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are concerned about all cases of maltreatment of prisoners, wherever they occur. We understand that Mr. Deng has now been released by the Chinese authorities.

  Human Rights (Persecution of Christians)
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the persecution of Christians in(a) Egypt, (b) China and (c) Pakistan. [37676]
  89
  Mr. Fatchett
  We regularly receive representations from hon. Members, members of the public and Christian organisations, about the situation of Christians in Egypt, Pakistan and China. We have raised these concerns with the relevant authorities and continue to monitor the situation.

  European Commission
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a list of the working committees operating in the European Commission indicating(a) their terms of reference, (b) the United Kingdom representation on them and (c) to which directorate-general each is responsible. [37569]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  A list of the Committees which assist the Commission in the drafting of Community legislation can be found in the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 1998 (pp 499–521). This is available in the Library of the House.

  The committees are listed by subject area, in some cases giving an indication of the directorates-general with which they are connected. The UK is represented on them by officials or appropriate non-Governmental experts. The terms of reference of these committees vary widely. Some were established under Community legislation, some by the Commission under its own powers.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many proposals for legislation originated from working committees in the European Commission in 1997. [37568]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Commission itself has the sole right of initiative for making proposals for Community legislation under the Treaty.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each working group of the European Commission. [37771]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  A list of the Committees which assist the Commission in the drafting of Community legislation can be found in the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 1998 (pp. 499–521). This is available in the Library of the House.

  Ethical Foreign Policy
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those occasions when he has discussed the ethical foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government with (i) the European Commission and (ii) his counterparts in other EU countries. [37831]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My EU colleagues and the European Commission are well aware of the importance which we attach to a clearer and more effective message on human rights. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed this with them on many occasions.

  EU Trade (Southern Africa)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to urge the EU to increase trade with Southern African countries, particularly with regard to farm products. [37563]
  90
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In discussions with EU partners on a draft mandate for the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention, we will press for a new trade regime which helps promote the full integration of southern African economies into the world trading system. We will support measures to help these countries increase their capacity to produce and export. We will also press for the elimination of tariffs on goods from Least Developed Countries. In parallel negotiations on a Free Trade Agreement with South Africa, we are pushing for a generous outcome which will boost trade in both directions.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to ask the EU to reduce import taxes on goods from Southern Africa. [37564]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Under the current Lomé Convention (which expires in 2000), all industrial goods and a wide range of agricultural products from southern Africa already enter the EU tariff-free. Most other agricultural exports receive preferential access. Negotiations on a successor Convention, including new trade arrangements, begin in September 1998; the EU mandate for these negotiations is under discussion in Brussels. The EU is negotiating a Free Trade Agreement with South Africa which does not benefit from the Lomé trade provisions.

  Primary Purpose Rule
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional guidance has been provided to entry clearance officers following the abolition of the primary purpose rule. [37727]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Entry Clearance posts overseas were sent detailed guidance shortly after the Government announced their intention to abolish the Primary Purpose rule. They were told that, with effect from 5 June 1997, applicants who would formerly have been refused under the Primary Purpose rule alone should be granted entry clearance. They were also reminded that there had been no change of policy in respect of the other requirements of the Immigration Rules.

  Bhutanese Refugees
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Governments of Bhutan, Nepal and India with regard to Bhutanese refugees. [37713]

  Mr. Fatchett
  None. We do not have diplomatic relations with Bhutan. However, our Deputy High Commissioner in New Delhi regularly raises with the Bhutanese government our continuing concern about the refugee problem, most recently during a visit to Bhutan in January. Our Embassy in Kathmandu is in touch with the Nepalese Government and the UNHCR on the problem. Our High Commission in New Delhi also discusses the refugees with the Indian Ministry of External Affairs. The EU plans to raise the issue at the UN Commission on Human Rights.
  91

  Entry Clearance Officers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Diplomatic Service Procedures (Guidance to Entry Clearance Officers) were last updated and re-issued. [37726]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The main Diplomatic Service Procedures instructions on Entry Clearance, Volume 1 General Instructions, was last updated and distributed in February 1997.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to publish the Diplomatic Service Procedures (Guidance to Entry Clearance Officers). [37725]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has already made available a copy of Diplomatic Service Procedures Entry Clearance Volume 1, General Instructions, in the House of Commons Library. This volume is now being substantially revised and on completion will be distributed more widely via the Internet.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who is the United Kingdom representative on the United Nations Human Rights Committee; what representations he has made in response to the recent report by the committee about the Royal Ulster Constabulary; and if he will make a statement. [37983]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The United Kingdom independent expert on the UN Human Rights Committee is Lord Colville. The recent report covering the Royal Ulster Constabulary was by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, to the UN Commission on Human Rights. We have submitted its formal response on the Report to the Commission explaining our concerns over its comments on the harassment of defence lawyers, which we are examining closely. A copy of our response will be placed in the Library.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the £1,300 grant to small firms for training employees in millennium compliance in respect of(a) how the firms apply, (b) what accredited courses qualify, (c) when the grant will be paid and (d) what firms will qualify; and if he will state the number of firms expected to apply for the grant. [38060]

  Dr. Howells
  Detailed arrangements will be announced shortly, but it is expected that firms will apply via their local Training and Enterprise Council, in the first instance. The Information Technology National Training Organisation is currently working to devise suitable short training courses which will link into a relevant National 92
  Vocational Qualification. The grant will be paid no later than the end of March 1999, and only once the training has been carried out. Small to medium sized firms are eligible to apply. Fuller eligibility criteria will be announced during April. We anticipate that up to 20,000 firms could receive a training grant.

  IT Skills (Disabled People)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action his Department will be taking to ensure that people with disabilities are offered the opportunity to re-train, under Government proposals announced on 30 March, to develop the information technology skills necessary to work to adapt systems for the year 2000. [37583]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are making £90m available this financial year to help with the capital costs needed to create Centres of Excellence for IT and High Technology Training and to provide help with the set up of costs for facilities needed to allow other skills shortages to be addressed; and to help employers with the training required to tackle the Millennium Bug problem.

  Early Years Education
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many bids have been received to set up early years centres of excellence; how many bids it is intended to accept; when the winning bids will be announced; and if he will publish the criteria by which bids will be judged. [37764]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We intend to designate 25 Early Excellence Centres in a pilot phase to 1999–2000; the first seven were announced on 1 December 1997. Over 100 proposals have been received for designation in 1998–99. An announcement will be made in the late Spring. The criteria were set out in the Department's letter of 8 August 1997, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  New Deal
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people are eligible to sign up to the New Deal; how many businesses have signed up to support the New Deal; and what is the New Deal's total investment in the Mole Valley constituency. [38161]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have placed in the Library a list of the client volume planning assumptions for each New Deal unit of delivery which the Employment Service is using to plan provision for young people aged 18–24. The table shows that the planning assumption for Guildford unit of delivery, which included the Mole Valley constituency, is that 543 young people could be eligible to join the New Deal in 1998–99.

  To date, more than 4,000 employers have signed up to New Deal nationally, of which 15 are specifically from the delivery unit. This number will rise significantly as New Deal is operational in this area from 6 April.

  It is not possible to state exactly the total investment in New Deal in the area as New Deal is a client led initiative and sufficient funds will be made available to meet the needs of all those eligible.
  93

WALES

  Gwent Tertiary College
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 1998,Official Report, column 455, if he will list for each Gwent Tertiary College project title the amount of funding paid out to date and the amount outstanding. [35312]

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 1998,Official Report, column 455, if he will list, by project, the reasons for which projects which have received approval for ERDF funding have not proceeded. [35313]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 19 March 1998]: A list of the ERDF approved applications is given in the table.
  No project grant has been claimed on the first six projects and the other eight projects have been withdrawn by the College. A list of ESF applications showing the amounts approved and payments made to date along with details of projects which have been withdrawn by the College is given at annexes 1 and 2.

  Annex 1: Gwent Tertiary College list of ESF projects within dossiers 1995–1997

  Project title

  Amount approved or final claim

  Paid

  Balance

  952384 UK2

  1. EBBW Vale Open Learning Centre

  220,924.80

  220,924.80

  nil

  2. Nightriders

  3. Engineering training for multiskilled environments

  952393 UK2

  1. Training for new tourism

  196,830

  196,830

  nil

  2. Rural Tourism

  962910UK2

  1. Modern Engineering skills Lucas JVP

  186,147

  148,917

  37,230

  2. Informatics for a Paperless Office

  3. Innovative Instruct. Techniques in Auto Cha'

  4. Transferable key skills for Junior Managers

  962911UK2

  1. Adult guidance in the valleys

  682,492

  545,993

  136,499

  2. Community Electronics

  3. ABE Pillgwenlly

  4. ABE in Torfaen, Blaenau Gwent and Caerphilly

  5. Cybercafe

  6. Detached youth workers in The Valleys

  7. Engineering Multiskills

  8. Heads of The Valley Open Learning Network

  9. Mobile IT

  10. Mastercrafts

  11. Nightriders

  962912UK2

  1. Clean Technologies

  360,787

  288,629

  72,158

  2. Robotics Controlled Tech and Programmable Logic

  3. ISW World Class Manufacturing

  4. Supplier Chain Environmental Management

  962913UK2

  1. Hospitality Trades

  282,595

  226,075

  56,520

  2. Training for the New Tourism

  3. Training for Rural Tourism

  973562UK2

  1. Support for Community Projects detached Youth Workers

  15,412

  -

  -

  2. Outreach Worker in Blaenau Gwent

  9,344

  -

  -

  973656UK2

  1. Stagiaries

  10,960

  -

  -

  973698UK2

  1. Training for New Tourism

  103,712

  -

  -

  954135UK3

  1. Basic Vocational Training for LTU

  78,352.65

  78,352.65

  nil

  964769UK3

  1. Construction Multiskilling for LTU

  146,167

  117,006

  29,161

  2. Virtual Campus for LTU

  3. Mastercrafts

  4. Basic Skills Training for Ethnic Minorities

  5. Training for Guidance Staff

  94
  For each of the projects withdrawn the Department was informed that the College was not in position to make any Gwent Tertiary College claims for grant in respect of that project.

  Porject Tittle

  Approved

  ERDF

  Multiskills Workshops for Engineering in the Valley

  yes

  350,000

  Enterprise Unit

  yes

  64,000

  World Class Manufacturing Targets

  yes

  95,000

  Community Enterprise Animators

  yes

  86,771

  GTC Enterprise Development

  yes

  105,176

  Gwentnet/WCM(World Class Manufacturing)

  yes

  105,176

  Creche and Day Nursery—Support Training in Valleys?1

  yes

  103,500

  ISO 1400 Prog:Supplier Chain Env. Management1

  yes

  65,500

  Creche and Day Nursey to Support Training1

  yes 145,000

  Greater Gwent Community Initiative Support1

  yes

  64,992

  Young People's Enterprise Centre1

  yes

  39,583

  Community Animators1

  yes

  46,666

  Mastercrafts Renovations Project1

  yes

  22,553

  Resource and Development Business Network1

  yes

  18,380

  1Projects Withdrawn

  95

  Annex 1: Gwent Tertiary College list of ESF projects within dossiers 1995–1997

  Project title

  Amount approved or final claim

  Paid

  Balance

  964856UK3

  1. Community Developers 1

  40,373.74

  32,298

  8,075.74

  2. Community Project Workers

  954137UK3

  1. First Level Vocational Training

  141,281.55

  141,281.55

  nil

  2. Middle Level Vocational Training

  964770UK3

  1. First Level Vocational Training

  143,904

  115,123

  28,781

  2. Nightriders

  3. Stagiare Training

  4. Cybercafe

  964773UK3

  1. Vocational Counselling and Guidance

  28,999

  23,198

  5,801

  2. Careers Choice

  964855UK3

  1. Community Developers

  11,011.02

  8,808

  2,203.02

  965018UK3

  1. Careers Choice

  2,940

  2,352

  588

  954139UK3

  1. Vocational training for people with moderate learning disabilities

  78,352.65

  78,352.65

  nil

  954141UK3

  1. Vocational counselling and guidance for people with LE'

  9,994.59

  9,994.59

  nil

  964771UK3

  1. Pre-release personal strategy training for offenders

  101,152

  80,926

  20,226

  2. VT in Horticulture for Mental P'

  3. Mobile IT Training (Rural)

  4. Mobile IT Training (Peripheral)

  954136UK3

  1. Vocational counselling and guidance for M and W

  3,084.75

  3,084.75

  nil

  954138UK3

  1. Vocational training in Engineering, Science, IT and Business Studies

  21,525

  21,525

  nil

  954213UK3

  1. Vocational training in Engineering, Science, IT and Business Studies

  17,683

  17,683

  nil

  964772UK3

  1. Training for Lone Parents Returning (Treveth)

  39,931

  31,144

  7,787

  2. Training for Lone Parents Returning (Abertillery)

  3. Training for Lone Parents Returning (EBBW Vale)

  964774UK3

  1. Counselling and Guidance for Lone Parents

  5,289

  4,230

  1,059

  974705UK3

  1. Garddy-Y-Bryn

  56,618

  -

  -

  2. Lifelong Learning Restart Skills

  64,481

  -

  -

  3. Changing Focus

  48,131

  -

  -

  974721UK3

  1. Straight Ahead

  44,560

  -

  -

  2. Guidance for a Good Start

  49,540

  -

  -

  974732UK3

  1. Goal Post

  37,745

  -

  -

  951050UK8

  1. Networking Women in Enterprise Development IN

  11,276.81

  12,798

  (1,521.19)

  961050UK8

  1. Networking Women in Enterprise Development IN

  90,103.91

  78,237

  11,866.91

  971050UK8

  1. Networking Women in Enterprise Development IN

  109,634

  82,307

  27,327.98

  973184UK8

  1. Span

  7,689

  -

  -

  973185UK8

  1. Where

  7,689

  -

  -

  961188UK8

  1. Pewter

  122,488.68

  97,990

  24,498.68

  971188UK8

  1. Pewter

  160,279

  -

  -

  951383UK8

  1. TQ Toolkit

  23,684

  23,684

  nil

  951425UK8

  1. Training Trainers in Learning to Learn Skills

  11,705.09

  12,344

  638.91

  961383UK8

  1. TQ Toolkit

  89,834

  71,867

  17,967

  961425UK8

  1. Training in Learning to Learn Skills

  69,154.31

  69,154.31

  nil

  971383UK8

  1. TQ Toolkit

  65,549

  40,859

  22,690

  971425UK8

  1. Training Trainers in Learning to Learn Skills

  108,806.03

  87,044

  21,762.03

  973491UK8

  1. TELE 21

  7,689

  -

  -

  973501UK8

  1. Developing Innovation in Small Companies

  7,689

  -

  -

  9731791UK8

  1. Disco

  7,689

  -

  -

  973180UK8

  1. Link

  7,689

  -

  -

  973183UK8

  1. Dragon

  7,689

  -

  -

  952293UK8

  1. Mobile IT

  61,819.64

  61,819.64

  nil

  2. Tredegar Open Learning Centre

  3. Adult Basic Education

  962291UK8

  1. Initial Training for Volunteer Guidance Workers

  160,794

  130,280

  30,514

  2. Saturday School Project

  3. Construction Skills for Micro SME Building

  4. Financial Services Support Training

  5. New Management for Changing Work Organisation

  6. Mobile Information Shop

  7. Working in The Music Industry

  972283UK8

  1. Initial and Continuing Training for Volunteer Guidance Workers

  34,570

  -

  -

  952253UK8

  1. Mobile IT

  18,016.13

  18,016.13

  nil

  96 97

  Annex 1: Gwent Tertiary College list of ESF projects within dossiers 1995–1997

  Project title

  Amount approved or final claim

  Paid

  Balance

  962352UK8

  1. Initial Training for Volunteer Guidance Workers

  155,237.99

  77,618

  77,619.99

  962352UK8

  2. Advance Training for Guidance Workers

  3. Pneumatic & Hydraulics—SMEs in Blaenau Gwent

  4. Pharmaceutical Industry Supplier Chain

  5. Construction Skills—Micro SME Bld. Firms

  6. Financial Services Support Training

  972357UK8

  1. Gwent Open Learning Centres

  20,427

  16,341

  4,086

  Annex 2: Gwent Tertiary College—1997 ESF projects

  Approvals— 1997 withdrawn by the college

  973561UK2

  Initial Training for Volunteer Guidance Workers

  33,785

  People in Europe Working Together for Economic R.

  24,459

  973562UK2

  Heads of The Valley Open Learning Centre

  117,855

  Nightriders

  25,267

  Tredegar Green Action

  17,913

  973583UK2

  Training for ODL Professionals—Pollen

  18,607

  Transferable Key Skills for Junior Managers

  61,284

  Robotics, Controlled Technology and Programme Log.

  97,426

  Pneumatic and Hydraulics—SMEs in Blaenau

  31,428

  973613UK2

  Supplier Chain Environmental Management 150 1

  90,093

  Gwent Women into Management

  48,273

  973614UK2

  Engineering Multiskilling

  125.712

  973656UK2

  Integrated Risk Access and Contingency Planning

  42,427

  Multi Media Authors

  12,571

  Informatics for The Paperless Office

  44,988

  Telematics Training for Service Professionals

  10,522

  973695UK2

  Rural Diversification through Tourism

  79,184

  972283UK8

  Mobile Information Shop

  10,453

  Financial Services Support Training

  48,320

  Saturday School

  14,142

  Rural Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many rural schools have been closed in each of the local education authorities of Wales since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [36684]

  Mr. Hain
  In Wales, 170 schools have ceased to be maintained since 1990. Of these 33 were closed, 121 were amalgamated and 16 were the subject of other types of reorganisation. 12 of the schools closed, 20 of the schools amalgamated and 2 of the schools reorganised can be regarded as 'rural'.

  Details are given in the tables. 'Rural' schools are shown with an asterisk.

  LEA

  School name

  Implementation date

  County and Voluntary School closures since 1990

  Blaenau Gwent

  Brynawel Nursery School

  August 1997

  Caerphilly

  Senghennydd Nursery School

  January 1997

  Ceredigion

  Brongest CP School*

  August 1997

  98

  LEA

  School name

  Implementation date

  Clwyd

  Llanfihangel Glyn Myfyr CP School*

  January 1995

  Clwyd

  Tynyfelin CP School*

  September 1994

  Clwyd

  Coed Talon

  August 1992

  Clwyd

  Llysfaen Infants & Junior School

  April 1992

  Clwyd

  Derwen VA Primary School

  August 1991

  Clwyd

  Tanyfron County Primary School

  January 1991

  Clwyd

  Bistre Nursery School

  July 1990

  Clwyd

  Gwynfryn CP School

  July 1990

  Conwy

  Ysgol Llwydgoed

  September 1997

  Dyfed

  High Mead Special School*

  July 1996

  Dyfed

  Crugybar CP School

  August 1995

  Dyfed

  Blaenau CP School*

  April 1995

  Dyfed

  Llanddeusant CP School*

  April 1995

  Gwent

  Varteg Junior & Infants School

  July 1995

  Gwent

  St. Felix RC Primary School

  August 1994

  Gwent

  Llangattock-Nigh-Usk Primary School*

  August 1993

  Gwent

  Queens Comprehensive School

  September 1991

  Gwent

  Henllys County Primary School

  September 1991

  Gwent

  St. Dials Infants School

  September 1991

  Gwent

  Ysgol Gynradd Gymraeg Cwmbran

  September 1991

  Gwynedd

  St. Georges

  May 1993

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cefnpennar Infants School

  August 1992

  Mid Glamorgan

  Pwllgwaun Infants School

  July 1990

  Mid Glamorgan

  Pont Sion Norton County Primary School

  July 1990

  Powys

  Velindre VP School*

  August 1993

  Powys

  Tal-y-Bont-on-Usk Voluntary Primary School*

  July 1991

  Powys

  Bwlchysarnau CP School*

  July 1990

  South Glamorgan

  Lindens Special School

  April 1997

  South Glamorgan

  Maes-y-Coed School

  September 1996

  South Glamorgan

  Maendy County Primary School*

  July 1994

  County and Voluntary School amalgamations since 1990

  Blaenau Gwent

  Dukestown Infants & Junior Schools

  August 1997

  Bridgend

  Plasnewydd Infants & Junior Schools

  January 1998

  Caerphilly

  Cwm lfor Nursery & Primary Schools

  January 1998

  Caerphilly

  Aberbargoed Nursery & Primary Schools

  September 1997

  Caerphilly

  Fochriw Nursery & Primary Schools

  September 1997

  Caerphilly

  Pontllanfraith Infants & Junior Schools

  January 1996

  Carmarthen

  Brynamman Infants & Junior Schools

  September 1997

  Clwyd

  Cefn Mawr Infants & Junior Schools

  March 1997

  Clwyd

  Alexandra Junior & Infants Schools

  January 1996

  99

  LEA

  School name

  Implementation date

  Clwyd

  Llandrillo yn Rhos Infants & Junior

  September 1994

  Clwyd

  Higherwych & Talwrn Green

  September 1992

  Dyfed

  Overdale & Portfield Special Schools

  September 1994

  Dyfed

  Bury Port County Infants & Copper Works County Infants School

  January 1993

  Dyfed

  Glasfryn & St. Clears County Primary Schools*

  September 1992

  Gwent

  Garndiffaith Junior & Infants Schools

  September 1995

  Gwent

  Raglan VC Infants & Raglan County Junior Schools*

  September 1995

  Gwent

  Castle Hill & Mountain Special Schools

  April 1994

  Gwent

  Sofrydd Junior and Infants Schools

  September 1992

  Gwent

  St. Mary's Junior & Infants Schools

  September 1992

  Gwent

  Maindee Junior & Infants Schools

  September 1992

  Gwent

  Mitchell Troy County Primary, Overmonnow VC Junior & Overmonnow County Infants Schools

  September 1991

  Gwent

  Cross Ash, Brynderi, Grosmont, Nortons Cross, Llangattock-vibon-Awel County Primary Schools and Llanddewi Rhydderch VC Primary School*

  September 1991

  Gwent

  Beaufort Hill Infants & Beaufort Hill Junior Schools

  September 1991

  Gwent

  Ty Isaf Nursery & Infants Schools

  September 1991

  Gwent

  Risca Town Junior & Infants & Danygraig Junior & Infants Schools

  September 1991

  Gwent

  Gelli Grug Infants, Abertillery Infants & Abertillery Junior Schools

  September 1990

  Gwynedd

  Llanrwst County Junior & Infants Schools

  August 1992

  Gwynedd

  Dolgellau VC Infants & Junior Schools*

  September 1991

  Gwynedd

  Ysgol Gogarth & Ysgol Went yr Wylan

  September 1990

  Gwynedd

  Maesinca VC Junior & Infants Schools

  September 1990

  LEA

  School name

  Status

  Implementation date

  County and Voluntary School reorganisations, which involved closures, since 1990

  Caerphilly

  Cherry Grove Special School

  Closure & establishment of a new school

  -

  Dyfed

  Preseli County Secondary*

  Closure and establishment of a new mixed bi-lingual Comprehensive for pupils 11–18

  September 1991

  Gwent

  Nantyglo County Junior & Infants, Brynmawr County Junior & Infants, Winchetown County Infants & Twyncynghordy Nursery

  Closure and establishment of new English medium and Welsh medium County Primary Schools

  September 1991

  Mid Glamorgan

  Tremains County Primary

  Closure and establishment of Junior & Infants Schools

  September 1991

  Powys

  Cyfronydd Special School*

  Closure & change in SEN provision at Brynllywarch Residential School

  September 1994

  South Glamorgan

  Harvey Jones Adolescent Unit

  Cease to maintain as a Special School

  September 1996

  South Glamorgan

  Pentwyn, Presswood House and Prewylfa Nursery Special Schools

  Closure, establishment of new Special School and change of character to Ysgol Erw'r Delyn Special School

  September 1993

  South Glamorgan

  Howardian High School

  Closure and establishment of Tertiary College

  September 1990

  West Glamorgan

  Hengwrt Primary School

  Closure and establishment of a mixed Welsh medium school

  September 1997

  100

  LEA

  School name

  Implementation date

  Mid Glamorgan

  Coedybrain Infants & Junior Schools

  April 1996

  Mid Glamorgan

  Marlas Infants & Cornelli Junior Schools

  January 1996

  Mid Glamorgan

  Cwm lfor Infants & Junior Schools

  January 1996

  Mid Glamorgan

  Blaengarw Infants & Junior Schools

  January 1996

  Mid Glamorgan

  Dyffryn Infants & Ferndale Junior Schools

  January 1996

  Mid Glamorgan

  Ysgol Penybont & Heronsbrook Special School

  September 1995

  Mid Glamorgan

  Bodringallt Infants & Junior Schools

  September 1995

  Mid Glamorgan

  Garth Infants & Junior Schools

  April 1994

  Mid Glamorgan

  Maesyfelin Infants & Pontyclun Junior

  September 1992

  Mid Glamorgan

  Glyngwyn & Gwernifor Primary Schools

  September 1992

  Mid Glamorgan

  Hirwaun Junior & Infants Schools

  September 1990

  Mid Glamorgan

  Graig yr Rhacca Junior & Infants Schools

  September 1990

  Mid Glamorgan

  Ynysowen Junior & Infants Schools

  September 1990

  Mid Glamorgan

  Hengoed Junior & Infants Schools

  September 1990

  Mid Glamorgan

  Nantymoel Junior & Infants Schools

  September 1990

  Mid Glamorgan

  Llanilltud Fardref Junior & Infants Schools

  September 1990

  Powys

  Bettws CIW, Manafan CIW, Pantycrai & Tregynon County Primary Schools*

  September 1995

  Powys

  Gurnos Infants & Junior Schools

  September 1991

  Powys

  Machynlleth Infants & Junior Schools*

  September 1991

  South Glamorgan

  Ysgol St. Baruc & Ysgol St. Francis

  September 1995

  South Glamorgan

  St. Peter's Nursery, Infants & Junior Schools

  September 1992

  South Glamorgan

  Oakfield Junior & Infants Schools

  September 1991

  Vale of Glamorgan

  Holton Road Junior & Infants Schools

  September 1997

  Vale of Glamorgan

  Gibbonsdown Junior & Infants Schools

  September 1997

  Vale of Glamorgan

  St. Illtyd's Infants & Junior Schools

  September 1997

  West Glamorgan

  Dyfatty and Penllergaer Special Schools

  September 1995

  101

  Waste Management
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the(a) health and (b) other problems caused by the creation of landfill sites in Wales. [37155]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Environment Agency is responsible for regulating landfill sites in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It has the lead responsibility to ensure that sites are managed so as to minimise any adverse effects arising from the activities carried out.

  I am not aware of any health problems linked to landfill sites in Wales generally. I am aware of allegations made of ill-health being linked to the Nantgwyddon site in the Rhondda. Professor Stephen Palmer of the Welsh Combined Centres for Public Health has investigated the health of residents living near this site. His research identified a higher rate of congenital abnormalities in babies born near to the site, predating the establishment of the landfill facility. His report also identified an unusual cluster of gastroschisis in babies born near to the site since 1991.

  The raised incidence of certain health indicators near to the site does not, in itself, establish that the landfill site is the cause of the observed ill-health.

  Officials from the Welsh Office have met with those of other Departments to discuss the possibility of a study into ill-health around UK landfill sites. There are a number of technical issues to be resolved before any such study can proceed.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much radioactive waste was imported to Wales in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [37154]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Over the past three years no radioactive waste has been imported to Wales for disposal from outside the UK. The only radioactive waste disposed of which was not generated in Wales was that sent for incineration from users in England.

  The radioactivity and quantities involved are given in the following table.

  Radioactivity

  1997

  1996

  1995

  C-14 + H-3 Activity (MBq)

  2.723

  122.8784

  6,735.313

  1–125 + 1–131 Activity (MBq) Beta/gamma

  -

  237.55

  909.38

  Activity (kBq)

  -

  10,252

  29,625

  Volume (litres)

  422.6

  4,768

  13,479

  Notes:

  Mbq(Mega-Becquerel); kBq(Kilo-Becquerel).

  C-14(Carbon-14); H-3(Tritium); 1–125(Iodine-125);

  1–131(Iodine-131).

  Children in Care
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to increase the involvement of children in care in decisions relating to their care. [37153]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  In 1996, the report of the North Wales Child Care Examination Team made a number of recommendations to improve services for children in care.102
  One was that local authorities should examine the capacity of their services to take account of children's views. It is clear, from monitoring the progress towards implementation, that most authorities now involve children in care in decisions which affect them. However, I recognise that more needs to be done. The Welsh Office is therefore continuing to press all local authorities towards implementing the Examination Team's report; providing core funding for "Voices from Care", a voluntary organisation which represents children in care; funding children's advocacy projects; and making children's advocacy services one of two priority areas for its Children and Family Services Grant Scheme in 1998–99. The Government will be considering what further measures should be introduced in preparing their response to Sir William Utting's review of safeguards for children living away from home.

  Rented Housing
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the answer of 27 October 1997,Official Report, column 726, on rented housing, what would be the gross cost to the public sector if all local authority rents in Wales were to be cut by 10 per cent.; and what would be the cost net of savings in housing benefits. [37198]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) on 16 February 1998,Official Report, column 500.

  Sporting School of Excellence
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives are being pursued to create a sporting school of excellence in Wales. [37372]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have no plans to introduce DfEE's Sports Colleges initiative in Wales but, as part of the development of the United Kingdom Sports Institute, the Sports Council for Wales is supporting the establishment of a network of sporting centres of excellence which will help to develop Wales' talented young performers. One such example is Glamorgan County Cricket Club's national centre of excellence in Cardiff.

  National Flag of Wales
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what occasions the national flag of Wales flies above Ty Gwydyr House. [37377]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The information requested is as follows:

  Her Majesty's Accession

  Birthday of the Duke Of York

  St. David's Day

  Birthday of the Prince Edward

  Commonwealth Day

  Birthday of Her Majesty The Queen

  Coronation Day

  Official Celebration of Her Majesty's Birthday

  Birthday of The Duke Of Edinburgh

  103

  Birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother

  Birthday of The Princess Royal

  Birthday of The Princess Margaret

  Remembrance Day

  Birthday of The Prince Of Wales

  Her Majesty's Wedding Day

  Also: The day of the opening of a Session of the Houses of Parliament by Her Majesty
  The day of the prorogation of a Session of the Houses of Parliament by Her Majesty
  On any other occasion where Her Majesty has given a special command.

  Farmers
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the financial assistance which will be paid to farmers in Wales in relation to(a) the beef sector and (b) the sheep sector, in the current financial year. [37300]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend will publish, on 7 April 1998, the government's expenditure plans 1998–99, department report, cmnd no. 3915. This will include forecast outturn for the beef and sheep sectors in 1997–98 and plans for 1998–99.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farming businesses in Wales went into bankruptcy during each financial year since 1989–90. [37506]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The data for bankruptcies and company insolvencies are only available for England and Wales combined. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) on 18 March 1998,Official Report, column 658.

  Roads
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what road link schemes his Department is currently evaluating between north and south Wales. [37387]

  Mr. Hain
  The extent to which improvements are needed to the road network between north and south Wales was one of the main issues raised for consideration in the consultation exercise on the review of the Welsh trunk road programme. Details of the strategy for and role of the programme will be included in the report on the Welsh Trunk Roads Review to be published later this year.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what principles he is basing his review of his trunk road programmes; and if he will make a statement. [38129]

  Mr. Hain
  In assessing the need for individual road schemes and competing priorities I am taking account of the four factors set out in paragraph 22 of the consultation document I published in July 1997, ie accessibility, economy, environmental impact and safety. This is being done in the context of the development of our wider integrated transport policy which embraces consideration of the future role of the trunk road network, the scope to manage the existing network more effectively and the scope to promote alternative solutions where appropriate.104
  Details of the strategy for and role of the programme will be included in the report on the review to be published later this year.

  Second Homes
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the percentage discount on council tax applied to second homes for each local authority area in Wales. [37956]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Under the Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings) (Wales) Regulations 1998, local authorities in Wales have the discretion to apply zero, 25 or 50 per cent. discount on council tax for second homes. For 1998–99, Bridgend, Cardiff, Newport and Wrexham are applying a 50 per cent. discount; all other authorities in Wales are applying a zero discount.

  Treatment Costs
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the total cost of treating accidents and other injuries in Wales in the last 12 months. [37318]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Information is not collected centrally under these categories. Costs incurred through patients using accident and emergency services of NHS Trusts during 1996–97 were £38.543 million. Information for use of accident and emergency services during 1997–98 will be available from the audited accounts of NHS Trusts in September.

  Source:

  Financial return from the 1996–97 audited accounts of NHS Trusts.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many health authorities have an osteoporosis strategy in place; and if he will list them. [37308]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The 5 Welsh Health Authorities have policies and strategies which inform their approach to this condition.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of visits and repeat visits to GPs in Wales occasioned by osteoporosis. [37304]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Parc Ty Gwyn, Llanrwst
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if will make a statement on the economic, social and environmental impact of the disposal of the Parc Ty Gwyn site on the town of Llanrwst and the surrounding area. [37755]

  Mr. Hain
  The Welsh Development Agency recently sold its built property on the Parc Ty Gwyn site to a private sector property investor. It retains ownership of the remainder of the site.
  105
  The Agency plans to maintain a close working relationship with the new owner and do all that it can to attract further investment and jobs to the estate. The resources generated by the sale will help the Agency to meet the cost of additional developments in North Wales during the coming year which should further enhance the economic and social development of the region. Any future developments on the site will require planning permission from the local planning authority which will take account of environmental considerations.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Countryside Council of Wales on the disposal of Parc Ty Gwyn; and if he will make a statement. [37756]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  None. There are no nature conservation issues on this site. It was therefore not necessary to consult the Countryside Council for Wales.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement on the role of the district valuer in the acquisition, development and disposal of the site known as Parc Ty Gwyn; [37753]

  (2) what was the total cost of connecting utilities to Parc Ty Gwyn; [37749]

  (3) if he will name the organisations which have expressed an interest in purchasing unsold units at Parc Ty Gwyn; and what is the price of each unsold unit; [37757]

  (4) how many industrial units have been built at Parc Ty Gwyn; and at what total cost; [37751]

  (5) what proportion of the acquisition cost of Parc Ty Gwyn was paid by the Welsh Development Agency, and which other bodies and organisations contributed to the acquisition; [37747]

  (6) what restrictions have been placed on the possible uses of units on the Parc Ty Gwyn site; [37754]

  (7) how many full time equivalent jobs (a) have been and (b) are forecast to be established at Parc Ty Gwyn; [37750]

  (8) when the Welsh Development Agency acquired the site known as Parc Ty Gwyn, Betws Road, Llanrwst; and for what price; [37758]

  (9) how many industrial units at Parc Ty Gwyn have been sold; to whom each was sold; and at what price; [37752]

  (10) when the Welsh Development Agency obtained outline planning approval for the site known as Parc Ty Gwyn; and if he will publish (a) the outline and (b) the full planning approval for the site. [37748]

  Mr. Hain
  Issues relating to the acquisition, development and disposal of land and property at the Parc Ty Gwyn site, Llanrwst are operational matters for the Welsh Development Agency. I have therefore asked its chief Executive to write to the hon. Member with the information requested. I shall arrange for a copy of the Chief Executive's letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

SCOTLAND

  Air Services
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve air services between Scotland and Europe, with special reference to serving between Scotland and Germany; and if he will make a statement. [37541]

  Mr. McLeish
  Any improvement of services between Scotland and Europe, including Germany, is a matter for the commercial judgment of airlines and is dependent on the market for such services.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the cost of treating osteoporotic fractures in the last 12 months. [37321]

  Mr. Galbraith
  No estimate has been made of the cost of treating osteoporotic fractures in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the projected number of osteoporotic fractures in Scotland in the next 12 months and the number of(a) orthopaedic beds and (b) days of hospitalisation required to treat them. [37333]

  Mr. Galbraith
  It is for Health Boards to assess the needs of their resident population and to ensure that services are provided to meet these needs. The Scottish Needs Assessment Programme published a Report on Osteoporosis in April 1997 to assist Health Boards in this task.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of visits and repeat visits to GPs in Scotland occasioned by osteoporosis. [37305]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage and number of(a) accidents and (b) orthopaedic hospital admissions in Scotland are directly attributable to osteoporosis. [37326]

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

  It should be noted that the presence of osteoporosis may not always be diagnosed explicitly, since many cases are recorded as common fractures.

  Admission criteria in 1997

  Accident

  Orthopaedics

  Number of admissions during 1997

  68,701

  76,007

  Number of admission in 1997 where osteoporosis was recorded as main diagnostic condition

  9

  107

  Percentage of admissions in 1997 where osteoporosis was recorded as main diagnostic condition

  0.01

  0.14

  Number of admissions in 1997 where osteoporosis was recorded as any main diagnostic condition

  734

  372

  Percentage of admissions in 1997 where osteoporosis was recorded as any main diagnostic condition

  1.07

  0.49

  107
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many health authorities have an osteoporosis strategy in place; and if he will list them. [37309]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the incidence of osteoporosis; and what estimate he has made of the cost of osteoporosis to the NHS in Scotland in the last 12 months. [37313]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Scottish Needs Assessment Programme published a Needs Assessment Report on osteoporosis in April 1997. The Report estimated that, in Scotland, more than 40,000 men and in excess of 200,000 women aged over 50 have osteoporosis of the hip. Information of the estimated cost of osteoporosis to the NHS in Scotland in the last 12 months is not available.

  Treatment Costs (Accidents and Injuries)
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the total cost of treating accidents and other injuries in Scotland in the last 12 months. [37320]

  Mr. Galbraith
  These costs are not separately identifiable. Health Boards in Scotland are given a general revenue allocation to meet the health care needs of their resident population. In 1997–98, Health Boards were given a general allocation of £2,674 million and would have met the cost of treating accidents and other injuries from within this allocation.

  Salmon Farming
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what evaluation he has made of the effects of ivermectin on salmon fish farming. [37586]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Ivermectin has been prescribed as a treatment for sea lice infestation of farmed salmon and a number of consents for its use have been granted by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency under control of pollution legislation. In addition, a number of other applications have been referred to my right hon. Friend for possible call-in and these are under consideration. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this stage.

  Rural Schools
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what costs have been incurred to date by the Highland Council in respect of its consultation process over rural school closures; and if he will make a statement. [37573]

  Mr. Wilson
  Detailed breakdowns of education authority administration costs are not collected centrally.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what account local authorities are required to take, when considering rural school closures, of affected communities already having been included in the Rural Regeneration Programme; and if he will make a statement. [37574]
  108
  Mr. Wilson
  Local authorities are able to take all matters they consider relevant into account. I wrote to all Scottish Members of Parliament on 24 March 1998 enclosing a copy of a speech I made on rural schools on 21 March 1998.

  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if all details supplied by farmers for IACS purposes are treated by his Department as confidential documents; [36398]

  (2) what measures he proposes to ensure that farm documents supplied for IACS purposes are not supplied by SOAFD to the wrong farms; and how many incidents or disclosure of IACS details have been made by SOAFD to the wrong farms since the scheme was introduced. [36399]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The information submitted by a farmer as part of his IACS claim is subject to the Data Protection Act 1984 and the common law of confidentiality. The Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department will use IACS information only for the purposes of monitoring, evaluation or for research. Details supplied by farmers are released to third parties only with the permission of the original applicant.

  There are electronic and manual checks in place whose aim is to ensure that the details supplied for IACS purposes are returned to the correct farmer. The Department have had no formal complaints that data have been sent to the wrong farm and believe that the number of occasions when things do go wrong is minimal.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what assessment he has made of the safeguards to prevent the importation of(a) PCB contaminated and (b) other chemically-toxic waste from outside Scotland for landfill disposal in Scotland; and if he will make a statement; [36522]

  (2) if he will ban the (a) importation and (b) landfill disposal of (i) PCB contaminated and (ii) other similar chemically-toxic waste in Scotland. [36524]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The movement of waste within the UK is not prohibited. In 1994, 45,000 tonnes of special waste was moved from Scotland to other parts of the UK for disposal or treatment, and 6,000 tonnes entered Scotland from other parts of the UK. As regards movements of waste to and from the UK, the United Kingdom Management Plan for the Exports and Imports of Waste bans all imports of waste for disposal except where the exporting country does not have and cannot be expected to provide suitable facilities, and where such facilities are not available closer to that country. The Plan allows most imports of waste for recovery.

  Properly managed, landfill is a suitable disposal route for a wide range of waste. I am satisfied that the existing waste management licensing system provides adequate controls over such disposals.
  109
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the licences of operators who have, without authorisation, dumped(a) PCB contaminated and (b) other chemically-toxic waste in landfill sites in Scotland. [36523]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Scottish Environment Protection Agency, as regulator, has the power to review and modify waste management licences. The disposal of waste without authorisation is a criminal offence. A licence-holder convicted of such an offence would be liable to have its licence withdrawn.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what powers are available to SEPA to prevent landfill disposal of PCB-contaminated and other similar chemically-toxic waste in Scotland. [36525]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The keeping, treating and disposal of waste requires a waste management licence (unless it is an exempt activity) granted by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) under the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994, as amended. In the case of wastes containing PCBs, guidance on their disposal is available in Waste Management Paper No. 6 and in circular SOAEFD 13/96, which accompanied the Special Waste Regulations 1996. The disposal of waste without authorisation is a criminal offence.

