Sitting of 7 December 1998

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

    Eurofighter Typhoon
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement about the development of the Eurofighter Typhoon. [61338]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): The development of Eurofighter in conjunction with our partners from Germany, Italy and Spain is continuing to meet the planned delivery of the first production aircraft to the Royal Air Force in mid-2002. Seven development aircraft are flying and have completed more than 620 sorties. A number of notable milestones have been achieved, including supersonic flight, care-free handling, air-to-air refuelling and missile firings.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: Given the changes in policy and personality since the last election, what guarantee can the Minister give the House that the export prospects of the Eurofighter have been unharmed and undiminished as a result of the actions of his Government and some of his colleagues?
    Mr. Spellar: What an extraordinary question, not least because it was this Government who took the most
    2
    important step to ensure that Eurofighter was a viable project—getting the agreement signed and by negotiating and discussing that with the previous German Government. We are involved in discussions—at ministerial level and at the level of officials and defence export sales organisations—with a number of other countries for the future prospects of this extremely good aircraft.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is not the importance of Eurofighter not simply that it gives the Royal Air Force an outstanding aircraft, but that it illustrates eloquently the advantages of European co-operation in defence procurement? In view of the success of co-operation in defence procurement, is it not now logical to consider co-operation across defence as a whole? May we hear from the Minister a little more about the Government's proposals for greater co-operation in European defence?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have noted that there have been discussions and an initiative by the Government to try to ensure that Europe plays a greater role in NATO's defence. We must ensure that we are getting a better return across Europe for the expenditure that is made, by ensuring a greater degree of interoperability and the ability of NATO European forces to act in operations in which the United States is not involved.
    Those discussions are taking place, and we welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman's support for them. They run in parallel with a greater degree of involvement in the harmonisation of defence procurement through OCCAR and also with initiatives such as those taken by the leaders of the main industrial countries in order to rationalise the European defence industry so that it can compete more effectively with the United States and co-operate more effectively with the new US defence giants.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: The House will be pleased to hear from the Minister how well the Eurofighter Typhoon programme is coming on—the

    3
    initial hard work having been done, of course, by the previous Government. I am sure that hon. Members will want to know, as will our friends in British industry, whether the Eurofighter will be delivered on time, given the shortfall and overspend in the air equipment budget for the long-term costing in excess of £1 billion. Can the Minister confirm that there is such a shortfall? What impact is it likely to have on the delivery of the Eurofighter?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman says that the previous Government put in hard work; they certainly made heavy weather of it, given the time that they took to get to the position that they reached. It was this Government who ordered Eurofighter. It is on schedule to be delivered in mid-2002. We do not anticipate any slippage in that programme.

    Territorial Army
    Mr. Tony McWalter: What plans he has to ensure that cadet-only units of the TA have access to senior and trained personnel from the regular forces and from other TA units; and if he will make a statement. [61339]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): All cadet units will continue to be affiliated to either a Regular or a TA unit, which will provide the cadets with both equipment and access to senior and trained personnel.
    Mr. McWalter: My hon. Friend is aware that in my constituency the TA has been reduced to a cadet-only force. I am concerned about the consequences of that diminution in status for access to trained personnel, especially as it seems that the 29 officers in my local TA are being pensioned off. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is possible that cadet-only units will be upgraded to full TA units, especially in cases where the nearest units have been closed down?
    Mr. Henderson: I can assure my hon. Friend that every facility for personnel and equipment support that his unit used to have will continue to be provided at that location using officers and equipment from other locations.
    On the future of cadet-only units, the Secretary of State announced to the House the future plans for the Territorial Army for the period ahead of us. These matters are subject to review over the long term. I have no doubt that any future Government will want to return to the issue of TA locations, as all such matters will be subject to review.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: As a result of the changes announced by the Government, the nearest TA unit to the Vale of York will be in Scarborough, which will pose enormous problems of access to trained personnel and to training in general. The settlement announced last week for North Yorkshire does not allow enough money for the police force to police the millennium celebrations effectively within the present budget. If it is envisaged that it will have to have recourse to the TA—as has been considered north of the border—what provisions will be made for the TA to be given special training for this capability before the millennium?
    Mr. Henderson: The hon. Lady will be aware that those who wish to serve in the TA—we want them to
    4
    serve—will be able to do so at a number of other locations. The police will have responsibility for policing at the time of the millennium celebrations. Any requirement for reinforcements would be considered in the usual way, but that is a prime function of our Regular Army. I emphasise that the main responsibility for policing the millennium celebrations will lie with the police, and they should be able to carry it out.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will the Minister confirm whether the cadet force at Chorley has a future under the review? Has he reconsidered the nonsensical removal to north Wales of the 101 Battalion headquarters?
    Mr. Henderson: I have discussed this matter with my hon. Friend on several occasions, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary responded to an Adjournment debate on it last week. I assure the House that, when there is a change in the location of a cadet force, we will guarantee that at least an equivalent level of service support, equipment and buildings are made available. Land Command will discuss with the Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association how that can best be achieved in Chorley.
    Mr. Mike Hancock: I am grateful for the Minister's comments about protection for the cadet force. Will he carefully consider the cadet force currently located at the Connaught drill hall in Portsmouth, which is due to be disposed of by the Ministry of Defence? Will he also reconsider the relocation of the TA units that are staying in the Portsmouth area from the Perone road depot to the Connaught drill hall? That would kill two birds with one stone. It would keep the cadets where they are currently located, and it would keep this much-cherished building in public ownership. It would also allow the MOD to dispose of two buildings that would be easier to dispose of than the Connaught drill hall.
    Mr. Henderson: As the hon. Gentleman will know, I shall be visiting Portsmouth tomorrow. I shall be happy to receive representations from him or his colleagues at an appropriate point in my itinerary. The decision on future locations of TA facilities within Portsmouth will be made by Land Command in consultation with TAVRA and others.

    United Nations Peace Support Operations
    Sir Sydney Chapman: If the memorandum of understanding relating to the United Kingdom's contribution to the United Nations peace support operations, due to be signed in March, will be available for parliamentary scrutiny beforehand. [61341]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Our intention to update our existing declaration of forces potentially available to the United Nations for peace support operations, and to incorporate that in a memorandum of understanding, was announced in the strategic defence review. The outcome of the review was fully debated in Parliament. Decisions about whether to commit our forces to particular UN operations will continue to be taken by the Government and will be reported to the House.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. Given the importance of the

    5
    memorandum of understanding and the assurance that Parliament should know in which general circumstances troops should be committed, will he consider either referring this issue to the Defence Committee or having a word with the Leader of the House about another parliamentary debate? I congratulate him on his contribution to the Western European Union Parliamentary Assembly in Paris last week. As some peace support operations are taking place and will continue to take place in Europe, will he take this opportunity to underline the importance and the continuing contribution made by the WEU and its Assembly?
    Mr. Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about my contribution to last week's meeting of the WEU Parliamentary Assembly, which was made in difficult physical circumstances.
    Decisions about what troops we deploy to the United Nations will continue to be made by Ministers. We will make those decisions on a case-by-case basis, using certain criteria. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman—well in advance of any memorandum of understanding—that the criteria will include effective ceasefire and the consent of the parties to the on-going political process, exit provision, a clear mandate and possible impacts on any other commitments. That approach will enable us to tailor our force contribution to the circumstances of a particular operation, and to draw on a broad range of capabilities.
    Mr. Martin Bell: Has the Secretary of State considered the merits of a truly committed, dedicated, international UN force whose orders, received from the Security Council, could not then be countermanded or obstructed by the Governments of troop-contributing nations?
    Mr. Robertson: At the end of the day, it will be for the Governments of the countries that contribute to any UN force to make decisions about the fate of the forces concerned. The intention is, however, to try to create circumstances in which the UN would have on call forces from a number of different countries to deal with events that might arise. Command and control is clearly one of the more difficult and tricky aspects, and would have to be considered in advance; but I am confident that we would contribute British troops only where clear areas of command existed, allowing us both to be in charge of the troops and their safety and to contribute to the military effectiveness of any such force.

    Recruitment (Ethnic Minorities)
    Mr. Fabian Hamilton: What targets his Department has set for increasing recruitment among Britain's ethnic minorities. [61342]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): Recruiting goals for this financial year are for 2 per cent. of all new recruits for each service to be from the ethnic communities. Those goals will rise annually by one percentage point until reaching 5 per cent. by financial year 2001–02.
    Mr. Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend for his response. I realise that these are—rightly—demanding targets, but can he tell me what progress is being made towards their achievement?
    Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important question. I can tell him that a comprehensive recruitment strategy is in place, involving the targeting of communities in which there are greater possibilities of increasing the number of black, Asian and other ethnic recruits. I am pleased to say that that strategy is already showing results. During 1997–98, there was an increase from below 1 per cent. to 1.3 per cent., and between April and September this year the figure increased to 1.8 per cent.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: How does the Minister intend to retain those recruits once they are in the forces?
    Mr. Henderson: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his helpful contribution. We must try to retain black, Asian and other ethnic recruits in the same way as we retain other recruits: through valuing their contribution to the defence of the nation, looking after them well and trying to improve the conditions in which they operate. The same applies to black, Asian and other ethnic recruits as applies to everyone else.
    We must also ensure the provision of an environment that is free of harassment and discrimination. That will be crucial not only to retaining the confidence of those who are already in the services, but to attracting others from those communities to them.

    Military Training (National Parks)
    Mr. Anthony Steen: If he will discuss with his EU counterparts military training in national parks and other environmentally protected areas. [61343]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): We have no immediate plans to discuss military training in national parks and other environmentally protected areas with EU counterparts, but environmental considerations are always taken into account in planning training.
    Mr. Steen: Why is it that no other European country ruins its areas of outstanding natural beauty by allowing live firing by the military? Is the Minister aware that, on Dartmoor, we allow live firing on three ranges, which, in effect, closes the northern, most beautiful and highest part of the national park for 10 months of the year, Monday to Friday? Does he agree that it would make better sense to concentrate the Army's firepower at Willsworthy, where millions of pounds-worth of Government money have already been spent, and which is only spasmodically used, rather than allow live firing across the three ranges? The activities could be concentrated in one spot so as to allow the public to enjoy the national park for the purposes for which it was set up.
    Mr. Spellar: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is confusing two issues. Areas of outstanding natural beauty that are within our areas of military training are retained better than those where there is widespread public

    7
    access—indeed, in many areas with sites of special scientific interest, we work extremely well with conservation bodies and we have commendations from them. We have to get that balance right and we attempt to achieve that. The hon. Gentleman should try to separate the two issues. We look at what we can do to improve access, but, in terms of the conservation and preservation of some outstanding areas and many areas of biological diversity, we have a good record, of which we should be proud.
    Mr. Robert Key: As changes announced in the strategic defence review have materially affected the case put to the inspector at the public inquiry into the Otterburn range improvements in Northumberland national park, when will the Government decide whether to reopen that inquiry? If they do, will the Minister give a categorical assurance that the Army's military training programme will be unimpeded?
    Mr. Spellar: I do not accept that the SDR changes the Army's case. Indeed, there is a strong case for the AS90. That is the one that we presented to the inquiry. The inspector in charge of the inquiry is considering whether those other matters should be taken into account, but our basic case for extending use of the AS90 at Otterburn stands and is sustainable within its own terms. We hope that the case that we have made will carry the day and enable that important training to take place there.

    Dry Dock Facilities (South America)
    Mr. Tim Loughton: What discussions he has had with the Chilean Government about the future availability of dry dock facilities to Royal Navy vessels in south America. [61344]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): My colleagues and I have had no discussions with the Chilean Government about the future availability of dry-dock facilities to Royal Navy vessels in south America.
    Mr. Loughton: That was short and sweet, but is the Minister not aware that, in 1994, HMS Brazen ran aground in the south Atlantic, was rescued by the Chilean navy stationed at Punta Arenas and was afforded repair facilities in a Chilean dock? How confident is he that similar help will be on offer from Chile to the many royal naval and merchant navy vessels that serve in the south Atlantic? Failing that, what alternative arrangements has his Department been discussing with other south American countries?
    Mr. Spellar: We do not have great ranges of agreement throughout the world about dry-dock facilities. We have ad hoc arrangements, dealt with under the normal arrangements between countries and, particularly, between navies, which are obviously concerned if a vessel of another fleet is in distress. The good relations that we have with our Chilean counterparts—
    Mr. Loughton: Had.
    Mr. Spellar: The good defence relations that we have with our Chilean counterparts will continue. We have no evidence to the contrary.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Is the Minister aware that, after using any Chilean dry dock, the ships
    8
    involved would be required to undertake sea trials, and that sea trials are the only sort of Chilean trial that we believe would be impartially conducted?
    Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend ingeniously tries to tempt me into an area in which the Home Secretary has a quasi-judicial capacity and on which I should not be tempted further.

    European Defence Review
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: What plans his Department has to promote a European defence review. [61345]
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on his recent discussions on common European defence. [61352]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): We have invited our partners and allies to join us in thinking afresh about how to strengthen both European defence capabilities and the European Union's common foreign and security policy. The initiative has been very positively received, and I look forward to continuing the discussions with my colleagues in the coming months. The agreement of a statement of principles at the British-French summit last week was an important step forward.
    Dr. Tonge: Does the Secretary of State think that—despite the Prime Minister's speech at the North Atlantic Assembly and talks with the French a few days ago at St. Malo—there should have been some mention of the matter in the defence review, so that hon. Members could have debated the overall issue of European foreign policy and defence? Is it not time that that policy was debated in the House before it is announced to the press? Is the Secretary of State happy that the Prime Minister is talking to the French but has apparently not approached other European partners?
    Mr. Robertson: That is absolutely wrong. We are talking about a call for fresh thinking and not a major revision of British defence policy. A week ago last Friday, the House had a debate on the Queen's Speech that touched on those issues. We have made it absolutely clear that we are talking about a fresh look at the way in which Europe might take quicker, better and more effective decisions on a European defence capability that will be built on several key principles: no question of a European single army; no Commission or European Parliament involvement in decision making; no transfer of decision making on military capabilities from individual Governments; and no undermining or duplication of NATO. Surely, especially after Kosovo, this is a time for Europe to recognise that perhaps we should be thinking much more clearly about how, in certain circumstances, Europe might act, should act or might have to act without the United States of America, and about building our capability so that, if we do so decide, we shall really be able to do it.
    Dr. Cable: Will the Secretary of State include nuclear defence in the list of exclusions that he has just given the House? Does he agree that this might be an appropriate

    9
    time to examine seriously the possibilities for co-operation on that matter, and that, even while retaining our independent nuclear deterrent, there could be useful gains from rationalising, for example, control and refitting schedules, so that we not only maintained a constant deterrent but reduced our overall dependence on nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Robertson: If the hon. Gentlemen will examine the strategic defence review and the very significant and radical suggestions on the nuclear front that it contains for implementation, he will see that, some time ago, we took on board the very ideas that he is expressing. When it makes sense for us to co-ordinate with other nuclear powers, we shall do so. How we can contribute to the general debate on arms control and disarmament is a matter of primary importance to the Government, which is why certain moves were made within the strategic defence review itself.
    Beyond the nuclear forces issue is the bigger and more immediate issue of how Europe as a whole will configure its forces—perhaps in the way that we completed our strategic defence review—and face the fact that the threats of tomorrow perhaps require more modern thinking about how decisions will be taken, and more modern forces to deal with those threats.
    Mr. Barry Jones: May I remind my right hon. Friend, in supporting his European approach, that there is news in today's edition of The Times that delivery of the 25 C130J Hercules aircraft that have been ordered is now two years behind schedule? Was he not therefore very wise to indicate in his strategic defence review that he had not closed the door on the heavy-lift future large aircraft project? May I tell him that, if he does go forward with the project, he will find that my 3,700 constituents at the Broughton factory will not only make the wings of a future large aircraft on time but will acknowledge him as a fine Secretary of State?
    Mr. Robertson: I look forward, with ambition, to receiving such praise. I again compliment my hon. Friend on the articulate and forceful way in which he promotes the interests of his constituents and his constituency. He is right to point out the inordinate, unreasonable and, I believe, disgraceful delay in delivery of the C130Js. I have taken up the matter at the very highest reaches within that company. It is one of my inherited delayed programmes, but I intend to ensure that British taxpayers get value. Similarly, on future strategic lift, the idea—perhaps even more than the idea—of a future large aircraft produced in Europe is well among our plans.
    Mr. John Maples: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Prime Minister said in his North Atlantic Assembly speech that the European Union needs genuine military operational capability and that, on Friday, the British and French Governments signed an agreement stating that
    "the EU must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed by credible military forces and the means to decide to use them"?
    10
    After the Amsterdam summit last year, did the Prime Minister not describe exactly those proposals as
    "an ill-judged Franco-German transplant operation"?
    What has happened to change his mind?
    Mr. Robertson: No, the Prime Minister did not. Under the Maastricht treaty, which was signed by the previous Government, we moved towards the idea of European common defence. Under the previous Government, at the time of the Berlin summit—when Michael Portillo stood at this Dispatch Box—they set out to create a European security and defence identity inside the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The European Union, under the Amsterdam treaty, has access via the Western European Union to the capabilities being built up in the European security and defence identity.
    I, the Prime Minister and many people in this country of common sense are saying that, if we are to have that existing framework and structure, the button pressed by the EU through the common foreign and security policy surely has to connect promptly, and with military effectiveness, with the capability inside NATO. We have no intention of replicating or duplicating NATO assets—the structures are there. At issue is how Europe should use the assets that are at present available to the maximum effect.
    Mr. Maples: That was the answer to a different question, because I quoted exactly what the Prime Minister said after Amsterdam. The proposal is exactly the same as the one put forward then by the French and the Germans. I know that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are not consulting each other on this matter, because while the Prime Minister made that statement in an interview with The Times, the Secretary of State was telling the House in the strategic defence review debate that that development would take place entirely within NATO, and re-established and restated the Amsterdam position.
    Conservative Members wholly support the maximum Anglo-French defence co-operation, but within NATO. Can the Secretary of State explain how an EU capacity for the autonomous use of military forces can possibly be both autonomous and within NATO?
    Mr. Robertson: If it uses the European security and defence identity component—the forces that are designed to be in place for use by Europe and can be triggered through the EU via the WEU. We are talking about the same thing. We are not in any way undermining NATO—indeed, we are strengthening it.
    Perhaps this is a fortuitous moment: instead of the hon. Gentleman getting deeper and deeper into the Europhobic swamp in which his party seems to like swimming, may I inform him and the House that, today, the British contribution to the NATO extraction force in Macedonia is beginning its deployment? It will consist of a company from the King's Own Royal Border Regiment, equipped with Warrior infantry fighting vehicles. The company will be deployed for six months, and in the initial stages will be supported by a squadron of Royal Engineers and other troops.
    The extraction force will be largely European led. British, French, German and Dutch troops will operate inside the NATO command structure in precisely the way

    11
    that we would have intended. The House will join me in wishing our troops and their families well in the job that they are going to do.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman has got it all wrong. He sends confusing signals. What is required is not fresh thinking, but action. We have the structures. Is he aware that the Western European Union already embraces the nations that contribute to Atlantic defence? France is not an integrated member of the command structure. The European Union contains large numbers of neutral states. Rather than confusing us with rhetoric, would it not be better to talk about the WEU as the separable but not separate arm of NATO?
    Mr. Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman should listen carefully to what is said. The Western European Union can act on the suggestion of the European Union and access the European security and defence identity components of NATO. All that the British Government are saying—although our thinking is quite radical—is that we need fresh ideas on the connections between the European Union's determination of common foreign policy positions and its ability to access the existing NATO European security and defence identity resources.
    By streamlining the process and concentrating on building European capabilities instead of European rhetoric, we shall strengthen NATO and Europe's ability to access military resources as effectively as possible in situations that Europe might have to face.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: A year ago, the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister for the Armed Forces, who was then a Minister at the Foreign Office, preened themselves on coming to the House having secured a protocol on NATO in the treaty of Amsterdam. Many Conservative Members, including me, congratulated them on that achievement. That protocol contains a request for the Western European Union to come up with proposals on exactly what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. Either the Prime Minister is gulling us with a load of waffle about nothing or there is a substantive change under way to what the Government agreed less than a year ago.
    Mr. Robertson: This is a real storm in a Europhobe teacup. Conservative Members must get to grips with the fact that this Government secured the first ever mention of NATO in a European treaty. We are concentrating on making that work. How can the European Union, with its reinforced common foreign and security policy, get together the capability to ensure that when Europe wants or needs to act militarily and the United States does not want to get engaged, we can do so quickly, safely and effectively? My announcement on the extraction force to be based in Skopje in Macedonia shows that it is common sense to ensure that we have the proper capabilities in Europe and streamlined structures to ensure that action follows decisions.

    Territorial Army
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: What assessment he has made of the impact of his planned reductions in TA centres on recruitment into the various cadet forces; and if he will make a statement. [61347]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): So that recruitment to the cadet forces is not affected by the closure of Territorial Army centres used by cadet units, we shall ensure that suitable alternative accommodation is provided for a cadet unit before it has to vacate its present site. We plan to invest up to £12 million to ensure that those cadet units that have to move are provided with the accommodation necessary to support them.
    Mr. Wareing: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when Army cadet units are located in TA centres, there is a greater enthusiasm which comes from being associated with enthusiastic territorials? The cadet unit at Aintree barracks, close to my constituency, is particularly viable and usually has about 150 members. I fear that recruitment in the area will suffer from the proposed closure of the barracks. I should like a review of the situation. Will the £12 million that my hon. Friend mentioned be sufficient?
    Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that it is an important issue in Liverpool. I can assure him that, if a cadet unit has to move, we will guarantee that it will get the same level of support, equipment and buildings that it has at present. Having said that, one has to recognise that there are 1,400 Army cadet units in Britain. Until the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State three weeks ago, 390 of them met at Territorial Army centres. The others met in schools, youth centres and other venues and received support from the Territorial Army and other regular Army units when necessary. Only 90 units have been affected and they have the guarantee that I have just given the House. I hope that that is acceptable to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: Is it really true that the Government are contemplating a cut of one third in the permanent TA staff? Will that not be severely damaging both to the cadet interest to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) referred and to the mobility and flexibility of the TA—the one thing that the Government say that they are trying to promote?
    Mr. Henderson: We are looking at achieving better efficiency—which is what the taxpayer wants—while providing the same level of capability in our armed forces. That means that sections of our armed forces, such as the TA, have to make changes to achieve a more effective service. Our aim is as simple as that, and it applies to the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby and by the hon. Gentleman. There must be efficiency gains and that will mean some changes in the numbers of permanent staff.

    Gulf
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on the current security situation in the Persian Gulf. [61348]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Saddam Hussein remains the greatest threat to security in the Gulf. We strongly support the efforts of UNSCOM and the International Atomic Energy Agency to root out and destroy his nuclear, biological and

    13
    chemical weapons capabilities and to establish effective monitoring regimes. The willingness of the United States and the United Kingdom to take military action three weeks ago was instrumental in persuading Saddam to rescind his earlier decision to cease all co-operation with UNSCOM. Our forces remain in the Gulf and we are ready to order them into action again if Saddam reneges on his promise of full co-operation.
    Mr. Dismore: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his resolve in standing up to the brutal dictatorship in Iraq, but does he agree that Iraqi non-compliance with UN inspectors has nothing whatsoever to do with Israel, as has been suggested in some parts of the Arab world and indeed some parts of the House? Is he aware that, every time Saddam defies the UN, Israel has to distribute gas masks to its citizens because of the risk of chemical weapons? Does my right hon. Friend agree that dictators such as Saddam and Milosevic in Kosovo take diplomacy seriously only when it is backed by the real threat of the use of force?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the likes of Saddam seem capable of recognising the will of the international community only if it is backed up by the credible use of military force. That is why our troops remain ready and willing to act if he will not comply and co-operate with the UNSCOM inspectorate. He has been warned, and I warn him again that there will be no warning the next time if co-operation is not guaranteed. Saddam's non-compliance with the United Nations and his non-co-operation with the UNSCOM inspectors have everything to do with his ambition to dictate to his neighbours and eventually become the major force in that region. We intend to make sure that that ambition is thwarted.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Since the threat of force some three weeks ago was rescinded, has UNSCOM made real progress in securing access to the most highly classified and sensitive sites for nuclear and biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Is it the right hon. Gentleman's view that the Tornado squadron in Kuwait will have to stay there over Christmas and into the new year, for ever and for aye, because, seemingly, Saddam Hussein enjoys sovereign immunity?
    Mr. Robertson: Saddam's failure to produce certain key documents has not been a good start after he claimed to be willing to co-operate with the UNSCOM inspectorate. We are watching his actions day to day and will make a judgment based on his performance. The UNSCOM inspectorate is building up to full strength and will, I should think, undertake a number of key investigations in the next few weeks. The rest of the world will watch carefully to see whether Saddam is willing to comply with the undertakings that he gave three weeks ago in the face of overwhelming force; our judgment on that will be swift and will involve no warnings to him.
    In the meantime, the RAF Tornados based in Ali al Salem in Kuwait, which were visited yesterday by the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Guthrie, will remain on alert, ready and willing to back up with the threat of force the international community's will. They will remain there over Christmas, which will be a sacrifice for
    14
    the service men and for their families; but the outstanding contribution of all our forces in all the different theatres of operations in which they are engaged is a matter of great pride to me and, I believe, to the country.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Have there been discussions between United Kingdom Defence Ministers and American defence officials about support for the creation in the Basra enclave, in the south of Iraq, of a liberated area that is sanctions free?
    Mr. Robertson: The short answer is no. My ministerial colleagues in the Foreign Office have met members of the external opposition to Saddam Hussein's regime to make it absolutely clear to people in Iraq that there would be a better world for them if Saddam Hussein were not the dictator in Baghdad. We will continue to give that message loudly and clearly to the Iraqi people, with whom we have no quarrel. We will redouble all our efforts to ensure that they get the message that humanitarian aid from this country and the international community is available, that they are deprived of much of it by the dictator in Baghdad and that the sooner his reign of terror ends, the better it will be for all of them.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: The Secretary of State has admitted that Saddam Hussein is effectively ignoring the west's wishes. How much longer will we huff and puff? Is it not time, before we say any more on the subject, for us to sit down quietly with the Americans and such other allies as we have to decide what options are really open to us?
    Mr. Robertson: I did not say that Saddam was effectively ignoring the United Nations; I said that, in certain respects, the disclosure of documents was not satisfactory. The UNSCOM inspectors are back and are continuing their investigations; some documents have been handed over. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to tell the House or the wider world what judgment we will make or the criteria on which we will judge his co-operation with the UNSCOM inspectorate, but we will judge whether he is genuinely co-operating and whether he is genuinely interested in complying with the Security Council resolutions. We will make difficult decisions based on the outcome of that consideration.

    NATO
    Mr. David Chaytor: If a draft text of the revised NATO strategic concept is to be submitted for discussion and agreement to Foreign Ministers at the December meeting of the North Atlantic Council. [61350]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): I expect that NATO Foreign and Defence Ministers will discuss issues relevant to the strategic concept at the December meetings of the North Atlantic Council. Drafting of the revised strategic concept is at an early stage. An agreed text will be adopted by the Washington NATO summit in April 1999.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he envisage that any changes will be tabled to the section of the document relating to the role of nuclear forces, particularly paragraphs 55 to 57?
    Mr. Robertson: The strategic concept as a whole will be a product of consensus among allies, and some people

    15
    have raised issues about nuclear forces. I cannot predict or pre-empt the outcome of any such discussion, but the United Kingdom—after a full strategic defence review that looked at all those issues—sees no need to change NATO nuclear policy as expressed in the strategic concept.
    Mr. Michael Colvin: When NATO Ministers meet in Washington next year to agree NATO's new strategic concept, what chance is there of European Ministers agreeing on the same objectives? What initiatives can the Secretary of State take, in light of the fact that there is no clearly defined European security and defence identity and no common European foreign and security policy? The European countries share principles, but what initiatives can he take to ensure that European Foreign and Defence Ministers go to Washington not only with shared principles but with a shared identity, to improve the chances of getting agreement on NATO's new strategic concept?
    Mr. Robertson: We approach the 50th anniversary NATO summit in Washington next year with a consensus view that will involve the Americans and the Canadians, as well as the Europeans, in any forward thinking that might take place on the alliance. The hon. Gentleman underestimates the degree of success that there has been in building a European security and defence identity. He underestimates also the importance of the new, strengthened procedures for a common foreign and security policy that exist following the Amsterdam summit, and their implications. European countries will be able to build on and use capabilities when the Americans and the Canadians do not wish to be involved.
    The hon. Gentleman asked what the British will bring to the table. I would say that it is the strategic defence review, which has been widely applauded—I say with some modesty—by countries as diverse as the United States and the Russian Federation, and which has shown how a nation such as this can configure and reshape its forces away from the enemies of the past to the risks and the threats of tomorrow—something from which we hope our allies will take lessons.

  The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Public Buildings (PFI)
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What assessment he has made of the resource implications of National Audit Office auditing of the use of private finance initiatives in the construction of public buildings. [61372]
    Mr. Robert Sheldon (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The Commission meets regularly to assess the adequacy of the resources of the National Audit Office. In 1997–98, the National Audit Office produced four reports on private finance initiative projects, all of which were the subject of reports by the Public Accounts Committee. With the continuing and
    16
    increasing importance of PFI, the Comptroller and Auditor-General will be making further reports in future years.
    Mr. Corbyn: Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to authorise a further examination of the use of PFI, and of its long-term costs, in terms of borrowing and repayment for capital building and the loss by local authorities or health authorities of control of the buildings that they own? Does he agree that there is a danger that, in pursuit of short-term objectives, we will saddle future generations with large bills for newly constructed hospitals, schools or other public buildings?
    Mr. Sheldon: There is of course the question of efficiency versus the finance cost, and it should be possible for those in the private sector to meet the extra finance costs by greater efficiency. If they cannot, the justification for the process is largely gone. I understand that the Public Accounts Committee is to publish a general report on the operation of PFI, and we look forward to receiving that in due course.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Pensions and Stipends
    Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement about the proportion and amount of the Church Commissioners' contribution to clergy and widows' pensions and stipends in the current financial year. [61373]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): In 1998, on current assumptions, the Church Commissioners will meet total expenditure on behalf of the Church of £160.6 million, of which £134.3 million—83.6 per cent.—will go on clergy stipends, pensions and related expenditure. This includes transitional support payments to dioceses to assist them in meeting the full costs of pension contributions for parochial clergy.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful for that reply. Does it not underline the vital importance of the Church Commissioners maximising their assets, albeit within ethical constraints, to meet such a great proportion of clergy's and widows' pensions and stipends? Does it not also put into perspective the recent request that the parishes themselves try to produce more funding, given the significantly increasing costs of running the ministry?
    Mr. Bell: Our current level of parochial ministry support of £20 million has been agreed following a long process of consultation with dioceses. We have to balance our support for today's Church with the need to provide long-term sustainable support for future generations. The commissioners are very grateful to the parishes for their generous response in raising giving levels to meet an increasing proportion of ministry costs. We are confident that the parishes will continue to rise to the challenge.

  The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Government Information and Communication Service
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will take steps to ensure that the National Audit Office has sufficient resources to enable it properly to audit the Government Information and Communication Service.
    [61374]
    Mr. Robert Sheldon (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The Commission meets regularly to assess the adequacy of the resources of the National Audit Office. The Government Information and Communication Service is a cross-Government service of about 1,000 communications specialists employed to engage in the full range of Government information activities. The activities of the service's members are audited as part of the annual financial audit of each Department undertaken by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
    Mr. Robathan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the disingenuous Government campaign that is unnecessarily frightening small businesses into preparing for the euro, even though a maximum of one in 10 are likely to be affected by it? Does he agree that the campaign might be propaganda and an abuse of public money; and will he ensure that the NAO has the money to investigate it, especially in the light of the Neill report?
    Mr. Sheldon: As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson, considers the boundary between party political advocacy and the presentation of Government policy. It is right that he should be in that position, and I am sure that he will draw the distinguishing line between the two forms of activity.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Assessment
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What systems are in place for assessing the effectiveness of the Church Commissioners' activities. [61375]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The commissioners reviewed their systems in the light of the Lambeth report in 1993 and responded to all its recommendations, including the establishment of an audit committee. They further reviewed their systems in connection with the National Institutions Measure, which establishes the Archbishops Council for the Church of England. They also take account of evolving best practice in corporate governance.
    Mr. Hughes: The commissioners' mission statement is to maximise the assets of the Church to support its ministry, especially in areas of need and opportunity. In the coming 50 years, the second half-century of the commissioners' existence, will there be a way of measuring the effectiveness of the outputs—we can already gauge how effective the inputs are—in terms of the number of people who belong to the Church of England and the number who become Christians as a result of the commissioners' efforts?
    Mr. Bell: I can give one assurance: I do not think that I will be Second Church Estates Commissioner in 50 years' time. We shall do our very best to satisfy the hon. Gentleman. For the long term, we have set out policy and financial arrangements making us answerable to Parliament and to the General Synod of the Church of England. Our annual reports and accounts, together with the resolutions passed by the commissioners with reference thereto, are laid before both Houses of Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and before the General Synod by its Secretary General.
    We have actuarial accounts for only three to four years into the future, but I would hope that the contribution of the commissioners, the Archbishops Council and the whole Church movement will ensure that more Christians, rather than fewer, will be practising in this country in the next 50 years.

  The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    National Audit Office
    Mr. David Heath: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerning the current scope of the responsibilities of the National Audit Office. [61376]
    Mr. Robert Sheldon (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): I last met the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 26 March, accompanied by the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts. Among other matters, we discussed the current scope of the responsibilities of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
    The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and I pointed out to the Chancellor that accountability to Parliament could better be served by extending the access rights of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to follow public money to its final recipients. I will continue actively to pursue those matters with the Treasury in conjunction with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
    Mr. Heath: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, which is part of a series of answers that he has given me on the issue. Does he share my exasperation that it is now 18 months into the lifetime of this Government and we still have a glaring hole in the audit arrangements for public bodies? I note that he last

    19
    met the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss this some nine months ago: would it not be a good idea to have a meeting every quarter day until the Chancellor realises that the hole must be filled?
    Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman makes an attractive proposition that I would be happy to consider. It is
    20
    important that the House should have the ability to follow public money wherever it goes, and there is a great gap at present. Some improvement has been made and we now have the opportunity to examine how Camelot gets its money, and one or two other organisations. The hon. Gentleman is right to pursue his campaign, and I welcome it.

Post Office
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Mandelson): I wish to make a statement on the future of the Post Office.
It has long been recognised that the postal sector worldwide has entered a new and turbulent age. Competition for business will be fierce. With greater uncertainty will come opportunities for expansion. Change is absolutely necessary if the Post Office is not to fall behind.
Globalisation of postal services, the growth of electronic mail and the internet, changing customer demands and greater liberalisation of markets are the key drivers of change worldwide. The main uncertainty is not whether markets will become more competitive, but how far and how fast.
Other post offices are gearing up for the revolution, seeking greater commercial freedom to do so. Within Europe, for example, the Dutch and German post offices have been investing in substantial acquisitions, Sweden and Finland are free to acquire and invest in other companies, and Denmark has already entered a number of strategic alliances. France also enjoys considerable commercial freedom, and has a wide spread of joint ventures and acquisitions. In Australia, New Zealand and the Nordic countries, the post offices have become independent plcs. Germany has announced its intention to privatise, and the Netherlands and Singapore have moved to partial privatisation.
Not surprisingly, the British Post Office has been demanding changes to its own organisation for years, but without anyone in government, until now, prepared to act. In the face of market pressures from other public post offices, private postal operators outside the monopoly area, other communications media and distribution organisations, the Post Office wants to be in a position to deliver a wider range of faster, more reliable postal services, differentiated products and prices that meet individual customers' requirements.
Notwithstanding its successful attempts to adapt and its current profitability, the Post Office cannot meet these challenging times in its present condition. It must change or increasingly find its business confined to a diminishing high-volume, low-mark-up sector of the postal market, with all the consequences of falling value and shrinking profits and employment base that that would involve.
The Government are not prepared to sit back and allow that to happen. We have therefore decided to embark on the most radical set of reforms since the modem Post Office was created in 1969. In future, the Post Office will be driven by a combination of effective market disciplines and commercial freedoms, which will transform its performance and its ability to do business.
Our starting point is that the relationship between the Post Office and Government has to change. I should make it clear that we certainly do not rule out the possibility of introducing private shareholding into the Post Office—for example, through the sale of a minority stake in it—at a later stage.
However, at present wholesale privatisation would not be a realistic option. It would take a long time to introduce, cause massive uncertainty, and diminish the
22
chance of immediate reform now, which would be the worst outcome of all, as the management of the Post Office have made clear to me.
Instead, a radical new form of public sector enterprise, operating at arm's length from Government, needs to be created. That new framework will contain the following features. The Government's role in the Post Office will be restricted to the strategic level, both on matters of commercial direction and on setting social objectives. The Post Office board will become clearly accountable for its success or failure in running the business.
An independent regulator will be established to protect consumer interests including standards of service; to regulate prices; to ensure that the Post Office is able to meet its universal service obligation; and to ensure fair competition. Once adequate regulatory provisions are in place to oversee fair competition, the Post Office will be able to form joint ventures, enter into partnerships and make acquisitions within the United Kingdom beyond the present limit of £20 million per annum.
The regulator will have a duty to promote competition by a careful and phased liberalisation of the monopoly postal area, while maintaining the universal service obligation.
We will require the Post Office to present a rolling five-year strategic plan each year for approval by Government. That is essential to protect taxpayers' interests.
On the basis of that plan, the Government will agree a profit target for the Post Office and the equivalent of a dividend to Government, as shareholder, in line with normal commercial dividend practice. In effect, that will mean more than halving the rate at which profits are removed from the business. The external financing limit—EFL—for the Post Office for the next year, 1999–2000, will immediately be reduced to £207 million from the provisional figure of £335 million. In future years, the EFL will be on a more commercial footing. The Government will expect a dividend of 40 per cent., in contrast to the recent average of 80 per cent.
That increase in retained profits will enable the Post Office to finance an increased level of investment in the maintenance of its existing business. However, the Government recognise that larger growth investment, including acquisitions and joint ventures, may require prudent borrowing if the Post Office is to grow successfully with new products, partners and markets. The Government will approve normal Post Office requests for borrowing for investment cases that are commercially robust. Separate fast-track arrangements will be put in place for considering the largest strategic investments.
It will now be possible for the internal boundaries, for example, between the Royal Mail and Parcelforce to be rationalised, if the Post Office board so decides, while ensuring that there is not undue cross-subsidy from monopoly to non-monopoly areas. Therefore, approved and transparent accounting structures must be put in place.
The Post Office Users National Council will be given a more central role, and its powers increased. A uniform public tariff will be maintained for those activities that fall within the obligation on the Post Office to provide a universal service. However, the Post Office will be given the freedom to price flexibly for volume users, and, within the monopoly area, the regulator will restrict prices to ensure that the Post Office is not making excess monopoly

23
profits. That will be a real spur to efficiency, and it will ensure that the general public are paying no more than they should for normal postal deliveries.
We intend to provide statutorily for the newly appointed independent regulator to carry out those duties as part of the implementation of the European Union postal office directive next year. Therefore, I will be bringing forward measures under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 to put that framework in place.
The Government remain firmly committed to a network of post offices throughout the country. The sub-post office in particular plays a valuable role in local communities and offers real service, particularly to the less mobile. We will set a social objective for the Post Office, and for the regulator, of maintaining an effective network.
The individual business men and women who run the post-office-cum-village-shop often have to be very enterprising to keep them afloat. With the best will in the world, the Post Office cannot sustain a network if it is not used, and nor can Government. However, we intend to ensure reasonable access nationwide to those who need post office service, on an electronic basis or face to face with the sub-postmaster or mistress. As the Post Office will be at a strategic arm's length from Government, we will set criteria for public access to the services of Post Office Counters that will be policed by the regulator.
There has been a moratorium on the Crown office conversion programme. I have now agreed with the Post Office a strategy, which reflects proposals put by the Post Office to the trades unions, of retaining a core of directly owned and managed Crown offices that account for a significant value of the business done at post office counters. The strategy also recognises that some further conversions will be beneficial to customers and the business. That is a sensible way forward, and I am therefore lifting the moratorium.
If the Post Office is to operate on a commercial basis, it must be able to reward staff for their efforts, taking account of the success of their business, but cutting the cloth to fit in difficult periods. The Government therefore intend, as part of this staged process of reform, to invite the Post Office board to come forward with proposals that will, within the necessary context of public sector pay policy, allow more flexible means of reflecting performance in the various parts of the business. It is important that, where appropriate, the Post Office should be able to reward success.
Events will no doubt continue to move rapidly in this constantly changing commercial environment, and further structural changes might be required which enable the Post Office to grow and to meet customer needs and which are in the best interests of the Post Office and its staff. As I said, we do not rule out the possibility of making further changes to equip the Post Office for success, such as a minority share sale or an exchange of equity with other businesses. Those options will be kept under review. We will need legislation in due course, in any case, to reflect the long-term nature of the reform package that we are putting in place, including turning the Post Office into a plc to underline the commercialisation of the business.
24
The reform programme that I have outlined will provide a balanced package of freedoms and disciplines for the Post Office. I believe that it is the best possible package of reforms available to the Post Office, which to date has been left starved of resources to invest in growth and unable to step up to new market challenges in the way that other European postal services have done.
Over the past year, we have appointed a dynamic new chairman, and refreshed the board with new non-executives with wide and complementary business skills. They have a vision of a world-class British Post Office that aims to be among the most successful in the world. We must give the Post Office the opportunity to bring that about.
Considerable benefits to the consumer will be the result in terms of choice, price and quality of service. We are ushering in the start of a confident, bright new dawn for the Post Office, and are looking to its management and work force to seize the opportunities, putting right the neglect of the past. Everyone stands to be a winner from our reforms, which I will set out in more detail in a White Paper early in the new year. In the meantime, I commend them to the House.
Mr. John Redwood: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, a statement that has as many holes in it as a Gruyere cheese. It has been so well aired that the whiff of it has been on the airwaves for a very long time. It is sad that he took so long to come to the House to tell us what we have learnt from many a leak over recent weeks.
The Secretary of State and his predecessor dithered and delayed for 18 months while the Netherlands and Singapore moved to partial privatisation and Germany decided to privatise—18 months of precious time lost to Britain by the great vacillators.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): What did you do?
Mr. Redwood: The Minister asks what we did. The Conservative Government did not have the majority to do what we wanted and the then Labour Opposition would not have supported us. The Labour Government have the necessary majority, and furthermore the Opposition would support privatisation. If the Secretary of State has trouble with the left wing of his party, I promise him the support of Her Majesty's Opposition in doing the right thing by the postal workers of this country.
For the past 18 months, the Post Office has had to watch as its overseas rivals have bought the pick of the businesses abroad to create modern global success stories. Now that we have a policy from the Government, most of the uncertainties remain for the Post Office. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Post Office's remaining in the private sector means that it can still be raided when the Government need more cash from an easy source? Will he tell us how many hospital waiting lists will grow longer because of his giving away £128 million for next year in this policy?
The Secretary of State says that the Post Office will have to heed Ministers in its five-year plan and its overseas acquisitions—indeed, he says that it is to be cursed with strategic commercial direction from the

25
Government. Will he now tell us how that can conceivably be good news for those trying to run a commercial business? At best, the Post Office will move from fighting with both hands tied behind its back by the Government, to fighting with both hands tied to the Treasury. Today's is a second-class statement that will not be delivered on time. The Treasury has inflicted a defeat on the Secretary of State, because it knows that it needs to keep its hands on the money.
In pursuit of that elusive popular election to Labour's national executive committee, the Secretary of State has swapped sides, from being in favour of privatisation to being against it. Caving in to the left on the Post Office may be only a down payment on his party ambition—[Laughter.] The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), laughs the laugh of victory, because he has got the better of his boss, and persuaded the right hon. Gentleman to give in, in the interests of his wider popularity within the Labour movement. However, the Secretary of State need not have worried about his unpopularity, for it runs so deep that a single half-hearted and ambiguous retreat will not put it right.
For the benefit of his hon. Friends, will the Secretary of State tell the House when he might sell shares in the Post Office? When will he finally make up his mind on that crucial matter? From his statement, may I infer that he can still privatise the whole business? He has not ruled that out, but he cannot yet bring himself to tell his colleagues that he might consider it. Conservative plans for the Post Office would protect small and rural post offices, and would let postmen become shareholders on favourable terms.
Mrs. Roche: Really?
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Lady should have read my article setting out Conservative policy on the Post Office, which was published months ago in the hope that the Government would learn something from it, and get on with the job.
Will the Secretary of State answer the following questions. First, how will major investment and borrowing limits be fixed for the new business that he is to establish? Secondly, how much freedom does he propose for the foreign ventures that are so crucial to success? In his statement, that point is as clear as mud. Thirdly, will he confirm that taxpayers will be liable for any overseas losses that may be run up by the new Post Office company? Fourthly, will he tell us how much money the taxpayer will lose as a result of the changes over a full Parliament, given that £128 million will be lost to the taxpayer next year, which is the first year of the policy?
Fifthly, will the public sector pay policy still apply to the Post Office or not? The statement is completely ambiguous: the right hon. Gentleman says that it will not, but then adds that the Post Office will have to abide by certain guidelines because the Government do not want pay to get out of control. We need to know whether the Post Office is to be free or controlled and, if controlled, how it is to be controlled. Sixthly, how many other changes to the monopoly will be needed to bring us into line with the European Union postal office directive? How will that affect jobs in the Post Office?
Now that the Secretary of State has a policy on the Post Office, it offers us the worst of all worlds. The taxpayer loses money, while the Post Office still does not know
26
where it stands in respect of investment for the future. That proves that Labour is bad for business. The Secretary of State does nothing while manufacturing collapses; he will not answer questions, and will not debate the issue. Now, he offers the Post Office little certainty. His attitude is as damaging as that of his Cabinet colleague who refuses to back British business abroad, while travelling at the taxpayer's expense. The tragedy is that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will not back British business at home, either.
Mr. Mandelson: The kindest thing that can be said about that response is that it should be stamped "return to sender" and dispatched back to Conservative party central office. It was a very lame response, and we have clearly shot many of the right hon. Gentleman's foxes in our statement. It is a bit rich to be accused of dithering and delaying by a member of a Government who spent 18 years doing nothing about the Post Office. At least we have come to a conclusion and announced it. The previous Conservative Government tried to privatise the Post Office and failed, and then ran to ground and did nothing.
It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman wrote his response before listening to my statement. The Post Office will face tough competitive pressures created by us, and will have strong commercial freedoms. It is absolutely clear from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that, if he were at this Dispatch Box and had his way, there would be full-scale privatisation straight away. Sub-post offices would face closure and rural postal services would face the axe. There would be a queue of takers for the rich pickings available for those able to buy the most lucrative parts of the Post Office.
That is what the right hon. Gentleman's policy would mean: no half measures or careful judgment, but full throttle and full steam ahead for privatisation—with or without the support of Tory Back Benchers. Coming so soon after its die-in-the-ditch stand for hereditary peers, the right hon. Gentleman's statement shows how out of touch, divided, lacking in leadership and unfit for government today's Conservative party is.
Every one of the right hon. Gentleman's questions has an answer in my original statement. Importantly, my statement sets out what our policy means for the Post Office—hon. Members will notice that that was not at the heart of the right hon. Gentleman's concerns or remarks. There will be a new arm's-length strategic relationship between the Post Office and Her Majesty's Government. Do the Opposition support that? We do not know. Do the Opposition support retained post-tax profits at an increased commercial level? We do not know. What about greater pricing freedoms? Does the right hon. Gentleman support that measure? Does he support greater freedom to invest using retained earnings?
Do the Opposition agree with the freedom to borrow for growth investments within the agreed strategic plan? They do not have the foggiest idea. What about the freedom to structure the business as the board sees fit? I would have thought that that was the sort of market-driven corporate capitalism that the Opposition would support. However, they do not know whether to support it, because they do not know whether they are coming or going.

27
Our measures are good for the Post Office, for its business and for its customers. That is why they will command the overwhelming support of the British people right across the country.
Mr. Alan Johnson: I welcome the statement on behalf of not only the Post Office and its users, but the public of this country who want that business to be retained within the culture that made it successful. I remind my right hon. Friend that, when the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) had his first spell in opposition—which hon. Members will remember was when his party was in government—he was not a great supporter of the proposals of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) for the Post Office. I shall check the record, but I think that the right hon. Member for Wokingham, along with many of his colleagues, opposed privatisation.
Does my right hon. Friend recall that the previous Government ran up the white flag on Post Office privatisation four years ago? Four months later, they offered their one constructive suggestion about the future of the Post Office in response to a Trade and Industry Committee report, and said that they would reduce the external financing limit to 40 per cent. of pre-tax profits.
Does my right hon. Friend remember the statement being made from the Dispatch Box, and does he recall what happened to that pledge? Six months later, the external financing limit was hiked up to £365 million. That is why the Post Office got into further trouble, after a review that lasted four years. I congratulate my right hon. Friend once again on making the only constructive statement on the Post Office that any Minister has made from the Dispatch Box in the past six years.
Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I recall what Conservative Ministers said and what they subsequently did in relation to the Post Office, which is why the British public felt so betrayed by the Conservative party in office.
My hon. Friend is right about the right hon. Member for Wokingham. I do not know whether he is coming or going in his response. I checked what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Post Office only this summer. He said:
"The Government needs to think globally. The Post Office needs to form worldwide alliances, joint ventures and businesses"—
that was in my statement.
The right hon. Gentleman continued:
"The Opposition would give a fair wind to proposals that free the Post Office to invest abroad—
that was in my statement—and that the Government
"should start to prise open the Post Office monopoly".
Very wise words, and that is exactly what I am doing.
The right hon. Gentleman made the case for "liberalising the Post Office" and "introducing greater competition" into the Post Office. All this I propose in my statement. He asked for a policy that
"allows the Post Office to expand abroad"—
I agree with that—claiming that the business was "stultified" by the Government's "lack of imagination".
28
What lack of imagination is there in the statement that I delivered? The right hon. Gentleman describes it as "fudge", but now that he gets the whiff of a Tory party leadership contest in the air, he is lurching further to the right in order to re-heat the old privatisation nostrums of a failed Conservative party.
Mr. David Chidgey: We broadly welcome the statement. We have long argued from these Benches for greater commercial freedom for the Post Office, and at last such a policy is being set out by the Government, which we welcome. However, there is a danger that the main issues have been fudged. I see from the statement that there is still a need for Government approval of borrowing. We will want to examine that closely in the White Paper.
We agree with the reduction of the external financing limit to £207 million, but it is a bit rich to call that commercial freedom. The Government's demand for a dividend of 40 per cent. is beyond the wildest dreams of any commercial operator of which I have ever heard. Reducing the Post Office's investment capital will make the Post Office fight for its now open market share with at least one hand tied behind its back.
When the Government open up the Post Office's monopoly to the market, what action will they take to ensure that our Post Office has access to the other national delivery service contracts in Europe and around the world? The quid pro quo is important.
The Secretary of State said that sub-post offices were vital to communities, and I agree. Can he confirm that the Benefits Agency and Post Office Counters computerised switchcard service will be put in place to provide essential income and service support for the Post Office? Is he taking action to overcome the problem of the reduced number of post offices that can issue motor tax certificates? He must be aware that only 3,000 post offices out of 19,000 are allowed to issue motor tax certificates. What action is he taking to persuade the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to open up the net to more post offices?
The right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the number of branch offices being closed in small communities around the country by the major clearing banks. What action is he taking to press the clearing banks to transfer over-the-counter banking services to sub-post offices, to give them another line of business to make them more viable?
Mr. Mandelson: The Post Office is already undertaking, in co-operation with banks and building societies, a number of pilot projects of exactly the kind that the hon. Gentleman suggests. We strongly support that. It is the way forward for post offices, and they will receive every encouragement from us to continue.
I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about sub and rural post offices. It is clear that, if we were pursuing the right hon. Member for Wokingham' s policy of privatisation, we would be placing a major axe over the future of large swathes of our sub and rural post offices. If we were to embark on privatisation now, we would create enormous uncertainty. It would be enough to make many sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses throw in the towel. They would have no idea what the future would

29
bring. The certainty and confidence to enable the Post Office to plan for the future are essential elements, and are characteristic of these proposals.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Government's approval for large investment projects. It is reasonable for the Government, as shareholder, to have some residual power of approval. It will give the Post Office considerably more latitude than it has had before, or than it expected from this package of measures.
The hon. Gentleman made a good point about a quid pro quo for the Post Office to buy into or obtain equity shares in post offices in other European countries. That is important, and we must consider carefully what further structural changes should be made to enable the British Post Office to do that. Other European national post offices have made considerably more progress along those lines than we have, and I regret that. We are playing catch-up.
On the Horizon project, the Government are committed to providing a modern, secure, convenient and cost-effective means of paying benefits to customers. That is what the benefit payment card has been designed to achieve, and that remains our objective. It is true that we have been concerned about the substantial delay suffered by the project, and we are monitoring its progress. I hope that it will be able to catch up, and that it will be brought to a proper conclusion and completion in due course.
Mr. Bob Laxton: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. It will be particularly welcomed by the public, who have expressed their fondness for the Post Office and their keen desire for it to remain in the public sector. It will be much welcomed by sub and rural post offices, as it will give them a sense of stability, and will enable them to continue in business. It will also be welcomed by the Post Office and its work force.
I listened with interest to the entirely predictable comments of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). I noted with rye amusement his comment that he had been unable to deliver a majority in favour of the privatisation of the Post Office. Although the Conservatives were in government, he was obviously yet again in the minority.
The limit on joint ventures is being lifted. It currently stands at £20 million. Will that limit be removed totally, so that there is no cap on it, or will it be increased? Although much has been made of the external financing limit and the arrangements by which the Treasury sucks money out of the Post Office, when the Trade and Industry Committee examined this issue, it found that there was no methodology or formula for the process. It seems that, under the last Government, if the Treasury had a shortfall, it picked a figure out of the air, and decided to rip it out of the bottom-line profits of the Post Office.
One thing that will be ensured now, irrespective of the issue—
Hon. Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not the only one to have offended in questioning Ministers on statements; most Back Benchers, on both sides of the House, regularly offend in this regard.
30
Let me tell the House, for the umpteenth time, that hon. Members should not themselves make statements; they should ask the Minister questions. So far, I have heard only one direct question to the Secretary of State. I want those who are rising now to put direct questions.
Secretary of State, will you respond to the question that has been put so far?
Mr. Mandelson: I will, Madam Speaker—although it is difficult to hold back hon. Members in their enthusiasm for the measures that I have announced.
Madam Speaker: Their enthusiasm can be expressed to the media outside the Chamber. In the Chamber, hon. Members ask questions of the Government.
Mr. Mandelson: I was going to make precisely that point, Madam Speaker. There is a waiting Press Gallery to receive hon. Members' comments outside the Chamber.
Let me answer the specific question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) about the way in which the Government will approve investment projects submitted by the Post Office, although I thought that I had covered it in my statement. Let me make it clear that approval will be given for normal investment cases put up by the Post Office. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the £20 million ceiling will be removed.
The Post Office will be obliged to demonstrate commercial robustness in the projects that it submits, and we shall expect them to be in line with the strategic plan that will already have been agreed between the Government and the Post Office board.
Mr. Richard Page: The Secretary of State does not have the excuse of a small majority for such a weak and pusillanimous statement. May I remind him that his party refused to support the then Government when they wanted to present proposals to help, privatise and liberalise the Post Office? Does he not know that the Post Office needs hundreds of millions, if not billions, of pounds of investment, and that his drip-feed of £100 million a year will not be enough? He knows about foreign competition; when will he set the Post Office free? We did it for British Telecommunications, and look at the success of what we did. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not do the same for the Post Office?
Mr. Mandelson: I fail to understand quite what the hon. Gentleman's point is. Of course we are setting the Post Office free—that is the point of my statement—but we are not simply giving it freedom to go on a spending spree, regardless of whether there is any commercial justification for the investment, strategic alliances and joint ventures that it wishes to undertake. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should suggest, as he seems to, that we might act in that way.
As for what the hon. Gentleman said about "drip-feeding" £100 million into the Post Office coffers, I do not recall making any such comment.
Mr. John McWilliam: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Does he agree that this is the most fundamental change—maintaining public

31
ownership, while increasing flexibility and competition in public enterprise—since the late Herbert Morrison set up the public enterprise in the first place? Is it not therefore significant that it is my right hon. Friend who is making that change?
Will my right hon. Friend accept the relief of my rural constituents, who now know that universal service will still apply, and that they will still be able to receive their mail? Will he also accept the relief of employees at Blaydon district sorting office who have been campaigning with me, and trying to secure a statement so that they can start planning for the future? May I thank my right hon. Friend on their behalf?
Mr. Mandelson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I think that people throughout the country, not just the Post Office work force—although they are important; there are many of them, whose commitment to the Post Office I acknowledge and commend—but consumers and customers, will be relieved that at long last we are providing some stability and confidence, on the basis of which the Post Office can expand properly and successfully in the future.
My hon. Friend is right to say that, at this stage of the Post Office's development, it would not have been appropriate or desirable either to go for new-fangled privatisation, or to continue with old-style nationalisation. I have every confidence that, were he alive and listening to the statement, my late grandfather, who was famous for being a great moderniser in his time, would recognise that nationalisation has to move on. It has to move on not to privatisation, but to commercialisation. That is what he would applaud, and I am pleased to have the opportunity and privilege of announcing that on behalf of the Government.
Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Secretary of State confirm that what he is really talking about is a publicly owned business with extended borrowing powers, powers to acquire other businesses and powers to engage in competitive, if not predatory, pricing? What does he have to say, therefore, to privately owned competitors of that business, which will thus be able to operate in a favourable environment, but can never go bust if it makes lousy decisions on investment and rotten decisions on predatory pricing? What does he have to say to the private sector?
Mr. Mandelson: What I say to the private sector, which I am sure will welcome this development—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, I have not heard any comments, but no doubt some in various corners of the universe will be eked out if Conservative central office is doing its job this afternoon.
What the private sector will say is that it strongly welcomes the establishment of a tough regulator, among whose duties will be the need and obligation to ensure fair competition. That is the regulator's job. The regulator will be accountable, through me, to Parliament for that job. The right hon. Gentleman should keep his powder dry and give the new arrangements and regulator a chance
32
to work in the interests of the Post Office and of the country as a whole, before trying to shoot them down in flames.
Mr. David Winnick: Is it not true that the reason why privatisation was not carried out in the previous Parliament, when there was a Tory Government, is that some Tory MPs from rural areas made it clear that they would not vote for privatisation because of intense constituency pressure? Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is no public support whatever for the Post Office to be privatised, and that it is unfortunate that the Tories do not recognise that?
Mr. Mandelson: I can barely add to my hon. Friend's eloquence. He is absolutely right. To be honest, as a result of hearing what Conservative Members have said, I am none the wiser about the official policy of the Conservative party on the Post Office, but no doubt that will emerge in time as the coming leadership contest hots up.
Mr. John Greenway: In the Post Office Counters business plan, which underlies the Secretary of State's statement, how many rural sub-post offices are expected to close under the arrangement? Is it not a bit rich to keep on blaming privatisation for post office closures, when the existing arrangements are seeing more sub-post offices in rural areas closed week after week?
Mr. Mandelson: What policies does the hon. Gentleman support? I have already made it clear that the Government and the Post Office board remain committed to maintaining the nationwide network in all parts of the country. Does he support the policies of the Government or does he support the views of some, or all—who knows?—of his right hon. and hon. Friends, who want to privatise the network, which would lead to its effective and speedy collapse?
Of course, there is no arbitrary figure that either I or the Post Office board wish to pluck out of the air. What concerns people is access to services, not the number of post offices, but let me make it absolutely clear that that network is going to be maintained. It is going to be maintained in all parts of the country. As technology changes, and as people gain access to postal services without coming face to face with their postmaster or mistress, that will extend the opportunities and services to which ordinary people have access.
Mr. Jim Cousins: May I give a very hearty welcome to Postman Pete? If my right hon. Friend's grandfather had heard his statement today, I am sure that he would have repeated his remark that socialism is what a Labour Government have done.
May I urge my right hon. Friend to make his priority not the introduction of private capital into Post Office services but the creation of a partnership between the Post Office and private sector interests, so that the Post Office Counters network—our wonderful, priceless national asset that reaches every community regardless of how remote or geographically or socially excluded it may be—can be used as a platform for provision of a whole new range of financial transactions and services? Will he make that his priority?
Mr. Mandelson: I am very happy to give a ready "yes" to my hon. Friend's question. The Post Office itself wants

33
to undertake precisely that type of partnership and joint venture—for which now, at long last, the Post Office will receive backing from a Government who are strongly committed to its expansion and prosperity. As for the Morrisonian nature of my proposals, yes, they are principled, open-minded and undogmatic. In that respect, socialism is indeed precisely what a Labour Government are about to do.
Mr. Michael Jack: Will the Secretary of State explain, first, why there was nothing in his statement—on a business that is very much a people business—about enabling individual postmen and women to develop a financial stake in their own businesses, to become real stakeholders? Secondly—having given another £135 million a year to the Post Office—will he explain what he believes is the real investment deficit? Thirdly, will he explain whether, under the new arrangements, the revised Post Office will be able to invest in enterprises providing communication services that it currently does not provide?
Mr. Mandelson: No, I shall not give the right hon. Gentleman an estimate of the investment deficit. As a member of the previous Government, he would know more than many of his colleagues about the Post Office's investment deficit. It is not for Ministers to determine the Post Office's investment needs; that is for the Post Office board. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman understands the nature of the new relationship and new approach that the Government are taking to the Post Office. Perhaps, in the quiet of his room, he would like to re-read my statement, as he would then understand it even better.
I should be very sympathetic to any suggestions that the Post Office board would like to make on a financial stake for the Post Office work force in the Post Office's future. There are a number of very good possibilities and excellent options for ways in which we can continue Post Office restructuring and its progress, and that is certainly an option that I should like to consider very carefully indeed.
Ms Jackie Lawrence: May I congratulate the Minister on listening to both the British public and the Post Office before formulating today's statement? The British public clearly want the Post Office to remain in public ownership, and the Post Office itself wants commercial freedom to secure its future. Does he agree that evidence from a private poll conducted in July 1998 by BPRI—which shows that 60 per cent. of Conservative Members supported the idea of an independent, publicly owned corporation—demonstrates that Opposition Front Benchers are out of touch not only with the needs of the British public but with the majority of their own Back Benchers?
Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend is right: Conservative Front Benchers barely know what time of day it is—they are so busy fighting among themselves, like ferrets in a sack—let alone the views of their own Back Benchers. She is also right to say that it behoves politicians—members of the Government—to listen to what the public are saying, which is that they want a successful Post Office. They want it to face stronger and tougher competition, and they want that spur to efficiency and
34
innovation which any commercial organisation needs—they are going to get it—but they also want the Post Office to continue to make a vital contribution to the social life and cohesion of this country.
Both those things will be achieved by the measures to be introduced by the Government. I have absolutely no doubt that the public will not only be content with what we have announced, but want the Post Office to go from strength to strength, even if that means making further changes to its structure and organisation. We are at the beginning of the process, not the end.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that two principal difficulties, which have been flagged up in previous reviews, face commercial freedom in the public sector? First, how can the Post Office be a genuinely commercial organisation when it does not have complete freedom to set its own EFL—its dividend to its only shareholder? Secondly, how can it engage in fair competition with its domestic competitors when—uniquely—it will not be allowed to go bust? Surely those are distinctive obstacles to practical commercial freedom in the public sector.
Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman might just as well say that he favours privatisation. In his view, public is bad and private is good. The sooner every public service is dragged kicking and screaming into the private sector, the better it will be for him. In my judgment—the measures that I have announced support my contention—it is possible for an organisation to enjoy considerable commercial freedom while remaining in the public sector, as the Post Office does. Other organisations—BNFL, for example—enjoy similar status. It exercises considerable commercial freedoms, but remains in the public sector.
I do not disguise from the hon. Gentleman the fact that we are trying to create a new public policy model of public enterprise through these changes. This is not old-style nationalisation or new-style privatisation, but something completely new and different. To coin a phrase, the approach belongs to the third way of political thinking in this country. [Interruption.] Not for a moment do I expect Conservative Members even to begin to understand what on earth we are talking about, because they are so locked into the past. They have not a single idea or shred of new analysis to contribute to thinking for the future, which is why they are over there and we are over here.
Mr. Tony Colman: I join my hon. Friends in strongly welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement on the commercialisation of the Post Office. The decision will be welcomed outside the House by customers, senior Post Office management and the unions. May I draw his attention to an on-going dispute at the Putney sorting office, which has continued for five years? I hope that he will join me in urging senior management and unions at the Post Office to settle those problems as soon as possible, in their new commercial freedom.
Mr. Mandelson: One thing is clear, not only in Putney, but right across the Post Office organisation and its network: the Post Office will not succeed in realising the opportunities that we are creating for it if management and work force do not work closely together, united in their commitment to making these new commercial freedoms a success for the Post Office and for consumers.

35
Many people will stand aside and judge how committed the work force and the management of the Post Office are, and with what skill, ingenuity and imagination they are able to bring about the full realisation of the opportunities that the Government are creating for them. In the light of that, we shall need to consider what further changes and restructuring of the Post Office may be necessary.
Mr. John Bercow: Is the Secretary of State aware that, on the strength of this morning's advance press briefing, Mr. Nick Butcher, the managing director of DHL, said that, if he were an executive in the Post Office, he would be very disappointed, because its ability to develop a strategy that would allow it to be a force in the next decade and beyond is being strangled?
Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that, by giving way to the Communication Workers Union, to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), and to the unions' sponsor and spokesman, the hon. Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson), he will come to be regarded not as a mighty Minister, but as a mere dithering minnow around the Cabinet table?
Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Gentleman is on form. I heard the observations of the manager to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, but he is not a executive of the Post Office, and does not speak on its behalf. I should prefer to wait to hear what the chairman and board of the Post Office have to say. I very much hope that they will strongly welcome the measures that I have announced.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Does my right hon. Friend remember the arguments that used to go on in the Labour party about public ownership? Some wanted to move quickly towards it, while others developed the theory of the inevitability of gradualness. I hope that the Government are not developing a mirror image of that approach, bearing in mind the ideas on privatisation expressed by the Conservatives. Arguments have been made about possible shareholdings in future. I hope that the Government are not engaging in that and opening the door in the direction that the Opposition want to go. Many would support commercial freedom within public ownership, but would question moving further.
Mr. Mandelson: I hear what my hon. Friend says. Nobody is trying to move gradually. On the contrary, we are trying to give a sense of urgency to the changes that the Post Office needs to undertake if it is going to catch up and compete with the best in Europe and the world.
That is the challenge that lies before the Post Office. We shall keep its performance under review. If it rises to the challenge, seizes the opportunities that we have created and does well in the form that we are creating, it can look forward to a long and happy future in that form. However, if it does not perform or if there are additional opportunities that we believe the Post Office should take for its success and for the benefit of its customers, we
36
shall not hold it back. We want to move with the Post Office towards its continuing success. We shall keep under review every aspect of its operation.
Mr. Edward Garnier: The Secretary of State said that the Post Office board would be accountable. To whom, and how?
Mr. Mandelson: The Post Office board is appointed by the shareholder—the Government. It will be accountable to Parliament through the Secretary of State.
Mr. Lawrie Quinn: We have had quite a few consultations locally when post offices have been forced to close, not because they have failed to deliver, but because private sector interests have decided to walk away from their business. An important part of my role has been to engage and involve the local community in consultations about the future of their post office or sub-post office. I am glad to say that we have succeeded in reinventing local post offices. Will there be any changes to the consultation process to give local people wider involvement in building a new Post Office for the future?
Mr. Mandelson: The measures that I have announced this afternoon will lead to greater investment in and strengthening of the local post office network, resulting in improved services to ordinary people in every part of the country. I attach importance to what consumers of postal services are saying. That is why we are strengthening the Post Office Users National Council. The regulator will have a duty to make sure that consumers' views are properly tapped and taken into consideration in the future development of the Post Office.
Mr. Edward Davey: May I have the Secretary of State's assurance that the model of commercial freedom that he has announced today will be sufficiently flexible to allow local managers to pay the postmen and women working in places such as my constituency, which is a high-cost area, sufficient wages to recruit and retain them in order to reduce staff turnover and improve mail delivery performance? Will it be sufficiently flexible to allow investment in the new state-of-the-art sorting centre needed in Feltham to improve mail delivery performance in my constituency?
Will my right hon, Friend tell the House why his proposals for commercial freedom fall so far short of the models adopted in world-leading postal services such as those in New Zealand, where management can utilise up to four long-term credit lines with private banks, unguaranteed by the state? Those borrowings are free from Treasury spending controls, permission and veto.
Mr. Mandelson: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, those options and avenues need careful consideration by the Post Office board. They will certainly receive a sympathetic consideration by me, too. As I have made absolutely clear, we are at the beginning, not the end, of the process of modernisation of the Post Office. Indeed, I hope that those and a number of other options will be entertained in the White Paper that I shall publish early in the new year.
As for pay, it is not for the Secretary of State to determine the individual pay policy of the Post Office. Of course, its management has to be cognisant of the overall

37
context of public sector pay, but, as I said in my statement, we want to create some flexibility for performance pay to be strengthened. Whether that descends quite to the level to which the hon. Gentleman referred is a matter for the judgment and operation of the Post Office board.
I hope that, as a result of the measures that I have announced this afternoon, there will be high investment, high productivity and rising income levels for those who work in the Post Office, to the benefit of those who work in the Post Office and those who depend on its vital service.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the same model should be applied to other state enterprises that the previous Government found impossible to privatise, and would benefit from being turned into operations that combined the strength and security of state enterprise and the freedom of the private sector? Is not one example the Patent Office in Newport, which is highly efficient, but hamstrung by Treasury rules that prevent it from entering sectors that are run by the private sector less efficiently and at greater cost to the public purse? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his announcement today is a fine example of modern, practical, intelligent socialism?
Mr. Mandelson: I have no hesitation at all in receiving and accepting that accolade for what I have announced this afternoon. In doing so, I pay tribute to my colleagues in the Treasury, with whom I have had an interesting and useful dialogue, stretching for some considerable time and resulting in the very progressive and enlightened statement that I have been able to make this afternoon, with the full agreement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
We shall have to see how this new model of public enterprise works, but I am confident that it will work very well. I hope that, in the light of our experience, we shall be able to apply new principles and new practices of public enterprise across the public sector. In that context, we have made a little bit of history in what I have announced this afternoon.
Miss Anne McIntosh: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the liberalisation of postal services across the European Union. Will he say whether the problem of terminal dues has been resolved? While he is being briefed, may I also ask him to say how the measures that he has announced will enable the Post Office to compete with TNT and the Dutch post office?
Mr. Mandelson: On competition, I made it clear in my statement that I want to ensure that there is no abuse of the monopoly area of the Post Office's activities or improper cross-subsidy between monopoly and non-monopoly areas. I fully accept that those are important issues for the private sector, as is the differential application of VAT between those in the public and private sectors who are involved in the postal service. As the hon. Lady probably knows, those rules are being reviewed by the European Commission; we are actively contributing to that process and to the review of the other matter to which she rightly referred.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason why the Tories are sat over
38
there is that they became besotted with the idea of privatisation, as evidenced by bus, coal, rail, and finally rain? Thankfully, the British people, who are totally against the privatisation of the Post Office, woke up in time, and ensured the Tories' defeat. My right hon. Friend has today made it pretty clear that there is a powerful case against privatising the Post Office, albeit temporarily, but why can he not rule it out permanently?
Mr. Mandelson: The key issue for us was to give the Post Office more commercial freedom urgently and immediately. Quite apart from the dubious justification for privatisation of the Post Office at this stage of its development, it would have taken three or four years if we had embarked on such a course. In that time, the Post Office would have fallen further and further behind international competition, as it would not have been able to enjoy any of the commercial freedom it needs if it is to compete more effectively with the best in Europe and the world.
The commercial freedom that has been given to the Post Office will be sufficiently extensive to ensure, together with the tough competitive pressures that will operate, a considerable improvement in performance—it will vest the Post Office with the ability to succeed in the future. If the Post Office falls short of that ambition, I shall discuss with it any adjustments that have to be made, although I do not foresee that any further changes will be necessary in the immediate future. The Post Office needs a period of stability and certainty in which to build its business; that is what the measures announced this afternoon will provide.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the question whether the Post Office continues in the public or private sector is at the heart of the issue? As a publicly owned organisation, it will not be able to set strategy or determine investment. In so far as it is in a commercial marketplace, its competitors will regard it as having the protection of a public sector or taxpayer guarantee. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in terms of the commercial marketplace, the Post Office will not enjoy exemption from the provisions of the Competition Act 1998, except strictly in respect of its statutory monopoly activities?
Mr. Mandelson: The newly appointed independent regulator will be extremely mindful of the competition requirements and of the law that operates in this country. That duty will be placed on him or her by the measure that we are proposing. The hon. Gentleman either has failed to notice or has overlooked the fact that I am proposing to reduce the Post Office's monopoly activities significantly, and that matter will be considered further in conjunction with the Post Office. I hope to be able to give a further indication of how far we intend to go in the White Paper next year, so, before the hon. Gentleman and others in the private sector jump to conclusions about our intentions, I ask them to wait a little longer so as to see exactly what we have in mind, which will become clear in the new year.
Mr. Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The statement that we have just heard from the Secretary of State was clearly of such importance that he felt that

39
he must come to the House of Commons this afternoon to advise hon. Members about his proposals for the Post Office; yet, once again, this information was trailed extensively in the media ahead of his coming to the House. I seek your guidance as to what action can be taken to ensure that, if a matter is of such importance that it merits a statement in the House, it remains the case that the House is the first place that we hear about it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Madam Speaker has said what she feels about how these matters should be ordered, and it is to be hoped that those on the Government Front Bench have taken note of that. However, it is impossible to guard against pre-discussion of events that are known about, and it is therefore inevitable that people cannot behave like Trappist monks. The statement was made here in the House of Commons today.

Orders of the Day

  Water Industry Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.42 pm
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Within three weeks of coming to office, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I held a water summit and set out a 10-point action plan for a better water industry. Since then, we, the water companies and the Office of Water Services have made substantial progress in improvements in a number of key areas. In particular, we have tackled leakage as a priority, and we are looking for a 20 per cent. reduction in total leakage during the first two years of the Government. One of the Government's commitments at the water summit was to conduct a review of water charging. We did that, publishing a consultation document in April and our response to consultation in November, and we now want to implement our decisions in that area.
  Since privatisation in 1989, water bills in England and Wales have risen by more than a third in real terms. Since 1990–91, total profits have risen from £1.3 billion to more than £2 billion in current prices. Significant improvements have been made in water quality and the water environment in that time, but there is still a considerable way to go. We want an ambitious programme of investment in the next century to protect our beaches and rivers, to make further improvements to our drinking water and to protect our precious nature conservation sites. At the same time, we want to ensure that hard-pressed customers are not faced with unreasonably high bills.
  Our document, "Raising the Quality", outlined an improvement programme, costed at £8 billion to £8.5 billion, to be undertaken by 2005. At the end of October, the Director General of Water Services published his document, "Prospects for Prices", confirming that our programme could be afforded, with substantial price cuts. We believe that we have struck the right balance between protecting and improving the environment and safeguarding the interests of customers.
  Mr. Eric Forth: I have no doubt that the Minister is one of those who argue that it is right to put high taxes on petrol, for example, to promote conservation and the responsible use of resources. Why, then, would he not want to encourage responsible use of the scarce resource of water and to provide a proper source of investment to improve the product in the future by levying appropriate charges?
  Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have missed the point that the water summit had a 10-point plan, one point of which was about leakages and the other nine of which were about water conservation. We also issued a consultation paper on abstraction earlier this year; we have received the responses, and I hope that we will be able to make a statement soon. We want to put in place a set of incentives to ensure that there is proper conservation by all sections of the community: industry, households and the water companies themselves.

