Sitting of 18 February 1998

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

  Montserrat
  [Relevant documents: First Report from the International Development Committee, Session 1997–98, on Montserrat (HC 267), and the Government's Response contained in the Committee's First Special Report (HC 532); Memorandum from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Current Situation of Montserratians in the United Kingdom (to be printed as HC 555).]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]
  9.34 am
  Mr. Bowen Wells: In debating this subject this morning, we should always remember the people of Montserrat, who have suffered grievously from the eruption of the volcano, which started in June 1995. It has meant that many of them—the vast majority—have not only lost their homes, most of which were their own property, but have lost their livelihoods, their schools and their community. They have had to move from one area to another of Montserrat. Many of them have had to go overseas to find a new life. In short, the eruption of the volcano has destroyed their lives and changed them irrevocably.
  What this debate must concentrate on, and what we must all think about throughout our praise and criticisms of the policies that have been followed, is our concern for the people of Montserrat. I honestly believe that all those involved on the government side—the Governor, the Government of Montserrat, the Department for International Development and its predecessor, the Overseas Development Administration, and the Foreign Office—have all attempted in their different ways to help the people of Montserrat.
  There have been some mistakes and failures, and I am afraid that this debate will, of course, concentrate on them, but before we begin on that criticism, we should also remember the dedicated and sensitive work done by many people on the island of Montserrat, in the Department for International Development and in the Foreign Office, who have done a great deal to alleviate the suffering of the people of Montserrat. I know from their testimony to our Committee, the Select Committee on International Development, that they would have liked to do more. Many hours of dedicated work have been involved, and we should pay tribute to that.
  Undoubtedly, the basic problem arises from difficulties that we have invented for ourselves. The island of Montserrat is a beautiful island 12 miles by seven miles in the most beautiful blue warm sea of the Caribbean. It has had connections with Britain for more than 450 years. It is an island in which 11,000 people dwelt under the British flag. It is unusual for a Caribbean island
  1000
  in that it is not an obvious place for tourist development. It does not have the white sand beaches of many of the beautiful islands in the West Indies. It has a different economy; it has been a successful economy in many ways.
  In the past five or six years, Montserrat has suffered several serious setbacks. The first was a human one. The elected Government of Montserrat indulged in offshore banking in a way that was, to put it mildly, unsatisfactory. That was followed by a devastating hurricane that destroyed the whole of the main city of Plymouth, which was painstakingly rebuilt at considerable expense to the Department for International Development over the following three or four years. By the time Montserrat recovered in June 1995, it was no longer dependent on budgetary aid from the United Kingdom. It had restored its economy under the leadership of an able development economist, Prime Minister Rueben Meade. Once more, Montserrat was able to look forward to an exciting and rosy future—whereupon the volcano began to erupt for the first time in 300 years. From that moment on, the livelihoods and lives of the people of Montserrat have been destroyed.
  The government of the island is divided between the United Kingdom, in the person of the Governor on the island, who reports to the Foreign Office, and the elected Government of Montserrat. However, the Governor does not report directly to the Foreign Office, because the Foreign Office set up the dependent territories regional secretariat in Barbados. The Governor reports to the Foreign Office in London via the DTRS in Barbados and to the elected Government of Montserrat—no wonder that several Governors have described their condition as schizophrenic. It is not an easy post to fill: on the one hand, the Governor has to be the representative of the elected Government of Montserrat to the Government of Britain; and on the other, he has to be the representative of the United Kingdom Government to the elected Government of Montserrat and the people of Montserrat.
  Into that mixture, we have introduced further complications by the way in which we deliver assistance to Montserrat through the Department for International Development, whose development division is also located in Barbados. It has three pockets out of which to finance Montserrat: first, emergency aid, which came into operation because of the volcanic devastation; secondly, budgetary aid to support the budget of the Government of Montserrat, over which rigid control is exercised; and thirdly, development finance. The Barbados development division also mans the DTRS—the Foreign Office outpost in Barbados—in respect of the delivery of development aid. Emergency aid is delivered direct from London, as it was when these events started. Budgetary aid is administered from the Department's office in Barbados.
  I describe that complicated organisation because it leads me to the points that must be addressed. No one in that system has both the responsibility for the government of Montserrat and the money with which to do anything on the island. The result is an elongated, complicated and contradictory system of management on the island. The recommendation of the report of the International Development Committee, which has not been resolved by the Government's response, is that that should stop. We should provide the island with a management system that is efficient and comprehensible, and serves the people of Montserrat. The Committee believes that that can only be

  1001
  achieved if one Department has both the responsibility and the budget to meet that responsibility. Our report states that we believe that that Department should be the Foreign Office, although it could be another Department—for example, the Department for International Development, if the Government so chose. However, if the Foreign Office claims and acknowledges responsibility, it must be given a separate budget to run affairs in Montserrat, because only then can we simplify the lines of authority and manage events efficiently.
  The budget for Montserrat should not come within the budget of the Department for International Development; it should be a separate budget. Indeed, the emergency expenditure, which has already cost the British Government more than £50 million—a huge sum to come out of the international development budget—should have been met, not from the contingency reserve of the Department for International Development, as the Government have suggested, but from the contingency reserve of the Treasury, because no one can forecast a volcano's eruption or make provision for it. The emergency was therefore truly unforeseen, and should have been met by an emergency injection of money.
  Why does the Committee say that? The House should understand exactly what the contingency reserve of the Department for International Development is used for if it is not used to meet expenditure arising from the volcano's eruption on Montserrat. It is generally set aside at the beginning of the year to accommodate and provide flexibility in the administration of the Department's budget. By the end of the year, it has always been entirely utilised—that is, it has been spent on good international development objectives, providing assistance to some of the poorest countries in the world.
  If we use that money to meet the problems resulting from the volcanic eruption in Montserrat, it is obviously not available for use in respect of the other aspects of aid. That is why we say that an emergency of that sort should not lead to a reduction in the Department's investment in its other aid objectives—expenditure on an emergency should come from the contingency reserve of the Treasury. The Government's response deliberately fudges those issues, and the House should understand what was implied and what the Committee recommended.
  We have to sort out, first, the aid management scheme and, secondly, who is responsible for what in Montserrat. We have to give the Governor and the elected Government clear powers, and those powers should not overlap as they currently do. Let me give one example from the evidence in the report. Governor Savage recommended to the Foreign Office that we should build 1,000 houses in the north of Montserrat, away from the volcano, so that we could accommodate those who would have to move because of the volcanic activity. He told the Committee that, if the volcano had not erupted in a way that destroyed homes, he would have looked very silly having spent money on 1,000 homes in a safe part of the island which were not needed.
  That recommendation was made in 1995 and 100 houses have so far been built. Their construction was authorised by the Secretary of State after 19 lives were lost in Montserrat on 25 June last year. The houses have been erected relatively quickly, but, in the meantime, because of the lack of alternative housing in the north,
  1002
  many of Montserrat's people have been living in deplorable conditions in makeshift shelters for more than two years, and they frequently have to move from one shelter to another. None of us would want to live in such conditions, nor would we want any of those people to have to continue to do so, but they are still living there.
  Why did that happen? Why were 1,000 houses not built? The reason is that the Government of Montserrat did not want them to be built. They thought that, if we built 1,000 houses, it would signal to the people of Montserrat that they must evacuate the island because it had no future and that the people would therefore leave Montserrat; so the muddle continued. That is why I say that we have to sort out the constitution and government responsibilities properly, so that there is no overlap or confusion and so that we give the people of Montserrat a proper system of government of which we and they can be proud.
  The combination of the British effort on the island of Montserrat and British support for its people is vital for its future. Montserrat will have a rosy future once the volcanic activity has died down. The people of Montserrat have great ingenuity and a strong system of values. In spite of all the difficulties affecting schools, Montserrat's excellent education system still achieves much higher results than any other comparable West Indian island.
  The people of Montserrat offer us a challenge—to sort out the management, efficiency and control of our aid programme. I do not think that the Government have begun to give us the answers.
  9.49 am
  Mr. Bernie Grant: I agree with every word that the Chairman of the Select Committee on International Development, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), has said. His chairmanship of the Committee has been excellent—especially in relation to the issue of Montserrat—because of his great knowledge of the Caribbean and his many contacts there. It has been a pleasure to work with him; it is a pity that he is in the wrong party. I think that everyone will agree with those sentiments.
  I have been involved with this issue for two to three years. In fact, my father recently told me that my great-grandmother came from Montserrat—I have a direct connection with the island, even though I was not aware of it.
  Last August, the Montserrat Government asked me to visit the island to help them, as there was great conflict between the Governments of Britain and of Montserrat. I was astonished by the chaos that I found when I arrived. Departments were vying with each other, various fiefdoms had been set up, and the Foreign Office was arguing with the Department for International Development, the health Ministry, the observatory and the scientists—it was sheer confusion.
  It became clear to me that politicians in Montserrat and the British Government needed to do some straight talking. I was pleased that, soon after my visit, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development went to the island to continue the dialogue and assure the Montserratians that the British Government took their plight seriously. I believe that the attention paid by my right hon. Friend the Secretary

  1003
  of State, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and my noble Friend Baroness Symons has been extensive; they have worked as hard as they can to help.
  During my visit to Montserrat, I noticed three clear areas of difficulty. The first was the situation in Montserrat itself after the volcano had erupted. Despite the fact that some of the best scientists in the world were there, their reports were conflicting. There was general confusion about what to do, and people were under pressure.
  The second area of difficulty was Antigua, where the British high commissioner and others had failed to make adequate preparations to receive the Montserratians who had fled there after the volcano erupted in June and August. The Antigua Government told me about the difficulties that they faced when some 3,000 people descended on the island—they had no facilities to cope. I arranged a number of meetings, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was able to give reassurances, so that those matters were sorted out.
  The third question involves the Montserratians who came to Britain; I believe that the previous Government must accept some responsibility for the difficulties that those people faced. Britain is known throughout the world for its organisation, but why was there so little organisation in Montserrat, Antigua and Britain to relieve the plight of the Montserratians?
  Much water has passed under the bridge, and we do not want to rake over the past. Suffice it to say that, when I returned to Montserrat in September with the Select Committee, I saw a marked improvement. Some of the officials had been replaced by fresh, younger-looking people, who seemed to have much greater empathy with the people's plight and to be more anxious to ensure that the situation improved. Generally, I was pleased with the changes that had occurred in the month or so between my first and second visits.
  Nevertheless, serious problems still had to be overcome, and the Select Committee's report pointed to a number of areas in which we felt that there was room for improvement. I found the Government's response to our report disappointing; with the exception of one of our recommendations, they have not responded positively. The Select Committee will discuss its other recommendations with the Government, as we want proper explanations.
  I shall concentrate briefly on the plight of the Montserratians who came to Britain. They have been badly hurt by their treatment, as they have always believed that they are British citizens. They may have been called British overseas citizens, British dependent territory citizens or whatever, but they always felt that they were British and that Britain would protect them— Britain was the mother country. As Montserratians have said to me, they fought in the war and did all they could to assist Britain.
  We must recognise what it is like to come from a small country, especially in the Caribbean and south America. The Caribbean islands are caught in the middle of a huge drug trade between north and south America. Safety and security are paramount, and Montserrat has always looked to the British Government for protection. As one person said to me, half a dozen bandidos with submachine-guns could take over the country overnight were it not for Britain. Montserratians depend on Britain, but they feel
  1004
  that they were let down when they were in dire straits, not by the British people, but by both the previous and current British Governments—many Montserratians particularly blame the previous Government.
  Montserratians have not had a very good reception; no special arrangements were made. As they have found, a refugee or an asylum seeker has a better chance of being met and properly dealt with than a British overseas citizen. They have not even been told how long they can stay—that matter has still not been resolved. The Home Office said that they could stay for two years or for as long as the crisis lasted, but no one has stated categorically what the position is.
  Montserratians have been told that they will be treated as British citizens, which, on the face of it, sounds very good. If one is treated as a British citizen, one is entitled to social security and so on, which sounds fine. However, these people come from a small Caribbean country where they are accustomed to a certain standard of living, warm weather and owning their own homes—some even have swimming pools. They have suddenly been thrust—if they are lucky—into cold, damp, mildew-ridden council flats in Tottenham, Hackney or Deptford. Some have been put into bed-and-breakfast accommodation—in one case, a woman aged about 35, her 17-year-old son and 16-year-old daughter were put into one room. In those circumstances, it is extremely difficult to see Britain as the mother country.
  Those Montserratians have been treated abominably. A measure of how they have been treated on arrival in the United Kingdom is the fact that the group that has been given the task of looking after the Montserratians— belatedly, from January 1998—has been the refugee action group, an offshoot of the Refugee Council. The British Government are treating the Montserratians not as citizens, but as refugees and asylum seekers. Apart from everything else, the status that they have been given has caused the Montserratians great grief, which they have felt very deeply indeed.
  Ms Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the many indicators of how badly Montserratians have been treated, and how little care has been given to their resettlement, is the fact that although—as we both know—the largest group of Montserratian evacuees is in Hackney, my borough, Haringey, his borough, and surrounding areas, the Government admit, in a memorandum sent to the International Development Committee, that they have not even bothered to keep central records of Montserratian evacuees in the London area?
  Mr. Grant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am glad that she raised that point. She would be as amazed as I and the Committee were to discover that, not only did the British Government not know how many refugees were coming to the United Kingdom, but they did not even know how many Montserratians there were—and there are only about 3,000 of them. A member of the Committee said, "You have a lot of redundant teachers because there are no schools. Could not you send them round to count the people?" Twenty people could count the population of Montserrat in a day, but the British Government were not clued up enough to do so.

  1005
  To a large extent, Montserratians who have come here, in the most seriously reduced circumstances, have been left to fend for themselves. They have been expected to use the existing services available to the homeless and the penniless domestically, which are, by and large, entirely inappropriate to their circumstances. Some of them have been traumatised, having lost everything, and they have found themselves in unfamiliar surroundings. They should not have had to grapple with the social security system, or with the intricacies of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, as operated by local authorities. A proper system, specifically for them, with adequate financial aid, should have been established by the previous Government as soon as it became clear that Montserratians would come to the United Kingdom in considerable numbers.
  Many Montserratians have been left without sufficient funds to buy essential items of furniture and clothing. One family came to me who had asked for a social security grant and been told that they could get a loan to buy furniture. We may find it hard to understand how those people felt about borrowing money. They are independent people who have never had to borrow anything in their life, and when they are asked to borrow money from the state, they feel insulted.
  Several families who visited me had little but the tropical clothing they stood up in, yet they were entitled to no help to equip themselves with warm clothing for the British climate. When one person came to my surgery, I had to give her my overcoat to go home in because she was shivering from the cold.
  There has been no one to assist the displaced Montserratians. At Department of Social Security offices, they are met with hard-faced individuals who say, "We have been told that we need not make special allowances for you, so you must cope as best you can."
  Often, Montserratians have been housed in the most disgraceful temporary accommodation imaginable. There has been some anxiety about unfairness in the method of subsidising local authorities that have had the responsibility of housing the displaced Montserratians. The local authorities that have drawn most Montserratians to their areas—such as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and myself—because they already have a sizeable population of Montserratians in their area, have struggled to cope.
  We have had little or no subsidy from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions scheme. The scheme has been used, in effect, to bribe unwilling local authorities to take Montserratians, and they have tended to be those most able to help in the first place. My local authority—already under severe pressure because we have the highest concentration of refugees of any constituency in the country—has been willing to do what it can to assist, with hardly any subsidy, and I know that the same has been true of Hackney and other London boroughs.
  I understand that the Home Office is running a scheme that beggars belief. When Montserratians arrive at Heathrow or Gatwick airport, they are allocated to certain local authorities. If, because of family connections or other reasons, they do not wish to go to those authorities, the authorities that they go to are not given any housing
  1006
  subsidy by the Government, whereas, if people go where they are sent, the authority that houses them is given a subsidy. I find that amazing. One would expect a sympathetic Government to welcome the fact that people have connections in this country and to be pleased that they go to those connections instead of going into strange parts.
  I received representations on that subject from a Member of the Legislative Council in Montserrat, who was very worried about the vulnerable people who had been sent to accommodation in the north of England. He told me that ill, frail, elderly people, and some mentally ill people, who were supposed to have gone into that accommodation in Durham for two weeks, had been there for several months. Although they are very pleased that the authorities in Durham took them on board, there is no Montserratian community in Durham. Those elderly people have been taken out of their warm sunshine and plonked into an old people's home or other accommodation in Durham, where they feel isolated. The surroundings are unfamiliar. The people do not eat the same food and they cannot understand what they are saying. One can understand how difficult that is for an elderly person who has been traumatised by the volcanic eruption.
  I know that in my area, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), a hospice is available, with very nice gardens in the middle. There are many people from Montserrat in the area. We have asked the Home Office why it cannot put those people in my constituency, in the next constituency, or in Hackney, provided that there is accommodation. I am sure that there will be.
  Why is it not possible for the Government to do something about housing? There are a number of specialist Caribbean housing associations, such as Carib Housing and Ujima. There are several other black housing associations, which would have been pleased to house the Montserratians. They know what the Montserratians like; they know what to expect; they would have put them in nice, friendly houses. The Montserratians would have been welcomed and they would have been in touch with their people. Instead, we get stone walling from the Government generally, or the Montserratians are told, "You go where we send you and that is the end of it." There is no discussion—no communication.
  Montserratians in this country feel that they have a grievance. They feel that, when they came to this country, they should have been given a resettlement grant, like those who went to Antigua and other parts of the Caribbean. They feel that they needed something. The Government should have said to them, "Here you are; here is a package"—perhaps a bundle of warm clothes plus X pounds—"so that you can settle yourselves down." That has not happened, and there is grave concern about it.
  I also raise the question of the return of people to Montserrat. What will happen if people wish to return to the island? Will their fares be paid? What about those who paid their own fares and arrived in this country just before the assisted fares scheme began? Are they entitled to a rebate?
  I appreciate that Ministers have devoted a great deal of time to this question and that the matter has been difficult to deal with because of the number of Departments involved. I

  1007
  appreciate also that the Government inherited considerable chaos from the previous Administration. However, there is much to be learnt from the difficulties that have been experienced in co-ordinating these matters. I hope that the Government will continue to reflect on the gap between the promises made and the help delivered. It has been an important learning curve for all concerned.
  When I first visited Montserrat, I blamed many people for the Montserratians' plight, which I said was aggravated by out-and-out racism. I still believe that an element of that is involved. However, I have now met several officials, particularly those from the Department for International Development, in Montserrat and elsewhere, and I believe that they genuinely wish to assist. I must be honest about that. The volcano caused a disaster of such magnitude that the bureaucracy simply could not cope. Underlying my criticism, I am sure that the people of Montserrat would want me to say that they appreciate the help that has been given. I hope that the Government will continue their good work on Montserrat in the future.
  10.11 am
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: I wish to address several aspects of the disaster that concern me most. Before I do that, I thank the Chairman of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who has done an excellent job, and the Committee Clerk, who also worked extremely hard. Their efforts are much appreciated.
  Like the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), during my visit to Montserrat, I discovered that I had a connection with the island. My surname, which is very rare in this country, is apparently a common family name on Montserrat. I have checked my background and my husband tells me that his great-great-uncle did an awful lot of travelling—and it rather seems as if he did an awful lot of other things as well. I shall check in other countries as I travel around the world.
  I agree with the commitment made in the first paragraph of the Government's response, which refers to making
  "it possible for those Montserratians who want to do so, to remain on the island as long as the scientists advise that it is relatively safe for them to be there."
  However, I was extremely concerned to hear recently that the Government of Montserrat are encouraging people to return to the island while the volcano remains active. I consider that to be irresponsible behaviour. Many of the actions of the Government of Montserrat suggest that they are sometimes more concerned with their position than with the safety of the people whom they represent. Those are harsh words, but I think that they may be true.
  I am glad to learn from the response that the Montserrat Government's leaflet to residents has been distributed, and that much effort has been made to inform people of the situation on the island. However, I was very disappointed in the leaflet, which purports to describe the situation in layman's terms. If the health education department from my previous job had seen that leaflet, it would have said that it was incomprehensible to many people. The leaflet is not designed for easy reading. It is complete nonsense to use words such as "prognosis" in a leaflet to be distributed all over Montserrat. I suggest that the leaflet be urgently revised and made readable.
  1008
  I found one sentence in Sir Robert May's report particularly enlightening. On page 2, he says:
  "We should be wary of placing too much faith in the predictions of future activity as a foundation for making decisions."
  Elsewhere in the report, Sir Robert says:
  "do not place too much emphasis on results…never before done
  a risk assessment on an erupting volcano".
  Sir Robert May says time and again, "Please do not take what I say as gospel. Take it with a pinch of salt, as I cannot make accurate estimations."
  The rest of my remarks are set against that background of uncertainty. The Government's response mentions the hospital and medical programme on Montserrat. During our visit, I was absolutely appalled by the rudimentary nature of the care at the island's hospital. One doctor and several demoralised nurses working in an old school building constituted the hospital. The wards were dirty, the paint was peeling, the beds were broken and a few old screens and curtains were erected around a seriously ill patient who had just returned from Guadeloupe, where he had undergone treatment for severe burns received during the explosion last August.
  That was two years after the volcano's first eruption. The Committee's report asked where the equipment from the hospital in Plymouth had gone. No one on Montserrat seemed to know, and the Government's response says that it is "in storage". We still do not know where that storage is or where the equipment has gone. If that equipment comprises beds, screens or basic provisions for hospital wards, why is it not being used at St. John's hospital on Montserrat?
  The news of the upgrading is welcome. However, the Health Minister on Montserrat said only last week that very little had been done and that health conditions on the island remained appalling. Without returning to Montserrat, it is difficult to know whether the promises have been delivered.
  I refer now to the health risk posed by the silica dust in the volcano ash. When we were in Antigua, there was a thick layer of dust all over that island and in the north of Montserrat. We have been told that prevailing weather conditions make the north of the island a lot safer than the rest of Montserrat. Nevertheless, there are still children and small babies on Montserrat who are inhaling volcanic dust that contains very fine particles called cristobalite, which could cause silicosis in the future—we are not sure whether it will, but it could. Sir Robert May suggests that Montserratians may attribute any future illnesses to their exposure to ash. They may be quite justified in doing so. Who will pay them compensation? That issue is not addressed in the Government's response.
  We also recommended that Montserratians in this country should undergo health monitoring and lung examinations in future years. However, the Foreign Office letter reveals that the Government do not know where those people have gone. No one has kept a record of their movements. How can we check on people's health if we do not know where they are?
  During our visit, the Committee was concerned about the island's evacuation plans. There seemed to be any number of such plans, all of which conflicted with each other, and the island's residents had no clear idea of what they should do in an emergency. Even though the Government claim that evacuation plans are being developed, I am concerned about whether people are aware of them and have practised evacuation procedures.

  1009
  How will the Government of Montserrat manage sick, elderly and mentally ill patients in an emergency? How will helicopters fly if there are ash clouds over the island? How will boats land at the temporary jetty? The eruption on Boxing day last year caused a huge tidal wave around the island that rendered the jetty useless. How will people be evacuated from the island in an emergency? I refer again to Sir Robert May's report, which states:
  "People must also take into account that in the improbable event of a major eruption affecting the North there would be no time for evacuation."
  Such an event may be improbable, but it could happen.
  There is no mention in the Government's response of the Wadge and Isaacs report of 1987. That recommended against establishing communities in the Plymouth area of the island. A great deal of money—our money, from the Overseas Development Administration, as it was then— was spent after the hurricane in rebuilding an area of the island that scientists had assessed as probably not safe because of the volcano.
  I know that this is all hindsight, but where are the explanations from Government Departments? Why was action not taken on that report? What were the vested interests, if any, in the Plymouth area to allow development to take place? Why, after the hurricane, did the previous Government not take the report into account before spending all that money on rebuilding?
  Why has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office not investigated the disappearance of the report? We are told that it was blown away from the Governor's residence in Montserrat by the hurricane, but no hurricane affected the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Where did the report go? Is not the FCO concerned that a report commissioned by it and costing public money disappeared without trace until the report from Christian Aid brought it to light?
  I have covered only a few points from the Select Committee report and the Government's response, but there are many others. The Department for International Development has made great strides since last May. If the suggestions of the Chairman of our Select Committee are adopted, it is to be hoped that new lines of management and accountability will speed up our country's response in the future.
  I ask myself time and again whether a natural disaster in Kent or Surrey would have been dealt with in the same way. I think not. I am still ashamed that our people in Montserrat have been treated so badly.
  10.21 am
  Ms Tess Kingham: I am pleased to have a chance to contribute to the debate. It has been a privilege to serve on the Select Committee for International Development, and I, too, pay tribute to our Chairman and the Clerk, and to all the work that has been done by Ministers, the Department for International Development and the people in Monserrat to deal with the crisis.
  Many of the points that I wanted to touch on have been raised by other members of the Committee, so I shall not hark back over those. I stress strongly the issue of communications. The convoluted problems experienced in dealing with the crisis come back to the labyrinth of lines of responsibility and lines of communication, as the Select Committee discovered.
  1010
  I recall one sitting in which we were trying to get a grip on who did what in which Department. We heard that a matter was dealt with by the British Development Division in the Caribbean, the West Indies and Atlantic department, the Governor of Montserrat, the Overseas Development Administration as it was, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Governor of Monserrat again and the Department for International Development. At one point, I asked for a diagram, in the vain hope that that might make matters clearer, but the diagram was laughable—it was a spider's network of squares, and we gave up.
  I cannot emphasise enough that the situation needs to be sorted out. I am pleased to say that the new Government, in the first nine months, having been pushed into the situation, are taking seriously the task of sorting out the responsibility and communication problems.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: The Committee made two clear recommendations, Nos. 13 and 20, about lines of communication. Are not members of the Committee concerned that, in their response, the Government have totally ignored those recommendations? Nowhere in the Government's response is there any reference to them. It is as if those conclusions had never been reached by the Committee. Why does the hon. Lady think that the Government have ignored them?
  Ms Kingham: There is still a long way to go, and several things that need to be done. It is worth recognising that the situation did not arise just in the past nine months. We have not reached this terrible state of confusion overnight. There is an historic problem. The previous Government did not exactly bend over backwards to try to sort out the Kafkaesque situations that the Select Committee encountered. At one point, I wondered whether I had stumbled into a bad episode of "Yes, Minister", being a new Member of Parliament.
  I welcome the fact that, as a new Government, we have started to get to grips with issues such as the dependent territories now becoming overseas territories, and ensuring that the same people will have responsibility for decision-making and for allocating resources.
  So far, we have spent about £50 million in UK aid money in trying to deal with the crisis and development in Montserrat. Unless we deal with the communications issues and the lines of responsibility, that money will not be well spent to bring aid and long-term development to the people of Montserrat, who so desperately need it.
  We have heard reference to the Wadge and Isaacs report, which was funded by the United Nations disaster relief organisation. It examined the long-term chances of disasters occurring on the island—hurricanes as well as volcanoes. A copy was sent to the Government of Montserrat and to the Governor of Montserrat. The FCO did not get a copy. The ODA, as it was, did have a copy, but we do not know who it was sent to and what happened to it.
  The report stated clearly that the volcano was a threat to people in Montserrat and that development in Plymouth was not recommended. The FCO at the time did not know that, so the previous Government spent £16.8 million in 1989 on redevelopments around the Plymouth area which were destroyed almost as soon as they were put up. That includes the water supply and the Glendon hospital development.

  1011
  The Select Committee report says that that was administrative incompetence. It was a clear case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing. The new Government must take that on board and guarantee that we shall never be left in that position again.
  We have heard about good communication with the residents of Montserrat. I confess to having been a tabloid journalist and knowing that the average reading age of a person in the UK is between eight and 10 years. The advice to residents of Montserrat—the leaflet telling them what to do and what the long-term prognosis was for the island—made disturbing reading. I shall quote one paragraph on the assessment of risk which people in Montserrat are supposed to understand. It states:
  "The risk assessment based on the assessment of the status of the volcano and its hazards suggests that in terms of fatalities the individual risk to people living north of Lawyers River…is 'minimal', 'low' for those in North Olveston and Woodlands…'moderate' for anyone in the Salem area…and 'high' in the 6remainder of the exclusion zone".
  Pardon? What are people supposed to do with that information?
  The section on health risks states:
  "There is also a risk to health from exposure to volcanic ash, of which the ash from pyroclastic flows is the most dangerous. Ash from the volcano is known to contain cristobalite, a toxic form of silica which can cause silicosis following prolonged exposure."
  We must tackle this as a communications problem. If that is the advice that people are given, the new Department for International Development must ensure that its communications staff put the information into plain English which I and my family could understand, and which the people of Montserrat could understand, too.
  Communication is a crucial element of the final draft of the sustainable development plan for the long-term future of Montserrat. If people in Montserrat are to have faith that the north of the island can offer their families a future, and that the island towards the south and centre can eventually be resettled, they must have a stake in the sustainable development plan and be involved in drawing it up.
  The plan must examine issues such as the insurance problems, because at present, there is no insurance cover on the island, so if people want to build new houses or redevelop their businesses, they cannot get insurance. It must consider food production, small and medium-size enterprise development and housing. It is crucial that the plan is communicated effectively to the residents of Montserrat and the people who are currently overseas, but who may wish to return, so that they can become part of that process.
  The Government have given us a response. There are still aspects on which much more work needs to be done. The Government accept that lessons must be learnt from the handling of the Montserrat crisis. They have agreed to produce a frank and open report of the administration and handling of the crisis and its lessons. That is to be welcomed.
  The point has been clearly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) and by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) that the people of Montserrat consider themselves to be United Kingdom citizens. The population of Montserrat is about the size of a small market town in Gloucestershire, for example. It is horrifying to think that if, God forbid, there were a
  1012
  disaster in Gloucestershire at one of the market towns, people would have to jump through the hoops and processes that confronted the people of Montserrat before receiving the aid and assistance which they deserved and to which they have a right. We are talking about people who have UK protection.
  I am sure that the appropriate lessons have been learnt by the Government. I am pretty sure that in nine months, we have made enormous strides. The situation has not, however, developed overnight and those who were members of the previous Administration should answer some strong questions about whether they closed their eyes to a terrible convoluted mess of responsibility and communications and thereby allowed the situation to get to the stage that confronted the Labour Government.
  10.30 am
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I shall be brief, because I know that the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Sir A. Goodlad) wish to make serious contributions.
  I do not share the optimism of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) that the lessons will be learnt. I am sure that it is intended that they should be learned, but it is clear from the sorry saga of which we are aware that the British Government's administrative machine, of whichever party, wants to do the best that it can without disturbing its own settled procedures. That is by no means good enough. When the Secretary of State for International Development came before us, she said that there are
  "so many players in this thing it is very difficult to have authority over people who make the decisions or know the answers".
  When the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Baroness Symons, came before the Committee, she said:
  "I am sure you would find that those departments would be very angry indeed if the Foreign and Commonwealth Office came along and tried to issue anything that looked a bit like an order."
  What nonsense.
  This is not just a matter for Montserrat. What would happen if, God forbid, some disaster befell the Falkland Islands, Tristan da Cunha, St. Helena or any of the other dependent territories? Would we have a situation in which the various Government Departments could not be pushed about because a junior Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or the International Development Office, did not have the clout to tell them what to do? That is nonsense. It is high time that the Government set up a structure to respond to such emergencies and to carry clout across Whitehall.
  It has been said already that it is nonsensical for the Government to say in their bland reply to the Committee that they accept all its recommendations except the 46 that they are not really accepting. What is the merit in saying that structures are being worked out to try to find out where the Montserratians who may be at risk from ash are now located, when, in an earlier part of the Government's reply, they say that it is not impossible to track down the Montserratians who are in this country because they have been absorbed in the social security system like any other citizen?
  The Government cannot have it both ways. Either we can find these Montserratians or we cannot. It is nonsense to suggest that they cannot be found. A tiny number of

  1013
  people left an island by one exit only. At no stage did anyone count them or analyse who was leaving. That is nonsense. We have no idea whether the people who came from Montserrat are older or younger than the average age of the population. We have no idea whether the people left in Montserrat are older or younger, although I believe that some effort has been made to count who is still there. I have no knowledge they have been analysed in terms of age or infirmity.
  I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you have ever kept a hamster in your family. One of the characteristics of hamsters is that they pedal like blazes in a wheel. As that wheel is not connected to anything, however hard the hamster works, nothing else happens. From the point of view of the hamster, such activity is purely a matter of personal health. I have the impression that well-meaning officials and Ministers throughout the Government machine have also been pedalling like blazes. Unfortunately, the machine to which they are attached cannot deliver. It is time that something was done about that.
  If nothing else comes out of this sorry story, a unit must be set up that can deliver across Whitehall when emergencies arise that affect dependent territories, as they used to be called, for which we have a responsibility. If nothing else apart from such a unit emerges from the report, it will still have been worth while.
  10.34 am
  Ms Diane Abbott: I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), I have been involved in the Montserrat issue for many years.
  Monserrat is a tiny jewel of an island which is a long way away from the United Kingdom. The House should be aware that the entire Caribbean is looking to see how the Government are dealing with the issue. The way in which the Government deal with the Montserrat crisis is a test of their commitment to the region. Every dependent territory, wherever it may be, is looking to see how the Government deal with the issue. For the dependent territories, Montserrat is a test of the UK's commitment to them. In addition, Britain's entire Afro-Caribbean community is looking to see how the Government deal with Montserrat,
  We know that, when another dependent territory—the Falklands—was in its time of trial, the UK did not count the cost. We would like to think that in helping the people of Montserrat in a tragedy that those of us who have not been to the island can only imagine—imagine three quarters of our country being covered in volcanic dust— this country will not count the cost.
  I wish to make three main points. First, tremendous difficulties have been caused by the complications of decision making and the divisions of responsibility between London, Barbados and the Governor. There is also the division of responsibilities in the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development. We have seen in the case of Montserrat what happens when responsibilities are divided between two Cabinet Ministers. We have seen that that division of responsibilities does not work.
  1014
  In any situation of this sort, the Foreign Office—the lead Department—would have to call on the expertise of officials in DFID. We have seen what happens, however, when there is split responsibility. Through no fault of their own, the people of Montserrat have been caught up in an administrative tangle. Worse, they have been caught up in turf wars. I hope that we shall learn from this and that a system and organisation will be put in place to deal with such problems so that split responsibilities and turf wars are not seen again.
  Secondly, there is the situation on the island. In June 1997, 19 people died because of the volcanic explosion. I tabled a private notice question and pressed my hon. Friend the Minister on the state of the hospital on the island and housing generally. I am sad that, eight months later, so little progress has been made.
  I referred to the state of the hospital, its outside toilets and the disillusionment and demoralisation of the nurses and doctors, and my hon. Friend the Minister had soothing words. He may have come to the House today with more soothing words, but for the people in the hospital, including nurses and doctors—in fact, it is a makeshift building, not a hospital—soothing words are not enough.
  We know that the Government inherited a terrible situation from the Conservative Government. However, the people of Montserrat have waited long enough for action on specific issues, such as housing and the hospital, which have been raised time and again.
  Thirdly, I am disturbed about the situation of Monserrat evacuees in this country. The Government have not even bothered to carry out a comprehensive survey of the number of evacuees who are here, especially in north-east London in areas such as Hackney and Haringey, where there is the largest group. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office produced a memorandum on the position of Montserratians in the United Kingdom, which refers to benefits and states that districts are able to provide access to a contingency reserve so as to provide loans and grants. The memorandum tells us that the districts have been reminded of this.
  I went to the benefits office in Hackney in my constituency not so many weeks ago. Those responsible had no knowledge of the reserve that is referred to in the memorandum. I want an assurance that benefits offices in areas where we know that there are many Montserratians will be approached and asked to apply for the contingency reserve. In Hackney, Haringey and other areas, Montserratians with no clothes, heating or blankets are turning up at social security offices and are being offered loans. How are they supposed to repay these loans? They are not able to claim on insurance.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes)indicated dissent.
  Ms Abbott: The Minister shakes his head. I invite him to come to the Hackney benefit office with some of my Montserratian evacuees, and shake his head at them and see what they say.
  I represent and live with the people who are suffering, and what the Minister says at the Dispatch Box about how the benefits system is working does not match the experience of Montserratian evacuees when they go to benefit offices and ask for help. The problem is that we

  1015
  have Government documents and soothing words from Ministers, but on the ground, the experience of Montserratian evacuees is very different.
  There are many issues that one can raise in relation to Montserratian evacuees: housing, the lack of help for housing associations to provide for Montserratians' specific needs and education. One of the problems that Montserratian parents find, which might surprise some hon. Members, is that their children are rather further ahead than some of the children in our inner-city schools.
  At the end of last year, I held a public meeting in Hackney, where more than 200 Montserratian evacuees live. They feel most strongly and are most wounded about the nationality issue, because they believe themselves to be loyal British subjects. I am heartened and pleased that the Foreign Secretary is considering making all citizens of dependent territories British citizens, as they were not so long ago. That would help the Montserratians, and it would be a significant gesture to every citizen of a dependent territory. I am sorry that there has been some turf war or struggle about the Foreign Secretary's statement, but one thing—apart from the financial and organisational issues—that the Government could do to show good faith to the people of Montserrat and the people of dependent territories is restore them to full British citizenship.
  We have heard of the hard work that has been done by the officials from DFID, and the energy and activity of Ministers, but if there are any true heroes and heroines in this story, they are the people of Montserrat, who have undergone a tragedy and disaster, which we can only imagine, with unparalleled dignity and restraint. Just as the people of Montserrat and the dependent territories have always been loyal to this country, so we should be loyal to them now.
  10.41 am
  Sir Alastair Goodlad: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and the Select Committee on International Development on their first choice of subject for investigation and analysis. Their decision to visit Montserrat and to hold an extended series of interviews reflects the concern that is felt in this country and on both sides of the House.
  The report and the Government's response to it remind us of the enormity of the tragedy that has taken place, and refuel our deep sympathy for the islanders. It is worth repeating the first and undisputed conclusion of the Select Committee. It was appalled at what it saw on Montserrat, at the conditions that people were having to endure, and at the mismanagement and confusion that have been evident throughout the crisis.
  As hon. Members have pointed out, many emerge from the affair with credit: the commanding officer and crew of the Royal Navy guard ship; the Governors of the island, Frank Savage and Anthony Abbott; the island's dedicated but beleaguered civil servants; and, of course, the volcano watchers, who monitored the rumblings of the hills.
  Most outstanding, however, is the stoicism of the people of Montserrat. They have had their homes destroyed and their employment lost. Many have been forced abroad, including to our own shores. Nevertheless, there remains an overwhelming desire to rebuild their lives. As my meetings with Chief Minister Brandt have
  1016
  confirmed, enterprise and self-help are strongly held values on the island. The Montserratians naturally turned to the British Government for assistance that was necessary, not assistance that was unreasonable. They have expressed gratitude for the help that they received, but have felt rebuffed and ignored by the Government on too many occasions.
  As hon. Members on both sides of the House have demonstrated, the Government's response to the report is less than adequate. Part of the criticism came because the people on Montserrat were talked down to when they were not being ignored by the Government. The Montserratians felt that they were viewed as a burden on other aid programmes. The traditional assumption that British dependent territories have first call on aid for all reasonable purposes seemed to be in jeopardy. Certain remarks were made that clearly resounded around the Caribbean and made matters worse. The Government were seen as aloof and patronising.
  I understand that at a press conference on Montserrat on 12 September, the Under-Secretary of State promised to return to the island in three months to assess progress on implementation of the promises made during his visit. It is now more than five months since that press conference, and the islanders are awaiting to hear when he will fulfil that promise.
  The memorandum raises questions that require answering. Many were touched on today. The Select Committee recommended that the Government inform all neighbouring islands of the evacuation plans for Montserrat. Measures to improve regional co-ordination were promised, but none has been spelled out. They are needed and would be welcome today.
  The Government accepted that a full, frank and impartial report on the lessons of Montserrat should be commissioned. Whom will the Minister's Department nominate, and what will the report's exact remit be? Will the person be a judge? Will the report be impartial? Can the Minister confirm a timetable? Can he explain what its relationship will be with the current discussions on the future of what hitherto were called dependent territories?
  The Minister will be aware of the disappointment on the island at the Government's decision not to provide support for its building society savers. Will he tell the House what affect that has had on small savers, and what proposals he has to help them?
  Housing has been covered by other hon. Members. Perhaps the Minister will lead us a little further down the path of what can now be expected. Can he also confirm that the city of Durham, which has no links with the Caribbean, took in Montserratians with special needs, and discovered that no British Government Department would take responsibility for their care? Although the House would wish to recognise Durham's generosity, what has the Minister said to other Departments to ensure that Montserratians with special needs are properly cared for? Who in the Government is monitoring their interests?
  A number of hon. Members referred to the division between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development, and the exacerbation of the crisis by bureaucratic buck passing. The problem stems from the division between the old Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the new Department for International Development. One has responsibility without the money; the other has money,

  1017
  but not the responsibility. We now learn that the problem is expected to be resolved by the creation of a third department, apparently responsible to both the others. I fear that that option may increase the existing discord exponentially.
  The Select Committee has produced a useful report. The Government's response has left many questions unanswered. The Minister has an opportunity today to confirm that the interests of the people of Montserrat are paramount, as both sides of the House would wish, and that they should not be penalised by tinkering with departmental structures. As the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said, many eyes outside the House are watching the Government and our proceedings today.
  10.47 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): I also congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who has been a colleague and friend of mine since we entered the House together in 1979, on bringing this subject to the Floor of the House so quickly, and on his eloquent introduction. As he said, this dreadful natural disaster has devastated the lives of the people of Montserrat, as I saw on my visit.
  I am prepared to go again, as quickly as possible. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary went last week to see for himself what was happening. I hope that when I do go again, the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir A. Goodlad), who is the Opposition spokesman, will join me. I do not think that he has yet been to see the devastation for himself. The people of Montserrat are in an awful plight. I am sure that my hon. Friends will realise that there is no monopoly of concern for the people of Montserrat on the Back Benches; I share that concern. I was pleased that the Select Committee's report provided a balanced view. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) for recognising the hard work—the heroic effort in some cases—of officials on behalf of this Parliament and the Government.
  The Development Committee made 35 recommendations in its report: eight have already been implemented; II are being implemented; six will be implemented; and four are being actively considered. That is a positive response to the Development Committee. Of the 10 critical conclusions, we have endorsed three and defended our position on seven.
  For example, it was suggested that there had been no meetings with Caribbean leaders to inform them and discuss the matter. I met Caribbean leaders, chaired by Prime Minister Denzil Douglas, in Antigua on 2 September and we have already had three meetings with Caribbean high commissioners. The Committee proposed a further meeting between the Government and Caribbean regional Governments.
  Last week, when I attended the Caribbean Regional Forum in the Bahamas, I reported on the position in Montserrat—on what we had done and what the people there wanted us to do. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that the Caribbean leaders welcomed what we had done and paid great tribute to the British Government for what we were now doing.
  1018
  One theme that has come through strongly in this debate, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford and others, is the complicated decision-making procedure. As my hon. Friends said, we inherited that procedure. I was absolutely appalled by the complicated nature of decision making, but the new Government have changed and streamlined it, and have taken Barbados completely out of the loop. The aid management office now reports directly to the Montserrat unit here in the UK, which has speeded up and streamlined decision making.
  Mr. Rowe: I accept that point totally, and it is very welcome, but as far as the Department of Social Security, the Home Office and the Department of Education and Employment are concerned, Whitehall does not work as a team.
  Mr. Foulkes: I shall come to that in a moment. I am talking about the delivery of emergency assistance, development aid and support to the island. We are now discussing the matter with the Foreign Office, and account will be taken of the Select Committee's views. However, we must also take account of the fact that the skills for emergency assistance and development are in the Department for International Development, which helps other countries as well as overseas territories. We must also recognise that accountability to Parliament for our money rests in our Department, and we cannot gainsay that.
  I liked the hamster analogy, although I certainly do not want to be regarded as a hamster. I want clout, but I also want accountability to the elected House of Commons so that we can have these debates and I can be accountable to Members of Parliament, as I am trying to be today. I think that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) had that in mind.
  However, I am also concerned that certain quarters— not the Select Committee—have not adequately recognised what has been done. The Government have provided emergency and development support on-island, amounting to a commitment since the beginning of the crisis of more than £51 million, of which £44 million has already been spent. That makes Montserrat one of the largest recipients of British aid. I do not say that grudgingly, but just to show that it is now on a par with Bangladesh, where 100 million people live in abject poverty. We are also concerned about them.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: We all recognise that my hon. Friend is making an important point, but it shows that the budget of the Department for International Development is far too low. We all hope that it will increase. I know that my hon. Friend will get his head in his hands to play with if he sits there today and says that more money should come from the Treasury contingency fund, but all those sitting around him in the Chamber today think that that is the answer to this problem. Given that it is such a tiny island, Montserrat is getting a huge proportion of the small budget available.
  Mr. Foulkes: I would welcome that support. Without giving too much away, may I say that the next few weeks might be an appropriate time to make representations.
  We have put in essential infrastructure for the north, including air and sea transport links, a jetty, power, fuel and water supplies, road rehabilitation, and school

  1019
  and health facilities. Moreover, in response to the request, we have doubled the sum spent on upgrading the hospital and have now spent some £1 million. We have, therefore, taken account of what my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said. Had we not taken all those measures, the island would be uninhabitable. All that has been achieved against a background of unpredictable and continuing volcanic activity.
  I want to deal with the Montserratians who have left the island since the beginning of the volcanic emergency in July 1995. Many of them have chosen to relocate in the Caribbean region. We are providing relocation grants and support for travel costs for that group. I stress that the group chose to live in the region, and we have been working all along on the basis of informed choice. Most Montserratians live on Antigua and they will benefit from the £1 million allocated to assist them to establish small-scale businesses in Antigua. We have approved an initial £410,000 for support this year, and are willing to consider adding to that.
  The Government also share the Committee's concern that some Montserratians in the region may experience hardship once their relocation grant ends. For the first wave of regional relocation grant beneficiaries, that will be at the end of March, which is coming up soon. We are therefore examining urgently options for targeted assistance to those who would otherwise experience great hardship.
  Some 3,500 Montserratians have chosen to relocate in the United Kingdom, through either voluntary evacuation or the assisted passage scheme. The Home Office has granted all evacuees leave to enter the UK for two years in the first place and is currently considering evacuees' future immigration status. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham will be pleased about that.
  Resettling Montserratians in Britain has been a complex process, involving co-ordination between agencies responsible for housing, social services, benefits, health care, employment and education. There have been teething troubles because it has taken time for some of the agencies to get into gear, and Montserratians have needed help to learn of their entitlements. We have taken a number of steps to deal with that. We are supporting Travelcare, the voluntary organisation that looks after Montserratians when they arrive at Heathrow and Gatwick. This year, the Home Office is also funding the Montserrat project to the tune of £800,000. The project provides community support to Montserratians to enable them to get their full range of entitlements.
  1020
  In relation to social fund support, most Montserratians in need are receiving not loans but community care grants, and local offices have asked for more money. For example, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), has authorised £32,165 of additional money for Birmingham and is considering requests from Bristol, South and for Euston. I am sure that he would consider a request from Hackney as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington can tell that to her colleagues there.
  The population on Montserrat has fallen—everyone wants to know the exact figure—to 2,850, so we do know how many people now live on Montserrat. We are meeting their needs by providing housing, schools, health services, infrastructure and transport links. I am pleased to announce that the remand centre has also now been agreed.
  In the time left to me this morning, I want to look at the future and discuss the long-term development assistance programme. We have discussed an initial draft of the sustainable development plan, which I agreed on 1 September with the Government of Montserrat. However, the most important element is the health and safety of the people of Montserrat, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) rightly said. That is paramount, which is why we have taken seriously the recommendations of the chief scientific adviser. Because of the risk assessment from the combined effect of ash and the continuing threat of the volcano, which has put further pressure on already overstretched facilities in the north, particularly housing, people are being advised to move out of the danger zone.
  On 28 January, the Secretary of State for International Development announced our intention to construct a third tranche of 50 houses, and to accelerate the servicing of an additional 120 plots. I am glad to inform the House that my right hon. Friend has now approved £4.8 million for that purpose, and for a further 100 prefabricated houses to enable all those in shelters in the danger zone to relocate to the north. That meets in full our July 1997 commitment to provide 250 houses, and increases the total approved for development in Montserrat to £55 million. I hope that that will end once and for all the activities of those who put it around that we are trying to depopulate the island. We are committed to the people and the island of Montserrat, and as long as I am the Minister and this Government are in office, we shall continue to maintain that commitment.

  Teacher Recruitment
  [Relevant documents: First Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1997–98, on Teacher Recruitment: What can be Done? (HC 262–1), and the Government's Response contained in the Committee's Third Special Report (HC519).]
  11 am
  Ms Margaret Hodge: This vital debate will have a big impact on standards in our schools. School improvement is at the heart of the Government's agenda. Since May, there have been numerous important and imaginative initiatives to raise standards in our schools. Each Government initiative ultimately depends on those who work at the chalkface in the classrooms. Bluntly, all the hard work will come to naught unless there are sufficient high-quality teachers in our schools.
  We all know and applaud the many gifted, committed and talented men and women who teach our children, but there are not enough of them. It is not enough to pass new laws in the House of Commons, to issue new circulars from Sanctuary Buildings, or to produce headlines on inspections. We need excellent teachers if we are to achieve excellence for all.
  Last autumn, the Select Committee on Education and Employment produced its first report, "Teacher Recruitment: What can be done?" We found disturbing evidence of a growing shortage of quality entrants. The legacy left by the Conservative party is a teaching profession that cannot attract either enough people or the best graduates. The profession lacks self-esteem, and struggles to meet the needs of the children and the demands of the policy makers.
  The complacency shown by the previous Government about the problem of teacher supply is outrageous. They created a crisis in teacher recruitment. Our message to this Government must be to set aside that complacency, and to take some urgent, radical steps that will start to turn things around, so that we have a realistic hope of reaching the ambitious targets for school standards.
  Let us look at the evidence. Last week's figures published by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service on applications for teacher training confirm yet again the Select Committee's findings. We found that 11 per cent, fewer undergraduates are studying teaching this year. UCAS said that there is a further 15 per cent, drop in applications so far for next year. The Select Committee found that one in four of those who complete their training never work in a classroom. In mathematics, the position is dire. Applications for maths teaching courses have fallen by more than a third since 1993–94, and last year one in three places were unfilled. It makes us wonder who is teaching our children maths.
  The problem is not confined to mathematics. Science, modern languages, design and technology, religious education and music have all been designated as shortage subjects by the Teacher Training Agency. This year, there has also been concern about the number of English and geography trainees.
  It is not just the number of people going into teaching that is causing concern: the quality of entrants is also worrying. The average A-level grades for all undergraduates is three Cs, but for those who go on undergraduate teacher training courses it is two Ds and a C. I was shocked to discover that nine out of 10–90 per
  1022
  cent.—of the undergraduates in one teacher training institution had nothing better than two Ds and an E. It says a lot about British attitudes to the teaching profession that students need straight As at A-level to become a vet and to look after the well-being of animals, but two Ds and a C will do if they want to become a teacher and look after the well-being of children.
  Mr. David Drew: I welcome the Select Committee's report. Does my hon. Friend agree that emphasis is placed on the postgraduate certificate of education, which is not the only route into teaching? The two-year BEd top-up course enables people to take higher national certificate and higher national diploma courses. Access courses can lead to a four-year BEd course. The £10 million for postgraduate courses is welcome, but does she agree that we need to consider alternative routes, because they often involve people who have a wide experience of the world and make very good teachers?
  Ms Hodge: I completely concur with my hon. Friend's view.
  The Select Committee report states that what is happening in teacher training today tells us what will be happening in our schools tomorrow. The evidence is already emerging. The crisis may not show up in the vacancy rates that the Department produces, because every head teacher tries to ensure that there are the proverbial bums on seats in every class. A recent study by the Centre for Education and Employment Research found that one in five primary posts and one in five secondary posts were difficult to fill. When quality was taken into account, almost two out of three primary posts and one out of two secondary posts were difficult to fill.
  The growing crisis has been exacerbated by early retirement and by disillusioned teachers quitting the classroom. I hope that the Government's recent work to highlight excellent teachers and to find ways to cut bureaucracy will help, but the problem will not disappear. The number of school-age children is expected to rise steadily over the next five years. The Government have made a welcome commitment to cut class sizes, which means more teachers. An increasing number of pupils are identified as having special needs, and will require more individual attention. The demand for teachers is likely to rise rather than fall.
  I recognise and applaud the energy and commitment of Ministers in tackling the difficult task of raising standards. However, they have not yet done enough to tackle the teacher recruitment crisis. The Tories may have caused the problem, but Labour must solve it. An advertising campaign will be ineffective unless it is part of a wider strategy. Targets set by the Teacher Training Agency are worthless if it has no teeth and no clear means of achieving them.
  The Government must respond more enthusiastically than they have done so far to the more radical proposals in the report. We must think more boldly if we are to buck the trend and change direction. There is stiff competition from other employers for our top graduates, so we must and can do more.
  The easy answer from many is more money and higher pay. The Committee believes that that is too simplistic. We examined international comparisons, and found that

  1023
  Britain is fourth in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development league on teachers' pay. Taking that and the limited public finances into account, we felt that it would be wrong at this stage to recommend higher pay for all teachers.
  The much more difficult challenge is to raise the status of the profession. Minimum A-level standards for those starting in teaching would show that the Government were serious about making teaching a top profession. A short-term focus on numbers at the expense of quality is just wrong. The experience of accountancy in the 1980s suggests that minimum A-level standards may attract more applicants as well as safeguarding quality.
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: Does my hon. Friend seriously believe that there is a direct correlation between A-level attainment and the quality of a teacher? Is not her presentation of those figures a little simplistic?
  Ms Hodge: We are not claiming that there is always a correlation, but we would submit that there is a strong correlation. We want to attract more higher-skilled, higher-achieving people into teaching. Our contention may not always be valid, but it is often correct. Applications for accountancy courses actually rose when universities asked for higher grades. Too many of us know young people like the daughter of one of my friends, who rejected the idea of teaching because she thought that her good A-level grades would be wasted.
  We believe that a fast-track entry scheme could attract talented graduates to teaching. The best graduates want an opportunity to progress quickly in their careers. Accelerated promotion to headship, or advanced-skills teacher status, would attract high fliers who might not otherwise consider a career in teaching. I should like there to be more than one advanced-skills teacher grade, so that progress could be based on ability and performance rather than length of service, and good teachers could be rewarded for staying in the classroom. Money invested in salaries is worth while in that context. Such a system could form part of a wider renegotiation of teachers' contracts.
  Why can we not do something to help during the fourth and final year of training? Students could be paid part of their first year's salary during their final year of training. That would not cost the taxpayer a penny, and it would fit in nicely with the Government's welcome introduction of an induction year. Why can we not say that we should contribute to a teacher's student loan repayment for each year that that teacher spent in the classroom? The payment could be linked to performance, or could be targeted at shortage areas.
  Why can we not introduce taster teacher courses as a module for students studying national curriculum subjects at degree level? Why can we not have sabbaticals, rewarding excellent teachers by allowing them to refresh skills in industry or at a local college? Why can we not introduce more flexibility, with part-time working and job sharing to allow more women to combine teaching with their caring responsibilities?
  I believe that the Select Committee has advanced some radical but practical ideas to head off the growing crisis in teacher supply. I was disappointed by the Government's lukewarm response to our report, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look at our ideas again. Without
  1024
  sufficient high-quality teachers, any crusade to raise standards is bound to falter. That would be a disaster for the Government, and, more important, for our children.
  11.11 am
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I well understand why the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) tried to hide her disappointment at the Government's response to our report—which I share—with an attack on the last Government's record. May I place a personal perspective on the experience of those who entered teacher training during the time of that Government? My wife first applied to a teacher training college in 1980, and was depressed and disappointed by the attitude of many who took the course with her. They lacked motivation, and appeared to be taking the course as a last resort. Many did not seem to have any heart for the profession to which she, at least, felt that she had been called.
  Owing to an interruption in her course, my wife did not complete it then, but she returned to do so 15 years later, and found that the atmosphere and attitude had transformed since 1980. Here were people who were motivated and committed. Indeed, the very fact that someone could return to the course after 15 years and enter the teaching profession said much for the last Government's efforts to encourage late entrants. Under that Government, attitudes in the profession and in our schools changed completely, and this Government must surely admit that they are benefiting from the change. They are now endorsing and building on many of the policies that they opposed time and again when we introduced them in the 1980s—for instance, in their School Standards and Framework Bill.
  Of course all Governments have problems. If Labour Members do not like the problem of government, there is a simple solution to their difficulty. We faced many problems when we were in government, but it must be said that the current problem is of very recent making. We know from the data collected by the Select Committee, which are published in the second volume of its report, that, as recently as 1996–97, a survey of schools throughout the country showed that 86 per cent, felt that their recruitment problems were no worse than they had been in the previous year—or, indeed, not as bad. In 1997–98, 30 per cent, reported that their recruitment problems were worse than they had been in the previous year. I accept that the data also show a fall in the number applying for courses in key subjects such as mathematics over the past three years or so, but it is only in the last 12 months that evidence of a problem has become compelling.
  As I have said, no Government are without their problems. The real test of a good Government is not the extent to which they complain, but the action that they take to deal with those problems. The National Association of Head Teachers has told us that the problem of teacher recruitment can be found all along the scale. A recent press release states:
  "Almost 2,500 schools looked for a head in 1997. Nine per cent, of all state schools advertised for a headteacher. These were totals last seen at the end of the 1980s."
  There is clearly a correlation between the shortage of good teachers and the strength of the economy. As graduates leave university, if job offers are plentiful and the number of opportunities—particularly in the

  1025
  private sector—is growing, the relative advantages or attractions of teaching unfortunately tend to shrink. If the Government now have a problem that they inherited, it results from the strength of our economy, which is causing students who might otherwise have taken education courses to take jobs of a different kind. [Interruption.] Labour Members laugh in embarrassment, but the fact is that we have established a strong economy. The public sector borrowing requirement is falling to virtually nothing. The Government, however, are finding no resources with which to tackle what will become a deep-seated problem—the problem of not having enough teachers in the supply chain to satisfy the needs of our schools.
  Mr. Derek Foster: Is not the hon. Gentleman glossing over the fact that teachers are stampeding out of the profession because of the incompetent way in which the pensions issue was handled? Is that not the greater part of the problem?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: There was undoubtedly a problem with teachers' pension provision, and we tackled it. Now there is a problem with teacher supply, and it is up to the Minister to tell us how she will tackle that.
  The pressure on the economy, and the attractions of alternative employment, have been greatest in the most prosperous areas. We know from surveys published in our report that schools experiencing recruitment difficulties account for 21 per cent, of those surveyed in shire counties, and only 12 per cent, of those surveyed in cities and metropolitan areas, excluding inner London. In such circumstances, one would expect the Government to take cognisance of the particular difficulties of schools in shire counties; yet, in the coming year's revenue support grant settlement, more than £100 million is being switched from the shire counties to the metropolitan areas. The Government are not paying attention to where the problems persist, especially in relation to teacher recruitment.
  Another part of the evidence heard by the Select Committee related to the wider role that schools can play. Apart from pay, there is the conditions aspect. I do not think that our report gave enough emphasis to the importance of giving schools more scope to provide better conditions for teachers within their local management budgets.
  I put a similar question to the Minister a few days ago and I should like her to consider it today. Will she not allow more scope for schools to set their own terms and conditions for teachers so to allow some flexibility and enable them to attract the teachers that they need? That would help in the recruitment of head teachers, especially for schools that are potentially failing and to which it may be difficult to attract precisely the type of head teachers that they require to turn them round. If the Government do not give schools the flexibility to offer a package that will attract the head teachers that they need, they will make the problem far worse.
  The hon. Member for Barking spoke about quality. Our Committee recommended, as an incentive for students to embark on teacher training courses, the phasing out of the student loan. The Government are
  1026
  compounding the problem of teacher supply by enormously increasing the cost of student education before students get to teacher training courses. That will create a much bigger future problem of teacher supply.
  We propose the phasing out of student loans when new teachers have completed a sufficient number of years of service. Those who are not much above the student loan threshold will effectively pay a higher rate of tax for years or even tens of years after they leave university. That will deter those who might otherwise consider entering teaching because, although the starting salary in the private sector may be similar to that in teaching, it offers better salary prospects.
  Our report could have put more emphasis on the changing workplace, on how people no longer embrace the idea of a single career for life. We should do more to encourage late entrants from, for example, banking. That sector contains many people with numeracy skills. [Interruption.] There are some people in banking with numeracy skills—perhaps more accurate than some bank computers. Banking has many more numeracy skills than are displayed occasionally by the Department for Education and Employment. Late entrants—people in their 30s or late 30s—should be encouraged.
  It is important to make it clear to those entering teaching in their 20s that it need not be seen as a job for life. After they have been teaching for perhaps 10 to 15 years, there may be other openings. The Committee heard evidence about opportunities in banking and in personnel and training departments. Teachers' concerns about limited salary opportunities unless they follow the headship route can be offset by telling them, "If you are still concerned about that 10 or 15 years from now, we shall make it easy for you to enter another career because we value your input to teaching in your first 10 to 15 years." Who knows how many people who may be contemplating a short-term commission in teaching will enjoy it so much that, whatever the outside monetary advantages, they will decide to stay in that outstanding profession for the rest of their careers?
  11.23 am
  Valerie Davey: I should like to highlight two issues from the Select Committee report, both relating to job satisfaction. The first is under the heading of "Work load" and in that section the Committee states:
  "Appropriate use of teaching and non-teaching staff can enhance the job satisfaction of both groups."
  The Committee called for
  "imaginative ways of reducing the non-teaching work load to be explored."
  The Government responded positively, but perhaps not imaginatively, to that idea by referring to a working party on reducing the bureaucratic burden and simplifying administrative demands on teachers. I urge the Government to widen that working party's remit.
  On a recent visit to a secondary school in my constituency, I learned that it had topped up the hours of the school nurse, who was available from the health authority, to make it a full-time post. In addition, the school had employed two part-time counsellors who were pupil self-referred only. The impact on the school generally and on the teachers' work load in particular was