  Number of new attendances at accident and emergency departments in Scotland

  Hospitals

  3rd Quarter 1995–96

  4th Quarter 1995–96

  3rd Quarter 1996–97

  4th Quarter 1996–97

  3rd Quarter 1997–98

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  12,978

  12,390

  12,877

  12,660

  12,711

  Aberfeldy Cottage Hospital

  164

  147

  166

  165

  166

  Aboyne Hospital

  185

  177

  183

  183

  200

  Adamson Hospital

  826

  782

  820

  789

  747

  Arbroath Infirmary

  2,114

  1,961

  1,970

  1,907

  2,055

  Arduthie Hospital

  227

  206

  -

  -

  -

  Arran War Memorial Hospital

  210

  183

  219

  245

  228

  Aviemore Health Centre

  226

  648

  421

  547

  399

  Balfour Hospital

  453

  438

  489

  436

  546

  Belford Hospital

  1,274

  1,362

  1,407

  1,384

  1,528

  Belhaven Hospital

  -

  -

  109

  126

  129

  Blairgowrie Cottage Hospital

  444

  448

  423

  442

  484

  Borders General Hospital

  2,766

  2,559

  2,819

  2,738

  3,078

  Brechin Infirmary

  319

  284

  350

  353

  333

  Caithness General Hospital

  812

  802

  870

  836

  922

  Campbeltown Health Centre

  440

  353

  324

  331

  295

  Campbeltown Hospital

  610

  550

  350

  607

  544

  Castle Douglas Hospital

  120

  203

  240

  207

  -

  Chalmers Hospital

  1,348

  1,204

  1,232

  1,254

  1,186

  Coldstream Cottage Hospital

  140

  160

  164

  123

  22

  Cresswell Maternity Hospital

  -

  -

  108

  -

  -

  Crieff Community Hospital

  -

  -

  794

  746

  674

  Crieff Cottage Hospital

  702

  606

  -

  -

  -

  Crosshouse Hospital

  11,775

  11,719

  11,749

  11,959

  12,485

  Daliburgh Hospital

  78

  64

  113

  75

  92

  Davidson Cottage Hospital

  701

  821

  792

  1,004

  924

  Dr. Gray's Hospital

  2,718

  2,751

  3,073

  3,115

  2,853

  Dumfries & Galloway Royal Infirmary

  5,680

  7,017

  5,505

  5,656

  5,792

  Dunbar Hospital

  465

  391

  454

  500

  590

  Dundee Royal Infirmary

  10,960

  10,209

  10,451

  10,199

  10,297

  Dunoon & District General Hospital

  1,133

  784

  1,084

  1,227

  1,116

  Eastern General Hospital

  8

  12

  10

  16

  -

  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary

  22,416

  21,395

  22,331

  22,147

  22,930

  Edington Cottage Hospital

  -

  -

  382

  340

  323

  Cairngorm Funicular Railway
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's policy in relation to the proposal to build a funicular railway in the Cairngorms; and if he will make a statement. [38125]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend welcomes investment projects which deliver economic benefits for the residents of the Scottish Highlands and Islands, which deliver value for money in terms of the public sector financial support provided to them and which are consistent with the Government's environmental obligations, both international and domestic. My right hon. Friend and I believe that the proposed Cairngorm funicular railway is such a project.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many admissions were made to the accident and emergency department of each Scottish hospital in(a) November, (b December, (c) January and (d) February during (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98. [37797]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Information is not available centrally on the number of attendances at Accident and Emergency Departments on a monthly basis. Data on attendance at Accident and Emergency Departments are recorded centrally at the end of each quarter. Information on the number of new attendances at hospital Accident and Emergency Departments in Scotland for the quarter ending 31 December for the last 3 years and 31 March for the last 2 years is provided in the table. Information for the quarter ending 31 March 1998 is not yet available.
  111

  Number of new attendances at accident and emergency departments in Scotland

  Hospitals

  3rd Quarter 1995–96

  4th Quarter 1995–96

  3rd Quarter 1996–97

  4th Quarter 1996–97

  3rd Quarter 1997–98

  Falkirk & District Royal Infirmary

  8,804

  8,395

  8,757

  8,686

  8,740

  Fleming Cottage Hospital

  85

  92

  123

  119

  106

  Forfar Infirmary

  728

  693

  822

  684

  775

  Fraserburgh Hospital

  2,253

  2,181

  2,418

  2,603

  2,587

  Garrick Hospital

  1,761

  2,277

  1,947

  1,810

  2,117

  Gilbert Bain Hospital

  1,288

  1,369

  1,256

  1,325

  1,309

  Glasgow Dental Hospital & School

  5,342

  5,199

  5,233

  4,493

  5,281

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  17,145

  15,998

  16,390

  16,159

  16,734

  Hairmyres Hospital

  8,712

  8,771

  8,370

  8,307

  8,495

  Hawick Cottage Hospital

  977

  528

  975

  805

  991

  Hay Lodge Hospital

  212

  193

  956

  1,085

  448

  Huntly Jubilee Hospital

  423

  374

  479

  493

  493

  Ian Charles Hospital

  245

  199

  250

  248

  204

  Insch & District War Memorial Hospital

  118

  117

  122

  155

  103

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  7,711

  7,286

  7,369

  7,594

  7,895

  Inverurie Hospital

  148

  94

  185

  205

  216

  Irvine Memorial Hospital

  415

  291

  327

  313

  329

  Islay Hospital

  119

  96

  65

  59

  135

  Kello Hospital

  455

  414

  456

  424

  477

  Kelso Hospital

  446

  359

  435

  342

  271

  Kirkcudbright Hospital

  288

  172

  376

  289

  -

  Knoll Hospital

  270

  198

  245

  211

  230

  Lady Home Hospital

  283

  258

  317

  358

  363

  Lady Margaret Hospital, Millport

  145

  131

  137

  151

  125

  Law Hospital

  8,976

  8,659

  8,719

  8,949

  9,452

  Lawson Memorial Hospital

  126

  89

  153

  99

  139

  Leanchoil Hospital

  340

  270

  282

  275

  441

  Lorn & Islands DGH, Oban

  949

  848

  1,036

  1,023

  1,047

  Mackinnon Memorial Hospital

  201

  184

  142

  133

  203

  Mid Argyll Hospital

  554

  513

  584

  541

  600

  Moffat Hospital

  -

  28

  212

  208

  -

  Monklands District General Hospital

  13,369

  12,596

  13,192

  13,100

  14,268

  Montrose Royal Infirmary

  519

  499

  554

  449

  625

  Nairn Town & Country Hospital

  460

  358

  552

  389

  370

  Newton Stewart Hospital

  323

  377

  319

  312

  -

  Ninewells Hospital

  1,149

  1,147

  857

  906

  985

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  5,909

  5,666

  5,885

  5,975

  6,204

  Peterhead Cottage Hospital

  1,957

  1,865

  1,920

  1,783

  1,845

  Portree Hospital

  270

  243

  260

  232

  257

  Queen Margaret Hospital

  7,323

  7,028

  7,435

  7,208

  7,858

  Raigmore Hospital

  4,917

  4,915

  5,008

  5,341

  5,286

  RHSC, Edinburgh

  6,827

  6,654

  6,168

  6,601

  6,662

  RHSC, Glasgow

  8,665

  7,795

  7,631

  8,760

  8,824

  Roodlands General Hospital

  1

  -

  -

  -

  -

  Ross Memorial Hospital

  543

  583

  498

  424

  571

  Rothesay Victoria Hospital

  756

  754

  865

  735

  704

  Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital

  3,602

  3,510

  3,498

  3,727

  3,632

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  13,272

  12,753

  12,261

  12,490

  13,825

  Seafield Hospital

  430

  398

  487

  413

  361

  Sister Margaret Cottage Hospital

  138

  119

  129

  111

  41

  Southern General Hospital

  9,608

  9,476

  9,513

  9,285

  9,124

  St. Andrews Memorial Hospital

  1,121

  1,003

  1,076

  997

  1,059

  St. Brendan's Hospital

  8

  1

  12

  13

  13

  St. John's Hospital at Howden

  8,742

  8,400

  8,834

  8,703

  8,951

  St. Margaret's Hospital

  315

  238

  300

  328

  307

  Stephen Cottage Hospital

  123

  112

  153

  151

  186

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  7,662

  7,511

  7,654

  7,567

  8,200

  Stobhil Hospital

  10,809

  10,344

  10,793

  10,766

  11,205

  Stonehouse Hospital

  882

  987

  959

  890

  889

  Stracathro Hospital

  1,179

  1,182

  1,352

  1,341

  1,338

  The Ayr Hospital

  8,942

  8,567

  9,274

  9,176

  10,079

  Turner Memorial Hospital

  433

  434

  515

  512

  542

  Turiff Cottage Hospital

  460

  416

  455

  447

  450

  Vale of Leven District General Hospital

  4,479

  4,348

  4,429

  4,231

  3,082

  Victoria Cottage Hospital

  182

  157

  -

  1

  -

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy

  7,852

  7,888

  7,937

  8,121

  8,469

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow

  16,760

  16,212

  17,365

  17,053

  17,338

  Western General Hospital, Edinburgh

  -

  -

  4,735

  4,145

  4,905

  Western Infirmary, Glasgow

  17,078

  16,161

  16,374

  15,728

  16,201

  Western Isles Hospital

  1,240

  1,154

  1,154

  1,292

  931

  Woodcot Hospital

  -

  -

  210

  243

  268

  Scotland

  320,115

  308,654

  322,369

  320,409

  330,790

  Note:

  p=provisional
  112 113

  Drug Users
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was NHS expenditure in Scotland by trust on services to drug users in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [37798]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Figures on expenditure by NHS Trust on services to drug users are not held centrally. The table shows expenditure by Health Board on specific services to drug users in each of the last three years. The figures comprise expenditure on the supply of disposable syringes, the needle and syringe exchange scheme and drug abuse projects.

  £000

  Health Board

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Argyll and Clyde

  139

  210

  408

  Ayrshire and Arran

  194

  298

  366

  Borders

  30

  5

  14

  Dumfries and Galloway

  120

  166

  136

  Fife

  5

  6

  5

  Forth Valley

  73

  169

  126

  Grampian

  102

  113

  153

  Greater Glasgow

  1,618

  1,808

  2,190

  Highland

  107

  116

  157

  Lanarkshire

  121

  90

  231

  Lothian

  736

  1,302

  1,213

  Orkney

  0

  26

  39

  Shetland

  9

  11

  66

  Tayside

  354

  971

  952

  Western Isles

  91

  58

  50

  Total

  3,699

  5,349

  6,106

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland had been on waiting lists for NHS treatment for(a) 0 to 3 months, (b) 3 to 6 months, (c) 6 to 9 months, (d) 9 to 12 months and (e) over 12 months

  Nursing stuff employed by the NHS in Scotland: net movements by Trust: for year beginning 30 September

  1995/96

  11996/97

  2Leavers

  3Joiners

  2Leavers

  3Joiners

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  35

  35

  40

  61

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  65

  86

  74

  71

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Health Care NHS Trust

  93

  87

  70

  86

  Borders General Hospital NHS Trust

  42

  56

  31

  43

  Borders Community Health Services NHS Trust

  59

  50

  51

  44

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  75

  55

  59

  77

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  35

  36

  46

  33

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust4

  102

  96

  -

  -

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust

  56

  46

  43

  51

  Argyll and Bute NHS Trust

  41

  49

  59

  51

  State Hospital

  26

  8

  14

  13

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  56

  74

  52

  54

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  142

  97

  259

  56

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  57

  62

  58

  65

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  111

  135

  109

  105

  The Yorkhill NHS Trust

  64

  116

  59

  72

  The Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  80

  66

  68

  99

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  145

  219

  125

  166

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University NHS Trust

  196

  185

  131

  134

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  100

  50

  51

  46

  Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  206

  117

  144

  175

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School NHS Trust

  3

  3

  2

  2

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  75

  58

  74

  62

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  23

  31

  34

  19

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  80

  76

  66

  84

  114
  on (i) 31 March 1998, (ii) 30 September 1996, (iii) 30 June 1996, (iv) 31 March 1996, (v) 30 September 1995, (vi) 30 June 1995 and (vii) 31 March 1995. [37791]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Information on the number of patients with a guarantee, and the time spent on waiting lists of NHS treatment for the dates rquested in 1995 and 1996 is provided in the table. Data on waiting lists for the quarter ending 31 March 1998 are not yet available.

  NHS patients on waiting lists at scottish hospitals: number and time spent on waiting lists

  Time Spent on Waiting List (months)1

  Under 3

  3 to 6

  6 to 9

  9 to 12

  Over 12

  31 March 1995

  51,893

  15,553

  6,639

  3,021

  1,181

  30 June 1995

  49,930

  16,297

  6,917

  2,748

  1,178

  30 September 1995

  50,243

  16,653

  7,619

  3,094

  1,197

  31 March 1996

  53,600

  16,926

  7,272

  2,819

  130

  30 June 1996

  50,868

  17,536

  7,182

  2,669

  280

  30 September 1996

  49,595

  16,823

  7,808

  2,692

  416

  1Length of time patients with a waiting time guarantee have waited on the waiting list.

  Agency Nurses
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by trust(a) the number of shifts worked by agency nurses and (b) the cost of employing agency nurses for the financial year 1997–98. [37794]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The answer could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Nurses
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many nurses were recruited by each trust in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98; and how many nurses left each trust(a) due to retirement, (b) to work for a nursing agency and (c) for other reasons in each of those years. [37793]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information is as follows:
  115

  Nursing staff employed by the NHS in Scotland: net movements by Trust: for year beginning 30 September

  1995/96

  11996/97

  2Leavers

  3Joiners

  2Leavers

  3Joiners

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust

  112

  78

  64

  80

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  70

  69

  42

  27

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  104

  63

  60

  42

  Lanarkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  120

  205

  125

  131

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  243

  267

  211

  202

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  236

  209

  215

  161

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  53

  108

  52

  57

  Orkney Health Board

  15

  13

  20

  8

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  100

  91

  80

  59

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  328

  251

  297

  237

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  46

  42

  32

  65

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  150

  146

  135

  152

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  93

  85

  92

  81

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  213

  216

  154

  141

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  144

  157

  138

  128

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  88

  54

  94

  245

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  81

  68

  59

  49

  Angus NHS Trust

  70

  60

  53

  64

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  60

  68

  62

  57

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  67

  62

  73

  76

  Central Scotland Healthcare NHS Trust

  118

  102

  117

  69

  Western Isles Health Board Headquarters

  25

  13

  20

  22

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  40

  52

  46

  46

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Health NHS Trust

  52

  47

  110

  55

  Shetland Hospitals and Community Services Unit

  30

  20

  20

  21

  1 1997 data are provisional.

  2 Leavers are defined as registered and enrolled nurses who are no longer employed by the NHS in Scotland or have moved to another NHS Trust.

  3 Joiners are defined as registered and enrolled nurses who have joined the NHS in Scotland or have joined from another NHS Trust.

  4 1996/97 data for Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust are not available. There are about 160 qualified nurses who do not appear on the 1997 provisional file and as a result the figures for 1996/97 would not reflect the true number of leavers and joiners.

  Source:

  National Manpower Statistics from payroll ISD Scotland Adhoc ref: 98/11106.

HEALTH

  Registration and Inspection Units
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each health and local authority registration area in the most recent available year(a) the number of registration and inspection officers and other staff, including immediate managers and administrative officers directly concerned with the process, (b) the number of units to be inspected in each registration category, (c) the number of inspections carried out in each registration category, and the percentage and number of individuals not inspected in accordance with statutory requirements and (d) the number of (i) new registrations and (ii) variations to registrations in each category of provision; and if he will set out the overall national totals and average figures in each area. [33830]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on the number of residential care homes and children's homes which local authorities have a statutory responsibility to inspect, and on the number of nursing homes which health authorities have a statutory responsibility to inspect, is provided in a table, copies of which have been placed in the Library. The table also shows total whole time equivalent registration and inspection officers working in local authorities. The other information requested is not available centrally. However, my hon. Friend might like to refer to the Social Services Inspectorate publication "Local Authority Social Services Department Registration and Inspection Units Key Data 1994/1995", copies of which are in the Library, for further 116
  limited information on numbers of registration and inspection staff employed by local authorities, for information on the number of inspections carried out and on numbers of new registrations and variations of registrations. The National Health Service Confederation also has some limited information relating to health authorities.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made from statistical returns of health and social services registration and inspection units of the change in their workloads over the last five years. [33850]

  Mr. Boateng
  None. Some limited information on the workload of social services registration and inspection units is available from a Social Services Inspectorate publication, "Local Authority Social Services Registration and Inspection Units—Key Data 1994/1995", copies of which are in the Library. A revised publication of key data for 1996/97 is due to be published shortly. For information on health authority registration and inspection unit workloads, my hon. Friend might like to contact the National Health Service Confederation which maintains a database on nursing home registration and inspection.

  The Government have a manifesto commitment to creating independent regulatory arrangements and aim to reform the organisation of registration and inspection units. The Government's proposals will be set out in the White Paper on Social Services which will be published this summer.

  Sjögren's Syndrome
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to help victims of Sjögren's Syndrome; what research is currently being undertaken; and what treatment is available for patients in the North Essex Health Authority Area. [36220]

  Ms Jowell
  Health authorities are responsible for assessing the needs of their populations and commissioning services to meet those needs. The National Health Service provides a considerable number of services to which people with Sjögren's Syndrome have access, and such patients are seen within a wide range of hospital specialties.

  The main agency through which the Government support bio-medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC). 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 MRC is not currently funding any research into Sjögren's Syndrome. However, the estimated MRC research expenditure on autoimmune diseases was about £980,000 in 1996/97. This itself is underpinned by much basic scientific work in the MRC's extensive portfolio of research on immunity. Total MRC research into infections, immunity and inflammation is estimated at some £60 million for 1997/98.

  Sjögren's Syndrome is also classed as a connective tissue disorder. Estimated MRC research expenditure in areas relevant to connective tissue disorders was over £1 million in 1996/97.

  Vitamin B6
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment's (COT) 1978 report conclusions regarding vitamin B6. [36458]

  Ms Jowell
  In 1978 the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) did not produce a report on vitamin B6. However, in its statement on vitamin B6 of June 1997, the Committee did make reference to a 1978 study on the toxicity of vitamin B6 in dogs carried out by Phillips et al.

  It is the COT' s role to evaluate the scientific evidence on toxicity of chemicals in food and to advise the Government on such matters. We have every confidence in the rigour with which the COT reviewed the data on the safety of vitamin B6.

  Fluoridation
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people he estimates are supplied with drinking water to which fluoride has been added. [36841]

  Ms Jowell
  Some 5.5 million people in the United Kingdom receive water where the fluoride content has been artificially increased to a level of one part of fluoride per million of water.

  Anonymous Donor Insemination
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many anonymous donor insemination cycles are currently being performed for a single woman under the licensing control of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. [37273]

  Ms Jowell
  The latest information verified by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is that between 1 August 1991 and 31 March 1996, 4,179 donor insemination cycles involving no male partner were reported to the authority.

  Maternity Units and Accident and Emergency Units
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital(a) maternity units and (b) accident and emergency units in (i) the North West of England and (ii) England, have been (1) closed and (2) merged since 1 May 1997. [37282]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information about the closure or merger of hospital maternity and accident and emergency units is not collected centrally and although general information about the total numbers of accident and emergency units is collated, this does not show how many have been merged or closed. To obtain all the information sought by the hon. Member would incur disproportionate costs.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the sums due to local authorities for the support of asylum seekers in the year 1997–98 under the National Assistance Act 1948, broken down by local authority. [37967]

  Mr. Boateng
  The table shows the estimated amount of special grant due to local authorities for supporting adult asylum seekers under the 1948 National Assistance Act in 1997–98:

  £

  Local authority

  Total grant due in 1997–98

  Barking & Dagenham

  365,627.92

  Barnsley

  3,489.20

  Barnet

  792,668.00

  Bedfordshire

  33,292.00

  Berkshire

  524,823.41

  Bexley

  60,045.00

  Birmingham

  184,662.22

  Bournemouth

  12,465.00

  Bradford

  4,141.72

  Brent

  2,481,633.90

  Brighton and Hove

  76,682.74

  Bristol City

  51,150.22

  Bromley

  133,420.00

  Buckinghamshire

  13,055.62

  Bury

  6,770.00

  Cambridgeshire

  94,988.00

  Camden

  2,921,840.00

  Cornwall

  2,633.50

  Corporation of London

  95,900.00

  Croydon

  628,314.45

  Derby City

  3,357.08

  Derbyshire

  921.60

  Dorset

  2,240.00

  Ealing

  1,565,363.00

  East Sussex

  3,883.17

  119

  £

  Local authority

  Total grant due in 1997–98

  Enfield

  231,560.00

  Essex

  112,649.16

  Gateshead

  6,360.64

  Gloucestershire

  7,194.54

  Greenwich

  495,797.93

  Hackney

  3,027,990.00

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,406,618.00

  Haringey

  1,671,951.00

  Harrow

  748,971.00

  Havering

  25,900.00

  Hereford and Worcester

  5,259.11

  Hertfordshire

  50,283.44

  Hillingdon

  446,136.00

  Hounslow

  402,322.29

  Islington

  1,339,520.00

  Kent

  279,942.83

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,177,140.00

  Kingston

  145,047.00

  Kirklees

  4,323.26

  Lambeth

  3,535,414.00

  Leeds City

  14,280.00

  Leicester City

  47,902.52

  Lewisham

  1,862,381.00

  Lincolnshire

  28,486.76

  Liverpool City

  25,023.00

  Luton

  45,185.57

  Manchester

  89,687.96

  Merton

  462,308.79

  Middlesborough

  19,810.67

  Milton Keynes

  238,089.62

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  45,041.63

  Newham

  2,496,568.00

  Norfolk

  28,706.00

  Northamptonshire

  64,120.00

  North East Lincolnshire

  3,432.90

  North Tyneside

  7,066.24

  Oxfordshire

  399,466.00

  Portsmouth

  8,577.57

  Redbridge

  422,810.00

  Richmond upon Thames

  263,852.13

  Rochdale

  5,193.00

  Rutland

  980.00

  Sheffield

  68,575.00

  Shropshire

  4,064.34

  Southampton

  6,049.04

  South Gloucestershire

  3,905.89

  Southwark

  1,198,810.00

  Stockton on Tees

  586.50

  Suffolk

  39,438.00

  Sunderland

  3,458.43

  Surrey

  21,086.00

  Sutton

  115,085.58

  Swindon

  6,264.00

  Tower Hamlets

  519,820.00

  Wakefield City

  3,240.74

  Waltham Forest

  623,275.82

  Wandsworth

  585,480.00

  Warwickshire

  29,540.00

  Westminster

  3,838,660.00

  West Sussex

  68,294.52

  Wiltshire

  8,960.00

  York

  2,626.14

  Total

  39,909,937.31

  120
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the actual cost to local authorities of supporting asylum seekers in the year 1997–98, broken down by local authority area. [37968]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information is unavailable on the actual expenditure incurred by all local authorities in supporting asylum seekers. The tables show the estimated expenditure for the local authorities which have made claims against the three special grants available in 1997/98. Local authorities may have also incurred other costs which have not been included in their grant claims because they are not reimbursable under the terms of the grant. We have no information on the cost for local authorities who have not claimed grant support.

  Table 1: Expenditure on adult asylum seekers

  £

  Local authority

  Estimated total expenditure in 1997/98

  Barking & Dagenham

  365,627.92

  Barnsley

  3,489.20

  Barnet

  792,668.00

  Bedfordshire

  33,292.00

  Berkshire

  524,823.41

  Bexley

  60,045.00

  Birmingham

  184,662.22

  Bournemouth

  12,465.00

  Bradford

  4,141.72

  Brent

  2,481,633.90

  Brighton and Hove

  76,682.74

  Bristol City

  51,150.22

  Bromley

  148,062.38

  Buckinghamshire

  13,055.62

  Bury

  6,770.00

  Cambridgeshire

  94,988.00

  Camden

  3,514,240.00

  Cornwall

  2,633.50

  Corporation of London

  96,080.00

  Croydon

  628,314.45

  Derby City

  3,357.08

  Derbyshire

  921.60

  Dorset

  2,240.00

  Ealing

  1,565,363.00

  East Sussex

  3,883.17

  Enfield

  271,739.00

  Essex

  112,649.16

  Gateshead

  6,360.64

  Gloucestershire

  7,194.54

  Greenwich

  495,797.93

  Hackney

  3,027,990.00

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,406,618.00

  Haringey

  1,671,951.00

  Harrow

  748,971.00

  Havering

  33,124.55

  Hereford and Worcester

  5,259.11

  Hertfordshire

  50,283.44

  Hillingdon

  446,136.00

  Hounslow

  402,322.29

  Islington

  1,823,325.00

  Kent

  279,942.83

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,249,217.00

  Kingston

  145,047.00

  Kirklees

  4,323.26

  Lambeth

  3,535,414.00

  Leeds City

  16,176.00

  Leicester City

  47,902.52

  Lewisham

  1,862,381.00

  Lincolnshire

  28,486.76

  Liverpool City

  25,023.00

  Luton

  45,185.57

  Manchester

  89,687.96

  121

  Table 1: Expenditure on adult asylum seekers

  £

  Local authority

  Estimated total expenditure in 1997/98

  Merton

  462,308.79

  Middlesborough

  19,810.67

  Milton Keynes

  238,089.62

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  45,041.63

  Newham

  2,496,568.00

  Norfolk

  28,706.00

  Northamptonshire

  69,362.00

  North East Lincolnshire

  3,432.90

  North Tyneside

  7,066.24

  Oxfordshire

  399,466.00

  Portsmouth

  8,577.57

  Redbridge

  468,460.00

  Richmond upon Thames

  263,852.13

  Rochdale

  5,193.00

  Rutland

  1,830.00

  Sheffield

  68,575.00

  Shropshire

  4,064.34

  Southampton

  6,049.04

  South Gloucestershire

  3,905.89

  Southwark

  1,598,612.19

  Stockton on Tees

  586.50

  Suffolk

  39,438.00

  Sunderland

  3,458.43

  Surrey

  21,086.00

  Sutton

  115,085.58

  Swindon

  6,264.00

  Tower Hamlets

  555,260.00

  Wakefield City

  3,240.74

  Waltham Forest

  688,417.00

  Wandsworth

  585,480.00

  Warwickshire

  33,053.00

  Westminster

  4,623,193.00

  West Sussex

  68,294.52

  Wiltshire

  9,354.92

  York

  2,626.14

  Total

  42,500,703.35

  Table 2: Expenditure on asylum seekers with children

  £

  Local authority

  Estimated total expenditure in 1997/98

  Barking

  302,452.00

  Barnet

  1,369,644.00

  Bexley

  121,413.00

  Brent

  1,891,193.00

  Bromley

  292,871.00

  Camden

  2,072,767.00

  Corporation of London

  27,812.00

  Croydon

  463,313.00

  Ealing

  1,349,911.00

  Enfield

  1,507,000.00

  Greenwich

  477,787.00

  Hackney

  1,330,425.00

  Hammersmith

  1,783,846.00

  Haringey

  2,795,085.00

  Harrow

  623,342.00

  Hillingdon

  476,915.00

  Hounslow

  1,207,550.00

  Islington

  886,156.00

  Kensington

  1,729,615.00

  Kingston

  361,895.00

  Lambeth

  2,232,430.00

  Lewisham

  1,257,145.00

  Merton

  518,877.00

  Newham

  3,849,452.00

  122

  Table 2: Expenditure on asylum seekers with children

  £

  Local authority

  Estimated total expenditure in 1997/98

  Redbridge

  1,072,501.00

  Richmond

  189,471.00

  Southwark

  1,808,979.00

  Sutton

  114,054.00

  Tower Hamlets

  451,794.00

  Waltham Forest

  1,029,973.00

  Wandsworth

  1,590,518.00

  Westminster

  3,547,313.00

  Milton Keynes

  107,770.00

  Manchester

  345,460.00

  Total

  39,186,731.00

  Table 3: Unaccompanied asylum seeking children

  £

  Local authority

  Estimated total expenditure in 1997/98

  Bromley

  159,184.00

  Corporation of London

  29,254.00

  Croydon

  1,584,569.00

  Havering

  12,426.00

  Hillingdon

  1,303,470.00

  Kensington & Chelsea

  805,731.00

  Merton

  48,880.00

  Westminster

  897,163.00

  Total

  4,867,480.00

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of visits and repeat visits to GPs in England occasioned by osteoporosis. [37303]

  Ms Jowell
  Information on the number of visits made to general practitioners about specific conditions is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the projected number of osteoporotic fractures in England in the next 12 months and the number of (a) orthopaedic beds and (b) days of hospitalisation required to treat them. [37331]

  Ms Jowell
  No such estimate has been made.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the incidence of osteoporosis; and what estimate he has made of the cost of osteoporosis to the NHS in England in the last 12 months. [37311]

  Ms Jowell
  No estimate of the incidence of osteoporosis or the cost of osteoporosis to the National Health Service in England has been made in the last 12 months. In 1995 the advisory group on osteoporosis estimated that osteoporosis affected approximately one in four women and one in twelve men, and cost £742 million a year in England, based on 1992/93 prices.
  123
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities have an osteoporosis strategy in place; and if he will list them. [37307]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department does not hold a list of the health authorities which have an osteoporosis strategy.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has evaluated into the correlation between osteoporosis and social deprivation; and if he will make a statement. [37315]

  Ms Jowell
  We are aware of the devastating effect that osteoporosis can have on all those who suffer from it, regardless of social class. That is why we have pledged our commitment to tackling the condition through a new strategy on osteoporosis.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage and number of(a) accidents and (b) orthopaedic hospital admissions in England are directly attributable to osteoporosis. [37324]

  Ms Jowell
  Information on the number of accidents directly attributable to osteoporosis is not collated centrally. The table shows the number of admissions to National Health Service hospitals in England in 1995–96 (the latest date for which figures are available), where the main diagnosis was osteoporosis and the consultant specialty was 'Trauma & Orthopaedics'. It shows that just over 0.1 per cent. of admissions in that specialty involved a primary diagnosis of osteoporosis.

  Ordinary admissions and day cases combined: number of admissions by specialty and primary diagnosis, NHS hospitals in England, 1995–96

  Trauma and Orthopaedics

  Admissions with primary diagnosis given as osteoporosis

  852

  All admissions

  750,195

  Percentage admissions with primary diagnosis given as osteoporosis

  0.114

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of treating osteoporotic fractures in the last 12 months. [37317]

  Ms Jowell
  The information requested cannot be separately identified.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to implement the recommendation of the Advisory Group on the Ethics of Xenotransplantation in respect of the introduction of primary legislation to regulate xenotransplantation. [37878]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are considering the results of the consultation exercise held last year relating to the advisory group's recommendations and we will be announcing our response shortly. This will cover the wide range of issues involved including legislation.

  In the meantime, the United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority, which advises the Government on all issues relating to xenotransplantation, is continuing to monitor closely developments in this field.

  Prescription Drugs
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the financial impact on dispensing pharmacies of 90 day pay contracts for prescription drugs; and if he will make a statement. [37378]

  Mr. Milburn
  A payment representing approximately 80 per cent. of the amount due for dispensing prescriptions is made to community pharmacists on the first day of the month following that which correctly endorsed prescriptions are received for pricing. The balance is paid on the first day of the following month, once prescriptions have been fully processed. This long established payment schedule is one of the factors taken into account in determining overall remuneration for community pharmacy contractors.

  Respite Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the availability of respite care; and if he will make a statement. [37610]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Social Services Inspectorate is currently conducting a special study to establish the availability and quality of short-term breaks. The report of this work, which is intended to help authorities in devising and delivering appropriate and cost effective services, will be available later this year.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research underlay the recent estimates of the Minister of State, Baroness Jay, relating to the cost of short-term care breaks based on a legally-based rights system. [37609]

  Mr. Boateng
  The 1990 General Household Survey estimated that in Great Britain there are 700,000 carers providing 50 or more hours of care a week. The calculation of the cost of short-term breaks quoted by my noble Friend the Baroness Jay of Paddington on 30 March 1998 was based on the cost of providing one day of respite care per month for this number of people, using an hourly cost figure of £4.50. The lower end of the range represents 8 hours of respite care; the upper end of the range represents 24 hour cover. No account in the calculation was taken of the cost of respite care which is currently provided.

  Accident Treatment Costs
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the total cost of treating accidents and other injuries in England in the last 12 months. [37316]

  Mr. Milburn
  Figures for the total cost of treatment of accidents and other injuries over the last 12 months are not available. However, a study by the National Health Service Executive published in 1996 entitled "Burdens of Disease" estimated the cost of treating accidents and other injuries to be in the region of £1.2 billion. Copies of this document are available in the Library.

  Lead in Water
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria he is using to evaluate IQ deficits in relation to the reduction in levels of lead in water. [37580]
  125
  Ms Jowell
  Approximate estimates of the expected relationship between lead in water and IQ are based on a combination of published models relating lead intake to blood lead levels1,2 and blood lead levels to IQ.2
  1 Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Lead in Food: Progress Report. The 27th report of the Steering Group on Food Surveillance. The working party on inorganic contaminants in food third supplementary report on lead. Food surveillance paper No 27. London: HMSO, 1989.
  2 World Health Organization. Inorganic Lead. Environmental Health Criteria No 165. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 1995.

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what decision he had made on extending the appointment of existing members of the Board of the Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust beyond October 1998. [37898]

  Mr. Milburn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made no decisions on extending the appointments of board members whose appointments come to an end on 31 October 1998, nor has he been asked to do so.

  Cervical Screening
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to identify barriers to the use of cervical screening services by women living in areas of social deprivation. [37685]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are determined to tackle health inequalities in the National Health Service. There is some evidence to suggest that take-up of screening invitations is lower among women living in inner city areas than in the population as a whole. In the light of this, the NHS Cervical Screening Programme is commissioning research to assess the factors that influence the uptake of cervical screening among women living in areas of social deprivation and suggest what additional action can be taken to encourage more women in these areas to come forward for screening.

  Special Hospitals
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are currently on the waiting list for special hospital places in England and Wales, broken down by county. [37682]

  Mr. Boateng
  At 31 March 1998 there were 6 people awaiting admission to Ashworth Hospital, 15 people awaiting admission to Broadmoor Hospital and 18 people awaiting admission to Rampton Hospital. The break down by county, based on the home area of those awaiting admission, is set out in the table.

  County

  Number awaiting admission

  Berkshire

  1

  Buckinghamshire

  1

  Cleveland

  1

  Derbyshire

  1

  Essex

  1

  Gloucestershire

  1

  Greater London

  6

  Greater Manchester

  1

  Gwent

  1

  Hampshire

  2

  126

  County

  Number awaiting admission

  Kent

  2

  Leicestershire

  2

  Lincolnshire

  1

  Merseyside

  1

  Northamptonshire

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  2

  Powys

  1

  Surrey

  1

  Tyne and Wear

  1

  Warwickshire

  1

  West Midlands

  1

  Wiltshire

  2

  Yorkshire

  7

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his policy to establish targets for total months waited by patients; and if he will make a statement. [38062]

  Mr. Milburn
  We already have a target. Last November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that by 31 March this year we would eliminate 18 month waits for admission to hospital. Provisional management information shows we have delivered this in England and we will make sure we continue to deliver it.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many, and what proportion of drugs in BNF chapter 2 dispensed in the latest year for which figures are available were(a) charged at point of dispensing, (b) paid for through a pre-payment certificate and (c) dispensed to patients exempt from charges. [38066]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information is shown in the table:

  Prescription items in British National Formulary (BNF) chapter 2, Cardiovascular System, dispensed in England in 1996

  Prescription items (millions)

  Percentage

  Charged at point of dispensing

  5.6

  6.7

  Prepayment certificate

  4.0

  4.8

  Exempt from charge

  74.4

  88.6

  Total for cardiovascular system

  84.0

  100.0

  Note:

  This analysis is based on a 1 in 20 sample of all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors only.

  Access Committee for England
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 25 March 1998,Official Report, columns 180–81, on the Access Committee for England, what factors underlie his Department's decision to end funding for ACE; when ACE was informed that funding would not be provided for the year 1998–99; and if the same procedures as used in the last two years for giving advanced warning of funding decisions by his Department were followed this year. [37850]

  Mr. Milburn
  The decision not to renew the Department's funding of the central administrative costs of the Access Committee for England (ACE) under
  127
  Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 from 1 April 1998 was taken following a recent inter-Departmental review of Government funding for ACE and was in accordance with our policy of time-limiting core funding for voluntary organisations. The decision was notified to ACE on 12 March 1998, at the same time as other voluntary organisations were notified of Ministers' decisions on their Section 64 grant applications. The usual procedures for the consideration of Section 64 grant applications were followed, and voluntary organisations were notified as soon as Ministers' decisions were reached.

  Information Technology
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the current shortfall in established information technology staff, consultant and contractor support posts within his Department; and if he will list the posts by grade indicating for each post how long it has been vacant and when it is expected to be filled. [37509]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 2 April 1998]: There are currently 8 civil servant and 1 contractor vacancies among the Department and its agencies. With one exception, all vacancies have existed for less than 3 months. In all cases it is anticipated they will be filled within 3 months.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which projects, not related to the year 2000 compliance problem, are being(a) restricted and (b) terminated in order to free information technology resources. [37479]

  Department of Health food science related research projects: contracts issued in 1997–98

  Project title

  Duration

  Cost (£)

  Organisation

  Assessment of the degree of heat treatment necessary to destroy E.coli O157 in lamb

  9 months

  59,352

  University of Reading

  A study using molecular typing methodologies to examine the effect of transport crate re-use and crate washing techniques on the contamination of broiler chickens with Campylobacter species

  6 months

  21,142

  Exeter Public Health Laboratory

  Investigation of methods of recording and logging food samples submitted for microbiological analysis

  6 months

  5,971

  Preston Public Health Laboratory

  In addition, the Department currently funds a Unit at St. Bartholomew's Hospital for research into the toxicology of chemicals some of which can be found in food.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Overpayments
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to improve the recovery of overpaid benefit. [37891]

  Mr. Denham
  We are transforming the Social Security system into an Active Modern Service that: commands the support and confidence of those who fund it, those who use it, and those who administer it, and provides a
  128
  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 2 April 1998]There are currently no projects in the Department which, because of the year 2000 compliance problem, are being restricted or terminated in order to free information technology resources.

  Child Care
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the average cost of childcare in local authority nurseries broken down by region. [36769]

  Mr. Boateng
  Data are not available centrally on expenditure on local authority day nurseries alone. However, in 1995–96, the latest year for which the data are available, local authorities in England reported having spent £132 million gross on day care in nurseries, both local authority and private. Local authorities had responsibility at 31 March 1996 for some 25,700 children in day nurseries, mostly provided by local authorities, and 29,800 at 31 March 1995. This would imply an average cost to the local authority of approximately £4,700 a year, or about £90 per child per week. The figures for individual local authorities are not reliable enough at this level of detail to enable a robust regional breakdown to be derived; copies of a table showing individual authority figures have been placed in the library.

  Food Science Research Contracts
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the food science research contracts allocated by his Department and its agencies in 1997–98 broken down by(a) length of contract, (b) value of contract and (c) institution securing the contract. [37951]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department funds the following contracts which could be considered to fall under the heading of food science research:

  better, simpler, more efficient service to clients. As part of this, we are introducing a new overpayment recovery strategy for the Benefits Agency which will ensure that:
  causes of overpayments are identified and dealt with;
  failures in recovery of overpayment are minimised; and

  overpayments are identified, calculated and recovery is effected as quickly as possible.

  As part of the new strategy an Information Technology (IT) based Accounting and Management system will be introduced and will serve to strengthen control of overpayments calculation and recovery along with the integrity of the benefits system. This new IT system is designed to: enhance overpayments operations; track overpayments from discovery to recovery; and provide accurate accounting and management information that will be used to identify trends and inform future options for change. It will also help to prevent build up of arrears.
  129
  The Government have inherited a large backlog of uncalculated overpayment cases accumulated within the Benefits Agency over a number of years, amounting to approximately 300,000 cases. Some 170,000 of these cases are a combination of departmental error cases where there is no right of recovery and cases that, due to their age, would not be cost effective to pursue or are now impossible to calculate as the documentation is no longer available.

  Work on new cases is increasing, partly due to the success of the Security and Control Project in identifying fraud and inaccuracy. Processing this work is being put at risk because of the backlog.

  Therefore to assist with the prompt clearance of new work, a large number of non recoverable cases are being cleared from the backlog and special temporary measures taken to speed up processing of newly arising non recoverable cases.

  The most cost effective way is to estimate rather than calculate these overpayments. The cases involve an estimated £80 million of nominal overpayments that under normal circumstances the vast majority of which would not be recoverable and some not viable to recover.

  Cases involving fraud will be excluded from this exercise.

  The new system emphasises our commitment to modernise all areas of the Department's business.