  41
  There is good news for customers on the overall level of water bills. The Bill is designed to institute a system of fair and affordable water charges, especially for vulnerable customers, so that we can safeguard public health while ensuring that water is used in a sustainable way and protecting the aquatic habitat.
  The Bill has three key aims: preventing household disconnection; protecting vulnerable groups; and promoting increased customer choice. Water is a basic essential of life, needed not only for customers' personal hygiene but for the public health. It cannot be acceptable to allow families to be deprived of access to a sufficient supply of clean water for drinking, washing, cooking and sanitation.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I will in a moment.
  I recognise that, in recent years, there has been a welcome reduction in the number of customers disconnected. The trend is going in the right direction, down from just over 1,900 household disconnections in 1997–98 to about 640 in the first six months of the current financial year. The figures are encouraging, but we should not forget that any disconnection can lead to significant deprivation, social exclusion and risks to the health of the whole community, not only the families who are cut off.
  Mr. James Gray rose—
  Mr. Leigh rose—
  Mr. Meacher: I give way to the hon. Gentleman who asked me first.
  Mr. Leigh: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Obviously, disconnections are to be regretted but, as the Minster said, there were only 640 out of a nation of perhaps 30 million households. Does he at least acknowledge that, if we cease the threat of disconnection, the number of people who act irresponsibly and refuse to pay their water bills may well—indeed, almost certainly will—increase, and that what we do in the House, be it on taxes, benefits or any other matter, affects people's behaviour and whether they act responsibly?
  Mr. Meacher: Of course I am concerned about the small number of people who can pay but leave it to the last moment or who refuse to pay, but, before the Bill was conceived, nine of the 27 water companies, of their own free volition, had already decided to dispense with disconnection. Indeed, that number has increased from six to nine this year. Of course we strongly support water companies having the power to obtain the money that is due to them and I am keen that they should pursue that vigorously.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) gave the impression that people deliberately do not pay their bills, but such behaviour is rare. After privatisation of the water industry, the experience in my constituency was that old-age pensioners who had had their tariffs fixed on the
  42
  old rateable value and then moved into part-sheltered accommodation found that they had to pay four to five times the charge. They could not find the money to pay their bills and were in great difficulties. When I brought that matter up with Welsh Water, as it was then, it said that it could not vary the charge and the pensioners had to pay. Like most privatised companies, it had no way to help old-age pensioners to pay their bills.
  Mr. Meacher: I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct.
  Mr. Simon Burns: rose—
  Mr. Gray rose—
  Mr. Meacher: Hold on. I have been asked a question and I intend to answer it. I would be the first to recognise that a tiny number of people simply refuse to pay until they are forced to do so, but I suspect that a majority of those who do not pay are very poor, and include many pensioners and unemployed. How many Conservative Members know the level of income support for an adult over 25? Can any Conservative Member tell the House what it is? Perhaps I may assist them. The level of income support for up to 10 million people is £50.35 a week, leaving aside housing benefit. Many people find it extraordinarily difficult to meet many of their basic bills, and the Government—unlike the Conservatives—believe that it is wrong to penalise people who cannot pay.
  Mr. Burns: In answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), the Minister said that his hon. Friend was right. Will he correct the record for the House and accept that—after privatisation and continuing this year—the number of disconnections by private water companies has fallen dramatically compared to when the industry was nationalised? In saying that his hon. Friend was right, the Minister has failed to explain to the House that many of the private water companies have schemes designed to help pensioners and the less well-off.
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman fails to understand the line of my reasoning. I am not obliged to correct anything, because I have never denied the points that he makes. I said clearly that there had been a welcome reduction in the number of households that face disconnection.
  Mr. Burns: You said that the hon. Member for Rhondda was right.
  Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Gentleman wants an answer, he should listen to it. Many pensioners are under great pressure because of their low incomes and a number are threatened with disconnection for that reason. However, that is entirely consistent with the fact that some water companies have introduced devices to help pensioners with their water bills. I think that about six out of the 27 companies have charitable trusts. Many regard themselves as running businesses, not providing social assistance to disadvantaged groups. I am concerned to protect everyone who properly needs protection, as that does not happen at present.
  Mr. Gray rose—
  Mr. Meacher: I want to make one more point. More than half of the 640—a small number, but it is highly

  43
  significant if one is in that group, and it is cold comfort to be told that it amounts to less than 0.1 per cent. of the total—had no water supply for more than 48 hours. Perhaps hon. Members will think what that means. People cannot pay and they have no water to flush the loo, to drink or to wash themselves or their household objects.
  Mr. Gray rose—
  Mr. Meacher: I will give way in a moment. Not only have more than half those people been disconnected for more than 48 hours, but our evidence shows that one third of them may have been cut off for more than four weeks. Is that a policy that Conservative Members believe is justified?
  Mr. Gray: I think that the figures that the Minister used have been disputed. I believe that I am right in saying that two thirds, rather than half, of the 640 were reconnected within 48 hours. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could check that out. More important, will he advise the House how many of the 640 disconnections this year were schools and hospitals, which are exempt under the Bill, how many were second homes and how many were empty properties?
  Mr. Meacher: Yes, we will certainly try to supply those figures. I think that those groups are a small proportion of the total. Under the Bill, schools and hospitals could not be disconnected, but second homes would still be liable to disconnection. The Bill concerns principal or only homes, but I will find out whether the evidence that the hon. Gentleman wants can be provided. I am sure that my figures are correct and that more than half those disconnected had no water supply for more than 48 hours.
  Mr. Gray rose—
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech in due course.
  I do not find it tolerable or acceptable to expect consumers to live without water for such a significant period and I stand firmly by that principle. Therefore, we propose to prevent water companies from disconnecting customers in their principal or only home for non-payment. Nor do we consider that disconnection should be allowed for schools and hospitals, which provide vital services to the communities in which they are located.
  Those proposals reflect—perhaps Conservative Members will reflect on this—present practice in much of the industry. There has never been provision for disconnection for failure to pay sewerage bills. As I said, nine water companies in England and Wales did not disconnect any households for failure to pay water service bills in the first half of this year and there is no threat of disconnection—nor has there ever been—for non-payment in Scotland or Northern Ireland. If those water companies, in such important and large parts of our country, can do without disconnection and run a perfectly good water service, that can be true throughout the country. The proposals should not have a major impact on water companies because of the relatively small number of disconnections.
  44
  Of course, we firmly believe that water companies have a right to the moneys that customers owe them and we vigorously support their recovering debts to which they are entitled. Companies will continue to be able to use a range of procedures to enforce payment of water bills, such as the use of bailiffs to recover money or goods and of attachment of earnings orders, garnishee orders or charging orders. Any such procedure incurs court charges, which are added to the debt to be paid. That is a significant disincentive to any non-payer who can pay, so the proposals clearly do not represent a soft option for customers. Under the Bill, there is no easy way out for non-payers who can pay.
  Since we first announced our proposals to prohibit disconnection, several companies have been considering the use of devices such as trickle valves, which reduce flow to properties and cause significant inconvenience to customers, with the intention of enforcing payment. I hope that I have shown that our policies on disconnection reflect a deeply held concern about the health and hygiene implications if customers are deprived of a good supply of clean water. In line with that principle, I believe that we also need to act against the possible use of limiting devices as an alternative to disconnection. The Bill therefore makes specific provision to ensure that customers' well-being is not put at risk by the use of such devices.
  Clauses 1 and 2 demonstrate the high priority that we attach to tackling the risks to public health of depriving customers of their water supply for non-payment. In view of our strong welfare concerns on the issue, we propose that the clauses should be commenced on Royal Assent.
  My second theme is protecting vulnerable customers. Water bills will continue to be a significant expense for many customers, and we fear that certain groups of customers who have high unavoidable use of water could face particular hardship if they live in a property without a water meter. We therefore believe that carefully targeted protection needs to be offered to those groups. We propose to offer protection to two: large families on low incomes; and those with medical conditions requiring a high use of water.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: My right hon. Friend is doubtless aware of the innovative schemes that some water companies have introduced. Anglian Water, which covers my constituency, has charging schemes for precisely the groups that he mentioned. Will he bear in mind the need to allow water companies to have their own innovative schemes that relate to their locality and so avoid a straitjacket that would mean that every water company would have to have exactly the same scheme for its vulnerable customers?
  Mr. Meacher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. We are keen not only on the use of innovative tariffs, such as the rising block tariffs that are starting to be adopted and that we would like to be more widely applied, but on water companies advertising a range of methods and places of payment to make it easier. As the Opposition have hinted, we would like more water companies to develop charitable trusts. Those are all valuable ways of enabling people to meet their due water charges.

  45
  For the first group that I mentioned, we propose that protection should be available to families with three or more children in receipt of one of the following benefits: income support; income-based job seeker's allowance; family credit; disability working allowance; housing benefit; and council tax benefit.
  For the second group, we propose that protection should be offered to those with conditions such as desquamating or weeping skin diseases, incontinence, abdominal stomas, ileostomies and colostomies, and renal failure requiring home dialysis. We propose that, to gain protection, customers would have to certify to the water company that they suffer from one of those conditions which causes them to need an unusually high amount of water. Of course, it would be open to water companies to verify information provided by customers.
  We consider that the protection offered to those groups should be to have the option of a bill based on an average measured charge for the water company from which they receive their supply. That will ensure that customers with a high unavoidable use of water do not face unreasonably high charges related to the water that they consume, as that could give rise to hardship. I hope that that commands the acceptance of both sides of the House.
  There are further ways in which water companies can assist vulnerable groups, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) when she mentioned Anglian Water, which has introduced a special tariff that can be advantageous for families in receipt of benefit. I want to encourage all companies to consider how they can reflect social concerns in their charging and billing arrangements. Such initiatives offer water companies an excellent opportunity to demonstrate that they have regard for the interests of all consumers in a business that occupies a prominent position in the community.
  Mr. Gray: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. David Heath: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, who has not yet asked me a question.
  Mr. Heath: I am following the Minister's argument closely. He proposes the extension of the use of rateable value as a mechanism. Is there a mechanism in the Bill that will in any way relate the notional rateable value either to the current property value or to the ability to pay? Is there a mechanism to deal with single occupancy of larger premises? If the answer to both those questions is no, am I right to assume that the only option for people who feel that they are disadvantaged by the proposals is to move to having a meter?
  Mr. Meacher: I shall come to the question of rateable value shortly. It will be better if the hon. Gentleman listens to what I say and then responds. On his second question, he has a fair point. As I am sure that he already knows from having read the Bill, it contains no specific
  46
  provision on that matter. There is the option to apply for a meter, and we are making it easier for people to take up that option if that is what they want.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the Minister give way on the point of rateable value?
  Mr. Meacher: I am not on the point of rateable value. I am still on my third theme, which is increasing customer choice.
  Mr. Bottomley: My question relates to the right hon. Gentleman's response to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The Minister has not given way.
  Mr. Meacher: The reason I have not given way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that I am going to address the matter of rateable value later in my speech. If the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) wants to question me at that stage, I shall be happy to answer him.
  Mr. Gray: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No, I want to make progress. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has already asked a question and many other hon. Members want to speak.
  For many customers, there is little or no choice in charging arrangements; that fact is reflected in my postbag, and, I am sure, in those of many other hon. Members. I have received representations from some customers who are concerned that they may be forced by water companies to move to a measured charge—for example, because water companies fit a meter as part of associated works on pipes, or because water companies compulsorily meter whole areas. I also receive representations from customers who would like to have a meter, but who find that they are charged up to £150 for having one installed, which is an up-front cost that many less-well-off customers find unaffordable.
  The Bill provides new rights for customers to remain on an unmeasured charge in their present home if they are using water only for normal domestic purposes. It proposes that the Secretary of State will have powers to specify particular cases in which water companies will be able to require customers to pay on a measured basis, for instance, where customers are using significant quantities of water for what we call discretionary purposes—a sprinkler, a swimming pool and so on—so that such customers understand the cost of the resources that they are consuming and have the right incentives to economise on discretionary water use.
  Premises covered by that provision would include those that are used for commercial purposes, those where there is a garden sprinkler or swimming pool in use, those that have a power shower—which is defined as one consuming more than 20 litres a minute—and those using a water- softening unit that requires backwashing. Let me make it clear that the power would be an enabling power and that nothing in the Bill places an obligation on water companies to impose meters in any case. In addition, where water companies want to identify customers using water for discretionary purposes, we look to them to do so without taking an unduly intrusive approach.

  47
  I hope that I shall be able to make my statement on the question of rateable value before being asked a question. The vast majority of customers paying unmeasured charges do so on the basis of rateable values. Under current legislation, water companies would be prohibited from calculating charges in that way after 31 March 2000. The previous Government clearly intended to impose compulsory universal metering from that date.
  Mr. Burns: What proof does the Minister have for that statement?
  Mr. Meacher: There would be no other basis for charging after that date.
  Mr. Burns: What proof can the Minister present to the House that that statement is factually correct?
  Mr. Meacher: I have already made it absolutely clear that the previous Government intended to end the use of rateable values after 31 March 2000. That is the current position and that is exactly why we have put a measure in the Bill to remove that limit.
  Mr. Burns rose—
  Mr. Meacher: I am sorry, but I will not give way again. The hon. Gentleman can respond to that point when he makes his own speech. The position is absolutely clear.
  We reject that approach: we believe in choice and in proceeding by persuasion. That is why the Bill removes that deadline. The legislation will offer stability to customers and companies, protect households from any sudden upheaval and avoid the costs associated with an immediate and widespread change in the charging basis.
  On the point raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, let me say that we recognise that the use of rateable values has significant drawbacks. The values were set some time ago, there is no mechanism for appealing against a value set for a particular property and there are no rateable values for houses built since 1990.
  Therefore, it is understandable that some water companies and others are interested in developing alternative charging options. The option most commonly put to us is to allow charging based on council tax bands. The main arguments offered by proponents of that option are that it is a simple and well-understood system that would enable water bills to be based on a more up-to-date assessment. However, there is no firm evidence that a system that relates charges to council tax bands is inherently or automatically related more closely to consumption or the ability to pay than a system based on rateable values. It depends on the way that the arrangement is structured.
  Any change to charging arrangements would produce winners and losers—and, according to some models, the use of council tax could produce a large number of both. Again, it depends on the ratio between the bands.
  Mr. Tom Brake: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Meacher: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to comment on this point.
  Mr. Brake: Yes, I do. Is the Minister saying that he disowns the document entitled "Ending the Meter Mania",
  48
  in which the then shadow Environment Secretary, the present Secretary of State for Health, suggested that council tax banding was quite a fair and simple way of administering water charges?
  Mr. Meacher: I am not saying that. I have made it clear that the Government believe that it is essential that any proposals for a new charging regime provide adequate assurances regarding transitional arrangements. We do not want to see a large number of winners and losers—the winners would be very pleased, but we are concerned about the losers, particularly if they include those from the poorer groups. That would be a major disadvantage of the council tax band proposal. It depends on the structure and the ratio between the top and the lowest bands.
  We are perfectly willing to consider the options and any proposals that are brought forward. Some ideas have already been suggested—indeed, I recently met representatives from a water company and a non-governmental organisation who are pushing the council tax band proposal strongly. We do not have a principled objection to the development of charges based on council tax bands so long as the proposals are refined to address the difficulties that I have mentioned.
  Promoting increased customer choice means giving customers the option of a measured as well as an unmeasured charge. The use of water meters is not the only way of reducing water consumption. We need to ensure that water companies have programmes and targets for reducing leakage. I emphasise that that is an important part of our plan.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I can see that I will not be able to make this speech until I allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. Perhaps he would like to make his point.
  Mr. Bottomley: I hope that the Minister will appreciate the point that I tried to make five minutes ago, where it would have fallen more naturally. Is it not a disgrace that an elderly single pensioner living in a bed-sitting room may at present be required to pay £185 a year, whereas the water company would say that, if she had a meter, the likely charge would be between £120 and £140 a year? During the Committee stage and before the Report stage of the Bill, will the Minister consider what sense of urgency he is willing to put into the legislation so that, perhaps by the end of 1999, every pensioner in those circumstances will have received an estimate from his or her water supplier of the gain to the pensioner if a water meter were installed during the next 12 months?
  Mr. Meacher: I am pleased to say that I have good news for the hon. Gentleman. The Bill contains such proposals—Christmas has come early. We propose that customers should be able to opt for a meter to be installed free of charge by serving a measured charges notice on the water company. I know that that is not exactly what the hon. Gentleman suggested, but it comes to the same thing. If a pensioner wants a meter, he or she will find it easy to obtain one by serving a notice on the water company.
  The Bill contains additional protection for customers. Some of those who serve a notice on the water company may be worried that, at the end of a year, they will be

  49
  worse off, and for that reason may not prepared to take the risk. They will be able to revoke the notice within the first year if they would prefer to revert to an unmeasured charge.
  We are conscious of exactly the group to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We are making it extremely easy for them. The cost of a meter is £150 to £200. That will be provided free by the water company and, if it is not in their interest, customers will be able to revert to the previous system.
  Mr. Graham Brady rose—
  Mr. Meacher: This is probably the last intervention that I shall take.
  Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Minister. If metres are to be made available free of charge, and given that those who want a meter installed are generally those who will benefit from it, is it not inevitable that water charges for those who do not have meters will increase? Will that not be a pressing difficulty for those who do not fall into the poorest category and get relief, or do not benefit from a meter?
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question. The outcome depends on the rebalancing of the tariff basket. At present, about 14 per cent. of households have a meter. That figure is increasing at a rate of 2 to 3 per cent. a year, and we expect the rate to accelerate as a result of the Bill. If it became a flood, that would be a serious matter.
  The cost of selective and optional metering under the Bill, as well as the metering that the water companies already intended, is estimated by Ofwat at £300 million in the period 2000 to 2005. That relatively small cost must be compared with the £8 billion to £8.5 billion that is the extent of the environmental quality investment programme that the water companies will be required to carry out. The hon. Gentleman's point is relevant, but the situation will be perfectly manageable.
  Many of those who request a meter will be owner-occupiers, but there will also be tenants who could benefit from paying for water on a measured basis. That group is likely to include many of those among the least well-off, for whom any savings in costs would be particularly valuable. We estimate that as many as 54 per cent. of households in receipt of income benefit would gain from a switch to measured charges—not just the well-off, but a large proportion of the poorest would benefit.
  It would not be right to discriminate between owner-occupiers and tenants. We therefore believe that tenants should have the same options as other customers to request the installation of a meter. For practical purposes, we propose to exclude that option for those with fixed-term tenancies of less than six months, because the customer would not be in residence long enough to benefit from the savings that may be made from having a meter.
  We have prepared a regulatory appraisal to accompany our proposals, which makes it clear that the industry's compliance costs are low in relation to its turnover. I mentioned the £300 million figure, which includes the metering that companies are already programming in the
  50
  absence of Government policy on this issue. That figure is taken into account in the director general's assessment that substantial price cuts can be afforded in 2000. The director general proposes cuts of as much as 15 to 20 per cent. after taking account of the increase in metering.
  When customers move to a measured charge, other charges may have to be adjusted to take account of any shortfall or increase in the revenue to the water companies. The consequences for other charges will depend on the rate of switching, the characteristics of those for whom meters are installed and the manner in which costs are apportioned between different customers, which is a matter for water companies. Customers often opt for meters because their measured charges will be lower than their previous bills—tests show that it could be as much as 10 or 11 per cent.—which implies that they have been overpaying relative to their water use for some years. Putting their charges on a fairer basis inevitably has implications for the charges of other customers. We believe that the effect will be manageable within the annual changes in bills.
  On delivery mechanisms, we propose that the Director General of Water Services should approve water companies' annual charges schemes. That formalises existing practice, under which the Office of Water Services is consulted by water companies on the preparation of their charges schemes. The Secretary of State will be able to give the director general guidance on the exercise of his power to approve charges schemes, and he will also be able to specify in regulations particular issues to be covered in charges schemes, such as social and environmental objectives—which remain a key part of our aims—and protection for vulnerable groups.
  We do not propose that the use of such powers should conflict with the prime responsibility of the Director General of Water Services, which is economic regulation. The powers are deliberately circumscribed to ensure that they are not used to limit the total revenues of relevant undertakers. That will prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations that affect the overall price limits set by the director general following a periodic review. That is an important point, because it removes any risk that this mechanism could be used to create uncertainty about the effect of regulations on the companies' income.
  Part I delivers our commitment to introducing a system that provides fair and affordable water charges, especially for vulnerable customers, while ensuring the sustainable use of water supplies and the protection of the aquatic environment. Part II contains provisions to improve the arrangements for regulating the water industry in Scotland.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), when he winds up the debate, will comment in more detail on the provisions in part II, but I shall briefly set the scene. The need for new arrangements was identified in last year's Scottish water industry review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced the findings of that review to the House in December last year. As he explained, the review recognised a consensus that the existing arrangements for regulating the water industry in Scotland were not satisfactory. In particular, the current division between price regulation by the Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council and efficiency regulation by the Scottish Office had proved untenable.

  51
  The review recommended that those functions should be united by the creation of a new professional regulator, responsible for all aspects of economic regulation and for promoting the customer interest. My right hon. Friend promised that the Government would legislate to improve the system of regulating water prices in Scotland, to strengthen the pressure for efficiency in the Scottish water industry, to create greater financial stability for the industry and to retain a strong, independent customer voice.
  Those commitments are delivered in the Bill. It establishes a water industry commissioner for Scotland, who will operate independently of Scotland. It also establishes water industry consultative committees for each of the three water authorities in Scotland, which will constitute an independent source of advice for the commissioner in regard to customer interests.
  The framework for advising Ministers on charges will include a number of changes from the current arrangements. For example, it will provide for the commissioner's advice to cover periods of several years. The matters that the commissioner is to take into account in framing his or her advice are specified. Perhaps most significant, the commissioner will be required to publish the original advice and any amendments made by Ministers, thus ensuring a transparent price-setting process.
  This is a relatively small but, I think, important and valuable Bill, providing significant benefits for millions of people. It will protect vulnerable groups; it will prevent disconnections; it will extend consumer choice; and it will enhance conservation in the interests of the environment. I strongly commend it.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: The Minister for the Environment ended his speech by saying that his was a small Bill. In that regard I agree with him, but I also believe that it represents a missed opportunity for the Government.
  Following the hyperbole of last year's water summit and the rhetoric of Ministers since, the Government have ducked some of the most important issues affecting both the industry and its customers. No part of the Bill deals with the issue of enhancing competition, which would benefit the industry and its customers alike. Nor does the Bill say much about improving the environmental impact of water use or, indeed, provide any strategic overview for the industry.
  Instead of tackling those difficult but important issues, the Government have, in most instances, simply gone for the soft, populist options involving metering and disconnections—throwing in for good measure some rather nasty, neanderthal Labour-type powers for the Secretary of State and the regulator in clauses 4 and 5. That is probably rather appropriate. Even in this day and age, the Minister is renowned for being old Labour, so it is nice that a new-Labour Bill should still contain some old-Labour measures.
  Sadly, though, the Government cannot resist ducking the important issues. Given the choice, they will always go for the soft options, in the hope that that will please their focus groups. I believe that, in time, they will regret their timidity in the Bill.
  52
  I appreciate the need for a water Bill at this time. The immediate urgency is plainly dictated by the need to extend the use of the old rateable-value system beyond 31 March 2000 as a basis for charging those without a meter, which is dealt with in clause 8. I do not object to that. The last Conservative Administration—apparently, the Minister is not aware of this—recognised that such a policy would have to be introduced, and the law amended, if we were returned to office after the general election.
  Helen Jackson rose—
  Mr. Bob Blizzard rose—
  Mr. Burns: I will give way to the hon. Member for Waveney.
  Mr. Blizzard: Why, then, was the original arrangement introduced in the Water Industry Act 1991? Does that not show that the then Government's real agenda was to impose water meters on the whole country, and that only the groundswell of public opinion knocked them off their course?
  Mr. Burns: May I first point out that the 1991 Bill is a consolidation measure? The provision was in the original Water Act 1989, which brought privatisation. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman may not be aware, because he was not in the House at the time, that all the provisions emanated from the introduction of the community charge in 1988–89.
  Helen Jackson rose—
  Mr. Burns: Will the hon. Lady just contain herself for a minute?
  It was expected that, in the ensuing 10 years, a system would be devised to cope with the problems that resulted from a rateable value that was based on valuations dating back to 1973. As everyone knows—it is now history—what happened was that the council tax replaced the community charge in the early 1990s and, rightly or wrongly, the previous Administration did not get around to working out—[Laughter.] It is a self-evident fact. Before the 1997 general election, they did not get around to addressing the problem, but for the Minister for the Environment, in a typical Millbank smear, to suggest that that meant that the previous Government were planning to force meters on to every household is patent nonsense.
  Before the last election, we were on record as recognising that we would have to amend the law because we were not prepared, as a Government, to force water meters on to every household. That is why I have just said that we do not object to clause 8; it does something that we, too, would have done if we had been returned after the last general election.
  Dr. Peter Brand: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Helen Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burns: I give way to the hon. Lady because she has been asking more often.
  Helen Jackson: I am grateful to the Minister—
  Mr. Burns: Thank you.
  Helen Jackson: I am grateful to the shadow Minister for setting the record straight that the privatisation of the

  53
  water industry was based on the same philosophy as the introduction of the poll tax. Why does he think that the former Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is not in the House today, and whom I asked many parliamentary questions on the very issue of water rates, did not once respond to any of those parliamentary questions and say that he recognised the need to extend the use of rateable value beyond 2000? Was it because he simply could not bring himself to recognise that the poll tax—and the philosophy that led to it—was such a total failure?
  Mr. Burns: The straightforward answer to the last part of the hon. Lady's question is no. The answer to the first part—which I think the Minister would be reasonable enough to accept because he alluded to it—is that, to start with, after the introduction of the council tax, what we were going to do after 2000 was looked into. As the Minister is finding out and mentioned in his speech, it is highly complicated and difficult to ensure that it is a fair system. I will refer later to that aspect of the problem.
  Given the electoral cycle, we then ran out of time and were unable to come up with a viable alternative. In the same way, the Government—this comment is not a criticism—have not so far been able to come up with an alternative, hence clause 8, although I know that they are consulting the industry to try to find out whether there is a viable alternative.
  Mr. Richard Burden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burns: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am going to make some progress.
  I should like to press the Minister on that issue because Conservative Members would like to know a little more about his thoughts. Possibly the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who is winding up the debate, could give us some answers on how and when he expects the rateable value system to be changed.
  I understand that some water companies would like to transfer from the rateable value system to a link with the council tax banding system. As the Minister for the Environment mentioned, it is well known that the Government are not convinced of the merits of doing that because they fear that that would lead to a high-incidence effect, whereby customers on the lowest council tax—band A—would possibly, or almost certainly, pay more, and those at the top in band H would pay less.
  Are the Government considering ways to deal with the problem within the council tax system, or will they entirely rule out using the council tax band system? If so, do Ministers have any thoughts on what system—it may be a totally new one—they might use if they do not use the rateable value system? I am sure that both Opposition Members and Government Members would be interested and grateful to hear the Minister's thoughts on the issue.
  I accept that disconnection for non-payment of charges is a highly emotive subject. I should, therefore, like to put current practice into context before dealing with the proposals in detail.
  Water companies currently have the power to disconnect customers who have not paid their bills. Under the Office of Water Services code of practice, in virtually
  54
  all cases in which domestic customers have fallen into arrears, a water company will be able to disconnect only after it has obtained a court judgment in its favour. There is also a special provision in the licence that the supply of water to domestic premises should not be disconnected if the person liable for the charges informs the company that he or she is applying for help from the Department of Social Security or from local authority social services, and for as long as those bodies ask the company to delay disconnection.
  If one compares that practice with that of other privatised companies supplying essential services—gas and electricity—one discovers that their legal requirements on disconnection are broadly similar, as they have a legal right to disconnect for non-payment. However, it is necessary for the other services to obtain a court order only if the customer does not consent to disconnection and utility staff need access to the premises to perform the disconnection.
  As I said in an earlier intervention, it will undoubtedly come as the supreme irony to those opposed to water privatisation that, since water privatisation, water disconnections have fallen dramatically. Pre-privatisation, in 1988-89, there were 15,255 disconnections.
  Mr. Steve McCabe: I should like simply to clarify the point being made by the hon. Gentleman, who is talking about officially recorded disconnections. If disconnections forming part of the court case on budget payment units involving Birmingham city council and other local authorities were added to the figures, surely he would accept that a disguised and substantial number of disconnections are being hidden in that very process.
  Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: I am talking about official disconnection figures, and not the figures as they may apply to budget payment units.
  In 1997-98, the most recent full year, there were 1,807 disconnections. As the Minister said in his speech, in the first six months of this year, there were 640 disconnections.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I hope that my hon. Friend will point out also to the Government that—in addition to the Ofwat recommendations, which are very closely adhered to—regional customer service commissions are brought in to investigate each and every threat of domestic disconnection, to ensure that those who are in vulnerable circumstances are not involved. Therefore, those who are cut off are not the "can't pays" but the "won't pays".
  Mr. Burns: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who—with her customary perspicacity—has anticipated a matter that I shall deal with a little later in my speech.
  As I said, in the last full year—1997–98–there were 1,807 disconnections and, as the Minister said, there were 640 disconnections in the first six months of 1998. It should be noted that two—not nine, as I think the Minister said at the beginning of his speech—of the 27 water companies currently operate a non-cut-off policy. Nine have carried out no disconnections this year, which is not quite the same as a deliberate no-cut-off policy, although I fully accept that the result is the same.
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend will have noticed that, in an earlier intervention, the Minister apparently was not

  55
  aware of how many of the 640 disconnections were domestic, of empty houses or of hospitals and schools. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill relates to the method of charging after 2000, and that the little bit about disconnection is not to save any unfortunate people who find themselves in such a position, but is about political correctness? It is about soundbites and headlines, and not about realities at all.
  Mr. Burns: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. In many ways he has hit the nail on the head with a hammer.
  In my region, Anglian Water—
  Mr. Meacher: In view of what the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has said, may I give the disconnection figures to the House? They show that he was not quite right. There were none for schools, none for hospitals—
  Mr. Burns: Surprise, surprise.
  Mr. Meacher: Exactly, but that is the point that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire made.
  There were about 20 disconnections of empty properties, and 47 per cent. of disconnections were for under 48 hours. In other words, 53 per cent. of disconnections were for more than 48 hours, and more than a third were for more than 28 days. Think what being disconnected for more than four weeks means.
  Mr. Burns: I am pleased to have given the Minister the opportunity to put those figures before the House and on the record.
  In my region, Anglian Water's disconnections have fallen from 978 five years ago to 56 last year. This year it has disconnected only 16 households in an area with 2.4 million properties. To give another example, North West Water—
  Dr. Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burns: Would the hon. Lady please wait?
  Last year, North West Water disconnected 93 homes out of 2.6 million. Those figures simply put into context the current situation compared with that 10 or 15 years ago, when disconnections were a far more significant and serious problem. I in no way underestimate the problems facing people who are disconnected.
  Mr. Burden rose—
  Dr. Starkey rose—
  Mr. Burns: I should like to make a little more progress.
  Those figures show that the water companies are reluctant to cut people's water off. As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) said, they prefer to work with individuals who are in difficulty and use their legal powers only as a last resort. I believe, and I hope that the House would agree, that that approach is responsible and realistic.
  56
  In some ways, the Government's disconnection proposals are a quick-fix, populist measure. Although disconnection of domestic supply will be illegal, the water companies will, as the Minister rightly said, still be able to use the civil courts to pursue non-payers who persistently refuse help and do not pay. In effect, although the water companies will not be able to disconnect, they will still be able to use the courts to retrieve money owed to them. It may be argued—[Interruption.] I am glad that the Minister agrees. I am trying to be reasonable and realistic.
  Given that a majority of disconnections—or, in the light of the figures for the first six months of this year and those that the Minister has just given to the House, a large minority of disconnections—were restored within 48 hours, it could be argued that the threat of an individual losing personal belongings such as compact discs, televisions or videos for non-payment would be a greater incentive to pay than disconnection. Some people may not agree, but I believe that if an individual is given the choice between having his water cut off for up to 48 hours and losing some of his belongings to the bailiffs—and not getting them back—the latter will be a great incentive to pay the bill.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Burns: I find this extraordinary. I am slightly uncomfortable when Labour Members agree with me, but when one is talking common sense, it should not come as a great surprise.
  Mr. Burden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burns: No, please do not spoil it.
  Similarly, I am not convinced by the argument made by some that, with the withdrawal of the power of disconnection, the cost of recovering money from customers will significantly increase bad debt and costs to the water companies. My scepticism of that argument is twofold. First, the threat of the bailiffs is a powerful disincentive to the "won't pay" brigade. Secondly, at present, water companies have to go to court for an order to disconnect, which involves costs for them. As the Minister said, when the companies apply for a court order for an attachment of earnings or to send in the bailiffs, they will have the right to pass on the legal costs to those whom they are taking to court. Getting an order to send in the bailiffs is a direct reflection of present practice, except that it will be to recover costs or for an attachment of earnings rather than to disconnect the supply.
  I have some questions for the Minister on the issue. Have the Government carried out a full and, as far as possible, accurate business impact assessment of the effects of the clause on the water companies? Have the Government estimated whether there will be a noticeable increase in the number of "won't pays", or do they share my analysis that, after possible initial problems caused by a new system, there will not be a noticeable change? If the Minister has any figures or assessments, I should appreciate it if he could let us see them.
  Why does clause 1(1) and (2) seemingly—I am choosing my words carefully—apply only to domestic properties that are main homes rather than second residences, hospitals and schools? What is the rationale for limiting the provision to such premises? Are not

  57
  private residential and nursing homes equally important—or universities, colleges of higher education, children's homes or companies that supply medical needs to hospitals or to the country? The list could be endless. I am puzzled about why hospitals and schools have been singled out. No one would argue that a residential nursing home or a children's home was less important than a hospital or a school.
  Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a problem with sending in the bailiffs, because it may be difficult to prove ownership? Although rarely used, disconnection is a useful threat. Does my hon. Friend believe that the number who do not pay their bills will increase? The measure may be considered populist, but it may be less popular among those on low incomes who pay their bills.
  Mr. Burns: Some people from the "won't pay" brigade will do all that they can to avoid having their personal belongings taken by bailiffs. However, that is not the only weapon in the armoury. Water companies can go to court to seek an attachment of earnings or of benefits such as income support, as well as using the other measures that the Minister mentioned. I suspect—although it will be difficult to prove until we have firm evidence of it—that initially, there may well be an increase in people seeking to avoid paying because the penalties appear lighter, but when the system starts working and people are faced with bailiffs or attachments of earnings, they will realise that they risk losing their videos and compact disc players, and that will be a powerful incentive. Personally, I would rather have my water cut off for 48 hours than lose my television and video and never get them back.
  On my hon. Friend's final point, I agree that the Government think that they are introducing a populist measure, but when people face attachments of earnings and risk losing their property, it will not be popular, and that supports the argument that it will be an incentive for people to pay their bills.
  Mr. Burden: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is making a powerful case for the provisions that relate to disconnection. If I understand him rightly, he is saying that he agrees that "can't pays" should not be disconnected. What is the Opposition's view on so-called budget payment units, pre-payment meters and trickle valves, as water companies have been rather ambiguous about whether they relate to "can't pays" or "won't pays"? The Government have made it quite clear that they are suspicious that trickle valves are a way in which to avoid disconnection. Do the Opposition agree? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Burns: I am not going to duck that point, so there is no point in Labour Members laughing and making a big deal of it. I shall turn to help for vulnerable groups later in my speech. On trickle valves, if disconnections are to be banned by law, by definition trickle valves should also be banned and the Bill does that.
  The hon. Gentleman may have slightly missed the thrust of my speech. I am saying not that I agree positively with what the Government are doing, but that they are legislating for what already happens in respect of the vast majority of water users. When the Bill becomes law, instead of using the courts to disconnect, water companies will have the power to use the courts to recover their money through other means.
  58
  I should now like to turn to the clauses dealing with water metering. Again, it appears that the Government are being pushed along on a populist wave and are putting into law the practice that the majority of water companies already operate voluntarily. Rightly in my view, the Government have said no to compulsory metering for all, but are legislating to make water companies install meters on request free of charge and with the option to go back to the rateable value basis of payment within 12 months if the customer does not like the meter system or, more crucially, does not like the water bills.
  On environmental grounds, water meters are very environmentally friendly, especially in areas of sparse supply. To many customers, especially the elderly, single people living alone or families without children, they are probably financially friendly too. As the Minister said, only approximately 14 per cent. of households have meters and I believe that a significant proportion of them live in houses built since 1990–91. It is self-evident that the more households there are with meters, the more it helps environmentally. Thus there is an incentive for water companies to encourage and persuade people to switch to meters because rateable value customers have no incentive to be water efficient. That is exactly what many companies are doing.
  Of the 27 water companies in England and Wales, 15 supply free water meters, including five of the nine largest companies. Charges for the other companies range from an average cost—so that nobody starts throwing around other figures, it should be understood that the Minister tended to use maximum costs—of £14 in an existing chamber to £60 within the boundary. A number of companies allow households to revert to the rateable value system if they do not like their meters.
  Last year, Anglian Water conducted a metering exercise in Bury St. Edmunds. Meters were installed in about 12,000 homes and customers were invited to choose between continuing to pay their bills based on rateable values or paying metered charges; 52 per cent. of customers voluntarily elected to pay metered charges. At the end of the 12-month period, 5 per cent. switched back to rateable value bills. The House will agree that that is a very small proportion of the total numbers.
  There is a line of argument that the provisions will cost water companies dearly. I am not totally convinced, because the majority of water companies already operate a similar policy. There are also those who say that rateable value customers will be subsidised by meter customers or that prices will be higher than they otherwise would be if everyone were metered. However, even if that is true, the system exists today, so the Bill will not alter the position significantly—or certainly not before the Government reach a strategic view on the future of rateable value billing systems, if they ever come up with a system that they find acceptable.
  There are, however, a number of questions that need to be answered on this part of the Bill and I would appreciate answers, if not today, when we discuss the fine print in Committee.
  The Minister mentioned the business impact assessment that has been conducted on this part of the Bill. First, I would be grateful if Ministers could let us have precise figures—not those relating to the impact of the Bill plus the existing practices of water companies, but in respect of the impact of the Bill alone. Secondly, what research,

  59
  if any have the Government carried out on the environmental implications of clause 6, especially in areas of water scarcity? Thirdly, if a household installs a meter and then moves to another home after 12 months, will the new owner have the option of reverting to the rateable value system or does the law take the view, "Caveat emptor. You buy the house knowing what comes with it so you are stuffed."
  Mr. Meacher indicated assent.
  Mr. Burns: I see the Minister kindly nodding in assent, so I take it that a household moving into a house after 12 months have elapsed since the installation of a meter will have no option to go back to the rateable value system. I find it helpful that he has clarified that point.
  Finally, let me turn to clauses 4 and 5 which deal with the making and approval of charges schemes and the Secretary of State's regulatory powers. To be quite frank, they are very nasty powers—a throwback to the days of Government intervention in the marketplace. They show that, underneath new Labour, the Government still hanker after the interfering, nannying powers that they so enjoyed using in the past. It is self-evident that any decent person wants to provide help to those who need special protection, but help does not have to be provided through the political interference of a Secretary of State. Currently, water companies make special provision for vulnerable customer groups.
  North West Water, for example, has an extra care services scheme to help elderly customers, customers with a disability or a serious illness and those with sight or hearing difficulties. The help includes steps to ensure that customers receive a constant supply of water. The company employs two counsellors to visit customers at home to offer them help and advice when they get into difficulties, a scheme similar to the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay mentioned.
  Anglian Water, which covers my area, has a number of innovative schemes, including SoLow, which helps elderly customers—whom the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) mentioned—or those on benefit by removing the standing charge and charging a slightly higher rate per cubic metre. Its Plus 4 scheme assists the larger low-income families who use more than average amounts of water by raising the standing charge but cutting the volume rate. Giving the Secretary of State extra powers to interfere will stifle the incentive for water companies to employ an innovative tariff strategy.
  Dr. Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burns: I will give way to the hon. Lady who, although she does not know it, has cost me dearly this evening. I hope that my giving way to her will not cost me more.
  Dr. Starkey: I am intensely flattered by the hon. Gentleman's comments on my effectiveness. In answer to my earlier intervention, my right hon. Friend the Minister pointed out that his intention was not to stifle innovation by water companies, but to ensure that the worst companies lived up to the standards that the best companies have adopted voluntarily.
  Mr. Burns: I, too, heard the Minister's reply, but I will believe it when I see it. With his honeyed words, he no
  60
  doubt believes himself to be a reasonable and decent human being, but he will not always be the Minister for the Environment. A different Minister in a different climate, with a different attitude to the water companies, will also have powers under clauses 4 and 5 to do almost anything. That is a throwback to the interfering, nannying and regulatory approach of previous Labour Governments. Putting such powers on the statute book will provide a dangerous precedent.
  Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman must not spoil his speech, which has been very welcome; he has endorsed much of what the Bill does and I am grateful for his understanding. On this point, however, he is wrong. The clauses are drafted in such a way as to circumscribe the powers so that there can be no question of interfering with the proper economic regulation that is laid down by the Director General of Water Services; there will be no threat to the water companies' revenue base. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that the clauses contain a new, wide-ranging power which will threaten the water companies; they merely formalise what is already in place in the guidance to the director general.
  Mr. Burns: Obviously, we can return to that in Committee. My point is that the Government are laying themselves open to the charge of social engineering by deciding who should be assisted and by imposing that decision on the water companies; they could shift to the water companies their responsibility to assist vulnerable groups through the benefits system.
  The Minister will not want to admit that on the Floor of the House, and we will be able in the not-too-distant future to discuss the matter in greater detail in Committee, but I am firmly of the view—it has not been altered by anything that the Minister has said—that clauses 4 and 5 are a blunt instrument, which will probably fail to take into account wide regional variations in the problems and circumstances that face water companies and water supply.
  As the Minister knows, different water companies charge different prices for water and sewerage, but the proportion of income support to help to pay water bills is constant across the country. In July last year, he told the Environment Sub-Committee that he would not press for that proportion to be variable. Perhaps he will now reconsider the matter; I express no opinion on it except to say that, logically, the system should be brought into line with the system that applies to housing and council tax benefit, which is variable down to individual rent and council tax.
  No one would disagree with the gist of the right hon. Gentleman's words—that water is an essential to life. Given that that is so, however, surely there should be a variable element in the benefits system to help the less well-off to pay their water bills, just as there is a variable element for housing and council tax benefit. It was illogical for him to reject that out of hand when he spoke to the Environment Sub-Committee. I suspect that he agrees with the logic of my argument, but he knows that his views would not, because of their cost implications, be approved by the Treasury in a month of Sundays.
  Conservative Members are concerned about the wide-ranging powers that clause 5 invests in the Secretary of State. In Committee, we shall look very carefully at the

  61
  clause and at a number of issues that arise from the provisions on disconnecting, metering and Scotland. Because much of the Bill enshrines in legislation what most water companies are already doing in practice, I shall not ask my hon. Friends to vote against its Second Reading. However, we will carefully consider its provisions in Committee before it returns to the Floor of the House on Report and on Third Reading.
  6.7 pm
  Helen Jackson: The Tories' failure to understand the basic proposition with which my right hon. Friend the Minister began his speech—that water is an essential public service—was why when, before the general election, one mentioned the water industry and fat cats, most electors were halfway to putting their cross by a Labour candidate's name. Their misunderstanding of what a public service such as the water industry meant was a significant factor in their whole-hearted rejection by the country.
  On 11 May 1993, I introduced a ten-minute Bill—the Water (Domestic Disconnections) Bill. I did so because, on 28 April, I had received a parliamentary answer that contradicted what the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has said; it spelt out how, in the year following privatisation, domestic disconnections rose threefold, from 7,000 to 21,000. Nobody at the time said, "This is appalling"—the Conservative Government certainly showed no signs of being worried. In the same year, there was an equally disturbing increase in the number of cases of dysentery, especially in large conurbations such as Birmingham. Public health authorities and environmental health officers were concerned about the public health dangers of leaving a household without running water, and I pay tribute to the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, and officers such as Howard Price, for devising a Bill that would have outlawed domestic disconnections.
  The Bill was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The former Member for Batley and Spen—a Conservative—many other hon. Members and I all made the point that, if housing legislation provided that a house without running water was not fit for human habitation on public health grounds, we should have no part as a Parliament in allowing private water companies to deprive homes of running water. That would, in itself, create a public health risk. That is the view of the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and anybody involved in public health in this country.
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: Nobody in the House would disagree with the hon. Lady about public health, and no one would wish to see any truly vulnerable person cut off. However, we must be careful not to distort the picture. The hon. Lady chose the figure of about 20,000 disconnections in the first year after privatisation, but she well knows that, in the previous year—when water companies were in the public sphere—there were about 15,000 disconnections. If the hon. Lady thinks that privatisation is such a bad thing, can she explain why that figure of 20,000 disconnections—which I accept—has fallen to such a point that, between April and September
  62
  this year, there were 640 disconnections, two thirds of which were followed by reconnection within 48 hours?
  Helen Jackson: I was expressing concern about disconnections, not privatisation, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman believes that everybody in the House should agree with me. I hope that that is partly why every hon. Member will support the Bill in the House tonight. The numbers have fallen from that appalling figure of 21,000 is not only because of the public concern generated at the time, but because—in response to that concern—many water companies started to introduce pay-as-you-go systems, resulting in the budget payment meters with trickle-valve systems which, in the end, had the same effect. The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) looks puzzled, but such systems do leave domestic properties without water.
  To their credit, local authorities—particularly those in large urban communities—and public health institutions became extremely concerned that the accelerated introduction of budget payment units, particularly in Birmingham and the north-west, created a serious public health risk. Those authorities challenged the scheme and, with the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden)—who had a subsequent Adjournment debate on the subject—they mounted a significant campaign to raise those concerns. The official disconnection rate started to fall because so many companies introduced budget payment units.
  If all hon. Members agree that we should not leave a house without access to running water, they will fully support clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, which the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) spent so long saying were not good.
  Mr. Brian White: A number of people use pre-payment budget meters as a way of budgeting and want to continue with that. What would my hon. Friend say to them?
  Helen Jackson: That is a very good point. My right hon. Friend the Minister made it clear that one of the purposes of the Bill as regards charging systems is to encourage water companies to enter into many flexible arrangements to make it easy for their customers of restricted means to pay for their water. Any budget payment system by which households can pay more easily is to be welcomed. However, we should not welcome the hidden cut-off within those systems which could leave households without water.
  The fact that the Conservatives are still exercised by this issue exposes the flaws in their philosophy, which dates back to the time of privatisation. At that time, everything that we received as a public service had to be part of the market and had to be seen as a commodity—whether it was the sun, the rain or the air—and putting obviously public commodities into the hands of private companies somehow gave those companies the green light to maximise their profits by profiteering.
  All of us in the Chamber tonight should be thankful for the early action of this Government in ensuring, through the windfall tax, that those moneys obtained by profiteering will now, instead of going into the pockets of the privatised water companies, create jobs and training through the new deal. Without the change of Government,

  63
  that shift of thinking would not have happened, and we would still have a Government with a knee-jerk response who would say that any privatised utility was bound to be wholly good and that any suggestion otherwise was bound to be wrong.
  That exposes the Tory philosophy on these matters, but it also exposes the failure of the previous Government fully to understand the structure of the water industry's costings. When we pay our water bills, we are paying not simply for the water that comes out of the tap, but for the management of the whole water environment. We are paying for the way in which reservoirs are managed, for leisure activities on them, for the wetlands, for waste water management, for sewerage and for the treatment of drinking water. The last accounts for less than 50 per cent. of the costs of the industry. The volumetric element—how much goes through the taps—accounts for one quarter of the rest of the fixed costs of supplying drinking water.
  The assumption that payment must be on the volume of water that an individual uses in the home bears no relation to the actual cost structure of the industry. Inevitably, therefore, problems are built into that assumption—which brings me to the second element of the Bill: the section on charging systems.
  I welcome the end of compulsory metering, and the introduction of much more flexibility and choice in the way in which companies and customers can approach the water charging system. As part of that, it was clearly necessary to extend the option of using rateable values beyond 2000. It is important to recognise that the chief argument against universal metering—it is supported by most water companies—is that it is very expensive. On top of the capital expense of introduction, there is the year-on-year cost of an individual bill based on a volumetric amount, measured by a device that has a limited life, is bound to go wrong, will need maintenance and checking and is open to contradiction. A fixed charge based on a property does not change a great deal from year to year and overhead costs are significantly lower, as most water companies generally recognise.
  Both the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing would view universal metering as worrying on health grounds. I am concerned about the pensioners on low incomes who worry about the cost of water every time they boil a kettle for a cup of tea. That is not an effective way of ensuring public health.
  The households that gain from a switch from an unmeasured to a measured charge are those that pay at the top rate, and the extra costs will have to be borne by others.
  Mr. Woodward: I share some of the hon. Lady's reservations about metering, but who does she think will pick up the tab when people move from a fixed charge to metering?
  Helen Jackson: The water companies will pick up the tab, as they have the job of managing the system as efficiently as possible. A huge part of their responsibility involves introducing an equitable method of charging. I warmly welcome the Minister's proposals to encourage water companies to come up with schemes that make the charges fair, but I am seeking clarification because the choice in the Bill appears to be rather one way.
  64
  People can move, at no charge, from unmeasured to metered charges, but I would like domestic customers also to have the choice to move to a notional rateable value if their houses are built after 1990, or to some other form of unmeasured charge. I hope that the companies will take that possibility seriously, as it would reduce their overheads, and there would be a two-way choice. I am sure that Ministers will take up those points in Committee.
  In conclusion, I welcome the introduction of flexibility in charging systems, but I believe that customers should have a two-way choice; mostly, I welcome the recognition, running right through the Bill, that the management of our total water resource is too important to be left to the whims and profiteering of private markets.
  The public interest in sewerage and water must come first, for public health reasons and because, quite apart from us, the whole ecosystem of this country depends on good management of the water environment. We have to get that management right. The water companies have that duty, under a regulatory system and a responsible Government. The Bill takes us a long way down that road, with Government recognising their responsibilities for the first time in many years. It has taken a Labour Government to do that.
  6.26 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: I want to talk about disconnection, which is covered in clauses 1 and 2; responsibility for domestic supply pipes, which is not in the Bill and should be; and sewerage, which, despite the fact that it is mentioned in the long title, is not referred to specifically in any of the clauses. I intend to quote from a letter sent to me by the Director General of Water Services, Ian Byatt, on 20 November; from the briefing paper from Ofwat's southern customer service committee, which has been sent to all southern Members; and from the Ofwat National Customer Council briefing paper, which I believe has been sent to all Members of Parliament.
  I represent a constituency in which more than 30 per cent. of the population—double the national average—are over retirement age. In some areas of the constituency, the figure is as high as 60 per cent. I think that I can reasonably claim, after 15 years in the House, to have listened to many pleas for assistance from many elderly people, and to have a reasonably detailed knowledge of their circumstances and requirements. I take no pleasure in saying that I also represent the area of the south-east of England—the Isle of Thanet—with the highest level of deprivation by all social factors.
  I am sure that several of my constituents have had their supplies disconnected in the past three or four years, but, despite the fact that, like most Members of Parliament, I hold a regular surgery and receive a vast amount of correspondence, I have not received a single letter in that time about unfair disconnection, or simply about disconnection. That suggests that, if any of my constituents' supplies have been disconnected, it has been for good reason. I have certainly not received any representation on the matter from an elderly person, but, over many years in the House, I have received many letters from elderly people complaining bitterly that they are paying and carrying the can—and the burden of debt—for people who do not pay their way.
  The overwhelming majority of our citizens living on modest retirement incomes have been used, over many years of privation and hardship—including throughout the

  65
  war—to paying their way. They pay their bills first, before spending money on beer, cigarettes, satellite television or any other luxury, and they take a pride in doing so. They do not know any other way, and they resent the fact that there are other people who simply want a free ride. That is a subject on which I receive letters.
  Clause 1 will actively encourage the non-payers not to pay. Disconnection was mentioned by the Minister, by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson). I concur entirely with the view that water is one of the essentials of life, that any modern household requires a supply of clean water and that, on health grounds, the removal of that supply is highly undesirable; but adducing the law relating to habitable properties is unrealistic. When we talk about habitable properties, we mean that a proper supply is not available in those properties: we are not talking about a short-term disconnection. Even the Minister will agree that the disconnections to which he and others referred have been short-term ones.
  Helen Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gale: I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.
  I do not know anybody who believes that a supply of clean water is not desirable, but I am worried that the Government's approach will encourage non-payers. Worse, it will create circumstances—as my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford said—in which the water companies, instead of going to court and applying for a disconnection order which would last for a short time in almost every case, will seek permission to attach income or benefit, or to send the bailiffs in to seize property.
  I can foresee circumstances in which the Minister will come under pressure in the House from hon. Members. They will say that one of their constituents is a tenant, and his landlord, who uses the address of the flat, has not paid the bill. The tenant, who pays a rent that embraces the water bill as part of the deal on a furnished property and knows nothing of the circumstances of the non-payment, suddenly finds the bailiffs at the door ready to seize his goods. What provision is the Minister making to ensure that that does not happen? We may face that problem in a few months if he does nothing.
  The Minister has not come to grips with the advantages for domestic budgeting of pre-payment meters for those who have difficulty in paying water bills, although the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) touched on the issue when he intervened in the speech by the hon. Member for Hillsborough.
  The principle behind pre-payment meters is accepted for the electricity supply. The electricity companies use such meters sensibly, cautiously and intelligently, in cases in which customers are known to have a history of non-payment or a difficulty in budgeting and paying, as some people do. The Bill will prevent that from happening in the supply of water.
  The hon. Member for Hillsborough agreed with the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, and said that
  66
  it was an imaginative idea, but the Bill would prevent it. I believe that it would be sensible to go a stage further, and provide the pre-payment meter with a built-in cut-off point, as has happened in the past. They should give a warning signal followed by several days of supply, so that the customer knows that the money has run out, followed by—if necessary—disconnection. All the customer has to do is go down to the office, get the key recharged, and reconnect the supply. That involves no difficulty, and no legal intervention.
  I raised the issue in my letter to the director general, and his reply, in a letter dated 20 November 1998, read:
  "The Government intends to ban disconnections, and the High Court has ruled that budget payment units are not lawful operated as they were with a disconnection facility. While I agree with you that disconnection is an effective last resort (and it must be used carefully with proper procedural safeguards)"—
  I agree—
  "regulators must work within the law."
  The Bill should address that problem. The water companies believed that such meters were a useful tool, and so did the director general of Ofwat. They have to work within the law, but we are in the process tonight of changing the law, and I cannot understand why the Minister will not permit it to be changed in that way.
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that there are many easy-payment aids to budgeting that do not involve disconnection. He believes that "can't pays" should not be disconnected, and that pre-payment meters should be allowed to have automatic disconnection facilities after a warning, but how does the unit know whether it is dealing with a "won't pay" a "can't budget" or a "can't pay" before it cuts the customer off?
  Mr. Gale: The answer is that it does not know, in the same way that an electricity meter does not know, but I doubt that any Labour Member would say that pre-payment electricity meters are unfair. If the customer runs out of money, the house goes dark.
  It is all very well saying the electricity supply is different from the water supply, but it could cause problems if elderly people's electricity were cut off on a night such as last night, and they have no fire. However, I have received no complaints about such a circumstance. Other hon. Members may have done so, and they may pray those cases in aid. I have not done so, and, I repeat, I represent a constituency with a high elderly population, whose interests I take a pride in seeking to represent.
  I do not believe that the Bill is the right way forward, and nor does the Ofwat National Customer Council. I propose to place sections of its briefing paper—all hon. Members have received a copy—on the record. In its advice in the section on debt recovery and disconnection, the council states:
  "The Government wants water companies to rely exclusively on civil debt recovery procedures available through the courts. We believe that this may prove less effective and no less unpalatable than disconnection—in particular the use of civil debt recovery procedures will add to the customer's debt."
  That may cause the problem that I mentioned earlier when bailiffs go in and seek to seize property belonging to someone who is not the householder.
  The briefing paper continues:

  67
  "The level of customer debt in the water industry will rise as more customers refuse to pay; the costs of debt recovery and unpaid water charges will be borne by other customers."
  I emphasise that those are not my words, but those of the Ofwat National Customer Council. Once again, the payer will be asked to pay for the non-payer.
  The briefing paper also states:
  "The DSS Direct Payments Scheme enables money to be passed directly from customers' benefit payments to water companies to help them budget to pay their water bills and avoid disconnection for non-payment of charges.
  The Government has confirmed that the scheme will continue to operate when household disconnection is prohibited but has not said precisely how; more detailed assurances are required."
  That is another flaw in the Bill, and the Government should pay much more attention to the section of the Bill referring to that issue.
  I turn now to the issue of responsibility for domestic supply. The Bill is an excellent opportunity to address another problem of particular concern to my elderly constituents, and, I suspect, to those of other hon. Members. The Bill will give people the right to have a water meter installed. Elderly people will be led to believe that they will save money by doing so, because they are low users.
  What will happen when the water company comes along to install a meter, and discovers—as is often the case in elderly properties that are not as well maintained as they should be, because the owner cannot afford it—that the pipe from the meter to the house is rotten and leaking? That is a real problem, because the pipe is the responsibility of the householder. Such householders are often elderly and on limited incomes, but the water company has a right to say, "We must renew that pipe, because it is leaking. The director general of Ofwat and the Government have told us that we must repair leaks. We are going to repair the pipe between the new meter and your stopcock, and we are going to charge you for it, because it is your responsibility."
  The cost will depend on the length of the pipe involved and on what has to be dug up. The pipe may go under a conservatory or patio that someone installed without knowing that the pipe ran under it. The cost could be a minimum of £500, and, if it is a case of taking up a patio or conservatory floor, it could be £1,500 or £2,000. That enormous bill will suddenly land on the doormat of an elderly person who the day before had a water supply and no problems.
  The Bill is an opportunity to deal with that problem once and for all. It is an opportunity to say—there is an element of rough justice in this, I concede—that the water company has a statutory duty to lay the pipe to the stopcock in the house if it requires repair.
  That will mean two things. The company will incur a cost, which it will have to transfer, as it will not bear it alone, so everyone will pay a little more. Labour Members may say that that sounds like rank socialism—[Laughter.] In that case, they should support me, and help me to move an amendment to the Bill. In this instance, I would sooner everyone paid a pound or two more a year as an insurance policy. One day we will all benefit. I would sooner that happened than that some of my elderly constituents—plucked out non-selectively because they happen to have
  68
  applied for a water meter—found a bill for between £500 and £2,000 on their mat. I very much hope that the Minister for the Environment will take that matter on board.
  I raised that matter with Ian Byatt, who told me:
  "Making water companies responsible for the customers' supply pipes would involve changing the law and is obviously a matter for Parliament."
  We are Parliament, so let us change it. Let us do my elderly constituents and those in other constituencies some good.
  Finally, the long title of the Bill mentions sewerage, but there is no mention of it in the Bill itself. I pay the Minister the warmest compliment that I can. On the very day of the summer recess, if I remember rightly, he courteously and quickly received me and a delegation of my constituents to discuss Foreness Point sewerage provision, for which I am deeply grateful, as are my constituents. Therefore, he is aware of the problem that I face in my constituency, but it is a broader problem.
  In north Thanet, Southern Water wants to extend a sewage treatment plant. To do so, it requires the right to acquire land and dig up a site of special scientific interest and of natural beauty. We are told that the site will be reinstated when the job is done, in four or five, or perhaps even six or seven, years. In the meantime, my constituents will be subjected to considerable disturbance. However, when the job is done, we will still be pumping sewage into the sea, and, in this day and age, that is not acceptable.
  The Bill does not deal with that problem, but makes it harder for the water companies to deal with it, which I find incomprehensible. I cannot understand why we and Ofwat are saying that the water companies have been efficient and have made large profits, so we should take those back and share them out among the customers. I want that money to be put into better services, so that we have fewer leaking pipes. Above all, I want it to go into modern, 21st-century treatment plants, which will satisfy the needs of our children and grandchildren.
  If we are to bequeath a legacy through the Bill, surely it must be that it is incomprehensible that we should dig up fine land and, despite having a water shortage, pump sewage into the sea, rather than properly treating and recycling the usable effluent by putting it into rivers, allowing it to become diluted, and abstracting it lower down. However, neither I nor the Minister can tell Southern Water that we require it to install and pay for—at considerably greater expense—an inland treatment plant, if we are saying in the next breath that we will take away the money that the company could use to do it.
  Kent is short of water. Tourism and light industries are developing, and, increasingly, Kent is becoming a dormitory for London, so it will need more water. Southern Water and Mid Kent Water will have to build a reservoir at Broad Oak or raise the banks at Bewl water to provide it. Where will they get the money to do so, if the House—through the regulator and legislation—denies them the means and resources?
  The balance of the Bill is wrong. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford said from the Conservative Front Bench, we will not oppose Second Reading, but we shall try to amend the Bill in Committee and on Report, and we will oppose it on Third Reading if we do not secure the undertakings, assurances and, in some cases, the improvements it needs.
  6.46 pm
  Dr. Ashok Kumar: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this debate. First, I must congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on the Bill. He has always been a champion of social justice; in the Bill, he clearly demonstrates that he is trying to eliminate injustice for consumers, and I congratulate him. Certainly, all Labour Members would agree with him.
  The main thrust of the Bill is to lift the spectre of disconnection for ever. I would argue that the Government need to build on the period of stability that the Bill will provide for the water industry to consult on a truly lasting scheme for water charging, which incorporates environmental, social and investment needs.
  Having listened to the debate, I think that we all agree that water is a basic requirement of human life. It is worth reminding the House that the basic need for a hygienic water supply and the need to combat illness and disease led to the setting up of local forms of government and administration. Since then, an unimpeded supply of water has become something that most people take for granted.
  The affordability of water is a key issue, as is the need to ensure that no one is denied access to a water supply, whatever his or her needs. Some people have more needs than others. Large families, often headed by a single parent, obviously need more water for washing, bathing and cooking than small families. I take the point that, often, the largest users of water are affluent families who have—or feel that they have—large cars to wash and lawns to water, but we must not lose sight of the needs of the poorest among us. The key issue is the need to eliminate—
  Mr. Woodward: By how much will the cost of supplying water to homes increase as a result of the cost of installing a large number of water meters? What about the effects of moving from charges based on rateable values to meters? If the final cost is more expensive water, will not those vulnerable people—not necessarily the people who would be cut off, but those at the bottom of the pile—have to pay larger bills?
  Dr. Kumar: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I will come to that point.
  The key issue is the need to eliminate the spectre of disconnection. My area is served by Northumbrian Water and the number of disconnections there hardly registers—indeed, there have been none this year, despite the poverty and high unemployment from which many of the region's towns, cities and villages suffer. The arrangements that are in hand in our region are certainly a model for the rest of the country to follow and they comprise the following: the operation of a well-resourced customer services committee; proper collaborative arrangements with local councils and housing associations, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson); and on-going liaison with bodies such as consumer advice centres and citizens advice bureaux.
  We recognise that some disconnections occur. Sometimes they are the result of "don't pays" rather than "can't pays", but even in the former case the actions of, say, obstructive husbands can blight the lives, and harm
  70
  the health of, wives and children. Despite everything, some "can't pays" slip through the net. My experience as a councillor, and my constituency case load, has taught me that people who are less able to communicate are prone to pulling the blanket over their heads and hoping that problems will go away; of course, they do not.
  I appreciate the fear of water companies that merely removing the ability to disconnect will not solve their problem of recovering their costs and charges. The right to an uninterrupted supply of water comes with the responsibility of bearing a share of the cost of having it delivered through the tap. The Government should rule out some ideas now, such as devices that restrict the flow and amount of water delivered. That idea was floated by some water companies in the south of England.
  I would like the Government to rule out pre-pay meters, which merely give rise to a problem that already exists in respect of electricity supply—self-disconnection, which often happens without anyone concerned for the well-being of a family being aware of it. I would like some examination of the possibility of pursuing payment through attachment of earnings or deduction from wages.
  At present, in the income support regulations, rent, mortgages, gas and electricity rank above water in respect of direct payments. It could be argued that the system needs to be better fine-tuned to reflect the importance of the water supply. That could satisfy the needs of water companies to recover their costs and allow the fine-tuning necessary to reflect a household's financial circumstances. Such a process would stop the use of county court summons and judgments, which create additional costs for water companies and their consumers.
  On the broader issue of the Bill's proposals on the charging system, paying for water affects low-income families more than the rest of us. The charges that they have to bear must be balanced against their other pressing needs for food, clothing and accommodation. That affects many in the north-east, where many people are workless and median wages are lower than they are elsewhere. The spatial and demographic reality in which Northumbrian Water operates means that many of its customers are poor and most of them are clustered in large conurbations such as Tyneside, Wearside and Teesside on the coast. Meeting environmental standards and servicing large centres of population mean that the capital cost of the utilities is high, and that has to be reflected in household bills. The Bill provides that the rateable value factor will remain a basis for charging after 2000, creating some stability for the industry and the regulator in judging the equity of household charges. However, everyone recognises that this is not a long-term position and that a new methodology will soon have to be devised to calculate the household charge. That gives the Government a window of opportunity to consider the matter on a far broader canvas.
  There is a case for detailed examination of the elements that make up the factors in water charging: the environmental issues that flow from the present water supply infrastructure provision on the ground; the need to stop wastage and leaks caused by outdated piping and drainage; the need to consider the matter on a truly national basis to iron out the geographical and social inequalities that result from the boundaries of the present water companies; the costs that water companies pass on to their customers for running their central office services; the possible contribution that water companies receive

  71
  from their subsidiary operations, something of importance given that many of them have branched out into other activities, such as waste management and environmental consultancy, which can be highly profitable; and the need to balance the needs and demands of—and returns to—industries and institutional users against those of household consumers.
  The Government should consider whether cross-subsidies exist, or could be induced, to benefit both consumers and local industry. A good example of that exists in my area, where Northumbrian Water has recently completed one of the biggest infrastructure projects in the UK water industry. It consists of a totally new pipeline system and sewage pellet plant which will serve Tyneside and Teesside. It will also process industrial effluent and discharges from local industry. Such provision helps local industry directly and the charges for it can both defray the massive capital cost and eventually help to lighten the cost burden on the household consumer.
  There should also be an investigation into how to maximise the efficient use of water. As the National Consumer Council suggested, the process could begin with a simple scheme providing, for example, statements on household goods of how much water they consume. With appliances such as washing machines and electric kettles, there is a correlation between the use of water and the cost of electricity supply, and that approach could allow consumers to make domestic purchases that help both the environment and the household budget.
  There is a responsibility on Government, too, to assess the impact of water charges on the social security budget and find how the social security system can best help the poorest with their water charges. A key need is to ensure that the regulator has a duty to examine the need of the poorest written into his or her job description.
  There is room to build partnerships. There must be a partnership between Government and industry that gives the industry the stability, confidence and time to plan for the infrastructure and environmental improvements that everyone knows are necessary. There must be a partnership between the community and consumer champions. Partnership should mean that no one becomes ill or sick as a result of having water turned off at the tap. Such partnerships must have a key objective of ensuring that the water supply becomes a vital weapon in improving the quality of life of all our people—the objective originally set when the boards of works and local councils were established in the 1880s. On behalf of my constituents, I commend the Bill and wish it speedy progress through the House.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Tom Brake: I congratulate the Minister on being first out of the starting blocks with a new Bill in this Session. I will not seek to pour cold water on his achievement in securing pole position, as I am sure that the experience that he will acquire in taking it through the House will prove invaluable when more substantial environment Bills are brought forward.
  The Liberal Democrats support some aspects of the Bill. We recognise that water is not a commodity to be traded, like petrol or steel, but a necessity. We applaud
  72
  the Government's intention to ban disconnections and prohibit water-limiting devices, matters on which we too have campaigned. I was surprised that the Conservative spokesman dwelt at such length if not on defending disconnections, at least on minimising their extent. His reasons became clearer when he confirmed that he would prefer to have his water switched off for two days than lose his television.
  We do not believe that water companies require disconnection powers to ensure that "won't pays" pay their bills; attachments of earnings or benefits, or the bailiffs should suffice. After all, I hear no clamour from the Scottish water and sewerage authorities and local authorities for powers of disconnection. However, we do accept water companies' concerns about the difficulties that they encounter with the small number of "won't pays" who work the system. Therefore, I ask the Government to consider reviewing the process to allow action to be take more quickly in cases where people are clearly and deliberately avoiding paying their bills. We support the changes relating to the Water Industry Commissioner for Scotland, even if, according to a lawyer who has closely examined the relevant clauses, the drafting appears to have been somewhat hasty. We may choose to return to that point in Committee. Our support is limited to those clauses.
  The issue of water tends to leave egg on faces. In 1989, the Tories privatised 10 water companies at an administrative cost of £143.5 million, but they undervalued the companies by £873 million—not a negligible sum. It looks as though the Minister for the Environment will also be left with yolk on his tie—it would be quite visible on the tie that he is wearing today—for the Bill contains many unsatisfactory clauses and there are many unsatisfactory omissions.
  The Bill extends the use of rateable value indefinitely beyond 31 March 2000, yet most rateable values are 25 years old and even the most recent are at least eight years old, so that hardly constitutes a fair method of charging. In opposition, Labour proposed a better system of water charging, set out in the document to which I referred earlier, "Ending the Meter Mania", which was published in April 1997. It was written by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who at that time was the shadow environment spokesman, and is now Secretary of State for Health. I am pleased that the Minister for the Environment has not disowned that document, in which Labour proposed using council tax bands, saying that that method
  "provides the basis for a system of water charging that would be fair, reasonably simple and cheap to administer".
  That is the system used in Scotland. As both the Labour party in its document and I accept, that system would need to be fine-tuned, perhaps with additional bands at either end of the scale, but it is a viable alternative to the use of outdated and therefore unfair rateable values. The use of that system should not be ruled out simply because there would be losers as well as winners, as I understood the Minister to say; that would be a strange way to legislate. A system based on council tax bands is one that the Liberal Democrats support and the Labour party used to support. We believe that the Government should set an early deadline for scrapping rateable values and replacing them with council tax bands.

  73
  The Bill allegedly provides for free meters, but there is no rejoicing in the streets about that proposal. The cost of those free meters is identified in the document not disowned by the Minister as being £4 billion. My local water company says of free meters:
  "The changes to metering will certainly encourage more people to have a meter. It's the one or two person households in high rateable value homes who will benefit. Charges to everyone else, including the vulnerable groups, will go up."
  Hon. Members may be thinking, it is a water company, so it would say that, but what about the Consumers Association, whose briefing states:
  "We are concerned that the implications of this Bill are a policy of creeping metering"?
  What of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, which says:
  "the theme behind the Bill is increasing metering"?
  What of the British Medical Association, which says:
  "We are concerned that the customer choice will therefore be increasingly limited as the housing stock with water meters fitted increases",
  and continues,
  "Water metering has been shown to lead to reductions in use that threaten individual and public health"?
  A water expert who advised the Environment Sub-Committee on water conservation and supply said:
  "The Government has now agreed to a very expensive approach to charging households for water. It will progressively impose water metering on most households."
  It is worth noting that two of the organisations that I have just mentioned were quoted in "Ending the Meter Mania" in support of Labour policy only 18 months ago.
  The view held by diverse organisations is that the consumer choice on offer from Labour, to which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) referred, is all one way: people can either have a meter now or eventually be forced to have one. If anyone is in doubt that the Government's policy is one of "creeping metering", they should consider the 4.4 million—or perhaps 5 million; we await an announcement—new homes that are expected to be built by 2016, which will all have meters.
  As well as many flawed clauses in the Bill, there are significant omissions. The Government could have taken the opportunity to smooth out regional disparities in water prices by setting up a water services trust. Such a trust would be paid for by a levy on company profits and would fund water projects of national importance and provide grants and interest-free loans for the installation of water-efficient devices. I believe that Labour Members and even Conservative Members would support that.
  The Government, who say that they believe in the principle of the "polluter pays", have made no attempt to address the question of charges for highway drainage. Not many people know it, but all water company customers pay the cost of highway drainage charges in their water bills. The Bill also fails to address the issue of abstraction licences. I am aware that the Government are consulting on that issue, but the Bill represents a wasted opportunity for a Government who claim to have put the environment at the heart of their policies. The Bill should have referred to water abstraction licences and required that they be time limited.
  74
  The Bill's overwhelming weakness is its unquantified impact on the poorest section of the population. Sutton and East Surrey Water, which is my local water company, estimates that unmeasured bills could increase by 27 per cent. if 50,000 of its customers opted for meters. Hon. Members may doubt the company's word, so let me quote again from the Consumers Association briefing, which states:
  "We are concerned that the implication of this Bill is cross-subsidisation between measured and unmeasured users, meaning higher bills for unmetered consumers (due to the free meter policy)".
  I can also refer to "Prospect for Prices", a document which states the belief that the Government's proposals on metering could add between 1.5 and 2.5 per cent. per annum to bills. That means higher bills for lower income households in lower rateable value properties, some of which may not be included in the groups listed by the Minister in his speech. Even if they were included in that list, they might not be able to afford the so-called average bill to which the Minister referred. The Government have at least recognised that critical defect and are apparently trying, in conjunction with Ofwat, to mitigate its effect; but it should have been addressed in the Bill, not as an afterthought.
  The Bill has disappointed a wide range of organisations with an interest in water, whether water companies, pressure groups or health experts. It contains some welcome measures, but many flawed clauses, and there are some glaring omissions. The Bill extends obsolete rateable values; it does not end meter mania, but precipitates it; and it does not provide adequate protection for vulnerable groups. Despite all that, I shall observe the traditions of the House and not press the matter to a vote tonight, but I believe that the Bill will require extensive amendment in Committee.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. Richard Burden: I have enjoyed the debate, as good points have been made by hon. Members on both side of the House. I was especially interested in the speech of the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). Although I profoundly disagree with his remarks about pre-payment meters, his comments on responsibility for the supply pipe deserve consideration. I hope that he will not follow through on his statement that the issue might affect the way he votes, but the question of who is responsible for the supply pipe on consumers' premises will have to be addressed at some stage.
  I was joint secretary of the all-party water group in the last Parliament and I welcome the fact that many of the measures that we argued for are in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), who spoke earlier, mentioned her Bill to ban water disconnections. I pay tribute to her and the work that she has done on that issue over the years. I tabled a private Member's Bill, the Water Conservation and Consumer Choice Bill, which not only called for a more systematic approach to water conservation and leakage, but sought to allow the consumer to choose whether to have a meter, rather than leaving the matter entirely in the hands of the water company or the water company and Ofwat. I welcome the fact that that issue is addressed in the Bill.

  75
  This Government have had a real impact on the water industry. Shortly after we came to office, the water summit agreed a 10-point plan which signalled real improvements in water leakage prevention in the first two years. I also pay tribute to the progress made by the water companies. Many of those who know me may consider that quite surprising, as I spent much of my time in the last Parliament—and before I came to this place—criticising the water companies, the process leading to privatisation and many of the attitudes that followed it.
  Following privatisation, the water companies seemed to adopt a gung-ho approach in their search for ever-increasing profits and dividends. Water prices increased by a third in real terms and any increases in quality did not match the increases in price. The disconnection option was used too readily, with a threefold increase in the number of disconnections in the year following privatisation. I got the feeling, in the immediate post-privatisation era, that the water companies' desire to underline the fact that they were now part of the private sector was leading to a loss of the public service ethos that is so important in the water industry. The water companies became disconnected from the communities that they served, and I believe that that attitude has caused many of their subsequent problems.
  I am pleased to say that, since then, the water companies—including Severn Trent in my area—have shown a new sensitivity and a greater willingness to listen to criticism. Before privatisation, the then chairman of Severn Trent, John Bellak, was described as having the courage of the previous Government's convictions. The company was very political in the way that it managed its affairs. I welcome the fact that the situation has now changed. The company is doing important environmental work and supporting our region. It is backing the Millennium Point project, which is so important for the entire west midlands area, as well as regeneration projects such as the West Midlands First campaign, which is designed to promote the area as a centre for manufacturing. Those projects are vital in reconnecting the water industry and water companies with the communities that they serve.
  I welcome the quality improvements that have been made and I am also pleased about the dramatic change in the water companies' attitudes towards people who have difficulty paying their bills. The disconnection rate is down significantly. Severn Trent is one of the companies that have established a charitable trust to help those customers who have difficulty with bill payments. We must give credit where it is due: it is important to recognise that changes have occurred.
  However, do we assume from those changes that there is no need to worry about and outlaw disconnections? I think that that would be the wrong response. Disconnection is a matter of principle. The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health have made powerful cases—many of which have been mentioned tonight—outlining the real public health risks involved with disconnection. Those risks involve not just the householder or the person who, for whatever reason, has not paid his or her bill, but entire families, including elderly relatives and children. Many people may suffer health risks as a result of disconnection. Allowing the
  76
  disconnection of water supplies as a result of non-payment is no more acceptable or logical than responding to the non-payment of local taxes, such as council tax, by allowing rubbish to accumulate outside people's doors and removing their children from local schools. We are talking about a public service and the disconnection issue must be considered in that context.
  Despite the changed attitudes of many water companies, they can still take a cavalier view of disconnection, especially in the short term. That was certainly the case in the debate that occurred prior to the High Court judgment regarding pre-payment meters, and I believe that a similar opinion crept into the speech of the hon. Member for North Thanet. We have been told that pre-payment meters are essentially a budgetary measure and that there is a consensus that no one should be cut off for non-payment of bills. However, the pre-payment meters introduced by Severn Trent and other water companies—which were said to be a budgeting aid designed to help people who had difficulty paying their bills—led to disconnections, which were later deemed to be illegal.
  Although I welcome and support the initiatives taken by water companies and those promoted by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment—including easy payment schemes, staged payments and electronic payments at post offices and so on—any device that is said to be a budgetary aid but is used to threaten people with disconnection or a restricted water flow is not acceptable, for the same reasons that formal disconnection is not acceptable.
  If we are to outlaw disconnections—and I believe that we should—we have an obligation to ensure that there are other remedies in place in the event of a wilful refusal to pay. We owe it to our customers to ensure that they do not bear the brunt of bills arising from non-payment. It is vital to ensure that the court system works effectively and that garnishee orders and measures such as attachment of earnings work effectively.
  I welcome the Bill's extension of the time limit on using rateable values as the basis of water charging. Finding the best and fairest system of charging for water is a complicated issue. We must balance equity for customers with some consideration of ability to pay. We must also bear in mind sustainability and promote the conservation of water as a vital resource. It is not easy to find the ideal system that meets all those tests—in fact, there is no consensus in this country about what that system should be.
  In the past, there has been a headlong rush in some quarters towards metering as a panacea to those problems. When I sat on the Opposition Benches in the last Parliament, I had no doubt that the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), preferred metering as the norm for water charging—he made that absolutely clear in this Chamber and in meetings with my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough and with me.
  Mr. Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman concur with the view of the Consumers Association that the Government's current policy is one of creeping metering?
  Mr. Burden: The matter is not as simple as that. I shall deal later with the impact of metering on other aspects—an issue raised by the hon. Gentleman and others—but I do not agree with his analysis of creeping water metering.