  1027
  enormous. Other schools benefit from full-time technicians or site managers. Therefore, there is a much wider remit to be explored.
  The second issue comes under the heading of "Career Development" and, on that, I concur with the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn). I am pleased to say that the Government have responded favourably to revisiting the local management of schools formula in relation to mature entrants, and are considering the protection of pensions for teachers who, later in their careers, wish to return to the classroom and shed administrative responsibilities.
  The aspect of career development that was not picked up in the Government's commentary is that of recognising that a job for life, even in relation to teaching, is being eroded. There may be ways of attracting people who want to teach for 10 to 15 years and then use their skills and experience elsewhere. I am not surprised that the Government's conclusion reiterates the need to
  "encourage those who qualify to stay in teaching."
  I began the inquiry with that objective: I have changed my mind. Just as we encourage those from other professions to enter teaching, we must recognise reality and positively use the movement of staff in and out of teaching to the benefit of schools and lifelong learning. There is a quiet revolution for lifelong learning and there must be a parallel one for lifelong teaching.
  Last week, I visited a small Roman Catholic primary school in my constituency and found that the recently appointed head teacher had just spent 12 years in higher education. She brought to that school confidence, experience, and a wealth of researched knowledge. A member of her staff, who was formerly an engineer, said that teaching was the most rewarding job that he had ever had. There is a progression from teaching and possibly back again.
  There are two positive points. The 1997 intake to the House has brought to it probably the largest-ever number of teachers. I trust that they have come here not to escape teaching but to contribute positively to the teaching profession. I wonder how many will return to teaching, taking with them the wealth of experience that they have gained in the House.
  Secondly, I congratulate the Government on last week's positive contribution to staff morale and expectation. Their contribution of £22 million means that there will be more than an extra 1,000 teachers in the profession and they will all enter classes of 30 pupils or fewer. That is a positive boost to staff morale and a welcome contribution. I trust that the Government will look more radically at this report and make further radical contributions.
  11.28 am
  Mr. Don Foster: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) has said, and I certainly concur with the implicit views in the speeches by the hon. Members for Barking (Ms Hodge) and for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn).
  The Government's response to the Select Committee report is long on rhetoric and short on reality. There seems to be uncertainty in the Government's mind about whether teacher recruitment and supply is a problem. One minute the Prime Minister appears in cinema commercials promoting teaching, and the next minute there is an uninspiring Government response to ways of tackling the problems.
  1028
  Perhaps even worse than that, the Government seem to have failed to recognise that, unless they take more positive steps, even their own education plans could exacerbate the situation. We have already heard, for example, of the Government's welcome plans to reduce class sizes at key stage 1, but, on their own admission, they will need an additional 5,000 teachers. My view is that that is too few, but they have funded only 500 extra places for the Teacher Training Agency to allocate.
  If we are to decide what and how urgently action should be taken, it is surely necessary that we agree the magnitude of the problem. The first step in solving a crisis is to recognise that there is a crisis; and crisis there certainly is, as the hon. Member for Barking has admitted. As others have pointed out, the figures are clear for all to see.
  First, we are losing more and more highly skilled and experienced teachers through early retirement, as more and more feel bowed down by the growing stresses and strains of the job, by the constantly changing demands and, sadly, by the all too frequent denigration of their work. In the past 12 months, nearly 12,000 experienced teachers have quit the profession early.
  Secondly, as was starkly demonstrated earlier this morning by the figures published by the National Association of Head Teachers, there is a recruitment crisis affecting head and deputy head posts. For example, governors failed to appoint 25 per cent, of the primary headships that were advertised. They could not create even a short list for 11 per cent, of the headship vacancies and 44 per cent, of advertisements attracted six or fewer applicants.
  Thirdly, since our Select Committee's report was published, the number of people coming forward to train to enter the profession has declined further. Applications to almost all types of initial teacher training course are falling when compared with last year. Applications even for primary initial teacher training courses, at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, are falling behind last year's figure: applications to primary BEd courses are 15.4 per cent. down. Overall, many courses are on a five-year low.
  As the hon. Member for Barking rightly pointed out, even worse are the figures for applications to postgraduate secondary courses, not least in the crucial subjects of maths and science. Compared with last year, applications to postgraduate secondary courses for maths are 22 per cent., for biology 15 per cent, down, for physics 28 per cent, down and for chemistry 31 per cent. down. All those figures point inexorably to a crisis.
  The House will perhaps be interested to know that, almost 10 years ago, the current Secretary of State for the Home Department was the Labour party's shadow spokesman on education. He issued a press release in which he referred to the
  "alarming drop in the number of applicants for science and maths teacher training places for PGCE."
  His press release continued:
  "Crisis is not too strong a word to describe the teacher shortages."
  If he thought that there was a crisis then, I wonder how he would describe the current position, when in every case the recruitment figures are significantly worse.
  As the hon. Member for Barking fairly pointed out, it is not right to blame this Government for the crisis. Unlike the hon. Member for Guildford, I believe that the

  1029
  crisis is a legacy of the previous Government, not this Government's economic policies. The Conservative policies of underfunding education partially masked the true size of the crisis as teacher posts were cut and pupil-teacher ratios worsened. However, the crisis is definitely growing. My criticism of this Government is that they have failed to take the necessary urgent action.
  We should consider how the Government have responded. Take, for example, the issue of pay. The Association of Graduate Recruiters' 1997 survey, which was published last month, showed for the year 1996–97 salary increases for the least well-paid graduates of 7.7 per cent. Teachers are, sadly, among the least well-paid graduates, yet, at a time when we need to recruit more, they have had the indignity of a pay rise, already planned to be under 7.7 per cent., phased in, so that the effective increase is under the inflation rate.
  It is interesting to reflect on how the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights must feel about that decision because, only two years ago, while in opposition, he issued a press release commenting on the previous Government's decision to phase in the teacher's pay award for that year. He said about the Conservative Government's plans:
  "The staging of the teachers and other awards is a deception and an admission of economic failure by the government who are saying that…they cannot afford to pay at once increases which they accept are justified."
  I agreed with his comments then and, had he made them today, I would have agreed with them today.
  One way to help to avert the recruitment and retention crisis would be to pay the teachers' award in full. Perhaps the Government simply do not understand how a market economy really works and think that a pay cut will have no effect on teacher recruitment. It would be interesting to hear the views of Alec Reed, who was brought in by the Government in November to help them with their teacher supply questions.
  What about starting salaries? Over the past few years, more and more employers have been willing to pay graduate trainees a market-rate salary. Teaching has resisted the trend, requiring trainee teachers, except those on the employment-based route, to be treated like students. Apart from the shortage subjects, there are no further payments beyond the increased loan facility to cover the 36 or 38 weeks of a postgraduate certificate of education course, despite such students often being too busy to take part-time jobs to help to support themselves.
  Of course I am pleased that the Government are not going to charge PGCE students tuition fees, but I am extremely disappointed that they have rejected the Select Committee's recommendation that same-fee remission should apply to the final year of an undergraduate course. If we are not careful, as with law and medicine, only students from wealthy backgrounds will be able to afford to train as teachers. At least those studying law and medicine can look forward to higher salaries once in the profession; that is certainly not true for teachers. Teaching should become an elite, not an elitist, profession.
  The Select Committee considered starting salaries or debt repayment based on years of service. Sadly, both those ideas are ignored by the Government in their
  1030
  response. In short, on pay issues, the Government have made education a central plank of their policy, but have refused to pay the price.
  What other solutions are the Government offering? We have a damp squib of a general teaching council, which will fall far short of what teachers want and deserve, rather than one that will liberate their professionalism. The Government propose to reduce red tape, but, sadly, confusion about the curriculum has increased. They hold out the hope that those who have left teaching will return, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Returners now account for 40 per cent, of those starting new jobs each September, compared with 60 per cent, in the 1980s.
  Overall, the Government's response seems more concerned with reminding people about Government policy initiatives on the general teaching council, raising standards, education action zones, advanced skills and so on than facing up to today's teacher recruitment issues. None of their policies will work without sufficient high-quality teachers. The sad fact is that any shortfall in recruitment today will mean a shortage of middle managers in 10 years' time and problems with recruiting senior managers a decade later. That is the challenge we face, but, in their response to the Select Committee report, it is a challenge that the Government have ducked.
  The Government should have listened to their good friend Mr. Chris Woodhead, who last autumn told the School Teachers Review Body:
  "Ofsted evidence corroborates … the difficulties of recruitment in shortage subjects…and in some London and other LEAs."
  Thus Ofsted, the Teacher Training Agency, the Select Committee and most other commentators have warned the Government that there really is a crisis. However, it seems that Ministers would prefer to gamble with children's education for the sake of misguided, Conservative-inspired economic policies. It is as if the Government, too, ask: "Crisis? What crisis?"
  11.38 am
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: There is no doubt that teachers are the key to education. They always have been and are even more so now, with the Government's crusade to raise standards, which will require teachers of real quality. The policy of reducing class sizes will require a greater quantity of teachers, so teacher recruitment underpins the whole of the Government's policy.
  Anyone in sales would say that the best advertisement is a satisfied customer. The best advertisement for the new recruitment of teachers should be satisfied teachers, but at the moment many teachers are not satisfied with their lot. I know, because I was one until 1 May last year.
  Are those teachers just whingers? One or two teachers' representatives seem to moan about everything. With so many teachers moving from school to college or university and back to school, some can have a rosy view of the outside world in which they have not worked, and feel that teaching must be the worst job on earth. Such a detachment from the rest of the world should cause concern. Sometimes teachers forget that there is stress in all kinds of jobs.
  Having said that, there is something, if not rotten, deeply wrong with the state of teaching. The question is why. I agree with most of the reasons in the Select

  1031
  Committee report. Pay is a factor, but it is not the only factor. If there were a huge pay increase for teachers tomorrow, there would still be problems in the profession—the same problems that are causing people to take a pay cut to leave teaching, sometimes as early as 50 if they can be released. The problems that are causing teachers to leave are the same problems that are deterring people from entering teaching.
  When we talk about work load, we are talking not just about the amount but about the unnecessary work load resulting from years of constant, imposed change. When Kenneth Baker was Secretary of State we looked back to his predecessor, Sir Keith Joseph, and said that he was a butcher. We have the baker, so presumably the next one was the candlestick maker. It turned out to be the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). Worst of all was John Patten. After his reign, we were left with hundreds of thousands of tick boxes, sheets of paper, which we all knew were nonsense, and tests that did not work, which did not help us to achieve our goal of raising standards and educating children. It is not surprising that, after those years of frenzy and despair, teachers are taking a long time to recover from the battering.
  I always remember the letter that I received one day from Sir Ron Dearing saying that it had come to his notice that some teachers were under the impression that they have to spend a lot of time ticking boxes and keeping records, but that that was never the intention. I wish that someone had told the teachers that many years before.
  Teachers today have heaps of bureaucratic paperwork and many low grade tasks to perform because they have so little secretarial backup. That, as the Select Committee report points out, is one of teachers' main complaints. Tasks always seem to be added, but few are taken away.
  People are also deterred from becoming teachers by the fear of unruly children. Keeping order is a great skill and in the early years trying to keep order is particularly tough. The worst thing that happens is when a teacher has to cover for an absent colleague. Keeping order in such a situation can be tremendously stressful. It would help if first-year teachers were exempt from having to cover for absent colleagues.
  People are also deterred by the lack of a real progression in teaching, not just through the structure but in what one has to do. At the beginning, everything is a challenge, but after a few years people like to take on new challenges and perhaps leave behind some of the challenges that have become mundane. But that does not seem to happen in teaching. After 25 years, I still spent one or two break times a week standing outside the toilets, and every day I had to make herringbone patterns in the register because information technology had not be introduced for registering attendance. I used to wonder whether I really needed a university degree and a postgraduate qualification to stand outside the toilets for up to half an hour each week.
  Teachers are demoralised by the attacks of so many years. They often have to work in poor quality buildings. I voluntarily ended my career teaching in a portakabin. Looking out on to the other portakabins was like a stalag scenario. We were working in buildings which were freezing cold in winter and boiling hot in summer.
  Bearing such matters in mind, one must ask whether teaching is a profession like that of doctors, lawyers, accountants and so on. I think not. The problem starts
  1032
  with the strange way in which teachers are trained. For example, the bulk of a teacher's postgraduate year is spent teaching in schools while existing on a grant or a loan. One is still somehsow a student while undergoing professional training. There must be something better than that. It is not surprising that when, coming out of recession, people can find something better to do, they often do not think of teaching. We have to make teaching more attractive.
  Charlotte Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that a key problem, certainly in primary education, is the lack of male teachers? We are concerned about the gender imbalance in terms of achievement which, as the Select Committee identified, starts as early as seven or eight. There seems to be a complete lack of positive male role models in the primary sector.
  When my husband goes into my daughter's school to help to run the chess club, many pupils call him "Miss". As he is 6 ft 4 in with a beard, that is rather strange, but it shows how few men there are who can be appointed. As the chair of governors at that school, I have found it impossible to appoint male teachers because acceptable candidates do not come forward. Can we be surprised—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Interventions must be brief, not mini-speeches.
  Mr. Blizzard: My hon. Friend is right. When I started out as a teacher I was told that if I wanted to get on quickly I should go into the primary sector, where I would be a head teacher within a few years because there were so few other men in that sector. It is all to do with image and perception. My hon. Friend makes the point well.
  It is important to recognise that to prepare, mark and deliver a full timetable of lessons is demanding. If we want to raise standards, we should concentrate on that. We need a new deal for teachers. The ideas in the Select Committee report deserve attention. In particular, we need more non-teaching staff in schools to carry out those low-grade tasks which do not require graduates. I was particularly taken with the idea of sabbaticals for industrial experience and voluntary service overseas. They refresh teachers. I was fortunate enough to teach in Canada for a year on an exchange and I returned refreshed, with plenty of ideas.
  The Government have plenty of ideas which will help. The introduction of the advanced skills teacher will be helpful. I should like those best teachers to be given the opportunity to join some of the Government's task forces on which we shall rely if we are to drive up standards, whether they are called hit squads or something else. We also need the best teachers in teacher training who, after a few years, can come back into the classroom. It is sad when such teachers lose touch with the classroom. We need an interplay between the two. The idea of training and a qualification for head teachers is excellent. The general teaching council will help to establish teaching as a real profession. The £1.3 billion to repair crumbling classrooms will do a lot to help teachers' morale.
  The Government have made it clear that they will provide more resources for education each year. If they are used in a thoughtful way, we shall be able to overcome the problems that we have been debating this morning and, once again, teachers will be able to recommend their profession to others.
  11.48 am
  Mrs. Theresa May: I pay tribute to the many excellent and dedicated teachers in our schools. When I visit schools in my constituency, I am struck by the genuine enthusiasm of teachers—despite all the bureaucracy referred to by the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard)—for imparting knowledge and skills to the children in their care. I am struck also by their commitment constantly to look at ways of improving standards. They are getting on with the job, while we merely talk about it.
  I echo the comments made by a number of hon. Members about the disappointing response from the Government to the Select Committee report. We asked the Government to look imaginatively, innovatively and flexibly at the issues we raised. Sadly, they have failed to do so. As the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said, the Government have been more interested in pointing out various areas of their current policy, rather than responding positively to the Select Committee's specific proposals.
  It is a sad comment on the teaching profession that problems with teacher recruitment seem to follow success in the economy. However, it is not just a problem of recruitment, but of retention—as has been said during the debate. I visited a school in my constituency where two teachers had come in from other jobs because they actively wanted to come into teaching. One was finding it difficult to stay in teaching because of family circumstances and the amount of time that she was having to give at evenings and weekends—over and above school hours—for preparation and so forth. Having actively wanted to come into teaching, she felt that there was great pressure on her to leave the profession.
  I was talking recently to a director of company which trains people in information technology skills. The company recently launched an advertising campaign to encourage people to train in IT to deal with the problems of the year 2000. Sadly, he said, a significant number of people responding to the advertisements were teachers; teachers in their mid-30s, not those towards the end of their careers.
  I want to concentrate on two issues from the Select Committee report. The first is the image and status of teachers. In evidence to the Select Committee, it was pointed out that one never sees a good teacher in a television programme, and that sitcoms about schools portray teachers negatively. That is part of the problem. The hon. Member for Waveney asked whether teaching was a profession, and came to the conclusion—given the way in which teachers are trained—that it was not. However, it should be, and therein lies the heart of the problem. The teachers' trade unions need to look at the way in which they have portrayed teachers in the past, because an image of militancy does not go well with an image of professionalism.
  Some say that the general teaching council will answer the problem of professionalism in teaching, but that remains to be seen and it will depend very much on how the council is set up. From what we have seen so far, the GTC cannot be seen as the answer to the problem of increasing the status of teachers. It is a sad comment on
  1034
  the Government's reaction that the response is, as the hon. Member for Bath has said, a cinema advertisement on the value of teachers—although given that the sub-committee of the standards task force looking at the image issue is chaired by Lord Puttnam, perhaps that is not surprising.
  The other important issue is career development, career structure and terms and conditions. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), I think that there is most scope for flexibility and innovation from the Government on this issue. Sadly, their reaction has been most disappointing. I would very much like to see schools freed up to decide the terms and conditions on which they employ teachers. I have believed that ever since I sat on an education committee, and it is a key matter. It would deal with the problem of certain regions which are failing to attract people into teaching jobs.
  Such a measure would enable schools to look imaginatively at their own needs and to put together packages which reflect those needs. When I was involved in an education authority in outer London some years ago, we had to find ways of improving recruitment and retention. We looked at various ideas, one of which was reflected in the Select Committee report—the concept of providing housing for teachers to enable young people to enter the profession.
  I wanted to provide cars for head teachers as part of their remuneration package. That was not about offering a more attractive package, but about equating head teachers with senior officers of the local education authority, who had cars. Unfortunately, an election got in the way of that proposal and the Labour party, which took power, chose not to pursue the idea.
  Imaginative ideas to offer teachers a different package to reflect local requirements are imperative. The Government referred to the possibility that their proposed education action zones could assist by directing encouragement, financial or otherwise, to attract the best teachers. That was not the right response. I want more flexibility. In itself, the Government's response has a problem because—as we have discovered debating the School Standards and Framework Bill—the concept of education action zones offering different terms and conditions to teachers is only limited. The teachers will still be employed by the LEAs, and the extra money or contract will be just that—it will be extra, on top of the standard, and will not completely free up the schools in that zone.
  One of the points from the evidence from the trade unions concerned career development and structure, where more innovation and flexible thinking is needed. One of the problems is seeing a clear structure and path when one enters teaching. A number of hon. Members have commented on people going in and out of teaching, and that is valuable, but we must provide a career structure which rewards good teachers and does not simply mean that good teachers have to take on extra responsibility. That is one of the problems. Often, people see that the only way to progress is to take on an extra responsibility, and that they are not rewarded for their excellence in the classroom.
  I am concerned that the advanced skills teachers will not solve the problem, because they will be expected to impart their knowledge to other teachers. That is not the answer. We must find a way to provide a better career structure for teachers to ensure that good teaching is

  1035
  properly rewarded. In that respect, we need to look at the appraisal of teachers to ensure that we identify the skills that we want to reward and encourage in our schools.
  We must address not just the problem of recruiting to the teaching profession, but of retaining those who are within the profession to ensure that it becomes, once again, a proper profession and that it has the status it deserves. Teachers perform the important task of preparing children for adult life and ensuring that they have the educational quality and standard necessary for them as individuals and, ultimately, for us as a country.
  11.59 am
  Helen Jones: I am not sure whether I ought to declare an interest because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), I speak in this debate as a member of what is rather unkindly called the PIT—the pool of inactive teachers.
  In that capacity, I congratulate the Select Committee on its report, but must say that it ought to give us all sleepless nights. The quality of education offered to our children determines not just our present but our future. Improving that quality absolutely depends on a supply of well-qualified, skilled and enthusiastic teachers. If we fail to attract the right people into the profession, we shall fail to succeed in many of our intentions as we shape our society for the 21st century.
  The outlook, as it stands, is bleak. As hon. Members have said, not enough teachers are entering the profession, and we are failing to keep those who do. Indeed, by some estimates, we are losing 30 per cent, of all trained teachers after five years. The result is clearly a crisis in our schools. Targets for entrants to secondary education training between 1983 and 1996 have been met only in three years: 1983, 1991 and 1992—all years of economic recession and high graduate unemployment. It is no wonder that researchers from Brunei university who gave evidence to the Select Committee said that teaching is a profession that people choose when other more glamorous alternatives dry up. Last year, applications for postgraduate teacher training were down in all subjects except physical education. That gives us serious concerns about the quality of the profession in future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) mentioned the obvious teacher shortages in some subjects such as maths and science, but I draw the House's attention to what I call the hidden shortages: a body may well be standing in front of the class, but children are not necessarily being taught by the most appropriate person. To give just one example of that, I was told in a written answer on 29 January 1998 that there are 14,600 people teaching English in secondary schools who have no first or higher degree in that subject. What other advanced industrialised country would leave the teaching of vital communication and language skills to people who have no in-depth knowledge of the subject and are expected to pick it up as they go along?
  A crisis in teacher morale has been caused by 18 years of constant denigration and change with which the profession has had to cope. It is not helpful when the Chief Inspector of Schools says that there are 15,000 incompetent teachers, but in evidence to the Select Committee then says that the figure is based on inspections of small schools, not all schools. Such comments do nothing to raise teacher morale or encourage
  1036
  people into the profession. It is a piece of sloppy work which no academic supervisor of a first year postgraduate student would tolerate.
  Hon. Members need to take care that, in laudable attempts to raise standards, we do not appear to blame teachers for every social ill. Such thinking percolates through to parents, and eventually to children. It makes classroom management much more difficult and underestimates the real problems that teachers face in many of our schools.
  I visit schools in my constituency regularly, and when I hear, as I do in some schools, stories about parents fighting at the school entrance, children who are victims of domestic violence or even of a child who has overdosed on a patent medicine, I am acutely conscious of the problems that many teachers must overcome even before they can teach. To say that does not excuse poor performance. We ought to be celebrating the success of teachers in such circumstances, and ensuring that they have the necessary resources to overcome such problems.
  Teaching is a very stressful profession. Professor Cooper of the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology says that it is one of the most stressful occupations in the country. In my experience— and I have done several jobs—that is certainly so. We must recognise that and realise that it is precisely because many teachers feel undervalued that they do not advocate entering the profession to others. We are left with undergraduates admiring teachers but having no intention of joining them.
  If we are to turn that around, we must ensure that teaching is the first choice of profession for our best students, and not the last. We must do that by looking, in the first instance, at the salary structure. Although starting salaries are comparable with most other professions, the career progression in teaching is just not there. We must negotiate a salary structure which pays for qualifications, experience and competence, and keeps good career teachers in the classroom rather than encouraging them to move to administration.
  As other hon. Members have said, the problem is not just about salaries. Many teachers are demoralised by their working conditions. They have had to put up with constant change. Our schools and teachers need most of all a period of stability in which they can adapt to the change. They also need the opportunity to use their professional judgment, while remaining accountable for what they do—nobody doubts that. That is why most of the teachers to whom I have spoken welcome the changes in the primary curriculum, for instance, because they give them much more flexibility in organising their time in school.
  We must be more imaginative too. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentioned many of the tasks that teachers have to undertake. There is far too much routine paperwork and form-filling.
  Caroline Flint: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments on the fact that, when we received evidence from representatives of the independent sector, they too acknowledged that not only small class sizes help teachers, out-of-classroom support with bureaucracy and technician work helps as well. Is not that something that we should try to provide in our state schools?
  Helen Jones: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is wasteful and inefficient to use graduate teachers for such

  1037
  routine tasks. They are not in schools to act as filing clerks. She is also correct to say that the policy of reducing class sizes must be followed if we want to make the profession more attractive. Given all the evidence, not only will the policy lead to more effective teaching strategies: it will lead to greater job satisfaction. Along with that, it is vital that we proceed with the introduction of a general teaching council to raise the status of the profession. We must also proceed with mandatory qualifications for headships, to ensure that our schools and the staff in them are properly managed and well motivated.
  We must be a little more imaginative, too, in considering career development. As someone who used to look after probationary teachers, I welcome the introduction of the new induction year. Although that is very important, training must run throughout people's careers, not just so that they acquire new skills but so that they have the opportunity to go on refresher courses in their own subjects. Most teachers enter the profession because they love their subjects, and they need an opportunity to develop that.
  All the things that I have mentioned are not cheap; they are not quick fixes. They are long-term solutions to the problem. Unless the Government take up some of those proposals, there will be a false economy in the long run. As the old slogan goes, "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance."
  12.8 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: I congratulate the Select Committee on its report. It is a useful document. I congratulate the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) on the way in which she put it before the House this morning. The report makes it clear that there is a problem of teacher recruitment. There is no point in playing the game of whether the crisis began on 1 May 1997. I do not claim that it suddenly appeared on the day on which the Labour Government came to office. However, the report accepts that
  "the situation has deteriorated and that the Government must act to prevent serious shortages worsening."
  I hope that we shall hear from the Minister a rather more serious intention to act than is suggested by the rather feeble response to the report that the Government have so far published. They do not seem to grasp the seriousness of the situation, and their response does not take on board some of the more imaginative proposals that the Select Committee made. I hope that we shall hear rather more from the Minister when she replies to the debate.
  There are six particular issues to which I should like to refer. The first is the impact of the Government's rushed proposals for student finance on recruitment of students into teaching. The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service statistic showing a 15 per cent, drop in applications from students who want to take up teaching as a career is worrying. Although the Government have announced in one of their many rushed, botched announcements on student finance that there is to be a £10 million package to help students in their fourth year, the Committee was right to put delicately the following matter. It says:
  1038
  "We look forward to seeing more details of exactly how this undertaking is to be implemented".
  We know very little about how that £10 million budget is supposed to deal with the problem. We do not even know whether the scheme will continue in future years. We do not know about the implications for students on BEd courses as opposed to those who take the postgraduate certificate of education route. I hope that we shall hear a little more from the Minister today about student finance.
  The second issue is the work load of teachers and their authority in the classroom, which several hon. Members have raised. I agree with the comments in the report about the perceived decline in the professional autonomy of the teacher. As the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) said, there is great pressure on teachers, given the behavioural problems of many of the pupils they have to teach. The enormous stress on a child, perhaps as a result of changes in the home environment, does not suddenly stop when that boy or girl walks through the door into the school. Teachers have to confront the behaviour that results from such stress. Therefore, work load and authority in the classroom are a major problem with which teachers have to wrestle.
  What have the Government done since 1 May? Instead of an attempt to enhance the professional autonomy of teachers, we have had even more prescriptive and detailed explanations about what should go on in the classroom. Hours have even been broken down into 10-minute intervals, which does not suggest respect for the autonomy of teachers.
  An objective has been set—I understand the thought behind it—to reduce the number of statemented children educated outside mainstream schools. That has caused considerable anxiety in the teaching profession. Teachers are concerned about how they are supposed to manage the problems of teaching such children in mainstream classes. How do the Government intend to reinstate professional autonomy in the classroom?
  The third issue is the general teaching council. I was surprised at the stress that was put on the general teaching council in the Government's response to the report. Perhaps that was because the Government had so little to say about any other aspect of the Committee's proposals. What we know from the debates in another place is that the general teaching council proposed by the Government will simply not live up to the expectations that the advocates of such a council have for it. It will not be the sort of body that the people who believed in a general teaching council expected it to be.
  Despite the claims that have been made by Ministers about the possibility of the general teaching council developing and enhancing its role, all the evidence is that because the legislation is restricted, it will be impossible within the legal framework in the Teaching and Higher Education Bill, which is currently before another place, for the GTC to take on a more ambitious range of powers. The Select Committee is right in its report when it says:
  "The GTC should have a role in ensuring that teachers who fall seriously short of the professional standards expected of them are swiftly removed from teaching."
  We have had little indication from the Government so far that they envisage giving that sort of power to the GTC. If we are to raise the professional standards

  1039
  of teachers, and if the GTC is an opportunity to raise them, it is a great disappointment that as yet the Government have said nothing on the scope of the GTC that suggests that they envisage using it in that way.
  The fourth issue is education action zones, which receive a great deal of attention in the Government's response. They are one of the classic examples of the way in which the Government's rhetoric runs way ahead of the reality. The reality is that the so-called half a million pounds that will go into education action zones is £250,000 of public money with, the Government hope, £250,000 of private sponsorship. We have heard little about how the first six zones or even the eventual 25 are to appear. We have heard little about how the teachers are to enjoy the high degree of autonomy referred to in the Government's response to the report.
  It came out in the Standing Committee that is considering the School Standards and Framework Bill that teachers in education action zones would continue to be employed by local education authorities. With such a modest amount of public money, with so few zones and with so little extra freedom compared with the freedom that schools under traditional LEA control have, will education action zones tackle the significant problem that the report identifies? I am afraid that I do not believe that they will.
  Fifthly, we heard from the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) about sabbaticals, which are not mentioned in the Government's response to the report. The report touches on them briefly. Some of us will remember before the election the then shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment going to the National Union of Teachers conference and promising sabbaticals to teachers. That was one of the measures that a new Labour Government would introduce to rebuild teacher morale and enable teachers to develop their skills in the course of their careers. That has rather disappeared from view. When shall we have the sabbaticals promised by the then shadow Secretary of State before the election? I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to that point.
  The sixth item on my list is the question that has been raised by the Minister for School Standards about men as role models in schools. That is another typical example of new Labour at work. We had a bold announcement that there was a serious problem, and the Minister accepted that we needed to have more men as role models for pupils, especially in primary schools. We have heard again today about the importance of gender balance in schools. But it is okay just saying it. It is easy to say it. The question is what the Government intend to do about it. Having got the headlines that he wanted by expressing his concern, the Minister has not referred to anything that is to be done in practice.
  Now, as we near the end of their first year, the Labour Government can no longer expect to get by with such general statements of good intent and by simply drawing attention to problems that they say cause concern. We need to know what the Government intend to do.
  I should like to hear from the Under-Secretary in her response to the debate on this useful report how student finance measures will be adjusted so that they do not have the possibly catastrophic effect on student teaching
  1040
  that looks possible; exactly what the Government intend to do to rebuild professional autonomy in the classroom and to cease interfering in the details of the practical workings of a respected profession; exactly how the GTC will live up to the expectations of its advocates; exactly how education action zones will be used to rebuild the confidence of the profession; when we shall have the sabbaticals that were promised before the election; and how the Government intend to encourage more men into teaching. If the Minister can offer practical and credible responses to those questions, the whole House will welcome them. If she fails to do so, it will be yet another missed opportunity.
  12.19 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris):
  I thank the Select Committee for carrying out its inquiry into this important subject. I welcome the opportunity provided by that report and by today's debate.
  Neither the Government nor anyone who has spoken today disagree with the statement that we need sufficient teachers of good quality and that we need both to retain them and to retrain them throughout their teaching career. Nor would the Government differ from the view expressed by hon. Members that, if we fail to do that, we shall not be able to raise standards in our schools. Teachers are fundamental to everything that we want to achieve in our education system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) rightly said, if we do not get that right, we stand far less chance of getting anything else right. I do not want my speech in any way to detract from the comments with which my hon. Friend opened the debate.
  I agree with the statement made by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that we need to reprofessionalise the profession, which is a phrase that I have often used myself. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) also mentioned that point. We must give back to teachers, not only their self-belief and self-esteem, but the esteem of the community at large. Many of the proposals that I shall mention could come under the heading of fulfilling that desire to make teaching a proper profession once again and to ensure that teaching take its place alongside other honourable professions in our society.
  The figures have to be addressed. I accept that the application figures for initial teacher training places in 1998–99 are not as good as we want them to be; I do not hide from that, nor do the Government pretend otherwise. However, I should point out that the recruitment phase is not complete and will not be complete for several months. Last year, the eventual intake to postgraduate secondary courses was 43 per cent, above the number of applications at this stage in the cycle; and the previous year, the figure increased by only 18 per cent, over the same period. Those statistics not only show that it is difficult to make predictions based on December and January figures, but might suggest a trend toward applications coming later in the recruitment cycle.
  We are confident that entrants for primary recruitment this year will exceed targets, but we acknowledge that recruitment for secondary will again fall short of the

  1041
  targets that the Government set for the Teacher Training Agency. We know that specific difficulties are being encountered in recruiting students for maths, technology, foreign languages and, to a lesser extent, science subjects. Those statistics are cause for concern and we do not pretend otherwise. However, they did not appear overnight: the under-recruitment of students for secondary initial teacher training has been going on for years, as has the problem with recruitment in certain subjects.
  If one takes his opening comments at face value, the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) appears to have committed two crimes in belonging to a party that not only did nothing to solve the problem, but did not even know that a problem existed. We inherited a particularly difficult situation that the previous Government clearly failed to address. However, that is an argument of the past and it does nothing for our children or our schools. Where the previous Government failed to take action, this Government will take action.
  A major point made by the Select Committee and one that has pervaded the debate is what witnesses described as the poor public image of teachers and of teaching. There is truth in that and, as a member of the pool of inactive teachers, I know from experience that teachers are not as respected in the community as we want them to be. However, that is changing, and my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment have made it clear that teaching is one of the most valued professions. The work and challenges that fall to teachers are some of the most important in the whole of society. Their work with our young children can help to shape this country in the next millennium.
  In the months since the election, the Government have been able to match the words of opposition with the action of government. The subject of our first White Paper was education, our first Bill was an education Bill and an extra £2.3 billion has been pumped into the education service. The new year honours list contained the first knighthoods for education, and a few weeks ago many hon. Members were present when, here in the Palace of Westminster, we recognised the achievements of the schools that have recently come off special measures.
  We have begun already to build up a network of out-of-school learning opportunities and support that will engage all groups in society—parents, industry and communities—in the business of education. The message from the Government over the past nine months has been clear: education is important and teachers are important, and we shall take the action necessary to make that clear to everyone who chooses to listen.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister make that even clearer, by spelling out how much money her Department will commit in the coming year to the problem of teacher supply?
  Ms Morris: I shall outline some of the initiatives and the money that we have put into them later in my speech, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be patient.
  1042
  In response to the comments made by my hon. Friends, let me say that our desire to make it clear that education and teachers are important cannot and must not prevent us from tackling poor performance by teachers. Parents expect no less of us, but that criticism will be matched by praise where praise is deserved and by an increasing recognition of successful teachers. As a witness to the Select Committee rightly said, the Secretary of State must lead the education service. The Government have such a Secretary of State and that is what is beginning to happen.
  The Select Committee raised the important matter of financial support for trainees. I am not sure why the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) does not think that the details are clear, but I shall go over them briefly. In next year's education budget, £10 million has been provided to support our announcement that trainee teachers on postgraduate certificate of education courses will not have to pay the means-tested contribution toward tuition fees. We chose that course of action because we regard the PGCE as a priority, as that is the route followed by most trainees into secondary teaching, which is where the shortages are most pronounced.
  In addition, the TTA is currently administering a new secondary subject shortage scheme and £9 million is being spent to allow initial teacher training providers to give financial support to students wishing to train in secondary shortage subjects. We have recently introduced two new employment-based routes into teaching. We strongly endorse the case for students to be given an opportunity to take taster courses and, with our encouragement, the TTA has run 73 taster courses this year to allow potential recruits for shortage subjects to see what teaching is like and so help recruitment. The response to those courses has been positive, and we expect them to continue.
  Since May, the TTA has been active in working to increase recruitment to the profession. It is all very well to laugh at the cinema advertising campaign, but, since that campaign began, it has resulted in 1,000 new inquiries each week to the TTA. There will be an announcement in March of a campaign targeting members of ethnic minorities and a recent "Teaching in London" event attracted 1,500 people who were advised about teaching as a profession.
  As the Select Committee said, it is not only the quantity, but the quality, of new entrants that matters. In that respect, more than in any other, the Government have already taken swift action and are making progress. I am pleased by the Committee's welcome for the Government's plans for advanced skills teachers, which will lead to the recognition of the skills of our best teachers. I am also pleased by the Committee's welcome for our plan to introduce a mandatory headship qualification for all those going into headship.
  Together, those two schemes begin to provide the structure for a career in teaching for which so many have asked for so long. A sum of £8 million has been made available for next year for those who want to acquire the mandatory headship qualification, and I hope that it will give teachers the confidence to apply for headships, because there is a worrying trend in the number of headship vacancies.

  1043
  The Committee also recommended an open, robust and transparent model for planning teacher numbers. The Government have made it clear that we accept that. Not only have we said how next year's targets were set, but we shall make the model available later this year, and we shall welcome comments on it.
  The Committee raised the issue of pension protection for teachers who have moved from management positions and want to return to the classroom. Again, the Government have already taken action.
  I spent 18 years in teaching; it is a worthwhile job. The pressures are tremendous, but so are the rewards. The problem of teacher recruitment will not be solved overnight. I think that the Select Committee will accept that, in nine months, the Government have acted. We have begun to put in place measures that will ensure that there is a career structure in a properly rewarded and recognised profession.
  I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Barking that the other points in the Select Committee's report will continue to inform the continuing debate both within the Department and with our partners in the wider education service.

  Flu Vaccinations
  12.30 pm
  Dan Norris: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this subject. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health for not only assisting me, but replying today.
  The debate is about whether general practitioners have the right to give flu jabs on the national health service to whomever they want, or whether they are limited by other forces. It is also about whether there is a loophole whereby NHS patients can be sent to other NHS surgeries to receive private treatment.
  In the latter part of last year, I was approached by a number of constituents—at my surgeries and by letter— who were greatly concerned about the fact that they had been refused flu jabs, even though they had previously received them, at the Hope House surgery in Radstock, which is in the south of my constituency. I was shown a leaflet that the surgery had produced, which strongly suggested that patients had been refused because of Government policy.
  Obviously, I was concerned to hear about this. I took the matter up in the first instance with the Avon health authority, which told me that flu jabs were given at a GP's discretion, and that, although there were guidelines, the GP's decision was what finally counted.
  I contacted my hon. Friend the Minister, who confirmed that it was up to GPs to decide whether to give flu jabs. She also pointed out the inaccuracies in the surgery's leaflet, which wrongly suggested that the Government had recommended that flu jabs should be given only to people in high-risk categories, and not to those at lower risk.
  I wrote to the surgery with the information that I had been given by the Avon health authority and my hon. Friend the Minister. The surgery told me that it wanted to administer flu jabs to whoever requested them; it did not want to deny flu jabs to people who really wanted them. It felt strongly that flu jabs should be given on a discretionary basis, but only if that was clear to the public—the surgery was worried that it would be blamed and that there would be a public outcry if it did not give flu jabs on demand.
  The surgery also told me that, when it had consulted Avon health authority, it had been told, first, that it could give flu jabs only to those people who were listed as being at high risk of developing complications if they caught flu; secondly, that it should in no circumstances give flu jabs to people who were not in a high-risk group; and thirdly, and most alarmingly, that, if it gave flu jabs to people who were not in the high-risk groups, it might face financial penalties—that applied also to other surgeries in the former Avon area.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that a close working relationship between health authorities and GPs is important? Will she investigate, as a matter of urgency, the discrepancy between the accounts given by the Avon health authority and the Hope House surgery? Does she agree that, if the Hope House surgery's account is correct, Avon health authority should be called to account for its advice, which was unacceptable?
  What publicity does my hon. Friend believe should be given to the issue of flu jabs in the future? To be told that one does not need a flu jab can be good—it can mean

  1045
  that one is healthy enough not to require immunisation— and should not be a cause of concern. Unfortunately, in Radstock and the surrounding area, such advice resulted in much disquiet and alarm.
  Mr. David Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I welcome the debate. One problem is that the people who are at risk are often not clear why they are. I should declare an interest: I suffer from asthma and am invited every year to have a flu jab, even though I do not feel myself to be particularly at risk. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to explain to patients the whys and wherefores of flu jabs, which could help the process of deciding who should receive them?
  Dan Norris: I share my hon. Friend's concerns; perhaps the Minister will comment on them. I hope that she will also look carefully at what seems to be a loophole. The Hope House surgery's leaflet specified two other surgeries to which its patients could go and how much an injection would cost at them—£10 and £15 respectively. It also stated that people who went to those surgeries should name the Hope House surgery and explain that they required private treatment.
  Can my hon. Friend shed some light on whether that loophole could be exploited? The fear is that, if a number of surgeries came together, they could, to make money or reduce demand, refuse treatment to their own patients and refer them to another surgery at which they could receive the injection privately.
  My final point is that Hope House is a fundholding surgery. Does my hon. Friend believe that the Government's introduction of a new system of commissioning will deal with the concerns that I have raised?
  Dr. Peter Brand: May I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, make a short contribution to this valuable debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Does the hon. Gentleman have the permission of the hon. Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris) and the Minister for Public Health to speak?
  Dr. Brand: No.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister.
  12.37 pm
  The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris) for raising this important and timely topic. Immunisation is one of the most effective public health measures. People in their thousands now survive conditions that, even in living memory, would have killed many.
  In the United Kingdom, immunisation recommendations are published in a memorandum entitled "Immunisation Against Infectious Disease", which is more usually known as the green book. The green book contains the recommendations of the independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation—an expert
  1046
  and independent committee that has advised successive Governments since 1963. The green book is a highly respected source of scientific and practical advice on all aspects of immunisation.
  Included in the green book is detailed advice on immunisation against influenza. I shall now deal with the highly pertinent questions asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Wansdyke and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on that aspect of immunisation.
  United Kingdom flu immunisation policy recommends that vaccines should be offered to protect people who are at most risk of serious illness or death, should they develop influenza. Annual influenza immunisation is therefore strongly recommended for adults and children with chronic respiratory disease, including asthma—in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud— chronic heart disease, chronic renal failure, diabetes mellitus and immunosuppression due to disease or due to treatment. Immunisation is also recommended for those living in nursing homes, residential homes and other long-stay facilities, where rapid spread is likely to follow the introduction of flu.
  However, immunisation is not recommended as routine for fit children and adults, including health care and other key workers, whatever their ages. In addition—this point is central to the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke—the final decision on who should be offered immunisation is a matter for the patient's medical practitioner, and it is extremely important to emphasise that, although the Department provides advice, the decision whether to offer vaccination is a clinical judgment, made by the patient's general practitioner. The decision whether to immunise should take into account the result of flu exacerbating the underlying disease, as well as the risk of causing the individual serious illness.
  The recommendations that I have described are based on the view of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, that not everyone in the country needs flu immunisation. As I have said, recommended groups should be offered immunisation because, in the view of the experts, they are at risk. People considered not at risk by a general practitioner should not be immunised.
  For fit and healthy children and adults, of whatever age, a dose of flu is an unpleasant experience, but one which, generally speaking, mercifully does not pose a serious risk to health. Therefore, for most of the population, the advice on treating flu is well publicised by the chief medical officer and general practitioners. We are advised—as we have probably been advised several times—to stay at home, keep warm, rest, drink plenty of fluid, eat what is tolerable, and, if necessary, self-treat with paracetamol or aspirin to relieve the symptoms of flu. Obviously, if our condition does not improve, we are advised to contact our doctor.
  Fit and healthy people will generally recover fully from flu and experience no serious lasting consequences. In addition, because an occasional bout of flu gives better long-term protection than a vaccination, it could be of benefit to people who are not vaccinated if they come into contact with a similar strain of flu in future, as their body's defences will be ready to react and protect.
  On the other hand, influenza immunisation is only 70 to 80 per cent, effective, and provides protection only for the season in question, because of the very

  1047
  careful scientific matching of predicted flu strain to the vaccination for that year. As such, it is best recommended for those who might become seriously ill as a result of catching flu—those for whom the immediate, potentially serious, consequences of flu outweigh the benefits of acquiring "natural protection".
  In recent years, flu vaccinations have increased substantially, and I am pleased to announce that, this winter, a record of 7.4 million doses of flu vaccine have been distributed. That figure is up from 6.2 million doses last winter, and compares with only 2 million doses 10 years ago.
  However, it causes concern that only about half the people in the at-risk groups are being given the vaccines they need, and, although this percentage is improving, evidently we need to do more and to do better—and we shall.
  I believe that the entirely admirable desire to improve flu immunisation uptake among those who need it, and to cut the amount of vaccine going to those who do not need it, was what led to the problems highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke in the Avon health authority.
  On influenza immunisation, it is the role of the Avon health authority to ensure that the United Kingdom policy is implemented locally as effectively as possible, by maximising uptake in the recommended groups. The health authority can do so only with the full co-operation of GPs and health professionals, who are, in turn, responsible for delivering the flu immunisation programme to patients.
  It may help hon. Members if I clarify when influenza immunisation should be available on the national health service, and I hope that, by doing so, I shall answer one of the questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke.
  If an individual is in one of the Department of Health's specified at-risk groups, or their GP decides that there is a clinical need for an individual to be immunised, that immunisation is available to the individual on the NHS. The doctor should not charge the patient in that case, except where a prescription charge is applicable.
  In return for giving a flu vaccine, GPs are reimbursed the list price of the vaccine, about 10 per cent, so-called "on-cost", and a personal administration fee for each vaccine. That money is paid on the understanding that the individual given the vaccine needs it in line with the national flu immunisation policy, as set out in relation to the broad at-risk categories that I have described.
  Some patients outside the at-risk categories, often termed the "worried well", may be unhappy with being refused immunisation, especially if they have been immunised, albeit wrongly and against the advice, in the past. Those patients are at perfect liberty to obtain immunisations outside the national health service.
  In the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke highlighted today, the Avon health authority practice that he mentioned had identified two alternative medical organisations from which private influenza immunisations could be obtained. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that any at-risk patient who needs flu immunisation, whether or not they fit into the broad categories describing the population at risk, will continue to receive it on the national health service.
  1048
  The advice that I have given today as to when influenza immunisation is available on the NHS is unaffected by fundholding or commissioning. If a GP decides that a patient needs influenza immunisation, in line with the green book guidance, based on the advice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, immunisation should be provided for that patient on the national health service.
  Dr. Brand: May I have the Minister's assurance that prescribing budgets, which are to be cash-limited for the first time, will be uprated to allow for a better take-up in the at-risk categories?
  Ms Jowell: I have expressed our clear determination to increase take-up among the at-risk groups. In the light of best evidence available, we shall constantly review the scope of the at-risk groups and ensure maximum take-up. In line with that commitment, we must ensure that the budget allocated to cover the costs of immunisation allows immunisation to be made as widely available as clinical discretion permits within the framework that I have set out.
  I return to the leaflet that concerned my hon. Friend. I understand that it was withdrawn in December, and that the regional director of public health for the south and west has written to the director of public health at the Avon health authority to ensure that accurate material is distributed to the public in future. I shall refer to that very helpful letter from the regional director of public health in order to make the position absolutely clear.
  In writing to the director of public health at the Avon health authority, the regional director made it clear that the information distributed was inaccurate, that the leaflet had been withdrawn, and that it was extremely important that general practitioners were aware of the information provided in "Newsbrief" in September 1997, which set out the prescribing and medical protocols in relation to flu vaccination.
  The regional director of public health makes it clear that the dogmatic statements relating to influenza as a vaccine were not in accordance with the policy of the Department of Health. Therefore, the chief medical officer's advice to general practitioners about the prescribing framework should be taken as the definitive framework clarifying at-risk groups and guiding the clinical judgments of individual general practitioners. The offending information has now been withdrawn. It is extremely important that we remain vigilant and ensure that accurate information is made available to guide the decisions of GPs in the future.
  I hope that I have also made it clear that it is quite unacceptable for at-risk patients to be charged for influenza immunisation. The current policy necessarily allows the general practitioner—who has knowledge of his patients—to make the final clinical judgment as to who is at risk from flu. The at-risk groups are highlighted annually to the public through Department of Health flu leaflets, nearly 1 million of which have been distributed over the past two winters. The leaflets are available from GP practices, and directly through the Department's freephone health literature line.
  Items on flu immunisation were also included in the Central Office of Information's "Sound Advice" audio magazine and the British sign language magazine,

  1049
  "Public Scene". Both magazines are distributed directly to contact organisations for sight, hearing and literacy-impaired people. The chief medical officer also writes annually to all doctors before the influenza season, reiterating the Department's immunisation policy. He stresses in particular the importance of immunisation as many at-risk patients as possible.
  In addition, my Department also works closely with an organisation called AIMS, the Association for Influenza Monitoring and Surveillance, which promotes flu immunisation through the media, and offers helpful practical advice about how medical professionals can increase uptake in at-risk groups. The chief medical officer launches flu awareness week annually, accompanied by members of the scientific advisory board of AIMS. Both Help the Aged and the British Diabetic Association worked with AIMS last year to publicise the importance of immunising at-risk groups.
  My Department will continue to work to improve immunisation uptake among recommended groups. We will ensure that those who need the flu vaccine receive it on the national health service. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important subject, and for providing an opportunity for me to set the record straight following the confusion caused by the distribution of misleading information to his constituents. It is also important to reiterate the Government's determination to provide health care to the people of this country on the basis of need rather than ability to pay.
  My hon. Friend expressed concern about a loophole that could technically provide an opportunity to exploit the private provision of vaccinations as opposed to their provision through the NHS to people at risk. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend that, if a GP recommends influenza immunisation, it will be available through the national health service.
  1050
  The Government's plans to build a modern and dependable national health service will in no way affect the availability of free vaccinations to patients who need them. GPs may exercise their discretion in making judgments about patients whom they consider to be at risk and who therefore require flu immunisation. The health authority in this case published misleading information, and that matter has now been set right.
  My Department constantly reviews both the take-up of immunisation among at-risk groups and the definition of at-risk groups. I shall continue to seek the advice of the independent Joint Committee on Immunisation and Vaccination on that matter. I hope that the grounds for not providing blanket immunisation are well made: there must be evidence that a bout of flu would adversely affect a patient's health or well-being in order to justify vaccination.
  This is an important part of the Government's approach to disease prevention. We should also take account of the substantial increase in the number of flu vaccinations that we have achieved this year. We must continue to be vigilant and ensure that flu vaccines reach those patients that are potentially at greatest risk. The chief medical officer and I will study in detail our success in targeting and vaccinating the various at-risk groups that I set out earlier.
  We shall also continue to update the information provided to general practitioners about how they can act proactively to ensure that their patients who are at greatest risk from influenza receive the vaccine that will protect them throughout the winter. Again, it is always a matter of maintaining a proper balance between the protective benefits of vaccination and practical advice for avoiding flu as issued by the Chief Medical Officer, and taking care of ourselves when we do get flu.
  The matters raised by my hon. Friend will have been of benefit to the many hon. Members who listened to his concerns. I hope that my response has reassured him.

  Livestock Industry
  12.59 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: It will not have escaped your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this week is British beef week in the House of Commons. I preface my remarks by congratulating the Chairman of the Catering Committee on the initiative that he has taken, and I thank the Leader of the House and the House authorities for making it possible to stage British beef week in the House of Commons. I urge all my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members to go along to the Dining Room and sign the pledge book that they will find there. Doubtless, there are so few of us in the Chamber at this time because hon. Members are in the Dining Room, enjoying good old English roast beef.
  I must declare an interest. I am a butcher and a farmer, and I represent one of Britain's prime producing areas of livestock. Shropshire is one of the most agriculturally dependent counties in England, and the Ludlow constituency is undoubtedly the most heavily dependent on livestock. In the west of my constituency, in the Shropshire hills, there is no alternative enterprise for farmers to engage in, other than the rearing and production of beef and lamb.
  It is worth putting on record that nationally more than 700,000 people are employed in the meat and farming industries. Given the nature of the business, a substantial proportion of that number are employed in the meat and livestock sector. The total value of sales of meat in the United Kingdom annually is £15 billion—a substantial sum.
  This time last week, the headline in The Daily Telegraph read: "Farm incomes at eight-year low, says bank". Last month, the Shropshire Star, always first with the news, carried the headline "Farm incomes dropped by almost half in year". That referred to the report issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 30 January.
  By common consent the farming industry, particularly the livestock sector, is in dire straits. Tomorrow I shall be inviting the Minister to tell the House how many fanners have committed suicide in each of the past five years, worried literally to death by financial difficulties and despair occasioned by an avalanche of bureaucracy.
  Look at the evidence. Over-30-months cattle have been drastically reduced in value because of cuts in the rate of compensation and the reduction in the maximum weight limit to 560 kg live weight. Cull cows are worth 33 per cent, less than two years ago. A constituent writing from Bishop's Castle tells me that, last month, he sold lambs for less than they fetched 20 years ago, in 1978. What other industry could put up with having to sell its product at the prices that appertained 20 years ago?
  Finished cattle prices are 22 per cent, less than two years ago owing to higher imports, which rose 20 per cent, last year, and the continued ban on beef exports. I remind the House that, before the ban was imposed, 28 per cent, of all beef produced in the UK, valued at £550 million to £600 million a year, went to overseas markets.
  1052
  What does the farmer do when he has no profit or, more to the point, when he has no income? He does the only thing that he can do: he stops spending. The Minister must understand that when farmers stop spending, it is not only the rural economy that suffers. The whole economy suffers, as evidenced by another headline, this time from The Daily Telegraph last Saturday: "Farming slump hits Britain's tractor makers".
  It was reported:
  "More than a thousand workers at the Massey-Ferguson tractor factor in Coventry will be put on a four-day week next month because of a huge slump in machinery sales."
  I know well the Minister's views on subsidies to agriculture. He makes no bones about it. He says, if I may paraphrase his words, that he does not see why the people he represents in Birmingham should put their hands in their pockets to pay for subsidies for farmers.
  I take this opportunity to say to the hon. Gentleman that some of his constituents will almost certainly be affected by that news. Many others in the west midlands conurbation who work in the components industry that supplies the tractor works will also be affected by the slump in the sale of agricultural machinery. There is a knock-on effect. Ministers would do well to consider the urban consequences of the rural crisis to which I am drawing attention.
  In his speech to the Oxford farming conference on 6 January this year, the Minister of Agriculture said:
  "I want to see an industry that is successful, competitive and sustainable."
  Let us examine that proposition. Clearly, the industry is not successful at present. By any measurement, after only nine months of this Labour Government, the livestock industry is less successful than at any time since the 1930s.
  I have no doubt that, given a fair chance, the British agriculture industry, and particularly the livestock industry, would be competitive, but it will not be successful if it is burdened with the additional costs imposed on it by the Government. How can it be competitive, especially when it is apparent that the same cost burdens are not imposed on our continental competitors? In its written evidence to the Agriculture Committee last month, the Meat and Livestock Commission cited an independent report that identified extra costs in UK abattoirs over those in other EU states at £26.65 per animal.
  In the same submission, the MLC went on to instance the considerable increase in extra costs that will apply in 1998, totalling no less than £95.4 million—equivalent to £43 per animal slaughtered. That does not include the cost of setting up the cattle tracing service. It will cost the industry £13 million to set up the cattle tracing service, and according to the same parliamentary answer given by the Department, the annual running costs will be no less than £15 million. Another £3 million is the estimated cost to the industry of providing the second tag in cattle born or imported after 1 January this year.

  1053
  In November 1997, the Minister stated:
  "The Meat Hygiene Service's enforcement of the existing SRM controls in licensed slaughterhouses costs the taxpayer about £18 million a year. When the extra controls on sheep and goats are introduced, the cost will rise by about £26 million a year. The Government have concluded that the cost can no longer be borne by the taxpayer. We therefore propose that from the start of the next financial year, the cost should be recouped from the industry, as is currently done in respect of Meat Hygiene Service inspections."—[Official Report, European Standing Committee A, 19 November 1997; c. 2.]
  Incidentally, the cost to the industry of the MHS, according to the Minister's reply to me on 26 January, will be £28.7 million in the current year. Interestingly, in that same reply he stated that the £44 million referred to in his speech to the Standing Committee in November to meet the cost of specified risk material controls has escalated to £48 million.
  I have mentioned several costs that are all over and above the continuing costs of the Meat and Livestock Commission, which amount to £37 million a year. To that sum must be added another £37 million for all the other long-standing statutory charges and levies that are made against the agriculture industry. Coming soon will be the as yet unknown cost of the Food Standards Agency.
  Has the Minister no idea of the effect of all these cost burdens on the competitiveness of the industry? He talks about having a sustainable industry. How will it be sustainable if one cost is piled on another? I have not mentioned recurring costs of £77 million and non-recurring costs of £20 million that are referred to in the 18th paragraph of his Department's regulatory appraisal of the ban on the sale of beef on the bone.
  To make matters worse, neither the regulatory measures nor the same cost burdens are being imposed on our continental competitors. No other country has banned the sale of beef on the bone. In a parliamentary answer, the Minister told me that the Belgians were considering a ban on the sale of beef on the bone. He added that the Irish had decided to do what many of us feel should have been done in this country, which is to warn the public that there is a small risk in eating beef that has been prepared or cooked with the bone in place. It has been left to the Irish public to decide for themselves, which I think is absolutely right.
  The removal of the specified risk material— compulsory in this country for the best part of 10 years—will not be mandatory throughout the European Community until 1 April. I am not aware that the costs, even then, will be borne by the industry, as they are in the United Kingdom.
  There has been much talk about agrimonetary compensatory amounts over the past several months. As the Minister knows, the industry has expressed the view that the Government should compensate the British industry to the tone of £980 million. The Government have set their face against that. That sort of money is being paid to other farmers in the European Union but not to British farmers.
  We are no longer eligible for export restitutions. They do not apply in the United Kingdom because we are no longer allowed to export our beef. However,
  1054
  restitutions to other countries that are allowed to export their beef are being paid out of money that has come from British taxpayers' pockets.
  Mr. John Hayes: Perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on the progress that has been made on lifting the export ban. In answer to an oral question on 21 May, the Prime Minister said:
  "I believe that we can make progress and I am hopeful that progress is being made."—[Official Report, 21 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 710.]
  To what extent has progress been made? What is holding up the progress of which the Prime Minister was so confident in May last year?
  Mr. Gill: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and in this instance I am sure that the Minister will agree with me. When he and his colleagues took office, they were optimistic that merely by conducting a charm offensive in Brussels they would get the other member countries to agree to lift the beef ban. None of the other 14 countries in the EU has the least incentive to lift the ban—let alone an interest in doing so. We can conclude—my right hon. and hon. Friends reached this conclusion a long time ago—that the ban was imposed for purely political reasons and had nothing to do with considerations relating either to animal health or, more to the point, human health. It was a purely political decision.
  The Government did not take that view when they were elected in May 1997. They thought that, if they were more reasonable and more accommodating towards the Commission, rapid progress would be made. It was instructive to hear the Minister of Agriculture say on the farming programme on 12 February, barely a week ago, that he believed that the beef ban was political. The only progress that we have made with the Government on the beef ban over the past nine months has been to persuade them of what many people have known all along, that the ban was entirely political. Nevertheless, we have made progress because it is now on the record that the Minister of Agriculture accepts that.
  It is ironic that, at a time when the European Community is saying that our beef is still unsafe, it is providing £2 million to conduct an advertising campaign in this country. Some supermarkets have had access to that money to advertise British beef. Clearly, something is wrong. I am interested to know what the Minister has to say about that. If the Community really believes that our beef is unsafe, why is it spending £2 million of Community money to advertise British beef? If, as is suggested by that action, the Community believes that British beef is safe, does that not call into question the decision that the Government made shortly before Christmas that led to a ban on the sale of beef on the bone?
  What is the effect of the charges to which I have referred on the competitive edge of British agriculture? None of the additional charges, costs and burdens on the industry does anything to help us to sell more meat or to compete within our own market, let alone world markets or markets within the continent of Europe. As Ministers continue to load more regulations and cost burdens on the industry, one is tempted to ask whether they take that approach out of prejudice or ignorance.
  The Government campaigned on the slogan, "Not a handout but a hand up". There are few in the industry who expect the present Minister of Agriculture to

  1055
  advocate additional handouts. After all, the right hon. Gentleman is an ambitious man. We recognise that he will not prejudice his political career by going off message, by appearing to be the friend of the farmer and going against the strictures of his friends in the Treasury. Who can doubt that, at the next ministerial reshuffle, he hopes to become a Secretary of State and to be relieved of the smoke and mirrors of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy?
  As we are talking about smoke and mirrors, the right hon. Gentleman's love of the Smoking Room when the House is debating important agriculture matters has not gone unnoticed. While he remains at the Ministry of Agriculture, will he recognise that adding to the meat and livestock sector's costs is not the way to make a successful, competitive and sustainable industry?
  Mr. David Drew: In his long speech, the hon. Gentleman has given only a cursory mention of the role of supermarkets and their ability to absorb costs. He will agree that it is a two-ended process. The difference can be made not just at the farm gate but at the place where the consumer buys the product. Perhaps he might like to have a word with the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), who I gather is still chairman of Asda, about what role Asda is taking with regard to keeping prices down and absorbing costs.
  Mr. Gill: I do not quite understand the point that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) was trying to make, as he made the point badly, but I shall respond, because many people—my constituents included—are concerned about the role of supermarkets. Many of my constituents, who are operating on slim or non-existent margins, look at the apparently healthy margins of supermarkets and, quite rightly, question whether the available profit between the production of meat and its sale to the housewife is being distributed equitably.
  We must accept that, nowadays, supermarkets sell an enormous amount of meat. A high proportion of the meat sold on the British market is sold in supermarkets, and they are the customer. Many of us are old-fashioned enough to believe that the customer is right. We may not like what the customer—in this case the supermarket—is doing, but we recognise that supermarkets are the outlet for the product of British agriculture.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my neighbouring Shropshire Member of Parliament for giving way. I congratulate him on bringing this most important issue to the attention of the House.
  On the point about supermarkets, will my hon. Friend congratulate the farmers, who demonstrated spontaneously and brought pressure on supermarkets and large consumers, such as McDonald's? Up to 80 per cent, of that company's beef is British, and Sainsbury's is running a British promotion this month. That is totally in line with what the Government want. Farmers do not want subsidies. They want to be able to compete on a level basis.
  1056
  Does my hon. Friend think that it is disgraceful that the Government are not helping—I shall be grateful if the Ministers will just listen to this point, because beef was imported into this country last year—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We should not have speeches during interventions.
  Mr. Gill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) for his intervention. He is quite right. The supermarkets are doing what they can to sell British beef. I have a letter from the customer services director of Sainsbury's, in which he says to a correspondent:
  "90 per cent, of our Beef is from Britain…and 10 per cent, is from Southern Ireland."
  In other words, Sainsbury's is sourcing all its beef in the British isles.
  I have another letter, addressed to Mr. Sedgley, in my constituency, from the company secretary of Somerfield, saying:
  "Over 75 per cent, of meat sold in our stores is British."
  It is all very well having a pop at the supermarkets, but we have to bear in mind that they are our customers. They have tremendous power—too much, perhaps—in the marketplace.
  It was interesting to hear the Minister for Public Health say at a meeting last night that the Government propose to put their healthy living clinics inside supermarkets. She was quite rightly asked what that will do for the local shops on housing estates that are trying to provide a local service to people who live away from the areas in which supermarkets provide essential services. It is very well the hon. Member for Stroud shedding crocodile tears, but he should look at how he and his party are encouraging supermarkets to create a monopoly.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that the focus on supermarkets—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am wondering when the Minister will get an opportunity to reply. The Minister is here to reply to the debate. When people put themselves out, particularly Ministers, they should at least get a hearing.
  Mr. Gill: In that case, I shall finish.
  I want the Minister to focus on the £79 million of additional cost burdens that he will impose on the meat and livestock industry this year, which almost entirely cancel out the £85 million of additional help to the industry that he announced on 22 December. I want him to look at those costs against the huge financial loss that is already being absorbed by the industry as a result of there being almost no value in meat and bonemeal and tallow, which is costing an estimated £43 million a year, the extra specified risk material disposal charges, which are costing £6 million a year, the loss in value of ox cheeks, £8.7 million a year, and, not least, the £97 million cost this year of the ban on the sale of beef on the bone.
  When the Minister replies, he might be tempted to rake over the coals of the previous Administration's handling of the BSE crisis, but I respectfully suggest that he leaves

  1057
  that to the Phillips inquiry and concentrates instead on that for which he and his Government have been responsible since 1 May.
  Mr. Paul Marsden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not it a convention of the House that the Minister has 15 minutes to reply to an Adjournment debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no such rule, but I would expect that a Minister would be given a reasonable time in which to answer. I do not think that the time now available to the Minister is reasonable.
  1.26 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I have exactly four minutes. When the debate started, everybody knew that it had to finish at 1.30 pm.
  I shall address two key points raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). On the cattle movement service, we lost six weeks because the previous Government did not complete the arrangements to appoint the consultants, which they could have done before the general election. No final decision has yet been taken on charging for the cattle movement service. The location at Workington was the cheapest for running costs. I am conscious of that, as the farmers will have to pay the running costs in the end. It was also the only option where I could guarantee that staff could be recruited.
  The previous Government said that the set-up costs would be met by central Government. I must emphasise that we have not announced the decision on that. It is quite wrong for people to assume that we have. People are going up and down the country, on one radio station
  1058
  after another, telling us what the Government have announced and decided. Nowhere have we announced any decision regarding start-up costs. We have still to make that announcement, and will do so in due course.
  On specified risk materials, I announced on 19 November that charges could be up to £48 million. I announced that in front of a Standing Committee. I was not questioned about it by a single Conservative Member. Since 1 January—when the conditions came into effect, but not the charges—experience has shown that the real costs will be nothing like as high. We are still consulting, as the hon. Gentleman knows. A letter was issued on 6 February. The consultation ends on 2 March. The decision on charges will not be made until the consultation has finished.
  I regret that some parts of the industry refuse to pay the existing Meat Hygiene Service charges, which is causing problems of undercutting costs and unfair competition. I was at a medium-sized abattoir yesterday in Staffordshire, which had a high hygiene assessment score and has invested in new equipment. Why should a good firm be undermined by crooked companies—bucket shop companies—refusing to pay? We are looking urgently at bad debt to the Meat Hygiene Service to see what action can be taken. I am not prepared to see the good side of the industry unfairly disadvantaged.
  There are problems with sanctions. The key sanction would be for us to ask the Meat Hygiene Service to refuse to health-mark the goods. There may be problems with the European Union about that, but the situation cannot be allowed to continue with one part of the industry placing unfair burdens on the other. I repeat that consultation on those charges is still under way, and it would be wrong for anyone to draw a conclusion.
  As for the hooligans outside the television studio on Sunday, such people do the farming industry no good whatever. Had they been outside a football ground, they would have been charged.