  Child Support Agency
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if she will make the tracing of absent parents the primary objective of the CSA; [37068]

  (2) what proportion of staff at the CSA have as their primary function the tracing of absent parents. [37066]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We are determined to ensure that all absent parents honour their responsibilities to their children. One of our key aims is to increase the proportion of parents meeting their financial obligations to their children after separation. Tracing an absent parent is an integral part of the child support assessment process but the Child Support Agency has dedicated teams who specialise in tracking down absent parents where this is not straightforward. Since its launch in 1993 the Agency's specialist tracing teams have located 269,000 absent parents. Around 7,000 staff are involved in the front-line operations of the Agency's business of whom around 70, work in the dedicated tracing teams.

  For this financial year and the next we are directing an extra £15 million to the Agency specifically aimed at increasing the amounts of maintenance that are paid. We are looking closely at all aspects of the Child Support scheme to see where improvements can be made and we expect to bring forward a consultation paper on our proposals later this year.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals are currently being processed under the new procedures relating to the Child Support Agency. [37067]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Independent Tribunal Service have around 4,500 Child Support appeals outstanding including 800 appeals Departure determinations. The 130
  Child Support Departures scheme was introduced in December 1996. There have been no recent changes to Child Support Agency appeals procedures although the Social Security Bill does include provisions for streamlining the decision making and appeals processes throughout this Department including the child support scheme.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of men subject to orders for payment have not been traced by the CSA; and if she will make a statement. [36102]

  Mr. Field
  It is not right that so many absent fathers should seek to avoid paying the maintenance which their children are due. An extra £15 million is to be invested in the Child Support Agency in each of the next two financial years specifically aimed at increasing the amounts of maintenance which are paid.

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Lembit Öpik, dated 2 April 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about men who have not been traced by the Child Support Agency.
  The Agency does not collect details by gender so I am unable to provide information about men, as you request.
  When the necessary details are not provided or available, the Agency initiates specialist tracing procedures during the maintenance assessment process to establish the address of the absent parent, the absent parent's employer (where a deduction from earnings order is to be implemented), or the parent with care. It follows, therefore, that absent parents will already have been traced when a maintenance assessment is made or a deduction from earnings order is imposed. If the absent parent changes address after the maintenance assessment has been made or at any time during enforcement action, the Agency will continue to take action to trace his whereabouts.
  The Agency does actively pursue absent parents who deliberately evade their lawful responsibility and choose to disappear to avoid paying maintenance. However, it is sometimes the case that despite the Agency's best efforts, a positive result cannot be obtained, as some absent parents will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid their responsibility.
  Specialist trace action is suspended where a confident trace is unsuccessful. In such cases, other Government Departments and Agencies are asked to inform the Agency if they become aware of a new address. Also, an annual specialist trace is carried out on suspended cases; this includes making an inquiry to the parent with care.
  From its launch in 1993, the Agency has taken on just under 2.4 million cases and completed approximately 385,000 specialist traces during the maintenance assessment process. 269,000 (70 per cent.) of the traces have been successful. These figures relate to the total number of specialist traces carried out. Information on the number of traces relating specifically to absent parents is not available.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will ensure that any parent wishing to have a meeting with Child Support Agency officers is granted one. [36986]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We are looking for substantial and sustained operational improvements from the Agency, in particular on getting more maintenance paid, reducing the backlog and improving customer service.
  131
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 1 April 1998.
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about parents requesting interviews with Child Support Agency officers.
  The Agency offers face to face interviews to both absent parents and parents with care as part of its ongoing commitment to provide a high quality service to its customers.
  The facility for face to face interviews is widely publicised by means of:
  The Child Support Agency Charter.
  The Maintenance Application pack and Maintenance Enquiry pack include notes for parents telling them that they can contact an Agency local office if they want advice or further information.
  Parents contacting the Child Support Agency National Enquiry Line are advised of the facility for face to face interviews, where appropriate.
  Although most contact between the Agency and its customers is by means of written correspondence or via the telephone, we recognise that a proportion of our customers will need to have face to face contact for a number of reasons. Interviews need not necessarily be carried out at a DSS office, and we are exploring other options, for example, using Citizens Advice Bureaux or other Government facilities to increase our accessibility to the public.
  The Agency currently has approximately 2,900 staff working in Field offices throughout the country. However, in excess of 95 per cent. of those staff concentrate on backroom paper processing work so they do not have any face to face contact at all and are no more accessible to the public than those in the major processing centres. The number of staff years which are devoted to face-to-face contact is only currently 120 and in many locations there is fewer than one interview per day. We fully accept that this is not sufficient and restructuring will allow us to offer significantly more face to face contact on a peripatetic basis in a greater range of locations.
  As Ministers have announced, part of our strategy to improve face to face contact with our customers is to work more closely with our colleagues in the Benefits Agency. From April 1998, Benefit Agency staff will interview and assist new Income Support parents with care to complete their maintenance application form where appropriate. Pilot studies have shown this to be welcomed by individual customers. 75 per cent. of our parents with care will be interviewed—customers will have to provide information only once, thus reducing overlap and repetition of work and it will reduce the incidence of fraud.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of postage for the Child Support Agency in each year for which figures are available. [36988]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 1 April 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency postage costs.
  132
  Figures are available from the launch of the Agency in April 1993 and are shown below.

  Child Support Agency—Postage costs

  £

  1993–94

  1,044,006

  1994–95

  1,617,681

  1995–96

  1,632,721

  1996–97

  1,902,453

  1997–98 (up to 28 February 1998)

  1,542,670

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will ensure that agreements between clients of the Child Support Agency and the Agency are recorded in writing with copies forwarded to the client. [36984]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We expect the Child Support Agency to provide a consistent, fair and efficient service to all its clients.

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 1 April 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about agreements between clients of the Child Support Agency and the Agency.
  When an agreement to make payments of arrears of child maintenance is made between the customer and the Agency, an officer is required to record the agreement and send both the absent parent and the parent with care a copy of the agreement.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances a case where outstanding arrears exist and the parent with care has a right of appeal can be closed by the Child Support Agency. [36989]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We are looking closely at all aspects of the child support scheme to see where improvements can be made. We aim to bring forward later this year a consultation document on our proposals.

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 1 April 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency cases where outstanding arrears of maintenance exist.
  Where an absent parent has no liability to pay current maintenance (for example, because the qualifying child has left full-time education) and there are no arrears of maintenance, the case is closed. Decisions such as this concerning maintenance liability or the amount of maintenance liability are made by Child Support Officers, and parents have the right of appeal.
  Where liability to pay current maintenance has ended, but there are still arrears of maintenance outstanding, a case remains open and the Agency pursues this until such time as all arrears have been paid. This may involve negotiating an agreement with the absent parent for an amount to be paid regularly until the arrears have been cleared; all aspects of both parent's circumstances are taken into account so that the agreed amount is realistic and balances the needs of both parents. Such agreements may be reviewed should there be a change in the circumstances of either parent.

  133
  There is no provision for arrears of child maintenance to be written-off by the Agency. In certain circumstances (for example, the death of a qualifying child) the Agency, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State can use discretion not to enforce arrears due. Where such discretion is exercised, there is not right of appeal.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Benefit Payment Cards
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the launch of the project to introduce magnetic stripe cards for the payment of benefit; and what are(a) the revised launch date, (b) the timetable for installing the system in post offices, (c) the reasons why chip cards were not included in the project and (d) the anticipated reduction of fraud as a result of the project. [37760]

  Mr. Denham
  The Benefit Payment Card has already been launched and is in use for Child Benefit customers as part of a trial in 205 post offices in the South West and North East of England.

  On current plans we expect to begin automating the rest of the Post Offices network next year and all Post Offices should be automated by the end of 2000.

  The magnetic stripe card fully meets the requirements for the Payment Card that were set out for prospective contractors for this Private Finance Initiative project. However, the system is fully able to support smart card technology.

  Once fully operational, the Payment Card is expected to virtually eliminate fraud at the point of encashment.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which Minister approved the issue of Benefit Integrity Project questionnaires on and after 6 May 1997. [37928]

  Mr. Denham
  The Benefit Integrity Project including the issue of questionnaires was approved by the previous administration. It formally began with the selection of cases for postal enquiry from 28 April 1997. The first questionnaires were sent out on 6 May 1997.

  Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research was undertaken by the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board for the report, The Future of Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance; and if he will place a copy of this research in the Library. [37841]

  Mr. Denham
  The Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board is an independent statutory body established by the Social Security Act 1991. The Chairman makes it clear in the foreword to the report that the Board based its recommendations on the in-depth study of over 5,000 cases relating to Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance which it saw over a five year period from 1992. These covered a wide range of disabilities and medical conditions. The report was published on 12 March and a copy placed in the Library.
  134
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many times and on which matters the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board has been consulted by the Secretary of State since its formation in 1992. [37209]

  Mr. Denham
  Since its formation in 1992, the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board has been commissioned by the Secretary of State to undertake detailed studies and make recommendations on 23 different subjects across a wide range of medical conditions. Summaries of the completed studies on these subjects are published in the Board's Annual Reports. The Board also advises on individual cases referred by the Benefits Agency Medical Advisers, who are officers of the Secretary of State. In addition, it carries out other work as directed, including the recent analysis of Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance cases as part of the Department's report "A Study of Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance Awards" which was published on 12 March.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate she has made of the number of asylum seekers claiming income support benefit in the years(a) 1992–93, (b) 1994–95, (c) 1995–96, (d) 1996–97 and 1997–98; [37969]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the sums paid in income support benefit to asylum seekers in (a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95, (d) 1995–96, (e) 1996–97 and (f) 1997–98. [37970]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is set out in the table.

  Asylum seekers—average annual income support caseloads and estimated annual expenditure

  Year

  Average annual income support asylum seekers caseload

  Estimated annual income support asylum seekers expenditure (£ million)

  1992–93

  36,000

  98

  1993–94

  40,000

  112

  1994–95

  42,000

  123

  1995–96

  48,000

  140

  1996–97

  51,000

  154

  1997–98

  50,000

  157

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Estimated annual expenditure figures are rounded to the nearest million pounds.

  3. Sample size 5 per cent.

  4. Figures from February 1997 onwards will include a number of non-asylum seekers who receive Urgent Case Payments for other reasons.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiries, February 1993 to May 1997.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the(a) location of, (b)administrative costs of, (c) salary costs of and (d) number of staff employed at the headquarters of (i) the

  135
  Benefits Agency, (ii) the War Pensions Agency, (iii) the IT Services Agency, (iv) the Contributions Agency and (v) the CSA. [36370]

  Mr. Field
  [holding answer 27 March 1998]The information is set out in the table.

  Agency

  Location

  Administrative costs (£)

  Salary costs (£)

  Number of staff

  BA

  Leeds

  4,781,200

  12,291,300

  637

  WPA

  Blackpool

  124,087

  903,768

  48

  ITSA

  North West

  1,874,145

  2,186,411

  88

  North East

  149,080

  242,000

  7

  St. Albans

  127,783

  203,690

  6

  CA

  Newcastle

  502,000

  3,324,000

  138

  CSA

  Newcastle

  155,894

  2,225,620

  98

  Birkenhead

  14,568

  209,188

  9

  Northampton

  21,340

  307,851

  13

  Dudley

  28,665

  447,928

  13

  Hastings

  9,540

  143,890

  5

  Notes:

  1. Figures given are estimated costs for the financial year ending 31 March 1998.

  2. Each Headquarters organisation is set up to meet the business needs of the Agency. The functions included in the definition of Headquarters varies between the Agencies and as a result the above information is not directly comparable.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the cost of increasing the earning disregard for housing benefit by £5 per child for families with children. [37241]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The estimated cost of increasing the earnings disregard by £5 per child for families with children is £80 million1 in a full year.
  1Figure rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to link the housing benefit system to(a) the family credit system and (b) a tax credit scheme. [37227]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We have no plans to link the Housing Benefit system to the Family Credit system. Issues to do with tax credit schemes, such as the Working Families Tax Credit, are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the cost of increasing the earning disregard threshold for housing benefit(a) from £5 to £10 for single people, and by £10 for other claimants and (b) from £5 to £20 for single people and by £20 for other claimants. [37242]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is set out in the table.

  Estimated cost of increasing the earning disregard

  £ million

  Earnings disregard change

  Cost (full year)

  (a) increase by £5 for singles, £10 others

  110

  (b) increase by £15 for singles, £20 others

  250

  Note:

  Costs rounded to nearest £10 million.

  Income Support
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the number of households with incomes within the income support thresholds, not in receipt of income support, broken down by tenure. [37213]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is set out in the table.

  Estimated number of households not claiming income support to which they are entitled

  Tenure type

  Estimated number of households

  LA tenants

  460,000

  Private tenants

  290,000

  Owner occupiers

  740,000

  Total

  1,490,000

  Notes:

  1. In the analysis presented here, a household is included if at least one benefit unit within the household is entitled to but not receiving Income Support.

  2. Rounded to the nearest 10,000

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1995/96.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the review being undertaken by officials concerning the treatment of income from personal loan repayment protection insurance cover for those claiming jobseeker's allowance will be completed; and if she will make a statement. [37824]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Officials have completed their review and, as announced in the Green Paper "New Ambition For Our Country—A New Contract for Welfare", we will be laying regulations, subject to statutory consultation, to introduce a disregard of these payments, provided they are used for their intended purpose. Draft regulations have been sent to the Social Security Advisory Committee and Local Government Associations for consultation.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the practice of treating payments from personal loan repayment protection insurance policies as income for the purposes of calculating jobseeker's allowance payments commenced; what treatment will be given to any lump sum payments made by lenders and insurers to individuals whose jobseeker's allowance has been reduced with regard to benefits disregards and personal taxation; and if she will make a statement. [37825]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The regulations under which payments from personal loan repayment protection policies are treated as income for the purpose of calculating income-based Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) unless paid direct to the creditor, have been in place since JSA was introduced in October 1996. These rules were based on equivalent rules which have applied to other income-related benefits for many years.

  Representatives of the insurance and banking industries held discussions with officials in this Department to ensure that any additional payments made to individuals

  137
  whose benefit had been affected by these insurance payments would be made in such a way that they would not affect benefit entitlement.

  Personal taxation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Disability Appeal Tribunal
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases are awaiting hearing before the Disability Appeal Tribunal; and what is the average time between an appeal to a disability tribunal being received and the hearing date. [38075]
  138
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The operation of the appeals system is a matter for the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) who report that in July 1997 there was an overall total of 29,566 outstanding appeals to Disability Appeal Tribunals and an overall average clearance time of 30 weeks.

  We are determined to reduce the current delays and complexity in the appeals system. The Social Security Bill, which paves the way for modernising the delivery of Social Security, including the handling of appeals, is currently being debated in Committee in the House of Lords. The Secretary of State will assume responsibility for the administration of the appeals system. She will set and publish demanding targets for the administration of appeals and report on the results.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

Appointments to NHS Boards
Earl Howeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What account was taken by Ministers, when making recent appointments to NHS trust boards, of candidates' declared party political affiliations.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the Commissioner for Public Appointments, who naturally the Government support, makes clear that merit and not political affiliation should be the basis for public appointments. This Government have been determined from the outset that NHS boards should be more representative of the communities that they serve. To this end last summer we expanded the group from which candidates are drawn and changed selection criteria. That approach was specifically endorsed by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. In the recent round there was a large number of successful candidates who declared support for the Labour Party, as I am sure the noble Earl will point out. There was a substantial increase in the number of women appointed. The number from ethnic minorities has almost doubled. We are confident that these boards will be successful in developing the new NHS based on traditional public service values.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. In the light of what she has said, is it not remarkable that of the 264 recent appointees to NHS trusts who declared that they have been politically active, no fewer than 206, or 78 per cent., are Labour and that of the 142 local councillors appointed no less than 82 per cent. are Labour compared to 4 per cent. Conservative? How do the Government explain that imbalance and how do they justify it?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, it perhaps reflects more on the appointments made by the previous administration than on anything that is being done now. I also point out to the House that the number of people who declared political activity was 30 per cent. of the total appointed. So even with the rather extravagant numbers, as the noble Earl described them, of previous appointments, that was simply a redress of the balance. Very many of those appointed to NHS trusts were either already appointed or declared no political affiliation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, does my noble friend recollect the approach of the party opposite to the appointment of first-wave trust boards in 1991? The boards were packed with Conservative members,
496
supporters and sympathisers and independents who nonetheless responded to the call of the Conservative Party. Does she recollect that?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, indeed I do. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said, when introducing the new arrangements for expanding the pool from which members of NHS boards should be drawn, that he had no intention of replacing Tory "deadheads" with Labour "deadheads". That is why all the new appointments are made on the basis of merit. Perhaps I may also point out that we have distinguished members of the Conservative administration, including, notably, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, as a new chairman of an NHS trust.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many appointments to trusts which were due to be made by November last year are still vacant and why that is so in view of the wealth of non-deadhead Labour candidates?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, of the 2,500 appointments, approximately 140 are still vacant. But some of those vacancies are owing to personal reasons. People were appointed and then decided that either for business or personal considerations they could not take up the positions. The regional offices have been asked to address in particular the question of ethnic minorities. We are delighted that trust boards draw 9 per cent. of their membership from the ethnic minorities. But there are some places where no ethnic minority candidate was put forward. We have asked the regional bodies to look at the matter again.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does this not reflect the representation on boards both at local and national government level of those who have been elected in other directions?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is precisely what it reflects. It is also the case that in trying to extend the pool from which candidates were drawn, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State asked all Members of Parliament of all parties to recommend local people. Local authorities were also asked. Given the political breakdown of the country, it is not surprising that the majority came from Labour backgrounds.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, does the Minister share my view of real disappointment at the growing number of people on waiting lists? Does she agree that the waiting times set and met by the last government have been broken by this Government? Does the Minister also share my view that the necessary grip on these and other issues depends on strong leadership from chairmen and non-executive directors? Does she agree that the inability and incompetence of this Government to make appointments have caused a huge vacuum and unnecessary misery and suffering to those waiting for hospital treatment?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am extremely pleased to answer the question of the noble Baroness, which is very wide of the original Question on the Order Paper. Clearly, she has not read last week's announcement in which there was a measure to improve the waiting list situation. The commitment to all those who had breached the 18 months' guarantee set by the previous administration has been achieved. The previous government's Patient's Charter required that people should not wait in excess of 18 months. They have now been taken off that waiting list as a result of action by this Government. As regards people giving leadership, if she believes that the 70 per cent. of those on boards who came from business backgrounds is the reason why we inherited a situation where a record number of health authorities and trusts were in debt, then the noble Baroness's view of success is different from mine.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the matters that greatly concerned the nation about the appointments system of the previous administration was that very many members of trust boards came from outside the area of the particular trust board and had virtually no connection with it? Can my noble friend tell the House what steps have been taken to remedy that situation?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that was a matter that we specifically sought to improve in the recruitment process last summer. It is now a requirement that members of NHS trust boards should live in the area that they serve. That has been achieved, with only a minor number of exceptions in metropolitan areas, where members of trust boards occasionally live just across a borough frontier.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, when my noble friend is making such appointments—and, indeed, in respect of appointments which she has already made—will she remind boards of the desirability of phasing out mixed-sex wards in our hospitals? I thank her for all that she has done since her appointment to phase out mixed-sex wards which, I can assure her, cause great distress, especially among women patients.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I acknowledge the extremely important part that he has played in trying to achieve that change in hospitals. My noble friend is right that mixed-sex wards have caused concern and distress. I hope that he will be pleased to hear that, apart from making improvements in the number of hospitals achieving single-sex wards in the past few months, we are now producing a management analysis of the way in which boards can be kept up to the mark in that respect in the next few years. We shall of course ensure that new trust boards use that management initiative.

Science and Technology: Ministerial Responsibility
2.44 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovilasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now restore responsibility for science and technology to the Cabinet Office rather than leaving it in the Department of Trade and Industry.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government have no plans to move responsibility for science and technology from its present location within the Department of Trade and Industry where we consider that it successfully fulfils a distinct and most valuable function.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I cannot even pretend to be grateful for that Answer. Can the noble Lord find any argument against this proposition: if science and technology are to have any influence at all on our affairs, it would be better if that office were placed as near as possible to the centre of government where it can exercise some influence over, and establish helpful relations with, all departments instead of being buried in one single department, the mausoleum of the Department of Trade and Industry?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Office of Science and Technology is certainly not buried in a mausoleum. It is working relationships that matter, not physical location. The Office of Science and Technology remains the focal point across government—that is, for transdepartmental business—supporting the Chief Scientific Adviser and the President of the Board of Trade in her role as the Cabinet Minister responsible for science and technology. The Office of Science and Technology discharges its responsibility by taking a central, independent position among all departments, including the DTI.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, while accepting that that may well be the objective, is the noble Lord aware of the criticism that because the OST is located within the Department of Trade and Industry, it comes under some pressure to fill its vacancies from among members of that department rather than being free to draw on the best talent across Whitehall?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, we are aware of that observation, but I can assure the noble Lord that what he has said is not true. The best people for the job are selected, irrespective of department.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that in this country public expenditure on science as a percentage of GDP has fallen from 2.7 per cent. to 1.8 per cent.? Can he assure the House that the Government have noted that the American and Japanese governments, far from cutting

499
the science budget, are proposing substantially to increase it to protect the scientific industries of the future?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I can confirm that my noble friend's figures are broadly correct. Of course, the Government would like to spend more money on science and science research. The Government are looking urgently at this as part of the comprehensive spending review. We are committed to putting science ahead of other considerations. We are actively working to encourage greater private sector spending on research and development. A consultation document, Innovating for the Future, was published at the time of the Budget, when we announced the £50 million "university challenge" scheme to encourage exploitation of university research. Perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend because I know that his family trust has been active in encouraging the industrial exploitation of scientific research within the universities.
Lord Porter of Luddenham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Sir Ron Dearing—now, happily, Lord Dearing—in his evidence to your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology said:
"one of our purposes is to lift this"—
that is, science and technology—
"above the interplay of departmental interests and arguments",
while Sir Ron Oxburgh said quite plainly:
"it has to be Cabinet office"?
Can the noble Lord say whether there is now any support, outside the DTI, for the present arrangements?
Lord Haskel: Yes, my Lords. However, I cannot comment fully on the Dearing Report because we have only just received it and are considering its recommendations. There will be an official response. Certainly, the committee put in some hard work.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the unease not just in the world of science and technology but in industry and energy that one Minister is now entrusted with the totality of these responsibilities and of the belief that it is too large a portfolio for one Minister? The noble Lord has indicated that one of the Minister's functions should be to emphasise the importance of science and technology across the whole of Whitehall. Does he really believe that the luckless Mr. John Battle has time to perform that task in addition to the role that he must perform in relation to energy and industry?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I believe that my right honourable friend Mr. John Battle is doing a very good job in promoting the interests of science and technology. The Chief Scientific Adviser carries a good deal of responsibility, and the Office of Science and Technology is independent within the Department of Trade and Industry. Therefore, the work of my right honourable friend Mr. Battle is separate from the work of the Office of Science and Technology.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will my noble friend reiterate that the Government's policy is to entrust
500
this important function to a Minister, not a ministry, in order that in due course these matters may be discussed at Cabinet rather than departmental level?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, Mrs. Margaret Beckett, is the Minister responsible for science and technology.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some noble Lords recall the days when Lord Zuckerman was Chief Scientific Adviser? Is the reason why scientific advice has been marginalised in this way that very often Lord Zuckerman gave advice which was not very acceptable to many government departments, particularly advice about the independent deterrent?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am aware of that criticism, but I can assure noble Lords that the opinion of the Chief Scientific Adviser is not marginalised.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the Minister aware that only the very deaf have so far failed to hear the message from scientists that most of them never get anywhere near a senior Minister? They are lucky if they have contact with a parliamentary secretary.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am not aware of that problem.

Zambia: Democracy
2.52 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbredeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to encourage democracy in Zambia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, FCO officials have regular contacts with the Zambian Government at all levels and with parliamentarians, the judiciary, the independent commissions, non-governmental organisations and the media. We encourage democratic principles through these contacts and through targeted use of our programme budgets and sponsored visits. During our EU presidency we have made representations to the Zambian Government about good governance and human rights, and will continue to do so. We made representations about the imposition of the state of emergency, and on 18th March the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Mr. Lloyd, welcomed the lifting of that state of emergency on behalf of the EU.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her response. Does she agree that the plight of Zambia is that of a country spending four times as much on debt as on health? What are the Government doing to encourage greater democratic activity in Zambia, specifically in the context of the local

501
government elections due to be held this year? Will the Government be encouraging UNIP to stand in those elections? What will the Government do to ensure the elections are free and fair and that there is free assembly while they take place?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we acknowledge some advances in recent years, in particular the move to multi-party democracy and administrative reforms such as that reducing opportunities for corruption. We encourage the Zambian Government to continue their efforts to further the democratic process and enter into meaningful and inclusive dialogue with other political parties in Zambia by creating an atmosphere that allows such talks to take place. We act in a variety of ways, for example, through the programme budgets, sponsored visits and other means.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the current legal situation in relation to former President Kaunda?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the former president is no longer in prison but is under house arrest. As I understand it, he has been formally charged with concealment of treachery. I believe that it would be wrong for us to discuss the charge against him as the matter is sub judice at the moment.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, will my noble friend make representations to the Zambian Government that former President Kaunda and the others who have been charged should be brought to trial speedily and that the trial should be open and transparent so that any evidence that may be led against those charged can be properly tested in open court?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no special brief for Dr. Kaunda. Our concern is for all the detainees. Of course, former President Kaunda is an elderly man of 73 and probably requires special consideration. We welcomed the intervention of former President Nyerere with President Chiluba which led to the decision to transfer Dr. Kaunda from prison to house arrest. Of the 104 detainees who were held without charge for three months, we understand that 82 have now been charged and the remainder released.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, my noble friend has not been in this House very long. Will she please learn that at the age of 73 one is not "an elderly man"?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, when I first came to your Lordships' House one of its more distinguished Members referred to me as "little girl". I pointed out to him that for a woman in her mid-40s that was an unusual epithet. He responded that when I reached 85 I and other women of that age were
502
little girls. I apologise if I have offended noble Lords by describing anyone aged 73 as anything other than distinguished.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, are the Government considering participating in any debt forgiveness in Zambia? If so, why? What would be the purpose of forgiving the debts of a country which last year borrowed an additional 800 million dollars? Is that not like giving Alka Seltzer to an alcoholic to enable him to hit the bottle faster and harder in the future?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I believe is well known, Her Majesty's Government are considering a wide range of countries for debt forgiveness. In so doing we are looking at a country's record in terms of democracy or its move towards democracy. There are also questions about aid. Aid donors are coming together next month to consider whether there should be a move forward in relation to Zambia following the lifting of the state of emergency in the past month.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in Zambia the concept of democracy appears to be one that dispossesses white farmers without compensation?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am aware that certainly there is a problem in Zimbabwe of dispossession. I hope that if there is any such problem in Zambia, of which I am unaware, those matters will be looked at by the various independent commissions that have been set up.

Electronic Commerce
2.58 p.m.
Lord Randall of St. Budeauxasked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to promote the use of electronic commerce in the United Kingdom in order to improve trade.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government take electronic commerce seriously. That is why through the Programme for Business initiative we are making a significant effort to promote the use of the tools of electronic commerce like e-mail and the Internet to encourage firms to work on line. Another important initiative sponsored by the Department of Trade and Industry is TradeUK, which is perhaps the world's first virtual business park on the World Wide Web. To encourage confidence in the electronic environment, later this month my department is to launch an accredited certification scheme which will establish a code of practice to promote good information security management.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his response, but is he aware of the enormous benefits—I underline those words—of

503
electronic mail both to the economy and in overcoming problems such as social exclusion? Is my noble friend also aware that a good deal of informed opinion strongly indicates that the British/European approach to this issue is being seriously left behind by American competition, as with Microsoft, Bill Gates and all that? What will the Government do about all this?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are aware of the importance of electronic mail, which is why there are the various initiatives that I have mentioned to encourage companies to use it. I am not aware that people consider that we are falling far behind the US. Indeed, my department has done a survey fairly recently—the result will be published next month—which shows that we are catching up with the US on the use of information technology in commerce.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it has been possible to buy books on the World Wide Web from amazon.com at prices 20 to 30 per cent. lower than one pays in the shops? Is it not likely, with the spread of electronic commerce and the use of the web as a marketing tool, that people will pay much lower prices than they have done hitherto and that the consumer will benefit enormously from being able to buy from anywhere in the world and not just from his own country?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am aware of amazon..com. I have used it myself on two or three occasions to send gifts of books to people around the world. The Government are encouraging the use of the World Wide Web in commerce for the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I should like to declare an interest. I am a member of the Simpler Trade Procedures Board which is a government agency. Does the Minister agree that the use of standardised electronic data messages is an important method of simplifying costs and cross-border trade? Does he further agree that that is an important reason for the promotion of electronic commerce and trade facilitation through the WTO?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I can confirm that the Government agree with the view expressed by the noble Viscount. The Government are committed to working, through their membership of the European Community, towards achieving global and binding WTO rules on trade facilitation. I agree that that work should take full account of the developments in the field of electronic commerce.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a certain dichotomy in the fact that those who would benefit most from the lower prices which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will be those who are least likely to be able to afford the hardware necessary to be able to get
504
into the web site? Would he not be alarmed were some kind of shadowy economy to emerge which would discriminate against the poor?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I take my noble friend's concerns about discriminating against the poor. However, I do not agree that people who do not have computers will not benefit from electronic commerce. After all, many companies are encouraging the move towards on-line ordering because that cuts costs by enabling them to follow products until they are ordered, which avoids the need for warehousing. With such a use of electronic commerce all of us will benefit from lower prices.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, if the Government are so all-singing and all-dancing when it comes to the World Wide Web, why, a year after I asked, are they still unable to answer my Written Questions by e-mail?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am not aware of the answer to that question, because e-mail is certainly in use in the Department of Trade and Industry. I am sure that the noble Lord can communicate with that department by e-mail. Perhaps he should try to put down his Written Questions in the form of e-mail rather than in Hansard.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, with the accredited certification scheme that the Minister mentioned, will he see that every effort is made to ensure that the people who are participating in it are aware of the millennium bug problem? We are told that many of the smaller companies which have been involved in it are likely to come unstuck in 2000.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Baroness. As she will be aware, the Action 2000 scheme is designed to avoid the problems of the millennium bug. We will tackle the problem in a proper and businesslike way and show that it can be fixed. Action 2000 will raise understanding of the implications of the problems, will point out to people the risk of not doing anything and will motivate them to take action.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am sorry, but perhaps I might return to this point. Will part of this accredited—I took the words down—certification scheme for electronic trading be designed to ensure that there is no problem with the millennium hug for those companies?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am not sure that the two are connected, but I shall write to the noble Baroness about that.

Criminal Procedure (Intermediate Diets) (Scotland) Bill
3.4 p.m.
Brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed pursuant to Standing Order 48; read a first time.

Business of the House: Criminal Procedure (Intermediate Diets) (Scotland) Bill
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps I may take a few moments of the time of the House to explain why I am moving this Motion today. It has been agreed through the usual channels that the Criminal Procedure (Intermediate Diets) (Scotland) Bill should be taken through all its remaining stages tomorrow after the Second Reading debate on the Schools Standards and Framework Bill.
This emergency Bill is necessary because of recent judgments of the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland in the cases of Mackay and Milligan. The court has determined that, as a result of an irregularity in an earlier statute, a large number of summary prosecutions and previous convictions dating back to 1981 are now in question.
The Crown, indeed, has been forced to abandon over 70 cases, with many more in the pipeline. The reason is that the court's decision raises the possibility that persons convicted and sentenced at trial diets which were fixed in a procedurally invalid way could have their convictions and sentences quashed. Up to 1,000 current cases are likely to be affected and they could include sentences for violence, indecency, house breaking, drugs offences and other serious offences.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will tomorrow make the case more fully for the Bill. Perhaps I may assure the House that the Government would not seek to bring forward this legislation in this way unless there were serious implications for the criminal justice system in Scotland and for public confidence in that system.
Under those circumstances, I hope that the House will agree this Motion today. Any noble Lord who wishes to take part in the Second Reading debate tomorrow will be able to do so in the normal way, and, as is usual in your Lordships' House, under those circumstances should any noble Lord wish to table amendments to the Bill the Clerks will accept them this afternoon in advance of the Second Reading debate. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Criminal Procedure (Intermediate Diets) (Scotland) Bill to be taken through all its remaining stages tomorrow.—(Lord Richard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business Improvement Districts Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Electricity Generation Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Social Security Bill
3.9 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 105A:
After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
LONE PARENT REGULATIONS: COMMENCEMENT
(" . The Social Security (Lone Parents) (Amendment) Regulations 1997 shall not come into force before 1st October 1999.").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 105A, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 115A. The effect of the amendments is to delay the two different cuts in benefits to lone parents—one made by regulations relating to premiums for income support and so forth and the other relating to child benefit made under Clause 70—until October 1999. Without prejudice to anything I may wish to do with the amendment during the progress of the Bill, for the purpose of today's debate I wish to confine it to one simple and, I hope, uncontroversial purpose. I wish to set the stage and establish what we are discussing.
One of the difficulties with debates on single parents is that a great variety of issues constantly overlap. The problem is like the Irishman's pigs; he could not count them because they would never stand still. I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I use the amendment to set the stage. In the debate on Amendment No. 110, I wish to deal with the rights of single parents who are not working. In the debate on whether Clause 70 shall stand part of the Bill and on Amendment No. 112, which are grouped together, I wish to deal with the case for having a benefit specifically for lone parents. That is a personal suggestion. I hope that that course will be for the convenience of the Committee and worth making clear.
The cuts in benefits for lone parents fall under two principal headings. The first is achieved by regulations which come into force today, unless otherwise corrected. It is the abolition of the single parent premium on income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. There will be a loss of £4.70 a week in income support and a loss on housing benefit and council tax benefit amounting at its maximum to £9.35 a week but varying according to circumstances. The second cut, introduced under Clause 70 of the Bill, begins on 1st June 1998 and amounts to a maximum of £5.65 a week. That is a hefty collection of cuts.
In order to balance those cuts, the Government are offering, mainly through the Budget, a series of replacements of income. The first is child premium for children under the age of 11 of £2.50 a week. That applies to income support, housing benefit, council tax

507
benefit, family credit and disability working allowance and kicks in in November 1998. The second is family premium on income support of £2.50 a week and that kicks in in April 1999. The third, working family tax credit, kicks in in October 1999. In the absence of detail, one cannot quantify what that might be worth. It may be considerable for those in work, but it will be worth nothing to those out of work. There is to be a child care tax credit, but, again, one cannot quantify it without the details. It may be considerable to those in work but worth nothing to those out of work. It kicks in in October 1999, which is some way off.
As regards everyone affected by the cuts, some will be affected from today and the rest from 1st June this year. There will be no gain before November 1998 and no big replacement gain before April 1999. The effect will vary from group to group. Single parents on income support with one child under 11 will, in money terms, recover their existing position in April 1999. However, in real terms—that is, keeping up with an existing protected claimant who normally would be uprated—they will he £2.20 a week short.
A single parent on income support with two children would recover existing income in November 1998, which is a little better, but in real terms is £2.20 below existing claimants. A single parent with two children over the age of 11, and therefore not eligible for the new premium, will not recover the position until April 1999. That is still £2.20 a week short in real terms. A new claimant in work with an income of £85 a week will be a net gainer by the substantial sum of £7.09 a week by October 1999, but there will be a net loss of £5.65 a week in June 1998 and £3.15 a week in November 1998. Therefore, such claimants will be all right in the end, but getting there will take a long time. A new claimant in work with £150 a week will in June this year lose £9.13 a week. In April 1999, he or she will lose £4.13 a week and will not gain £4.82 a week until October 1999. Again, such claimants will be all right in the end if they can hang on until that day arrives.
Some people will not gain at all from the measures in the Budget. I refer to people who are in work but working less than 16 hours a week and therefore still eligible for income support. There are those receiving child maintenance under the CSA who are not eligible for the passported benefits and whose maintenance often arrives extremely irregularly. Therefore, they are sometimes dependent on child benefit for all their basic necessities. There are student single parents whose loan is counted as income whether they take it out or not. There are those who have been disentitled under the actively seeking work rules, some of them in slightly surprising situations. I give as an example the woman who was working an evening shift in a wine bar and was three times sexually assaulted. She asked to be moved to a different shift, was refused, dismissed, found to be voluntarily unemployed, and deprived of all benefit. Child benefit is the only benefit which a single parent in that situation will keep. That is why its universality is absolutely vital; it may be a life saver.
People in those positions gain nothing whatever of the conditions in the Budget—or practically nothing. In any case, the gains are mainly for those in work. When
508
we reach Amendment No. 110 we will argue that the right of a parent with a young child not to work is, like the right to work, vital. When the time comes, we on these Benches will be prepared to uphold both rights.
I am sorry to have spoken at length. I hope that I have saved the Committee's time in the long run. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: The noble Earl has clearly explained the amendment, but it is in the context of a confused sequence of events with regard to lone parents. The situation is further complicated by the fact that some of the changes are implemented by statutory instrument and others by primary legislation. Therefore, we have had a whole series of debates on those issues over recent months.
In the House of Commons there was a substantial Labour Party rebellion on this issue, and the matter then came to us. We have subsequently had the Budget and we are now in Committee. The Budget changes are very closely related to some of these measures.
However, the main point made on the amendment is one which the Committee should consider very carefully and perhaps return to at a later stage; namely, that a large number of lone parents will suffer as a result of the statutory instrument and the primary legislation if the Government's intentions go forward.
As the Minister will know, that was something which was foreshadowed under the previous government and therefore we understand that it may well be something on which there is agreement between the two Front Benches. Be that as it may, the situation which is now likely to occur if the Government succeed with their intentions is that there will be a number of lone parents who lose initially, and then subsequently gain. Of course, they will not gain in relation to the preferred position which they held previously as regards two parent families. That is a point to which we can return on the clause stand part Motion.
Nevertheless, there will be individual lone parents whose incomes will fall; and, after a considerable time—which may be extremely distressing for them—that income will be reinstated, albeit not in the same form in which it was previously being paid. That seems to be an extremely unfortunate situation and I hope that the Minister will let us have her views on how that is to be overcome, perhaps by acceptance of the amendment proposed by the noble Earl.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I had tabled amendments on this issue before the Budget because there was no doubt in my mind that those on income support and new claimants were getting a raw deal under the provisions of the Bill. The poorest were being hit and that is unacceptable.
But the Budget changed the picture. The provisions in the Budget were very welcome and government figures show that on average no fewer than 1,470,000 lone parents will be £6.30 per week better off. I recognised that the Government acted to effect those cuts and so I withdrew my amendments. But it is now clear, as the noble Earl has indicated, that the working

509
families' tax credit will not be introduced until October 1999. It is that which provides the major gain for lone parents.
Until that time, many lone parents will face the cut, which was explained so admirably by the noble Earl. Such a cut is both unjustified and unacceptable. We must ask: why should the impecunious be impoverished (as they will be) by that cut just because the dates of changes are made to suit the Government's convenience? It means that families already deprived of a spouse are to be deprived further.
Lone parents are among the poorest in the country and they simply cannot afford to lose pence let alone pounds. Every penny counts and must be counted and accounted for. That hardship cannot be wished away, rationalised or elbowed aside, and certainly not by the laughable excuse that it does not apply to present lone parents but only to new ones. As an honourable Member said in another place, the new ones are still people. Why should a family which becomes deprived of a parent after June of this year be ordered to live on less money than a current lone parent? It simply does not make sense and the whole concept of a fair deal goes out of the window.
The effective answer is to delay the cut in the lone parent benefit until October next year. That is all we are asking, and that is what the amendment achieves. It is the common-sense, reasonable solution to a major problem for lone parents. I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept the amendment.
Lord Desai: I ask my noble friend to clarify one matter. I start by confessing that rules for social security payments are so complicated that I find it very difficult to understand what is going on. I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl for explaining case by case what is happening.
I was surprised and shocked—as were my other noble friends—by the cuts in lone parent benefit. I understand that the Government wish to encourage lone parents to get back into work. I understand also that that particular cut applies only to lone parents entering benefits as of this year. But there is an anomaly and I should be grateful to my noble friend if she will clarify the matter when she replies.
It is concerned with lone parents who are in jobs but who may lose their jobs. I understand that if that happens, they cannot obtain the benefit to which they were previously entitled. If that is the case, that is a great disincentive to taking work, and I am sure the Government do not want that. Even going along entirely with the Government's logic, I still see an anomaly in relation to cutting benefit for people who lose their jobs because those people must go back to zero and start all over again. That seems to me to be an added injustice and perhaps my noble friend will clarify the position.
3.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): There are two principles underlying the Government's strategy for benefit rates for families. First, we do not believe that the current structure, which pays a higher fixed rate of child benefit and family premium to all lone parent families and to no two-parent families, is the best way or the right way to address the extra costs which particular families may face. Therefore, it is right that we should change that structure to align the rates of benefits paid to families in respect of their children irrespective of the family structure. That is why we are going ahead with this measure.
Secondly, the Government are committed to supporting all families with children. We believe that support for families should be based on the needs of children and, as I say, not on the basis of family structure. Therefore, it may help the Committee if I seek to set out the measures which we are implementing to deliver those two principles.
As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, mentioned, we inherited measures aligning rates of benefit from the previous government. The Social Security (Lone Parents) (Amendment) Regulations 1998 were laid on 8th March. They align the rate of family premium in the following income-related benefits—income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit. Those measures come into force today and will apply to all new claims from lone parent families. Existing lone parents will not be affected and will continue to receive the higher rates, as Members of the Committee have already identified.
Those regulations replace regulations already debated in this House—the Social Security (Lone Parents) (Amendment) Regulations 1997. Perhaps I may address the point made by my noble friend Lord Desai by saying that the only substantive difference is the introduction of linking rules to protect lone parents who take up work and return to benefit after a short period of work. For the first time, we are introducing a 12-week linking rule which is more generous than the linking rule proposed by the Social Security Advisory Committee. That was only eight weeks. I hope my noble friend will take comfort from that fact. We are seeking to introduce those linking rules to protect lone parents who take up work and return to benefit after only a short period of work and to ensure that lone parents who receive the higher premium, such as the disability premium, but have an underlying entitlement to the lone parent premium, receive the same protection as other existing recipients.
The measure we are debating today is not the regulations associated with family premium and not, with this amendment, the linking rule, although we shall return to that. This measure will align the rate of child benefit because that is required to be changed through primary legislation while other aspects of child support can be dealt with through regulations. It is our intention that this measure should come into force in June 1998, at the same time as improvements to the childcare disregard. Again, it will apply to new claims only, with existing recipients continuing to receive the higher rate.
However, this Government recognise that all families have extra costs as a result of caring for their children. That is why we are committed to retaining and uprating