  77
  There are powerful arguments against using metering as the norm and as the basis of a water charging system. Some years ago the Save the Children Fund conducted a study of the effect of metering on low-income families. Companies and many water analysts have drawn attention to the huge capital cost involved in making metering the norm—some estimates have put it at about £3 billion. Various hon. Members have pointed out at various times that many of the costs of the water industry are not specifically related to volume. In some cases, it has been estimated that 60 per cent. of the costs of the water industry are not related to volume.
  There are problems in seeing metering as the panacea for the future, but there is no consensus about what the alternative should be. That is why I believe that, at this stage, extending the use of rateable values to buy us time to reach a consensus is a responsible way of proceeding. It should be made clear to consumers that there is no obligation on them to have or not to have a meter. Of course there would have to be exceptions, some of which are covered in the Bill, but the principle is sound.
  I have some concerns about where we go from here. First, the Bill raises the question whether customers should have the right to have a meter installed free. I have no problem with the suggestion that customers who want a meter should not be charged at the time of installation. However, nothing is free in the water industry; there is a knock-on cost. I have heard it said, sometimes by supporters of metering, that in the water charging system there is an excessive bias towards the unmeasured customer. Having examined the system, I do not agree that that is the case, but I would be worried if, as a consequence of the Bill, a customer's right to have a meter free resulted in the cost of the meter being borne only by the unmetered customer, through the tariff basket.
  The Government probably intend a balance to be achieved, rather than the entire cost falling on the unmeasured customer, but I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can clear that up tonight or in Committee. It is unlikely that there is any difference in principle on that, but some of the more gung-ho supporters of metering in various institutions that have some influence on the matter may interpret it in that restricted way.
  My second concern is where we go in future. The Bill is the right way of proceeding now, in the absence of a consensus on charging systems for the future. However, we must reach a consensus sooner or later on what the basis of charging for water should be. If metering for domestic use is promoted through publicity or through incentives such as free installation, those who will save money by having a meter installed will, entirely reasonably, opt to have a meter installed. The water companies have admitted that many of those will be households in properties with a higher rateable value. If those customers save money as a result of having a meter installed, it is likely that the water company will seek to recoup the cost elsewhere.
  If the cost is recovered entirely from the unmeasured customer, the tariff basket will begin to be skewed. Unlike the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), I do not believe that that will inevitably lead to creeping metering, but as a society we must decide on the norm for charging for water in the future.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's thoughtful speech with
  78
  considerable interest. Does he believe that if all the categories of metered water customers are added together—those who apply for the free meter who are low-use customers and will therefore benefit and keep the meter, those who are high-use customers who use their sprinklers in summer and will be forced to take meters, those who buy houses that do not have rateable values, and those who buy houses in which a meter has been installed more than 12 months previously—there will be a vast increase in the proportion of metering, on a cumulative basis?
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there will be an increase. My right hon. Friend said that the chances are that there will be an increase. We shall have to wait and see whether it will be vast. Already about 14 per cent. of households have a meter. If there is an incentive such as free installation, the chances are that more households will have meters. If those customers save money on their bills as a result, there will be some kind of knock-on.
  The conclusion that I draw is that, in the absence of a consensus, it would be ridiculous to go headlong into trying to invent rateable values for all houses, whether they were built recently or not, or to go headlong for council tax charging, irrespective of the impact that that could have on low-income families if it were introduced without restructuring the council tax bands, or to go headlong for metering. A precipitate move down any of those roads would be wrong. That is why the Bill is right. We must be creative and examine different charging systems in different regions. We must accept that the objective is to develop a consensus that does not yet exist among Government or Opposition Members.
  As I have made clear for many years, my preference is for an unmeasured system to be the basis of charging. The capital cost of metering is so high that that is not the most attractive basis for charging for water in the future. Through an unmeasured system it is possible to create a charging system more closely related to ability to pay, but it is not a simple equation.
  There are powerful environmental arguments for metering. I have suggested that, as an alternative to metering, we should do more about leakage, and I have welcomed the efforts made so far by my right hon. and hon. Friends to deal with leakage. However, it was suggested to me last weekend that, if we move too far down the road of leakage control, that would involve an environmental cost in terms of landscape and so on. It is not a simple situation, but we must tackle it.
  If, after discussion and debate, we decide that we want metering to play a substantial role in our water charging systems, we must be far more rigorous in finding ways of relating a metered system to the ability to pay. The initiatives in the Bill to protect vulnerable groups are welcome and long overdue. That could have been done by the previous Government, but was not.
  To say that water charging should be based on average usage is a start, but average usage is not the same thing as ability to pay. We should commission research and try to find ways of relating a metered system not just to concepts of average usage, but to ability to pay. Only in that way will we be able to protect low-income customers effectively.
  I welcome the Bill. It is precisely what we should be doing at this stage, in the absence of a national consensus. It contains important initiatives, from the extension of

  79
  rateable value to the protection of vulnerable groups. I am particularly pleased that we finally say what a civilised society should say: that domestic water disconnections should have no place in the water industry.
  I hope that, after we have passed the Bill, we will move on and have a national debate to develop a consensus on a water charging system for the future. It should be based on ability to pay and ensure equity between customers—and it should promote sustainability and conservation, because water is an important and precious resource.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) has put his finger on it. What is wrong with the Bill is that there is no consensus in the industry about whether this is the right way to proceed, and there is no consensus among those worried about vulnerable groups. The genuinely vulnerable are not the 640 who have been disconnected, but those who will pay more for their water as a result of the Bill.
  The Bill is not particularly bad—its motives are good—but it is not a good Bill. It should have provided guidance for the water industry on how to charge for water in the years ahead. Instead, it has prolonged the uncertainty of the present system and failed to address many of the crucial issues, such as the environmental impact of the use of water.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said, the Bill does nothing to enhance competition within the industry, which is the most effective way to drive down the cost of water. It has little impact on the environment, provides little guidance for the long term and creates greater uncertainty. It is against that background of uncertainty that we must consider the Bill.
  We have heard the rhetoric of Labour Members—they have expended much energy talking about what the Bill will do for the vulnerable and how it will protect people from being disconnected. However, the truly vulnerable are no longer being disconnected. In the past few years, there has been a decline in the number of people who have been disconnected. We must put the number of disconnections in context, and consider whether the Bill has been thought through, has logic and relates to some of the other essential utilities, such as electricity and gas.
  We have no idea whether the system of rateable values will continue in the long term. The Bill does not say whether it will continue until 2005 or 2010. Without a final date for changing the system, there is no incentive for the industry, the Government or the regulator to find an acceptable, fair and modern method of delivering water to the consumer. Without that long-term solution, everyone is left with uncertainty.
  The water industry will bear the cost of providing the meters. It may spend hundreds of millions of pounds for no purpose, because, in a few years' time, the Minister could present a new Bill that changed the system of charging. The water industry has spent several hundred million pounds on disconnections. If all those 640 people who have been disconnected this year for whatever reason were highly vulnerable—most of them were not—they could have done with the money that will be wasted by the industry.
  80
  It is crucial to separate the principles of charging and of disconnection. The Bill is required to sort out the long-term interests of water for the consumer and for the industry. However, we must be careful to put disconnections in context. The Bill puts into legislation what the industry already does very well voluntarily. The number of disconnections last year was one tenth the number in the last year of nationalised ownership of the water industry. Public ownership is not a guarantee that people will not be disconnected. Labour opposed privatisation, but few people are now disconnected, because in the private sector the industry has listened to important criticisms that have rightly been made about vulnerable people needing to be protected. It has responded to those criticisms: it has not always got it right but, by and large, the trend is down, and this year the number of disconnections is in three figures.
  It is worth noting that, of those disconnections, two thirds are reconnected within 48 hours. I accept that those 48 hours may be miserable, but I am not sure that the Bill approaches the problem in the right way. The industry is concerned about the effect of the Bill on the cost of water, and on customer debt. It believes that customer debt will rise sharply, because the burden will be placed on the customers who pay their bills. We will end up with a water tax as well.
  The downward trend in disconnections should have given the Government a better sense of how to proceed other than by legislation. The Minister said that the Bill will help millions of people. I am not sure who those millions of people are. We know that 640 people were disconnected because they did not pay their bills, but who are the millions who will be helped?
  Mr. Lawrie Quinn: You have several times referred to those 640 people. It is my understanding that you are—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary language. He must remember that he should address the Chair.
  Mr. Quinn: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should not the hon. Gentleman refer to 640 households rather than to 640 people? Does he not diminish the problem by that reference?
  Mr. Woodward: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I do not want to quibble about whether the figure represents individuals or households, some of which may have one or two people. We are comparing like with like, so if there were 15,000 disconnections 10 years ago and the number for April to September this year is 640, those are the two figures that we should compare. If the hon. Gentleman wants to double this year's figure to 1,200, we should double the figure for 10 years ago to 30,000 to make a comparison. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's point is firmly made.
  Who are the millions of people who will be helped by the Bill? It will certainly not be the millions who will have to pay more for their water. The Bill will fall heaviest on the people at the bottom of the pile—the honest people with little spare cash who pay their bills because they believe that that is the right thing to do. It would be interesting if the Minister were to tell us who those millions of people are.

  81
  Does the Minister believe that more or fewer people will refuse to pay as a result of the Bill? The number of people who refuse to pay their bills is declining. Will the Bill lead to a further decline, or will the number increase? If the Minister believes that it will increase, does he also accept that, if more people refuse to pay their bills, there will be more court work and more bureaucracy? One of the dangers of the Bill is that it will lead to more expensive water, more court work and more bureaucracy, yet not one drop of water will be delivered more efficiently.
  The Bill does not address the problems of improvement in the service and of leakages. Those issues worry consumers of water. The Bill fails to deal with crucial matters that we know consumers care about.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford rightly asked the Minister whether a business impact assessment had been made of the effects of the Bill on water companies. Everyone must fear that the cost of forcing companies to supply free meters will be enormous. One water company in my constituency, Hyder, estimates that the cost of providing meters for a company with more than 1 million customers would result in an increase of about £25 a year in the average water bill.
  When Labour was in opposition, it made much of its claim that it would take £50 from the average water bill of every consumer in the country. All that the Water Industry Bill will do is increase the bill of every consumer. Nothing in the legislation suggests that Labour will honour the commitment that it made to consumers to reduce their bills; but there is everything to suggest that it will bring about more bureaucracy in the industry, and will do nothing to address the problems of leakage, nothing to improve the service and nothing to force the price of water down. It appears that it will merely force the price of water up.
  Hon. Members have made many other points about the impact of the Bill, and I feel that it is incumbent on the Government to deal with many of them, particularly in Committee. I feel, as do my constituents, that the Bill is fundamentally inadequate. It has missed the point. It dresses up, in the clothes of a claim to be here to help the vulnerable, a series of clauses that will not help the truly vulnerable: clauses that may lead to more expensive water for all such people, and that will do very little to lessen the environmental problems that have been mentioned.
  This is not a very good Bill, but it could be improved considerably in Committee. I have no doubt that many questions remain to be answered then.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Lawrie Quinn: I speak on behalf of my constituents. Earlier speakers said that they had received no correspondence from their constituents about this vital matter, but, as I can prove, I have received many letters, especially about the equity of the current system.
  I especially wish to mention a public house in Staithes, in my constituency, called the Captain Cook inn. It is a business, but, for rating purposes, it is also a domestic establishment. The landlord, Mr. Scott—who is also a ratepayer—has made many attempts to secure equity in terms of water use. The simple reason for his problem is that he has his own natural spring. He claims that he takes
  82
  water from it, and he feels that Yorkshire Water is charging him unfairly for the water that he uses. Earlier, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake)—the Liberal Democrats' spokesman—referred to abstraction licences. I hope that the Committee will consider that issue, which is particularly important to areas such as my constituency, where many people abstract their own water.
  I commend the improvements made by my local water company as a result of the marketplace—as a result of the change in the culture. Given that I am talking about Yorkshire Water, many hon. Members may be surprised by the progress that has been made. As will be recalled, not so long ago there were drought problems, but—as, I believe, with Severn Trent—many changes have been made to the management ethos and the culture in the company. I commend Kevin Bond, who was managing director of Yorkshire Water, for the changes that he brought about.
  Being on the coast, those living in Scarborough and Whitby are obviously concerned about the disposal of foul water—sewage. Again, I commend Yorkshire Water for the vast amount that it is investing in Yorkshire coast care. I do not think that would have happened without a change of ethos and emphasis that led to connecting with the community.
  I believe that my water company has listened to my constituents, and that, in its responses to consultation that pre-dated the Bill, it recognised problems that are experienced in a very remote area. I also believe that we are right to implement key manifesto commitments made by many Labour Members, including me, in the run-up to the general election. Those to whom I spoke on the doorstep wanted us to make progress. I think that the Bill makes the progress that my constituents want, and I hope that, in Committee, we shall be able to deal with some of the technical detail that should be dealt with then.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: I welcome some of the provisions in the Bill. I agree strongly with what the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) said about the increase in metering and about council tax banding, but I shall say more about that later.
  My main objection to the Bill is that, yet again, a key policy measure bundles Wales and England together in an entirely inappropriate way—in this instance, an especially inappropriate way. Things will be different for Scotland, although I understand the insistence of the Scottish National party that the issues in the Bill ought to be left to the Scottish Parliament. That, in effect, is what I shall say about the Welsh Assembly.
  There is, of course, a reference to Wales in clause 14 of the Bill, which mentions the possibility of transferring functions from the Secretary of State to the Assembly. The sooner the better, I would say. It strikes me as essential that Wales should be free to devise its own policies, within the framework of a sustainable water strategy—a strategy that should exist within the wider framework of a sustainable development strategy, which, under the Government of Wales Act 1998, the Assembly is obliged to draw up. The Assembly should, of course, have the function of constructing such a sustainable development strategy for Wales.
  I admit that it is not clear to me how much discussion the Bill will allow the Assembly in regard to the drawing up of a strategy, and I should be grateful if the Minister

  83
  would elaborate. I do not suggest that Wales should be allowed to do what it likes, regardless of the ecological effect; no country should be allowed to do that. Wales, and the Assembly, will have to work within the framework of international agreements in respect of water conservation, biodiversity and so on.
  It is well understood that water will become an increasingly important consideration in environmental sustainability during the next century, but, within that framework, Wales should have maximum autonomy and the power to develop and conserve its water resources as a vital environmental and economic asset, for that is what water is. I need not tell the House that water is a sensitive issue in Wales. In recent decades—or at least within my lifetime—we have seen the destruction of Welsh communities to enable the building of reservoirs for supplies to English cities. That has been enormously controversial, and has had profound political consequences for Wales.
  We need distinct policies in Wales for practical reasons. In the first place, Wales has a plentiful water supply. To give just one example, between 1989 and 1998, there were eight years of below average rainfall and three of those were years of serious drought, but, in the area of Welsh Water, during that whole time, there where no hosepipe bans and no drought orders. The Environment Agency says that there are no low-flow rivers in Wales, so we have a water-rich environment.
  In those circumstances, the argument for encouraging metering, which seems to be what the Government's policy is about—they view it as something that should be spread far and wide—to impose discipline on consumers is much weaker, but it will be advanced. As long as owners of new homes have no other choice, there will be a shift, or a slide, towards metering. We need to allow owners of new homes to choose not to have meters. That provision should be in the Bill.
  We need to move as quickly as possible to an alternative method and we have had some debate on that. I do not want to say much more about it, except to mention that the bills of 91 per cent. of Dwr Cymru—Welsh Water—customers are calculated according to rateable values that were last assessed in 1973. As has already been said, support for the council tax banding method is wide. There is much to be said in favour of moving towards that soon. The point is that that decision should be taken by the National Assembly for Wales.
  There are likely to be different investment priorities in Wales. Where there is a plentiful water supply, the problem of leakage may not have such a high priority. It is expensive to correct and, in Wales, it might be preferable—it would be preferable—to invest in higher-quality sewage treatment. We have such a programme in Wales through the green seas project. Priorities for investment should be decided by the Assembly and by the Environment Agency in Wales, in consultation with Dwr Cymru, and local authorities and others who have an interest in the matter.
  I suppose that some people might argue that we need to reduce consumption in Wales as much as possible, so that we are better able to export water over the border, but it might be decided that we had better not say that too loudly. That brings me to the important issue of water transfers, particularly in the context of climate change.
  84
  Climate change in the United Kingdom, as elsewhere, if it is going to happen—I believe that it is on the cards—will by and large increase demand for water, while reducing supply. That will cause significant problems for certain areas of the UK, particularly the south-east of England, but not just the south-east.
  Projections by the National Rivers Authority in 1994 gave figures for deficits in the water supply in 2021 under scenarios of high and low growth in demand. More recent information on climate change will probably make those figures even more daunting. According to those figures, the Thames region will have a projected deficit, even under conditions of low-demand growth. In a high-growth scenario, that was also true of the Severn Trent, Anglian and Wessex regions. Wales would have a surplus, even in a high-growth scenario.
  In those circumstances, it is clear that there will be pressures to transfer water from Wales to parts of England—not just from Wales; perhaps from some northern regions of England as well—through impounding, the construction of reservoirs or simply transferring water from river to river through pumping schemes and such methods. It is important to say that that would be unacceptable because transferring water has biological, ecological and political consequences.
  I make it clear that the days when Wales could be used as a convenient source of primary products for export—whether minerals, timber, agricultural products or water—must and will come to an end. The sensible thing, and what is in Wales's national self-interest, is not to move water to enable increased development elsewhere, whether we are talking about industry or housing, but to move the development to where the resource exists. In this case, it is water, but, increasingly, that will also mean energy. Energy will be generated on a dispersed basis and development will migrate towards places where the sustainable energy system exists.
  To give just one example, it is probably better to grow vegetables and other such food products where there is adequate water supply, rather than to transfer water to provide large-scale irrigation to grow them in an arid part of south-east of England. Climate change projections show that parts of south-east England will become arid in 20 or 25 years. Other industries besides those, of course, need a lot of water. The priority for Wales, then, must be not to export water, even if we have a fair price for it—that has been the theme—but to add value to water while conserving it and the ecology that it supports.
  That has significant economic and, over time, political implications for Wales and perhaps for the UK too, but it is important to recognise that we are not just talking about self-interest. It is better in every sense to do what I suggest. It is environmentally more benign and it would contribute to creating a more dispersed pattern of economic activity and prosperity. It would help to counteract the unhealthy concentration of everything, whether wealth, power, population or activity of all sorts, in the south-east of England.
  The National Assembly for Wales will, therefore, need to develop a sustainable water strategy for Wales as an early priority, building on work that has already been done with the Environment Agency in Wales and Dwr Cymru. However, another early priority must be to transfer to the Assembly all the powers that it needs to fulfil that mission properly.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: As many hon. Members have said, water is one of the essentials of life. However, if one needs a reminder of how much we rely on a modern system of supply of that valuable commodity, one has only to visit a third-world country such as Nigeria, which I visited in September. One can see how great a part of the lives of millions of people in such countries is spent simply carrying water from the well or standpipe to the home, and all the consequences that that has not only for public health, but for the whole way in which those societies operate.
  It is a measure of the failure of the previous Government, who devoted so much time to water with their water privatisation programme, that the Bill is necessary very early on in the Parliament to sort out the wholly unsatisfactory laws on charging. When water was privatised, many people questioned the ethics of making a profit out of that which falls freely on to the earth. The answer that was always given was that the profit would be made out of not the water, but the treatment and means of supply; yet, under the laws passed by the previous Government, the water companies are allowed to deprive people of water—the means of life—for non-payment. That reveals the previous Government's attitude towards and motivation for the privatisation programme: primarily, it was not public interest, but the furtherance of private profit.
  The Government's pre-payment policies, and the Bill, aim to ensure the reverse—that privatised water companies serve the public interest. The Bill will therefore not allow disconnection of water to homes, schools and hospitals. Although no one is condoning non-payment, there clearly is no need to deprive someone of water—or air—as punishment for non-payment of bills. As hon. Members have already said—although I shall take the example further—one does not deprive someone of access to the national health service because he or she has not met an income tax demand. We have to learn the lessons of the past, and realise that the great advances in health in the United Kingdom were made by improving factors such as the water supply.
  There are, as hon. Members have said, many other ways in which water companies can ensure that people pay their bills. I was pleased to hear that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), thought that the Bill would provide a more effective means of ensuring that people paid their water bills.
  Other provisions in the previous Government's legislation show equal disregard for consumers and citizens by permitting water companies to compel conversion to metering. Moreover, current legislation provides no right for customers to choose whether to use metering or to continue with the unmeasured system. Currently, water companies are also not obliged to supply free meters. The Bill will redress all those problems, and give rights to citizens and customers rather than to water companies.
  As hon. Members have already said in this debate, in many cases, the Government are bringing the law into line with water companies' practices. We should always remember that many water companies tried to introduce pre-payment devices that were self-disconnecting. I was pleased that the council that I led played an important part
  86
  in a campaign against the introduction of such devices. It is, therefore, simply unrealistic to say that everything will be all right if we leave the law as it is.
  Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation, and legislation, in Scotland is completely different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom largely because of the campaigns waged in Scotland, especially the referendum conducted by Labour in the Strathclyde region—against the advice given by all quarters—showing that more than 90 per cent. of the population completely disagreed with water company privatisation?
  Mr. Blizzard: My hon. Friend makes a very valuable point. Labour-controlled local authorities across the country, both north and south of the border, helped to resist some of the previous Government's worst proposals.
  Mr. Burns: Such as?
  Mr. Blizzard: I shall deal with another example shortly.
  The Conservatives left us with another problem. Under their legislation, after 31 March 2000, it will no longer be possible to charge by rateable value. As I said earlier, I think that that date reveals the previous Government's agenda: to have everyone on a meter by that date. The previous Government made no move to introduce an alternative, and their excuse—that they ran out of time in which to do so—is untenable. As we all know, the legislative programme in the previous Government's final Session was very light. If they really wanted to do something about the matter, there was ample legislative time—in a Parliament that went on and on—to do so.
  Public opinion knocked off course the previous Government's plans for universal water metering. We have been left instead with a situation that I shall describe as a parallel to the millennium bug—which we could call the millennium tap or millennium water pipe. If the Bill is not passed, we shall be left with the strange situation of having to convert everyone to a water meter very quickly, or to discover some other device to ensure that the law passed by the previous Government is upheld.
  The Bill leaves open the option of a future charging system based on council tax. It will be interesting to see what happens. However, such a system would require reform of the council tax system and the introduction of more bands, so that there were not too many rich winners and too many poor losers—which is really a verdict on the current council tax structure. The Bill will also give tenants, not landlords the right to decide whether a meter will be installed in a home.
  Current arrangements pose a problem particularly for local councils, such as mine, that want to be fair to their tenants. Requests for water meters are sometimes made by single, often elderly people—or by an elderly couple—living in a full-sized family home. Such requests cause councils a serious problem. If councils want to meet the needs of that person or couple, they will say, "Fine; install the meter." But what about the interests of tenants—perhaps a family on a low income—who move in after the elderly person or couple leave it?

  87
  My council introduced a policy prohibiting water meter installations in full-sized family properties occupied by a single elderly person. That was a very difficult decision to make, as it was not possible to balance the interests of the current tenant and of future tenants. Thankfully, the Bill will sort out the problem.
  Mr. Burns: How?
  Mr. Blizzard: The current tenant will be able to choose a meter, whereas future tenants in real need—who have medical needs or form a large family on low income—will be able to gain the Government help provided in the Bill.
  Mr. Burns: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's fantasy philosophy with growing amazement. He has managed, on a very narrow basis, to pick out an example that fits his rather chronic argument. How will the Bill help the average family who may go into that large home and who have no medical problems?
  Mr. Blizzard: I am talking not about average families, but about large families on a low income. Such families are disadvantaged by meters. The average family is not particularly disadvantaged by meters. The Bill deals with those who are seriously disadvantaged.
  We should realise that metering has a valuable part to play in encouraging responsible water use and the management of—I was going to say of a scarce resource, which it was until this summer—a resource that is not unlimited. In the right culture, such practices will help to avoid waste and provide extremely useful tools. However, I am concerned about whether our water companies have the right culture.
  I remember an Environmental Audit Committee sitting in which we were considering whether to hold a major inquiry on water services. The managing director of Severn Trent Water company—who was also chairman of Water UK, the water companies association—made a statement to us which greatly concerned me. He said:
  "We do not believe that we should discourage people from using water in their gardens if they want to pay for it. If they use a sprinkler they have a meter … I have to listen to the arguments of my customers who say that if they have invested £25 in a plant because the climate will now sustain more exotic plants they are going to water it anyway. I have to listen to that because they are telling me what they intend to do with my product."
  We have to remember that social equity is one of the principles of sustainability. It is unacceptable to allow people to consume huge amounts of water in using a sprinkler on an exotic plant or in filling up a swimming pool time after time just because they can pay for it, while asking ordinary people to be careful with water.
  There is a lesson there for anyone who advocates heavy and crude environmental taxes. For example, if the fuel escalator, which was introduced by the previous Government, continues in a crude form, it may result in a rich person driving a car around while an ordinary person is restricted. We have to grapple with that principle.
  To conserve the environment and to conserve water should mean sharing any curbs on our life style and sharing our inconveniences. Those who can afford to pay
  88
  should not carry on with the old, unsustainable life style while those who cannot carry a burden. We need balance. The Bill takes us a long way towards achieving that in respect of water, which is why I support it.
  8.11 pm
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: As my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) said, it is hard to understand why we need the Bill. As I read the briefing material from the industry, it welcomes almost all the proposals. It is obvious that the great majority of the Bill's objectives could easily have been achieved by negotiation between the Government and the industry, which is naturally anxious to have good relations with the Government and with consumers. It is monitored by a number of bodies, including the Office of Water Services, which are directly answerable to the Government.
  Conservative Members wonder why we are taking up time to introduce the Bill. The answer was given us by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), who told us of the fun that Labour had condemning the water industry, and what she described as its fat cats, in the run-up to the election. She painted a picture of an industry that had been privatised by the Conservative Government and was exploiting its customers and cutting off water supplies, and a picture of hysteria, which she freely admitted assisted Labour in winning the election.
  In a way, the Bill has arisen out of that hysteria. It is part of the Labour party's policy of suggesting to the public that the services that have been passed to the private sector—and which are almost universally admitted to be a success, because they have led to lower charges—are still a problem and that the water industry represents that problem.
  The Minister for the Environment painted a picture of what he called vulnerable types who needed the protection of our benevolent Government. Despite its being pointed out to him that Ofwat has defined the criteria on which people may or may not be disconnected; despite the fact that that is backed up by a number of regional customer service commissions, which monitor all proposals for disconnection before they are allowed to go ahead; and despite Ofwat's statement that the disconnections are not of vulnerable people, but are valid—that is backed up by the fact that two thirds of people who are disconnected are reconnected by the simple device of paying the bill within 24 hours of the disconnection—he persisted in painting such a picture, as if half the households of this country were having their water supply disconnected.
  There are 20 million households in this country; about 640 had short-term disconnection for wilful refusal to pay for the water that they had consumed. There is no acknowledgement of the fact that someone else has to pay the bill when people behave badly, and try it on and push authorities to the limit. Labour Members never mention all those respectable people on modest incomes who pay their way and pay their bills. As Ofwat has pointed out, people who are bad managers can get the Department of Social Security direct payments scheme to help them to meet their water bills by passing amounts from their benefit payments directly to the water companies—budgeted over the year, so that they do not get themselves into debt.

  89
  Several Labour Members have linked charges to ability to pay. That is not how an industry functions. We can tell that from Ofwat's briefing, which says that we must achieve
  "a better relationship between charges and consumption."
  People are asked to pay for their water because someone has to, and there should be a relationship between the amount of water consumed and charges borne. If the Government of the day require that certain people—those with large families or the elderly who live in certain types of accommodation—are given special help, that is the Government's job, not that of the industry. The industry's role is to fulfil the obligation placed on it with privatisation: to bring a derelict industry, which had been neglected for decades, up to modern standards. To achieve that, it must have resources. It is charged with raising those resources from its consumer base, and that is exactly what it does.
  In the early days after privatisation, it was inevitable that water charges would rise, for the simple reason that the industry was so run down under public management, and its infrastructure so antique, that a massive amount of water was lost into the environment or into the soil. All those issues had to be dealt with quickly.
  The industry was also charged not only with improving the quality of our water—which in many areas had become a lot less than safe—but with cleaning up our rivers, so that wildlife could flourish and we could have more fish swimming in our rivers. It also had to clean up our beaches and coastal waters, which had become highly polluted under public sector management and were unhealthy for bathing.
  The industry had to reduce or eliminate the dumping of sewage sludge into the sea in pipes that were barely beyond the tidal level of the sea. Sewage was being washed back on to our beaches. The industry was given all those tasks, to improve the quality of water. Under public management, it had walked away from its responsibilities. They were tasked to the new industry, which has been doing its very best.
  A few directors, whose incomes were profit-linked and linked to improvements that they produced, received relatively high salaries. The Labour party leapt on that and made it an enormous political issue—so we are debating a Bill that is largely unnecessary and could have been dealt with by negotiation between the industry and the Government.
  Hon. Members have mentioned the prohibition of disconnection in particular. It has been pointed out time and again that the number of people being disconnected is going down rapidly. The message is getting through that these disconnections are bad news: they are bad news for the industry, the Government do not like them, politicians do not like them and they result in a bad reputation. Gradually, that problem is being overcome. We have gone from tens of thousands of disconnections under public ownership to practically none—about 600 cases this year, and that may be better still by next year—but the industry said in The Daily Telegraph that it is rightly concerned that
  "this move will give a green light to people who simply don't want to pay."
  There are always people who do not want to pay. They do not want to pay for gas or electricity and sometimes they do not want to pay in Marks and Spencer, so they pick up a
  90
  few things and try to walk out of the store without paying. Nobody says that people should be allowed to get away with that, however poor and vulnerable they may be. The water industry is no different.
  We keep hearing about how the precious commodity of water is in short supply. If Britain is blessed with anything, it is with a more than ample supply of water. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) has made that clear. The water companies are tasked with ensuring that that adequate water supply is properly managed so that we do not have droughts. Droughts are less a product of our climate than a result of the mismanagement of the industry over the years. The Government should not paint a picture of an industry that is careless of the interests of its clients, which it is not, and that overcharges, which it does not—the rate of increase in water charges dropped dramatically after the first period. If, as I expect, the industry follows the example of the other privatised utilities, water charges will start to come down in real terms. The Government would have served the industry better by leaving it alone—it is monitored by several agencies—to fulfil its task.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Many of my constituents will welcome the provisions in part II of the Bill, which establishes a water industry commissioner for Scotland. That will be a welcome change in Scotland to the legislation introduced by the hon. Lady's Government in 1994.
  Mrs. Gorman: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will be pleased. I am not au fait with the details for Scotland, because I expect the issue to be dealt with by the new Scottish Parliament. Three agencies—the Environment Agency, the drinking water inspectorate and Ofwat—already monitor the activities of the industry. It is very well managed and controlled. [Interruption.] The Government Whip is pointing to his watch and asking me to sit down. I have sat through the whole debate. I am fascinated by the subject and I intend to say what I came here to say.
  Far from receiving brickbats from the Labour party, the water companies should be congratulated on the tremendous improvements that they have produced in the industry. We should not discourage them by adding to their costs with the provisions on metering. The enormous increase in the costs to the industry will be borne by the respectable customers who pay their bills. We should trust the industry, monitored as it is, to get on with its job. We shall go through the motions of the Bill, but we should remember that most of it has nothing to do with the needs of the industry and everything to do with the Labour party's rhetoric in the run-up to the general election.
  8.24 pm
  Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on the robust and effective way in which he and his colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have addressed so many water quality and cost issues in their first 18 months in government, as well as some key associated environmental concerns. Significant steps have been taken to meet our manifesto commitment to pursue
  "tough, efficient regulation in the interests of customers and, in the case of water, in the interests of the environment as well".

  91
  Many of my constituents, who face the highest water bills in the country, will welcome the Bill. By removing the water companies' power to disconnect the water supply to private dwellings, by prohibiting them from using devices to reduce the amount of water available for use to enforce bill payment and by introducing the power to make regulations in respect of charging schemes, the Bill will give important new protection to vulnerable customers.
  The Bill will go a long way towards achieving a fair and affordable water supply for vulnerable customers and offers an increase in customer control and choice over how water is provided to them and how they pay for it. That will offer substantial help to many people, particularly in the south-west, where water bills are the highest. According to the report produced by the House of Commons Library as a background to the Bill, the average bill in the south-west for 1998–99 is £354, compared with the average for all water companies in England and Wales of £242.
  In the Labour party's document "In Trust for Tomorrow" we said that we would
  "outlaw disconnection for residential properties and ban compulsory water metering".
  The Bill implements that policy clearly and unequivocally.
  Balancing price and quality and taking into account environmental considerations is difficult without causing undue tension for one of the key stakeholders. Nowhere has that proved more true than in the south-west over water. The average bill of £354 is 10 per cent. of the income of many less-well-off households. Many pensioners and younger people in my constituency live on incomes of between £2,000 and £4,000. It is little wonder that, faced with such a situation and the many other competing needs for food, warmth and clothing, some of them have problems with payment. I can say with confidence that the measures proposed in the Bill will help many of my constituents.
  That is why I have taken a particular interest in the way our policies to regulate the utilities, particularly water pricing, have developed since the election. I am astonished that not a single Member from the Opposition parties representing Devon or Cornwall is present for this important debate. The Liberal Democrats, who have been vociferous on water issues, are conspicuous by their absence. I understand that they intend to oppose the Bill because it represents the creeping advance of metering. Many elderly people in Devon and Cornwall would like to be better able to assess whether water meters would be of value to them and would be interested to know that that is the Liberal Democrats' policy. I shall ensure that they do know about it.
  I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment shares my concerns about water charges, about the substantial increases since privatisation and about the burden that they place on my constituents. Water companies with long coastlines have passed on to customers the consequences of the environmental programme that goes with their responsibility for treating waste water and sewerage. The uneven distribution between companies of responsibilities for the coastline and the beaches causes fundamental social and economic concerns.
  92
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, in the guidelines "Raising the Quality", published the environmental and quality objectives to be achieved by the industry in the period 2000–05. They offer the prospect of an ambitious programme to improve water and environmental quality coupled with widespread real reductions in water and sewerage bills for the first time since the companies were privatised in 1989. Reductions in water bills of 10 per cent. and possibly more are a real prospect.
  I hope that we will begin to go further in narrowing the differential between water charges in the south-west and elsewhere. In "Raising the Quality" the Secretary of State asked the regulator to give special consideration to the regional impact of the quality programme:
  "We will wish to ensure that the detailed obligations at company level are defined in a way which avoids unacceptable impacts on water prices in different parts of England and Wales and reflects local environmental priorities. We will provide further guidance on this as necessary as the programme is defined at company level."
  I welcome those statements and invite my hon. Friend in responding to the debate to confirm that he believes that there is some scope for addressing the wide gap between what my constituents have to pay compared with charges in the rest of the country. That has considerable general bearing on the vulnerable customers who can benefit from the Water Industry Bill as well as specific relevance.
  Mr. Brake: If the hon. Lady is on the Standing Committee considering the Bill and if the Liberal Democrats table an amendment to address the regional disparity in water prices, perhaps she will support us. Let me also point out that at present there is a greater proportion of Liberal Democrat Members in the Chamber than Labour or Tory Members.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: But not Scottish Nationalists.
  Mr. Brake: True.
  Mrs. Gilroy: Still, Liberal Democrats representing the part of the country that suffers the most problems are conspicuous by their complete absence. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) mentioned the consideration of the Bill in Committee. I shall cover some of the issues in my speech, but I am not sure that the Bill—welcome though it is—is the vehicle for achieving the objective that I share with Liberal Democrat Members with constituencies in Devon and Cornwall.
  Under the present proposals, customers in England and Wales will continue to pay very different bills, with my constituents shouldering a greater burden than others. It seems wrong that households in one part of the country should be penalised for the performance of their local water company or because they live in a particular place. Reference has been made to the fact that water meters measure only water volume and not sewerage, yet it is sewerage charges that cause my constituents' bills to be so high. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), who said that we should look at many issues relating to metering in the longer term.
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Lady said that she thought that the Bill might not be the right vehicle for an amendment

  93
  such as that described by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). Has she noticed that clause 5(4) specifically prohibits the Secretary of State from making any such move under the Bill?
  Mrs. Gilroy: I shall come to that in just a moment.
  Following discussions with the stakeholders in the south-west, I approached my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with proposals for a water quality fund. I know that "Raising the Quality" restates the principle that quality improvements have to be paid for by water and sewerage customers, but the "polluter pays" principle has been used as an argument against the consideration of such a fund. I am not at all sure that all polluters do pay or that there is any practical way of making them do so.
  The whole country benefits from improvements in bathing water and the avoidance of prosecution by the European Union—the state, rather than one region, has an obligation to comply with standards—yet only those living in coastal regions end up paying for improvements. On equity grounds, I believe that there are sound arguments for a scheme that smooths the difference in bills arising from those factors and, although it may be difficult to achieve that under the present legislative and regulatory framework, I urge my hon. Friend to examine that proposal.
  Clauses 4 and 5 give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations on charging schemes. They are intended to allow him to protect customers who are vulnerable owing to ill health, disability or financial circumstances, by specifying the nature of the support that they may receive. That could include a requirement to charge such households the average bill for the company.
  I hope that, through the Bill, my right hon. Friend will ensure that the regulations can protect these vulnerable customers in the south-west from high average bills which mean that they could be paying £153 more than those in the Thames region, where the average bill is only £201. Perhaps my hon. Friend could refer to that in his reply to the debate or, if time does not permit, write to me to clarify his view on an issue of great importance to some of my constituents. He may also care to ponder how a Cabinet Minister would feel if he received a £7,000 bill for water and sewerage charges, which would reflect a similar proportion of his income.
  My right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the DETR have shown considerable political will and focus in bringing forward their proposals to ban disconnection, to put the consumer in the driving seat on metering, and to provide choices in the methods of charging and protecting vulnerable customers. Those measures will all be of significant value. The Bill is an important milestone; it will contribute to our agenda of fairness and social justice and I commend it to the House.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) said about value added; he argued that Welsh water should not be exported but that the industries and jobs that needed the water should be moved to where the water was. In Scotland, of course, we have a different concept of value added—we change our water into whisky before we export it.
  94
  I shall be brief as only a small part of the Bill—clauses 12 and 14 and some of the schedules—has any relevance to Scotland. The provisions are tacked rather uncomfortably on to the end of more substantial and totally different proposals for England and Wales. It was significant that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), in opening for the Opposition, did not discuss the Scottish clauses, which perhaps reflected his party's political prospects north of the border.
  The debate concerns the principles rather than the details of the Bill. For me, the Bill contains two important principles. First, it deals with an issue that has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998, which recently received Royal Assent. The Scottish National party believes that the matter should be left for that Parliament, which will be set up next year, to consider.
  Secondly, I believe that the overriding desire of the Scottish people is not for a water regulator but for full democratic control of, and accountability in, the water industry in Scotland. The Government have done a U-turn on their pre-election commitments on that. In December 1997, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
  "The Labour Party manifesto included a commitment to return the Scottish water industry to local democratic control."
  In response to a question that I asked, he said,
  "we are strengthening the democratic controls".—[Official Report, 16 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 154.]
  The Bill fails to deliver on that commitment. A regulator will still be democratically unaccountable—the Bill may impose more controls, but they are hardly democratic. If the Government had any desire truly to democratise Scottish water, they could have used the Bill to do so. The fact that they did not must lead us to conclude that they have no intention of fulfilling their manifesto pledge.
  My party will seek to remove the provisions in the Bill that deal with Scotland. It is an affront to the spirit of the Scotland Act that such measures are being dragged through the House on the coat tails of a Bill for England and Wales. As the measures will have to be implemented by the Scottish Executive in any case, it makes no sense for Westminster to impose a framework for them. The Scottish Office—and the House of Commons—should leave the Executive to make up their own minds about the powers of the consumer council area committees, about the role of any regulator, if there is one, and about how those bodies and individuals are to be financed.
  The Scottish National party will seek to introduce legislation in the Scottish Parliament to return water to democratic control, a policy that I am sure will have widespread support among a range of Members of the Scottish Parliament. I believe that, by imposing the system proposed in the Bill, the Government are crudely attempting to tie the hands of the Parliament in any future review of the Scottish water industry. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Scotland confirmed that that was so. Of the Parliament, he said:
  "I would expect that it will wish to allow the system to settle, and to perform, before considering any further options."—[Official Report, 16 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 147.]
  Next May, the people of Scotland will vote for parties with distinctive proposals for Scottish water. They will not look kindly on a Labour Government who use Westminster to put up barriers to real reform. There is no

  95
  justification for introducing a system now and using it as an excuse for preventing the Scottish Parliament from making further changes.
  What we have here is a far cry from what was planned by the right hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson), who said at the Scottish Labour party conference before the election:
  "On my first day in St. Andrews house, I will end this undemocratic farce."
  Of course the right hon. Gentleman bypassed St. Andrew's house and went straight to the Ministry of Defence. However, that does not excuse his colleagues in not carrying the plan forward.
  The Government will not be able to use the Bill to run away from the issue of democratising Scottish water at the May election in Scotland. The Scottish water industry needs detailed proposals to restore full democratic accountability. We will not seek to oppose Second Reading, as a number of measures proposed for England and Wales are welcome. However, we shall certainly seek to amend the Bill as it passes through the House.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. David Kidney: This is a comparatively short Bill, so I shall keep my remarks short. I wish to comment on two points only, but I begin by congratulating the Government on the way in which the review that led to the Bill was carried out. The review was timely, and followed the Government's decision that there had to be an alternative to metering charges from April 2000. The manner in which the review was carried out—by consultation and by responding to the representations received—was commendable.
  I wish to refer, first, to disconnections and, secondly, to the alternative to metering charges. On disconnections, the representations received in response to the consultation have not been strong enough to overturn Labour's determination to end the unfair practice of disconnecting people's water supply. Access to water is a basic entitlement, by reason of health, hygiene and social justice.
  Water companies will lose the ability to threaten cut-offs of supply, but that does not necessarily mean that bad debts must rise in response. We have heard tonight that two companies have a policy of no cut-offs of supply, and nine companies have carried out no disconnections at all in the first six months of the financial year 1998–99. The Government strongly support water companies in their measures to avert bad debt—for example, the creation of the charitable trusts; providing easy-payment schemes; new designs of tariffs; helping customers to reduce their bills and minimise their use of water; and continuing direct payments from the Department of Social Security in appropriate cases.
  Severn Trent, the largest water supplier in the west midlands, has written to me to say that it has a good story to tell in terms of such measures. Its charitable trust has helped more than 2,500 households, and it is a co-founder of a pay point scheme which allows the payment by instalments of water bills at more than 1,200 shops and petrol stations in the region. In the past six months, only two disconnections of household properties have been carried out, among 3.5 million customers.
  96
  I must not mislead the House into thinking that Severn Trent does not mind losing the power to disconnect—it does mind. I disagree with the company on the principle of disconnection, but I agree that it has a good point in terms of the practice of enforcing payment by customers. The civil debt recovery system is not as good as we have been led to believe by some hon. Members today.
  Severn Trent referred me to a letter—which I must admit I missed—in The Times on 27 November from a solicitor in private practice, who said:
  "As a practising solicitor I can think of no instance in the last five years when a bailiff alone has managed to recover either money or goods … University research that I have seen shows that after county court proceedings in the small claims courts only a minority of defendants paid up on time.
  After six months many had still not paid. If the water industry is to rely on bailiffs it may as well write off those debts now."
  That is a gloomy prognosis for the companies.
  I had 20 years' experience in private practice as a solicitor before I became a Member of Parliament. Generally speaking, the enforcement system in the county court can work, but it is a bit of a creaking machine. I recommend that Ministers take an interest in the Lord Chancellor's Department's work to improve the enforcement of judgment debts, because, even in my short time as a Member of Parliament, I have received many representations from individuals and businesses who have had difficulty in getting payment even when they have won their county court cases.
  There is broad agreement that we should keep open a choice of alternatives to compulsory metering. Most agree that, for the time being, rateable value is the only realistic option. For example, the Ofwat National Customer Council submission that we have all received says that it is the only alternative at present. It is not, however, a satisfactory alternative to metering. There have been no new rateable valuations since 1990, and all new houses have to be metered.
  People do not understand how rateable values that have ceased to exist none the less determine how their water bills are made up, and there are injustices in past valuations that cannot be remedied retrospectively today. I have dealt with complaints from constituents who could not understand why they could not change their rateable value when they found that it was out of line with their neighbours'.
  The citizens advice bureaux and the Ofwat National Customer Council report significant numbers of complaints on that point. If rateable valuations remain the only alternative to meters for very long, the choice will become less and less meaningful. That is why the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health has described the Government's proposals as "metering by stealth". I hope that the Government will eventually listen to the calls for access to council tax data, and I note that they have not ruled out the possibility in their response to the representations received.
  Some Conservative Members described the Bill as an opportunity missed. I agree in one respect: the Government missed the opportunity to introduce the excellent proposals contained in my ten-minute Bill in the previous Session. The Water Charges (Amendment) Bill would have brought relief to the small, privately owned sewage works in rural areas. However, before the Minister thinks of saying anything sympathetic or encouraging

  97
  about that Bill, let me tip him the wink and explain that it was a Government Whip who objected to it, so he should not be tempted.
  8.48 pm
  Dr. Peter Brand: We have had a lot of discussion about a little Bill. The socially concerned aspects of the debate, in particular, have had nothing to do with the Bill. I am delighted that Conservative Front Benchers do not support metering. In 1988, roads in the Isle of Wight started being dug up in one of the biggest social experiments ever in compulsory water metering: 95 per cent. of households were metered over three years, with almost 60,000 meters fitted.
  The Isle of Wight was the largest of the 11 compulsory metering areas. What was the result of that great experiment? No reference is made to it in any of the background briefing for the Bill, and the industry does not seem to have remarked on it at all. After the experiment, 60 per cent. were better off, with 20 per cent. substantially better off.
  The people who benefited most were not the little grannies in modest but fairly well-rated houses, but the people with enormous holiday homes who used them only during August. Some 40 per cent. of people were worse off, of whom 15 to 20 per cent. were considerably worse off, because at that time no provision was made in the benefit regulations to compensate people for the new bills that they had to pay.
  Families with two children on a disposable income of £60 a week suddenly had to find an extra £5 to £8 a week to pay for water. I am glad that hon. Members have referred to the public health importance of water, because I saw the result of that policy. Children went unwashed, and when I visited little houses as the family doctor, I could hear the loo being flushed as I walked up the garden path. They knew I was coming, and they were embarrassed by the smell. It is disgraceful that that experiment was allowed to happen.
  The Government have had to introduce a Bill because the time restraints on the previous legislation meant that something had to be done before April 2000, but they have not thought it through. If we take the Bill at face value and accept what the Minister said, within the area of each water supplier, communities will have a choice. However, the Bill will make it impossible to have a meaningful discussion on structuring tariffs to protect people, such as the elderly person with a small need for water living in a large house.
  If the Government had been brave enough to have a policy, we could have gone back to a system based on rateable value and where people live, in the hope that that had some relationship to their disposable income, or we could have had water metering with a system that had some input into bills by suggesting how tariffs could be drawn up. Under such a system, standing charges and how much is paid for the essential amount of water per person in the household could have been written into the regulations.
  Ofwat has been useless. With the previous Government, it galloped towards the metering of water. The Bill pretends that choice will exist, but it will not, because metering is a one-way street. Householders will be able to change their minds once, and go back a few steps, but most of the arrows point downstream, to inevitable
  98
  compulsory water metering. I hope that the Government will consider the results of the trials that have been carried out. Metering is disruptive, although it saves water, and that is good. A proper tariff structure must be built into water metering, and that is absent from the Bill.
  Mr. Letwin: Is it Liberal Democrat policy to extend that approach to gas and electricity?
  Dr. Brand: That is an interesting point, because three Conservative Members who have spoken equated all public utilities. However, people usually have a choice between gas and electricity for heating, and when the pinch comes, they can use coal. Many of my constituents still use coal because they cannot afford any other services—we are not a wealthy community. People can also use bottled gas or paraffin. But they have no choice about using water. In the 20th century, people should not have to try to flush their loos by taking a bucket to the stream or their rain butts.
  Mr. Letwin: We are beginning to discover something interesting. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a relevant analogy between gas, electricity and water? If what he is saying about water is correct, and poor people could find themselves unable to afford it if it is metered, however much choice there may be, the same must apply to commodities such as gas and electricity, which are also paid for by quantity.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. At this late stage in the debate, I am not sure that we should pursue other commodities. We should stick to water, which is the subject of the Bill.
  Dr. Brand: There is no doubt that we are talking about a monopoly supplier of something that has a monopoly in its uniqueness, because its availability is necessary for life and civilisation to be sustained—plumbing did more for this nation than doctors ever did.
  I am sorry that the Government have not taken an opportunity to do something positive in the Bill and to have a positive policy. If we ever want a system based on rateable valuables or council tax bands, we will need another Bill to de-meter people compulsorily. If the Bill is enacted as it stands, by the time an alternative is in place, most people will be stuck with metering.
  I realise that I am using more than my customary six minutes, but, finally, I hope that the people who were compulsorily metered will have 12 months to change their minds after the passage of whatever Bill is finally enacted. I hope that they will have the same opportunity for choice as new consumers who opt for metering, if we are to continue with a hybrid system, as it is grossly unfair for people who have had no choice not to be given an opportunity to put the clock back.
  8.57 pm
  Mrs. Helen Brinton: I certainly welcome the principle of the Bill. Rateable value must be retained in the absence of any other universal—and fair—basis for water charging. Also, the very vulnerable people about whom we have been talking tonight must be protected, since we all understand that an adequate and

  99
  clean water supply is essential for health. We have understood that since the great public health reforms of the previous century.
  We certainly do not want to return to the days when poor living conditions were directly responsible for recurring epidemics of infectious diseases, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) will know. Many diseases today are still caused by a lack of clean water and of proper, adequate sanitation. Therefore, the provision of water is different from that of gas or electricity.
  However, water is not a free good. The water we get from our taps is not the same as the water we would get by putting a bucket out in the rain. The water in the bucket is like any other raw natural material—it needs to be processed to make a product suitable and safe for human use. Therefore, it costs a great deal of money to provide an adequate supply of clean water.
  The water companies have rightly been required to invest heavily in reducing leakage, and repairing and updating an antiquated infrastructure. However, we are not discussing merely a financial cost; the supply of water also carries environmental costs, which will rise sharply with increasing household consumption—more households using more water than ever before.
  I welcomed with great happiness the Government's response to the report on housing by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. It suggests that water companies should be given a role in the planning process, rather than simply being required to meet demand with supply. The Bill emphasises the need to protect vulnerable customers, and to give customers increased choice. We all agree that that is right. Nevertheless, I remain concerned that the Bill should not further the myth that water is a free commodity.
  I fully commend the wish to ban domestic disconnection, because no one should be denied the right to water because they cannot pay, but what sort of measures will be put in place to ensure that the value of water—I stress the word "value"—is recognised, and that it is not simply a matter of "won't pay", rather than "can't pay"? I have seen figures that show that a sizeable number of customers whose water is disconnected pay their bills and are reconnected within 24 hours. That fact suggests that they may be unwilling rather than unable to pay. How will such people be made to pay?
  I have some concerns on water metering. I welcome the power to make meters compulsory for those with pools and sprinklers. Metering is an essential tool, not only for charging but for managing demand and ensuring that customers use water wisely. High-volume users should pay on the basis of how much they use, but I am concerned about the idea of free meter installation, together with a customer right to revert to non-metered supply within 12 months.
  Can the cost of free installation of meters on the basis of customer demand be justified with no more than a year's guaranteed use? Where will the necessary resources in cash and person power come from? What important, or even essential, investment and improvements will have to be sacrificed?
  I understand that water meters cost £250 to install. If customers later choose to go back to being charged under the rateable value system, will not millions of pounds of
  100
  investment be left underground and unused? I am sure that the Government have thought about those matters, but I should like the implications to be clarified. Would it not be better to expect customers to pay towards the cost of a meter, either initially or if they later decide to stop using it? For those who cannot afford £250, perhaps other means could be found to assist them if they wish to have a meter.
  Let us not forget that climate change predictions mean that metering may become essential in some parts of the country. We have heard some comments on that tonight. The north and north-west are likely to have plenty of water—more even than now—but the south and south-east could become semi-arid regions. Unlike the case of electricity, it is impractical—indeed, ridiculous—to talk of some national grid to redistribute water according to need. This is not a good time to encourage extravagant attitudes to water use.
  We may be in danger of allowing a part of our Government's wholly laudable agenda to promote social equity, which is what Labour Members want, to run counter to an equal and pressing need to conserve our environment. If we do not acknowledge the primacy of environmental concerns, we may be in danger of running against the tide of public opinion. Recent surveys show that the public understand the importance of environmental protection and enhancement.
  If sections of the population still believe that they should be free to indulge wasteful and destructive life styles that are ultimately to the detriment of us all, it is well within the Government's agenda to discourage them.
  Dr. Brand: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Brinton: No, I certainly will not at this stage.
  The Bill is an excellent, much-needed social measure. Equal concentration on environmental aspects would only enhance it.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Tony Colman: As we are running short of time, I have cut sections of my speech, but I commend the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), which covered many of the points that I would have made.
  The essential theme of the Bill is that of sustainable development—economic development, environmental protection and social equity being bound up with each other. Like other hon. Members, I find the damascene conversion of Conservative Front Benchers interesting, having had several discussions with the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), whom I hoped would attend the debate.
  The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) appears to have forgotten that it was the Conservative Government who were in charge during those 18 years of under-investment in the water industry. When privatisation occurred, a £1.1 billion dowry was given to the privatised companies and there was a £5 billion debt write-off; that was succeeded by a 100 per cent. increase in water and sewerage charges. The net result was a bonanza for shareholders.
  One of the Labour Government's first actions in May 1997 was to hold the water summit, at which my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment,

  101
  Transport and the Regions and the Minister for the Environment set matters right. The 10-point plan resulted in the water industry breathing a sigh of relief and getting off the bandwagon, having realised that they had to be accountable to the community. The consultation document was published earlier this year; the Government's response came on 18 November; and today, 7 December, we are having Second Reading of the Water Industry Bill. That is the sort of speed that I like to see the Government display.
  For eight years, I was chairman of the Low Pay Unit. The postbag often reflected problems with water metering, especially in social housing. Much of that accommodation in cities was built by housing associations during the Conservative years, but large, low-income families who lived there often suffered as a result of water metering.
  The problem is not only a city matter, but a rural one. I grew up in a small village in north Norfolk: my water supply consisted of buckets of water from the neighbouring stream; bathing involved the use of a tin bath in front of the fire once a month; and there was an earth closet at the end of the garden—we grew excellent potatoes. Now, we have Anglian Water, which has imposed an 84 per cent. increase in charges since privatisation and the average charge in the area is £288 per dwelling, compared to £200 in London. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) has told of the huge charges that are levied in the south-west.
  Hon. Members have referred to what is missing from the Bill—the teeth that are missing from clause 5. The Government's response to the consultation document contains a page entitled "Competition", the provisions of which are absent from the Bill. There are proposals relating to the
  "further development of inset appointments",
  by, for example,
  "allowing a number of premises to combine to meet the consumption limit"
  and proposals relating to
  "removing water companies' monopoly on making connections to the water supply system."
  The main problem facing us is that there is no real competition in the water industry in England and Wales. Enron has moved in and bought out Wessex Water and French water companies have bought into Northumbrian Water and Three Valleys Water. Foreign-owned companies can buy and are buying up UK water companies, but UK water companies are not allowed to own each other. I suggest that the water industry needs an outbreak of competition.
  We should consider how the UK water industry could develop internationally. We have spoken about sustainable development, and I pay tribute to the work that Thames Water, the London water company, has done. Having stopped the leaks, it is now working on sustainable systems in Turkey, Indonesia, Puerto Rico, Shanghai in China, Thailand and Malaysia. It is important that UK water companies are able to compete globally in developing good water and sewerage systems.
  Last week, I was lucky enough to lead an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations in Rome,
  102
  on a visit to examine sustainable development. One of the key points in the final statement was that all people should have a right to full, productive, equitable and participatory water use. The Bill is our step towards that goal, taken in our Parliament.
  9.10 pm
  Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this important debate.
  Water is a most valuable asset that makes possible life and death, equally. Under the Tory Administration, the privatisation of water was going to bring us many benefits. "Benefits" is an interesting word in that context. To most people, it means something more and something better. For the water authorities, it meant something more: more profits. It also meant something better: a better monetary return for the shareholders. Consideration of the stakeholder, the old and the young, and the environment was a necessary evil and was tolerated—just.
  During the 1970s and 1980s, deregulation was the clarion call from business, and the Government duly responded. Many statutory regulations were relaxed and the onus of responsibility for compliance was passed along the chain to somewhere. The number of Government and local authority inspectors was reduced, and the public relaxed, secure in the knowledge that every business would be doing the right thing, having embraced deregulation. The people believed that, given the responsibility of managing themselves, the water companies would do just that.
  To be fair, many water companies have behaved in a mature fashion and have been extremely diligent—but many have not. Given so much discretion, how many businesses would be prepared to do the right thing when it would undoubtedly dent the bottom line? How many would be prepared to revise charging programmes of their own free will and to install meters free of charge? Some did, but not all were willing. The deregulated water authorities were given enormous liberty, and then took enormous liberties with the British public.
  Even the most damning public criticism failed to rein in the worst excesses of some water companies. I believe that only the threat of the Government's Water Industry Bill has brought the most pernicious operators to heel. Those companies were neither mature enough nor fit for deregulation: they needed to be restrained and told what to do because, left to their own devices, they failed to act responsibly. They have failed to do their best for the people of this country and for the environment on which we all depend. Their actions have led to the whole sector being publicly pilloried.
  Many hon. Members and hon. Friends have spoken today, so I shall limit my comments to several clauses in the new Bill. Clauses 1 and 2 refer to disconnections. What was the collective moral position of the water industry that led it to disconnect nearly 21,000 homes during 1991–92? How could a responsible sector do that to the community that it served? Undoubtedly, the vast majority of individuals who suffered as a consequence were the most vulnerable, yet they were denied the most basic of needs. I am delighted that the Government intend to remove that right from the water companies. The disconnection policy gained a profit of a fraction of a penny per share—dare I suggest that the policy probably cost more than it realised? What motivates a company to apply such a punitive policy?

  103
  It is regrettable that the water companies have not seen fit to work together to protect the most vulnerable. I welcome the Bill's inclusion of measures to protect families on low incomes and people with certain medical conditions. However, we have challenged the water companies to do more—and there is more to be done.
  I wish to introduce hon. Members to my constituent, Mr. Tebbit, who is desperately seeking a meter. Mr. Tebbit and I are both customers of North West Water, a company that has achieved an unenviable reputation for charging substantial sums for installing meters, ranging from £95 to £200. Mr. Tebbit wants to install a meter, but objects strongly—as do the Government—to paying for that service. Given that metering provides an incentive to reduce consumption, and hence supports conservation, Mr. Tebbit and I fail to understand why North West Water continues with that policy. The company is clearly more interested in retaining profits today rather than investing for tomorrow.
  I am afraid that I must disagree with the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns): I do not think that this is a Bill of soft options. Protecting the environment and the vulnerable is not a soft option; it is the new Labour Government in action. I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Steve McCabe: In view of the time, I shall be brief. I echo the comments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden). The debate takes place in a different climate from that which existed at the time of privatisation.
  I acknowledge the tremendous efforts that Severn Trent has made in developing a dialogue with Birmingham Members of Parliament and in listening to criticisms of past actions and current difficulties. None the less, there is a pressing need for measures to deal with charges and metering, and to regulate other aspects of the industry. For that reason, I welcome the Bill.
  I am particularly pleased that the Bill deals with trickle flow or trickle valve systems. Many of us were concerned that, after the court case that led to the banning of water key devices, those systems would simply become a widespread alternative measure. I have no particular objection to the voluntary use of volumetric meters, but their use must be voluntary. I am glad that the Bill addresses the issue of choice.
  The consultation paper dealt with the concern about charging for community rooms, but as far as I can see, the matter is not covered in the Bill. As I understand it, people living in sheltered accommodation could find that their community room was metered. I wonder whether water companies will try to extend that to other community rooms or even waiting rooms—for example, in schools and hospitals. We need to examine the matter further.
  The issue of residential homes for elderly persons does not seem to have been covered. It is great that we will ensure that there can be no disconnection of services for hospitals or schools, but the position of residential homes must be reviewed.
  104
  It must be made clear that council tenants will have the same rights as other customers. I am particularly concerned about what will happen when there is a transfer of tenancy. Tenants will not necessarily be protected by the Bill. That seems to run counter to the views expressed by many local authorities during the consultation period.
  I wonder how much faith we can have in Ofwat and the role of the regulator. It is worth remembering that the reason that Birmingham and other authorities had to go to court was that the regulator accepted the water companies' arguments that water key devices were mechanisms for self-disconnection. However, the judge pointed out that that was wholly unrealistic and a breach of the statutory code. Can we be confident that in future the regulator, on whom many of the Bill's aims will still rest, will take a more considered view of the issues?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) mentioned competition. We could make much more progress in that, but the sticking point seems to be the matter of common carriage. That is provided for in the gas and electricity industries, and there is no reason why the same should not apply to the water industry. However, we must ensure that water companies do not impose punitive charges on customers who want to move to a different company.
  For example, I understand that Severn Trent has advised Birmingham Water, a potential private company, that were the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham to switch to another company, Severn Trent would impose a standing charge of £32,000. Such a charge cannot be justified. I hope that the Government will act to encourage competition and to ensure that such punitive charges, which are designed to thwart competition, are not permitted.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Brian White: I welcome large parts of the Bill. I did not particularly want to speak on it, and have no wish to cross my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden). I am speaking in the debate because I have been approached by many of my constituents, who believe that they will lose out as a result of the Bill.
  I welcome the fact that disconnections are to be outlawed and that compulsory limiting devices are to be removed. The problem is that my constituents tell me that they need those limiting devices to be able to budget properly. They have been participating in an experiment with Anglian Water Services in my constituency and in Wellingborough. This self-imposed sanction of a limiting device has enabled them to budget carefully, and has helped them not only to pay their water bills, but to budget for their other bills. They say that, if the device is taken away, they will go back to their old ways and will not pay their bills.
  I ask the Minister to consider allowing some people to have limiting devices in their homes voluntarily. I am opposed to water companies forcing people to have them, but some of my constituents argue strongly for these devices to be made available. They need not lead to cut-offs. With a limiting device, it takes 10 minutes instead of the usual couple of minutes to boil a kettle, and it takes 20 minutes to fill a wash basin. The Government could accept limiting devices and introduce regulations

  105
  that stipulate what the water companies can and cannot do. The default would not be cut-offs, but a return to normal billing methods. People would run up more debt by not paying their bills if they did not have the self-imposed sanction of limiting devices.
  Some of the poorest people in my constituency have great difficulty budgeting. They feel that the Bill will affect them adversely. I welcome the Minister's comments about protecting the most vulnerable people. I ask the Government to consider the options in Committee, and to take notice of the vulnerable people who have told me that they will lose out as a result of the Bill.
  The Government could take this matter on board without destroying the principle that compulsory limiting devices are wrong, and without going against the principle for which local authorities fought, which was that the introduction of limiting devices was unfair. The Bill is about choice, and I fear that the Bill will take away the choice of some of my constituents. The Minister should consider reinstating that choice in Committee.
  9.23 pm
  Ms Joan Walley: I am grateful for the opportunity, however brief, to participate in the debate. I sat through the long days of the paving Bill and the subsequent legislation on water privatisation. This Bill is welcome, and the proposal to prohibit disconnections is a critical measure. I am sure that that provision will be fully explored in Committee.
  I want to deal with the issue of environmental sustainability and public health. The Bill is a wonderful step forward, but I urge the Government to take on board the views of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and the second report of the UK Round Table on Sustainable Development. Recommendation FW3 states:
  "The Government should review the regulatory structure of the water industry in all parts of the UK, and devise a system to resolve the inevitable conflicts which arise between the parties during the periodic review process. New powers should be made available to the regulators where necessary to implement their statutory duties. The outcome of the review should include an explicit duty on all regulators, including the Director General of Water Services, to take account of sustainable development."
  I fear that proposals in the legislation that specifically concern metering and prices will conflict with issues relating to public health and sustainability. That has already been suggested by today's debate. We must be fully confident that, in the third water price review, Ofwat can reconcile all those issues, and I urge the Government to explore them during the later stages of the Bill.
  The Bill will lead to far more metering, but not to 100 per cent. metering. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will refer to discussions that have taken place between the British Bathroom Council and Members of Parliament who fear that proposals in the new water by-laws to introduce a valve system as well as a siphon system of flushing could, without full metering, result in an enormous loss of water. It is vital for further research to be carried out on this aspect, for a proper standard to exist for any new valves that are introduced and for proper safeguards to operate at the point of sale to ensure that the highest standards apply.
  I urge the Government to consider those issues during the later stages of the Bill, and to take account of my requests in respect of further consideration of the serviceability standards of sewers.
  9.27 pm
  Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: I think it important for a Scottish Member to comment on the Bill—a Labour Scottish Member, that is.
  Unlike England, Scotland has public water authorities. That is a result of campaigns conducted in Scotland to prevent the last Government from privatising Scottish water. However, changes are needed. First, we should have a commissioner, for whom proper provision should be made. The commissioner should be able to regulate all the financial aspects of the Bill. Secondly, we should have three consultative committees, one for each authority. It is important that that should be done now. The Scottish Parliament will be elected on 5 May next year—
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: It will be elected on 6 May.
  Mrs. McKenna: On 6 May. Some have more of an interest in it than I do, and the date will stick in their minds.
  The Scottish Parliament will meet for the first time on 1 July, and it will have a host of items to consider. What we are doing will enable it to bring the legislation into force very quickly if it chooses. It will not be imposed on the Parliament; it will be able to choose whether to implement it. We will take much of the work load from the Scottish Parliament if the Bill goes through the House now, and can be implemented immediately.
  On those grounds, I entirely support what has been said today. I hope that, in Committee, people will see the sense of introducing such legislation, and of enabling the Scottish Parliament to implement it if it chooses. Given that it will reflect the current make-up of this Chamber, I am sure that it will choose to implement it, thereby lightening the work load and freeing itself to make decisions on other Scottish issues.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) is able to assure the House that more than one quarter of the representatives of the Scottish Parliament will be Conservatives; I hope that she will prove to be right.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has said, in many ways, this is a cautious Bill. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) made clear, in many respects, it is a cosmetic Bill. It largely restricts itself to enshrining what is already the case. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford said, there is no move to competition. There are no dazzling new charging systems. There is no major environmental advance.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford also said, and as has been repeatedly brought out in the debate, the Bill leaves a number of difficult questions of detail unresolved. Some were mentioned by my hon. Friend: for example, why are children's homes not exempt if schools and hospitals are? Some have come out in the debate. In a particularly thoughtful contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) set out two issues: bailiffs distraining tenants' goods when the landlord fails to pay a water bill; and the cost of repairs of pipe from the meter to the stopcock.

  107
  I believe that I am the proud possessor of the constituent with the greatest problem in the UK in that respect. Shortly after acquiring his house, he discovered that he had near on a mile of pipe from the water company's meter to his stopcock, a fact that he would have liked to discover before he bought the house. He now finds that he is unwittingly a major contributor to the investment programme of the UK water industry. The problem that my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet brought up is perhaps most luridly exemplified by that, but there are many less lurid examples. In Committee, we shall want to deal with that issue.
  Credit should be paid where credit is due. Labour Members also brought up serious issues of detail. One was voluntary BPU metering. It must be right that people who wish to plan their lives in an orderly fashion should be able to sign some special agreement with their water provider enabling them to install some form of BPU metering; I am sure that citizens advice bureaux and others throughout the country echo that. The Bill, probably unintentionally, prevents that. I would be happy if the Under—Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), were willing to assure the House that that will be sympathetically entertained in Committee.
  Although the Bill is, generally speaking, cautious and cosmetic, in two senses, it is extremely interesting; indeed, more interesting than some aspects of our debate have brought out. It is on those issues that I wish briefly to dwell.
  As has been mentioned on several occasions, the Bill leads gradually, and subtly, to a vast and cumulative increase in the extent of metering. No one knows how fast that increase will be, but it is remorseless; it is a ratchet. I take it that it is intended to be a ratchet—a ratchet with great political sensitivity in that no one will be forced into metering. Indeed, people have the delicious prospect of being able to opt for metering on a trial basis to discover whether it reduces their bills and then to opt out of metering, with the proviso that the next person who lives in their house will end up being metered all the same.
  The Bill does not just move subtly and sensitively towards metering, a goal that all hon. Members, or almost all, could share with the Government. It also brings a new and interesting principle into utility regulation. It explicitly permits the Secretary of State to intervene, through regulation, in charging structures.
  The Minister for the Environment made it perfectly clear that he regarded himself and the Deputy Prime Minister as being greatly restricted by the Bill's terms in applying those regulations. I think that the element of the Bill to which he was implicitly referring was clause 5(4), which states:
  "The power to make regulations under this section may not be exercised for the purpose of limiting the total revenues of relevant undertakers from charges fixed by or in accordance with charges schemes."
  The problem is that, although we accept that it is important to restrict the Secretary of State from changing the total revenues, that is an entirely different proposition from restricting him from making changes to the balance of the charges. Unless I am mistaken—I should be more than willing to admit the mistake if Ministers wish to
  108
  intervene—nothing in the Bill restricts the Secretary of State from altering any charges that he wishes to alter so long as, ultimately, the total revenue is not altered or—I should go a little further—so long as his "purpose" is not to alter the total revenue.
  As there is relatively little understanding of the price elasticity of demand in water, it is not clear whether the Secretary of State might, by mistake, also alter the total. The Bill does not prohibit such an alteration but refers specifically to the "purpose". However, for now, let us ignore that point. The main point is that the Secretary of State—within the terms of the Bill, acting perfectly properly—can adjust the whole charging structure so long as his purpose is to ensure that the total revenues raised by charges overall remain constant.
  None of us knows—I suppose that even current ministerial incumbents do not know—just how that regulatory power will be used. However, there were ample signs in the statements made in this debate, including those by Labour Members, that the Minister for the Environment intends to use the power to achieve what I suppose he would describe as a greater correlation between payment and the ability to pay. The power is intended, in other words, to introduce into United Kingdom utility regulation the opposite of the principle of economic transparency upon which, so far, the entire regulatory system has been built.
  The fundamental principle of economic regulation of the United Kingdom's utilities has always been that it should be exactly that: economic regulation. Moreover, the principle has been that, in cases in which the Government intend, for perfectly good social reasons, to benefit a particular class of people, they should do so by means of explicit and transparent subsidy. The power provided in the Bill is the first time that a departure has been made from that principle. It is a very important departure.
  The power is an example of a Secretary of State being able to tell essentially the Office of Water Services, and through it the water companies, how it is to structure charges to benefit those people in society whom the Secretary of State thinks it proper to benefit. The question arises: what is the argument for doing that? Moreover, if there is an argument for doing that, how far does it apply? Why does it not apply also to gas and electricity supply, or to the price of bread?
  Labour Members waxed eloquent on the extraordinary importance of water, which no one denies. Water is a very important commodity—like bread, electricity and gas. For myself, I do not see very much difference between dying of cholera and dying of hypothermia; both prospects are appalling. If it is legitimate and proper for the Secretary of State to be given powers to alter the water charging structure, very quickly other Ministers may decide that, by analogy, they wish to introduce similar interventions in the charging structures of other utilities. Before we know it, we may be making such interventions in basic, vital commodities.
  That is not new Labour but old socialism. It is not transparency of market products but a return to the use of the state to alter market dynamics and prices in such a way as to achieve certain social effects. If that is what the Government intend, they should come clean about it and announce that they have changed their mind and do not believe in the pure economic disciplines of a market

  109
  economy, with transparent subsidies to look after social groups, but are moving back to a world essentially of prices and incomes policies. The very idea behind prices and incomes policies was that one should protect certain socially disadvantaged groups by altering prices.
  I am not saying that the Minister for the Environment wants to move there in one step; he is far too subtle for that. He has put only the first tentative marker on the route—a kind of motorway—that leads us down in that direction. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay, in typically trenchant form, began to point that out, and she was quite right.
  The Scottish elements constitute the second interesting aspect of the Bill. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, to whom the duty of making the Government winding-up speech falls, is the great expert in that domain. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Indeed, he is particularly popular with Conservative Members for his ineffable courtesy and kindness in all respects.
  A problem of a minor, constitutional variety has been pointed out by hon. Members on both sides of the House: why are those provisions in the Bill? The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) has told us that, if he and his colleagues have their way, they will ensure that they are never invoked. If the Government really believed in Scottish devolution, they would not be introducing them, but would be waiting for the Scottish Parliament to do so.
  I suspect that the Government are rather worried and find themselves in such a position that they believe that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale may indeed be a member of the Scottish Government. They may also fear that the Conservative party will hold the balance of power, even if it does not hold 25 per cent. of the seats, in the Scottish Parliament. In such circumstances, it is forgivable that, even at this late hour, the Government are busily legislating for Scotland in this place in respect of matters that are utterly devolved under the Scotland Act 1998.
  I mention that only as a mild form of teasing, but there is the serious question whether that is the precedent for another development, of which we have heard nothing: the idea that the famous third way should be implemented by introducing official regulators for public sector bodies. I have searched high and low, but I cannot find another example of that. I do not know of a case in which even the Minister for the Environment's own Department has yet suggested that remaining public sector bodies should have public sector regulators regulating them, independently from the Government. That is a most interesting proposition, which would be a remarkable and splendid test of this so-called third way.
  If the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale and his hon. Friends do not control the Scottish Parliament and do not immediately undo this aspect of the Bill, we shall discover whether the Government will use Scotland as an experiment—in the way, to which Scottish Members sometimes object, that the Conservatives used it as an experiment for the poll tax—and the Government will discover whether using a public sector regulator to regulate a public sector body does or does not work. I venture a minor prophecy, which I may live to regret, although I doubt it: it will not work.
  The Government believe that the most important aspect of a regulator is that he exists as an institution, and that the most important aspect of being regulated is that what
  110
  is being regulated is separate from the regulator. The important thing about being a regulator, however, is that he is regulating something private, which his "owners" do not own. If the Government set up a public sector regulator to regulate a public sector body, they will find that nobody is regulating anybody. We shall discover the truth of that in due course.
  In short, we cannot celebrate the Bill because it is too cautious and too cosmetic. We shall look at its effects with great interest over coming years in the two respects that I have described. In the meanwhile, I can guarantee the Government that we shall engage constructively in the discussion of the details in Committee.
  9.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): This has been a constructive and positive debate and, if I have time, I shall respond to some of the wider points.
  I begin by dealing with the Scottish provisions at part II of the Bill, which were raised by the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna). As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment said when opening the debate, the Scottish provisions deliver a commitment made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in response to the outcome of the Scottish water industry review.
  In conducting the review, we were guided by a number of important principles. We wanted to promote accountability, facilitate investment, promote efficiency, ensure continuity of public water supplies, protect public health and minimise disruption to the industry.
  The previous Government created a problem by removing water from local authority control. As the Conservatives enjoyed no democratic mandate in Scotland, the water authorities were seen as unrepresentative and unaccountable. There was a real democratic deficit. The coming of the Scottish Parliament next July will change that.
  The new Scottish Parliament will bring all public bodies in Scotland, including the water authorities, under strengthened and properly representative democratic control. By holding the Scottish Executive to account, the new Parliament will place the water authorities under the scrutiny that a modern democracy demands. That will be a crucial strengthening of the accountability and control of Scottish water authorities, and it will end for ever the perception and the reality of the democratic deficit.
  The review gave careful consideration to a wide range of other proposals for the industry, including the possibility of returning it to pure local authority control. However, the recent local government reorganisation resulted in 32 unitary councils in Scotland covering the areas served by the three water authorities. Splitting up the three authorities between the 32 councils was quickly ruled out. It was clear that the number of councils made that solution impractical. It would have meant disproportionate costs, through the loss of economies of scale and through disruption, which would have been passed on to the customer.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: If the fire brigade and the police service can be administered by the elected members of the 32 local authorities, why is it not possible for water?
  Mr. Macdonald: I was going to make a further point that will answer that.
  Another option considered in the review was to transfer responsibility for water and sewerage services to joint boards of local authorities. However, we have to recognise that the water authorities are large businesses with massive investment requirements. The current regulated business model has provided scope for delivering large investment programmes. We also recognised the value of having individuals with business experience relevant to such undertakings on the water authority boards. Ensuring the representation of every council on the relevant water authority board would have resulted in large and unwieldy boards. We concluded that that made joint boards impractical.
  As well as resolving the democratic deficit through the new Scottish Parliament, we also wanted to make the water authorities more responsive to local authorities, other local interests and customers. We have done that in two main ways. First, as we announced last December, we have increased the number of local authority councillors on the board of each authority so that they now constitute almost half the total. Secondly, we have issued a direction to the water authorities requiring them to consult regularly with the local authorities and other representative bodies in their areas. That direction was issued in August this year and early indications suggest that it is working well. The new commissioner will be responsible for continual monitoring of the responsiveness of the water authorities to local interests.
  Taken together, those developments constitute a fundamental reform. We are providing what the Scottish people want: a water service unambiguously in the public sector, with clear democratic control by a Scottish Parliament, with strengthened local responsiveness and a professional, independent regulator.
  The review also emphasised that the industry is in need of substantial investment if Scottish people are to have the quality of water service that they deserve. That investment is necessary to bring the quality of our water up to the best British and European standards, to protect our beaches, rivers and seas and to renew the infrastructure gifted us by previous generations, which more recent generations and Governments have neglected. Of course, it will have to be paid for by all water consumers. Those are facts that we cannot avoid or escape.
  The Government are committed to securing substantial improvements in drinking water quality and standards of sewage treatment. To deliver that, we have already taken bold and difficult decisions on charges. That was necessary to bring about the modernisation of the water industry in Scotland. As a result, real progress is being made on investment. New water treatment plants are being built over the length and breadth of Scotland. All the main Scottish cities will benefit from brand new sewerage works by the end of 2000.
  For the first time in generations, substantial sums are being invested in renewing our water mains and sewers. The three authorities should invest more than £1.5 billion
  112
  over the next three years. That includes projects to the value of some £600 million that are being pursued in partnership with the private sector. We can already see benefits for customers from private sector innovation.
  As I have already explained, the devolution settlement means that the water authorities will be under legitimate democratic control. The direction on local consultation and the increased councillor representation mean that the water authorities will be much more responsive to local concerns. Despite major changes, they remain public sector monopolies, so the Scottish people need a safeguard to ensure that the money that they pay in charges is being well spent.
  The review recommended that an effective safeguard needed a new set of regulatory arrangements. That is why we are establishing the commissioner, who will be responsible for all aspects of economic regulation and for promoting the customer interest.
  Under the new arrangements, the commissioner will be obliged to have regard to a range of factors relevant to the water authorities when framing advice on charges. Among those factors will be the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the authorities use the resources at their disposal in delivering services to their customers. In short, it means sustained pressure on the authorities to deliver their services with maximum efficiency. Other important factors will be to ensure the authorities can deliver the required environmental and customer service standards.
  The review also emphasised the importance of promoting customers' interests. The three consultative committees will help to discharge that role. They will advise the commissioner about the concerns of customers in their respective areas and the commissioner will have regard to that advice in discharging his or her functions.
  The water authorities are making real progress in the way in which they deal with their customers. Nevertheless, we believe that the new arrangements will encourage yet greater sensitivity and responsiveness to the needs and expectations of customers.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will the Minister clarify a remark by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna)? Is he implying that, if the Bill is enacted, clauses 12 and 13 will not be brought into force by the Secretary of State prior to 6 May next year? If that is the case and they are not implemented by then, will the power to bring them into force then devolve to the new Scottish Parliament?
  Mr. Macdonald: I was about to explain that point as it was the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's objections to the Bill. I should make it clear that we attach a high priority to the measures in the Bill. They will deliver real improvements to the arrangements for regulating the water industry in Scotland and real benefits to consumers. There was a consensus among the major consultees on the water industry review—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the customers council and the water authorities themselves—that that approach to regulation was sensible and the best way forward.

  113
  We believe that it would be wrong to delay taking steps that would allow the Scottish Executive to implement the new arrangements as soon as possible—if we did not take those steps now, another year would be lost. However, in legislating, we are not pre-empting decisions by the Parliament or by the Executive. It will be open to the Parliament to implement the provisions of the Bill as it sees fit.
  Contrary to what the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale said, the hands of the Scottish Parliament will not be tied. It can either retain the proposed new arrangements or alter them in due course. It will be entirely up to the Parliament and the Executive to activate and implement the provisions. If they choose to do so—as I believe they will, given the support that the provisions have—they will be able to act straight away, so freeing up time in which the Parliament can undertake other important and pressing legislation. I am sure that the House will recognise that that is the right way in which to proceed, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will, on reflection, agree.
  There have been a range of excellent and constructive contributions to the debate, particularly from my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn), for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton), for Putney (Mr. Colman), for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) and for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey). Indeed, so many hon. Members spoke that I could not possibly list them all, but I acknowledge that hon. Members on both sides of the House made good contributions.
  Some important points and suggestions were made, most of which will have to be dealt with in Committee, but I shall respond to one or two of them now in the hope of being helpful to members of the Committee and, indeed, the House. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, but especially my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West, mentioned budget payments
  114
  and pre-payments. We are not opposed to the use of payment units as a convenient means of payment for customers who want one. Clauses 1 and 2 prohibit the cutting off of supplies or the use of a limiting device with the intention of enforcing payment. I hope that those who have expressed concern will be reassured by the fact that at least one company that has faced problems with payment is removing the cut-off valves, but is leaving the units as a means of budget payment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and other hon. Members mentioned regional disparity in pricing, referring in particular to South West Water. The positive answer to the problem in the south-west lies in the outcome of the periodic review. As a minimum, the Government expect in 2000 a reduction in prices for customers of South West Water that is broadly in line with the national picture. In his recent paper "Prospects for Prices", the director general said that customers in the south-west should expect a 15 to 20 per cent. reduction in 2000.
  I apologise to hon. Members who raised points that I do not have time to deal with—I am sure that those points will be adequately covered in Committee.
  The Bill envisages a new framework for the water industry in Scotland and new provisions for England and Wales. I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

WATER INDUSTRY BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Water Industry Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other Act—[Mr. Allen.]
Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS
That the draft Forensic Science Service Trading Fund Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 5th November, in the last session of Parliament, be approved.
POLICE
That the draft Functions of Traffic Wardens (Scotland) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 5th November, in the last session of Parliament, be approved.
INCOME TAX
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Ireland) Order 1998 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 9th November, in the last session of Parliament.
BROADCASTING
That the draft Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) (Amendment) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 11th November, in the last session of Parliament, be approved.
NORTHERN IRELAND
That the draft Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 12th November, in the last session of Parliament, be approved.