  Mr. Noel Smith
  1.29 pm
  Mr. Eddie O'Hara: I wish to draw to the House's attention the case of a life that has been grievously damaged as a result of treatment by the health services, mostly under the national health service. There has been no redress to that damage, and no one has yet been prepared to take responsibility for it.
  Noel Frank Smith, a constituent of mine, was born in Liverpool on Christmas day 1922—Noel was a Christmas baby. At an early stage, he suffered rheumatic fever, and in 1929, at the age of six, he was admitted to Myrtle Street children's hospital. On examination by a specialist cardiologist, a disorder of the heart was diagnosed— mitral valve disease. The prognosis was that he was unlikely to live beyond his teens, and he was told to avoid strenuous exercise.
  The prognosis had drastic consequences for the rest of his life. He could not lead the life of a normal child, and had regularly to visit to his general practitioner, who prescribed glyceryl trinitrate, a vasodilator designed to decrease his blood pressure to prevent strain being put on the supposedly defective valve in his heart.
  Mr. Smith's job prospects and earning capacity were curtailed. There was less sympathy and provision for chronic invalids in those days. In short, his quality and standard of life have been affected, as has provision for his old age. Worse still, his painful treatment has had lasting side effects. He now suffers from degeneration of the cell walls around his veins. To put it in his words, his blood vessels are now like a leaky boat. He suffers much discomfort and pain as a result of the pooling of fluids in his legs. He has also developed glaucoma, which he maintains is because his eyes have reacted to his treatment in the same way as the rest of his vascular system.
  After his initial diagnosis in 1929, Mr. Smith did not see another heart specialist until 1981, when he attended Broadgreen hospital in Liverpool with a chest infection. After tests, he was advised that he did not have a heart complaint, and that the diagnosis of mitral heart disease made 52 years previously had been wrong. His understandable reaction was to instruct a solicitor to prepare a claim against the cardiologist who had made the false diagnosis. However, he was given counsel's opinion that there was no evidence of negligence, and therefore no ground for a claim.
  Mr. Smith subsequently received a second and contrary opinion based on a number of points, including the fact that, when the misdiagnosis was first discovered, the lasting damage to his health was not clear or known, and that he had not been examined by a cardiologist in the 52 years between the initial diagnosis in 1929 and the second opinion in 1981. I ask the House to consider 52 years of repeat prescriptions for serious drugs for a supposed heart disorder.
  However, there was an obstacle to Mr. Smith's pursuit of a claim for compensation: he had no access to his medical records. His battle for access to his records was conducted first by Eddie Loyden, the Member of Parliament in whose constituency of Garsden he lived when the misdiagnosis was discovered, and thereafter, when he went to live in Knowsley, by my predecessor, the late Sean Hughes. The matter had not been resolved when I entered Parliament in 1990 and picked up the case.
  1060
  There were three aspects to the story of Mr. Smith's records. First, in 1983, shortly after the discovery of the misdiagnosis, the medical records mysteriously disappeared. They were withdrawn by the medical practitioners unit at Princes road, Liverpool, and mysteriously went to Hertfordshire. A strange story was told about someone registering and claiming benefit, fraudulently using Mr. Smith's national insurance number. It was not until 1985 that the records eventually returned. Secondly, there was the battle to gain access to the medical records. That was pursued, but when Mr. Smith eventually gained access to them, key sections were missing. The whole story is mysterious and sinister.
  The third aspect, in which I have been most involved, is trying to get to the bottom of what happened to the missing records. I pursued the complaint as far as the health service commissioner in 1996. His response was interesting. He gave three reasons for being unable to help: first, that the complaint was out of time—of course it was out of time by now, given that Mr. Smith had been battling steadily throughout the intervening time; secondly, that he could not become involved because of the possibility of legal action arising from the case; and, thirdly, that there was little practical point, after such a lapse of time, in trying to get to the bottom of how the records had mysteriously disappeared. And that was that.
  There is yet another cruel twist to the tale. With or without his medical records, Mr. Smith does not have the means to pursue a claim without legal aid. That has been denied, not least because, after the long battle to get hold of his records, deficient as they are, the claim is statute barred, so he cannot have legal aid. The battle for Mr. Smith's right to pursue his claim through the law courts is a sub-plot with which I shall not burden the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), but it is a subject for a whole Adjournment debate. Suffice to say that it has not yet been resolved.
  One can choose the best cliche to describe Mr. Smith's experience: catch-22; Greek tragedy; or Kafkaesque. It is a catch-22 in that he could not pursue his case without his records, but by the time be got them he was statute barred. It is a Greek tragedy in that Mr. Smith has suffered a rare misfortune on a epic scale, and his twists and turns to alleviate his fate have been doomed to constant and, by now to me, predictable failure, given all the avenues that I have pursued on his behalf. There is no catharsis or relief in this drama because this is not vicarious drama; it is a real life ruined. It is Kafkaesque in that Mr. Smith has been shunted in bureaucratic circles, with functionaries who refer to and reinforce each other but do not address the issue—the ruin of Mr. Smith's life.
  One could not blame Mr. Smith for concluding that the whole bureaucratic edifice is designed to serve itself and so thwart the individual. I hold what I thought was a common-sense view: that, if no one in the system will accept responsibility for the wrong done to Mr. Smith, the ultimate responsibility rests with the Secretary of State; but successive Secretaries of State have declined to acknowledge that.
  I leave the last word to Mr. Smith:
  "the Ministers did answer your letters and mine but…they never acknowledged the questions that we asked.
  I would have thought that being responsible Ministers they would have sent a directive to Merseyside Regional Health Authority to get the problem of my missing medical records sorted. Also,

  1061
  that they would inform me why I was treated for the serious heart complaint that I was mistakenly diagnosed as suffering from for 54 years of my life and also the drastic medical treatment that has caused me so much pain and injury.
  I know that I am entitled to an explanation and answer to these questions. I also know that I am entitled to compensation for the pain and injury that I am suffering to this day."
  I am pleased to have a Minister at the Dispatch Box to respond to the debate. He is a sympathetic Minister, and I hold him in high regard. I realise that he is only the most recent of a succession of Ministers who have been approached about this case. I look forward at least to a positive and sympathetic response to this exceptional story of a ruined life, but I urge him to institute an inquiry into this sorry matter.
  1.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): The constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) is fortunate in only one respect: he has a hard-working and diligent Member of Parliament, who has pursued every avenue on his behalf. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on behalf of Mr. Noel Smith.
  Mr. Smith's experience over 70 years gives us considerable pause for thought and for regret. For most of his life, he has suffered pain and distress as a result of an inaccurate diagnosis that went undiscovered for more than half a century. His experience may be unique in its duration, and we can only express regret at his suffering.
  The problem predates the national health service, whose 50th anniversary we celebrate this year. This story began at a time when people did not enjoy, as we all do now, a national health service that is capable of responding to the changes in people's expectations. Not to be registered with a family doctor and via him or her to have access to a comprehensive range of appropriate health care is almost inconceivable today, but Mr. Smith's story began at just such a time.
  My hon. Friend raised this case with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last summer. The matter has been pursued through our predecessors and through other channels. When I replied to my hon. Friend's correspondence on 6 August 1997, I could do no more than repeat the message that he had received a number of times in the past. No mechanism is currently in place by which Mr. Smith can seek redress for the initial misdiagnosis and subsequent, apparently unnecessary, treatment that has dominated and ruined his life.
  I am sure that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will appreciate that the NHS is not at fault. After all, it was at an NHS hospital, Broadgreen in Liverpool, that doctors revealed the truth to Mr. Smith in 1981. The national health service made known to its patient the enormity of what had happened to him.
  That must have been a time of incredibly mixed emotions for Mr. Smith. He must have been relieved that he was not suffering from a condition that was likely considerably to truncate his life, but the knowledge that he had spent much of his childhood and all his adult life under the misconception that he was suffering from a potentially fatal disease must have been devastating. It was not until Mr. Smith attended hospital for treatment of a chest complaint that the enormity and horror of the situation was revealed.
  1062
  This is an astonishing state of affairs. Mr. Smith had been told that he was unlikely to survive beyond his teens. He was not examined thoroughly at any time until the age of 58. It would be surprising if, at some time during that period, it had not occurred to him that there was something wrong because the prognosis had not materialised. It is clear that, for whatever reason, he did not discuss the matter with his general practitioner, and no inquiries were made as to how it was that he was still in the land of the living. One hopes that such a total breakdown of communication between patient and the NHS would not happen today.
  I have made inquiries about the medical notes, to which my hon. Friend rightly attaches considerable significance. Unfortunately, every attempt has been made to trace those notes, but without success. I understand that the Liverpool health authority has copious notes on a file dating back to July 1954, all of which Mr. Smith has seen for himself. He is concerned that entries may be missing, but no one can say for certain that they are.
  Significantly, legislation governing the security of medical records and a patient's right of access is a comparatively recent development. The actions of the clinician working at a pre-NHS hospital in the 1920s, who is long since dead, are not covered by existing guidelines. It is Mr. Smith's misfortune to be in a unique position that is not covered by any known guideline or procedure.
  We have no reason to believe that the original doctor acted in anything other than good faith, bearing in mind the extent of medical knowledge at the time and the rapid advances in treatment and diagnostic techniques that followed. I accept that successive GPs must have had access to some form of written record to persist with the treatment for more than 50 years. That was investigated by the old Liverpool family health services authority, which contacted all Mr. Smith's former GPs in 1992. The health service commissioner, who was unable at the time to investigate clinical decisions, found no suggestion of impropriety by the FHSA in the retention of or access to Mr. Smith's medical records.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will find some reassurance in the knowledge that, if there were any way to remedy the situation, we would do so without delay. It gives me no satisfaction whatsoever to say that every possible method has been tried, and that no adequate solution has emerged.
  I sincerely regret the unfulfilled years of Mr. Smith's life. I am glad that he is still with us, and that the early ill-founded and misplaced predictions were not fulfilled. I am pleased that he has lived to see the day when we can rely on accurate diagnosis and access for all to appropriate treatment as routine features of the modern NHS. Access to medical records is now the due entitlement of every patient.
  My hon. Friend has pressed long and hard for justice for Mr. Noel Smith. I am sorry that the debate is unlikely to satisfy either of them. I express profound regret on behalf of the national health service. I would be only too happy, if it would assist in any way, to meet Mr. Noel Smith with my hon. Friend at the Department to express to him in person my sincere regrets and the regrets of the health service.
  It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WALES

    Numeracy and Literacy
    Mr. Flynn: If he will make a statement on the standards of numeracy and literacy in Welsh schools. [28398]
    Mr. Ruane: If he will make a statement on the standards of numeracy and literacy in Welsh schools. [28401]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): Standards of literacy and numeracy in Welsh schools are not high enough, and we have, therefore, set very clear targets for further improvement.
    Mr. Flynn: May I say how pleased are the people of Wales that the Government are committed to improving the deplorable standards of literacy and numeracy in our schools, particularly after the reign of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) as gauleiter of Wales, whose legacy was 645 lost teaching posts? Is the Minister aware that firms such as LG in my constituency, which offer the promise of an enormous harvest of jobs, are insisting on high standards of technical skills, which must be founded on basic numeracy standards? Has he specific plans for improvements in our numeracy skills?
    Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend that the standards of numeracy are simply not sufficient. That is one of our legacies from the Tory Government. We are putting in train programmes to improve numeracy skills. I was always uneasy about the fact that my two sons never seemed to know their times tables because they had not been taught them and relied on calculators. Nevertheless, they got good maths A-levels and science degrees at university, whereas I just ended up as a politician despite the fact that I know my times tables.
    Mr. Ruane: My constituency was one of only three in north Wales to participate in the summer literacy schools initiative. The school that participated was Ysgol Llewelyn in Rhyl. The pupils who attended were seven years old, and their reading and literacy skills were dramatically improved over the summer. Has the Minister any plans to expand the summer literacy schools in Wales?
    Mr. Hain: Yes, I have. As part of our programme for raising standards of literacy and numeracy, I am delighted to announce the extension of the summer literacy programme for 1998 to cover every local education authority in Wales. Our intention is to build on the enormous success of last year's pilots, when more than 700 pupils in Wales were given the chance to improve their reading and to discover the world of books.

    Welsh Assembly
    Mr. Lansley: What representations he has received from UK national organisations regarding the siting of the Welsh assembly. [28399]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Da vies): On 3 February, in response to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), I placed in the Library of the House a list of all those who responded during the public consultation exercise.
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply, but I fear that it will not assuage the sense that finding a home for the assembly is descending into, at best, farce. Will he explain why he has narrowed the options for a site for the assembly down to south Wales?
    Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman will know that we had many submissions from all over Wales. I am delighted to take this opportunity to place on record my personal thanks to the authorities, from Swansea and Cardiff in the south through to Wrexham and Flint in north Wales, that showed their interest in and commitment to the assembly.
    It is true, however, that the overwhelming majority of submissions favoured either Cardiff or Swansea. Officials in the Welsh Office are examining several alternatives in Cardiff, and we have a good bid from Swansea in the form of the Swansea guild hall site. Those are the sites that commanded widespread public support. It seems right and proper that we should discuss more details with the promoters of those options so that, eventually, within about a month, I shall be able to announce the final site. I have no doubt that that will command widespread support throughout Wales.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, during the Conservative years, for every £1 that the Welsh Office spent in Swansea, it spent £5 in Cardiff. Will he reflect on the fact that the choice of site is one of the few decisions that is entirely under his control, and that he can help to decide whether the new Wales is over-centralised or diffused through what we hope will be the all-Wales, Swansea solution?
    Mr. Davies: I am conscious of the submission by my hon. Friend's local authority, and of the arguments that he, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) have advanced in support of the Swansea bid. However, it is not a simple matter. I have to weigh in the balance the Swansea submission, offering, as it does, what we have described as the all-Wales option, and the Cardiff option, which will be based on an institution. I have to take full account of both the cost-effectiveness of each scheme and the broader political considerations. It will be a difficult choice, but I will take into account the matters that my hon. Friend has raised.
    Mr. Ancram: With the benefit of hindsight, does the right hon. Gentleman now regret ever launching this beauty contest for the assembly site, particularly as it was

    1065
    done only to save his face after the mess that he made in his negotiations on Cardiff city hall? How much has that cynical, face-saving exercise—in which he has merely arrived back where he started—cost the council tax payers of Swansea, Cardiff, Wrexham and other councils? Does not his peremptory decision to exclude Wrexham and Flintshire from Monday's shortlist send a chilling message to north Wales that his pious assurances of even-handedness in the whole of Wales are no less empty and cosmetic than this whole sad and expensive exercise has turned out to be?
    Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman has only a passing knowledge of the matters that have taken place in Wales over the past couple of months. I shall deal with two of the points that he has raised. The question of submissions has been one for local authorities. The enthusiasm that they have shown to house the assembly clearly shows that local authorities—be they Wrexham, Cardiff, Swansea or any other of the many that have made submissions—think that the assembly will be good for Wales and for democracy, and will bring increased employment opportunities to whichever location eventually houses it.
    The reason why the submissions for Cardiff and Swansea have been selected is that they are the ones that have commanded broad support. The decision to exclude submissions outside Cardiff and Swansea was taken not lightly, but on the basis of careful costing of the submissions and careful analysis of the support that those submissions attracted. If the right hon. Gentleman favoured a submission from Wrexham, Flintshire, Rhondda Cynon Taff, Merthyr or Bridgend, why on earth did he not say so? Why did he not write to tell me what his preference was?

    Education Funding
    Mrs. Betty Williams: If he will make a statement on the funding of primary and secondary education in Wales and its distribution to schools. [28400]
    Mr. Hain: Individual local authorities decide on their budget for primary and secondary schools.
    Mrs. Williams: I welcome the additional £50 million that has been announced for Wales. Will my hon. Friend confirm the exact additional amounts for Gwynedd and for Conwy in my constituency? Furthermore, will he confirm that special needs will not be neglected and will also benefit from additional resources?
    Mr. Hain: I thank my hon. Friend. Gwynedd will receive about £1.9 million and Conwy over £1.6 million of the additional £50 million spending on school budgets in Wales. I give her the assurance, especially as I know of her close family interest in special educational needs, that we are determined to improve provision and to adopt a much more flexible level of provision. I will certainly bear in mind her submission to me in response to our Green Paper on the matter.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Is the Minister aware that, despite the additional funding that his Department is making available to local authorities, a number of schools in my constituency and elsewhere are still predicting that
    1066
    teachers will be lost this year? Has he made an assessment of the number of teachers who might be lost to our schools in Wales this year and, if he finds that the number is reaching an alarming level, will he reconsider the level of resources?
    Mr. Hain: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, particularly against a background when, under the Conservatives, 1,800 teachers in Wales lost their jobs. That is the appalling record and legacy that we inherited. I see no reason why, in either the hon. Gentleman's local education authority or any other in Wales, any teacher's job should be lost, especially when we have put an additional £50 million straight into the schools' budgets. I shall be monitoring that carefully to ensure that it goes into schools and is not siphoned off into general local government expenditure.
    Mr. Touhig: One of the obstacles to implementing the new deal in my constituency is the many jobless youngsters who lack literacy and numeracy skills. They were the people who were betrayed by the Tories' failing to provide adequate resources at primary and secondary levels. Will my hon. Friend look into that matter and see what he can do to help bridge that gap in the most basic of all skills?
    Mr. Hain: Yes, I will, and we have been considering the problem since we took office in May last year. We are determined to drive up literacy and numeracy skills. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the shabby record that we inherited. Of the additional £50 million for schools' budgets, £1.5 million has been specifically earmarked for literacy schemes. In addition, another £1 million will be allocated for literacy and numeracy projects to ensure that we tackle the basic core skills which must be enhanced in Wales.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Minister acknowledge that up to half the money provided to reduce class sizes could be swallowed up in the teachers' pay award? On top of that, what does the Minister intend to do about teacher recruitment in key subjects in secondary schools, which is falling to crisis levels? Words come easily, but they will not provide extra teachers in primary or secondary schools, and class sizes in Wales will continue to increase, making this yet another broken Labour promise.
    Mr. Hain: On the contrary, Wales now has a Government who keep their promises and who are determined to deliver higher educational standards. It is rich for the hon. Gentleman to lecture us on school cuts when school after school in Wales suffered savage cuts during the last few years of Conservative Government.
    The specific answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that £7 million of the overhang on the 1997 teachers' pay settlement will fall on this year's budget. An additional £19 million of the staged pay increase this year will fall on this year's local authority budgets. That should take up less than half the £50 million because the Secretary of State has provided a general uprating for local government over and above what would have been provided by the Tories. There is therefore no reason to reach for teachers' pay settlements or any other excuse, let alone one from the Conservatives, to try to drag money out of school budgets this coming year.
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that with the onset of democratic devolution, there is an

    1067
    opportunity to develop an education policy more attuned to the specific needs of Wales? Does he further agree that there is no reason why that process of diversity should not begin now?
    Mr. Hain: I very much agree. Since we took office, we have been developing a distinct educational agenda for Wales. The first ever White Paper on education in Wales was published in July. We shall similarly be publishing in the spring the first ever Green Paper on lifelong learning in Wales. All that, including the School Standards and Framework Bill, is designed to ensure that we devolve opportunities for developing an educational structure to meet the needs and values of Wales, rather than the alien programme that we had thrust on us by the Conservatives, under the likes of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), during the past 18 miserable years.

    Tuition Fees
    Mr. Clappison: What meetings he has had with student organisations in Wales to discuss tuition fees. [28403]
    Mr. Hain: I met the National Union of Students in Wales to discuss the Government's proposals for the funding of higher education, which included the issue of tuition fees.
    Mr. Clappison: Does the Minister think that the prospect of paying tuition fees for a full five years—rather than for three or, at most, four years in the case of other courses—will make able Welsh sixth-form students more or less likely to choose veterinary science as a subject for study? Will the Minister meet representatives of Welsh veterinary students to discuss this question?
    Mr. Hain: I should be happy to meet representatives of Welsh students to discuss this or any other matter and, as I said, I have done so. The full five-year provision is made in respect of medical and dental students, but veterinary students are not covered. I have received no representations on the matter. If the hon. Gentleman— who is an English Member of Parliament—wishes to raise the issue, I suggest that he takes it up with an English Education Minister, not the Welsh one.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Is the Minister concerned by recent figures which show that the introduction of tuition fees is deterring a number of adults from making applications to universities? Does he recognise that, for many adults, to be accepted by a university is a major achievement, but that to be unable to take up that opportunity because of tuition fees would be the ultimate tragedy?
    Mr. Hain: I would be concerned to find any adult or any other student in that predicament. If my hon. Friend has any examples, perhaps he could bring them to my attention. In Wales, more than one third of students are in families who will not be covered by any tuition fee. In addition, more than a further third are in families where the parents do not earn the requisite amount at which the full £1,000 will be levied. That means that only one quarter of students in Wales will pay the full £1,000 fee.
    1068
    That message has to be got across to ensure that low-income students are not deterred from taking up a university place.
    Mr. Dafis: Is it not the case that the Government's proposals will do nothing to solve the problem of student poverty, to which the Minister began to refer? Even though students from low-income families are exempt from fees, they will lose the grant and will be that much worse off than they would be under the present arrangements. In any case, the total loan available to them will be well below what is necessary to survive for a year. How does this square with the Government's rhetoric about opening up opportunities for students from low-income families? By the way, what has happened to the White Paper on lifelong learning?
    Mr. Hain: The paper will be coming in the spring. The hon. Gentleman's specific point is legitimate, but no student from a low-income family should be deterred from taking up a university opportunity. The loan will be repayable only if the individual gains a job and earns more than £10,000 a year—and then over a long period when that individual is in work—so each individual from a low-income family will be better off than they are now. Under the present arrangements, students must take out loans which they must start to repay immediately they leave university. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain to his constituents that for low-income students, the proposed financial arrangements should be seen as an opportunity, rather than a handicap.
    Mr. Ancram: Would the Minister be prepared to issue a leaflet to Welsh students, explaining how the Prime Minister's assurance last April that he had no plans to introduce tuition fees can grammatically and logically be translated into, "We are not only going to introduce tuition fees but, for good measure, we will abolish the maintenance grant as well"? While he is doing that, could he explain why a student at a Scottish university who comes from Newport in Wales will have to pay £1,000 more in tuition fees than a student from Newport in the Republic of Ireland? Is that what the Prime Minister and the Government meant when they asked students to trust them?
    Mr. Hain: May I say in the nicest possible way to the right hon. Gentleman that it comes ill from a Conservative party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] He asked a series of questions, as it happens. The questions come ill from a member of the Conservative party which set up the Dearing committee to examine the crisis in higher education that the Conservative Government had created. The Dearing committee recommended that tuition fees should be introduced. We assessed that recommendation, and proposed a system that is both fair and logical. If we had not done so, we would have been saddled with a series of universities nearing bankruptcy, which is the fate that awaited them had the Conservatives retained power on 1 May.

    Welsh Referendum
    Mr. Swayne: If he will instigate an inquiry into problems arising in the counting of votes in the Welsh referendum; and if he will make a statement. [28404]
    Mr. Ron Davies: There has been not one substantive allegation of impropriety in the referendum count. There are no outstanding problems and there is, therefore, no justification for an inquiry.
    Mr. Swayne: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that members of his own party described what reigned on the night as chaos? If the Secretary of State is not going to re-establish public confidence by holding an inquiry, what does he intend to do? Already, counties are campaigning to be exempted from the provisions of his Government of Wales Bill. Will he grant their requests?
    Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that one question was raised by members of my constituency party. It was dealt with fully and comprehensively by the returning officer. I repeat the challenge that I made to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) a month ago. If the hon. Gentleman has one substantive allegation, he should bring it forward and let us have the evidence. If he does not have such evidence, he should stop abusing the privilege of the House of Commons by casting aspersions on the integrity of decent, hard-working public servants.
    Dr. Marek: Will the Secretary of State focus his mind not just on impropriety, but on muddle? It would be very helpful to the people of Wales and those of us who fought for devolution if he could give the House a clear assurance that, if all the doubtful votes had been counted adversely, there would nevertheless have been majority for devolution. Such an assurance would go a long way to putting the problem to rest.
    Mr. Davies: Of course I can give that assurance. I remind my hon. Friend that I answered all these matters fully and comprehensively in a series of written answers to the questions tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) in January. Every question that has ever been asked on this matter has been answered truthfully, frankly and comprehensively. If the previous Government had had this Government's record of honesty, they would not have lost every parliamentary seat in Wales on 1 May.
    Mr. Paterson: There is doubt in the public mind. The actual result was only 168 votes a constituency in favour. The Secretary of State's bluster is just not good enough. If the assembly is to go ahead, it must do so on a sound basis and not on the shifting sands of doubt in areas that voted no.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I made a statement last week that questions must be put. The hon. Gentleman did not put a question; he made a statement. I shall be careful not to call him again for some time. [Interruption.] Order. Is my statement being challenged in some way?
    Mr. Davies: It is not a question of whether devolution proceeds; it is a question of when it proceeds. The hon.
    1070
    Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) will know that the Government of Wales Bill is proceeding apace through the House of Commons. If he feels that there is any doubt about the validity of the referendum result, he should explain why he and his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are actively co-operating with the Government to get the legislation through the House of Commons as quickly as possible.

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. Rowlands: If he will make a statement on the reconfiguration of NHS trusts in Wales. [28405]
    Mr. Denzil Davies: If he will make a statement on the progress of NHS trust reconfiguration in Wales. [28407]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): I launched the trust reconfiguration exercise to improve the quality of hospital and community health services in Wales through the establishment of a more effective and efficient structure of NHS trusts.
    The review will lead to improvements in the planning and delivery of services to patients, the replacement of competition between trusts with a new collaborative approach, and the transfer of considerable resources from management and administration towards direct patient care.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Bro Taf health authority proposal to merge East Glamorgan and North Glamorgan trusts commands no support? It does not command the support of the vast majority of clinical and medical staff, the community health councils or the communities. Instead of heeding the word of a quango, will my hon. Friend heed the words, wishes and feelings of the people of the communities that the trusts are supposed to serve, and those who serve in them?
    Mr. Griffiths: The proposals made by every health authority in Wales will be considered by the group that I have set up to estimate what best can be made of their proposals. Where there are dissenting voices, the health authority has to report that to the group. I shall make decisions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State based on all the evidence, not just one proposal.
    Mr. Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware—I think that he will be aware of it—that all the evidence from my constituency is against the recommendation of Dyfed Powys health authority to abolish the local hospital trust? There is much talk of consultation. If my right hon. Friend is looking for more evidence, will he consult the patients in my constituency, who will tell him the same thing?
    Mr. Griffiths: Apart from addressing a meeting of about 400 people in Llanelli town hall, at which my right hon. Friend was present, I have visited the hospital, spoken to consultants, spoken to the campaign group and spoken to relatives of mine who have been patients at the hospital. All that will be taken into account when we consider the reconfiguration of trusts in my right hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Livsey: Given the Government's
    White Paper on the NHS, in the reconfiguration exercise, will the Minister

    1071
    please consider the total support of general practitioners in Powys for an NHS primary care trust? Will he assure me that he will not deny GPs their wishes?
    Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will know that I cannot make any such commitment from the Dispatch Box. I have before me many proposals affecting the whole of Wales. 1 shall consider all of them before I put concrete proposals to everyone in Wales for further consultation. I am determined that the £5 million to £10 million that can be made available for patient care as a result of the exercise is used as effectively as possible.
    Mr. Llwyd: As health is to be one of the main responsibilities of the Welsh assembly, would it not be better to stand back and allow the reconfiguration to take place when the assembly has had time to look at it? It is surely bizarre that the new reconfiguration should come into being a few days before the assembly takes up its work.
    Mr. Griffiths: The great advantage for members of the assembly will be that they will have an extra £5 million to £10 million a year to allocate to health services in Wales, thanks to our prompt action in carrying out the reconfiguration exercise.
    Mr. John Smith: Is it lawful for the Cardiff Community Healthcare trust to take over the patient services at Sully hospital, which is owned by another health trust, before the reconfiguration and without any consultation whatsoever?
    Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend knows that I have taken a close interest in what has been happening in his constituency; I can say that everything was done in a legal and correct manner, and that it will not affect any decisions that we have to make on the reconfiguration of trusts in his part of the world.

    New Enterprises
    Mr. Wigley: If he will make a statement on his Department's strategy to help generate new enterprises; and what plans he has to provide resources to match the proposed reduction in resources being provided by the training and enterprise councils in Wales for local enterprise agencies. [28406]
    Mr. Ron Davies: I am anxious to encourage the formation of more good-quality enterprises. A range of exciting and innovative programmes are under way in Wales. Through the business connect scheme in particular, we shall support enterprise with skills training, mentoring and advisory assistance. The Welsh Office will shortly be contracting with the TECs for the management of the new programme and it will be for them to determine local delivery arrangements with relevant organisations, including the local enterprise agencies.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the development of new enterprises in north-west Wales is being emasculated by the cuts in resources for CELTEC? That £4 million pound cut will result in Antur Menai, the enterprise agency in my constituency that has
    1072
    developed more than 100 new enterprises, having its money halved; and in valuable schemes such as the training for enterprise business course, the local initiative fund and enterprise allowance being scrapped. Is that the way in which we are going to get necessary new jobs, or is it the price that we have to pay for the money that is going into the profligate LG project in Newport?
    Mr. Davies: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should want to take issue with the creation of about 6,000 jobs in south Wales. I can assure him that it is my desire to ensure that we have economic prosperity in all parts of Wales, including his constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). I am aware of the funding difficulties of the North Wales TEC and the problems to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, but the budget of the TEC has not yet been finalised. When it has been finalised, it will be for the TEC to enter into arrangements with local enterprise agencies.
    I should point out that, this week, we launched the new deal in Wales and that about £200 million will be available both for the creation of job and training opportunities for young people and to those who wish to start up their own enterprise. That is part of the package, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I, and the Government as a whole, are committed to getting economic prosperity throughout Wales.

    The Prime Minister was asked—

    Engagements
    Ql.[28428] Helen Jones: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today, and in addition to my duties in the House, I shall attend a dinner in the City of London with Chancellor Kohl.
    Helen Jones: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the first transfer of money from the assisted places scheme to cut class sizes in my constituency and in many others? Is that not an excellent example of Labour education policy? It is good for children, parents want it, teachers welcome it and the Tories oppose it.
    The Prime Minister: Primary school class sizes rose by more than 40 per cent, in the past 20 years. The additional money from phasing out the assisted places scheme is the first instalment to get class sizes down for five, six and seven-year-olds in Britain. It will mean that 100,000 children are in class sizes of under 30 who would otherwise not have been. It is an excellent example of how the education programme of the Government is working well for the children of Britain.
    Mr. Hague: I thank the Prime Minister for accepting the Opposition amendment in last night's debate on Iraq, supporting the Government's policy, but emphasizing

    1073
    the importance of clear objectives. Does he agree that the UN Secretary-General takes to Baghdad the strong support of the British people for the attempt at a peaceful solution to the present crisis; but does he also agree that that solution must ensure the enforcement of the UN mandate on weapons of mass destruction?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I do agree with that. I am delighted—indeed, it is in no small measure due to British diplomatic efforts—that Kofi Annan can go to Baghdad with the full and united support of the five permanent members of the Security Council. We hope that his mission will succeed, but whether or not it does will depend, of course, on Saddam. However, we should be very clear that his mission is within these parameters: full compliance with the UN Security Council resolutions on weapons inspections; no inhibition or condition that prevents the inspectors from gaining full access to the sites that they need to inspect; nothing that undermines in any way the integrity of the weapons inspection process. Saddam agreed at the end of the Gulf war to let the inspectors do their work and destroy those weapons of mass destruction and he must and will be held to that agreement. Our resolve on that is right, and it is immovable.
    Mr. Hague: I am grateful for the Prime Minister's reply, and for his reaffirmation of the position. Will he also look carefully at the suggestion made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), that we should consider how we might best ease the hardship of innocent people in Iraq, if necessary by delivering aid directly under UN authority and bypassing the Iraqi regime?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, and I welcome very much the suggestion that was made by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), as well as the content of his speech, which I thought set out excellently both the problems that we face and the fact that the course that we are taking is the only viable solution.
    Of course we want to do all that we can to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people. Our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people; it is with the dictator Saddam Hussein. We shall support—indeed, have been vigorously promoting—the idea of increasing the oil-for-food programme. We shall ensure what could easily happen if Saddam Hussein wished it to—proper humanitarian aid going to his people. Of course that is right, and, at the same time as rightly taking a strong line against Saddam Hussein, we shall continue to do all we can to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people.
    Mr. Dennis Turner: Will the Prime Minister join me in celebrating this week of British beef? You yourself, Madam Speaker, graced us with your presence this lunchtime in celebrating wonderful cuts of beef—steaks, braised beef and boiled beef. Whatever hon. Members
    1074
    want today in the House of Commons, it is there—British beef. I invite all hon. Members to join me in celebrating this glorious week of British beef.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I should be delighted to join that celebration.
    Mr. Ashdown: For the avoidance of doubt, I place on record what the Prime Minister already knows—that Liberal Democrats fully support the Government's position and the Prime Minister's comments on Iraq.
    On a different point, can the Prime Minister confirm these two facts: first, that public finances are not in deficit, but in surplus; secondly, that national health service waiting lists are going not down, but up?
    The Prime Minister: It is correct that the January figures, as they often do, show a repayment of national debt, but we are still expecting a borrowing requirement— the Chancellor will obviously give details of that when he makes his Budget statement. I should say to the right hon. Gentleman that I believe it absolutely essential to keep a tight rein on public spending.
    The right hon. Gentleman will know that waiting lists have been going up since March 1995; it is our pledge to get them down, and we shall get them down. In the meantime, we have put extra money into the NHS— £300 million more than the Conservative party promised. We shall carry on doing what we can to ensure that we get those waiting lists down
    Mr. Ashdown: It is precisely on that matter of doing what we can to get those waiting lists down that I think there is some doubt. I remind the Prime Minister that he fought the general election nine months ago on a card— [Interruption.] Hon. Members might like to listen for a moment. The card contained some early pledges, one of which was to bring down NHS waiting lists by 100,000— those were the Prime Minister's words, not mine. In the nine months since the election, NHS waiting lists have gone up by 1,000 a week. The question that some are asking is how long it takes before an early pledge becomes a broken promise.
    The Prime Minister: It will be met, as I have explained. In their manifesto, the Liberal Democrats—I do not have the right hon. Gentleman's pledge card with me—pledged an extra £1.1 billion for the NHS over the first two years of government. Actually, this Government are putting in £1.5 billion. Of course, the moment that we do that, he says that he wants even more. I am afraid that not even in Liberal Democrat economics does 2 plus 2 make 10.
    We must ensure that we keep within the tight public spending limits, as I shall not have us go back to the boom and bust that the Tories gave us, when we had record interest rates, record repossessions, record bankruptcies, interest rates at 15 per cent, for a year or more, and record national debt. That is the difference between this Government and the previous one. We shall meet our NHS pledge, and when we do, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will congratulate us on it.
    Charlotte Atkins: Does the Prime Minister welcome the support from the Liberal Democrats for the

    1075
    Government's new deal programme? Is he puzzled by the fact that they do not support the windfall tax that funds it? On that basis, could he encourage a Liberal Democrat to become my bank manager?
    The Prime Minister: I am puzzled, but I am not surprised. The Liberal Democrats support the welfare-to-work programme, but they disavow the means of achieving it. We cannot have one without the other. There is no point in willing the end unless one wills the means, and the present Government have willed both.

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Fabricant: If he will visit the Lichfield constituency before 2000; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    Mr. Fabricant: That is a shame; people will be disappointed. Lichfield is a beautiful city, with an 800-year-old cathedral. However, if the right hon. Gentleman does plan to visit Lichfield, perhaps he could meet some of Lichfield's business men, many of whom are worried about the Government's plans to force recognition of trade unions, which they feel are a return to the bad old days of the 1970s. Will he make a pledge, or at least give a sign of hope, that smaller businesses in Lichfield and elsewhere in the country—perhaps businesses employing fewer than 50 people—will be exempt from such plans?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the details of the policy are still under consideration, and they should be announced in the proper way, but I hear the point that he makes. However, I believe that it is important that we have legislation that allows our people the same freedoms that are enjoyed elsewhere in the western world.

    Engagements
    Mr. Canavan: Will my right hon. Friend have a word with his friend, President Clinton, about the multilateral agreement on investment, which would prevent the rejection of an inward investor with a record of damaging the environment, ill-treating workers or refusing to employ local workers? Bearing in mind that the United States of America is proposing that agreement and yet, ironically, has negotiated an opt-out for its own states and local authorities, will my right hon. Friend either reject the agreement in its entirety or negotiate a similar opt-out for local authorities in this country, and for the Scottish Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the answer to that is no. Let me explain why. The multilateral agreement on investment is supported not just by the United States, but by Britain. Indeed, we have been active in promoting it, for a very good reason. Contrary to some of the things that are being said, it does not prevent decent regulations, either on labour standards or on the environment. What it does prevent is means of discriminating against foreign companies, and it is actually very important for British

    1076
    business and British exports that we prevent countries using regulation as a backdoor means of discriminating against foreign investment.
    We are people who gain, in Scotland and elsewhere, from free trade. We want to promote it as much as possible, and an agreement such as this does not, in any shape or form, prevent us imposing decent minimum standards for our work force. It does mean that we, in common with other countries, cannot use that as a back-door method of discrimination. I think that, once that point is understood, people will support that investment agreement.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Under the Prime Minister's proposals for compulsory trade union recognition, does a majority of the work force mean a majority of those voting or a majority of those entitled to vote? [28431]
    The Prime Minister: As I have just said to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), a range of issues are being discussed and considered, and it would not be appropriate or right to give an answer until the consideration is over.
    Ms Beverley Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many thousands of women, including many in my constituency and in the north-west, work for poverty pay, and that millions of pounds are spent subsidising the worst employers? Therefore, is not the national minimum wage a good deal for the country, but vital for women? Are not the Tories continuing to fail women by opposing it?
    The Prime Minister: Literally hundreds of thousands of women will benefit from a statutory minimum wage; that is one of the reasons why we are committed to introducing it. It is also important that we reduce the vast benefits bill—now running at more than £3 billion a year—for subsidising low pay.
    Every other country in the civilised world has some minimum threshold of pay. There is no reason why we should not have one too. It is right for the work force and, what is more, it is better in the long term for the efficiency of our economy. There is no way in which this country can compete as a low-wage, low-skill economy.
    Mr. Hague: Last week, the Prime Minister told me that the Human Rights Bill would not lead to a privacy law and that there was no need to amend it. When did he change his mind?
    The Prime Minister: I made it clear then that there was no backdoor privacy law, and I make it clear again now. That is precisely why the Home Secretary—if people had listened to his speech—said exactly how that could be prevented in the course of the Second Reading debate on Monday.
    Mr. Hague: We all know a U-turn when we see one— even though this is a particularly welcome U-turn. Last week, the Prime Minister said that our questions on this subject were a lot of trivia. This week, what he dismissed as a lot of trivia is now Government policy. While he is in the mood to accept amendments, will the Prime Minister also accept the Lords amendment that guarantees

    1077
    religious freedom? People of all faiths are worried that, under the Bill as drafted by the Lord Chancellor, religious schools may have to accept as teachers people whose way of life or faith is incompatible with the ethos of those schools.
    The Prime Minister: On the first point, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, last week, I said that we should consider the representations of the Press Complaints Commission and others. We considered them and we came up with an answer that the right hon. Gentleman appears to agree with, yet he still criticises us.
    In relation to the second point—I think that the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) raised it last week—we said that we should consider it. The Home Secretary is still considering the matter. When we have a proper opportunity in the course of debate to make our position clear, we shall do so. My information is that there has been no active, practical problem with this so far. We are discussing whether we need an amendment to make it absolutely clear.
    Mr. Hague: We know that the Prime Minister and the Government are considering the matter. However, the Human Rights Bill is more than halfway through its passage through Parliament, and it is time that the Prime Minister stopped dithering and made up his mind. The Lord Chancellor could have sorted it out ages ago if he were not so busy flicking through furniture catalogues. When will the Prime Minister make the decision that the Churches and religious schools are waiting for? Does it not worry him a bit that, for the second time in two weeks, he must consider amending the Human Rights Bill in order to protect human rights?
    The Prime Minister: No, it does not concern me at all. It is entirely sensible, during the passage of a Bill in which the overwhelming majority of issues are supported by members of the public, to consider points that are raised during debate. If we were not considering them, the Leader of the Opposition would attack us for that. I do not understand the purpose of this interchange. As for furniture and fittings, that is something that has occupied the Opposition more than us.
    Caroline Flint: Is the Prime Minister aware that 90 per cent, of lone mothers would like the opportunity to work? [Interruption.] Given the start that the Government have made in supporting and promoting the new deal programme, what more can be done to enable women to take up the four options in the new deal and encourage businesses and employers to play their part in assisting women into work?
    The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is interesting that Opposition Members jeer and shout about the prospects of getting lone parents back into work. They appear unable to ask a serious question about any issue that actually concerns members of the public.
    As a result of the Government's actions, an extra £300 million will be available for people to bid into for child care programmes. One of the biggest inhibitions that lone parents face in getting off benefit and into work is that they cannot get enough help with child care. This
    1078
    fund, which is especially set aside over and above the Conservatives' pledge, is there precisely to help them to do so. I am delighted that my hon. Friend supports it.
    Mr. Breed: Will the Prime Minister visit Fowey and St. Barnabas, Saltash hospitals in my constituency and explain to the patients, doctors and nurses there why, when the Government pledged to save the NHS, those hospitals are about to be closed? As a Liberal Democrat former bank manager, I am quite used to looking at both sides of the balance sheet. Why does the Prime Minister concentrate only on expenditure and fail to use any additional income that he has received to help relieve some of the misery in the NHS in Cornwall?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman was a bank manager. There should be a job going as the economic spokesman for the Liberal Democrats.
    Additional money is going into the national health service, but it will take time to turn it round. We have always made that clear, because it is necessary to make sure that we bring the public finances under control. We are putting more money into the health service than the Liberal Democrats asked for in their election manifesto. It will take time, but it is better to make sure that we get there in a way that is consistent with running a stable economic ship, rather than do it in the way that the Liberal Democrats suggest, which is to spend money on every problem under the sun, trying to pretend that it grows on trees, when in the real world it does not. That is the difference between government and opposition.
    Ms Blears: In the national press yesterday, the Langworthy area of Salford was described not as Coronation street, but as desolation street. It is true. Good, decent families are terrorised by crime and drugs, and surrounded by dereliction, as a direct result of 18 years of uncaring Tory policies. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me and local people that this Labour Government will tackle the desperation in our inner-city areas caused by the Tories?
    The Prime Minister: Some £900 million of capital receipts has been released, and there is a £3.5 billion welfare-to-work programme, the additional £200 million that is going to help pensioners with their fuel bills, and the £300 million that I mentioned for child care. For the first time, through the social exclusion unit, there is a Government who are trying to deal with all those inner-city problems—poverty, housing, unemployment and poor educational opportunity. It will take time, but we shall do it, and my hon. Friend's constituency and others throughout the country will see the benefit and the difference between this Labour Government and the previous Conservative one.
    Dr. Tonge: Has the Prime Minister seen the recent letter to the press from three former and very distinguished members of the armed forces, calling for a more restrictive arms policy? Will he assure the House that his proposals for the European Union code of conduct on arms sales will be strong enough to prevent another scandal like the arms to Iraq scandal, so that we never have to face an enemy that we ourselves have armed?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely share that objective. Any action that is taken on a European level must be

    1079
    negotiated with other European Governments, and the hon. Lady will know that there are sometimes difficulties in doing that. Our commitment is firm. The idea of a code that operated on a Europewide basis was an initiative of this Government. We shall prosecute it as speedily as we can.
    Mr. Skinner: Was not the best news this week the announcement that there is an extra £10 billion in income tax receipts? That will be very helpful in the Budget.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the rest of the Cabinet, most of whom are spending Ministers, will be able to take part in an exercise that will take us further and further away from the discredited policies of the previous Government and their Tory spending plans. We must wean ourselves away from those in order to save a little for a rainy day and elections—[Laughter.] Oh yes, and long term. We must make sure that the bulk of that money is used to repair the national health service, renew our education system and repair the social fabric. There will be no tax cuts for the rich, and we shall leave the Tory leader fiddling away with his zero-hours contract.
    The Prime Minister: Yes; I agree with most of that. The measures that we have taken on the economy will bring the public finances back into balance and cure the Budget deficit left to us by the Conservative party, which will for ever be known as the party of boom and bust. We are not going back to those days. Precisely because of the prudent way in which we have managed the economy, we shall be able to get the investment into our health service and schools that the country wants.
    Mr. Fearn: Is the Prime Minister aware that three theatres and three arts centres have closed in north-west England over the past few months, and that museums there are in a desperate state? Not only that, but Southport pier, which is the longest pier in Europe, is in danger of being lost for good. When will the north-west of England get a fair crack of the whip?
    The Prime Minister: We are trying to ensure that it gets a fair crack of the whip. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments that I have already advanced to the Liberal Democrats. We made a commitment that we should live within the spending constraints that we inherited. Many of those constraints were unrealistically low in many ways because of various things that were supposed to happen but did not under the previous Government. As soon as we can get help to the north-west and other areas, we shall.
    However, I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we do not make the mistake that was made at the end of the 1980s, when people thought that the economy was fine and that we could put ever-rising amounts of money into it. Then, two years later, under the Conservatives, we had record interest rates of 15 per cent., record borrowing, record bankruptcies and record repossessions. If we are cautious, it is for a good reason.
    Kali Mountford: When the Tory party was telling us that Britain was booming, many small businesses in my constituency were going bust. Do not small businesses need economic stability for growth? In particular, should
    1080
    we not encourage them to take part in the new deal, which will present both them and the people they can then employ with an opportunity?
    The Prime Minister: We have been delighted by the response from many small employers, as well as large, to the new deal. About 800 employers have already signed up to it. We believe that there will be many, many more. I know that many Members—I hope on both sides of the House but I know certainly on the Government Benches—are organising meetings of the employers in their areas to try to get them interested in the new deal. The scheme has generated enormous enthusiasm among many young people who wanted the chance to work and who are now being given it by the Government.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: I return to the subject of trade union recognition in the hope that the House can have a clear answer to the questions put by my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). Does the Prime Minister agree with the Confederation of British Industry that trade union recognition should require a majority of those in the workplace to vote in a ballot? May I have an answer, yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: No, the hon. Gentleman cannot, until the consideration is out of the way, which is what I have explained to the hon. Members for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) and for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). The hon. Gentleman would not expect, when there is a consultation process under way, for me to pre-empt it now. As soon as the decision is made and the consideration is completed, we shall come and tell the hon. Gentleman.
    Qll.[28438] Mr. Winnick: With reference to last night's overwhelming majority vote, does my right hon. Friend agree that whether or not military action is taken depends entirely on the Iraqi dictator and no one else? Can more be done to nail the lie—it is a lie—that it is the United States, Britain and other countries that are engaged in warmongering, when every effort is being made, as my right hon. Friend said today and as we know, to enable diplomatic efforts to reach a solution? The responsibility for military action, if it comes, must surely lie with the Iraqi regime and no one else.
    The Prime Minister: Yes. If you will permit me one moment, Madam Speaker, I shall explain to the House briefly why the presidential sites are particularly important.
    In the first few years of the existence of the United Nations weapons inspectors' programme, the inspectors became convinced that Iraq was operating a mechanism to conceal the amount of weapon-making capability that there was. The breakthrough came in 1995, when the son-in-law of Saddam defected to Jordan and said that such a programme was going on. He later returned to Iraq and was murdered. It was then clear that organisations such as the Special Republican Guard and others were involved in concealment and that that involved presidential sites. The inspectors could not get access to those sites but they could see equipment being moved around inside them. Some of those sites are vast compounds—not just palaces—with hundreds of buildings within them.

    1081
    The inspectors could see equipment being moved around and documents being burnt. For that reason, they started to ask for access to them. Effectively, they have been refused that access for the past two years. That is why this all arises. The idea that this has suddenly come up or that we have suddenly started to take seriously the possibility of those presidential sites being used for weapon-making capability is wrong. We have seen this all the way through. That is why it is important that we make Saddam back down. Iraq is saying, "You can go into those sites, but only once." We have to be able to go into them regularly, to monitor them. It is absolutely vital that we ensure that we are able to get into those presidential sites. That is why we have taken the action that we have.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the Prime Minister recall giving a pledge during the general election
    1082
    campaign, when he told ITN that the Labour party wanted to extend the scope of PEPs and TESSAs, so that the idea that it would take any action against them was completely absurd? Is he aware that not only I but many other hon. Members have received letters from the public, who are greatly exercised at the action taken by his Chancellor? Does he not feel a sense of shame that he has betrayed so many ordinary people, many of whom put their trust in him?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that in any shape or form. In fact, as a result of individual savings accounts, more people will be able to save. Under the current proposals, a couple will be able to put £100,000-worth of savings into it. It is important— whatever the Conservative party may think—that millions more ordinary people will be able to save for the first time.

Hillsborough
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Hillsborough stadium disaster.
Few events in recent years have touched the lives of so many people. The families and friends of the 96 Liverpool fans who died at Hillsborough have suffered immeasurably. The whole nation has been profoundly disturbed by what occurred that day. Although almost nine years have now passed, many of the families and others felt very strongly indeed that new evidence was available that would cast new light on the events. As Home Secretary, I was determined to do all that I could to establish whether that was indeed the case.
On coming into office in May last year, I gave that question intense and urgent consideration, and on 30 June, I announced to the House that the Attorney-General and I had decided to appoint Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, a senior Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal, to conduct an independent scrutiny of the matter. His terms of reference were
"To ascertain whether any evidence exists relating to the disaster at the Hillsborough Stadium on 15 April 1989 which was not available;
(a) to the Inquiry conducted by the late Lord Taylor; or
(b) to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General for the purpose of discharging their respective statutory responsibilities; or
(c)to the Chief Officer of South Yorkshire Police in relation to police disciplinary matters;
and in relation to (a) to advise whether any evidence not previously available is of such significance as to justify establishment by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of a further public inquiry; and in relation to (b) and (c) to draw to their attention any evidence not previously considered by them which may be relevant to their respective duties; and to advise whether there is any other action which should be taken in the public interest."
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith has now submitted his report, which I am publishing today. It is available in the Vote Office. His scrutiny is the latest in a series of lengthy and detailed examinations of the evidence in this case. The public inquiry led by the late Lord Justice Taylor considered fully the causes of the disaster and made wide-ranging recommendations about crowd control and safety at sports events. Those have had a profound and positive effect on both crowd safety at football grounds and on the policing of football matches.
The deaths that occurred were also the subject of inquests conducted by the coroner for the Western district of South Yorkshire in two parts in 1990 and 1991. Those inquests involved more than 80 days of public hearings. A further investigation was conducted by the West Midlands police, supervised by the Police Complaints Authority, to establish whether there were any grounds for criminal or disciplinary proceedings against the police. That investigation involved taking more than 5,000 statements. At a later stage, in November 1993, a judicial review of the coroner's proceedings upheld the inquest verdict of accidental death and the conduct of those proceedings. We have now had this further detailed scrutiny by a senior Lord Justice of Appeal.
1084
The main causes of the disaster have long been clear. They were identified by Lord Taylor in his interim report in August 1989. Lord Justice Taylor did not attribute all the blame to a single cause or person, but in paragraph 278 of his report he made it clear that
"the main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control".
Both Lord Taylor, and now Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, have been damning in their condemnation of the senior officer in charge that afternoon, the then Chief Superintendent Duckenfield. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith refers in his report to
"Mr. Duckenfield's disgraceful lie"
about—one of the gates at Hillsborough—
"Gate C being forced open by fans".
The South Yorkshire police have in turn accepted the main share of responsibility for the disaster. Sheffield Wednesday football club and the local authority were also criticised by Lord Taylor.
With any major disaster, it is almost inevitable that, over time, some new information may become available, but that does not necessarily mean that the outcome of any previous inquiries would have been different. What is crucial is not just whether the information is new, but whether it is of such significance—to use the phrase in the terms of reference—as to justify a new inquiry.
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith has considered in great detail all the evidence put before him. That included all the relevant evidence presented to the earlier inquiries and inquests. He has looked equally rigorously at all the information presented to him, by individuals and official bodies, including those representing the families of those who died and others who have acted in support of them. He has produced a thorough and comprehensive report and goes into immense detail to analyse and reach conclusions on each of the submissions made to him.
Let me briefly summarise what Lord Justice Stuart-Smith says on the key allegations relating to video evidence and the cut-off time of 3.15 pm for the inquest, and allegations of interference with witnesses. I refer first to the video evidence. Two sets of allegations were made to Lord Justice Stuart-Smith about video evidence. They were, first, that video tapes were stolen from the club's control room to conceal material evidence from the earlier inquiries. There is no dispute that the theft of two tapes took place. The tapes were pictures from the club's closed circuit television cameras, not from police cameras. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith says that, in any event, the tapes would have shown nothing significant. Moreover, he is satisfied that all the police tapes were made available in their entirety to Lord Taylor's inquiry and to the coroner.
The second allegation relating to video tapes, with which Lord Justice Stuart-Smith deals at considerable length, was made principally by Mr. Roger Houldsworth, a video technician at Sheffield Wednesday football club. It was that the police had blamed their failure to see overcrowding in pens 3 and 4 on camera 5 being defective, when it was not; that evidence of the video tapes taken by camera 5 was deliberately suppressed and concealed; and that two police officers gave deliberately false evidence that camera 5 was not working correctly.

1085
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith says that the police did not try to blame their failure to spot overcrowding on the terraces on faulty CCTV equipment. He says that the police controllers had a good view over the terraces from the control box, and did not pretend otherwise. He also concluded that
"the importance of Mr. Houldsworth's evidence has been exaggerated out of all proportion",
and that Mr. Houldsworth's existence and evidence were known to the Taylor inquiry and to the coroner. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith concludes that the allegation that the police hid video tape evidence of the terraces is "unfounded".
There are allegations about the conduct of the inquest, and in particular about the cut-off time of 3.15 pm. One of the issues that has unquestionably caused most distress to those bereaved at Hillsborough was the decision of the coroner to rule that all those who had died had received the injuries that caused their deaths by 3.15 pm.
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith says that the coroner did not say that all those who died did so before 3.15 pm, or that all those who became unconscious subsequently died. It was only in relation to how or by what means the deceased came to their deaths that the cut-off time was imposed. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith says that the cut-off time did not limit the inquiry undertaken by the inquest, and that he does not consider the inquest to have been flawed. The Taylor inquiry considered in detail the response of the emergency services after 3.15 pm as well as before, and concluded that no valid criticism could be made of them.
The main allegations concerning interference with witnesses were that specific witnesses had had pressure put on them by the West Midlands police, and that the South Yorkshire police had collected evidence from their own officers in an unacceptable manner.
On the first allegation, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith concludes that there was no improper attempt to alter the evidence of those witnesses. On the second, he records that a number of the initial statements made by South Yorkshire police officers were subsequently amended on the advice of solicitors to the force before being submitted to the Taylor inquiry. He says that in a very few cases, which are referred to in appendix 7 of the report, what was excluded was either factual or comment in which factual matters were implicit. He says that
"it would have been preferable"
for those matters not to have been excluded, but he is satisfied that Lord Taylor's inquiry was not in any way inhibited or impeded by what happened.
The report also deals comprehensively in appendix 10 with the 10 questions posed by the Granada Television programme in December 1996.
Taking those and all other considerations into account, the overall conclusion that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith reaches is that there is no basis for a further public inquiry. He also finds no basis for a renewed application to quash the verdict of the inquest, and he concludes that there is no material that should be put before the Director of Public Prosecutions or the police disciplinary
1086
authorities that could cause them to reconsider the decisions that they have already taken. He also concludes that none of the evidence that he was asked to consider added anything significant to the evidence that was available to Lord Taylor's inquiry or to the inquests.
I, the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions have considered Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's report very carefully. We have no reason to doubt his conclusions. That will, I know, be deeply disappointing for the families of those who died at Hillsborough and for many who have campaigned on their behalf.
I fully understand that those who lost loved ones at Hillsborough feel betrayed by those responsible for policing the Hillsborough football ground and for the state of the ground on that day. I hope and believe that the changes that resulted from the Taylor inquiry will mean that such a disaster will never happen again.
However, there is another sense in which the system has failed the Hillsborough families. As Lord Justice Stuart-Smith says in chapter 7 of his report:
"I understand the dismay that they have that no individual has personally been held to account either in a criminal court, disciplinary proceedings, or even to the extent of losing their job".
That highlights some of the serious shortcomings in the police disciplinary system. Earlier this year, the Select Committee on Home Affairs produced a report that made major recommendations for change. I shall respond fully to that report soon, but what happened after Hillsborough is a prime example of why we must improve the current arrangements.
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith also comments on whether coroners' proceedings are appropriate at all in respect of a major disaster that has already been the subject of a public inquiry. He endorses the recommendation of a Home Office working group on disasters and inquests—published in March 1997—that the role of the coroner after such a public inquiry should be limited.
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's report emphasises the exceptional difficulty of the coroner's task in conducting the main inquest. It placed an unreasonable and, I think, unnecessary burden on the families involved, given that the Taylor report had covered substantially the same ground. Certainly, I am sure that Hillsborough proved that the inquest system in its present form is an unsuitable means of dealing with disasters of that kind. I think it would be far better—above all, for the bereaved families—if there were one fully comprehensive inquiry into the causes of death and the wider circumstances.
When I instigated the scrutiny, I said I would do my best to ensure that the evidence considered by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith was published. Most of the main material that he has considered is contained in appendices to his report. Much of the other evidence that he has considered is already in the public domain, consisting of transcripts of public hearings or material considered by the Taylor inquiry. As I told the shadow Home Secretary, I am arranging for the other material considered by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith to be placed in the Library of the House, save where there are overriding reasons for doing otherwise. Let me make it clear that the material that will be published will include all the original statements made by South Yorkshire police officers, together with the amended versions submitted to the Taylor inquiry.