511
universal child benefit which is paid to all families irrespective of income. That is why we announced a £2.50 increase in the standard rate of child benefit for the first child. That was announced in the Budget on 17th March and will be implemented from April 1999. We will introduce an increase of £2.50 a week in the rate of family premium for income-related benefits such as income support, income-based job seeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit at the same time. We shall do it in that way because, as the Committee knows, child benefit is not paid separately to families in receipt of an income-related benefit; it is subsumed within their benefit. Therefore, to offset or to "equivalise", if I may use that word, the child benefit gain for those families in work who receive child benefit, we are making a parallel move on family premium for those families on income-related benefits to the same extent of £2.50 a week. So families not in work and families in work will be treated in similar ways. Existing lone parents will not receive this increase because they will already be receiving the higher lone-parent rates of child benefit and family premia, but all other families and all new lone parents will receive these new rates.
In addition, we are introducing extra help for families with very young children. The child allowance in all the income-related benefits will be increased by £2.50 a week; in other words, there will be an extra £2.50 per week per child for those under the age of 11 for all families who are on income support or other income-related benefits. Again, that was announced in the Budget and will be implemented from November of this year.
All families in receipt of these benefits with children under the age of 11—not just children under five—will receive this higher allowance, including all existing lone parents, even though they will retain entitlement to the existing higher lone-parent premia. We will follow up these measures by introducing more help for families in work, as has been mentioned, through the working families tax credit and the childcare tax regard in October 1999. So there is an increase in the rate of the family premium for families who are on income-related benefits, an increase in the rate of child benefit for those families who are in work and not on an income-related benefit, an increase of £2.50 per child for those families on income-related benefits whose children are under 11, and additional help through the working families tax credit and the childcare tax credit in October 1999.
I believe that I am right in saying that something like four separate measures will come together and produce, in our view, real help to all families, whether they consist of single parents or two parents and whether they are fractured or intact. They will be concentrated, focused and targeted on the needs of the children, especially those under the age of 11. I trust that the Committee will accept that these four measures together meet the two principles that I outlined at the beginning of my remarks. They align the benefit rate for families with children for all family types but they will also ensure that the financial needs of families, especially those with younger children, are recognised through the benefit system.
512
However, those measures do not mean that the tax and benefit system will not take account of the specific difficulties and extra costs that some families face. We are focusing resources specifically on meeting those costs rather than giving higher fixed rates to particular families. Perhaps I may identify them. Our childcare tax credit will provide extra help for all working families who need help with childcare costs. Lone parents will be the main beneficiaries of that tax credit and will receive more help with childcare costs—which is the main obstacle to their being able to spring out of the poverty trap and move into work—than has previously been the case.
But some two-parent families may also need help with childcare. It is right that the childcare tax credit should also help those families. The improvements to the childcare disregard that we will be introducing in the interim will also be open to all families. We believe it is right to give extra help to families who are unable to work or whose opportunity to maximise income from work is limited by parental responsibility. That is why we are introducing those two measures to improve the incomes of those families. I repeat: we are increasing the family premium in income-related benefits by £2.50 a week for all workless couples and we will increase the child personal allowance for the under 11 year-olds by a further £2.50 a week. This means that a family with two young children will be better of by £7.50 a week. I hope that the Committee will agree that that is consistent with our strategy to help all vulnerable families receive an adequate income when out of work.
The third element of our strategy is to help those people move into work. We are already breaking down the barriers between lone parents and work by way of the New Deal and our national childcare strategy; indeed, our working families tax credit will guarantee every working family, including lone-parent working families, an income from full-time work of at least £180 a week. We have also put in place measures to ensure that all four year-olds have an early education placement at the start of the school year.
The Government inherited measures to remove differential benefit levels for the children of lone parents and the children of two-parent families. We believe it is right that benefit rates should be aligned. We have introduced legislation to implement that measure. However, that would have meant, if I can use the cliché, "levelling down" lone parents to where jobless couples find themselves. We have taken the obverse approach: we have sought to increase benefits by targeting them on children and children in need for all families—both lone parents and two-couple families—which is effectively a levelling up of couples to where lone parents, in very broad terms, though not exactly, currently find themselves. That is why we are introducing this package of measures and doing so as early as possible. We believe that it is right to target specific help. That is why we are meeting the needs for childcare through our national childcare strategy and why we are helping lone parents into work.
I hope that the Committee will agree that, with these four measures—the increase in the family premia for all couples; the increase in child benefit for couples in

513
work; the increase in the income support rates for couples and lone-parent families who are receiving income support for children under 11; and the proposed improvements through the childcare disregard and the working families tax credit—we have a far-reaching strategy for families. I believe that those measures represent key milestones in implementing the strategy. Where extra help is needed, we have sought, through the Budget and through the changes being announced today under the New Deal and so on, to deliver it. I trust that the Committee will agree that we have in place a broad-brush set of proposals which will help all families, whether lone parent or couples, equitably. On the one hand, we will be increasing the help to those who have young children under the age of 11, and, on the other, we will be helping those who can move into work to do so through childcare credit. We believe that that is the right way forward. Those who cannot work because of parental responsibilities will be given additional help; but, where they are in a position to seek work, we will help them to do that, too, by removing the major obstacle in their way; namely, childcare costs.
Finally, we have the linking rule which I mentioned earlier. Therefore, with all those measures in place, I hope that noble Lords will agree that we genuinely have a new deal for all lone parents, as well as workless couples, as they enter the next few years.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps she would be kind enough to comment on the following information. Because the working families tax credit does not begin until October 1999, I understand that some lone parents will be worse off. Indeed, the Child Poverty Action Group estimates that 60,000 lone parents will be worse off to the extent of £2 per week because the working families tax credit does not kick-in until October 1999. Can my noble friend comment on that information?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As I understand it, lone parents with children under the age of 11 who will lose the child benefit from June 1998 will, nonetheless, gain in April 1999 by the sum of £1.85. However, those with older children—the group to which I believe my noble friend was particularly referring—will not have the same recompense as we had hoped. I shall be glad to write to my noble friend with the specific details.
Lord Higgins: To anyone who had not followed the history of these events the Minister's remarks would seem eminently plausible. The noble Baroness began by saying that the Government's policy was to align the benefits of lone parents with those of two-parent families. But that is what the previous government were proposing to do. It is also what Mr. Blair promised he would not do before the election. It is also what the Secretary of State for Social Security said she would not do. The Minister who has just spoken described that measure as vindictive, punitive and utterly wrong. Her present position is a total reversal of the Government's previous policy.
514
We can return later to a number of the points the noble Baroness made. I refer to the linking problem which I described in previous debates as the "in, out" problem; that is, the problem of the lone parent who takes up work, then loses the job and finds himself or herself on the lower rate of lone parent benefit rather than the higher rate. My Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 address that point. However, we are not clear about the amendment moved by the noble Earl. The Budget has increased the level of benefit for this group, whether they comprise single parents or two parent families. However, it appears that, as a result of the way this measure has been handled, lone parents will eventually be no worse off, generally speaking,—with the exception of certain specific groups, for example lone parents with children under 11—but in the meantime they will be worse off because their lone parent benefits will be cut before the measure in the Budget is put in place. Therefore there will be a hiccup, if I may so describe it. As I understand the position, the noble Earl's amendment seeks to rectify that point. With great respect I do not think the Minister has addressed the matter.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I believe the noble Lord referred to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and myself in this regard. I believe he said I had described the proposal as utterly vindictive and wrong. If the measure was being proposed today by the noble Lord on behalf of his party in government my response would be the same as it was before the election. At that time the proposal from the then government was vindictive and wrong. It was nothing other than a cutting strategy to reduce lone parents' benefits to the levels of benefit of workless couples. Had the noble Lord proposed that today, my response would have been the same. However, we are not proposing that. It is a bit rich of the noble Lord to accuse me of hypocrisy when I have made it clear that the changes we now propose will produce what the noble Lord's party did not propose; namely, additional child benefit of £2.50 for the first child, a childcare strategy and a linking rule. Had the noble Lord's party offered those three measures before the election, he would have gained the support of my party. However he did not propose that, and therefore he did not gain our support.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My noble friend speaks so eloquently and so persuasively. However, the Committee has a question. I hope I have explained that there will be a hiatus as a result of the earlier cuts that were imposed and the fact that the working families' tax credit will not be introduced until 1999. In the meantime lone parents suffer a cut in benefit. Can my noble friend disprove that? If she can, I shall be delighted. If she cannot, will she accept the simple proposition that by deferring the cut until October next year she will solve the problem?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My noble friend is correct. These proposed changes were introduced in the

515
Budget and will therefore take time to be introduced. We cannot get the working families tax credit up and running until 1999, as my noble friend said. That is the situation we are in.
Lord Higgins: I do not wish to pursue at length the point I made earlier. I merely state that what the noble Baroness objected to when in opposition was the principle of equalising payments as between lone parents and two parent families. She has no idea what we might have introduced in the Budget had there been a new Conservative government. Be that as it may. The noble Baroness has still not addressed the crucial point of the noble Earl's amendment; namely, to remove what the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has just described as a hiatus. It seems to me that it should not be impossible to deal with that matter by means of an amendment of the kind that the noble Earl suggested.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I addressed that point in reply to my noble friend. Many of the changes we propose are dependent on the Budget and cannot be put into effect as quickly as we would wish. What we objected to when in opposition was that the then government's measure represented simply a cut. His party believed that lone parents were increasing in number because of a financial incentive and that therefore the best way to cut the number of lone parents was to reduce their benefit. We have approached the matter from an entirely different direction. We wish to tackle family poverty and family need, whatever the family structure. Therefore we seek to ensure that all families, whether they comprise lone parent families or two parent families, will enjoy the extra advantages of higher child benefit—the highest increase in child benefit since 1978 and the administration of my noble friend Lord Callaghan—a major, far-reaching childcare strategy, and a linking rule that will genuinely offer lone parents a new deal. I hope that my noble friends will accept that.
Earl Russell: I think we have taken the matter about as far as we usefully can today. I set out to make an uncontroversial speech. It seems that I have succeeded because in her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, the Minister did not deny my crucial point about the gap. We do not agree on a great many things as regards this subject. However, at least I hope that as a result of this amendment we shall agree on what we disagree about. We disagree about the treatment of lone parents who do not, or cannot, work. We shall address that point when we discuss the next group of amendments. We disagree about whether there should be a specific benefit attributable to lone parenthood. We shall address that matter on the clause stand part debate.
I am glad that the Minister referred to the linking rule, which I should have mentioned. I welcome that, but it is not as generous or as beneficial as the 12 month linking rule for disability. I congratulate the Minister on achieving that in the Green Paper. If the two could have been equally generous, my welcome would have been a great deal warmer. As it is, the gap remains. The purpose of this amendment is to bridge that gap. I hope
516
that the Minister may reflect on that aim between now and the next stage of the Bill. I do not require an answer to that now, but in the hope that she may reflect on the matter I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 [Reviews of decisions]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie)moved Amendments Nos. 105B to 105G:
Page 24, line 12, after ("relates") insert—
("(aa) may review such a determination on the ground that the person who applied for the payment to which the determination relates misrepresented, or failed to disclose, any material fact;").
Page 24, line 30, at end insert—
("(5A) In making a determination on a review an appropriate officer or a social fund inspector need not consider—

(a) in the case of a determination on a review under subsection (1)(a) above, any issue that is not raised by the application;

(b) in the case of a determination on a review tinder subsection (1)(aa) above, any issue that is not raised by the material fact;

(c) in the case of a determination on a review under subsection (1)(b) above, any issue that did not cause him to carry out the review").

Page 24, line 31, after ("review") insert ("under subsection (1)(a) or (b) above").
Page 25, line 2, at end insert—
("(6A) In making a determination on a review under subsection (1)(aa) above an appropriate officer or a social fund inspector shall—

(a) act in accordance with any general directions issued by the Secretary of State; and

(b) take account of any general guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

(6B) Any reference in subsection (5A). (6) or (6A) above to a determination on a review under a particular provision of subsection (I) above shall be construed, in relation to a social fund inspector, as a reference to a determination on a further review of a determination which has been reviewed under that provision.").
Page 25, line 7, after ("review") insert ("under subsection (I)(a) or (b) above").
Page 25, line 11. after ("determination") insert ("which has been reviewed under subsection (1)(a) or (b) above").
The noble and learned Lord said: These amendments have already been debated. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 105B to 105G en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 73 [Overpayments out of social fund]:
Lord Hardiemoved Amendments Nos. 105H and 105J:
Page 48, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) This section applies where such a determination as is mentioned in section 71(1) of the Administration Act is made in relation to a social fund payment—

(a) to which section 71 ZA of that Act applies; and

(b) which is made on or after the day on which this section comes into force.").

Page 48, line 28, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 74 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Power to reduce child benefit for lone parents]:
[Amendments Nos. 106 to 109 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
4.00 p.m.
Baroness Maddockmoved Amendment No. 110:
Page 47, line 20, at end insert ("save where the lone parent has one or more dependent children under the age of five").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment stands in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Russell and also my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby who regrets that she cannot be present today. The purpose of the amendment is to mitigate the effects of cutting lone parent child benefit for lone parents who have children under the age of five. I was fortunate enough not to be a lone parent; nor did I have financial worries when I was a mother. However, I vividly remember the time when I had two young children under the age of five, with 22 months between them, and my husband used to be away from home for perhaps a week or two weeks. The constant worry of care and responsibility on one's own was enormous. I was lucky. My children slept; I had a good mother-in-law; and I knew that it was coming to an end at the end of two weeks. But to live with that situation, day in and day out for 365 days of the years must be tough. Those are the kind of people about whom we are talking today.
I strongly believe that the Government are mistaken in their intention to lower one parent child benefit. As has been said by other noble Lords, the Minister has eloquently provided full details of the Budget changes and how they will improve the financial situation for many lone parents. It is a complicated picture. We have, I think, clarified it fairly well today. However, I wish to add another factor to the debate. I have been advised that there are still several groups of people who will lose out. No fewer than five groups will receive no compensation for the loss of the lone parent child benefit as a result of the Budget changes. Thereby they will no longer receive any acknowledgement of the extra costs that lone parents incur when bringing up their children. The five groups include working lone parents with earnings above family credit or the alternative working family tax credit levels; working lone parents who earn too much for income support but who work fewer than 16 hours a week and cannot claim family credit; lone parent students whose income takes them above income support levels; lone parents whose child maintenance income lifts them above income support levels and for whom child benefit may be their most reliable source of income; and lone parents who live on some other source of income—it may be a widow's pension—or who are ineligible for income support or other means tested benefit because of the capital cut-off limit. For all those people the arguments remain the same for the extra costs that are faced by them as lone parents.
The majority of two parent families have two incomes. That is never an option for a one parent family. And lone parents incur relatively higher costs as
518
opposed to two parent families. Heating and lighting costs are exactly the same whether it is a one parent or two parent family. As I believe I illustrated by my own example, at the same time caring on one's own is more difficult than with two caring for a family. One may buy more expensive foods or use more convenience foods. One certainly has less time to shop around for bargains. As I explained from my own point of view, there is no second adult to compensate for any of that.
Lone parents often experience considerable hardship because they are likely to be in receipt of benefits for much longer periods than those in two parent families.
I wish to highlight the plight of lone parents who are students. For a lone parent on benefit, normally child benefit is deducted pound for pound from income support. However, if one is a lone parent student—my noble friend Lord Russell has referred to this—and a student who receives income in the form of a grant and a loan, not benefits, the removal of the lone parent rate of child benefit will mean a net loss of £5.65 per week.
In 1995–96, the Department for Education and Employment commissioned a report about students and their expenditure. It looked in particular at lone parents. It found that lone parent students incur higher childcare costs than other students with children. However, unlike people in low paid work, students receive no additional help specifically earmarked for childcare costs; and the lone parent rate of child benefit is the only non-taxable and non-means tested benefit which recognises the extra needs of lone parent families. Yet the Government are intending to remove this for students.
The report also pointed out—it is something that many of us will acknowledge—that for many lone parents education is a route out of dependence on state benefits and it is undoubtedly a path to secure, well paid work. I believe it is vital that this route is not blocked by a further erosion of the financial support available for lone parent students.
I have other worries. They were touched on by other noble Lords today. It is quite clear that, through a combination of this Bill and the recent Budget proposals, lone parents will find it difficult to understand and claim the amount to which they are entitled. My past experience of sitting on housing benefit and tax benefit review boards leads me to predict fairly accurately that many lone parents may inadvertently get into arrears with their housing benefit and will have other problems in that direction. My worries are further increased as I understand that the Government propose to reduce by 25 per cent. the administration costs of benefits.
I hope that the Government will support the intention of the amendment. It recognises the level of poverty which exists for lone parents and their children. It also recognises the special pressures for lone mothers with very young children. It recognises, too, the extra needs of very young children.
The Government's intention is to encourage lone parents into work. We could argue whether for those with very young children that is a good idea; but that is their stated intention. I believe that cutting lone parent

519
benefit will work as a disincentive. It is the only means tested benefit especially tailored to meet the needs of one parent families at present; and the benefit is deducted pound for pound from income support. It is mainly of benefit to lone parents in employment, so the lone parent rate of child benefit provides one-fifth of the increase in income that is available for lone parents who start work. As such, it is essential to help them overcome the work disincentives which they face. Removing that benefit at the same time as trying to encourage lone parents into work is not consistent.
The amendment recognises that lone parents of very young children should not be subjected to the penalty of withdrawn entitlement to benefit. They often face the highest costs, have the least job flexibility and possibly the lowest earning power. In putting the case for the amendment, I am grateful, as I am sure are other noble Lords, for information supplied by the Child Poverty Action Group, the National Council for One Parent Families and the Children's Society. Those groups support the view that this benefit should not be cut.
I feel that the proposal is a rather mean-spirited move by the Government. It has been estimated that in the first three years the total cost of not reducing the lone parent child benefit would be about £45 million. The total social security budget is £100 billion. But in 1998–99, for 75,000 individual lone parents it will be a cost of £5.65 each week. But the amendment does not refer to all parents. It asks for part of that £45 million because we are considering specifically parents with children under five. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I support the amendment, to which I have put my name, and speak to Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 which are in my name.
I agree with everything that my noble friend said about the amendment. Clause 70 is a peculiarly inappropriate measure for a Government whose ambition is to get lone parents into work. It has blocked the most direct route available for the purpose. It has produced instead a route so roundabout that it is practically going to Birmingham by way of Beachy Head. I speak as one who had to do that journey, and a very laborious process it was.
Amendment No. 114 provides an exemption from the provisions of Clause 70 to a lone parent primarily responsible for a child as a result of the death of the child's other parent or of another person who was primarily responsible for the child's care, or as a result of domestic violence.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, is no longer in his place, but I am sure that noble Lords will remember his moving speech at Second Reading, and I am sure he will forgive me for referring to it. When the noble Lord was six his father went down the pit and did not come back again. The noble Lord said that for a year after that he and his two younger sisters would not let their mother out of their sight. It would have been extremely difficult to get that mother to return to work. The noble Lord's case is exactly the kind of case that the amendment is designed to meet, and there are more of them than one would wish.
520
The other part of that amendment deals with domestic violence. It is, sadly, necessary on many occasions for a woman who has been the victim of domestic violence to keep herself out of sight where her former partner cannot find her. That tends to make actively seeking work difficult. I hope that, if the Minister is making no other concessions, she will take that point seriously.
We have to look beyond the amendment, bearing in mind that Amendment No. 105A is still on the books, and to the right of single parents who do not wish to work. This is for us a question of the basic philosophy of the state. It is not the state's business to tell us how to live. It is the state's business to help us live the way we choose to. We on these Benches will bend over backwards to help single parents who want to work, but equally we will bend over backwards to assert the right of those single parents who wish to work at home caring for their children. Both of these are rights and we are prepared to defend them equally. We see the state as capable of being used as a heavy roller to provide a level playing field but not as a new broom to sweep grass off the pitch. There is a very big distinction between those two functions.
The state cannot judge the sufficiency of the many reasons why people may want to stay at home with their children. Indeed, there is no reason why the state should judge; it is a personal matter and a human right.
Changing the benefit system to "encourage people to go to work" (which are the words used by Mr. Alistair Darling and others) is something that would worry us. The Government should think about the maximum rate of success they could achieve in encouraging single parents into work. I know that the Minister is familiar with the Bradshaw 20 Countries Study. The highest rates for single parents in employment in those 20 countries are Japan 87 per cent., France 82 per cent., Luxembourg 73 per cent. and Sweden 70 per cent. No other country is over 70 per cent. The Government would be optimistic in hoping to get more than 70 per cent. of single parents into work, and in fact it would be quite an achievement. That leaves 30 per cent. of single parents. These people have rights. They may have very good reasons as well. I welcome the many ways of financing the measures in relation to childcare, but to raise the money from the other 30 per cent. who do not want to work is the wrong way to go about it. It is getting the money from those least able to provide it.
Single parents who do not want to work are not, I understand, to be compelled, and I welcome what the Minister has said. It is being "encouraged" that worries me, being starved into submission like a besieged town. The Minister does not like that, but she may have seen yesterday's Observer which records that Ministers are looking at proposals to force more than a million lone parents to attend jobcentre interviews to help them find work. If that is not pressure, I do not know what is. A ministerial source is quoted by the Observer as having said that it does not seem too much to ask lone parents to attend just one interview to discuss whether they want help in finding work or training. That may not appear to the lone parents quite as it may appear to the Minister. If I were to guess the source of that remark, if I were to be playing "I spy", I should be tempted to spy someone

521
beginning with "F". It worries me. I am happy to support the amendment and the wider implications behind it.
Lord Milverton: I support the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, many of us know what it is like for single parents. Nothing should be done to make their task of bringing up, with loving care, children under five and over five more difficult. It must be remembered that many will have poor financial means.
As a priest, and in other ways, I know what it is like. I agree with the principle of the amendment. I may agree with the Liberals. My father was once a Liberal and at one time I asked myself whether I should be a Liberal or a Conservative. As my wife knows, some years ago I voted Liberal at a general election because I was not happy with the Conservative candidate or the Conservative Party at that time.
Baroness Hats of Heigham: Does the noble Lord mean now?
Lord Milverton: That was some years back, not now. The Conservatives would have to do something terrible.
In principle I agree with the amendment because it is very important. I am surprised at the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, because her present position runs contrary to her previous statements. We should be very careful about such a proposal, particularly if it is intended to save money. I hope that the Government will give the amendment great thought and take note of it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I can assure noble Lords that I know, even from my limited experience at this Dispatch Box, that we take serious note of what noble Lords say and review the position after each stage of a Bill. Your Lordships' contributions, even if the Government do not act upon them, are taken seriously. I like to think that the previous administration did the same, but I am not entirely sure about that.
The Government are committed to supporting vulnerable families. We recognise that families can face difficulties for many reasons, a number of which have been highlighted by noble Lords.
Families can be vulnerable because their opportunity to maximise income from work is limited by their parenting responsibilities. Let no one doubt how much this Government, and I am sure the previous government, value parental responsibilities. That applies to many lone parents, but it also applies to many couples with young children. Therefore, the Government do not believe that the best way to help the families is through differential rates of benefit for different family types.
I do not wish to repeat all the changes that we are developing and which I outlined in the previous amendment. I wish to avoid taking up the Committee's time. I merely remind the Committee that the total spending on all those initiatives—the working family tax credits, the child benefit and income related benefits
522
improvement—will result in about an extra £3 billion, equitably, for lone parents, workless couples and couples with children. They target particularly the needs of the most vulnerable. That £3 billion, expected over the next 18 months, is the result of cumulative changes which were announced in the Budget.
Thus we seek to help lone parents, couples and workless families in an even-handed way. While some lone parents may choose not to work immediately because they have young children or have been through the trauma of domestic violence, as a result of our proposals they will, we hope, have the opportunity to take up the option much sooner, when they are ready to do so. That will reduce the time they spend on benefit, thereby reducing the high levels of hardship they experience.
I turn to individual amendments. Amendments Nos. 110 and 113 are concerned with families with young children. I have outlined the measures the Government are implementing to direct extra help to poorer families with young children, not just children under school age but all families with children up to the age of 11. We recognise, as I am sure all noble Lords do, that there is no magic cut-off age when the difficulties of balancing parenting and work responsibilities disappear. They will certainly continue up to the age of 11.
We believe that our proposed measures are a major step forward in reducing the effects of poverty on families with young children. I point out that the amendment would not only help the most vulnerable. Because it only applies to child benefit, it will not provide additional help, as stated in the amendment, to those families on income support. We have done that, not through this amendment but through our increases in the family premia and the child allowances which I have already outlined.
Amendment No. 114 seeks to help people who are caring for a child when the other parent or carer has died and parents who suffer domestic violence. I recognise that such parents will face particular difficulties and I sympathise with the intent of the amendment. I point out, however, that widows with children—one of the examples given—do not normally receive the lone parent rate of child benefit. That is because they are helped in a different way, through the widowed mothers' allowance, which would not be affected by Clause 70.
The Government's strategy is to ensure that all vulnerable families receive an adequate income when out of work, and to address the barriers they face in moving into work. Although we fully appreciate that some lone parents face particularly difficult circumstances, we do not believe that it is right to pay different levels of benefit to lone parents on the basis of how they came to be a lone parent. That is the thrust of the noble Earl's amendment. It would also be virtually impossible to deliver benefits with those added complexities.
However, we think it is right to give extra financial help where it is specifically needed, such as for childcare costs and where there are young children in

523
the family. That is extra help which we know we can deliver and which I am sure has support from all Members of the Committee.
I share the concern about women who have escaped domestic violence and their continuing vulnerability. I have already outlined the extra benefit support that will be available to all vulnerable families. However, the need for support for women in that situation goes far beyond increasing benefit levels, as I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would be the first to agree.
The Government are committed to tackling domestic violence on every front. We recognise how important it is to increase greater awareness of domestic violence and the issues surrounding it among the public and relevant professionals. The Government are currently considering a new interdepartmental publicity campaign on domestic violence. As well as the services and support provided by Women's Aid and the refuge network, with which I know the noble Earl has long and honourable connections, women experiencing domestic violence may seek help from a variety of sources including the police, local refuges, social services and health professionals.
Tackling domestic violence is one of the Secretary of State's priority issues. She will be driving forward an over-arching strategy to combat violence against women. It is a strategy which I am sure will command the support of all the Committee. Again, because the amendment only applies to child benefit, the noble Earl's amendment would not help the most vulnerable families which are on income support.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked about the five groups who will lose. If I have omitted any points, I shall write to the noble Baroness afterwards. All lone parents, including those in the five groups she mentioned will either retain protected rights to the higher rate of child benefit or they will gain from the increases in the standard rate of child benefit we have announced. A total of 60,000 lone parents will lose overall, but 1 million lone parents will gain, but those who gain include those who are most vulnerable.
Perhaps I may give an example of this. One of the five groups the noble Baroness identified as experiencing hardship because they were losers under our proposals were working parents with earnings above the tax credit level. If a working lone parent has earnings above the tax credit level such that she does not even qualify for the family childcare strategy or help, she has to be earning £30,000 a year. I would have thought that was not a group in particular financial hardship.
I hope that I have answered the points made by Members of the Committee. If not, I am sure that they will come back to me.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for her full reply to the points made when I moved Amendment No. 110 and also when replying to the amendments made by my noble friend Lord Russell. Before discussing Amendment No. 110, perhaps I may say that on domestic violence, I know the Minister shares our
524
concern. I hope she will also press for there to be better finances to support refuges for those suffering domestic violence. It is still a problem, trying to find sufficient finance to support enough refuges around the country. I am sure the Minister will agree with me and hope she will push for that.
Perhaps I may thank the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, for his support and for his past support for the Liberal Party. We welcome him at any time.
Lord Milverton: My father was also a member of the Labour Party.
Baroness Maddock: Various people move around the parties but I have been a member of the Liberal Party and the Liberal Democrat Party only.
The Minister talked about the five groups and answered some of the points. The main point is: why should we pick out any group and say, "You will have a cut"? That is what may happen to some people. I realise that some of the groups are not those in the worst situation. We try to recognise that lone parents have more substantial costs than others in bringing up their children. That was part of the reason for moving the amendment.
We on these Benches want the principle of an earmarked benefit that is special to lone parent families to continue. There is no doubt that lone parents, particularly those in work, will stand to lose a substantial amount with the cutting of lone parent rates for child benefit. As I said and others will agree, there is considerable evidence to show that there are higher costs for one parent families than for two parent families.
We oppose the removal of the higher child benefit for lone parents. As we have received some support at this stage, we intend to pursue the matter at a later stage. However, today I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 111:
Page 47, line 20, at end insert ("so however that the rate at which child benefit is paid to a lone parent shall not be lower than the rate at which it is paid in any other case.").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 111 was put down to enable the Minister to put into the record an extremely welcome concession which she made at the preliminary briefing meeting in the Moses Room. So, in optimism, I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The drafting of Clause 70 is clearly causing some concern which we need to lay to rest. I am therefore happy on behalf of the Government to accept Amendment No. 111 in principle. It is not our intention to do anything other than align the rates of child benefit paid to lone parents and couples.
I should like to ask the draftsman to consider the most appropriate form of words to allay the concerns that Clause 70(1)(b) is causing, and I shall come back to the

525
matter on Report. With equal optimism, therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: The Minister's optimism is abundantly justified. She said everything I hoped and rather more. I thank her warmly and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russellmoved Amendment No. 112:
Page 47, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations under this section may not be introduced until there is evidence from a systematic independent study of relative costs, incomes and expenditures of lone parent and two parent families on benefit and in work which conclusively demonstrates that one and two parent families should be treated equally by the tax and benefit system.").
The noble Earl said: I move this amendment with not quite so much optimism. In moving it, I shall speak also to Clause 70 stand part.
Amendment No. 112 is designed to ensure that regulations under Clause 70 should not be introduced,
"until there is evidence from a systematic independent study of relative costs, incomes and expenditures of lone parent and two parent families … which conclusively demonstrates that one and two parent families should be treated equally by the tax and benefit system".
The Minister, as I do, respects research. I hope therefore that she will be prepared to rise to this specific challenge. If not, I have up my sleeve a further amendment that Clause 70 should not stand part. That would take out altogether the attempt to destroy the lone-parent premium in child benefit.
It has already been explained by my noble friend Lady Maddock that stopping the child benefit premium which benefits only those in work is a particularly curious way of encouraging lone parents to go into work. In fact, the long and roundabout scheme which the Government introduced instead to encourage people to go into work by paying money to a much larger number of people is a curious attempt at robbing Peter to pay Paul. As usually happens when we rob Peter to pay Paul, the "fence" ends up getting most of it.
The Government are using an extremely untargeted approach. They are paying money to practically everybody rather than targeting it on the group which is clearly, on a large body of research, in the greatest amount of hardship. In fact, it is an extremely expensive bow to the editor of the Daily Mail.
The key question behind this is whether there should be any specific benefit for single parents. We on these Benches say that there should. We are in this House, among the Front-Benches, alone in saying so. We are not ashamed of that. But if we put it in a slightly wider context than just the parties in this country and this Parliament, the picture comes out rather different. If we put it in the context of centuries, we are far from alone.
The principle that there should be separate payment for lone parents can be traced through other centuries about as far back as one can go. I found it in the Book of Exodus and even in Tudor and Stuart England, when
526
the treatment of single parents was about as harsh as it has ever been. Single parenthood at that time was initiated by whipping them until their backs were bloody—the ideal treatment for post-natal depression. Even then there was a separate element of payment specifically for being a single parent.
We can look at the matter in a geographical rather than a chronological context. If we look again at the Bradshaw 20-country study, there is a separate element of benefit for being a single parent—benefit under the benefit or tax system—in Denmark, Finland and Norway. Before noble Lords say, "Just the Scandinavians again", it occurs also in France, Australia, Japan and the USA. That raises a question as to who is in the minority. It suggests that the case that we from these Benches are arguing is a great deal less lonely than it appears in the rather parochial context of the adversarial politics of the Front Benches of this Chamber.
The reasons why there might be separate costs for being a single parent were extremely well outlined by my noble friend Lady Maddock: the cost of heating, because there are the same number of rooms whether there is a single or a double bed in the bedroom; the cost of housing; the cost of time. The National Consumer Council study of the cost of food shows that it may be up to 20 per cent. higher if one cannot travel around and go to the supermarket where goods are cheaper. Single parents incur more paid childcare when there is not another person to share the childcare with. And, as I remember the few days while our second child was being born and I was caring for the first on my own, they incur perpetual travel, in my case between central London, Wimbledon and St. Thomas' Hospital; and perpetual travel comes rather expensive.
I am well aware that that is all disputed and the Minister, I am sure, will dispute it at great length. It seems worth checking whether it is in fact so by looking at the spending measures of poverty; looking at which people are short of which things. The Rowntree study, Small Fortunes, by Sue Middleton and others (I know perfectly well the Minister is familiar with it) tackled the problem of poverty by taking a series of indicators of things which parents were generally agreed children need. They classified those who were short of three indicators as poor and those who were short of five as severely poor.
Though not particularly fancy indicators, the ones that do not involve food are things like one warm coat and one waterproof pair of shoes. I do not think there can be much argument as to whether they are necessary. The study found that single parents who were not working were 7.5 times more likely to count as poor than couples who were also not working. There is therefore a cost attached to singleness. It found that all the children without all three of the food items were children of single parents; that 25 per cent. of children of single parents not working and 8 per cent. of children of couples who were not working were short of one food item. Even where there is a common employment status therefore the children of the single parent were three times as likely to be going short of meals.

527
Work did not turn out to be a panacea. One-third of single parents in full-time work were lacking one of the three items; 24 per cent. of the children of parents in part-time work were lacking one food item. Those are the figures for the children. The situation for the mothers is far worse. It is commonly agreed in such situations that the mothers regularly go short of food in order to make sure that the children have enough. Malnutrition is extremely expensive.
I could multiply those indicators; in fact I could go on multiplying them for a long time. But the pattern is consistent. If single parents are not worse off than couple parents on the same income, I should like to know how the Minister explains those findings. I beg to move.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: The noble Earl says that he and my noble friend the Minister respect research. Nobody in his right mind would dispute that proposition. I notice that the noble Earl quoted research in support of his case and it is possible that my noble friend will quote research in support of a different case. However, regardless of conflicting research, I have no doubt whatever that the extra costs follow one-parent families. Academics and Ministers can say anything, but it is nonsense to suggest that a single-parent family does not bear heavier costs than a two-parent family.
I am from a one-parent family because my father died when I was five. I watched my mother bring up three children in the grim 1920s and 1930s. I have taken a special interest in this subject and I have seen single parent families suffering. It does not matter what the century is or the time is—the noble Earl referred back to the Book of Exodus—single parent families really suffer.
I do not propose to add to the many examples quoted by the noble Earl and by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, who spoke to a previous amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, except to offer two additional points. The first concerns the lack of mobility of single parent families. Because the children are there they cannot shop around. That is a real problem. The second point is this: you can bet your life that unscrupulous shopkeepers will tend to palm off the bad food behind the display to the vulnerable, harassed single parent, who is usually a woman. That adds to the costs of the single parent family.
We all hope that welfare-to-work will be successful and that lone parents will benefit if they want to work. However, if it is not successful, if the jobs are not found, and if the tax credit benefits do not flow, one parent families will need every penny they can get.
I conclude by saying that the case of the Social Security Advisory Committee is that the argument for one parent families being no worse off than two parent families is "not proven." It suggests that the Government should not proceed until the evidence is absolutely clear, forthcoming and concrete. It puts that reasonable proposition which I hope will be taken on board by the Government. I should like an assurance from my noble friend that the Government will ensure that this research does take place.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Higgins: The Question whether Clause 70 shall stand part of the Bill has been grouped appropriately with this amendment. Therefore, I should like to say a few words about it, although there are subsequent amendments in my name to the clause which appear between the debate on it and when it will actually be voted on, if indeed there is a Division.
The noble Earl and the Liberal Democrats have been entirely consistent in the attitude they have taken with regard to lone parents; namely, that there is a case for their having a differential set of benefits to account for the fact that they are lone parents rather than parents in a two parent family. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, who spoke a moment or two ago, has equally been consistent. And so have we on these Benches. We took the view in government that there ought not to be differentials. The party which has not taken a consistent view on the subject is the party opposite. Instead of arguing, as it did in opposition, that there should be a differential for lone parents, it is arguing now that there should be no such differential.
Will the noble Baroness make it absolutely clear whether there are any groups which she feels deserve preferential treatment, or is it her view now that there is no reason why lone parents should have preferential treatment in any circumstances? Perhaps she will be kind enough to indicate whether that is so.
In our earlier exchanges the noble Baroness sought to justify the Government's position, and the change in her own position, by arguing that there have been measures in the Budget and that the whole thing should he taken as a package. At the risk of being rather partisan, it is perhaps not irrelevant to point out that the change and the arrival of the package happened after the rebellion in the other place. While it is true that this means that lone parents as such, subject to the debate we had earlier about the fall in benefits before they are restored, will not permanently lose, nonetheless they no longer have the differential advantages—I stress the words "differential advantages"—which they previously enjoyed. My understanding is that despite the Budget some 60,000 lone parents will still lose an average of £2 a week and will not benefit sufficiently from the Budget for that to be offset.
Having said all that, I believe that the attitude we previously took in government was right and therefore I do not oppose the view which the Government have now taken. I listened with interest to the points made by the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, about the need for further research. If, indeed, that produces some new evidence, no doubt all of your Lordships will wish to consider it carefully.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As we have said several times today, the Government are committed to supporting families. Perhaps I may come straight to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. He asked whether, under any circumstances, the Government would think it right to give preference to lone parents, because of their status as lone parents, or other families.