VALUE ADDED TAX
That the Value Added Tax (Input Tax) (Amendment) Order 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 2767), dated 12th November 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th November, in the last session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Allen.]
Question agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
Resolved,
That—
i. the matter of the Comprehensive Spending Review in Northern Ireland, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee for its consideration; and
ii. at the sitting on Thursday 10th December:

(a) the Committee shall consider the matter referred to it in paragraph (i) above; and

(b) a Motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown pursuant to Standing Order No. 116(5).—[Mr. Allen.]

ACCOMMODATION AND WORKS COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Janet Anderson and Mr. George Mudie be discharged from the Accommodation and Works Committee and Mr. Keith Bradley and Mr. David Jamieson be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

CATERING COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Jackie Ballard be discharged from the Catering Committee and Mr. Paul Keetch be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Mrs. Theresa May be discharged from the Education and Employment Committee and Mr. John Hayes be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITIONS

  Health Services (Berkshire)
  Fiona Mactaggart: I wish to present a petition, signed by 1,425 people of Slough, which states:
  The Petition of citizens of Slough declares that the cuts in community health services planned by the Berkshire Health Authority will damage the health of the people of this town.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to stop the cuts and require the health authority to work to improve the health of the people of Slough.
  To lie upon the Table.

Electricity Pylons (Vale of York)
Miss Anne McIntosh: With permission, I would like to submit a petition from constituents in the Vale of York, expressing their protest against the proposed pylons across the North Yorkshire countryside. The petition has attracted 1,128 signatures and addresses specifically health and other risks. I hope that the petition will convince Ministers of the need to research the health effects of emissions from overhead power lines on people living nearby. The petitioners declare
that we object to the decision to allow electricity pylons to be erected in the constituency, and fear that they might be dangerous to our health.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to commission government research into the health effects of emissions from overhead power lines on those living nearby.
To lie upon the Table.

Community Health Care (Berkshire)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]
10.2 pm
Fiona Mactaggart: I requested this debate because of the series of cuts in community health services that were proposed by Berkshire health authority, which is responsible for health care across the area of the former Berkshire county council. As the House has heard, that has caused deep concern to more than 1,000 of my constituents who signed a petition on the subject which I have just submitted. I am glad, therefore, that since I requested the debate, Berkshire health authority has made significant changes to its proposals.
For many years, our county has been an area of major population growth, and only recently has health funding started to follow the people. Historically, Berkshire health authority has been underfunded in terms of the needs of the local population. Out of 100 health authorities, Berkshire comes 96th in spending per head, getting some £100 a head less than most health authorities.
The Labour Government have taken some initial steps towards rectifying that. I am glad to say that in both of the past two years, Berkshire has received among the highest percentage increases in health spending in England. Nevertheless, there is still an underlying deficit, and local health services remain very much under pressure.
Berkshire has an image of green prosperity, but the image is incomplete. The prosperity, and the good health that it brings, is not universal. Within Berkshire, the town that I represent, Slough, has the greatest deprivation. It also has the highest incidence of coronary heart disease in Berkshire. We are among the top 50 local authorities in the country for deaths of people under 65 from coronary heart disease—coming just between Birmingham and Newcastle-upon-Tyne—and among the top 10 for people of all ages, coming between Carlisle and Hackney. We have a worse record in terms of coronary heart disease—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. What is that noise?
Fiona Mactaggart: I believe that I am responsible, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady should know that she should not have that device on in the Chamber.
Fiona Mactaggart: I know that, Madam Speaker, and I sincerely apologise. I do not understand why it is doing that.
Madam Speaker: Leave it outside.
Fiona Mactaggart: We have a worse record on coronary heart disease than not only other districts in Berkshire but neighbouring London boroughs such as Hillingdon, Hounslow and Ealing. We have the highest incidence of lung cancer, bowel cancer and pneumonia in Berkshire, and the most hospital admissions for all the top five causes of death.
118
"Our Healthier Nation" pledged to improve the health of the worst-off and to narrow the health gap. The pledge to tackle health inequalities was very important to Slough, as to other areas with a health record substantially worse than the national average.
Mr. Martin Salter: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Fiona Mactaggart: Certainly.
Mr. Salter rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Is the Minister aware that there is to be an intervention? The Chair has not been informed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I have no objection.
Mr. Salter: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in some aspects of the review and in the lamentable episode of attempting to make cuts in community health services in Berkshire, the health authority failed to take account not only of the White Paper on the national health service but of the recent policy document "Supporting Our Families", which envisaged an enhanced role for health visitors? Is it not important for Ministers to impress on health authorities the need to produce policies in line with Government health policies?
Fiona Mactaggart: Absolutely. "Our Healthier Nation" talked about councils and health authorities working together, but it is striking that that has not been achieved. Pioneering work is being done in my local authority to introduce early years centres, very much along the lines of the surestart initiative, and that will be damaged by the review proposals to reduce the number of health visitors.
The national priorities guidance asks local authorities, the Department of Social Security and health authorities to work together for child welfare; the Home Secretary's document on supporting families, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) has referred, proposed a greatly enhanced role for health visitors; and the conclusions of the Acheson report on health inequalities also have significant implications for Government policy that do not seem to have been seriously considered in Berkshire health authority's proposals.
The proposed cuts included £140,000 off the health visitors service—5.7 per cent. of its budget—which would have meant that it was unable to support the council's early years initiatives; and £40,000 from the speech and language therapy service, which was already under enormous pressure.
A consultant paediatrician told me of a five-year-old child of one of my constituents who had already waited a year and a half for speech and language therapy. The child does not have generalised developmental delay but has a specific speech and language therapy need that was not met in the pre-school years. Those are lost years for the child's education.

119
The proposals for cuts were called service reviews but, frankly, they were attempts to reach financial targets and did not reflect the serious thinking about service needs and future health provision that a community with as many health problems as Slough requires.
The health authority was surprised by the strength of popular opposition to its proposals. That is partly because the debate about health care has focused on waiting lists and not necessarily on community services. I believe that the reaction showed that local people really care about their community services.
I heard from many people who were concerned about the role of their health visitors. For example, one of my constituents wrote:
"Being first-time parents, the health visitor was a source of help and reassurance and we found her invaluable."
That comment sums up the many representations that I received from parents about the support that they had from health visitors.
The proposals caused concern among the people of our community and its Members of Parliament. We had meetings with Ministers—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), who initiated a meeting—at which we had positive responses. It seemed illogical to us that during the process a substantial increase of £29.6 million was allocated to the authority, yet those cuts-led proposals were still being pursued.
Following the meeting with the Minister, the situation began to change almost day by day. I am glad to say that the health authority withdrew the bulk of its proposals last Monday and promised further reviews of health visiting and school nursing—affecting cuts that had been proposed in the west of the county, but not Slough—including consulting the local councils and leaving out the savings targets. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health and her colleagues for that outcome and I hope that the health authority can move on and seek, as the petition that I presented earlier requested, to work instead to improve the health of the people of Slough.
I have to say that it is a crazy way to run a railroad. The health authority, if it is accountable to anyone, is accountable to the body that appoints it—the Government. It has no separate lines of accountability to local communities. Indeed, that is one of the weaknesses of our local health authority, which does not have members with long experience as councillors playing a large role on it. I do not understand how the local health authority can carry on making proposals that run directly counter to the priorities set out by the Government in several different documents and that have to be hauled back from the brink by the intervention of Members of Parliament and the outrage of the people for whose health care the authority is responsible.
A number of questions must be considered. First, I hope that the Minister will assure me that Berkshire health authority will not try to slide some of the cuts in under the wire, because the final version of its decision is not explicitly available to all of us. We do not know exactly what it plans to do. We know that it has withdrawn the present reviews, but it is not clear whether my local community trust will be expected to make the same savings on health visitors and speech and language therapists as were envisaged in the original proposals.
120
Secondly, when health authorities plan changes to our services, have they been directed to take account of the Government's policies, as outlined in "Our Healthier Nation", "National Priorities Guidance" and "Supporting Families"? Thirdly, if we are going to join up work in health and social services, I urge the Government to consider giving local councils a formal role in the national health service consultative process, perhaps putting them on a par with community health councils, at least in places where such co-operation has not taken place. Finally, in respect of Berkshire health authority, will the Minister outline what steps are being taken—through the Anglia and Oxford NHS region or otherwise—to ensure that the health authority's future actions conform to Government health policy and address the real health care needs of local people?
If we consider the figures, we can see that the town I represent has a health care crisis. The health authority has, so far, demonstrated an absolute inability to tackle it. The Government's published policies create a model through which we could tackle the crisis, but I want to know how we can deliver that model in practice in our community.
10.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing time for this important debate, on the way in which she presented her arguments and on the tenacity with which she has represented her constituents' interests in this matter in the House.
My hon. Friend asked four direct questions, and I shall answer each in turn. First, health authorities are given explicit guidance that changes to services must fully reflect Government policy. Regional offices of the national health service will approve an authority's service and financial framework and the health improvement programmes only if those requirements are fully met. That covers my hon. Friend's point about national priorities guidance, which, as she will be aware, applies also to social services departments.
Secondly, health authorities are expected to consult representatives of local councils, together with other groups such as users and carers. That responsibility is set to increase with the introduction of health improvement programmes from next year, when local authorities will play a crucial part in working more closely with the NHS and delivering better services to local people.
Thirdly, the roles of community health councils and local authorities are different, but both exercise considerable influence. CHCs have a unique role in the health service, representing the public interest. Local authorities have a key role in health improvement programmes, as they will be co-signatories, so co-operation will have to take place. As my hon. Friend knows, social services departments will be represented on the new primary care groups. In future, local authority chief executives will also attend health authority meetings.
My hon. Friend asked some questions about Berkshire, which I will explain more fully during my speech. Briefly, it may be worth reminding her that officials from the regional office met the health authority and emphasised the need to ensure that any proposals were fully compliant with Government policy. That involvement will continue into the new year, as the health authority devises its new strategy for families and children.

121
My hon. Friend mentioned community services, which have a key role to play in the NHS. The Government have made it clear that they expect to see that role develop. Those services are often undervalued, but they cover a vital link between acute services, primary care and patients.
A whole of host of community services are valued by the patients who rely on them. However, as with other health services, it is important continually to review community health care to take account of modern clinical practice. Health authorities must ensure that the services they provide are focused on the patients who most need support, while making sure they make the best use of resources.
The major public health agenda set out by the Government is contained in the Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation", together with the Home Office's "supporting families" initiative. Both have important implications for nurses, midwives, health visitors and other key staff working in the community health sector.
Our White Paper "The new NHS: modern, dependable" established significant changes in the way in which services will be organised. In particular, the development of primary care groups will play a key role in the way community health services are provided in the future. Those groups will also bring a local dimension to how services are best delivered, and will ensure that they reach the people who really need them.
Against that background, Berkshire health authority embarked on a review of community services in both the east and west of the county. Many of those services had not been reviewed for some time, and the health authority was committed to a programme of modernising the services it commissioned for Berkshire patients.
Following the review, but before any changes were made, Berkshire health authority carried out a consultation exercise, which was completed on November 16. Since then, there has been an intensive round of meetings with interested parties, including the two community health councils and the six unitary authorities. Of course, it is to be welcomed when a health authority works closely with its community health councils and listens to the views of local people, to achieve a consensus on how services should be delivered locally.
At the meeting between my hon. Friends and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in another place, it was agreed that the regional nursing director and the director of performance from the Anglia and Oxford regional office of the NHS should advise the health authority on the best way forward.
The role of the regional office was to ensure that the health authority was fully aware of Government policy and its implications for services in Berkshire. As I said in response to my hon. Friend's direct question, that involvement continues today.
At its board meeting last Monday, the health authority announced that it would substantially reconsider the proposals for health visitors, school nursing, and speech and language therapy services. The decision was taken after listening to the views and concerns of the public, local authorities and the two community health councils, and having considered the advice of the regional office. I know that the health authority, in deciding the next stages in its strategy, has also been mindful of the recent letter about community services to regional chairmen from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health.
122
Although some aspects of the proposals have faced opposition, the proposed changes to community dentistry and podiatry have been broadly supported by the two CHCs. The changes to community dentistry would enable the service to care for the neediest patients. The podiatry service would be focused on patients suffering from diabetes, so that they get the help that they need.
The main question for hon. Members and their constituents is where we go from here. Now that the health authority has decided on this new approach, what will it mean for the people of Berkshire? The aim must be to target resources effectively, while meeting the aspirations of local people and fully reflecting Government policy.
For health visiting, school nursing and speech and language therapy, any proposals will now take in the wider perspective of the health and social needs of children and families, particularly those who are most vulnerable. I am sure that those children are among the main concerns of my hon. Friend. That will mean developing a joint strategy focused on children and families, and then devising a range of health, social and educational services to meet those needs. The health authority will involve staff and local authorities in that process of change. That is in keeping with the national priorities guidance that we announced earlier in the autumn.
Such partnership working had already been identified in the White Paper when it highlighted the need for health improvement programmes, which will have an important role in promoting effective health services for local communities. As I have said, they will not be the responsibility only of health authorities. Social services will have a key role as well in having to ensure that the programmes' objectives are reflected in local plans covering community care and children's services. In reviewing its community services, it is crucial that Berkshire health authority links any review with the health improvement programme, and in particular works together with all six unitary authorities.
The Government's Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation" stressed the need to tackle fundamental inequalities, such as the fact that people on low incomes are ill more often and die sooner. That has been reinforced by the report of the independent inquiry into inequalities in health, which was published last month. The inquiry was commissioned by the Government, led by the former chief medical officer, Sir Donald Acheson, and made a number of recommendations directed specifically at the NHS.
Most notably, it stated that providing equitable access to effective care in relation to need should be a governing principle of all policies in the NHS. Priority should be given to the achievement of equity in the planning, intervention and delivery of services at every level of the NHS.
I know that Berkshire health authority is acutely aware of the problems of deprived areas in a predominantly affluent area. I immediately think of my hon. Friend's constituency of Slough, which has greater needs than much of the rest of Berkshire. I know that parts of it are among the most deprived 10 per cent. in England. I am glad to say that the health authority is now committed to targeting services on the people with the greatest need, and resources will be allocated locally using a formula to be developed with the help of all stakeholder groups and the CHCs.

123
Those are admirable concepts that the Government will always welcome, but the health authority has still to develop a strategy for children and family services and then put together detailed proposals. Any significant changes would then need to be consulted with and agreed by both CHCs. Should either object, the matter will have to be referred to Ministers for determination. In those circumstances, we will need to be fully satisfied that any changes will improve the delivery of local NHS services in Berkshire.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of funding for the national health service in Berkshire. The Government are well aware of the concerns that the health authority has about funding, but Berkshire has done well under the Labour Government: for the next financial year, it will receive the highest allocation in the Anglia and Oxford region—£.431 million. It will also receive the greatest increase in the region, of nearly £30 million—a real-terms increase of almost 5 per cent.
The health authority has also benefited from the Government's determination to reduce high waiting lists, and it has received further funding to tackle that
124
inheritance from the previous Administration. The health authority was given £1.8 million to deal with the 1997–98 winter pressures, nearly £4 million of the waiting list additional funding and a further £871,000 to tackle waiting lists this financial year. That all adds up to a great deal of extra money to help to treat more patients in Berkshire. Clearly, some of that money will be spent on providing community services.
The current challenge for Berkshire health authority is to find a way forward in its community services that fully reflects true partnership with other agencies. As I have said, should the matter fail to win the approval of either of the community health councils, it will come before Ministers, who will be mindful of the Government's commitment to supporting the family, and to targeting social exclusion and inequalities in health. I assure my hon. Friend that those are crucial parts of the Government's commitment to improve health. We shall expect them to be properly reflected in any proposals that come from Berkshire health authority.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Ten o'clock.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Agency
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what instructions are issued to Benefits Agency staff who deal with the public requiring them to identify themselves. [61626]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Benefits Agency is a matter for its Chief Executive, Peter Mathison. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Claire Ward, dated 3 December 1998:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question about the instructions issued to Benefits Agency staff who deal with the public requiring them to identify themselves.
  Benefits Agency policy on the issue of staff giving their names to customers is as follows:
  When dealing with the public inside the office, staff should:
  give their name on the telephone and in letters
  wear name badges.
  Name badges should normally display either the member of staff's:
  surname and forename or initials or
  forename and job title (job title alone is not sufficient).
  Staff should not give their name if they have reasons for believing that their safety is at risk.
  If staff feel that their safety is at risk by providing their actual name, they have the right, following consultation with management, to use an office name. This should be sensible and should be consistently used by that member of staff on all office business.
  BA does not expect staff to wear name badges outside the office. They should normally give their name if requested unless they feel that their personal safety is at risk. Staff who carry an ID card must show it on arrival and give their name if asked.
  These instructions are contained in the BA Conditions of Service Manual and are referred to in the letter issued to staff taking up permanent appointment.
  I hope you find this reply is helpful.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the administrative cost would be of(a) paying an additional 40p per week on the state pension and (b) paying a £20 winter fuel bonus to all pensioners once per year. [62243]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of the Benefits Agency is a matter for its Chief Executive, Peter Mathison. He will write to the hon. Member.
  2
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 3 December 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what the administrative cost would be of a) paying an additional 40p per week on the State pension and b) paying a £20 winter fuel bonus to all pensioners once per year.
  If the 40p increase were to be paid as part of the annual uprating exercise, there would be no additional administrative cost. If it were to be paid separately the additional costs are estimated at around £500,000.
  The administrative costs of paying a £20 winter fuel bonus to all State Pension recipients resident in Great Britain once a year would be around £12 million.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Appeals
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people had appealed against an adjudicator's decision(a) successfully and (b) unsuccessfully, up to 31 October. [62858]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  All cases heard and decided by an Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) Appeal Tribunal

  All centres

  Decided in appellant"s favour

  Decided against appellant

  January 1998

  4,132

  10,728

  February 1998

  4,337

  11,845

  March 1998

  5,326

  13,761

  April 1997

  4,470

  10,020

  May 1998

  4,632

  10,850

  June 1998

  5,267

  12,788

  July 1998

  5,371

  13,452

  August 1998

  4,771

  12,103

  September 1998

  4,568

  11,494

  Total

  42,874

  107,041

  Source:

  Appeals—Data supplied by Analytical Services Division (ASD) from the ITS Generic Appeals Processing System

  Single Gateway
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the single gateway process will(a) permit routes to independence other than work, and (b) include advice on full take up of benefits. [62625]

  Angela Eagle
  Claimants will be offered a package of help designed around their particular needs, and will be given access to a wide range of support and services. This will help them to focus both on the benefits of work and to plan a route back to independence.

  The personal adviser will also ensure that the claimant is receiving the full range of benefits to which they are entitled, whilst providing personalised calculations of net income to help the claimant understand the extent to which they could be better off in work.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what steps his Department will take to ensure that claimants subject to the single gateway are offered early interviews to allow prompt payment of benefit; [62620]
  3
  (2) what target has been set for the time within which claimants should be offered single gateway interviews. [62621]

  Angela Eagle
  The Single Gateway process is being developed to allow for personal adviser interviews to take place, in most cases, within three working days of the first contact with the office. Processing of the benefit will run concurrently with the new Gateway processes in order to minimise delay.

  There will, as now, be arrangements for meeting urgent benefit needs.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the functions will be of the call centres in the pilots in Somerset, Buckinghamshire, Gwent Borders and Calderdale and Kirklees in implementing the single gateway. [62626]

  Angela Eagle
  From November 1999 we are seeking to test call centre technology in the four named pilot areas as part of the single gateway pilot programme. This programme will bring together the Employment Service, Benefits Agency and other welfare providers in a single point of contact.

  We aim to test how modern technology can make the service as quick and efficient as possible. We will use call centres to perform the Registration and Orientation stages of the new arrangements as described in Chapter 3 of "A New Contract for Welfare: The Gateway to Work". We are also looking at how better telephone technology might be used to improve the service we can offer clients in other areas of Gateway work.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what safeguards will be introduced to ensure that single gateway interviews are arranged at mutually convenient times, and that home visits are arranged where appropriate. [62673]

  Angela Eagle
  Single Gateway interviews will be arranged in discussion with the claimant and at a mutually convenient time. A home visit will be arranged where circumstances make it impractical for the claimant to attend the office.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the personal advisers within the single gateway will operate in conjunction with the New Deal personal advisers. [62624]

  Angela Eagle
  The precise working arrangements have yet to be determined. Our aim will be to offer new benefit claimants the best possible help and advice in planning a route back to independence. Our experience in the pilot areas will inform decisions about what works best.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the exemptions allowed in respect of the single gateway interview. [62623]

  Angela Eagle
  There will be no list of exemptions. We expect that an immediate interview will take place in the large majority of cases but this requirement may be waived or deferred where appropriate in the particular circumstances of the case.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information his Department has collected relating to the income tax bands of claimants of disability living allowance. [62633]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not routinely collected.

  Estimates of the current recipients of disability living allowance (DLA) based on the 1995–96 family resources survey

  Tax band

  Number of DLA recipients

  20 per cent. rate

  120,000

  23 per cent. rate

  110,000

  40 per cent. rate

  10,000

  Notes:

  1. The tax rates refer to the highest marginal rate of income tax the recipient is liable to pay.

  2. Entitlement to Disability Living Allowance depends on the level of help a disabled person needs with personal care and mobility, not on their level of income.

  3. These estimates are based on survey information and subject to margins of error.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much it would cost to extend up to 25 years of age the limit of 20 years of age before which disability must have occurred which is placed upon severe disablement allowance. [62340]

  Mr. Timms
  We estimate the cost to be broadly in the region of £40 million a year.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lifetime awards of disability living allowance are in payment for(a) lower, (b) middle and (c) higher rate of care component and (i) lower and (ii) higher rate of mobility component. [62540]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  Disability Living Allowance awards made "for life" which were in payment at 31 May 1998

  Thousand

  Care component

  highest rate

  264

  middle rate

  361

  lowest rate

  331

  Mobility component

  higher rate

  1,110

  lower rate

  239

  Notes:

  The term "for life" means that payment can be made indefinitely provided the conditions for receipt continue to be satisfied. Many beneficiaries receive both components.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 5 per cent. data

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate his Department has made of the number of new claimants who will not be eligible for severe disablement allowance under his proposed reforms. [62339]

  Mr. Timms
  We estimate that 16,000 people per year would not receive Severe Disablement Allowance under the reforms proposed in our discussion document "Support for Disabled People". However, current statistical data indicate that nearly 70 per cent. of these
  5
  will qualify for Income Support as they do at present, so that, for the majority, their benefit income will not be reduced.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to change housing benefit entitlement for those under 25 years of age. [62280]

  Angela Eagle
  We are considering all aspects of the Housing Benefit rules as part of our current simplification and improvement review.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each of the measures which limit the rent which may be covered by housing benefit; and if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer of removing each one. [62349]

  Angela Eagle
  The measures which limit the rent for Housing Benefit purposes are:certain service charges included in the contractual rent which are not generally eligible for Housing Benefit, for example, charges for cleaning, laundry, fuel, meals and personal care and nursing;
  the range of determinations made by rent officers in respect of most claims from tenants living in the private rented sector; and
  where local authorities consider that the rent is unreasonably high or the accommodation overlarge or the eligible rent is nonetheless too high in respect of a particular case.

  Due to the number of reasons which could limit the contractual rent, on which data are not held, it is not possible to estimate the cost of removing each one.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans his Department has to abolish the Giro payment system for social security benefits. [62622]

  Mr. Denham
  This Department is presently working with Post Office Counters Ltd. and ICL Pathway, the Private Finance Initiative supplier, on a project to replace girocheques and order books with a magnetic stripe card for people who wish to collect their benefit at the Post Office.

  National Insurance Recording System
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons the computer system for programming payments for self-employed people will not be operational until spring 1999. [61475]

  Mr. Timms
  The computer system to which the hon. Member refers is the National Insurance Recording System (NIRS2). As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained in his letter of 11 September to hon. Members, there have been some implementation problems with NIRS2. However, no data have been lost and no records have been destroyed as a result.

  NIRS2 has been processing payments from self-employed contributors since 13 July 1998. Collections from self-employed contributors have been made through the established Direct Debit and Quarterly Billing methods and to date we have collected over £269 million in National Insurance Contributions.
  6
  Due to the scale, complexity and sensitivity of the NIRS2 system it has been thoroughly tested prior to acceptance by the Contributions Agency. There are still some functions within the NIRS2 computer system that are being piloted, including the registration of newly self-employed contributors.

  The computer system is being introduced using a phased release strategy. The final phase, combining Release 2 and Release 3, is planned for April 1999.

  Bereavement Benefits
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the SERPS element previously paid in the widow's pension will in future be paid under the widowed parent's allowance. [62615]

  Angela Eagle
  Under our proposals for new bereavement benefits, those widows who qualify for Widow's Pension at the point of change will continue to receive benefit including any SERPS whilst they satisfy the entitlement conditions. Widowed parents who become entitled to the Widowed Parent's Allowance will receive any SERPS entitlement based on their late spouse's payment of earnings-related National Insurance contributions since 1978 with the basic element of Widowed Parent's Allowance.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what(a) amount and (b) percentage of the total of the widow's pension was previously paid as SERPS entitlement. [62616]

  Angela Eagle
  The average weekly amount of SERPS paid to Widow's Pension recipients in Great Britain at 31 March 1998 was £14.36, which represents 24 per cent. of their average total weekly entitlement.

  Source:

  5 per cent. sample from the Pensions Strategy Computer System.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what element of the widowed parent's allowance will be paid as SERPS entitlement. [62617]

  Angela Eagle
  As with the current Widowed Mother's Allowance, SERPS entitlement based on the late spouse's payment of earnings-related National Insurance contributions since 1978 will be paid with the basic element of Widowed Parent's Allowance.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of introducing the new bereavement allowance(a) for widows and (b) for widowers for (i) 2001–2, (ii) 2002–3, (iii) 2003–4 and (iv) 2020, excluding savings resulting from the abolition of the widow's pension. [62592]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Estimated increased expenditure associated with the introduction of the bereavement allowance for (a) widows and (b) widowers, excluding savings resulting from the abolition of the widow's pension

  £ million 1998–99 benefit rates

  Bereavement allowance for widows

  Bereavemen allowance for widowers

  2001–02

  20

  10

  2003–04

  30

  10

  7

  Estimated increased expenditure associated with the introduction of the bereavement allowance for (a) widows and (b) widowers, excluding savings resulting from the abolition of the widow's pension

  £ million 1998–99 benefit rates

  Bereavement allowance for widows

  Bereavement allowance for widowers

  2003–04

  30

  10

  2020

  50

  1—

  1 Denotes less than £25 million

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are presented net of means-tested benefit offsets, in line with those in "A new contract for welfare: support in bereavement". Means-tested benefit offsets were estimated using the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey and the Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries. They assume a constant offset ratio in order to provide illustrative estimates for 2020.

  2. The underlying contributory benefit effects have been provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  3. Estimates for the first three years are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  4. Estimates for 2020 provide broad orders of magnitude and are rounded to the nearest £50 million.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many widows and widowers will be eligible for means tested benefits following withdrawal of the bereavement allowance after six months. [61459]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: The information is in the table.

  Estimates of the number of widows and widowers who would start to receive or continue to receive means-tested benefits once their bereavement allowence has been exhausted

  Benefit

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Income Support

  less than 5,000

  10,000

  20,000

  Housing Benefit

  less than 5,000

  less than 5,000

  10,000

  Council Tax Benefit

  less than 5,000

  10,000

  10,000

  Notes:

  1. Estimates for later years include the effect of the build up through time of the number of ex-recipients of Bereavement Allowance. It is not possible to be more exact.

  2. The estimates presented above are broad orders of magnitude. They are rounded to the nearest 10,000 but are not necessarily accurate to that degree.

  3. Estimates assume that a constant proportion of those affected by the proposed changes to Bereavement Benefits move on or off each of the means-tested benefits.

  4. Estimates use information from the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey, the Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry and forecasts from the Government Actuary's Department concerning the number of men and women affected by the proposed changes.

  5. Some widows and widowers will receive more than one of the means-tested benefits. However, the estimates across means-tested benefits cannot be summed to provide an estimate of the total number of people affected by the changes.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many widows and widowers his Department estimates will be entitled to the bereavement allowance; and how many will have the benefit withdrawn after six months when the allowance is introduced in 2001. [61458]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: In the first full year following implementation, it is estimated that the average number of widows and widowers in receipt of bereavement benefits, at any one time, will be
  8
  50,000. Of these 20,000 will be entitled to the Bereavement Allowance which will end after 6 months for all.

  Notes:

  1. Numbers of widows and widowers have been supplied by the Government Actuary's Department.

  2. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  3. These estimates are intended to represent broad orders of magnitude.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the savings from the abolition of the widow's pension in(a) 2001–2, (b) 2002–3, (c) 2003–4 and (d) 2020, excluding the introduction of the bereavement allowance. [62591]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Estimated savings associated with the abolition of the widow's pension excluding the introduction of the bereavement allowance

  £ million 1998–99 benefit rates

  Abolition of widow's pension

  2001–02

  30

  2002–03

  90

  2003–04

  140

  2020

  700

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are presented net of means-tested benefit offsets, in line with those in "A new contract for welfare: support in bereavement". Means-tested benefit offsets were estimated using the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey and the Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries. They assume a constant offset ratio in order to provide illustrative estimates for 2020.

  2. The underlying contributory benefit effects have been provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  3. Estimates for the first three years are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  4. Estimates for 2020 provide broad orders of magnitude and are rounded to the nearest £50 million.

  5. The savings quoted above refer to only one element of the recently announced package of reforms to Bereavement benefits, which also include extending benefits to widowers and doubling the lump sum Bereavement Payment. The net savings in 2020 from the whole package amounts to £500 million.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lifetime awards of attendance allowance are in payment for(a) lower and (b) higher rate of benefit. [62538]

  Mr. Timms
  The table shows the number of awards made "for life" which were in payment at 31 May 1998. The term "for life" means that payment can be made indefinitely provided the conditions for receipt continue to be satisfied.

  Attendance allowance awards made 'for life'

  Thousand

  Number

  Higher rate

  509

  Lower rate

  706

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 5 per cent. data

  Family Credit
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the average weekly income is for families in receipt of family credit broken down between the amount received in(a) pay and (b) family credit for a one parent family with (i) one child, (ii) two children and (iii) three children. [62579]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Average weekly income of lone parent family credit recipients split by number of children, net earnings and weekly family credit

  Number of children

  Number of cases

  Total average income from net earnings and weekly Family Credit (£)

  Average net earnings (£)

  Average weekly Family Credit (£)

  All lone parents

  377,000

  152.14

  92.66

  59.48

  1 child

  194,000

  143.96

  93.39

  50.57

  2 children

  128,000

  155.99

  93.06

  62.93

  3 children

  43,000

  169.04

  90.52

  78.52

  Notes:

  1. Figures based on a 5 per cent. sample of Family Credit awards and as such are subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and may not sum due to totals.

  3. Figures do not include income from other benefits, e.g. Child Benefit, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  4. Figures include dependants aged 16–18 who are included in the calculation of the Family Credit award.

  5. Lone parents with 1 to 3 children do not sum to the total for all lone parents as there are also lone parents with 4 or more children in receipt of Family Credit.

  Source:

  May 1998 Family Credit Quarterly Statistical Enquiry.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many initial letters inviting lone parents to participate in the New Deal for Lone Parents have been issued; how many initial interviews have been (i) booked; and (ii) carried out; how many lone parents have agreed to participate; and how many lone parents participating in the New Deal for Lone Parents have found jobs. [63091]

  Angela Eagle
  The New Deal for Lone Parents started running in Phase 1 in eight lead areas of the country in July 1997. A national service became available to all lone parents making a new claim for Income Support in Phase 2 in April 1998, and to all lone parents receiving Income Support in Phase 3 in October 1998.

  Using the latest information from July 1997 to 23 October 1998 which covers the period to the end of Phase 2 of the New Deal for Lone Parents, the number of letters issued is 50,612; the number of initial interviews booked is 30,826; the number of initial interviews carried out is 23,300; the number of agreements to participate is 20,191, which equates to 87 per cent. of lone parents who attend an initial interview agreeing to take part in the New Deal for Lone Parents; and a total of 5,429 lone parents participating in the New Deal for Lone Parents have found jobs, which is 27 per cent. of those joining the programme.
  10
  The prototype Phase 1 of the New Deal for Lone Parents is undergoing independent evaluation. The final report comparing the outcomes for lone parents in the eight New Deal for Lone Parents prototype areas will be published in autumn 1999.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each employment service region, how many lone parents there are(a) in total, (b) with children under five years of age and (c) with children over five years of age. [61964]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Lone parents in employment by Government Office Region, spring 1997

  Government Office Region

  Lone parents in employment

  Great Britain

  675,000

  North East

  30,000

  North West

  100,000

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  65,000

  East Midlands

  50,000

  West Midlands

  60,000

  Eastern

  60,000

  London

  80,000

  South East

  85,000

  South West

  45,000

  Wales

  40,000

  Scotland

  55,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  2. It is not possible to disaggregate the regional figures by age of youngest child because this will generate caseloads of below 10,000 for some regions. Caseloads below this size are based on samples which are too small to be statistically reliable.

  3. The table includes all lone parents in paid employment, self-employment and on government training schemes.

  4. Lone parents defined as single people with at least one dependent child. This figure will include a small number of disabled and pensioner lone parents.

  Source:

  Spring 1997 Labour Force Survey using household adjusted weighting factors.

  Lone parents on Income Support by Government Office Region, by age of the youngest child, May 1998

  Thousand

  Youngest child aged

  Region

  All cases

  Under 5

  5 or over

  Great Britain

  961

  480

  482

  North East

  50

  25

  25

  North West

  138

  70

  69

  Yorks & Humberside

  83

  43

  40

  East Midlands

  58

  30

  29

  West Midlands

  86

  44

  42

  Eastern

  69

  33

  36

  London

  179

  87

  92

  South East

  93

  46

  47

  South West

  62

  30

  32

  Wales

  52

  27

  25

  Scotland

  90

  44

  45

  Notes:

  1. Lone parents are defined as single people with dependants who do not receive a disability or pensioner premium.

  2. Figures are based on the age of the youngest child.

  3. The table is based on a 5 per cent. sample.

  4. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and therefore may not sum.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 1998.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the jobseeker's allowance regulations to help unemployed people waiting to receive redundancy payments; and if he will make a statement. [62252]

  Angela Eagle
  We are aware that, under existing rules, if money is owed from an insolvent employer full benefit cannot always be paid to ex-employees claiming Jobseeker's Allowance and, as a consequence, many may have to rely on hardship payments until the matter is resolved.

  Since this problem came to our attention we have been working to simplify the complex legislation in this area and we are currently considering proposals for changes to the relevant benefit rules.

  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of children in families on(a) supplementary benefit or income support and (b) income-based jobseeker's allowance for (i) 1997 and (ii) 1998, and for each year these as a proportion of all children in the UK. [62104]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Number and percentage of children in families on Income Support and income related Jobseeker's Allowance

  Thousand

  Number of children

  Percentage of all children

  Income Support

  May 1997

  2,410

  19.9

  May 1998

  2,328

  19.2

  Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance

  May 1997

  436

  3.6

  February 1998

  356

  2.9

  Notes:

  1. The May 1998 Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiry is not yet available.

  2. Children are defined as aged 0 to 15.

  3. Population figures are based on an estimated resident population at mid-1997 for the United Kingdom

  4. Based on a 5 per cent. sample of Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance claimants and as such are subject to a degree of sampling error.

  5. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Sources:

  1. Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 1997 and May 1998.

  2. Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 1997 and February 1998 Population Estimates Unit, Office for National Statistics.

  Benefits (Expenditure)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 30 November 1998,Official Report, columns 101–02, on social security expenditure, if he will list the new economic assumptions used in the pre-Budget report; and what estimate he has made of the future levels of increases or decreases in caseload. [62643]
  12
  Mr. Darling
  Forecasts of Social Security benefit expenditure in the Pre-Budget Report take into account the economic assumptions set out in Table B5 and Paragraph B9 of the Report. Estimates of future caseloads for each benefit are in the table.

  Thousand

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Retirement Pension

  10,645

  10,772

  10,867

  10,928

  Widow's Benefit

  274

  268

  264

  261

  Incapacity Benefit—Short Term (LR)

  118

  115

  117

  118

  Incapacity Benefit—Short Term (HR) and Long Term

  1,571

  1,550

  1,559

  1.598

  Maternity Allowance

  13

  13

  13

  13

  Guardian's Allowance and CSA

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Non-Contributory Retirement Pension

  25

  24

  23

  23

  War Pension

  311

  299

  286

  273

  Attendance Allowance

  1,250

  1,306

  1,361

  1,409

  Invalid Care Allowance

  380

  403

  428

  454

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  453

  475

  496

  516

  Disability Living Allowance

  2,024

  2,115

  2,223

  2,363

  Disability Working Allowance

  16

  14

  0

  0

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit and REA and RA

  373

  385

  396

  409

  Industrial Death Benefit

  18

  17

  17

  16

  Other II benefits

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Earnings Top-up pilots

  22

  23

  10

  1

  Jobseeker's Allowance—Contribution-based

  214

  216

  216

  217

  Jobseeker's Allowance—Income-based

  1,030

  1,015

  1,015

  1,015

  Income Support (IS)—Under Age 60

  2,241

  2,251

  2,267

  2,292

  of which:

  IS—Short Term and Disabled

  176

  174

  173

  173

  IS—Long Term and Disabled

  960

  1,009

  1,061

  1,116

  IS—Families

  954

  914

  874

  836

  IS—Widows and Others

  148

  142

  148

  151

  Income Support—(Elderly)

  1,683

  1,798

  1,909

  2,021

  Child Benefit—Number of children

  12,769

  12,762

  12,771

  12,762

  Child Benefit—Number of families

  7,067

  7,062

  7,076

  7,085

  One Parent Benefit

  1,037

  934

  850

  776

  Family Credit

  792

  607

  0

  0

  Rent Allowance

  1,789

  1,845

  1,925

  2,025

  Council Tax Benefit/CCB

  5,276

  5,188

  5,167

  5,236

  Rent Rebate

  2,608

  2,498

  2,421

  2,376

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Theatres
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps(a) his Department and (b) the Arts Council take to establish the financial soundness of theatres which are supported by public funds. [61978]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: Decisions relating to the funding of individual artforms and organisations, including theatres, are a matter for the Arts Council of England. It is therefore for the Arts

  13
  Council to satisfy itself as to an organisation's financial viability. It does this through a staged assessment procedure, which includes checks both before and after a grant is made.

  World Heritage Sites
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out the timetable and procedure for UK World Heritage Site nominations before they are put forward to UNESCO. [62049]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Following consultations with Ministerial colleagues in other interested Departments, my right hon. Friend hopes to announce the new Tentative List of potential UK World Heritage Sites within the next two or three months. this will comprise the sites which the Government will nominate to UNESCO for World Heritage status over the next five to ten years. All such nominations will need to be accompanied by Management Plans for the sites. These Plans will need to be drawn up in consultation with site owners and other bodies, and progress on their development will influence the order and timing of individual nominations.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the Atlantic Frontier Continental Shelf World Heritage Site nomination was, for the purposes of the review of responses to the Government public consultation, classed as a Scottish site. [62048]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, has taken responsibility for considering, in consultation with other interested Departments, responses to the public consultation suggesting that the Atlantic Frontier Continental Shelf should be included in the new Tentative List for the UK of potential World Heritage Sites.

  Sports Coaches
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much lottery funding has been used to support sports coaches and trainers in the last 12 months. [62177]

  Mr. Banks
  Lottery funding to support sports coaches and trainers is distributed through the Lottery Sports Fund's World Class Performance Programme. Since the Programme began on 1 January 1997, the Lottery Sports Fund has committed a total of £43,818,416 to 37 sports, including disability sports, and supported a total of 1,816 athletes representing England and Great Britain. The English Sports Council is unable to provide a figure for the funds spent specifically on the employment of coaches and trainers or a separate breakdown for the last twelve months.

  Of the £43,818,416 committed, £27,434,930 has been allocated to governing bodies as performance awards to cover technical support costs; and £16,383,487 has been allocated direct to individual athletes for subsistence costs. £8,230,479–30 per cent.—of the performance awards has been spent by the governing bodies on staffing costs, primarily on the employment of world class coaches and trainers. The subsistence awards to individual athletes include personal training funding to cover the costs of membership to sports clubs that have sports coaches, and personal trainers, such as strength coaches.

  Royal Parks Agency
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people were employed by the Royal Parks Agency in each year since 1993(a) in total and (b) by area of responsibility. [60974]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 27 November 1998]: Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Royal Parks Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. David Welch. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Viviane Robertson to Mr. Richard Ottaway, dated 7 December 1998:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive, Mr. David Welch, the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport has asked me to reply to your parliamentary question concerning staffing levels in the Royal Parks.
  The number of people employed by the Royal Parks Agency in each year since 1993, in total and by area of responsibility, is set out in the table below. The numbers are as 31 March of each year.

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  General Management and Administration

  65

  61

  61

  50

  51

  Horticultural Management

  22

  28

  28

  21

  19

  Royal Parks Constabulary

  190

  163

  163

  162

  166

  Gamekeepers/Grooms

  8

  8

  8

  3

  3

  Total

  285

  260

  260

  236

  239

  Press Authority
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make it his policy to set up an independent press authority. [61430]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government prefer self-regulation, overseen by the independent Press Complaints Commission, to any form of statutory regulation. An independent press authority set up by Government would be statutory regulation of the press, and the Government, in the absence of evidence of a collapse of standards, would be unwilling to consider undermining the authority of the Press Complaints Commission in this way.

  Braille Grant
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans his Department has for the future of the Braille Grant; and if he will make a statement. [62231]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: My Department's consultation paper "The Comprehensive Spending Review: A New Approach to Investment in Culture", proposed that the grant currently paid to the Royal National Institute for the Blind in support of its embossed literature service should be re-allocated to the Library and Information Commission to enable blind and visually impaired people to benefit more extensively from public library services than they do at present. This would help create a fresh impetus to the provision of library services to blind and visually impaired people and provide the opportunity for local

  15
  authorities to embed these services into the mainstream library service. We will be announcing the results of the consultation exercise later this month.

  Ministerial E-mail Address
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his e-mail address. [62566]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My e-mail address is chris.smith@culture.gov.uk.

  Digital Terrestrial Television
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will list those areas of the United Kingdom which are unable to receive the full subscription services offered by ON digital through the digital terrestrial network; [60968]

  (2) if he will list the percentage of households which will be unable to receive digital terrestrial channels in the counties of (a) Northumberland and (b) Cumbria; [60969]

  (3) if he will list those areas of the United Kingdom which are unable to receive the full range of free-to-air digital terrestrial channels. [60967]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: The launch phase of digital terrestrial television has been jointly planned by the BBC and Independent Television Commission so that the 81 transmitters used will reach around 90 per cent. of the UK population by the end of 1999, though the coverage of all six multiplexes will vary and in some cases be less. Extending digital services beyond the reach of the first 81 digital terrestrial transmitters was one of the issues raised in our consultation paper "Television: the Digital Future" the responses to which are currently being considered.

  I understand that digital terrestrial television services will reach Cumbria and Northumberland from the Caldbeck, Chatton, Pontop Pike, Fenham, Selkirk and Lancaster transmitters. Transmissions from Pontop Pike have already commenced and the remainder will become operational during 1999. The BBC and ITC have produced a CD-Rom containing coverage predictions for each multiplex for each transmitter site in the UK. Copies of the CD-Rom have already been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

PRIME MINISTER

  House of Lords
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Prime Minister if Government policy on the voting and sitting rights of the hereditary Peers applies to those members of the Royal Family who sit in the House of Lords. [61482]

  The Prime Minister
  Our detailed proposals will be set out in a White Paper to be published in the context of the Bill which we shall introduce later this Session to remove the rights of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. As part of this, the Government would not intend to propose special arrangements for Royal Members of the House of Lords.

  Ministerial E-mail Address
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his e-mail address. [62558]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) on 20 July 1998,Official Report, column 389.

  Cabinet Advisers
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will appoint a chief engineering adviser to the Cabinet with responsibilities separate from those of the Chief Scientific Adviser; [61903]

  (2) if he will list the areas of responsibility of the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Cabinet. [61904]

  The Prime Minister
  There is no need for such an appointment.

  The responsibility of my Chief Scientific Adviser embraces the provision of advice on engineering issues, in addition to the whole spectrum of science and technology matters. He is also head of the Office of Science and Technology with responsibility for its cross-departmental functions.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister when in December he expects to meet the Lockerbie relatives. [62852]

  The Prime Minister
  I will meet a group of the Lockerbie relatives on 10 December.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress the Social Exclusion Unit has made in its first year; and if he will announce the new membership of the Ministerial Network on Social Exclusion. [63135]

  The Prime Minister
  I established the Social Exclusion Unit in December 1997. I asked it to focus on the following priorities in its first phase of work to July 1998:Truancy and School Exclusion: to make a step change in the scale of truancy and exclusions from school, and to find better solutions for those who have to be excluded.
  Street Living: reducing to as near to zero as possible the numbers sleeping rough in towns and cities.
  Worst Estates: developing integrated and sustainable approaches to the problems of the worst housing estates, including crime, drugs, unemployment, community breakdown, bad schools etc.

  All of these are areas where action was long overdue. The Unit has reported to me on each, with a full analysis of the problem and concrete and imaginative recommendations for action, all of which I have accepted. Those recommendations are now being implemented. To take forward the work on deprived neighbourhoods, a major process of policy formulation has begun, which will contribute to a National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal to be published in early 2000. This work is the biggest piece of joined up government ever attempted—eighteen policy teams, ten Ministers and departments

  17
  across Whitehall are working together to address some of the most intractable problems faced by deprived neighbourhoods.

  These pieces of work have clearly shown the benefit of a central Unit which covers the policies of a number of Government departments, and which works at great speed with a membership of civil servants and outside experts. Other parts of Government are already learning the lessons of this method of working.

  The Unit's main priorities are now:
  the follow up work on poor neighbourhoods, and two new topics:

  1. Teenage parents—to work with other Departments, building particularly on the work already undertaken by the Department of Health, to develop an integrated strategy to cut rates of teenage parenthood, particularly under age parenthood, towards the European average and propose better solutions to combat the risk of social exclusion for vulnerable teenage parents and their children. This work will report to Ministers early in the New Year.

  2. 16 to 18 year olds—to work with other Departments to assess how many 16 to 18 year olds are not in education, work or training, analyse the reasons why and produce proposals to reduce the numbers significantly. To report to Ministers by Easter 1999.

  The Unit was set up on a time limited experimental basis. Its current work programme will take it until Summer 2000 at least. Its success will be reviewed in Summer 1999, and a decision announced about its longer term future and work programme.

  I have expanded the membership of the Ministerial Network on Social Exclusion to include Ministers from the Scottish Office, the Northern Ireland Office and the Welsh Office. This will help to ensure that the lessons of good practice are learned in each country. The Network is made up of Ministers from the Departments working most closely with the Unit, to act as its champions and to help guide and present its work. Its membership is:

  Minister

  Department

  Stephen Byers

  HM Treasury (Chair)

  Hilary Armstrong

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Paul Boateng

  Home Office

  John Denham

  Department of Social Security

  Lord Falconer

  Cabinet Office

  Peter Hain

  Welsh Office

  Tessa Jowell

  Department of Health

  Geoffrey Robinson

  HM Treasury

  Barbara Roche

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Lord Sewel of Gilcomstoun

  Scottish Office

  John McFall

  Northern Ireland Office

  Andrew Smith

  Department for Education and Employment

  Franco-British Summit
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Franco-British Summit on 3 to 4 December.[63089]

  The Prime Minister
  The twenty-first British-French Summit took place in St. Malo on 3 and 4 December. It was a substantive summit in a cordial atmosphere, with worthwhile exchanges on a wide range of European, economic and other issues. The Summit resulted in Joint 18
  Declarations on European Defence and Co-operation in Africa. The texts of the Declarations have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police and Prison Officers (Kenya)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training schemes are supported by his Department for the training of police and prison officers employed in the services in Kenya; and if he will make a statement. [62183]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Home Office are not at present supporting any training programmes specifically designed for police or prison officers in Kenya.

  Training arrangements for police officers from Kenya would normally be funded by the Department for International Development or by the Foreign Office. Ten Kenyan police officers have attended various training courses in Britain in the last four years, including three who attended command courses at Bramshill Police College. Also, under a United Kingdom development assistance project run in Kenya by the Department for International Development, training is currently being provided for senior command officers in the Kenyan police service. This training includes management and operational skills. Under the same project, support is also being given to develop and include a human rights component in Kenyan police training programmes.

  All the training courses provided by Prison Service Training Services are also available to members of the Kenyan Prison Service, subject to availability, security and financial considerations.

  Prisons (Cells)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons in England and Wales currently have prisoners held two to a cell designed for one. [62184]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Of the 133 prisons open at the end of October 1998, 63 had prisoners held two to a cell designed for one.

  These data are provisional and subject to validation by prisons.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on reducing the level of illegal drug use in prisons in England and Wales. [62185]

  Mr. George Howarth
  In May this year, I launched the Prison Service Drug Strategy which set out a framework for improving the assessment and treatment of drug misusers in prison and for reducing the supply of drugs into prison. Since then, the Prison Service has been allocated an extra £76m over the next three financial years from the Comprehensive Spending Review to implement that strategy. Prison Service officials are currently working with the United Kingdom Anti Drugs Co-ordination Unit, probation services and external drugs
  19
  agencies to create specifications, services and outputs, and to identify the specific needs of individual prisons and groups of prisoners.

  Prisons (Staff)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers are currently suspended from duty due to allegations which have been made against them by prison inmates at prisons in England and Wales. [62181]

  Mr. George Howarth
  On 2 December 1998, there were 44 staff suspended from duty as a result of allegations made by prisoners at prisons in England and Wales.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the pilot project on the introduction of new-style security passes for prison staff; and from what date it is proposed that wearing the new-style passes is to be mandatory. [62225]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Evaluation of the pilot exercise, which took place between April and July this year, did not uncover any major problems. Minor practical improvements have been made to the design of the pass holder.

  An instruction about the wearing of the new security pass is being prepared in consultation with the Prison Service trade unions. The issue of the pass is expected to begin shortly and be completed by April 1999. The wearing of the new pass will be mandatory from the time it is issued.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions public funds have been used to pay the debts of (i) staff messes and (ii) staff clubs, in Prison Service establishments; and what was the total amount so spent in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [61906]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service has kept central records only since 1 April 1995. Since then, records show that public funds have been used on two occasions to pay the debts of staff messes in Prison Service establishments. The sums involved were as follows:

  £

  Year

  Amount

  1995–96

  23,898

  1996–97

  2,675

  1997–98

  nil

  Over the same period, public funds have been used on four occasions to pay the debts of staff clubs in Prison Service establishments. The sums involved were as follows:

  £

  Year

  Amount

  1995–96

  nil

  1996–97

  18,253

  1997–98

  35,717

  Ministerial E-mail Address
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his e-mail address. [62561]

  Mr. Straw
  Correspondence sent to me at the Home Office e-mail address, ho.gen@gtnet.gov.uk, is forwarded to me as necessary.

  The Department is putting plans in place to connect selected parts of the office to the Government Secure Intranet (GSI) followed by full interconnection between the core network and the GSI in the first half of 1999. That will enable full e-mail between the office, Members of both Houses and members of the public.

  Millennium (Emergency Cover)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to contract with the armed services to provide emergency cover over the millennium period; and what estimate he has made of the cost of that cover. [62573]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No contract is necessary. Procedures are already in place for the provision of military aid to the civil authority, and these arrangements are under regular review in the run up to the Millennium date change. I could not offer an estimate at this stage.

  Absinthe
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the implications for his policy regarding the availability of narcotics of the proposal of Green Bohemia to sell absinthe. [62569]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have identified no such implications. Absinthe does not come within the scope either of domestic legislation on the misuse of drugs or of the international conventions on the control of narcotic or psychotropic substances.

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women under the age of 20 years were serving a prison sentence in England and Wales on 1 November. [62020]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The latest available provisional information is for 31 October 1998. On that date, there were 5,206 sentenced males and 224 sentenced females aged under 20 years in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales.

  Information on the number of sentenced persons aged under 20 years (by individual age) is published in successive volumes of "Prison Statistics England and Wales" (table 3.2 of the 1997 edition, cm 4017), copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (i) men and (ii) women were sentenced to imprisonment in England and Wales during each of the last three years for(a) non-payment of fines, (b) use of or trading in illegal drugs, (c) shoplifting, (d) abuse towards children and (e) involvement in violent crimes. [62018]
  21
  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is given in the table. I regret that no information is available for shoplifting as this offence is not separately coded on the central prisons computer.

  Receptions under sentence into prisons in England and Wales by offence, 1995–97

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Offence

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Fine Default

  18,787

  1,370

  8,094

  641

  5,964

  372

  Drags1

  4,325

  404

  5,525

  575

  6,324

  750

  Cruelty to children2

  376

  22

  471

  27

  541

  41

  Violence against the person

  8,830

  454

  10,005

  524

  11,053

  660

  1 Includes drugs production, supply, possession with intent, possession, unlawful import/export and other drugs offences.

  2 Includes cruelty to children and gross indecency with children.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women over the age of 65 years are serving prison sentences in England and Wales. [62019]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The latest available provisional information is for 31 October 1998. On that date, there were 319 sentenced males and 5 sentenced females aged over 65 years in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales.

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current number of offenders who are electronically tagged in England and Wales. [62021]

  Mr. George Howarth
  As of 30 November 1998, 505 offenders are being electronically monitored in England and Wales under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and the Crime Sentences Act 1997. There are an additional 21 cases in which electronic monitoring has been imposed as a condition of bail.

  Firearms Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter sent to him by the hon. Member for North Thanet on 19 October; if he will state the rights of appeal against his Department's interpretation of his July 1997 guidelines relating to the firearms compensation scheme; if he will define ancillary equipment; and if he will make a statement. [62499]

  Mr. Boateng
  A reply will be sent shortly. Ancillary equipment qualifying for compensation under the firearms compensation scheme is defined in the scheme as equipment used in connection with prohibited large-calibre handguns which has no practicable use with a non-prohibited firearm and which is specified in Annex C of the scheme. The Firearms Compensation Section guidance note of July 1997 explains why certain types of tools, equipment and shooting accessories are excluded from the scheme by this definition. It is open to claimants to explain why the items they have surrendered ought to qualify for compensation, and all such representations are carefully considered. However, where items are outside the scope of the scheme, no compensation can be paid on them.
  22
  The information given in the table is published in successive volumes of "Prison Statistics England and Wales" (tables 1.12, 3.8 and 4.5 of the 1997 edition, Cm 4017), copies of which are available in the Library.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the special advisers in his Department and the issues on which they specialise; and to what level they have been security cleared.[62837]

  Mr. Straw
  Two special advisers work in my Department. Justin Russell advises me on policy matters and Ed Owen is my adviser on media and political matters. They are subject to the usual security clearance arrangements.

  Prison Sentences (Alternatives)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he plans to respond to the Third report of the Home Affairs Committee of session 1997–98 into Alternatives to Prison Sentences (HC 486).[63052]

  Mr. Straw
  This is a useful and constructive report and the Government's detailed response to it is being published today.

  The report makes a large number of observations and recommendations. It says that community sentences can and should be rigorous and that, if they are to be credible, they must be enforced stringently. The Government endorse that view as our response indicates. The report also welcomes many of the measures which the Government have already taken to extend the range and flexibility of community sentences and to ensure that intervention takes place at an earlier stage, especially when dealing with juvenile crime.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Hearings
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor' s Department what assessment he has made of the effect of transferring the hearing of asylum appeal cases outside London on the presence of legal representatives of asylum seekers at such hearings. [61705]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Immigration Appellate Authority is monitoring the number of appellants whose cases are transferred out of London and the level of representation at those hearings. The hearings of the transferred cases stared in October 1998 so it is too soon to draw any conclusions.
  23
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what checks court interpreters in asylum hearings are subject to; and when these checks were introduced. [61706]

  Mr. Hoon
  Interpreters in appeal hearings have always been required to complete a standard application form. This includes a status inquiry where they are required to declare anything that may undermine their suitability to perform interpreting functions on behalf of the IAA. Since 1996–97, the IAA has run an assessment and training programme (in close conjunction with the Institute of Linguists) to improve the quality of in-court interpreting. Adjudicators are also encouraged to provide general feedback to the IAA interpreter manager on the performance of individual interpreters.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many persons intending to be court interpreters in asylum hearings have failed to pass security checks; and what action was taken as a result. 61707]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is no formal mechanism in place to security check interpreters. However, they are required to complete a standard status enquiry form prior to appointment. Applications may be rejected by the IAA if the information provided questions the interpreter's competence or suitability to perform the job.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many asylum seekers were unrepresented at hearings(a) in London and (b) out of London when the asylum seeker (i) had and (ii) did not have an immigration solicitor in the most recent year for which figures are available. [61708]

  Mr. Hoon
  No figures are kept on the levels of representation at the London centres. In October 1998 the IAA started to keep figures relating to the levels of representation at hearings outside London to monitor the impact of transferring appeals to provincial centres.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to monitor the impact of transferring asylum hearings outside London on legal representation at hearings in cases where asylum seekers(a) have and (b) do not have a solicitor. [61709]

  Mr. Hoon
  The IAA is currently monitoring the impact of transferring asylum hearings outside London on the levels of representation. The hearings of these appeals started in October 1998 so it is too soon to draw any conclusions.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Micronutrients
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to support the provision of micronutrients to developing countries. [62359]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development has supported major research in micronutrients supplementation, including the seminal Ghana Vitamin A Supplementation Trial. We contribute 24
  to both UNICEF and the World Health Organisation for their work in maternal and child health. Supplementation will be an important element in the further development of our strategy for assistance to child health.

  Development Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the outcome was of the Development Council held in Brussels on 30 November; and if she will make a statement. [62222]

  Clare Short
  During the morning session, the Council adopted conclusions on Burundi reflecting Ministers' discussions at dinner the previous evening. The conclusions welcome the progress achieved in the 'Arusha process' so far and thank Mwalimu Nyerere for his invaluable contribution. The Council said that it was prepared to continue to support the process and welcomed the intention of Mwalimu Nyerere to suspend sanctions, which would pave the way for the resumption of increased development co-operation. The Council asked the Commission to pursue its discussions with the Burundi government, with a view both to rapid implementation of the support already envisaged for refugees and rehabilitation, and to additional support for human rights and strengthening of democratic institutions and the judicial system.

  The Council also adopted conclusions on the Role of Development Co-operation in Strengthening Peace-building, Conflict Prevention and Resolution. These recognise that development assistance needs to be designed and implemented in a way that it helps to address the root causes of violent conflict in a targeted manner. The Council recommended that an expert group be established to take forward work in this area.

  On Hurricane Mitch, the Council adopted Conclusions calling on the Commission to prepare an Action Plan on medium to long term reconstruction efforts in Central America which should be discussed in the next few months at a ministerial meeting in the San José Group. The Council stressed the role of debt relief and the importance of donor co-ordination in the reconstruction effort. The UK congratulated the UN on its efforts to co-ordinate relief during the immediate emergency. The UK pointed out that the next phase was to link emergency aid to rehabilitation and longer term construction. The UK hoped donors would share ideas and coordinate not compete. The UK urged all partners to contribute to the French/UK Trust Fund initiative to assist with multilateral debt relief.

  On Private Sector Development in Africa, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, the Commission presented its strategy, the aim of which is to contribute to poverty elimination and foster the integration of the ACP into the world economy. The presentation was followed by an exchange of views. The UK welcomed the paper but noted that it would have to be taken forward after discussions had taken place with the ACP countries, and that work was needed on putting the strategy into operation. The Council passed a Resolution on Sustainable Tourism. The UK explained that it was important to ensure more of the benefits of tourism remained in local communities, in particular the poorest and women.
  25
  The Commission updated the Council on progress in the Post-Lomé negotiations. The joint EU-ACP Central Negotiating Group had already identified areas of agreement between the EU and ACP sides and issues where more discussion was needed. There was broad consensus on the major objectives of the new Convention. A number of member states, including the UK, urged the Commission and member states to honour the EU mandate commitment on improving preferential access to the EU market for Least Developed Countries under the Generalised System of Preferences from 2000.

  Over lunch, I led a discussion on the external assistance aspects of the Financial Perspectives. I stressed the importance of increasing the proportion of EC official development assistance going to low income countries in the years 2000–06. I was broadly supported by a majority of member states.

  Other items discussed at lunch included a report on the outcome of the Brussels Conference on Disarmament, on the situation in Angola, and the need for the early release of the third tranche of funds to UN Reliefs Works Agency (UNWRA). There was a brief discussion on EC development assistance to Togo, and future aid to the Palestinians. On the issue of Commission financing of UN Organisations, Commissioner Pinheiro agreed that the current situation, where the Commission is obliged by financial control procedures to audit UN and other multilateral agencies receiving EC funds, should be re-examined.

  Sir Stephen Wall represented the UK during the afternoon session. The first item after lunch was a progress report from the Commission on the implementation of the guidelines on Operational Co-ordination. The UK welcomed proposals for greater exchange of strategy papers, the practical application of enhanced co-ordination at country level, more jointly funded projects, sharing of staff and joint missions. We and others stressed that co-ordination procedures should cover all donors and take full account of the central role of the partner country. We also stressed that streamlining procedures was important.

  The Council discussed progress on the Global Evaluation of EC development assistance. This is to be completed under the German Presidency and will be one of the main subjects for discussion at the next Development Council in May 1999. The UK called on the Commission to implement the recommendations contained in the Court of Auditors' report on aid to South Africa.

  On humanitarian aid, the Council discussed the security of humanitarian aid workers and the situation in Kosovo and Sudan.

  A number of issues were discussed under any other business. The Commission responded to the allegations of fraud within ECHO. The Italian Minister reported on the recent Inter Governmental Authority on Development Partners Forum on Somalia held in Rome. The Finnish Minister raised the issue of climate change in developing countries. The Dutch Minister, supported by the UK, urged the Commission to respond positively to the proposal for an independent WTO Legal Advisory Centre to help developing countries use the dispute settlement system that lies at the heart of the WTO.
  26
  The Council adopted a Resolution on Indigenous Peoples, Conclusions on Micro-finance and Poverty Reduction, and Conclusions on Democratisation, the Rule of Law, Respect for Human Rights and Good Governance without discussion.

TREASURY

  EU Code of Conduct Group
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what occasions the EU Code of Conduct Group has met since its formation; and if he will make a statement. [61885]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: The Code of Conduct Group met on 8 May, 16 July, 3 November and 17 November 1998.

  Import Duties
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what import duty rates apply to vehicles fuelled by(a) petrol or diesel, (b) electricity and (c) natural gas. [62120]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: The full rates of import duty for vehicles set out in the UK Customs Tariff vary depending on the type of vehicle concerned.

  The import duty rates for passengers vehicles, whether gas, diesel or petrol powered, range from 10 to 16.8 per cent. depending on engine size and passenger capacity; whereas the rate for all electric passenger vehicles is 10.5 per cent.

  The import duty rates for goods vehicles, whether gas, diesel or petrol powered, range from 10.2 to 22 per cent. depending on the engine size and vehicle weight; whereas the rate for all electric goods vehicles is 10 per cent.

  Smuggling (Fuel Oils)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of evidence submitted by HM Customs and Excise in April and May 1998 on the issue of smuggling of fuel oils. [62238]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: Both the Government and Customs are aware of the situation with the illegal importation of road fuel into Northern Ireland for resale and recognise that it is a serious problem which disadvantages legitimate traders. Customs are deploying resources and actively mounting investigations against those involved to counter the threat posed to the revenue and to the Northern Ireland business community. Customs are taking the lead on this issue but are acting in conjunction with other authorities, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary, to make seizures of oil tankers and vehicles carrying oil tanks filled with illegally imported fuel for resale. Wherever possible, cases are progressed with a view to criminal prosecution of the individuals involved.

  There is little evidence that smuggling of fuel into any other area of the United Kingdom is a cause for concern.
  27
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of fuel oil smuggling on retail sales of petrol in South East England. [62237]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: HM Customs and Excise have no estimates for the impact of fuel oil smuggling on retail sales of petrol in South East England.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many petrol tankers have been impounded by HM Customs in each of the last five years. [62234]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: In 1998 to date 48 vehicles have been seized by Customs for alleged smuggling of petroleum products into Northern Ireland and 2 in Liverpool for alleged smuggling onto the UK mainland.

  The problem of petroleum smuggling into Northern Ireland has been evident only since late 1997 and indeed this is the reverse of the situation which existed a few years ago when people from the Republic of Ireland would travel to Northern Ireland to purchase cheaper fuel. There were no seizures of vehicles or fuel in years prior to 1998.

  Fuel Duties
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the total returns for UK duty paid on motor fuel products in Northern Ireland for each quarter of 1996, 1997 and 1998 for which figures are available. [62235]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: Customs and Excise are unable to supply figures for duty paid on motor fuel used in Northern Ireland. Duty is paid at the time the oil leaves the refinery on the UK mainland, or at the time of importation into the UK. No separate record is kept by Customs of the destination of the oil.

  Taxation Forecasts
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlie the differences in the forecast for taxation as a share of gross domestic product in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98 between (i) the 1998 Economic and Fiscal Strategy report and (ii) the 1998 Pre-Budget report; and if he will make a statement. [62124]

  Ms Hewitt
  Outturns for receipts of taxes and social security contributions, net of tax credits, were revised down by £0.4 billion in 1996–97 and by £0.7 billion in 1997–98 between the publication of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report (EFSR) and the Pre-Budget Report (PBR). This reduced the tax/GDP ratio by less than 0.1 percentage points in both years. Upward revisions to money GDP since the EFSR, of over 1½ per cent. in 1996–97 and over 2 per cent. in 1997–98, account for the remainder of the downward revision to the tax/GDP ratio in the PBR of 0.6 per cent. in 1996–97 and 0.9 per cent. in 1997–98. These revisions entirely reflect data changes rather than forecasting judgments.

  Civil Registration
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps have been taken following the Government's proposals in the consultation paper, "Supporting 28
  Families", to commission a review by the Registrar General of the legislation regarding civil registration in England and Wales. [63121]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have asked the Registrar General for England and Wales to carry out a review of the civil registration service with the aim of producing a public consultation document next summer. The review will consider the existing operational framework and set out options for the future development of the service.

  The registration of births, deaths and marriages is based largely on Victorian legislation and the needs of society at that time. This law places strict limitations on the type and extent of the service it can provide to the public. The inflexibility of the service was raised in the Government's consultation document "Supporting Families". Measures to enhance the powers of registrars were also proposed in the White Paper "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum".

  The aim of the review and subsequent consultation will be to develop proposals for a service that can adapt to the changing needs and attitudes of a modern society and that can adopt modern methods and technology to meet those needs.

  Inland Revenue Staff
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received relating to the rule that Inland Revenue staff must retire at the age of 60 years. [62031]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There have been four representations to the Chancellor whilst in office, regarding the requirement for Inland Revenue staff to retire at age 60. All representations were made through constituency MPs. The representations raised concerns about the policy of the Inland Revenue to require retirement of their employees at age 60, with two representations involving individual employees' cases.

  VAT (Educational Goods)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the educational goods and computers which are not subject to VAT when bought by schools but are subject to VAT when bought for schools by education action zones. [62299]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Whether educational goods and computers are liable to VAT does not depend on the purchaser. The VAT incurred by a local education authority on school equipment is recoverable from Customs and Excise whether purchased using its own funds or purchased using those provided by an education action zone.

  VAT (Beach Huts)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was received in the last financial year from value-added tax on rents of beach huts. [62187]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We have no estimates on the amount of VAT received from rents of beach huts.

  Construction Industry
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is(a) the estimated annual revenue charge and (b) the number of firms and employees involved in the change from self-employed sub-contractor status to PAYE status in the construction industry. [62221]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Inland Revenue estimates that in excess of 200,000 workers in the construction industry have been reclassified from self-employed to employed status since April 1997. This has happened for a number of different reasons. Many contractors have carried out their own status reviews and concluded that some or all of their workers should be properly treated as employees. Alternatively, workers may have been reclassified as employees following an IR or CA compliance visit. No estimate is available of the number of firms involved.

  Because of the many differences in how the earnings of self employed and employed workers are treated for tax and National Insurance purposes, it is not possible to provide an estimate of the annual revenue charge involved.

  National Debt
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the costs of servicing the national debt in 1998–99. [61815]

  Mr. Byers
  Estimates for the cost of servicing the National Debt are not published, but Table B12 of the November 1998 Pre-Budget Report included an estimate of £29.5 billion for central government gross debt interest payments in 1998–99.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current amount of the national debt; and what the interest payments on this currently are. [60911]

  Number of live births by birthweight and percentages of live births with a stated birthweight for Leeds, Livserpool, Manchester and Sheffield, 1993–95

  Numbers

  Area (Metropolitan disticts)

  Under 2,500g

  2,500–2,999g

  3,000–3,444g

  3,500–3,999g

  4,000g and over

  Not stated

  Leeds

  1993

  662

  1,569

  3,326

  2,506

  888

  285

  1994

  697

  1,571

  3,147

  2,409

  890

  307

  1995

  758

  1,636

  3,192

  2,470

  835

  39

  Liverpool

  1993

  410

  837

  1,797

  1,435

  648

  1,203

  1994

  417

  839

  1,839

  1,534

  639

  793

  1995

  487

  941

  2,082

  1,673

  698

  44

  Manchester

  1993

  549

  1,323

  2,421

  1,654

  577

  215

  1994

  506

  1,228

  2,232

  1,579

  563

  318

  1995

  588

  1,187

  2,111

  1,526

  498

  144

  Sheffield

  1993

  499

  1,129

  2,267

  2,001

  747

  48

  1994

  504

  1,043

  2,312

  1,877

  698

  42

  1995

  492

  1,110

  2,242

  1,695

  667

  46

  Percentage of live births with a stated birthweight

  Area

  Under 2,500g

  2,500–2,999g

  3,000–3,444g

  3,500–3999g

  4,000g and over

  Leeds

  1993

  7.4

  17.5

  37.2

  28.0

  9.9

  1994

  8.0

  18.0

  36.1

  27.6

  10.2

  1995

  8.5

  18.4

  35.9

  27.8

  9.4

  Liverpool

  1993

  8.0

  16.3

  35.0

  28.0

  12.6

  30
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 27 November 1998]: Figures for net public sector debt are published in Table B4 of the November 1998 Pre-Budget Report. For 31 March 1998 the figure is £352 billion. Interest payments and interest and dividends receipts for 1997–98 have been published by the ONS in Table S13 of Financial Statistics, October 1998. These are £29.8 billion and £4.1 billion respectively.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rules his Department applies to allocation between departments of receipts from sales of assets; and what changes have been made since 1 May 1997. [62032]

  Mr. Byers
  Since 1 May 1997, departments have been given new incentives to recycle receipts from asset sales into new assets, with the National Asset Register helping to identify these surplus assets.

  Birth Weight Statistics
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what percentage of live births were(a) under 2,500g, (b) 2,500 to 2,999g, (c) 3,000 to 3,499g, (d) 3,500 to 3,999g and (e) 4,000g and over in (i) Liverpool, (ii) Manchester, (iii) Sheffield and (iv) Leeds in (1) 1993, (2) 1994 and (3) 1995. [62287]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Frank Field, dated 7 December 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the number of live births for Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield.
  The information you requested is as follows:
  31

  Percentage of live births with a stated birthweight

  Area

  Under 2,500g

  2,500–2,999g

  3,000–3,444g

  3,500–3999g

  4,000g and over

  1994

  7.9

  15.9

  34.9

  29.1

  12.1

  1995

  8.3

  16.0

  35.4

  28.4

  11.9

  Manchester

  1993

  8.4

  20.3

  37.1

  25.4

  8.8

  1994

  8.3

  20.1

  36.5

  25.9

  9.2

  1995

  9.9

  20.1

  35.7

  25.8

  8.4

  Sheffield

  1993

  7.5

  17.0

  34.1

  30.1

  11.2

  1994

  7.8

  16.2

  35.9

  29.2

  10.8

  1995

  7.9

  17.9

  36

  27.3

  10.7

  Source:

  ONS

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received alleging age discrimination within his Department; and what response he has given. [62494]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Treasury has received no such representations.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Ministerial E-mail Address
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the President of the Council what is her e-mail address. [62879]

  Mrs. Beckett
  My office's e-mail address is "ecrooks@cabinet-office.gov.uk".

SCOTLAND

  World Heritage Site
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the organisations in Scotland involved in reviewing World Heritage Site nominations resulting from the Government's recent consultation. [62052]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The consultation paper on the new UK tentative list of World Heritage Sites was sent to a wide range of organisations in Scotland. Some 50 responses were received in respect of the cultural heritage sites in Scotland and 30 on the natural heritage sites in Scotland. The Government are currently considering the responses prior to making a final decision on the UK tentative list.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those organisations and persons consulted over the Atlantic Frontier Continental Shelf nomination(a) before and (b) since the World Heritage Site meeting on 12 November. [62047]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Earlier this year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport launched a consultation on a revised Tentative List of UK sites to be nominated to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation for World Heritage Site status over the next 5–10 years. During the consultation, a number of additional sites were proposed for inclusion on the Tentative List, including the Atlantic Frontier Continental Shelf. Scottish Natural Heritage was consulted on this proposal prior to the meeting on 32
  12 November 1998. Ministers are collectively considering the responses to the consultation before finalising the Tentative List.

  Royal Ordnance Factory, Bishopton
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the impact on the Scottish economy of the closure of the Royal Ordnance factory at Bishopton. [62258]

  Mr. Dewar
  The response to any particular industrial closure is a matter, in the first instance, for the relevant local enterprise centre.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence regarding the closure of the Royal Ordnance factory at Bishopton. [62259]

  Mr. Dewar
  Ministers and officials in my Department liaise with colleagues in MoD on a routine basis in relation to defence-related issues affecting Scotland.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to devolve the Government's powers in respect of broadcasting to the Scottish parliament. [62257]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The subject matter of the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996 and the BBC are reserved. This is consistent with the policy set out in the White Paper, "Scotland's Parliament", which was endorsed by the Scottish voters in the referendum in September 1997.

  We have announced plans for executive devolution of certain broadcasting matters to ensure that the Scottish Ministers will have appropriate influence over key appointments to the major broadcasting organisations and that the Scottish Parliament receives formally their annual reports. The function of funding Gaelic broadcasting will also be transferred under executive devolution.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council must use Scots law practice and precedent in deliberating on disputes relating to the powers of the Scottish Parliament. [62500]

  Mr. McLeish
  The rules of procedure of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will be made by an Order in Council under Section 103(3) of the Scotland Act 1998. They will extend throughout the United Kingdom, as does the Scotland Act 1998 itself. Similarly, the Judicial Committee will not be restricted to applying Scots law in determining cases under the Scotland Act.

  Public Defence Solicitors' Office
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements have been made to ensure that the Public Defence Solicitors' Office and the Scottish Legal Aid Board remain separate organisations. [62406]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Director of the Public Defence Solicitors' Office (PDSO) reports directly to the Chief Executive, Scottish Legal Aid Board, on administrative matters only. In all other matters, including the handling of cases, the PDSO operates independently of the Board.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the estimated cost is for establishing the Public Defence Solicitors' Office; and what was the estimate given in the context of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill. [62405]

  Mr. McLeish
  The estimated cost in 1998–99 of the PDSO is £450,000, including set up and running costs. The previous Government gave no estimate of the comparable costs of this project in the context of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions representatives of the Public Defence Solicitors' Office have attended meetings of the Scottish Legal Aid Board in each of the last five years. [62407]

  Mr. McLeish
  Since his appointment on 1 April 1998, Mr. Alistair Watson, Director of the Public Defence Solicitors' Office (PDSO), which opened on 1 October 1998, has attended Board meetings on 6 April and 5 October.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the membership of the Public Defence Solicitors' Office Research Evaluation Project. [62408]

  Mr. McLeish
  The contract for the research has not yet been awarded. However, when the research team has been appointed, it will report regularly to an advisory group including representatives of the following organisations:

  Law Society of Scotland

  Scottish Law Agents' Society

  Glasgow Bar Association

  Edinburgh Bar Association

  Faculty of Advocates

  Sheriffs' Association

  Scottish Legal Aid Board

  Public Defence Solicitors' Office

  Scottish Office Home Department

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ministerial E-mail Address
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his e-mail address. [62557]

  M. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary does not have a public e-mail address. Members of the public may submit e-mail via an interactive form 34
  on the FCO website (www.fco.gov.uk). These are then passed to the relevant Department for reply, if appropriate.

  Scout Jamboree, Chile
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances he has sought from the Chilean authorities that British participants in the forthcoming Scout Jamboree in Chile will be welcomed like other national groups. [62204]

  Mr Fatchett
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: At this time of heightened tension in Chile, we advise against all non-essential travel there. The Chilean Government has said that if the British contingent of Scouts decide to proceed with their visit, it will do everything possible to provide protection for them.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports Her Majesty's Government have received of the use of nerve agents by Iraqi forces during (i) the Iran-Iraq war and (ii) the attack on Halabja; and when the first such reports were received. [62513]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There have been numerous reports about Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The UN Secretary-General first despatched a mission of specialists to investigate allegations of their use in the Iran-Iraq conflict in March 1984. In 1988, he sent a medical specialist to Iran and Iraq to investigate allegations of chemical attacks in Halabja. A report on 25 April 1988 drew together the results of these missions, concluding that nerve agent had been used in both instances.

  Far East Prisoners of War
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of reports that funds meant for Far East prisoners of war were retained by the Swiss Government after the war; and if he will make a statement. [62310]

  Mr. Fatchett
  This is not the first time that a story about alleged misuse of funds paid through Switzerland has been published in the press. In 1995, we carried out a detailed investigation, which concluded that we had no evidence that any money had been misappropriated.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response Her Majesty's Government have made to the Holy See in respect of the appeal by the Holy See's permanent observer at the United Nations, that all nuclear weapons states should eliminate their nuclear stockpiles. [62391]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have made clear to all participants at the United Nations First Committee our commitment to nuclear disarmament, the steps we have already taken towards this goal and our views on the best way to make further progress.

  Peter Penfold
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if an official of his
  35
  Department discussed with Mr. Peter Penfold his Department's consideration of the inclusion of Mr. Penfold's name on the list of those proposed to receive honours in the New Year's Honours List 1998.[62341]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We do not comment on Honours issues.

  OSCE Summit
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he intends to make in the Council of Ministers meeting for the OSCE in Oslo on 2 to 3 December regarding the proposal for Turkey to host the next summit of the OSCE in Istanbul in February. [62395]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The OSCE Ministerial Council agreed by consensus on 2 December that the next OSCE Summit will be held in Istanbul in 1999. The United Kingdom joined the consensus on this decision.

  The UK did not make any representations in the Ministerial Council regarding the proposal for Turkey to host the next summit. We believe that holding the summit in Istanbul will draw attention to Turkey's human rights record and help to advance the OSCES' s dialogue with Turkey on human rights issues.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Buses
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many passenger injuries per mile travelled occurred within the last year for which figures are available in respect of(a) buses with doors and (b) buses where access is via an open platform. [62517]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The published data for casualty rates are given per billion passenger kilometre travelled on buses and coaches in Great Britain in 1996. These show the following:

  Per billion passenger kilometres

  Killed

  0.2

  Killed or seriously injured

  14

  All severities

  194

  The split between buses and coaches, or between buses with doors and those where access is via an open platform, is not readily available.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the relative popularity of(a) buses with doors and (b) buses where access is via an open platform; [62518]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the implications for (a) passenger numbers carried, (b) traffic congestion and (c) bus journey times of the withdrawal of buses where access is via an open platform. [62519]
  36
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department has made no assessment of the popularity of open platform access buses or the implications of their withdrawal. The type of vehicle used is primarily a matter for bus service providers. They will no doubt carry out their own assessment of the various relevant operational and commercial factors, including customer reaction and the types of vehicles currently being manufactured. The Government are committed to public transport being fully accessible, recognising the need for future generations of buses to be usable by disabled people, including those who travel in wheelchairs.