1087
All hon. Members will have profound sympathy with the families and friends of those who died at Hillsborough. We can scarcely begin to comprehend what they have suffered. In his report, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith says:
"I realise that my report and advice will come as a disappointment to them"—
the families and friends of those who died—
"especially since they have had their hopes raised that something more could be done. But I cannot allow compassion to cloud my judgement. I have had to look dispassionately and objectively at what is said to be fresh evidence, in the light of the evidence which had previously been considered".
My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and I have had to consider Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's report in the same light, and we accept its conclusions.
The entire country is united in sympathy with those who lost loved ones at Hillsborough. We cannot take the pain from them, but I hope that the families will recognise that the report represents—as I promised—an independent, thorough and detailed scrutiny of all the evidence that was given to the committee.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: I thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy in letting me have early sight of his statement, and even earlier sight of the report. It is a long report, and, as the right hon. Gentleman will understand, I have not had the opportunity to read it all, but I have read carefully the chapter that summarises the findings in Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's own words. I also thank the right hon. Gentleman for his willingness to publish all the material, both unamended and amended. I am sure that that was the right thing to do.
We, like Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, express great sympathy for the relatives of those who died, and the spectators who were injured. We, too, find it difficult to imagine anything more horrific than the experience of those who endured it, and of those who lost their families—including children—in that appalling incident.
I have four questions on the report. First, is the Home Secretary satisfied that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith fully examined all the so-called new evidence that has emerged, not least from the families, since the Taylor inquiry? Is he personally satisfied that none of it was newly significant? Secondly, is he satisfied that the families' complaints about the so-called 3.15 pm cut-off point have been comprehensively addressed by the judge? No doubt the right hon. Gentleman realises that, although his decision to establish this independent scrutiny was broadly welcomed, it always carried the risk that it would heighten expectations, particularly those of the families who were involved. That brings me to my third question. Does he accept that they will be disappointed by the outcome of the inquiry and that some of them may feel let down?
My fourth and final question to the Home Secretary is this. By agreeing that there is no basis for a further judicial inquiry; for a reopening of Lord Taylor's inquiry; for a renewed application to the divisional court; for the Attorney-General to exercise his powers under the Coroner's Act 1988; or for any new material to be put before the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Police Complaints Authority, is he suggesting to the House and the country that matters relating to what happened and
1088
how it happened in the worst tragedy in British sporting history are now closed as far as the Government are concerned?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening comments. Of course, the whole House agrees with the eloquent and compassionate words that he used to express some understanding of the nightmare that the families have faced since that afternoon. He asked four questions, the first of which was whether I am personally satisfied that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith fully examined the new evidence, or the claimed new evidence that has emerged. Yes, I am satisfied, and so is my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
It does not follow that, when one establishes an inquiry of this kind, one is bound to accept its conclusions, but, as the right hon. Gentleman will have seen from the summary in chapter 7, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith has conducted a most careful examination of the evidence and has reached clear conclusions. It would have been extraordinary if my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I had not followed those conclusions in those circumstances.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I am satisfied that the families' complaints about the 3.15 pm cut-off point have been dealt with satisfactorily in the report. I am satisfied about that, so far as the report is concerned. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith states on page 41, paragraph 12 that in his view the coroner had been "widely misrepresented" about what the 3.15 pm cut-off point was meant to mean. He states:
"It should be noted that the Coroner did not say that all those who died did so before 3.15, or that the medical evidence was to this effect."
The point about the 3.15 pm cut-off was much narrower. I do not think that that will be accepted by the families. The combination, the conjunction, of the coroner's inquest before and after the major public inquiry raises concerns about the purpose of such inquests when there is such a major inquiry, about which I commented in my statement.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the families will be disappointed. Inevitably, there was always a risk that in accepting, as I did, that there was, prima facie, sufficient new evidence needing this kind of scrutiny, the families' hopes would be raised and that that could lead to one of the four possibilities that are mentioned in the terms of reference. That was inevitable. I do not in the least think that it was wrong to set up the inquiry, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman supported me in doing so.
The families are disappointed. With your permission, Madam Speaker, I saw them at 2.15 pm this afternoon and, again with your permission, I gave them copies of the report. They are upset, disappointed and angry about its conclusions. They are also angry that I have accepted those conclusions. I understand that, but what I ask them to do—and, obviously, what they were not able to do in the three quarters of an hour that I had with them—is to read the report carefully and, I hope, in time, to come to understand that the establishment of this further scrutiny and the way in which Lord Justice Stuart-Smith conducted it show great respect for their bereavement and continuing concerns.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I believe that, as it were, this matter is now closed. We are announcing today that there are no grounds for

1089
reopening a further full public inquiry of the sort that was conducted by Lord Justice Taylor, the coroner's inquest, disciplinary matters against the police or certain other matters. Those are our decisions, and they will have to stand.
The feelings of the families will live with them for ever, so the matter is not closed in that sense. All of us who have lost children in any circumstances have some understanding of the way in which people never get over the deaths of children, even if they die from natural causes; it is still more terrible if they die from violent causes such as this. However, there are other lessons that we have to learn. As I have said, those relate to the purpose of coroners' inquiries, to the fact that we should not put families through the mill twice, as happened in this case, and to the need to change the police disciplinary system.
Mr. Eddie O'Hara: One has to live on Merseyside to understand the palpable sense of grief, resentment and anger that still exists in our part of the world at what we regard as the continuing injustice as a result of the Hillsborough affair.
My right hon. Friend has rightly pointed out that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith had to consider two questions: was there new evidence; and was it sufficiently strong to be a basis for reopening the inquiry? I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 14 and related paragraph 13 on page 41 of the report, which deal with the 3.15 pm cut-off, which is one of the most important sources of anger. Referring to new evidence about whether people were alive after 3.15 pm, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith says:
"it is difficult to see the relevance of further evidence that person A was alive at 3.15 pm but died subsequently"—
referring to whether people might have survived if they had been given better medical treatment. He justifies that conclusion by referring to the divisional court, which rejected such grounds, concluding that such questions
"were not relevant to the inquiry into how—i.e. by what means— the deceased had come to their deaths."
If a person had a cardiac arrest in hospital and was not satisfactorily treated, would that be regarded as simply death by cardiac arrest, or would the consideration of neglect come into it?
Mr. Straw: The point that my hon. Friend raises is often raised in relation to the conduct of inquests. It comes up when, for example, there have been allegations of deaths in custody and in many cases when there has been a violent or unexpected death. The relatives believe that part of the purpose of the inquest is to allocate blame for what has happened, whereas the purpose of the inquest is much narrower: to try to identify the cause of death. It is in that context that Lord Justice Smart-Smith makes his remarks. It is important to recognise that all that he says in paragraph 14 on page 41 follows the decision of the divisional court, which followed a thorough judicial review hearing, not to grant a reopening of the inquest.
Again, my hon. Friend flags up a need for changes in the way in which investigations are held into major disasters such as Hillsborough. I repeat that we believe that, in future, there should be what are called mini-inquests into the immediate causes of death,
1090
followed by a comprehensive inquiry, which, in practice, would include the purposes of subsequent main inquests under a senior judicial figure, and a final, formal inquest, which would simply receive the main inquiry's report. In our judgment, that would be a far more satisfactory way of dealing with these matters, and far less frustrating to the relatives and friends of the bereaved.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Although the report has not provided the Home Secretary with support for a further general inquiry, does he recognise that this outcome will make it even harder to lift the cloud of grief and frustration that hangs over the families and friends of those who lost their lives? Bearing in mind Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's reference to the "disgraceful lie" of a senior police officer, the evidence of material omitted from police evidence and Lord Justice Taylor's assertion that the principal cause was a police failure, is it not understandable that the families will be bitterly disappointed that the door seems finally to be closed on any disciplinary action against particular individuals who should bear some responsibility? Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at that aspect of the issue and give priority to a reform of police disciplinary procedure?
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman asks whether it will not now be even harder to lift the clouds of grief over the bereaved families. I cannot speak for them, but it would have been far worse had I not set up this further scrutiny. They came forward with serious new allegations and it was important that they were examined by someone of the experience and distinction of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right—there can be no dispute about it—that the families are bound to be bitterly disappointed by the fact that no one has taken the blame for what happened. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith makes that clear and shares the bitter disappointment of the families, as do I and, I believe, the House. As I said in my earlier remarks, that underlines the need for there to be significant changes to the police disciplinary system.
Mr. Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend has mentioned in the context of the report his consideration of the future conduct of inquests. Will he extend his review to consider carefully the way in which relatives are treated during inquests? They are treated in a most dispassionate way, which results in much of the grief that is expressed vocally by many of the people, including my constituents, who suffered in this terrible tragedy.
Mr. Straw: Yes, I will. We have the helpful report of the disasters and inquests working group, established under the previous Administration, which made recommendations in March last year. Part of the reason for the frustration—often anger—at inquests, of relatives and others who are bereaved, goes back to a misapprehension about their purpose. To some extent, that will be dealt with by the kind of changes that I have already outlined for inquiries into major disasters.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: My right hon. Friend acted promptly and properly in commissioning the scrutiny, for which I thank him. I agree that the bereaved parents will remain upset,

1091
disappointed and angry. In that knowledge, will he give the matter further consideration? Does he accept that it is not possible for all of us at this early stage to assess the report's full implications and to read it in detail to form our judgment? Therefore, will he support calls for an opportunity for the House to consider the report further, so that we may give a reasoned assessment of the report and attempt to deal with the unresolved problems and traumas faced by the parents? I support them in not wishing to leave matters simply as they stand.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her opening remarks, and I fully understand her concern— which is widely shared—that there should be a debate on the matter. I am probably one of the few who has had an opportunity to read the report thoroughly, and I shall pass on my hon. Friend's remarks to my right hon. Friend the President of the Council. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take them into account.
Maria Eagle: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for his consideration in seeking your permission, Madam Speaker, to speak to the families first before making it. He has accepted the deep disquiet that they feel as a result of the report by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, and I know that it is deep. I particularly welcome my right hon. Friend's undertaking to publish all the available evidence. What would his attitude be if, at some stage, the families were to consider private prosecutions or taking further action?
Mr. Straw: Subject to certain constraints, individuals in this country may take private prosecutions. That is entirely a matter for them and for the judicial processes. It would be improper for me to comment.
Mr. Derek Twigg: I speak with some knowledge, as I was on the terraces at Hillsborough that day and not in some directors' area. I had to wait for two hours to see whether my friends were alive, and I know that a number of people from my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) were killed on that day.
May I express my bitter disappointment—not at the Home Secretary, whom I thank for organising the scrutiny—but at the conclusions of the report? The families will be bitterly disappointed by the fact that no one has been brought to justice, and such an injustice does not give confidence in our judicial system. I ask my right hon. Friend for his comments on that. If we cannot have a debate on the Floor of the House on the report, would you, Madam Speaker, be prepared to allow an Adjournment debate on the subject in the future?
Mr. Straw: Of course I understand my hon. Friend's personal feelings in the light of the fact that he was present on that terrible day. I understand, too, that those feelings will live with him for the rest of his life. The families are bitterly disappointed and, as I said, I hope that their disappointment will be directed at my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and me as well as at Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, because it is our view that he has done a thorough, comprehensive and detailed job with the utmost integrity. He has gone into all the allegations carefully and, as he said, it was his job to look at the evidence presented to him and to put compassion
1092
aside, as the families would have wished him to do. It is a matter of huge frustration that no one has been brought to justice. That represents severe defects in terms of police discipline, and I have spoken about the need for that to be changed. It is not possible to put the clock back nine years to do so.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be deep unease on Merseyside and elsewhere, and that people will feel that there is no justice in this world? Does he further accept that because few of us have had the opportunity to read the report—although he was kind enough to analyse it with the parents—far more scrutiny is required by the House of Commons; possibly by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which should be asked to report?
Furthermore, I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) and ask that there should be a proper debate following a reasonable period to allow us to read the report. For example, it would seem that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith ruled as not significant a couple of videos stolen from Sheffield Wednesday. How on earth could he say that they were not significant if he had never seen them? Many questions have been raised by the report, and the parents will not feel that justice has been done until they are answered.
Mr. Straw: Lord Justice Stuart-Smith explains why he came to that conclusion and how he could judge that the videos were not significant when he had not seen them. One of the videos was from a misplaced camera angle. It was known that it had been pointing at a wall. Therefore, the tape was of no value, even though it was stolen. As for the other video, two points are made. One is that it was a club video. Police videos in part covered the same area. In addition, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith makes the point that the police admitted that they could see with their own eyes what was going on on the terraces and did not need this crucial video evidence. That is one example of why it is very important that everybody should read the report's details. When they do, they may be reassured that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith has gone into the matter in great detail and with great care.
That brings me to my hon. Friend's first point. I have already accepted that it is a matter of fact—there is no question about this—that there is great disappointment among the bereaved families and friends of those who died on that terrible day. I do not think that it is correct to say—to pick up my hon. Friend's words—that there is no justice in this world. On reflection, he will perhaps accept that Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry was conducted impeccably, with great thoroughness. There has been no criticism of either the way in which he conducted that inquiry or his conclusions. That may be only partial justice in the context of this terrible tragedy—it is partial justice. I understand that the conduct of the inquests was controversial, but that has a great deal to do with the system of inquests, and that was not found to be unjust.
It is inevitable that an inquiry's conclusions may be uncomfortable to one side or another. I hope that those who read the report will understand that it represents a thorough inquiry in the best traditions of British justice.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: As one of the Members of Parliament who represents the Nottingham

1093
area, may I take this opportunity, on behalf of those Members, to express our sympathy with the families and people of Merseyside? Does the Home Secretary agree that the people of Nottingham, along with those on Merseyside, will want a full and frank debate on the report, which amounts to more than 200 pages and has only just been published today? Will he do all that he can to ensure a full debate, so that people will have the opportunity to express their views and opinions to me and other Members of Parliament, and we can express those views in the Chamber?
Mr. Straw: I accept my hon. Friend's point. I should have made the point in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) that there is obviously considerable feeling about the need for a debate. I shall pass that on to my right hon. Friend the President of the Council.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Home Secretary aware that I find it difficult to believe that 95 people were killed but nobody is to blame? Is he further aware that inquests on the deaths of many people, such as after mining disasters and for this matter, are not fit and proper places to start the procedure? He would do well, during this Parliament, to introduce measures to ensure that inquests are fit to deal not just with the death of three people in a house fire but with mass disasters. I have never believed that inquests are competent to do the job.
Will the Home Secretary do me a favour? If, perchance, there is another unfortunate incident of this kind, will he not invite these tinpot judges and justices—distinguished though they may be—to deal with the problem? I have never believed that they understand working-class culture. Over the past few years, all these people—Lord Justice Scott, Lord Justice Taylor, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith— have been investigating matters. What do they really know about what makes working-class people tick?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend makes the point that no one is to blame. It is not the case that the earlier inquiries found no one to blame. Indeed, on page 49 of his interim report—Cm 765—Lord Justice Taylor was explicit and damning. He said:
"the main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control".
There has been no cover-up of that. There was a failure of police control, and Lord Justice Taylor pulled no punches whatever in reaching that conclusion. I hope that that gives the lie to my hon. Friend's suggestion that judges are incapable of holding investigations into matters of this kind. I note that, whenever there is a call for an inquiry, there is a great demand for members of the Court of Appeal to hold them.
It is inevitable that not everyone will be satisfied by the result of an inquiry because such judgments defy human behaviour. However, Lord Justice Taylor's report showed great understanding of soccer and soccer culture. He was an ardent soccer supporter himself. I had the occasional discussion with him about it. That is one of the reasons
1094
why he was chosen to hold the inquiry. When my hon. Friend has had a chance to digest Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's report, he will appreciate that it has gone into the allegations with great care.
Mr. Tony Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is that clear evidence that will make it impossible for the families to accept disappointment, inasmuch as they know that the police failed and that nothing is being done about that?
Will he say a few words about the evidence that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith put forward in respect of the stolen tapes? Surely, if the stolen tapes are missing, we must ask two questions: first, who was responsible for that theft, and, secondly, for what reason were they stolen if not for concealment? It is for that reason that I add my support to the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) for a full debate in the House to examine the individual pieces of evidence and missing evidence before coming to a conclusion.
Mr. Straw: I appreciate that I am one of the few people who have had the benefit of reading the report. If my hon. Friend reads it, as I know he will, he will see that the question of the two missing tapes is dealt with in some particular detail. I have explained why Lord Justice Stuart-Smith reached the conclusion that he did about whether the fact that they were stolen was significant.
This goes back to the point that I made at the beginning of my statement. When we consider whether a major public inquiry into events that took place nine years ago should be reopened, with all the inevitable problems caused by the effluxion of time, the issue has to be not only whether there is new evidence—which there might be—but whether it is of such significance as materially to alter the conclusions of the first inquiry. That is what Lord Justice Stuart-Smith has examined. He has come to the conclusion I have described about the two missing tapes.
It is a matter of supposition why the tapes were stolen. People steal things for the purposes of concealment or for more prosaic reasons. They may have wanted the tapes for their own use. No one has ever been apprehended for the theft of the tapes, but in the circumstances described and set out in the report, it is palpable that they were not material to the question whether the police were to blame for failing to recognise that a serious disaster was taking place at the Leppings lane end. That was the issue.
If Lord Justice Taylor had said that the police were not to blame and that the tapes were likely to disclose why, the tapes would have greater significance. However, Lord Justice Taylor said that the police were to blame. He also pointed out—this was confirmed by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith—that one of the reasons why the police were to blame was that they did not have to rely on video evidence; they could see with their own eyes what was going on, and they failed to make proper decisions following that.
Mr. Ross Cranston: May I take my right hon. Friend back to the issue of police discipline and the feeling among the relatives that no one has been brought to justice? May I ask him specifically whether Lord Justice Stuart-Smith addresses the issue of early retirement by police officers to avoid disciplinary procedures? May I press him for a speedy response to the Select Committee on Home Affairs report on police discipline?
Mr. Straw: I have already referred to Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's remarks about the fact that no one has been brought to justice and that no one has suffered any disciplinary proceedings or even lost their job as a result either of those terrible events, or of Lord Justice Taylor's clear conclusion that a failure of police control was the principal cause of the disaster. By implication, it is clear that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith is not happy with what happened, and neither are we. I have looked in great detail at the helpful report from the Select Committee, of which my hon. Friend is a member. As I said earlier, we intend to make an early announcement about that matter, with a view to improving the system of police discipline.

Point of Order
4.21 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given you prior notice of this point of order, which concerns the accuracy of statements recorded in the Official Report. We all judge the Official Report to be of immense use when we write our speeches or assemble arguments, and it is important that statements recorded in it are accurate, so I ask your guidance. On 21 January, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Ms Palmer) introduced a ten-minute Bill about air weapons. I have spoken to the hon. Gentleman and we have discussed the matter, although sadly he cannot be here this afternoon. I should say that I wish him no ill and I am sure that it was confusion of facts, rather than any other cause, which led to this point of order.
The Official Report states:
"In the past few years, one police officer was killed and another 7,000 injured by airgun attacks."—[Official Report, 21 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 1014.]
However, in response to a written question from me, the Home Secretary said that, although he had no figure for the past two years, he could find no fatal injuries and a total of 22 injuries recorded during eight of the past 10 years. I can find no other evidence of anybody being killed. Every policeman injured is a serious matter, but the discrepancy between 22 and 7,000 is large, and I wondered whether you could give your judgment on that, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The answer is a polite no. It is not a point of order the hon. Gentleman is challenging the figures used by another hon. Member and that is not a matter for the Speaker, but a matter for debate and argument. It is not for the Speaker of the House to determine the figures or to become involved in arguments about the substance of debates. The hon. Gentleman may try to use other methods to bring the matter to the attention of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer).

Water Industry (Amendment)
4.22 pm
Mr. David Kidney: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision
with respect to the water industry.
The Bill is to amend the Water Industry Act 1991 and for connected purposes. In short, it is a Bill about sewage, or, more precisely, about the sewers and the works that take away our sewage. It is not an engaging subject, I admit, but it is a very necessary function. The Bill would correct what I believe is an unfair omission from the privatisation of the water industry as carried out by a previous Conservative Government.
Around the country, especially in rural areas, are a number of small sewage works that were excluded from the privatisation of the water industry. That leaves the owners with the continuing liability for the cost of maintenance and upkeep. Since 1991, the environmental standards imposed on those works have been raised, adding to the financial burden on owners. I give as an example Stafford borough council, owners in the years before 1991 of a number of small sewage works provided under public health and housing provisions. Today, those works service a mere 160 or so households in rural areas. The cost of that is ridiculously high, as service on such a small scale is hopelessly uneconomic. If you will excuse the pun, Madam Speaker, it is not the council's business.
As a result, the council has to choose one of two unattractive options. It must either require the service users to pay a service charge many times in excess of the water company's charging rates, or subsidise the charge using other people's council tax and rent payments. In 1996, the cost to Stafford borough council of such a subsidy was almost £100,000 for the year.
Under the 1991 Act, an owner in that situation can ask the water company to adopt the sewage works, but the water company cannot be compelled to do so. In the event of a disagreement between the company and the owner, an appeal may be made to the regulator, Ofwat. The adoption procedure, including the appeal procedure, is contained in section 102 of the Act. The criteria that are set out in the section stack the odds against the owner.
My Bill would turn that around and place an obligation on the water company to adopt the sewage works. It would substitute a new section 102, which would provide that an owner or any of the owners of a sewer or a sewage disposal works may request that a water company make a declaration to adopt such a sewer or works.
The company would be required to make, within four months of such a request, a declaration that the sewer or works are to be vested in the company. The specified date
1098
of vesting must be no later than six months after the date of the declaration. That framework provides an overall maximum time scale from request to adoption of a year. In the event of a dispute, an appeal would lie with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. For a water company not to carry out the procedure would be an offence, subject to the defence of due diligence.
The Government who devised the sale of the water industry considered that question ahead of the 1991 Act. A consultation paper on water and sewerage law was issued in March 1986; it stated that the Government foresaw that the problems of private sewers would increase unless remedial action were taken. It therefore proposed that all sewers and private sewage works should be transferred to the water companies. The paper continued:
"The cost of the proposal is difficult to estimate but water authority figures suggest that it could range from £10 million to £30 million per annum in extra maintenance expenditure nationally, depending on the assumptions made. This compares with total water authority revenue of about £2.5 billion. These increased costs, if passed on in higher sewerage charges, would add little to the average annual bill."
I am confident that most hon. Members would regard that proposal as a fair and reasonable solution to a future problem that the then Government had anticipated. But what happened? The Government completely reversed their position, and excluded such sewers and sewage works from the Bill. I believe that the fair and reasonable solution was abandoned in favour of maximising the privatisation receipts.
Sewage may not be the most glamorous or engaging subject for our consideration, but I hope that the attention of the House can be captured by a call for fairness and equity in whatever circumstances it may arise. Therefore, on behalf of those few private owners such as Stafford borough council, which have been disadvantaged by the 1991 Act, I ask the House for leave to present this amending Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Kidney, Charlotte Atkins, Mr. Peter Bradley, Mrs. Janet Dean, Mr. David Drew, Ms Julia Drown, Dr. Brian Iddon, Jacqui Smith, Mr. Tom Levitt and Ms Joan Walley.

WATER INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT)
Mr. David Kidney accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the water industry: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March, and to be printed [Bill 124].

Social Security
4.29 pm
The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
Madam Speaker: I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Amendment Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
Mr. Field: The main uprating order increases social security expenditure by £2.5 billion. In these uprating debates, it is a tradition that we are able to look at social security in the round rather than discuss the detail of the uprating orders, and I wish to follow that tradition today.
There are a number of reasons for celebration. It is the first uprating for nearly 20 years that a Labour Government have introduced to the House. This year also celebrates the 400th anniversary of this nation taking national action to combat destitution. It is also the 50th anniversary of the implementation of the Beveridge system. Therefore, on a number of counts, it is appropriate that we are holding this debate and that it should be wide-ranging.
However, the uprating order uprates benefits that are, in the main, of a pre-Beveridge structure. Although there has been a tenfold real-terms increase in social security expenditure, and although the proportion of gross domestic product spent on social security has increased from a little under 4 per cent, to well over 12 per cent, of GDP, we are operating under a system that owes its origin to the pre-Beveridge age.
I want to develop that point briefly to the House, and in so doing to present information on how much of our social security uprating and the total bill is today determined by a structure of benefits that operated before the Beveridge scheme came into existence. That shows in this area, as in many areas of government, how the dead hand of the past influences not only the present, but the future.
Some hon. Members may be as surprised as I am to learn that £5 in every £8 that we spend in the current year on social security is spent on a benefit structure that pre-dates Beveridge. In other words, only £3 in every £8 we spend results from the legislation that followed the Beveridge report, or subsequent social security legislation following 1948. That is one of the background reasons why the Government are undertaking such a thorough review of welfare provision in this country.
We therefore have a social security budget approaching £100 billion, which shows a growth in expenditure of £43 billion since the previous Labour Government left office. If we are not merely concerned with the extent to which the dead hand of the past continues to operate on how that huge budget is spent, it is important for the
1100
House to consider how the claimant roles have changed, for that also makes a case for the welfare reforms that the Government will shortly introduce.
If we now regard 1948 as a dividing point, when both the national insurance scheme that Beveridge advocated and the National Assistance Act 1948 came into force, we find that, then, two thirds of people drawing benefit were retired and, obviously, a third were below retirement age.
Of those claiming benefit then, there were few single parents, and few who could be deemed to be long-term sick and disabled. Today, more than two thirds of those who claim benefit are below retirement age. That fact lays the basis for the Government's programme of a modern, active service, which the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), has done so much to promote energetically since last year's general election when Labour took office.
It also provides the rationale and the basis for many of the programmes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced. For example, the welfare-to-work programme ensures that those aged between 18 and 25 have opportunities to re-enter the labour market. It also underpins the reason why we have introduced pilot projects to increase the contact that lone parents have with the labour market, and why we seek bids from groups that promote the interests of the long-term sick and disabled as to the sort of projects that they wish the Government to back at this stage of our welfare reform.
An issue that we wish to register in the debate is the effect of the dead hand of the past on current expenditure. As I said, about £5 in every £8 that we spend on social security each year is determined by a benefit structure that predates Beveridge and his report—let alone the legislation passed by the House following the publication of that report. That is part of the background to the major welfare reform that the Government are undertaking.
It is also important to comment on how the world has changed since Beveridge wrote his report and this House debated it, as that is pertinent to the current reform of welfare. I shall mention five major changes.
First, when Beveridge published his report, there was unanimity that the state should extend welfare coverage. The Government plan to reform and extend welfare, but I believe that consensus now favours a mixed economy of welfare. Although the state plays a crucial role in provision, it will also play other welfare roles, particularly in the area of regulation. In the future, the state will look increasingly to ensuring that individuals can make choices fairly. That role will be combined with the state's historic role of providing benefits.
Secondly, while we shall aim to increase welfare expenditure, we shall aim also to decrease the proportion of the budget that is covered by taxpayers through benefits guaranteed by the Government. That is a marked change from when Beveridge presented his original report. At that time, the unanimous view was that there would be an increase and that it would be run by the Government— or the state, as some said then.
Mr. Steve Webb: I seek some clarification. Is the Minister saying that there will be an increase in total welfare expenditure, but that it will not

1101
all be public welfare? Does he envisage an absolute decline in state social security spending—not merely in spending as a share of national income?
Mr. Field: I am grateful for that intervention from my hon. Friend—that is what I call him. We are speaking relatively. Therefore, we are talking about which shares will be spent faster than others. The Government's aim is to slow down the rate of increase of social security expenditure, so that some of the budget may be shifted from welfare payments to educational and health opportunities. I was happy to give way to my hon. Friend, who has also made my next point: that there is a difference between the Government's proposals and those that Beveridge advanced.
I hope that it is becoming clear to the House and the country that there are four stages of welfare development in this country. I said earlier that we were celebrating the 400th anniversary of this nation's intent to deal with destitution. For a large part of those 400 years, welfare policy was about dealing with destitution. In this century, most decades have dealt with how to relieve poverty.
Under some of the actions of the previous Government, but particularly under this Government, we have moved to a third stage of welfare, which is how to prevent poverty in the first place. The fourth stage is how we move even beyond that, to provide a range of benefits and opportunities so that individuals can fulfd their full potential.
The question posed by my hon. Friend from the Liberal Benches was relevant, for, if we are thinking of welfare in terms of the third stage—preventing poverty in the first place—and the fourth stage—moving to a situation in which individuals can fulfil their potential—we are less concerned with paying benefits, although that is a crucial function for those who need them, and we are increasingly interested in using public funds—taxpayers' money—to create those opportunities.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: If I understand correctly that the right hon. Gentleman and his Government intend to encourage a more mixed economy in welfare, which I take to mean that people should be able to make their own arrangements, is it not imperative that those who have been saving particularly for their old age should be given every encouragement? Is that not the antithesis of what the Government have so far done in raiding pension funds?
Mr. Field: I am always happy to give way to the hon. Lady. Ever since she has been in the House, she has tried to show that there is some major difference between her point and mine. Both of us are agreed on the fundamental point that those who have funds invested for future pension provision will rely on the health of the economy to pay rich dividends when they retire.
It is therefore important for the hon. Lady not to try to make a cheap debating point against the Treasury Bench, but to take the longer-term view that she usually brings to issues in the House, and to realise that the long-term health of the economy will pay the dividends to pay those pensions. She should not be obsessed, as she wants to appear today, with short-term changes. I beg her to take
1102
her usual longer-term view of the future of the country, rather than the short-term debating point that she makes in that intervention, although of course I was happy to give way to her and will be happy to give way to her later in the debate, if she wishes to catch my eye.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose—
Mr. Field: I give way to another hon. Friend—I call him my hon. Friend because we served so long together on the Social Security Committee.
Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has just said. May I project us into the future, following up my hon. Friend's point?
Does the Minister believe that, for those who may be well enough off today but may not be in the future, there should be fiscal encouragement, which clearly involves the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Treasury Ministers? Does he not believe that there should be fiscal encouragement in the mixed economy that we all support? I am delighted that his speech is constructive and philosophical in that respect. Should not fiscal encouragement be given as part of the package that he is announcing to the House this afternoon?
Mr. Field: My hon. Friend knows full well that that is a question for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not for me. It is an important issue, and the Government are clear about it.
When Beveridge published his report, he hardly mentioned occupational pensions. Large numbers of pensioners are not poor today, thanks to occupational pension schemes. It is important to nurture and spread success, and for politicians to be aware that sometimes the framework in which they view developments can be so limited that they fail to see where the advances are coming from that will deliver the rich rewards from which most of those in occupational pension schemes are reaping the benefits today. I congratulate my hon. Friend, as I have referred to him, on a good try in suggesting that I should answer a question that would be appropriately answered by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that my hon. Friend, as I have called him, will have an opportunity to put the question to my right hon. Friend in the near future.
As this is the last uprating debate before the publication of the Green Paper, I want to conclude my remarks by making a comparison—
Mr. Webb: There will be a statement next year.
Mr. Field: It took my hon. Friend all of seven seconds to realise that it will be another year before we have another uprating statement. I congratulate him on being so quick off the mark.
I wish to end by making a comparison with—
Mr. Nick Gibb: Before the Minister concludes, does he recall the statement made by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security the other week during social security questions—I notice that the right hon. Lady is not in her place today—to the effect that the Government had taken the advice of the Government Actuary and had

1103
acted properly on it? The reality is that the Government have not fully adopted and accepted the advice of the actuary.
Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what the Secretary of State meant? Will he also explain why the Government have not accepted in full the actuary's advice on rebates to private pension funds and to money purchase schemes?
Mr. Field: The Government have accepted in the main the recommendations made by the Government Actuary. In the round, I believe that we have fulfilled what is required of us, given that we asked for and received a report.
The hon. Gentleman has noted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who sits on the Government Front Bench, has tried to make something of that during the day. As departmental Ministers, we are happy to present ourselves as a team. I am happy to underscore the point that my right hon. Friend has been generous enough to allow me the opportunity of presenting the orders. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will reply.
It is interesting that, if I am not speaking, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green says that I am being gagged. If I am speaking, he says that my right hon. Friend should be undertaking the debate.
I said before the last helpful intervention that I wanted to end my contribution to the debate by making a comparison between what Beveridge tried to achieve in his report and what we shall be aiming to achieve in the Green Paper when it is published shortly. It is clear from reading the Beveridge report that he thought that, by extending state provision, he would be achieving what he called a big-bang approach. That is not the approach that the Government have been following or will follow, or that will be detailed in the Green Paper.
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will find set out in the Green Paper a clear idea of the society that Labour hopes that the country wishes to join in building. It will be a contrast with the big-bang approach to which Beveridge gave such emphasis.

The Green Paper will contrast in another sense with the Beveridge report, in that Beveridge was keen on producing a shopping list of policies. In contrast, the Green Paper will give a description of the sort of society that we hope the country will be supporting 15 years hence, as a result of the reform programme that will start following the publication of the Green Paper.
Beveridge was keen on detailing different benefit rates, but that will not be the preserve of the Green Paper. Instead, we shall be setting out clearly the objectives that the Government will hope to achieve by their reform programme. Again, in contrast to the Beveridge report, instead of giving chapter and verse to the genesis of each benefit rate, we shall be presenting in the Green Paper a series of success measurements by which we wish to be held accountable in trying to achieve the objectives that we shall be setting out.
Beveridge thought that his report was the end of the debate. We hope that the publication of the Green Paper will be the beginning of the debate in earnest about
1104
welfare reform in this country. The Green Paper will be followed by a series of proposals on pensions, counter-fraud strategy, and the Child Support Agency.
Mr. David Rendel: The Minister just told us that the Green Paper will be the beginning of the debate. What is the road show about?
Mr. Field: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not pay more attention to the road shows, which have been fairly well covered. I thought that he would have read about them. The road shows were about establishing the need for reform, which has been—and is being— successfully done. Hon. Members even on the Liberal Democrat Benches seem to be generally in favour of the proposed reforms.
This is the last uprating debate before the publication of the Green Paper, and the measures that will follow from it. I have considerable pleasure in commending the draft measures to the House.
4.50 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I suspect that this will be a fairly quiet debate.
I welcome the Minister of State to his position. It is not the case that I am critical when he is not here and critical when he is. I welcome him and the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley). One could not ask for a more generous and reasonable pair on the Treasury Bench to lead the debate for the Government.
My point first—I want to get it out of the way—is not a small, political point but a very real point. The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women is the first Secretary of State since 1978 not to have made the announcement on uprating, which was made in December, or to outline the position at the start of this debate. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, before 1978, there was a slightly different structure but the Secretary of State still came to the Dispatch Box. It is not that the right hon. Gentleman is not welcome; it is that the Secretary of State is not here. The uprating announcement is the biggest thing that happens to social security every year. As he said, it is an opportunity to debate the round, to debate what has been happening in the past year, and how it will affect us.
The Secretary of State's absence seems very much in keeping with the behaviour of her colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who was not present during a huge debate on beef on the bone and spent his time in the Smoking Room. If I did not know about the Secretary of State's habits, I would, perhaps, ask my colleagues to check the Smoking Room to ensure that she is not also there. I gather that the Secretary of State for International Development also was not at the Dispatch Box this morning to hear a rather important debate.
With respect to the Minister of State, this place matters. This is where the power to pass orders comes from. This is where the debate should be held, and the Secretary of State should be held to account. I am not being churlish. I hope that the point is taken and that it is made clear to her that the House is concerned that she is not here. I certainly thought that she would be.
Ms Gisela Stuart: Should I draw any conclusions from the fact that, for the first

1105
time, the uprating orders have been signed by the deputy Actuary, not the Actuary? I understand that the Actuary was not there on that day. I ask the hon. Gentleman for guidance on that.
Mr. Duncan Smith: With respect to the hon. Lady, who is a new Member, silly little tricks such as that are a waste of time. If she cares to look at the Order Paper—
Mr. Field: What is the answer?
Mr. Duncan Smith: Hold on
In the Order Paper, there is one name against each of the draft measures—that of the Secretary of State. If her name is there to move the draft measures, she could at least have respect for the House and be here. That is the answer. I have made a simple point and will now move on. What has happened is in keeping with the way in which the Government constantly treat the House.
As the Minister of State said, the annual uprating order is an opportunity to talk about the detail of this matter. Clearly, it is a straightforward and traditional uplift in line with two measures of inflation, and it would therefore be wrong for anybody in the House to try to block it. It deals with those in need, and it is only fair that those payments should be made at the earliest opportunity. I therefore welcome the order and make no bones about it.
I wish to make one or two small points before going on to deal with the wider subject of social security. When the Conservatives were announcing the uprating in 1995, the hon. Member for Withington said that the freezing of capital and earnings disregards was a problem. There seems to have been a slight change in his position since then, and I hope that, when he winds up the debate, he will explain why. He might like to check Hansard on that.
I suspect that the same logic exists in the general debate on welfare, where there have been a number of changed positions. Before the election statements were made on lone parents; the Government have certainly changed their position on that subject since coming to power. They changed their mind on freezing lone parent benefit. In opposition, the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)—now the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—said that the move would save only £5 million out of a budget of £90 billion. He said that there must be
"some really important objective to include such a tiny measure within those proposals".—[Official Report, 20 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 204.]
If it is such a small measure in relation to the overall budget, why are the Government doing it now? Is it purely for reasons of cost, or is it on principle? Do the Government support the underlying principle?
I wish to discuss two specific areas. The first is pensions, which form the largest part of the welfare budget. Too often in these debates people discuss benefits but miss the point that pensions constitute a growing and sizeable chunk—nearly 40 per cent.—of the overall welfare bill and therefore should be dealt with. Last July, the Government announced a consultation process, which was supposed to be the start of a comprehensive reform of existing pensions arrangements.
1106
However, before the consultation process was properly under way, the Chancellor drastically changed the parameters of the pensions debate. The Minister for Welfare Reform has already spoken about that in response to an intervention. However, by abolishing the advance corporation dividend tax credit, the Chancellor took a significant chunk—some £20 billion—off the funds held by occupational pension funds, and changed the whole pension debate.
In the pensions debate of 9 July, I said that the abolition of the ACT credit would create a massive problem for SERPS because it would, in essence, devalue the rebate. The Minister of State, who is smiling, knows that only too well; indeed, it was clear to those of us who know about pensions the moment the announcement was made in the Budget. I said that we should waste no more time and called for an immediate out-of-sequence review because those who had opted out of SERPS would be in difficulty and would be confused about their position, and those who were thinking about opting out would also have difficulties.
The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who is responsible for pensions, said that those were "arguments of convenience", yet in December the Government began to realise that the decision to abolish the ACT dividend tax credit had done exactly what I and others had predicted, and sent for the Government Actuary to review the matter. That was logical and reasonable, except that it took until December for the Government to get round to doing it. As was predicted back in July, the Government Actuary returned with some sizeable recommendations.
My point today is that that has taken time and created confusion for those in both personal and occupational pension schemes.
Having announced the changes to the rebates, the Government proceeded to implement only part of the recommendation in the Government Actuary's Department report. The Minister said that, in the round, they did the right thing, but I disagree. I think that they have interfered in the process and have tilted the balance against occupational pensions at a time when the Government have legitimately said that occupational pension provision was the right route for many people, as it was a serious and supportive way to provide for their future.
Calculations by the National Association of Pension Funds, Pensions Week and others show that it will cost taxpayers up to £0.5 billion to uprate the rebate for personal pensions to correct the mistake made by the Chancellor in the Budget. By lowering the rebate by more than the Government Actuary recommended, the Government have hammered contracted-out money-purchase occupational pension schemes, and by freezing final salary schemes and not following the Actuary's recommendation that the rebate should be raised, they have also put those schemes under pressure.
An examination of the calculations brings us to the rather cynical conclusion that the taxpayer will pay the cost of correcting the Government's mistake on personal pensions. By not doing what the Actuary recommended, the Government are throwing the problem back on to occupational pensioners. They are asking them to bear the burden of their failure to follow the Actuary's

1107
recommendation. People will be in doubt about what to do about their pensions. They will have to decide whether to go back into SERPS and change what they have been doing for some years, or to stay out and bear the extra cost, which is estimated to be close to what it will cost taxpayers to bail out personal pensions as a result of the changes.
This is the same Government who said:
"We must continue to value the contribution that employers can make to their employees' security in retirement."—[Official Report, 9 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 1037.]
They were strong on occupational pensions, and were critical about the administration of personal pensions, but when it came to making the corrections, they did the opposite. They have had to rob Peter to pay Paul to get out of the hole that the Chancellor got them into when he made changes in the Budget in haste, and did not listen to what the Treasury was telling him about the effect of the calculations.
There is a further serious problem. As I said in July, even if the Government undertake the out-of-sequence review, it will not be implemented until April 1999. People in occupational pension schemes, and even those in personal pension schemes, will have to wait for the next year and a half wondering whether to go back into SERPS or to stay out. Even if the rebate is altered in their favour, they will still have to bear the cost in the meantime. That proposal comes from a Government who have been talking decisively about pensions.
The Minister did not touch on the present review of pensions in his interesting comments about welfare reform. The Chancellor's moves in this area have had a bigger effect than simply cost. The Department has been boxed in, because the key to the resolution of the problem of unfunded pension liability is to deal with SERPS by phasing it out in due course and ensuring that pension provision is funded.
I applauded the Minister for his comments before he came into government. I heartily agreed with him, and I still agree with him. The trouble is that the changes that have been made to the rebate have driven a coach and horses through the possibility of a proper review of pensions. There was one big review and, by the end of the autumn, 2,000 responses had been received from various companies and individuals. That first review told the Government clearly that SERPS had to be phased out, but they could not do that because they had begun to enhance it. So they had to have a second review. There were 191 submissions—quite a difference from the 2,000 that were received the first time.
The reason became clear when companies were consulted. Companies are sick and tired of the review process: they are fed up with it. Having made their submissions the first time, they were asked again to try to get the Government off the hook.
The Chancellor's hand is on this. He has boxed in those at the Department. If it is possible to feel sorry for them, I do. Given that—as I said earlier—pensions constitute about 40 per cent, of the welfare budget, they are a big issue. Arguably, a Government who tackle that—we made serious inroads into it, but the present Government now face the challenge—tackle the greatest part of the problem that accompanies the unending provision of payments from that budget. The challenge and the opportunity are there.
1108
Another aspect is the constant leaking and rowing about what will happen to the basic state pension. The Government have said on a number of occasions that the issue is not for review, and that it is not in the equation; but the real point is the persistent comments about means-testing the pension. As the Minister of State knows better than anyone else, when we are dealing with that issue we need to be cautious in our choice of language and in our delivery of that language.
I am concerned about the fact that so many people seem to have taken the opportunity to comment in speeches. For instance, the other day the Secretary of State for Health was able to comment at one of those roadshows on what would happen to the state pension. I understand that he made clear his view that means testing was definitely on the agenda, and that there would be a complete overhaul of that aspect of pension provision.
We have heard half-denials and acceptances, but, out there, a group of people who currently receive pensions are legitimately beginning to wonder what the position will be. I understand that a Government must govern and must make decisions, and I do not seek to block the Government's route to decisions and review; but I believe that pensioners have a contract to continue to be paid the pensions that they believe they were contracted to receive. I ask the Minister of State, or the Under-Secretary who is to wind up the debate, to take this opportunity to dispel the unnecessary fear that has been generated throughout the country by comments such as those by the Secretary of State for Health.
As I have said, this is a big issue. Perhaps only those receiving disability benefits are as scared as the people affected by it. I urge the Minister to clarify the matter. If he wants to intervene now, I shall be more than happy to give way, but I sense that he does not want to intervene.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend made an interesting point in challenging Ministers to give an assurance in respect of the state retirement pension. Will he now give an assurance that the Conservative and Unionist party has no intention of means-testing the state retirement pension? I am thinking not only of those who are over retirement age and are drawing the pension, but of those who, like me, are about to reach the age of 60. I have been contributing national insurance and tax payments in the belief that, when I reach the state retirement age, I shall be entitled as of right to a state retirement pension, whatever the amount may be at the time—although that pension will be subject to taxation. Will my hon. Friend give a commitment that the Conservative party will not means-test it?
Mr. Duncan Smith: I have no problem in giving my hon. Friend that undertaking. It was the Minister of State who opened the debate about means testing and he made it clear that he opposes its extension across the board. It is for him to say how that squares with the affluence test or means test that has been suggested by the Secretary of State for Health, and the Secretary of State for Social Security who, around Christmas, I gather, entertained the concept of affluence testing and was probably urged to do so by the Chancellor. When the Prime Minister returned from Japan, the right hon. Lady was told to stop talking about affluence testing, and we have heard nothing since. I suspect that the Minister of State is rather pleased at that because he does not have to try to redefine the concepts of affluence testing and means testing.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Is that Conservative commitment by the hon. Gentleman of the same nature as the one that was given in 1979 when pensioners were promised a continuance of the basic pension? Shortly afterwards the earnings-related element was abolished and, as a result, single pensioners in my constituency are now £18 worse off. Married couples have lost more than that.
Mr. Duncan Smith: When we were in government we maintained the purchasing power of the basic state pension. The hon. Gentleman can check any record that he likes. Is he suggesting that the Government are about to re-link the basic state pension to earnings? Does he have interesting information about that? The Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) who corrals him through the Lobby and pages him to tell him what to say may have got the message wrong. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to say that his Government will re-link pensions to earnings.
Mr. Foster: I cannot make a commitment on behalf of the Government, but I understand that they have said that the poorest pensioners will be protected. My constituents were not protected over 18 years when the previous Government were in office.
Mr. Duncan Smith: There we go again: a Back Bencher is unable to make yet another commitment on behalf of a party which promised that it would not change lone parent payments and promptly changed them when in government. We do not need any lessons from such a Government.
I have dealt with pensions, and I hope that the Minister will address the issues that I have raised. I should like to move to the issue of the review. The Minister made an interesting, almost philosophical speech about where the Government should and could go. I listened with great interest and agreed with much of what he said, as I often do. He invited us to be positive, as we have been because we have laid down our criteria on the matter. I said that on welfare reform in general there must be a structured programme: otherwise, there are merely leaks and innuendo and nothing about which to be positive.
I was fascinated by the intervention of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on these matters. He mentioned the roadshow. If the Government are keen to sell the concept of welfare reform, the opposition parties would be happy to help them. The problem arises when we try to define what we are selling. What is the structure? No wonder there is fear.
The more the Government cannot answer questions the more people fear that benefits will be squeezed, changed or abolished. What is the purpose of a roadshow that is presented only to a restricted part of the Labour party? It is absurd. We have to learn, as do the public, from snippets that are given to friendly journalists about what was said at a roadshow. That is not the right way to go about a reform programme, and I shall later deal with that in detail.
The debate on reform is important, but without a clear understanding of the framework we shall not be able to move off. The Minister of State is honest and honourable, and I am sure that he would be happy to let the House and the world know his thinking on what the Green Paper
1110
should contain. He had time before his party came to government to think the matter through, and has written and spoken much about it. In government, it should not have taken him long to formulate a structure, although I admit that there would be problems.
I wrote to the Prime Minister after he answered a question in the House in September and asked him when the Green Paper would be published. He had obviously spoken to his Minister of State because he said in early November that the Green Paper would be published at the "turn of the year". The document obviously had structure and was close to being published, or the Prime Minister would not have made that statement.
In January, I again wrote to the Prime Minister, drawing his attention to the delay and asking when the Green paper would be published, because there were reports about the matter in the newspapers. There was no response, so I sent another letter and eventually the Prime Minister replied. The correspondence states that the Green Paper will be published "when it is ready." Every hon. Member will accept that nothing can be published until it is ready: the Prime Minister's reply was a truism.
The question of publication remains, because for all the Minister of State's fine words in opening the debate we are no farther forward. The Government have been in office for some months and we are engaged in a serious debate on matters that do not even have an initial structure. Who is in control of the process and battling to change it completely? It is clear that the Green Paper will not be published until the Budget or after it. The Budget will be the focus and lead for all welfare change—call it reform if you will—and that has led to a series of stupid interventions by the Chancellor's press spokesman or Downing street about exactly what will be in the Budget and who was right and who was wrong.
The Prime Minister's press spokesman said that the Chancellor was psychologically flawed. Irrespective of whether I agree with that—and there is a great temptation to endorse the view of the Prime Minister's office on it— it shows the frustration of Downing street about whether the Chancellor has seriously gripped the issue.
Without the Green Paper it is not possible to focus on how the welfare reform programme will move. More important, I cannot recall a time when the Department of Social Security has not taken the lead in welfare reform. The Minister of State knows that, for many years before Labour came to government, the then Secretary of State for Social Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), led the debate throughout.
Many of the changes were accepted, even welcomed, by the Minister of State and some of his colleagues. They may have wanted other changes, but they accepted that reform had started and that my right hon. Friend had made a huge effort on the process. Under my right hon. Friend's direction, that Department, which is responsible for the welfare budget, led the debate. There were no noises off from Ministers who were pitching in to try to claim that they controlled some of the debate about a section of that budget.
Such a crucial reform programme cannot be tackled in such a piecemeal way. Everybody in the Cabinet seems to be able to speak almost at will, saying one thing one week and being contradicted the next. That creates problems and confusion for people out there who need to

1111
know what is going on. I say again that the confusion is so great that it is beginning to be felt even among people who the Minister of State and his right hon. and hon. Friends would consider to be their natural allies in the general debate.
The other day, after the Prime Minister spoke about welfare as being the big issue, The Big Issue said: "If you're poor, vote Tory. They would do more for you than Blair". All I say to the Minister of State and his right hon. and hon. Friends is that that highlights to some degree the confusion out there as to exactly what is going on and the fear that has been engendered.
Mrs. Gorman: People have seen through Labour.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Perhaps people have seen through Labour. It is not difficult.
Mr. Webb: I have just a quick question to the hon. Gentleman. I may be entirely mistaken, but do I see a photocopy of The Big Issue or did he actually pay for one?
Mr. Duncan Smith: I paid for one; it is just here. That is why The Big Issue wrote that headline, I expect.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Was an ex-Tory Member of Parliament selling it?
Mr. Duncan Smith: I look forward to many of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues assisting some of those selling it in four years' time.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: If my hon. Friend is right to say that the Chancellor is the person who leads on this matter, does that not mean that, instead of getting consultation on these welfare reforms, we shall get no consultation? Is that perhaps the plan? The party in government is so afraid of its Back Benchers that it wants no consultation on the issue at all.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I do not think that the Government are particularly interested in consulting more widely; otherwise, these roadshows would have been public roadshows. The Liberal Democrats have hit the nail on the head. The desire is not to engage the public but to engage Labour Back Benchers. It occurs to me that one reason why the Secretary of State is not here may be that we saw her pulled from the roadshow in Wales, after the Chancellor said that the people attending his roadshow were a bunch of Trots or Conservatives. The mind boggles at the thought. I must admit that I did not get my ticket or invitation, but next time I will try harder; perhaps the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) should try harder, too.
The Chancellor then said that we needed tighter security and a greater vetting of invitations: not greater public debate, but tighter security. I will not be tempted down that road, but I saw the boots growing on his feet even as we looked. The point is that it was not a public debate. My hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) is right about that. The Chancellor is clear about that. It seems that the Minister of State is not clear about it. I genuinely believe that he would like an open debate, and I respect him for that.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State for Social Security
1112
and the Minister for Welfare Reform distrust each other so much that they will not allow each other to appear separately in front of the Select Committee? We have waited nine months to have the pleasure of the company of the Minister of State, someone whom we knew very well in the previous Parliament: he turned up every week. However, he has not been allowed to appear on his own before the Select Committee for nine months. He has been allowed off the leash only to the extent that the Secretary of State sits beside him like a minder. Is that not extraordinary? Has it happened before?
Mr. Duncan Smith: I am guided by my hon. Friend on this because, to be honest, there is no one whom I would less like to think of as distrustful than the Minister of State. He is genuinely someone who would be prepared to trust people and to take everyone at their own measure. Whether the same applies to the Secretary of State is another matter. Perhaps she has recognised that she still is in charge of the Department and attends with the Minister of State to find out exactly what is going on in relation to the Green Paper. I do not know; perhaps they do not talk.
We are talking about a huge uplift in Department of Social Security payments. This is a massively important time. Huge, unanswered questions remain about the Department, the Secretary of State and the reform and review process. The Government seem to have put their Department into a state of drift. It is rudderless. It is sitting almost becalmed while every other Department of State manoeuvres around it, pulling pieces off it as though it were a piece of flotsam, and viewing its budget as something to be grabbed.
It is clear that the Chancellor views the Department of Social Security as part of his package of redistribution. He views the next Budget and the last one as a means of raiding the Departments and people who have put money aside for their future. He wants to redistribute the money into other areas of Government spending, which he will then spend in the run-up to the next election.
We heard that slip from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) when he made a point to the Prime Minister about special provisions for an election. We know that that is true. It is out of the bag from an hon. Member who has been around long enough to know these things. He has been here long enough to recognise the cynicism of what is happening.
The Government intend to redistribute the money from the Department of Social Security—that is all there is to it. It appears that that is what the reform is all about. The money will be spent in an attempt to buy votes in the run-up to the next election. I say to the Minister of State, a man whom I have consistently respected, who still deserves respect and whose integrity should be driving this review: if the Department and the Secretary of State for Social Security do not get a grip and seriously start to insist that the Department's view on the matter must prevail, we will end up with a review of cuts, with no purpose other than the saving of money.
If the review is a top-down levelling, it will achieve nothing but the displacement and continual growth of this sector of Government expenditure. Reform that changes the structure and delivers more focused benefit to people in need is what matters, but that is not the Chancellor's priority. I say to the Minister of State and to his colleagues: "Get a grip before you lose it."
5.26 pm
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform for the way in which he has introduced this important debate. It may be a quiet debate, but it is about a big and potentially noisy issue.
The upratings debate is an opportunity, particularly at this time in the reform process, to ask some fundamental questions. Perhaps the most important question of all is: what is social security for? What are the objectives? Many people rush to give a seemingly simple and clear answer to that question, saying that it is simply about the attack on poverty.
Historically, that was always the answer. Like my right hon. Friend, I have noted that, 400 years ago, Parliament was discussing this very subject of poverty relief, leading to the Poor Relief Act 1601 and the Elizabethan poor laws, as we now call them. However, in modem times, although poverty relief and the attack on poverty are clearly major—perhaps the major—objectives, social security has other objectives too. Our debate would be poorer if we forgot those other objectives.
I know that my right hon. Friend now has to leave the House to give the Beveridge memorial lecture. I hope that the House agrees that that is the perfect excuse for his absence, and we wish him well.
In modern times, we have realised that there are other social security objectives apart from poverty relief. All citizens during their lifetime face needs and risks. They include the risk that, in work, a person may become injured, need some income support or become sick. There is also the risk, if that is the word for it, that we may need an income when we reach retirement age. I agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), and hope that that is a non-means-tested income in old age. It is too soon to wish the hon. Gentleman well in his retirement, but in many years' time I hope that that goes well for him. Therefore, there is an issue about how we insure, either publicly or privately, against the risks and needs that we face during our lifetime. That is the second objective.
The third objective is to support children. We often refer in debates such as this to the founding fathers of the welfare state, but let me refer to a founding mother—a former distinguished Member of the House, Eleanor Rathbone. Eleanor Rathbone's campaign attracted much support across parties and across society and led to the family allowance system, introduced by the coalition Government shortly before the 1945 general election.
What Eleanor Rathbone said in one of her books on the subject is worth repeating:
"Children are not simply a private luxury. They are an asset to the community, and the community can no longer afford to leave the provision of their welfare solely to the accident of individual income."
That led to the family allowance and, when that was merged in the late 1970s with the child tax allowance, to what we now call the child benefit scheme.
There are other objectives, but I have highlighted three—the attack on poverty, the need to insure people for the risks that they face during their lifetimes, and the important objective of supporting families with children. I want to reflect on some of the issues that we now need to face in modern times in relation to all three.
First, there is poverty. What we call the safety net, and what William Beveridge intended to be a safety net for the few, has now become a major system of income support,
1114
supporting almost 10 million citizens, those drawing the benefit and their dependants, including 3 million children. Before the last election, I asked a parliamentary question and was shocked to find that one in three of babies bom in Britain are born to parents on either income support or family credit—in a sense, bom into poverty. If we share the ambition to create a young country, that is the worst possible indicator that, in the recent past, we have not succeeded—a safety net for 10 million, intended for the few now supporting the many.
The two powerful recruiting sergeants for income support are economic recession and family breakdown and insecurity. That system of income support, allied to other means-tested benefits, such as housing benefit, free school meals and the rest, represents not an attack on poverty but its institutionalisation. It is associated with complexity, stigma, poverty and unemployment traps, disincentives and, yes, for a minority, it leads to a culture of dishonesty and fraud, which we need to recognise.
Any anti-poverty strategy is, first and foremost, about the Government's welfare-to-work strategy; about the new deal. I do not want to say too much about that, but we have perhaps a year or two to get that right. We do not look forward to a recession in the future, but the business cycle is the business cycle, and a time when employment is increasing is the right time to try the new deal and to work out how to get it right. When more difficult times come, as they will, we need to have the experience. It will be far more difficult to get our young people and our longer-term unemployed, some with disabilities and learning difficulties, into work, so I wish that vital project well.
Secondly, there is child maintenance. We debated the Child Support Agency recently. I simply say, briefly, that the more that we can do to crush the culture whereby more and more fathers, following a marriage breakdown or other circumstances, are not maintaining their children financially, the better. Yes, the CSA has messed up the lives of some men, but that should not camouflage the mass of irresponsible fathers who do not support their children. The numbers paying child maintenance may be as low as 20 per cent, and certainly not much more than 30 per cent.
Mrs. Gorman: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Behind every lone mother there is an even more lonely father who is not contributing properly to the upkeep of his children, leaving it to the state. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore press his Government to ensure that any reform of the CSA—something about which they are now talking—does not end up with the burden being dumped back on to the general taxpayer?
Mr. Wicks: Yes, we must re-establish the principle that, whether one is a mother or a father, a baby is for life and, certainly during the childhood and youth of that child, both parents have a financial obligation to support it. It is a simple and obvious point but, sadly, we need to restate it loudly and clearly in these more difficult times.
Thirdly, we must get the tax benefit system right. I welcome the Chancellor's proposals for a working family tax credit, which he will announce in more detail in the Budget. We need to put incentives into work. We need to be able to tell poor families, perhaps on income support, that it is worth their while working. The tax credit is a useful device, but it is important that we match that with a concern about families and children.