529
I suspect he may think that this is an oblique answer but our concern is not actually with the family structure. We are concerned with the poverty that follows, particularly for children, in vulnerable family structures.
This tends to be associated with fractured families. It could be other families which, though nominally intact, have violence or in which there is disability. There may be all kinds of stresses on the family. Our concern is to deal with those stresses and those problems, including poverty, rather than the actual family structures. That is why, with lone parents, we are seeking to address a three-fold strategy: the benefit changes that we have been talking about today; the welfare-to-work proposals of the New Deal together with the child support proposals; and, of course, over the next few months, reform of the Child Support Agency so that maintenance begins properly to flow.
We believe that support for families should be based on the needs of the children, not on the nature of the family structure. We do not believe that the current structure which pays a higher fixed rate to all lone parent families and to no two parent families is the best way of addressing the extra costs particular families may face.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, when referring to a previous amendment, talked about the extra costs of lone parents. Perhaps I may speak for a moment about costs and then go on to talk about research. It is obvious, as has been said, that lone parents share with couples similar, possibly identical, costs for housing, heating, lighting, cleaning and furniture. It is also the case that lone parents face higher costs than two parent families or couple families—above all, opportunity costs, of which the primary one is child care. I think we all accept that. From my own experience I should have thought that there are lower costs in lone parent families compared with couple families because, for example, a lone parent and a child must spend less on food than two adults and a child, particularly if the second adult is a man. They must also spend less on clothing. They also probably spend less on transport and probably less on such things as drink, cigarettes and so on. So, in terms of costs, I think the jury is genuinely out. Lone parents do have higher costs in some areas; they have identical costs in others; and they must as a family unit spend less absolutely, though not necessarily less relatively, than couple families on such items as food, clothing and so on. That has to be true.
When one adds the point which the noble Earl has made to me on many occasions—he is absolutely right—that there is, in addition, the allocation of money within the household, so even within a workless couple household a greater amount of residual money will go to him rather than to her, reflecting, if you like, the power politics within that household, it is clear that the lone parent is often better off without that partner.
That point has been expressed by other noble Lords on previous occasions. It was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in a question the other day asking why lone parents chose not to re-partner with a workless man. If couples were better off than
530
lone parents, following the logic of that argument, lone parents would be financially wise to re-partner. The fact that they choose not to do so may well be recognition of the fact that they are better off financially without having a workless man in the household. The response to that is not that they should not have a partner in their lives, but wherever possible we should do what we can to encourage him and her, when the children are old enough, to have the choice of work. I am sure that the noble Lord will take that point.
I come now to the research itself. The noble Lord is right: I am very interested in the research. It is very important. The research comes with different baggages of assumptions as they address the problems. There are real difficulties separating what counts as need from what counts as preference. It may relate to cigarettes where we know that proportionately poorer families spend more. That is not a judgment. Far be it from me to judge the noble Earl's private tastes, preferences or habits in that direction.
I suspect that if the noble Earl and I were to carry out a study into what lone parents need we would come up with different assumptions as to whether they did or did not need cigarettes in their expenditure. Therefore, the research would reflect that. There are very different significances in the conclusions reached. Given all the difficulties surrounding such studies, there is research which supports the retention of the premium for lone parents. The work of Middleton, Ashworth and Braithwaite in Small Fortunes, which the noble Earl quoted, concluded that lone parent families are more deprived than couple families. Other research points in the opposite direction. Work by Oldfield and Yu in The Cost of a Child [1993] and by Bradshaw in Household Budgets and Living Standards found that lone parent families were relatively less disadvantaged on income support than couple families.
Research by Dickens et al in 1996 in The Costs of Children and the Welfare State shows that lone parents are under-compensated by the benefit system in relation to some family types and over-compensated in relation to others. What is clear, without in any way impugning research, is that in this area one will find the research answer which is consistent with assumptions which are brought to bear on the research. Having read at least half-a-dozen research reports, all written in the past seven or eight years on this subject, I do not believe, unlike my noble friend Lord Ashley, that further research will give an unambiguous answer and certainly not the clear and concrete answer that my noble friend asks for. As I say, there have been seven or eight highly esteemed pieces of research. But, because they come with different assumptions and seek to test the relativity of lone parent incomes against other family households within the benefit system, they come up with very different answers. They come up with what they first started with.
However, the Government recognise that all families have extra costs as a result of caring for their children. That is why we are committed to retaining child benefit as a universal benefit and why we have announced a £2.50 increase in the standard rate of child benefit for the first child. We also recognise that some families

531
have specific extra costs. Lone parents in particular, but also some couples, where both may be students, often have to pay for childcare. We could never meet the costs of childcare, which can easily be £100 a week or more, through a higher rate of child benefit for all lone parents. Instead we are introducing the childcare tax credit which will focus help on those families who have additional costs associated with childcare, thus relating it to specific needs. Lone parents will be the main beneficiaries of that childcare tax credit. Some two parent families will also need help with the cost of childcare. In my view the childcare tax credit will help those families as well. Like the noble Earl, I share concerns about lone parents who are unable to work. But again we need to consider what help is appropriate to all families and what specific help is required to address those particular difficulties facing the family.
Earlier this evening we outlined two measures; namely, the increase in the family premium for those on income-related benefits and the increase in the child personal allowance for the under-11s by a further £2.50 a week. Together those increases mean that a family with two young children will be better off by £7.50 a week.
Lone parents experience high levels of hardship. That is because they find it harder to obtain work and therefore spend longer periods of time on benefit than other groups. Only one workless couple in eight tends to be on an income-related benefit after five years; for loan parent families it is one in three. It is the longevity of time spent on benefit and therefore the difficulty of replacing carpets, the cooker, clothes, bedding and blankets, rather than the relativity of the benefit income to lone parents and other family types, that is the issue to be addressed as well as trying to help lone parents back into work. That is why, as part of the changes to budgeting loans in the Social Fund—this was discussed earlier at Committee stage—we have included the length of time on income support and family size as two of the personal circumstances which we use to determine budgeting loan applications. The longer the lone parent has been on benefit and the greater the hardship she is likely to experience as a result, the better and speedier the access she will have to budgeting loans. Indeed, because lone parents already face a longer period on benefit they already receive over half of the annual budgeting loan expenditure of £140 million.
I hope that I have met the questions raised by the Committee. We shall be treating both lone parents and two parent families in the same way when they face long periods on benefit. We believe that they should be treated equitably. We seek to ensure that all vulnerable families receive an adequate income when out of work; we seek to address the barriers they face when moving into work. We are breaking down those barriers for lone parents and workless couples alike through our new deal for lone parents, our national childcare strategy and our working families tax credit. We shall guarantee an income to every working family of at least £180 a week.
As Members of the Committee will know, we have also put in place measures to ensure that all four year-olds have an early education playschool start at the beginning of the school year. These measures will
532
provide lone parents with the opportunities they have asked for to work—opportunities not previously open to them. If lone parents choose not to work in the short term—perhaps because they have very young children—we have sought to meet that need by increasing the income support premia. We hope that we shall be able to reduce the time they spend on benefit but to give them while they are on it priority access to a budgeting loan.
Research is inconclusive about the relative needs of lone parents and two parent families. We know that the specific costs that lone parents face are the length of time that they spend on benefit; the difficulties of getting access into work; and the costs of childcare. Our strategy is to address not just the symptoms of their poverty, which is the differential between their benefit and those of a couple, but the causes of it. There is the fact that they have young children which means that they are not free to go to work; there is the obstacle of moving into work and the difficulties that stand in their way as regards the Social Fund. We are addressing those problems. As a result I believe that in years to come lone parents will enjoy a level of prosperity that they have not experienced so far. I hope that this amendment will not be supported and that in due course Clause 70 shall stand part of the Bill.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I challenge my noble friend on one point. The noble Earl and my noble friend said that they respect research, but my noble friend has just spent 10 minutes rubbishing research. She said that one cannot really depend on research because people bring all their own assumptions and presumptions to bear. Their own bias is built in. Anyone can rubbish that kind of research.
In saying that, my noble friend is really saying that research is of no value. That is the clear implication of what she said. Everyone brings their own presumption, assumption, predispositions and bias to bear and so the research is clearly of no value. That is a very big statement for my noble friend to make.
It is always a great pleasure to listen to her. As I have said before, she is one of the most persuasive Members of this House. But we cannot really buy her argument. The request does not come from me but from the Social Security Advisory Committee. It has said that we should try to have independent, quality research about whether the single parent family has more costs or not. In my credulous view, there is no argument: of course they have many more costs despite the persuasive points made by my noble friend.
Perhaps I may take one example. I refer to the research of the effect of smoking on cancer. My noble friend Lady Hollis is surely not going to say—and she must say this logically—that proving that smoking causes cancer is ridiculous because there is bias and prejudice built into the research. That invaluable research has saved many lives throughout the world. I hope that my noble friend will not give a definitive no.

533
She is not a dogmatic person; she is very reasonable, so I hope that she will think about this matter, sleep on it, and possibly answer at a later stage.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I must intervene. Heaven forbid that I should rubbish research. I have spent over 35 years of my life carrying out research and I would hate to think that it had no value, so I am certainly not rubbishing research or saying that it has no value. I am saying that where research points in different directions and continues to do so, we must then ask what assumptions people are bringing to bear on it.
Perhaps I may do something that I do not normally do and emulate—perhaps I should say "copy" because "emulate" might be the wrong word—the noble Earl and give a classic example that I used to cite to my students. There is a long-standing debate about whether the standard of living of working-class people rose or declined during the industrial revolution. It is a classic argument in which one takes students through the cohort of two dozen articles in the English Historical Review and the Economic History Review, and they all come up with different answers. That is because all the arguments start with different assumptions about what constitutes a standard of living.
I choose that example because it is not so far removed from our argument today. One considers the quantitative arguments, the qualitative arguments, the cost of goods, the information you do not know, the information you do know, and the hours people work and then at the end of the exercise one says, "If you judge this as significant, that is the answer", or "If you judge that as significant, this is the answer", but on the whole the jury is out. The jury is out after 30 years of diligent research by many historians. That is what I have found after 30 years of undergraduate teaching.
I am not rubbishing research. Where research on, say, smoking and cancer, is coherent and scholarly, and is consistent with other research, that is the point at which the Government take action. It may be that a single piece of research—the latest research—has additional evidence that was not available to previous researchers, thus causing a hiccup or placing a question mark on our established thinking, whether on BSE or any other matter, in which case one stands back and tries to replicate that research and to gain peer group support. One would then probably commission further research. We know that the contours of research on which one bases action have to be ascertained. Having read all the research, I have to say, in good faith, that the jury is out. Indeed, I suspect that on this matter we will always have a hung jury.
Earl Russell: As one researcher to another, I understand what the Minister is saying about research. In that respect, she is quite right. Her example about the standard of living and the industrial revolution was well chosen. I remember bowling that as a bumper at a candidate at an entrance interview, and the candidate replied, "I can't answer this question. How do you quantify clean air?"—and the candidate was, of course, in straightaway.
534
Where the Minister was very interesting—she did her level best with rather thin material—was in her admission that the jury is out. That is genuinely the smoking gun behind the Government's policy because we have had the sentence; it is being enforced; it is to be executed today. To have the sentence while the jury is still out is rather a curious form of proceeding. I cannot help feeling that it is just a little precipitate.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, spoke with the voice of experience. On this matter, the voice of experience seems to be pretty unanimous. I am inclined—this may be a prejudice, but it is one that I am prepared to defend—to think that, other things being equal, the body of expert and apparently competent research which coincides with the voice of experience is slightly more likely to be right than the body of research which does not.
The Minister made great play of the argument that we want to treat families according to their particular circumstances, not their family structure. I respect the desire not to judge family structures, but our argument from these Benches is that single parenthood is itself a stress. The Minister is clearly right that childcare is the most expensive of those stresses. However, it is not correct to argue that childcare is the only such stress. I should be inclined to argue that transport comes a very close second because the amount of time that one has to spend trying to be in two places at once can be considerable. There is genuinely truth in the proposition that time is money.
I hope that, in the light of what she said about the jury still being out, the Minister will reflect on Amendment No. 112. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 112 without prejudice to what I may do in a moment on the Question of Clause 70 stand part.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 not moved.]
Lord Higginsmoved Amendment No. 115:
Page 47, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) No regulations made under subsection (1) may reduce the rate of child benefit payable to lone parents in receipt of disability benefit; and accordingly such lone parents shall continue to receive child benefit at the higher rate.").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple and straightforward amendment. In an earlier debate, I asked the Minister whether there were any particular circumstances in which her general view that there ought to be no preferential treatment in future for lone parents would apply. I believe that this is such a case.
We have just had an interesting discussion about research. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, would probably agree with me that in economics the assumptions that one makes are often crucial to the results that one ultimately achieves. However, I should not have thought that it would require an enormous amount of research to suggest that those who are both lone parents and disabled are likely to require some form of special treatment. In essence, that is the purpose of the amendment.

535
Clearly, the Government's overall policy of seeking to ensure that, whether by stick or by carrot, lone parents move from welfare to work has much to be said for it but, equally clearly, in the case of lone parents who are disabled, it is much less likely that they will be able to achieve that objective—which is an objective shared by both the Government and many lone parents who are disabled. By definition, they clearly have bigger handicaps.
Last week we had an excellent debate on the disabled, and this amendment partly stems from that. I hope that we shall have a sympathetic response from the Minister. She has already made exceptions for those who are already in receipt of lone parent benefit. Their benefit is to continue at the higher rate, as we shall discuss when we reach the next group of amendments. That being so, should not the Minister perpetuate that in relation also to lone parents who are disabled and in receipt of disability benefit? I beg to move.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: Inevitably, a lone parent with a disability will face additional costs. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to accommodate the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. My noble friend has done more for disabled people than any Member of your Lordships' House. She is not able to articulate what she has done behind the scenes, but it has been a major achievement. I am sure that if she can possibly help, she will do so.
Earl Russell: I should like to express agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has just said about the Minister. I should also like to say that this is a good amendment and that we on these Benches support it for all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
Lord McCarthy: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, a question. He said earlier that he is against government policy for special reasons, but he has not told us exactly what those reasons are. I thought that it was the policy of his party to be against all differentials between single-parent families and two-parent families, but he now wants a single, special exception. I think that it is a sensible exception, but does it represent a change of policy on the part of his party or does it in some way fit with his previous general opposition to all differentials?
5 p.m.
Lord Higgins: The answer is that both factors have a cumulative effect, but it is the disability aspect, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, referred in the debate last week, that makes one question with the Minister whether or not this is an appropriate exception.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: When I first saw the amendment it appeared highly desirable. I sympathise with the sentiments behind it, but I wonder whether it confuses two matters. I believe that there are two issues here: the parent's, and possibly the child's, disability, and the level of child benefit. We believe that the right way to help a family with a disabled person in it, whether the parent or child, is not to have higher rates
536
of child benefit but to help with the costs of disability. That is why a particular exception was made in their case in the first place. That is the push of our strategy, as my noble friend was generous enough to identify. We are providing additional help for people with disabilities in different ways. The Committee will be aware that disability working allowance is paid to people in work who have an illness or disability that places them at a disadvantage in the job market. But all of our research shows that DWA is not as effective as we would like it to be. It does not move into work the number of disabled people that it should, because only about 14,000 take advantage of it.
It is for that reason that my right honourable friend the Chancellor will replace DWA with a far more generous disabled person's tax credit to ensure that disabled people are better off in work. That will provide them with a guaranteed minimum income above and beyond the minimum wage, and it will include improved help with childcare costs through a childcare credit. Therefore, a disabled person who moves into work will, under the new disabled person's tax credit, have a better standard of living than is currently the case if he is on disability working allowance.
My noble friend has forgotten more than I shall ever know in the field of disability. He will be the first to tell the Committee that the Government pay a range of benefits to vulnerable people who are not able to work due to ill health and disability. The disability living allowance is paid irrespective of other income to severely disabled people in order to help them with the extra costs arising as a result of their disabilities. Incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance are available to other people who are unable to work due to ill health or disability. In addition, income-related benefits provide help to disabled people to help meet the extra costs they may face. A lone parent who is disabled will receive a disability premium which is of greater value than the higher family premium paid currently to lone parents; in other words, a family with children and a disabled parent in it will already receive a higher level of income by virtue of that disability.
People who are severely disabled and who live alone are most likely to have extra care costs. They will qualify for a severe disability premium which is of greater value still. Therefore, the benefit needs of disabled people are not about family structure. The benefits system provides help specifically for families and, in parallel, specific help for people with disabilities. This amendment would not provide any help to the most vulnerable families in greatest need. It would affect the rate of child benefit available and, as a result, not affect families on income support whom the Government are helping through the measures to which I have already referred.
I suggest to the Committee and to my noble friend Lord Ashley that the right way to help a family where a parent or child suffers from a disability is to offer financial help to meet that disability. The Government are doing that through the measures I have outlined. We shall continue to explore these matters with the

537
disability organisations in the fora that we have set up. I believe that that is the right way to progress rather than to put an extra premium onto child benefit which will fluctuate up and down according to the health of the parent. It is surely right to uncouple those two assumptions and provide parallel help on both fronts, that with disability and that with children. I hope that in the light of that the Committee will feel able not to proceed with the amendment.
Earl Russell: Before the Minister sits down, does she agree that a single parent with a disability is at a disadvantage when it comes to mobility compared with a parent with an equal disability but also with an able-bodied partner?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Certainly, someone without any support who suffers from a disability and who has either mobility or care needs is at a disadvantage compared with a person who has support. The purpose of DLA in terms of both care needs and mobility is to enable that person to buy that support.
Lord Higgins: I listened carefully to what the Minister said. One needs to study the matter very carefully given the complex inter-relationships between the whole range of different benefits. At times it is not at all clear whether in any particular case a benefit is superseded by a higher benefit of a different category. I should like to study between now and Report Stage what the Minister said and, if need be, return to the matter. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 115A not moved.]
5.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 70 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 38.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ailsa, M.

Courtown, E.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Cranbome, V.

Barnett, L.

David, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Davidson, V.

Biffen, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Blackstone, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Blackwell, L.

Desai, L.

Borrie, L.

Diamond, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Dixon, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Dubs, L.

Burlison, L.

Eatwell, L.

Cadman, L.

Erroll, E.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

538

Gallacher, L.

Nelson, E.

Gilbert, L.

Nicol, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Glenamara, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Orme, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Palmer, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Paul, L.

Grenfell, L.

Peston, L.

Hanworth, V.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hardie, L.

Plumb, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Haskel, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hayman, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Higgins, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hoyle, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Rowallan, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Savile, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Sewel, L.

Shepherd, L.

Islwyn, L.

shore or Stepney, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Simon, V.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Jeger, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Kennet, L

Strange, B.

Leathers, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Lockwood, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Warwick, L

Lovell-Davis, L.

Tenby, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Varley, L.

Manton, L.

Waddington, L.

Mason of Bamsley, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Weatherill, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Milverton, L.

Whitty, L.

Molloy, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Monkswell, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Avebury, L.

Marsh, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Meston, L.

Calverley, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B

Carlisle, E.

Razzall, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rochester, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Goodhart, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Grey, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hamwee, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Hooson, L.

Stockton, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Taveme, L.

Layton, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lester of Heme Hill, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Ludford, B.

Tope, L.

Lyell, L.

Tordoff, L.

Maddock, B. [Teller.]

Williams of Crosby, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 70 agreed to accordingly.
5.14 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 not moved.]
Clause 71 agreed to.
Lord Evans of Parkside Lord Evans of Parkside moved Amendment No. 117A:
After Clause 71, insert the following new clause—
INDUSTRIAL. INJURIES BENEFITS: BACKDATING
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulation provide that a claim in respect of a disease prescribed under section 108 of the Contributions and Benefits Act may he backdated for a period of up to 12 months from the date of the claim, or to the date of disablement (whichever is the later).
(2) Before making regulations under subsection (I) above, the Secretary of State shall invite advice from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council.").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 117B. During Second Reading on 15th January, I was severely critical of Clause 72. I said:>
"I turn now to Clause 72 which deals with the restriction on the back-dating of benefit. I have great difficulty with this clause. To be frank I am rather ashamed of it"".—[Official Report, 15/1/98; col. 1197.]
Until 1st April 1997, claims for most benefits would have been backdated for up to 12 months. There are good reasons for late claims which can be proved. It was a fair, sensible and humane provision. There are many reasons why people find themselves having to make a late claim.
The previous Conservative government reduced that claims period from 12 months to three months. I thought that their attitude and actions were disgraceful and strongly opposed them. The purpose of the change was just to save money. I understand that its purpose was to save about £365 million over a three-year period, but of course those savings would come from some of the most impoverished people in this country—people who often had great difficulty in even understanding the forms that they were being asked to complete.
I expected that the new Labour Government would have conducted a major review of the impact on impoverished people who were affected by the new three-month backdating rule. I thought that they would seek to see how much hardship had been created by that new provision. But it is self-evident that the Government did not have any form of investigation into the impact of the new regulations.
The new backdating regime commenced on 1st April 1997. The new Labour Government were elected on 1st May 1997—some two months later. The original backdating came into force during the course of the general election. No one debated the impact of that new regulation in any great depth.
The Bill received its Second Reading in the other place on 22nd July. We all know that Bills are not produced out of thin air. They have to have a fairly lengthy period of gestation. The more complex a Bill, self-evidently the longer the period of gestation. So it is obvious that there was no inquiry or review of the impact of the new regulations. It was a savage cut from three-months' back-dating to one month, apparently to save a further £58 million.
On Second Reading I referred particularly to workers who have had their health damaged, in many cases critically, by the industrial substances and processes
540
with which they worked. I am critical of any proposition to cut their backdating rights. Amendment No. 117A attempts to deal with that situation.
The main problems with industrial injuries disablement benefit relate to diseases which are often difficult to diagnose, and are generally not even noticed or felt until some time after the condition has started to cause the disablement.
Industrial injuries benefit is a form of compensation which society has recognised should be paid without regard to whether there is a need for money. Most people would recognise the complete fairness of back payments in such cases. That is particularly true in the case of asbestos-related diseases. A mesothelioma tumour does not usually manifest itself until between 20 and 50 years after exposure to asbestos. Many sufferers of asbestosis, including the non-working wives of industrial workers who have contracted the disease from the dust and fibres carried home by their husbands on overalls and boiler suits, have no idea when they were in contact with asbestos. Many individuals have long forgotten the employer who exposed them to the asbestos in the first place. People contract the disease late in life, forgetting what has happened to them.
Perhaps I may cite my own case and the difficulties involved in such situations. My knowledge of the subject is not based on academic studies or cases relating to my work as a Member of Parliament for 23 years, but on my employment in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry on Tyneside. I began when I was 15 years old and continued to work in the industry until I was elected to Parliament in March 1974. During those years, I worked in ships' engine and boiler rooms during building and repairing. Every steam pipe and boiler in those vessels was lagged with asbestos. When we were asked to erect the pipelines and boilers or, even worse, to remove and repair them, we removed the asbestos lagging by hacking if off with an axe, hammer and chisel or a hacksaw. The ships' boiler and engine rooms were covered in asbestos dust and none of us had the faintest idea of the difficulties we were creating for ourselves in later life. No one told us of the dangers involved with asbestos.
When the repairs had been finished by people such as myself, workmen were asked to renew the asbestos lagging. Workmen known as "laggers" mixed the new asbestos cement in the boiler or engine rooms without taking any precautions whatever. Again, the atmosphere was filled with asbestos dust. As we gained more knowledge and watched our colleagues die from asbestos-related diseases, it is hardly surprising that I and people like me often wonder whether we have contracted the disease. People who would have been the same age as me died 10 or 15 years ago from asbestos-related diseases.
Many other industries have crippled their workers. In St. Helens, the town which I had the privilege of representing for many years, was mentioned in the Guardian on Friday, 27th March. It reported that:
"Two men who developed asthma, memory loss and mood swings after working for more than two decades with noxious chemicals at a plant making Cellophane were yesterday celebrating a £75,000 compensation victory. 'I was effectively sniffing glue for 22 years,

541
said James Fallon, aged 65 … Mr. Fallon and Robert Burrows, aged 70, both worked as titters at British Sidac at St. Helens, Merseyside, which closed in 1982. They came into contact with carbon disulphide, toluene, formaldehyde and phosgene … Mr. Fallon, who claims he wore no masks or protective clothing during his employment from 1958 to 1980, was attracted by high pay levels and often worked seven days a week to boost his income. 'The company told us nothing', he said. 'They concentrated on the fire risks because the chemicals were so volatile. The smell was evil and there were times when I was high on a cocktail of different things'."
Interestingly, the solicitor for the company, which has closed, said that the two originally made substantial claims, including compensation for loss of earnings. The insurers decided to offer a modest proportion of the potential claim to avoid an expensive trial. Perhaps I may point out that that factory was surrounded by terraced housing. Therefore, not only were the men and women in the workforce affected by the substances, but so were people living around the plant. One wonders how much damage has been caused to many people in St. Helens and to those living around similar plants in the rest of the country.
Amendment No. 117A could mean a great deal to many workers suffering from crippling diseases. If passed, it will enable the Secretary of State to introduce regulations restoring the one-month backdating rule. The amendment also calls upon the Secretary of State to invite advice from the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council before introducing such regulations. Members of the advisory council are the experts in the field and I am sure that they have the confidence of industrial workers everywhere. Amendment No. 117B writes into the Bill similar safeguards as regards reduced earnings allowance.
Many men, and on occasions women, who have been crippled as a result of prolonged contact with the industrial substances with which they worked without realising what was happening, have been able to continue in some form of employment but at a lower rate of pay. Often they have had to give up the original job which earned them the high wages, probably paid, because of the conditions in which they were working. The benefit made up those lower earnings.
I trust that my noble friend the Minister, who I have pestered about the issue during the past few weeks, will listen sympathetically to what I have said and agree with me. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Parkside, has made an extremely powerful case. We on these Benches were prepared to support the amendments but will now support them with even more emphasis.
I do not usually recommend the Minister's own speeches to her. However, if she reads her speeches on mesothelioma during the course of the recovery of compensation Bill she will find that she put the case as powerfully as did the noble Lord.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The amendment puts on the face of the Bill an exemption to the backdating limit of a maximum of 12 months for industrial injuries disablement benefit claimants who have suffered disablement as the result of a prescribed disease
542
associated with certain employments. I shall ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment because I wish to speak on Clause 72, to which the amendment relates.
Clause 72 provides the powers for us to set out new rules for the backdating of benefits. It puts a responsibility on individuals to claim benefit promptly to ensure that they receive the benefits to which they are entitled. Our intention, as explained on Second Reading in another place, has been to provide automatic backdating for up to one month for non-income related benefits such as retirement pension and to allow one month backdating of income related benefits where there were exceptional circumstances which prevented an individual from claiming on time.
As he so elegantly put it, my noble friend Lord Evans has been pestering me over the past couple of weeks as regards the particular issue of latent and industrial diseases. This Government see the development of a modern service as one of their key objectives for the future of the welfare state. We have published our Green Paper, New Ambitions for our Country—A New Contract for Welfare. In that paper we have set out our principles. A key principle is that we should develop a modern service. By that we mean that the system of delivering modern welfare should be flexible, efficient and easy for people to use.
We have made it clear in the Green Paper that we shall put the claimant at the centre of service delivery. We shall set success measures to achieve that. We are making a start on developing a modern service in this very Bill with our proposals for new arrangements for decision-making and appeals. Those are intended to produce a more streamlined, efficient and responsive service. For example, it means piloting kiosk technology in Cambridge. We are looking at the possibility of electronic access points, internet services and so on in the longer term.
We do not wish to see people miss out on benefits to which they are entitled. Indeed, we are keen to encourage people to claim what they are due. The Benefits Agency wants its claim forms and leaflets to be as clear as possible. It has recently set up a consultation exercise to see whether its material can be improved.
As the other side of the issue of backdating, we know that there are real difficulties about the take-up of benefits. We are committed to taking real practical steps to ensure that people receive the benefits to which they are entitled. Indeed, from today, we are starting a series of pilot projects to identify why pensioners do not always claim the income support to which they are entitled. Those projects, costing about £15 million are based in York, East Renfrewshire, Lambeth, South Staffordshire, Stroud, Preston, Glasgow, Torbay and Torfaen. They will run until the end of this year and we shall then evaluate them. As I say, the other side to backdating and entitlement is take-up. We are seeking to test the best ways of getting income support to those who are currently entitled to it but who do not claim the entitlement and to see how we can improve that in future.
At the same time we are aware that some people are receiving benefits to which they are not entitled. The gateway to the benefit system needs reform. We are a

543
responsible government and we must make the best possible use of taxpayers' money. We must ensure that people take their responsibilities seriously. But our priority is to begin the improvements in the welfare state as we have set out in our Green Paper. Therefore, to that end, we are also conducting major reviews of housing benefit, pensions and, in full consultation with the disability organisations, incapacity benefit.
We want to look at all those issues together. We want to improve service delivery in the active modern service which I have talked about in terms of new information technology. Also, we wish to address the gateways to benefit, including incapacity benefit and income support. Generally, we want to reform the welfare state to produce a modern service. Therefore, at this stage it is not sensible to make changes to the backdating rules in isolation. We prefer to look at all aspects of the problem in the light of the information which we draw from the pilot projects and then take strategic decisions.
There will no doubt be changes to the process of claiming which draw on the outcome of our reviews, the pilots under way, and the experience of the modern service approach. We shall wish to consider how best to deal with changes which may be required in the context of any future legislation. In that regard we have decided to withdraw Clause 72 from the Bill. We shall therefore oppose the Motion that the clause shall stand part of the Bill. In that context I should like to include consideration of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Evans about the difficulties facing those who suffer disablement as a result of a prescribed disease with a long latency period as part of our wider consideration. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parkside: I say a heartfelt thank you to my noble friend. I am absolutely delighted that my honourable and right honourable friends in another place and my noble friend the Minister have given serious consideration to representations I know they have received from many quarters about the impact of Clause 72.
I believe that the signal which has been sent out will demonstrate that this Government are a listening government. They listen and come back with better answers to the question after consultation. I thank the Minister wholeheartedly and, I am sure, on behalf of many hundreds of thousands of people who will have had a burden lifted from them in a whole variety of areas I shall not bother to elucidate now. It is with great pleasure that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 117B to 126 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 72 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: As can be seen from the Marshalled List, I was proposing that this clause should not stand part of the Bill and I am very glad indeed that the Minister is prepared to agree with that proposition.
544
There can be no doubt that the case presented by all the pressure groups concerned—the Law Society, Age Concern, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Child Poverty Action Group and so on—was overwhelming. It seems clear that the measure was entirely Treasury-driven and that the sums involved were such that the Treasury felt that it was something which should be pushed through. I suspect that it reflects very much the relationship between the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The system always breaks down where Secretaries of State are not fighting their corner.
One has only to look at the Question for Written Answer tabled by my noble friend Lord Newton of Braintree to realise that the clause would have had a serious effect on a great many people; indeed, every conceivable group one would have thought the Government would wish to help and, I am very glad to say, they are now prepared to help.
I said on an earlier amendment that a dictum of the late lain Macleod, when securing a concession from the Government, was that you do not shoot Santa Claus. On this occasion, I am not proposing to delay the Committee for a great length of time for that very reason. Having said that, the Government say that they will take back the matter and look at it again. I really do not believe that that is necessary. It seems to me absolutely clear that this case is overwhelming. The number of individual cases cited by outside groups who deal with the problems of the disabled, the bereaved, those suffering industrial injuries and housing problems—I refer in particular to the point made by my noble friend Lord Blackwell who was concerned about the impact on housing benefit—all make an overwhelming case.
Although what the Minister said today is extremely welcome, by the time this Bill reaches its final stages I hope that the Government will make it clear that they have absolutely no intention of going ahead with this measure. The limits are so tight that inevitably people who are entitled to benefit—and who, Parliament has decided, should have benefit—should be able to claim that benefit, even though, for very well understood reasons, it takes them a while to make their claim.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My noble friend the Minister and the Government emerge with great credit regarding this decision. I had a very harsh speech prepared because I was taken aback by the proposition in the Bill. The fact that my noble friend has been able not only to listen but also to respond to comments made is to her great credit. There should be no cheap party political points made in that respect. Indeed, it has come about as a result of consultation and discussion. As I said, both my noble friend and the Government should be thanked most sincerely for taking that decision.
Baroness Ludford: I, too, warmly welcome the announcement by the Minister and have nothing but warm words to say about the decision. I certainly have no intention of making any party political point. Like the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I am grateful to the considerable range of organisations which have

545
provided such expert and comprehensive briefing. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, I have had to undergo a complete change of mind and scrap what was a very angry speech. Members from all parts of the Committee felt that Clause 72 was a measure which went too far and that it really would deprive some of the poorest people. I am absolutely delighted that the Government have recognised that fact. There is no need for me to speak at length because I am absolutely overjoyed.
However, perhaps the Minister could provide me with some clarification. I understood her to say that Clause 72 is being withdrawn entirely and that there is no intention to return with an alternative provision; in other words, the backdating provisions will remain as they are at present. I believe that to be particularly sensible because I understand that the Government's comprehensive spending reviews will be announced in the autumn. One of the points that I had intended to make was that this provision was a false economy because the costs would merely be incurred elsewhere—for example, by local authorities. As I said, I believe that it is entirely sensible for the Government to take such an approach.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I should also like to thank my noble friend the Minister. With some heart searching I attached my name to the list of those wishing to oppose the Question that Clause 72 should stand part of the Bill. My noble friend was well aware of my feelings about the clause because I had made them known to her. I am deeply grateful for the fact that the Government have been prepared to think again on the matter.
Although I fully agree that there ought to be a strategy in place to ensure that people claim their entitlement when it is due, I felt that it was not right to put in place such a clause before the strategy had been developed to ensure that benefits were claimed on time. Nevertheless, I am most grateful for what has been said. I look forward to hearing further from my noble friend the Minister as to the method that the Government have for carrying forward their plans on welfare reform, which I believe are badly needed. However, I hope that we shall not have a clause such as Clause 72 before those plans are in place. Indeed, if that clause had been put into practice, it would have damaged a great many vulnerable people.
Lord Newton of Braintree: When I spoke on Second Reading it was, as some Members of the Committee will recall, my first speech in this Chamber. I indicated then, in what was intended, quite properly, to be a non-controversial speech, that I had a number of reservations about aspects of the Bill regardless of their provenance. The one upon which I made clear I felt most strongly was this backdating clause which, quite frankly, I flatly opposed. Therefore, like others on all sides of the Committee, I am most grateful for what the Minister announced this afternoon.
There has been some reference to a Parliamentary Question that I tabled—indeed, my noble friend Lord Higgins, referred to it—about the breakdown of such
546
savings. I should like to place it firmly on record that the Answer to that Question revealed that, of an estimated £58 million of savings in about a year's time and thereafter, no less than £42 million would come from the elderly, the long-term sick and disabled, carers and lone parents. I do not wish to labour the point further.
While I entirely appreciate that the Minister's speech focused a good deal on reviewing the matter in the light of a variety of other considerations, which is probably what I would have said if I got into the same mess—which, happily, I do not recall doing, but it can happen to any of us in social security matters—I should tell her that I quite understand why there was this camouflage. However, whatever the Minister does about take-up and all the other matters that she mentioned, I very much doubt that she will arrive at a situation in which she can re-introduce a variant of this proposal without similarly hitting those same groups of people on a large scale. I hope that it is indeed camouflage and that the noble Baroness will now stay firmly underneath it.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: I have had many happy moments since I came into this Chamber, but I believe that this ranks as one of the happiest. I should like to add my thanks to those already expressed and also those of millions of disabled people and their carers for this proof that the Government do listen. I hope that I may also add my personal thanks to my noble friend the Minister, who has put such time, effort and commitment into the matter.
Earl Russell: As I was very briefly out of the Chamber at the moment when the announcement was made, I hope that I may, nevertheless, be allowed to join in with the general welcome. Indeed, it seems to me to be a model of this place acting as it should as a revising Chamber. Perhaps I may also be forgiven for making one suggestion. Whatever backdating limits are ultimately arrived at, I presume that there will be some provision for exceptions as has been the case in the past. Will the Minister consider the possibility of allowing exception for "good cause" as used to be done, rather than attempting a total enumeration by regulation? The noble Baroness knows my arguments in that respect, so I will not dwell upon them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall be very brief. I am pleased that Members of the Committee are satisfied that the response to my noble friend's amendment was to withdraw the entire clause, rather than accept the amendment. We believe that the backdating situation is confusing. We also believe that in the longer term it needs to be reviewed and sorted out. We wish to do so within the context of a more streamlined service and the kind of considerations that I have mentioned. Despite what the noble Lord said, it is not camouflage. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, we have two measures simultaneously in progress at present. First, there is the development within the DSS of efforts to produce an active and modern service—for example, our initiatives to use

547
information technology for data matching so that we can achieve the automaticity of benefits; and, secondly, we want to encourage take-up and review gateways. Real and important discussions are taking place in that respect.
The second point made by the noble Baroness, was, again, absolutely right. We are part, perhaps most, of the way through main reviews of major benefit areas. It seems sensible that any review of backdating should take place after the shape and contours of those benefits—especially housing benefits, incapacity benefit, and the rest—have been reviewed. Indeed, if
I may put it this way, it is a second order question and should, therefore, come in second place. We should not anticipate where we may seek to go and what we may need to change.
The issue of backdating remains a real one and one which, I suspect, will have to be addressed by the Government in due course. There is no intention to return to it in this Bill. Therefore, like Members of the Committee, I shall be saying "Not content" when the Question is put.
On Question, clause negatived.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 126A:
Before Clause 75, insert the following new clause—
PILOT SCHEMES
(".—(1) Any regulations to which this subsection applies may be made so as to have effect for a specified period not exceeding 12 months.
(2) Any regulations which, by virtue of subsection (1) above, are to have effect for a limited period are referred to in this section as "a pilot scheme".
(3) A pilot scheme may provide that its provisions are to apply only in relation to—

(a) one or more specified areas or localities;

(b) one or more specified classes of person;

(c) persons selected—

(i) by reference to prescribed criteria; or

(ii) on a sampling basis.

(4) A pilot scheme may make consequential or transitional provision with respect to the cessation of the scheme on the expiry of the specified period.
(5) A pilot scheme ("the previous scheme") may be replaced by a further pilot scheme making the same, or similar, provision (apart from the specified period) to that made by the previous scheme.
(6) In so far as a pilot scheme would, apart from this subsection, have the effect of—

(a) treating as capable of work any person who would not otherwise be so treated; or

(b) reducing the total amount of benefit that would otherwise be payable to any person,

it shall not apply in relation to that person.
(7) Subsection (1) above applies to—

(a) regulations made under section 171D of the Contributions and Benefits Act (incapacity for work: persons treated as incapable of work); and

(b) in so far as they are consequential on or supplementary to any such regulations, regulations made under any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (8) below.

(8) The provisions are—
548

(a)subsection (5)(a) of section 22 of the Contributions and Benefits Act (earnings factors);

(b) section 30C of that Act (incapacity benefit);

(c) sections 68 and 69 of that Act (severe disablement allowance);

(d) subsection (1)(e) of section 124 of that Act (income support) and, so far as relating to income support, subsection (1) of section 135 of that Act (the applicable amount);

(e) Part XIIA of that Act (incapacity for work);

(f) section 61A of the Administration Act and section 31 above (incapacity for work).