  British Rail
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many full-time equivalent staff have been employed by British Rail for each of the last five years. [62520]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand from the British Railways Board that the numbers of full-time equivalent staff employed by them for each of the last five financial years were as follows:

  Financial year

  Average staff during year

  1993–94

  128,414

  1994–95

  106,748

  1995–96

  90,165

  1996–97

  34,868

  1997–98

  3,319

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the Government's(a) total expenditure on and (b) income from British Rail in each of the last five years. [62521]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In the last five financial years the Government's total expenditure on the British Railways Board (i. e. BR's external finance requirement—EFR) or otherwise income from the Board (i.e. external financial contribution (EFC)) was the following:

  £million

  Year

  EFR/(EFC)

  1993–94

  1,461.4

  1994–95

  (330.1)

  1995–96

  (768.0)

  1996–97

  8.6

  1997–98

  24.8

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the cost per copy of the most recent British Rail annual report; how many copies were produced; and if he will make a statement. [62522]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The British Railways Board's Annual Report and Accounts 1996–97 was published in January 1998. The price per copy was £10. Copies were placed in the House of Commons Library.

  I understand from the Board that some 1,600 copies have been distributed, and that they plan to publish their Annual Report and Accounts 1997–98 in January 1999 at a price per copy of £3.00.
  37
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the estimated value of assets held by British Rail. [62523]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand from the British Railways Board that they had net liabilities of £364 million at 31 March 1998, reflecting assets of £1,133 million and liabilities of £1,497 million.

  Railway Services (Frequency)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions under what circumstance it is his policy to seek to renegotiate minimum service levels for train operating companies in respect of service frequencies. [62396]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is not for Government or the Franchising Director to initiate changes to passenger service requirements (PSRs). The Franchising Director may however agree with an operator to increase service frequencies and amend the PSR accordingly. He has funds available under the Rail Passenger Partnership scheme to support new services and it is for promoters of new services, whether they be operators, local authorities or other parties, to make a business case for any support sought for proposed new services. The Franchising Director would appraise such a business case according to his revised Criteria, which are shortly to be issued and which will reflect the policy set out in our Transport White Paper.

  Road Tankers
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library details of the regions in which the different categories of incidents involving road tankers listed in his answer of 21 July 1998,Official Report, column 465, occurred; and if he will make a statement. [62302]

  Mr. Meacher
  Details of the regions in which the different categories of incidents involving road tankers occurred have been placed in the House Library.

  Council of Registered Gas Installers
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent consultations he has held with the Council of Registered Gas Installers concerning gas safety; and if he will make a statement. [62400]

  Mr. Meacher
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) has recently agreed to meet the Chief Executive of the Council of Registered Gas Installers (CORGI) to discuss CORGI' s role in relation to gas safety and their concerns in this area. The meeting will take place as soon as a mutually convenient date can be arranged in the New Year.

  CORGI is the body currently approved by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 to operate a register of gas installation businesses. The HSE, for which my Department has responsibility, maintains regular contact with CORGI on gas safety issues.
  38
  I am committed to high standards of gas safety for the general public. I want to see everyone with a contribution to make working together to enable the highest safety standards to be achieved and maintained. I therefore welcome the decision by the Health and Safety Commission to ask HSE to carry out a fundamental review of the gas safety regime including CORGI' s role within it.

  Greenwich Judgment
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will evaluate the impact on(a) road traffic and (b) air quality of the Greenwich judgment concerning school places. [62860]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have no plans to evaluate the specific impact of the Greenwich judgment on road traffic and air quality, but the School Travel Advisory Group, announced in "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", may wish to examine the range of factors leading to longer journeys to school.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the changes in standard spending assessment methodology introduced for 1999–2000, showing the effect of each change on(a) standard spending assessments for each class of authority and (b) standard spending assessments for each local authority in England in (i) percentage and (ii) cash terms. [62855]

  Ms Armstrong
  The changes in the method of calculating standard spending assessments (SSAs) for 1999–2000 are summarised in paragraph 12 of the consultation paper, "Revenue support grant for 1999–2000 and related matters" issued by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on 2 December 1998. A copy was placed in the Library.

  For nearly all of these changes, the report of the SSA Sub-group for 1999–2000 exemplified the effect each of these changes would have had on SSAs for 1998–99, had it been introduced in that year. For the new cases in which the Report does not provide the relevant information, it is set out in a paper of the SSA Sub-group (paper SWG:SSASG(98)145). Copies of the Report and the paper have been placed in the Library. The consultation paper gives cross-references to the Report.

  Figures are not available to show the equivalent figures in relation to the 1999–2000 SSAs.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out for each notifiable authority the change between revenue support grant in 1998–99 and the provisional rate support grant in 1999–2000 in(a) percentage and (b) cash terms. [62856]

  Ms Armstrong
  A table showing the information requested has been placed in the Library. The table also shows the percentage change, and the change in cash terms, between the total of Revenue Support Grant (RSG) and redistributed National Non-Domestic Rates (NNDR)
  39
  for 1998–99 and the provisional total of Revenue Support Grant and redistributed National Non-Domestic Rates for 1999–2000.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out for each authority with social services responsibilities the change between the 1998–99 standard spending assessment and their provisional standard spending assessment for 1999–2000 in(a) percentage and (b) cash terms, excluding from the provisional standard spending assessment the amount provided to cover the 1998–99 STG. [62857]

  Ms Armstrong
  To adjust in this way does not make sense in the light of the Comprehensive Spending Review which started from a zero base, looking at expenditure needs afresh. The only fair comparison is to look at total resources provided for social services which, in aggregate, show a 6.1 per cent. cash increase or a 3.5 per cent. real terms increase between 1998–99 and 1999–2000. The increased resources we are making available will meet the costs of looking after existing and new community care clients, and enable local authorities to deliver real improvements in services. The figures requested would therefore provide a misleading comparison.

  Road Humps
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what evaluation his Department has made of the medical effects of road humps on fragile, elderly and disabled people. [62859]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As part of the continuing research on the design and performance of road humps, the Department has commissioned the Transport Research Laboratory to carry out a literature review on the effects of road humps on professional drivers and people with disabilities. A report on the review is due to be published in March 1999.

  In developing published advice for the design of road humps my Department ensured that passenger discomfort was evaluated, and that excessive discomfort would not arise providing the road humps were not driven over at an excessive speed.

  Mark 1 Trains
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to receive a report from the Health and Safety Executive on Mark 1 trains. [62580]

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the Health and Safety Executive report into the Mark 1 carriages to be completed and published. [62572]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I am expecting the Health and Safety Commission to submit draft regulations shortly on railway safety, including Mark 1 rolling stock.

  Coalfields Regeneration
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money from the new Coalfields Regeneration Trust Fund 40
  will be allocated to projects in the County of Nottinghamshire; and what size of bodies will be able to apply for funding for such projects. [62637]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Coalfields Regeneration Trust will have the power to assist former and existing coalfields such as those in the County of Nottinghamshire. Legal work is underway to set up the Trust which is expected to be up and running early next year. It will be independent from Government and therefore allocation of resources available to the Trust will be the responsibility of the Trustees.

  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if existing coalfield areas will be eligible for assistance and grants from the new Coalfields Regeneration Trust. [62688]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Coalfields Regeneration Trust will have the power to assist former and existing coalfields that have regeneration requirements. Legal work is underway to set up the Trust which is expected to be up and running early next year. It will be independent from Government and therefore allocation of resources available to the Trust will be the responsibility of the Trustees.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much of the £350 million fund for the coalfield communities in England is new money over and above existing spending programmes; and how much emanates from(a) the Coal Miners Pension Fund, (b) general Government sources, (c) the European Union and (d) private or other sources. [62397]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are investing an additional £354 million over three years in regenerating coalfield communities. All that money will come from 'general government sources' including: dedicated allocations from existing spending programmes; an additional £10 million from the Reserve in recognition of the receipt of Government's share of miners' pension funds surpluses, part of which will be available to Scotland and Wales; and £10 million from the Reserve to support the Coalfields Regeneration Trust in complementing the Government's Welfare to Work programme.

  A fuller breakdown of this additional investment is set out in the Government's publication 'Making the Difference—a New Start for England's Coalfield Communities; The Government's Response to the Coalfield Task Force Report'. A copy of this publication is available in the House Library.

  Housing
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to harmonise the funding of housing and rent rebates paid by(a) private landlords and (b) local authorities. [62590]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We hope to issue a consultation paper soon on our proposals to introduce resource accounting into the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). It will seek views on whether rent rebates should be taken out of the HRA and funded in full.

  Flats (Access)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the extension of Part M of the Building Regulations will ensure that all new flats above the entrance level can be reached by a lift. [62632]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The section in the revised Approved Document for Part M covering passenger lifts and common stairs in blocks of flats explains that the objective is to make reasonable provision for disabled people to visit occupants who live on any storey. The consultation on the proposed amendments recognised that given the added cost of the lift and the additional space needed in common areas, it was not considered reasonable to require a lift to be provided in all instances. However, following the consultation, instead of only controlling the size of lift when there were 12 or more flats above the entrance storey, it was decided that, whenever a lift is provided, it must be suitable for an unaccompanied wheelchair user, irrespective of the number of flats above the entrance storey.

  McKinsey Report
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the findings of the McKinsey report, Driving Productivity and Growth in the UK Economy, regarding land use and planning regulations; and if he will make a statement. [62251]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The McKinsey Report helpfully highlighted the productivity gap which exists between the UK and our competitors.

  Last week, my Department published a report, "The Economic Consequences of Planning to the Business Sector", which concluded that businesses see planning as an accepted part of their environment and are looking for improvements but not radical change. We have taken many positive steps through our Modernising Planning initiative to streamline and improve the efficiency of the planning system. We will also be looking in more detail at the issues surrounding one particular part of the business sector, high technology growth industries.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he has taken to strengthen the enforcement of regulations related to the handling of asbestos; and what future proposals he has in this area. [62497]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am about to lay amendment regulations before the House which will require more stringent control over exposure to asbestos at work, tightening up the requirements for asbestos licensing and refocusing controls on those most likely to come into contact with asbestos as part of their work, such as maintenance and demolition workers.

  The Health and Safety Commission are consulting on proposals for a ban on white asbestos. They will shortly
  42
  publish guidance on substituting asbestos, and Health and Safety Executive inspectors will enforce the duty on employers to substitute for asbestos where it sis practicable to do so.

  I have made clear my view that HSE should give a high enforcement priority to asbestos, and in future greater resources will be devoted to administering and enforcing the new legislation. Already targets for inspection of notified asbestos removal work have been increased.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prosecutions have been brought and by which agencies for breach of asbestos-related regulations in each of the past 10 years. [62496]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Health and Safety Executive has taken or initiated the following asbestos related prosecutions in each of the last 10 years.

  Informations laid

  Convictions

  1987–88

  Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983

  32

  27

  Asbestos Regulations 1969

  14

  8

  1988–89

  The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987

  21

  21

  Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983

  14

  13

  Asbestos Regulations 1969

  4

  3

  1989–90

  The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987

  52

  47

  Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983

  14

  7

  Asbestos (Prohibitions) Amendments Regulation 1988

  1

  0

  1990–91

  The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987

  57

  48

  Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983

  7

  7

  1991–92

  The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987

  47

  39

  Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983

  8

  7

  1992–93

  The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987

  24

  23

  Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983

  3

  3

  1993–94

  The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987

  31

  20

  Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983

  5

  5

  1994–95

  The Control of Asbestons at Work Regulations 1987

  37

  29

  Asbestos (Licensing) Regulation 1983

  7

  6

  43

  Informations laid

  Convictions

  1995–96

  The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987

  51

  33

  Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983

  13

  11

  1996–97

  The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987

  37

  31

  Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983

  5

  4

  1997–981

  The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987

  42

  38

  Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983

  3

  3

  1 Provisional

  Notes:

  1. From 1996–97 data includes proceedings instituted by HSE's FOD, CHID (excluding explosives and pipelines) and NSD (conventional safety only).

  2. The information HSE has from Local Authorities on proceedings they have taken under legislation for which HSE is responsible does not separately identify the asbestos-related prosecutions.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he takes to monitor the level of fines or other sanctions in asbestos-related court cases; and if he will make a statement. [62498]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Health and Safety Commission (HSC) keeps me informed of the level of penalties imposed for health and safety offences. The general level of penalties imposed for these crimes, including those related to asbestos, does not in my view or that of the HSC match their seriousness. However, I welcome the demonstration in a recent case related to asbestos removal in Birmingham that the courts are willing to imprison individuals who have committed serious health and safety offences. I also welcome the Court of Appeal judgment on 6 November which said that health and safety fines are too low. I hope this judgment will help the courts reflect the full gravity of such offences when they decide future sentences.

  Pesticide Tax
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies he has carried out into the impact on (i) competitiveness and (ii) UK employment of a pesticide tax. [62614]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has commissioned extensive research work on the feasibility of an economic instrument to assist in delivering the Government's pesticide minimisation policy. This has included assessments of the effects of such an instrument on the competitiveness of pesticide manufacturers and distributors and of relevant agricultural sectors as well as the potential impacts on employment in these sectors.

  Health and Safety Commission
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what level of resources will be provided to the Health and Safety Commission over the next three years. [63088]
  44
  Mr. Meacher
  I am pleased to be able to announce today a new financial package for the health and Safety Commission. Extra Government funding of £20 million over the next three years, together with changes in its charging regime, will enable the HSC to increase its running costs by £12.9 million in 1999–00, £22.8 million in 2000–01 and £27.0 million in 2001–02 over and above the baseline for the current financial year. This settlement signals our strong commitment to achieving further improvements in health and safety standards in the workplace. We will be agreeing a Plan of Work with the Commission which will ensure that these additional resources deliver real and tangible benefit.

  This excellent settlement for health and safety is dependent in part on an extension to the Commission's existing charging regime. I have asked the Commission to introduce charges in statutory permissioning regimes for assessing safety cases, granting approvals and regulatory activities to ensure compliance with the safety case in the gas, offshore and railway industries, and the functions placed upon the GB competent authorities under the BU Directive for Control of Major Accident Hazards in onshore installations. The Government do not intend that charging should extend beyond regimes of this kind. I believe it is right that these industries, which depend so heavily on safe operation, should pay for these activities and that the resultant income should be reinvested to secure further improvement in health and safety standards.

  Integrated Transport White Paper
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will consult on his proposals for road user charging schemes and the workplace parking levy, as set out in the White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone". [63025]

  Mr. Prescott
  I will issue a consultation document on road user and workplace parking charges on Tuesday 8 December. It will set out the Government's detailed proposals for the legislative framework which will allow local authorities to introduce charging schemes. It will also raise a number of detailed issues on the implementation of such schemes on which we are seeking the views of all interested parties. Copies of the document will be available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House.

  Leaded Petrol
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what information is being provided to owners of older vehicles that will be affected by the withdrawal of leaded petrol from sale from 1 January 2000. [62962]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The withdrawal of leaded petrol is part of a European strategy to reduce pollution from road traffic and the air we breathe.

  I am nevertheless aware of the concerns of many owners of older vehicles about the practical implications of the ban and information is being made available, at outlets such as MOT stations, garages and forecourts and other locations, which will address the sorts of questions

  45
  which motorists have been raising. Information may also be found on the Department's website at http://www.detr.gov.uk.

  The general message for those who use leaded petrol is that they will have several options available to ensure that they can continue to use their car after 1 January 2000.

  Water Discharge Consents
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many water discharge consents are currently in place; and what percentage of these were(a) reviewed and (b) contravened in 1997. [60870]

  Mr. Meacher
  The most recent figures available on discharge consents were reported in the Environment Agency's Annual Report and Accounts, and relate to the fiscal year 1997–98. There were 79,692 discharge consents in place at year end, including 4,267 which were issued during the year. A total of 4,093 discharge consents were reviewed—5.4 per cent. of the 75,425 in place at the beginning of the year.

  As the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) said in her answer to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), on 15 June 1998, Official Report, column 37, the number of discharges which exceeded their consented limits during the calendar year 1997 was 4,717.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the total profits of privatised water companies since 1990 and (b) the total investment in environmental improvements over the same period. [61805]

  Mr. Meacher
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The aggregate profits before tax of the water undertakers, both the privatised water and sewerage companies and the private sector water supply companies, over the years 1990–91 to 1997–98 were about £14 billion at 1997–98 prices.

  (b) Total capital investment by the water undertakers in the same period was about £26 billion, of which about £7 billion was invested by the privatised water and sewerage companies in environmental improvements, both at 1997–98 prices.

  Transport Infrastructure Spending
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide a breakdown of transport infrastructure spending on(a) pavements, (b) cyclepaths, (c) roads, (d) the Underground, (e) buses, (f) railways and (g) River Thames quays and riverbuses, in London in each of the last five years. [61662]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The following table gives a breakdown of central Government support for items(b) to (e) and Port of London Authority expenditure on (g) in the last five years. The London authorities and developers also provide additional funding for items (b), (c) and (e). Information on this additional funding and on (a) and (f) is not held centrally. The figures for (c) exclude the Highways Agency allocations as they were not fully founded until 1994, and they keep their records on a national basis. I will write to the hon. Member separately on that matter.
  46

  £million

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  (f)

  Cyclepaths1

  Roads2

  Underground3

  Buses4

  River Thames Piers5

  1993–94

  —

  98

  786

  28

  1.0

  1994–95

  —

  76

  929

  16

  0.2

  1995–96

  3

  69

  1,087

  17

  0.1

  1996–97

  4

  57

  1,034

  23

  0.2

  1997–98

  4

  51

  800

  37

  3.3

  Total

  11

  353

  4,636

  122

  4.8

  1 Transport Policies and Programmes (TPP) allocations for the London Cycle Network.

  2 TPP allocations for principal road maintenance and major schemes and Traffic Director for London annual spends, but excludes the Highways Agency funding of trunk roads.

  3 London Underground investment.

  4 London Transport Bus investment and TPP allocations for the London Bus Priority Network. These figures do not fully reflect the overall investment in buses given that since privatisation in 1994 the purchase of new buses has been a matter for the private bus operating companies and the road infrastructure funding at (c) directly assists the movements of buses.

  5 Port of London Authority expenditure by calender year (e.g. first entry is for calender year 1994) on Thames Piers (Quays). The 1998 figure is forecast expenditure. There has been no central Government support on river buses in the last five years.

  Low-emission Fuels
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to increase the availability of(a) city diesel and (b) other low-emission fuels. [61801]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are aware of the environmental benefits of cleaner fuels and have focused on using fiscal incentives to encourage their wider use and availability.

  Ultra low sulphur diesel currently enjoys a 2 pence per litre duty differential compared with standard diesel. In the Pre-Budget Report the Chancellor reaffirmed his intention to increase this to 3 pence per litre at the next Budget. In little over a year since such incentives were first introduced, sales have increased to account now for some 17.5% of total diesel supplied.

  The duty on liquid petroleum gas and compressed natural gas at 21.13 pence per kilogramme (approximately 2 litres) is significantly lower in relative terms than the duty on standard diesel at 44.99 pence for one litre. The Government are committed to at least maintaining the 1997 duty differential between road fuel gases and standard diesel.

  Through the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force, Government is working with industry to consider the mechanisms for developing improved infrastructure to make cleaner fuels more widely available.

  Councillors
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will identify the places in the studies by Ken Young and Nirmala Rao, "Coming to Terms with Change?" The Local government Councillor, in 1993 and the Audit Commission's publication "Representing the People—the
  47
  Role of Councillors", which indicate that councillors wish to spend more time in direct contact with those they represent. [62037]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Pages 21–23 (including tables 3.5 and 3.6) in the study by Ken Young and Nirmala Rao—"Coming to Terms with Change? The Local Government Councillor", in 1993 show that many councillors, particularly those under 55 years old, felt they gave too little time to consulting with the public in meetings and dealing with electors' problems. Page 3 of the Audit Commission management paper—"Representing the People—The Role of Councillors" states that too much burden is placed on councillors, often unproductively, by committee meetings even though councillors believe that they should fulfil a wider representational role. This is demonstrated in Box 1 on page 8 of this report which quotes Young and Rao's finding that there was a "radical mismatch between what councillors aspire to do and what the pressures of council business require them to do".

  Research Papers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many series of research papers his Department produces; and what are the names of each of these series. [62046]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Information about the Department's research is made available in many forms including short summaries of completed, current and future research. Details are available through Newsletters and the Department's Website. Series of research papers are uncommon although there is a recent example in the "Road Safety Research Series—No. 1 Road Safety Education of Children'. Conclusions of research inform Departmental advice which is disseminated through regular Circulars or Advice Notes. Many research contractors maintain their own series of research papers. The Transport Research Laboratory, Building Research Establishment, the Hadley Centre and University of Westminster are examples.

  Rental Deposits
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress the Government are making on helping to establish a voluntary scheme run by landlords and agents to cover rental deposits; and if he will make a statement. [62298]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My hon. Friend, the Minister for Local Government and Housing, announced on 12 October that she will meet organisations representing landlords and tenants to invite them to set up a voluntary scheme to administer tenants' deposits. My officials have been holding a series of initial meetings with representative organisations to discuss with them the contribution they might make in helping to develop a scheme. The meeting with Ministers will be held early in the new year.

  Pacific Crane Incident
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning the 24 October incident involving the Pacific Crane vessel in the Irish sea; what assessment he has made of the environmental issues raised; what correspondence he or his Department 48
  have exchanged and meetings he or his Department have had with British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. since the incident; and if he will make a statement.[62270]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is as follows:

  (i) I have received two representations from the hon. Member for South Devon (Mr. McGrady). Officials have received one representation from the Irish Government.

  (ii) The Pacific Crane has been laid up in the Anchor Line Basin in Barrow Docks for approximately the last two years. The vessel was securely moored when the accommodation barge, the Bibby Renaissance, broke free from her mooring nearby and collided into her. The Pacific Crane was not in transit to a destination and had neither cargo or crew on board the vessel at the time of the incident. The Bibby Renaissance was also empty of cargo. There was no threat of pollution. An assessment into environmental damage was therefore not considered necessary.

  (iii) On 26 October 1998 the Marine Accident Investigation Branch received a letter from James Fisher and Sons, managing agents of the Pacific Crane, confirming details of the incident. On 28 October 1998 a copy of the press release issued by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. was forwarded to officials of my Department for information.

  (iv) No meetings have taken place between representatives of my Department and British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. The Marine Accident Investigation Branch is carrying out an Administrative Inquiry into the incident and is in correspondence with the owners of both vessels.

  Eurostar
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies his Department has undertaken on the environmental effects of operating Eurostar trains on the North London line between Stratford and the link to St. Pancras. [62106]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None because the Channel Tunnel Rail Link has been planned and approved on the basis of two new tracks from the Channel Tunnel to the London terminus, St Pancras. The environmental effects of widening the North London line, rather than using the existing tracks, were assessed by Union Railways between 1992 and 1994 before adoption of the route now authorised under the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996.

  Concessionary Fares
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions by what means he plans to establish a national minimum concessionary fares scheme in 1999. [62311]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The national minimum concessionary fare scheme outlined in our White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport", will require primary legislation. Implementation will therefore depend on the availability of Parliamentary time.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish in the Official Report the text of the letter sent to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent in response to the question on representations on Sellafield of 19 November 1998, Official Report, column 835. [62484]
  49
  Mr. Meacher
  A copy of the letter which I sent to my hon. Friend is attached.

  Letter from the Minister for the Environment to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 3 December 1998:
  In answer to your recent parliamentary question, I promised to write to you with the information about the representations we had received on the Sellafield applications.
  As you know in reply to Joan Walley's PQ we reported that 4 letters relating to the Sellafield MOX plant and 2 letters relating to the variations to BNFL's site discharge authorisations in response to the Environment Agency's statement on 23 October were received. However, one of the letters which was primarily about the MOX plant also made reference to the discharge authorisations and therefore the number of representations concerning the discharge authorisations figure should have been reported as 3 rather than 2.
  The 4 letters referring to the MOX plant were received from an overseas government minister, an MP, a non-government organisation and a member of the public; all of which were opposed to the recommendations. The 3 letters referring to the variations to BNFL's site discharge authorisations were received from an overseas government minister, an MP and a non-government organisation; all of which were opposed to the recommendations.
  You also asked to know what representations were received in the two months prior to the release of the Environment Agency documents. The number of letters received relating to the MOX plant were 3 and relating to the variations to BNFL's site discharge authorisations were 14. You may also wish to know that the 3 letters relating to the MOX plant were received from a non-government organisations and two members of the public. The 14 letters relating to the variations were received from members of parliament.
  I am copying this letter to Joan Walley with apologies for our error and a copy will also be placed in the Library of the House.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to extend the inspection regime for small and intermediate factories where responsibility for industrial emissions and air quality standards lies with local authorities. [62536]

  Mr. Meacher
  None. My Department did, however, publish an action plan this October jointly with the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the Local

  National non-domestic rates—calculation of distributable amount

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Final outturn

  Provisional outturn

  Provisional outturn

  Estimated in-year Contribution

  1. Income from Local Lists

  Multiplier (p)

  44.9

  45.8

  47.4

  48.9

  Gross Rate Yield

  13,370

  13,481

  13,767

  13,914

  (i) Reliefs

  (a) Net Transitional Relief

  -545

  -430

  -560

  -570

  (b) Empty properties

  -1,018

  -928

  -999

  -1,031

  (c) Charitable

  -482

  -495

  -508

  -524

  (d) Discretionary

  -74

  -49

  -33

  -35

  Net Yield after reliefs

  11,252

  11,579

  11,667

  11,754

  (ii) Collection Costs/Reductions to Contributions

  (a) Costs of collection

  -77

  -78

  -79

  -83

  (b) Losses on collection

  -139

  -115

  -167

  -141

  (c) City of London offset

  -7

  -7

  -7

  -7

  Total contribution in respect of year

  11,029

  11,379

  11,415

  11,524

  (iii) Adjustments

  Repayments/interest payments

  -370

  -210

  -546

  -619

  50
  Government Association and others, which includes actions to improve local authority inspection practice for processes regulated under the existing Local Air Pollution Control regime.

  Hazardous Substances
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what controls he envisages to give effect to the land use planning requirements of the COMAH Directive; and if he will make a statement. [62586]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government have today issued draft Regulations to implement the land use requirements of Directive 96/82/EC on the Control of Major Accident Hazards.

  Amendments are to be made to the Planning Hazardous Substances consents procedures to implement these provisions of the Directive whilst maintaining existing health and safety standards where these differ from the Directive. Changes to the Development Plan Regulations will ensure that local planning authorities take account of the requirements of the Directive when drawing up their development plans.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out the basis of his calculations of the distributable amount of non-domestic rates for 1999–2000. [62589]

  Ms Armstrong
  The distributable amount of non-domestic rates in England for 1999–2000 will be £13,612 million. This is based on a non-domestic rate poundage (multiplier) of 48.9p and includes an allowance of £310 million for an Exchequer payment to the non-domestic rates pool, to compensate for the shortfall which would otherwise occur as a result of the regulations under section 58 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to phase in the effects of the 1995 revaluation on rate bills.

  The calculation for 1999–2000, and the prior-year figures on which this is based, are set out in the table:

  51

  National non-domestic rates—calculation of distributable amount

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Final outturn

  Provisional outturn

  Provisional outturn

  Estimated in-year contribution

  Total adjustments

  -370

  -210

  -546

  -619

  Net Local Yield

  10,659

  11,169

  10,869

  10,905

  2.Income from Central List

  Net Central List Yield

  1,221

  1,207

  1,265

  1,303

  3. Income from Crown Contributions in Aid

  Net Crown Yield

  487

  469

  445

  460

  Total NDR Yield

  12,366

  12,846

  12,579

  12,668

  4. Exchequer Contributions

  Total Exchequer contributions

  429

  400

  360

  310

  Total NNDR pool payments (1+2+3+4)

  12,795

  13,246

  12,939

  12,978

  5. Adjustments

  Surplus brought forward

  -1,059

  ,1,000

  218

  634

  Combined total

  11,736

  12,245

  13,157

  13,612

  Distributable amount

  12,736

  12,027

  12,524

  13,612

  Surplus carried forward

  -1,000

  218

  634

  0

  Notes:

  The amounts shown are those recorded in the post end-year (NNDR3) returns. For 1998–99 the amounts shown are the estimated outturn for the year based mainly upon authorities' provisional contributions to the non-domestic rating pool.

  1. Item 1: The gross calculated rate yield represents the total value of non-domestic hereditaments on local rating lists times the multiplier.

  2. Item 1(i)(a): The Transitional decrease adjustment includes the estimated amount of rates that will not be recouped from local list ratepayers under the transitional arrangements made by regulations under section 58 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.

  3. Item 1(i)(b): The empty property relief adjustments include voids and partially occupied hereditaments. The 1999–2000 figure includes an allowance for the increase in the gross rates yield.

  4. Item 1(i)(c): Charitable rate relief. Figures for 1998–99 onwards include mandatory relief for village shops under the Local Government and Rating Act 1997. The 1999–2000 figure includes an allowance for the increase in the gross rates yield.

  5. Item 1(i)(d): Discretionary relief granted to charities, non-profit making organisations and for other reasons including, for 1998–99 onwards, discretionary relief for village shops under the Local Government and Rating Act 1997. The 1999–2000 figure includes an allowance for the increase in the gross rates yield.

  6. Item 1(ii)(a) and (b): The allowances for the costs and losses incurred by authorities in collecting non-domestic rates from ratepayers.

  7. Item 1 (ii)(c): City Offset—the amount which the City of London will not be required to pay into the non-domestic rating pool. It is the amount which will be retained by the City to meet its own expenditure.

  8. Item 1 (iii): net adjustment in respect of appeals and other amendments to the rating list affecting liability for previous years rates settled in that year.

  9. Item 2: the rateable value of non-domestic hereditaments on the central rating list times the multiplier, less the net effect of transitional arrangements, and adjusted for appeals and other changes in respect of previous years.

  10. Item 3: the 1999–2000 figure for Crown properties includes an allowance for the effect of transitional arrangements.

  11. Item 4: the contribution from central government to offset the amount of the Secretary of State's estimate of income forgone as a result of transitional arrangements established by regulations under section 58 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if the stipends of any clergy are to be increased in consequence of the implementation of the minimum wage. [61377]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The stipends of parochial clergy are increased each year by dioceses on the basis of recommendations from the Central Stipends Authority. Clergy are not covered by the provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, as Ministers of religion have the legal status of office holders, not employees.

  Constitution
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what changes will be made to the Commissioners' constitution from 1 January 1999; and if he will make a statement. [61378]
  52
  Mr. Stuart Bell
  Under the National Institutions Measure, which received Royal Assent in July this year, the number of Commissioners will be reduced from 95 to 33. The Commissioners' membership will continue to reflect the Commissioners' joint accountability to Church and State.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if the links between the Commissioners and Parliament will continue under the Commissioners' new constitution. [61379]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw). I can assure the House that the close links between the Commissioners and Parliament will continue under the Commissioners' new constitution, through my own role and that of the six State office holders who will be Commissioners from 1 January 1999.
  53
  The Commissioners' membership will reflect the Commissioners' dual accountability to Church and Parliament. The Commissioners will continue to answer questions in the House of Commons and to lay their Annual Report and Accounts before Parliament.

  Pension Fund
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what effect the removal of payable tax credits has had on the long-term returns of the Church's pension fund. [61380]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  At their 1997 dividend levels, the Commissioners estimate that the removal of payable tax credits will ultimately reduce their income and their total investment returns by £12m annually. This loss of return relates to the whole of the Church Commissioners' investments as they do not designate a separate pension fund within the overall fund. It will also reduce returns on the newly established contributory pensions scheme, which meets pension liabilities for service from 1998 onwards, which is administered by the Church of England Pensions Board.

  Churchwardens Measure
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what representations he has received concerning the financial implications of the Churchwardens Measure; and if he will make a statement. [61381]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Church Commissioners have received no such representations, although I am aware that hon. Members have received representations on other aspects of the Measure. All such matters will no doubt be discussed when the Ecclesiastical Committee takes evidence on the Measure from General Synod witnesses on 15 December.

DEFENCE

  Ex-service Personnel
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals his Department has to assist ex-service men and women return to civilian life. [61340]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We provide a wide range of support to help Service personnel return to civilian life.

  On 5 October, I opened a veterans Advice Unit to help guide ex-Service personnel around the maze of help available to them. Details of the Unit are in a booklet, copies of which have been placed in the Library and Vote Office.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact of the Government's proposals in respect of the TA in(a) Oxfordshire and (b) the Witney constituency. [61351]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Following the recent restructuring exercise, Territorial Army units to be located in Oxford will be as follows: a surgical squadron of 202 54
  Field Hospital, the Home Counties Band and the Regimental Headquarters and Headquarters Squadron of the Radio Regiment. A squadron of Royal Signallers will also remain at Banbury. In the Witney constituency, 218 Field Squadron at Brize Norton will disband.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed timetable for relocation of the Army Medical Services TA and the Medical Field Training Centre to York and Strensall. [61356]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  On current plans, the Headquarters Army Medical Services (TA) will move to Imphal Barracks, York in February 1999 and the Army Medical Services Field Training Centre will move to Strensall in April 1999.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reprovide training centres for cadets. [61360]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  As we have already announced, any cadet unit that has facilities in the TA Centre that is closing as part of the restructuring of the TA will be reprovided with suitable accommodation and support. We have earmarked £12 million to achieve this. No TA centre which houses cadet units or cadet training facilities will be closed until alternative arrangements have been made for the cadets.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on recruitment to the Territorial Army. [61363]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Before final decisions on the future structure and distribution of the Territorial Army were taken and announced, a number of hon. Members and members of the public wrote to me about the TA presence in their constituency, including the matter of recruitment to the TA. Furthermore, representations about recruitment to the TA were made during the consultative process with the TA and the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations (TAVRAs).

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to address the needs of the Territorial Army following his recent announcement. [61355]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The needs of the Territorial Army are being addressed through its modernisation and reorganisation announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 17 November 1998. Details of the reorganisation can be found in the document "Modern Forces for a Modern World: A Territorial Army for the Future", copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the costs of transferring the 101 REME (V) Battalion Headquarters from Chorley to Queensferry. [62611]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Land Command is still consulting with the Territorial Auxiliary and Reserve Associations over the transfer of 101 REME (Volunteer) Battalion from Chorley to Queensferry. No final costs are therefore available at this time, although they are not expected to be significant.
  55
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the costs of the operation of the 101 REME (V) Battalion Headquarters were in 1996, 1997 and 1998. [62610]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Operating costs for 101 REME (Volunteer) Battalion Headquarters for the last three years were as follows:

  1996–97:723,000

  1997–98:786,000

  1998–99:818,000.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will estimate the costs of the first year of operation of the 101 REME (V) Battalion Headquarters in Queensferry; [62609]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the financial saving made from operating the Headquarters of the 101 REME (V) Battalion Headquarters in Queensferry instead of Chorley. [62613]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No detailed estimate can be made of the financial savings which will arise as a result of operating HQ 101 (Volunteer) Battalion REME from Queensferry instead of Chorley until full details of the support costs for the unit in its new location have been established. We expect that there will be savings because HQ 101 (Volunteer) Battalion REME will share the Queensferry TA Centre with other units instead of being the sole occupant of the Centre, as it was in Chorley.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which body is responsible for ensuring the value for money of public funds spent on the Territorial Army. [62502]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Expenditure on the Territorial Army falls largely to the budget of the Commander in Chief Land Command, to whom the responsibility is delegated for ensuring value for money in meeting agreed tasks.

  Defence Establishment, Shoeburyness
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the defence establishment in Shoeburyness. [61354]

  Mr. Spellar
  The future of the defence establishments in Shoeburyness is as I told the hon. Member last month: Horseshoe Barracks, Old Ranges and Gunners Park are being prepared for disposal and redevelopment and we are seeking opportunities to increase the exploitation of the New Ranges for non-defence purposes.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy on use of the armed services to assist in defending and upholding human rights overseas. [61357]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Human rights are at the heart of the United Kingdom's foreign policy. The Armed Forces have the support of foreign policy as one of their main objectives, particularly in promoting international peace and security. Among the means which we use to achieve this objective are activities under the new Defence Diplomacy Mission, which help to dispel hostility, maintain trust and assist in the development of 56
  democratically accountable armed forces. British forces also contribute to defending and upholding human rights through their involvement in a wide range of conflict prevention, peace support and humanitarian operations.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how he intends funding the organisational changes, recruitment of personnel, welfare support and purchase of new equipment for the Regular and Reserve Army as outlined in the strategic defence review. [61361]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The plans outlined in the Strategic Defence Review will be funded from savings generated within the review, as set out in chapter 10 of the White Paper (Cmd 3999), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Strategic Defence Review's objective of making financial savings in the Defence Budget. [62612]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Strategic Defence Review was policy led and had no objective to make financial savings in the Defence Budget. The plans set out in the Strategic Defence Review White Paper require substantial investment to improve inherited areas of weakness and to fund a continuing major equipment programme. The resources needed will come from savings generated from rationalisation in the support area, an increased efficiency programme and smarter procurement.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes are planned to public duties following the strategic defence review. [61337]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Armed Forces personnel will continue to play an important role in State Ceremonial occasions and a range of Public Duties. The Strategic Defence Review has had no effect on our commitment to these duties.

  Strategic Lift Capability
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Britain's strategic lift capability. [61362]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Strategic Defence Review concluded that we need to improve our strategic transport capability, to allow us to move more powerful forces quickly to an overseas location. We are planning to do this through acquiring four additional roll-on/roll-off container ships and, in the short term, four large C-17 aircraft or their equivalent. In the longer term, we are considering a replacement for our remaining elderly transport aircraft, for which the European Future Large Aircraft is a contender.

  Defence Attachés
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many new defence attaché liaison and exchange posts he intends to create. [61364]
  57
  Mr. George Robertson
  We are currently reviewing the world-wide distribution of attachés in conjunction with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I shall write to my hon. Friend once the results of the review are available.

  Service Museums and Archives
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of service museums and archives. [61366]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department will continue to provide grant-in-aid funding in support of the six Principal Service Museums and their collections. In addition, funding will continue to be made available to the 69 Regimental and Corps museums which currently receive financial assistance.

  Parachute Regiment
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of the Parachute Regiment. [61367]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Parachute Regiment provides a unique airborne capability. At present it comprises three Regular battalions and two Territorial Army battalions.

  The Strategic Defence Review concludes that, in the future, one Parachute battalion group would be required at very high readiness as part of the first echelon of the Joint Rapid Reaction Forces. Two of the three regular Parachute Regiment battalions will form an integral part of the Army's new 16 Air Assault Brigade and will take it in turns to deliver this parachute capability.

  The third Regular Parachute Regiment battalion will not be used in a parachute role, but instead will be used for other infantry tasks.

  As part of the restructuring of the Territorial Army announced by my right hon. Friend on 17 November, the Parachute Regiment will retain one Territorial Army battalion, which will be nationally recruited.

  Equal Opportunities Training Centre, Shrivenham
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the role and objectives of the proposed Tri-Service Equal Opportunities Training Centre at Shrivenham. [61368]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I officially opened the Tri-Service Equal Opportunities Training Centre, co-located with the Royal Military College of Science at Shrivenham, on 25 September 1998. The Centre has been established to deliver equal opportunities training to Service and civilian personnel holding the appointment of Equal Opportunities Advisers and selected military trainers throughout the Service command chain. It also provides, with the assistance of an outside contractor, mandatory awareness seminars for senior Service officers and MOD Senior Civil Servants.

  The work of the Centre complements the wide range of equal opportunities training and initiatives already instigated by the MOD and the three Services. It has a vital role to play in the Armed Forces' drive to eradicate unacceptable behaviour and to explain both organisational
  58
  and individual responsibilities. It encourages a top down—bottom up approach to equal opportunities awareness. This approach ensures that the specific work and initiatives employed by EO advisers are supported at the highest level by senior officers providing positive, informed leadership.

  Peacekeeping Missions (Training)
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training is given to members of the armed forces specific to their role in peacekeeping missions. [61369]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The training for members of the Army prior to deployment on a Peace Support Operation is tailored to the specific nature and requirements of the operation in question. In addition, a short Peace Support Operations unit is included within the syllabus of the Joint Service Command and Staff Course at the tri-Service staff college in Bracknell.

  Staff College, Camberley
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future use of the buildings of Staff College, Camberley. [61371]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 16 July 1998,Official Report, columns 237–38.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will reassess the military justification for garrisoning the Falklands at current levels. [61358]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Strategic Defence Review confirmed the Government's commitment to ensure the security of our Overseas Territories, including the Falkland Islands. It concluded that there is at present no requirement to alter the size of the Garrison on the Falkland Islands. We continue, however, to keep force levels under review.

  Accounting Officers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who is the accounting officer of each of the armed forces. [62501]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Parliament requires that the format of published Supply Estimates should reflect the way in which a Department manages its expenditure—thus accountability for MOD expenditure is currently aligned with the budgetary system, rather than with individual Services, as follows:Vote 1 (covering operational and support costs): the Permanent Under-Secretary of State;
  Vote 2 (covering logistics services): the Chief of Defence Procurement;
  Vote 3 (covering defence systems procurement and research): the Chief of Defence Procurement;

  59
  Vote 4 (covering armed forces retired pay and pensions): the Permanent Under-Secretary of State.

  Further detail on Defence (Class I) Votes is published on pages 24 to 35 of Supply Estimates 1998–99 (HC-635 of April 1998), a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Defence Diplomacy Initiative
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what extra money he will spend in each of the next three years on(a) additional military attaché posts, (b) enhanced arms control programmes, (c) enhanced outreach programmes and (d) military assistance programmes; [62078]

  (2) by how much he will increase over the next three years (a) the Defence Military Assistance Fund and (b) resources dedicated to defence diplomacy; [62056]

  (3) how many defence diplomacy scholarships he will introduce for overseas students; at what cost; and at which institutions; [62076]

  (4) when he will launch the defence diplomacy post-doctoral research fellowship; how much it will cost; and which British university will be the joint sponsor; [62077]

  (5) how many additional military special adviser posts (a) have been created since 1 May 1997 and (b) will be created in each of the next three years; and what is the location of these posts; [62073]

  (6) how he will make greater use of short-term training teams; [62074]

  (7) what additional courses he is planning for overseas military personnel. [62075]

  Mr. George Robertson
  As part of our Defence Diplomacy initiative, we intend to increase the Defence Military Assistance Fund by around £5 million in 1999–2000, and by up to £15 million per annum in the two subsequent years. Most of these additional resources will be used for Defence Diplomacy-related activities, including to fund attaché posts, and enhanced arms control, outreach and wider military assistance programmes.

  In particular, the initiative has placed new emphasis on the provision of high-quality training and education in Britain for overseas students, for which we already have an excellent reputation. We are therefore launching a dedicated Defence Diplomacy Scholarship Scheme, with the aim of introducing selected overseas officers and officials to the principles of Defence Diplomacy. We are currently considering how best to organise this scheme, including funding arrangements and options for the location of the training. We will then be able to determine the exact number of scholarships we can offer and to whom. In parallel, we are sponsoring a Defence Diplomacy Research Fellowship to help develop a greater understanding of the requirements of the Defence Diplomacy Mission and to enable us better to judge the impact of the specific activities we undertake. I expect to be able to make formal announcements on the details of the Scholarship Scheme and the Research Fellowship in the near future.
  60
  Eight Adviser posts have been established with the Defence Ministries and Armed Forces of Central and Eastern European States since 1 May 1997: three are in Romania, two in Lithuania and one each with the NATO de-mining mission in Albania, the Baltic States Battalion and the Baltic States Squadron. Two advisers were sent to the Ukraine in the past 12 months, but these posts were of a specifically short duration and have ceased to exist. On current plans, a civilian planning and finance adviser will take up post with the Hungarian Ministry of Defence in January 1999 and an officer is to join the Staff of the Baltic Defence College. We are also actively pursuing a Slovenian request for an adviser to be attached for six months early next year. We have also offered to provide Advisers for most central and eastern European countries.

  Short-Term Training Teams provide a cost-effective way of training overseas military personnel. The creation of the new Defence Diplomacy mission and the allocation of the additional resources to this area that I have announced will enable us to make increased use of such teams. In particular, we will look to use them to assist with the development of the skills and structures needed by modern democratically accountable armed forces, building upon the valuable work of this kind which such teams have carried out in the past in central and eastern Europe and elsewhere.

  In addition, approximately 4,000 military personnel from over 100 countries receive training at UK defence establishments each year. We are also considering how to expand on this part of our Defence Diplomacy effort.

  South Coast Defence Trials
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the report of the review of the south coast defence trials between 1964 and 1977 by Professor Brian Spratt will be made publicly available on completion. [62042]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  It is expected that Professor Spratt's report of his review of the south coast defence trials will be completed early in 1999. It will be made publicly available when completed.

  Veterans' Advice Unit
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the activities of the Veterans' Advice Unit since it was set up. [62125]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Ministry of Defence Veterans' Advice Unit is a telephone advice line—telephone number 08456 02 03 02, charging callers at local rates which is listed in all telephone directories under "Ministry of Defence Veterans' Advice Unit".

  The primary purpose of the Unit is to provide a telephone focal point for the UK's estimated 15 million ex-Service men and women and their dependants, acting as a signpost to advise callers where, when, and how best to obtain expert help on issues of concern to them. It aims to maximise the impact of current health care, social and welfare services provided by Government Departments, Agencies and non-governmental organisations.

  The Unit is staffed by serving Warrant Officers specifically chosen for their ability to communicate across all sections of Service background and for their extensive

  61
  and wide range of experience. They have been specifically trained in telephone communication skills and have served attachments to TRBL's Legionline and the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association's Forces Help inquiry line to learn at first hand from their experience in this field.

  Since I opened it on 5 October, the Unit has taken about 1,500 calls and the rate of calls has risen over time as awareness of the Unit's existence becomes more widespread. Most calls can be dealt with immediately, but some require investigative work and a subsequent call back to the inquirer.

  The range of problems dealt with has been diverse, including Home care and Housing, Falklands and Gulf War issues, Finance, the Tracing of Relatives, War Graves and Historical records, among others. However, the largest number of calls have concerned Pensions, Employment, the Provision of Medals and information about the Unit itself.

  Since the launch, some 90,000 leaflets publicising the Unit have been distributed through Resettlement Offices, The Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations (COBSEO), The Royal British Legion, SSAFA-Forces Help and other veterans' organisations and charities including the British Limbless Ex-Service Men's Association (BLESMA), the Ex-Services Mental Welfare Society (Combat Stress) and the Regular Forces Employment Association, among others. Copies of the leaflet have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The leaflet has been, or is being, sent to DSS Benefit Offices nationwide, the War Pensions Agency and Citizens Advice Bureaux. The MOD is continuing to look for ways in which the Unit can be publicised, including, for example, the possibility of displaying leaflets in Post Offices. The military media, such as Navy News, Soldier magazine, RAF News and the British Forces Broadcasting Service have carried items about the Unit.

  Military Satellites
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made since 16 December 1997 in respect of a joint French, German and United Kingdom commitment to a new generation of military satellites. [62279]

  Mr. Spellar
  The UK considered a range of procurement options, including collaborative, national conventional and national Public Finance Initiative (PFI) solutions to meet our requirements for the next generation of UK military satellite communications, known generically as SKYNET 5. In order to allow the UK to consider fully the collaborative option, known as TRIMILSATCOM, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed with France and Germany on 16 December 1997 and tenders for the full range of options were received in February 1998.

  Following a thorough evaluation of the options by the UK, it was clear that TRIMILSATCOM would not meet the UK's requirements in an affordable way, and, crucially, would not be ready in time to replace our existing satellites when they went out of service. The assessment also showed that a National PFI approach had the potential to offer an affordable and timely solution. It
  62
  was therefore decided that the UK would not proceed with the TRIMILSATCOM PD programme. Our partners were informed accordingly on 12 August 1998.

  We now plan to let two parallel design study contracts for a UK PFI solution in early 1999, with completion planned by the end of 2000. We envisage placing an Implementation contract some 12 months later, with the system coming into service in the middle of the decade.

  France and Germany are being kept informed of the project's progress and their officials were briefed on the PFI programme on 3 December 1998.

  Land-based Biological Detection Equipment
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the value of the increased procurement of land-based biological detection equipment announced by the Minister for Defence Procurement on 26 November 1998. [62016]

  Mr. Spellar
  The increased procurement of additional land-based biological defence equipment has a value of some £65 million. A number of Prototype Biological Detection Systems are being rapidly procured, some of which have already come into service. The planned procurement of Integrated Biological Detection Systems has been increased and we are also planning to develop and procure new Remote Biological Detection Systems.

  C-130J Transport Aircraft
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the C-130J transport aircraft will enter service. [63096]

  Mr. Spellar
  On current plans the RAF will commence C-130J operations at RAF Lyneham in November 1999. This is over two years later than the original delivery date. The In-Service Date is defined as delivery of the 12th aircraft, and this is now estimated to be in May 2000, 22 months later than originally planned. The delay has arisen as a result of a succession of problems in Lockheed Martin's overall programme to design and produce the aircraft. The Department is receiving liquidated damages from Lockheed Martin to compensate for additional costs associated with running on the current C-130K aircraft. It is estimated that the total liquidated damages for late delivery of the aircraft, based on the above delivery schedule, will amount to some £50 million.

  Retirement (Ethnic Minorities)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what targets his Department has set for boosting recruitment among Britain's ethnic minorities. [61346]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton).

  Armed Forces (Education and Training)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government are taking to increase education and training opportunities in the armed forces. [61365]
  63
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We already provide a wide range of education and training opportunities for Armed Forces personnel. Our Learning Forces initiative extends from recruitment to resettlement and beyond. It is a major contribution to the Government's commitment to improving educational opportunities and to ensuring that the qualifications Service personnel receive are fully recognised and transferable when they return to civilian life.

  Al Shifa Pharmaceutical Factory
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his statement on 23 October in the A1 Sharq A1 Aursat newspaper, what evidence he has that the Al Shifa pharmaceutical factory was manufacturing offensive weapons or materials. [61463]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We have the assurance of the United States Government that their decision to resort to military action was based on compelling evidence that the Al Shifa factory was connected with chemical weapons development or manufacture. It would be inappropriate to discuss the details of the intelligence on which this was based, which are withheld in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Army Personnel
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what date he plans to increase Army establishments by 3,300 personnel. [62014]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Initial changes to the Army establishment were made at the beginning of November to reflect the additional 3,352 personnel agreed in the Strategic Defence Review. Some of the manpower increases will, however, not take effect until 2002. The Army remains on course to achieve full staffing of the new establishment by around 2004.

  Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce his conclusions following the review of the national defence response to the risks posed by(a) nuclear, (b) biological and (c chemical weapons. [62015]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We hope to place a paper in the Library shortly.

  Naval Exhibition, Chile
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Minister for the Armed Forces attended the naval exhibition in Valparaiso, Chile; and if he will make a statement. [62071]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  By mutual agreement, my planned visit to EXPONAVAL 98 in Valparaiso, Chile on 30 November was postponed as Mr. O. Guzman, the Chilean Defence Minister, was not in the country on that day.

  E-mail Addresses
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to review the allocation of e-mail 64
  addresses to personnel for whom his Department is responsible; when he expects to extend this facility to defence attachés; and if he will make a statement. [62099]

  Mr. Spellar
  The MOD makes extensive use of computer systems and a high proportion of staff use internal e-mail facilities as their principal method of circulating documents and other correspondence. However, for security reasons the Department's current policy is that external e-mail accounts are allocated only where there is a justified business case. Where these are provided, the facility is generally on a stand alone computer or network, again for security reasons.

  As part of the work to establish a link during the coming year to the Government Secure Intranet, the MOD will be examining the opportunities for providing access to the Internet (including e-mail) for some personnel. The Department currently has no plans to provide Internet e-mail accounts to all of its personnel.

  Support for Defence and Service Attachés is mainly provided by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Most Embassies and High Commissions have an Internet and e-mail facility, through which Attachés can be reached.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  EU Renewable Energy Task Force
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made to date in establishing a European Union task force on renewable energy; if its membership and initial meeting date have been agreed; and if he will make a statement. [61934]

  Mr. Battle
  At the Energy Council on November 13, the UK stressed the importance of maintaining the momentum created by the Commission's 1997 White Paper ("Energy for the Future: Renewable Sources of Energy") and the Council Resolution on renewables adopted under the UK Presidency in May. I suggested that the establishment of a Commission led "task force" of senior experts on renewables could contribute to this.

  This suggestion builds on an idea in the White Paper that a working group involving Commission and Member States be established to monitor measures undertaken and evaluate the impact of policy decisions with regard to the use of renewable energy sources. This group has met only once in 1998.

  The Commission have not yet responded on the idea of a task force, but I understand they plan to hold a further meeting of their working group early in 1999.

  If the idea of a Task Force on renewables is taken forward, it will be for the Commission to decide how this is to be constituted. Most Commission chaired committees have 2 representatives per Member State.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a copy of the legal advice which he has received in respect of any potential conflicts of interest arising from his roles as
  65
  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Minister with responsibility for the New Millennium Experience Company. [61987]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: No. Legal advice of this nature attracts legal professional privilege, and as such is exempt from disclosure under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he sought the advice of his Permanent Secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry about potential conflicts of interest arising from his position as Secretary of State and as the sponsoring Minister of the New Millennium Experience Company; and what advice he received. [61996]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: Under normal Departmental procedures I received guidance on handling conflicts of interest in relation to decisions on competition cases on my appointment as Secretary of State. I received further advice in respect of competition issues involving sponsors of the Millennium Dome shortly afterwards. Following discussions with the Permanent Secretary and other officials, I announced on 6 August that I was satisfied that in relation to the British Airways/American Airlines alliance I could exercise my responsibilities properly. I also announced that I would consider any further competition cases involving companies associated with the Dome with similar care and would stand aside if I could not act, and be seen to act, fairly and impartially.

  Advanced Manufacturing Centre, Chelmsford
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) Government and (b) EU funding will be made available to replace the KONVER funding of the Advanced Manufacturing Centre in Chelmsford. [61888]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: I understand that the Advanced Manufacturing Centre has expressed confidence that they will be financially viable from the year 2000.

  With regard to future EU support, the Commission has proposed that from 2000 onwards EU training support will be available through the new Objective 3 for areas such as Essex. In addition, although the KONVER II Programme finishes at the end of 1999, European Social Fund moneys can be spent until the end of June 2000 while moneys from the European Regional Development Fund can be spent until the end of 2001, provided they are committed by the end of 1999.

  Electronic Commerce
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library copies of the submissions received in response to the Government's consultation on electronic commerce. [61995]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: A Summary of Responses was placed in the Library when I made a statement on Secure Electronic Commerce on 27 April 1998, Official Report, columns 26–27.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many informal meetings at which Government business was discussed he has had with(a) the Ford Motor Company, (b) Thames Water, (c) GEC, (d) British Telecom, (e) Tesco, (f) BSkyB and (g) Manpower since becoming Secretary of State. [61985]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: I had a meeting with BT on 30 October, and met representatives from BT and BSkyB when they attended a meeting of the Information Age Partnerships on 19 November along with representatives of around 30 other companies involved in the Partnership. I have had no meetings with any of the other companies since becoming Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Combined Heat and Power Station, Castleford
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is yet in a position to make his decision on Yorkshire CoGen Ltd's application to construct a combined heat and power generating station at Castleford in West Yorkshire. [62932]

  Mr. Battle
  On Thursday 3 December 1998 I granted consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to Yorkshire CoGen Ltd's application for my consent to construct a 56 MW combined heat and power generating station at the Hickson and Welch chemical works at Castleford.

  I have placed a copy of the decision letter in the Library of the House.

  Afro-Caribbean Businesses
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what programmes TECs administer to encourage Afro-Caribbeans to go into business. [61169]

  Mrs. Roche
  Business Link partnerships, in which TECs are a key partner, provide a range of high quality services to meet the needs of all established and potential businesses in their area.

  The Department is working with the Business Link Network to ensure that ethnic minority businesses, including Afro-Caribbean entrepreneurs, are aware of the support available through BL partnerships and that those services are accessible and relevant.

  Export Control Organisation
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the staff changes by grade in the Export Control Organisation since 3 May. [61930]

  Mrs. Roche
  The table shows the staff by grade in the Export Control Organisation on 3 May 1998 and on 30 November 1998.

  Grade

  3 May 1998

  30 November 1998

  Senior Civil Service

  1

  1

  Range 11

  2

  2

  Range 10

  2

  2

  Range 9

  14

  14

  Range 8

  23

  22

  Range 7

  5

  5

  Range 6

  14

  17

  67

  Grade

  3 May 1998

  30 November 1998

  Range 5

  4

  4

  Range 4

  28

  26

  Range 3

  7

  8

  Range 2

  32

  37

  Range 2/Data Processor

  3

  4

  Range 1

  1

  1

  Total

  136

  143

  Notes:

  (i) Vacancies occur at the margins from time to time due to retirements, transfers etc. Such vacancies are filled as soon as practicable.

  (ii) My previous answer to the hon. Member on 6 July 1998, Official Report, columns 375–76, gave the comparison between the current DTI structure and the former, more commonly known, Civil Service grades

  Tobacco
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made to tobacco companies about marketing practices in developing countries; and if he will make a statement. [61481]

  Mr. Wilson
  In the absence of any relevant international agreement, it is for individual Governments, whether in developing or developed countries, to establish their own policies on how the marketing of tobacco products in their own domestic markets should be regulated. UK tobacco companies operating in those countries must comply with these policies but I would hope that such companies would apply the highest standards of marketing practices wherever they operate.

  Aerospace Research
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much his Department provided for research and development on civil aerospace in each of the last five years; and if he will make it his policy to increase the amount provided. [62373]

  Mr. Battle
  The information on CARAD and launch investment refers to support for civil aeronautics and excludes support to the space industry.

  Funding provided for civil aeronautics through the Civil Aircraft Research and Technology Demonstration (CARAD) Programme during each of the five years FY1993–94 to FY 1997–98 was:

  £k

  1993–94

  23,040

  1994–95

  23,358

  1995–96

  24,538

  1996–97

  23,844

  1997–98

  24,635

  As far as CARAD is concerned, no decisions have yet been made about detailed DTI budget allocations in future years.
  68
  Support is provided by the Government for development of civil aerospace projects in the form of a repayable risk-sharing investment known as launch investment. For the period requested this funding was:

  £ million

  1993–94

  0.0

  1994–95

  0.0

  1995–96

  16.4

  1996–97

  1.3

  1997–98

  50.0

  Applications for launch investment are considered on their merits and against other competing demands on public expenditure.

  The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) also invests in aerospace related research. Over the last five years £12.5 million has been targeted through the industrially led Innovative Manufacture Initiative (IMI) Aerospace Programme.

  £ million

  1993–94

  0.0

  1994–95

  0.0

  1995–96

  5.8

  1996–97

  2.7

  1997–98

  3.5

  Note:

  Forecast outturn for IMI in 1998–99 is £2.5 million and another £2.5 million has been committed to this programme for 1999–2000.

  More broadly, EPSRC has funded £87 million (including funding for inter-disciplinary research centres and an engineering design centre) over the last five years in research related to manufacture of aircraft, spacecraft and their components. In addition, underpinning research amounting to £7.3 million currently exists for aerodynamics.

  Further opportunities for support of civil aerospace research and development exist in the recently launched managed programmes on Systems Integration, Materials Processing and Integrated Design and Manufacture with annual budgets of £4.5 million, £6 million and £1.5 million respectively.

  Finally, EPSRC expects to consider funding proposals arising under Defence and Aerospace Research Partnerships (DARPs), a recent initiative launched by the Defence, Aerospace and Systems Panel.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what emergency measures are in place to provide back-up for the utilities in case of computer failures caused by the millennium bug. [62202]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: The utilities already have contingency plans in place to deal with an emergency. They are developing additional measures to respond to any failure caused by computer date changes in the Year 2000. The Department and the Government as a whole have a number of measures to respond to an emergency.
  69
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he is taking to ensure that the utilities achieve millennium bug compliance by the year 2000. [62201]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Department is working with all the key players to ensure that the public has confidence that there will be no disruption to key infrastructure services for which it has responsibility, as a result of the Millennium Bug.

  DTI is itself in direct contact with the principal companies in these sectors, their regulators, Action 2000, Cabinet Office and others. It also participates in the National Infrastructure Forum.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) on 18 November 1998, Official Report, columns 651–53, which provide further details on the position in the oil and gas, telecoms and electricity sectors.

  Nuclear Safeguards
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what payments(a) BNFL and (b) UKAEA make to the Government to meet the costs of applying safeguards to the companies' nuclear facilities and operations; and what was the total cost of the application of nuclear safeguards in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available. [62493]

  Mrs. Roche
  Nuclear safeguards in the United Kingdom are applied by Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The activities of the two organisations are funded through the contributions of their member states. Costs to UK nuclear operators do arise however from the requirements placed upon them to maintain nuclear materials accountancy systems and receive safeguards inspections. Neither Euratom nor the IAEA break down the costs of applying safeguards in individual countries. Figures which are available to us show that, in 1996, some 30 per cent. of Euratom and 4 per cent. of IAEA days of safeguards inspection effort were devoted to the UK. However, safeguards inspection days provide only a partial indication of total safeguards costs.

  Radioactive Waste (Germany)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the specifications of the wastes to be returned to Germany under the agreement between the German and United Kingdom Governments on the treatment of irradiated German origin spent nuclear fuel by BNFL, dated 21 March 1991, Cm 1639 were agreed to be satisfactory; and if he will place in the Library copies of subsequent exchanges of notes on the repatriation arrangements for radioactive wastes arising from reprocessed German fuel. [62492]

  Mr. Battle
  Since 1976, all BNFL's contracts for the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel for overseas customers have been underpinned by inter-governmental exchanges of letters covering such issues as the return of wastes and the assurances over the application of international safeguards. The arrangements for the return of the wastes are a commercial matter between BNFL and its overseas customers, subject to meeting the appropriate regulatory requirements.

  TACIS
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received regarding the late payment of EU TACIS fund invoices submitted by British companies. [62069]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has not received any representations regarding the late payment of EU Tacis fund invoices submitted by British companies. This subject was discussed during a meeting between my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and representatives from the British Consultants Bureau on 1 October. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), also raised the issue with the Commission in Brussels on 16 November, following up earlier action by senior officials at the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to issue guarantees under the Loan Guarantee Scheme in euros for loans made in euros; and if he will make a statement. [62253]

  Mrs. Roche
  At present the Department has no plans to issue guarantees under the Loan Guarantee Scheme in euro for loans made in euro.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to make an announcement on the future of regional selective assistance. [62393]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government's approach to regional policy, including Regional Selective Assistance (RSA), will be set out in the forthcoming Competitiveness White Paper.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Minister flew in February from Liverpool to London; how that Minister travelled to Liverpool; what was the purpose of the visit; if he will list the engagements which the Minister undertook; who accompanied the Minister; and what was the cost of the flight to his Department. [60905]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 27 November 1998]: My hon. Friend the Minister of State flew from Liverpool to London in February this year.

  The Minister travelled to Halewood, Liverpool from his home town of Wigan by Government Car Service. The purpose of the visit was to attend the announcement of the Jaguar X400 to Halewood through provision of £43 million of aid support, both safeguarding and bringing new jobs to Halewood.

  The Minister's engagements were to meet Halewood's Production Director, trade union representatives and the media.

  The Minister was accompanied by his Assistant Private Secretary.
  71
  A private aircraft was chartered due to the Minister's necessity to return to London for an urgent meeting. Normal scheduled flights from Manchester airport, and travel to the airport, would not have given enough time for the Minister to return to London to attend this meeting. The cost of the flight to the department was £1,368.87.

  Scheduled flights were planned to be used had it not been for the urgency of the Minister's return.

  Growth Promoters
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the annual United Kingdom production of animal growth promoters in each of the past 10 years; and what percentage was exported. [61817]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have been asked to reply.

  Annual data on the United Kingdom production and export of growth promoters are not currently compiled. Figures from the trade organisation, the National Office of Animal Health Limited, indicate that throughout the EU growth promoters account for about 15 per cent. of all (human and veterinary) antimicrobials. However, the EU Commission has recently asked member states to collect detailed information on the production and export of antimicrobial growth promoters (and coccidiostats) on an annual basis. It is intended that collection of this information will start on 1 July 1999.

HEALTH

  Lifecare NHS Trust
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports he has received about financial irregularities at Lifecare NHS Trust; and if he will make a statement. [62780]

  Mr. Milburn
  The police are investigating a number of financial irregularities at Lifecare National Health Service Trust. The chairman has resigned and the chief executive and finance director have taken special leave during the continuing police investigation.

  South Thames Regional Office of the National Health Service Executive has asked the chairman of Surrey Oaklands NHS Trust to look urgently into the corporate governance and management arrangements within Lifecare NHS Trust.

  Grandparents (Access Rights)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the rights of grandparents to have access to grandchildren below 18 years of age who are in foster care. [62861]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have no plans to review the rights of grandparents to have access to grandchildren below 18 years of age who are in foster care. Current Children Act 1989 regulations and guidance already provide an adequate framework for contact between grandparents and their grandchildren in foster care.

  Barnet Health Authority
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what extra funds have been, or are planned to be, made available to Barnet Health Authority since 1 May 1997; for what purposes those funds have been earmarked; and if he will make a statement. [62593]

  Mr. Milburn
  My hon. Friend tabled a similar question on 17 November. I have today replied by letter to both questions.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on reducing hospital waiting lists by Barnet Health Authority; and if he will make a statement. [62594]

  Mr. Milburn
  Barnet Health Authority is on course to meet its waiting list target of 5,846 by March 1999. The health authority's waiting list fell by 371, or 5.1 per cent., during October 1998, the largest reduction in the North Thames region. At the end of the month the waiting list stood at 6,865, an improvement on the level expected at this stage in the year. The health authority is continuing to work closely with local trusts to ensure that this encouraging progress is maintained.

  Staffordshire Ambulance Service
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will inquire into the considerations which have led hospitals in the West Midlands to be unable to take patients carried by the Staffordshire Ambulance Service; and if he will make a statement. [62539]

  Mr. Milburn
  Comprehensive arrangements exist for managing escalations in demand for accident and emergency services in Birmingham and Solihull, and the Black Country is working towards such an arrangement. Acute hospitals work together to ensure that sufficient accident and emergency capacity is available to meet the needs of the community at all times.

  Within these arrangements, a "respite" can be called by an individual hospital in the Black Country with the agreement of its trust chief executive, normally for a maximum of three hours. For Birmingham and Solihull, an additional measure is that the requests for respite have to be sanctioned by the emergency capacity manager. As soon as such a situation is declared, it is communicated to other nearby hospitals so they can absorb the excess demand.

  Several respite periods were called in hospitals across part of the West Midlands during a period of unusual demand from 29 November to 1 December. At no time did these break existing arrangements and patients were appropriately diverted to other hospitals.

  NHS Staff (Millennium Premium Payment)
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has given to NHS trusts regarding premium payments to NHS staff working on New Year's Eve 1999 and New Year's Day 2000. [62635]
  73
  Mr. Milburn
  Health Service Circular "Year 2000 Problem—Human Resource Issues (HSC 1998/219)" was issued to all National Health Service employers on 20 November 1998. Copies are available in the Library.

  Drugs
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the Crown review on the prescribing, supply and administration of drugs to be published. [63055]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have received the final report and expect to be in a position to announce plans for its publication shortly.

  Fundholding
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contingency plans he has made in the event that no Act to replace fundholding by primary care groups has received Royal Assent by 31 March 1999. [62642]

  Mr. Milburn
  No new primary legislation is needed in order to implement our plans to establish Primary Care Groups as Committees of Health Authorities from 1 April 1999.

  General Practitioners (Patient Registration)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population is not registered with a GP. [60994]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information is held centrally on the number of patients registered with a general practitioner. The total number of patients on the lists of Unrestricted Principals in England at 1 October 1997 was 50,904,322.

  Source:

  DOH GMP Census 1 October 1997.

  Dental Services (Homeless People)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what special provision has been made for homeless people to have access to dental services. [61004]

  Mr. Milburn
  One of the functions of the Community Dental Service is to provide dental treatment for people with special needs, including homeless people. In addition, health authorities may make arrangements with a number of general dental practitioners to provide emergency dental services on a sessional basis for unregistered patients.

  Clerical and Administrative Staff
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many clerical and administrative staff were employed by the National Health Service on(a) 30 September 1985, (b) 30 September 1990, (c) 30 September 1995 and (d) 30 September 1996. [60944]
  74
  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]:

  National Health Service Hospital and Community Health Services: Clerical and administration staff in the NHS, in England, as at 30 September for each year.

  Year

  Whole time equivalent

  1985

  110,940

  1990

  120,040

  1995

  133,120

  1996

  132,290

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  Due to a change in classification in 1995 for collecting the data, from payscale to occupation code, 1995 and 1996 figures are non-comparable with earlier years.

  Source:

  Department of Health Annual Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Patient Referrals
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements the Government have put in place to ensure that patients referred to hospital trusts without a contract from their health authority or primary care group are accepted as referrals by those trusts. [61800]

  Mr. Milburn
  From 1 April 1999, all patients will be treated under service agreements. Under new arrangements for out of area treatments, any referrals that cannot be planned for in a service agreement between the health authority and the primary care group and the National Health Service trust to whom the referral is made will be covered by a service agreement with the HA or PCG that is the main commissioner for the NHS trust concerned. HA/PCG cash limits will be adjusted to allow for this.

  Out of area treatments will not require prior approval. Patients will continue to be treated according to clinical priority and all patients will be covered by the standards for quality and effectiveness specified in the main commissioner's service agreement. The freedom of doctors to refer is unchanged by this new system.

  Private Prescriptions
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS general practitioners have been found to be in breach of paragraph 43 of their terms of service for issuing a private prescription to patients on their list for each of the last 10 years. [61798]

  Mr. Milburn
  We do not have reliable information about decisions taken before 1 April 1995 (when the Health Services Appeal Authority came into existence), but since that date there have been no recorded instances of a general practitioner being found in breach of Paragraph 43 of the terms of service.

  Cardiac Diseases
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients waiting for cardiac surgery in the last five years have died before the procedure was carried out. [61941]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not available centrally.
  75
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many (i) emergency and (ii) elective cardiac operations were carried out by the NHS in England in each of the last five years. [61943]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information for the last five years is shown in the table. 1997–98 is the latest year for which figures are available.

  Cardiac operations Ordinary admissions and daycases combined: Completed counts of all episodes by method of admission for cardiac operations: NHS trusts hospitals in England from 1993–94 to 1997–98

  Year

  Cardiac operations

  Total

  Emergency

  Elective

  1993–94

  23,065

  89,675

  112,740

  1994–95

  26,240

  100,708

  126,948

  1995–96

  25,776

  102,376

  128,152

  1996–971

  28,714

  105,515

  134,229

  1997–981

  30,370

  111,988

  142,358

  1 Figures for 1996–97 and 1997–98 are provisional, no adjustments have yet been made for shortfalls in data, (i.e. the data is ungrossed) OPCS 4 codes used are KOO-K71.9.

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the amounts spent by the NHS in each of the last five years on the prevention of cardiac diseases. [61944]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is not possible to identify total spend on the prevention of cardiac diseases throughout the National Health Service. A considerable amount of preventative work is undertaken by general practitioners, primary care teams, health authorities and trusts, but the amounts spent cannot readily be split between prevention and treatment.

  In addition, many health promotion activities on, for example, smoking cessation, diet and physical activity have a range of health benefits and it is difficult to apportion the cost of these between different diseases.

  Cardiac Surgery
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients(a) are waiting for cardiac surgery, (b) have been waiting more than six months for cardiac surgery and (c) have been waiting more than 12 months for cardiac surgery in each health authority. [61946]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on the number of residents of each English Health Authority waiting for hospital admission by speciality, including cardiothoracic surgery and cardiology, is published quarterly in Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England (Resident Based). Copies are available in the Library. The latest available data for cardiothoracic surgery are shown in the table.

  Numbers waiting for cardiothoracic surgery at end-September 1998

  Health Authoity

  Total

  Less than 6 months

  Less than 12 months

  Wigan and Bolton Health Authority

  287

  134

  49

  West Pennine Health Authority

  202

  110

  36

  76

  Numbers waiting for cardiothoracic surgery at end-September 1998

  Health Authority

  Total

  Less than 6 months

  Less than 12 months

  Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority

  195

  86

  28

  Manchester Health Authority

  193

  89

  24

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority

  212

  115

  23

  North West Lancashire Health Authority

  173

  51

  21

  South and West Devon Health Authority

  307

  112

  20

  Bury and Rochdale Health Authority

  152

  79

  20

  South Cheshire Health Authority

  143

  57

  15

  Shropshire Health Authority

  153

  81

  14

  Brent and Harrow Health Authority

  169

  54

  14

  Wolverhampton Health Authority

  92

  52

  12

  Suffolk Health Authority

  256

  115

  11

  East London and City Health Authority

  89

  84

  11

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest Health Authority

  187

  81

  11

  Morecambe Bay Health Authority

  106

  45

  11

  Liverpool Health Authority

  160

  43

  11

  North Staffordshire Health Authority

  176

  69

  10

  West Surrey Health Authority

  186

  65

  10

  Wiltshire Health Authority

  128

  57

  10

  Stockport Health Authority

  93

  50

  10

  West Kent Health Authority

  294

  123

  9

  North Essex Health Authority

  239

  114

  9

  Bedfordshire Health Authority

  102

  31

  9

  South Lancashire Health Authority

  119

  29

  9

  Sheffield Health Authority

  207

  77

  8

  Salford and Trafford Health Authority

  119

  64

  8

  East Lancashire Health Authority

  134

  36

  8

  North Cheshire Health Authority

  102

  35

  8

  West Hertfordshire Health Authority

  114

  33

  8

  St. Helens and Knowsley Health Authority

  100

  29

  8

  Bradford Health Authority

  171

  71

  7

  South Staffordshire Health Authority

  149

  70

  7

  Berkshire Health Authority

  188

  50

  7

  Barking and Havering Health Authority

  133

  46

  7

  East and North Hertfordshire Health Authority

  130

  45

  7

  Hillingdon Health Authority

  71

  26

  7

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Health Authority

  184

  72

  6

  Doncaster Health Authority

  157

  62

  6

  Gloucestershire Health Authority

  138

  57

  6

  Enfield and Haringey Health Authority

  149

  51

  6

  Barnet Health Authority

  70

  25

  6

  Wakefield Health Authority

  93

  29

  5

  Wirral Health Authority

  69

  21

  5

  Bexley and Greenwich Health Authority

  130

  75

  4

  Calderdale and Kirklees Health Authority

  210

  73

  4

  South Essex Health Authority

  165

  68

  4

  77

  Numbers waiting for cardiothoracic surgery at end-September 1998

  Health Authority

  Total

  Less than 6 months

  Less than 12 months

  North Derbyshire Health Authority

  108

  41

  4

  Sefton Health Authority

  77

  27

  4

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow Health Authority

  87

  25

  4

  Leeds Health Authority

  232

  81

  3

  East Kent Health Authority

  174

  66

  3

  Rotherham Health Authority

  107

  38

  3

  North and Mid Hampshire Health Authority

  102

  30

  3

  Croydon Health Authority

  109

  29

  3

  Camden and Islington Health Authority

  80

  25

  3

  North Nottinghamshire Health Authority

  109

  18

  3

  Isle of Wight Health Authority

  83

  7

  3

  Worcestershire Health Authority

  164

  87

  2

  South Humber Health Authority

  134

  65

  2

  East Riding Health Authority

  184

  62

  2

  Lincolnshire Health Authority

  192

  54

  2

  Sandwell Health Authority

  85

  42

  2

  Barnsley Health Authority

  88

  41

  2

  Nottingham Health Authority

  193

  40

  2

  Northamptonshire Health Authority

  108

  39

  2

  Warwickshire Health Authority

  110

  34

  2

  Oxfordshire Health Authority

  90

  33

  2

  West Sussex Health Authority

  150

  32

  2

  Bromley Health Authority

  50

  15

  2

  Birmingham Health Authority

  329

  157

  1

  North Yorkshire Health Authority

  227

  80

  1

  East Norfolk Health Authority

  225

  78

  1

  Dudley Health Authority

  127

  75

  1

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Health Authority

  130

  45

  1

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority

  145

  41

  1

  North West Anglia Health Authority

  145

  41

  1

  Buckinghamshire Health Authority

  86

  31

  1

  East Surrey Health Authority

  88

  29

  1

  South Derbyshire Health Authority

  146

  25

  1

  East Sussex Brighton and Hove Health Authority

  131

  18

  1

  Kingston and Richmond Health Authority

  43

  8

  1

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority

  35

  5

  1

  Tees Health Authority

  265

  94

  0

  Durham Health Authority

  182

  60

  0

  Gateshead and South Tyneside Health Authority

  132

  44

  0

  Newcastle and North Tyneside Health Authority

  150

  43

  0

  Leicestershire Health Authority

  195

  42

  0

  Solihull Health Authority

  76

  38

  0

  Sunderland Health Authority

  77

  34

  0

  North Cumbria Health Authority

  79

  32

  0

  Walsall Health Authority

  80

  31

  0

  Somerset Health Authority

  129

  27

  0

  Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Authority

  105

  26

  0

  Avon Health Authority

  150

  24

  0

  78

  Numbers waiting for cardioythoracic surgery at en-September 1998

  Health Authoirity

  Total

  Less than 6 months

  Less than 12 months

  Northumberland Health Authority

  86

  22

  0

  Herefordshire Health Authority

  44

  21

  0

  Coventry Health Authority

  55

  11

  0

  Dorset Health Authority

  123

  0

  0

  North and East Devon Health Authority

  12

  0

  0

  England Total

  14,109

  5,154

  622

  Research Papers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many series of research papers his Department produces; and what are the names of each of these series of research papers. [62051]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department takes a number of steps to ensure that the research it supports is widely disseminated:The National Health Service research and development health technology assessment programme produces a series of monographs reporting on research findings from projects that it has commissioned. This series called "Health Technology Assessment", is indexed in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the University of York produce a series of systematic reviews of research. Both of these are funded by the Department.
  Other Departmental/NHS research and development programmes produce special publications when the need arises. These cover individual projects or more general themes.
  The Department actively encourages all of the researchers it funds to publish their findings in peer reviewed journals.
  The Department places particular emphasis on reviews of research and on producing accessible databases of research outputs. The Department funds the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination to produce the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), which is available on the Internet. The Department also funds the UK Cochrane Centre (which is a major contributor to the international Cochrane Collaboration). The "Cochrane Library", which is available on CD Rom, contains the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
  The White Paper "The New NHS" undertook to make research findings from the NHS research and development programme available in a user-friendly format. We are now considering how this can be done and how all of the above can be brought together via the new national electronic library for health.

  Electric Wheelchairs
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to increase the provision of electric wheelchairs; and if he will make a statement. [62297]

  Mr. Hutton
  Electrically powered chairs for indoor use have always been among the range of wheelchairs available through the National Health Service. In 1996, additional funding of £27 million was announced for the provision of electrically powered indoor/outdoor
  79
  wheelchairs. This funding was made available over a four-year period starting in 1996–97. From 1999–2000, the sum of £6 million for the electronically powered indoor/outdoor scheme will become recurrent, allowing maintenance of the increased number of disabled people being supplied with powered wheelchairs.