1115
Therefore, what we call the purse-to-wallet issue— policies that end social security benefits that go to mothers and give the benefit through the tax system, often to fathers—is one about which we must be cautious. All the signs are that the Chancellor recognises that point and that the new working family tax credit will offer a choice— have it either as a fiscal benefit or, as now, as a cash benefit. It may interfere with the purity of the system, but I am convinced that that choice is important to the welfare of our children.
Mr. Webb: On that specific point, does the hon. Gentleman think it satisfactory that the way in which the Chancellor has got out of the problem is to give a choice whereby the woman in a couple can elect to have the benefit? Might that not be a problem if, in the sort of families about whom we might be worried, who are not very good at sharing, there is pressure from the father to require the mother not to tick the box and so to get the money himself? Is that a concern of the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Wicks: Yes, the hon. Gentleman raises an important concern. The Select Committee on Social Security is considering that very issue and will be producing a report shortly. I think that I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that matter will be dealt with in the report. I see the Select Committee Chairman agreeing that that will be a feature of the report.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely good and thoughtful speech, which is helpful to the debate. Does he agree that, if there is an unwillingness for child benefit to be paid to the wife of a millionaire or someone who is extremely wealthy, the way to deal with that is through a fiscal process of taxing child benefit? Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of that? I believe fervently in child benefit and want to see it paid to the mother for the benefit of the child, but, if a family is pretty well off, I am happy for that child benefit to be taxed, so that there is more money in the pond to help those in genuine need.
Mr. Wicks: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I was trying to make as brief a speech as possible, but I am tempted into a dissertation on an important but rather complex question. Independent taxation is a major complication here. For example, if one tried to cream off all or some of the child benefit for those paying the higher rate of tax, and if, as I think the hon. Gentleman believes, and as we have always thought, child benefit is an income for mothers, the logic would be to tax the mothers, and no Government want to introduce a new tax on mothers. If that technicality is ignored and the higher-paid person—often the father—is taxed, the issue of independent taxation is breached.
I am open minded on that. Although a universalist on these matters, if we could find a simple and clean technical way of creaming off some child benefit from the really quite well-off and using it for nursery education or whatever, I should be happy with that. I am yet to be persuaded that technically it is as simple as some suggest. A little later I want to say something more about child benefit.
My fourth point in relation to an anti-poverty strategy concerns child care. I welcome the Government trying to find more resources for after-school clubs and nursery
1116
education and, I hope, mainstream child care, too. Governments and Parliament should be wary, when it comes to those with children under five, of implying that the only way in which a mother can properly look after her child is to go out and find a job, often a rather low-waged job. When it comes to children under five, mother knows best. If anything, I should like a premium in our child benefit system for children under five. Much family poverty is concentrated among families with younger children because there may be only one breadwinner, or perhaps no breadwinner.
Mr. Howard Flight: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that some of the changes seem fiscally to encourage the idea that it is better for a child minder to look after a child than a mother? Does he agree that more in-depth thinking is required, because I cannot believe that that is the intent of the Government?
Mr. Wicks: Choice is important—it should be a choice for the family. I feel passionately about that in terms of the youngest children. I make no judgment; it is a judgment for the family whether a mother should go out to work and find substitute care or whether she should stay at home to look after her child. We have all been involved in such decisions. It is a choice for families, and not for the state. We should, if anything, load the benefits system in favour of under-fives.
Having spoken about poverty, I shall speak about finding a modern way to enable citizens to insure themselves over their life cycle against the needs and risks they face. We have the national insurance scheme and a range of private provisions, principally the occupational pensions sector. The question now is, as Beveridge asked—probably my right hon. Friend the Minister is reminding his audience of it even now—what risks do people face over their life cycle and how are they met?
One of the modern risks is that, in our very old age, we might become frail and need not hospital care, but nursing home care or intensive domiciliary care in our own homes. If Beveridge were here today—I sometimes think it would be a good thing if he were—he would say that that is one risk we need to insure against. That raises colossal issues about the future of national insurance.
Why do we not discuss national insurance more? It is extraordinary. Its big sister, income tax, raises £77 billion, but national insurance raises £50 billion. It is big business, and it looks after many people—not least through retirement pensions. There are those who say that it is unsound actuarially and that we should come clean and merge it with income tax. I am in the opposite camp. I think we need a renaissance of ideas about national insurance. National insurance recognises the balance between rights and responsibilities. We put into the community chest of the nation when we can, and we draw out when we need to. There is a need for a reinvigoration and a relaunch of national insurance.
Mr. Simon Burns: The hon. Gentleman has been talking, in effect, about a contract. In that context, does he think that the Government should allow out-of-school child care to be means-tested?
Mr. Wicks: I have not thought that through adequately enough to know. I have implied that, instinctively, I am anti-means test. I think the welfare state is blocked up with means tests. It is not unreasonable that some fee should be paid for out-of-school care when a parent is in work and earning money. However, those earning low wages—or, perhaps, parents not in work who need care for the sake of the child—may have to be means-tested. I am in the peculiar position in this House of having an open mind on the subject.
Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that funding for the new out-of-school care is coming from the windfall tax, the out-of-school child care initiative and the new opportunities fund. Is he aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon, Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth) believes that those schemes should be means-tested if the people operating them wish it?
Mr. Wicks: I had not heard that view, but it is not unreasonable. We must look carefully at that matter, but the appropriate thing would be to do a run on it with the aid of a computer to see how it would affect the poverty trap and the willingness of parents to send their children to care, as opposed to alternative methods of care, which often may be more about neglect than care.
I have talked about the life cycle, and the needs and risks that we face. I am struck by the fact that a number of proposals relate to how we meet costs over the life cycle. Higher education is becoming more expensive and tuition fees and loans have been introduced. Many young people will start off in life by having to pay back considerable amounts of money. I support the policy, but I worry about some of its implications.
Ideas are proposed on pensions which essentially mean persuading people in their 20s, 30s, 40s and after to pay higher contributions than they are paying now. We have other proposals about individual savings accounts and others—from the royal commission in a year or so—about how we fund long-term care. Meanwhile, people are trying to buy homes. Some of the proposals are from the Department for Education and Employment, others are from the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security, or the Treasury. Is it naive to suggest that we should look at these matters together? It might make sense to offer people—either through the public or private sector—a hybrid, or a life cycle account.
Mrs. Gorman: Although it is not my place to commit the Opposition Front Bench, my right hon. and hon. Friends have made it clear that we are willing to co-operate with the Government in remedying the flaws in the welfare state. Much of what the hon. Gentleman has said this afternoon, I have found congenial. However, the hon. Gentleman's problem is with his Back Benchers, who will not allow the Government to bring in sensible reforms which follow in the footsteps of measures put in place by the previous Government to encourage people to make their own provision, particularly for their old age.
1118
His Back Benchers—who are conspicuous by their absence—will create merry hell, as they have done at the roadshows, which they have positively wrecked.
Mr. Wicks: As a humble corporal, I do not have my own Back Benchers, so I do not have to worry about them. I have to worry only about sharing my thoughts with the House.
Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman should have Back Benchers.
Mr. Wicks: That would help enormously. It is useful that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is interested in my thoughts.
I often worry that, in these debates, children are the forgotten army. The debates are often about adults— working mothers and fathers, taxpayers. Let us think more about children. In an old-fashioned way, I should like to say that I support the child benefit scheme. If we find civilised ways of targeting it a bit, we should do so, but we must avoid the means test. Child benefit is universal. It avoids the complexities of the means test. Far from adding to poverty traps, it is a good welfare-to-work measure. One has it when on income support, and takes it when one goes into work. In addition, it is an income for mothers—that is absolutely crucial. I believe that a premium for those with children under five might be appropriate.
I have referred to the two major recruiting sergeants for poverty and insecurity as economic recession and family breakdown. Although this goes wider than the debate, it follows that the best social security programmes of all have little to do with the Department of Social Security and everything to do with a strong economy and strong families. Within this, the reform of state benefits is vital.
I wish my ministerial colleagues well, because they are dealing with a more complex system than confronted Beveridge, and with a more complex society and economy than those confronting the reformers of 50 years ago. This is an important subject, and I wish everyone taking part in the debate well in grappling with its complexities.
5.48 pm
Mr. Nick Gibb: The absence of the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) shows not just the absence of the Secretary of State on an important date in the social security calendar but an absence of leadership in the welfare reform process—at least so far as the Department for Social Security is concerned. It shows an absence of any policy on welfare reform, which was meant to be at the heart of the new Labour Government's policy. Indeed, it was meant to fill the gaping hole in their promises of extra spending on education. They said that they would reform the welfare state and channel the extra billions into education.
Where are those radical welfare reforms that we were promised? Where is the great Nixon-in-China, only-Labour-can-do-it end to the dependency culture? When will the Green Paper, which has been promised and delayed, promised and delayed again, be published? Review after review has been announced. There is the child benefit review, the welfare-to-work task force, the tax and benefits task force, the social exclusion unit,

1119
the family policy committee, the pensions review, the long-term welfare review, the disability benefits review, the royal commission on long-term care and the comprehensive spending review. They are all very worthy, but where is the policy? The agenda is in chaos.
Even the reviews that are about to report will bring forth nothing but tinkering and hype. The tax and benefits task force is a classic example. When it was set up in May, it was heralded by triumphalist press spinning. It was to be headed by Martin Taylor, a chief executive of Barclays bank. The Financial Times reported on 20 May that it was told by Labour sources that the task force would lead to
"the full scale merger of the tax and benefit system."
The Sunday Times was told that the Prime Minister had agreed that
"Brown should consider all options for reform, including ultimately merging the separate tax and benefit operations into a new streamlined system."
Nine months later, when Martin Taylor appeared before the Social Security Committee, he said:
"I think that the arguments against full-blown integration are well known, well rehearsed, and I accept them."
So there was to be no tax and benefits integration from the Taylor task force.
What about reducing the high marginal withdrawal rates as people come off benefit and start paying income tax? Surely the Taylor task force would be able to do something about those. The response from Martin Taylor was:
"I would counsel you against believing that there is anything magical you can do with tapers which changes the world."
The lesson is not to expect radical reform proposals from the tax and benefits task force or any of the numerous reviews, committees and units that have been set up. There is no leadership in the DSS. Those seeking to lead are being crushed by internal dispute and internecine warfare with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
That brings me to the Treasury: the source of the problem. There is not just a turf war. The Treasury's tax and proposals so far have been incompetent, ill thought out and extremely damaging, and have impacted on what the DSS has been trying to do. The Treasury's incompetence starts like a pebble thrown into a still pond, which sends out ripple after ripple until the whole pond is no longer still but a cacophony of waves. The pebble was the 2 July Budget and the decision to end the repayment of dividend tax credits on dividends paid to non-taxpayers, especially to pension funds. That raised £5 billion a year for the Chancellor, but its consequences were not foreseen.
In order to avoid companies having to pay large amounts of tax on foreign income dividends, foreign income dividends had to be abolished. Such unforeseen consequences caused an outcry from companies which had large amounts of overseas interests. So, four months later, the Treasury had to deal with that problem by abolishing advance corporation tax and introducing quarterly corporation tax payments for companies. That, in turn, is causing enormous concern in the corporate sector as companies are trying to find £2 billion a year in extra corporation tax payments. That, too, will have to be changed in the March Budget. So the mess and the ripples continue.
Ending dividend tax credits also affected pensions. Private pensions lost 11 per cent, of their income as a result of the measure, so contributors had to increase their
1120
payments to secure the same pension. Consequently, the state earnings-related pension scheme became more attractive relative to private schemes—unless rebates were increased. Associations such as the Association of British Insurers said that its insurance company members would have to recommend that their customers opted back into SERPS unless national insurance rebates for opting out were increased. Five months after the July Budget, a whole swathe of extra rebates for private pensions were announced.
That announcement totally contradicts the Treasury claim that ending dividend tax credits would not reduce the value of private pension funds. The Treasury said that ending dividend tax credits would help companies retain investment funds, which would lead to a healthier economy and higher share prices, and thus increase the value of private pension fund investments. It is a pity that neither the pension fund industry nor the DSS believes that. They have both taken the correct view that, if £5 billion a year is taken out of industry through tax, investment is reduced by £5 billion a year.
On 22 December, the last day before the Christmas recess, the uprating of the rebates was announced in a written answer—but the rebates are not enough. That is because the Government increased some by less than the amount recommended by the Government Actuary and reduced others by more than that recommended. The Government Actuary's report recommended a 2.4 per cent, rebate for the youngest age group in contracted-out money purchase schemes. The Government announced a 2.2 per cent, rebate. The Government Actuary recommended a 7.3 per cent, rebate for a 47-year-old. The Government announced a 7.1 per cent, rebate. So the ripple continues.
The pensions marketing manager of Britannia Life Ltd. said of the Government's decision on rebates for COMPs:
"I cannot see why anybody would want to stay in a COMP."
The head of the research at the AON consulting firm said:
"It's getting difficult to believe what the Government says."
It is difficult for us in the House to believe what the Government say.
In January, the Social Security Secretary said in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) that the Government
"considered the Government Actuary's advice and we changed the rebates."
That answer was very carefully worded and designed to leave us with the impression that the rebate changes were purely a matter for the Actuary and that the Government followed his advice. As we know, the Government did not follow his advice.
Subsequently, the Secretary of State went too far when she said:
"We sought that advice and acted properly on it."—[Official Report, 26 January 1998; Vol. 305, c. 5.]
Will the Minister tell us what the Secretary of State meant? Why did she say what she did when it is clear that the Government did not follow the Government Actuary's advice? Why did not the Government follow that advice? Why will members of contracted-out money purchase schemes have to pay, according to Pensions Week, an extra £200 a year as a result of the decision?

1121
All those problems have arisen from that one decision on 2 July to abolish dividend tax credits on dividends paid to pension funds—one wrong decision leading to a ripple effect of highly damaging and unforeseen consequences. There is pure incompetence and chaos. Coupled with an absence of policy and leadership, that chaos is causing damage in the community. Policy is being developed by informed leak—kite flying. Labour suggests taxing child benefit, so someone in the Treasury leaks it to see what the reaction will be. Labour suggests trying a means-tested disability living allowance or taxing it. They think that that would be a good wheeze to raise a few hundred million pounds, so someone in the Treasury leaks it.

Those messages are read by people who need such allowances—decent, vulnerable people who rely on the money; independent people who would cease to be independent if DLA were means tested or taxed. That is best expressed by a Mr. Tim Armstrong, a 17-year-old disabled student who lives in my constituency. He wrote to me this week with his concerns about the Government's leaked proposals. He said:
"Dear Mr. Gibb,
I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be considering imposing income tax on the receipt of Disability Living Allowance. It would be unfair to tax this Social Security benefit as it is intended to help disabled people meet the increased costs which arise as a direct result of their disability. These costs are the same for both those liable to tax and those who do not pay tax. Few disabled people would not be taxpayers if DLA becomes taxable. The tax I would have to pay might mean that I could not afford to have a car under the Mobility scheme and would lose the independence that DLA gives me.
Please explain to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that to make DLA taxable would be to tax disability and make disabled people much more dependent. I would like to know what his response is."
So would I. He continued:
"I also understand that the Secretary of State for Social Security is considering the possibilities of means testing DLA and of transferring this benefit to local authority Social Services departments. Both these steps would be damaging to disabled people like myself. Means testing would have a similar impact to making this vital benefit taxable. Handing over control to local councils would almost certainly mean the end of the superb Motability scheme and the freedom of choice that disabled people enjoy in arranging their mobility needs.
Please explain to the Secretary of State for Social Security that to make DLA a means tested benefit would be very damaging to many of your constituents.… Again I should like to know what her response is."
So would I, but unfortunately she cannot be bothered to be here, or dare not be here. Whatever it is, it is not acceptable, and neither is the lack of progress that the Department of Social Security and the ministerial team have made in almost 10 months since the Government came to office.
6.1 pm
Ms Gisela Stuart: The uprating debate covers a number of benefits that have direct relevance to women. People often see women as drawing benefits. They do not accept the vital role that women play in the work force. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that simply uprating assumes an acceptance of the status quo. I look forward to
1122
considerable change to the benefits system. Unlike Opposition Members, I would rather wait for a Green Paper that gets it right than have things rushed through. We accept that this is a unique opportunity to reform a system that has been salami-sliced for many years, to get the structure right. We need to get it right for the next generation as well as this one. I would rather hold back and get it right.
Mr. Richard Livsey: I wonder whether the hon. Lady thinks that the issue of lone parents should also have been left until the Green Paper.
Ms Stuart: My view on the lone parents issue was that we were implementing the previous Government's policies. We shall all have to wait to find out how the new benefits system will affect all such issues.
I always find it extraordinary that people accuse us of not providing reform proposals, and in the same breath draw conclusions about what the reforms will be. The Taylor review is dismissed as not producing anything worth having and at the same time it is criticised for not having produced a report. We cannot have it both ways.
I welcome the Government's policies on women. Two issues are stated clearly. We want equality of opportunity for everyone, and that means that women continue to take their rightful place in the work force, but we also support the many carers of children, who are often women. Throughout the world, women are now the main breadwinners in about 30 per cent, of households. By 2010, some 80 per cent, of the female work force in industrial societies will be of child-bearing age. Any reforms of the welfare system have to take account of women, children and the implications for families.
Women have been failed badly by the previous Government. The Employment Service did not recognise the need to return to the work force. The benefits system assumed that women relied on men. Child care did not catch up with the changed role of women. The pensions system failed women miserably. The one issue on which I should like to focus today is the benefits system's failure to recognise the significance of caring for children. That should be recognised within the benefits system.
I welcome the tax and benefit reforms. I welcome the fact that a number of benefits will be delivered through the wage packet. I welcome the national child care strategy and the money put into child care, but—I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) said—who speaks for the children? Children are the next generation. They are our future. It worries me that the debate on welfare is a discussion among adults in which we do not recognise children's needs.
Families are getting smaller. On average, families now have 1.7 children. There is a tremendous growth in single households; 28 per cent, of all households are now one person. Fewer people are getting married. At the same time, one in five children live in households in which there is no adult earning—that is, 21 per cent.
We need to reform the welfare state. We accept that children who grow up in households in which someone is earning fare better; that money that comes into a family via the wage packet is of greater benefit than that which comes via the benefit cheque. We need to introduce family-centred policies, but we should not overlook our

1123
responsibility especially to the very youngest of children. We need to have a debate. We should not simply assume that children have the same needs at every age.
Those of us who went to America saw in Wisconsin one extreme. It was deemed that mothers should go back to work once their children were 12 weeks old. In Britain, we send out a signal that a mother should not be expected to go back to work until the child is 16 years old. That is clearly outdated and wrong. We need a debate about the appropriate age. When the new deal for lone parents is rolled out nationally, it will begin to strike the right balance. It will require mothers of five-year-olds to attend an interview.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want to mislead the House inadvertently, but the new deal does not do that. It simply invites them in to an interview. That is one of the weaknesses of the policy. We are wondering what the Secretary of State plans to do. She has a return rate of 6 per cent, on letters inviting women to an interview. Will the hon. Lady make it clear that the policy does not require them to attend, but simply invites them to an interview?
Ms Stuart: As I understand it, when the national programme is rolled out, mothers will be required to attend an interview. I may be wrong.
Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Lady says, "As I understand it". Does that mean that someone on the Front Bench has instructed her to say that compulsion will be part of the system? It is a fascinating point. Will she tell us that?
Ms Stuart: I may have misunderstood. I need to go back and check it.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I thought that the hon. Lady was making a statement on behalf of the Front-Bench team.
Ms Stuart: I do not presume to make a statement on behalf of the Front-Bench team, nor do I claim to be perfect.
Mr. Burns: I shall help the hon. Lady by changing the subject slightly. She has spoken on a number of occasions about failure. She will be aware that a week last Friday, the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) accused her and some of her hon. Friends of being failures. Why and how does she think that her hon. Friend is wrong?
Ms Stuart: I will not rise to challenges that are not worth rising to. I will move on to the subject of our responsibility to families, women and children and to mothers and fathers.
The way forward is to ensure that, as often as possible, families are supported by working adults and that children grow up in families in which someone earns. In the case of under-fives, there has to be choice—my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North used the phrase "mother knows best", which is a phrase with which I have a little difficulty, but there must be a recognition of the special needs of that generation.
1124
I mentioned Wisconsin, which has a cut-off of 12 weeks old, whereas ours is five years old. In Norway, there has been a tremendous extension of maternity leave and even compulsory paternity leave, whereby the mother will have difficulty drawing all her benefits unless the father takes off four weeks to look after his baby.
We have to accept that there is a range of options, but there must be a strong emphasis on striking the right balance. I urge Ministers to accept in the review that the right balance when smaller children are a factor will, at times, involve increased part-time work. It is not necessarily my idea of progress for mothers of very young children to have to work full time for low pay and put their children in state nurseries. We need an element of choice and a recognition that the right balance for families and children has to be struck. We need to hear the voice of children.
6.10 pm
Mr. Mark Oaten: I greatly enjoyed the opening remarks of the Minister for Welfare Reform, who has now left. His canter through history was illuminating and although we were obviously the audience for his warm-up act or rehearsal for his Beveridge lecture later, I welcomed it all the same.
I also welcomed the right hon. Gentleman's rather teasing statements about what would be announced in the Green Paper—frustrating though they were. However, I am concerned about some of the remarks made about the timing of the Green Paper's publication. When I hear that it will come out at the time of the Budget or after the Budget, I think, somewhat cynically, that the announcement might be made at the same time as the Budget. I hope that when the Under-Secretary of State winds up the debate, he will give assurances that such an important statement—we have been waiting for the Green Paper for some time—will not simply be pushed out on Budget day and lost among other announcements.
I cannot share the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for today's orders, and I certainly cannot join him in celebrating the first orders for so many years to be laid under a Labour Government. I regret that he did not use today's debate to clear up some of the misunderstandings that have arisen about the direction being taken by the Government's welfare reforms. Of the few errors in judgment made by the Government since entering office in May, the manner in which welfare reforms have been handled and the Government's failure to deliver have been among the biggest.
Since May, the debate on welfare reform and benefit levels outside the House has been somewhat controversial and, at worst and in many cases, insensitive and alarmist—although today's debate in the House has been friendly, despite one rather unwelcome intervention. The climate of rumour and misinformation over the past few months has left many of the charities to which I have spoken feeling bemused and angry. Perhaps more important, it has left those who are on benefits and who read the newspapers feeling both rejected and confused.
That is why it is a shame that the Minister of State did not do three things that might improve the climate and why I hope that the Under-Secretary will do them instead. First, he could make a statement that the Government intend to overturn the freezing of benefits to lone parents. Secondly, he could have the courage to review the

1125
increases in pensions for those above the age of 80. Thirdly, he could give an absolute assurance to disabled people that the Government will not attack their benefits and will introduce a proper review of the current benefits integrity programme.
The world has moved on since we first debated these benefit cuts and proposals in December last year. There have been two developments that should encourage the Government to think again. First, we know far more about the economic circumstances that this country is facing and we know that they are getting better by the day. We know that the Chancellor has more room for manoeuvre than any Chancellor has had in the past five years. If it is true that there may be £1 billion, £2 billion, or even £3 billion available, how can we turn round to lone parents and tell them there are not the resources available to maintain their benefits? If it is true that those extra resources are available, how can we turn round to the over-80s and justify the level of pension that they receive? It is time for the Government to turn what they currently call the Chancellor's war chest into a war on want and use those resources to tackle some of the unfairness in the system.
The second development is growing evidence that many of people who receive the benefits that we are debating will suffer a double whammy this April. In addition to the rumours about cuts at a national level, there is a second, local whammy in the shape of cuts in local authority social services budgets up and down the country. I have heard of social services departments facing huge cuts, and many of those cuts will be achieved by cutting services to individuals receiving the benefits before us today. What we are giving today at national level will, for some, be taken away at local level in April. The net impact is that many people will be worse off come April.
Let me illustrate that point. In Hampshire, the current social services budget, which provides essential support for the most frail and needy in the county, is facing cuts of £3 million. What does that mean in reality for a pensioner? One announcement is that the cut means that charges for meals on wheels will have to be increased by 21 per cent., or £2 per day. If we take into account the effect of today's orders and the settlement whereby we are giving pensioners a percentage increase in line with inflation, we can see that a pensioner who receives meals on wheels will be worse off.
That situation will be repeated up and down the country in respect of the old, the disabled or those who are in receive of local social services. Let us take the example of a disabled person on incapacity benefit who, after today's announcement, will receive an increase of £2.25 per week in his allowance. However, in Hampshire, that person faces charges on equipment that he gets for his house and possibly the end of schemes to provide help in the home. The net impact on that individual, despite our debate today, may be that he will be worse off come April.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): So that I am clear about the case that the hon. Gentleman is making, may
1126
I ask whether he is arguing that the amount of the benefit uprating should be further increased to compensate for those charges; and, if so, by how much?
Mr. Oaten: I am arguing that, although we may take comfort in the inflation-linked increases in the orders, at the end of the day, people in need care little about whether their benefits are set by the House or by local authorities; what they have to live with is the reality of how much money is in their pocket at the end of the week. I am attempting to demonstrate that, because of the effect of the double whammy, the net impact on many people might be that they receive less overall. That comes against the backdrop of disabled people in particular reading in the press that cuts to their benefits might be introduced. That is the point that I want the House to take into account.
The picture is worrying for many individuals and for the groups that will be most affected—the old, lone parents and the disabled. Let me say a few words about pensioners. How can it be right that, for almost the past quarter century, no party has done anything to address radically the additional sum paid when a pensioner turns 80? Today, as we pass these orders, we add another year to that period of non-action, and I know how let down many pensioners feel about that.
Because of the rather unusual circumstances in Winchester, where the people seem to like fighting elections, I spent most of last year on the campaign trail, out and about talking to people, many of whom live in residential homes and old people's homes. Perhaps if Mr. Malone had done more of that sort of thing, the result would have been different.
I detected an interesting shift of opinion over the period of those elections. In the run-up to the May election, there was enthusiasm and a mood of optimism among pensioners, who looked forward to the prospect of having a Labour Government. However, when I spoke to the same people during the November campaign, the mood had shifted. They were disillusioned, not necessarily only with the Labour Government, but with politicians in general—I hope that that was not a reflection on my six months as their Member of Parliament.
Ms Stuart: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that 80 is an arbitrary age, and that we should consider the wider issue of the long-term health care of the aging population? We should take note of the royal commission on long-term health care, rather than focus only on uprating at a particular, but not necessarily appropriate, age.
Mr. Oaten: My evidence from speaking to many people last year, including those over 80, is that they cannot wait for reviews; they want action now. They felt insulted by and angry about the suggestion of a 25p increase, which was the figure that was cited time and again. As economic benefits begin to appear, surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer should allow the Secretary of State for Social Security and her ministerial colleagues to do something about the proposed 25p increase, and offer a decent amount of money for those over 80.
I offer a personal view—I am not now speaking for my party—about the resources that we give to pensioners. I found it frustrating not to be able to answer many of the questions that pensioners asked me, such as why they did not receive a decent pension.

1127
I know that politicians are not supposed to highlight problems for which they do not have quick, smart solutions. I do not have solutions to these problems, but I made a commitment to those individuals that I would raise their concerns. All politicians should try to ensure that pensioners receive a decent pension. I recognise the Government's attempts to ensure that people of my generation receive one, but I believe that we need to deal with the problems of today's pensioners.
Lone parents are another key Liberal Democrat concern. Liberal Democrats strongly oppose the proposed benefit freeze for 1.5 million lone parents. It has been said that as many as half of those lone parents will not be able to take up welfare to work. For them, the freeze represents lost benefits; today, the House will reaffirm a decision that could mean a real cut in lone parents' living standards.
Why are the Government hitting lone parents in that way? I should have thought that lone parents would agree to welfare to work, but would also expect flexibility and a caring approach from the Government. I have a lively, 20-month-old daughter, and I am beginning to realise the traumas and joys of bringing up children. I marvel at how many lone parents can bring up children on their own, and I recognise that they face additional costs.
I am not alone in that recognition. In November 1996, the Secretary of State, who was then Opposition spokesman, said:
"Lone parents are some of the poorest people in Britain. They face additional costs in bringing up their children… Lone mothers not only do not have their partners' income; they do not have their partners' time."—[Official Report, 28 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 501.]
Let us hear today that the Government will change and compromise on this measure and at least increase in line with inflation current benefits for lone parents.
I am surprised that disability issues have not yet been mentioned in the debate. I urge the Minister to send a strong signal of support to disabled groups, to reassure them about their current and future benefits. We must debate the changes to disability benefits, which is why the Green Paper must contain the details. We have been playing a cat-and-mouse media game of speculation and counter-speculation. Stories have been flying around in the right-wing press, half-portraying some disabled people as fraudsters.
According to a parliamentary answer given in another place, however, no cases of fraud have yet been unveiled by the benefits integrity project. I do not dismiss the possibility that there is fraud—indeed, Liberal Democrats take the matter seriously—but I do not believe that it is healthy to create a climate of mistrust as a prelude to a much needed discussion on the reform of disability benefits. Moreover, we should not constantly talk about errors in the system and misconstrue them as examples of claimant fraud.
Worryingly, the figures derive from the Government's own statistics, the release of which has been carefully timed. Do those figures paint a bleaker picture than the reality of future changes will be? If so, the Government are prolonging in the worst possible way the undeniable anxiety that disabled people feel about their payments, which in many cases are the mainstay of their livelihoods.
In the past week, we have heard that cases in which benefit has been cut under the integrity programme will be independently assessed. Although I welcome that,
1128
I have no doubt that the need for it has been highlighted by a number of shocking cases in which disabled people had their benefits cut when they should not have been. The Government's announcement smacks of reacting to events, rather than pre-empting them.
Earlier this week, the Government were giving mixed signals; the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State seemed to be at odds on the suspension of the benefits integrity programme. The Prime Minister seemed to say that the Government had agreed to reflect on the matter, whereas the Secretary of State had apparently ruled that out in an earlier meeting with Lord Ashley. Is it not time to halt the review, reset its parameters, retrain its assessors and reassure those being assessed?
We must clear the air soon. We need to examine the realism behind some of the Government's proposals for disabled people's benefits. No one wants to deny disabled people the right to work if they want to, but, equally, no one wants people with disabilities forced into work that they cannot do. Moreover, how many disabled people are likely to be able to take up work? Will there be 500,000 or 1 million, and will there really be jobs for them?
Today is the Government's last chance to show that they listen to the voices of those in need. Liberal Democrats want to make it clear to the Minister that, although we support the Government's review of the benefits system and will work with them, we urge you today to unfreeze lone parents' benefits, act now for a fair pension for those over 80 and reassure the disabled about their benefits. By doing so, you could show that the Labour Government do not want to be judged only by the iron Chancellor—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman keeps using the word "you". The Chair is not responsible for these matters. Will he try to use the correct form of address?
Mr. Oaten: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
By doing what we suggest, the Government could send out a signal that they are listening to vulnerable people and standing up for the values of the people who elected them.
6.26 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: I think that the country believed at the general election that it would be much easier for a Labour Government than a Conservative Government to reform the welfare arrangements. That was one of the main reasons why the Government were elected.
Conservative Members are concerned that so many things have already been done that may prejudice the rational across-the-board reform that the Green Paper envisages. We have expressed our full support for the thinking of the Minister for Welfare Reform, and, within the parameters that we have described, for the Government's proposed thorough reform of welfare.
If we step back, however, we see that different parts of the Government have different agendas. The left, right and centre are all fairly disillusioned about the measures that have already been taken, and the public have the perception of a shambles—they do not understand where welfare reforms are going and how the big issues will be tackled.

1129
The first of those issues is the poverty trap, which has caused the dependency society. The solutions lie in taxation as much, if not more, as in social security. They are self-evident: we should raise the level at which income tax applies, and we should consider more generous child benefit arrangements. I cite the example of Canada, where an unsatisfactory family tax credit arrangement, which is similar to the one that the Government are considering, has been rejected.
The second big issue that has been mentioned in the debate is: should we continue with a national insurance system? Many politicians regard national insurance as just another form of taxation. The public do not; they continue to believe that their benefits are linked to their national insurance payments. If any of those benefits were means-tested, the public would, rightly, be outraged.
However, if there is to be a major change—if, in future generations, the principle of national insurance is to be abandoned—that needs to be made absolutely clear. Similarly, there need to be attractive tax incentives for people to take out their own private arrangements. I believe that many hon. Members are mistaken in not realising that the majority of the population believe that they are paying for their benefits on an insurance basis.
The third big issue—which is pretty obvious—is that it is no good having fancy slogans about welfare to work if there is no work in the communities. By far the most important thing is to follow policies that will lead to work opportunities in the areas of deprivation. Make-work schemes with the state add little, and will not solve deprivation in the long term.
There is a big issue of principle concerning whether we should continue with rights, and rights that are subject to tribunals and legal proceedings, or focus on the way in which much is done in Europe, which is based more on the principle of administered schemes.
The Social Security Bill takes almost a halfway house approach; there is some attempt to cut the complications and costs of the various adjudication and tribunal processes involved in the concept of welfare rights, but the result is likely to leave many injustices, and cause us to think radically about the European system. To my mind, so many welfare situations require case officers to assess what is fair for that situation that it may be better to have that assessment and deal with it than to have the expense and complication of fighting legal rights.
We must bite the bullet on fraud. Should we have identity cards? Should we use the Inland Revenue for intelligence? Incidentally, should we use Inland Revenue data to tackle some of the major Child Support Agency problems?
There are the big issues of the family unit, and tax incentives for the family unit. One hopes that both main parties will compete in making proposals to strengthen the family unit.
It must be wrong for one person keeping four, five or six people to be paying roughly the same tax as one person keeping one person, or one person keeping two people. Quite often, two people earning a similar amount, keeping just two people, pay less tax than one person keeping four people on the same income. That must be wrong. Therefore, 1 view the whole area of tax arrangements for the family as part of the territory to be addressed.
1130
Why are we worried that the process of rational consideration of reform is going off the rails? As others have commented, we have seen the dangerous business of the Government testing things—I do not know whether they are testing public reaction or trying to sell ideas. The concept of means testing has been tested and withdrawn. The concept of taxing disability benefits has been aired, as has that of means-testing old-age pensions. In my opinion, that only creates confusion and worry among those most in need. Instead of testing public political opinion, we should decide the right way to proceed.
The welfare-to-work programme, although desirable in principle, is in danger of disappointing greatly. There is an element of stick and carrot. The stick sometimes falls on the wrong people, and the carrot will not work if there are not enough jobs. I perceive that, in future, people in their forties and fifties are more likely than the young to have difficulty in obtaining employment.
What are the several agendas? The Treasury has a specific agenda of cutting costs—a revenue agenda: hence the means-testing ideas and the taxation of benefits. The Chancellor has a redistribution agenda, concerned with ways in which the middle classes will suffer more taxation to make it possible for the Government to spend more, in due course, on health and education.
In the pensions area, we have not focused on principles such as those operating behind the "40IK" arrangements in America, which pull together all aspects of saving. We have changed personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts—largely for revenue reasons, not reasons of principle. We had the advance corporation tax arrangements, which messed up the state earnings-related pension scheme situation and are relevant to the subsequent stakeholder pension reforms.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said, we believe that the danger is that the territory has already been boxed up, limiting the scope for the right sort of stakeholder pension proposals. We await the family tax credit, but I fear that we may be falling into the trap of the Canadian failures, and I suggest that the simpler arrangement of more generous child benefits may be more effective in achieving its objectives.
On single parents, it is my belief that the community differentiates between women who have been abandoned by their husbands and have children to bring up, and the other side of the coin. The community at large would wish to be generous and supportive to the former, and would often believe that it is better for those mothers to stay at home and bring up their children, at least when they are young. By contrast, the community wants to discourage young people from having children by themselves at the taxpayer's expense.
Those are two quite different cases within the single parent area, where I suggest that a single approach to welfare and tax misses the point. The disincentives will bear too hard on genuine cases needing support. All parties need to think more about that.
The CSA is not achieving its objectives. Last week, we had a valuable debate on the subject. The married woman who has been abandoned by her spouse is not receiving support from the husband in 80 per cent, of cases, and now, if that married spouse wants to work during term and be at home with her children in the holidays, the new

1131
arrangements will be a direct disincentive to her doing so, because, if she stops working, she loses her income support, and then her overall take is lower when she is out of work.
In summary, I suggest that the view of the country would be that, if one means-tests what people regard as insured benefits, deep misunderstanding and unpopularity will result. People do want the system to be tightened up, to stop it being milked. There is huge sympathy for supporting those in real need, and the methods by which dependency communities could be ended need to be more economically oriented than welfare oriented.
I hope that the chance for radical and constructive reform, which we all hoped would be led by the Minister for Welfare Reform, has not been lost as a result of the morass and competition within the Government, among Cabinet Ministers, that has already happened. The population at large perceive that that has happened.
6.39 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am very pleased to be able to make a short contribution to this interesting annual debate. While witnessing the mutual love-in when the Minister of State was in the Chamber—I am not being facetious—it occurred to me that the Under-Secretary might usefully report back to his colleagues in government on the Opposition's offer to co-operate on some of the work.
I have been involved in the social security area since my election in 1983, and I remember the days when the present Minister for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), used to knock spots off the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). It was argument by half brick in terms of a meeting of minds.
If the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) were to sit around the table, there would be a chance—I put it no stronger than that—of isolating some areas of agreement. Perhaps that course of action should be considered. I preface my remarks with that suggestion, which I believe is worthy of exploration.
Mr. Keith Bradle: Who would write the minutes?
Mr. Kirkwood: The Under-Secretary could write the minutes—the one who writes the minutes is often the most important member of the committee.
The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) referred to the morass that he believes surrounds these issues. I crossed swords with the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green early in the Parliament, when he claimed that there was confusion across the Government regarding the progress of their reforms. I said then that I supported the view that fundamental reform could not be driven only by Benefits Agency Ministers. I cleave to that view, but I am becoming concerned that I may lose the argument.
There are nine or so reviews under way, and even those who share my view are beginning to wonder whether the Government's overall steer is coherent and thought through. Although I cleave to the view that the review should be conducted outside the Benefits Agency—
1132
Treasury involvement is very important also—concern is beginning to be expressed about whether the Government know where they are going. I appreciate that one cannot always believe what one reads in the papers, but that is all that some of us have to go on.
The Minister and the Secretary of State have willingly agreed to appear before the Social Security Select Committee next week. That is a very important appearance. If they do not convince people like me, who are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in terms of the Government's intentions, it will be even more difficult for the Government to persuade people that they know what they are doing in the long term.
When I participated in these debates as spokesman for my party, I would always point out that 20 sides of uprating details represent unreasonable complexity. I talk regularly to Benefits Agency staff, and, in the main, they are committed to their work. They work hard, and they deserve more credit than they sometimes receive for operating a system that they believe is so complicated as to be almost impossible. It is very difficult to deliver "right first time" results consistently. We must not forget that.
We make piecemeal changes to the system all the time, and there is much detail in these pages. No objective observer would start from this point—not in a month of Sundays. In the long term—such things cannot be done quickly—the Government should look at the totality of benefits. The last time that I discussed the matter with some quite senior staff in the Benefits Agency, a long argument ensued about how many benefits there were. I do not criticise those senior managers, because the system is complicated. We should bear that in mind.
We have a complicated raft of benefits, levels, provisions, discretions and exemptions. We also have interaction between the tax and benefit systems. That is getting worse as tax comes down the income scale and benefit goes up. It is perversely difficult to get the overlap period right, because of the unintended consequences of changes and so on. Interaction of benefit is almost as important as the level of benefit. That leads to all sorts of confusion, until the system becomes unworkable. If the Government introduced proposals to solve those problems, I am sure that they would receive support from all sides of the House.
I listened with interest to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). There is a worrying level of concern about the disability living allowance. I advise the House that my colleagues on the Select Committee and I agreed this morning to produce a short report on disability living allowance and the role that it will play in future benefits.
The review will not be pejorative: we will take evidence, and, if we think that the Government should do things differently, we shall say so openly, and without anti-Government prejudice. The review is designed to reassure those who represent disabled people, and particularly those Government officials responsible for the integrity programme, that they will have a chance to clear up the confusions and misconceptions that may have arisen as a result of recent press reports.
I am always puzzled by the fact that we uprate benefit levels annually but never examine the capital limits. I think that the capital limits are £3,000 and £8,000. I may be wrong, but I think that the last time they were

1133
increased was in the 1986 legislation, at the time of the Fowler reports. We cannot disregard the impact of leaving the capital limits at that level for so long. If we are to continue to have annual uprating debates, capital limits should form an integral part of our considerations. Perhaps the Government will reflect on that point for the future.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) referred to tapers, and the fact that Martin Taylor said in his evidence that tapers were too difficult. Something must be done about tapers. I do not doubt that it is difficult, but the rates of withdrawal of benefit are almost as important as the rates of benefit. Debates such as this should consider how tapers may be dealt with and improved, and what consequences taper changes will have.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton gets very excited in Select Committee meetings—where he is a distinguished and valued colleague—when people talk about poverty levels in this country. He makes the genuine point—I agree with him—that measures such as 40 per cent, of average earnings or some other rather notional measures produce figures that are not very meaningful.
Some of our European sister nations are better at this than we are. When the Select Committee visited America, we were told that there is an American poverty line that derives from some of the original Rowntree work. It uses levels that are applied and accepted by everyone who participates in debates as givens, around which discussions may take place.
There is no point in taking 40 per cent, of average earnings, because that is a simplistic and pretty meaningless figure. If we looked at assets, debts and housing conditions, we might end up with a figure that was acceptable to all those who take part in debates. That would help to inform the process. The figure needs to be set at a realistic level to be meaningful. I am not encouraging the Government to undertake any more reviews, as they have enough on their plate already—
Mr. Duncan Smith: One hundred and forty-eight.
Mr. Kirkwood: One hundred and forty-eight reviews, I am helpfully reminded from the Opposition Front Bench.
We need some grasp of what constitutes an adequate benefit. I do not believe that it is possible to live on income support rates. It may be possible for a few short months, but in the longer term, income support rates and the like are not sustainable.
According to press reports today, NatWest has produced an index in an attempt to identify an adequate pension level. The finding was that an adequate level was £179 a week. For pensioners in my constituency, that is a king's ransom. That index may or may not be useful, but it is at least a contribution to the debate. It contrasts starkly with what people can expect to get from a basic state pension plus SERPS and any additional income from income support or pensioner premiums.
I also noticed today an interesting report in the press— I think it was in the Daily Express—about the problems faced by women who are getting monthly pensions of
1134
32p because they were encouraged to pay national insurance contributions at the married women's reduced rate. There was a serious problem with that in bygone days. That has left them in severely distressed financial circumstances.
In his wonderful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton spoke about SERPS. I am extremely concerned about the contracting-out rates for SERPS. I spoke about that earlier in the Parliament, when we discussed social security, and I remain very sceptical about the level at which the rebates have been set. I am sure that, in the fulness of time people will opt back into SERPS in large numbers. It is too early to say what is happening, but I believe that the trend will get worse. The Government will have to examine the problem and take positive action.
The level of take-up is an important element of the levels of benefit that we are setting today. When the Government were in opposition, they made great play— rightly—of the level of take-up of some means-tested benefits. They now have it in their power by imposing a duty on the Benefits Agency to maximise benefit entitlement. They could do that at a stroke. It would entail more work for Benefits Agency staff, but it would get money quickly to the people who need it most.
I do not know what assessments have been done of the scope for additional take-up, but it is a scandal that we allow so many of our most impoverished households to face price increases that outstrip the increase in the retail prices index. My constituents are facing huge increases in water charges, for example. After the Budget, they may have to deal with a considerable increase in transportation costs because of the excessive increases which, it is rumoured in the press, we should anticipate in the upcoming Budget. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) referred to increased charges from social services departments for services such as meals on wheels, alarm systems and so on.
Those are increases, over and above inflation, of 5 or 10 per cent, and sometimes more. That makes it extremely difficult for retired people, particularly those—usually women—who are living on their own on the basic state pension plus income support premiums.
The Select Committee has made comment to Governments about the position of overseas pensioners who do not have access to any uprating in certain countries with which we do not have reciprocal agreements. The Minister will know that Governments of both complexions in the recent past have considered the matter and said that they would not uprate the pensions available to overseas pensioners.
That is not a sustainable position in the longer term. The problem will have to be addressed, preferably to bring some equity into the situation soon. I know that a large sum of money is involved and that there are competing priorities, but I ask the Government to examine the situation carefully.
The orders, and the debate, are extremely important. We wait with keen anticipation to see what the Government will introduce. With the best will in the world, it will be the year 2000 and beyond before there can be any substantial legislative changes. The main point that I would emphasise from the debate this evening is that there are households in this country where children and old-age pensioners are suffering now.

1135
Of course the future must be addressed and we must get matters right, I hope on an agreed basis, with consensus across the entire House. In the short term, however, we must do the best we can to do better for the poorest, most disadvantaged members of our society now.
6.55 pm
Mr. Oliver Letwin: The debate has been extremely interesting, and many hon. Members have made interesting contributions. If I may single out one, the contribution of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) made me think in a way that I had not thought previously about the vital question of the age at which a single mother should be considered best suited to an opportunity for work, and the age at which a single mother is better thought of as being at home. That is a critical matter that needs to be addressed.
The debate as a whole has demonstrated what the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said a moment ago: there is an opportunity for a remarkable cross-party consensus. Many of the contributions from both sides have shown that.
I must make an admission that may lead to my achieving a severe black mark with my Whips. Most of what I understand and believe about the social security system comes from a long acquaintance with the works of the Minister for Welfare Reform, who is by any account the most profound analyst of what went wrong with our social security system, and who has produced in his work—gradually evolving, not a constant pattern across time—the most coherent explanation of the direction in which we as a country might move to remove the twin evils that he identifies: the evil of a system that inclines people towards vice rather than virtue, and the evil of a system that inclines people towards dependency rather than self-help.
That is now the common currency of political debate, across the political spectrum. That in itself constitutes a remarkable achievement, but, beyond that, the right hon. Gentleman has proposed in his various works an amalgam of measures which, taken together, constitute a radical revision of the basis of social security provision in this country.
We are all familiar with the elements, and I do not intend to bore the House by reciting each one, but they include the elimination of means tests, the elimination of SERPS, the creation of a properly funded pension scheme for all, the creation of some form of savings account that carries one through a lifetime, and the redirection of social security towards incentives to build rather than to destroy families.
Those are elements which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) has illustrated admirably in a set of speeches, could command support from all parts of the House. There is therefore a golden, and in the post-war period perhaps a unique, opportunity for the reform of the system—a reform on which the economy and probably the social cohesion of this country over the next 50 or 100 years heavily depends. That is no light matter.
It is a matter of profound regret to me—I hope that this does not sound too pious—that there are so few of us in the Chamber debating an issue of the deepest social and economic significance.
1136
We have a golden opportunity before us, and I fear that this opportunity is binary. It is remarkable in that respect. In most areas of government it is possible to reform in a patchwork manner, with one element or another being changed gradually, but that is not so with social security. In many other areas, a favourable circle exists, which means that a reform can be introduced that is beneficial for a secondary reason, while saving money in the short term. As I have said, that is not so with social security.
To achieve the reforms that the Minister of State so admirably set out that could command cross-party support, two things must be accepted by the Government. First, there is the need for the whole to be considered on a global basis, so that there might be radical action. Secondly, there must be the acceptance that, in the short term, some elements will involve extra expenditure, and certainly will not save money. These are critical elements that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) began to admit in his tenure of office. Alas, we see the signs of these critical elements being rejected, by, one suspects, the Treasury.
As soon as these two elements—the drive to radicalism and the acceptance of some short-term costs—are lost sight of, we are no longer in the territory of radical reform that will command cross-party support—the revision of a system that currently distorts the economy within society. On the contrary, we fall back, surprisingly, on no change whatsoever. We may tamper with a particular element that, in the absence of radicalism as directed to the whole, and in the absence of a willingness to spend some money in the early stages, will achieve nothing.
I wish briefly to allude to one element of that— earned income tax credit. I suspect that many Members on both sides of the House would have a great deal to say in favour of a radical system of earned income tax credit. Many of us believe that that is at the root of trying to resolve elements of the poverty and unemployment traps.
However, if the system of earned income tax credit, by a process of attrition and by the removal of elements of radicalism, is watered down into a working family tax credit, with opt-outs and arrangements for ticks in the box and a re-amalgamation with social security to solve the wallet-purse problem, so that the system becomes unrecognisably different from—that is, entirely similar to—the family credit system, we are left with no change.
It may be argued that that is not the worst thing that a Government can do—create no change. If the system were a working system and the Labour Government were merely trying to put their stamp on a working system, there would be nothing to which we could object.
However, the Minister of State has correctly analysed that the social security system does not work now in social or economic terms. To make changes that are not changes because they change nothing about the way in which people behave, because the Treasury has intervened and removed radicalism and the willingness to spend money up front, so as to end up with the same creaking system but with some further patchwork

1137
and, I fear, some further complexity—not integration and radicalism but disintegration and lack of radicalism—is a terrible and tragic waste.
Alas, here we are in a Chamber that is almost desolate, with a Minister of great importance but not the Secretary of State. For reasons we understand, the Minister of State is not present at the moment. We sit in the absence of Treasury Ministers, the Minister without Portfolio and many others. That being so, I hope that, by making these remarks, I shall not suddenly transform the Government's attitude.
However, I hope that the Minister, who we know from experience in Committee is especially clear-minded, will take back the message that has been adequately conveyed in many other speeches, and especially admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. Let the Minister take back the message that there are Members on both sides of the House who have the good will, if necessary, to enable the Department of Social Security to carry forward a genuinely radical programme.
There is a prize open to the Government in political terms—alas, from the Opposition's point of view. However, the prize is of sufficient worth for the country as a whole to make it possible for us, the Opposition, to accept that it should be given to the Government. That is a remarkable state of affairs. It will be genuinely a tragedy for the country if the prize were lost as a result of the Department not being able to get the Minister of State's vision—perhaps uniquely for a politician, worked out by himself and set down in writing—into an Act and into a structure that will serve the country well in future.
7.4 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: I must admit that, as a new Member, I was rather taken aback when the Minister of State said at the beginning of the debate that the custom of the House on days such as this was not to talk about the orders before it. That rather threw me, as I had prepared a speech about the orders. With the indulgence of the House, I shall make a brief, fleeting reference to them.
I have in my hand a small, gummed, perforated piece of paper. It is a humble first-class stamp. Yet this stamp is more valuable than one of the social security benefits that we are talking about. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) rather gave the game away, but I forgive him.
On page 14 of the order we find listed under the heading "Non-contributory Periodical Benefits" a description that reads:
"Age addition (to a pension of any category".
The rate of benefit is 25p. I was about to say that it was the smallest social security benefit in the system. It dawned on me, however, that in terms of weekly amount there is a smaller one.
The rate of benefit of 25p will be the same in 1998 as it was in 1997. Indeed, it will be the same as it was in October 1972, when it was last increased. It will be recalled that those were the days when five shillings really were five shillings. The benefit is paid to about 2.4 million pensioners, at an annual cost to the Exchequer of about £30 million gross.
1138
I wish to assure the Government Whips that I do not propose to call a Division on the non-uprating of the age addition. However, its presence within the benefits system produces an odd result. On someone's 100th birthday, he or she will receive a telegram from the Queen. On someone's 80th birthday, he or she will receive an insult from the Department of Social Security.
What should happen to the humble 25p age addition? Well, it could be abolished. Its abolition would save the Government a little money. Apparently the DSS needs that money, although no one else seems to. The addition would be scarcely missed by the recipients. The alternative would be to make the addition a worthwhile sum—for example, a fiver.
Mr. Burns: Perhaps £5 a week.
Mr. Webb: From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman suggests £5 a week. I suspect that he is sympathetic to the proposal, so he has prompted me. Let us say £5 a week for starters. We could build on that.
Basically, the State pension increases with age. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) perceptively said that there is nothing magical about the age of 80. As she said, it is merely a threshold in the existing system. However, the State pension could be tiered more generally to increase with age.
What about cost? As a Liberal Democrat, I am always acutely aware of the costs of our proposals. The net cost, after savings, from income-related benefits and income tax, would be £310 million. Would this money be well spent? I hope that the House will remember the figure of £310 million, because I shall return to it.
In my view, the money would be well spent. Why? First, the oldest pensioners are the poorest pensioners. I studied the Government's figures on pensioners' incomes for official verification. The Government take account of the recently retired—those five years after retirement—and those who are more than 75 years of age. I would be more interested in the over-80s, but let us take the over-75s.
The latest figures show that the recently retired single pensioner, which is the relevant comparator of the over-80s, for obvious reasons, has an average median income—I am not trying to exaggerate in any sense— after meeting housing costs, of £93 a week. That is the figure for a typically recently retired single pensioner. The typical over-75 pensioner has £77 a week. The figure for the over-80s would probably be lower than that—perhaps not a great deal, but a little lower.
There is a £16 gap between the recently retired single pensioner and the older single pensioner, and that gap is growing. Since 1979, the recently retired figure has increased by 52 per cent., while for the older pensioner it has increased by only 40 per cent.
There are two fundamental reasons why the gap is growing between the recently retired and the elderly pensioner. Elderly pensioners are more likely to be women—two thirds of the over-80s are women. Low lifetime earnings, which feed through into low earnings-related pensions, and the period spent out of the labour market, particularly before protection was built into the benefits system, mean that elderly pensioners

1139
receive lower state pensions. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has already said that some people are getting 32p a month.
An increasing number of the women are divorced. They had assumed that they would get a share of their husband's pension rights in old age, but divorce has suddenly done away with that. I hope that the Government will soon introduce proposals to rectify that injustice. As women, and because of the jobs they did, they may not have been entitled to join their employer's occupational pension scheme. For all those reasons, women tend to be poorer in old age.
There is another reason why the over-80s tend to be poor. It is something with which my incisive brain has wrestled, but I noticed that they retired a long time ago. Why is that significant? Inflation has eroded the value of their pensions. Even the best pensions are typically price-indexed only up to 5 per cent. We have had double-digit inflation since they retired, and many pensions are not indexed to that extent. They have poor pensions because of inadequate indexation.
Almost all the over-80s will have retired before the state earnings-related pension scheme became a possibility. They are possibly getting a graduated pension, but not SERPS. Assuming that the economy continued to grow, newly retired pensioners will have had another 15 or 20 years of economic growth, and their pensions, pegged to their pre-retirement earnings, will have grown in real terms much faster than inflation, which is the best that the older pensioners can hope for. So the gap between the newly retired and the very elderly is likely to remain with us.
Mr. Wicks: I am interested in the idea of giving a higher pension to the very elderly, but there are two difficulties with that. First, a large number of people in poverty in old age are among the younger pensioner group. How would we justify the proposal to them? Secondly, is there not a problem that, in 10 or 20 years' time, the over-80s may be richer because they are getting SERPS, and perhaps are benefiting from occupational pensions? If we had that proposal, would it need to be phased out at some stage? What would be the political and social implications?
Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman makes two perfectly fair points. I am arguing for a tiered pension that rises gradually with age, not necessarily at the magic figure of 80. Younger pensioners would not necessarily feel aggrieved, because they would expect to be 75 or 80 one day. I would be surprised if recently retired pensioners have a particularly high incidence of poverty. I simply do not believe that. There will always need to be a means-tested safety net. The less people have to rely on means-tested top-ups, as the hon. Gentleman said earlier, the better.
Just as there is a quinquennial review of national insurance contribution rates, so there might be a quinquennial review of the differentials between older and younger pensioners. If the trends are changing, the pension system might be adjusted to reflect that, although, in the past 15 years, the trend has, if anything, gone the other way. I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I think that the differential is likely to remain.
The proposal is attractive, first, because it is well targeted on the poorest pensioners, without means testing, and, secondly, because old people take up their pensions.
1140
Take-up of the basic state pension is almost 100 per cent. The Government are acting on the fact that take-up of income support is poor. Their own figures suggest that 390,000 people over the age of 80 fail to take up their income support. How much does that cost? Interestingly enough, £310 million.
I was flicking through the Labour party manifesto this morning—as one does—and came across the extensive section where Labour promises more money to poor people. I have underlined the five lines. It says:
"We will examine means of delivering more automatic help to the poorest pensioners—one million of whom do not even receive the Income Support which is their present entitlement."
One of my various roles in life is to be constructive towards the Government and to offer them a means of delivering their manifesto commitments. We saw earlier that the ones on the little cards are a bit shaky, so let me help them with this one.
If the Government were to accept my suggestion and add £5 a week to the pension of the over-80s, that would guarantee that the poorest pensioners in the land—the elderly who are entitled to but do not claim their income support—would get the money. The manifesto uses the word "automatic". One cannot get much more automatic than adding it to their pension.
The Government have promised pilots in April, so I asked the Secretary of State what they would do to help elderly pensioners to claim their income support. The answer several days later was that they would let me have such information as is available in due course. They did not seem to know what was going to happen in April, or could not give me a summary of it. That rather worried me. As £15 million had been set aside for these pilots, the Government should know what it was going to be spent on. I offer the Government a chance, even at this late stage, to alter the uprating order to help to fulfil their manifesto commitments.
The third attraction of the mechanism to help elderly pensioners is something of an anorak's point, but I hope that the House will indulge me for a moment. State pensions are linked to contributions—those who have poor contribution records get low state pensions—but the age addition is not. Whether one gets lp or £60 a week of state pension, one gets the same age addition of 25p.
If I were to put the Government's £300 million into the age addition, it would go to women with poor contribution records just as much as to people with full contribution records. It would be a much more progressive way to help pensioners than any addition to the basic state pension, as that would be reduced for those with poor contribution records. My final observation is that, if pursued over a number of years, this proposal would restore to the basic state pension its historic role.
The Minister for Welfare Reform is no longer with us—he is off to talk about Beveridge and the history of pensions. In 1908, the pension was for the over-70s, at a time when a male born in that year could expect to live to 51. In 1998, the pension is for the over-65s, and a male can expect to live to 77. In other words, we have gone from a system that was insurance against living too long to something that gives an inadequate flat-rate benefit to 10 million people for the last 20 years of their lives.
With the Deputy Prime Minister, I am a great believer in traditional values in a modern setting. Therefore, we should restore to the pension its role as an insurance

1141
against poverty in extreme old age. The recently retired can, by and large, cope. The very elderly often cannot. They Miss out on all sorts of things—the extra winter fuel payment from the Government, for example. They were given £20, not £50, because they were not claiming their income support. They would not miss out on this £5. It would be action today for some of the poorest pensioners in the land. I commend it to the House.
7.18 pm
Mr. David Rendel: I shall, if I may, ask a question that has not yet been raised. The Minister will remember that, in his social security uprating statement on 2 December, he made the point that they do not intend
"to increase the earnings for the three lower rates of employers' contributions."
He may also remember that I asked him a brief question about that, because I felt, and made the point at the time, that that meant that there would be a real-terms increase for businesses. He replied simply:
"No employer will pay more on existing payrolls as a result of the freezing of the bands."—[Official Report, 2 December 1997; Vol. 301, c. 176–84.]—
thus presumably expecting that employers would not raise their own salaries or those of their employees in line with inflation.
Indeed, the explanatory note on this order goes on to say:
"This Order does not impose any new costs on business. Certain contribution rates, thresholds and limits"—
will
"increase broadly in line with the rise in price inflation."
If those brackets had also risen in line with inflation, there would not be any real-terms increase for businesses.
What estimate has the Minister made of how much more businesses will pay in employers' contributions to national insurance than they would have paid if the earnings brackets had been increased in line with inflation?
7.19 pm
Mr. Simon Burns: Like last week's debate on the Child Support Agency, this debate has been interesting and intelligent by House of Commons standards. It is always a joy to listen to the Minister for Welfare Reform, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and today was no exception. Given his knowledge of the background to the welfare state and his thinking the unthinkable, it is well worth listening to him, although I was somewhat puzzled that, when he went through his litany of anniversaries celebrated this year, he failed—perhaps for obvious reasons—to mention that this is the 67th anniversary of a Labour Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald, cutting benefit levels, particularly unemployment benefit, which brought back the national Government of 1931. This is a slight parallel to that, given the fear and confusion in the country at this time among disabled people about what might happen under this Government to disability living allowance and other disability benefits. I hope that, during his wind-up speech, the Minister will give a categorical assurance about that if he can.
1142
We were extremely fortunate to have the customary thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks). His contributions to these debates are always worth listening to, and we are indebted to him for what he had to say today in a perfectly calm and reasonable, rather than party political, way, which was the hallmark of this debate.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who made a powerful speech on pensions and the impact of the Government's raid on pension funds in last July's Budget, by abolishing ACT credit dividends. In a relatively short time in this House, my hon. Friend has made his mark as an expert on social security matters and has done sterling work on the Social Security Select Committee. Although it is all the vogue to have coalition politics, with the Prime Minister inviting the Leader of the Liberal Democrats to be on a Cabinet Sub-Committee, I seriously began to worry on behalf of my hon. Friend when the Chairman of the Select Committee kept calling him his hon. Friend. Out of kindness to my hon. Friend, I shall ask the Conservative Whip on duty to disregard that, so that my hon. Friend's career is not blighted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) made an interesting speech and analysis of how he felt welfare reform should move forward. He made an interesting point about the future of national insurance and said that, if one was to have a genuine and positive reform of the welfare system, the national insurance part of which has now become confused in people's minds, there is a good case for considering replacing it with an alternative system. That is not only thought provoking but worth considering further during this series of reviews.
In a fascinating and thought-provoking thesis, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) gave us the benefit of his views on where welfare reform could and should be moving and put forward the case for replacing the family credit system through earned income tax credit. It was an important contribution to this debate.
As always, we benefited from a speech by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), the Chairman of the Select Committee. Our debates on these issues would be amiss without an interesting speech from him.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said, it is ironic that, only nine months after the election of a Labour Government, one should be able to buy magazines like The Big Issue with the headline, "If you're poor vote Tory. They would do more for you than Blair, says Iain MacWhirter". That shows the confusion and fear—and betrayal to a point—especially on the issue of lone parents, which features in the uprating orders before us, that is felt outside. If there is ever a warning to a political party, it should be that, if it promises all things to all men before an election and then immediately does the exact opposite on election, it will cause grave disenchantment. The 48 Labour Members who failed to support their Government in the crucial vote last December showed that some of them are still prepared to keep the faith.
A number of important issues arose from the debate and I hope that the Government will deal with them. I trust that, in replying to the debate, the Minister will answer the questions that remain unanswered or need

1143
clarification. I am afraid to have to tell him that there are a number of outstanding questions which I asked on 2 December following the uprating statement in the House. The Minister, gently and courteously, totally ignored the questions, as he used to do during debates in the Social Security Bill Committee upstairs. I know that the Minister is genuinely decent and honourable—I hope that that will not harm his prospects in a Labour Government—and I understand the difficulties that he has had to grapple with on contentious issues such as lone parent benefit, family premiums, and child benefit extra payments, but we would appreciate it today if he answered the questions that we have asked.
The Government have dug themselves into a hole over their handling of pensions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said in his opening speech. The July Budget caused untold damage to the pension industry, which will not even be put partially right until at least April 1999 when the re-rating of the rebate for contracted-out pensions will come into effect. That change to the rebate was made in extremis after an emergency consultation with the Government Actuary, as my hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said. Even then, the changes that the Government made were not what the Government Actuary had advised.
The damage to pensions has cost the taxpayer; and the change to the rebate system will cost the taxpayer anything up to half a billion pounds over the next five years. The Minister will no doubt say that that is all being considered in the two pension reviews currently under way, but the main review is set to report with an initial framework by 30 June and the pensions problems need to be addressed now with increasing urgency.
The uprating order shows that the basic state retirement pension has been increased in line with the inflation rate of 3.6 per cent. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, we have heard in the press—it has now been spelt out by the Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in his speech as part of the road show—that the Government are contemplating means testing the basic state pension. That is not only a fundamental departure from precedent and the way the state pension has operated since its introduction, but it is totally at variance with what the Labour party said before the last general election.
The Minister must clarify this issue tonight and say unequivocally whether the Government intend to means test the basic state pension. The Minister has not intervened either to confirm or indignantly refute that, so if he does not completely rule it out in his winding-up speech, we can reasonably assume that the Government are seriously considering it, and that the Secretary of State for Health has let the cat out of the bag. I urge the Minister to deal with that point.
Furthermore, I am slightly surprised that the Minister of State and the hon. Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and for Croydon, North did not mention VAT on fuel, because that issue is usually raised in debates on social security benefits and payments. The Under-Secretary has never responded to the point that I made during the uprating statement. Everyone will benefit from the reduction in VAT from 8 per cent, to 5 per cent, by 3p in the pound on fuel bills. That will
1144
particularly help pensioners, even if it is—I choose my words carefully so that they cannot be misconstrued—a relatively small amount of money.
If the Government had introduced this change on 1 October instead of on 1 September, pensioners would have benefited more. Inflation was 3.6 per cent, in September, and 3.7 per cent, in October. If the change had been introduced on 1 October, pensioners would have had £6 a year more in their pension, so they are now £6 a year worse off, although I accept that they benefit from the reduction in VAT.
I shall now deal with the position of lone parents, which is a prickly issue for the Government. I again want to ask a question that has still not been properly answered by the Government in previous debates or at the time of the uprating statement. What principles lie behind the Government's case for freezing lone parent benefits? We all know the reasons why the previous Government announced that they wanted to equalise the benefits system between lone parents and couples with children. The House will be relieved to know that I shall not rehearse the arguments, but that was vigorously denounced by the Secretary of State and, I suspect, by every Labour Member in the run-up to the election. Now 419 of them minus 48 have forgotten the pre-election rhetoric.
What is the principle behind the Government's decision to freeze the premium for existing lone parent claimants who will continue to receive payments after April and after the orders on child benefit have been passed? When the uprating was announced, for obvious political reasons nothing was made of the fact that the Government had frozen the premiums or lone parents. I congratulate the Under-Secretary on his deft handling of that question during the uprating statement. In the nicest possible way, he parroted an answer about the amount that the Government were making available to lone parents from April this year. He was factually 100 per cent, correct, but he avoided answering the question 100 per cent. He did not confirm that the Government had frozen premiums. I congratulate him on his impressive sleight of hand.
The Government have ensured that payments to existing lone parents in receipt of child benefit are frozen.
Mr. Gibb: Has my hon. Friend noticed the presence on the Government Front Bench of the Secretary of State? Is there any reason why she has turned up now? Why did she not attend the debate at the beginning? She is the first Secretary of State since 1978 not to attend an uprating debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I do not think that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) should pursue that intervention.
Mr. Burns: I shall abide by your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although, if I am not pushing you too much, I should like genuinely to say that it is a pleasure to see the right hon. Lady.
From April, payments to lone parents with child benefit will be frozen at £17.10 a week. To the best of my knowledge, the Government have never admitted that they have narrowed the differential between what lone parents and non-lone parents receive. The differentiation was £6.05 a week, and it will now be £5.65 a week.