(9) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provisions) a pilot scheme shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: The welfare reform Green Paper, published just over a week ago, outlined eight key principles which guide our welfare reform programme. The first of these principles is that the new welfare state should help and encourage people of working age to work where they are capable of doing so. Thus, work is at the centre of our reform programme. For those able to undertake it, paid work is the surest route out of poverty and out of social exclusion.
A key element of our work-focused strategy is to tackle work disincentives. One group faces particular difficulties in a competitive job market, difficulties which include employer prejudice and physical access. I am, of course, talking about those with disabilities or who suffer from long-term illness. What is more, the benefit system often works in such a way that it discourages them from taking up work.
If we are to extend employment opportunities to disabled people we need to reduce the risk associated with taking a job; to reduce financial disincentives to make the move into work; and to offer practical help to those who want to take the first steps towards moving off benefit.
These are not just the views of the Government. We have consulted widely with disabled people and their representatives. Their aspirations are the same as ours. Many disabled people, given the right amount of encouragement and support, have the capacity to work. They have no wish to be consigned to a life of benefit dependency. Those who are capable of work want that option and they want a benefit system which supports them in that aim.
In his ground-breaking Budget earlier this month my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the Government's plans to bring forward a whole range of innovative measures to help people move from welfare into work and to make sure that work pays. This new clause supports that strategy and is one of the first steps towards our vision of a welfare state which extends opportunities to all. The clause deals with the circumstances in which a person is to be treated as capable or incapable of work. It introduces a new regulation-making power to allow for pilot schemes to be set up. These schemes will allow us to test the effect of less restrictive definitions of incapacity in order to improve opportunities for disabled people.
At present if sick or disabled people do even a small amount of work or undertake work trials, they will normally lose entitlement to the incapacity benefits, making it more difficult for them to take the steps they want towards independence. This power will give us the ability to test different measures to determine which are the most effective in helping those sick and disabled people who wish to move towards the world of work to do so.
This is an entirely benevolent power which will enable pilots to extend benefits to those who might otherwise be excluded. It will not, however, allow trials which would have the effect of removing or reducing the benefit of those currently entitled. This important safeguard will ensure that the power can be used only in a beneficial manner.
It is our intention to use this pilot power to test out two work incentive measures from April of next year. The first will allow a disabled person to do a small amount of work and still retain entitlement to the incapacity benefits. We shall seek the views of disabled people as to what that level of benefit disregard will be. Our pilots will show us the effects of the limits we have set. However, it will be a modest figure. As I have said, we shall consult disabled people as regards how best to proceed.
The second pilot will allow for those participating in work trial schemes run by the Employment Service to continue to be treated as incapable of work. They would be able to work for a trial period of up to three weeks without leaving benefit.
These pilots will run alongside two further pilots to be set up under powers in the Employment and Training Act 1973. These will extend the jobmatch payments of £50 a week—which are payable for six months to those undertaking part-time work—and the jobfinder's grant of £200 to those on incapacity benefits. These initiatives—I believe they are important ones—are designed to encourage disabled people to do what work they can, even if that might be very little. They will also allow people to try a small amount of work as a stepping stone back into employment.
It is important to recognise that there is no question of compulsion in any of this. Every disabled person will continue to have a free choice as to whether he or she takes up part-time work or training to determine whether they can return to work without risk. What this clause will do is to ensure that, where a person decides to take advantage of these opportunities, the choice will be risk free. He or she can return to their previous benefit.
This measure is a modest but important part of the overall package of reforms to modernise the welfare state. It will enable us to test the effects of allowing people to undertake training or to try a small amount of work as preparation for a return to the labour market. It will allow us to assess the value of enabling those who will never be able to sustain regular full-time employment nevertheless to participate in the world of work.
Disabled people want the opportunity to work but the benefit system sometimes puts barriers in their way and puts the whole risk of moving into work onto their
550
shoulders. This measure is part of our plans to break down those barriers and to remove those risks. I commend it wholeheartedly to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: After the experience of the previous Sitting of the Committee when the noble Baroness proposed a measure which was said to be entirely benevolent but we discovered it contained all kinds of snags, when she uses that expression I immediately start to read the small print. However, having done so, I note that the proposed new subsection (9) states,
"A statutory instrument … shall not be made unless a draft … has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament".
At least we have a clawback position if there turns out to be something which is less agreeable than was thought to be the case. Having said that, I believe we can accept the noble Baroness's assurance that this amendment is intended to do good rather than to be restrictive.
Earl Russell: It seems that peace has broken out in this Chamber in a big way. This amendment embodies another considerable victory. Both the Minister and I have argued that the all-work test has considerable limits on the grounds—as the Minister outlined—that most people with disabilities are capable of some work but not other work. Pilots will obviously be necessary to test the effect of this measure. The proposed new subsection (6) is particularly important; namely, that the effects of the pilots will be entirely benevolent. I particularly warmly welcome it. I am delighted to see this measure. I add one small note of caution. We do not know exactly what we shall find when we try to discover what work people can do and what they cannot do. For one thing, we do not know how much of that kind of work will be available. If we get a new incapacity test which is genuinely medically sound, I do not think we shall know until we put it into effect whether we shall save money.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I add my congratulations to the Minister. It is quite a change to offer congratulations rather than some of the harsh words that have been exchanged as regards some aspects of the Bill. This is a helpful and progressive measure which will be warmly welcomed by disabled people. It ends the old, rigid demarcation between those who can and those who cannot work. That is extremely valuable because of the continuum of ability to do different kinds of jobs. It breaks that terrible log-jam that has bedevilled disabled people for so long. This may well lead to the provision of a partial incapacity benefit, which has been a requirement of disabled people for many years. My noble friend has shown the value and the benefits of constructive consultation with disabled people. They will be encouraged by the proposition of my noble friend, and also by its potential if the pilots are successful. I have no doubt that they will be successful. I again thank my noble friend for a helpful and constructive suggestion.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am delighted at the warm reception that the amendment has engendered. It

551
is indeed dear to my heart. As my noble friend Lord Ashley said, the current incapacity benefit test is based on the assumption that disabled people are either capable of work or are not capable of work. As was pointed out in the debate on disability last week, disability is a continuum. People's conditions improve or deteriorate; they fluctuate by the week or month. Therefore we want a more tailored and sensitive system of benefit support to disabled people, taking the risk from them of moving into work.
My noble friend mentioned the question of a possible partial capacity benefit. If one puts together the piloting of the jobmatch scheme of £50 a week, which the person takes into work with him, the proposals for the disabled person's working tax credit and the linking rules of 12 months, one begins to see the proposals, changes, flexibilities and support mechanisms in place for disabled people so that they can assess the possibility, as they tell us they want to do, of returning to the mainstream of society through the world of work. I am delighted that the proposals have received the Committee's support. I commend them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 127:
Before Clause 75, insert the following new clause—
SECRETARY OF STATE TO PUBLISH BENEFIT INFORMATION
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall take such steps as appear to him appropriate, including the publication of advertisements and leaflets, for the purpose of informing persons of their possible entitlement to a relevant benefit.
(2) The Secretary of State shall report annually in writing on the steps he has taken under subsection (1) above.
(3) In this section "relevant benefit" has the same meaning as in section 9.").
The noble Earl said: It would be pleasing if we could achieve a hat trick. The amendment deals with the encouragement of take-up. I know that that, too, is a cause dear to the Minister's heart. I have heard her dwell on it many times. Some of the information I have to present, such as the percentage of pensioners who do not take the income support to which they are entitled, is information I have heard the noble Baroness recount many times, including a number of occasions since she came into office.
We wish to encourage take-up of benefits for exactly the same reason that we want to discourage fraud. We want to ensure that money goes to the right people and not to the wrong people. It seems to me that a genuinely even-handed policy will attempt to do both things at once.
The need to encourage take-up is particularly intense for those who are old and who do not always feel that it is worth reading all the paper that comes their way. That may be a valuable conclusion from experience. But every now and then it is one which leads people astray. For example, a citizens advice bureau reports a case of a woman of 84 who visited the bureau to ask about hospital taxi fares and was quite unaware that she could claim income support to supplement her pension. There must be many more such cases.
I know that the Government review benefit leaflets to see what they can do about that. They might manage to do a little more. In so doing they might find that they can do a great deal to encourage good health, and therefore save in one place what they spend in another. However, the essential case for the amendment is that of justice and the efficient working of the system. Any savings that resulted—I believe that there could be some—would be an uncovenanted bonus. I beg to move.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I add my warm support. The Government have a clear responsibility to inform and to ensure awareness among people of the benefits available; otherwise the most vulnerable lose out. What is truly amazing is the lack of awareness of means tested benefits revealed by the citizens advice bureaux in their splendid briefs. It seems there are still people who are oblivious of the disability living allowance, the ICA and housing benefit. The lack of knowledge is quite remarkable. If the Government can help people to understand these matters, it would improve the take-up.
I make a plea to the Minister that special care be taken to ensure that the information is accessible to disabled people such as the blind and the deaf. The blind can often miss out on notices unless the information is in braille. Deaf people can miss out unless the information is clearly visible. Mentally handicapped people can also miss out. If those categories can be borne in mind by my noble friend, it will help many millions of disabled people.
Viscount Mountgarret: Perhaps I may add my support, for the reasons given by the noble Lord. Not only are the deaf and blind important. I have some small experience at home, with a number of elderly people living in almshouses. Before we know to what extent weekly maintenance contributions may be made, it is necessary to establish their income. When one asks them their entitlement to any benefit, they invariably do not know. In the end we find ourselves advising them. Without doubt they would not be able to get to offices which may well have the information in leaflets. The noble Earl suggests that the information should be made available. It is a small request and could easily be achieved to the benefit of those who have difficulty knowing the various rules and regulations. I hope that the Minister will take note of what has been said and consider whether it is possible to incorporate an amendment on these lines in the Bill.
Baroness Pitkeathley: I support the amendment, and speak also to Amendment No. 128. The bottom line is that people do not know the benefits to which they are entitled. The Green Paper on welfare reform, A New Contract for Welfare, recognises that take-up, for example of the disabled living allowance may be as low as 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. I know from experience that even though 375,000 carers claim care allowance, there is still much underclaiming. For example, in the first three months of this year when Carers National Association ran a take-up campaign on invalid care allowance, in the first eight weeks we had over 3,000 inquiries to our CarersLine about the benefit. It is also well documented that 1 million pensioners do not claim the income support to which they

553
are entitled. The Government's moves to encourage take-up of income support, with the projects announced today, are most welcome.
At Second Reading I pointed out that many people take years to realise that they are carers. Most describe themselves as wives, fathers, daughters and sons. The name of the main carers' benefit, invalid care allowance, is also misleading since it appears as though it is intended for the disabled person, not the carer. Since carers' benefits are dependent on those of the disabled person for whom they care, it would be a logical step to include a leaflet about ICA in the DLA and AA claim packs, alerting carers to their possible entitlement.
Carers National Association was delighted to note that in correspondence the Secretary of State for Social Security told a carer in Southwark:
"I believe the inclusion of information on DLA/AA claim packs will significantly increase awareness of ICA and help prompt claims from carers".
Last week I spoke to a carer called John who has been caring for his wife since she suffered a stroke eight years ago. He called our north of England office to ask about invalid care allowance. He had read something in the paper which was part of our campaign. John found that because he was 66 years old he was not eligible to claim ICA. Had someone told him about invalid care allowance when his wife first became ill, or had a form been included in the claim packs, he could have been receiving vital income of around £30 a week and had his basic state pension protected.
I hope that the Minister will remember John and the thousands like him and will acknowledge in her reply that the amendment proves an ideal opportunity for the Government to show their commitment to a continuing programme of improving take-up.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: It seems that peace has broken out. I. too, lend my support to the amendments. I hope that the Minister is able to support them as well.
I am aware that whenever one talks about take-up, one faces two battles. The first concerns statistics. Whatever statistics one quotes about people who do not take up benefits, there are always those who say, "Ah, but there are those who do not claim the benefits simply because the result will be such a minimal change that they feel it is not worth while. They may know about the benefits but they do not claim them." There are others who say that one can never do enough because, however much information one gives, there are those who simply choose not to claim benefits.
I have been active in spreading the word about take-up of benefits over the last 20 years, during which time I have worked happily as a volunteer for the CAB in various capacities. I declare my interest as I am currently president of my local CAB. I would like to bring to the attention of noble Lords some projects which I hope the Minister can say will continue in the foreseeable future.
The amendments refer to the issuing of advertisements and leaflets giving information about benefits. One can be more active than just issuing paper
554
and deforesting the planet, particularly through assistance given to non-governmental organisations, of which the CAB is just one.
One can give assistance by way of direct grants, by seconding personnel and by use of technology. Through making grants one can issue more and more leaflets; one can translate them into more and more languages; one can issue them in Braille and use other means of making them accessible to people with disabilities. All of those measures are welcome. One can have benefits buses travelling the countryside giving information at various points to facilitate easy access for people with mobility problems.
Here I enter a special plea in another guise, as spokesmen on agriculture, that one should never forget the needs of those who live in rural areas, not just those who live in the Highlands and Islands and in Wales, who experience special difficulties. In the rural areas of England, travelling, even if you are able bodied, may be difficult, particularly if you have two or three children in tow under the age of five. Life can be extremely difficult even if you are making every effort to keep yourself well informed.
The DSS and the Benefits Agency have already made great strides and I hope that they will continue to do so. On a visit to the Aberdeen Benefits Agency office two years ago, I was delighted to learn that one member of staff was being seconded to the local citizens advice bureau and vice versa; somebody from the CAB was going to the Benefits Agency. It was the intention that they should break down the barriers of misunderstanding between the two organisations by learning how each other operated, what their objectives were and how better to serve the claimants in the area.
I have seen the work done in the district offices of the Benefits Agency; they act as customer service officers—people who often feel that they are at the end of the line when the Benefits Agency hands out funds within the district. I make a special plea that we should continue the fight, as we did when we were in government, to make sure that the Benefits Agency properly recognises the work that these customer services officers do. I have seen them, for example, in Portsmouth working closely with representatives of local charities to bring information from them to individuals to make sure that they claim the benefits to which they are fully entitled.
There is then the issue of technology. Last week I moved an amendment in regard to computers. I said then, and I say again, that I welcome the use of information technology whenever possible when it is to the benefit of the claimant. I welcome the development of touch screens. Where we are able to work in partnership with the Benefits Agency, local charities and local authority organisations to produce touch screens, we should welcome that opportunity. Some local offices have worked closely with CABs and other organisations to provide basic facilities such as direct fax lines so that they can easily exchange information.

555
I should like to add a caveat. When the Government increasingly refer in the area of social security and other policy areas to increasing use of the Internet on which to post information, will they please bear in mind that there are those in this country who will never have access to the Internet? Even if they have access to a local charity, that charity may not have access to the Internet. Therefore I hope that we do not produce a situation in this country where we have the information rich and the information poor. I made that plea last year in a debate on information technology. That argument will continue to be relevant in future years.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised the issue of fraud. When one encourages take-up, one also faces the problem that some people will not claim because they think that, if they claim, they will be put alongside all those who are targeted as being fraudsters, and they do not wish to be considered in that way. It is a problem that we have all faced. In a debate on 12th November 1996 the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I pointed out that there is a danger for government in stressing how important it is to combat fraud. This Government have continued our battle against fraud. The noble Earl said that combating fraud leads to under-claiming. We should look with equal intensity for people who ought to be receiving benefit and who are not doing so.
I support the amendments. I hope that when the Government continue the fight against fraud they will bear in mind those who need to claim and who should not in any way feel discouraged because they might be associated with those who claim wrongfully.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The aim of Amendments Nos. 127 and 128 is to require action to be taken to inform people of their possible entitlement to benefit. I suspect that this may be one occasion on which I also speak for the noble Earl, Lord Russell, when I say that I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is on our side on the issue of take-up. Her colleagues in a previous incarnation resisted a great many proposals in regard to social security. I am delighted to see a meeting of minds.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: The Minister has been here longer than I, but I have read Hansard and I am aware that my noble friends in the past have always wished to encourage those who are entitled to benefits to claim them. But, as I recognised in my comments, I know the problems of government in encouraging benefit take-up. My noble friends who occupied ministerial office, I am sure, have made the point at the Dispatch Box that the Minister now occupies that one would always wish to encourage benefit take-up where there is entitlement but not in cases of fraud. If the Minister can point in Hansard to where my noble friends have stated that people who are entitled to benefit should not be allowed to claim it, then I would be delighted to read that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It would be an absurdity for a Minister to say that anybody entitled to something was not entitled to it. But it is the case that
556
on a series of occasions when on the Opposition Benches we pressed amendments on take-up in various ways, the government of the day were over-impressed by the difficulties associated with that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, so euphemistically put it. I hope that, on the basis of my response, she, and other Members of the Committee, will agree that this Government are not over-impressed by the difficulties and are taking an active role.
As a result, while I entirely support the sentiment behind the new clauses, I hope to persuade the Committee that, given the action the Government are taking, it is not necessary to include them in the Bill. I hope the Committee will listen to what I shall say about take-up, which was never addressed, even in warm words, let alone practical terms, by the previous administration. Even the noble Baroness will accept the distance that has been travelled by the Government and the department. The Government are already starting work to find out what it is possible to achieve in terms of identifying people entitled to benefit using data-matching techniques. When I moved an amendment to that effect in opposition, it was rejected by your Lordships and the Government.
Our priority in this work is the situation which arose under the previous administration, namely, the fact that 1 million pensioners are not claiming their income support entitlement was ignored. That is possibly the biggest single group experiencing disentitlement—in other words, failure to take up benefits—of any of the client groups. That will not be allowed to continue under the Government. We believe that all pensioners should share fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation. We have a manifesto commitment to examine means of delivering help automatically to the poorest pensioners. We are already delivering on that commitment.
Within a few months of taking office we commissioned research to find out why those pensioners do not claim their entitlement to income support. As I am sure the Committee will agree, it is important to gain an informed view of a problem if one is serious about tackling it. The research will help us to ensure that the help available is targeted efficiently and effectively at those who need it.
But we are doing more than that research project. Starting today, as I said earlier, we are running pilot projects in nine areas of Britain to find the best ways of identifying and getting help to the pensioners who are not taking up their income support entitlement. That work is testing the effectiveness of data-matching between computer systems in practice. We are spending some £15 million on the pilot projects. The noble Baroness made a point about rural areas: two of those projects are in rural areas—Stroud and East Renfrewshire. We are serious about getting help to those pensioners quickly and want to see whether rural areas have additional, more difficult or different problems in comparison with their urban counterparts.
While we are taking immediate direct and new action to help the poorest pensioners get their income support entitlement, we would encourage anyone who thinks they may be entitled to a benefit to make a claim. We have already taken steps to put across that message.

557
For example, one of the first jobs, to my delight, on coming into this post, was when last May and June we informed all MPs, GPs, welfare rights organisations and relevant trade unions of the new, more generous rules governing industrial injuries disablement benefit which will make it easier for coal miners suffering certain diseases to receive the benefit.
We have taken specific measures—again, a new step—to increase awareness of family credit. As part of the New Deal service, lone parents are given advice about in-work benefits which may be available to them. That, of course, includes family credit. The intervention, the New Deal, also ensures higher take-up.
I turn now to Amendment No. 128 in the name of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley. The noble Baroness's concerns arise, I know, from her outstanding achievements on behalf of carers via the Carers National Association. I am sure she would welcome the tributes that the Committee would wish to pay to her organisation and the valuable contribution that carers make. It is especially important that they should be aware of potential benefit entitlement.
Carers may be entitled to invalid care allowance if they are looking after a severely disabled person for a substantial period each week. "Severely disabled" means being in receipt of attendance allowance or disability living allowance care component at the middle or highest rate. They are complex benefits which can take some time to determine, largely because of a need to obtain further evidence. If carers delay making their claim until one of those qualifying benefits is in payment, they may not be able to have it backdated as far as they would wish. The ideal time for them to claim is when the disabled person puts in a claim for one of the benefits I have mentioned. I understand that the noble Baroness seeks to ensure that carers are alerted to the possibility of claiming invalid care allowance at the earliest possible moment. That is absolutely right and I wholeheartedly agree that we must do everything we can to achieve it.
What we cannot do is to make the two benefits run simultaneously, because caring responsibilities may well follow, in terms of rules of entitlement to ICA, several months later than the person moving on to DLA, which triggered that entitlement, would wish. If the Committee wishes, I could enlarge on the point, but I am sure that my noble friend will understand the point very well.
I hope the Committee will be reassured to know that officials are looking at ways of alerting carers in just this way by giving them the information in the relevant claim packs. In addition, as we have just discussed, the Benefits Agency is committed to improving the service by improving information available about benefits, providing better access to help and advice about benefits, and streamlining the claims procedure.
We have already discussed other measures taken by the Benefits Agency to make sure that people have access to clear, helpful information about benefits. The amendments require the Benefits Agency to do something it already has a responsibility to do and is
558
already doing. I do not believe that anything would be gained by enshrining that responsibility in primary legislation.
Amendment No. 127 also seeks to require a formal report to Parliament every year of the steps taken to improve the take-up of benefits. The Department of Social Security already produces an annual publication giving estimated take-up levels for the income-related benefits. I have here the publication, which I am sure many Members of the Committee will recognise and already use. In addition. Ministers have kept and will keep Parliament fully informed of the initiatives taken to promote take-up by the various needy and vulnerable groups being targeted. The Committee would think poorly of me, in view of my concern over the years on the issue and that of many Members of the Committee, if I were not to bring such information to the House at the earliest possible opportunity, as we progress. I hope that in my reply I have met the substance of the noble Earl's amendment and that in the light of those commitments the noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Earl Russell: That is not quite a hat trick, but it took the varnish off the stumps. It is not often that one and the same amendment attracts the support of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, and the noble Viscount. Lord Mountgarret. We also had two expert speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Anelay of St. Johns.
Thinking about the problem, it strikes me that one of the difficulties we face in the last part of the century is information overload, especially when the information is on paper. When I try to get information over to pupils, I find that they may have seen the information on umpteen pieces of paper but they do not have that knowledge when they need it. They have it if they can pick up the information by word of mouth at the moment they need it. That is why the work done by the citizens advice bureaux is of such importance. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, spoke with great expertise on that subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, talked of people who were not aware of the disability living allowance. That reminds me of a neighbour when I was a boy who constantly referred to Marylebone station as the Grand Central station. She was by that time at least two stages out of date.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, with the powerfully argued case of John, reminded me of another incident. A dangerous criminal—and perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive the parallel which is not relevant in that respect—was kept in prison for 18 years until he tried the handle of the door, opened it and walked out. One wants to show that the door is open a little sooner.
I entirely understand that the Minister's heart is in the same place as ours on this. I am not in any way wedded to the wording of the amendment. What she says about data-matching is a serious point. What she says about pensioners and the level of take-up, I take very seriously. But when she says that it will not be allowed to continue, I hope she would agree that it is a right not to claim benefit if it is done wittingly and with full knowledge.

559
I welcome the pilot schemes warmly. I hope to hear more of them when the results are reported. In that hope, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley Baroness Pitkeathley had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 128:
Before Clause 75, insert the following new clause—
INFORMATION ABOUT ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFITS
(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall take such steps as seem to him appropriate to inform persons of their possible entitlement to a relevant benefit, including distributing leaflets to persons claiming benefits on which the entitlement to benefits of other persons is dependent.
(2) In this section "relevant benefit" has the same meaning as in section 9.").
The noble Baroness said: I welcome the Minister's assurances that her officials are looking into the issue of providing carers with information as and when they need it. I am happy, therefore, not to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
Clause 75 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 49, line 20, leave out subsection (3).
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 129 has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 130:
After Clause 75, insert the following new clause—
PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL OF REGULATIONS
(".—(I) Subject to the provisions of this section, a statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provisions) regulations under—

(a) section 13(2), 8 or 70 above; or

(b) paragraph 11 of Schedule 1, paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 or paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to this Act,

shall not he made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(2) A statutory instrument—

(a) which contains (whether alone or with other provisions) regulations made under this Act by the Secretary of State; and

(b) which is not subject to any requirement that a draft of the instrument be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament,

shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(3) A statutory instrument—

(a) which contains (whether alone or with other provisions) regulations made under this Act by the Lord Chancellor; and

(b) which is not subject to any requirement that a draft of the instrument be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament,

shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
560
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 130A:
After Clause 76, insert the following new clause—
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
(". Schedule (Transitory provisions) to this Act (which contains transitory provisions) shall have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 130A, I shall speak also to.
Clause 77 stand part and Amendments Nos. 132A, 150A and 161A.
Clause 77 is already a lengthy clause which deals with transitory provisions. We are making a number of consequential government amendments to the clause which extend those provisions. However, the cumulative effect is to create a very long and unwieldy clause. As a result we propose that Clause 77 should not stand part of the Bill and that all transitory provisions should be included in a new schedule.
The schedule is designed to make several important transitional provisions which will come into force upon Royal Assent. It deals with the following matters: it puts beyond doubt that once a claim is determined the claim ceases to exist. An efficient, modern benefit system must have clarity about the responsibility of both claimants and the department. A claimant cannot establish entitlement to benefit without making a fresh claim if the original claim fails and the decision is not reversed by the Secretary of State or upon appeal.
The schedule ensures that appeal tribunals do not have regard to changes in claimants' circumstances which occur after the date of the decision which is under appeal, where the appeal has been brought after Royal Assent. It gives commissioners the discretion to return cases to the Social Security Appeal Tribunal (or, as appropriate, the Disability Appeal Tribunal or Medical Appeal Tribunal) where each of the principal parties to the appeal agree that the decision appealed against was wrong in law. It ensures that the power to suspend payments in look-alike cases will have immediate effect from Royal Assent until the parallel provision in Clause 22(2)(d) comes into force. It ensures that the power to restrict arrears to the date of the relevant determination includes claimants who applied for a review of the Secretary of State's decision before or after the relevant determination. This amendment was debated on 2nd April as Amendment No. 132 when the provisions in Clause 27 were discussed.
The schedule also ensures that new discretionary social fund review procedures can be operated by social fund officers, prior to the introduction of the new decision-making arrangements under Part I of the Bill, when social fund officers will be replaced by appropriate officers. The new procedures will support the introduction of the budgeting loan scheme and the power to recover social fund overpayments. They will not become operational until Clauses 68, 69 and 73 are commenced through commencement orders.
Amendment No. 150A is a technical amendment. It removes from Schedule 6 the transitory provisions for the new budgeting loan review procedures, as these have now been included in the new schedule before Schedule 6.

561
Amendment No. 161 A to Clause 81 provides for the new schedule of transitory provisions and the new clause on pilot powers to commence on Royal Assent.
The transitional provisions in the new schedule give effect to the policy behind certain provisions in the Bill for the purposes of the current adjudication and appeals system. It will have effect for the period between Royal Assent and the date when the corresponding provisions in Part I of the Bill take effect. The provisions in the schedule will provide clarity about the responsibility of both claimants and the department; they will help to prevent the development of further backlogs in the Independent Tribunal Service; they will have a beneficial effect for the administration of commissioners' appeals; and ensure that the department is able to exercise proper control over the integrity of benefit expenditure.
I commend the amendments and the schedule to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord an entirely pedantic question. Why has the word "transitory" been used in this Bill rather than "transitional", which is more normally used in legislation and is well understood? Indeed, that is how the noble and learned Lord described the provisions in the course of his short speech. A transitional provision can be transitory and vice versa, but not necessarily so.
Lord Hardie: I wondered that myself. I suspect that the parliamentary draftsman favoured "transitory" rather than "transitional". If Members of the Committee prefer the word "transitional" instead of "transitory", I am sure that we will have no difficulty with that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 77 [Transitory provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 77 negatived.
Clauses 78 to 80 agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 132A:
Before Schedule 6, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
Claims no longer subsisting after decisions made
1. In relation to any time before the commencement of section 9(2) of this Act, section 21 of the Administration Act (decision of adjudication officer) shall have effect as if after subsection (6) there were inserted the following subsection—
"(7) Where at any time a claim for a benefit to which section 20 above applies is decided by an adjudication officer or by a social security appeal tribunal on a reference by such an officer—

(a) the claim shall not be regarded as subsisting after that time; and

(b) accordingly, the claimant shall not (without making a further claim) be entitled to the benefit on the basis of circumstances not obtaining at that time."

Appeals to tribunals
2.—(1) In relation to appeals brought after the passing of this Act and any time before the commencement of section 13(7)(b) of this Act, section 22 of the Administration Act (appeal to social security appeal tribunal) shall have effect as if after subsection (7) there were inserted the following subsection—
"(8) In deciding an appeal under this section, a social security appeal tribunal shall not take into account any circumstances not obtaining at the time when the decision appealed against was made."
(2) In relation to such appeals and any such time, section 33 of that Act (appeals following reviews) shall have effect as if after subsection (6) there were inserted the following subsection—
"(7) The tribunal shall not take into account any circumstances not obtaining at the time when the decision appealed against was made."
Appeals to Commissioners
3.—(1) In relation to any time before the commencement of section 15(7) of this Act, section 23 of the Administration Act (appeal from social security appeal tribunal to Commissioner) shall have effect as if—
(a) after subsection (6) there were inserted the following subsection—
"(6A) If each of the principal parties to the appeal expresses the view that the decision appealed against was erroneous in point of law, the Commissioner may set aside the decision and refer the case to a tribunal with directions for its determination.
In this subsection "principal parties" means—

(a) in a case relating to statutory sick pay or statutory maternity pay, the persons mentioned in subsection (2)(a), (b) and (c) above;

(b) in any other case—

(i) the persons mentioned in subsection (3)(a) and (b) above; and

(ii) where applicable, the person mentioned in subsection (3)(d) and such a person as is first mentioned in subsection (4) of that section."; and.

(b) in subsection (8), for the words "subsection (7)(b) above" there were substituted the words "subsection (6A) or (7)(b) above".
(2) In relation to any such time, section 34 of that Act (appeal from social security appeal tribunals or disability appeal tribunals to Commissioners etc.), shall have effect as if, in subsection (4), for the words "(7) to I 0 of section 23" there were substituted the words "(6A) to (10) of section 23".
(3) In relation to any such time, section 48 of that Act (appeal etc. on question of law to Commissioner) shall have effect as if—
(a) after subsection (4) there were inserted the following subsection—
"(4A) If each of the principal parties to the appeal expresses the view that the decision appealed against was erroneous in point of law, the Commissioner may set aside the decision and refer the case to a medical appeal tribunal with directions for its determination.
In this subsection "principal parties" has the persons mentioned in subsection (1)(a), (b) and (d) above."; and.
(b) in subsection (6), for the words "subsection (5) above" there were substituted the words "subsection (4A) or (5) above".
Suspension of benefit in prescribed circumstances
4.—(1) In relation to any time before the commencement of section 22(2)(d) of this Act, section 5(1) of the Administration Act (regulations about claims for and payments of benefits) shall have effect as if after paragraph (n) there were inserted the following paragraph—
"(nn) for suspending payment, in whole or in part, where an appeal is pending against the decision given in a different case by a social security appeal tribunal, a Commissioner or a court, and it appears to the Secretary of State that if the appeal were to he

563
determined in a particular way an issue would arise whether the award in the case itself ought to be revised;".
(2) In relation to any such time, paragraph 10(2) of Schedule Ito the Jobseekers Act (supplementary provisions) shall have effect as if for the words "section 5(1)(n)" there were substituted the words "section 5(1)(n) or (nn)".
Restrictions on entitlement in certain cases of error
5. In relation to any time before the commencement of section 27 above, section 69 of the Administration Act shall have effect as if after subsection (1) there were inserted the following subsection—
"(1A ) Where the review under section 25(2) or 30 above was carried out on an application under section 26(1) or (as the case may be) section 30, it is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (1) above whether the application was made before or after the date of the relevant determination."
Reviews of social find determinations
6. In relation to any time before the commencement of section 38 of this Act, section 66 of the Administration Act (reviews) shall have effect as if—
(a) after paragraph (a) of subsection ( I ) there were inserted the following paragraph—
"(aa) may review such a determination on the ground that the person who applied for the payment to which the determination relates misrepresented, or failed to disclose, any material fact; and";
(b) after subsection (5) there were inserted the following subsection—
"(5A) In making a determination on a review an appropriate officer or a social fund inspector need not consider—

(a) in the case of a determination on a review under subsection (1)(a) above, any issue that is not raised by the application;

(b) in the case of a determination on a review under subsection (1)(aa) above, any issue that is not raised by the material fact;

(c) in the case of a determination on a review under subsection (1)(b) above, any issue that did not cause him to carry out the review.";

(c) for subsection (6) there were substituted the following subsection—

"(6) In determining a question on a review under subsection (1)(a) or (b) above a social fund officer or social fund inspector shall, subject to subsection (7) below, have regard to whichever of the following are applicable, namely—

(a) all the circumstances of the case and, in particular, the criteria specified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (1) of section 140 of the Contributions and Benefits Act;

(b) the criteria mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1A) of that section; and

(c) the criterion specified in directions issued by the Secretary of State under that subsection and the criteria mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection.";

(d) in subsection (7) of that section, after the word "review" there were inserted the words "under subsection (1)(a) or (b) above";

(e) after that subsection there were inserted the following subsections—

"(7A) In making a determination on a review under subsection (1)(aa) above an appropriate officer or a social fund inspector shall—

(a) act in accordance with any general directions issued by the Secretary of State; and

(b) take account of any general guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

564
(7B) Any reference in subsection (5A), (6), (7) or (7A) above to a determination on a review under a particular provision of subsection (1) above shall be construed, in relation to a social fund inspector, as a reference to a determination on a further review of a determination which has been reviewed under that provision.";
(f) in subsection (9), for the words "this section- there were substituted the words "subsection (1)(a) or (b) above"; and
(g) in subsection (10), after the word "determination" there were inserted the words "which has been reviewed under subsection (1)(a) or (b) above".
Overpayments out of social fund
7. In relation to any time before the commencement of sections 10, 11 and 38 of this Act, section 71ZA of the Administration Act (overpayments out of social fund) shall have effect as if for subsection (2) there were substituted the following subsection—
"(2) Section 71 above as it so applies shall have effect as if the following provisions were omitted, namely—

(a) in paragraph (a) of subsection (5) and subsection (5A), the words "reversed or varied on an appeal or";

(b) in paragraph (b) of subsection (5), the words "appeal or"; and

(c) subsections (7), (10A) and (10B)."

Child support: appeals to tribunals
8. In relation to appeals brought after the passing of this Act and any time before the commencement of section 42 of this Act, section 20 of the Child Support Act (appeals) shall have effect as if after subsection (4) there were inserted the following subsection—
"(5) In deciding an appeal under this section, the tribunal shall not take into account any circumstances not obtaining at the time when the decision appealed against was made." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 61, line 33, at beginning insert ("In").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 clarify that only the tribunals abolished by the Bill should be removed from Schedule 4 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. Amendment No. 135 lists the relevant tribunals whose entries will cease to have effect. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Perhaps I may refer to just one word. It appears at the top of page 16 of the Marshalled List and is a word I do not recollect seeing before in our statutory provisions. Line 1 states,
"the following entries shall cease to have effect".
We then read a list of statutory tribunals. Is that the right way to describe them?
The Deputy Chairman (Baroness Lockwood): We are presently debating Amendment No. 134.
Lord Renton: Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 are being taken together. As I see it, Amendment No. 134 is to insert the word "in" and Amendment No. 135 is the amendment of substance.
I know that this is a small matter, but we should try to get the drafting right and to be consistent, so far as it is wise to be so, with what has gone before. I do not ask for

565
an answer now, but, when the Bill is considered on Report, the Government may find a better way of describing the removal of those tribunals.
Lord Hardie: As the noble Lord will be aware, the schedule as it stands is a list of various tribunals. The amendment seeks to remove certain tribunals from the list. However, I take the noble Lord's point. We can look to see whether there could be more appropriate wording to deal with the matter, but I think the noble Lord understands the sense of what is being proposed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 61, leave out line 34 and insert ("the following entries shall cease to have effect, namely—
"Tribunals constituted in Great Britain under regulations made under section 4 of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979";
"Child support appeal tribunals constituted under section 21 of the Child Support Act 1991";
"Social security appeal tribunals constituted under section 41 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992";
"Disability appeal tribunals constituted under section 43 of that Act"; and
"Medical appeal tribunals constituted under section 50 of that Act".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 61, line 38, after ("qualified") insert ("adjudicating").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 136, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 140, 146 and 147. These amendments are purely technical. Amendment No. 136 is required to amend the incorrect reference to "specially qualified medical practitioner" in paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 6. The correct title is "specially qualified adjudicating medical practitioner" which is contained in Part III of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Adjudicating medical practitioners and specially qualified adjudicating medical practitioners are among the officers disqualified from membership of the House of Commons.
Amendments Nos. 140, 146 and 147 all relate to provisions in the Child Support Act 1991. Subject to the Committee's agreement, I do not think it is necessary to discuss them in detail. They simply clarify and make minor amendments to terms used in that Act. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendments Nos. 137 and 138:
Page 62. line 18, leave out ("or 7").
Page 62, line 35, at end insert—
(". After section 7A of that Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Finality of decisions.
7B.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any decision made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Act shall be final.
566
(2) If and to the extent that regulations so provide, any finding of fact or other determination embodied in or necessary to a decision, or on which a decision is based, shall be conclusive for the purposes of further decisions." ").
The noble and learned Lord said: These amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 63, line 12, at end insert—
("Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 (c.47)
. In paragraph 7A of Schedule 2 to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 (recovery of outstanding community charge by deductions from income support or jobseeker's allowance), for the words "appeals and reviews" in sub-paragraph (2)(a) there shall be substituted the words "appeals to appeal tribunals constituted under Chapter I of Part I of the Social Security Act 1998 and decisions under section 10 or 11 of that Act".
Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c.41)
. In sub-paragraph (2)(a) of paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (recovery of outstanding community charge by deductions from income support or jobseeker's allowance), for the words "appeals and reviews" there shall be substituted the words "appeals to appeal tribunals constituted under Chapter I of Part I of the Social Security Act 1998 and decisions under section 10 or 11 of that Act".").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 148 and 154. These amendments are wholly technical and consequential amendments to other primary legislation as a direct consequence of the provisions in this Bill. The amendments replace references in other legislation to reviews and appeals with reference to the new provisions for appeals, appeal tribunals and decisions under Clauses 10 and 11 of this Bill. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I have one query about Amendment No. 139. This deals with the collection of arrears of the community charge. It is no doubt a matter of my own ignorance but I did not realise that we were still collecting those arrears. How much longer are we to go on collecting them? Is it not really about time that we stopped?
Lord Renton: I share the ignorance so modestly expressed by the noble Earl. I, too, was puzzled. Each of the three amendments grouped together has the same purpose; namely, to get rid of the words "appeals and reviews" and to substitute the words "appeals to appeal tribunals." This is a little mysterious. I think we are entitled to an explanation.
Lord Hardie: Perhaps I may deal, first, with the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The answer is yes, we are still collecting arrears of community charge. Cases are still outstanding. The answer as to when we will stop is presumably when the arrears have been paid. I cannot give a date because it depends on the arrears being paid.
I turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I shall deal with the amendments in each provision. In Amendment No. 139 there is reference to two statutory provisions: the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 and the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which is the English equivalent of the earlier Scottish provision relating to the recovery of

567
outstanding community charge by deductions from income support or jobseeker's allowance. In these provisions, as I explained in general terms in my earlier comments, the reference to "reviews and appeals" should be replaced by reference to provisions for appeals to appeal tribunals constituted under Chapter 1 of Part I of this Act. We are amending the earlier legislation to reflect the situation which is brought in by this Bill. I hope that that explains the position.
Lord Renton: It means that there will be no more reviews. There will only be appeals to the appeal tribunals. That is perfectly clear.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: It is my recollection—I may be mistaken and I have not had time to check—that there was a limitation of actions on the collection of community charge arrears. My recollection is that shortly before the community charge was abolished this limitation of actions was lengthened to six years. It is, I believe, now more than six years since we last collected any community charge. I thought therefore that the period of actions had now come to an end. I may be in error—I am perfectly willing to admit the error: it is only a recollection—but since the collection of arrears, some of them obviously uncollectable, has caused a good deal of hardship, a good deal of trouble, a good deal of labour and a good deal of administrative cost to those responsible for collection, I wonder whether we should look at the case for saying that this has gone on long enough.
Lord Hardie: That would appear to be outwith the scope of the Bill and it would also be a matter for the local authorities charged with collecting arrears. The effect of not collecting arrears would have financial consequences for local authorities. No doubt they will weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of recovering or not recovering, as the case may be.
In relation to the limitation point, perhaps I may write to the noble Earl. I shall check the position and give a definitive response.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 140:
Page 64. line 2, leave out from ("State)") to end of line 5 and insert—

("(a) subsections (2) and (2A) shall cease to have effect; and

(b) in subsection (3), the words "or by child support officers" shall cease to have effect and for the word "them" there shall be substituted the word "him".").