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his proposals for increasing nurses' pay. [62491]

  Mr. Milburn
  Nurses' pay is recommended by the independent review body for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and the professions allied to medicine. We want to see a fair pay rise for nurses, which is affordable and which will support the modernisation of the National Health Service. We have asked the review body in particular to consider improvements to the starting pay of qualified nurses within an affordable overall pay uplift recommendation for all nurses. The recommendations of the review body will be fully considered when received in the new year.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many persons diagnosed as having MS have their continuing health care managed by a neurologist in association with their general practitioner; and if he will make a statement. [62533]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is not available in the form requested. Health care for people with Multiple Sclerosis is the responsibility of relevant health care professionals. Patterns of care vary according to local arrangements for diagnosis, treatment and care and a wide range of National Health Service services are available to people with disabilities and long-term health care needs.

  Diana Nurses
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for funding the Diana nurses beyond the initial three year period; and if he will make a statement. [62245]

  Mr. Hutton
  Following evaluation of the first pioneering teams, it is intended that Diana Community Children's Nursing teams will be extended to provide care to people across the United Kingdom. These teams will become a permanent memorial to Diana, Princess of Wales. The experience of the early pioneering teams will be used to determine the level of funding in future years.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 22 October regarding a constituent (Ref. POH(2)5608/15.). [62788]

  Mr. Milburn
  I regret the delay and will be replying to my hon. Friend shortly.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Open Access Programme
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what is the objective of the Employment Service's computer terminal Open Access programme; [62326]

  (2) for how long the pilot of the Employment Service Open Access programme has been running; and what plans he has to make the programme available nationally. [62327]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Chris Pond, dated December 1998:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your questions regarding the Employment Service's computer terminal Open Access Programme, how long the pilot has been running and what plans he has made to make it available nationally. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The key objective of the Open Access pilot programme, which has been running in ten Jobcentres in our Newcastle, Manchester South and Wiltshire districts since March, is to trial the use by jobseekers of self-service technology to search out and apply for jobs. The kiosks replace the system of displaying printed vacancy cards, which generally contain limited information, on boards in Jobcentres. Using the kiosks jobseekers can obtain detailed information about a job, print it out, and contact an employer directly from the kiosk telephone.
  We are currently evaluating the results to date of these pilots in order to assess their effectiveness. At the same time, together with our strategic IT partner, EDS, we are looking at how we can best make use of new technology more widely, including kiosks, public use PCs and the Internet, to ensure that our further development of open access technology can make the most effective use of all of these information media. We hope to reach interim conclusions early next year.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans he has to prepare the Employment Service for the introduction of the National Minimum Wage in April 1999; [62325]

  (2) what measures he proposes to ensure that the Employment Service does not advertise jobs at a wage below the legal minimum; [62323]

  (3) what measures the Employment Service is taking to promote the enforcement of the National Minimum Wage. [62324]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  81
  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Chris Pond, dated December 1998:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions concerning the Employment Service's preparations for the introduction, promotion and enforcement of the national minimum wage. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Prior to the coming into force of the national minimum wage legislation, we intend to issue guidance to Jobcentres making clear that, from April 1999, they should not accept from employers vacancies which do not comply with the requirements of the legislation and its associated regulations. From early next year staff in Jobcentres will be asked to alert employers using the Jobcentre, who may currently offer rates below those established by the national minimum wage legislation, to the steps they will need to take to ensure that they comply with the legislation. The Employment Service will also display posters and literature in Jobcentres in support of the publicity campaign by the DTI to raise awareness of the national minimum wage.
  Once the legislation is in force any complaints which Jobcentres receive concerning employers who may not be meeting the requirements of the legislation will be forwarded to the appropriate enforcement agency to investigate.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Age Discrimination
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultation he has had with the Industrial Tribunal Service since May 1997 regarding age discrimination; and when he expects to consult it regarding the draft code on age diversity in employment. [62316]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  My Officials wrote to the Presidents of the Employment Tribunals in October of this year asking for initial reactions to a draft non-statutory Code of Practice on tackling age diversity and asking whether it raised issues for the Tribunals. The Presidents were subsequently sent copies of the published consultation document soon after its launch.

  Employment Tribunals are independent bodies who are practised in determining the reasonableness of employment practices in particular cases. Their views, informed by their expertise in this area, will, therefore, provide contribution to the consultation exercise.

  Bugbusters
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how much of the budget for the Bugbusters programme has been spent to date; and of that amount how much has been spent on(a) training, (b) administration and (c) publicity; [61174]

  (2) how many training courses have been accredited on the Millennium Bugbusters programme; and how many people have completed such courses to date. [61175]

  Mr. Mudie
  As at 27 November 1998, the number of people who had started Bug Buster Training was 1,364, of the number 947 had completed their training. The total number of Millennium Bug Accredited Training Providers is 155 and they have available 1,270 Accredited Training Courses.
  82
  Expenditure brought to account on the Bug Buster Programme in the year to date is £551,000; of this amount £350,000 has been spent on developing training courses and on administration, £135,000 on advertising and publicity costs and £66,000 on training.

  All figures relate to England.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what resources his Department has committed to training small and medium enterprises to deal with year 2000 compliance in the current financial year; and what resources he plans to commit in 1999–2000. [60868]

  Mr. Mudie
  £26 million has been committed in the current financial year to deal with year 2000 compliance. There are no plans at present to commit any resources in 1999–2000.

  National Schools Standards Task Force
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many parent representatives there are on the National Schools Standards Task Force. [61429]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Although there is no designated representative of parents, Task Force members are in regular contact with parents and parents' groups. One of the Task Force's subgroups is actively engaged in involving parents and the community in raising standards.

  New Deal Gateway
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have(a) entered the New Deal Gateway and (b) taken up each New Deal option in the Portsmouth City Council area since the New Deal's inception. [62384]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The latest Government Statistical Service figures for clients in the Portsmouth Unit of Delivery show that to the end of September, 143 people had secured unsubsidised jobs.

  1,094 young people had entered the Gateway and 217 had joined one of the four options. This breaks down to: 43 on the Employment option; 19 on the Voluntary Sector option; 8 on Environment Task Force; and 147 on the Full-Time Education and Training option.

  I am encouraged by the positive start made in the Portsmouth Unit of Delivery, which reflects the encouraging start to the programme overall.

  Schools Funding Formula
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the balance of funding between primary and secondary pupils enshrined in their LMS formula in each local education authority in England and Wales. [62350]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table gives, for each local education authority in England, for 1998–99, the average of the budget share per pupil separately for
  83
  primary and secondary schools. Responsibility for schools in Wales rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  LEA-maintained schools in England—1989–99 average funding per pupil

  £

  Local education authority

  Primary

  Secondary

  City of London

  3,032

  0

  Camden

  2,111

  2,821

  Greenwich

  1,949

  2,724

  Hackney

  2,160

  2,860

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,153

  2,880

  Islington

  2,089

  2,845

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,443

  3,255

  Lambeth

  2,280

  2,985

  Lewisham

  2,072

  2,876

  Southwark

  2,037

  2,654

  Tower Hamlets

  2,140

  2,727

  Wandsworth

  1,986

  2,562

  Westminster

  2,112

  2,792

  Barking/Dagenham

  1,836

  2,410

  Barnet

  1,815

  2,579

  Bexley

  1,488

  2,291

  Brent

  1,999

  2,758

  Bromley

  1,686

  2,263

  Croydon

  1,799

  2,520

  Ealing

  1,848

  2,437

  Enfield

  1,739

  2,421

  Haringey

  1,852

  2,562

  Harrow

  1,838

  2,631

  Havering

  1,735

  2,610

  Hillingdon

  1,712

  2,630

  Hounslow

  1,904

  2,393

  Kingston

  1,708

  2,302

  Merton

  1,817

  2,340

  Newham

  1,683

  2,519

  Redbridge

  1,618

  2,454

  Richmond

  1,816

  2,353

  Sutton

  1,742

  2,452

  Waltham Forest

  1,867

  2,101

  Birmingham

  1,789

  2,390

  Coventry

  1,647

  2,316

  Dudley

  1,633

  2,234

  Sandwell

  1,548

  2,222

  Solihull

  1,599

  2,163

  Walsall

  1,545

  2,202

  Wolverhampton

  1,453

  2,278

  Knowsley

  1,652

  2,304

  Liverpool

  1,681

  2,226

  St. Helens

  1,524

  2,257

  Sefton

  1,541

  2,328

  Wirral

  1,527

  2,242

  Bolton

  1,521

  2,149

  Bury

  1,424

  2,084

  Manchester

  1,554

  2,257

  Oldham

  1,553

  2,249

  Rochdale

  1,464

  2,160

  Salford

  1,553

  2,709

  Stockport

  1,502

  2,114

  Tameside

  1,458

  2,014

  Trafford

  1,337

  2,187

  Wigan

  1,510

  2,273

  Barnsley

  1,290

  2,008

  Doncaster

  1,560

  2,282

  Rotherham

  1,501

  2,081

  Sheffield

  1,535

  2,080

  Bradford

  1,588

  1,805

  Calderdale

  1,505

  2,227

  Kirklees

  1,475

  2,179

  Leeds

  1,693

  2,272

  Wakefield

  1,431

  1,934

  Gateshead

  1,524

  2,141

  Newcastle

  1,529

  2,118

  84

  LEA-maintained shools in England—1989–99 average funding per pupil

  £

  Local education authority

  Primary

  Secondary

  North Tyneside

  1,534

  2,095

  South Tyneside

  1,459

  1,415

  Sunderland

  1,612

  2,197

  Isles of Scilly

  3,000

  5,000

  Bath and NE Somerset

  1,615

  2,280

  Bristol

  1,674

  2,462

  North Somerset

  1,575

  2,249

  South Gloucestershire

  1,555

  2,181

  Hartlepool

  1,447

  2,132

  Middlesbrough

  1,455

  2,293

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1,546

  2,246

  Stockton on Tees

  1,516

  2,170

  Hull

  1,577

  2,089

  East Riding

  1,482

  2,070

  North East Lincolnshire

  1,583

  2,161

  North Lincolnshire

  1,518

  2,078

  North Yorkshire

  1,546

  2,297

  York

  1,524

  2,241

  Bedfordshire

  1,488

  2,015

  Luton

  1,523

  2,298

  Buckinghamshire

  1,351

  2,024

  Milton Keynes

  1,469

  2,283

  Derbyshire

  1,330

  2,121

  Derby City

  1,320

  2,200

  Dorset

  1,505

  2,028

  Poole

  1,431

  2,044

  Bournemouth

  1,462

  2,124

  Durham

  1,483

  2,141

  Darlington

  1,491

  2,103

  East Sussex

  1,506

  2,281

  Brighton and Hove

  1,522

  2,315

  Hampshire

  1,642

  2,214

  Portsmouth

  1,707

  2,272

  Southampton

  1,753

  2,367

  Leicestershire

  1,544

  2,139

  Leicester City

  1,531

  2,158

  Rutland

  1,691

  0

  Staffordshire

  1,434

  1,947

  Stoke-on-Trent

  1,477

  2,075

  Wiltshire

  1,437

  2,042

  Swindon

  1,452

  2,127

  Bracknell Forest

  1,580

  2,261

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  1,579

  2,194

  West Berkshire

  1,598

  2,211

  Reading

  1,548

  2,291

  Slough

  1,590

  2,399

  Wokingham

  1,520

  2,212

  Cambridgeshire

  1,488

  2,050

  Peterborough

  1,419

  2,148

  Cheshire

  1,542

  2,223

  Halton

  1,587

  2,134

  Warrington

  1,525

  2,157

  Devon

  1,516

  2,170

  Plymouth

  1,533

  2,236

  Torbay

  1,483

  2,171

  Essex

  1,596

  2,295

  Southend-on-Sea

  1,645

  2,374

  Thurrock

  1,635

  2,432

  Herefordshire

  1,526

  2,097

  Worcestershire

  1,466

  1,940

  Kent

  1,596

  2,269

  Medway Towns

  1,561

  2,238

  Lancashire

  1,476

  2,163

  Blackburn with Darwen

  1,463

  2,148

  Blackpool

  1,458

  2,186

  Nottinghamshire

  1,441

  2,096

  Nottingham City

  1,649

  2,155

  Shropshire

  1,480

  2,262

  Telford and Wrekin

  1,375

  2,415

  Cornwall

  1,517

  2,064

  85

  LEA-maintained schools in England—1989–99 average funding per pupil

  £

  Local education authority

  Primary

  Secondary

  Cumbria

  1,577

  2,261

  Gloucestershire

  1,497

  2,097

  Hertfordshire

  1,634

  2,351

  Isle of Wight

  1,641

  2,316

  Lincolnshire

  1,488

  2,271

  Norfolk

  1,663

  2,349

  Northamptonshire

  1,505

  2,118

  Northumberland

  1,544

  2,229

  Oxfordshire

  1,563

  2,095

  Somerset

  1,542

  2,132

  Suffolk

  1,555

  2,335

  Surrey

  1,647

  2,135

  Warwickshire

  1,432

  2,265

  West Sussex

  1,590

  2,243

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many local education authorities provide information on funding, entrance criteria, institutions' facilities, etc., for disabled students in the form of(a) Braille, (b) audio tape, (c) large print and (d) signing. [62884]

  Mr. Mudie
  At present local education authorities may provide these facilities if they so wish, but there are no figures collected on the number which do so. Implementation of the remaining provisions of Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will mean that from October next year service providers (including local education authorities) will be required to make reasonable adjustments to the way in which they provide their service including the provision of information in alternative formats for disabled users of the service.

  Secondary School Pupils
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many secondary schools in(a) Hertfordshire and (b) England have more than 2,000 pupils. [62485]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Six maintained secondary schools in England had more than 2,000 pupils in January 1998. None of them were located in Hertfordshire Local Education Authority area.

  Exclusions
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of secondary school pupils in each local education authority area were permanently excluded from school in 1997–98; and what proportion of all pupils were educated in pupil referral units or equivalent in that year. [62100]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The latest available information on pupils permanently excluded from secondary schools in each Local Education Authority area in England, for the 1996–97 school year, was published in Press Notice 451/98, which is available in the Library.
  86
  Information on pupils in Pupil Referral Units in each Local Education Authority area in England in January 1998 is shown in the following table.

  January 1998

  Number (headcount)

  Total

  Percentage of pupils in pupil referral units

  England

  7,740

  8,260,582

  0.1

  North East

  426

  452,060

  0.1

  Hartlepool

  29

  17,154

  0.2

  Middlesborough

  0

  27,285

  0.0

  Redcar and Cleveland

  55

  26,822

  0.2

  Stockton-on-Tees

  51

  35,427

  0.1

  Darlington

  41

  17,243

  0.2

  Durham

  10

  83,946

  0.0

  Northumberland

  0

  53,329

  0.0

  Gateshead

  20

  32,681

  0.1

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  75

  46,459

  0.2

  North Tyneside

  79

  33,242

  0.2

  South Tyneside

  47

  26,731

  0.2

  Sunderland

  19

  51,741

  0.0

  North West and Merseyside

  820

  1,211,048

  0.1

  North West

  378

  952,097

  0.0

  Cheshire

  99

  170,267

  0.1

  Cumbria

  160

  82,069

  0.2

  Bolton

  5

  50,208

  0.0

  Bury

  59

  32,416

  0.2

  Manchester

  0

  77,066

  0.0

  Oldham

  0

  43,930

  0.0

  Rochdale

  0

  37,526

  0.0

  Salford

  0

  39,802

  0.0

  Stockport

  9

  49,308

  0.0

  Tameside

  26

  39,022

  0.1

  Trafford

  0

  38,760

  0.0

  Wigan

  0

  51,468

  0.0

  Lancashire

  20

  240,255

  0.0

  Merseyside

  442

  258,951

  0.2

  Knowsley

  24

  30,149

  0.1

  Liverpool

  212

  85,627

  0.2

  St. Helens

  0

  31,238

  0.0

  Sefton

  103

  52,233

  0.2

  Wirral

  103

  59,704

  0.2

  Yorkshire and Humber

  961

  866,079

  0.1

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  0

  50,723

  0.0

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  12

  45,713

  0.0

  North East

  Lincolnshire

  1

  29,311

  0.0

  North Lincolnshire

  3

  25,943

  0.0

  York

  72

  27,354

  0.3

  North Yorkshire

  14

  93,097

  0.0

  Barnsley

  0

  35,686

  0.0

  Doncaster

  96

  53,565

  0.2

  Rotherham

  63

  46,590

  0.1

  Sheffield

  136

  78,519

  0.2

  Bradford

  39

  94,911

  0.0

  Calderdale

  0

  36,354

  0.0

  Kirklees

  19

  67,326

  0.0

  Leeds

  245

  122,667

  0.2

  Wakefield

  261

  58,320

  0.4

  East Midlands

  376

  699,425

  0.1

  Derby

  47

  40,136

  0.1

  Derbyshire

  27

  118,638

  0.0

  Leicester City

  0

  52,097

  0.0

  87

  January 1998

  Number (headcount)

  Total

  Percentage of pupils in pupil referral units

  Rutland

  0

  6,627

  0.0

  Leicestershire

  0

  97,370

  0.0

  Lincolnshire

  9

  101,163

  0.0

  Northamptonshire

  239

  110,780

  0.2

  Nottinghamshire

  54

  172,614

  0.0

  West Midlands

  970

  934,120

  0.1

  Hereford and Worcester

  202

  116,162

  0.2

  Shropshire

  2

  72,478

  0.0

  Stoke

  5

  40,544

  0.0

  Staffordshire

  58

  138,521

  0.0

  Warwickshire

  44

  82,779

  0.1

  Birmingham

  391

  188,765

  0.2

  Coventry

  24

  54,195

  0.0

  Dudley

  34

  51,337

  0.1

  Sandwell

  86

  52,929

  0.2

  Solihull

  52

  40,389

  0.1

  Walsall

  0

  50,835

  0.0

  Wolverhampton

  72

  45,186

  0.2

  Eastern

  453

  882,641

  0.1

  Luton

  11

  32,014

  0.0

  Bedfordshire

  14

  69,113

  0.0

  Cambridgeshire

  52

  112,771

  0.0

  Essex

  23

  253,309

  0.0

  Hertfordshire

  184

  190,911

  0.1

  Norfolk

  45

  117,116

  0.0

  Suffolk

  124

  107,407

  0.1

  London

  2,005

  1,153,699

  0.2

  Inner London

  1,006

  413,708

  0.2

  City of London

  0

  1,847

  0.0

  Camden

  84

  29,673

  0.3

  Hackney

  88

  30,435

  0.3

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  118

  20,657

  0.6

  Haringey

  42

  34,878

  0.1

  Islington

  50

  25,048

  0.2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  71

  21,502

  0.3

  Lambeth

  42

  29,718

  0.1

  Lewisham

  127

  37,309

  0.3

  Newham

  34

  46,417

  0.1

  Southwark

  105

  39,778

  0.3

  Tower Hamlets

  153

  37,158

  0.4

  Wandsworth

  92

  35,699

  0.3

  Westminster

  0

  23,589

  0.0

  Outer London

  999

  739,991

  0.1

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  28,534

  0.0

  Barnet

  48

  53,623

  0.1

  Bexley

  68

  39,514

  0.2

  Brent

  41

  38,719

  0.1

  Bromley

  110

  49,558

  0.2

  Croydon

  185

  56,961

  0.3

  Ealing

  136

  48,583

  0.3

  Enfield

  115

  47,778

  0.2

  Greenwich

  75

  38,967

  0.2

  Harrow

  52

  33,214

  0.2

  Havering

  8

  36,972

  0.0

  Hillingdon

  45

  42,374

  0.1

  Hounslow

  23

  36,174

  0.1

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  28

  23,433

  0.1

  Merton

  0

  27,937

  0.0

  Redbridge

  36

  43,707

  0.1

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  0

  27,474

  0.0

  Sutton

  29

  29,879

  0.1

  Waltham Forest

  0

  36,590

  0.0

  88

  January 1998

  Number (headcount)

  Total

  Percentage of pupils in pupil referral units

  South East

  1,329

  1,290,151

  0.1

  Berkshire

  42

  138,156

  0.0

  Milton Keynes

  19

  35,843

  0.1

  Buckinghamshire

  39

  81,988

  0.0

  Brighton and Hove

  25

  34,427

  0.1

  East Sussex

  64

  72,916

  0.1

  Portsmouth

  48

  29,113

  0.2

  Southampton

  118

  33,270

  0.4

  Hampshire

  138

  189,792

  0.1

  Isle of Wight

  8

  19,996

  0.0

  Kent

  365

  269,546

  0.1

  Oxfordshire

  119

  98,116

  0.1

  Surrey

  260

  172,052

  0.2

  West Sussex

  84

  114,936

  0.1

  South West

  400

  771,359

  0.1

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0

  29,286

  0.0

  City of Bristol

  1

  60,791

  0.0

  North Somerset

  29

  28,418

  0.1

  South Gloucestershire

  0

  40,449

  0.0

  Cornwall

  0

  75,688

  0.0

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  268

  0.0

  Devon

  86

  165,660

  0.1

  Bournemoth

  0

  22,735

  0.0

  Poole

  20

  21,097

  0.1

  Dorset

  29

  58,815

  0.0

  Gloucestershire

  57

  91,831

  0.1

  Somerset

  54

  77,987

  0.1

  Swindon

  23

  29,263

  0.1

  Wiltshire

  101

  69,071

  0.1

  1 Excludes pupils who are also registered at a mainstream or special school

  Age Diversity
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what key criteria he intends to put in place to monitor the effectiveness of the code of practice on age diversity in employment. [62178]

  Ms Hodge
  Key indicators which will measure the labour market position of older workers are given in Annex E of "Action on Age", the report on the year long consultation undertaken on age discrimination in employment. These indicators include the employment rate, the claimant count and ILO measures of unemployment, as well as economic activity rates. These indicators will be reviewed each year in June.

  In addition, we have commissioned a research project which will evaluate the Code's effectiveness in promoting an age diverse workforce. The research will cover a wide range of employers, looking in detail at employer policies and practices in recruitment and employment and the impact on age diversity in their workforce. As we said in "Action on Age", the full evaluation will be completed by February 2001.

  Sixth-form Students
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to increase the levels of(a) home to study transport and (b) other support for 16–18 year old students in (i) the FE sector and (ii) LEA sixth forms. [62089]
  89
  Mr. Mudie
  The Secretary of State has announced an extra £67 million for a comprehensive package of post-16 student support over the next 2 years. It will fund the new Education Maintenance Allowance pilots, and boost and extend Access Funds for students in further education and introduce a new access fund for pupils in school sixth forms as well as supporting specific provision for child care and resident attendance at college. Provision for transport is allowed for in both the access funds, and there will be other funding available to help LEAs to co-ordinate and integrate post-16 transport.

  University for Industry
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment from which budget head within his Department he plans to allocate future resources for the University for Industry. [61809]

  Mr. Mudie
  Funding for the University for Industry will be allocated from the overall Department for Education and Employment resources agreed in the Comprehensive Spending Review. Expenditure will be from a specific University for Industry subhead.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposed expenditure for the University for Industry he expects to be included within the £40 million allocated within the Comprehensive Spending Review for start-up costs. [61807]

  Mr. Mudie
  The precise way in which the £40 million budget will be spent in 1999–2000 will be determined after Ministers have considered the University for Industry's Corporate Plan which we expect to receive shortly. I would expect, however, that expenditure will cover a range of areas necessary to ensure that the University for Industry gets off to the best possible start. These are likely to include the development of innovative learning materials and the establishment of a network of learning centres to link communities to University for Industry opportunities.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will place a copy of the business plan for the University for Industry in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [61825]

  Mr. Mudie
  The University for Industry Transition Board will submit a three-year Corporate Plan to Ministers shortly. It will contain commercially sensitive material and is not intended for publication. However, I expect the University for Industry to make a range of information publicly available in the New Year. This may include publishing an abbreviated version of the Corporate Plan.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what additional resources he expects to allocate to the University for Industry in each of the years 2000–01 and 2001–02; and if these resources will be allocated from the Comprehensive Spending Review total for education. [61808]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Department plans to announce decisions on funding beyond 1999–2000 in the Departmental Report which is due to be published in the spring. Any such resources will be allocated from the 90
  Comprehensive Spending Review total for the Department for Education and Employment. Expenditure will be from a specific University for Industry subhead.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the current age limit is for students to have access to student loans; and what plans he has to increase the age limit during the next three years. [61821]

  Mr. Mudie
  For the 1998–99 academic year, a student must be aged under 50 at the start of his or her course in order to be eligible for a student loan.

  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced on 8 June this year, we plan to extend eligibility for loans to those students aged 50 to 54 at the start of their courses who plan to return to employment.

  This extension will take effect from the 1999–2000 academic year. It will apply to students starting courses in 1999–2000. It will also apply to students who started courses in 1998–99, except those (such as gap year students) who are entitled to continue receiving maintenance grants and loans under the previous arrangements.

  We are currently considering the arrangements in more detail and will provide full information for students early in 1999.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the expected total income is from tuition fees from all undergraduates entering higher education institutions in 1998–99; what the level is of additional funding provided by his Department for higher education institutions in 1998–99; what the level of funding is per undergraduate student in 1998–99 as a result of the introduction of tuition fees and additional funding from his Department; and what the level of funding was per undergraduate student in each of the previous five years. [61813]

  Mr. Mudie
  Universities and colleges are expected to receive £130 million through tuition fee contributions from new full-time undergraduates in 1998–99. The funding package for 1998–99 allowed an extra £165 million to be spent on higher education, of which £129 million was for institutions, broadly equivalent to the extra fee income, and £36 million was for measures to widen access.

  The published unit funding index for higher education (Departmental Report, March 1998, pp 61) is based on publicly planned funding per full-time equivalent (FTE) student. The figures do not distinguish between undergraduates and postgraduates. The level of funding per student in cash terms for the last six years is set out in the table.

  £

  Financial Year1

  Unit funding2(cash)

  1993–94

  5,015

  1994–95

  4,973

  1995–96

  4,930

  1996–97

  4,789

  91

  £

  Financial Year1

  Unit funding2(cash)

  1997–98

  4,785

  1998–

  4,923

  1 In order to provide a consistent series over the period, the figures have been adjusted to take account of transfer of dual support research funds to the Office of Science and Technology in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 and the mainstreaming of continuing education students in 1995–96

  2 Publicly planned fund includes grants to the HE Funding Council for England and, from 1995, the Teacher Training Agency for both recurrent and capital purposes and full-time undergraduate tuition fees paid through Local Education Authorities. In 1998–99 they include students' estimated private contributions towards the new £1,000 flat rate fee.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many non-UK EU students were expected to commence undergraduate studies at UK universities during the current academic year; and what was the estimated total amount of tuition fees to be collected from these students. [61812]

  Mr. Mudie
  Our forecasts have projected that around 15 thousand EU students will begin full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses in England and Wales in academic year 1998–99. The expected contribution from these students towards their tuition fees totals some £7 million.

  Adult Education and Training
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what level of resources was allocated by each local education authority to non-statutory adult education and training services in each of the years 1992–93 to 1997–98. [61820]

  Mr. Mudie
  The following table sets out information on the net recurrent expenditure on education for adults reported by all local education authorities in England for the period 1992–93 to 1996–97. Figures for 1997–98 are not yet available. Some local authorities also support training for adults. Information about spending in this area is not held centrally.

  Over the next three financial years we are offering all Local Education Authorities in England additional resource to strengthen the contribution they make to lifelong learning. In the first year £9 million will be available to Local Education Authorities to develop new, high quality, initiatives to widen participation in learning, in partnership with local learning providers, and to underpin future development activity with Local Authority Lifelong Learning Development Plans.

  Net recurrent expenditure by all LEAs in England for adult education.

  £000

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Corporation of London

  40

  72

  69

  221

  322

  Camden

  2,470

  1,383

  1,178

  1,144

  1,037

  Greenwich

  3,891

  3,822

  1,837

  1,935

  1,812

  Hackney

  3,527

  2,481

  1,604

  688

  888

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,111

  2,757

  1,330

  1,052

  1,008

  Islington

  2,741

  937

  931

  809

  326

  92

  Net recurrent expenditure by all LEAs in England for adult education.

  £000

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,096

  950

  910

  898

  845

  Lambeth

  4,235

  3,831

  4,189

  2,668

  2,250

  Lewisham

  3,260

  1,322

  1,837

  1,394

  1,749

  Southwark

  1,953

  1,898

  —

  —

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  1,806

  2,301

  2,530

  1,850

  1,064

  Wandsworth

  4,402

  2,327

  2,329

  21,95

  1,266

  City of Westminster

  3,511

  2,214

  2,262

  1,843

  1,514

  Barking and Dagenham

  659

  742

  740

  714

  763

  Barnet

  —

  554

  448

  448

  508

  Bexley

  843

  548

  454

  578

  534

  Brent

  1,843

  1,088

  1,731

  1,083

  1,316

  Bromley

  442

  716

  900

  863

  898

  Croydon

  2,080

  1,918

  1,203

  1,183

  1,274

  Ealing

  768

  242

  244

  236

  176

  Enfield

  144

  282

  126

  34

  54

  Haringey

  —

  281

  52

  202

  198

  Harrow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Havering

  454

  162

  151

  89

  50

  Hillingdon

  941

  327

  357

  268

  379

  Hounslow

  1,723

  614

  538

  1,040

  442

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,087

  909

  853

  196

  376

  Merton

  601

  545

  531

  477

  519

  Newham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Redbridge

  765

  493

  499

  570

  574

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,794

  1,213

  1,059

  1,243

  713

  Sutton

  9

  1,556

  1,614

  948

  1,012

  Waltham Forest

  1,637

  1,249

  1,496

  979

  1,350

  Birmingham

  4,351

  2,595

  3,021

  2,550

  2,540

  Coventry

  —

  167

  —

  —

  2,174

  Dudley

  205

  633

  856

  622

  603

  Sandwell

  914

  406

  605

  407

  429

  Solihull

  369

  331

  296

  173

  110

  Walsall

  943

  1,565

  919

  53

  54

  Wolverhampton

  1,246

  648

  720

  638

  724

  Knowsley

  65

  —

  2

  —

  171

  Liverpool

  2,461

  3,459

  2,722

  4,308

  2,932

  St. Helens

  162

  —

  7

  21

  18

  Sefton

  320

  197

  209

  160

  194

  Wirral

  —

  687

  613

  578

  772

  Bolton

  1,940

  1,298

  1,273

  1,212

  1,193

  Bury

  1,767

  700

  795

  600

  683

  Manchester

  5,429

  4,149

  2,788

  2,517

  2,535

  Oldham

  2,923

  1,773

  1,678

  1,081

  1,095

  Rochdale

  1,987

  1,410

  146

  142

  140

  Salford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stockport

  1,026

  606

  710

  301

  335

  Tameside

  79

  67

  2

  —

  83

  Trafford

  —

  128

  60

  110

  42

  Wigan

  249

  481

  348

  159

  131

  Barnsley

  311

  543

  485

  806

  757

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rotherham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sheffield

  759

  1,190

  2,210

  2,196

  2,086

  Bradford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Calderdale

  1,188

  998

  844

  606

  443

  Kirklees

  896

  801

  325

  450

  361

  Leeds

  11,368

  4,807

  6,109

  6,418

  815

  Wakefield

  —

  561

  802

  384

  244

  Gateshead

  —

  86

  134

  115

  73

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  239

  1,698

  1,979

  863

  502

  North Tyneside

  1,483

  589

  1,132

  1,182

  1,244

  South Tyneside

  107

  349

  351

  296

  321

  Sunderland

  398

  355

  89

  51

  3

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Avon

  1,530

  2,227

  1,977

  2,257

  n/a

  Bath and North

  East Somerset

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  124

  93

  Net recurrent expenditure by all LEAs in England for adult education.

  £000

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  City of Bristol

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  488

  North Somerset

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  125

  Hartlepool

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  276

  Middlesborough

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  276

  South Gloucestershire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  259

  Redcar and Cleveland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  344

  Stockton on Tees

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  456

  City of Kingston upon Hull

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  614

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  357

  Bedfordshire

  2,917

  1,562

  1,633

  1,432

  1,353

  Berkshire

  893

  3,037

  3,244

  2,582

  2,619

  Buckinghamshire

  1,580

  1,233

  2,358

  1,899

  3,088

  Cambridgeshire

  2,378

  1,741

  1,974

  1,123

  523

  Cheshire

  887

  1,311

  1,329

  1,307

  1,212

  Cleveland

  1,441

  1,291

  2,150

  21,77

  n/a

  Cornwall

  1,392

  1,445

  1,455

  1,084

  758

  Cumbria

  673

  1,881

  823

  709

  1,108

  Derbyshire

  1,293

  4,062

  3,638

  2,974

  3,465

  Devon

  2,394

  1,393

  2,414

  1,870

  2,468

  Dorset

  2,078

  720

  589

  446

  525

  Durham

  611

  451

  386

  139

  56

  East Sussex

  577

  975

  1,216

  1,233

  970

  Essex

  4,845

  995

  1,347

  1,746

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  1,702

  2,039

  1,497

  1,380

  Hampshire

  2,955

  1,734

  3,638

  2,608

  32

  Hertford and Worcester

  —

  966

  —

  99

  114

  Hertfordshire

  —

  1,974

  2,189

  705

  962

  Humberside

  4,251

  4,904

  2,822

  3,051

  n/a

  Isle of Wight

  62

  140

  99

  45

  48

  Kent

  4,581

  4,241

  5,026

  3,842

  4,639

  Lancashire

  1,131

  3,377

  3,353

  3,099

  3,047

  Leicestershire

  8,574

  8,419

  6,732

  4,012

  4,143

  Lincolnshire

  1,356

  1,146

  1,252

  1,130

  1,145

  North Lincolnshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  336

  North East Lincolnshire

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  337

  Norfolk

  1,728

  1,586

  1,075

  963

  1,047

  City of York

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  65

  North Yorkshire

  1,124

  1,937

  2,609

  1,355

  1,107

  Northamptonshire

  1,654

  2,680

  1,406

  1,284

  1,333

  Northumberland

  383

  3

  21

  —

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  209

  1,792

  2,600

  3,657

  2,787

  Oxfordshire

  1,866

  1,774

  1,783

  1,202

  1,289

  Shropshire

  408

  1,288

  1,241

  637

  539

  Somerset

  2,475

  2,960

  2,914

  2,047

  1,866

  Staffordshire

  654

  1,312

  1,334

  1,165

  1,203

  Suffolk

  657

  420

  415

  341

  319

  Surrey

  5,195

  4,132

  4,112

  3,679

  3,622

  Warwickshire

  —

  154

  519

  469

  638

  West Sussex

  1,026

  1,437

  1,150

  1,157

  1,156

  Wiltshire

  69

  50

  6

  18

  31

  Learning Direct Service
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the total cost to date of setting up the Learning Direct Service; what will be the budget allocation for learning direct in each of the next three years; and where the resources will come from. [61827]

  Mr. Mudie
  The total cost to date of setting up and operating Learning Direct is £1 million in 1997–98 and estimated to be £3.3 million in 1998–99. The budget for 1999–2000 will be £6.3 million. We plan to announce the figures for the following two years in the Department for Education and Employment Report which is due to be published in the spring. Expenditure will be from a specific Learning Direct subhead.

  Higher and Further Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to resolve the current dispute between FE staff and their employers. [61810]

  Mr. Mudie
  I understand that the Association of Colleges and the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education continue to discuss the issues between them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would urge all concerned to find a constructive way forward at a time when further education is set to benefit from the major additional investment of £725 million funding over the next two years which he announced last week.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received concerning the impact on external institutions of the FEFC' s proposed merger of access and childcare funds; and what plans he has to ensure that external institutions are not disadvantaged by these changes. [61926]

  Mr. Mudie
  The new arrangements for further education student support, and an extra £67 million of new funding over the next two years, were announced by the Secretary of State on 26 November. These arrangements will include a very significant increase in the funding available through the FE Access Fund and funding specifically for the FEFC to augment its support for childcare provision. Attention will be paid to the position of external institutions when the detail of the new arrangements is worked up with the FEFC.

  Key Stages
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what investigations he has conducted into the(a) lateness and (b) inaccuracy of some Key Stage Two, Three and Four data; and if he will make a statement. [62356]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My Department and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority have carried out a through review of the problems that occurred in the production of the Key Stage 2 and 3 results. The recommendations of the review are now being implemented to ensure that similar problems do not occur in 1999. Data for pupils at the end of compulsory schooling were published to schedule in the secondary school performance tables on 1 December. All published data are at least as accurate as in previous years.

  Teachers
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) men and (b) women became teachers in the maintained school sector in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in each year since 1970. [62030]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information available is shown in the following table.
  95

  New entrants to full-time teaching in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector in England and Wales

  Year ending 21 March

  Men

  Maintained nursery and primary Women

  Men

  Maintained secondary Women

  Men

  Total1 Women

  1997

  1,310

  8,940

  3,750

  5,820

  5,070

  14,760

  1996

  1,360

  8,790

  3,800

  5,650

  5,160

  14,440

  1995

  1,350

  8,840

  4,130

  5,840

  5,480

  14,680

  1994

  1,220

  8,150

  3,810

  5,260

  5,030

  13,410

  1993

  1,090

  7,650

  3,360

  4,780

  4,450

  12,430

  1992

  1,140

  7,580

  2,990

  4,400

  4,130

  11,980

  1991

  1,120

  7,270

  3,010

  4,290

  4,130

  11,560

  1990

  1,140

  7,160

  3,020

  4,240

  4,160

  11,400

  1989

  980

  6,250

  2,800

  4,040

  3,780

  10,290

  1988

  820

  5,670

  2,610

  3,760

  3,420

  9,430

  1987

  640

  4,750

  2,930

  4,400

  3,560

  9,150

  1986

  550

  3,970

  3,020

  4,270

  3,560

  8,240

  1985

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  3,590

  7,550

  1984

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  4,240

  8,570

  1983

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  4,730

  8,540

  1982

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  4,840

  8,360

  1981

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  5,490

  10,790

  1980

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  6,900

  14,760

  1979

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  8,030

  17,470

  1978

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  7,880

  14,560

  1977

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  9,220

  16,870

  1976

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  11,860

  22,880

  1975

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  13,000

  26,740

  1974

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  13,720

  27,390

  1973

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  12,780

  26,600

  1972

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  12,130

  26,420

  1971

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  11,330

  25,650

  1970

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  10,290

  23,550

  1 Constituent parts may not add to totals due to rounding.

  2 n/a—not available

  Notes:

  1. Entrants to sixth form colleges are excluded from 1994 onwards.

  2. New entrants are those recorded as in service at 31 March of the year shown who had no known service recorded at 31 March of the previous year.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the numbers of children who left state primary schools in 1997 from the boroughs of(a) Islington, (b) Camden, (c) Kensington and Chelsea, (d) Hammersmith and Fulham and (e) Westminster to enter (i) fee-paying and (ii) selective grammar schools. [62024]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Music Funding
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how music service funding will be protected in the proposed delegation of funding to schools scheduled for April 1999, with particular reference to the Bexley Centre for Music and Dance. [62531]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government recognise the important contribution made by LEA music services; that is why we proposed new arrangements to safeguard them in our "Fair Funding" consultation document.

  We will be making an announcement on the future funding of LEA music services in the near future.

  National Training Organisations
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the current national training organisations by name, sector and number of employees covered. [62398]

  Mr. Mudie
  A list of the National Training Organisations by sector and employees is shown in the table.

  Training organisations

  Number of employees

  1.

  Association for Ceramic Training and Development

  Production of ceramic goods

  37,800

  2.

  Bakery Training Council

  Manufacture, distribution and retail in the banking in industry

  125,000

  3.

  Banks and Building Societies NTO

  Banks and building societies

  460,000

  4.

  Board for Education and Training in the Water Industry

  Water services and supply companies

  48,000

  5.

  British Plumbing Employers" Council (Training) Ltd.

  Plumbing and mechanical services

  250,000

  6.

  British Ports Industry Training Ltd.

  Ports, terminals, stevedoring companies, contract labour suppliers (for the Ports Industry)

  25,000

  7.

  CAPITB

  Apparel and leathergoods manufacture

  160,000

  8.

  Chemical and Manufacturing Processing NTO

  Primary chemical manufacture and processing, manufacture of soaps and detergents

  250,000

  9.

  Cleaning & Support Services NTO

  Carpet and upholstery cleaning, caretaking and portering services, industrial, hospital, commercial and domestic cleaning, facilities management

  843,300

  10.

  Community Justice NTO

  Probation, youth justice, crime prevention and community safety

  26,700

  11.

  Construction Industry Training Board

  Construction industry

  1,167,000

  12.

  Council for Administration

  All sector—administration staff

  —

  13.

  Custodial care

  Prisons and other remand organisations

  50,000

  14.

  Institute of Customer Service

  All sector—customer service staff

  —

  15.

  The Cultural Heritage NTO

  The cultural heritage, in the public and private sectors, including museums, galleries and a range of organisations concerned with the conservation and interpretation of the material and built heritage

  41,000

  16.

  Dairy Training & Development Council

  Dairy sector

  45,000

  17.

  Distributive NTO

  Warehousing and distribution, retail, dry-cleaning and laundry work, paper wholesalers and post office workers

  4,312,700

  18.

  National Training Organisation for Early Years

  Childminders, nursery nurses, nannies, playgroup leaders and assistants, classroom assistants, staff in private nurseries and foster carers of under eights

  427,000

  97

  Training organisations

  Number of employees

  19.

  Electricity Training Association

  Electricity supply industry, also nuclear decommissioning

  115,000

  20.

  Electronics & Software Services NTO

  Services provided to business to help implement and exploit business technology, including consultancy, IT services, user training, maintenance, call management

  350,000

  21.

  Employment NTO

  All sector—Training and development staff/managers/personnel. F/T trade union officials, health and safety officers

  —

  22.

  Engineering and Marine Training Authority (EMTA)

  Engineering manufacture

  1,787,000

  23.

  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB)

  Engineering construction

  40,900

  24.

  Engineering Services Training Trust Ltd.

  Heating, ventilating, air conditioning and refrigeration (HVACR)

  79,000

  25.

  EPIC (Extractive and Mineral Processing Industries NTO)

  Quarry products, china and ball clay, silica and industrial sands

  39,000

  26.

  Further Education National Training Organisation

  College staff

  250,000

  27.

  Food and Drink NTO

  Food and drink manufacture

  500,000

  28.

  Gas Industry NTO

  Shipping and supply of natural gas pipelines and associated measurement and control equipment. Installation, maintenance and servicing of a gas burning equipment and appliances, offshore gas burning equipment and appliances, processing and storage facilities

  156,000

  29.

  Glass Training Ltd.

  Automotive, container, flat, fibre, scientific and tableware glass

  28,200

  30.

  Hairdressing and Beauty Industry Authority

  Hairdressing, beauty therapy, nail technology

  225,000

  31.

  Health Care NTO

  Health Care

  970,100

  32.

  Hospitality Training Foundation

  Hospitality industry: e.g. hotels, pubs/bars/clubs, restaurants

  2,033,000

  33.

  Housing National Training Organisation

  Housing

  150,000

  34.

  Information Technology National Training Organisation

  IT users and supply side practitioners, practitioners in corporate and public sector

  683,000

  35.

  Insurance and Related Financial Service NTO

  Insurance and related financial services

  350,000

  36.

  Languages NTO

  All sector—translators, interpreters

  —

  37.

  LANTRA NTO Ltd.

  Landbased industry plus lift trucks and floristry

  1,389,000

  38.

  Local Government NTO

  Local Government—public (consumer) protection, highways, maintenance and emergency fire service

  2,080,300

  39.

  Management & Enterprise Training Organisation

  All sector—represents small firms and management

  —

  40.

  Meat Training Council

  Meat and poultry industry, manufacturers and processors, wholesalers, independents and multiples (retail)

  170,000

  98

  Training organisations

  Number of employees

  41.

  METIER

  Visual arts/crafts, performing arts, arts development and teaching, literature arts, arts, arts managements and administration, technical support and performance design

  615,000

  42.

  Motor Industry Training Council

  Retail motor industry and allied sectors

  503,700

  43.

  National Electrotechnical Training

  Electrical installation engineering plus allied trades (Electrotechnical sector)

  172,000

  44.

  OPITO (The NTO for the Oil and Gas Extraction Industry)

  Oil and gas extraction (includes—drilling, processing/transfer, servicing operations)

  30,000

  45.

  Paper Education & Training Council

  All paper manufacture, tissue/recovered paper, allied trades and fibre content

  78,200

  46.

  Passenger Transport Forum for Employee Development

  Land (road) passenger transport

  148,000

  47.

  Petroleum Industry NTO

  Downstream petroleum, refining and distribution

  91,000

  48.

  Pharmaceuticals Industry NTO

  Pharmaceuticals industry

  80,000

  49.

  Polymer & Associated Industries NTO

  Polymer processing, signmaking, man-made fibres (from 15.9.98)

  317,000

  50.

  Print & Graphic Communication NTO

  Traditional printing, printing in new media formats, screen printing, book binding

  193,400

  51.

  Rail Industry Training Council

  Rail industry, freight operations, engineering and heritage companies

  130,300

  52.

  Refractories & Building Products Training Council

  Refractories and ceramic materials, clayware (including clay bricks, pipes, drainage, chimneys, floor tiles), precast concrete

  23,200

  53.

  Road Haulage and Distribution Training Council

  Road transport and freight, storage, post and courier services

  600,000

  54.

  Science, Technology & Mathematics NTO

  All sector—Scientists, technologists and mathematicians

  —

  55.

  Selfish Training

  Sea fishing, fish merchanting and processing, fish mongering, fish frying

  104,000

  56.

  Security Industry Training Organisation

  Guarding, investigating, security management

  308,000

  57.

  Skillset

  Broadcast, film, video and muti-media

  190,000

  58.

  NTO for Sport, Recreation & Allied Occupants

  Sport and recreation, playwork, outdoor education and development training, exercise and fitness, synthetic surface installers and play equipment manufacturers and installation

  212,000

  59.

  Steel Industry NTO

  The steel industry, metals, recycling, iron and steel makingshaping and forming through hot and cold processing, forging, wire drawing, tube making, finishing, stockholding, constructional steelwork

  97,600

  99

  Training organisations

  Number of employees

  60.

  Telecommunications Vocational Standards Council

  Fixed wire public and private communications—CATV, Mobile public and private

  communications-military and marine

  communications, call handling

  1,646,000

  61.

  The Higher Education Training Organisation

  Everyone employed in a university including lecturers

  173,600

  62.

  Training Alliance for Surface Coatings

  Paint, priniting inks, wallcoverings and powder coatings

  20,500

  63.

  Training Organisation for Personal Social Services

  Personal social services—social work, social care, resident home staff, day centre staff, foster carers

  1,237,000

  64.

  Ttento Ltd.

  Leisure and business travel, tour operators, tourist information centres, representatives/travel couriers

  130,000

  65.

  Voluntary Sector NTO

  All sector—all unpaid workers and those paid staff working in charitable organisations

  —

  Note:

  1. The employee figures for the All-Sector NTOs are included in the appropriate sector NTO figures.

  2. These are approximate figures provided by the organisation themselves.

WALES

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the amounts of funding allocated by the Welsh Office for rough sleepers" initiatives in Wales for winter(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  £314,000 was paid in grant for projects to help rough sleepers in 1997–98. Of this £32,000 was for schemes to provide support over the winter period. All eligible bids were met.

  £350,000 has been allocated for rough sleeping projects in the current year. Local authorities, working with the voluntary sector, have been invited to submit bids by 14 December for grants to provide further assistance over this winter.

  European Forum Report
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if it is his intention to publish the report drawn up by the European Forum on Wales and the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [62394]

  Mr. Michael
  I shall arrange for the Report to be published as soon as possible.

  National Assembly
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what quality control measures he plans to put in place for the design and construction of the National Assembly. [62260]
  100
  Mr. Michael
  The building and material performance criteria were specified in the Design Concept Brief used for the design competition. The selected Architect will now proceed to produce a building specification working now proceed to produce a building specification working in partnership with a Management Contractor to be appointed under EU procurement rules. This will establish the quality of materials and workmanship to be provided. Ensuring those standards are met will be the responsibility of the Project Manager in conjunction with the Management Contractor. Welsh Office officials will continue to maintain overall control of the project by means of regular progress meetings and site inspections.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Schools
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish(a) details of those schools presently under consideration as major capital expenditure projects by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland, (b) the estimated cost at each school and (c) the date on which DENI accepted that each school satisfied the criteria for category 1, 2 or 3 status. [61837]

  Mr. McFall
  There are over 200 major works projects on the Schools Capital Priorities Planning List and I will write to the hon. Gentleman giving details of these schemes and place a copy in the Library of the House. Estimated costs are not available for many of the schemes which are at a very early stage of planning or where planning has been suspended.

  There are 125 projects in priority categories 1, 2 and 3. All projects in these categories have received approval to take forward detailed planning. Information is not readily available about the dates each project entered the Planning List and this could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  ME
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what level of funding will be made available by the Department of Health and Social Services in 1999 to provide a regional support office in Northern Ireland for myalgic encephalomyelitis sufferers and their carers. [61836]

  Mr. McFall
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on 2 December 1998,Official Report, column 200.

  Petroleum Products
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the terms of the contract established by the Western Education and Library Board in 1998 for the purchase of petroleum products in the Irish Republic. [61919]

  Mr. McFall
  A contract for the provision of fuel products was awarded by te Western Education and Library Board to Diesel Card Ireland Limited following open competitive tendering procedure. The contract is for the period 1 September 1998 to 31 August 1999; and its total value is £46,500 (Irish) for the provision of some 117,500 litres of fuel.
  101
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the policy of the Government on the purchase by Government departments and agencies in Northern Ireland of petroleum products in the Republic of Ireland. [61920]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Government Departments and their Agencies in Northern Ireland buy fuel under EC compliant contractual arrangements which have been established by the Buying Agency in Great Britain in collaboration with the Government Purchasing Agency, Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representations she has received in 1998 about the smuggling of petroleum products into Northern Ireland from the Irish Republic; and if she will make a statement. [61923]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Secretary of State has received several representations about this matter and these have been referred to the various agencies concerned.

  It is recognised that is a serious problem in revenue terms and disadvantages legitimate traders, and my Department together with the RUC and HM Customs and Excise are developing a co-ordinated and intelligence driven strategy to address this issue.

  Punishment Shootings and Beatings
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) punishment beatings and (b) punishment shootings took place in Northern Ireland in the weeks ending (i) 14 November, (ii) 21 November and (iii) 28 November; and how many in each category in each period were committed by (1) Loyalists and (2) Republicans. [61838]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table shows the number of casualties as a result of paramilitary style attacks for the three-week period 8 November to 28 November 1998:

  Shootings

  Assaults

  Date

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  8 November-14 November

  0

  0

  2

  1

  15 November-21 November

  1

  0

  0

  0

  22 November-28 November

  1

  1

  2

  2

  Totals

  2

  1

  4

  3

  Finbarr Ross
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made to date in respect of the application to the United States authorities for the extradition of Finbarr Ross to Northern Ireland to answer charges related to the collapse of International Investments Ltd. (Gibraltar). [62105]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Mr. Ross was arrested in the United States in March this year. His extraditions was ordered on 14 April. Mr. Ross appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard his case on 19 November.

  Peace Process
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the current state of the Peace Process; and if she will make a statement. [62196]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: Considerable progress has been made in implementing the Belfast Agreement including elections to the new Assembly and the election of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Reviews of policing and criminal justice are also underway. New initiatives for victims have been announced. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 is now law and work on establishing the Human Rights Commission and Equality Commission has commenced. Security measures are being reduced appropriately and the early release scheme is operational. In addition a wide range of related preparatory work is also under way both within Government and the Assembly to prepare for the formal transfer of power to the Assembly next year. An important element of this is the present consultations on the number of Ministerial offices and on areas for North/South co-operation. I look forward to agreement on these and the full implementation of all aspects of the Agreement together with the launch of the various new institutions early in 1999.

CABINET OFFICE

  Information Warfare
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will place in the Library copies of the speeches to be made by Cabinet Office officials David Fisher and Edna Chivers to the conference on information warfare to be held at the Royal United Services Institute on 2 December. [61672]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I am pleased to confirm that copies of these speeches will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Meetings (Liberal Democrats)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many meetings he has had since 11 November with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in connection with the statement made on that date by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Liberal Democrats; how long each meeting lasted; and how many are planned to be held. [61644]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I have had one meeting with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed to discuss our review of the work of the Joint Consultative Committee. It took place on 12 November and lasted approximately one hour. We plan to have at least one further meeting.

  Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what role he has in the determination of the Liberal Democrat membership of the Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee. [61645]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  None.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Growth Promoters
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes the European Commission is proposing to the authorisations currently in force concerning the use of low-level antibiotics as growth promoters in animal feed; and if he will make a statement. [62294]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Commission has proposed the suspension of four antibiotic growth promoters, bacitracin zinc, spiramycin, virginiamycin and tylosin phosphate, with effect from 1 January 1999. There would be provision allowing Member States not to operate the suspension until 30 June 1999. The suspension would be re-examined before 31 December 2000 following the results of monitoring for antibiotic resistance in farm animals.

  The proposal failed to achieve a qualified majority in favour at the Commission's Standing Committee on Animal Nutrition on 2 December. It is therefore likely to be presented to the Agriculture Council on 14/15 December.

  Marketing Co-operatives
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to encourage the establishment of marketing co-operatives in the agricultural sector. [62190]

  Mr. Rooker
  I wish to encourage all forms of collaborative marketing, not just co-operatives.

  My noble Friend, Lord Donoughue, and Ben Gill, President of the National Farmers' Union, launched a major MAFF and NFU initiative to stimulate interest in collaborative marketing on 29 November, at the Royal Smithfield Show.

  The benefits of collaboration for our primary producers include increased scale, of the kind demanded by today's big customers; access to professional marketing, technical and administrative support; cohesive negotiating ability; improved supply chain communication; and the many other benefits that come through bigger businesses.

  Over the coming months the NFU will hold some 36 focus group discussions around the country both to highlight these benefits to producers and to identify barriers to producer involvement. Key issues identified will, if appropriate, be addressed through the MAFF seminar programme. There will also be a number of open days at successful farmer controlled businesses, next Spring. We aim to report progress at next year's Royal Show.

  Over-30-months Scheme
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review the over thirty months scheme; and if he will make a statement. [62189]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Over Thirty Months Scheme is an EU scheme, the rules of which are set by the European Commission. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee have identified criteria against which the controls on beef over thirty months of age can be reviewed in the future and hope to begin to address this at the meeting planned for March 1999. The Committee recognises that this will require careful study and will almost certainly need to be considered over several meetings. In the light of the Committee's conclusions, and after consultation with all interested parties, the Government will consider what changes to the scheme (if any) could be made consistent with the continued protection of public health and which they might then recommend to the Commission for its consideration.

  Milk Quota
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many holders of milk quota were not using that quota for their own production in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1996–97. [62191]

  Mr. Rooker
  According to the quota register maintained by the Intervention Board Executive Agency, in 1996–97 4,685 quota holders out of a total of 38,185 milk quota holders leased out all their milk quota rather than producing against it. Similarly in 1997–98, 5,284 out of 37,087 quota holders leased out all their quota. There are no figures available, as yet, for the 1998–99 quota year.

  Veterinary Research
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the financial support given by the Government for veterinary research for each of the last five years. [62112]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have provided financial support for veterinary research over the last five financial years as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Amount

  1993–94

  24.4

  1994–95

  23.9

  1995–96

  24.3

  1996–97

  25.5

  1997–98

  27.9

  The research has underpinned our policies on animal welfare and protection, diseases of animals, meat hygiene and public health, transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, veterinary medicines and brucellosis and TB eradication.

  Slaughterhouse Owners
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans the Government have to give financial assistance to slaughterhouse owners. [62320]

  Mr. Rooker
  None.

  Animal Foodstuffs Advisory Committee
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Advisory Committee on Animal Foodstuffs(a) was set up and (b) plans to meet. [61193]
  106
  Mr. Rooker
  The Ministry has now completed an extensive consultation exercise on the remit of the Committee and sought nominations for its membership.

  We are moving ahead as quickly as possible, whilst at the same time working to the Nolan principles. Accordingly, the selection and appointment of chairman and members will be based on merit, openness and equal opportunity. The Committee is likely to have its first meeting by the middle of next year, considerably in advance of the Food Standards Agency being established.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

European Defence Capability
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to pursue the objective declared by the Prime Minister in his speech to the North Atlantic Assembly on 13th November, of "a stronger, more effective Europe in foreign policy and security" with "a European decision-making capacity and command structure".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the Government are committed to giving Europe a more authoritative voice in international affairs, with the will and capability to back that up. We want the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy to work more effectively, getting the most out of the new provisions under the Amsterdam Treaty. We are also encouraging our partners to join in open-minded debate on strengthening Europe's defence capability. At the St. Malo Summit, the UK and France agreed broad principles for changes to European defence arrangements—a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. EU Foreign Ministers are considering today in Brussels how to take discussion forward.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and the Government on beginning to implement this part of the Liberal Democrat manifesto, which was strangely absent from the Labour manifesto. Can the Minister say how far the open debate is intended to go? For example, is it intended to include the move into the second pillar of the European Union of the military planning cell now within the Western European Union?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Prime Minister launched the debate at Pörtschach, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware. We have called on others to join us in thinking afresh about European defence structures and to enter into open-minded debate. That has now begun. However, detailed discussions of the kind described by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, are still some way off. We do not want to see any changes which undermine NATO or to create any unnecessary duplication. We want control of armed forces to remain a matter for national governments. We do not believe that there is a place for a European standing army. Therefore, the debate will take place within those kinds of parameters.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while it is essential to do nothing to undermine
710
NATO, any move towards greater coherence in European common foreign policy must, as a corollary, take seriously the defence issue? Does she agree also that if we are to move forward in this way it is essential, as we are doing in NATO, to ensure that inadvertently we do nothing to promote the forces of ultra-nationalism within Russia and elsewhere as a reaction to our own sensible developments?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can confirm to my noble friend Lord Judd that we will do nothing that undermines NATO and that Her Majesty's Government's foreign policy remains based on the cornerstone of NATO. But, as my original Answer indicated, if we are to have this kind of discussion it must have an effective means of backing-up foreign policy. That will include a military defence element. Nothing that we discuss should exacerbate difficulties elsewhere. The policy is designed to be a unifying force in Europe, not one which will create division.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a prelude to further co-operation in Europe on matters of foreign policy might be for some of our European partners to give us support in dealing with Saddam Hussein and other menaces to world peace?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that Her Majesty's Government would be delighted to see a great deal of support in the policy which we believe we have rightly pursued in relation to Saddam Hussein. It is worth reminding the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and others that in our most recent difficult encounter with Saddam Hussein we enjoyed a greater degree of responsiveness and support from our colleagues in Europe than we had seen earlier in the year.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although she says rightly that we must seek to do everything to avoid undermining NATO, the idea of forming some kind of European defence identity is bound to have an impact on the United States—the only military super-power left in the world? Is not there a danger that, if that goes too far, whether or not we like it NATO will be undermined?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in such stark terms. On numerous occasions I have discussed these issues in relation to European defence with our colleagues in the United States. They impress upon me constantly their desire to see what they describe as "burden sharing" with our European colleagues. I hope and believe that the discussions we have already initiated with the United States, and which Her Majesty's Government will be continuing while other discussions are going on in Europe, will ensure that there is a proper degree of confidence there. I recommend that the noble Lord reads the copy of the declaration on European defence which is in your Lordships' Library. There he will see a clear statement of the position in relation to NATO.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister recall that, since the Second World War, successive French governments have followed an independent line of defence policy which has not always been in accord with our own? Are the Government satisfied that the French have finally come to a definitive agreement that there needs to be a collective defence policy for Europe?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I recommend that my noble friend Lord Dean looks at the copy of the statement in the Library of the House. We have agreed with the French Government a statement which can be described as the "broad principles". Our aim is to enhance the European defence capability so that Europe can take on more work as regards defence. We have had a useful start to that debate with France. We have got off the ground and, the groundwork having been done, I hope that we shall see some further interesting discussions taking place in Europe today among Foreign Ministers.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, on the question of timing, does the Minister agree with the timetable set out by the German Government and quoted in the recent Declaration of Rome of the WEU Council of Ministers? That aims at finalising all essential elements necessary for the implementation of the European security and defence identity within the alliance by the time of the Washington summit. Does the Minister consider that to be sufficient time to reflect on what may be the greatest change in Britain's defence and security policy for at least 50 years?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, a number of countries have yet to ratify the Amsterdam Treaty. We shall, of course, have to wait for them to ratify the treaty before we see the CFSP put fully into place. We want to see that done as quickly as possible. However, I do not believe that we should confuse that issue with the debate which began in St. Malo last Friday which essentially will develop the core of that discussion over the coming months.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the United States has made plain on many occasions, particularly with regard to Bosnia and subsequently to Kosovo, how deeply it would welcome a European response which would enable it to see Europe carrying a full partnership in such areas of crisis? Does she also agree that the willingness of the French—at long last—to enter into a very close relationship with the United Kingdom, and therefore within the structures of NATO, is entirely to be welcomed and is a very long step forward?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords. I agree with that. As I indicated to your Lordships, I have had a number of discussions with American politicians over the past 18 months in which they have made it clear that they would like to see greater capability within Europe. I met several Congressmen only last Friday after the St. Malo announcement had been made. It was clear to me then
712
that there was a general welcome among those present for what we have in mind. I believe that this is an important step forward. However, it is one which needs to be discussed. We are essentially looking at policies. We should not rush into the detail prematurely, but should look sensibly at what the French and British Governments have been able to agree so far.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will my noble friend give the House an assurance that our Trident nuclear force will continue to be assigned to NATO?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that anything that happened in St. Malo on Thursday or Friday of last week has any impact on the issue of Trident.

Ministry of Defence: Freight by Rail
2.45 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any planned reductions in the Ministry of Defence's use of rail freight would be in accordance with the Government's model environmental policy statement, launched in January 1998.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, following a review of our operational rail freight movement requirements in the light of the Strategic Defence Review, the Ministry of Defence has no current plans to reduce the present level of the use of rail for the movement of its freight.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. I thank the Minister for that positive statement. He will, of course, be aware that the MoD is one of the departments taking part in the Government's green initiative. May I ask him, therefore, whether he has any plans as to how the MoD might play the greatest part in that initiative? Will the MoD investigate a means of increasing the proportion of freight carried by rail in the future?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, on the green initiative, my noble friend is quite right; the Ministry of Defence has plans in that direction. I am glad to say that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has been very understanding of some of our temporary difficulties, in so far as we do not know precisely how many buildings we will be retaining in, for example, central Europe, as a result of property disposals consequent upon the defence review.
As regards increasing our shipments by rail, my noble friend will no doubt take pleasure from the fact that in 1998 alone we opened a new railhead at East Dereham in Norfolk and revived four existing railheads. We are expecting to reduce the number of depots. We are undertaking studies to ensure that any future depots are linked with the rail network.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, the Ministry of Defence is clearly committed to a number of green policies in

713
respect of the environment. Several involve added costs to achieve high standards. Will the Minister concede that, in respect of carriage of freight by transhipment between rail and road, added costs should likewise be acceptable?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right that there are additional costs from time to time when carrying goods by rail. That is not always the case but, as with all our other procurement decisions, we strive to give the taxpayer value for money.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Wensleydale Railway Association. I hope that the Minister is aware that the Ministry of Defence railhead into Wensleydale is crucial to the reopening of that railway line. I trust that the MoD will take such local considerations into account in its current discussions.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I have no difficulty in giving the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the concern of citizens throughout London about the transport of nuclear waste by rail through heavily populated areas, particularly Camden, Stratford, Cricklewood and Kilburn, and about the fact that such trains are "parked", apparently unguarded, over weekends and for longer periods? Can the Minister do something to offer some consolation to residents of those areas, who are extremely worried?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I discussed that precise question this morning in the MoD. I can tell my noble friend that one of the reasons we ensure that the transfer of nuclear warheads between points in this country is conducted by road is precisely to attend to the matters that he has raised. We make sure that those loads do not go through built-up areas. However, where we are talking about nuclear waste, I can tell the House that the risk to the public is very much diminished. As I am sure my noble friend is aware, the amount for which the MoD is responsible is a very small proportion of the nuclear waste transported generally within this country.

Kosovo
2.50 p.m.
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in implementing the Holbrooke package in Kosovo and in facilitating talks between President Milosevic, the ethnic Albanian leadership and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA).
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the OSCE is continuing its work to establish a ground verification mission in Kosovo. An HQ is being established in Pristina and there are already about 100 mission staff in Kosovo, in addition to the approximately 300 international monitors already on
714
the ground as part of the Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission. These will be folded into the OSCE mission. Since 17th October NATO's Air Verification Mission has made regular overflights of Kosovo. The UK continues actively to support efforts led by US Envoy Hill and EU Special Envoy Petritsch to secure agreement on an interim accord for Kosovo.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, given that the Holbrooke package was agreed in mid-October, can the Minister say why some seven weeks later only a fraction—indeed, the Minister said some 300?—of the 2,000 strong OSCE verification mission has been deployed? Further, can she say what assessment the Government have made of fears that the Balkan winter has helped to check violence in the province for the time being but that it could well break out again in the spring? If more monitors are not on the ground soon, it may not be possible to contain the violence sufficiently for the parallel negotiations on the future of Kosovo to succeed.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we believe that we are making steady and proper progress. There are already some 500 international personnel in Kosovo, including the 300 monitors who were attached to the Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission. It is important for us to realise that this is an unprecedented task for the OSCE, but the establishment of the headquarters in Pristina and the fact that the first contingent of verifiers is being put in there—some 23 of whom are from the UK—are important steps forward. In view of the urgency, the UK put in over 50 additional personnel in November to boost the additional Kosovo diplomatic mission. Those people have to be trained in their task, which is a serious and important one. However, we believe that steady progress is being made.
As to the difficulties over the Balkan winter, although a few months ago there were about 50,000 people without shelter in Kosovo, I am happy to say that I believe all people who have been looking for shelter have now found it. It is to be hoped that the devastation of the Kosovo winter will not be so tragic in its effect.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government are keeping a wary eye on the behaviour or Prince Leka—the claimant to the Albanian throne—who, although resident in this country at one stage, has also been resident in South Africa and is now believed to be in Albania. Is he helping the KLA? Do the Government have any information about his present whereabouts and behaviour?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not have any information about that particular individual. However, in relation to the KLA in general, the Government's position is quite clear; namely, that the basis of the Holbrooke agreement applies to all parties in Kosovo and not just to some of them.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in the agreement reached by

715
Mr. Richard Holbrooke, there was a date of 2nd November for the commencement of discussion about the future autonomous status of Kosovo and that it was suggested that talks between Mr. Milosevic and the Kosovan authorities should begin? Can the Minister give the House any information about where, if anywhere, those talks now stand?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. Belgrade has committed itself to seek agreement on a framework document for an interim settlement based on the Contact Group-endorsed proposals. We fully intend to hold them to their word. Therefore, we are continuing actively to support the ongoing diplomatic efforts which are being spearheaded by US Envoy Hill and EU Special Envoy Petritsch to try to bring the two sides together in agreement. This is certainly a very long, difficult and drawn-out business. However, both envoys are actively engaged in discussions with both sides. Her Majesty's Government are supporting them in their endeavours.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while many of those who have been seeking shelter have now found shelter of a sort, the situation which confronts them is pretty bleak? Does she also agree that there is a tremendous need to ensure adequate medical and food supplies? Further, as winter takes a grip on the area, can my noble friend say anything reassuring to the House about the supply of humanitarian relief and access to it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I reported to your Lordships a few moments ago, UNHCR has reported that all displaced people previously living in the open now have access to adequate shelter. I believe that that is a tribute to the very hard work of UNHCR in that respect. Much assistance continues to go into Kosovo directly from Her Majesty's Government. Moreover, the Department for International Development announced a £2 million contribution for humanitarian assistance to Kosovo, in addition to £1 million provided earlier this year and a further £1.5 million allocated for longer-term peace-building activities. Indeed, that is in addition to the European Union assistance which amounted to some £13 million over the period. We believe that the humanitarian assistance is getting through. Of course, there have been reports of some difficulties in particular areas but, on the whole, the reports now coming through are mostly positive in that the assistance is getting to where it is needed.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister say on what day the first report of the monitoring mission will be published and at what intervals it will publish further reports thereafter?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that a particular date has been established for the first monitoring report. However, if I am wrong in that respect, I shall write to the noble
716
Lord and ensure that a copy of my letter is placed in the Library of the House. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, earlier, it is important that the training of the observers is done properly and that we receive the kind of reports that will be genuinely useful. I should also remind your Lordships that the overflights have already begun and we are beginning to receive some very useful information from them.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether it is still the policy of the British Government not to give refuge in this country to foreigners who are plotting troubles elsewhere? Indeed. Prince Leka—of whom the Minister has not apparently heard and about whom I shall say more some other time—is a great hefty fellow with a couple of guns to his belt who was in South Africa at one stage and has recently been in Britain. Can the Minister say whether he is known to be helping and backing the KLA?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I regret that I do not know any more about Prince Leka now than I did a few moments ago when I hoped that I had indicated to the noble Earl that that was a significant gap in my knowledge, though clearly not in his. I shall certainly do what I can to find out about him and write to the noble Earl. Moreover, as I can see that this is of general interest to your Lordships, I shall also put a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

Education Committees: Church Representation
2.57 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have which would affect the place of Church representatives on local authority education committees.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, as we made clear in our White Paper, Modern Local Government—In Touch with the People, under our proposals for new political structures Church and parent representatives will continue to be full voting members of any council committees concerned with education. This will safeguard and maintain the ability of Church representatives to contribute to decisions about the planning and provision of education services.
With the indulgence of the House and recalling that, for much of last year, the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, was my opposite number on some lengthy education legislation, perhaps I may record my personal regret that he has departed from that position. I wish him the very best in his future career as a loose cannon on the Back-Benches.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his kind words and for his courteous reply.

717
Yes, indeed, I feel rather free. However, can the Minister say what the position of Church representatives would be if a local authority embarked upon an executive Cabinet-style of government? Would Church representatives be members of that cabinet and would they have voting rights?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord and perhaps others in the House misunderstand our proposals on local government. We would separate out the executive function in committee structures from the scrutiny function. However, the scrutiny function would remain of great importance. The Church representatives would have a vote on that. As the noble Lord will be aware, under the legislation passed last year, they will be equal partners in the school organising committees.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, is the Minister aware how much the Churches—I speak not only for the Church of England—have valued the place which they have had, not merely in the scrutinising and oversight of decisions in the field of education but in their formation and execution? Will he accept that something of what he said just now fills me with some alarm as to whether the new proposals make provision for the same involvement in the formation and execution of policy as Church representatives have hitherto had?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the change in local government structure will ensure that Church representation on education committees, or whatever committees now cover education, will be at least as strong as it has been in the past. As I said, the legislation passed in the previous Session will ensure that the Churches will be represented in the school organising committees and, therefore, will act as true partners with local authorities in relation to school provision in their local authority areas.
Lord Tope: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, if local authorities adopt either of the cabinet models outlined in the White Paper to which he referred, there will not be any education committees for the Church or parent governors to be represented on? Does he envisage that parent representatives and Church representatives will be members of the cabinet? If so, what responsibility will they have as members of that cabinet?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords, they will not be members of that cabinet. There will be successor committees which will scrutinise education. We will not have the committee structure as it currently exists. Precisely how they do it will vary from local authority to local authority; but those new committees which replace the current structure will be strong scrutiny committees. Church representatives from the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church will be strong and voting members of the committees.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the noble Lord perhaps go a little further in describing the difference between scrutiny and executive action? As I hear what he is saying, the Churches, and, incidentally, parents, will be
718
driven out of the executive function altogether and be reduced to making comments. That will cause alarm right around the House.
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords, the noble Lord misunderstands the proposition. The executive will require the agreement of the committees to most of its functions. The executive will propose courses of action to the committees and to the full council in a rather similar way to the way the Executive propose action to this House and to another place.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is any statutory provision for members of local education committees to sit on, for example, Church school governing bodies? If not, do the Government have any proposals to do something about that? Does he agree that some kind of cross-fertilisation between school governing bodies would be educationally very sound?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are all in favour of cross-fertilisation in this area. Indeed, the new partnership signalled by the legislation passed in the previous Session will provide for that. My noble friend asked a specific question about representation on Church school governing bodies. There may well be experiments in that area. I shall consult my colleagues in the Department for Education and write to my noble friend.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, where there is a cabinet system, what proposals will the Government make for the presence of non-Christian representatives on scrutiny committees?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in terms of representation, the current position is that primary legislation provides for Roman Catholic and Church of England representation where those Churches provide education in the area. In relation to other schools which come within the local authority system, that would require special direction by the Secretary of State. That would apply to non-Christian schools as it would to other Christian denominations.

Business
3.3 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the Post Office.

Business of the House: Motions, 8th December
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

719
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with tomorrow so far as is necessary to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Gilbert to be taken before the two draft orders standing in the name of the Lord Williams of Mostyn.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Committee:

L. Barnett,

L. Burns,

L. Ezra,

L. Newby,

B. O' Cathain,

L. Paul,

L. Peston (Chairman),

L. Tebbit,

L. Thomas of Macclesfield,

L. Vinson,

V. Weir;

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee do meet on Wednesday 9th December at half-past ten o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, perhaps I may speak at this stage. I find it slightly embarrassing because the Motion lists me as a member of the committee. I have given formal notice that, unfortunately, much as I would like to serve upon it, I am not able so to do.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, for mentioning that point. I was informed this morning, too late to alter the terms of the Motion itself I regret to say, that it was not possible for the noble Lord to serve on the committee. I can give him an assurance that steps are in hand to ensure that his name no longer appears as a member of the committee and that in due course his name will be replaced by the name of another noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
720
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed as the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session:

L. Aberdare,

V. Allenby of Megiddo,

L. Ampthill,

L. Brougham and Vaux,

L. Burnham,

L. Carter,

L. Chesham,

L. Cocks of Hartcliffe,

B. Cox,

L. Dean of Harptree,

L. Elliott of Morpeth,

L. Elton,

L. Graham of Edmonton,

B. Hooper,

B. Lockwood,

L. Lyell,

L. McColl of Dulwich,

L. McIntosh of Haringey,

C. Mar,

L. Murton of Lindisfarne,

B. Nicol,

V. Oxfuird,

V. St. Davids,

B. Serota,

V. Simon,

L. Skelmersdale,

L. Strabolgi,

L. Strathclyde,

B. Turner of Camden.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In introducing the Bill perhaps I may express my gratitude to those noble Lords who have indicated their willingness to speak in the debate and, in particular, to the noble Earl, Lord Cairns, who is the Chairman of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Perhaps I may also express, on her behalf, the regret of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, that unfortunately she is not able to speak in today's debate, as she would have wished to have done as she is in South Africa.
Nearly one in four people in the world live on less than one dollar a day. That is both morally repugnant and a threat to world security and stability. The Government have committed themselves, in the first White Paper on development for nearly 20 years, to reducing the number of people in the world in extreme poverty.
We can reduce world poverty but it can be done only if economic growth benefits the poor and through measures which provide education and health care. It is

721
only possible if economic growth is substantially higher than population growth. We can achieve that rate of growth. Many countries will need increased domestic savings and investment but they will also need capital from wealthier countries.
The Department for International Development aims to encourage these private flows to the poorer countries. We can do this by helping partner governments to establish sound economic policies, a well regulated environment for business and transparent, accountable, government. We also work with UK based companies to promote responsible business and ethical codes of conduct. It is also crucial for developing countries to mobilise private capital flows because, in volume terms, they are vastly more significant than official flows. But most private investment goes to the wealthier developing countries and excludes most countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
The Commonwealth Development Corporation is the Government's main instrument for directly mobilising investment in the poorer countries. This year it has celebrated its 50th anniversary. During those 50 years it has made a substantial contribution to development. It now has an investment portfolio which totals some £1.6 billion, with investments in more than 400 enterprises in 55 countries. It invests in a wide range of sectors including infrastructure, agri-business, manufacturing and financial services. Its long-standing expertise in developing countries and its ability to identify and manage good quality investments in difficult operating environments have given it credibility among governments, financial institutions and international investors.
But CDC is an under-utilised asset. As long as it remains in the public sector, CDC cannot expand significantly. Like other public sector bodies, it is bound by public sector financial controls. Even with a growing development assistance programme, financing CDC exclusively from public funds would always face firm limits, since more for CDC would automatically mean less in other areas.
The Government therefore considered how to enable CDC to make an even greater contribution to the sustainable development of the poorer countries and to help to mobilise other private capital. A dynamic CDC, successfully investing and mobilising private capital into the poorer countries, could have not only a direct effect on growth but also a strong demonstration effect, by showing that it is possible for investors to achieve attractive returns from investing in poorer countries.
The challenge is to ensure that CDC continues to focus on the poorer countries. Current levels of foreign investment show that the market perceives these countries as high risk. In 1996, less than 2 per cent. of total direct foreign investment was in least developed countries. We considered that a continuing government stake would ensure that CDC's development role is secured; and this link with the UK Government benefits CDC by helping provide access to local governments and by providing co-financiers with some comfort on country risk issues.
722
We decided, therefore, that a public/private partnership, which benefits both from its association with government and from the participation of private capital, is the right way forward. CDC's opportunities are improving as more developing country governments improve the operating environment for business and increasingly seek private investment for industry. We believe that CDC is well placed to demonstrate that attractive returns can be made in these markets.
We see this as a long-term partnership. We intend to retain a substantial minority holding in CDC for the foreseeable future. In this way the Government will have a long-term stake in the success of CDC. The emphasis of the partnership will be on CDC continuing to do what it does best. The partnership's purpose can be summarised as: maximising the creation and long-term growth of viable businesses in developing countries, especially the poorer countries, achieving attractive returns for shareholders and implementing ethical best practice.
As well as its ordinary shareholding, government will have a "golden share", through which CDC's development role will be protected. This golden share will be of indefinite duration and will exist so long as government have a meaningful share in the partnership. I will return to that point later.
It is essential to ensure that all the provisions necessary to fulfil CDC's development role are clearly set out from the start in the partnership framework and the company's constitution. Those provisions will then be an essential part of the company's identity and will be known to potential investors, who, if they choose to invest, will do so in full knowledge of CDC's objectives, principles and methods.
The golden share rights will protect CDC's investment and ethical policies. The draft investment policy and a progress report on the development of CDC's business principles have been deposited in the Library of the House, along with the draft memorandum and articles of association for CDC plc, which set out the golden share rights.
The investment policy secures CDC's focus on the poorer countries. It sets out a "universe" of developing countries for whose benefit CDC may invest and requires that at least 70 per cent. of CDC's investments—over a rolling five-year period—are for the benefit of the poorer of those countries, defined as those falling below the weighted average of GNP per capita of lower middle income countries as defined in turn by the World Bank. The latest (1996) figures give a cut off point of 1,740 dollars per head. It also says that CDC will aim to ensure that 50 per cent. of its investments each year will be for the benefit of sub-Saharan African or south Asian countries, and it notes a number of sectors (such as manufacture of equipment for military purposes) in which CDC may not invest. The investment policy will be put in place before private participation is invited and the partnership established, and any subsequent changes to it will require the agreement of both a majority of ordinary shareholders and the golden shareholder. These business principles and policies will reflect international best practice in responsible business.