1145
As the Under-Secretary said on 2 December, the rate for family premium will be £15.75 from April. He failed to point out that that is what lone parents were receiving last April, so it has been frozen. The differential was to be reduced from £4.95 to £4.70. The Government are not only freezing payments to existing lone parents who, by not reading the small print of the announcement, were led to believe that they would still receive the extra money. They never assumed that payments would be frozen, and that the margin between couples with children and lone parents would narrow and would wither on the vine. I have no doubt that, in the coming years, the Government will continue with this policy, so that benefits will wither into insignificance.
Mr. Rendel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of what the current Secretary of State said in the equivalent debate this time last year? She said:
"We have said that the way in which to stop… the blossoming of the social security budget, and hence the increased burden on taxpayers, is not to shave the benefits of the poorest families year by year."—[Official Report, 19 February 1997; Vol. 290, c. 944.]
Does he agree with me that what he is describing is precisely a shaving of the benefits of the poorest families year by year?
Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for quoting back at me a quote that I used in numerous speeches in the Committee considering the Social Security Bill, of which he was a member, and in the crucial debate on Report when we had that contentious vote.
Child care was included in the uprating orders and is also in the orders before us tonight. The Minister failed to answer the straightforward question about whether the Government intended to means-test child care costs. He did not even attempt to answer. However, I have an interesting answer that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), gave to a written question about whether the Government plan to means-test places for after-school clubs. He replied:
"Funding to establish new out of school childcare provision will come from the receipts of the Windfall Tax, the Out of School Childcare Initiative and the New Opportunities Fund totalling £300 million over five years from 1998 and 2003. Schemes will be free to determine their own fees. Many existing schemes already adjust fees according to the family's circumstances"—
many schemes already operate a means test—
"and we expect that new schemes will wish to consider doing the same."—[Official Report, 30 January 1998; Vol. 305, c. 438.]
That means—unless I am wrong—that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment is confirming what Ministers at the Department of Social Security have been reluctant to confirm: that child care costs that have been paid for with public money, through the windfall tax and so forth, will be subject to means testing. I hope that the Minister will confirm that when he winds up.
For a long time, we have been promised a Green Paper on welfare reform. The issue has featured largely during the last three hours. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green described, with some eloquence, the background and the problems that
1146
the Government have encountered since May. When the Government came to power then, they announced that they had a Minister at the Department of Social Security whose remit was to think the unthinkable in regard to welfare reform—whose reputation, indeed, was to that effect. As a consolation prize, that Minister was given the Prime Minister's telephone number, so that at any point he could telephone the Prime Minister to share his thoughts on the unthinkable. Unfortunately, however, life did not work out quite like that.
We are all aware of the tensions there have been in the Department of Social Security. We are aware of the heavy hand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is far more interested in a Treasury-driven cost-cutting welfare reform than in some high-falutin' intellectual review of welfare reform. For the last six months or so, the country has had to put up with the leaking, the counter-leaking, the arguing and the scrapping, as each person fights his corner—and who are the innocent victims in that free-for-all among Ministers? The innocent victims are disabled people, who are terrified and utterly confused about what may well be happening.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Scaremongering.
Mr. Burns: There is no point in the junior Government Whip saying that. Having been in the House for 10 years, and having listened to the scaremongering of the Labour party, I think it takes a bit of gall for him to sit there and say it.
The Minister for Welfare Reform—whom I am delighted to welcome back to the Front Bench—was given the remit of coming up with an intellectually based, wide-ranging review of the welfare state. As 1 said earlier, his mandate was to think the unthinkable, and to come up with radical solutions.
Mr. Field: It was to think the workable.
Mr. Burns: We hoped that even the present Government would come up with a review that was workable—as well as, possibly, unthinkable. The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to stray. Perhaps the problem was that we did not use a broad brush; we did it bit by bit.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said earlier, pressing the Minister, we need to know when the Green Paper will be published. The Prime Minister has replied, unsatisfactorily, to my hon. Friend's correspondence. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) made the valid point that we fear that the Government will seek to squeeze it out into the public domain on the same day as the Budget in the hope that its impact will be minimised. Conservative Members hope that that is not what the Government seek to do, because we believe that such action would do a great disservice to the future of welfare reform, and would question the Government's commitment to a welfare reform programme that radically addresses the problems of welfare standing and the welfare state rather than being merely a cosmetic exercise imposed by the Chancellor for cost-cutting purposes.
The DSS is intimately involved—no doubt driven by the Treasury, in this respect for fairly valid reasons—in the question of the proposed earned income tax credit.

1147

That is being trumpeted as a radical welfare reform, but many have suggested that it will be no more than a more expensive version of family credit that will be more difficult to administer. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset dealt with that very well.
Whatever the details, however, there should be a unified approach to the welfare system: I cannot impress that enough on Ministers. Individual measures such as the EITC could help, but, in an intellectually rational review, that should only be part of a package that seeks to address the problems that the Minister of State has identified so eloquently not only in the past but—as I said earlier—at the beginning of his speech today.
We do not want a cost-cutting Treasury-driven exercise. That would be a wasted opportunity, given that we now have within our grasp the chance to come up with a sensible and radical reform process.
Uprating is clearly fundamental to maintaining benefits in line with inflation, and my hon. Friends and I certainly do not oppose the orders. However, I believe that a number of questions, which I have identified, need and deserve answers. I hope that, just for once—if only to humour me—the Minister will answer the questions that we have posed.
7.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): Let me begin by reflecting on many of the sentiments that have been expressed in today's thoughtful and wide-ranging debate. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State set the constructive and philosophical basis on which many of the speeches have been built. Clearly hon. Members on both sides of the House see the need for welfare reform, and the need for a debate both inside and outside the House. The public need to be involved in that debate, and today we have tried to take it forward. Although the immediate subject is the new benefit rates that will be introduced in April and the consequential changes to national insurance, all the issues that have been raised show the importance of the welfare debate. Labour Members welcome that.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for his kind remarks about my enthusiasm for the delivery of social security services—what we call active modern service. I do not think enough attention has been devoted tonight to the importance of ensuring that, whatever reforms come along and whatever changes are made, customers—our constituents; the people in the country— deserve the best service possible. As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said, we ought to recognise and value our staff in agencies throughout the country.
Only this morning, I was speaking to staff at a conference in Brighton. They spoke of the difficulties that they experienced because of the complexities of the current system, and the lack of modern information technology and computers to allow them to do the job that we are asking them to do. I accept that part of the welfare reform agenda is to have a modern, customer-focused service that recognises people's needs.
Mr. Gibb: The Minister has been speaking for just three minutes. Does he intend to apologise for the absence
1148
of the Secretary of State during the debate? The hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) apologised for the—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman raises matters that are not before the House.
Mr. Bradley: We are trying to have a sensible debate, and the hon. Gentleman is lowering the tone. I was wrong to allow the intervention, and I shall not take any more.
The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) made an important contribution when he spoke about pensions. I shall read his comments and, in the spirit of co-operation, refer them to my fellow Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who has responsibility for pensions. The hon. Gentleman alluded to my earlier comments in the House about the problems of capital and disregards. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshirealso spoke on those matters.
I have not had a chance to look at my comments in Hansard, but I do not dissent from the view that there are problems with capital and disregards. In our review of benefits and the general review of the welfare state, capital and disregards will have to be considered, because they are part of the impediments, disincentives or complications in the tax and benefits system.
I commend, as I always do, the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) and his three-pronged approach to welfare reform—the attack on poverty, insurance against risk, and the needs of the family. He clearly set out the principles that we must recognise as the welfare reform programme unfolds. We welcome his major contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Smart) rightly highlighted the needs of children and spoke about the importance of a child care strategy. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) also spoke about child care and about how the new arrangements will be put in place. We have made it clear that child care clubs throughout the country can organise themselves and charge for services in many different ways. We are not trying to impose a blueprint or a set of constraints on the development of those clubs. It will be up to them to look at local circumstances and needs and see how they can best address them by the provision of quality child care within the framework of our national child care strategy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises the value of such a strategy in complementing welfare reform.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) spoke about pensions and poor pensioners, and the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) also made an important contribution to that debate. I know that, as we review pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen will read their suggestions to see how their ideas, if they are considered sensible within the overall pensions review, can be progressed. We must not forget how much the Government have already done to help poor pensioners. We have recognised that the poorest pensioners are those who are not claiming the benefits, especially income support, to which they are entitled. We shall introduce pilot projects to see how we can improve take-up.
The hon. Member for West Chelmsford spoke about VAT on fuel. In spite of Conservative opposition, we reduced VAT on fuel, and that benefits pensioners

1149
throughout the country. In addition, we gave an extra £50 and £20 to pensioner households this winter for fuel bills, and that will be followed through next winter. No one should pretend that nothing is being done to help the poorest pensioners. Such help is an important item on the Government's agenda, and it will continue to exercise our minds as the general pensions review unfolds.
The hon. Member for Newbury asked a specific question about national insurance contributions. I hope that I can give him a satisfactory reply, but if he requires further clarification I shall ensure that he gets it from my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen. No employer will pay more on existing payrolls as a result of our freezing the bands. If each band were to be increased by, say, £5, employers would pay £130 million less in contributions in 1998–99. A higher Treasury grant would have to make good that reduction in the national insurance fund income. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question, but if he wishes to write to me on the matter I shall be pleased to respond to him.
Everyone who has contributed to the debate is awaiting the Green Paper with bated breath. That is understandable because it is the next stage in the debate, in the House and outside it, on welfare reform. My right hon. Friend made it clear that the Green Paper will be published before the next uprating statement. I can confirm that. Every day is a day fewer to wait, and I am sure that the Green Paper will be welcomed by all hon. Members.
Mr. Oaten: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Bradley: I will give way, but it is for the last time.
Mr. Oaten: Perhaps the Minister will at least say whether the Green Paper will be published on Budget day. A clear statement that it will not be published on that day would put our minds at ease.
Mr. Bradley: The hon. Gentleman presses too hard. I have made the position plain: it will be published before the next uprating statement.
1150
Hon. Members spoke about disability benefits. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, who I am pleased to see in her place, has already introduced extra safeguards to improve the quality of decisions that reduce or remove entitlements as part of the benefit integrity project. When my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State met disability benefits consortia, they assured them that we will continue to review the operations of the project because we want benefit payments to be right and decisions to be fair and to be seen to be fair. Groups of and for disabled people have been involved in the project from its early stages, and we shall continue to work closely with them. That exercise is completely separate from the welfare reforms that are being considered.
It must be right to ensure that, throughout the benefits system, payments are right and decisions are fair. I repeat the Prime Minister's assurance that no decisions have been made about the reform of sickness and disability benefits. When options are available for discussion we shall consult disabled people's organisations and others who have an interest in these matters.
We have had a wide-ranging and interesting debate that has shown cross-party concern for the need for welfare reform. The Green Paper will be the new focus for that debate, and I commend the orders to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Amendment Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

PETITION

  Poole Harbour Bridge
  7.59 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: I am here to present a petition requesting that Poole harbour bridge be maintained in the national roads programme. The bridge is vital for the future infrastructure of Poole. It has great public support throughout the borough and the district around Poole. It is needed for the sensible development of the port and to take traffic out of the centre and old town of Poole, so that people's quality of life is improved and the town's prosperity increases.
  I do not wish to say much more on the context, as I secured an Adjournment debate at the end of last year and I am sure that the House is aware of the strong arguments in favour of the project. I briefly thank the people who organised the petition: the eight members of the bridge action team are Ann Stribley, Tony Gardner, Colin Cartwright, Bernard Ewart, Brian Leverett, Brian Ellis, Chris Bulteel and Graham Mason. I say a big "Thank you" to The Daily Echo, which is our main newspaper in the Bournemouth-Poole area and which gave much support to the campaign, and of course to Poole borough council, which always supported efforts to improve the prospects for the area.
  The petition carries 24,536 names. It says:
  To the House of Commons
  The Petition of the people of Poole and District
  Declares that for the future prosperity of the Town, and for the relief of traffic congestion, there is an urgent need for an additional route into the Port of Poole.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions to retain within the National Roads Programme the proposal for the new Poole Harbour Bridge, and that its construction be scheduled as soon as may be practicable.
  And the Petitioners, being residents of, traders in and visitors to the Borough of Poole, remain
  Yours sincerely
  Not many projects in the national roads programme would attract 24,536 names in support.
  To lie upon the Table.

  NHS Dentistry
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr Kevin Hughes.]
  8.2 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter. I could be very, very grateful because the main business has finished so early but, despite the fact that my colleagues are here in great force, I shall respect the things to which we always pay verbal tribute. This is half-term week, and the Minister's family are in London, so we shall not keep him here until the end of the available time. I hope that, in return, he will be particularly nice, helpful and responsive.
  Fifteen years ago next week, I was elected to this place. When I was elected, one of the places that I knew from the beginning I would be proud to be the Member of Parliament for was Guy's hospital. One of the best things about the hospital is that it has one of the greatest dental hospitals in this country, with one of the greatest research records and ratings. That is at one end of the market of dentistry, as it were, and it is important.
  At the other end, I am lucky to have, within 10 minutes' walk from the front door of my home in Bermondsey on the Old Kent road, a very good dentist. I am pleased and grateful for that. In many other parts of England, however, national health service dentistry is becoming a contradiction in terms.
  In many parts of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, NHS dentists are increasingly becoming an endangered species. The message that I want above all to give to the Minister is that it is for this Government to take urgent action, because otherwise, in many regions, NHS dentistry could become a thing of the past.
  We look tonight—this is the first debate on dentistry since the White Paper on the health service was published—for a demonstration of a clear commitment to dentistry as a core part of the NHS. I should like the Minister to address two large subject headings. One is inequalities in dental and oral health and the other is inequity of access to dental services.
  As in many other sectors of the NHS, NHS dental services are very much a lottery—of postcode and of geography. We cannot have a national dental service if access to it depends on where people live and if, in large parts of the country, people cannot register with an NHS dentist. With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard) will, I hope, say a few words that will reflect the fact that, in rural areas, the problems are much worse than in some urban areas. Many of my colleagues, not just in the south-west but in rural areas and in Wales, have exactly that experience.
  I do not lay the blame at the Government's door. The 18 years of the previous Government saw a steady erosion of access to NHS dentistry. There was a reduction in services provided on the NHS for free and in the number of people who were registered with an NHS dentist. Government figures from the Minister's Department show that, over the past two years, the number of people who are registered with an NHS dentist has dropped by 800,000, and that the number has been falling at the rate of approximately—this is worrying indeed—500,000 per

  1153
  month so far this year. Those are frightening figures, and we need severe, urgent and effective action to start to remedy that decline.
  It is even more important that we do so because the variations in the dental health of the population as a whole are unacceptably high. I entirely accept that the Government want to end inequities of health, with unequal distribution of health and welfare. Dental and oral health is just as much a part of that.
  Before I elaborate on those two subject headings, I put three questions to the Minister, because this is a good opportunity to do so. First, there is little in the White Paper about dental care. Does he accept the premise that dentists should be as much involved in primary care groups as other practitioners in the health service? I should be happy if he gave me a considered answer later, but I ask him seriously to consider that issue.
  Secondly—this point has been put to me by people in the service—it seems nonsense that, if people go to their dentist and an oral inspection reveals something that needs treatment by a consultant, they cannot be referred directly from the dentist to the consultant; they have to go from their dentist to their general practitioner and then to the consultant. If that is true, we could save much money, bureaucracy and delay by short-circuiting that.
  Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has put it to me that we could open up dental services a bit. If people go to an optician, they receive a prescription for something, but they do not have, as it were, to cash it there; they may be able to have it dispensed somewhere else. If, for the foreseeable future— I shall have this debate with the Minister on another occasion—there are to be charges and different prices for any dental services, people should be able at least to shop around. They should not, as it were, be caught, being given the diagnosis and the remedy—for which they have to pay out of their own pocket—in the same place.
  On inequalities in dental health, my colleagues and I in this Parliament, as in previous Parliaments, believe that the rising cost of dental care is one of the most crucial factors in deterring people from regular dental check-ups. We believe strongly—the evidence is strong—that this is a false economy as regular checks reduce the need for emergency care, which ultimately is more costly for both the individual and the state. People aged between 25 and 35 are apparently much less likely than any other section of the population to be registered with a dentist. That stores up problems for the future, because that is exactly the period during which problems can set in.
  It is an anomaly—I know that the Government are reviewing those issues—that people have to pay for a consultation with their dentist, whereas they can see their GP for free. That is not logical. Charging for dental care is just as much a disincentive to good oral and dental health as charging for a visit to a GP would be a disincentive to good physical health. That is demonstrated by the fact that the over-75 age group is the only section of the population in which dental registration is not declining, because that group does not face a bill for dental care.
  My friend and colleague, one of the professors at Guy's dental school, tells me that not just dental examination but oral examination is hugely important. There are as many
  1154
  deaths in Britain from oral cancer as there are from cervical cancer. I understand that we are talking about double the population because we are talking about men and women, but nevertheless the figures are not insubstantial.
  More than 50 per cent, of people with HIV have a diagnosable, specifically recognisable lesion and many of them are spotted, before people have understood that they are afflicted by the HIV virus, by dentists and dental practitioners; and 80 per cent, of people with AIDS have a specifically recognisable lesion that dental practitioners can spot. Therefore, we are talking not just about care of the teeth but about many other things which present in the mouth as health issues first.
  I hope that the case for better access is well made. The figures are there to justify it and I hope that the Minister will give a positive response.
  I come now to inequity of access in terms of geography. In reality, we have a rationed dental service—rationing by post code and by local provision. In my time in the House, we have never debated whether there should be rationing, let alone that sort of rationing, and it has never been agreed as an NHS policy. If it is not an agreed NHS policy, there should not be rationing, so we would argue that we need to remedy the fact that it is.
  At the moment, we effectively have not a two-tier service but a two-type service, depending on where one lives. Access to NHS dentistry is a hit-and-miss affair depending on which town or county one lives in. That means that there is not equality of access to dental care. The priority must be dental registration. According to my figures, as many as 40 per cent, of children and 50 per cent, of adults may well now not be registered with a dentist. If NHS dentists become scarcer, those figures will rise.
  The British Dental Association tells me that at least 5 million people may be dropped from dental registers this year simply because they had not visited their dentists during the previous 15 months. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make a simple point about that.
  Ms Julia Drown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should urge all dentists in our constituencies to allow those people who have not visited their dentists in the allowable period back on to their lists, and encourage dentists to do everything that they can to keep people visiting them so that they automatically stay on their lists?
  Mr. Hughes: I agree without reservation. I hope that I can persuade the Minister that, given that the 15-month watershed was not of his making but was inherited from his predecessor, that policy should be reversed so that we need no longer have such a watershed which, as the hon. Lady implied, causes so many people to drop off the list.
  Many people today—perhaps millions—are deregistered without knowing it. Before Christmas, the Liberal Democrats highlighted the issue, but the Government did not respond as acutely and urgently as they could to ensure—the hon. Lady's point—that people knew what was going on and to ensure steps were taken to prevent people from falling off the list, as some now

  1155
  have. Staying on the list is the only way of avoiding prohibitively high prices for dental treatment. Those not on the list do not get free or NHS-paid-for dental care.
  Ms Drown rose—
  Mr. Hughes: I would rather not give way, only because of my undertaking to the Minister, which is important. The hon. Lady can have a word with the Minister later.
  There are two specific follow-on problems. Patients who want to register sometimes cannot find a dentist with whom to register, and some cannot get back on to the list where they were and cannot find anywhere else. That is a particular problem in rural areas. Those who are unregistered and need emergency treatment are in trouble, and it can cost them a fortune.
  There are shortages of places to go to the dentist but there is also an increasing shortage of dentists. That is a result of the systematic and growing underfunding of dentists. Many dentists have been driven to private practice because of the difficulty that they faced in delivering high-quality treatment within the fee scales. The fee scales set three or four years ago by the Government clearly had a huge consequence of people leaving the NHS and going into private practice.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in some parts of mid-Wales, dentists who were practising have closed down and left, leaving people with a choice of either going private, waiting or having no dental care at all? In effect, many people in the country now regard dentistry as being privatised through the back door.
  Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend speaks about a part of Wales which he and I know well, and people do have that perception. They think that the NHS has lost much of its dental service, which has been privatised. That was never the intention, and it should not be the intention. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard) told me earlier today that she had never understood why, from the beginning of the NHS, dentistry and ophthalmology have been treated separately from core services so that people obtain them from different places rather than going to the GP or a common place of provision.
  Mr. Paul Tyler rose—
  Mr. Hughes: I shall give way for the last time, or the Minister will not have his pizza with his kids.
  Mr. Tyler: Will my hon. Friend address a particular point which a number of my constituents have raised— that there is no NHS dentistry in large chunks of north Cornwall? Many of them have paid considerable national insurance contributions over many years. They thought that that was an insurance policy to enable them to take advantage of an NHS. That is simply not there. The occasional provision in a caravan of a salaried dentist, when and if they can get there, is simply not an NHS dentistry service. I hope that, in addressing that wider problem, my hon. Friend will ask the Minister to deal with the specific question of the rural areas which simply cannot now recruit new dentists to provide that service.
  Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend makes the point well, and I am sure that the Minister is seized of it. That is not
  1156
  an isolated example. We could, as I presume the Minister would accept, present dossiers of evidence from probably every county in England and, arguably, most counties in Wales too, making exactly that point. Often there is no dentist at all, or one only occasionally, and that is not a comprehensive health service.
  Dental services are underfunded, and it is not surprising that dental practitioners have reduced the dental services that they provide. The BDA estimates that £40 million needs to be invested in NHS dentistry. I do not pretend that that figure is perfect. On 1 January 1998, when millions of people fell off the dental registers, Ministers announced an extra £10 million for the service. That is welcome money, and I heard the Prime Minister's reply to my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats at Question Time today.
  However, investment from the war chest of money being stashed up by the Government in things such as dentists, dental training and dental health is far better than keeping it locked in the bank and paying off a bit more of our national debt. We need the money and investment to increase registration rates, retain the dentists within the NHS and guarantee the availability of emergency treatment for all non-registered patients.
  We need an effective strategy for oral health promotion. That means the reintroduction of free dental checks to encourage regular visits and free treatments for all, but particularly for children, the elderly and those on low incomes. Secondly, as we have long argued, dental health must be an integral part of national and local health promotion initiatives.
  Thirdly, I make the gentle suggestion of a White Paper, or a Green Paper, on dentistry. That would be welcome. It could reasonably be done and I make that as a constructive suggestion. In due course, it would be a helpful way forward. For understandable reasons, the White Paper has little in it about dentistry, and oral health was not mentioned at all in the Green Paper on public health.
  Fourthly, we need incentives to attract dentists into poorly served areas and to bring them back from the private sector into the NHS. Health authorities need support in that respect. Lastly, we need an increase in the number of dentists being trained.
  Core dental services must be put back in the NHS mainstream, and that means free dental services in terms of checks and provision. If the health of the nation is to be improved, the health of people's teeth and mouths is as important as the health of any other part of their anatomy. We hope that the Government will respond, because it is vital to the health of the nation as a whole.
  8.19 pm
  Mrs. Jackie Ballard: I wish to talk briefly about two issues—rural access and the public health implications of the decline of NHS dentistry. Some places have suffered more deregistrations than others, and places such as Cornwall, Somerset, Gloucestershire and Hampshire appear near the top of the league tables. Access to NHS dentistry is often most difficult in rural areas, where access to other services can also be difficult.
  My awareness of the difficulties of access started seven years ago when my dentist in Taunton told me that he could no longer keep me as an NHS patient. Because of

  1157
  the fee structure, he felt he was unable to provide a high-quality service. When I raised the issue in the local press, I was denigrated by local Tories who said "Problem, what problem?" The Conservatives' interest in the subject is evident tonight by the empty Benches.
  One dental practitioner in Taunton accepts new NHS patients. In the whole of my constituency, only two practices accept new NHS patients. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), people from Frome must travel 15 miles to Wincanton to find the nearest dentist who will take new NHS patients. Across Somerset as a county, only 10 out of 71 practitioners accept new NHS patients. More worryingly, less than half those practices will take new child registrations. There are many other problems of access to public and community services in rural areas.
  I should be the first to say that those problems have not appeared in the past nine months. They are the result of 18 years of under-resourcing by the previous Conservative Government. That is why the Conservatives' new-found concern about the countryside is taken by rural dwellers with a pinch of salt. I do not blame the lack of NHS dentistry on the Government. I agree with the Prime Minister who, when Leader of the Opposition, told the then Prime Minister:
  "I do not know how he dare mention dentistry in the NHS after what his Government have done to it."—[Official Report, 15 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 586.]
  People now want to know what the present Government are going to do about it.
  I shall now refer to the public health implications of the reduced availability of NHS dentistry. Even if people can find an NHS dentist, two things put them off visiting the dentist—fear of the drill and fear of the bill. In a poll published two years ago, 50 per cent, of people said that they would go to the dentist more often if check-ups were free. The figure was even higher among young people— 63 per cent, said they would go more often if check-ups were free. The implications of check-up fees deterring people from going to the dentists are that there will be a reduction in oral health.
  I am told by local GPs that there has been increasing demands on their services caused by poor oral hygiene, gum disease and mouth infections which would previously be seen at an early stage and prevented by a dentist. Regular dental check-ups—as my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said earlier—help the early detection of other illnesses.
  The British Dental Journal said this year that there was increasing evidence that dental health—especially gum disease—may be linked to coronary heart disease. I am not a biologist, and I do not understand the link, but I am sure that the scientists could explain it. The link is especially obvious in men aged between 40 and 50. That could put poor oral health alongside smoking and fatty diet as a significant factor in the development of heart disease.
  We heard earlier that as many people die from oral cancer as from cervical cancer, and the figure is about the same as for those who die from skin cancer, which is not gender specific. In a survey of Members of Parliament in 1997, 90 per cent, of Labour Members said that they
  1158
  wanted to see a reduction in oral cancer as a public health target. The incidence of oral cancer is increasing, and yet dental check-ups could detect it at an early stage. As we know, early detection greatly improves the survival rate for any cancer.
  Two weeks ago, in a response to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), the Prime Minister said that the Government
  "want as much NHS dentistry as possible".—[Official Report, 4 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 1039.]
  Liberal Democrats also want that as soon as possible— but we want it sooner rather than later.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Tom Brake: I shall refer to one aspect of NHS dentistry—the deregistration of patients. This is a subject of some seriousness, which The Times and The Sun have highlighted in recent days, giving rise to headlines like "Tooth of the Matter" and "MP Knows the Drill." It is an issue of national concern.
  The British Dental Association has estimated that up to 8,500 patients per constituency will fall off the lists as a result of the change from 24 months to 15 months. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has said, that is equivalent to up to 5 million patients in 12 months. The British Dental Trade Association said that, far from enabling preventive care, "deregistration hinders accessible dentistry". It also pointed out that the NHS White Paper mentions dentistry only twice.
  Ms Drown: The hon. Gentleman points out that the trade associations say that there is a great danger to dental health as a result of deregistration. Is it not the case that all that a dentist needs to do is to say that he will accept patients back on to his books, and then there would be no problem? Is it not the responsibility of dentists, as much as anyone else, to solve the problem?
  Mr. Brake: The hon. Lady makes a valid point. However, there are already enormous difficulties in getting on to an NHS dentist's list, and I suspect that people who lose their place will find it difficult to get back in future. In a letter to me on the subject, a private individual said that he welcomed the
  "efforts to publicise the true state of affairs that exists here and doubtless across the country."
  Those examples highlight the seriousness of the issue. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider the restoration of the 24-month period.
  8.27 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on securing the debate, and I thank him for honouring the commitment that he gave to me in private. He will allow me to get home and, I hope, to see the kids, which will be refreshing in the middle of the week.
  It has been a good, well-tempered debate. I hate to break that trend, but it is important to recognise the scale of the problem. We should do what we can to address it, but we must not create a crisis out of a problem and,

  1159
  in his early remarks, the hon. Gentleman was in danger of doing so. I shall reply in some detail to the points that he made.
  That is not to say that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have not managed to raise some important issues. I have noted with a great deal of interest that they have been expending considerable effort and not a little ingenuity on raising one particular issue: the registration of patients. I understand, for example, that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) is even offering photo opportunities of himself with his mouth wide open. That is always extremely dangerous for a politician. I would ask him to take heed of the age-old adage that all politicians should bear in mind: before opening mouth, make sure that brain is engaged. I am sure that in his case that will be perfectly true.
  I shall deal with the issue of the registration period in a moment, but I shall first set out why NHS dentistry is not about single-issue slogans. The issues that we must address are extremely complex. Anybody who pretends that there is an immediate solution to some of the difficulties we all face has simply got it wrong.
  The Government value the important contribution to public health that dentists make through their work. Since the NHS dental service was established almost 50 years ago, there have been major improvements in the oral health of the population, especially among children. It is important that we recognise that, for all the problems, we have taken great strides forward. Our generation, and those that will follow, are in a far better position than the generations that have gone before.
  Much of that is due to the success of the NHS and the considerable contribution that dentists have made to it. However, we should not rest on our laurels. The Government are committed to NHS dentistry. Dentistry has achieved much in the past, but we want it to achieve even more in the future. We want it to improve further, both to reduce inequalities in oral health and to improve the population's access to NHS services—two of the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.
  I should like to make one very important point, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. Improvements in oral health depend not just on the availability of dental treatment. Prevention has a key role to play, too. For example, there is overwhelming evidence that fluoridation of the water supply reduces tooth decay in children.
  At the moment, legislation leaves the water industry, which was privatised by the previous Government, in the position to decide whether to agree to local health authority requests for new fluoridation schemes. Therefore, a health decision has been taken by privatised water companies. That seems to me and to the Government to be anomalous. The Government believe that the position needs to be reviewed, but we of course acknowledge that hon. Members on both sides of the House hold extremely strong views on fluoridation. That is why the public health Green Paper, "Our Healthier Nation", which we recently published, seeks to take account of those views and—I hope—find a way forward.
  It is also important to acknowledge the contribution that dentists can make to prevention through oral health promotion and education and through screening. We also took that into account in preparing the Green paper. There is an important role for dentists in the early detection of
  1160
  pre-malignancies and cancers of the mouth—an issue raised by the hon. Members for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard) and for Carshalton and Wallington. For the future, further work needs to be done on how best to diagnose and manage such conditions. We are looking at those issues. To coin another old adage, prevention is better than cure. We are exploring ways of making that come to life in oral health.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey referred to dental checks and his party's manifesto promise, on which it fought the election, to restore free dental checks. He is well aware that there is help to protect the most vulnerable groups, but that the Government are considering such issues, particularly dental health checks, in the comprehensive spending review. I remind him that the comprehensive spending review is being conducted in the context of our election manifesto commitment that, if someone is ill or injured, there will be an NHS service to help, and that access will be based on need and need alone. We are exploring those issues.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: If, as I hope, the Government are persuaded by the argument and the preventive health care case, which the Minister has endorsed, on restoring free dental checks, they will be unreservedly supported by my party, and applauded for doing so.
  Mr. Milburn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. In due course, the results of the comprehensive spending review will become known. Although prevention is important, treatment has a an equally vital role in tackling oral health problems.
  Mr. Tyler: Before the Minister leaves the subject of prevention, will he comment on the previous Government's abolition of the school dental service, which did hugely valuable work and in which prevention was very much the order of the day? I know that there are arguments both ways, but will he at least give an undertaking to examine the particular role performed by the service? It was extremely valuable in deprived rural areas—and no doubt in deprived urban areas—where going to a dentist was not a normal family habit, as it was in better-off areas.
  Mr. Milburn: We must have in mind the outcome that we want. We all want improvements in the population's oral health and, particularly, we want guarantees that children's oral health is safeguarded. There are a variety of ways of doing that. The school dental service was one way; ensuring access to an NHS dentist is another. When I address the way in which we are trying to improve access, perhaps I shall be able to offer the hon. Gentleman assurances that we are determined to tackle the access problems that he and his hon. Friends have raised.
  It is vital that NHS dental services are properly planned, to address the differing health needs of different parts of the country. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is aware, we set out in our White Paper, "The New NHS", how every health authority will work with NHS trusts, primary care groups, other primary care professionals, the public and other partner organisations to develop a health improvement programme for each area.
  I shall give the hon. Gentleman two assurances. First, in response to the direct question that the hon. Gentleman asked, we expect primary care groups to engage with

  1161
  dentists in their area. That is extremely important. It is important that primary care groups are not just the sole preserve of family doctors. We want other primary care professionals, dentists and community nurses equally to be engaged.
  Secondly, and equally important, as the health improvement programme for an area is the local strategy for providing health and health care, it is extremely important that dentists are involved in the process of drawing it up. Indeed, I would expect oral health to feature in health improvement programmes generally. I hope that that helps to satisfy the hon. Gentleman's concerns on that issue. I am determined that, as part of the new NHS, general dental services should contribute increasingly to the improvements in public health that we seek. We are thinking how best to use the resources available to meet those objectives and improve the responsiveness, efficiency and fairness of the service.
  So far, so good. I think that there is unanimity across the Floor of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Stop now."] I cannot stop now, because it is important that we nail a couple of accusations that have been levelled, and put the issue in perspective.
  The hon. Gentleman said that NHS dentists are becoming an endangered species. I have heard others say that, nowadays, no one can find an NHS dentist. That is an absolute myth. Most of the population find NHS dentistry accessible. The tens of millions of people registered with dentists prove that. So does the record number of dentists on health authority lists—more than 19,500 at the end of December last year. In other words, the vast majority of patients in the vast majority of places for the vast majority of the time are able to get access to an NHS dentist. That said, it is obvious that the running down of NHS dentistry by the previous Government has left certain parts of the country with acute and, in a few cases, long-term problems of access to general dental services. Where that happens, it is unacceptable, and we are determined to take action.
  I remind the House that, from the inception of the NHS, dentists have been free-standing, independent contractors. Where they decide to locate their businesses—for that is what they are—is a matter for them. Tragically, in the view of some, they choose to locate their businesses in the leafy shires rather than in hard-pressed rural areas or the inner cities, where oral health problems are arguably greatest. If anyone pretends that he has a simple answer to that complex problem, I should be delighted to hear it. I do not believe that there is a simple answer. We need to plan incrementally to make improvements year by year. That is precisely what we want to do, but the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has a big idea.
  Mr. Tyler: I wish I had. I want to go back to the point that the Minister made about the severity of the situation. Will he confirm that a dentist who reduces the NHS participation in his list from 90 per cent, to 10 per cent, is still included on the list of NHS dentists? Will he confirm that as a result of that, the number of dentists taking NHS patients can increase, but the number of patients on anyone's list can fall dramatically? As my hon. Friends have said, in several parts of the country that appears to be the case.
  1162
  I endorse what the Minister has said about the way in which that has happened and the role of the previous regime, but the situation is serious in many parts of the country. As he correctly said a few moments ago, they happen to be parts of the country in which people can least afford to pay for dentistry. That is why there is such a crisis in those areas. I accept that it is not everywhere, but where it is an issue, it is a serious one.
  Mr. Milburn: I agree. This debate is in danger of becoming almost too consensual. I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government not only recognise the problem but are taking positive steps to solve it. The investing in dentistry initiative was launched in September to, may I say, an almost universally warm welcome from, among others, the British Dental Association. It is an extremely important initiative. It will improve the availability of general dental services and extend the benefits of good oral health, by focusing help on the areas with the most serious problems.
  Among a range of possibilities, grants may be made available to dentists to expand existing practices or set up new ones in return for long-term commitment to the NHS. Schemes may be able to help newly qualified dentists and those with domestic commitments who want to return to work part time. Up to £9 million has been made available for 1997–98.
  The hon. Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard) raised local concerns, which I well understand. I can tell her that of the 200 applications that we have so far received from dentists wanting to expand their commitment to NHS dentistry as a result of the Government's initiative, some 73 have come from the South and West region of the national health service. I recognise that there are particular problems in her area. She may be pleased to know that 13 proposals for investing in dentistry schemes were recently received from Somerset health authority. Of those, one was for an orthodontic clinic in Taunton and one was for improvements to a surgery in Taunton. All those proposals are currently under consideration.
  We are extremely encouraged by the positive response that we have had to the investing in dentistry initiative. We are giving dentists incentives to come back into NHS dentistry. We are providing meaningful opportunities for them to re-engage with their NHS patients. On 1 January this year, I was able to announce £10 million for next year to maintain the Government's drive to improve access to NHS dentistry and to tackle oral health inequalities through the initiative.
  Ms Drown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for agreeing to a bid to the initial investing in dentistry fund, which will mean that next summer in South Swindon we shall have for the first time in a long time a dentist accepting NHS patients. However, that is only a step. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the new bids from South Swindon will continue to be considered until we have a satisfactory NHS dental service in my constituency?
  Mr. Milburn: I can assure my hon. Friend that I expect to see many more bids come in over the course of the next few months and beyond and that all the bids we receive will be looked at seriously. I am aware of the problems in Swindon and in the Wiltshire health authority area generally in respect of access to NHS dentists. We have made a start on addressing those problems, and

  1163
  we shall continue to tackle them. It is important that we target resources on the areas where there are most problems, such as that of my hon. Friend and of the hon. Member for Taunton.
  Mrs. Ballard: I am delighted that the Minister recognises that there is a problem in the south-west, in Somerset and in Taunton in particular. Earlier he referred to dentists preferring to work in the leafy shires, but by many people's definition, the county town of Somerset might have appeared to be just such a place. I hope that the bids that the Minister gets from Taunton and Somerset will receive a favourable response.
  Mr. Milburn: They will be properly and fully evaluated, but, as the hon. Lady is well aware, whether they receive a favourable response is a different matter. In due course, a decision will be made.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister has made a perfectly good point about the history of independent contractors and the resulting anomalies and huge differences—for example, my area is well served, but that of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard) is badly served. We would encourage him to act in a way that is consistent with the White Paper and require health authorities to plan for the necessary provision of dentists in their area; and to continue both incentive and disincentive schemes to make sure that gaps are filled and that, if someone wants to be a dentist in a place where there is no need for one, that person will not be greatly supported by the public funds of the NHS.
  Mr. Milburn: Overall, the Government currently spend about £1,000 million, net of patient charge revenue, on general dental services in England, but that expenditure is wholly dependent on the level of activity of NHS dentists—it is demand-led. It is affected by a range of factors, including changing treatment patterns and a continuing shift to part-time working, especially as there are now more women dentists, which is a good thing, in my view.
  Moving on to the points raised by hon. Members and by the BDA about some patients finding it difficult to get dental care under the NHS in future, apparently as a result of changes to the registration period for continuing dental care, I want to say loudly and clearly that that is simply not the case. Let me explain why.
  From 1 April 1996, the previous Government made changes to the registration period for adults and children. Those changes were agreed with negotiators from the BDA. The registration period for both adult continuing care patients and children in capitation was harmonised to provide a period of continuing dental care for 15 months following each course of treatment. It had previously been 24 months for adults. Dentists receive a monthly fee for each child and adult registered with them under the NHS. That fee, which is to ensure that the patient receives a period of continuing care from the dentist with whom he or she is registered, is paid whether or not the patient attends the dentist again during the registration period.
  Some recent publicity has given the incorrect impression that a new policy has been introduced with the intention of deregistering patients from the end of December last year. Not only is that untrue; it is nonsense.
  1164
  Patients lapse from dentists' lists if they have not seen their dentist since registering. Before that change, each year, an average of 4.5 million patients lapsed from dentists' continuing care patient lists in England alone, indicating that they had not returned to their dentist in two years. That means that the dentist had been paid, but no continuing care had been provided.
  The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues may think that that is a useful way in which to spend public money on NHS dentistry, but the Government and I do not. We want NHS dental moneys to be made increasingly available to encourage the active care of patients, because we are serious about improving the oral health of the population. That means that treatment must be targeted where it is most effective.
  Patients who attend the dentist regularly will be unaffected by the change, as their registration period will roll forward, but much has been made of the implications for patients whose registration will lapse as a result of the shorter registration period.
  The hon. Gentleman, his colleagues and the BDA have implied that patients subject to the shorter registration period will lose access to an NHS dentist. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) rightly said, however, that will happen only if individual dentists refuse to re-register lapsed patients. It is for dentists to decide. If they decide not to re-register patients who were previously on their lists, their overall NHS work load, and therefore their income, will decline from previous levels. Evidence gathered in recent months shows that that is not happening to any significant extent. Indeed, many dentists seem to have been most anxious to encourage patients back to register again.
  In case anyone is worried, the Government have made it absolutely clear that the money previously paid to dentists over the longer registration period, which has now been released, will not be lost from NHS dentistry. Any savings will be reinvested in the general dental service and targeted at achieving better oral health among the population. The shorter registration period already means that payments to dentists are now focused on patients who receive active care from them. That is the right priority, which will ensure real oral health gains.
  The Government are moving the agenda for dentistry forward. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, a range of initiatives have already been taken, including the piloting of personal dental services, which will allow greater flexibility in the delivery of local dental care. I am aware that a bid from his area is currently being considered.
  We inherited problems connected with the availability of NHS dental services and the considerable variations in oral health across the country. By the careful use of the resources available to us, and by seeking greater efficiency, flexibility and fairness, we shall tackle those inequalities in oral health status and improve access to NHS dental services. When we do so, I hope that we shall have the support of the hon. Gentleman and his party.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Nine o 'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many overseas visits have been made by his Department's political advisers at public expense since 1 May. [25159]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]Special Advisors have accompanied Ministers on 15 occasions, in accordance with the guidelines set out in paragraph 84 of the Ministerial Code of Conduct and Guidance on Procedures published in July 1977. These guidelines are the same as those operated by the previous Government.

  Ministerial Address
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a video copy of his address to a joint meeting of the staff of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport in Central Hall, Westminster. [28910]

  Angela Eagle
  No. The Deputy Prime Minister's address to staff of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in Central Hall, Westminster was an internal departmental matter.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) cyclists and (b) pedestrians have been (i) killed and (ii) seriously injured by motor vehicles in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [29377]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Cyclist and pedestrian casualities in accidents involving motor vehicles: GB 1996

  Casualties

  Road user

  Fatal

  Serious

  All

  Pedestrian

  995

  10,514

  46,018

  Pedal cyclist

  186

  3,260

  23,340

  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many pedestrians have been(a) killed and (b) seriously injured by cyclists in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [29376]
  644
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is show in the following table.

  Number of pedestrian casualties in accidents involving a cycle: GB 1996

  Casualties

  Severity

  Number

  Fatal

  2

  Serious

  90

  All

  364

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the projected increase against current levels in freight use of the Channel Tunnel once the high-speed rail link is opened. [29495]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Channel Tunnel Rail Link will have the potential to be used by high speed freight services, but its main contribution to increased rail freight will come through the capacity that its use by Eurostar services will release on the existing network. The take-up of the available capacity will depend on demand.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) passenger and (b) freight trains per day are projected to use the high-speed rail link. [29498]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The extra capacity provided by the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) under the Development Agreement with London and Continental Railways, will enable the number of international Eurostar services in peak periods to be more than doubled to eight an hour in each direction. For domestic passengers, the Development Agreement reserves capacity of up to eight trains an hour for new Kent commuter services during the morning and evening peak periods. The CTRL is also required to have the potential for use by high speed freight services.

  Radioactive Waste
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each year since 1995 those sites specified in authorisations issued under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 to receive low level radioactive waste, indicating the annual volume and isotopic content of wastes received at each site and the origin of such wastes; and if he will make a statement. [29418]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been advised by the Environment Agency in respect of England and Wales, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and by the Environment and Heritage Service in Northern Ireland that the information requested is not held centrally.

  The BNFL site at Drigg in Cumbria receives the largest volume and activity of low level radioactive waste in the United Kingdom. The majority of waste sent to Drigg for

  645
  disposal arises from the nuclear industry. Data relating to disposals of low level radioactive waste at BNFL Drigg for 1995 and 1996 are as follows:

  Radioactivity disposed (TBq)

  Radionuclide

  1995

  1996

  Authorised Limit (TBq)

  Tritium

  0.34

  0.41

  10

  Carbon-14

  0.010

  0.005

  0.05

  Cobalt-601

  0.36

  0.25

  2

  Iodine-129

  0.0018

  0.00017

  0.05

  Others2

  6.0

  3.6

  15

  Radium-226 and Thorium-232

  0.005

  0.005

  0.03

  Uranium

  0.024

  0.10

  0.3

  Other alpha3

  0.09

  0.10

  0.3

  Volume (m3)

  13,200

  10,500

  1The cobalt-60 figure is included in the 'other' as well as shown separately.

  2 Defined in the current authorisation as:

  i. iron 55 and beta emitting radionuclides with half lives greater than three months (excluding carbon-14, iodine-129 and tritium)

  ii. not more than 2 TBq may be Cobalt-60.

  3 Alpha emitting radionuclides with half-lives greater than three months excluding uranium, radium-226 and thorium-232.

  The site in Scotland at which the largest volume and activity of low level radioactive waste is disposed is at Dounreay, Caithness. Virtually all of the waste disposed of at Dounreay arises from the nuclear industry. Data relating to disposals of solid radioactive waste at Dounreay for 1995 and 1996 are as follows:

  Year

  Volume (m3)

  α(Gbq)

  βγ(GBq)

  1995

  446

  39

  223

  1996

  153

  15

  367

  Only one site in Northern Ireland, at Dargan Road near Belfast, has been used for the disposal of low level radioactive waste since 1995. The volume of radioactive waste disposed of each year at this site is approximately 50 cubic metres. Details of the activity are in the table.

  Radionuclide

  Radioactivity Disposed (MBq)

  1995

  1996

  Tritium

  92.807

  31.295

  Carbon-14

  6.03

  736.276

  Other isotopes with a half life less than 1 year

  2199.67

  884.4

  Other isotopes with a half life greater than 1 year

  9.5

  0

  Waste Technetium-99 columns1

  50

  0

  1 The level of radioactivity associated with each column is of the order of 0.01 MBq.

  There are in addition 12 landfill sites in England and Wales, 12 in Scotland and three in Northern Ireland where disposal of low level radioactive waste is authorised. I refer the hon. member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 19 November 1997, Official Report, columns 202–03, where these are listed. Around 35 incinerators are also authorised in the United Kingdom for the disposal of low level radioactive waste.
  646
  The nature of the waste disposed of at landfill sites varies from industrial residues containing naturally occurring radioactive material to small quantities of radioactive wastes from universities and hospitals. The type of wastes which are incinerated are predominately hospital patient care wastes and research wastes which contain small amounts of radioisotopes such as Iodine-131, Tritium and Carbon-14.

  Aircraft Noise
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the advantages of imposing an annual noise limit on aircraft movements at each of the main United Kingdom airports. [29752]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are at present no provisions to impose limits of this kind centrally, though they may be applicable under planning conditions at particular airports. We are currently reviewing policy on aircraft noise near airports in the light of responses to the consultation on integrated transport policy.

  Night Flights
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many flights at(a) Heathrow, (b) Gatwick and (c) Stansted arrived or departed within the night quota period but were not counted against this quota in the last three years; and for what reasons. [29705]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The following information on aircraft not counted against the movements limits and noise quotas is taken from the regular monitoring returns provided by the three airport companies. The night restrictions are set on a seasonal basis. The seasons change with the clocks.

  Heathrow

  Season

  Exempt

  Early

  Not Counted

  Types

  Note 1

  Note 2

  Note 3

  Note 4

  Summer 1997

  113

  0

  0

  1

  5

  Winter 1996–97

  191

  20

  94

  4

  8

  Summer 1996

  256

  36

  1

  3

  14

  Winter 1995–96

  186

  13

  99

  4

  19

  Summer 1995

  268

  4

  8

  12

  10

  Winter 1994–95

  179

  11

  79

  9

  4

  Gatwick

  Season

  Not Counted

  Exempt Types

  Early Note 1

  Note 2

  Note 3

  Note 4

  Summer 1997

  817

  11

  9

  2

  2

  Winter 1996–97

  585

  18

  6

  0

  0

  Summer 1996

  807

  28

  16

  0

  0

  Winter 1995–96

  586

  16

  9

  0

  0

  Summer 1995

  844

  38

  4

  0

  0

  Winter 1994–95

  647

  20

  0

  0

  0

  647

  Stansted

  Season

  Not Counted

  Exempt Types

  Early Note 1

  Note 2

  Note 3

  Note 4

  Summer 1997

  1,152

  1

  0

  2

  0

  Winter 1996–97

  1,194

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Summer 1996

  1,232

  0

  3

  1

  0

  Winter 1995–96

  1,077

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Summer 1995

  1,438

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Winter 1994–95

  1,054

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Exempt Types: Jet aircraft with a maximum certificated weight not exceeding 11,600 kg and propeller aircraft are exempt from the movements limits and noise quotas restrictions if their noise data are classified at less than 87 EPNdB.

  Note 1: Early: Scheduled to land after 0630, but lands before 0600—flight counts against the movements limit but not the noise quota.

  Note 2: Dispensations granted from both movements limit and noise quota for delays likely to lead to serious congestion and delays resulting from widespread disruption of Air Traffic.

  Note 3: Exemptions from counting against the movements limit and noise quota granted by the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (VIP Passengers, Emergency Relief).

  Note 4: Exemptions from counting against the movements limit and noise quota for emergency take-offs and landings.

  Investment Agreement
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment on the powers of regional development agencies. [29663]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Multilateral Agreement on Investment is currently being negotiated at the OECD. Parties to the Agreement will be required not to discriminate against foreign investors. Since Regional Development Agencies will not discriminate in this way, there is no reason why the Agreement should have an impact on them.

  Housing Spending Review
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he expects to announce the outcome of the housing spending review; [29668]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the procedures for consultations on proposals arising from the housing spending review. [29669]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Housing Comprehensive Spending Review has received detailed submissions from all the major housing bodies and from other groups with an interest in housing policy. Their views have been taken into account throughout the Review. Discussions have been held with many of the bodies concerned and there will be further meetings as the review is carried forward. The findings of the Review will emerge in Summer as part of the Government's future spending plans. We will consult as necessary on the implementation of proposals.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his assessment of the timetable for the revision of Council Directive 90/220/EEC; and if he will make a statement. [29713]
  648
  Mr. Meacher
  The European Commission presented a proposal for revision of directive 90/220 at the last Environment Council, and is expected to publish the formal proposal in the next few weeks. The UK intends to hold a preliminary discussion at the June Council.

  Following normal procedures, we would expect it to take several years before agreement on the directive could be reached across the Community.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what investigations of Novartis genetically-modified maize he has commissioned; and if he will make a statement. [29714]

  Mr. Meacher
  Competent Authorities from Member States have considered two applications for approval to market genetically modified maize under the provisions of Directive 90/220/EEC from companies which are now part of the Norvatis group. In the UK, the dossiers of information including an assessment of the risks to human health and the environment have been considered by officials and expert advice was sought from the relevant Advisory Committees. In addition in both cases the applications have been considered by the Commission's expert committees. My Department sees no need to commission any further investigation into Norvatis genetically modified maize.

  An application (C/F/4/11–3) was submitted by Ciba-Geigy to the French Competent Authority for unrestricted marketing of maize resistant to corn borers. After due consideration by the French Authorities, other Member States and the appropriate commission scientific committees it was granted an approval by the French Authorities on 5 February 1997.

  An application (C/GB/96/M4/1) was submitted by Northrup King Company to the Great Britain Competent Authority to market maize resistant to corn borers to be imported, stored and processed to non-viable products and to be used for animal feeds. After due consideration the dossier has been forwarded to the European Commission with a favourable opinion. A decision from other Member States is awaited following consideration by the Commission's scientific committee.

  A summary of these dossiers is on the public register at the Department and a copy of the dossiers is available on request.

  Sea Empress
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total cost of the clean up operation following the 'Sea Empress' disaster; and what estimate he has made of the cost of the disaster to(a) the fishing industry in the area and (b) the local tourist industry. [29685]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government recently presented the following information, which gives our official estimates of the costs arising from the Sea
  649
  Empress grounding, at a meeting of the Executive Committee of the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund.

  £ millions

  Low

  High

  Clean-up operations

  22

  23

  Fishing Industry

  8

  11

  Tourist Industry

  2

  3

  Total

  32

  37

  Household Projections
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the methodology and (b) the mathematical processes used to calculate the 1992-based household projections. [29801]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Descriptions of the methodology and main statistical assumptions underlying the 1992-based household projections are set out in the annexes of "Projections of Households in England to 2016", published by the Stationary Office in March 1995. A copy of this publication is in the Library of the House.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice his Department has given to other Government Departments about the use of environmental appraisals in respect of new policy. [29807]

  Angela Eagle
  The importance of environmental appraisal was discussed at the first meeting of Green Ministers following the Election, on 31 July 1997. At that meeting Green Ministers committed themselves to ensure that environmental issues were considered in the development of all Government policies.

  Details of current and proposed guidance by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to Government Departments on environmental appraisal are set out in the answer which my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment gave to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) on 16 February 1998, Official Report, column 460.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to combat air pollution with particular reference to ground level ozone. [29815]

  Angela Eagle
  Ground level ozone is a problem which requires action at the international level. Several initiatives will help to combat ground level ozone. The Government hope to achieve common position under the UK Presidency on a Solvents directive reducing the emissions of ozone pre-cursors. The Government are negotiating under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe a Protocol on Nitrogen Oxides and related substances which will deal, amongst other issues, with ground level ozone. The UK is participating 650
  in the technical work that will contribute to the European Commission's proposed Ozone Strategy. The Commission is also preparing a directive on ground level ozone which will set environmental quality objectives. The Government intend to produce a consultation paper later in the year on a scheme, known as "Stage II", to reduce petrol vapour emissions from petrol filling stations.

  Drugs (Drivers)
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to test drivers suspected of being under the influence of illegal drugs. [30155]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under existing legislation the police have powers to arrest a driver whom they suspect of being impaired through drugs, and to require the provision of a specimen for testing. We have at present no plans to extend those powers.

  We announced on 11 February a forthcoming roadside trial of drug screening devices by the police. Its purpose is to establish whether the devices are sufficiently robust and practical for conditions likely to be encountered at the roadside, and not to test for the presence of drugs or to assess the accuracy of the devices. Drivers will be asked to volunteer to participate in the trial but those who are obviously impaired through alcohol or drugs will not be asked to volunteer, and will be dealt with by the police using their existing powers.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the extent to which illegal drug use is a contributory factor to road accidents. [30154]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department is currently conducting a study into the incidence of drugs in road accident fatalities. While this is a useful step towards understanding the nature and scale of the problem the findings do not indicate whether drugs were a contributory factor in the accidents concerned. It is very difficult to obtain precise data. A number of institutions world wide are considering the problem and the Department is carefully monitoring evidence in this area.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which medicinal drugs were detected in the Government's recent study of drug driving; and what percentage of medicinal drugs which can impair drivers' reactions could not be traced by the test used. [29844]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [[holding answer 17 February 1998]The Department's recent study tested for three of the major groups of medicinal drugs known to impair drivers' reactions: benzodiazepines, tricyclic antidepressants and opiates.

  The only significant group of medicinal drugs not traced in the tests, but which can impair drivers' reactions, were antihistamines. In a similar study carried out in 1985–87, antihistamines were present in only 0.9 per cent. of cases. The incidence of those medicinal drugs tested for has not changed significantly since the last study and we have no reason to assume that there would be significant changes in the incidence of antihistamines either.
  651
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in what percentage of the bodies of road fatalities in which traces of cannabis was detected in his recent test alcohol was also found. [29840]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 17 February 1998]Alcohol at some level above 10mg per 100 ml of blood was present in about one-third of the fatalities in which traces of illegal drugs—including cannabis—were detected.

  Nuclear Sites (Emergency Plans)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 3 December 1997,Official Report, column 222, on nuclear emergency plans, what payment W. S. Atkins received from the HSE for carrying out the review; for how many hours work; and if he will make a statement. [29821]

  Angela Eagle
  The payment made by the Health and Safety Executive for the professional services rendered by W. S. Atkins Science and Technology for the review of extendibility of local authority plans for responding to nuclear emergencies was £6,700. The time spent by W. S. Atkins in researching and writing the report was approximately 100 staff hours.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many contracts of a value greater than £10,000 his Department has with companies in(a) London, (b) South East England, (c) England, (d) Scotland, (e) Wales and (f) Northern Ireland; and what is the total value of such contracts for each area. [30138]

  Angela Eagle
  It is not possible to provide details of contracts with companies in each area as this information is not centrally held.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will give a regional breakdown of his Department's expenditure on(a) hospitality, (b) stationery and (c) travel in the last year for which figures are available. [30137]

  Angela Eagle
  The information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Funding
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the public funding given to(a) London Underground and (b) the London Docklands Development Corporation in each of the last 15 years. [30140]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Government funding is provided to London Transport, rather than its constituent businesses. The distribution of grant by LT between London Underground Limited and its other businesses is a matter for LT, subject to some grant being ringfenced by the Government for certain purposes. Total public 652
  funding in 1997–98 prices provided to London Transport and the London Docklands Development Corporation in each of the last 15 years is shown in the table.

  Government Grant (£ million constant 1997–98 prices1

  Year

  London Transport

  London Docklands Development Corporation2

  1983–84

  3636

  117

  1984–85

  599

  104

  1985–86

  543

  90

  1986–87

  481

  106

  1987–88

  314

  128

  1988–89

  245

  169

  1989–90

  336

  347

  1990–91

  608

  418

  1991–92

  678

  293

  1992–93

  1,000

  273

  1993–94

  763

  147

  1994–95

  4852

  108

  1995–96

  954

  107

  1996–97

  969

  77

  1997–985

  759

  92

  1 These figures are different from those previously announced because cash figures have been converted to constant prices using the latest HM Treasury GDP deflators, published in November 1997.

  2 LDDC acquired Docklands Light Railway on 1 April 1992. Figures include-grant-in-aid-for the Docklands Light Railway from 1992–93 onwards.

  3 London Transport figure refers to calendar year 1983.

  4 In addition to grant, LT benefitted in 1994–95 from £144 million (1997–98 prices) proceeds from the sale of London Buses Limited subsidiaries.

  5 London Transport figure is a forecast out-turn which does not take account of possible carry-forward of grant to 1998–99 of up to £ 129.5m.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what financial assistance his Department has given to date to the Jubilee Line extension; and what estimate he has made of his Department's expenditure on this project for each of the next five years. [30142]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department provides ringfenced grant to London Transport towards the cost of the Jubilee Line Extension (JLE) Total ringfenced grant up to 1996–97 was £1,574 million. The remaining £341 million ringfenced grant will be paid over this financial year and next financial year: £295 million in 1997–98 and £46 million in 1998–99.

  The Department also provides London Transport with non-ringfenced grant for its various businesses. London Transport allocates some of this to the JLE (£48 million up to 1996–97). LT's most recent forecast of future allocation of non-ringfenced grant to the JLE is £216 million in 1997–98, £165 million in 1998–99, £117 million in 1999–2000 and nothing thereafter.

  These figures exclude investment in the core network being carried out as part of the JLE project.

  The private sector has also contributed over £100 million to the cost of the project and will provide further contributions totalling over £300 million in instalments over a 25-year period.

  Financial Assistance
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the total value of financial assistance packages, including tax and rates relief, offered to companies in enterprise zones in(a) the City of London, (b) Docklands, (c) London, (d) the South East of England, (e) England and (f) total in the last year for which figures are available. [30169]

  Angela Eagle
  The only Enterprise Zone in London was the Isle of Dogs Enterprise Zone designated 26 April 1982 and de-designated on 25 April 1992. The only Enterprise Zone in South-East England was North West Kent designated 31 October 1983 and de-designated on 30 October 1993 with an extended area designated on 10 October 1986 and de-designated on 9 October 1996. The total value of financial assistance packages, including tax and rates relief, offered to companies in Enterprise Zones in 1991–92 (the last full year of the Isle of Dogs Enterprise Zone) was as follows:

  £,000

  Type of financial assistance

  Docklands(Isle of Dogs EZ)

  SE England (NW Kent EZ)

  England EZs (21)

  All EZs (28)

  Rate revenue foregone

  28,100

  3,900

  62,405

  69,796

  Note:

  The estimated net cost to Exchequer of capital allowances in EZs in Great Britain November 1991-November 1992 was £15 million. A breakdown of this figure between individual EZs is not available.

  The total value of financial assistance packages, including tax and rates relief, offered to companies in Enterprise Zones in 1996–97 (the last year for which figures are available) was as follows:

  £000

  Type of financial assistance

  SE England (NW Kent EZ)

  England EZs (6)

  All EZs (8)

  Rate revenue foregone

  1,423

  5,175

  8,094

  Exchequer cost of capital allowances

  0

  9,321

  11,215

  Total

  1,423

  14,496

  19,309

  Transport Projects
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the total financial support his Department has given to transport projects in(a) London, (b) the South East of England and (c) England for each of the last 10 years.[30141]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Expenditure by central Government on transport projects is not in all cases broken down by country or region, and there are therefore practical difficulties in providing an accurate and consistent breakdown in this way. The following table provides estimates of how General Government Expenditure for transport programmes benefits the relevant populations of England and South East England. The figures include the Department's direct financial support for transport (including the support the Department gives to local authorities for transport-related 654
  expenditure), local authorities self financed transport expenditure and Government support for nationalised industries and public corporations.

  £ million

  England1

  South East England2

  Unallocated3

  1987–88

  3,852

  1,189

  462

  1988–89

  3,924

  1,198

  345

  1989–90

  4,737

  1,563

  481

  1990–91

  5,609

  2,303

  677

  1991–92

  5,982

  2,573

  127

  1992–93

  6,688

  2,967

  287

  1993–94

  6,530

  2,754

  177

  1994–95

  8,604

  2,710

  1,960

  1995–96

  8,442

  4—

  4—

  1996–97

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1 General government expenditure on transport identified from available records as having been incurred for the benefit of the English population.

  2 Expenditure which can be identified from available records as having been spent in the South East of England including London.

  3 This line indicates the amount of expenditure in England which cannot for practical reasons be allocated to specific regions. As a proportion of this expenditure may also have been incurred for the benefit of the South East, expenditure figures for England cannot readily be compared with those for the South East.

  4 Figures not yet available.

  Note:

  1,2and 3 Care should be taken in drawing comparisons between different years due to differences in the amount of expenditure which could be disaggregated between countries or regions at the time of data collection.

  Source:

  Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses.

  The figures for London in the following table are not directly comparable with those for England and South East England as they are derived from a different source and include different elements of expenditure. Figures include grant for London Transport, support for local authority expenditure via Transport Policies and Programmes and some Government Office programme expenditure. However, figures exclude expenditure on trunk roads in London and local authorities self financed expenditure.

  £ million

  London

  1987–88

  316

  1988–89

  300

  1989–90

  386

  1990–91

  625

  1991–92

  711

  1992–93

  1,023

  1993–94

  859

  1994–95

  942

  1995–96

  1,062

  1996–97

  1,087

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of his Department's employees by UK region, indicating the wage bill(a) in total and (b) by region in the last year for which figures are available and separately identifying the costs of London allowances and weightings. [30135]
  655
  Angela Eagle
  We do not hold a central record of the staff costs by region for the centre, the 9 Executive Agencies and staff employed in the Government Offices. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Marine Rescue
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many incidents were handled by each of the marine rescue co-ordination centres and marine rescue sub-centres of Her Majesty's Coastguard in(a) 1996 and (b) 1997; and how many of these were (i) false alarms and (ii) hoax calls. [30001]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is detailed in the tables.