The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 64, line 7, at end insert—
(. In subsection (4)(a) of section 22 of that Act (Child Support Commissioners). for the words "section 21(3)" there shall be substituted the words "Schedule 5 to the Social Security Act 1998".").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment has already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 141A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 65, line 47, leave out second ("section") and insert ("sections—
"Finality of decisions.
46.4.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, any decision of the Secretary of State or an appeal tribunal made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Act shall he final.
(2) If and to the extent that regulations so provide, any finding of fact or other determination embodied in or necessary to a decision, or on which a decision is based, shall be conclusive for the purposes of any further decision.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendment No. 145A. These amendments both refer to the finality of child support decisions. Amendment No. 142 amends the Child Support Act 1991 to ensure that, subject to provisions for revision, supersession and appeal, any child support decision taken by the Secretary of State or an appeal tribunal shall be considered final. Such provision has already been made in this respect for commissioners' decisions in the Child Support Act 1991.
Amendments Nos. 142 and 145A allow for regulations to provide that determinations which are part of a decision may be considered conclusive and can be used in other decisions. This means that, for example, questions of fact will only need to be decided once. These amendments cover decisions made by the Secretary of State, appeal tribunals and commissioners.
These amendments enable the Child Support Agency to use its resources in the most efficient manner. Matters which have been investigated in detail will not need to be considered again when they are found to be relevant to another decision. This is also in the interests of the claimant. Decisions can be made quickly, and without the claimant needing to resubmit evidence that he or she provided previously.
These amendments are a step towards our vision for an active, modern social security system, where decisions taken for one benefit can be applied across the whole system to ensure an efficient and consistent service. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 142A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 143 to 145 not moved.]
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 145A:
Page 67, line 13, at end insert—
("(2) For paragraph 6(2) of that Schedule there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
"(2) If and to the extent that regulations so provide, any finding of fact or other determination which is embodied in or necessary to a decision, or on which a decision is based, shall be conclusive for the purposes of any further decision." ").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Here we are dealing with people's rights and the desire to help those suffering from misfortune. It is rather sad that the law governing the consideration of these matters should be so very complex. In this amendment we find that a decision, once made,
"shall be conclusive for the purposes of any further decision".
That could give rise to a problem because in further consideration of the matter relating to the same child or other person it might be discovered that the original decision was faulty. Yet under this amendment it shall be conclusive even though it was faulty. I know that the law gets into these situations. One of the reasons why people at large are sometimes puzzled by the way that government and parliament do things is that in what should be simple matters affecting the lives of simple people, we manage to have such terrible technicality which does not always make sense.
Earl Russell: It takes a little time to sort these things out. I imagine that the crucial point that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has raised is the meaning of the word "decision". Presumably what was intended was a narrow and limited meaning of that word and in particular a meaning not ruling out any further decision on appeal. I hope that this is something on which the Minister may be able to enlighten us.
Lord Higgins: This amendment appears to be oddly worded. I am not clear in what way regulations may provide a finding of fact.
Lord Hardie: I can understand the concern of noble Lords about the way the amendment is worded. Perhaps I might explain the meaning behind it and also look at ways of improving the wording at a later stage. I deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. The intention is that regulations will specify the extent to which any finding in fact or determination is conclusive for the purposes of any other decision in respect of other benefits. When I first spoke I said that the intention was to streamline the system so that once one had a finding of fact which affected a particular claimant, that finding would be conclusive for any other benefit that that claimant would be entitled to.
Lord Higgins: So why do regulations have to provide it?
Lord Hardie: The regulations have to provide the extent to which it would apply and to which benefits. I anticipate that is what is intended. Perhaps I may deal with the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton. If there is an error, it will not be entrenched. If the claimant is dissatisfied with the finding of fact he or she may seek a review of that finding or appeal it. But if the claimant is satisfied about the
570
finding, then rather than go through the same process of establishing the same fact for a related benefit, he or she would simply have the benefit of this provision.
Lord Renton: The noble and learned Lord said that there could be a review. But we know that as regards three sets of circumstances mentioned in Amendment No. 139 and two others reviews have been replaced by appeals to the tribunal. So there we have to stick to the prospect of an appeal to the tribunal being conclusive of the matter.
Lord Hardie: I believe that the noble Lord is referring to two different sets of circumstances. As we discussed on the first day of Committee, as regards some benefit claims there is provision for a review. The claimant may ask for a review of the decision within a month. Thereafter there will be a further month in which the claimant can appeal. That is one situation. The concept in the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the earlier Scottish provision is a different one. If the Committee would prefer a fuller explanation of how this provision will be used, I shall be pleased to write to all noble Lords and also put a copy of the letter in the Library. That may be of assistance.
Lord Goodhart: This provision seems acceptable. I think it is simply the application into this Bill of a principle well known in the law technically as "issue estoppel", which is the principle that if something in litigation between parties is decided as a question of fact, the same issue cannot be relitigated. As far as I can see, this is not a matter to cause problems.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7 p.m.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 67, line 17, at beginning insert ("in sub-paragraph (b),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 146A and 146B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 68, line 6. leave out ("subsection") and insert ("sub-paragraph").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 147A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 147B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 147C not moved.]
[Amendment No. 147D had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendments Nos. 147E to 147H:
Page 69, line 14, at beginning insert ("Subject to sub-paragraph (1A) below,").
Page 69, line 21, at end insert ("by the Secretary of State").
Page 69, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 23.
Page 69, line 25, leave out ("by the Secretary of State").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 147J had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 147K:
Page 69. line 29, leave out ("by the Secretary of State").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 147L had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 147M:
Page 69, line 33, at end insert—
("(1A) Section 28ZC shall not apply where the decision of the Secretary of State mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) above—

(a) is one which, but for section 28ZA(2)(a) as it applies by virtue of paragraph 4(1), would have been made before the date of the relevant determination; or

(b) is one made in pursuance of section 28ZB(3) or (5) as it applies by virtue of paragraph 5(1).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 69, line 39, at end insert—
("Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c.53)
. In subsection (2)(b) of section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (recovery of fines etc. by deductions from income support or jobseeker's allowance), for the words "appeals and reviews" there shall he substituted the words "appeals to appeal tribunals constituted under Chapter 1 of Part I of the Social Security Act 1998 and decisions under section 10 or 11 of that Act".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 73, line 30. after ("In") insert ("subsection (1) of').
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 149, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 150. Again, these are technical amendments. They change the wording of an existing regulation-making power in the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which relates to the review of decisions, so that it accurately reflects the new provisions in the Bill for disputing a decision—that is, a reference to "review" is replaced by references to "revision" and "supersession". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 73, line 31, leave out ("paragraphs (n) and (o) of subsection (1) and subsection (4)") and insert—
("(a) for paragraph (e) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(e) for any such award to be revised under section 10 of the Social Security Act 1998, or superseded under section II of that Act, if any of those requirements are found not to have been satisfied;"; and.
(b) paragraphs (n) and (o) shall cease to have effect.
( ) Subsection (4) of that section").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 150A:
Page 73, leave out lines 35 to 47.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 73, line 48, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(2)").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 151, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 152 and 153. The intention of Amendment No. 152 is to clarify the position relating to the redetermination of overpayments of benefits by the Secretary of State, tribunals, commissioners and the higher courts.
The amendment to Section 71 of the Administration Act clarifies that, in considering an overpayment determination on review or appeal, the Secretary of State or a tribunal is required to consider the question of the amount of overpayment which is recoverable under Section 71(1) of the Administration Act. However, when considering the same question on appeal, a commissioner or a court is not specifically required to make findings of fact in that respect, but may do so if it wishes.
As noble Lords will know, the role of the commissioners and the higher courts is to consider whether there has been an error of law in social security decisions. The intention—namely; to relieve some of the burden on the commissioners and the courts—will therefore be achieved, as they will not be required to make detailed findings of fact. The amendment clarifies the position on these matters, and I commend it to the Committee. Amendment No. 151 amends an incorrect reference to subsection (5) of Section 71 of the Administration Act to subsection (2), to take account of Amendment No. 152.
Amendment No. 153 clarifies that the words inserted into the Administration Act by paragraph 84(2) of Schedule 6 are to be inserted after the first reference to "paragraph 6", and not subsequent references. The amendments are technical. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendments Nos. 152 and 153:
Page 73, line 48, at end insert (", after the word "shall" there shall be inserted the words "in the case of the Secretary of State or a tribunal, and may in the case of a Commissioner or a court".
( ) In subsection (5) of that section").
Page 76, line 14, after ("6"";) insert (", in the first place where they occur,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 78, line 30, at end insert—
("Local Government Finance Act 1992 (c.14)
. In sub-paragraph (2)(a) of paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (recovery of council tax etc. by deductions from income support or jobseeker's allowance), for the words "appeals and reviews" there shall be substituted the words "appeals to appeal tribunals constituted under Chapter I of Part I of the Social Security Act 1998 and decisions under section It) or II of that Act".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 83, line 8, at end insert—
("Industrial Tribunals Act 1996 (c.17)
. In subsection (5) of section 16 of the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996 (power to provide for recoupment of benefits) —
(a) in paragraph (a), the words "adjudication officers or" shall cease to have effect; and
(b) for paragraph (d) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
"(cc) provide for the determination by the Secretary of State of any issue arising as to the total or partial recoupment in pursuance of the regulations of a jobseeker's allowance, unemployment benefit or income support,
(d) confer on an employee a right of appeal to an appeal tribunal constituted under Chapter 1 of Part I of the Social Security Act 1998 against any decision of the Secretary of State on any such issue, and".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 83, line 8, at end insert—
(" . In paragraph 10(2) of Schedule I to that Act (supplementary provisions), for the words "section 5(1)(n) of the Administration Act" there shall be substituted the words "section 22(2) of the Social Security Act 1998".").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a consequential amendment to the Jobseekers Act 1995. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 to that Act refers to Section 5(1)(n) of the Administration Act, which is repealed in the Bill and replaced by the provisions of Clause 22. The effect of the amendment is to substitute for the reference to "Section 5(1)(n)" a reference to "Section 22(2)" of this Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
[Amendment No. 156A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 89, line 39, column 3, after ("paragraphs") insert ("20(3),").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 157, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 158 and 158A. Schedule 7 details the current provisions which will be repealed as a consequence of the provisions in this Bill. The amendments to this schedule simply clarify the extent of the appeals that are necessary. Subject to the agreement of the Committee, I do not propose to discuss each of the amendments to the schedule, as they are consequential on clauses and schedules which have already been debated. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendments Nos. 158 and 158A:
Page 89, line 48, column 3, at beginning insert—
("In section I 6(5)(a), the words "adjudication officers or.")
574
Page 90, column 3, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert—
("Section (Transitory Provisions).
Schedule (Transitory Provisions).")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 159 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 81 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 52, line 32, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 160, I believe that it would be convenient to speak also to Amendments Nos. 162 and 163. These amendments appear in the name of my noble friend Lady Anelay of St. Johns and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, who is, I understand, unable to be present this evening. Had he been here I am sure that as the chairman of the Council on Tribunals he would have expounded their virtues with greater authority than I can.
The amendments seek to delay implementation of the major changes proposed to the structure of social security appeals under the Bill. It is felt that the best approach to take is to allow the changes that are to be made to the first stage of the proceedings to settle down before further far reaching reforms are implemented. Effectively, it is a proposal that we should proceed by stages and not reform the entire hierarchy at a particular moment in time. We have done a considerable amount to improve the first tier and there is a case for seeing how that works out. Clearly, a good deal of the pressure on appeals depends on whether or not mistakes are made at the first stage. We believe that to be a fairly convincing argument. We also understand that practical arguments have been put forward by his Honour Judge Bassingthwaighte as to whether it would be possible to recruit the necessary people for these tribunals in the timescale envisaged in the Bill. That being so, we shall listen with interest to the Government's response to this amendment which is designed to ensure that the changed system gets off to a smoother start than would be the case if the whole process were rushed at once. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I have put my name to Amendment No. 162 which is also in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I support this group of three amendments. It is possible that under the Bill—it may not happen because the commencement orders may be made at different dates—there will be a big bang. I believe that that is unsatisfactory. The Bill makes very substantial changes both to the first tier system of decision-making in the department and to the system of appeal tribunals. As a practical matter, I believe that it is a good idea that changes to the first tier of decision making should be introduced first, tested out and allowed to settle before we go on to the next stage and change the system of appeal tribunals. Although

575
I understand the Government's wish to bring about these changes, I suggest that it is not appropriate to do both at the same time. It may not be the intention of the Government to do so; if so, I should like to see that spelt out.
Lord Renton: I hope that in considering these amendments, which I believe have a good deal to commend them, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will bear in mind what is said in the first sentence on the first page of the Explanatory Memorandum:
"The Bill makes provision for the simplification of decision-making and appeals in social security, child support and vaccine damage payments".
If simplification is the main purpose of the Bill—although the Long Title is silent on that point—and we are to go fully into all of the complicated changes that are proposed, the Government have a duty to make sure that those changes work. I assume that that is the purpose of those who have put their names to these amendments. It is impressive that the name of a former Law Officer, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, on the Government Benches appears at the top of one of the amendments.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hardie: I am grateful to noble Lords for speaking to these amendments because it gives me an opportunity to explain why the Government feel that the changes to the appeal system should coincide with changes to the decision making process. To deal with the date of implementation raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, all I can say at this stage is that this issue is currently being addressed but the planning assumption is that the changes will all come in together, probably in October 1999.
I believe that there is general agreement in the Committee that the changes that we seek to make to improve the standards of decision making are necessary and probably overdue. I respectfully agree with the view expressed that the changes that we are introducing to first-tier decision making in the agencies will have a beneficial impact on the appeal system. If one gets the first decision right, there should be fewer appeals. Another change that we are introducing is that the agencies will be able to correct errors in their own decisions without the necessity of the claimant having to appeal. Clearly, that is to the benefit of the claimant and all concerned. A further benefit is the requirement to give better explanations to claimants so that if they understand more clearly why decisions have been made it is to be hoped that some will realise that there is no point in appealing and will accept the reasons, assuming that those reasons are properly and coherently set out.
I understand the concerns of noble Lords who seek to delay the changes in the appeal system in order to see the effect of the improvement in the first-tier decision making. The Government are convinced that the changes that they propose to make to the appeals system are worthwhile in their own right. Our aim is to improve standards from one end of the system to the other. The benefits to claimants and others in their dealings with
576
the department's agencies will be greater if the changes in decision making and appeals are brought in together. Although a relatively small proportion of claimants appeal against decisions made in their cases, the appeals process is an integral part of a fair and impartial system; it is not simply an add-on. Even under the new system there will be those who justifiably wish to appeal and will have a right of appeal. It is important that that should be an integral part of the system.
At Second Reading tributes were paid to His Honour Judge Bassingthwaighte to whom reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I echo the tributes and acknowledge the hard work of the tribunals and the administrative staff within the Independent Tribunal Service. However, there are some key structural changes that are necessary to remove obstacles to further service improvements.
We believe that the time is right to modernise an appeals system which has grown up piecemeal over many years. New aspects of social security and child support have simply been incorporated into the existing appeals system without a fundamental review of whether original appeals models are still appropriate.
Different powers and rules in the separate jurisdictions make the current appeals system complex and confusing for claimants. As an example, the leaflet explaining the rules on appeals and reviews is over 100 pages long, almost half of which are taken up with explaining the differences between social security appeal tribunals, medical appeal tribunals and disability appeal tribunals. I am sure that the Committee will accept that that is unsatisfactory. Furthermore, and what is more unsatisfactory, those who appeal have to wait on average six months for their appeal to be heard. Being an average, some people wait much longer, but the good news is that some people wait less long. That is unsatisfactory. This sort of delay and frustration for claimants is unacceptable and we would be acting irresponsibly if we did not take sensible measures to tackle the problems in this area.
The Committee will recall that the measures we have taken replace the five separate appeals jurisdictions with one unified appeal jurisdiction which will make the system simpler and clearer for staff and claimants alike. Our improvements will enable tribunals to focus their attention on the issue or issues actually in dispute and ensure that they concentrate upon the decision which has been appealed. That will clarify the proper function of the tribunal and improve service to claimants. Our improvements will also enable tribunals to correct errors in their own decisions. That will have the effect of removing a great number of cases which currently go to the commissioners to be corrected.
The Committee may recall that it is not unusual for cases which go to the commissioners to take something in the order of a year. In many cases the matters are merely referred back to a tribunal because inadequate reasons were given. Our system will transfer responsibility for the administration of appeals to the Secretary of State, and will enable her to set targets to reduce unacceptable delays in hearing appeals.

577
Our system will also remove the requirement for every appeal to be heard by a three-person tribunal. We hope that it will result in an effective and responsive appeals service, where the expertise of members is focused upon the cases which need it. Those are just some of the examples of why we believe the changes to the appeals system are justified in their own right.
There is a further problem with the amendment. I shall point out some of the difficulties which would occur if the amendments were agreed to. The Bill is structured to deliver integrated changes to decision-making and appeals arrangements. If changes to the appeals system were to be delayed, as proposed in the amendments, there would be a number of unwelcome effects for claimants. It may help if I give some examples. I do not propose to give them all, because there is about a page and a half of them. One of the consequences is that there would be no right of appeal against any decision under Clauses 9, 10 or 11 because Clause 13 would not be in force. Schedules 2 and 3, which set out decisions on which there is a right of appeal and decisions on which there is no right of appeal, would have no effect. That is because they depend on Clause 13 which would not be in force. There would be no appeal tribunals to deal with child support appeals under Clause 42, vaccine damage appeals under Clause 46 and recovery of benefits appeals under Schedule 6. Clause 14, which is a new provision for redetermination of appeals by tribunals, would have no effect because there would be no decisions to correct. One of the provisions in Clause 11 is a re-enactment of an existing provision for revising decisions on, for example, a later change in circumstances. The provision would be lost. Similarly, the power to revise an appeal tribunal decision under Clause 41 (child support) and under Clause 45 (vaccine damage) would also be lost. Those consequences cannot be to the benefit of the claimants.
As I said, there are many other examples, but I shall not delay the Committee. I am sure that noble Lords who tabled the amendments would not wish or intend those consequences. For the reasons I have outlined, I would invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend replies, we should all bear in mind that there is one important matter to which the noble and learned Lord referred; that is, the delays that take place under the present system. I thought that some of the delays were rather frightening, especially bearing in mind that the tribunals and the decisions to be made relate to people's daily needs and:
"Justice delayed is justice denied".
We should bear that in mind.
Lord Higgins: A number of noble Lords have far greater experience in the practical operation of the appeal procedure than I have. The Minister's reply sounded convincing. That being so, in a moment I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment. As this is the last
578
debate in Committee in which I intend to speak, perhaps I may echo the remark of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who said on an earlier amendment what a tremendous advantage it is to have a revising Chamber which can deal with these matters.
The Bill is a substantially better Bill than it was when it started. To what extent the threat of being defeated on these controversial matters when they are returned to the other place may have been an incentive to a co-operative attitude I know not, but at all events we have made a great deal of progress. I should like to express my thanks to the three Ministers for the way in which they have responded to our amendments. There is a long way to go yet. We are faced with Phoenix directors, Budget proposals and a number of other amendments, but I should like to express my thanks. We have done a great deal of good and the Bill is much better than it was. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hardiemoved Amendments Nos. 161 and 161A:
Page 52, line 33, after (" 65,") insert ("(Validation of certain housing benefit determinations),").
Page 52, line 33, leave out (" 75 to 79 and this section") and insert ("(Pilot schemes) to 79, this section and Schedule (Transitory provisions) to this Act").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 not moved.]
Lord Hardiemoved Amendment No. 164:
Page 53, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) section 2 so far as relating to war pensions;").
The noble and learned Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 165. These are minor and consequential amendments.
Clause 81(4) sets out the clauses of the Bill which do not extend to Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 164 adds Clause 2 to the list of exceptions to this provision. The amendment ensures that the provisions of Clause 2 relating to the use of computers applies to the administration of war pensions in Northern Ireland. This amendment is necessary since the war pensions scheme is administered on a UK basis, whereas for other benefits Northern Ireland has its own separate legislation.
Amendment No. 165 is simply an amendment to the drafting of Clause 81(4) in which the draftsman has thought it appropriate to make the wording clearer. These are minor and consequential amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 53, line 6, leave out ("they relate") and insert ("relating").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Hovercraft (Application of Enactments)(Amendment) Order 1998
7.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman)rose to move, That the order and draft orders laid before the House on 10th and 17th March be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Merchant Shipping (Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims)(Amendment) Order would enable the UK to ratify the 1996 protocol to amend the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. The enabling power for the order is provided by the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act 1997, which was passed by the previous Parliament with cross-party support.
The aim of the protocol is to increase the limits of liability set by the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. Such an increase is necessary to reverse the effect of more than 20 years of inflation.
The UK was the first state to sign the protocol. The making of this order should ensure that we are also the first to ratify it. This would be fitting. It was at the UK's instigation that the IMO began work on the revision of the 1976 convention. The UK also played a leading role in the negotiations leading to the successful adoption of the protocol in 1996.
The 1976 convention entitles shipowners to limit their liability for certain general maritime claims. The applicable limit depends upon the type of claim and the gross tonnage of the ship. The Government believe that the long-standing principle of limited liability for general maritime claims remains valid, but on two conditions. First, the limits must be set at a level which ensures that most claimants should receive full compensation when they successfully sue a shipowner in respect of a general maritime claim. This order would ensure that this is the case when claims are brought in a UK court. Secondly, the right to limited liability must be balanced by a duty for the shipowner to take out effective insurance cover. We are pressing within the IMO for the adoption of measures to ensure that all shipowners meet this duty.
The order would provide increased protection for claimants without placing any undue burden on the UK shipping industry. The increased limits would apply to all claims considered by courts in the UK irrespective
580
of the flag of the ship involved. They should not in themselves increase insurance premiums paid by owners whose ships are engaged in international trade. They may, however, result in a small increase in the insurance premiums paid by ships engaged solely in voyages within the UK. The precise amount of any increase is impossible to estimate, since the insurer should also have regard to the quality and track record of the ship when setting the premium. We take the view that this cost is justified by the need to update limits set in 1976 to provide proper protection to potential claimants.
Overall, the order will limit the limit of a shipowner's liability for general maritime claims by about two-and-a-half times. These limits are set in terms of the International Monetary Fund's special drawing right. For example, the 1976 convention sets a limit for claims other than those in respect of death and injury arising in respect of a ship of 50,000 gross tons of about 7.6 million SDR, or roughly £6 million. The 1996 protocol will increase this limit to about 18.2 million SDR, or some £14.5 million. Higher increases will be made for small ships. For instance, the corresponding increase for a ship of 500 tons will be from 167,000 to 1 million SDR.
These increases, like most of the provisions of the order, are determined by the terms of the 1996 protocol. There are three areas, however, where the 1976 convention and the 1996 protocol give states discretion. The order would enable the UK to take advantage of these three freedoms.
The first freedom relates to the Hazardous and Noxious Substances Convention 1996. This convention would establish a liability and compensation regime for damage caused by dangerous and polluting cargoes carried by ship. The regime is modelled on the existing international regime for oil pollution from tankers.
The 1996 protocol enables states to reserve the right not to apply the general limits of the 1976 convention to claims under the Hazardous and Noxious Substances Convention in order that claimants might obtain the higher compensation amounts available under that convention. The order will enable the UK to do this. The opt-out will come into effect automatically when the Hazardous and Noxious Substances Convention enters into force for the UK.
The limits set by the 1976 convention already do not apply to claims for loss or damage caused by oil pollution from tankers. There is a specific international regime for such claims.
The second freedom relates to small ships. States may set specific national limits for very small ships with a gross tonnage of less than 300 tons. At present the limit set for such ships under UK legislation is half that for ships of 300 tons. Consultation with interested parties demonstrated that while some favoured lower limits and others higher limits most agreed that we should retain the differential. This is therefore what the order would do.
The third freedom, perhaps of most interest to the House, relates to passenger claims. The protocol provides an opt-out clause allowing states to set higher limits, or unlimited liability, in respect of claims arising

581
from the death of, or injury to, passengers. The order would give effect to this opt-out. This would not in itself have any effect on the amount of compensation available to meet passenger claims. The 1976 convention sets a global limit on all passenger claims arising from any particular incident. A separate convention—the 1974 Athens Convention relating to the carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea—sets a per capita limit; that is, a separate limit for each passenger.
At present the global limit set by the 1976 convention can further restrict the amount of compensation available under the Athens Convention. The protocol will prevent this. Moreover, as implemented by this order, the protocol would mean that the rules of the 1976 convention would cease to affect the method of calculating compensation payments for passengers. This would ensure that we have flexibility to make appropriate changes to the legislation implementing the Athens Convention. These changes could result from the work on the revision of the Athens Convention which is currently a top priority within the IMO.
However, as it might be some time before this work is translated into concrete measures, my department is also about to go out to consultation to seek views on what measures the Government might take in the interim.
I turn to the other two orders. The Hovercraft (Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (Amendment)) Order makes changes to the general limits of liability set for the owners of hovercraft under UK legislation corresponding to the changes made for ships by the merchant shipping order.
The purpose of the Hovercraft (Application of Enactments)(Amendment) Order is to complete the transfer from the Civil Aviation Authority of regulatory responsibility for hovercraft. The process of transferring such responsibility to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency began in 1997. This order completes the process. It is therefore part of a tidying-up exercise. It does not impose any burdens, financial or otherwise, on industry.
Moved, That the order and draft orders laid before the House on 10th and 17th March be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hayman.)
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation of these complicated orders which we on this side of the House welcome. I congratulate the department on the clarity of the explanatory notes which accompany the orders. The Minister will be aware that I was critical of some notes in the past, but in this case I praise them.
As regards the hovercraft orders, I am glad that the final transfer from the Civil Aviation Authority to the Maritime Safety Agency is now complete. With these hovercraft orders we find ourselves in a somewhat peculiar position. In fact, there was an Act to deal with hovercraft back in 1968, but so far as I am aware there are only two services in the United Kingdom—one
582
between Dover and Calais and the other one, of which I am an occasional user, between Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight. Therefore, we have a whole raft of legislation dealing with hovercraft which applies at most to four hovercraft in the whole of the United Kingdom.
Incidentally, should the noble Baroness choose to use a hovercraft on either of the services that I have mentioned, she will find that they have one thing in common: at neither of the destinations to which they go will she find any of her trunk roads. That is an issue which may or may not have been raised by the Isle of Wight in the past.
Having said that, the main purpose of these orders is to increase the liability, and we certainly support that move. I was slightly puzzled by the terms of the limits of the liability. While I appreciate that they do not refer to passengers of ships, I am slightly puzzled as to why and to whom the limits of liability under paragraph 4 of the merchant shipping order apply if it is not to the passengers. I should like to know also why the limits on my ability should be different according to the different size of the ship involved. Loss of life is loss of life whether in relation to a ship not exceeding 2,000 tons or a ship of up to 75,000 tons or more. That is rather puzzling and perhaps the noble Baroness will say something about that. The same applies to Article 6(1) of the hovercraft order.
Nevertheless, we support these orders. As I said on a previous occasion, should the Minister have an opportunity in future legislation to move these orders from the affirmative to the negative procedure, on this side of the House we would support that.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, equally we have no particular points to raise on the orders. I am delighted that we are implementing them as speedily as we are because it is important to keep compensation to a rational level rather than relying on very old monetary values.
It is obviously desirable that we are able to deal with all merchant vessels of whatever origin in our own ports. There is an obvious advantage in having international agreements on this and I look forward to agreements also on insurance.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I have just one query. Under the limitation of liability order in relation to hovercraft, in paragraph 1 of Article 6 various amounts of money are indicated for limited liability covering different circumstances. However, notwithstanding the words "any distinct occasion" I am unclear as to whether those amounts refer to the total liability or to a per capita liability. Perhaps my noble friend will clarify that.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in general support of the orders before the House this evening. As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, said, the main purpose of these orders is to increase liability. Noble Lords listening carefully may have noticed that I stumbled slightly and

583
said "the order will limit the limit". In fact, I should have said that it will increase the limit of the shipowner's liability, which makes more sense.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, is right to point out that currently there are only three hovercraft in service which carry passengers commercially but, nevertheless, we have a separate legislative regime for dealing with them. Therefore, in order to increase the compensation, that must be done through separate orders. I am glad that we did slightly better in the explanatory memorandum in this respect.
On the specific points which have been raised, I should say to my noble friend Lord Simon that, as I understand it, the limit of liability is global in that it sets a sum for liability with respect to all claims except those relating to passengers. Where there is death and injury to passengers, there is no limit set by the overall global figure except in so far as global figures in the orders are related to the number of passengers. But it is not the case that the amount available to individual passengers will be diminished by the number of passengers involved in an incident, if I can put it in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, raised a similar issue in relation to the differential between small and larger ships. The limits in respect of passenger claims are the same for all sea-going ships regardless of size. The limits set by the 1976 convention do not apply to claims arising from the death of seafarers employed under a contract governed by UK law. Therefore, the only claims arising from fatalities where the limits vary with the size of the ship are those involving seafarers employed under contract governed by foreign law and those involving persons outside the ship.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, may well say to me that they are still equal persons. In adopting the 1996 protocol, the international community recognised that the size of claims was not always directly proportional to the size of the ship. That is why the protocol will make significantly greater increases to the limits for small ships than it does overall. The minimum limits which apply to all small ships between 300 and 2,000 gross tons will be increased six-fold. That will at least provide a minimum safety net for claimants. I hope that that covers some of the points raised.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Trade with the Former Soviet Union
7.46 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrederose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to improve trade relationships between the United Kingdom and the countries of the former Soviet Union.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking all noble Lords who have decided to speak in this debate. I believe that it is an important debate and I am glad that, on such a specialised subject, so many noble Lord have thought fit to take part in the debate.
584
My purpose in tabling this Unstarred Question is to remind the Government of Britain's relative failure to take advantage of the commercial opportunities in the countries of the former Soviet Union and in particular, in Russia and to ask the Government what they are going to do about it.
On 18th February, thanks to the efforts of my noble friend Lady Smith of Gilmorehill, a parliamentary link seminar was held in the FCO to discuss our trade relationships with Russia. The figures with which we were presented were not very encouraging and, for the benefit of noble Lords who were not present, I shall repeat some of the main conclusions of the briefing which we received.
The UK is only the sixth largest OECD supplier to Russia behind Germany, France, the USA, Italy and Japan. The UK has a market share of only 5.2 per cent. Exports in 1996 exceeded £1 billion, which was an increase of 16 per cent. over 1995. The figures for 1997 show a 22 per cent. increase over 1996 and an improved trade deficit over 1996.
Therefore, the picture is improving, in that the Russian market is expanding and British trade is part of that general expansion process. But Britain is still dramatically under-performing in comparison with its main competitor countries within the OECD. I hope that that provides a framework for the figures which we are talking about.
Anyone who has had any involvement with Russia, or with the former Soviet Union, will know three fundamental truths about working there. The first truth is that there is enormous potential to Russia. It has massive and unrivalled mineral wealth, especially in oil and gas, and it has a highly educated workforce. That is a formidable combination of assets and it sustains many foreign companies which operate in Russia and which constantly come across the second fundamental truth; namely, the huge problems involved in operating in the former Soviet Union.
There are still breathtaking bureaucratic procedures: there is a legal framework which is in its infancy and there are constant changes to the fiscal regime, which all adds up to a constant undermining of companies trying to operate on any sort of long-term basis. Many of the bureaucratic procedures arise out of a different perception of the role of a company itself. Under the old Communist model, companies accepted huge social responsibilities—such as housing, medical provision and schooling—and often managers spent all their working day dealing with these social responsibilities rather than addressing the problems of the company. Western managers, by contrast, believe that they pay taxes to address those issues and that, if the taxes are inadequate or uncollected, it is the government's problem.
When I was a manager in a Western joint venture operating in Russia, we found that our Russian managers were very reluctant to accept our instructions. Our instructions were always the same; namely, to reduce costs and increase production. However, our Russian managers believed that we were out of touch with the wider social consequences of our advice. It is

585
ironic that it is this heightened sense of social responsibility which has led to many of the massive inefficiencies in Russian industry today. The situation is changing, but it seems to be the companies which are starting from scratch, rather than those which are trying to change from within, which are most effective at operating in anything approaching a commercial manner in the former Soviet Union.
The third fundamental truth that I wish to outline is one that I should like to dwell upon a little further. I have in mind long-term relationships at every level—that is governmental, institutional, corporate and personal—which are the keys to building success in the former Soviet Union. That is true in every country that I ever worked in, but it seems to be particularly true in Russia.
The point that I wish to make in tonight's debate is that some governments, particularly those of Germany and the United States, seem to understand that it is necessary to build multifaceted long-term relationships if they are to reap the benefits in the long term. They are building those relationships now and in a systematic manner which far exceeds anything which the previous government even aspired to achieving.
I shall give your Lordships some examples. In Germany, which of course is the most successful exporter to Russia, they have a large number of institutional relationships from government level to Lander (or regional level) to town level. They take on this multifaceted approach which is on a different scale to anything we have done. All that is underpinned by a huge amount of bilateral aid—100 billion US dollars between 1996 and 1998, which represents 25 per cent. of all bilateral aid payments by OECD countries. By contrast, Britain gives 1.5 per cent. of the total bilateral aid. Last week I spoke to an official at the German embassy who was at pains to point out that Germany's large-scale investment in Russia, both institutionally and corporately, was a calculated risk promoted by the German Government a number of years ago and that they do not expect to see the true benefits of that investment for a number of years to come.
My other example is the United States, which, too, has taken a long-term strategic view at a number of different levels. I shall now mention some of the US Government agency programmes which support trade with Russia. The US Ex-Im Bank is an independent agency of the US Government created to support US exports in foreign markets. In 1993, a framework agreement was signed with the Russian Ministry of Fuel and Energy and the Ministry of Finance which amounted to 2 billion dollars. That is a lending programme to refurbish existing Russian oil and gas facilities using American equipment. Another example is OPIC, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which gave 4 billion dollars in 1997 in loan guarantees to attract further American investment into the Russian economy. Indeed, the list goes on; for example, there is the US Trade and Development Agency; the US Agency for International Development; the US Department of Agriculture; the Foreign Assistance Program, and so on.
586
All those agencies have mature links with their Russian counterparts and they are all working to enhance US trade links with Russia and the former Soviet Union.
I should particularly like to mention the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission—which may, although I am not sure, have now been renamed—where American business leaders work at the heart of Russian government in an attempt to shape the commercial climate, especially in the field of energy policy. No other government even approaches that level of influence. The large US oil corporations will expect to benefit through this American initiative.
It is no accident that the American oil corporations are in pole position for gaining access to some of the largest oilfields in the world and it is no accident that they will do this with some form of state guarantee. It is the US Government's systematic approach to building links with Russia which the US corporations will take advantage of.
I wish to close by telling your Lordships a story about when I was a student at Imperial College, London in the early 1980s. We asked a senior BP executive to address us as we all hoped to work in the oil industry; and, I suppose, we all hoped that he would give us a job. One of the questions he was asked was, "What is the most significant development you have seen in the 40 years you have worked in the oil industry?" His answer was: "The move to the offshore oil industry". He said that in the early 1980s. I believe that the opening of the former Soviet Union is a development of similar magnitude for the international oil industry today. I know that some British oil companies have recognised this opportunity, but I do question whether the Government have quite understood its full impact.
I have not attempted to be fair in this speech. I have not attempted to compare Britain's performance with that of France or Italy, where there would still be an unfavourable comparison but where the differences would be less extreme. However, what I have tried to do is to demonstrate that some governments—namely, those of Germany and the United States—are taking a strategic and long-term view which is on a completely different scale to anything which, certainly, the previous government even aspired to. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he accepts that, unless we significantly raise our game, more and more business will go to the countries which are currently taking this strategic and long-term view. Does my noble friend recognise that point and what does he propose to do about it?
7.58 p.m.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, I am sure that other noble Lords will echo my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for introducing tonight's debate. For those of us who follow events in Russia, we live, like those subject to the famous Chinese curse, in interesting times. I spent three days in Moscow in the week when President Yeltsin fired his entire government. The most interesting aspect of the whole affair to me was that hardly anyone seemed very fussed about it. Indeed, 10 years ago such an apparent earthquake in the governance of Russia—then, I believe, still the Soviet

587
Union—would have been an earth-shattering affair. Today the good burghers of Moscow are too busy getting on with living and sampling the delights and interests of imported capitalism.
Of course not everyone shares those benefits. Moscow, Nishny Novgorod, perhaps St. Petersburg and one or two other small centres, such as some of the oil towns with +particular resources or industrial raison d'être, are reaping such benefits, mainly as a result of good, enlightened or at least efficient local government. One thinks of Mayor Lushkov of Moscow in this context. It is nevertheless hard to judge whether the beggars have disappeared from the streets of Moscow because they no longer need to beg or because the efficient Mayor Lushkov has had them quietly pushed out of sight.
I do not want to detain your Lordships long tonight, and probably I shall detain you for less time than I am permitted. I have just a simple message which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has already touched on. Russia has made enormous progress since the fall of the Soviet Union, but it still has a long way to go before international business will feel entirely happy within its borders. Its business law is still underdeveloped, capricious, often illogical, confusing and restrictive. For example, the formation of a simple closed company requires automatic registration with a myriad of different authorities, from the federal tax offices, through VAT, pension administrators, local authorities and so on. Even before it starts to do any real business it is necessary that the company has at least one full-time employee just to cope with the filing required by the bureaucracy.
When it comes to setting yourself up to do business, beware, for example, of lending money to your Russian affiliate. At present, any loan repayments made directly to a foreign entity are subject to VAT, which makes lending prohibitive. In any case do not think of investing directly. You must first assist the economy of Cyprus by forming a Cypriot company through which to route your investment in order to take account of the Russian Cypriot double taxation agreement.
When it comes to oil or minerals—here, I suspect like the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I plead a small interest in the subject of this debate—the Government have passed legislation permitting Russian and foreign companies to share the ownership of oil and mineral rights (the so-called production sharing law); but the Duma has insisted on the right to approve each individual transaction in this sphere, thus making the law almost impossible to operate. Without it—and as there is a legal debate as to whether subsurface rights can be conveyed to a third party at all by an original licensee—many projects either have a somewhat shaky legal foundation or are on hold.
I was told on a recent visit that the purpose of the dramatic dismissal of the former government was to put in place an entirely fresh team, who would restart the somewhat stalled process of reform and who would formulate a package of measures to be promulgated some time between June and the end of the year which would do away with the kind of restrictions on the
588
efficient workings of trade and industry which I have just described. Indeed I am assured that full freehold ownership and many other established western concepts and practices will be ushered in some time in the second half of this year. I do not know the present basis of Russian business and commercial law, whether it is a simple adaptation from Soviet law to allow for the formation of companies and so on, or whether it is a return to pre-1917 practice, or what. However, the little I have seen of it seems horrifically burdensome.
This country has given to the rest of the world a simple and clear system of business law and practice and commercial law, so may I hope and pray that Her Majesty's Government will do all in their power—especially given their new reforming zeal and less than wholehearted adherence to outdated socialist principles—to encourage the Russian Government first to bring down the barriers to open trade, commerce and investment. Secondly, I hope they will persuade the Russian Government that where their law is deficient they should perhaps look to British rather than certain continental models, perhaps with the help of the know-how fund. Thirdly, I hope they will help British companies which have—albeit with a disproportionate investment in Russia—played a pioneering role. I hope that our Government will encourage them to become settlers in the new Russia.
8.3 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, who has vast experience of business life and who has given great service in your Lordships' House on the European Communities Committee. He says that Russia must, of course, lower its barriers to enable us to engage in more trade with it. However, we have erected certain barriers as regards trade with the Baltic states. I shall return to that point later.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for this Unstarred Question. He asks what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government as regards these trade relationships we are discussing. I can tell him that since 1991 there have been far too few steps taken in that regard. However, the noble Lord also asked what steps Her Majesty's Government will take. He refers in his Question to the countries of the former Soviet Union. I remind your Lordships that the 10 nations, the independent, sovereign states of central and eastern Europe, do not like being referred to as former Soviet Union countries. As we know, they were annexed in 1940, and subsequently re-occupied in 1944. I do not think that the Republic of Ireland would like to be addressed—at the moment or at any time since 1922—as a former part of the United Kingdom. The former countries of the Soviet Union are naturally sensitive on this point. They prefer to be called central European independent states.
I am not a businessman but, as I have told your Lordships before, I have lived in the northern Baltic state of Estonia for the past three years. I have travelled extensively around central Europe. I have often met businessmen and have occasionally met a representative of the Foreign Office. I have asked the businessmen I

589
have met, whether they have visited the British Embassy and whether they know the Ambassador. They have told me that they have not done so because the embassy staff are overworked and understaffed. They tell me that they do most of the work themselves as the embassy staff are not much use to them. That has saddened me. I know that since the present Government have come into office the situation has changed and that we are bolstering our embassies in central and eastern Europe with the addition of economic counsellors. But that is too little and too late. As a result, our business adversaries in western Europe and the United States are several steps ahead of us.
I shall give a few statistics. In 1992 our exports to Estonia were £8 million; five years later they are £63 million. In 1992 exports to Latvia were £15 million; in 1997 they were £86 million. In 1992 exports to Lithuania were £13 million; in 1997 they were £106 million. I resist making comparisons but we lag far behind our competitors in this regard. What steps should we take? First, businessmen do not invest unless there is security of investment. I understand that we have good relations—thanks to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—with the Russian Federation. Let us use them to enhance the security of the Baltic states and the central European nations. Let us hasten to bring those "five plus one" into the European Union before the year 2004. Let us reform the CAP and accept dairy products, especially from the Baltic states, and break down the barriers that exist. They cannot buy goods from us unless they can sell goods to us. Let us also help their border guards to confront the mafia.
Let us try to target countries with whom we have excellent relations, for example, Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltic states. I have asked what steps we should take, but what steps must we take? Between Warsaw and Tallinn is the Via Baltica. I have travelled up and down it in a car, a bus and in a bumpy old Landrover. It needs extending and widening if we are to trade overland. Let us initiate that during our presidency of the European Union. A third bridge needs to be built over the River Narva, as the Foreign Secretary of Estonia, Mr. Toomas Hendrik lives, told the European Union in Brussels when he arrived to sign the accession treaty in February.
Let us consider widening the railway between Tallinn and St. Petersburg where most goods travel overland between the Russian Federation and the Baltic Sea. Let us consider establishing a trade mission in Warsaw, Tallinn or Riga. We have similar trade missions in Milan and Düsseldorf. Let us have one in central and eastern Europe. I conclude on the following point. During our European Union presidency we have done one thing in Estonia—we have painted a tram with the colours of the flags of the European Union, of the United Kingdom and of Estonia. One tram painted, my Lords! I do not know how many man-hours that has taken the Foreign Office and the British Embassy. I do not know how many files have passed to and fro. But it is a little sad. Trade or aid; trade and aid; we need to do both. I look forward to hearing the Minister's answers to some of these proposals.
8.9 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, as is customary in your Lordships' House, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for having introduced this timely and topical debate. I note from the list of speakers that many noble Lords are speaking either from experience of having lived in several of the countries of the former Soviet Union, or having undertaken regular business there, as has the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington. I speak from the experience of being a consultant to Merrill Lynch, which has been setting up offices in several of the countries of the former Soviet Union. I have paid several visits to Russia over the past four years and have received in London several delegations from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia and the Ukraine.
It is clear from the statistics which several noble Lords have received—they were sourced from the Library, and come from the MM 20 Business Monitor—that while there has been a substantial increase over the past two years in imports into the United Kingdom from the countries of the former Soviet Union, those figures are not matched by UK exports to those countries. The point has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.
There are a number of well-publicised reasons for the poor performance. A recent article in the Independent headed "Russia holds pot of gold for those who risk assault course" reported that more than 400 British companies have now decided that the benefits of investing in the new Russia outweigh the risks. Balanced against the concerns of endemic corruption, the generally poor and rundown infrastructure, bureaucracy, the complexity of the different state taxes—a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington—and legislative chaos, there are in Russia almost 150 million new consumers, added to which are also low labour costs, a highly educated population, and a large economy founded on vast natural resources. By way of example, in the past three years since SmithKline Beecham has been in Russia, its sales have risen by 800 per cent.
Following the Prime Minister's visit to Moscow last year, it was encouraging to note his announcement that a further £500 million would be made available in export credits to Russia, and that the Export Credits Guarantee Department would be expanded to insure Russian investments by United Kingdom companies. Despite this boost, our share of exports into Russia does not match that of the United States, Germany, Italy, Turkey and Scandinavia which have all been capitalising on the huge increases in imports into Russia over the past six months following the move in that country to upgrade its industrial capacity. There is no doubt that, for many British companies, political uncertainties in the region have been a great deterrent.
Following his visit to Russia last year, with a delegation of British businesses, Sir Colin Marshall, the President of the CBI, expressed his three major concerns regarding investment into Russia as being the complexity of Russian taxes, bureaucracy, and crime and corruption. From the experiences of many businesses which have not succeeded in this region, one