723
I have described the key elements of the partnership framework which is proposed. I will now say a few words about who the partners might be, and about other issues related to the sale of a majority holding. Before the Prime Minister announced the proposed partnership in October 1997, the Government had commissioned and received external advice that, provided the partnership was designed satisfactorily, there was likely to be private sector interest in participating. Satisfactory design refers to matters such as setting a clear framework, as I have described, so that there is no fear of unpredictable government interference, and setting an appropriate capital structure for CDC.
We wish to encourage the widest possible participation in CDC, and this would ultimately mean a listing. Interest could be expected to come from those already targeting emerging markets and interested in moving into poorer frontier markets, or investors attracted by CDC's ethical stance. However, it will take time to prepare for listing and for CDC to establish a financial track record attractive to the market. Because of this, listing may not be possible at the time when other conditions are right for the creation of the partnership. In that case we would look at alternatives for a transitional period. Decisions will be taken on these matters in the light of advice nearer the time. The important thing will be to secure the greatest overall development impact and to ensure that capital is introduced at the right time for the business.
That timing depends on a number of factors, including market perceptions of pre-emerging markets and of CDC's track record and forecast performance. The Asian crisis, for example, has had a serious impact on current market perceptions of emerging markets. But as Asia recovers, appetite for investing in emerging markets is likely to return, although perhaps with more concern about the type of investment. Financial track record is also key. The Government's target for CDC's return on capital employed has been a three year average of 8 per cent. Adverse market conditions in 1997, which have continued into 1998, have had an adverse impact on returns but, in general, CDC has achieved the target with profitability levels comparable to or above those of other development finance institutions. But we are aware that returns at this level will be too low to attract private funds, and CDC will be seeking to increase profitability. This will come partly from continuing the shift to equity investments which provide a better balance between risk and reward than long-term loans, as well as doing more to help create and develop long-term sustainable business. CDC's method of working, which relies on close management of equity positions, puts it in a strong position to identify and pursue good investments.
The Bill is the first stage in the creation of this partnership. The text is in itself largely technical. The policy issues which I have outlined—other than entrenchment of the Government's shareholding—do not appear on the face of the Bill (though many of them are covered in the background papers which have been deposited in the Library).
724
The Bill covers three main areas. First, there are the provisions needed to turn CDC into a public limited company. Initially the Government will hold all the shares. The intention is to proceed with this conversion soon after any Act resulting from the Bill becomes law, even though, as I have explained, the timing of the eventual sale of the majority holding will depend on a number of factors including market conditions.
Although the conversion of CDC is a technical issue, it is an important one that I should explain a little further. At the moment CDC is a statutory corporation which is not a suitable legal vehicle for the partnership. It cannot issue shares, for example. That is not like privatisations where, typically, legislation would transfer the assets of the public corporation to a newly formed "successor company". This Bill transforms CDC directly into a public limited company without creating a new legal entity. No transfers of assets are involved, because CDC retains the same legal identity, and remains in being, both before and after the transformation.
This legal route is being used because many of CDC's assets are inevitably held abroad. We were advised that, had the "successor company" method been used it would have been necessary also to make sure that all CDC's individual assets were successfully transferred under local laws applying in all the countries in which CDC operates. That could have been a costly and time-consuming exercise which would have diverted CDC's staff around the world from getting on with the real business of the corporation.
The second area of the Bill contains provisions needed to restructure CDC's balance sheet, to give it a financial structure that suits the needs of the partnership. This area of the Bill also makes provision for the continuation of government financial assistance in the period while CDC plc is wholly owned by government.
Thirdly, Clause 18 of the Bill entrenches the Government's role in CDC plc. The Bill is being presented on the basis that it will be used to create a partnership between the Government and the private sector, involving a substantial and long-term government interest. It is not a privatisation. We believe it would be right that, if a future Secretary of State wished to dissolve the partnership, he or she should be required to seek Parliament's approval before doing so.
Clause 18 of the Bill does this by entrenching the two key aspects of the Government's side of the partnership: first, a substantial economic interest and, secondly, the golden share, with the important rights it reserves to the Secretary of State. Clause 18 requires the Government to hold at least 25 per cent. of CDC's ordinary share capital and to continue to hold the golden share. The clause cannot be amended or repealed without the consent of Parliament. The clause also prevents a Secretary of State from agreeing to changes in CDC's constitution which would diminish their rights as holder of the golden share, except with the approval of Parliament.
Together the provisions of Clause 18 will ensure that the fundamental nature of the partnership as it is being presented to your Lordships' House today cannot be altered without Parliament's consent.

725
This Bill has been well heralded in public policy statements for more than a year. I am very pleased to be able to commend the Bill and to present it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
3.23 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate. I have been a passionate supporter of the Commonwealth Development Corporation for many years, going back to the time when it was called the Colonial Development Corporation. I remember discussing its aims and objectives with the marvellous Evelyn Baring, later Lord Howick, over 35 years ago. Even in those days it seemed to me the ideal instrument of the future, in terms of promoting development and enterprise, with qualities which, in the end, would prove superior to those of government-to-government aid, direct budgetary aid or donor aid which 35 years ago was in its high noon. It struck me that one day we should see much greater expansion of aid instruments, combined with private enterprise flows, which promoted private enterprise at a less spectacular level, namely, that of the small agricultural business, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned, all over the developing world. I thought that it would work much closer to the roots of development without being caught up in the machinations of huge bureaucracies and vast infrastructure schemes where much of the finance often disappears in dubious directions. I have therefore been a passionate supporter for many years. I am delighted that we have an opportunity to discuss the next stage.
I have no specific interest to declare, but I declare a general interest in all matters that may lead to privatisation (although we are told that this is not a privatisation) or which involve flotations. These matters interest the financial sector in which I work.
Thirty-five years ago, indeed 20 or 10 years ago, the main instrument for promoting development was seen to be overseas aid. A huge industry had been built up on the back of it, and a number of institutions had developed whose job was to transfer resources to the developing countries in the hope that that would promote development. Over the past decade we have seen the picture change completely, with private direct investment and portfolio investment (although it is less related to development) growing by leaps and bounds. The figure I have for the developing countries for 1996 is 120 billion dollars. That is about 40 per cent. of the total foreign and direct investment flows throughout the world. In 1998, of course, the figure will look much worse. There will be a dip, as in 1992; however, I hope that the figure will revive again. Admittedly, the lion's share goes to the not necessarily richer but the bigger developing countries, with China taking the largest proportion. It is a country with a low per capita income but since changing its policies towards foreign investment it has become much more attractive to such investment. That figure of 120 billion dollars now dwarfs anything in the way of official aid, which runs at about a quarter of that level, maybe even less.
726
So we have seen an enormous shift in the world's financial involvement in the development process from overseas aid to a position where private capital is now the driving engine. Somewhere in the middle of it all I had always hoped that the Commonwealth Development Corporation would emerge as a brilliantly conceived instrument for carrying forward the process. It has had its comparators. The International Finance Corporation is in effect an international version of the CDC, although it operates on a bigger scale. It has slightly different aims and missions but it too is concerned with promoting private enterprise through joint ventures and direct investment in projects around the world.
It is no surprise and no worry to me that the CDC appears to have a slightly ambiguous future. It is not to be fully privatised; nor is it to remain a statutory corporation. The absolute key is that it should have a strong balance sheet, one that is not undermined when the going gets rough again, as inevitably it will. There will be projects and big investments that go wrong; countries will close down; and capital controls will be slapped on by countries where there has been substantial CDC investment. All that will make for a bumpy ride. Investing in emerging markets is a risky business. I therefore hope that the balance sheet will be strong from the start. I hope that the support of the Government, who, to begin with, will he the only shareholder, and even after some time probably the biggest single shareholder, will be unwavering and that there will not be a sudden change of policy and view when matters turn difficult, as they will.
I am very interested in the concept of public private partnership. I wish to ask one or two questions about how it will work in this case. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that that is for the longer term. The idea is that there should first be a wholly owned equitised corporation and that the shareholding by the Government will eventually be wound down to 25 per cent., with 75 per cent. being held by investors. What happens to the guarantee regime? The guarantees in Clauses 10 and 11 are to underpin various projects and undertakings into which the CDC has entered. Is it right that, when CDC ceases to be a wholly-owned Crown corporation and the shares start being sold in the open market to other investors, all guarantees will be off? How will that affect the operations of CDC? The same question applies to the very large National Loans Fund interest-free loan commitment of £755 million already available to CDC. Presumably that can no longer be interest-free once CDC becomes a corporation, with risk equity available, and invites private investment.
There is a dilemma here. The idea of having the best of the public and private sectors combining in areas where the market will not necessarily deliver the goods is not a new one. It is a very old idea, with which people have wrestled for generations. There was always an intellectual conundrum; namely, how could a semi-public body be at the same time a private risk capital operation? Either it was backed by the Government in the last resort and could not go bust, or it was out on its own and could go bust in which case all

727
the undertakings, guarantees and backing of government were off and the public purpose for which the body was created in the first place could no longer be fulfilled. It is interesting that those with ingenuity at the Treasury who for years sent messages to people such as myself saying that this could not be done now find that it can be done. I seem to remember someone—I think it was Sidney Webb—saying a long time ago when Britain left the gold standard, "They never told us we could do that".
I do not know whether someone has discovered some new voodoo or magic to make for a stable situation where 25 per cent. of the shares of CDC will be owned by the Government in due course, where there will still be some kind of concessionary finance, where there will still be some kind of guarantees, and where there will be a golden share. CDC is known to be a valuable instrument of public policy. Yet investors will be invited to put their money in. Investors will either lick their lips and say, "This is a bonanza because it cannot go wrong and we cannot lose; it is not risk capital at all but debt capital with a soupçon added", or they will put their money in and lose it, and a valuable instrument, if things go wrong, as they often do in business, particularly in emerging markets, will he lost.
I therefore have some queries as to how the corporation will run in the difficult grey area between being public and being private. I do not see how it can do so, but I hope that it can. As I said, I greatly treasure the role that the corporation has played over the years. It is very well run by excellent and extremely knowledgeable staff. I have visited many of its projects around the world. The corporation realised that in order to get development going it was necessary to support small projects and private enterprise at the humblest level rather than grand, vacuous and vague schemes by governments involving huge infrastructure development or massive programmes of education and social improvement which sounded very good but somehow never worked. The corporation always backed the small platoons, the smaller endeavours, and did so very well.
Private investment has its place; the CDC has its place; and straightforward aid still has a place in backing unfinanceable and non-market social projects, social infrastructure and public and political infrastructure, without which no investment or development can take place. I hope that the corporation will continue to have a powerful and effective place, that it will be well financed and that it will be able to live with this slightly strange, ambiguous role. Perhaps it will work in practice, but I confess that I remain puzzled as to the theory.
3.35 p.m.
Earl Cairns: My Lords, I have an interest to declare in that, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned, I have been the chairman of CDC for some three-and-a-half years, a fact of which I am very proud. I am privileged to hold that office in an organisation with a record of endeavour in the field of development which is, I believe, second to none. CDC has played a major role in nurturing sustainable development in many
728
countries and many industries over the past 50 years. It currently brings much needed wealth and employment to individuals and much needed revenue to governments in some 55 of the poorest countries in the world. In many of them we are the largest official investor and therefore provide an important lead to others. Perhaps as many as a million people depend directly or indirectly for their livelihood on the jobs that are created in the businesses in which we are currently invested. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his commendation of the quality of our management, with which, of course, I fully concur.
It may seem paradoxical that, at a time when private sector flows to the developing world are substantially reduced, the Bill should seek to increase private sector disciplines upon CDC. However, it is clear that most governments have come to recognise that the creation of commercial value is most effectively achieved by the use of the private sector financial markets via investing institutions which are prepared to take measured risk and appropriate rewards. It is against this background that I, with the support of the whole board of CDC, welcome the Bill.
CDC has been constrained from supporting as much development as it has the potential to do by the limits of government expenditure and the inability to raise further capital by virtue of the "least cost rule". In addition, many co-venturers from the private sector have perceived CDC as insufficiently financially motivated to make CDC a welcomed partner. I hope that the passing of the Bill will enable CDC to fulfil the Prime Minister's stated objective, when he first announced the public-private partnership, that CDC should play a much greater role in mobilising private finance for poor countries by giving CDC access to financial markets and by ensuring that it is a more attractive partner for others from the private sector. If that is achieved, this will be the acid test of success.
Until now CDC has been financed by loans from government and retained surplus derived from our own activities. These involve no servicing cost, although UK corporation tax is paid upon the profits that we repatriate. Much of our investment is in the form of loans. CDC has also applied an "additionality" test to investments, whereby we have left the private sector to operate where it could, leaving the most attractive opportunities to it. For these reasons, we have not achieved a full market return on our investments, nor have we been required to do so.
CDC derives considerable benefit from its close relationship with the British Government. The effective development contribution of successive governments is widely recognised, and the constructive relations which CDC enjoys in many countries crucially depend on that linkage. It is therefore an important plank in the future success that this association continues and is seen to continue.
The commitment to development is as fundamental to these parts of CDC as it is to the Department for International Development, although ours has a particular focus. It is enshrined in our investment policy and will remain as key to the future of CDC as it has in the past.

729
CDC has also encodified its policy of fair business and high social standards, making explicit what has been implicit in our business practices in past years. I do not claim we have any monopoly of best practice, but I hope that we can act as a standard bearer for the way in which international investors behave in developing countries.
The challenge that will face CDC in the years to come is whether it can fully meet the requirements of the development objectives that have been the hallmark of its activities over the past 50 years while at the same time satisfying the requirements of the financial markets. CDC is determined to do so, but I cannot disguise that it is a challenge without a large margin for error. Nonetheless, I believe it is possible. The greatest contribution to development is in encouraging the most perspective and most profitable enterprises, which build on the comparative advantages of each economy. In this way we can enable sustainable businesses to compete successfully in an increasingly integrated international market place.
CDC will have to ensure that it can capture the rewards of success, perhaps more keenly than we have attempted to do in the past. It will involve a major shift in style and technique. The equity content of the portfolio will rise, as we seek to share more fully in successful ventures, even though that will mean more certain losses if businesses fail. It will require a much closer relationship with the businesses in which we invest, since we shall not merely be looking to ensure that our loans are repaid. That change is starting to take place. CDC will have to become more focussed and more demanding of itself. That should ensure that CDC's contribution grows in step with greater returns, in creating value and employment opportunities in poorer countries.
CDC has formidable competitive advantages. Its experience and knowledge of many developing countries are highly significant. Its reputation and its relationships, hard earned over the past 50 years, mean that it is a welcomed investor wherever it operates. Its continuing constructive relationship with the Department for International Development will be a major advantage and must remain a vibrant one. We operate in countries which have, on average, high long-term growth rates and scarcities of capital and skills that we at CDC can introduce. CDC will have to build on those advantages. It will not be an easy task to fulfil both the developmental and financial criteria. The challenge is a considerable one, but the prize is also considerable. My colleagues at CDC share with me the wish to accept the challenge because of our commitment to better and more development. For that reason I commend this Bill to the House.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, one only needs to speak briefly because all the previous speakers, and those who will follow, are great admirers of CDC and what it has done in the past. Perhaps I may say how pleased I am that the Government are pushing the activities of CDC which I consider has, and does, a vital job.
730
As a banker I have followed the activities of CDC over the years and I have never found it advancing monies just because it sounded like a good cause. I have always found it to be pragmatic and sensible. It advances money to entities at rates and conditions which banks might not. I suppose it reaches parts of the world which others do not or cannot reach. On my investigation it has only become involved after proper due diligence. It is certainly no instrument of pure charity. I found only a sensible form of pragmatism when it has been involved.
CDC has spread its wings in recent years and is now serving countries which, when it was originally formed, it would not have gone into. I hope that that continues. As a longtime admirer I was pleased to hear the Minister say that it will continue in that vein. He was absolutely right in saying that for the poorer countries and poorer economies it will have to look more carefully, but there is absolutely no reason why we cannot advance monies and assistance to them and to find it profitable both to them and to the lenders. However, I hope that CDC will not concentrate too much on the sub-Saharan economies and south Asia. I should like to feel that there are other parts of the world where its help is much needed.
When we were discussing CDC last week in the debate on the gracious Speech, I said that I had seen activities in central America which are very necessary. We have had awful hurricanes that have affected Nicaragua and Honduras. That area of the world has such storms and it requires help. That applies not only to Central America, Latin America and the Caribbean, but specifically those places which have been hard hit such as Haiti, which one might consider to be a "no-no" area. One can advance money there and democracy as well as profit is helped by so doing. A special case is Cuba. Some form of assistance to that country will help it to rejoin the normal democratic community of nations.
As CDC moves from a structure dependent on loans into one based on equity, there is a need to scrutinise legislation very carefully as a change in structure requires a rather different approach. If CDC is going to cross this divide without falling at various hurdles one has to look at this carefully. I do not have the same gloomy thoughts as the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I do not believe that it is too difficult for governments and the private community to work together. We have seen governments build shares and other investments, but not quite the same as this. There are many instances around the world where governments and the private sector work together successfully.
I am sure that the Minister is well aware of all these potential problems. I am sure that he will give his confirmation that the Government are not unaware of the change that comes about when one goes from a loan structure to an equity one.
I conclude by saying that I hope CDC will continue as it has done in the past. I am sure it will and I wish it well.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I intervene in this Second Reading debate with some diffidence for in recent years my only forays into the world of development have been

731
in connection with the affairs of the British Council. However, many years ago I made my maiden speech on the subject of the Brandt Report. My reason for intervening this afternoon—I am conscious that previous speakers know far more than I do about investment banking, third world development and the CDC—is that I have always had a high regard for the work of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. For example, many years ago I remember two major and successful projects undertaken by the CDC in Swaziland, where I was also involved in development work.
As has been said, the CDC was set up in 1948 as one of several interesting experiments by the Attlee government. This was prior to the days when overseas aid became a major cottage industry or, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, before the high noon of development aid. Some of the Attlee experiments overseas were disastrous, for example groundnuts in Tanganyika and chickens in the Gambia. However, the essence of CDC was small and not mega projects. At the same time one remembers two other interesting experiments: the Finance Corporation for Industry and ICFC, which in due course merged and became "3I's" and it was very successfully floated. It is nice to know that the Attlee government's experiment is still proceeding.
I used to be sent the annual report and accounts of CDC and was interested to see how it was progressing. My impression is that for some time it has been bumping along on a plateau. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, explained some of the reasons why it had in a sense become stuck given the normal public sector constraints. In the meantime, in the development field the rest of the world—the private sector—has been pressing ahead. The flows into the third world from the private sector are now much larger than those from the public sector.
Almost everyone welcomed the announcement by the Prime Minister the previous autumn, which was followed by the White Paper to transform the CDC, which we are learning to call public private partnership, or PPP. I am not sure how many of us knew what that meant. At the beginning I believed that it meant privatisation. I am still not entirely clear what it will mean in practice, but it is an interesting and important idea. I still regard it as an experiment, but there is nothing wrong with experiments. Therefore, I welcome this Bill as the starting process.
I have hardly anything to say about the Bill itself. In essence all it does is to turn the CDC into a plc and in that sense it is a paving Bill. I believe that it is quite straightforward. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to agree the Motion to be moved later this afternoon by the Minister—it was originally suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale—that the Bill should follow the Grand Committee procedure. That is all I say about the Bill, except for two small subsidiary points. I have jotted them down but I believe that both have been dealt with. First, when is the filing date likely to be? I believe that
732
the answer is quite soon. My second point concerns the memorandum and articles of association, which I am glad to hear have been placed in the Library.
I come to the big question that has been touched upon by all previous speakers: how easy will it be to attract private equity partners, and how will this partnership work? It is common ground that a prerequisite is that CDC should become in the main an equity financier as compared with currently one-third of its portfolio. Last July the House of Commons in a very interesting and useful report was sceptical about this, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Howell. It drew attention, for example, to a USAID review in 1996 which frankly had been pretty dismissive of the whole concept. That is the big question. I take great comfort from the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Sandberg, and the experience of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank. There should not be too great a problem. We also have the noble Earl, Lord Cairns, as chairman. That is quite a good starting point.
There are nevertheless a number of subsidiary but quite important questions. I listed four, some of which have already been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The first concerns the length of the transition period. We have been over that matter. Essentially, what is needed is a good solid track record. Secondly, the management will need to be refocused. I do not know whether that is a big problem. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell me following the debate. Thirdly, what will happen to the government loans? As I understand it, they are currently well below the statutory limit of £1.1 billion. It would be a great help to the CDC if they could be freed up to get it off to a good start. Fourthly and finally, the tax status of the CDC is extremely important. Evidently it was a matter of considerable concern to the Secretary of State when she gave evidence to the Select Committee of the House of Commons. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House what progress is being made on that front. These are just some of the points that occur to me.
The transition period will be a tremendous challenge for the CDC, but in the noble Earl and his colleagues we have an excellent team. If they can pull it off it will be a great achievement. It will mean that a fine institution that has done great work over the past 50 years has found a new role to take it into the next 50 years.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Bill for the reasons quite clearly set out by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. We believe that it will have a positive implication for developing countries, especially those in sub-Saharan Africa. We wish the Bill all haste at every stage for reasons that I shall go into later. I am glad that all parties have now agreed that it should be subject to the Grand Committee procedure. I suggested as much in the reply to the gracious Speech. I am interested to note that it will be handled by the same Front Bench team who dealt with the National Lottery Bill last year and therefore I do not believe that this system will cause undue problems.

733
We have been assured categorically that the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill is not a privatisation but a move to a public private partnership. I am assured that that is the case. As one who is cynical to the nth degree, at the outset I believed that the privatisation, as it was then labelled, was being promoted so that the spending commitment set out in the White Paper could be met and the £1.5 billion realised from the sale of the CDC pumped straight into the DfID budget. That is not the case and it is something that we applaud. That assurance was made clear last week when the Secretary of State explained the purposes and ideas behind the Bill. That meeting was particularly useful and informative.
Because the Bill has come before your Lordships' House so quickly the reason behind it was explained to all Front Benches last Friday by the chief executive. Bearing in mind that I asked many questions of the chief executive of the CDC, I thank the Minister for the fact that he has not answered the questions before I asked them.
The CDC will change from a reactive to a proactive institution. On these Benches we understand that that is obviously not the easy option. The CDC will enter the harsh environment of the private sector and will have to prove itself. It will be judged on its share price and the dividend that it can produce, albeit not in the easiest of markets. The easy option would be to remain in the public sector, but that would take away one of the major options that the Bill gives to the CDC—to invest in equity, not debt.
The Bill to increase the borrowing requirement that passed through this House during the time of the previous government was a start, but this is the natural course that the CDC will have to take. The noble Earl, Lord Cairns, stressed the issue of looking at equity investment in companies. The importance of being able to invest in equity is that that will act as a lever on other private institutions, taking other companies into the area of investing in companies in emerging markets. The particular difficulties of investing in emerging markets can be seen at present in the City of London. The number of traders who have been investing in the emerging markets and who have found themselves without a job recently is quite substantial.
The Government's role in remaining in the CDC through their golden share is particularly important. The success of the CDC will ultimately rest on how it is perceived as a risk. The provisions in the Bill for bad debt and guarantees, and the fact that the Government are retaining at least 25 per cent. of the shares—although I believe the figure will probably be a lot higher—will give investors a great deal of confidence. The guarantees that will be put forward mean that the CDC will have to stay within a range of 54 countries that meet the criteria set out. I believe the Minister stated that it was $1,750 income per head of population.
There are certain drawbacks in remaining in those markets which are also perceived as the risks associated with investing in the CDC. As there is a higher perceived risk, the rate of return will also have to be slightly higher than in other markets. Will the Minister
734
give some assurance that the rate of return and the figures put forward of around 15 per cent. are achievable?
In his introduction the Minister said that the guarantees set out in the Bill could not be changed except by Act of Parliament. Perhaps I am mistaken, but if that is not the case, would he give an indication that it will not be possible to change the guarantees which are going through at present in the area where the CDC will operate? Are those guarantees set by Act of Parliament? Could they be changed by any other method or by the company at a board meeting?
I now turn to specific questions that are raised by the sale. The Minister said that once it becomes a plc, the present assets of the company will be the assets of the new company. Does that include the £550 million in reserves currently held by the Commonwealth Development Corporation? Am I right in understanding that the DfID at present owns those reserves? Will Treasury rules affect the transfer of those moneys or will the Treasury still have a claim on those reserves?
The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, mentioned the National Loans Fund looking at the £750 million still outstanding. There has been talk of that figure being swapped from loan to equity in the present company. Will the Minister give an indication of how that would take place? Perhaps he could give further details of the implied implications of that transfer, if it could take place.
The timescale for the change from a public sector company to a private sector company will of course be critical. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, used the word "experiment", but that is a rather risky word for such an important transition. The changeover, as I said earlier, must take place as quickly as possible because the company itself is changing direction. There must be a degree of uncertainty among the staff presently working in the company over the new direction that they will be taking and whether they will have the skills needed for that new direction. It will not affect just a small number of people. I believe there are 250 people affected in this country, 200 abroad and over 40,000 employees of companies in which the CDC invests at the moment. Can the Minister give the House some idea of the timescale for the transition?
Can the Minister also indicate whether there will be a time limit on the flotation of the company? I believe that the Secretary of State will trigger the flotation. Will there be a set period after which the flotation has to take place? I ask that to make sure that the CDC will not be left in limbo if there were continuing turbulence in the emerging markets, although I realise that that is not the Government's intention.
One implication of giving the Bill a hasty passage is that at the moment it is an offence for the Commonwealth Development Corporation to talk to like-minded investors. I believe it is an offence to discuss the break-up of a public body. Although the Minister will have some indication of who those like-minded investors are who will support the goals as set out in the guarantees, there will be certain limitations on having firm ideas of who those investors will be until the Act comes into force.

735
It is an important Bill and one hopes that in Committee we shall be able to raise some of the issues in greater depth. I realise that the Minister will not be able to answer all of the questions at present, but he has the support of these Benches.
4.9 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, this has been a most constructive short debate. I wish to stress the importance that we on this side of the House place on the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill and to express our appreciation of the opportunity for a full and thorough scrutiny of it. I am indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his detailed explanations, which are most welcome. Despite the consensus in the House on the Bill it is still vital to give proper consideration to the legislation and associated documentation.
The success of transforming a public corporation into a public private partnership depends crucially on how the details of the structure of the legislation, the memorandum and articles of association, and of the CDC at the time of the sale are handled. Your Lordships' House is in a particularly good position to give such consideration given the expertise on this matter among its Members. I think notably of the noble Earl, Lord Cairns, who made such an interesting speech, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, who regrettably cannot be with us today.
The CDC is a success story, as we have heard from all noble Lords who have spoken today, making a valuable and distinct contribution to Britain's overseas development effort. The Minister's lucid introductory remarks have clearly demonstrated that, so I need not burden your Lordships' House with more facts and figures. However, I point out that it was successive Conservative governments which built on the CDC's success by widening its powers and increasing its potential for growth with the 1982, 1986, 1995 and 1996 Acts.
The Conservative record reflects, too, our continuing commitment to development and our belief in the importance of private investment to further the growth of the developing countries. Indeed, in recent years the development finance institutions such as CDC have played a critical role in laying the foundations for much of the dramatic increase in private capital flows to the emerging markets.
The environment in which the DFIs operate have, however, markedly changed. In response to such changes, the DFIs have adapted in a number of ways. One is to increase private sector ownership. The Netherlands Development Finance Company has already done that. The French Proparco and the German DEG are considering expanding private sector ownership, too. Here in the UK it is proposed that CDC brings the private sector into its capital structure in a substantial way.
I should like to state clearly that this side of the House welcomes the Bill and its spirit. We fully support the concept of less state involvement, and of privatisation.
736
However, it is ironic that it is a Labour Government who seek to introduce a measure for the partial privatisation of a public body. Only 30 months ago the Labour Benches in another place were seeking assurances that the then Conservative government would not consider privatisation. In particular, at the Second Reading of what became the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 1996, Mr. Foulkes, said:
"The Opposition are worried about the dangers of progress towards privatisation … We are worried that the Government might be testing the waters for fattening the company and selling it off'.—[Official Report, 20/5196; col. 67.]
I continue to marvel at the way in which realities of government lead Labour to adopt Tory ways.
I turn now to specific aspects of the Bill. It is essentially an enabling Bill. We shall have the opportunity at Committee stage to scrutinise the Bill in greater detail. However, I wish to flag up some areas of concern at this early stage which stem from one fundamental question. Are the provisions envisaged likely to make it sufficiently attractive to the private sector? That was mentioned, quite rightly, by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley.
In Clause 18 the Bill makes provision for a partial privatisation leaving the Government with at least 25 per cent. of the issued ordinary share capital and a special share. We accept the need to accept the entrenched development role of the CDC. However, we should like to ask the noble Lord to clarify a number of points. Have the Government considered alternative models; and, if so, which? Despite what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said regarding privatisation, have they considered outright privatisation but with the development role entrenched on the face of the Bill? Why has the Crown Agents route not been considered appropriate? Is the public private partnership an intermediate step towards full privatisation? For how long do the Government intend to hold a golden share? The noble Lord referred to the foreseeable future, but what does that mean?
As part of enlarging the resources of the CDC, the Government propose in Clause 15 to raise the present limit of government assistance from £1.1 million to £1.5 million. But does that mean that the Government intend to make further loans for £745 million over the coming years? That was one of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.
If the provision is read in conjunction with Clause 9, is it the intention that the new loans will be interest bearing? After registration will government finance assistance, in particular new loans under Clause 9, score against the PSBR? That leads me to Clause 8 which provides that old loans, and advances in particular, remain non-interest bearing loans. That clearly suits CDC. During the International Development Committee hearings the Government gave the impression that they were inclined to convert some of the concessional advances into equity and to have some repaid. What considerations led to the changing of that declared intention?

737
The Bill represents only one element of the operation to enable setting up the public private partnership. It provides a purely formal framework. I wish to raise some fundamental questions on the contents of the memorandum and articles of association as well as the CDC investment policy. Would any private sector investor wish to invest in a company where the Secretary of State has such extensive powers of control? They may be protected from unpredictable interference, but would they want to invest in a company where the control of he fundamental decisions is not in their hands?
I turn next to the investment policy. That requires the CDC to invest at least 70 per cent. in the poorer countries and 50 per cent. in sub-Saharan and South Asian countries. I note that in 1997 the CDC invested in 17 countries which are not classified as poorer by the World Bank. I note, too, that among the poorer countries there are seven eastern European countries. There is no legal barrier to CDC involvement in those countries, although it is not in its policy at present. As we well know, over the years the focus of British foreign policy has shifted away from the Commonwealth and towards Europe. We on these Benches recognise that development, and support further European enlargement. Indeed, the CDC investment in eastern Europe would realise a hope first expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. Would this not be an opportunity to bring the CDC more into line with our foreign policy: by freeing the investment policy of the geographical requirement, increasing flexibility, maintaining the focus on the eradication of poverty and freeing funds for investment in eastern Europe?
The papers discussed so far are as much as the Government have seen fit to disclose. To complete the operation it is necessary, for example, to restructure the company's balance sheet, define its tax status and decide the method and size of sale and, most importantly, its timing. On those points the Government have left us completely in the dark. First, after registration, when the Crown fully own the CDC surely it will have to restructure the balance sheet to make it more attractive to investors? At present about 60 per cent. of the capital employed comes from government advances. Of course, market conditions at the time will be crucial. Depending on likely scenarios, how will the Government restructure the capital base of the CDC? If it is going to convert part of its substantial reserves into equity, would a company with a burden of over 60 per cent. of loans be attractive to the private sector? Would not the CDC become more attractive to private investors if the loans were converted into equity? Will the Government undertake to endow the CDC after registration with a strong, attractive balance sheet, as so rightly mentioned by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford?
Secondly, I turn to tax. We understand that provisions for the CDC tax treatment are to be included in the next Finance Bill. Has the Secretary of State been discussing with the Treasury the possibility of a special tax treatment of development investment organisations within the UK along similar lines to the treatment of pension funds? Do the Government intend to grant the
738
CDC an advantageous tax status which may provide the necessary incentive to private investors, offsetting the potential commercial disadvantages represented by the Government's retention of a considerable degree of control? How will an advantageous tax treatment be so circumscribed that it will not amount to a tax loophole, encouraging invasion and possibly fraud? What progress can the Minister report on discussions with the Treasury? Will the Government proceed with the Bill even if they do not obtain a special tax treatment for the CDC or allow it to go offshore.
Thirdly, the Government have not disclosed anything about the method and size of sale and, in particular, its timing. What further advice about the evidence of private sector interests have the Government had and what indications emerge from it? What method of sale are they envisaging to adopt? What minority stake above the 25 per cent. do they intend to hold? What is the current valuation of the CDC? Will the Government give your Lordships' House assurances that proceeds of the sale will go to DfID? By what date do they think the CDC will be ready to be privatised?
I hope that the Labour Government are not intending to sell it prematurely to raise money. Paradoxically, that is precisely what Members of the Benches opposite accused us of doing when they were in opposition.
Earlier this year, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, endeavoured to reassure this House. Of course it is privatisation in one sense, but the motives behind it are not the same as in the case of many privatisations in the past. Our concern is not so much the return on the equity sales which will be involved, but rather the ability to use that to extend access to additional funds. Four months later, DfID announced a comprehensive spending review for the next three years. I quote from the press release of 14th July:
"The Commonwealth Development Corporation will receive an injection of private capital through the sale of a majority share. This will improve the CDC's ability to contribute to development by increasing the flow of investment to poor countries. It will also provide receipts for the DfID budget".
If one looks at the table in the same press release there is an interesting increase for the year 2000 to 2001 of about £500 million, which roughly corresponds to the crude estimate of the partial sale of the CDC.
Looking at the wider canvas, that raises important questions, especially in view of the deteriorating health of world markets. Are the Government going to sell the CDC in 18 months' time? If the current rate of return is decreasing, how can the CDC establish a credible trend towards a rate of return of 15 per cent. and at the same time maximise the development content. How can the corporation undertake in such a short time the necessary shift in management focus and skills base? At what cost will that be to its dedicated and highly expert staff? Should there not be in the Bill a date before which it is not possible to proceed with partial privatisation in order to ensure that the CDC has enough time to make the necessary adjustments? We are seeking assurances that, although the Government are unwaveringly committed to part privatising the CDC, they will not rush into the sale. Will the Government also come back to Parliament before issuing securities?

739
As I said at the beginning, we welcome the Bill and its aims. However, we fear that there are still many aspects that have not been thought through in sufficient detail as yet. Therefore, we will need to give it a great deal of attention and time in order to ensure its success. I very much look forward to the answers to, I am afraid, my many, many questions.
4.24 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, rightly said, it is evidence of the expertise which is available to your Lordships' House from its Members in a number of spheres. I shall try to answer as many of the questions as I can, but it is right that I should start with the fundamental points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, who simply refuses to believe that this is a public private partnership but instead describes it as part privatisation.
I am afraid that the noble Baroness is very seriously in error in her analysis. That is a shame, since the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who was initially skeptical—I believe that he used the word "cynical", which does not describe him to me—has been convinced by the arguments about public private partnership. The fundamental difference, as the noble Lord recognises, is that the proceeds from introducing private capital into the CDC will be used for development assistance programmes—in other words, for the purposes of a whole spectrum of the activities of the Department for International Development—and not go straight into the Treasury pot.
That is the fundamental distinction which I wish I could persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, is the relevant consideration. It is not an intermediate step towards privatisation, as she suggests. It is a true partnership in which the Government will continue to be involved in the longer term for the benefit of government—in other words, their ability to carry out the objectives of the Department for International Development—and also of the private sector in that the expertise built up over 50 years by the CDC, its links, its offices in 27 countries and its expertise in a whole range of sectors, which are appropriate to poorer countries, will open up these markets to private capital. I hope it is fair to say that under these circumstances, despite the many difficulties which have been properly pointed out, not least and quite rightly by the noble Lord, Lord Cairns, the chairman, this is a win-win situation for the benefit of both sides.
Before going further, perhaps I may get rid of the false analogy which the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, raised with the Crown Agents. She asked why we were not following the Crown Agents' route. That is a company limited by guarantee. The Crown Agents cannot and do not have profits and therefore there is no question of attracting private equity capital. Therefore, there is no analogy of any kind between the Crown Agents and what we are considering today.
740
A number of noble Lords asked whether the financial implications of the Bill have been taken into account in public expenditure figures. I can categorically say that they have and that the comprehensive spending review figures for the Department for International Development, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, referred, take account of the provisions in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, made valid and perceptive points about guarantees. It is true that Clause 11 provides that the Government can guarantee third parties against default on financial obligations by the CDC. But he is also right in saying that after the CDC ceases to be wholly owned by the Crown that will no longer be the case for new projects. The whole point about going to private capital is the balance of risk and opportunity and it would be impossible to conceive of the Government guaranteeing individual projects after the change has taken place. Of course, the experience and expertise of CDC provides some comfort, as I said in my opening speech. And the links which the Government have with the governments in the poorer countries provide some comfort. But that cannot be in the form of financial guarantees.
The noble Lord also made an interesting and important point about the way in which the transformation of the balance sheet will take place. Perhaps I may try to explain it by example. I do not wish to be trapped into saying that the figures which I give are necessarily true figures. They are only exemplars. The present situation is that the balance sheet consists of £755 million of loans and reserves of £550 million. The example I give of a transformation is that in future £900 million would be equity and £400 million would be debt. That is more akin to a private sector balance sheet.
As the noble Lord suggested, interest-free loans must disappear. They have to be written down on the balance sheet. Calculations have been made of the effect on the total balance sheet of writing down those long-term loans. The calculation is that it is probably to the extent of 5 to 10 per cent. of the total balance sheet; in other words, it is manageable.
The noble Lord made a valid point, echoed by a number of other noble Lords, when he said that the activities of the CDC and of aid itself and other activities of the Department for International Development all have their place—I believe that that was the phrase he used—in government activity in relation to developing countries. That is the context in which we should see the matter. It is not that we see the new structure of the CDC as being the way in which the Government will approach their obligations to developing countries. That is one end of the spectrum. Relief aid for natural disasters, such as in central America, where no financial return is looked for, is the other end of the spectrum.
The noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Chorley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, questioned whether the prospects are sufficiently attractive to the private sector. I take a quite upbeat view. I see it as a unique opportunity for investors to gain exposure to emerging

741
markets, using the 50 years of experience of the CDC and, in particular, its experience of managing investments in those markets. This is in the context of global foreign direct investment in developing countries having increased from about 17 per cent. in 1990 to 37 per cent. in 1997. Africa is still low but there have been a number of increases and a number of success stories; for example, Ghana, Namibia, Mozambique, Uganda and Botswana. As those developing countries improve their operating environments for foreign investments—and that is part of what they are being urged to do by the IMF and the World Bank under the HIPC programmes—we expect to see further increases in the amount of foreign direct investment. We are certainly working to promote that. We are working to establish a technical advisory facility to assist governments to encourage wider private participation.
We also expect interest from ethical investors. A report in June of this year from the Ethical Investment Information Service indicates that more than £2 billion is now invested in ethical investment, a figure which has quadrupled in the past five years. So we are balancing the need for capital efficiency with the appropriate degree of risk and allowance for the business to grow in the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, seems to think that the Secretary of State maintains extensive powers of control and that that will be a deterrent to investors. The Secretary of State will not be able to initiate changes after the first phase is complete although changes in certain areas will require her approval. That is not uncommon. The framework which we have set covers the universe of countries for whose benefit CDC can invest. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandberg, rightly said, we have set a minimum which is 50 per cent. for sub-Saharan Africa and south-east Asia—that is the two combined—and 70 per cent. for the poorer countries more generally. But that does not rule out investment in central or South America or even in eastern Europe. I must make clear that decisions on individual investments are for the board and not for the Secretary of State. However, encouragement will be drawn from the fact that ethical best practice means that the CDC will be at the cutting edge of what many companies are now doing and not doing something different.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that there will be risks and there will have to be a substantial increase in the returns available which must go up from the average of 8 per cent. over recent years to something like 15 per cent. But part of that will be achieved by the change to the balance from a situation in which 70 per cent. of CDC's activity is in longer-term loans to a situation where nearly all of it will be in equity with the concomitant risks. We believe that the change in skills base which CDC is determined to implement makes that achievable.
It is not possible for me to say anything final about the tax situation, although I shall do so as soon as possible. Clearly, the CDC needs to be tax-efficient and we are still seeking a solution, together with the Treasury and the Inland Revenue, which will meet
742
the need to encourage investment in the poorest countries through private public partnership and to prevent abuse of the tax system.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, accused the Government of keeping people in the dark about the timing, as did a number of noble Lords. Filing will be immediate and the restructuring of the balance sheet will take place as soon as possible thereafter. However, not only would it be wrong, it would also be quite impossible to say when the flotation will take place. That depends on a range of matters that we do not know and that no one could know. Therefore, it would be foolish were I to say anything other than it will take place early in the new millennium. We have not yet taken those decisions. The important issue will be to secure the greatest overall development impact to ensure that new capital is introduced at the right time. Market perceptions of emerging markets and the CDC's track record and forecast performance are significant in the decision which will be taken as soon as possible about flotation. But it will not be taken too soon.
We did not go into this matter without seeking professional advice. The indication has been that private sector interest in public private partnerships could come, as I said, from those interested in these emerging markets and in ethical funds and from general institutional stock market investors and international organisations such as development banks.
The noble Lords, Lord Sandberg and Lord Chorley, were keen that the Government should give an assurance that we are aware of the full significance of the change from loan to equity activity. I hope that what I have said and the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Cairns, gave them some reassurance. The noble Earl is well aware of the magnitude of the challenge—the challenge to the staff of the CDC and the need for additional skills in this new era. I have had the opportunity of meeting the principals involved in this significant change over recent days and I am confident that those concerned will do their best to bring about a successful venture and that their best will be good enough. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wish to express gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who first suggested it, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, who agreed to it, and beg to move that the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.
Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill committed to a Grand Committee.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on the Post Office I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

The Post Office
4.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, with permission, I wish to repeat a Statement on the future of the Post Office. The Statement is as follows:
"It has long been recognised that the postal sector worldwide has entered a new and turbulent age. Competition for business will be fierce. With greater uncertainty will come opportunities for expansion. Change is absolutely necessary if the Post Office is not to fall behind.
"Globalisation of postal services, the growth of electronic mail and the Internet, changing customer demands and greater liberalisation of markets are the key drivers of change worldwide. The main uncertainty is not whether markets will become more competitive, but how far and how fast.
"Other post offices are gearing up for this revolution, seeking greater commercial freedom to do so. Within Europe, for example, the Dutch and German post offices have been investing in substantial acquisitions; Sweden and Finland are free to acquire and invest in other companies and Denmark has already entered a number of strategic alliances. France also enjoys considerable commercial freedom and has a wide spread of joint ventures and acquisitions. In Australia, New Zealand and the Nordic countries, their post offices have become independent PLCs. Germany has announced its intention to privatise and the Netherlands and Singapore have moved to partial privatisation.
"Not surprisingly, the British Post Office has been demanding changes to its own organisation for years but without anyone in government, until now, prepared to act. In the face of market pressures from other public post offices, from private postal operators outside the monopoly area, other communications media and distribution organisations, the Post Office was to be in a position to deliver a wider range of faster, more reliable postal services, differentiated products and prices which meet individual customers' requirements.
"Notwithstanding its successful attempts to adapt and its current profitability, the Post Office cannot meet these challenging times in its present condition. It must change or find, increasingly, it is confined to a diminishing high volume, low mark-up sector of the postal market with all the consequences of falling value and shrinking profits and employment base that this would involve.
"The Government are not prepared to sit back and allow this to happen. The Post Office plays too important a part in our national life—contributing vitally to our economic prosperity and social cohesion—and we have therefore decided to embark on the most radical set of reforms since the modern Post Office was created in 1969. In future, the Post Office will be driven by a combination of effective
744
market disciplines and commercial freedoms which will transform its performance and its ability to do business.
"Our starting point is that the relationship between the Post Office and Government has to change. I should make it clear that we certainly do not rule out the possibility of introducing private shareholding into the Post Office—for example through the sale of a minority stake in it—at a later stage. But at present wholesale privatisation—favoured by the Conservative Opposition—would not be a realistic option. It would cause massive uncertainty and diminish the chance of immediate reform now, which would be the worst outcome of all—as the management made clear to us.
"Instead, a radical, new form of public sector enterprise, operating at arm's length from government, needs to be created. This new framework will contain the following features: the Government's role in the Post Office will be restricted to the strategic level, both on matters of commercial direction and on setting social objectives. The Post Office Board will become clearly accountable for its success or failure in running the business; an independent regulator will he established to protect consumer interests, including standards of service; to regulate prices, to ensure the Post Office is able to meet its universal service obligations, and to ensure fair competition; once adequate regulatory provisions are in place to oversee fair competition the Post Office will be able to form joint ventures, enter into partnerships and make acquisitions within the UK beyond the present limit of £20 million per annum; the regulator will have a duty to promote competition by a careful and phased liberalisation of the monopoly postal area, whilst maintaining the universal service obligation; we will require the Post Office to present a rolling five-year strategic plan each year for approval by government. This is essential to protect taxpayers' interests.
"On the basis of that plan, the Government will agree a profit target for the Post Office and the equivalent of a dividend to government, as shareholder, in line with normal commercial dividend practice. This will mean, in effect, more than halving the rate at which profits are removed from the business. The external financing limit (EFL) for the Post Office for the year 1999–2000 will immediately be reduced to £207 million from the provisional figure of £335 million; in future years the EFL will be on a more commercial footing. The Government will expect a dividend of 40 per cent. in contrast to the recent average of 80 per cent.
"This increase in retained profits will enable the Post Office to finance an increased level of investment in the maintenance of its existing business. However, the Government recognise that larger growth investment including acquisitions and joint ventures may require prudent borrowing if the Post Office is to grow successfully with new products, partners and markets. The Government will approve normal Post Office requests for borrowing for investment cases which are commercially robust.

745
Separate fast-track arrangements will be put in place for considering the largest strategic investments. It will now be possible for the internal boundaries, for example, between the Royal Mail and Parcelforce, to be rationalised, if the Post Office Board so decides, while ensuring that undue cross-subsidy does not occur from monopoly to non-monopoly areas—approved and transparent accounting structures must therefore be put in place.
"The Post Office Users National Council will be given a more central role and its powers increased.
"A uniform public tariff will be maintained for those activities which fall within the obligation on the Post Office to provide a universal service. The Post Office will, however, be given the freedom to price flexibly for volume users and, within the monopoly area, the regulator will restrict prices to make sure the Post Office is not making excess monopoly profits. This will be a real spur to efficiency and ensure the general public is paying no more than it should for normal postal deliveries.
"We intend to provide statutorily for the newly appointed independent regulator carrying out these duties as part of the implementation of the European Union Postal Office Directive next year. I will therefore be bringing forward measures under Section 2.2 of the European Communities Act to put this framework in place.
"The Government remain firmly committed to a network of post offices across the country. The sub-post office in particular plays a valuable role in local communities and offers real service, particularly to the less mobile. We will set a social objective for the Post Office and for the regulator of maintaining an effective network. The individual businessmen and women who run the post office cum village shop often have to be very enterprising to keep them afloat. With the best will in the world, the Post Office cannot sustain a network if it is not used, nor can the Government. But we intend to ensure reasonable access nationwide to those who need post office service on an electronic basis or face to face with the sub-postmaster or mistress.
"Because the Post Office will be at a strategic arm's length from government, we will therefore set criteria for public access to the services of Post Office Counters which will be policed by the regulator.
"There has been a moratorium on the Crown office conversion programme. I have now agreed with the Post Office a strategy, which reflects proposals put by the Post Office to the trades unions, of retaining a core of directly owned and managed Crown offices which account for a significant value of the business done at post office counters. But the strategy also recognises that some further conversions will be beneficial to customers and the business. This is a sensible way forward, and I am therefore lifting the moratorium.
"If the Post Office is to operate on a commercial basis, it must be able to reward staff for their efforts, taking account of the success of their business, but cutting the cloth to fit in difficult periods. The
746
Government therefore intend as part of this staged process of reform to invite the Post Office Board to come forward with proposals which will, within the necessary context of public sector pay policy, enable more flexible means of reflecting performance within the various parts of the business. It is important that, where appropriate, the Post Office should be able to reward success.
"Events will, no doubt, continue to move rapidly in this constantly changing commercial environment and further structural changes might be required to enable the Post Office to grow and to meet customer needs and which are in the best interests of the Post Office and its staff. As I said earlier, we do not rule out the possibility of making further changes to equip the Post Office for success, such as a minority share sale or an exchange of equity with other businesses. These options will be kept under review. We will need legislation in due course, in any case, to reflect the long-term nature of the reform package we are putting in place, including turning the Post Office into a PLC to underline the commercialisation of the business.
"The reform programme I have outlined will provide a balanced package of freedoms and disciplines for the Post Office. It is, I believe, the best possible package of reforms available to the Post Office, which to date has been left starved of resources to invest in growth and unable to step up to new market challenges in the way that other European postal services have done.
"Over the past year we have appointed a dynamic new chairman and have refreshed the board with new non-executives with wide and complementary business skills. They have a vision of a British Post Office which is world class and which aims to be among the most successful in the world. We must give the Post Office the opportunity to bring this about.
"Considerable benefits to the consumer will be the result in terms of choice, price and quality of service.
"We are ushering in the start of a confident, bright new dawn for the Post Office, and are looking to its management and workforce to seize the opportunities, putting right the neglect of the past.
"Everyone stands to be a winner from our reforms which will be set out in more detail in a White Paper early in the new year. In the meantime, I commend them to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.54 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the other place. I apologise to him for the fact that I was not able to accede to his request that the Statement should be taken after six o'clock. I am sure that, on reflection, the Minister will agree that it is necessary for your Lordships to hear such news here first, in the Chamber, rather than on the news later. It would not be appropriate to marginalise either House of Parliament in that way.

747
As it appears that the Treasury was in favour of the sale of at least a substantial minority share of the business, and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry seems to have won that particular argument, may we know how the capital receipts estimated at £2 billion, on which the Treasury was presumably relying in its forecasts, will be made up?
Although the Government claim that they will be giving more commercial freedom to the Post Office, it is not clear how that will be achieved. We all remember how the telephone service was starved of funds before it was privatised, freed of Treasury shackles and the constraints of the PSBR.
Where will the funds for commercial expansion come from? It is estimated that the Post Office needs £2.7 billion over the next few years. If the Treasury is still to cream off a substantial part of the profits after tax over and above what would be a normal shareholder's dividend, will not that continue to starve the Post Office of funds?
The Statement suggests that the 80 per cent. of profits that the Treasury currently takes will be reduced to 40 per cent., but that still seems to be a substantial proportion. Will the Post Office have to go into the market to borrow the extra funds to make up for what the Treasury takes away?
The Post Office currently pays £335 million per year to the Treasury over and above its corporation tax. If that money is no longer to be available to the Treasury, presumably the loss to the health budget and to the "education, education, education" budget will have to be found from some other source. Will that be by higher taxes or additional borrowing?
If the Post Office is to be a government-owned commercial corporation, how free will its directors be to enter into joint ventures with other companies here and abroad, to make takeover bids or even to enter into commercially risky transactions? The Statement mentioned only joint ventures here, but would that preclude joint ventures from abroad? Who would bail out the Post Office if anything went severely wrong with any of its enterprises? They may be somewhat risky. Would that be a matter for the taxpayers?
Although it is clear to us that the Government have yielded to pressure from "Old Labour" in the unions—the same unions that were so wrong in their opposition to the privatisation of British Telecom—are the Government aware that the members of the unions will now be deprived of the opportunity to acquire shares in the company for which they work? That is something that the Conservative Party has always encouraged, even before the party opposite discovered stakeholding.
As Germany and Holland have effectively denationalised their post office services and the new company will be in competition with them, how will the Government answer any allegations from the EC that the Post Office is being unfairly subsidised in breach of its rules? What changes in legislation will be needed to bring us into line with the European postal directive? The Minister referred to Section 2.2 of the European Communities Act.
748
Finally, my final question to the Minister is a simple one on a point that I am not sure that I totally understand. On the one hand, the Post Office will be given more commercial freedom, but, on the other hand, it will be subject to more competition; and the Statement suggests that somewhere down the line there might be some sort of privatisation. I believe that a minority share sale was mentioned, but even total privatisation does not seem to have been ruled out. How does the Minister think that the new proposals will make the Post Office financially viable so that somebody will want to buy the shares in, say, two or three years?
5 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I should like to share the welcome that the noble Baroness gave to the Statement. Those Members of your Lordships' House who have followed the developments of the past year will know that my noble friend Lord Ezra, occasionally aided and abetted by myself, has been somewhat like a Jack Russell snapping at the heels of the Government asking when we were to have this Statement. Indeed, for the past 12 months the Government have behaved a little like a spaniel—to take the canine analogy of the moment—but now we have the Statement before us.
My concern is obviously shared by the Government in the Statement; namely, the fear that the longer they delayed in giving the Post Office commercial freedom the more its global opportunities would diminish. Indeed, the recent acquisition by Deutsche Post of 50 per cent. of Securicor demonstrates our concern in the area.
I have three comments and/or questions for the Minister. First, we share the Government's rejection of privatisation. We feel that the privatisation that was heavily rumoured in press reports is not the solution which the Post Office requires, for the fundamental reason that we believe that the Post Office must have the global freedom to trade and invest but must also maintain the essential ethos of public service which it has had for so long. That is particularly reflected in our desire and our campaign to ensure that the thousands of sub-post offices which are now under threat should not suffer as a result of these proposals.
The Minister may well comment that the Statement indicates that a social objective will be given to the regulator and to the Post Office with regard to sub-post offices. However, I should be most grateful to receive confirmation that, wherever appropriate, other government action to protect sub-post offices will ensue. There are obvious government actions that can take place, such as resolving the difficulties between the Benefits Agency and Post Office Counters Limited over the computerisation of benefit payments where the Government have a role and can intervene to protect the interests of sub-post offices. Further, there is the ruling by the DVLA that only 3,000 out of 19,000 post offices can supply car tax discs. Indeed, that is another area where the Government could intervene. It is not just a question of social objectives. If possible, I should be

749
most grateful if the Minister could confirm that, wherever appropriate, action by the Government to help post offices and sub-post offices will ensue.
I have two further points to raise. First, in rejecting privatisation, the Government have clearly been persuaded by much of the argument for an independent, publicly-owned corporation which has been put forward both by the Union of Communication Workers and the Communication Managers Association. Many of the proposals put forward in the Statement reflect the recommendations from the independent report commissioned by those two bodies.
However, there are two areas where the Government appear not to have been prepared fully to bite the bullet of an independent, publicly-owned corporation. The first was touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—namely, the freedom to borrow and invest. As the noble Baroness said, the Post Office management calculates that £2.7 billion over the next five years will be needed for expansion, automation and new services. The recommendation and the logic of an independent, publicly-owned corporation with its own commercial freedom is that it should be free to borrow that money in the capital markets, if it so requires, without Treasury consent and with the corollary that that would be without government guarantee; in other words, the corporation would be free to go into the commercial markets as any other corporation would do. That was the recommendation of the report produced by the Union of Communication Workers and the Communication Managers Association. The Government do not seem to be prepared to go that far. I should be most grateful if the Minister could expand on that aspect. I am concerned that this will constrict the apparent giving to the corporation of the commercial freedom to meet its financial objectives.
The second area relates to the same point but does so in another way. If the Post Office is to attempt to be one of the major players on an international basis, it will, as reflected in the Statement, need the ability to pay and "incentivise" its staff on an appropriate basis as if it were a private corporation. Again, the recommendation of the report to which I referred was that the corporation should be given that freedom. However, the Government have not been prepared to go that far in their Statement. Therefore, can the Minister confirm that a restraint will not be imposed by the Treasury with one hand in relation to what it appears to be giving with the other?
5.6 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, say that I hope no disrespect was given to the House by my request that the repeating of the Statement should be delayed until six o'clock this evening. Having flown back from Japan yesterday in order to attend a meeting this afternoon of the Council of Science and Technology, I very much wanted to be able to attend.
I should begin by pointing out that the Treasury was not expecting to receive £2 billion, so there is no issue as to where this money has to be found. After a period
750
of substantial starvation of the Post Office, there will be a significant change in the amount that it will be able to keep. Indeed, instead of having 80 per cent. of its after-tax profits taken away, it will have to give up only 40 per cent. That is a typical figure for any corporation to have to give in terms of a dividend.
As regards the question about joint ventures and partnerships abroad, the Post Office will be able to do that within the borrowing requirements that it has, subject of course—if it is a significant investment—to the approval of the Government. In fact, it will take very little to bring the affairs of the Post Office into line with the European directive. There will be a minor change on the level of the monopoly from, I believe, £1 to 92p, but that is rather a small change.
If in due course it is decided that shares should be sold to the public, I see no difficulty in making the corporation viable as it already makes considerable amounts of profit. I believe that both the management and the workforce of the Post Office will rise to the challenge which they now face. I am not able to enter into these animal analogies about the behaviour of the House. I found it quite difficult in Japan last week to explain what was happening in your Lordships' House; indeed, it was difficult enough without even going into the question of spaniels.
It was sensible to look at the problem carefully and not rush into decisions. The Post Office is part of our national assets and has an important social function. Therefore, it is important to get the exact balance between social and commercial objectives and between freedoms and disciplines. There will be a social objective and I can assure noble Lords that we will do everything that we can to help sub-post offices, especially in terms of systems and other procedures.
Although we are giving substantial freedom to the Post Office, as has already been said, the taxpayer will ultimately stand behind the corporation. It therefore seems to me appropriate that, for significant proposals of investment, the Government should have the ability to give the final word. As far as concerns pay and incentive, we want to change the situation so that members of the Post Office management and workforce can be "incentivised". But consideration must be given to public pay policy. The significant aspect of the proposals is that they combine both discipline and freedom. I believe that that is the way forward for the Post Office.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I should, first, declare an interest as I am a director of a mail order company and from my point of view the Post Office should essentially be healthy, successful and efficient. In that connection I welcome the 40 per cent. dividend proposal as opposed to the ever escalating negative EFL, although I note that there is a holding exercise for the next 15 months or thereabouts during which negative EFLs will continue. Even so, I calculate that, as long as the Post Office is not allowed to borrow too much in the first year of the interim period, the Treasury will still receive the best part of £400 million—both from the

751
40 per cent. dividend and from the corporation tax which any organisation has to pay—in the year 2000–2001. Does the Minister agree with that figure?
I am sure the noble Lord, with his experience, will agree that the success of a commercial organisation depends on management at every level. The top level is one of the vital ones. Will the Government continue to appoint directors of the Post Office or just the chairman? Will the chairman be given freedom to have his own men and women around him as executives or indeed as non-executive directors?
The Statement mentions new businesses. One such fairly recent one is Subscription Services Limited. Will such businesses be free from the prohibition in the Telecommunications Act which prevents them from using electronic mail out of their offices? Currently, they receive instructions and items for outward transmission by fax and e-mail but are not allowed to use their mailing lists and then split them out, as it were, to the various people on the mailings lists by electronic means. They have to do it by hard copy. Will such freedom be allowed to them?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that the figure will be about £400 million. I cannot give the exact calculation but it will be about that. If anything, it will be slightly more in terms of both corporation tax and dividend. But I can see no reason why the Post Office, like all of us, should not have to suffer corporation tax and pay a dividend.
The chairman and non-executive directors will continue to be appointed by the Government—in the case of non-executive directors, after careful consultation with the chairman. On the noble Lord's final point, the White Paper will set out the exact framework, but I imagine that the situation will continue where it is not in the business of just total electronic transmission.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, the great difference between a private sector board and a public sector board is that, in the former, to the great benefit of the efficiency of the business, the shareholders then trust the running of it to the board. Over the past 50 years, that has not been so of public sector boards—to their detriment. I therefore very much welcome the Minister's determination to make radical changes. I seek three specific assurances that these will be radical.
Referring to the Statement, the noble Lord bases the Government's relationship on approving a five-year rolling strategic plan. I ask the Minister to assure us that this will not be a meaningless mass of numbers but a strategic plan and that controls will be at the strategic level.
Secondly, where the Minister refers to separate fast-track arrangements for considering the largest strategic investments, will he clarify what is meant by "fast-track"? The quickest I ever had as chairman of the Post Office was one year.
Thirdly, when the Minister refers to greater freedom on pay and says that it is important that, where appropriate, the Post Office should be able to reward
752
success, will he be clearer as to what it meant by "where appropriate"? My experience was that I received immense assistance all the time from Her Majesty's Government on pay. I would hope that the Government's aspirations will be rather less than those of their predecessors.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has asked those questions. When I was a member of the Carter Committee, which reviewed the Post Office in the late 1970s, he was deputy secretary on nationalised industry matters at the Department of Industry. He then went on to an extremely successful career as chairman of the Post Office. Therefore, we have been discussing the issues of the Post Office for around 20 years. I have greatly enjoyed the noble Lord's comments and I am greatly pleased that, in broad outline, he approves of what we are doing.
The noble Lord asked three questions. Perhaps I may assure the House that we are very serious about the issue of giving commercial freedom to the management of the Post Office. We see that as absolutely essential if the Post Office is to develop in the way we want to see it develop. Therefore, the strategic plan will concentrate on strategic issues and not be, as so often has been the case in the past, simply a mass of details to be picked over by the Government.
I cannot at this point say what "fast-track" will consist of, but it will certainly be better than it has been in the past. As issues will have been raised in the strategic planning, it should be much easier to take quick decisions on them.
I hope the Post Office will be clear that if it is to have the right management it needs a genuine ability to pay them and that that will be the situation as we go forward.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may follow up the point about the Post Office's social responsibilities. Many of our rural post offices are currently under great stress. Some are miles away from anywhere. I wish to raise three concerns. My first follows up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, about car tax and benefit payments. Will there be restrictions on other organisations using the Post Office. I give an example. Some post offices are allowed to sell lottery tickets for Camelot. I understand that targets are set for such post offices. This has proved a huge problem for some post offices in rural areas as they are not achieving their targets. I understand that it is possible that their right to sell lottery tickets will be withdrawn. In considering these changes, will greater freedom be given to post offices in rural areas so that they can adapt to what suits best their particular area, or do the Government have in mind a set standard for the whole of the UK? Rural needs may be very different from urban needs because of the smaller number of people in rural areas. I should be grateful if the Minister could respond to that point.
Secondly, are there proposals for setting targets? Will there be an urban target and a more rural target? Thirdly, in the Statement, the Minister kindly explained the Government's acceptance of their social responsibility.

753
That is hugely important to people living in rural areas. The post office is not just a place to which they go to buy stamps and so on; it is actually a meeting place. The post office is the heart of some villages. I just wonder how much that point is being taken into account. Finally, will the Government find time for the House to debate the White Paper?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we are all conscious of the need of rural communities for sub-post offices. The Government are fully committed to the maintenance of a nationwide network of post offices. However, as I hope I made clear, neither the Government nor the Post Office can guarantee that no post office will ever close, as the majority are in fact privately owned, but we recognise that they perform an important social function and, as I hope I made clear, we will do everything we can to support them.
I very much hope that the new commercial freedoms will enable post offices to develop more services which will improve their financial viability. The relationship between post offices and Camelot is a commercial one. I believe that always involves targets with regard to the best outlets in which to sell lottery tickets. The financial target will obviously take account of the economics of offering services in urban and rural areas.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I declare an interest. As I said in my maiden speech last week, I spent 51 years of my working life totally associated with the Post Office. Last week I asked for a speedy response to the review from the Government. I had no idea that it would be this quick! I join those who welcome the fact that a decision has been made. I await the publication of the White Paper before giving the measure a wholehearted welcome as one or two pieces of this jigsaw are still missing. The Statement does not specify the more central role and the increased powers that will be enjoyed by the Post Office Users National Council. Will that in some way conflict with the new regulatory regime that is envisaged in the Statement? It seems as if, yet again, there will be another layer of bureaucracy for the Post Office to fight as it tries to do its business.
The Statement refers to the Crown office conversion programme, which is mostly known in the industry as the Crown office closure programme. Can the Minister assure us that careful consideration will be given to this matter before more of our valuable High Street post offices are transferred to supermarkets which are accessible to people with cars but not to those who do not have cars? Will these considerations be taken into account? I, of course, welcome the change in the external financing limit and the increased amount of profits that post offices will be able to retain for their own investment. As I say, I await with interest the White Paper but I would appreciate hearing the Minister's comments on the points I have raised.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am delighted that we were able to respond so quickly to the point the noble Lord made last week. It is absolutely typical of this Government to respond so quickly to
754
intelligent questions. As regards the Post Office Users National Council, it will have increased powers as regards availability of information. I believe it will work closely with the regulator and therefore will be more effective. I do not think it is a euphemism to talk about a Crown office conversion programme. I am sure that the Post Office will take great care to locate Crown offices in places that are easily accessible and where there is heavy demand.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I hope I may strike a more mundane note. Does the Minister agree that what the general public want is for their letters to be delivered in good time and to the right address? Unfortunately, recently more and more correctly addressed and, what is more, first class letters, take several days to reach their destination. Usually it is quicker to post a letter from Glasgow to London than from one side of London to the other. In my experience, at any rate, more and more correctly addressed letters are delivered to the wrong address—in my case about 4 per cent. of them, although, happily, they are delivered to addresses within a radius of about 500 yards from my own, and therefore they usually reach me eventually. However, that can occur several days later if the relevant people are away. Is anything being done to rectify this regrettable lapse in standards?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I take entirely the point that consumers are looking for a better service. I hope that what we propose will address that issue. I believe that the combination of an independent regulator and increased competition will improve the service.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while, of course, points of detail will emerge when both Houses consider this matter in due course of time, the message that he has communicated to the House this afternoon is welcome indeed, stressing, as it does, the benefit to the consumer that will flow from what he has announced in terms of principle and also the value of fair competition? Those are, I suppose, the two basic themes that he has enunciated. Is it not a remarkable contrast to the prevarication that the previous government showed over this matter, totally incapable as they were over many years of coming to any sensible solutions at all? I believe that the country will welcome the changes that the noble Lord has signalled, and, moreover, that in due course of time this pragmatic, positive approach which the Government have announced will be of immense benefit to the country as a whole and will provide the Post Office with the ammunition to be able to compete effectively with other international post offices.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis made the point that customer service is absolutely central to what we are trying to do and that the tackling of this problem is long overdue. When one considers that this great institution was cash starved for many years, it is no surprise that sometimes it did not undertake the important investment that was necessary to increase its

755
productivity. As I said at the beginning, we seek to combine discipline and freedom. I am sure that the performance of the Post Office will improve as management and staff seize this significant opportunity.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, I declare an interest as for over 20 years I was a non-executive member of the Post Office Board. It is that experience which leads me to say how much I welcome the Statement that has been repeated by my noble friend this afternoon. However, I wish to press him on a paradox in the Statement which I find puzzling and which I do not believe his replies to noble Lords who have pressed him on this matter have clarified. The relevant paragraph relates to pay. My fear is that employees of the Post Office reading this paragraph as it stands could ask, "So what? What is new?" The paragraph states,
"If the Post Office is to operate on a commercial basis, it must he able to reward staff for their efforts, taking account of the success of their business".
That is fine, but there then follows a phrase which I do not understand. It states,
"but cutting the cloth to fit in difficult periods".
The Post Office is then invited to make proposals to the Government,
"within the necessary context of public sector pay".
The problem is that we do not have a public sector pay policy. We have moved beyond that. Therefore I do not understand that sentence. My next point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. The statement continues,
"It is important that, where appropriate, the Post Office should be able to reward success".
Will the Minister give us an assurance that it is the Post Office that will determine where this is appropriate and how much is appropriate, and not Her Majesty's Government, as has been the case for many years?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I may explain the phrase, "cutting the cloth in difficult times". I think we all feel that good performance should be recognised where it takes place in industry. It is also important—and this is not always so closely adhered to—that when times are difficult and performance is not good pay should equally reflect that. This is not a one-way system.
"Where appropriate" indeed implies that the Post Office should make these decisions. The Statement is a very clear invitation for it to do so and to reflect appropriately where it needs to pay salaries to ensure the quality of people needed to run the business.

Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998
5.30 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th November be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the draft Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 is to consolidate and extend the legislation on fair employment which is unique to Northern Ireland. I believe that it will be helpful to the House if I outline briefly the background to the order and then say a few words about its more important provisions.
The promotion of equality of opportunity has been a priority of successive administrations since the early 1970s and the order before the House represents the culmination of a comprehensive review of the legislation carried out over the past three years.
The first Fair Employment Act in 1976, which established the Fair Employment Agency, was ground-breaking legislation and paved the way for the introduction in 1989 of the second Fair Employment Act. That had considerably more teeth and put the onus on employers not simply to avoid discrimination but actively to promote equality of opportunity through affirmative action. Much has been achieved under the 1976 and 1989 Acts but the review of the legislation carried out by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, and published in June 1997, indicated that more needed to be done.
The Government considered carefully the SACHR recommendations and published its response in March of this year in a White Paper entitled Partnership for Equality. Subsequently the Government made a commitment in the Good Friday agreement to make rapid progress in the implementation of the measures set out in the White Paper. The order now before the House fulfils that commitment.
The order makes a number of amendments and contains several new provisions to strengthen the law on fair employment. These are set out in the explanatory document which accompanies the draft order and I do not intend to go into them all in detail. There are, however, some key issues which have been tackled in the order and I should like to comment briefly on them.
First, the order brings together in a single piece of legislation the 1976 and 1989 Acts and incorporates the various amendments that have been made to them. This exercise alone will be of considerable help to all those who work with the legislation, including employers, trade unions, the commission and the Fair Employment Tribunal.
One important change is that the order also extends the legislation to cover the provision of goods, facilities and services and the management and disposal of premises, which includes land. This brings fair employment law into line with that on sex discrimination and race relations, but that is not the main reason for the change. The main reason is that it is the right thing to do. As a matter of principle, all unjustified discrimination, whether in employment or in any other area, should be unlawful and the opportunity is now being taken to extend the law in that respect.
The order does, however, provide for reasonable exemptions. Since 1989, all except the very smallest employers have been required to monitor annually the community background of their employees, and larger

757
employers and the public sector have also monitored job applicants. Monitoring is now widely accepted and understood, and employers have installed systems to assist them to meet the various requirements. The data that has been generated has been extremely useful but it does not provide a complete picture of movement in a workforce so far as relative community participation is concerned. The order therefore extends the monitoring provisions to include all part-time workers and applicants for employment. In addition, larger employers will be required to monitor leavers. The new requirements will be set out in revised monitoring regulations which will be published shortly but which will not apply until employers have had time to collect the relevant information.
When the 1989 Bill was going through its parliamentary stages there was some criticism that while it assisted those in employment it did little for the unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed. The draft order addresses that issue in two ways. First, Article 75 enables an employer, if he wishes to do so, to fill vacancies in his workforce only from among people who have not been in work for a specified period of time and protects him against a charge of unlawful indirect discrimination. I hasten to add that no employer will be compelled to recruit exclusively from among the unemployed but those who wish will be able to do so.
The second change in the law which will be of particular benefit to the unemployed is a permissive provision in Article 77. This allows employers to provide training for people of a particular religious belief who are not in their employment. Up to now "religion specific training", as it is called, has been unlawful, but Article 77 would enable members of an under-represented community to take advantage of training which would enhance their skill levels and thus help them to compete on more equal terms for vacancies when a subsequent recruitment exercise takes place. As with Article 75, no employer will be compelled to provide this type of training.
Other significant changes to the existing legislation include compensation for unintentional discrimination in employment; action against persistent discrimination; new roles for the commission; extension of the law to cover barristers and larger partnerships; and the introduction of an appeal procedure against certificates issued by the Secretary of State for the purpose of safeguarding national security.
That is all I wish to say at this stage about the provisions of the draft order but in closing I must reiterate that fair employment and the elimination of unlawful discrimination continues to be an important issue and a priority for government in Northern Ireland. Enormous progress has been made in recent years and effective remedies are available to anyone who has a genuine grievance. Nevertheless, there is no room for complacency and there must be a continuing effort by all involved to work towards a situation where the scourge of unlawful discrimination is finally eradicated from society. I beg to move.
758
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th November be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, we on these Benches warmly welcome the order. It gives effect to the White Paper, Partnership for Equality and to the recommendations made by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland. It is an important step towards greater coherence in this area of the law; namely, the use of law to tackle discrimination. It brings the fair employment law into better harmony with sex discrimination and race relations legislation. It shows that it is perfectly possible to introduce comprehensive legislation to tackle the scourge of religious discrimination. It highlights the continuing anomaly that we do not have legislation of this kind in Great Britain. That means that Muslims are wholly unprotected under the law against religious discrimination, and Jews are protected only if they can show that they are members of an ethnic or racial group. We hope that it will not be long before that gap is filled. I know that it does not concern the Minister's department.
The measure also highlights another matter beyond the scope of the Minister's remit. I refer to the need for a single code of legislation tackling discrimination generally: a single equal rights code with harmonised powers of enforcement. The Government have taken an important step in creating an equality commission which allows harmonisation of strategic enforcement across the Irish Sea in Northern Ireland. That step needs to be taken in some form or other on this side of the Irish Sea as well.
The Minister said—and I entirely agree with him—that all unjustified discrimination, whether in the field of employment or elsewhere, should be unlawful. However, there is unfortunately still a completely anomalous gap in this order. I gave notice to the Minister that I intended to raise this matter yet again. I raised it several times during the debates on the Northern Ireland Bill, as did the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I am sorry that the drafting of the order seems to have ante-dated the debates on the Northern Ireland Bill and so, unless the Minister tells me differently, the problem has not been tackled.
Perhaps I may explain to the House the nature of the gap. I have to do it in stages. The starting point is Section 76 of what is now the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which makes it unlawful for a public authority carrying out functions relating to Northern Ireland to discriminate on religious grounds directly. It does not cover indirect religious discrimination but only what is known as direct religious discrimination by public authorities. During the debates on the Northern Ireland Bill I raised the need to extend the concept of indirect discrimination to cover public authorities carrying out public functions. I pointed out that it was necessary to amend the Bill because of an unfortunate majority decision of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords in a case called re: Amin, which is reported in 1983 2 Appeal Cases at page 818.