  1996 Statistics

  Assistance rendered

  Assistance not rendered

  Hoax calls

  Total incidents

  Co-ordination Centre

  Aberdeen

  188

  469

  13

  670

  Clyde

  256

  150

  9

  415

  Dover

  258

  294

  7

  559

  Falmouth

  345

  544

  6

  895

  Swansea

  515

  411

  32

  958

  Yarmouth

  191

  303

  11

  505

  Sub Centre

  Belfast

  174

  114

  15

  303

  Brixham

  456

  255

  9

  720

  Forth

  160

  137

  19

  316

  Holyhead

  322

  210

  21

  553

  Humber

  375

  129

  4

  508

  Liverpool

  274

  235

  14

  523

  Milford Haven

  253

  180

  12

  445

  Oban

  180

  70

  5

  255

  Pentland

  85

  46

  2

  133

  Portland

  548

  318

  8

  874

  Shetland

  90

  32

  1

  123

  Solent

  751

  418

  38

  1,207

  Stornoway

  149

  74

  1

  224

  Thames

  512

  252

  7

  771

  Tyne Tees

  219

  98

  17

  334

  1997 Statistics

  Assistance rendered

  Assistance not rendered

  Hoax calls

  Total incidents

  Co-ordination Centre

  Aberdeen

  217

  536

  10

  763

  Clyde

  267

  176

  14

  457

  Dover

  266

  340

  13

  619

  Falmouth

  357

  612

  6

  975

  Swansea

  471

  309

  15

  795

  Yarmouth

  223

  268

  16

  507

  Sub Centre

  Belfast

  167

  113

  12

  292

  Brixham

  476

  286

  14

  776

  Forth

  176

  149

  5

  330

  Holyhead

  384

  239

  15

  638

  Humber

  331

  153

  5

  489

  Liverpool

  351

  321

  19

  691

  Milford Haven

  266

  208

  8

  482

  Oban

  222

  41

  4

  267

  Pentland

  101

  39

  0

  140

  Portland

  494

  307

  13

  814

  656

  1997 Statistics

  Assistance rendered

  Assistance not rendered

  Hoax calls

  Total incidents

  Shetland

  133

  20

  0

  153

  Solent

  768

  331

  59

  1,158

  Stornoway

  154

  84

  0

  238

  Thames

  476

  196

  33

  705

  Tyne Tees

  256

  108

  14

  378

  Estates Renewal Challenge Fund
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the allocations for the 1998–99 round of the Estates Renewal Challenge Fund. [30676]

  Ms Armstrong
  I shall be announcing allocations for the 1998–99 round of the Estates Renewal Challenge Fund tomorrow and shall place copies of the press notice detailing the successful authorities in the Libraries of both Houses.

  National Bus Pension Fund
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if his Department has replied to a request from NBC Pension Trustees Ltd for funds to commence a legal action on the National Bus Pension Fund following a decision by the Pensions Ombudsman. [30678]

  Mr. Prescott
  After fully considering the legal advice and the relevant background, I have authorised my Department to reply to NBC Pension Trustees Ltd. offering to meet the trustees' costs with respect to a legal action on the National Bus Pension Fund.

  This offer is consistent with my hope that all outstanding legal matters concerning the former National Bus Company pension funds are satisfactorily resolved as soon as possible.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 February. [29276]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others. Later today, in addition to my duties in the House, I will attend a dinner in the City with Chancellor Kohl.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Action 2000
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new information and advice will be offered under the planned expansion of Action 2000's telephone helpline service. [29746]
  657
  Mrs. Roche
  I understand from Action 2000 that they plan to expand their telephone hotline service to offer a wider range of advice and good practice material, routes to training and employment opportunities and further case study material.

  Investment Agreement
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she has proposed exemptions for United Kingdom local authorities under the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. [29667]

  Mrs. Roche
  The key principle of MAI is non-discrimination against foreign investors. The UK has submitted national exceptions as part of the MAI process to cover those areas where our policy towards investors may discriminate on the basis of nationality. The MAI will not stand in the way of non-discriminatory regulation and, as discrimination against investors on the grounds of nationality is not a factor in UK local authority decisions, such exceptions are unnecessary.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the responsibilities of transnational corporations will be defined and clarified in the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. [29664]

  Most recent SPUR and SMART projects in the Lancashire area £

  Scheme

  Company

  Offer date

  Offer amount

  Project title

  SMART

  Fluorogas Ltd., Thornton, Cleveleys

  16.12.97

  41,512

  High Purity Fluorine Generator

  SPUR 95

  B & M Longworth Ltd., Blackburn

  07.07.97

  53,586

  Chemical Reclamation System

  SPUR95

  Consultant Gas Eng. Ltd., Skelmersdale

  31.07.97

  147,000

  Continuous Conveyor Kiln unit

  SPURA

  Custom Knight International Ltd., Preston

  31.07.97

  102,000

  Crusader Golf

  SPUR95

  Gledhill (Water Storage) Ltd., Blackpool

  16.10.97

  67,921

  Electric Combi

  SPUR95

  Group Eng Ltd., Leyland, Preston

  11.09.97

  147,000

  Lighting Panel Explosive Envir

  SPUR 95

  H W Communications, Lancaster

  22.05.97

  103,515

  Multifunctional Nested Codec

  SPUR95

  Helical Springs Ltd., Lytham St. Annes

  10.07.97

  32,967

  Small Gas Turbine System

  SPUR95

  Have Fun (Footwear Ltd.), Aecrington

  19.09.97

  109,795

  Low Cost Pu Wellington Mfg

  SPUR95

  J Fairburn Ltd., Burnley

  20.05.97

  32,558

  Portable Pipe Cutting Machine

  SPURA

  Milbrook Instruments Ltd., Blackburn

  27.01.97

  123,000

  The Chemical Microscope

  SPUR95

  Noral Micrologists Ltd., Blackburn

  22.05.97

  101,498

  Flex Bdm Project

  SPUR 95

  Systems Eng Lancaster

  18.07.97

  101,498

  Electric Cavity Scanning Sonar

  SPUR95

  J&W Gardner Eng., Lancaster

  23.04.97

  37,500

  First Six Wheel Tractor

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for what reasons Her Majesty's Government have agreed to exempt military plutonium in the United Kingdom from safeguards applied by the International Atomic Energy Agency's guidelines for the management of plutonium. [28470]

  Mrs. Roche
  The guidelines for the management of plutonium were agreed among an informal group of nine countries, including the United Kingdom, to improve transparency and public confidence in the management of national holdings of civil plutonium. (I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry gave on 2 December 1997,Official Report, column 164. The guidelines apply to the management of all plutonium in all peaceful nuclear activities, and to other plutonium after it has been designated by the Government concerned as no longer required for defence purposes.

  All nuclear material, including plutonium, which is required by the United Kingdom for national security reasons is specifically excluded from IAEA safeguards
  658
  Mrs. Roche
  Companies are always subject to the national laws of the countries in which they operate. We are, in addition, pressing for the MAI to have closely associated with it the 1976 OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises which encourage good corporate behaviour.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 27 January 1998,Official Report, column 162, on research and development, what research her Department is assisting in Lancashire; and if she will list the assisted projects in Chorley. [28453]

  Mr. Battle
  We are assisting several projects in Lancashire through SPUR (Support for products under research) and SMART—feasibility projects for companies with up to 50 employees. SPUR ended in April 1997 and became incorporated in the new SMART scheme. Grants for the last year are listed. No projects have been funded in the constituency of Chorley.

  The Office of Science and Technology also provides funding through its LINK programme. Support is also provided for basic and strategic research undertaken in Higher Education Institutes. Information on expenditure by County is not held centrally.

  under Article 1(a) of the UK/Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement (INFCIRC/263) of October 1978. Although the plutonium guidelines themselves do not deal with safeguards, in its Note Verbal associated with the guidelines, the United Kingdom reaffirms it commitment to submit to safeguards by the IAEA on a voluntary basis under its safeguards agreement with the IAEA and Euratom, or by the Commission of the European Community under the Euratom Treaty, all plutonium in peaceful nuclear activities, including any plutonium transferred from military activities to peaceful nuclear activities.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 4 February 1998,Official Report, column 662, on payments due on arms sales to far eastern countries, if she will list (a) the countries involved, (b) the currencies involved and (c) the amounts involved, where payments may be due in a currency other than sterling or US dollars. [28531]
  659
  Mrs. Roche
  Only on some long standing defence equipment cash contracts on Malaysia has ECGD a contingent liability in a currency other than sterling or US dollars. This is in Malaysian ringitts and is currently estimated at £21 million.

  Nabarro Nathanson Solicitors
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total sum paid to Nabarro Nathanson solicitors for legal services in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [28268]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 9 February 1998]Payments by the DTI amounted to £48,495 in 1995–96. There were no payments in 1996–97.

  Electricity Companies
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a request to the European Commission under the terms of the European Merger Regulation to ensure UK jurisdiction over the regulatory aspects of any takeover bid made for a UK regional electricity company. [28337]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 9 February 1998]I understand from Directorate General IV of the European Commission that currently no bids for UK regional electricity companies have been notified to them under the European Community Merger Regulation. Were such a bid to be so notified my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would consider the handling of the case on its merits at the time.

  Gas Suppliers
  Helen Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to regulate door to door selling by gas suppliers. [29602]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 16 February 1998]During meetings with the Director General of Gas Supply, I expressed my concerns over the misleading marketing techniques adopted by some gas suppliers. At the end of January the Office of Gas Supply introduced a new licence condition to regulate such activities. My Department will consult in the near future on possible modifications to strengthen the Consumer Protection (Cancellation of Contracts Concluded away from Business Premises) Regulations 1987. Both of these initiatives should enhance consumer protection with regard to doorstep selling.

  Textiles
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received regarding the dumping of textile products onto the world market, with particular reference to thread from Thailand; and what action she is taking on this matter. [26223]

  Mrs. Roche
  When dumping is alleged to be taking place in the European Commission that has the power to investigate complaints by the EU industries concerned and to propose anti-dumping measures, as necessary. In recent months, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has received a considerable number of representations about Commission investigations into 660
  unbleached cotton fabric and bedlinen originating in a number of countries, but not about the dumping of thread from Thailand.

  Enterprise Bodies
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the assistance she has provided to enterprise bodies in (i) the Docklands area, (ii) London, (iii) the South East of England and (iv) England in the last year for which figures are available. [30165]

  Mrs. Roche
  My Department provides assistance to enterprise bodies primarily in the form of a contribution towards the development of services provided by Business Link partnerships. Funding is available for both setting up Business Links (pump-priming grants) and as a continuing contribution to the cost of services. The table sets out such expenditure in 1996–97, the last full year for which expenditure is available.

DEFENCE

  Military Exercises
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list military exercises in Europe in 1997 to show(a)British participation in major NATO exercises, (b) British national exercises involving forces from other nations, (c) exercises conducted in Europe with participation of British forces and (d) British participation in NATO/PfP exercises, in each case indicating the nations involved. [29447]

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

  Deployment
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each country where British armed forces are deployed by(a) service and (b) ship, unit or aircraft excluding loan service personnel, minor short-term training deployments and personnel in administrative and command posts overseas. [29451]

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

  Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the projected maximum offensive payload and range of the Eurofighter;[28022]

  (2) what is maximum offensive payload and range of the Tornado GR7, the Tornado F3 and the Jaguar GR4. [28023]

  Mr. Spellar
  The table provides details of the maximum offensive payload for each of the aircraft types listed. The actual payload configuration will, of course, reflect the particular needs of an operation which, in turn,
  661
  would determine the range of an aircraft operating without air to air refuelling. The range figures quoted therefore represent a typical radius of operation.

  Aircraft type

  Maximum offensive payload (Kg)

  Combat radius of operation (nm)

  Tornado F3

  1,500

  600

  Tornado GR1/1A/4

  4,500

  550

  Harrier GR7

  3,000

  500

  Jaguar GR1A/3

  2,900

  400

  Eurofighter

  16,500

  1750

  1 Representative figures quoted by Eurofighter GmbH, the prime contractor responsible for development and production of the aircraft.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy for responding to letters received in the(a) Scottish Gaelic, (b) Welsh, (c) Urdu, (d) Hindi and (e) Chinese language. [28049]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 February 1998]The MOD complies with the Welsh Language Act 1993 which established the principle of equality between the English and Welsh languages in all public business. Letters written in Welsh therefore receive a signed reply in Welsh. Under our current policy letters written in Scottish Gaelic, Urdu, Hindi and Chinese receive a signed reply in English only.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the engagements he undertook in the United Kingdom in the course of his duties during January indicating in each case which were accessed by(a) car, (b)train, (c) aeroplane and car, (d) aeroplane and train and (e) other means. [28930]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 10 February 1998]During January 1998 I undertook the following engagements in the course of my duties:

  Date

  Event

  Accessed by

  15 January

  Address at Joint Service Command and Staff College, Bracknell

  Car

  15 January

  Dinner with Defence Secondary Care Agency, London

  Car

  19 January

  Hosted lunch for the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Hungary

  Car

  20 January

  Seminar with Council of Territorial Auxiliary Volunteer Reserve Associations, London

  Foot

  23 January

  Dinner at HM Naval Base, Faslane

  Car

  26 January

  Bilateral meeting with Dutch Defence Minister, Salisbury

  Aeroplane, car and helicopter

  29 January

  Lunch with Charterhouse Bank London

  Car

  29 January

  Visit to Northern Ireland

  Aeroplane, car and helicopter

  Dockyard Workers
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) past and (b) present Rosyth Dockyard employees have (i) made a claim for compensation and (ii) been awarded compensation under the Government's compensation scheme. [29438]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 16 February 1998]Former MOD employees and those currently employed by Babcock Rosyth Defence Limited (BRDL) at Rosyth Dockyard are entitled to compensation under the nuclear industry's no fault Compensation Scheme for Radiation Linked Diseases. My Department joined the scheme in August 1994 and BRDL joined in 1997. Since August 1994, seven compensation claims have been submitted in respect of civilians who have at some time worked at Rosyth, including those now employed by BRDL. No-one has yet been awarded compensation but five of the claims are currently under investigation.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to publicise the health and compensation schemes available to Rosyth Dockyard workers. [29441]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 16 February 1998]MOD joined the nuclear industry's Compensation Scheme for Radiation Linked Diseases in 1994. Since then the Department has publicised the Scheme to current MOD employees through Defence Council Instructions and is currently considering a number of options for advertising the Scheme more widely to former MOD employees and their families.

  MOD civilian workers at Rosyth Royal Dockyard became employees of Babcock Rosyth Defence Limited (BRDL) on 1 April 1987. Ownership of the Dockyard passed to BRDL on January 1997, the same year in which the company became a member of the nuclear industry's Compensation Scheme for Radiation Linked Diseases. BRDL publicised the scheme in its weekly newsletter of 23 January 1998, a copy of which was issued to all employees.

  The Ionising Radiation Regulations 1985 require the Appointed Doctor, a recognised physician appointed by the Health and Safety Executive's Employment Medical Advisory Service, to undertake an annual health review of classified radiation workers. Rosyth Royal Dockyard workers are made aware of the annual health reviews through the company's radiation safety training.

  In addition, BRDL issued a Company Notice to all industrial employees on 4 June 1997, publicising the MOD's scheme for the counselling of radiation workers and giving details of the company's own scheme.

  Enriched Uranium
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are in place for the enrichment of uranium for defence purposes. [29459]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 17 February 1998]The United Kingdom has sufficient enriched uranium for current defence purposes and enrichment will not again be required for some time.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a regional breakdown of his Department's expenditure on(a) hospitality, (b) stationery and (c) travel in the last year for which figures are available. [30072]

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

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list expenditure on(a) defence procurement, (b) research and development, (c) running costs and (d) service wages and costs for (i) London, (ii) the South East of England, (iii) England, (iv) Scotland, (v) Wales and (vi) Northern Ireland in the last year for which figures are available. [30131]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department collects only a limited amount of information about spending in the various regions of the UK. Table 1.9 of Defence Statistics 1997, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, provides a breakdown, by region, of total expenditure by the MOD on defence equipment. No similar breakdown of expenditure on running costs or service pay is available.

  Regimental Sites
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the current location in the United Kingdom of each Army regiment, the number of service and support personnel at each site, and the total wage bill for each site in the last year for which figures are available. [30128]

  Dr. Reid
  Much of the information requested is not held centrally but I am investigating what may be gathered. I will write to the hon. Member once my inquiries are complete and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Shore Stations
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number and running costs of(a) Royal Naval shore stations and (b) Army core headquarters in (i) the South East of England, (ii) England, (iii) Scotland, (iv) Wales and (v) Northern Ireland. [30127]

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

  Armed Forces (Nationality Criteria)
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the review of the nationality criteria for entry into the armed forces will be completed; and if he will make a statement. [30545]

  Dr. Reid
  A comprehensive review of all nationality issues for employment in the Armed Forces has just been completed. It has now been agreed that, with effect from 1 April 1998, the rules relating to nationality extraction, that is the nationality of an applicant's parents, should be relaxed in line with the changes made for Civil Servants. In the majority of cases parents of applicants will no longer need to be British or Commonwealth citizens, or 664
  Republic of Ireland nationals. In certain circumstances, where security is of paramount importance, applicants will be looked at on a case by case basis.

  It has also been agreed that the residency rules should be changed. The 5 year UK residency requirement for most applicants is to be relaxed to allow those who have spent less than 5 years in the UK entry into the Armed Forces.

  I believe that these rule changes will ensure that the Armed Forces become more open for potential recruits, particularly amongst the ethnic minorities.

  We have concluded that the existing rules relating to an applicant's own nationality should remain extant, namely that an applicant should be a British, British Dependent Territories or Commonwealth citizen or a Republic of Ireland national.

WALES

  Farming
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many meetings he has had with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to discuss the future of Welsh farming. [28408]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I meet my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food frequently to discuss the issues of common interest including the future of Welsh agriculture. The last formal occasion was on Wednesday 11 February.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last held talks with Welsh farming representatives; and what matters were discussed. [28417]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I met representatives of the Welsh agriculture industry on 4, 5 and 9 February. We discussed the problems currently facing the industry at the first two meetings and the long term future of Welsh agriculture at the third meeting. I also addressed the Welsh Forum of the National Farmers' Union's Annual Conference on 3 February.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what meetings he has had with pensioners' groups in Wales to discuss cold weather payments. [28409]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  None.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress in setting up the Welsh assembly. [28410]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Excellent progress is being made.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which locations in Wales have applied to house the Welsh assembly. [28411]
  665
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from organisations based in Wales regarding the siting of the Welsh assembly. [28426]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley).

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to broaden the background of candidates for the Welsh assembly. [28416]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The selection of candidates for the elections to the National Assembly for Wales is a matter for the political parties. I would expect the parties to ensure through their selection processes that people of ability and from the widest possible range of interests are chosen to stand in the elections.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the venue and estimated cost of the Welsh assembly. [28420]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have not yet come to a decision on the venue of the National Assembly for Wales. Any decision needs to provide good value for money and be affordable within the resources available.

  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from hon. Members regarding the siting of the Welsh assembly. [28423]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have received representations both in response to my consultation paper and prior to its issue. They were both in the form of correspondence and questions in the House and came from:

  Llanelli: The right hon. Denzil Davies

  Swansea West: The right hon. Alan Williams

  Delyn: David Hanson

  Swansea East: Donald Anderson

  Clwyd West: Gareth Thomas

  Cardiff North: Julie Morgan

  Gower: Martin Caton

  Wrexham: Dr. John Marek

  Vale of Clwyd: Chris Ruane

  Alyn and Deeside: Barry Jones

  Cardiff West: Rhodri Morgan

  Caernarfon: Dafydd Wigley

  Ribble Valley: Nigel Evans

  Lichfield: Michael Fabricant

  Worthing East and Shoreham: Tim Loughton

  Shropshire North: Owen Paterson

  Ashford: Damian Green

  Ruislip Northwood: John Wilkinson

  New Forest East: Julian Lewis

  Chipping Barnet: Sir Sydney Chapman

  Cambridgeshire South: Andrew Lansley

  Guildford: Nick St Aubyn

  Beckenham: Jaqui Lait.

  Historic Chapels
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has held about the creation of a historic chapels trust for Wales since the publication of 666
  the Government's response to the second report of the Welsh Affairs Committee of Session 1992–93 on the preservation of historic buildings and ancient monuments. [28412]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Discussions have taken place between Cadw and the Redundant Historic Chapels Working Group, the Historic Buildings Council and the Wales Council for Voluntary Action. As a result my Department has agreed to provide a grant of £92,000 over two years to the Wales Council for Voluntary Action to fund the establishment of a Chapels Conservation Trust.

  Public Bodies (Women)
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to increase the representation of women on public bodies in Wales. [28413]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I am very anxious to increase the representation of women on public bodies in Wales.

  My Department is developing a programme with representative organisations to increase the pool of good candidates from a variety of backgrounds, making the public appointments process more accessible; making criteria more explicit and laying them open to comment; making sure that independent assessors also reflect diversity; and giving applicants more feedback and constructive suggestions about routes into public life.

  As part of this programme, the Department has at my request developed proposals for two exciting and innovative pilot projects which will be put into action in consultation with Welsh women MPs, local MPs and other interested organisations. I will announce further details of these projects shortly.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the NHS trust re-configuration exercise. [28414]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies).

  Partnership Council
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what he expects will be the cost of setting up and running the partnership council in Wales. [28415]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  It will be for the National Assembly and local government in Wales to decide on the size and work of the Partnership Council and, therefore, its costs. However, there is no reason why the overall costs of running the Council should be significantly different from those associated with the Central Local Partnership Wales.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has held with the Minister without Portfolio about the representation of Wales in the millennium dome, Greenwich. [28418]
  667
  Mr. Ron Davies
  I am assured by my hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio that following the Prime Minister's five commitments made in June last year, the Millennium Experience will involve the whole UK. Its content will appeal to and be relevant to people of all ages and interests wherever they may live. The overarching theme, "Time to Make a Difference", and the way that this will be presented at Greenwich, will engage, inspire and educate all who visit the Experience.

  School Standards
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his priorities in respect of school standards in Wales. [28419]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government's priority is to work with teachers to raise the standards of education achieved by all our young people. We have placed a particular emphasis on the need to improve literacy and numeracy skills in primary schools within the context of a broad and balanced curriculum.

  Agricultural Sector
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the(a) short-term and (b) long-term prospects of the agricultural sector in Wales. [28421]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I do not underestimate the serious nature of the difficulties that the agricultural sector in Wales is currently facing. For the longer term, general commodity markets are likely to be increasingly competitive. The way for Welsh agriculture to compete is to develop well-branded products, which can command premium prices, with a greater degree of value being added in the food supply chain in Wales. In this context, I want to see Wales developing a strong reputation for extensive, farm-assured production, including organic food.

  Road and Canal Transport
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy concerning road and canal transport. [28422]

  Mr. Hain
  The role that all transport modes should play in improving transport links is being considered as part of our plans to develop an integrated transport policy. The consultation exercise launched last August will lead to a UK-wide White Paper on transport later this year. At around the same time, a Welsh Transport Policy Statement will be published drawing out those issues of particular relevance and importance to Wales.

  Optec DD
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the closure of the Optec DD factory at Buckley, Flintshire. [28424]

  Mr. Hain
  We were very disappointed to hear of this closure and greatly regret the job losses involved. But such decisions must remain a commercial matter for the company. The Welsh Office and its agencies nevertheless stand ready to assist wherever they can.

  Health Clinics
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for the expansion of health clinics in Wales. [28425]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The delivery of health care is a matter for local consideration, and it is for Health Authorities to make detailed arrangements in response to local needs. This may include the provision of health clinics by general practitioners.

  In July 1997, I announced a package of £2.5 million to support the development of primary and community health care in Wales. The Package, which is intended to help provide more local flexibility, included an Equity Fund of £500,000 to address inequalities in the provision of primary care services.

  Road Traffic
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made for road traffic growth in Wales in 1998. [28427]

  Mr. Hain
  The National Road Forecast (Great Britain) 1997 publication predicts that road traffic will grow between 0.65 per cent. and 2.79 per cent. during 1998. The average growth on trunk roads in Wales over recent years has tended to follow the higher prediction and I expect this to continue this year.

  Buildings Refurbishment
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by his Department in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996 –97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year; and if he will make a statement. [26616]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]Such costs are included within my Department's general administrative expenditure which is published every year in the Annual Report.

  Periodicals
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year; and if he will list the newspapers and magazines purchased or subscribed to on a regular basis. [26615]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]My Department purchases a range of publications. Approximate expenditure is as follows:(a) £80,000, (b) £87,500, (c) £50,000, (d) £65,000.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the rates of absenteeism in his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98 to date; and if he will make a statement. [26613]
  669
  Mr. Ron Davies
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]The average number of working days sickness absence per member of staff for the Welsh Office, including the Cadw Agency, during the 1995 and 1996 calendar years was 10 and 9.03 days respectively. Statistics for the 1997 calendar year are not yet available. Separate statistics are not available for Cadw.

  Details of absenteeism in non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my department are not held centrally.

  Market Research
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what expenditure has been incurred by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies(a) in 1996–97 and (b) since 1 May 1997 on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; if he will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each; and if he will make a statement. [26611]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]The following expenses have been incurred by my agencies and non-departmental public bodies:

  Energy and Environment Office (EEO): Business and Environment Campaign

  Period: January to September 1997

  Cost: £1,0259 (+ VAT)

  Purpose: Telemarketing research exercise to 250 decision makers within Welsh SMEs to gauge their awareness of the Department's Business and Environment Campaign.

  Wales Environment Centre Mori Survey

  Period: February to April 1997

  Cost: £20,000 (Environment Agency contribution = £15,000)

  Purpose: To determine Managing Director and Finance Director
  (within Welsh companies) views of environmental issues.

  Welsh Development Agency

  Period: 1996–97

  Environmental Goods and Services Market Research

  Cost: £10,000

  Purpose: To identify the size of this sector in Wales in order for the WDA to develop appropriate support measures.

  Inward Investment Evaluation Survey

  Cost: £33,056 excluding VAT

  Purpose: To undertake a formal evaluation of the Agency's inward investment.

  Welsh Omnibus Survey

  Cost: £1,530

  Purpose: The inclusion of additional questions to the Evaluation survey to assess resident expectations of Welsh economic prospects.

  Information Society benchmarking study

  Cost: £12,760 excluding VAT

  Purpose: To identify the use of information and communication technologies by Welsh firms.

  Cadw

  Tracking survey

  Period: August/September 1996

  Cost: £11,750

  Purpose: To gain market profile data about visitors to the monuments in the care of the Secretary of State for Wales.

  670
  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Period: 1996–97

  Inner Harbour Study

  Cost: £2,400

  Purpose: To survey the attitudes of visitors and to establish whether the attractions and facilities in the Inner Harbour are meeting the needs of these visitors.

  Visitor/Leisure Monitor

  Cost: £3,085

  Purpose: To assess trends in leisure visiting, to gauge levels of visiting and to assess satisfaction amongst visitors to Cardiff Bay as a leisure destination.

  Corporate, Commercial and Regional Monitors

  Cost: £5,645

  Purpose: Opinion survey to provide the basis on which sound decisions can be taken and to highlight problems and opportunities as they arise and develop.

  Technology Marketing Study

  Cost: £5,000

  Purpose: To establish the competitive position of Cardiff Bay relative to other competing locations in the UK and to identify sectors that the Bay could attract on the basis of the infrastructure and service provision.

  Digital Development Research

  Cost: £20,000

  Purpose: To measure the impact of the introduction and development of Digital Technology on the media sector in Wales.

  Multi-media Centre Consultancy

  Cost: £2,500

  Purpose: To put together a European Regional Development Fund bid for a multi-media centre to be based in Cardiff Bay.

  Telecoms Sectoral Analysis

  Cost: £13,375

  Purpose: An analysis of sectors and firms which may be interested in the telecommunications technology available in Cardiff Bay.

  Period: 1997–98

  Inner Harbour Study

  Cost: £1,296

  Purpose: To survey the attitudes of visitors and to establish whether the attractions and facilities in the Inner Harbour are meeting the needs of these visitors.

  Cultural Quarter Feasibility Study

  Cost: £9,990

  Purpose: To determine appropriate marketing and development strategies and initiatives to promote the Mount Stuart Cultural Quarter concept.

  Wales Tourist Board

  Research Programme

  Period: 1996–97

  Cost: £333,000

  Period: 1997–98

  Cost: £317,000

  (It is not possible to isolate funding specifically for focus groups because most research studies involve a range of different qualitative/quantitative research techniques. An approximate estimate for expenditure incurred specifically on focus group research would be £30,000 in 1996/97 and £50,000 in 1997/98).
  671
  Development Board for Rural Wales

  Customer Satisfaction Survey

  Period: May 1997 cont.

  Cost: £31,502

  Purpose: To determine the current strengths and weaknesses of the customer services offered by the Board, and identify opportunities to improve customer service delivery operations. The survey forms an integral part of the Board's continuous improvement strategy, building on the achievement of ISO 9001.

  Ministerial Functions
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what functions he exercises in England. [29023]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  In addition to the functions which I exercise collectively for the whole of the UK as a member of the Cabinet, there are certain specific functions I exercise which extend beyond Wales.

  I have functions with respect to the water industry, flood defence, internal drainage and the aquatic environment which extend to parts of England.

  For instance, the boundaries of water companies are dictated by the course of natural watersheds and so do not follow the boundary between Wales and England. Under the Water Industry Act 1991, I exercise various functions with respect to Dwr Cymru and Chester Waterworks Company whose areas extend into England, while my right. hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister exercises functions with respect to Severn Trent Water Ltd. whose area includes Montgomeryshire.

  I have a range of functions which Acts of Parliament require me and other Ministerial colleagues to exercise jointly. Some of these functions relate to Wales and England; others to Great Britain and others to the United Kingdom. The majority of these joint functions are to be found in legislation on agriculture. The practical effect of the legislation is that I have functions with respect to areas outside Wales, although I cannot exercise them on my own because they have to be exercised jointly.

  Under section 487 of the Education Act 1996, regulations make provision for me to pay local education authorities and other persons grants for education in Welsh. Although it is not the case at present, I could exercise my functions so as to pay grants in England for this purpose.

  My functions under the Welsh Language Act 1993 potentially affect any public body providing services to people in Wales, regardless of where the body may be located. In that sense, my functions under the 1993 Act extend beyond Wales.

  Play Groups
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of progress in introducing playgroups in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [29431]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 4 February 1998,Official Report, columns 677–78.

  Jet Skis
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he is taking to reduce the number of jet ski-related accidents in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [29378]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The issues raised by the use of jet skis are currently being considered as part of an interdepartmental review of by law powers for the coast. A discussion paper was issued for consultation in Wales in February 1997 in parallel was a similar exercise in England. The responses to these exercises are being taken into account by an Interdepartmental Working Party which will provide advice to Ministers. The Coastguard Agency is leading further work specifically to analyse the problems and identify solutions for dealing with personal watercraft, involving the Marine Safety Agency and relevant Departments.

  Health Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to improve local health services in Wales. [29379]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Government published its White Paper, "NHS Wales—Putting Patients First" (CM. No.3841) on 15 January. Together with the proposed reconfiguration of NHS trusts in Wales, the changes outlined in the White Paper will improve services, make NHS Wales more responsive, efficient and accountable and release £50 million over the lifetime of the current Parliament for reinvestment in direct patient care. The new arrangements will give GPs and others the opportunity to ensure that local services are tailored to the needs of local people.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to encourage more freight to be transported by rail in Wales. [29865]

  Mr. Hain
  Financial assistance under the Freight Facilities Grant scheme continues to be available towards the cost of the provision of rail freight facilities. One of the main issues raised for debate during the recent consultation exercise on our plans to develop an integrated transport policy was the practical measures needed to bring about increased use of less environmentally damaging forms of freight transport. The consultation exercise will lead to a UK wide White Paper on transport later this year. At around the same time a Welsh Transport Policy Statement will be published drawing out those issues and themes of particular relevance and importance to Wales.

  Regeneration and Development
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about current proposals for regeneration and development in Merthyr Tydfil. [30677]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have been considering very carefully a number of issues which have been raised in connection with, and related to, the disposal by the WDA of the Waterglade and Thorn sites to Merthyr Tydfil Borough Council. My Department has also examined
  673
  these issues at a meeting on 13 February 1998 with the District Auditor and Merthyr under section 30 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982.

  These matters, which relate to the actions of Merthyr in relation to contracts for the disposal and development of the Waterglade and Thorn sites, are of serious concern to me. I have not formed a concluded view as to whether Merthyr's behaviour over this period amounts to unlawful conduct or not. The concerns, which continue to be subject to inquiry by the District Auditor, nevertheless dictate that it is not in the public interest to complete the contract until the matter has been fully considered and resolved.

  Accordingly, I have today used my power under section 1(9) of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 to issue a Direction to the Agency to the effect that the Agency shall not presently complete the contract of 9 February 1996 between the Agency and Methyr Tydfil Borough Council for the sale of these sites unless compelled to do so by an Order of the Court. I shall lay a copy of the Direction before Parliament as soon as possible. The interim Direction is, of course, subject to any view the Court may have.

  My Department will offer whatever assistance it can to the District Auditor in pursuing her inquiry. I have also drawn my decision to the attention of the Police and my Department will give full co-operation to any Police investigation.

  Council Tax Discounts
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of council tax discounts in Wales. [28402]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  On 16 December 1997, I announced new rules on council tax for second homes in Wales. From 1 April 1998 local authorities will have discretion to charge up to the full council tax on unoccupied and furnished second homes, without a six month delay and whether or not they used to be someone's sole or main residence. The new rules were made following wide consultation and replace rules which were inequitable and difficult to operate.

  Looking ahead, the Department will consult over the next few months on the operation of council tax in Wales as part of the review of local government. We will consider whether improvements can be made in the light of the responses to consultation.

  Planning
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to issue a version of the policy statement, "Modernising Planning", in Wales. [28397]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  None. However, I shall be considering the extent to which the proposals covered by my right hon. Friend's statement should be carried forward in Wales. I will consult, as appropriate, on the detail of any such proposals.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Manpower (London)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the manpower level at each police station within each London borough; and what were the figures three years ago. [29708]

  Mr. Michael
  A list of manpower by Metropolitan Police Division is shown below. As the Metropolitan Police District does not equate to the London boroughs, a breakdown by borough is not available.

  End of December 1994

  End of December 1997

  Number of police

  Number of civil staff

  Number of police

  Number of civil staff

  Belgravia

  AB

  324.55

  73.01

  308.71

  62.94

  Notting Hill

  BH

  245.00

  53.38

  243.60

  59.50

  Brompton

  BS

  371.83

  103.98

  365.50

  85.12

  West End Central

  CD

  328.00

  87.00

  309.00

  77.25

  Charing Cross

  CX

  411.90

  94.00

  398.60

  80.00

  Marylebone

  DM

  268.90

  80.92

  329.10

  77.92

  Paddington

  DP

  466.20

  104.00

  352.00

  97.15

  Hampstead

  EH

  220.00

  67.10

  213.35

  53.25

  Kentish Town

  EK

  269.70

  57.77

  285.46

  64.45

  Holborn

  EO

  214.20

  53.00

  197.70

  60.94

  Fulham

  FF

  217.00

  51.55

  230.76

  52.56

  Hammersmith

  FH

  328.20

  88.38

  311.02

  91.24

  Shoreditch & Hackney

  GD

  336.68

  97.58

  330.40

  83.67

  Stoke Newington

  GN

  356.50

  99.00

  346.24

  86.00

  Limehouse

  HH

  292.00

  82.56

  267.09

  74.56

  Whitechapel

  HT

  341.70

  117.90

  300.40

  88.75

  Heathrow

  ID

  414.39

  60.62

  362.06

  60.41

  Barkingside

  JB

  296.40

  124.09

  268.00

  82.98

  Chingford

  JC

  243.80

  82.95

  238.70

  72.54

  Ilford

  JI

  257.49

  101.06

  228.95

  70.51

  Leyton

  JL

  243.40

  61.89

  224.80

  54.02

  Havering

  KD

  377.17

  141.25

  334.33

  84.72

  Forest Gate

  KF

  306.28

  102.00

  303.48

  69.07

  Dagenham

  KG

  304.60

  111.81

  299.90

  65.06

  Plaistow

  KO

  316.80

  96.00

  286.88

  60.83

  Brixton

  LD

  322.50

  90.27

  299.08

  73.27

  Streatham

  LS

  273.90

  78.38

  251.30

  79.56

  Vauxhall

  LX

  406.65

  131.05

  366.51

  110.36

  Southwark

  MD

  289.12

  82.34

  289.18

  67.25

  Peckham

  MM

  307.35

  102.91

  302.63

  82.02

  Walworth

  MS

  275.00

  71.00

  268.70

  67.67

  Holloway

  NH

  270.60

  77.64

  250.50

  70.06

  Islington

  NI

  297.30

  74.76

  298.90

  78.05

  Catford

  PD

  260.70

  100.48

  290.85

  65.22

  Lewisham

  PL

  337.60

  93.46

  319.38

  78.22

  Bromley & Orpington

  PY

  500.43

  148.01

  464.10

  124.12

  Harrow

  QA

  272.20

  86.18

  289.05

  71.26

  Wembley

  QD

  266.70

  71.94

  266.48

  61.08

  Kilburn

  OK

  385.28

  79.11

  346.75

  75.35

  Plumstead

  RA

  308.50

  97.38

  313.49

  74.01

  Greenwich

  RG

  264.70

  97.00

  298.40

  80.02

  Bexleyheath

  RY

  285.00

  108.44

  282.00

  78.87

  Barnet & Hertsmere

  SA

  323.00

  64.77

  277.26

  60.46

  Colindale

  1SC

  —

  —

  428.73

  88.01

  Golders Green

  SG

  211.10

  54.45

  —

  10.00

  West Hendon

  SV

  256.75

  69.00

  —

  —

  Chiswick

  TC

  202.70

  62.48

  186.30

  60.40

  Hounslow

  TD

  263.60

  92.00

  270.26

  81.34

  Spelthorne

  TG

  199.20

  69.47

  178.40

  43.93

  Twickenham

  TW

  297.45

  87.69

  283.15

  71.44

  Kingston

  VK

  373.14

  99.12

  266.89

  80.66

  Wimbledon

  VW

  354.45

  102.73

  292.48

  91.52

  Battersea

  WA

  298.80

  101.44

  268.70

  70.62

  Wandsworth

  WW

  348.98

  106.64

  327.18

  103.94

  Ealing

  XD

  355.93

  100.00

  338.35

  87.44

  Hillingdon

  XH

  439.50

  127.75

  398.20

  109.67

  Southall

  XS

  287.93

  102.12

  288.16

  70.32

  Edmonton

  YE

  270.20

  89.83

  268.30

  74.30

  Enfield

  YF

  273.40

  102.29

  282.00

  66.80

  675

  End of December 1994

  End of December 1997

  Number of police

  Number of civil staff

  Number of police

  Number of civil staff

  Hornsey

  YR

  284.95

  77.60

  261.40

  79.02

  Tottenham

  YT

  295.00

  82.11

  265.1

  70.08

  Croydon

  ZD

  296.50

  93.84

  272.84

  83.23

  South Norwood

  ZN

  327.30

  99.91

  327.77

  92.60

  Epsom & Sutton

  ZP

  428.90

  125.15

  404.50

  92.54

  Total

  19,465.00

  5,693.54

  18,419.30

  4,740.15

  1Amalgamation of SG and SV.

  Immigration Interviews
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to commission research into the use of(a) tape recording and (b) video cameras for the purpose of recording interviews carried out by immigration officers. [29666]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are no plans to record interviews with passengers seeking entry at the primary port controls. I have, however, commissioned a feasibility study into the potential use of tape recording for asylum interviews, whether at ports or in country. A working group is due to report back to me later this year.

  Closed Circuit Television (Airports)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will install closed circuit television cameras at the arrival gates and passport control areas of British airports. [29665]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A trial involving the use of strategically placed closed circuit cameras has been carried out at Heathrow under a joint initiative between the British Airports Authority, Her Majesty's Customs, the police and the Immigration Service. The results of this trial are being analysed. Final decisions will be taken by Ministers, but the indications are that closed circuit television cameras can perform a valuable security role in some areas at British airports.

  Internet Pornography
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to draw the attention of parents to the ease with which children can obtain access to pornographic material on the Internet; and if he will make a statement. [29744]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government are aware that, while the Internet contains many websites which carry material aimed at the educational need of children, it can also be used for the distribution of pornographic and other potentially illegal material. In response to concerns about the availability of such material, the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) was established in September 1996, following discussion between service providers, the Metropolitan Police and officials from the Home Office and Department of Trade and Industry. This is a self-regulatory organisation which is financed by voluntary contributions from the United Kingdom Internet industry and its aims are to determine whether particular newsgroups carry potentially illegal material, to trace the originator and to ask the Internet Service Providers to remove it from their servers. Details of child pornography 676
  are also sent to the police and the Foundation has established a "hotline" to enable users to report the presence of potentially illegal material in a newsgroup or website. The Government support the actions taken by the IWF in this respect.

  Filtering software packages, such as Net Nanny, are available which enable parents to deny access to material containing sexually explicit words. Building on this, a working group of representatives from the IWF and Internet Service Providers has been devising a common ratings system suitable for United Kingdom Internet users on which there is growing international co-operation. This system is expected to address legal, but potentially offensive, material without curtailing freedom of expression. The Foundation aims to work on this system over the next 18 months and, once it is available, expects it to extend to newsgroups as well as websites. The IWF is also working with Internet Service Providers to develop better advice to Internet users about how to use the network safely and further details about this will be given in a publicity event due early next month.

  In addition, the Department for Education and Employment commissioned the National Council for Educational Technology (now known as the British Educational and Communications Technology Agency) to prepare separate guidance for parents and teachers on access to computers. This is available free of charge and features advice on computer pornography within the wider context of the use of the computer within the home and the school. The guidance was drawn up in consultation with a number of interested parties, including the police. As well as addressing the problem of computer misuse, the guidance recognises the scope for the good use of computers and draws attention to the role of information technology in the National Curriculum, and the need to develop pupils' capabilities in the new technologies in preparation for working life.

  Race Relations Forum
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have applied to become members of the Race Relations Forum. [29565]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There has not been a formal application procedure for membership of the Race Relations Forum. A total of 194 nominations and self-nominations have been received. These have come from community organisations, the Commission for Racial Equality, Government Departments and individuals.

  We hope to be able to make an announcement about the membership of the Forum shortly.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to appoint the new commissioners to the Commission for Racial Equality; and how many persons applied to be commissioners in the latest round. [29566]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A total of 1,029 persons applied for these posts. The new Commissioners will be appointed in due course to replace the current postholders who complete their terms of appointment on 31 March.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average amount of money spent per special constable in the last year for which figures are available; what is the average length of service of each special constable; what percentage of special constables were subsequently recruited as police officers in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [29813]

  Mr. Michael
  Not all this information is available and it could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In general, the costs of special constables have been absorbed into the operational costs of the police forces and borne by the police fund without being shown separately. The 1995–96 Working Group which reviewed the Special Constabulary concluded that chief officers, police authorities and the general public should be able to know the costs involved and recommended that these costs should be identified under separate item headings in force financial plans, statements and annual reports. We have commended this practice to chief officers.

  Details of the length of service of special constables are not collected centrally. However, a straw poll of 20 forces two years ago indicated that the average length of service was about four years. A significant number of specials leave to join the regular police force. During visits to meet officers in a number of police forces in "Specials Week" recently, I was struck by the number of long serving specials and the positive spirit of teamwork with their regular colleagues.

  The percentage of special constables who joined the regular force in the last five years was as follows:

  1992: 2.9 per cent.

  1993: 2.4 per cent.

  Special constables in post in England and Wales

  Forces

  Dec '92

  Dec '93

  Mar '95

  Mar '96

  Mar '97

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Avon and Somerset

  465

  247

  508

  262

  420

  231

  426

  262

  424

  205

  Bedfordshire

  119

  80

  113

  79

  107

  82

  103

  86

  104

  78

  Cambridgeshire

  120

  62

  153

  92

  174

  105

  177

  98

  195

  108

  Cheshire

  183

  91

  238

  149

  207

  114

  184

  90

  292

  183

  City of London

  75

  10

  67

  22

  60

  23

  56

  21

  60

  26

  Cleveland

  127

  68

  158

  74

  137

  75

  132

  63

  109

  51

  Cumbria

  145

  85

  161

  87

  160

  81

  140

  61

  125

  64

  Derbyshire

  218

  117

  271

  152

  287

  147

  282

  131

  297

  131

  Devon and Cornwall

  576

  370

  664

  403

  697

  445

  688

  414

  708

  440

  Dorset

  156

  107

  141

  98

  138

  83

  163

  91

  167

  122

  Durham

  121

  82

  154

  104

  119

  81

  114

  73

  105

  79

  Dyfed-Powys

  178

  82

  191

  80

  205

  97

  200

  114

  165

  118

  Essex

  503

  256

  496

  255

  440

  234

  403

  205

  423

  211

  Gloucestershire

  186

  88

  180

  135

  215

  105

  217

  116

  191

  106

  Greater Manchester

  236

  334

  365

  252

  436

  332

  422

  324

  392

  293

  Gwent

  83

  18

  86

  23

  97

  29

  94

  42

  113

  44

  Hampshire

  386

  201

  418

  193

  420

  178

  369

  170

  395

  216

  Hertfordshire

  181

  66

  206

  88

  225

  95

  210

  105

  200

  97

  Humberside

  248

  174

  274

  172

  267

  160

  258

  133

  224

  116

  Kent

  367

  187

  387

  200

  387

  182

  370

  185

  398

  191

  Lancashire

  313

  226

  324

  241

  335

  273

  304

  227

  278

  205

  Leicestershire

  240

  139

  275

  117

  245

  111

  249

  111

  275

  140

  Lincolnshire

  255

  161

  247

  136

  220

  102

  210

  89

  193

  78

  Merseyside

  248

  119

  259

  130

  237

  147

  205

  138

  244

  157

  Metropolitan Police

  982

  507

  1,056

  559

  1,015

  535

  1,188

  653

  1,127

  587

  Norfolk

  226

  120

  241

  125

  234

  111

  210

  109

  260

  142

  North Wales

  172

  123

  179

  119

  169

  119

  205

  127

  216

  125

  North Yorkshire

  215

  173

  244

  253

  217

  164

  201

  159

  213

  149

  Northamptonshire

  192

  110

  219

  111

  201

  102

  190

  99

  209

  107

  Northumbria

  295

  217

  309

  208

  319

  187

  310

  161

  367

  166

  678

  1994–95: 2.9 per cent.

  1995–96: 3.2 per cent.

  1996–97: 3.4 per cent.

  Special constables are used to support the work of regular officers, not to replace them. They represent an additional resource for police forces. Specials are not paid and, although there are costs in recruiting, equipping and training them, those costs are minimal compared to the costs of regular officers. The turnover of specials at 20 per cent. per annum compares favourably with other areas of volunteering where the wastage figure can exceed 70 per cent. The resources invested in the specials who subsequently join the regular force are not wasted to the service. Special constables make an excellent, cost effective contribution to policing local communities.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special police constables there were for each police force, by sex and age group, in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [29812]

  Mr. Michael
  The number of special constables in post in each force in England and Wales over the last five years, by sex, is shown in the table. Details of their age groups are not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The percentage of women in the Special Constabulary is 35 per cent. compared with 15 per cent. in the regular force.

  Care needs to be taken in interpreting the figures, as a number of forces have been at pains to trim their list to "active" Specials who meet a high level of commitment on a regular basis while high demands are placed on Specials in terms of recruitment and training.
  679

  Special constables in post in England and Wales

  Forces

  Dec '92

  Dec '93

  Mar '95

  Mar '96

  Mar '97

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Nottinghamshire

  354

  239

  334

  217

  327

  225

  320

  217

  397

  223

  South Wales

  299

  133

  376

  165

  333

  144

  326

  135

  257

  104

  South Yorkshire

  283

  129

  317

  156

  317

  135

  278

  103

  224

  84

  Staffordshire

  476

  257

  493

  277

  471

  254

  484

  218

  451

  234

  Suffolk

  256

  130

  268

  146

  272

  137

  271

  136

  255

  124

  Surrey

  150

  101

  145

  87

  144

  94

  150

  110

  199

  98

  Sussex

  345

  203

  325

  187

  336

  191

  317

  194

  315

  157

  Thames Valley

  400

  206

  411

  212

  445

  234

  493

  251

  423

  233

  Warwickshire

  249

  101

  238

  112

  224

  128

  221

  123

  233

  148

  West Mercia

  410

  201

  432

  197

  400

  182

  428

  185

  402

  180

  West Midlands

  653

  302

  645

  273

  578

  240

  641

  256

  675

  270

  West Yorkshire

  367

  246

  423

  285

  459

  318

  436

  273

  441

  249

  Wiltshire

  198

  124

  213

  136

  189

  129

  156

  77

  105

  49

  England and Wales Total

  12,251

  6,992

  13,204

  7,369

  12,885

  7,141

  12,801

  6,935

  12,846

  6,888

  Child Curfews
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend his proposals for local child curfews as set out in the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords]. [29787]

  Mr. Michael
  One of the main thrusts of the youth justice reform programme is to seek earlier, more effective intervention to prevent young children from turning to crime in the first place. In the past, too little has been done to prevent children and young people taking the first steps into criminal behaviour. That is why, as part of our proposals to reduce offending by young children, we are introducing in the Crime and Disorder Bill the local child curfew schemes.

  The Crime and Disorder Bill is currently being considered in Another Place prior to consideration in the House of Commons. At this stage, we have no plans to expand the proposals for local child curfews.

  Schengen Information System
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what input his Department has in the restructuring of the Schengen Information System. [29824]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 17 February 1998]The United Kingdom is not a member of Schengen and therefore has not been involved in any restructuring of the Schengen Information System, which is a matter for the Schengen states.

  The incorporation of Schengen into the European Union Treaties, agreed in the Treaty of Amsterdam, requires an appropriate Treaty base to be established for the Articles in the Schengen Convention which provide for the Schengen Information System; work on this is continuing.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many contracts of a value greater than £5,000 his Department has with companies in(a) London, (b) South East England. (c) England,
  680
  (d) Scotland, (e) Wales and (f) Northern Ireland; and what is the total value of such contracts for each area. [30077]

  Mr. Straw
  Information in the form requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of his Department's employees by UK region, indicating the wage bill(a) in total and (b) by region in the last year for which figures are available and separately identifying the costs of London allowances and weightings. [30074]

  Mr. Straw
  There are some 49,500 monthly and 700 weekly payees in the Home Office and its agencies. The total wage bill for the 1996–97 financial year was £1,188,742,143. Information is not available on a regional basis, nor are the costs of payments for working in London separately identified.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the location and running costs in the last year for which figures are available of each of his Department's buildings. [30075]

  Mr. Straw
  Responsibility for property management in the Home Office is delegated to a number of Local Property Centres. Information covering the Home Office Non-Prisons Estate provided by the Local Property Centres for the running costs for the financial year 1996/97 is given in the table.

  The Prison Estate consists of 135 prison establishments. Each of these comprises a number of buildings and many also have external buildings such as staff quarters, farms or stores. Running costs for individual buildings are not available centrally but the Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts for 1996/97 gives an analysis of the costs

  681
  per establishment. The report was published on 12 November 1997 and a copy placed in the Library—reference HC 247.

  Property

  Town

  Running Costs £

  PNC & IT, Leicester (Police House)

  Leicester

  14,300

  PNC & IT, Leicester

  Leicester

  28,102

  PSC Bramshill

  Hook

  1,717,409

  PTC Ashford

  Ashford

  785,111

  PTC Aykley Heads

  Durham

  1,552,057

  PTC Bruche

  Warrington

  966,353

  PTC Cwmbran

  Cwmbran

  356,062

  PTC Ryton

  Ryton-on-Dunsmore

  788,048

  PTC Shotley

  Ipswich

  1,182,704

  Regional Crime Squad

  Loughborough

  147,899

  Training Support

  Harrogate

  368,660

  Crown Buildings

  Yeovil

  31,060

  Days Lane

  Bedford

  36,083

  Emergency Planning College

  Easingwold

  637,000

  Hope Cove

  Hope Cove

  76,135

  Grove House

  Manchester

  26,880

  Calthorpe House

  Birmingham

  489,256

  India Buildings

  Liverpool

  1,441,777

  Abell House

  London

  1—

  Cleland House

  London

  1—

  Fire Experimental Unit

  Moreton-in-Marsh

  57,855

  Hangar 97

  Little Rissington

  78,290

  Queen Anne's Gate

  London

  1—

  Grenadier House

  London

  1—

  Horseferry House

  London

  1—

  Clive House

  London

  1—

  Lunar & Apollo

  Croydon

  7,390,283

  Feltham Green POU

  Feltham

  219,233

  Virginia House

  Birmingham

  29,041

  Building Research Establishment

  Watford

  47,203

  Berkshire House

  London

  521,532

  Apex Court

  Bristol

  22,269

  Minerva House

  Nottingham

  15,894

  Fire Service College

  Moreton-in-Marsh

  2,060,000

  Service Centre

  Bridgend

  7,997

  Dtels House

  Ruddington

  268,798

  Poltimore Depot

  Broadclyst

  1,909

  Argyll House

  Dundee

  4,850

  Prospect House

  Shrewsbury

  34,940

  Terrington House

  Cambridge

  19,166

  3 Acton Square

  Salford

  22,243

  Angel Gate Units 8 & 9

  London

  27,612

  Castle Square House

  Brighton

  31,469

  County House

  London

  20.505

  Daviot House

  West Bromwich

  7,621

  French's Gate

  Chelmsford

  20,631

  Lombard House

  Newcastle

  35,123

  Metrochange House

  Bradford

  19,799

  Silkhouse Court

  Liverpool

  214,652

  York Street

  London

  44,857

  Gringley STC

  Gringley on the Hill

  8,626

  Government Buildings

  Sandridge

  438,918

  Langhurst House

  Nr. Norsham

  100,271

  Aragon Court

  Peterborough

  560,000

  Unit 10

  Peterborough

  19,000

  Hampton House

  Belfast

  273,597

  Olympia House

  Newport

  447,835

  FSL, Chorley

  Chorley

  238,779

  FSL, Huntingdon

  Huntingdon

  187,731

  FSL, Lambeth Road

  London

  2,519,680

  FSS Wetherby

  Wetherby

  213,260

  FSS Chepstow

  Chepstow

  259,645

  Gloucester House

  Birmingham

  35,940

  Lodden Vale House

  Woodley

  31,589

  Priory House

  Birmingham

  938,673

  Units 10 & 11 Goldsworth Park

  Woking

  137,887

  Westbrook Centre

  Cambridge

  122,360

  White Rose Court

  Woking

  516,891

  Crown House

  Corby

  248,480

  Status 2

  Hayes

  705,699

  682

  Property

  Town

  Running Costs £

  Status 3

  Hayes

  593,265

  Atlantic House

  Gatwick

  279,831

  Becket House

  London

  274,804

  Waterloo International

  London

  180,465

  Gatwick North

  Gatwick

  451,981

  Newcastle Airport

  Newcastle

  69,126

  Northumbria House

  North Shields

  42,231

  Passenger Transit Building

  Harwich

  76,034

  Unit 1 Greystoke

  Portishead

  45,857

  East Midlands Airport

  Castle Donnington

  50,812

  Port Police Station

  Felixstowe

  28,991

  Passenger Terminal

  Newhaven

  25,516

  Prestwick Airport

  Prestwick

  20,591

  Unit 4 Anchor Court

  Hull

  27,134

  Ashford International Terminal

  Ashford

  22,634

  Belfast Airport

  Belfast

  25,638

  Ferry Terminal

  Poole

  14,486

  Bournemouth Airport

  Bournemouth

  3,133

  Ballard House

  Plymouth

  49,442

  Tilbury Riverside

  Tilbury

  2,751

  Terminal 1

  Hounslow

  462,350

  Terminal 2

  Hounslow

  777,913

  Terminal 3

  Hounslow

  1,073,981

  Terminal 4

  Hounslow

  689,624

  Immigration Office

  Immingham

  6,213

  Immigration Office

  Sheerness

  10,774

  Gatwick South Terminal

  Gatwick

  453,486

  Southend Airport

  Southend

  3,472

  International Hoverport

  Dover

  69,246

  No. 2 Control Buildings

  Dover

  226,816

  London luton Airport

  Luton

  70,435

  Ferry Terminal Port

  Ramsgate

  10,069

  HM Immigration Office

  Plymouth

  7,273

  Car Ferry Passenger Terminal

  North Shields

  1,981

  Continental Ferry Port

  Portsmouth

  38,249

  Building 41

  Solihull

  116,000

  Gatwick North Storage

  Gatwick

  4,480

  Edinburgh Airport

  Edinburgh

  46,778

  Unit 5 Moorfield

  Leeds

  46,001

  Campsfield House

  Nr. Oxford

  296,000

  Government Buildings

  Harmondsworth

  2386,000

  Queens Building (Heathrow)

  London

  2252,200

  Manchester Airport (Terminal 2)

  Manchester

  254,300

  Tinsley House

  Gatwick

  21,517,560

  18 & 20 Exchanbge Quay

  Salford

  99,597

  Capstan House

  Dudley

  108,672

  Aztec West

  Bristol

  15,621

  Spring Gardens Units 2 and 4

  London

  2,083,809

  Spring Gardens Unit 5

  London

  202,204

  Woolpacks Yard

  Wakefield

  136,348

  Alpha Tower

  Birmingham

  2243,601

  Elliot House

  London

  2966,800

  Haymarket House

  Leicester

  223,631

  Pearl Assurance House

  Cardiff

  238,300

  Morley House

  London

  2969,539

  Tay House

  Glasgow

  21,389,654

  Unit 15 Kinning Park

  Glasgow

  267,010

  Hendon Data Centre

  London

  21,751,681

  Douglas House

  Corby

  235,172

  St. James Court

  Derby

  227,600

  1 Figures excluded because they are commercially sensitive in view of a PFI procurement for the Home Office Central London Accommodation Strategy.

  2 These centrally held figures have yet to be confirmed by the relevant Local Property Centre.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give a regional breakdown of his Department's expenditure on(a) hospitality, (b) stationery and (c) travel in the last year for which figures are available. [30076]
  683
  Mr. Straw
  The last financial year for which figures are available is 1996–97.

  The total expenditure by the Home Office (including its agencies) on hospitality, travel and stationery in 1996–97 is as follows:

  £

  Hospitality

  58,346

  Stationery

  8,027,572

  Travel1

  12,620,709

  1 Includes £276,464 of subsistence and travel costs relating to the Fire Service College, where systems do not enable these items to be separately identified.

  No regional breakdown of the figures is available.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the total cost to public funds of the Metropolitan Police in 1998–99. [30674]

  Mr. Straw
  As Police Authority for the Metropolitan Police District, I have approved estimates which provide for net revenue expenditure of £1,825 million in 1998/99.

  The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District is issuing, with my approval, a precept of £70.73 per property in Band D of the council tax valuation band for Metropolitan Police purposes.

  I have discussed the estimates for the Metropolitan Police expenditure in 1998–99 with representatives of the London local authority associations.

  Video Recordings
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the authority responsible for making arrangements for the classification of video works under the Video Recordings Act 1984. [30675]

  Mr. Straw
  Following the proposal for designation which I laid before Parliament on 18 December, I have today designated Mr. Andreas Whittam Smith under section 4(4) of the Video Recordings Act 1984. Mr. Whittam Smith was appointed as President of the British Board of Film Classification on 1 January 1998, and I am designating him, in that capacity, to replace the Earl of Harewood and Lord Birkett of Ulverston.

  I have placed in the Library a copy of my Notice of Designation and the text of a letter I am sending to Mr. Whittam Smith confirming the designation.

  Cannabis
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of young people in the Metropolitan Police area who were suspected of an offence connected to cannabis were(a) charged, (b) cautioned, (c) convicted and (d) imprisoned in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [29956]

  Mr. George Howarth
  This information is not available since data are not routinely collected on whether individuals are suspected of drug offences. In addition, information is not collected centrally on whether or not suspected individuals are charged with such offences.684
  However, information on those who were cautioned, prosecuted, found guilty and imprisoned for cannabis offences is given in the table.

  Cannabis offences and certain outcomes by type of offence and age, Metropolitan Police District, 1995

  Metropolitan Police

  Age

  All cases

  Cautions

  Prosecutions

  Found guilty

  Imprisoned

  Number

  Under 17

  1,275

  1,033

  242

  174

  2

  17 to 20

  6,098

  4,838

  1,260

  1,067

  29

  Under 21

  7,373

  5,871

  1,502

  1,241

  31

  Percentage

  Under 17

  100

  81

  19

  14

  0

  17 to 20

  100

  79

  21

  17

  0

  Under 21

  100

  80

  20

  17

  0

  City of London Police

  Age

  All cases

  Cautions

  Prosecutions

  Found guilty

  Imprisoned

  Numbers

  Under 17

  15

  14

  1

  1

  0

  17 to 20

  185

  167

  18

  18

  0

  Under 21

  200

  181

  19

  19

  0

  Percentage

  Under 17

  100

  95

  7

  7

  0

  17 to 20

  100

  90

  10

  10

  0

  Under 21

  100

  91

  10

  10

  0

  Metropolitan Police District

  Age

  All cases

  Cautions

  Prosecutions

  Found guilty

  Imprisoned

  Numbers

  Under 17

  1,290

  1,017

  243

  175

  2

  17 to 20

  6,283

  5,005

  1,278

  1,085

  29

  Under 21

  7,573

  6,052

  1,521

  1,260

  31

  Percentage

  Under 17

  100

  81

  19

  14

  0

  17 to 20

  100

  80

  20

  17

  0

  Under 21

  100

  80

  20

  17

  0

  Note:

  Cannabis offences comprise production and cultivation, possession, possession with intent to supply unlawfully; unlawful supply, and permitting to be used for unlawful purposes.

  Source:

  Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate, Crime and Criminal Justice Unit.

TREASURY

  Inheritance Tax (Works of Art)
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue he estimates would be raised in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000 from the abolition of the conditional exemption from inheritance tax for works of art. [26194]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The amount of conditional relief granted for works of art, and other chattels, fluctuates significantly from year to year.

  Periodicals
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year; and if he will list the newspapers and magazines purchased or subscribed to on a regular basis. [26575]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]: Expenditure by the Treasury on periodicals is estimated to be:

  £000

  Year

  Expenditure

  1995–96

  615

  1996–97

  556

  1997–98 to end January 1998

  445

  1997–98 forecast outturn

  625

  These figures are on a cash basis and include newspapers, magazines, and other publications which appear on a regular basis. The lower costs in 1996–97 as against 1995–96 and 1997–98 result in large part from the lower level of parliamentary activity at the end of the last Parliament. This resulted for example, in the price of Hansard being reduced. A complete listing of the titles currently purchased on a regular basis could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the Treasury purchases copies of most of the mainstream newspapers and current affairs journals.

  Officials (Entry Warrants)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Inland Revenue and Customs officials are authorised to enter premises without a warrant. [29047]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No officer of the Inland Revenue may enter premises without the consent of the owner, unless that officer is acting under the authority of warrant granted by the appropriate judicial authority.

  All commissioned officers within HM Customs and Excise are entitled, in the course of their official duties, to enter registered premises that are being used in relation to matters for which Customs have statutory responsibilities.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has commissioned on the likely psychological impact of paying family credit through the pay packet as a working family tax credit; and if he will publish it. [28976]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 11 February 1998]: The Chancellor has gathered a wide range of evidence in his consideration of a working family tax credit; from this evidence he has concluded that it would have a number of attractions.

  Environmental Policies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what management procedures have been introduced in his Department to ensure that the new environmental policies being developed by the Treasury are communicated(a) internally to all branches of his
  686

  Department involved in policy formulation and resource accounting, (b) to Ministers and officials of other Government Departments and (c) to chief executives of non-departmental public bodies and nationalised industries. [29272]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Treasury's principal aim is to raise the long-term rate of sustainable growth. This aim is communicated to all parts of the Department through management objectives. The Treasury reports on progress against its aims in its Departmental Annual Report.