591
of the lessons that I believe has been learned is that the most efficient and reliable model for doing business in the countries of the former Soviet Union is through joint ventures and production sharing agreements.
As my allotted six minutes are almost up, I should like to make just one final observation. I believe that if we are to improve trade relations with several countries of the former Soviet Union, we should encourage all efforts towards EU enlargement. There is no doubt that the process of EU expansion has acted as a significant stimulus to economic reform. EU enlargement should stimulate trade between western and central Europe and reduce investment risk. I hope that the Government will play their full part in promoting that process.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, on initiating the debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend because it gives me the opportunity to speak about a country which has been a lifelong interest of mine. I first visited the Soviet Union as a student before the Berlin Wall went up and at a time when Stalin still lay beside Lenin in the mausoleum on Red Square.
My first job was with the Great Britain-USSR Association in London, where I worked with Sir Fitzroy Maclean, who was the inspiration behind the work of the association. In those days it was not easy to be a friend of the Russians in the West. One was regarded with suspicion and often labelled a "red under the bed". But the work was exciting and Sir Fitzroy gave us great leadership.
I have learnt one lesson above all. To work successfully with the Russians, one must establish trust and friendship on a personal level and, having earned it, one must never betray it. The friendships gained are like no other, but there is a price. One must take the time to understand Russia's history, culture and traditions.
This is relevant to tonight's debate. There are no short cuts to getting to know one's business colleagues. It takes time and money. But I suggest that it is a necessary part of doing business in Russia, and companies which put resources into this process will be well rewarded.
I believe that now is the time to put fresh energy into our relations with Russia. There was great enthusiasm in the early 1990s when new possibilities opened up under Gorbachev. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and John Major attached great importance to the relationship. I personally was honoured to be invited by John Major to meet President Yeltsin at Chequers in 1994. I believe that the British Know-how Fund has played a crucial role in helping the integration of Russia into the economic and financial institutions of the West.
The problem now is to sustain relations with a country which is going through a difficult period. The uncertain political situation, an incomplete and sometimes contradictory legal framework continue to cause major problems, and the tax system represents a major disincentive to long-term investment.
592
For those reasons, Russian and foreign investment in the Russian economy remain worryingly low. In those circumstances, the support of the UK Government is crucial. I was delighted to see in the Export Forum's report Towards an Export Initiative that Russia has been designated a suitable market for a targeted export initiative over the next three years. These are markets which UK exporters are currently under-exploiting but which offer outstanding opportunities. That is the kind of government support we welcome.
Several UK companies are already making major investments, including British Home Stores, Cadbury, Shell, BP and British Gas. I would like to declare an interest as a member of BP's Scottish advisory board and to speak about the company's commitment to the Russian market. In November last year BP made a major strategic commitment to the Russian economy with the acquisition of a 10 per cent. equity in Russia's fourth largest oil company, SIDANCO. In acquiring this stake, BP has signalled its interest in working closely with Russian partners in the development of an internationally competitive Russian oil and gas business. I believe that its example should encourage others to follow.
As a member of the Executive Council of the Russo-British Chamber of Commerce, I should like to mention the excellent work that body does, with the support of the DTI, to promote trade and business contacts between the two countries. Last year I attended a highly successful "Britain in Russia" exhibition in Nizhny Novgorod, in which over 100 British companies took part. This year the chamber will stage two major exhibitions, the first in London in May, "Russia Expo 98", and "Britain in Russia" in Ekaterinburg in October. British companies can derive great benefits from participating in these events. I hope that the Government will continue to support the work of the chamber.
I will return to the theme with which I began. I believe that we must work to enrich the dialogue between our countries. I propose that we establish a regular conference between politicians, business people, journalists and others, an annual gathering on the model of the Konigswinter Conference or the Franco-British Colloque. A Russian equivalent would do a great deal to break down the barriers of ignorance and suspicion. These events allow frank and relaxed discussion on wide-ranging issues and create lasting friendships over a number of years.
When I read last week about the Yeltsin-Kohl-Chirac summit which is being called the Great European Troika, I was struck by President Chirac's words,
"This is an event the importance of which should not be underestimated. We want to confirm the common vision by our three countries on the future of Europe after Yalta".
I asked myself why Britain was not included. Should we not be participating in an event of such importance?
This is a time of uncertainty in Russia but President Yeltsin has promised that there will be no change of direction. A new team in the Kremlin will be anxious to find new friends and I believe now is the time for the UK Government to give a lead and make a renewed effort to give our friendship extra depth. It will be good for business and good for all our citizens.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Cromwell: My Lords, I would like to start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for opening this debate with such a stimulating speech. I hope that the Government will take note of what he said.
I regularly do business in the former Soviet Union particularly Russia, and I therefore declare an interest. My generation grew up with a popular image of the then USSR as an undifferentiated and secretive land mass east of Germany waiting to overwhelm us all. How very different the perspective of the next generation will be. The former Soviet Union is now not only a market in its own right for everything, from basic infrastructure to sophisticated consumer goods, but also a rich ground for the development of joint ventures in order to access other markets.
As a regular visitor to the former Soviet Union I have been struck by the respect and even fondness with which Britain is viewed by many, often based on their reading of Conan Doyle rather than direct contact with Britain. Indeed, Britain is still sometimes referred to as "Foggy Albion", which is so much better than "perfidious Albion". While those images may seem quaint to us, they include a belief that British people are basically fair and trustworthy. However, I have too often found that the people that my friends in the former Soviet Union are doing business with are German, French or American but not British. It is usually explained to me that, although the British go over sometimes, they can usually only afford to send one representative for a couple of days and only send him once. He does not appear to have any government backing and will not commit to anything that does not have immediate profit. My hosts contrast this situation with a German or French company which sends up to a dozen people, briefed and supported by external political and financial resources, who stay for weeks and even months, building local relationships and are ready to sign long-term contracts on the spot. I regret that many British businesses are still put off by the prospect of venturing, as they perceive it, alone into unknown territory, even though Moscow is less than a four-hour flight away.
Later in the debate I am sure that we shall hear of the many things that Her Majesty's Government are doing to promote trade with the former Soviet Union countries. I wonder, however, how these activities, although worth while, compare with the support available to some of our competitors.
Former Soviet Union governments are anxious about generic issues of their domestic industries, trade barriers, EU dumping regimes, EU membership and, in addition, gaining membership of multilateral trade organisations. These are clearly important areas in which a responsible but positive British stance will help future trade relations. However, it is also in the active promotion of specific trade opportunities that our Government have a role to play.
The British Foreign Secretary has rightly warned against turning Britain into some kind of nostalgic theme park rather than a 21st century enterprise-based economy. Part of the development of such an economy
594
in Britain must be recognition of the degree of local involvement, the long-term perspective and the political investment needed to succeed in new markets.
In Britain we have a greater separation of private business and state support than some of our competitors, but this can be a severe handicap when faced with competitors whose access to direct state promotional support gives them both confidence and prestige in their dealings with former Soviet Union trading partners.
I would like to mention another area in which I think Britain could do better through more effective linking up of British and Russian and small and medium-size enterprises. In former Soviet Union countries I am constantly approached, no matter how low-key or remote the area of my visit, by representatives of local businesses seeking external partners for their enterprises, which range from steel plants to textiles, from tourist locations to medicines made from reindeer antlers. Some of your Lordships may smile at the last of these, but I have included it exactly because it has since become the basis of a Korean-Russian joint venture.
Hundreds if not thousands of such opportunities exist in the former Soviet Union. If Britain does not find them and take them up, then others will. In Russia alone, the Dutch invested more than double the amount invested by the UK in the first half of 1997. In 1996 the Germans exported more than four and a half times the UK level. Each such opportunity lost is also a loss of ability to develop partnerships and to shape the future trade traditions of the region. The problem for smaller companies is that location and following up such opportunities from scratch and on their own are dauntingly expensive.
Would Her Majesty's Government consider a specific project to benefit Britain and the Former Soviet Union by making such opportunity more accessible to British companies? A user-friendly and accessible computer-based information network linked to full-time local specialist researchers across the region would be one step in this direction. However, I stress again that this initiative would have to be part of a wider strategy of trade promotion and support.
In conclusion I note that the DTI publication, Doing Business in Russia,states that there is "strong competition from other exporting countries" and that "a sustained sales effort" is required. One important way to improve Britain's trading and business capacity in the region must therefore be to promote and foster more than just one-off contacts. What is needed is solid follow up and practical support to establish long-term commercial links between British and former Soviet Union businesses. Government involvement in such activities may go against the grain in this country but without it we will achieve well below our potential commercial capacity in the former Soviet Union.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for this debate. I wish to speak particularly about Russia which is an important new market of 150 million consumers for us. Regrettably, as so many people have said, we are

595
failing, in taking such a small share of the market. We are slow to move. Germany and the US are moving particularly quickly. However, I welcome the Government's decision to focus more attention on trying to develop our exports to Russia.
I believe that Britain has much to offer and to sell, not only in the export of manufactured goods but also in the service industries. Governance and accounting were mentioned earlier. They are major areas in which we can make a contribution. Our public services too have a great reputation, and there is much that in one form or another can be exported, particularly in the education and training fields.
Thousands come to this country to learn English. It is a big earner in the UK, but there are millions abroad who want to learn English or improve it. There is a great demand in Russia too to learn English. I wonder whether we are missing out on major opportunities to develop new markets for exports.
The British Council and the BBC World Service do admirable work. They are respected and have fine reputations. But they are constantly subject to reviews and cuts. What they achieve is done on the basis of a shoestring. For example, the British Council spends only around £4 million per annum in Russia when it is a huge market. It is insufficient to make a serious impact. The Government need to review their approach.
If we are really serious about penetrating markets and building the networks which have been discussed and are badly needed, then more will have to be spent. While in the short term it may not immediately produce returns, in the longer term the investment will be well worthwhile. Equally we must look for new opportunities for raising investment funds for public services. That needs to be explored.
The British Council says that it wants new partnerships. It wants to be innovative, and I believe that it is. However, I have been making inquiries about the kind of partnerships being developed and they are not as innovative as I might have hoped. While there is support from the EU in funding and in creating links with certain UK public educational establishments, there do not appear to be any links built, or in prospect, with the private sector which has major providers of education and training, particularly in English. There are chances there for us to be innovative and to adopt new approaches, using both the British Council and the BBC.
We have a product, our home language, which is in demand worldwide and especially in Russia. Throughout the rest of the world I do not believe we have yet realised the potential that is available to this country to build on that and to make great strides forward.
There is a case to be made—and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response—for the British Council, the BBC World Service and the private sector which has an interest in education and training in English to come together and perhaps ascertain whether we can mount a seminar of some kind. We could see what possibilities may be open to us and whether we can find new joint
596
ventures for the future, with more money being invested in the area, not solely from the public services but from the private sector too.
Initiatives along those lines would not only be beneficial to us but would also help the Russians foster their integration into world and market economies, to stay out rather than turning in. We must do everything we can to help their economy to recover and to underpin the fragile democracy that we see there. I compliment the work being done through the Know How fund and by the forces. It was good to hear of our forces helping with the retraining of redundant Russian military officers, of whom there are thousands, as we know.
More could be done. With my Inland Revenue background, I believe that there are great possibilities. Some of the redundant officers who are being retrained could perhaps be directed into the public service where their skills, their management experience, their strength and willingness to stand up to difficulties, could be well used, particularly in Russia's equivalent of the Inland Revenue.
The fiscal regime is in a mess. Unless it is helped there are significant dangers for the country and possibly, taking a broader view, for other countries of Europe also if by some chance Russia started to see the collapse of its economy and democratic structures.
We should be concerned at the continuing inflow of foreign money to finance Russian budget deficits while internally there are large shortfalls in revenues. There are inadequate yields coming through in the form of taxation—sufficiently so in 1997 for the IMF temporarily to suspend support. We should be concerned that so many employees in Russia are either not being paid or have substantial wage and salary arrears owing to them. The latest estimate is that 55 billion roubles are owed—the equivalent of 10 billion dollars. Nearly 20 million workers are affected. While the problem is limited in Moscow, it is pressing and growing in other parts of the country. It is a source for concern. President Yeltsin promised in the summer of 1997 that by 1st January 1998 the arrears would have been cleared. But the reality is that the position is even worse than it was last year. There is a 4 per cent. increase in wage debts at present.
I could give examples of the problems that exist in this area. I conclude by saying that we should not disregard the possibility of difficulties among the labour force in Russia. I hear that major demonstrations are being organised this coming Thursday, with strikes, protests and demonstrations throughout the whole of the country. We should take note of that and do everything in our power to help the democracy to make sure that the country moves forward and not backward.
8.36 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I am going to buck the trend and concentrate my remarks on central Asia—a region of great economic, political and strategic significance to the United Kingdom. We ignore it at our cost. It comprises 52 million consumers, with opportunities not only for modernising the infrastructure and communications networks but also for the

597
development of the region's abundant natural and industrial resources. There is a growing respect for free market principles and the confidence to gain foreign investment, with increasing opportunities for small and medium-sized companies.
The underlying message is that there is a natural desire throughout the region to work with British companies, but while the way is open to enter this market, like all good markets, competition is strong. British success stories abound, however, including the two trade missions last month by the oil and gas sector to Turkmenistan and the British Invisibles mission to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Private sector achievements include Monument Oils' operation in Turkmenistan, BG's Karachaganak operator activities and participation in the Caspi-shelf consortium in Kazakhstan, together with the large investment by BAT in Uzbekistan, all representing the best of British.
That said, I believe that on balance the UK is being slow to react on both the business front and in the political arena. There is a clear need for better understanding of the circumstances and opportunities. We had the opportunity, for example, in this House recently to ratify the Peace and Co-operation Treaty between certain states and the European Union.
I have to say that remarks in relation to Uzbekistan were wide of the mark, made I suspect, without understanding the advances that have been made since having independence in effect forced upon it just six short years ago. Care needs to be exercised when apparently advocating pressure groups' complex agendas without first-hand and up-to-date knowledge of the global picture. Suggesting that other governments conduct their internal affairs in a slim-fit replication of our system, even frankly including the principle of Anglo-Saxon democracy, is not the answer.
On a regional issue, we must stand ready to extol and assist such virtues as the trade-off between short-term costs with long-term benefits in such areas as market reforms, creating a commercial environment with realistic arbitration procedures.
On occasions, the speed of privatisation comes under the spotlight. Economies in central Asia are still dominated by the public sector, with the relatively high political risks that are perceived to go with it. Yet it must be said that privatisation is the often stated central Asian governmental goal.
I can tell the House about the opportunity that the Meredith Jones Group—a company with which I have an association—has created as a first company to privatise part of the Uzbekistan cotton-growing industry. I led a parliamentary delegation to Uzbekistan last year and saw the cotton fields of the Fergana Valley being dramatically improved through new technology. The social and economic benefits of the project to around 70,000 people who are currently at subsistence level are significant, together with major environmental benefits.
President Karimov personally supported Meredith Jones in making this improvement in a key area of the economy, with agriculture in Uzbekistan, as elsewhere,
598
desperately needing this sort of investment. I am pleased to note that Her Majesty's Government have been supportive in helping this UK company achieve its ends.
So, back to the question in hand: how, specifically, can this Government impact developing trade relationships in the region? I think, in one sense, more laterally than in other ways; for example, by being seen to care about real development problems which would give us a comparative advantage in the marketplace. Specific projects could be to assist on the ecological disaster of the Aral Sea or the Semypalatinsk nuclear testing facility, where over a 40-year period 475 nuclear devices, equating to approximately one explosion a month, were tested leaving a radiation catastrophy affecting 200,000 people. We have in this country the expertise to help.
The international fight against drugs, with its impact on regional security, is another area where much more can be done. The civil war in Tajikstan, exacerbated by a steady flow of ethnic refugees combining religious fervour from Afghanistan, and the huge quantities of hard drugs awash in the region with the large oil and gas deposits all around central Asia waiting to be exploited, all add to a possible destabilisation of the wider region.
I certainly noted with great interest a discussion with Prime Minister Sultanov and his team about the contribution that a pipeline routed through Afghanistan could make to bringing peace between the Taliban and opposition factions.
More practical assistance by HMG would be to match countries such as Germany with their considerable government programmes in guarantee schemes, supported credit schemes, feasibility support and assistance. Regrettably, both this Government and previous administrations have not taken an active role in funding or assisting UK foreign investment abroad, taking a much more free market attitude than many of our continental and other competitor countries.
Other key areas where we can impact with low cost would be to ensure that both Downing Street and Secretaries of State free their diaries to greet incoming counterparts.
The good will generated does a great deal to establish opportunities for British business. And we must change the erroneous system so as to calculate British export figures on the basis of final destination, as opposed to credits being given to the country of first shipment outside the UK. That would show a true and different reflection with benefits all round. Moscow, for example, inadvertently gets the credits for trade instead of Almaty and so on.
Finally, the low level of our diplomatic representation in the region is bordering practically on the absurd, yet that said, all posts are being valiantly manned, which will come as no surprise. However, as more British business and other interests venture to central Asia, there must be an incremental increase in officers.
I conclude where I started; thee is much to play for. We as a country must work more actively on all fronts as a friend of the region, which will surely produce benefits.

599
We must encourage trade and investment, develop cultural, scientific and technical co-operation, encourage environmental protection, do what we can to assist in the essential combat of drugs, and, yes, certainly help to develop democratic institutions and additional respect for human rights, with a strengthening of peace, stability and security for central Asia.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede for introducing this important Question. At this late hour there is not a great deal that I could or should add. But I should like to tread briefly on a rather different path—that is, the macro-economic path—and touch on some of the problems that need to be solved if the countries of the former Soviet Union are to be integrated further into the global trading system which will be decisive in determining the degree of this country's commercial penetration of that region.
The newly independent republics' experience has been, and is, very different from that of their old COMECON partners—the countries of central and eastern Europe. Those latter are now exploiting a long, untapped potential for trade with market economies. The European agreements which they signed with the European Union have helped to lock those countries into open trade policies; they provided free access to European Union markets for most of their manufacturers, and, although there are still some restrictions to be removed on imports of sensitive products (particularly in agriculture), the European Union countries have already become the main trading partners of the central and eastern European states, replacing the COMECON members.
European Union and central and eastern European trade has more than doubled since 1989. But, while the central and eastern European states were by the mid-1980s beginning to shift their trade away from COMECON and towards OECD markets, producing a pattern of trade more attuned to market forces, the Soviet Union was stuck in its old ways.
In its very closed economy, Soviet planners fostered specialisation rather than diversification within each republic. The result was very little trade with the rest of the world and very large amounts of trade between republics. For example, in 1989, 90 per cent. of Belarus's trade was with other Soviet republics. That share would have been around 32 per cent. had all the Soviet republics been market economies. Nearly 70 per cent. of Russia's exports went to other Soviet republics—it would have been about 16 per cent. in a market economy framework. The legacy left by that strait-jacket trading pattern is what those countries now have to overcome to break into the global market.
But there is every reason to believe that that pattern will be reversed as the market economy takes hold in those countries. It has been predicted that the countries of the former Soviet Union, as market economies, will send three-quarters of their exports to non-former Soviet Union partners, mostly in western Europe.
600
As the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, reminded us, the Baltic states have made substantial progress in reorienting their trade towards market economies. Estonia in particular proved that rapid trade liberalisation pays off. By the end of 1992 it had removed virtually all export barriers, eliminated all quantitative import restrictions, kept only a few low import tariffs and made the new currency fully convertible for current account transactions. The result of that rapid trade liberalisation has been that half of Estonia's exports now go to western Europe and two-thirds of its imports come from there.
We can compare that to the Ukraine which, until the end of 1994, still maintained many price and trade controls and an extensive network of rather ineffectual bilateral trade agreements with other former Soviet Union republics and old COMECON partners. As a result of those counterproductive policies, western Europe accounted for less than 20 per cent. of Ukraine's total trade in 1994. Then the reforms belatedly started. But isolation from world markets delayed enterprise adjustment and perpetuated inefficiencies. As a result of considerable price liberalisation in late 1994 and the elimination of most direct export controls, exports have grown. But the high costs of slow trade liberalisation are still being paid for by the Ukraine.
That has been true of many others among the republics of the former Soviet Union. And it is not just trade policy that has slowed progress in reorienting trade. Many still lack the institutional and physical infrastructure and the expertise to support new patterns of trade and face a steep uphill task in exploiting their new trade potential in market economies. That is especially true for the central Asian republics referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, most of whose transport and communication routes run through Russia.
But the reorientation is under way. The integration of transition countries will bring substantive benefits to the world economy. And yet, ironically, there is a recurring concern, even as lip service is paid to the desirability of further integration, that it will come directly at other countries' expense. Certainly integration holds risks as well as opportunities for both sides. Many countries may indeed face adjustment costs. But the evidence suggests that those will be far outweighed by the benefits for all countries of being part of a larger and more competitive marketplace.
Long-term trade integration with Russia and the other republics could involve vastly greater trade flows as countries send energy, particularly oil and natural gas, to western Europe in exchange for capital and technology-intensive goods and high quality consumer durables. But there are some big "ifs". For example, Russia's crude oil and gas export volumes rose by 4 per cent. in 1996 and export revenues were further boosted by higher oil and metals prices. But prospects for long-term export performance are somewhat less encouraging, as oil output dropped to its lowest level in 30 years, sapped by delays in development and infrastructure maintenance projects—something with which the United Kingdom could help. And if that is coupled with declines in world crude oil prices over the longer term, Russia's export revenues will not be rising

601
fast enough to sustain a major import programme unless new investment and efficiency improvements are achieved. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby spoke forcefully of the assistance needed to help them deliver that, in which the UK lags far behind other countries, in particular the United States and Germany.
Let me sum up as follows. International integration is vital for successful reform in the now independent states of the former Soviet Union, especially considering their history of autarky. Imports help make their markets competitive. Exports provide a source of growth and learning. In some areas, foreign direct investment is the only way of acquiring vital skills, markets and finance. Institutional integration is also vital.
The OECD countries especially have a strong interest in encouraging integration by keeping their doors open. Limiting the inflow of goods and raw materials from the 15 republics must not continue indefinitely. In particular, the European Union anti-dumping committee should rethink its policy of restricting the import of cheaply priced extracted minerals from Russia. One can understand Russia seeing this as a double standard since Russia has not adopted comparable policies to protect its producers from the importing of European manufactures and consumer goods.
The adjustment costs to the OECD countries of absorbing the former Soviet Union countries into world trade are manageable. If these countries are prepared to liberalise their trade regimes—an often painful exercise—then their intended trading partners, already integrated into the global economy, must be prepared to shoulder the necessary but manageable costs of adjustment to new trading patterns and increased trade flows. The United Kingdom, traditionally a great trading nation, should be, like France and Germany, as pointed out by my noble friend Lady Smith of Gilmorehill, among the front runners in ensuring that this further integration is not beset with obstacles that can only in the long run deny all countries the benefits of a liberalised global economy.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on initiating this debate. If one takes a long-term view, Russia is bound to be far more significant in terms of UK interests than the vast majority of its trading partners. This is partly simply because of its size and its potential for UK trade. An area of agreement has been reached this evening in that the UK is under-performing in its trade relations with Russia. Indeed, in our debate last week on the importance of exports, the Minister singled out the former Soviet Union as one of the areas where the UK has been under-performing.
Russia's importance to us lies in its position as a guarantor, or not, of the security of Europe. That area has not been much debated this evening but it is clearly of relevance to the overall debate. Although we have inevitably concentrated on Russia, given its scale, if we are to see political stability in the region it is also of crucial importance that the other former Soviet republics
602
succeed economically. A stark example of the scope for instability was found only recently when in the Ukrainian elections a quarter voted for a party which wants "brotherly reunion" with Russia. A major component in the thinking of the people who voted for that party was a sense of frustration at the failing Ukrainian economy and an envious glance at Russia's relative economic success.
As many noble Lords have described, anyone who tries to trade with Russia faces a series of major hurdles. There is a raft of security problems to be overcome. There is a tremendous arbitrariness, to put it no higher, in the decision-making process. The tax code in Russia, as elsewhere, is vastly complex and ever-changing. There are a series of competing bureaucracies to deal with and there is the ever-present political instability, which, while not posing huge day-to-day problems for the Russian on the street, can be hugely disconcerting to those who are seeking to do business with the Russian state. Finally, there is the problem, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, of the requirement for companies undertaking investment not only to make the investment in the plant, machinery or buildings but also to take on a big social responsibility in, as it were, managing the town as well as the plant in which they might be wishing to have an investment. In Russia over recent months there has been progress on a raft of these difficult issues but the best that can be said is that progress has been patchy.
On the key issue of having clear rules implemented without fear or favour, legal underpinning is being strengthened. Recent movement on the bankruptcy law and simplification of the tax code are two examples of that. There is also a real commitment in some of the regions to accept a market economy and a democratic system of operation. As I was being briefed by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby this evening, the region of Perm is also grasping both the scope and the requirements of undertaking the transition to a market economy.
We have heard this evening about the wealth of opportunities within the former Soviet Union for the UK. While I accept all that have been mentioned, I think that, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, stressed, the service sector offers peculiar opportunities for the UK, to a greater extent possibly even than the more basic sectors of raw materials and manufacturing.
By common consent our performance to date has been less than satisfactory. Although there have been a number of cases of conspicuous success, we have to accept that trade flows between the UK and the region lag behind our principal trading partners in Europe and elsewhere—Germany, France and Italy, in Europe, and the United States, Japan and even South Korea outside Europe.
Government support to date for trade with Russia and the former Soviet Union, like the reform process in Russia, has been patchy. There have been some good points. The Know-how Fund has made a major contribution in a number of respects. The commercial sections in the embassies have been beefed up, although everything is relative and they are still very small. Trade

603
fairs have been supported and at European level the British Government have supported the TACIS programme and the EBRD. As other noble Lords have mentioned, other British institutions—the Russo-British Chamber of Commerce, the CBI, the British Council and the World Service—have all played a part in helping to provide a climate in which the transformation of the Russian economy can take place.
These are all positives but clearly they are not enough. What then is to be done, as Lenin might have put it? At the European level, I think the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, about the position relating to anti-dumping duties, the classification of Russia as a non-market economy and the vexed question of potential WTO membership is an area that must be grappled with. I would welcome any assurance from the Minister that during the UK presidency this area will be looked at afresh. Secondly, with regard to the European level, there is a relatively minor but important point. The TACIS programme is way behind in making payments—sometimes years behind—and this is undermining the credibility of the programme. This is not so much a problem for big enterprises as for smaller enterprises and NGOs. A rocket needs to be put up the administration of the TACIS programme which I hope the Minister might light.
The UK could take a number of practical steps. There has been an increase in ECGD capacity for Russia but it is never enough. We are always running to stand still. We are losing contracts to Germany and elsewhere because we are unable to give British traders the kind of support that they need and that their competitors are getting. Official aid from the UK has fallen dramatically in recent years. Following a relatively high level in the first years of the transition within Russia, in 1996, the last year for which I have seen figures, we stood behind Denmark, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland in terms of official aid. That looks rather poor and I would welcome any assurance from the Minister that that position might be reversed.
Finally, I should like to support the proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for the establishment of a Russian Königswinter. When one looks at the history of the original Königswinter over a number of decades, it has been very substantial indeed. It is something which is long overdue for Russia. From the Government's point of view it has the tremendous advantage in that it could almost certainly be done without breaching expenditure limits.
9 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I should immediately declare something of an interest for the avoidance of any misunderstanding. I am the chairman of a company that trades within the Ukraine. I wish that I could boast that it trades with the United Kingdom, but that is for the morrow.
I usually do not waste too much time reading books by those who edit, or have edited, the New Statesman, but anyone who has read Mr. John Lloyd's book Rebirth of a Nation will appreciate what an extraordinarily lucid and at times chilling narrative it is of the painful moves
604
which have been under way in Russia and the former Soviet Union and which continue to move towards something approximating a market economy. Without giving it an unnecessary plug, it is a compulsive read.
My reflection on it all, following from what has been said in your Lordships' debate, is that we should not only be judging the success or desirability of our participation in the countries of the former Soviet Union by the volume of our investment but we should be looking at it in a broader way. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in opening the debate, emphasised the amount of investment by Germany and the United States. My understanding is that the Germans have had some quite mind-blowing losses in Russia. One might want to ask, "Why should one be too concerned when a competitor nation makes such investment losses?". My response would be that there is a real difficulty for us all in the tumble towards less than careful and studied investment in Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union which has had the effect of inflating the bureaucracy, complicating the tax structure and, possibly most seriously, bloating the corruption within those countries.
From my time as a Minister at the DTI and thereafter, I confess to a certain hardening of my legal arteries. I hope that the response by Her Majesty's Government to the question of what they are doing to improve trade relations with the FSU will be not only to tell us what they are doing through ECGD and other initiatives, but also to indicate in the most clear and unequivocal terms that they are working to see that a legal framework is secure, that contracts are being honoured, that bureaucracy is being reduced and that taxation demands are both fair and predictable. That would be the ethical foreign policy to which this Government are so keenly trying to aspire.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I was attracted by what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, had to say. I have had no doubt that emphasis on the improvement of standards in the fashion that he identified would probably be the greatest improvement and contribution that we could make and would ultimately allow us to make a much better and secure character of investment.
I have no doubt that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Gilmorehill, is absolutely right in saying that there is no short cut and that it is a matter of building up trust and friendship. I hope that my noble friend Lord Torrington will agree that hard work is necessary if we are to build up a proper relationship with the FSU rather than rushing, without too much skill and understanding, towards ill-advised investment.
There are two questions that I wish to ask the Minister. If he cannot respond this evening perhaps he will write to me about them. My noble friend Lord Lang, who I regret is no longer in the Chamber, was here for part of the debate. He spent some of his time as President of the Board of Trade in Moscow with the joint trade committee. I trust that that arrangement is continuing. It would be helpful if the noble Lord could tell us the degree of emphasis that the Government give to it, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's visit to Moscow. I shall also be grateful for what he can tell us

605
about the ECGD. As the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, indicated, I believe that £500 million has been extended in ECGD cover to Russia. I suppose that is broadly desirable. I can imagine the upset that there was in the ECGD when that Prime Ministerial requirement was made.
The question I want to be clear about is this. Can the Minister clarify and confirm to me that the £500 million of extended cover which has been given to Russia in no way has been at the expense of any of the other countries in Central Asia or along the Baltic Sea? That is very important. These countries need to have clear opportunities to develop their economies. We can only offer sensible participation if ECGD cover is available in those countries. I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for raising what is for many of us a very interesting debate.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for giving me this opportunity to describe the many different approaches which the Government are taking to encourage the improvement and development of trade relationships with the countries which made up the former Soviet Union. I thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for opening the debate.
Perhaps I may at the start assure all noble Lords that we take this matter very seriously. How do we deal with it? Our approach is along a number of lines. I shall deal with them under various headings. They are funding, training, ministerial contacts to provide the personal relationships which many noble Lords thought were so important, and last, but by no means least, encouraging integration into the world trading order to try to deal with some of the difficulties about which many noble Lords spoke.
With the break-up of the Soviet Union it was necessary to set about establishing channels of communication with some 15 countries instead of one. Whereas one joint commission on trade and investment had served the purposes of bilateral trade relations, we now have a growing and diverse group of committees where Ministers and officials meet and encourage companies to do the same.
In some of the smaller countries of the former Soviet Union, trade and industry councils have been set up which operate with the direct participation of the companies giving them direct access to Ministers and officials. There are such trade councils for Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Belarus. Indeed, they are some of the countries mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. It is relationships with these organisations that are so important that they have to be developed on a personal basis. I can assure noble Lords that our ambassadors will continue to open up channels of communication between our companies and the most influential players in government and business in these markets.
We also work with other organisations and try to benefit from personal relationships with them. My noble friend Lady Smith reminded us of the East European
606
Trade Council and the Russo-British Chamber of Commerce. There is also the British-Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and the British-Latvian Chamber of Commerce as well as the British Council and the BBC World Service, to which other noble Lords referred.
My noble friend Lord Ponsonby told us that the oil and gas sectors are arguably the most important for the development of many former Soviet Union economies. He is right. Her Majesty's Government have been actively assisting UK exploration and production companies and equipment suppliers to take advantage of the opportunities.
Our Ministers are also active in improving trade relations by supporting our companies in meetings with their counterparts. As noble Lords know, the President of the Board of Trade visited Russia last week and the Minister for Trade will do so in September in support of a trade fair initiated by the Department of Trade and Industry and sponsored by the East European Trade Council specifically to promote British companies. It will take place in St. Petersburg. A similar all-British event was held in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, from 5th to 12th October 1997. This comprised a trade fair supported by cultural and heritage displays. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, reminded us of other occasions.
To complement that, Her Majesty's Government encourage government delegations from the former Soviet Union to visit the United Kingdom. The then first Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Mr Chubais, visited the United Kingdom last October. There have been a series of other visits.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and others asked what support the Government are providing. The Department of Trade and Industry is increasing its efforts to help companies into these difficult markets by the provision of support for trade fairs and trade missions, both inward and outward, as well as seminars.
Under the new support for exhibitions and seminars abroad scheme, the DTI will be providing additional support to encourage experienced exporters to take part in Russian events taking place after 31st March 1999. Support will also be available under this scheme for exporters taking part in niche events in the other former Soviet Union countries.
As many noble Lords said, a very important element in increasing exports to the countries of the former Soviet Union is the availability of ECGD cover. The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, mentioned the increase in cover and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, asked me whether the £500 million was drawn from other budgets. I am not able to establish that point at present, but I shall certainly supply written replies. The position is not quite clear. The ECGD provides insurance for UK investors against political risk. A number of projects and investments in the countries of the former Soviet Union have been supported by the ECGD. That also happens in the form of loan guarantees, as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby mentioned.

607
Trading relationships mean more than imports and exports. For the long-term development of the trading relationship, it is important that they should lead to investment. I am pleased to say that, despite the impression given by some noble Lords, British companies have made significant investments in the former Soviet Union. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Smith for mentioning some of them. In Russia, for example, according to Russian figures, we were the fourth largest investor in 1997, behind the United States but ahead of Germany. Those investments span a wide range of sectors from manufacturing to consumer goods, through to retail and energy.
An important plank of the Government's policy of encouraging long-term relationships with the former Soviet Union, especially with regard to investment, is funding for trading. The Know-How Fund's training for investment personnel scheme is available for all countries of the former Soviet Union, with the exception of Estonia. Fifty grants have been awarded since the scheme was launched in 1990. Similarly, the joint industrial and commercial attachments programme has been in operation since 1990. It seeks to bring senior and middle managers to the UK for short-term attachments with British companies. That is all part of building personal relationships about which many noble Lords spoke. The scheme has two clear objectives: to introduce former Soviet Union managers to the market economy and help them and the UK companies hosting them to enter into commercial agreements as a result of the attachment. Since the start of the programme, some 150 managers have been brought to the United Kingdom under the scheme.
There are other ways in which the Government encourage companies that look to invest in these countries. Financial support is available to help companies test the ground before embarking upon investments. The Know-how Fund's pre-investment feasibility study scheme offers grants to United Kingdom companies which propose to undertake investment in the region. The noble Lord, Lord St. John, spoke of the importance of the European Union. Yes, the European Union's partnership and co-operation agreements with many of the countries of the former Soviet Union are now the basis for overall trade relations between the United Kingdom and those countries. These partnership and co-operation agreements are also the European Union's vehicle for practical measures to support the integration of the countries of the former Soviet Union into the international economy, especially through accession to the World Trade Organisation.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Grenfell and other noble Lords that the international trading community would like to see these countries fully integrated into the multilateral trading system in order to escape from what my noble friend termed their straitjackets. Membership of the World Trade Organisation is in their interests because it is the best way to secure lasting and substantial trade liberalisation. The World Trade Organisation accession process will favour the introduction of world-class rules and disciplines covering intellectual property, public procurement, standards, and so on. This should raise the confidence of exporters and increase their trade
608
something for which all noble Lords have called. We are keen that the process of negotiation should move along positively, but it will be lengthy.
My noble friend Lord Ponsonby reminded noble Lords that the difficulties of doing business with countries of the former Soviet Union should not be underestimated. I have in mind not only the lack of predictability and transparency in the framework for business. The noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, reminded us of the bureaucracy. Most people who have not visited these countries think of them as lawless places. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St. John, that, while corruption exists in these countries, it should not and does not deter those companies who know how to learn from the experience of others. In the markets our embassies take the opportunities to bring together British companies so that they can exchange experiences. The Department of Trade and Industry in this country organises events where those involved in doing business share their experience with companies who are contemplating doing business in the same area.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, drew my attention to difficulties with the legal framework for business. Usually this concerns the complexity and interpretation of tax and legal provisions or the introduction of unforeseen changes. There are now more ways than ever to discuss and resolve many types of actual or proposed restrictive measures in good time before trade is significantly affected. Bilateral meetings, the new PCAs and the process of World Trade Organisation accession are mechanisms that will highlight and resolve possible barriers to trade in both directions.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about the TACIS programme. We recognise that TACIS has some faults, particularly in the time taken between initial proposal and project implementation. We are working with other member states to improve the effectiveness of TACIS, but we are very much aware of the criticism.
The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, asked about a computer network. I suggest that he dials up www.tradeuk.com. In particular, after June, he will discover that there is a database which provides opportunities to do business in many countries, including countries of the former Soviet Union.
I have exceeded my time. I am grateful for all the contributions that have been made this evening. My noble friend Lady Smith suggested that there should be a regular conference with host speakers. Most speakers were enthusiastic about promoting trade. I am sure that the department will take into consideration that suggestion. There has been a marked increase in the trade that has been carried on with the countries of the former Soviet Union as the overwhelming majority of the region's economies introduce market reforms. The whole purpose of our promotion of trade is to introduce the efficiencies of the market economy about which many noble Lords have spoken. It is also our mission to see that that promotes the further opening of EU markets to goods from former Soviet Union countries. We are working for their integration into the world trading system via the EU. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past nine o'clock.

  China: UNFPA Programme
  China: UNFPA Programme
  BBC TV Licence Fee
  BBC TV Licence Fee
  Government Expenditure Per Capita
  Government Expenditure Per Capita
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Debris on the Highway Following Accidents
  Debris on the Highway Following Accidents
  SSSIs: Value Assessment
  SSSIs: Value Assessment
  Eider Ducks
  Eider Ducks
  Incompetent Builders
  Incompetent Builders
  Highways Agency
  Highways Agency
  Local Government: Ethical Framework
  Local Government: Ethical Framework
  Citizen Rights: Draft European Convention
  Citizen Rights: Draft European Convention
  British Forces: Deployment Overseas
  British Forces: Deployment Overseas
  Upholder Class Submarines
  Upholder Class Submarines
  Force Levels in the Middle East
  Force Levels in the Middle East
  Reserve Forces: Ethnic Monitoring
  Reserve Forces: Ethnic Monitoring
  Turkish Chief of Staff: Visit to UK
  Turkish Chief of Staff: Visit to UK
  Defence: Collaboration with Other Countries
  Defence: Collaboration with Other Countries
  Scottish Schools: Testing and Standards
  Scottish Schools: Testing and Standards
  Scottish Office Expenditure 1978–79
  Scottish Office Expenditure 1978–79
  Scottish Office Expenditure: 1978–79 to 1997–98
  Scottish Office Expenditure: 1978–79 to 1997–98
  Mussel Farming in Scotland
  Mussel Farming in Scotland
  Eider Ducks in the West of Scotland
  Eider Ducks in the West of Scotland
  ILO Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention
  ILO Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention
  Beef on the Bone
  Beef on the Bone
  BSE: Chronology of Controls
  BSE: Chronology of Controls
  Horses: Human Consumption
  Horses: Human Consumption
  BSE: Report of 30 March
  BSE: Report of 30 March
  GSM Foods: Identification
  GSM Foods: Identification
  Mussel Farms: Predation by Eider Ducks
  Mussel Farms: Predation by Eider Ducks
  Vitamin B6
  Vitamin B6
  Beef Bones Regulations 1997
  Beef Bones Regulations 1997
  Northern Ireland: Lifting of Beef Export Ban
  Northern Ireland: Lifting of Beef Export Ban
  Fisheries Council, 24 March
  Fisheries Council, 24 March
  Livestock: Electronic Tagging
  Livestock: Electronic Tagging
  NHS Trusts: Vacancies
  NHS Trusts: Vacancies
  Department of Health: Ministerial Contact Meetings
  Department of Health: Ministerial Contact Meetings
  Maternal Smoking: Child Deaths
  Maternal Smoking: Child Deaths
  The Prime Minister: Security Breach
  The Prime Minister: Security Breach
  UN Committee against Torture: Report
  UN Committee against Torture: Report
  Immigration Service: Guidance to Staff
  Immigration Service: Guidance to Staff
  USA: Gun Culture
  USA: Gun Culture
  Police Use of Soft Point Ammunition
  Police Use of Soft Point Ammunition
  Handguns: Compensation Payments to Date
  Handguns: Compensation Payments to Date
  Thailand: Assistance in Combating Child Abuse
  Thailand: Assistance in Combating Child Abuse
  Firearms: Compensation Scheme Claims
  Firearms: Compensation Scheme Claims
  Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
  Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
  Wales: Analysis of National Curriculum Tests at Key Stage 3
  Wales: Analysis of National Curriculum Tests at Key Stage 3
  Wales: Analysis of A-level Science Results
  Wales: Analysis of A-level Science Results