759
That was a case involving the proper construction of Section 29 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, applying to the provision of goods, facilities and services to the public, a provision which is in identical language to Article 28 of the present order. A majority of the Law Lords, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Scarman and Lord Brandon of Oakbrook, dissenting, held that the reference in Section 29 to the provision of,
"goods, facilities or services to the public or a section of the public",
concerned only marketplace functions performed by public authorities as though they were private persons. I believe that judgment to be wrong. I wish it had been tested by the Equal Opportunities Commission or by the Commission for Racial Equality in relation to a similar provision in the Race Relations Act, but it still stands in the law reports as good law.
The problem that it creates with relation to the present order can be explained in this way. Article 28 of the order uses identical language to that of Section 29 of the Sex Discrimination Act. It makes it unlawful,
"for any person concerned with the provision … of goods, facilities or services to the public … to discriminate",
whether directly or indirectly. That is most welcome. It then gives examples of the facilities and services mentioned, one of which, in 28(2)(g), is:
"the services of any profession, trade or business, or any local or other public authority".
Article 91(1), which deals with application to the Crown, applies the order to the Crown,
"as it applies to an act done by a private person".
It is that language which was used by a majority of the Law Lords to narrow what is now Article 28 of the order by saying that, when Parliament refers to an act done by a private person, that means a marketplace activity and therefore cuts down the services provided by a public authority within the meaning of the equivalent of Article 28(2)(g) of the order.
There is the absurd consequence, first, that the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which we have recently enacted, covers only direct discrimination on religious grounds by a public authority and, secondly, that this order covers direct and indirect discrimination by a public authority in providing services and facilities, but, because of the decision of the Law Lords in re: Amin, it covers it only in relation to acts done by public authorities as if they were private persons. That is, if I may respectfully say so, totally absurd because a public authority is not performing private functions but public functions and, if anyone should be liable for direct or indirect religious discrimination, it is a public authority when it is discharging public functions.
The explanatory document does not deal with this matter. In paragraph 17 it correctly says that the article mirrors the existing law relating to gender and race relations and extends the anti-discrimination legislation into such areas as the services of, inter alia, a local or public authority, but it does not deal with the re: Amin gap.
I raised this matter during the debates on the Northern Ireland Bill and was ready to move one of several amendments. I raised it on 26th October on the third day
760
of Committee (at columns 1748–49 of Hansard) and again on Report on 17th November (at columns 1212–14), the Minister having intervened (at column 1211). The Minister referred to the fact that the order would cover goods, facilities and services. I asked whether that protection against discrimination would apply to public authorities as well as to private bodies, having referred to the re: Amin gap. I said:
"Perhaps I can have clarification on that".
The Minister replied,
"the answer is yes".
I replied to that:
"that is a most welcome announcement by the Government. It seems to me to fill an important gap. I express great appreciation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment."—[Official Report, 17/11/98; col. 1214.]
I would not have done that without that assurance. Unless I am much mistaken, the situation is that I was induced to withdraw an amendment on an unequivocal statement made by the Minister that this gap would be filled in the present order. It has not been filled. Therefore, although the Minister says that all unjustified discrimination, whether in the field of employment or elsewhere, should be unlawful, about which I agree with him, there is one kind of unjustified discrimination in the field of services and facilities—namely, where provided in a public capacity by a public body—which is not unlawful and which will not be unlawful under this order; and nor will it be unlawful under the Northern Ireland Act. That is completely absurd. More than that, it is inconsistent with our international human rights legal obligations.
Perhaps I may explain. For example, Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to property, including the allocation of, or refusal to allocate, public housing by a public authority. Article 2 of the same protocol guarantees the right to education, including allocation of educational opportunities in state-funded schools. Article 14 of the convention covers indirect as well as direct religious discrimination in relation to the allocation of public housing and educational opportunities in the public sector. So under the European Convention on Human Rights the United Kingdom is obliged to provide effective remedies for religious discrimination, direct or indirect, by public authorities whether in the field of housing or education. We are not fulfilling that commitment in this order or in the Northern Ireland Act.
Having had notice, I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with the matter in his reply. I have raised this matter on many previous occasions as it is very important. Unfortunately, when the Human Rights Act comes into force, someone will bring a case of alleged discrimination in the field of education or housing in the public sector. Remedy will not be obtainable under this order as it stands unless the case of re: Amin is reversed. It may be that in some future case it will be reversed. If so, the problem I have raised will no longer arise. However, as it stands, if re: Amin is good law and this order stands as it will today, we shall be failing in our duty under international human rights law and the Minister will fail to achieve his laudable objective of

761
making unlawful all unjustified indirect as well as direct discrimination in providing goods, facilities and services for the public in Northern Ireland.
I apologise for having taken a long time on this explanation but I have done so because I wanted to make it intelligible to noble Lords who are not lawyers so that they understand why it is quite an important matter. I ask the Minister to indicate whether he agrees with that there is a gap caused by the case of re: Amin and what measures the Government intend to take to close that gap. Surely they cannot intend that there should be a gaping whole in the scheme of protection in this admirable measure.
Perhaps I may add one further comment in favour of the measure. The powers of monitoring; the duties imposed on employers and the powers of the Equality Commission are far stronger than anything in the sex discrimination, race relations or disability discrimination legislation. I very much hope that the powers of the commissions, if they are to remain separate on this side of the Irish Sea, and the powers in Northern Ireland of the Equality Commission will be harmonised so that we have the highest common factor of enforcement which is contained in this order. That highest common factor owes a great deal to Mrs. Thatcher's government who, in amending the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act in 1989, gave the commission, as it became, much stronger powers than have been given to the other commission. This is not, therefore, a politically partisan matter. I congratulate that previous government on taking that important step in 1989. With those important caveats we welcome the order, but very much hope for clarification.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for being absent for the first few minutes of his speech. As regards the very important point just made about discrimination in terms of the provision of services, I wonder whether it is possible also to include what is becoming a very real problem in Northern Ireland; namely, the publicly orchestrated boycotts which in many cases have driven small companies, small shopkeepers and the providers of motor fuel and milk suppliers out of business purely on religious grounds. There must be very narrow dividing lines. I do not want to complicate the matter further, but perhaps the Minister can deal with that in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
As regards timing there is a certain similarity between the way in which we are treating this legislation and the premature Police (Northern Ireland) Bill which was passed into law some four months ago. It comes into force about the end of October before any possible publication of the Patten Report. My argument at the time was shared by several noble Lords in that it would be much wiser to await the conclusion of the Patten Commission before we set in the Bill proposals for major changes in the police.
Is there not a real danger that we are making this amendment to the existing fair employment legislation without taking into account the views and attitudes of the Equality Council set up by your Lordships only a few weeks ago when the Bill reached its final stages in
762
your Lordships House and received Royal Assent? As was widely recognised in all parts of your Lordships House, inevitably there would be a degree of interplay with the Fair Employment Agency, in whatever form it survives, the equal opportunities and race relations bodies and the still more complicated question of sexual preferences being added, which is another pressure group.
It is having the effect that I predicted four years ago. The Good Friday agreement established the Equality Council and thereby fulfilled my prediction that even in terms of employment the cake must henceforth be cut into eight slices and not just two. There are the Roman Catholics, Protestants, atheists and agnostics, male, female and races, whose numbers who are yet unknown. They are already claiming a place in the sun and they are all clamouring for a slice of the cake. Now that United Kingdom law is subservient to European human rights law, it is inevitable that other groups will join in the clamour and demand inclusion in the kind of legislation that your Lordships are debating this evening.
It seems to me sensible to ensure that the Equality Council created by the Good Friday agreement, and therefore with the status of holy writ, should not be inhibited in any way by an order of the kind that we are dealing with this evening. In approving the order we should clearly express at least a willingness to amend this legislation or even replace it. The Equality Council has all the authority of the Good Friday agreement behind it which, we have often been told, cannot be tampered with and therefore is in many ways superior to the laws of the United Kingdom. The Equality Council should not find itself in any way constricted in its task of ensuring fair play in all the eight categories I have mentioned, and the others yet to emerge, and not just the two religions.
I repeat the plea of my noble friend Lord Cooke, on another occasion, for financial assistance for small companies burdened with the cost of unfounded and vexatious allegations of discrimination. I renew my own plea on that occasion for substantial financial compensation for public bodies such as hospital trusts forced to expend very scarce funding on defending themselves against what usually turn out to be facetious allegations. There is also the pernicious habit affecting all public bodies in that they settle rather than see the matter through to a tribunal for the simple reason that they are faced with the problem of diverting the services of fairly scarce and very expensive employees while also incurring very heavy legal fees. There is always a temptation to settle rather than allow the allegation to go before a tribunal. I condemn this entirely, but my condemnation will not stop it. I do not know whether Parliament can devise any means of making this practice illegal and forcing bodies against whom allegations have been made to go the whole way and pursue the matter before a tribunal. In the absence of such a measure there will be a burgeoning industry of complainants sure in the knowledge that, however frivolous their complaint may be, they can be assured of what, I understand, may be on average £20,000 tax free. It is not surprising that the habit catches on. I hope that this time the Minister

763
will listen and perhaps persuade his colleagues in government to find some means of putting an end to this scandal.
6 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, can the Minister say whether, apart from the odd isolated incident or series of incidents, such as the boycott described a moment ago by my noble friend Lord Molyneaux, there is any evidence of sustained, long-term discrimination in the provision of goods and services in Northern Ireland on religious or political grounds; or is this extension of the law essentially a symbolic gesture? There is nothing necessarily wrong with gestures, but it would be useful to know whether in the main this is a gesture or there are genuine and fairly widespread grievances that are about to be rectified. If so, is the noble Lord in a position to provide a couple of examples when he comes to wind up?
Lord Blease: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for outlining in some detail the extensive and comprehensive Northern Ireland order. It almost competes with the Northern Ireland Act in legislative detail. The order has 125 pages of parts, paragraphs and schedules whereas the Act has about 100. I should like to raise a couple of points that I believe require attention in relation to the Equality Working Group and its report.
However, perhaps I may seek the indulgence of the House for one moment while I say a few words about the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Because of the pressure of time at the winding-up stage of the Bill—I hope that that is an acceptable parliamentary description—I did not have the opportunity to pay tribute to all those who took part in a momentous occasion for Northern Ireland parliamentary affairs and Irish political matters.
As a Northern Ireland citizen I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Dubs, his Front Bench ministerial colleagues and all those civil servants and parliamentary staff who helped in placing the Northern Ireland Act 1998 on the United Kingdom statute book. I also extend my words of appreciation to all noble Lords who took part in the debates, particularly noble Lords on the Official Opposition Front Bench. The whole approach to Northern Ireland legislative measures epitomises the great sense of bipartisanship in this House that sets an example.
The Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 is one of the main pillars upon which the real function and work of the Northern Ireland Assembly will be built. There are other pillars which have already been mentioned in the course of this debate. However, I believe that this pillar will get people working together. There is a basic legislative framework in which the Equality Commission will operate and promote essential fair employment practices and equality of treatment. It will provide a great public opportunity for members of the Northern Ireland Assembly to exercise justice, mercy and fairness to all citizens. It will enable all Northern Ireland Assembly members to display humble witness to good citizenship
764
and to undertake honourable political action for the benefit of all in the Province—indeed, a better life for all in Northern Ireland.
I understand that the Equality Working Group has met under the appointed chair, Dr. Joan Stringer, that it is compiling a report on structures and practical issues and that its report will be ready by the end of January. Can the Minister indicate how the group's report will be approved and implemented? Will it be submitted to the Assembly and to the Westminster Parliament? If so, what will be the procedure and timescale? If it is approved is it intended to be submitted to the Northern Ireland Assembly at its proposed March/April 1999 session?
There are continuing difficulties in the Province. However, to talk about this matter in a vacuum is perhaps the wrong approach in this House but it is more meaningful in the sense of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is there that the exercise of rights and other matters should be fully appreciated and understood. However, I am hopeful that the new year may be peaceful and that there will be reasoned approaches in our strife-torn community. I believe that the Northern Ireland Act and the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) order will help to set our sights on an end to political strife and all that goes with it in the Province.
As we debate this measure today I feel very much an old man. I recall the setting up of the van Straubenzee Committee. The present Permanent Secretary of State for the Department of Economic Development, Gerry Loughran, was then secretary to the committee, which led to the setting up of the Fair Employment Agency. Later I went on to set up the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights. In those days we felt that we were getting to grips with matters but they only exposed the inadequacies of the people of Northern Ireland in learning to live together. I hope that this time matters may take a different course.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Blease, with his long and distinguished record of the trade union movement in Northern Ireland, was only too well aware of the many allegations of discrimination that were made throughout his tenure of office in Northern Ireland when there was one-party government in Northern Ireland. It is to the credit of the trade unions, given the political divisions that then existed, that they tried desperately to bring about a set of circumstances in which discrimination would not be permitted.
My mind goes back vividly to 1976 when the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and I served on a committee in the House of Commons and the very first Fair Employment Act was put on to the statute book. Since then it has been amended and regenerated. I am conscious of the fact that we can debate this order with all its clauses and its myriad suggestions in a civilised atmosphere, but I have no doubt that when this measure, which will affect the population of Northern Ireland, is discussed in Stormont a good deal of heat will be generated.

765
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, mentioned two factors to which my attention was drawn. At the present time there are people in Northern Ireland who advocate discrimination. Far from making the plea that discrimination should be removed, they advocate it. One has only to think for five seconds of the ludicrous submissions made by Sinn Fein to the Patten Commission in relation to the RUC. I do not think that anyone could take its submission seriously for a single second when it advocates a massive reorganising of the present RUC on grounds of religion because most members happen to be Protestant. I do not think that it is possible, except in its own vivid imagination, to get thousands of Catholics to join the RUC and it would upset all the Protestants.
It also made a recommendation, which made the very few hairs that I have on my head stand on end when I read it, that 15 per cent. of the RUC should be lesbians and the rest should have some other discriminatory facet. Such a submission is made to a government-appointed agency.
In relation to the supply of goods and services, I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. Religious discrimination and sectarian discrimination have taken place over past years because of sectarian and religious divides. Catholics have been forced to boycott Protestant shops because of the religion of those who own the shops and Protestants have been forced, in certain areas in Northern Ireland, not to give their custom to Roman Catholics because of their religious beliefs. I do not want to mention a particular town in case it causes disharmony. However, in a town I know very well in County Down, I can think of one chemist's shop with a notice in the window saying, "No members of the security forces will be served in this establishment". The shop was owned by a member of the Social Democratic and Labour Party. There must be other establishments in Northern Ireland which, although they do not have a notice in the window, have made it quite clear that they will not do business with members of the security forces.
On the question of discrimination, there are many aspects to be examined by the Assembly, as I mentioned to my noble friend the Minister this afternoon when I received the order and saw that it contained over 100 articles. My noble friend Lord Blease and I were not aware that there was an explanatory leaflet which we received during the course of the debate. I believe that the most important decisions in relation to the implementation of the order will have to be taken in the Northern Ireland Assembly because members of the Assembly and those they represent will have to live with the consequences. All I can do is wish them well.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome the order. In general, I am in favour of consolidating legislation when such legislation becomes too complicated. I do not think that we do enough consolidating of legislation. That is perhaps another way of saying that we fiddle about with the law too much and too frequently. It makes it extremely inconvenient for those who wish to consult the law and deal with it.
766
Most of the order is consolidation and there is a list of the origin of the clauses in the explanatory document. Because the order is not purely a consolidation measure, it has not followed the "consolidation route" in Parliament and so has not been subject to the usual checks. However, it is a long and complicated order, the old provisions and the new. In many respects, it is not very satisfactory to have to discuss it in a single debate. As the powers and the customs of your Lordships' House are under consideration, it seems to me—and I speak personally—that the possibility of the House going into Committee on an order of this length and importance, might be helpful. As I said in the course of debates on what became the Northern Ireland Act, our habit of never voting against orders might come into question as well.
I have many detailed points I want to raise which are, by their nature, Committee stage points, but I do not apologise as this is our only opportunity to raise them. The principal new part of the order, as has been said, is the outlawing of discrimination against goods and services. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that I assume that in future it will be illegal for a shop to put up a notice saying that it refuses to serve Roman Catholics or Protestants. I am not sure whether it would still be illegal to put up a notice saying that it refused to serve the security forces. The security forces are not a religion, although they may sometimes feel as though they are. I would be interested to know the answer to that. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and other noble Lords, I strongly deplore any notice of that kind.
In the case of shops and businesses, it is extremely difficult to see how one could write a law that discriminates against the buyer, the customer, which the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, rightly and understandably, in many senses, asked for. If people choose not to buy from a particular shop, it is difficult to see how you can say, "Well, you should have bought your goods from shop A instead of shop B, and you should not have discriminated", even if the discrimination is on religious grounds of some kind.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, confirmed that there are cases where certain organisations, in newspapers and in distributed leaflets, have made no secret of, the identity of those promoting a boycott on a large scale. Surely, there must be something in common law, as it exists, to deal with that kind of thing. Could that provision be extended?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, perhaps I may take the example that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, gave about the shop that would not serve the security forces. That is an example of indirect religious discrimination. If the proportion of the members of the security forces who could not comply were mainly of one religion, that indirectly could be a condition or a requirement, yet disproportionately. We are getting into complex areas. Perhaps I may take the example of the collective boycott. I am confident that that would be both an

767
unlawful conspiracy in common law, a tort, and also might well constitute pressure to discriminate unlawfully under the order.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, those are helpful interventions. I am glad to learn that a conspiracy of the kind described by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, may fall foul of common law. I believe it would be better if it were stated in statute law as well.
As far as the security forces' religion is concerned, it may be difficult to mount a case even on the basis that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, suggests. In the Army, for example, there are many Roman Catholics and members of all sorts of religions. I have no reason to suppose that the proportions in the Army are different from the proportions in the general population of the United Kingdom. It might be difficult to use that argument. The RUC is a different matter because Catholics, for a long time, have been terrorised against joining the RUC. That is the basic reason why there is such an imbalance of religions in the RUC.
This order deals with the refusal of someone to sell a house to another person on the grounds of their religion whether Roman Catholic or Protestant. That is not the most disgraceful discrimination in the area of housing. The most disgraceful discrimination is when people are forced out of their houses because of their religion. We know that that occurs. It is already illegal. The order does not deal with that. However, it is an example of the point made by the noble Lord earlier: that there is little evidence of discrimination in the fields with which this order deals, but there is a great deal of evidence of other types of discrimination which are more vicious and damaging and difficult for the law, the RUC, and so on, to deal with.
I was also disturbed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, when he described the re: Amin gap. During the debates on the Northern Ireland Bill (as it then was) we were given an assurance by the Minister. The noble Lord read a passage—he suggested that it was from Report stage; it is from Third Reading—which was entirely accurate. The Minister reassured us that the re: Amin gap would be filled. We all want it to be filled. The Minister shakes his head. I do not wish to read out the words again unnecessarily. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked whether discrimination would apply to public authorities as well as private bodies, and the Minister replied that the answer was yes.
On page 45, in paragraph 5.49 of the White Paper published in March of this year, there is discussion of this point and the recommendation of SACHR that the provision should be extended to apply to indirect discrimination of this type. The White Paper stated that the proposed extension of fair employment law to the fields of goods, facilities, services and premises will greatly extend the public sector's obligation to avoid indirect discrimination.
The order implements the White Paper in that respect. However, it does not appear to do what is advertised. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, suggested, the order may have been drafted before the re: Amin point was
768
raised in the course of debates on the Bill. I find that slightly unlikely. The order has been amended to take account of the existence of the assembly, and other points arising from the Bill. In any case, a problem still exists.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, drew attention to a different problem: that of education arising from the application of the Human Rights Act. Previous legislation—it is continued into this legislation—exempts teachers and the employment of teachers from the provisions of the legislation. We know why that is. It is because many of the schools in Northern Ireland are of one religious persuasion or another. There are many Roman Catholic schools and the state schools consequently take primarily Protestants, with the integrated schools doing their best to take the balance from both communities. I understand that many teachers are not of what one might call the appropriate religion in the schools. There are some Protestant teachers in the Roman Catholic schools, and vice versa in the state schools. I wonder whether it is still necessary to exempt teachers from this legislation. If that gets us into trouble with the Human Rights Act it may have been better to have included teachers at primary and secondary schools in the legislation in the first place.
The order extends the monitoring to part timers and to leavers in most cases. I note that the monitoring regulations are to be left to the Assembly to agree, on the proposal of the department. That assumes, as we all assume and hope, that the Assembly goes ahead and is able to discharge that kind of responsibility. However, I wish to raise a few small points. The regulations in Article 48(10) have for some reason or another been assigned to the Assembly. It would be helpful to know why it is that, when a concern has to satisfy conditions for registration, reference to employees of any person shall include a reference to the employers and bodies corporate. It is a very technical clause. For some reason that has been picked out from among the many clauses and subsections to be the responsibility of the Assembly.
More interestingly, perhaps, orders made under Article 6(3) relate to,
"employment concerned with exploration of the sea bed or subsoil".
By this provision this department is enabled to provide that the provisions shall have effect in a certain way. Regulations on that matter are specifically to be approved or otherwise by the Assembly. That surprised me because the sea bed and subsoil is a reserved matter, for the time being, under the Northern Ireland Act. It is not a matter that has been given to the Assembly.
Another matter which arises from the Northern Ireland Act concerns the definition of a Minister. We had much discussion on the definition of a Minister during the passage of the Bill. It was not left in a satisfactory situation. However, on page nine of the order, the definition of "Northern Ireland Minister" specifically includes the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly, but not when they act separately. However, there is no reference to junior Ministers. I wonder whether junior Ministers should have been included in that definition. That is again the kind of point which would be discussed in Committee.

769
Page nine of the order gives a complicated definition of a member of a vocational organisation. For some reason there is a distinction in (a) and (b) between those who belong to a vocational organisation—a trade union, employer's organisation, or a professional association which covers people in their jobs. However, (b) states that students, for example, are not members if they are concerned with a trade union or employer's organisation, but only if they belong to a professional type of organisation. That seemed to me extremely odd.
More importantly, it seems odd that a member of a trade union includes an applicant or a former member except for the purposes of Article 23. Among other things, Article 23 deals with discrimination against retired members. It is odd that someone should not be held to be a member of a trade union, and hence covered by the legislation, if it has deprived him of membership, which is part of Article 23 on page 32. The point is complicated.
In the light of the kind remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, about our previous co-operation on Northern Ireland matters, for which I am grateful, it would be only fair of me to say that if the Minister is unable to deal with the points in detail he might be kind enough to write to me in due course.
In general, I welcome the order, which consolidates complicated law and the extensions in a single document, provided the extensions have the desired meaning and the meaning that the Government intended—although doubt has been thrown on that during tonight's debate.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments that have been made in particular by my noble friends who were supportive of the legislation. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and my noble friend Lord Fitt that the legislation is complicated. I fully understand why, given our procedures, noble Lords find difficulty in doing justice to it. Were we not handing over power to the Assembly I should be sympathetic to suggestions about changes in our procedure for dealing with such matters. All being well, such future legislation will be before the Assembly and not before Parliament. Therefore, the matter will be resolved happily.
I shall deal first with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about the Amin case and indirect discrimination by public bodies. I agree with him that there is a gap provided the House of Lords' decision in that case represents the law. However, the gap in Northern Ireland is not as wide as in Great Britain because of Section 76 of the Northern Ireland Act and previously the provisions in Section 19 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. To make any changes now to fair employment legislation would lead to it being out of step with that on sex and race.
Having agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that there is a gap, although smaller than he suggested, perhaps he will allow me to write to him in more detail.
770
The difference between us is not large, although I concede that there is a difference in the terms in which he put the point forward.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I should be grateful if that could be done. However, I am troubled because I was persuaded not to seek to amend the Northern Ireland Bill to fill the gap. It is not filled by the order and I wonder whether the Minister would deal at least with the merits of the issue. Does he agree that one can think of no good reason for treating discrimination by a public authority as lawful and discrimination by a private person as unlawful, whether indirect or direct discrimination, in providing services and facilities?
I ask that question as a matter of policy and also because I expect that someone will at some time challenge the unfortunate decision by the House of Lords. Can the Minister or his colleagues identify any good reason for that highly restrictive approach to the problem? If not, it must be tested in the court or dealt with by subsequent legislation. If he cannot deal with that matter now can he write to me and to other noble Lords who are interested?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, while listening to the noble Lord, I was tempted for a brief moment to try to deal with the matter here and now. However, it would be wiser to accept his offer to write to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Cope. The issue is complicated and I believe that if I were to enter into it off the cuff I might mislead him. If I misled him on a previous occasion I very much regret doing so. It was not my intention. I answered the final question he put during our debate on the Northern Ireland Bill literally and not in the context that he has now outlined. I agree that that may have been a more appropriate interpretation of his question, but I interpreted it literally. The question he asked had only one answer, which was "yes". I did not qualify the answer and perhaps I should have done. It would be better if I wrote to him on the point he raised.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am not at all suggesting that there was any intention to mislead me or the House. I fully understand that under pressure the Minister said "yes" when he might have said "yes, but". I might then have had to press the point, so I shall be grateful if at this stage he could deal with, in correspondence, the mischief I have addressed and say how we can deal with it; whether by way of seeking clarification in the courts, through legislation, or otherwise.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I shall certainly do so by letter. It might not be a consolation to the noble Lord if I say that had he pursued his amendment at that stage I should have been obliged to resist it, so it would not have passed anyway—I trust. I shall certainly deal with the issue by letter.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for the complimentary words he uttered about the Government's basic approach to the legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, made a number of

771
comments to which I wish to respond. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, may have dealt with the question of boycotts in his earlier intervention. I agree that boycotts are unhelpful. In the atmosphere of reconciliation, which the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to pursue, it is particularly unhelpful that there should be boycotts as described by the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Fitt. However, it is difficult to make a case against someone who does not use a particular service or buy other goods. I know that the point was also directed at organisations which seek to encourage such boycotts. The law is complicated and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, probably had it right.
The fair employment tribunal has the power to award costs in cases which are frivolous or vexatious. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, that the order has nothing to do with sexual orientation. I take it that the reference to the Equality Council is the Equality Commission created by the Northern Ireland Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked about the justification for extending the legislation to include discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services and in the management and disposal of premises. It would be ill-advised of me to give anecdotal illustrations or examples as these could be better demonstrated by cases brought in the courts. Answering at the Dispatch Box would not be the best way to clarify this matter. The issues to which the noble Lord referred were not covered in the 1976 or 1989 Acts. The Government believe that any unjustified discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion should be unlawful. Therefore, as a matter of principle, it is right to extend the legislation to include goods, facilities, services and premises.
If the noble Lord were to look a long way back into the history of Northern Ireland he would find areas where such discrimination took place, but I doubt whether it would be helpful for me at this stage to go down that path.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I accept that entirely. I was trying to ask whether there had been any recent, or relatively recent, cases of such discrimination. I understand why the noble Lord may not wish to give specific examples.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his understanding. My noble friend Lord Blease asked about the working group. That is not a statutory body. It will bring forward proposals to Northern Ireland Office Ministers after it has consulted relevant interest groups in Northern Ireland. I note my noble friend's interest in the group's proposals and I shall ensure that he receives a copy of them when they are ready.
I believe that I have dealt with the point made by my noble friend Lord Fitt in relation to shops that do not serve the security forces and indicate that by a notice. I deplore such acts of discrimination, even though they may not be unlawful within the terms of existing legislation. It is not helpful for shops to display such
772
signs or for people to organise boycotts because we wish to move forward in a more positive manner in Northern Ireland. The majority of people want that, although the minority try to give a different impression. I hope that that minority will desist.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked a number of specific questions. It will be unlawful to refuse to serve a person of a particular religion. If a member of the security forces were refused service, he might have a case of indirect discrimination against the service provider but it would be difficult, legally, to achieve that.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about the position of teachers. Employment as a teacher in a primary or a secondary school in Northern Ireland is exempt from the provisions of the order, as the noble Lord indicated. There has been no change in the position since 1976. However, the commission has duty to keep that exemption under review.
The noble Lord referred also to the description of "Northern Ireland Minister" to which we devoted quite some time during the various stages of the Northern Ireland Bill. That expression does not include a junior Minister for the purposes of this order. The only reason for that inclusion in Article 2.2 is to make clear that it includes the First Minister and Deputy First Minister when acting jointly and all Ministers other than junior Ministers. Junior Ministers do not have that particular position.
The noble Lord asked also about the definition of "member" and why it was split between two parts. The simple explanation is that it is merely for ease of reading. There is no complicated thinking at all. It is merely to make it easier to read the text by having it divided in that way.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, drew my attention to something of which I was unaware; namely, that trade unions are not covered by the legislation, as far as I can see, whereas they are under the race relations and sex discrimination legislation.
There is no direct provision making it unlawful for a trade union to discriminate on religious grounds against members or applicants for membership or in the collective bargaining process. That is my reading of the order. I thought that I was some kind of an expert and it may be that I am about to be proved wrong. However, if that is correct, the Minister may like to write to me because there is a complete mismatch, if I am right, between the race and sex equality legislation and the religious discrimination legislation. However, I may have missed a provision in the order and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for drawing the matter to my attention.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, my understanding is that trade unions are covered by the definition of "vocation bodies".
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I understand that. I am not dealing with discrimination in training or

773
vocation but in membership of the trade union or the role of the trade union in the collective bargaining process. I realise that that may be rather technical but I should be grateful if the Minister were able to clarify the position at some stage.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I should be happy to write to the noble Lord and to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, who raised that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred to another point in the White Paper; namely the section in the White Paper which deals with SACHR's recommendations in relation to the constitution Act. The reference there to fair employment legislation is to clarify that the constitution Act provisions were effectively a goods and services provision for the public sector and that the fair employment legislation would extend those to the private sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, raised a number of points about the way in which the order has been drafted. The order is drafted in post-devolution terms with transitional provisions to cope with the interim period. Again, I wish to write to the noble Lord on some of the technical points he raised.
In concluding, perhaps I may make two brief points about the fair employment legislation generally. First, there is evidence that it is achieving increasing cross-community recognition as those of all religious beliefs and none make use of the legislation and come to realise its value in upholding fundamental rights. That is surely a most welcome development.
I should like also to restate the Government's firm commitment to the principle of appointment on merit and their opposition to quotas or any form of discrimination. That is not only morally right but in economic terms it is the only approach which makes sense. More important, it is a key principle to which both communities in Northern Ireland can subscribe.
The merit principle ensures that the legislation is not partisan and that it can make a particular contribution to the success of the political settlement in Northern Ireland. I am encouraged by the progress made in promoting equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland. The introduction of the order will certainly continue that process. For those important reasons, I hope that your Lordships will join with the Government in formally approving the order.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am now satisfied, having listened to the Minister and having looked at the definition of "vocational organisation", that trade unions are covered fully. Therefore, it is unnecessary for the matter to be clarified further.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful. That will save me one letter. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998
6.46 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th November be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this brief order, which makes a number of changes in Northern Ireland's rating legislation, is the last of its kind to come before this House under the Order in Council procedure. Future changes of this sort will be matters for the new Assembly to consider and legislate upon. Until the Assembly assumes its powers in the new year, however, there is a continuing need to ensure that the legislation is kept fully up to date. This order is intended to do just that.
Article 3 removes an entitlement to a reduction in the amount of rates chargeable following a revaluation during any period that an increased valuation is under appeal. At present the maximum rates recoverable during the appeal period is restricted to the sum of the previous year's rate bill and 75 per cent. of any increase due to the revaluation. This change removes from Northern Ireland legislation a provision which has no equivalent in Great Britain rates or council tax law. Should a new valuation be reduced on appeal, any overpaid rates will, of course, be refunded in full.
Where the owner of, or more usually the rental agent for, a property instead of the occupier has agreed in writing to pay the rates, where the rent is paid at intervals shorter than quarterly. Article 4 reduces the different types of "allowances" or discounts available from three to one. At present a 7.5 per cent. allowance is available where an owner or agent agrees to pay the rates only in relation to periods of occupancy. In certain circumstances this enables rate refunds to be claimed by owners in respect of past periods of vacancy, long after the property has been reoccupied by tenants and, in view of the large numbers of properties involved, the facts relating to alleged earlier vacant periods may be difficult or even impossible to establish. Such a system is clearly open to abuse and requires firmer regulation.
This 7.5 per cent. allowance will be discontinued along with an obsolete 5 per cent. allowance which no agent has claimed in 25 years. Agents agreeing to pay the full year's rates, whether or not a property is continually occupied throughout the year, will continue to qualify for a 10 per cent. allowance. The following Articles 5, 6 and 9 all mirror changes introduced in Great Britain by the Local Government and Rating Act 1997.
Article 5 should be read in conjunction with Schedule 1. These provide for a scheme of rate relief in rural settlements. Schedule 1 requires the Department of the Environment to maintain a list of rural settlements in Northern Ireland and provides for the only general store or post office in such a settlement to benefit from a 50 per cent. reduction in rates. It also enables the Department of the Environment, in certain circumstances, to grant relief, at its discretion, of the full amount of the rates on such properties as well as to properties, the use of which are considered to benefit the local community.

775
Article 6 provides for all Crown property in Northern Ireland, which mainly consists of government offices, to be subject to rates. The practice whereby the government make "contributions in lieu of rates" will be discontinued. Similar changes are planned for Great Britain in just over a year's time.
Article 7 exempts from rate liability buildings used for the scientific testing of livestock and poultry for the purpose of identifying top breeders. For example, this will assist a pig-testing centre, the only one of its kind in the United Kingdom, at a very difficult time.
Article 8 will enable the parts of prisons used primarily by the prisoners themselves to be valued and rated as being used for domestic purposes and subject, therefore, to domestic rates. Those parts include cells, libraries, kitchens and so forth. The rest of the prison, used for security and administration purposes will continue to be liable to non-domestic rates. This is a technical change only and brings arrangements for the rating of Northern Ireland prisons into line with those in Great Britain.
Article 9 removes the liability of sporting rights to rates; for example, fishing rights. Sporting rights which are separate from the occupation of land and valued in their own right will be removed from the valuation list. Those rights which are currently valued along with the land will no longer be reflected in the rateable value of the land.
Article 10 and Schedule 2 make minor technical and consequential changes none of which affect rate bills or rate payers directly. Article 11 is necessary to enable the Foyle Fisheries Commission to continue to levy its fisheries rate after the general exemption of sporting rights under Article 9. Otherwise the commission would have to forgo a small, but important source of revenue.
At the beginning I described this order as brief. I hope the House will agree nevertheless that these are important and useful changes which in some cases benefit ratepayers directly and in others improve economy and efficiency in rate collection procedures.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th November be approved—(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, perhaps I may raise one point. Under Article 8 of the order the rate on parts of prisons in Northern Ireland will now apply. I am told that that will raise around £250,000 from the Northern Ireland Prison Service. Will the Minister tell the House whether the Northern Ireland Prison Service will receive an extra £250,000 to pay that bill or is the money expected to come from savings made within the prison service?
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, in general, this order is welcome. I particularly welcome the provision for general stores in rural settlements. I was a supporter of the same clauses with respect to the rest of Great Britain and am glad to support them in the case of Northern Ireland.
776
I have only one question for the Minister. Can he tell the House what the financial effects of the order will be? Clearly they will benefit some rate payers at the expense of local authorities but, conversely, local authorities will benefit with regard to central government. It would be interesting to have an idea of the changes in the financial flows that are involved as a result of the order. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, suggested one in respect of prisons. I am not sure that it works out quite as cleanly as he suggested, but it would be helpful to know the financial effects.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I too have a special interest in Article 8 referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but for a different reason. I have read the remarks of the Minister in another place dealing with this order and he said:
"Article 8 will enable the parts of prisons used primarily by prisoners to be valued and rated as being used for domestic purposes and will be subject, therefore, to domestic rates. Such areas include cells, libraries and kitchens. The rest of a prison, used for security and administration, will be liable for non-domestic rates".
He then went on to say,
"This change is intended to bring Northern Ireland legislation into line with that of Great Britain".—[Official Report, Commons, Fifth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation; 3/12/98, col. 4.]
I do not challenge that. However, the effect will be rather different. We have in effect—whatever people may choose to call it—what is perceived by evil doers in Northern Ireland as an amnesty. It is exclusively for murderers and, in theory, it is not supposed to apply to future murderers. My guess is that the legislation will be amended at some stage in the future so it will be a sort of conveyor-belt operation. The major prisons will then be entirely empty unless we can find enough sex offenders and drug peddlers to prevent them from being completely de-rated with the consequent loss of revenue to the prison service. I therefore lend my support to the plea from the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Cope, that the prison service be recompensed for loss of revenue.
On a more serious note, but a brief one, it is probably too early to define the future of the "regional" rate and the balance of liability for financing the water services in future in Northern Ireland. On previous occasions I drew attention to the chaos resulting from the planning section of the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland encouraging housing developments where essential services such as water, sewerage and electricity were not available. Thus the heaviest financial burden of updating and providing those essential services has unfortunately fallen on the water authorities.
Added to that, the water authorities are required to engage in schemes and expend vast sums of money to comply with European regulations as well. I can never quite understand that. The last time I went to a continental country—a member of the European Union—the captain warned us within an inch of our lives in two respects: first, be very careful about the strength of the sun; secondly, on no account must we drink the local water but should buy it in bottles. Therefore, I do not see why the UK is penalised.

777
More seriously, will the water service deficit become a burden on the council rates, the regional rate or on Treasury subvention? Also, what may be the resulting danger of an accelerated campaign for revaluation? It is never a popular device and was certainly unpopular in 1977–78 because there had been such a long period before the previous revaluation. It would be helpful to have some information on that point.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments that have been made. Perhaps I may deal with the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. I am not sure whether it fits in well with this debate but if I understood him correctly he was asking about possible increases in the regional rate. He related that to the burden on the water services to provide water to new housing developments which did not have access to it. Perhaps the noble Lord will permit me to write to him. I should be delighted to enter a discussion on it, but it would be better if I wrote to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked about the consequences of the change in procedures as regards the Prison Service. The Prison Service will be relieved of the £250,000 which will not be charged. It will not have to pay that, but that means that, in turn, the Assembly will have its income reduced by the same amount. There will, therefore, be a financial knock-on effect on the Assembly's money. I am not sure at this stage whether it is possible for me to quantify the effect of all the measures. I should prefer not to do that as it is difficult. I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to write to him if any clear figures come to light, rather than make rough estimates which might have to be revised later. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1998
7 P.m.
Lord Hoyle Lord Hoyle rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th November be approved [47th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1997–98].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order gives effect without modification to the final recommendations in respect of the 16 constituencies in Greater London, Surrey, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire which are described in the report of the interim review presented to the Home Secretary by the Boundary Commission for England on 26th June.
If the draft miscellaneous changes order now before this House is approved by your Lordships, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will submit it to Her Majesty in Council to be made. Article 1(3) provides that the order comes into operation on the fourteenth day after the day on which it is made, but the new boundaries will not take effect until the next general election.
The commission's recommendations are framed only to take account of anomalies which have arisen between parliamentary constituency and local government
778
boundaries in those areas since June 1994. The changes affect some 3,721 electors in total. These proposals are moderate and sensible and have been welcomed in the areas affected. The commission has received only one objection to the recommendations. That objection raised matters which would have required changes more than the minimum required to bring boundaries back into alignment with local government boundaries and was considered by the commission to be more appropriate for the next general review.
The draft Order in Council now before your Lordships was considered in another place on 17th November and has been approved by that other place. I have no hesitation in commending the commission's final recommendations to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pollution Prevention and Control Bill [H.L.]
7.2 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In speaking to the Bill, I am not sure that I can be as brief as my noble friend—
Noble Lords: Shame!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this is a very short Bill on pollution prevention and control. It arises from the fact that we must implement the European Council directive on integrated pollution prevention and control next year. We wish to do so in a way which, first, preserves the coherence of our industrial pollution control systems; secondly, delivers maximum benefits for environmental protection; and, thirdly, minimises the burden of compliance.
The Bill will enable us to do just that. It will enable us to create a single unified pollution prevention and control regime where we would otherwise have to have two or three. I do not believe that there should be any great dissention on the matter and I hope the whole House will join me in supporting the Bill.
Perhaps I may put the Bill into context. The background is our system of integrated pollution control on the one hand and the European equivalent on the other. I believe that if I spell out the reasons behind the introduction of the Bill, that will help the House to understand it.
In this country, proposals for an integrated approach to pollution control were first put forward as far back as 1976 by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Its report drew attention to the way in which pollution is transferred across the environmental media. The commission made a strong case for ensuring an integrated approach to difficult industrial problems at source whether affecting air, water or land. The previous government acted on the Royal Commission's suggestion and by 1991 had introduced a system of integrated pollution control, based on statutory provisions as set out in Part I of the Environmental

779
Protection Act 1990. That government also introduced a parallel system of local air pollution control which operates under the same legislation.
The integrated pollution control regime introduced by the previous government now applies to around 2,000 industrial processes in England and Wales, plus another 200 in Scotland. An equivalent system is now being introduced in Northern Ireland. Integrated pollution control covers processes in the chemicals industry, power generation, oil refining, metals, minerals, waste disposal and some other smaller industries, but 60 per cent. of the processes fall within the broad chemicals sector.
The core features of IPC are, first, that the operator needs a permit before he can operate a process of the type to which the regulations apply; secondly, that the permit must include conditions requiring the use of the "best available techniques not entailing excessive cost"; and, thirdly, that regard should be had to the "best practicable environmental option"—a term first coined by the Royal Commission.
The principle of setting standards of pollution control with respect to the individual process is at the heart of the United Kingdom's approach to pollution. It is a principle sometimes misunderstood on the Continent where the UK is, on occasion, accused of taking into account only pollution with a local impact and thereby ignoring the impact of emissions from the UK on continental ecosystems. That was not the approach of the previous government; nor is it our approach. The previous government signed and ratified a UN protocol to reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide. We have signed similar protocols for heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants. We have always taken our responsibilities seriously, not only for pollution within the UK, but beyond our borders also. That tradition has been followed through by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, in particular in the Kyoto negotiations.
The previous government were successful in securing a European directive at that level on integrated pollution prevention and control which puts the UK's site-specific approach to pollution permits at the heart of European environmental policy. Not only that, but the UK's pragmatic approach to costs and benefits also appears on the face of the directive. Initially, that was against the wishes of some member states, but the UK approach prevails. The directive states that the permits issued by member states must take into account the technical characteristics of the installation concerned, its geographical location and the local environmental conditions.
That may seem like common sense, but some previous continental regimes had a more rigid and inflexible approach. On costs and benefits, the directive does not employ the UK term "best available techniques not entailing excessive cost", but defines "best available techniques" as those where the "costs and advantages" have been taken into consideration.
A directive as compatible with the UK's approach to pollution control was not achieved without considerable effort and I pay tribute to those involved. Of course, the
780
directive is not exactly the same as our existing system; in many respects, it is a significant improvement. It is a good idea to consider, for example, energy efficiency and noise alongside the emissions potential of an installation. Our existing IPC system was rather artificial in the way it limited its focus to emissions of polluting substances and did not address other environmental impacts. I understand that in many cases industry already appraises its projects in the way the directive will require.
The directive also extends to a significantly greater number of installations than our existing system. Our best estimate is that it will apply to some 6,000 installations, compared to the 2,000 or so to which the IPC already applies. The extra installations covered by the directive include 10 per cent. of those currently regulated by local authorities. Therefore, they are already subject to some degree of regulation. It also includes around 1,000 landfill sites, on which we had a debate recently, and a similar number of the larger intensive pig and poultry farms, plus around 500 food and drink factories which are not already covered. There are a number of technical differences between the IPPC and the IPC; for example, the fact that "installations" have to be regulated under the EU directive, whereas "processes" are regulated under the current IPC and the local authority regime.
One could go on at length about the difficulties caused by the decision to control processes under our own Environmental Protection Act 1990, but the European choice of the term "installation" should enable a more rational system to be developed, one which also takes account of the fact that it is, in practice, increasingly common for operators to outsource various aspects of what they do.
It would be possible simply to translate the IPPC directive, along with our existing system of pollution control, into the UK legislation. However, if we did that we would in effect end up with three regimes. The first would be one under the directive controlling the 6,000 installations to which I referred and which the directive requires us to control. Secondly, there would be the remains of the IPC regime covering the 400 for so processes which we control through the IPC but which are not actually included in that directive. The third would be a local air pollution control regime administered through local authorities which would cover the remaining 11,000 or so processes and, therefore, the vast majority of small installations.
The first regime—the European regime—would regulate "installations" according to "best available techniques" and with full consideration of energy efficiency, noise and site remediation. The second regime, the IPC regime, would regulate "processes". The third regime would regulate "processes" but only in respect of emissions to air. The second and third regimes would be compatible with each other, as they are now, but the first regime—the IPPC regime—would be compatible with neither: to use a technical term, the overall result would be a dog's breakfast.
In order to avoid potential confusion and incoherence as regards operators of those processes, we have introduced the Bill. The power set out in the Bill will

781
enable us to bring in regulations setting out a more coherent pollution prevention regime consisting of compatible regimes of integrated pollution prevention and control and local air pollution control. We will be able to regulate all installations using a common system and we will have a common terminology running through the integrated system, including a local air pollution control system, as at present. That is basically the purpose of the Bill. We will end up with a more coherent regime and one which is compatible in all respects. However, we will continue to have one regime operated nationally and one through local authorities; but they will operate on the same basis.
At the same time, your Lordships should know that the Government have carried out two consultation exercises and are about to launch a third, the basis of which should be available shortly in the Library of the House. We have been able to identify a number of improvements to the existing regime as a result of that consultation. The Bill would give us an opportunity to extend those benefits and those improvements to all installations which are covered by pollution control through the regulations which we will implement under this Bill.
Those improvements include quicker decisions on variations in cases where the regulator is convinced that an environmental improvement will result; better focused arrangements for public consultation; greater transparency; and measures to make it easier to grant payments to those who deserve them and to withhold them from others. The third consultation paper to which I referred will be available shortly and certainly before we reach the Committee stage of the Bill. It will set out the Government's specific proposals for the use of the regulation-making power in the Bill and will be accompanied by a first draft of the regulations which the Government propose to make. Your Lordships will therefore have a very early opportunity before the Committee stage to see the use to which the Government intend to put the powers in the Bill.
Perhaps I may quickly run through the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 confers on the Secretary of State power to make regulations creating a new regime of pollution control. Schedule 1 lists some of the specific purposes for which this power may be used. It reads very much like a skeleton draft of the regulations to which I just referred. There is, of course, a question of the competence of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales in future years.
Clause 2(1) and (2) enable the transfer order under the Government of Wales Act 1998 to follow the negative resolution procedure rather than the affirmative procedure to give the responsibility for the secondary legislation to the National Assembly for Wales. Clause 2(3) provides for the transfer of functions under the Bill to the Scottish Executive under the Scotland Act 1998.
Clause 3, together with Schedules 2 and 3, gives effect to some consequential amendments and repeals. In particular, the Bill provides for the repeal of Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 except in so far as it applies to Northern Ireland. Clause 4 contains the
782
Short Title and so on of the Bill. Clause 4(7) retains those sections of the 1990 Act which apply to Northern Ireland.
The Bill will duplicate those provisions as far as concerns Great Britain, but the other sections of the 1990 Act need to be retained for Northern Ireland. Clause 4 also provides for regulations under the Bill to apply to installations under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom but beyond its territorial waters. The directive applies to large combustion plants on oil rigs. Clause 4 will allow such plants within our jurisdiction to be regulated whether or not they are within our territorial waters.
I believe that I have given your Lordships sufficient details of the clauses of this fairly straightforward Bill. I hope that noble Lords will agree that it makes our regulatory mechanisms coherent and understandable. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill now be read a second time.—(Lord Whiny.)
7.16 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, the first thing I have to do is to apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie. Due to the unexpectedly late start of the debate, my noble friend has had to leave because he has a plane to catch. Noble Lords will be glad to know that I shall not be making two speeches. However, I shall, nevertheless, make a point that he would have made.
I welcome the Bill and I should declare a small and non-financial interest as Vice-Chairman of the West London Green Business Club, which has been established and supported by the Interactive Environmental Group, which also facilitates and supports the National Recycling Network. I feel that some businesses may groan at what they see as a new imposition in the cause of integrated pollution control, but I would rather see the directive and this piece of legislation as a spur to the development of new technologies for recycling, reuse and in process waste (and energy) minimisation.
There is a process which I have come across recently which is an advance on existing methods of consolidation and vitrification for industrial and municipal solid waste. This process uses the heat generated in the materials themselves. I note that the Minister talked about energy conservation. I do not understand the process because I am not technical, but the company Vortek is setting up a plant in the Republic of Ireland and, possibly also, in the United Kingdom to process industrial and municipal waste.
The BATNEEC principle of dealing with pollution was much debated during the passage of the Environmental Protection Bill. It can be operated in such a way as to hold up the development of new technologies or in such a way as to accelerate the development of new technologies because they are actively sought by companies seeking to improve their performance in terms of the environment. This will certainly require investment, but I wonder whether there is a role for the DTI or the Environment Agency in

783
acting as a clearing-house for new ideas. We are a very inventive nation and this is an area where our inventiveness could come to the fore.
I hope that the inspectors at the Environment Agency will be tough on polluters and will actually prosecute for negligent and irresponsible pollution. Clearly, there has to be continued pressure on companies to reduce environmental impacts by new technology and new methods of decontamination and purification.
I shall make just one point that I believe my noble friend would have made about education from his point of view. He has just joined the board of the Scottish Environmental Education Council, which supports the need for regulation and rigorous enforcement as a means of preventing and controlling pollution. The success of the Bill will, ultimately, depend on the inter-related roles of education and legislation. The commitment to information, publicity and consultation, mentioned in Schedule 1, is welcome. Fundamentally, there needs to be a hearts and minds approach to pollution and its limitation. It is only through education in its broadest sense that the best environmental practice will be sustained. We need to move from an attitude of "these infernal regulations" to a posture of personal commitment and voluntary action beyond the regulatory requirements.
In its recent environmental strategy, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency has placed emphasis on the complementary use of non-regulatory tools, such as education, for achieving its objectives—evidence of a hearts and minds approach, my noble friend supposes. I hope that there will be a corresponding increase in the resources allocated to this sector of environmental action and care.
Finally, I am pleased to see that Clause 4 brings offshore installations within the scope of the legislation. I wish the Bill a safe and speedy passage through your Lordships' House and another place.
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister said that he hoped that there would be no dissension with regard to the Bill. From these Benches, there will be none.
When I was warned that the Bill was to be part of the business of your Lordships' House, I was told that it was called the Integrated Pollution Bill. The comment was made to me "If we cannot have an integrated approach to the environment, at least we can have integrated pollution". Perhaps neither of those points is fair. I am glad to find that the Bill is about control and prevention first and that it is not a dog's breakfast. However, I wonder whether the Long Title promises a little more than the contents give us. It seems to me that this is not a new system but more a co-ordination of regimes. It is none the worse for that, but I feel that the Long Title is quite optimistic.
We welcome the Bill because we welcome what the Explanatory Notes call,
"a simple, coherent pollution control system",
for the regulation of all types and sources of pollution. While I am mentioning the Explanatory Notes, perhaps I may say how much I welcome them, particularly for a
784
technical Bill such as this. It was far easier to read the rounded explanation than to have to guess at what was between the lines of the technical provisions of the Bill.
The Bill proposes a system to regulate all types and sources of pollution. However, the Minister explained that not everything will be within the new system. As I understand it, what is left outside is what is within the aegis of the local authority. It would be helpful if the noble Lord could expand on what does not fall within the Bill.
The Bill, perhaps inevitably, relies on regulations. The Minister told us that the draft regulations are due to be published by the end of the year. The directive is to be implemented some 10 months later. Does the Minister believe that there will be sufficient time for the consultees to respond to the consultation? How long a period for consultation will there be? On a practical point, will there be sufficient time to put the necessary arrangements in place? The Explanatory Notes say that there will be no regulatory costs but they say also that costs will arise under the regulations. Can the noble Lord give us some idea of the scale of the costs? The paragraph in the Explanatory Notes dealing with the financial effects makes the point. But I am not sure it is sufficient to say that the costs cannot be estimated as they will have to be paid. I do not disagree with the point that the polluter will pay. However, while I hope not appearing to be approving of pollution, I think the operator of a process needs to know the likely bill at the end of the day.
The Minister referred to energy efficiency, and the directive requires installations to be operated in such a way that,
"energy is used efficiently".
My attention was drawn to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, on economic instruments and the business use of energy. The report makes the point that IPPC will deliver some emissions reductions for heavy industry, particularly of carbon dioxide, but that most small and medium-sized industrial firms and all commercial premises will be outside its scope. In any event, IPPC is existing process-based. Paragraph 35 of the report states:
"It will require firms to tighten up their existing processes, but it will not provide an incentive to look at whether instead to reduce operating periods, to retire plant early, or to switch out altogether of more carbon intensive technologies or lines of business into less carbon intensive ones".
The report gives the example of a pipe currently made from primary steel. It says that there could be a number of options which would reduce the energy consumption of its manufacture, such as making the pipe from less steel, making the pipe from recycled steel or even making the pipe from a completely different material. The report states:
"IPPC will focus on making the primary steel process more efficient but would provide no incentive for the market to take up the other options. In practice these may actually have been better for the environment as well as cheaper in the long run for the economy".
I was interested in the reference in paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 1 to the Bill to the transfer of permits. Can the Minister say a little more about that? Are permits to be

785
transferable simply because businesses may be transferred and therefore the permits relating to the businesses need to be transferable as well, or is this some indication of the use of tradable permits? My colleagues in the Liberal Democrat party have been concerned about that point, although perhaps it is a more international system than we will be dealing with here. I should be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about the transfer of permits.
Finally, I made a note that on these Benches we wish the Bill a fair wind. I realise that those dealing with pollution prevention prefer a "calm day", but we will support the Bill.
7.27 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I have three slight difficulties with the Bill. The first concerns the way in which the legislation will apply. Ever since our forebears began to realise that polluted drinking water causes cholera there have been those who pollute and those who try to stop pollution.
This Bill is intended to draw together the integrated pollution control regime, the local air pollution control regime and the waste management licensing system in a manner which accords with EC Directive 96/61 on integrated pollution prevention and control. Among other things, this will mean regulating
"significant numbers of installations which are at present unregulated by either Part I or Part II of the 1990 Act"
and,
"through a system of permits some 2,600 installations which are not currently regulated in this way".
Perhaps we should note that at present only some 2,000 installations are regulated by permit. Moreover, the EC directive introduces a profound change to the law. At the moment both regimes require that,
"Best available techniques not entailing excessive costs"
are to be used to prevent or minimise pollution. In future, the operative phrase will be "best available techniques".
To illustrate the nature of this change, I refer your Lordships to the EC directive on the safety of glass used in windows and doors as it is applied to our schools at present. One of the smaller counties calculated that to replace all the unkite-marked glass in its schools with that marked to the correct British Standard would cost some £2.25 million. Most of its schools are in practice replacing all broken panes with BS material, but are covering the rest with safety film at about one-fifth to one-quarter of the cost. Extend that to industrial processes which give rise to pollution, apply best techniques and the probable cost is much higher than that which now applies. In those circumstances it is essential that the requirements of the law are clear, unequivocal and obvious to all those to whom it applies.
My second major difficulty is with the identification of those people and processes which will be covered by the new legislation. Clause 1(4) seems to me to be a catch-all, to end all catch-alls. I doubt whether anyone, having read it, could be sure whether it applied to his business, proposed activity, hobby or whatever. Can the Minister tell us, for example, if it is to be used to extend
786
the life of the Magnox reactors as requested by BNFL, while pushing the ratification of the Portugal agreement to render marine protected areas off limits to man's activities, and backing Mr. Prescott's refusal to accept near zero discharges of radioactivity?
My third major difficulty is that in this Bill we once again have a situation where the Government appear to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of their actions by providing the Secretary of State with sweeping powers which, once gained, can be overturned only by a resolution of either House. As noble Lords will know, that means this House will have no opportunity to amend them in detail. Can the Minister assure us that we shall have an opportunity to see the outcome of the consultation due to be published by the end of this year—he has indicated that that will happen—before the Bill reaches Committee stage, and that it will contain a draft of the Secretary of State's intentions? Will that be binding on the Government? Does the Minister agree with me that such a strong reliance on regulations could be seen by the electorate as a total renunciation of democracy by a Government who have a considerable majority?
Finally, I ask for an assurance that the draft regulations will be available in the House before we reach Committee stage to enable us to consider them in detail before the Bill completes its passage. I know that the Minister is aware that the Christmas Recess is nearly upon us, but will he ensure that the department makes every effort to bring forward detailed guidance or draft regulations before the Committee stage? Will he also ensure that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee brings forward its report to assist the House before the Government seek to proceed through all stages of the Bill in this House?
7.33 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I wish to respond to a number of the points which have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, referred to technological advance in this area, including vitrification and the creation of solid waste. Those and other new techniques are important and the relevant government departments are actively trying to encourage them. To reduce pollution at source is the main purpose of the Bill and fits in very much with the line the noble Lord took in relation to new technology. While the regulations cannot deliver the new technology, they can at least encourage its use.
I am happy to endorse the point the noble Lord made on behalf of his noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie as regards education and information. That is absolutely essential if we are to get the message across. The sentiments that the noble Lord expressed on behalf of his noble friend are in tune with the department's wish to convey information and to encourage motivation to adopt personal responsibility in these areas. That fits in with our "doing your bit" campaign.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned a number of issues. As regards the transfer of permits, the reference in Schedule 1 is to transfers of the permits as operator transfers. However, there is a possible role for

787
permit trading in due course although not quite on the scale we are discussing in Buenos Aires. That is referred to in paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1. There is an element of potential trading, albeit relatively minor, involved.
As regards what is included in the Bill, all three regimes to which I referred are included in order to achieve a coherent approach. It is not a case of local authorities being outside this approach; we hope that there will be a coherent approach based on the same principles. Effectively local authorities will continue to administer the regime as regards the vast majority of installations—that is, over 11,000 of them. The noble Baroness also asked about costs. As regards the acquisition of the permits, it is difficult to predict the precise costs because under the present regime charges range from £100 for a relatively small installation up to £80,000 for a power station. The costs of abatement can be negative or they can run into hundreds of millions of pounds. The key point is that a site specific judgment needs to be based on the costs and benefits on both sides of that equation and needs to be made on a case by case basis.
As regards the consultation document—which I believe the noble Baroness mentioned twice—the timetable is tight. The point was also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. The consultation document I mentioned would probably have been available to this House had this debate taken place on the date originally scheduled, before it was brought forward. However, it will certainly be available to the House in good time for the Committee stage of the Bill and almost certainly before Christmas. The timetable for consultation is relatively tight. We hope to hold two rounds of consultation on the basis of the document before the regulations are laid. That is a challenge but the new regulations with regard to existing installations will be phased in over a period from the passage of the Bill to the year 2007. Although we need quick responses to the consultation, some views in relation to particular processes may be given at a later stage and will still be taken into account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, mentioned a number of other issues. She asked to how many new installations the measure applies. I believe I mentioned the figure of 2,600, which is the approximate figure of new installations, as distinct from those which may be transferred from one regime to another. Of those, about 1,000 are landfill sites and another 1,000 relate to intensive farming installations, principally of large pig and poultry farms. There are about 500 within the food and drink industry to which the present regulations do not apply. It is only that number which will be newly affected. The vast majority fall within the three categories I have mentioned.
The noble Baroness asked to whom Clause 1(4) applies. I assure her that the schedule which will be produced will make it clear that it does not apply to Magnox power stations. In the new year we intend to produce a schedule to make it absolutely clear to which processes and to which installations the measure applies.
788
We certainly hope to have the draft consultation paper available before Committee stage, although it is a matter for the House authorities rather than myself. No doubt the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee will examine the matter in that timescale. The draft regulations will therefore be available, which will answer many of the points raised.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I believe that the Bill will be generally welcomed as a clarification of the position and as an operation of a regime that is more easily understandable than had we moved into three different regimes attempting to control similar processes. The fact that there can be a regime in our national legislation compatible with that of Europe is a positive bonus in this context. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may apologise for not having heard the whole debate. He made reference to the committee on delegated legislation. Will he help me as a member of that committee as to whether there is any statement of policy that will be achieved by the provisions of the Bill, or is it entirely a matter of order and regulation-making powers being conferred upon the Secretary of State to do whatever seems to him or her to be appropriate later? I am not aware of any specific matter of policy that is sought to be achieved by the provisions of the Bill, save the conferring of powers to make regulations.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is a policy implication in terms of structuring a single regime and the concentration on installations rather than processes in that regime. That is a narrow but strategic point in the approach to the whole issue of pollution prevention and control.
The noble and learned Lord is correct. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee will no doubt examine the powers of regulation under the Bill. It will confer on the Secretary of State powers which for the most part he already has in a different context; nevertheless, it does convey substantial regulation-making powers on the Secretary of State. That is no doubt of direct and central interest to the committee.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may take up my noble and learned friend's point. It is a matter that I raised at the start of the debate. Can the Minister give the House a better idea as to timing? As I said, the time is very tight. Perhaps he can therefore enlarge upon the matter.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the timing of the draft consultation document, which will include the draft regulations, I cannot absolutely put my hand on my heart and say that it will be available before Christmas. It will certainly be available before Committee stage, which will give adequate time for consideration by this House. We accept that the wider consultation process is tight. However, after the end of

789
that formal consultation period other views could be taken into account in determining approaches to particular processes and installations.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Local Authorities: Age of Candidates
7.43 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider lowering the minimum age for candidates standing in local elections to 18.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, first, I wish to thank all those who have chosen to take part in the debate. When I looked at the Speakers' List last week I feared that very few were interested in this issue and that, despite frequent references to the need to consult, engage, involve, and listen to young people, concrete action further to involve them was of no great interest. However, with those noble Lords who have chosen to speak, I now look forward to hearing your Lordships' views and the Government's thinking on this subject.
Noble Lords may wonder why I have chosen to address particularly the question of local authority candidature rather than all candidature. While I believe that the arguments in favour of parliamentary representation at 18 may be equally valid, I wish to concentrate on why we need young people to be able to represent their local communities in particular. But first, I wish to touch on some wider principles.
We lay great emphasis on trying to create balance in our elected bodies. We try to address gender imbalance and ethnic imbalance, and try to ensure that people with disabilities are not disabled from standing as candidates. Yet we treat our young people as though we hope to exclude them from office for as long as possible. A minimum age of 21, if your birthday falls just after the election, can mean in practice that you will be nearly 25 before you can stand. Inevitably that creates councils where a "very young" counsellor is someone in his or her late 30s. That may seem young to us, but to children, teenagers and those in their early 20s that is already at the top of the hill, if not over it.
In the Government's modern local government paper, In Touch with the People, paragraph 3.60 states:
"In particular, there is a need for more talented, vigorous young people in local government".
That is correct. Young people are not only able to be among the most active in their community; they are the future of their community. For that reason we should involve them as early as possible. They are also the major users of local authority services. Education is obviously one of those services, but they are also major users of leisure facilities such as swimming-pools and football pitches; they are major users of the housing service as they leave home or become homeless or first-time tenants. If there were more young councillors, I am sure that the kind of investment we have seen by some councils in, for example, the foyer model of housing—where there is housing, training and support
790
all in one—would have been far greater. We can cast our minds back to remember what it was like being young (that is, if we try hard) but what we remember bears little or no resemblance to what it is like being young nowadays. We need people to be involved in decision-making in their own communities who have grown up there in the past five years and who have experienced the realities, for example, of how effective a community safety strategy is, what public transport is like, or whether street lights make a difference. The experience of a group of 17 year-olds waiting at a bus-stop at 10.30 p.m. after the cinema is vastly different to the experience of two pensioners waiting at the same bus-stop at 10.30 in the morning after a shopping trip.
It may be that councils will be urged, for example, to use a youth focus group in order to gain views. The trouble is that a focus group, which is a rather eulogised tool for making the excluded feel involved, can at best give only a snapshot of the views of a young age group. It is not the same as being part of the decision-making process.
At 18 or 19 you may be in a first job, unemployed or still in education. But the 19 or 20 year-old is often relatively free of other commitments. One of the most difficult combinations in life is that of public office, a very young family and a career. So if we exclude young people from standing before they have a family we may in practice be excluding them until their late 30s or early 40s as the demands of that young family and career take over. This may be the last civil right denied to people who are by all other definitions adults. At 18 you can marry, die for your country and be deemed old enough to look after your own needs in housing terms—but you are too young to represent your community.
Elsewhere in Europe nearly all countries accept that 18 is sufficiently mature for local candidature. One or two countries in Europe have differentiated between local elections and national elections and have retained the higher age of 21 for eligibility for regional or national elections. I shall not enter into that argument today. I wish to concentrate on the argument, which is overwhelming, for reducing the age for candidature in local elections.
This Government have been quite active in supporting a young people's democracy programme to encourage them to vote, to take part and to express a view, but that only goes so far. I believe it lacks credibility. We are saying to those young people: "We want you to be interested in 'our show'. You cannot be part of it, but please come along and watch". No wonder apathy is so frequently encountered among the young when politics is mentioned. We want them as activists, we want them out there delivering our leaflets, and we want them as voters—much is talked about how to get them to turn out and vote—but we do not want them as representatives. I believe that they can understand the double standard that that represents.
What would it mean in local communities? I should like to turn for a moment to the communities that I know best, small rural communities, and look at the things that a parish council deals with. They are small things but

791
they make a big difference in the life of the community. Let us look at how a parish council reaches the decision as to how to spend its precept. The spending choices for an older age group may include floodlighting the church and benches on which to sit to look at the church once it is floodlit. They may include street lighting so that people can see the group of scary teenagers lurking in the bus shelter. Issues for that age group include getting the police to stop the teenagers lurking in the bus shelter and to stop those same teenagers skateboarding in the street.
If the younger age group were involved, what would they provide for their younger brothers and sisters aged between, say, 8 and 18? If someone were elected who had only just stopped lurking in the bus shelter, he or she would provide a place for that younger age group to meet in on a couple of evenings a week so that they were not condemned to the cold, dark bus shelter. They might choose, for example, to rent the village hall for an informal youth session, to provide a multi-surface area for street hockey or to subsidise a bus back from town on a Saturday night.
The voice of those growing up now is different. They have had a completely different experience of life from the one we had, growing up in the 1960s, 1950s and 1940s. I will not go back any further out of respect for those here! If we are to modernise our service delivery in line with the reality of what it is like living in our communities today, we need to hear that voice on the decision-making bodies of our country. What are we going to do about it?
There has for many years been cross-party support for making no differentiation between the age at which one can vote and the age at which one can be a candidate. In 1985 Conservative Back Benchers tabled a members of parliament (minimum age) Bill, which I believe was talked out. The Labour Party said, in its document A new age for democracy:
"There is no justification for the continued discrepancy between the age of nomination and voting rights. We believe that it is right that the age of nomination, which at present stands at 21, should be reduced to the age of 18".
We on these Benches have consistently campaigned for and included in our Liberal Democrat manifestos the reduction of the age to 18.
I do not believe that it is the law which should restrict voter choice. If people do not want to be represented by a very young candidate, they can simply not vote for that candidate. That is perhaps an argument in favour of trying this change first, especially for local elections. A constituency MP is the people's one representative to Parliament. If people were nervous about reducing the age of candidates, it could be tried at local level—for example at parish or town council level, where multi-member wards means that one can field some very young candidates and also have older people representing that same community. People could choose to vote for one very young candidate among their choices.
What is it that frightens successive governments about giving the younger age group the right to vote and a voice? As far as I can see, there are no valid arguments
792
to continue the anomaly that at 18 one can do everything but represent one's community. I hope that your Lordships will send a strong message to the Government that this issue should be looked at as a matter of urgency. I think that the local government Bill could be amended to include this measure so that young people could qualify for election next May.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on raising this issue and on the way in which she has presented it. I do not need to detain the House long since I agree with a large number of the noble Baroness's arguments. Whether she would receive the extent of support that she would hope for if the House were more crowded this evening, I beg leave to doubt.
I realised a few weeks ago that, whereas I arrived in this House with expectations that we would promote reform of your Lordships' House—a matter which has been the subject of general debate over the past few weeks both here and in the other place—on the grounds that it was less representative of the nation than it ought to be and over-representative of privilege and wealth, in fact the major problem is that it is over-representative of the aged. Our problem is that we are grandfathers and grandmothers deliberating on the affairs of the nation. The debate on the age of consent brought home to me very sharply that we are a true gerontocracy. The aged are seeking to present laws and rules for a generation—in fact, two generations—behind us. We are out of touch with an important segment of opinion in our nation. That is why I welcome this evening the opportunity to support a proposal which would give greater recognition of the rights of young people.
I decided to quote this evening a distinguished Liberal since the noble Baroness who introduced the debate is of that party. Lord Asquith said that the attitude was often adopted—and it seems to be adopted here—that youth would be a much more impressive state if it came a little later in life. I think many of us probably share that view.
I believe that there is change in the air. For example, as a result of the last election we have in the other place the youngest Prime Minister of the 20th century. The Leader of the Opposition is the youngest in his post in the 20th century. We have a Member of Parliament who was aged only 24 on his election to the House. These are indications that voters are not put off by the younger generation. It is against this background that the debate about whether candidates, in particular for local elections, should be drawn from those aged 18 and upwards is to be considered.
As the noble Baroness pointed out, the law at present is fairly arbitrary. There are no clear lines in this country for defining the age of maturity. We allow young people to marry at the age of 16. We allow people to drive cars at the age of 17—and, regrettably, some do so dangerously. As the noble Baroness pointed out, people can join the Armed Forces at the age of 17. If they are in work—and, believe it or not, some 16 year-olds are—they start paying taxes at the age of 16. They do not

793
have the vote until they are 18 and they are not allowed to be candidates until the age of 21. There is an argument for tidying up this position and, in particular, for bringing the age at which a person may be a candidate down to 18, the age at which they may vote. That could certainly be done with regard to elections to local authorities.
Perhaps I may declare an interest here. I wish to make a short reference to education. I chair the Further Education Funding Council. The Government are at present considering the issue of reforms to the governing bodies of colleges. Those reforms clearly envisage the possibility of students being members of governing bodies. In many colleges that position already obtains and students—some of them younger than 18—play their full part on governing bodies. It can be said that students have a particular stake in education and therefore bring to the work of governing bodies the obvious value that they are stakeholders with a particular interest in the enterprise. A college of education can have a very large budget, but perhaps not as large as those of some local authorities which have colleges. I am sure the students will be represented on such bodies which measure up to the budget size of the smaller local authorities. We shall see students playing their part on such bodies at a young age. If we are prepared to invest that degree of trust in their contribution within that framework, I am not quite clear why 18 year-olds who are not students but who are part of the local community and who might wish to represent the communities on the local authorities should be denied the opportunity. That is against the background that it may have been said in the past that such young people who are most motivated towards political understanding and who wish to play their part in politics would go into higher education and get their chance in the National Union of Students. At least one spokesperson this evening—probably from the Liberal Democrat Benches—might even refer to the glorious days of that organisation in the past. People should have a chance to play their part in higher education.
We are increasingly facing change in the provision of higher education, and more people will study at their local university and live at home. They will want to play their part in the local community as opposed to engaging in the student activities of the higher education institution. I see no reason at all why we should deny them the opportunity. When one considers the talent which plays its part in student activities in higher education there is no reason to deny the opportunity for that kind of talent to be deployed to the advantage of local authorities if young people choose to make that their area of contribution to society rather than higher education.
I ask the Minister to recognise that we are seeking to help the nation recover from a really depressing period. Young people today have grown up in circumstances where a Prime Minister denied that there was any such thing as "society". It was suggested that the only obligation one had was to oneself and the immediate family and to pursue the rather narrow interests identified by self. If we are seeking to create a better sense of community and a better climate for public
794
activity, we have to try to reinstate concepts of public service so that there is some belief that there are common values to which young people can contribute. Why should we seek to deny them at a young age from taking part? We should encourage 18 year-olds to seek nomination to fight a council seat, if that is at all possible.
In other words, we have to recognise that young people today have developed a very different culture from that which the majority of noble Lords would recognise. There is a great deal of commercial pressure, and opportunities. There is a great deal of wealth in society. It makes the younger age group a much more defined and separate community, not least in its purchasing power and the way in which it defines its own cultural icons and practices. All this surely requires recognition by wider society. Local authorities need to respond as well.
Although local authorities need to cater for all sections of the population, when it comes to the matter of facilities in the evening, whether that is where young people go or something as basic as whether the public lavatories are open late in the evening, it is young people who are likely to need such facilities and not older people, who are more concerned and content to be either in front of the television or involved in bringing up their families. As regards young people out on the streets engaged in joint activities, the local authority should have some proper concern for what is provided for them.
A genuine debate needs to take place in our society concerning the role of young people and the extent to which we can be a more embracing culture, recognising that our representative institutions need to take full account of the developing culture of younger people. It is right that we should look at the question of representation. The representation of 18 year-olds standing for local authorities is as good a place to start as any.
8.5 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, it is certainly a paradox that the House should be discussing this subject. I am sure that the grey heads on the Government Front Bench are already quaking that the debate has unleashed the youth wing of the House of Lords to put the case. It seems only yesterday that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I were playing football for the parliamentary team. We all suspect that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has a portrait of himself in his attic, which is growing old, so youthful does he display himself on the Opposition Front Bench.
We are very grateful to be able to put the case for youth to the Government tonight. We do so with considerable pride. I confess that I am not one of my party's local government experts so I was very careful to make sure that I armed myself with Grassroots Campaigner, the magazine of the Association of Liberal and Democratic Councillors. In reading other and more relevant issues, I noted that there is a very good article on making money at jumble sales. That is something

795
which both the Labour and Conservative parties may have to study if the committee of Lord Neill starts to bite.
I am grateful to the MORI organisation for its research. Recent polling shows some quite disturbing facets of the attitude of young people, which this debate and proposal may go some way to address. MORI recently asked 16 to 21 year-olds how important they thought their vote would be in affecting their lives. Four per cent. thought that it was very important; 21 per cent. thought it fairly important; 50 per cent. thought it not very important; and 21 per cent. thought it not important at all. Four per cent. said that they did not know. So about one in four young people consider voting fairly or very important to them.
A recent poll asked 15 year-olds and over what they thought most important about being good citizens. In some ways that was more encouraging. They identified respecting others, being good parents and obeying the law. But only 9 per cent. said voting at elections and only 6 per cent. referred to the importance of being active in their local community. Another poll of 18 to 24 year-olds was slightly more encouraging, 54 per cent. saying that they were fairly or very interested in politics. The polls are not exactly comparable; nevertheless they show an interesting discrepancy. One in four believe that the vote matters, but two in four are interested in politics. There is a high level of social responsibility, respect for others, good parenting and obeying the law. The poorest result was for voting or local community action.
One of the challenges facing society is how we bridge the gap between interest and participation. If we do not bridge that gap these are worrying trends. Local government is an important part of our democracy and it is a part of our governance which most touches people's lives. Worrying dislocation between the importance of local government and the participation by electors in the process can distort representation. We all know that turn-out at local government elections is depressingly low. In the 1988 elections the turn-out was 29 per cent. in England and 34 per cent. in London.
To the credit of the Government they are taking action to shake up the process of local government. The idea of a Cabinet-style executive—an elected mayor—has caught the headlines, but there is also scope for a wide range of community involvement and participation. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is bringing together programmes to provide an holistic service provision. The New Commitment for Regeneration gives local authorities responsibility for establishing long-term partnerships. The Minister of Housing is positively promoting the idea of full tenant participation. How do I know that? All of these matters are listed in Grassroots Campaigner. Perhaps more surprisingly, it states:
"There are many many more examples of increasing good practice from the Government which we want to implement".
That is a good basis. If the Government seek to improve local government we should look seriously at this proposal, not in isolation but as part of a general programme to strengthen local democracy.
796
The Government must take a good look at the percentage of local government expenditure within the control of local authorities if they are serious about transferring power. As the head of one important local authority said to me, the problem with successive governments is that the numbers and the words on the cheque rarely match and the intentions are not backed up by real financial commitment.
Nevertheless, we are moving into a period in which there is flexibility and a willingness to try ideas. We on these Benches believe that proportional representation at local level would transform local government. Votes at 18 would encourage participation and involvement but not in isolation. I should like to see much greater emphasis on civics at school and the use of the new technologies to promote awareness: the digital channels, the Internet and the like. I believe that the use of local referendums will increase involvement in local government.
The aim must be to put real power back into local government so that there is genuine democracy, transparency and participation. The proposal by my noble friend is part of a process that the Government encourage; it is a "Let 1,000 flowers bloom" approach to local government. If we view it as a period of change aimed at strengthening and invigorating our democracy nothing can prepare us better for the 21st century than to enable the young people who will play such a part in shaping that century to participate in building local communities and taking part in local government. My noble friend has made a positive and clear suggestion to incorporate this measure into the Local Government Act. If the Minister gave that assurance tonight it would be a very positive response. We look forward to his response.
8.13 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Question before noble Lords this evening is whether we should consider lowering the minimum age for candidates to stand in local elections. The response must be that the case has not yet been made. The answer is probably no. The corollary to that is whether we need to have young people involved in government and politics. The answer to that question must be yes. Therefore, we must examine the issues. We are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for giving us the opportunity to debate this intriguing matter.
It is important that young people are involved in politics, and many of them are. They canvass in general elections and local elections and support various parties. But I believe that that is where we should draw the line for one very good reason that has been referred to but not emphasised: one-third of young people in this country are in higher education. The Government aim to raise that one-third to 45 per cent. I do not believe that a young person can be in higher education and easily be involved as a candidate or councillor in local government. After all, many of those who go on to higher education travel to different parts of the country and do not necessarily remain where they are. Often they change universities. For example, are we asking people aged 18 who, as in the case referred to by the

797
noble Lord, Lord Davies, attend a local university to sign up for what may be a three or four-year term? That is a lot to ask of a young person aged 18 if he is elected. Does he know whether he really wants to hoist himself on that? He will be in difficulty if he wants to go elsewhere. If it causes a by-election pressure is then exerted on him by his party that he should not stand down; otherwise, in a by-election that party may lose out in the balance of power. Such a person may find his career in higher education constrained by such a commitment. It may seem wonderful at the time when everyone is frightfully enthusiastic and full of good ideas, but suddenly it begins to affect his life. I believe that that is the most important reason.
Political activity is part of university life and higher education. One learns about politics and the issues involved. I am sure that many elected at the age of 18 would do a good job. Equally, there will be those who find that it does not suit them, that they have got into something that they do not really want, that they have changed their mind and that it is detrimental to their education. The noble Baroness said that young people are often free of other commitments. I do not believe that we should be proud if young people are free of commitments. We want them to be committed. They should have further education and a career and should be concentrating on that.
Of course, one can be involved in politics as a student. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was very active in the Cambridge Union as President, following Michael Howard. That was where he engaged in politics. I also note that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, was President of the Students Union. That was his first stab at politics.
If the Liberal Democrats believe as a principle that one should be able to stand in local elections at 18, what about hereditary Peers? I am one of the few people who were disfranchised for a short period of time. When I was 18 I could not take my seat in your Lordships' House. When I wanted to vote I could not do that either. For three years I had no democratic representation at all. However, the country seemed to get on quite well without my role in politics. It meant that I was able to sit on the Back Benches on the Government's side during the Heath government of 1970 to 1974. Does the noble Lord, Lord McNally, consider that such a proposal would have made a great difference? However, the advantage of the Liberal Democrats is that they always have local policies for local areas. Someone once said, "Liberal Democrat policies are rather like the weather forecast, variable in the regions and often wrong".
Education is a serious matter. I have two boys. If this proposal were accepted by the Government, they would be able to stand in local elections. I think that they have quite a difficult task coming to grips with issues of national government. It is quite difficult at that age to decide which issues are important and which are not, and how they should deal with them. They have the vote in general elections, as I think they should. However, I am not persuaded that they should have views forced upon them and that they should be part of a party
798
machine. They should have time in which to develop their own ideas, to decide which party they wish to stand for, and exactly what they want to do.
I have to admit that the Leader of my party in the House of Commons made one of the greatest speeches of his career at a very early age at the Conservative Party conference. That shows that one can be involved in politics at a young age and be very successful.
I shall be interested to see what the Government's view is of this issue. Do the Government have a policy? However, if they have one, they can change it. I suspect that they might, like me, remain to be convinced. I look forward to the Minister's speech.
8.21 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we have heard some fascinating, if under-compelling, arguments, two of which I specify immediately. My noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham—he was echoed a moment or two ago by the noble Viscount—said that the Conservative Party in the House of Commons had the youngest Leader of the Opposition this century. I remember when I was at the Bar the late Mr. Justice Caulfield saying, "Is that really your best point?" The noble Viscount said that because of his presence, unwillingly, in your Lordships' House he was not able to vote in parliamentary elections. We shall be able to help him quite soon.
From 1695—I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is not in his place to hear these historical reminiscences—the age of voting and taking a seat in the House of Commons was 21. Then the Latey commission was set up and it came to the conclusion that there was a good case for reducing the voting age to 18. Obviously, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, has focused particularly on the local authority context rather than the parliamentary context.
The arguments deployed in front of Latey have been deployed this evening. Young people can marry, fight for their country, pay taxes, own property and vote at a younger age than that which pertains for standing in a local authority election. That is true. However, it has never been the case that attaining a particular age has necessarily been seen as denoting the level of maturity which gives access to rights across the board.
As has been mentioned, the school leaving age is 16. The armed forces can recruit volunteers at the same age. Sixteen is the age at which it is lawful to have heterosexual relations and to marry in some circumstances. We have already said that this session we shall legislate to make the age coterminous for homosexual relations. Eighteen is the age of voting, of course, but that is only in this country. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that in Mongolia it is 25 and in Iran it is 15. The age of criminal responsibility in this country differs from that in other jurisdictions. There is no absolute harmonisation but at 16 one can lawfully buy tobacco. The age limit for

799
married couples and single applicants who want to adopt children is still 21.
In other jurisdictions which have been mentioned, one finds differences again. Denmark, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal, Finland and Sweden go for the minimum age of 18, not only to vote, but also to stand as a candidate. In France you have to be at least 23 and in Greece at least 25 to be a candidate. In the United States you have to be at least 30 to be a senatorial candidate and at least 25 to be a Congressman and in the local context in the United States, state legislatures differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
It is true that some young people are very sophisticated and able to come to mature conclusions. Equally, we know of examples of men and women in the prime of life—about 70 or 75—who do not seem to
800
have benefited from the years of experience which separate them from their youth. That certainly is not an example that I have noticed in your Lordships' House.
There is an arguable difference in capacity and suitability between what is required to be a voter and what is required to be a representative. I do not believe that there is a definite conclusion to which one can come. Notoriously, we are not a government driven by dogma. Certainly we have heard an attractive argument, which has been attractively deployed this evening, and I believe it is wise not to have a closed mind in listening to such arguments. I can assure the House, and in particular the noble Baroness, who has stimulated us to discuss these important matters, that the Home Secretary will undertake to keep the position under continuing review.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past eight O'clock.

  Algeria: Aid
  Algeria: Aid
  TWH Management Ltd
  TWH Management Ltd
  Cancer Treatment: Manifesto Commitment
  Cancer Treatment: Manifesto Commitment
  NHS and Private Finance Initiative: Guidance to Trusts
  NHS and Private Finance Initiative: Guidance to Trusts
  Age Concern: Grants
  Age Concern: Grants
  MMR Vaccine: Research
  MMR Vaccine: Research
  Serpentine Gallery
  Serpentine Gallery
  St. James's Park: Unattended Cycles
  St. James's Park: Unattended Cycles
  Human Rights Act 1998
  Human Rights Act 1998
  Alternatives to Prison
  Alternatives to Prison
  Rwandan Refugees: Congolese Conscription
  Rwandan Refugees: Congolese Conscription
  EU Enlargement
  EU Enlargement
  Housing Development on Brownfield Sites
  Housing Development on Brownfield Sites
  LT Bus Services: Management Costs
  LT Bus Services: Management Costs
  London Buses: Performance Statistics
  London Buses: Performance Statistics
  London Buses: Service Performance
  London Buses: Service Performance
  Road and Transport Projects: Policy
  Road and Transport Projects: Policy
  Leaded Petrol: Withdrawal
  Leaded Petrol: Withdrawal
  Drink-driving: Consultation
  Drink-driving: Consultation
  Delivering for Women: Report
  Delivering for Women: Report
  Ministers' and Politicians' Privacy: Policy
  Ministers' and Politicians' Privacy: Policy
  Men's Unit
  Men's Unit