  The Treasury has revised its guidance on policy appraisal (Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government, 1997) to make clear that environmental effects need to be considered alongside others in appraising and evaluating policies. This is the central guidance which all those carrying out appraisals in Government are expected to follow. Copies of the new version, which is available to the public, have been circulated widely within Treasury and other Government Departments. Treasury officials are working closely with Departments to ensure that they are following the new procedures.

  Forthcoming revisions to Government Accounting will also make clear that good appraisal and evaluation, taking account of environmental impacts, are an essential part of achieving value for money. Government Accounting is the rulebook for Government finance. All staff in the Treasury and other Departments and Non-Departmental Public Bodies who are involved in finance and accounting will receive copies of the revised chapter and will be expected to follow it. The National Audit Office monitors compliance with the rules of Government Accounting in Departments.

  Revenue Departments preparing submissions for the Budget are required to comment on the environmental implications of main proposals. The Treasury is encouraging other Departments to do the same with their Budget submissions.

  The Treasury has a strategy for improving the environmental impact of its own domestic operations. This is available to all staff and the general public on the Internet.

  Offshore Accounts
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the amount of potential annual revenue forgone as a result of overseas employers paying tax-free bonuses to United Kingdom-based employees' offshore accounts. [29551]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to estimate the amount of potential annual revenue forgone in the circumstances described because the arrangements will be known only to the employers and employees concerned.

  Euro
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if provision will be made for the continued circulation of Scottish banknotes on the accession of the United Kingdom to the single currency. [29763]
  687
  Mrs. Liddell
  Article 105a(1) of the Treaty gives the ECB"the exclusive right to authorise the issue of banknotes"
  within participating member states. However, Article 16 of the ESCB Statute requires the ECB to respect as far as possible existing practices regarding the issue and design of banknotes. If the UK were to join EMU, Scottish banks would need authorisation from the ECB to continue circulating Scottish banknotes.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the policy of repatriation of(a) Euro coins and (b) Euro notes to the nation of origin upon United Kingdom accession to the Single Currency; what volume of currency he estimates would be repatriated in each year; and at what cost; [29771]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the technical difficulties involved in repatriating bank notes and coinage not printed or minted in the United Kingdom on accession to the Single Currency. [29770]

  Mrs. Liddell
  All euro banknotes and coins will be legal tender in all participating member states. There will be no necessary repatriation to the country of origin, but there may be bulk redistribution of euro banknotes and coins (irrespective of their origin) around the euro area to where they are needed.

  North Sea Fiscal Regime
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the review of the North Sea Fiscal Regime; and if he will publish the outcome of the review. [29816]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Over the period since the review was announced we have received comments and views from a range of sources; including companies involved in exploration for and production of oil and gas in the North Sea, representative bodies of the oil industry and associated supply industries and other interested parties. The outcome of the review will form part of the Chancellor's spring Budget announcements.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the location and running costs in the last year for which figures are available of each of his Department's buildings. [30094]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In 1996–97, the Treasury met the running costs of three properties. All are in London. Their costs, including rent and rates, security, maintenance, gas and electricity, cleaning, health and safety, and porterage are tabulated below.

  £000

  Government Offices, Great George Street

  7,410

  19 Allington Street

  3,162

  11 Downing Street

  313

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number of his Department's employees by UK region, indicating the wage bill(a) in total and
  688
  (b) by region in the last year for which figures are available and separately identifying the costs of London allowances and weightings. [30093]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Treasury has no offices outside central London. During 1996–97, the average number of staff (excluding Ministers and casual staff) in post in the Treasury was 904. The salary bill for these staff for 1996–97, amounted to around £30 million including overhead costs such as superannuation and employers National Insurance contributions. London Weighting allowances for all Treasury staff below the Senior Civil Service were consolidated into basic pay from April 1996. Separate London Weighting and London Allowances are retained by some Treasury members of the Senior Civil Service. For 1996–1997, the total cost of these allowances was around £157,000.

  Duty Free Sales
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the value of duty free sales in each United Kingdom country in each of the last five years. [30162]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are no official estimates for the value of duty free sales made in the UK either before or after the start of the Single Market.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many contracts of a value greater than £10,000 his Department has with companies in(a) London, (b) South East England, (c) England, (d) Scotland, (e) Wales and (f) Northern Ireland; and what is the total value of such contracts for each area. [30096]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The table contains the details required for the Treasury's contracts of over £10,000.

  £

  Area

  Contracts

  Value

  London

  19

  3,812,000

  South East England

  14

  766,000

  England (in total)

  55

  6,103,000

  Scotland

  nil

  nil

  Wales

  1

  311,000

  Northern Ireland

  nil

  nil

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Attorney-General how many contracts of a value greater than £1000 his Department has with companies in(a) London, (b) South East England, (c) England, (d) Scotland, (e) Wales and (f) Northern Ireland; and what is the total value of such contracts for each area. [30092]

  The Attorney-General
  The Departments and other bodies for which I am responsible, namely the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Government Property Lawyers and the Legal Secretariat to the Law
  689
  Officers, do not keep the information requested in the form requested and I am advised that the cost of providing the answer would be disproportionate.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the location and running costs in the last year for which figures are available of each of his Department's buildings. [30090]

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is as follows:

  The Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers
  My own office is in Buckingham Gate, London SW I. The running costs for the building in the financial year 1996–97 were £422,000.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department
  The Treasury Solicitor's Department occupy offices in Broadway, London SW1. The running costs for the building in the financial year 1996–97 were £2.65m.

  The Government Property Lawyers
  The Government Property Lawyers are based in Taunton. The running costs of their office in the financial year 1996–97 was £0.66m.

  The Serious Fraud Office
  The Serious Fraud Office occupy offices in London WC1. Their running costs in 1996–97 were £2.612m. The SFO also has storage accommodation in London at a cost of £103,000 for the same period.

  The Crown Prosecution Service
  Accommodation costs in the Crown Prosecution Service amount to £36.803m. The running costs of buildings in London, including headquarters, amounts to £14.936m. The running costs for buildings in the regions are £21.867m.

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the number of his Department's employees by UK region, indicating the wage bill(a) in total and (b) by region in the last year for which figures are available and separately identifying the costs of London allowances and weightings. [30089]

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is as follows:

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers
  In my office there are 28 staff, all based in London. The wage bill in 1996–97 was £827,000 which included £47,500 in respect of London allowances and weightings.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department
  The Treasury Solicitor's Department employed 382 staff in 1996–97, the last year for which figures are available. All were employed in Central London at the beginning of the year but in the course of the year five were relocated to the South West
  The wage bill in total amounted to £13.886 million. Of this £13,609 million was paid to employees in London, including £685,000 in respect of London allowances and weightings. £277,000 was paid to staff who were relocated to Bristol during the year, including £2,300 in respect of London weightings and allowances.

  The Government Property Lawyers
  The Government Property Lawyers employed 118.5 staff in Taunton in 1996–97. The wage bill was £3.160 million.

  The Serious Fraud Office
  The Serious Fraud Office employed 175 staff in London in the year 1996–97. The wage bill was £5.245 million of which £381,406 was paid in respect of London allowances and weightings.
  690
  The Crown Prosecution Service
  The Crown Prosecution Service employed a total of 5,862.5 staff as at 31 March 1997. The Department's total wage bill for 1996–97, the last full year for which figures are available, was £155,205,870. The Department's personnel and accounting systems do not record data by UK region. A breakdown of London allowances and weightings from total salary costs could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The following table lists staff numbers and salary costs for each of the Department's 13 geographical Areas, its Central Casework Area and its National Headquarters.

  Location

  Staff numbers

  Salary cost £

  Anglia

  386.5

  9,893,136

  East Midlands

  338

  8,340,148

  Humber

  290.5

  6,915,573

  London

  1,044

  27,599,263

  Mersey/Lancashire

  381

  9,193,423

  Midlands

  406.5

  10,148,107

  North

  371

  8,870,323

  North West

  387.5

  10,111,984

  Severn Thames

  352

  9,348,506

  South East

  434

  11,228,852

  South West

  287.5

  7,136,389

  Wales

  345.5

  9,061,001

  Yorkshire

  309.5

  7,445,548

  Central Casework

  158.5

  5,789,848

  Headquarters

  370.5

  14,123,769

  Totals

  5,862.5

  155,205,870

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will give a regional breakdown of his Department's expenditure on(a) hospitality, (b) stationery and (c) travel in the last year for which figures are available. [30091]

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is as follows:

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers
  Expenditure in my own office for 1996–97, the last year for which figures are available included (a) £1,178 for hospitality, (b) £6,300 for stationery and (c) £31,700 for travel and subsistence. The expenditure was incurred in London.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department
  The Treasury Solicitor's Department's expenditure for 1996–97, the last year for which figures are available, included (a) £295 for hospitality, (b) £140,486 for stationery and (c) £23,061 for travel. The expenditure was incurred in London.

  The Government Property Lawyers
  The Government Property Lawyers' expenditure for 1996–97, the last year for which figures are available, included (a) £856 for hospitality, (b) £28,455 for stationery and (c) £11,119 for travel, Government Property Lawyers are based in Taunton.

  The Serious Fraud Office
  The Serious Fraud Office's expenditure for 1996–97, the last year for which figures are available, included (a) £16,447 for hospitality, (b) £30,258 for stationery and (c) £11,119 for travel. A regional breakdown of expenditure could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  The Crown Prosecution Service
  Expenditure in the Crown Prosecution Service in the year 1996–97, the last year for which figures are available, included £10,025 for hospitality. Separate regional figures are not available as the information is recorded centrally.
  691
  Expenditure on stationery and travel was as follows:

  £

  Location

  Stationery

  Travel

  Anglia

  139,064

  283,101

  East Midlands

  61,120

  123,357

  Humber

  23,208

  160,308

  London

  86,049

  116,722

  Mersey/Lancashire

  76,249

  181,810

  Midlands

  177,420

  156,993

  North

  74,273

  219,197

  North West

  97,058

  175,232

  Severn Thames

  95,132

  295,953

  South East

  106,494

  246,463

  South West

  44,073

  178,260

  Wales

  46,521

  226,661

  Yorkshire

  109,633

  177,411

  Central Casework

  4,864

  101,684

  Headquarters

  64,303

  549,645

  Totals

  1,205,461

  3,192,797

  Coal Miners (Compensation)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Attorney-General what proposals he has, consequent on the High Court ruling that British Coal is liable for compensation payments to coal miners from 1947, to amend the Limitation Acts to enable such settlements to be pursued. [28994]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Law Commission is carrying out a comprehensive review of the law of limitation, with a view to simplification and rationalisation of the law. The Commission published a Consultation Paper in January this year, outlining the present law and setting out provisional proposals for reform. The consultation will be followed by the publication of a Report containing the Law Commission's final recommendations, which we will then consider. The Government do not plan to modify the law relating to limitation of actions before then.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many requests for meetings he has received since 1 May 1997 from(a) foreign ambassadors and high commissioners and (b) British ambassadors and high commissioners; how many of these respectively he has turned down; and if he will name the countries affected in each case. [26856]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 2 February 1998]: No central record is kept of requests for these meetings, whether granted or refused. Since 2 May, I have met the following Ambassadors and High Commissioners:

  May

  The Ambassadors of the United States, Russia, Ireland and Japan.

  June

  The Ambassadors of Spain, Luxembourg, Italy, Portugal,
  Germany, Denmark, Greece, Finland, Belgium and Oman.

  The High Commissioners of Australia and Cyprus.

  692

  July

  The Ambassadors of the Yemen and Qatar.

  September

  The Ambassadors of the United States, Russia, Japan, Luxembourg, Italy and Austria.

  October

  The Ambassadors of Germany, Russia and Belgium.

  The High Commissioners of Mauritius, South Africa, Tanzania and Kenya.

  November
  The Ambassadors of Japan, Indonesia, Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, China, Japan, Lebanon, Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Switzerland and Sweden.
  The High Commissioners of Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei.

  December
  The Ambassadors of Austria, Germany, Finland, Portugal, France, Sweden, Spain, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United States and Albania.

  January

  The Ambassadors of China and Bahrain.

  The High Commissioner of Australia.

  February

  The Ambassadors of Norway and Germany.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by his Department in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year; and if he will make a statement. [26665]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The following are the costs (£) of building refurbishment carried out by the Department:

  £

  Year

  Home estate

  Overseas estate

  Total

  1995–96

  118,273,605

  22,267,500

  40,541,105

  1996–97

  219,919,116

  15,888,400

  35,807,516

  1997–98

  1,891,526

  6,145,000

  8,036,526

  1997–98 (Full year)

  2,400,525

  310,517,000

  12,917,525

  1,2 Includes expenditure for the completion in February 1997 of the refurbishment of the Old Public Offices which started in 1980.

  3 Some planned refurbishment and preventive maintenance expenditure deferred to future years; resources reallocated to fund immediate requirement for new millennium-compliant IT.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the location and running costs in the last year for which figures are available of each of his Department's buildings. [30104]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The following is the information:

  £

  Location

  Running Costs financial year 96–97

  Main Building London SW1

  4,941,972

  Old Admiralty Building London SW1

  3,434,074

  1 Palace Street London SW1

  6,636,354

  24 Whitehall London SW1

  651,865

  8 Cleveland Row London SW1

  278,692

  1 Carlton Gardens London SW1

  192,058

  693

  £

  Location

  Running Costs financial year 96–97

  Cromwell House London SW1

  1,503,519

  20 Victoria Street London SW1

  738,635

  4 Matthew Parker Street London SW1

  1,259, 745

  Clive House London SW1

  758,344

  Apollo House Croydon

  768,943

  Hanslope Park Buckinghamshire

  3,587,148

  Creslow Buckinghamshire

  104,367

  Gawcott, Buckinghamshire

  12,405

  Orfordness Suffolk

  142,806

  The remainder of the information requested, in respect of the Overseas Estate which comprises of some 3,900 properties in 144 countries is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Minister without Portfolio
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what, and how many, files(a) were held in May 1997 and (b) are currently held by the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ concerning the Minister without Portfolio; and if they are planned to be destroyed. [28593]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to disclose information about the operations of the intelligence and security services, including about whether the services hold or have held files on any individual.

  Arms Exports
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the country of origin of the advanced missile guidance parts intercepted by Jordan in late 1995 on the way to Iraq; and through which other countries they had passed prior to reaching Jordan. [29286]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  It is not our practice to comment in detail on information given to us in confidence by UNSCOM.

  Iraq
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the alternative civilian uses of the four plants in Iraq which have been used to produce chemical warfare munitions; what characteristics of these plants make them suitable for chemical weapons; and if these are necessary for the civilian uses. [29287]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  There are a number of sites involved in Iraq's chemical warfare programme, or with the capability to become involved, which also have legitimate civilian uses. In the case of Iraq these have included the production of pesticides, fertilisers and chemicals for water purification. Because of the dual-use nature of the equipment and materials involved, many such plants are capable of being used to produce chemical weapons.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the basis for his Department's statement that(a) 4000 tonnes of chemical
  694
  weapons and (b) 600 tonnes of VX precursors are not accounted for in Iraq; and what assessment he has made of where the precursors were obtained from. [29973]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Of the balance of chemical weapons and precursors declared by Iraq, the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) has been unable to verify the disposal or destruction of the quantities referred to. Full details can be found in the latest report by the Executive Chairman of the UN Special Commission, a copy of which is held in the Library of the House. We have not made an assessment as to the source of supply, as UNSCOM's policy is not to disclose details of countries or suppliers and most chemical weapons precursors have widespread legitimate industrial applications eg in the manufacture of fire retardants, pesticides, insecticides and detergents.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the basis for his Department's statement that 31,000 chemical weapons munitions are not accounted for in Iraq. [29974]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The quantity of chemical weapons munitions that remain unaccounted for are derived from the discrepancy between Iraq's declared munitions material balance and the quantity that UNSCOM has been able to verify as destroyed or otherwise accounted for. Full details can be obtained from the latest report by the Executive Chairman of the UN Special Commission, a copy of which is held in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Limbert Spencer
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applicants were interviewed prior to Mr. Limbert Spencer's appointment as an adviser on minority issues to his Department; and how many were of Asian origin. [29662]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Mr. Spencer was the only one of the candidates for this appointment to be interviewed. Mr. Spencer was appointed for a part-time fixed-term appointment under the terms of paragraph 2.7 of the Civil Service Commissioners Recruitment Code.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date, at what salary, and with what job description, Mr. Limbert Spencer was appointed as an adviser on minority issues to his Department. [29661]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Mr. Spencer was appointed on 1 December 1997 on a fixed-term appointment in the Senior Management Structure to last until 30 November 1998. The salary range for a job at this level is £43,050-£.69,050 and he is paid on a part-time pro rata basis. His responsibilities are:to identify any barriers to minority ethnic staff and potential staff, at any point in the employment process, including recruitment, posting appraisal and promotion;
  to make recommendations to senior managers for action to address barriers; and
  to work with minority ethnic organisations in the UK to increase the profile and promote the image of the FCO as an organisation which offers career opportunities for people from minority ethnic communities.

  Paul Loseby and James Miles
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken by the British Ambassador to Venezuela concerning the cases of Paul Loseby and James Miles. [29568]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our Ambassador and his staff have raised the conditions of the detention for Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby with the Venezeulan authorities on a number of occasions. Most recently the Ambassador wrote to the Fiscal General of Venezuela on 27 January and called on the Governor of Caracas on 30 January (accompanied by Mr. and Mrs. Miles) seeking their help in getting Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby to see a doctor and dentist.

  Venezuelan Prisoners
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent action he has taken with regard to the transfer of convicted persons between Britain and Venezuela; and what requests have been made by the Venezuelan government for the return of convicted Venezuelan prisoners held in Britain. [29569]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on 5 February 1998,Official Report, column 752.

  We have received no requests from the Venezuelan government for the transfer to Venezuela of Venezuelan citizens imprisoned in the United Kingdom.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 1998,Official Report, column 660, on ministerial travel, for what reason he returned to London on 21 July by helicopter; where his ministerial car was on that day; and what was the cost of the flight. [29608]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 17 February 1998]: I returned to London by helicopter because my engagement at Highgrove finished at 1500 and my first appointment in London was at 1700 with the Defence Secretary: the journey by car could not have been completed in less than three hours.

  My Ministerial car took me to Highgrove that morning and collected me from Battersea Heliport on my return from Highgrove. The cost of the flight was £1,209.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many contracts of a value greater than £10,000 his Department has with companies in(a) London, (b) South East England, (c) England, (d) Scotland, (e) Wales and (f) Northern Ireland; and what is the total value of such contracts for each area. [30106]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The information sought is not readily available and could be made available only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number of 696
  his Department's employees by UK region, indicating the wage bill (a) in total and (b) by region in the last year for which figures are available and separately identifying the costs of London allowances and weightings. [30103]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  On 1 January 1998, the FCO employed 5,620 UK-based staff in London and the South East, and at posts overseas.

  Total paybill expenditure (including the cost of Salaries, National Insurance, Superannuation, Shift Disturbance Allowance, Overtime and Recruitment and Retention Allowance) for the financial year 1996–97 was £170.3m.

  Expenditure in 1996–97 on London allowances and weightings, which form part of Recruitment and Retention Allowance, was £7.7m.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give a regional breakdown of his Department's expenditure on(a) hospitality, (b) stationery and (c) travel in the last year for which figures are available. [30105]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The regional breakdown of expenditure by the FCO on hospitality, stationery and travel in the last Financial Year (1996–97) was as follows:

  £000

  England

  Hospitality

  11,796

  Stationery

  2,345

  Travel

  1,333

  1 This figure includes the expenditure by the Government Hospitality Fund which provides for State Visits, Guests of Government and functions for all Government Departments.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many overseas visits have been made by his Department's political advisers at public expense since 1 May. [25138]

  Dr. David Clark
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: My special adviser has accompanied me, along with other departmental officials, on four overseas visits since 1 May.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many times the spouses of Ministers in his Department have accompanied Ministers on overseas visits; and what was the cost of their travel and other expenses. [25173]

  Dr. David Clark
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I have been accompanied solely by departmental officials on the overseas visits which we have undertaken.

  Official Cars
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many official cars are available for use by
  697
  Ministers in his Department; and how many new cars have been acquired for the use of Ministers in his Department since 1 May. [25174]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: For this answer my Department includes the Prime Minister's Office, the Government Whips' Offices in the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and the Minister without Portfolio's Office.

  My Department has six official cars allocated for use by Ministers. There has been no change in the number of allocated cars since 1 May 1997.

  Since 1 May 1997 the Government Car Service has purchased 19 new vehicles for ministerial use across Government. Of these, 17 were to replace cars that were already being used by Ministers and had come to the end of their working life, and two were added to cover new ministerial posts.

  Political Advisers (Support Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many secretarial and support staff work full-time in support of his political advisers in his Department. [25191]

  Dr. David Clark
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: There is one Personal Secretary who works full-time in support of the Special Advisers in my Department.

  Departmental Publicity
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the cost of media presentations and press conferences which he has given, other than those held at his Department. [25172]

  Dr. David Clark
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: I have incurred no costs for media presentations or press conferences other than those held at my Department.

  London Weighting
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the cost of London salary weightings to the Civil Service for each of the last five years. [30054]

  Dr. David Clark
  My answer assumes that the hon. Gentleman's question refers to the payment of London Weighting allowance.

  Since 1 April 1996 departments and agencies have had delegated authority to determine the pay and the allowances for those staff outside of the Senior Civil Service. I am, therefore, unable to provide costs for the last two years (1996 and 1997), as records of actual costs are no longer held centrally.

  The London Weighting allowance was abolished on 1 October 1994, but most Civil Servants in receipt of this allowance retained it as a reserved right. There were three levels of London Weighting allowance paid to non-industrial staff:

  inner London £1,776 per person per annum;

  intermediate zone £1,015; and

  outer London £736.

  698
  The approximate cost of the London allowance (excluding employer's superannuation and National Insurance contributions) for the three years prior to delegation is as follows:

  1993: £158 million

  1994: £151 million

  1995: £147 million.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what plans he has to consult the Showmen's Guild on the Millennium Dome project. [29863]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has been in correspondence with the London and Home Counties section of the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain about their interest in short-stay events at the Millennium Experience. The NMEC have agreed to contact the Guild again if appropriate opportunities arise in planning events and activities in the environs of the Dome.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will ensure(a) that his announcement about the (i) specific contents and (ii) sponsorship of the Millennium Dome project is made to Parliament in the first instance and (b) that all future announcements are made to Parliament in the first instance where they concern substantial amounts of public and National Lottery money. [29870]

  Mr. Mandelson
  All Government Ministers are guided by the relevant section of the Ministerial Code, which states (paragraph 27) that"Ministers will want to bear in mind the desire of Parliament that the most important announcements of Government policy should be made, in the first instance, in Parliament."

  I shall ensure that Parliament has appropriate information on all major policy developments in respect of the Millennium Experience.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Buildings Refurbishment
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his estimate of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by his Department in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year; and if he will make a statement. [26630]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by my Department is set out in the table.

  £

  Cost

  1995–96

  136,507

  1996–97

  8,133

  1997–98 (to date)

  47,995

  1997–98 (full year)

  218,208

  699
  The figures for 1996–97 onwards do not include VAT or professional fees.

  My Department moved into new premises in 1993 and, therefore, little or no refurbishment has been necessary since. The expenditure in 1995–96 was due to the Department acquiring an extra floor in another building. Expenditure in 1997–98 has arisen because of the need to clean and refit ceiling tiles at a cost of approx £170,000 and for works to Ministers' offices to accommodate a fourth Minister.

  Ministerial Transport
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his estimate of the cost of(a) Ministerial cars and drivers and (b) the Department's bill for taxis in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98 to date and (iv) 1997–98 full year. [27751]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The available information is given in the table:

  £

  Year

  Ministerial cars and drivers

  Taxis

  1995–96

  1236,115

  11,208

  1996–97

  176,031

  16,681

  1997–98 (spend to date)

  192,657

  13,976

  1997–98 (estimate)

  225,000

  n/a

  1 Expenditure on Government Car Service, includes non-ministerial expenditure, eg. Permanent Secretary's Car.

  Piers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much National Lottery funding has been provided for the preservation of pleasure piers. [29559]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The National Lottery has provided £4.3 million to date for the preservation of pleasure piers. All awards have been made by the Heritage Lottery Fund.

  Grant Award (£)

  Year

  Clevedon Pier

  Swanage Pier

  Bowness Harbour Pier

  Penarth Pier

  Southport Pier

  Brighton West Pier

  1995–96

  1,195,045

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996–97

  —

  700,000

  250,000

  1,101,000

  34,000

  968,000

  1997–98

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  57,500

  Total

  1,195,045

  700,000

  250,000

  1,101,000

  34,000

  1,025,500

  There are no readily accessible central records of funding for restoration of specific building types to enable me to provide an answer for the years prior to 1983–84. Similarly, it is not possible to provide information in respect of local authority funding for pleasure piers.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much English Heritage has spent on maintenance of its historic(a) sites and (b) properties in each of the past five years. [29742]
  700
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pleasure piers have received public funding in each of the last 25 years. [29560]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The majority of Government funding for the built heritage is channelled through English Heritage. Since its inception in 1984, English Heritage has offered conservation grants to the following pleasure piers:

  Grant offer (£000)

  Year

  Brighton West Pier

  Southend Pier

  Ramsgate East Pier

  Clevedon Pier

  Scarborough West Pier

  1983–84

  50.0

  —

  —

  19.4

  —

  1984–85

  —

  100.0

  —

  637.0

  —

  1985–86

  184.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988–89

  3.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1990–91

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20.6

  1991–92

  —

  —

  7.2

  —

  —

  1996–97

  77.5

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  315.3

  100.0

  7.2

  656.4

  20.6

  The National Heritage Memorial Fund (NHMF), also funded by my Department, has provided funding for the rescue of the following piers since its establishment in 1980:

  Grant Award (£)

  Year

  Bangor Pier

  Clevedon Pier

  Brighton Pier

  1982–83

  10,000

  —

  —

  1983–84

  65,000

  —

  —

  1984–85

  68,106

  24,223

  —

  1985–86

  86,420

  353,476

  —

  1986–87

  45,474

  71,535

  71,999

  1987–88

  50,000

  33,257

  43,222

  1988–89

  —

  146,901

  39,296

  1989–90

  —

  32,608

  36,014

  Total

  325,000

  662,000

  190,531

  In addition, the Heritage Lottery Fund, distributed by the NHMF, has made the following awards to piers:

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  It is not possible to provide a breakdown of expenditure between English Heritage's historic sites and properties. However, in each of the last five years, overall expenditure on the maintenance and restoration of its historic sites and properties is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1992–93

  7.2

  1993–94

  5.8

  1994–95

  5.5

  1995–96

  6.1

  1996–97

  7.0

  701
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much English Heritage has spent on the restoration of historic(a) sites and (b) properties in each of the past five years. [29741]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  In each of the last five years, English Heritage's expenditure on each of its grant repair schemes is as follows:

  Grant spend (£ million)

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Historic Buildings and Monuments

  12.3

  11.7

  12.1

  12.8

  11.6

  Churches

  9.3

  10.3

  9.1

  9.2

  10.3

  Cathedrals

  3.0

  3.5

  3.7

  3.3

  4.0

  Conservation Areas

  7.4

  8.3

  8.5

  8.9

  9.2

  Parks, Gardens and Landscapes

  1.0

  0.5

  0.4

  0.2

  0.2

  Total

  33.0

  34.3

  33.8

  34.4

  35.3

  In addition, overall expenditure on the restoration and maintenance of English Heritage's own historic sites and properties is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1992–93

  7.2

  1993–94

  5.8

  1994–95

  5.5

  1995–96

  6.1

  1996–97

  7.0

SCOTLAND

  Dental Services
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate by health authority the number of patients who will be de-registered from their dentists as a result of the new regulations in(a) numerical and (b) percentage terms. [29160]

  Retained and all other fire personnel per brigade by sex since 1993

  1992

  1993

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Brigade

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Central

  Retained

  153

  3

  152

  4

  150

  5

  148

  7

  148

  6

  Total

  409

  17

  407

  18

  395

  20

  401

  22

  403

  20

  Dumfries & Galloway

  Retained

  187

  1

  198

  1

  186

  3

  184

  4

  181

  2

  Total

  304

  16

  314

  17

  291

  21

  293

  22

  287

  20

  Fife

  Retained

  94

  1

  100

  1

  100

  3

  100

  2

  93

  3

  Total

  474

  18

  478

  18

  483

  21

  480

  19

  476

  21

  Grampian

  Retained

  438

  3

  437

  4

  470

  4

  416

  5

  411

  8

  Total

  793

  32

  795

  36

  828

  33

  771

  33

  771

  39

  Highland & Islands

  Retained

  381

  0

  382

  1

  383

  2

  382

  3

  379

  6

  Total

  1,393

  36

  1,406

  39

  1,396

  44

  1,372

  47

  1,375

  53

  702
  Mr. Galbraith
  From 1 September 1996, the registration period for both adult continuing care and child capitation payments was harmonised to provide patients with a period of continuing dental care for 15 months following each course of treatment. At that time it was estimated that registration numbers might fall by about 15 per cent. as a result of this change.

  At December 1997 (the latest date for which figures are available) there were 2,944,047 patients registered with a dentist in Scotland compared with 2,664,988 at the end of 1996–97. According to the earlier estimate about 442,000 patients might lapse from registration. No estimates for individual Health Boards have been made.

  Regular attenders will be unaffected by the change as their registration period will roll forward when they attend their dentist.

  Dentists are free to re-register any patients whose registrations have lapsed. It is for dentists to decide whether they wish to accept any patient onto their list.

  Rural Watch
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total financial support from his Department to farm watch and rural watch schemes in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [29244]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Scottish Office has provided no financial support to farm watch or other rural watch schemes in any of the last five years. Individual police forces support farm watch and other rural watch schemes.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of(a) retained and (b) all fire officers per force, by sex and age group, in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [29256]

  Mr. McLeish
  Data on the age of fire service officers are not held centrally. The information available is as follows:
  703

  Retained and all other fire personnel per brigade by sex since 1993

  1992

  1993

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Brigade

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Lothian & Borders

  Retained

  278

  1

  287

  2

  286

  4

  288

  5

  283

  6

  Total

  994

  27

  997

  27

  1,020

  35

  1,022

  36

  1,017

  42

  Strathclyde

  Retained

  569

  9

  576

  9

  580

  6

  582

  10

  592

  10

  Total

  3,036

  75

  3,032

  73

  3,007

  69

  3,026

  74

  3,034

  81

  Tayside

  Retained

  248

  2

  246

  3

  249

  3

  239

  3

  240

  8

  Total

  684

  19

  695

  20

  710

  19

  681

  21

  687

  28

  Notes:

  The figures for 1993 represent the calendar year. All the following figures are on a fiscal year basis, ie from 1 April to 31 March.

  All the figures represent the actual strength of the brigade and not the establishment. The category "All" includes Wholetime operational, Wholetime control room, Retained and Volunteer.

  Source:

  Her Majesty's Chief Inspectorate of Fire Services for Scotland Annual Report.

  Police
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of special police constables, per police force, by sex and age group, in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [29242]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information requested is set out in the table and has been taken from returns supplied by forces since 1992.

  Force

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Central

  Male

  82

  84

  88

  65

  58

  Female

  20

  17

  22

  23

  23

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Male

  129

  138

  135

  151

  145

  Female

  38

  51

  58

  63

  54

  Fife

  Male

  122

  129

  125

  105

  96

  Female

  29

  31

  33

  35

  36

  Grampian

  Male

  167

  157

  146

  125

  110

  Female

  47

  47

  52

  46

  36

  Lothian and Borders

  Male

  150

  160

  187

  174

  146

  Female

  48

  49

  49

  49

  51

  Northern

  Male

  387

  383

  395

  373

  384

  Female

  106

  132

  136

  127

  127

  Strathclyde

  Male

  301

  290

  278

  254

  240

  Female

  81

  77

  73

  74

  74

  Tayside

  Male

  116

  125

  164

  164

  157

  Female

  24

  27

  51

  50

  49

  Total

  Male

  1,454

  1,466

  1,518

  1,411

  1,336

  Female

  393

  431

  474

  467

  450

  Notes:

  Information by age group not available.

  From 1995–96 figures relate to financial year rather than calendar year and are taken as at 31 March.

  The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland have set up a Working Group to review the role of special constables.

  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) police houses and (b) police stations there were in each police force area, in each of
  704
  the last five years for which figures are available; and what proportion of police stations were operating on a part-time basis in each year, in each force. [29245]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information available is set out in the tables and has been taken from annual statistical returns supplied by forces since 1989.

  Number of police houses

  Force

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Central

  52

  50

  50

  32

  29

  Dumfries and Galloway

  113

  108

  103

  57

  32

  Fife

  192

  133

  66

  40

  20

  Grampian

  315

  278

  213

  158

  117

  Lothian and Borders

  197

  142

  68

  31

  26

  Northern

  322

  317

  312

  305

  299

  Strathclyde

  867

  719

  440

  264

  219

  Tayside

  160

  125

  97

  73

  53

  Total

  1,546

  1,872

  1,349

  960

  795

  Number of buildings used as police stations

  Force

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Central

  30

  30

  32

  32

  32

  Dumfries and Galloway

  25

  25

  25

  27

  27

  Fife

  57

  56

  56

  56

  31

  Grampian

  77

  77

  77

  78

  80

  Lothian and Borders

  58

  58

  60

  59

  59

  Northern

  113

  108

  92

  95

  95

  Strathclyde

  202

  202

  199

  171

  154

  Tayside

  54

  49

  50

  50

  50

  Total

  616

  605

  591

  568

  528

  Notes:

  Figures for 1995–96 and 1996–97 are no longer held centrally.

  Residential Care
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the treatment of war disablement pension made by each local authority in Scotland in calculating residential care assessments. [29285]

  Mr. Galbraith
  All local authorities in Scotland must apply the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992, as amended, when charging for

  705
  residential and nursing home care. The Regulations require that the payment of any war disablement pension to a resident is subject to a £10 weekly disregard.

  A90 (Accidents)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of fatalities and serious injuries arising from accidents on the Perth-Dundee section of the A90 in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [29554]

  Mr. McLeish
  The table lists the number of fatal and serious casualties on the A90 between Perth (north of Friarton Bridge) and Dundee (Swallow Roundabout) from 1988 to 1997 inclusive.

  A90 Perth to Dundee: Fatal and serious casualty numbers (1988–1997 1)

  Year

  Fatal

  Serious

  Total

  1988

  6

  15

  21

  1989

  7

  28

  35

  1990

  8

  18

  26

  1991

  4

  23

  27

  1992

  4

  14

  18

  1993

  3

  23

  26

  1994

  2

  22

  24

  1995

  8

  22

  30

  1996

  3

  13

  16

  19971

  1

  7

  8

  Total

  46

  185

  231

  1 Figures for the period January to October inclusive

  Small Claims
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of small claims cases in 1996–97 involved legal representation. [30147]

  Mr. McLeish
  Figures on these matters are not held centrally.

  Road Accidents
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many alcohol-related road accidents occurred in each of the last five years in Scotland; what percentage of total accidents they represent; and how many deaths resulted. [29949]

  Mr. McLeish
  Road Accidents statistical returns collect information only about accidents which involve personal injury and do not include road accidents where only damage to vehicles occurs. Estimates of the numbers of injury road accidents involving motor vehicle drivers or riders with illegal alcohol levels (ie above the current drink-drive limit of 80mg per 100m1 of blood), and the numbers of casualties in such accidents, are based on the statistical returns and on separate information from Procurators Fiscal. The table provides information for the 706
  latest five years for which estimates are available for Scotland. Because of the uncertainty involved, each estimate is rounded to the nearest ten.

  Year

  Estimated number of injury road accidents in Scotland which involved motor vehicle drivers or riders with illegal alcohol levels

  Percentage of all injury road accidents in Scotland

  Estimated number of deaths arising from road accidents in Scotland which involved motor vehicle drivers or riders with illegal alcohol levels

  1991

  990

  5.2

  80

  1992

  860

  4.8

  60

  1993

  840

  5.0

  60

  1994

  790

  4.7

  80

  1995

  790

  4.8

  50

  Higher Education
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage young people to enter higher education. [28805]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 16 February 1998]: I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) on 17 February 1998, Official Report, column 884.

  Fife Health Board
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on the overall cost of relocation of Fife Health Board from Glenrothes to Cupar; and what were the costs of relocation broken down into those of (i) removal, (ii) redecoration, (iii) office equipment and furniture, carpets, curtains and other furnishings and telephone and computer systems and (iv) relocation of staff; [29143]

  (2) what has been the cost of maintaining Fife Health Board's Glenrothes site since 1993; [29144]

  (3) if he will estimate the costs of returning Fife Health Board's offices to Glenrothes. [29145]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Fife Health Board has indicated that the overall cost of relocating Fife Health Board from Glenrothes to Cupar was £901,000 comprising:

  £000

  Building/Structural costs

  655

  IT Network costs

  70

  Removal costs

  37

  Staff excess travel

  139

  Total

  901

  Redecoration and office equipment are included within the total building/structural costs. The telephone system was transferred from Glenrothes House.

  The Health Board has indicated that the cost of maintaining Glenrothes House over the three financial years 1994–95 to 1996–97 was £870,000. This is the net cost after recharges to the sub-tenants. This building has been used during this period for a number of Fife Health Board activities.
  707
  I understand that the Health Board is currently considering its future requirements for Headquarters' office accommodation and has set up a working group under the Chairmanship of one of the non-executive Directors to further consider this issue. While the Health Board had previously given some consideration to a possible relocation back to Glenrothes House, no final decision has been made. The Health Board estimates the costs of relocation to Glenrothes House at around £860,000.

  Maternity Facilities (Fife)
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the cost of(a) transferring the maternity facilities currently located at Forth Park Hospital to Victoria Hospital and (b) adapting and equipping the Victoria Hospital to take the maternity wards from Forth Park. [29146]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Fife Health Board's draft Integrated Health Care Strategy identifies options for the future provision of maternity services. This is based on advice from clinicians that split site obstetric and paediatric services are no longer acceptable and that these services should be integrated into the main Victoria Hospital site for best clinical quality. The proposals will be subject to public consultation. The capital and other implications of this proposal are currently being considered by Fife Health Board and the Trust.

  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost of building and equipping the maternity ward at Queen Margaret Hospital, Dunfermline. [29147]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust has indicated that, based on the total building cost of Queen Margaret Hospital, the cost of the maternity ward and delivery suite component was approximately £1,000,000. These facilities are now being used by the Trust for other purposes.

  Victoria Hospital
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the annual cost of work related to the structure of Victoria Hospital; what was the date of the last full structural survey of the Victoria Hospital; and when it was published. [29148]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Estate related expenditure on the Victoria Hospital for the years 1994/95 to 1997/98 is provided. The figures were provided by the Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.

  £000

  Year

  Capital

  Revenue

  1994–95

  2,066

  489

  1995–96

  4,339

  582

  1996–97

  3,161

  552

  1997–98

  1,532 (est)

  —

  The last structural survey of Victoria Hospital was carried out in the spring of 1992 and the result was presented at a Strategic Workshop held on 19 and 20 May 1992.
  708
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost of relocating the paediatric and gynaecological services from the Queen Margaret Hospital to the Victoria Hospital. [29149]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Paediatric surgery and gynaecology services have not transferred from Queen Margaret Hospital to Victoria Hospital. Services are currently provided at both hospitals.

  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the costs of dealing with recent flooding at the Victoria Hospital; and what assessment he has made of the likelihood and frequency of future flooding. [29150]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The programme of repairs and replacements carried out at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy since the flooding on 13/14 August 1997 cost £50,000. Prior to this incident, Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust and the East of Scotland Water Board had commissioned a programme of work to improve drainage from the hospital site. This was part of a bigger project in the surrounding area which included alterations and improvements to the local sewers. Further design work is presently being undertaken by the Trust and the Water Board to provide storm overflow drains. I understand that the Water Board has indicated that once these further measures are implemented the possibility of future flooding is highly unlikely.

HEALTH

  Smoking
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the absolute changes in the incidence of(a) smoking and (b) smoking-related diseases by socio-economic classification in the past 20 years. [28816]

  Ms Jowell
  Information about the prevalence of smoking by socio-economic group between 1976 and 1996 is given in reports on the General Household Survey (GHS)1. Information for 1996 is given in the table.

  Data on the incidence of all smoking-related diseases by socio-economic group are either not available centrally or could be provided only at disproportionate cost, however information on the incidence of lung cancer, one smoking-related disease, by social class between 1976 and 1989 has been published in "Population Tends 90"2.

  Data on "deaths" from some smoking-related diseases (for example, lung cancer and ischaemic heart disease) by social class have been published in "Health Inequalities'.
  1 Office for National Statistics. Living in Britain—Results from the 1994 General Household Survey, HMSO, London (1996).
  2 Office for National Statistics, Incidence of Health of the Nation cancers by social class. Population Trends 90. The Stationery Office, London (1997).

  3 Office for National Statistics. Health Inequalities—Decennial Supplement: DS15. The Stationery Office, London (1997).
  709

  Cigarette smoking amongst adults, by socio-economic group, and sex. Great Britain, 1996

  Percentage

  Men

  Women

  Non-manual

  Professional

  12

  11

  Employers and managers

  20

  18

  Intermediate and junior non-manual

  24

  28

  Total non-manual

  21

  22

  Manual

  Skilled manual and own account non-professional

  32

  30

  Semi-skilled manual and personal service

  41

  36

  Unskilled manual

  41

  36

  Total manual

  36

  33

  All aged 16 and over

  29

  28

  Notes:

  1. Percentages rounded to the nearest whole figure.

  2. Socio-economic group is coded according to the present job of those currently working and to the last job of those not currently working. Married women whose husbands were in the household are classified according to their husband's occupation. Members of the armed forces, persons in inadequately described occupations and all persons who have never worked have not been shown as separate categories but are included in the figures shown as totals.

  Source:

  ONS General Household Survey

  Copies of all of these publications are available in the Library.

  NHS White Paper
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps health authorities will take to involve the public in(a) the proposed health improvement plans, (b) the proposed primary care groups and (c) NHS trusts following the introduction of proposals set out in his White Paper on the NHS. [29061]

  Mr. Milburn
  Rebuilding confidence in the National Health Service as a public service, accountable to patients, open to the public and shaped by their views, is one of the essential tasks left to us by the previous Administration. The White Paper,"The New NHS", sets clear requirements for public accountability, which will be met locally in a variety of ways as implementation of the White Paper proceeds. Nationally, we recently added NHS trusts to the list of bodies whose meetings must be open to the public.

  NHS Trust Mergers
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement regarding his Department's policy on mergers of NHS trusts. [29009]

  Mr. Milburn
  We welcome proposals for closer joint working between National Health Service trusts, leading in some cases to proposals for merger, as demonstrations of the new approach to partnership in the NHS. Each merger arises from a local decision and is considered on its merits. The key criterion for mergers is that they should offer the best means of delivering benefits to patients. All mergers will be expected to demonstrate administrative savings. There is no national target for numbers of mergers.

  NHS Appeals Procedure
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to implement changes to the National Health Service appeals procedure. [29257]

  Mr. Milburn
  We will be commissioning a formal evaluation of the National Health Service Complaints Procedures later this year. Officials are currently preparing to put the project out to tender.

  NHS Real Estate Sales
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost to public funds of disposing of NHS real estate by a system of preferred bidders as against sale on the open market. [29359]

  Mr. Milburn
  Surplus or redundant assets must be disposed of at full open market value to ensure that the National Health Service obtains best value for money.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of(a) the fitness of the nation's schoolchildren and (b) the effects of the proposed removal of physical education from the core curriculum. [29404]

  Ms Jowell
  On the Department of Health's behalf, the Health Education Authority is currently completing a review ("Young and Active") of the physical activity and fitness levels among children and young people aged between 5 and 18. I expect to receive their assessment of the current situation and recommendations for future action shortly. In addition, the 1997 Health Survey also included questions about children's physical activity levels. The results will be available towards the end of 1998.

  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, with whom I work closely on health matters related to schoolchildren, will be responding with regard to the place of physical education in the curriculum.

  Pharmaceuticals
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the proportion of total NHS spending taken by pharmaceutical products in each of the last five years; and what was the figure in cash terms for each year. [29854]

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

  Year

  Total spend on drugs by the National Health Service in £ million

  Total National Health Service spend on drugs as a percentage of total NHS expenditure

  1992–93

  3,284

  11.2

  1993–94

  3,661

  12.0

  1994–95

  3,994

  12.5

  1995–96

  4,372

  13.1

  1996–97

  4,735

  13.6

  Health Authorities and Trusts (Mergers)
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health authorities and NHS trusts which have merged or changed their names since April 1997. [30212]

  Mr. Milburn
  There have been no mergers of health authorities since April 1997. However, since 1 April 1997 the following National Health Service trusts have merged:Isle of Wight Community Healthcare and St. Mary's Hospital Trust (£103.3m) to form Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Trust;
  Weald of Kent Community NHS Trust and Maidstone Priority Care to form Invicta Community Care NHS Trust;
  Wirral Community Health Care NHS Trust and West Cheshire NHS Trust to form Wirral and West Cheshire Community NHS Trust;
  Pontefract NHS Trust and Pinderfields NHS Trusts to form Pinderfields and Pontefract Hospitals NHS Trust.

  Additionally, nine NHS trust mergers have been agreed for April 1998 with another 13 at consultation stage before final Ministerial decision.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) under the arrangements contained in the NHS White Paper, which body will commission local hospital and community mental health services; and what scope there will be for local determination; [30210]

  (2) for what reasons mental health services in England are not commissioned by primary care trusts. [30211]

  Mr. Boateng
  As envisaged in the White Paper "The New NHS", the new Primary Care Groups will commission the majority of local mental health services in England. Health authorities will commission specialist mental health services. Health Improvement Programmes will allow consideration of local health needs and how these can best be met, as well as how national targets can be delivered.

  Child Deaths (Medical Error)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the procedure for investigating the deaths of children as a result of medical error; and what plans he has to improve the accountability of the medical profession. [30208]

  Mr. Boateng
  Each National Health Service is responsible for investigating untoward incidents whether or not they have led to patient injury or death. Guidelines have been issued to the NHS on the reporting and investigation of incidents under the title "Risk Management in the NHS".

  The White Paper "The New NHS" sets out plans to introduce a process of "clinical governance" in every NHS trust to help ensure that proper processes are in place for assuring and improving clinical quality.
  712

  Coloured Spectacle Lenses
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of evidence on the beneficial effects for dyslexic children of piano coloured spectacle lenses; and if he will amend the regulations to allow the inclusion of such lenses for clinical purposes within the optical voucher scheme. [30207]

  Mr. Milburn
  Officials from the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment will shortly be discussing this evidence with members of the Institute of Optometry. Before consideration is given to any changes to the regulations, it must be clear that any benefits to children with reading difficulties are derived specifically from the use of coloured lenses.

  Lexie McConnell
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish an independent public inquiry into the death of Lexie McConnell. [30209]

  Mr. Milburn
  The death of Lexie McConnell was a tragic incident, and I fully sympathise with Mr. and Mrs. McConnell's great loss.

  An independent inquiry was offered in 1994 by Anglia and Oxford Regional Health Authority which would have covered the issue of steroid prescriptions for children, using Lexie's case as a base-line for the inquiry. Mr. and Mrs. McConnell did not however agree with the proposed format of the inquiry and chose not to participate. Consequently the inquiry did not take place.

  More recently the McConnells have been pursuing a legal claim against Oxfordshire Health Authority on the ground of post traumatic stress caused by their daughter's death. The case has not yet been heard by the Courts. It is therefore not appropriate for an independent public inquiry to take place whilst a separate private legal claim is being brought against Oxfordshire Health Authority by the McConnells.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts of a value greater than £5,000 his Department has with companies in(a) London, (b) South East England, (c) England, (d) Scotland, (e) Wales and (f) Northern Ireland; and what is the total value of such contracts for each area. [30081]

  Ms Jowell
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of his Department's employees by UK region, indicating the wage bill(a) in total and (b) by region in the last year for which figures are available and separately identifying the costs of London allowances and weightings. [30078]

  Ms Jowell
  Annual paybill information is not collected in the format requested. The table gives the January 1998 pay information multiplied to give an annual figure.
  713

  £

  Region

  Number of Employees

  Pay

  London Allowances

  Total

  North West

  643

  10,644,113

  0

  10,644,113

  Merseyside

  19

  252,373

  0

  252,373

  West Midlands

  235

  6,035,851

  1,776

  6,037,627

  South West

  139

  4,078,937

  1,776

  4,080,713

  London

  2,575

  64,813,157

  2,943,086

  67,756,243

  South East

  152

  4,274,911

  12,080

  4,286,991

  Eastern

  6

  179,448

  0

  179,448

  East Midlands

  69

  1,081,921

  0

  1,081,921

  Yorks and

  Humberside

  1,057

  25,092,647

  21,312

  25,113,959

  North East

  126

  3,488,719

  0

  3,488,719

  Total

  5,021

  119,942,076

  2,980,030

  122,922,106

  Notes:

  1. Figures extracted from January 1998 pay bill

  2. Basic pay includes national pay plus allowances other than London allowances

  3. In August 1996 all London allowances for new staff were abolished in this Department and a general additional pay allowance was introduced which covers payments for geographical location and special skills. Staff in receipt of London weighting prior to August 1996 have a reserved right to retain this allowance. Therefore not all payments for an element of London weighting are separately identifiable.

  4. All figures exclude overtime, bonuses and other non-recurring costs

  5. Pay details have been adjusted for part-time working

  6. London weighting shown against non-London areas relates to mark-time pay

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the location and running costs in the last year for which figures are available of each of his Department's buildings. [30079]

  Building

  Location

  1996–97 Running costs £000

  Skipton House

  Elephant and Castle, London SE1

  6,456

  Hannibal House

  Elephant and Castle, London SE1

  2,253

  Richmond House

  Whitehall, London SW1

  4,642

  Wellington House

  Waterloo, London SE1

  2,635

  Eileen House

  Elephant and Castle, London SE1

  1,662

  Market Towers

  Vauxhall, London SW8

  5,056

  St. Charles

  Brentwood, Essex

  286

  St. Catherine's House

  Holborn, London WC2

  200

  Capital Drive

  Linford Wood, Milton Keynes

  608

  Eastbourne Terrace

  London W2

  2,382

  Millenium Business Park

  Birchwood, Warrington

  774

  Westwood House

  Bristol

  656

  Fullwood House

  Sheffield

  381

  John Snow House

  Durham

  453

  Hagley Road

  Edgbaston, Birmingham

  742

  Quarry House

  Leeds

  6,036

  Glenthorne

  Erdington, Birmingham

  1,145

  Premier Buildings

  Nelson, Lanes

  210

  Bristol Avenue

  Bispham, Blackpool

  73

  Cressington House

  Garston, Liverpool

  15

  Chalfont Drive

  Nottingham

  21

  Hinchley Wood

  Surbiton, Surrey

  136

  Cannons Park

  Stanmore, Middx

  94

  Maid Marian House

  Nottingham

  80

  Warwickgate House

  Old Trafford, Manchester

  48

  Ladywood House

  Birmingham

  135

  Tyne Bridge Tower

  Gateshead, Tyne and Wear

  50

  West Riding House

  Leeds

  240

  J. Rothschild House

  Nottingham

  105

  Berkley Square

  Clifton, Bristol

  115

  Belgrave Road

  London

  24

  Chantry House

  Chester

  30

  Prudential House

  York

  14

  Crown House

  Hitchin, Herts

  31

  714
  Ms Jowell
  A schedule of buildings occupied by the Department showing the location and running costs for 1996–97 is set out in the table. Running costs include rent (or opportunity cost rent in respect of freehold buildings), contribution in lieu of rates, service charges, maintenance, utilities, security and cleaning.
  715

  Building

  Location

  1996–97 Running costs £000

  East Grinstead House

  East Grinstead, West Sussex

  20

  Hesketh House

  Fleetwood, Lancs

  1,813

  File Store

  Poulton le Fylde, Lancs

  Trevelyan Square

  Leeds

  654

  Note

  Where the Department shares a building with other departments costs have been reported only in respect of our own occupation.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give a regional breakdown of his Department's expenditure on(a) hospitality, (b) stationery and (c) travel in the last year for which figures are available. [30080]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department of Health does not collect information on expenditure in the above areas on a government designated regional basis. It is therefore not possible to provide data in the form requested without incurring disproportionate costs.
  716
  The figures for the whole of the Department and its for the year 1996–97 are as follows:

  Hospitality

  Stationery

  Travel

  Department

  105,192

  1,551,744

  5,722,961

  Agencies

  23,589

  1130,602

  1794,516

  Totals

  128,781

  1,682,346

  6,517,477

  1 Due to variations in the accounting systems used by the agencies these figures are based upon a small degree of estimation and apportionment.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Periodicals
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year; and if he will list the newspapers and magazines purchased or subscribed to on a regular basis. [26589]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]The Department purchases a range of newspapers, magazines and other publications. Expenditure by the Department's Libraries on newspapers and magazines for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year are as follows:

  £

  Year

  Serials

  Newspapers

  1995–96

  224,000

  1n/a

  1996–97

  158,237

  26,786

  1997–98 to date (Dec)

  138,979

  11,739

  1997–98 full year

  171,000

  14,744

  1 Figure not available except at disproportionate cost.

  Farmers Markets
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to encourage farmers' markets. [28487]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 February 1998]The Department supports the principle of farmers markets as they can offer consumers in inner cities and other urban areas the opportunity to buy fresh local produce direct from farmers and other small food producers.

  The actual development of more of these markets is dependent on local authorities and local initiatives. Local authorities in particular need to use the market franchise rights sensibly with regard to the needs of local business to help this concept flourish.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy for responding to letters received in the(a) Scottish Gaelic, (b) Welsh, (c) Urdu, (d) Hindi and (e) Chinese language. [28065]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 February 1998]The Department's responsibilities are, in many cases, restricted to England only. However, in-so-far as its responsibilities cover Wales, the Department is drawing up a Welsh Language scheme in accordance with the Welsh Language Act 1993, in discussion with the Welsh Language Board.

  The Department does not have policies regarding correspondence received in Scottish Gaelic, Urdu, Hindi or Chinese languages.

  Varroa
  Mr.Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's policy regarding the use of Apistan in eradicating varroa; what other treatment for varroa his Department has assessed; and if he will make a statement. [28970]

  Mr. Rooker
  The details of any individual application for a market authorisation for a veterinary medicine, including Apistan, must remain confidential to the applicant and the VMD. Apistan, however, is not authorised in this country and the administration of imported Apistan is prohibited by the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) Regulations 1997 (Statutory Instrument 1997/1729) which came into force on 11 August 1997.

  The question of any applications for authorisations of new veterinary drugs is one for the pharmaceutical and beekeeping industries. Any such application would be assessed against the statutory criteria of safety, quality and efficacy. It is open to anyone holding a marketing authorisation to use the mutual recognition procedures if they wish to market a veterinary medicinal product in more than one Member State. Details of this procedure can be obtained from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate.

  We are aware that beekeepers have in the past relied on certain non-medicinal curative substances to allow them to carry out a duty of care to their bees and to fulfil welfare requirements. The above SI would prohibit the administration of these non-medicinal curative substances only where, if transmitted to honey, they would be likely to be harmful to human health. If the substance is not harmful the Residues Regulations would not prevent it from being administered.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals his Department has for the use of set-aside land. [29252]

  Mr. Rooker
  Set-aside is a requirement of the EU's support arrangements for certain arable crops and is intended to limit production of such crops. The uses to which set-aside land can be put are strictly prescribed by EU regulations and include the production of certain crops for industrial use. The Government aim to encourage farmers to manage set-aside land in environmentally beneficial ways.

  The Government do not consider compulsory set-aside an appropriate method of managing the EU cereals market and will be seeking its abolition in forthcoming discussion on CAP reform. The EU Commission has proposed that farmers should be able to continue to set-aside land on a voluntary basis after CAP reform and the Government could support this on environmental grounds and to facilitate the production of industrial and energy crops.

  BSE Compensation
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the amount of public funding awarded to each sector of farming under BSE compensation. [29251]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government have paid over £1.3 billion in compensation to the beef sector for BSE in 1996/97 and 1997/98.

  Meat Prices
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce measures to ensure that reductions in the prices received by farmers for their livestock are reflected in the prices charged in supermarkets. [29261]

  Mr. Rooker
  The levels of retail prices for meat are set by competition, which is strong in the food retailing sector. The Director General of Fair Trading keeps the market under review to ensure that it continues to remain competitive. I have no plans at present for further measures.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes to the quarantine requirements for animals coming into the United Kingdom would require(a) primary and (b) secondary legislation. [29721]

  Mr. Rooker
  Changes to the quarantine rules could be made under secondary legislation. However, although there is currently no European Union legislation on the movement of pet animals, there could be in the future—and UK legislation would then have to take account of this.

  Calshot Oyster Fisheries
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 10 February 1998,Official Report, column 166, on Calshot Oyster Fisheries, what factors contributed to the length of time taken to complete the procedures necessary for the preparation of the draft order. [29817]

  Mr. Morley
  The application by Calshot Oyster Fishermen Ltd. for a variation Order was received on 11 September 1996. The technical aspects of the application were then assessed, and once it was agreed that it was appropriate for it to proceed the Ministry's Legal Department were asked to draft the necessary Order; when this was available a map of the change being sought in the area of the Several fishery was prepared. The draft Order and map were sent to the applicants on 18 April 1997.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 16 and 17 February. [30544]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I chaired the second meeting under the United Kingdom Presidency of the European Union Council of Agriculture Ministers on 720
  16–17 February in Brussels. My noble Friend the Lord Donoughue, Parliamentary Secretary responsible for the farming and food industry, represented the United Kingdom at that meeting.

  The Council had a presentation by the Agriculture Commissioner of the Commission's proposals for prices fixed under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the 1998–1999 year. These proposals were described by the Commissioner as broadly a standstill in present CAP support arrangements, pending the forthcoming negotiations on further reform of the CAP in the context of Agenda 2000. Ministerial colleagues in the Council commented on their key priorities within this set of proposals. I agreed to take them forward as quickly as possible; that work will begin immediately.

  The Council also held a first debate on the Commission's proposals for reform of the tobacco regime, which also form an element of the Agenda 2000 strategy. On behalf of the United Kingdom, and with support from Sweden and Denmark, my noble Friend the Lord Donoughue expressed concern at the relatively modest nature of these reform proposals and urged more radical steps to reduce support for tobacco production in the Community, bearing in mind the inconsistency with EU efforts to limit tobacco consumption for health reasons. Detailed work on this proposal will now begin.

  The Council held a second full debate on proposed amendments to the EU banana regime in response to the recent findings of the WTO Appellate Body. I concluded in the light of the debate that further detailed work should continue, and that the Council should resolve this issue quickly, both in order to meet WTO obligations and to give reassurance to EU and ACP banana growers about their futures.

  There was a further discussion in the Council of the Commission's proposals in respect of the Community's beef promotion scheme. Final agreement did not prove possible in view of the requirement to achieve unanimity on this proposal. I undertook as Council President to consider the options for taking this proposal forward.

  The Commissioner gave the Council a full report on the exchanges he had had with the United States on the negotiation of an EU/US veterinary and phytosanitary equivalence agreement. The Council noted that there had been positive developments in recent contacts between the two sides, and expressed the hope that the terms of an agreement would be ready for endorsement by the Council at its March meeting.

  My noble Friend the Lord Donoughue expressed the concerns of the United Kingdom at the recent interruption to supplies of fish from Russian freezer vessels into the UK, in particular Scotland, and the risk this created to jobs in fish processing. The Commissioner undertook to carry out an urgent examination of the problem.

  Finally, the Council discussed the forthcoming OECD Agriculture Ministerial meeting in Paris in March, where consideration would be given to progress on agricultural reform over the last decade. Ministers in the Council debated the line which the European Union would take at this meeting. I concluded that there should be co-ordination of the EU line in a High Level Group which will convene in Brussels next week for this purpose.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total value of research projects he has commissioned with bodies in(a) London, (b) South-East England, (c) England, (d) Scotland,(e) Wales, (f) Northern Ireland and (g) the UK. [30101]

  Mr. Rooker
  I regret that the information sought is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Decisions on the placing of research contracts are based on the scientific quality and value for money of research proposals and not on the geographical location of contractors. The Department does not keep a detailed record of the location of each project within the research programme because of the complexity of the contractual arrangements, which can involve subcontractors and consortia, and because of the size and constantly changing nature of the research programme and the number of contractors involved. In the current year alone, the Department's R&D expenditure is likely to exceed £127 million, involving over 100 different contractors in around 2,000 individual projects.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the location and running costs in the last year for which figures are available of each of his Department's buildings. [30098]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department is currently responsible for 240 properties comprising large and small offices, laboratories, research farms and redundant buildings awaiting disposal. The properties are both freehold and leasehold, and are mainly situated in England with some in Wales and a few in Scotland. Details of the running costs of each building are not held centrally and disproportionate costs would be incurred to collect this information. However in 1997–98, the Department's expenditure on rents to landlords, opportunity cost rents to the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (an executive agency of the Cabinet Office) and contributions in lieu of rates are expected to be £34,445,000. Further, in 1997–98, the Department's expenditure on the day to day running of the buildings, maintenance, repair, refurbishment and decommissioning redundant sites is expected to be £25,053,000.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give a regional breakdown of his Department's expenditure on(a) hospitality, (b) stationery and (c) travel in the last year for which figures are available. [30099]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested by the hon. Member could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Beef
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the average payment made from the £85 million compensation package, announced on 22 December per(a) head of cattle and (b) beef farmer. [29828]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 18 February 1998]: Of the £85 million agrimonetary compensation package to be paid to UK livestock farmers, £72.5 million will be distributed to suckler cow producers who were paid under the 1996 Suckler Cow Premium Scheme with the remaining £12.5 million to be paid to sheep producers. The payment rate will be £44.20 for each suckler cow on which 1996 premium was paid in full, lower if penalties were applied to the 1996 premium claim. Based on the average claim size for the UK as a whole, the average payment per suckler producer will be in the region of £1,300.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will introduce a statutory code of practice in respect of the provisions in the Audit Commission Bill [Lords] which permit the Commission to datamatch personal data in the name of economy, effectiveness and efficiency; and if he will make a statement. [29114]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Audit Commission Bill is a Consolidation Bill, which does no more than restate the existing law in clearer form. It is not possible to amend the Bill by adding a provision for a code of practice.

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the number of his Department's employees by UK region, indicating the wage bill(a) in total and (b) by region in the last year for which figures are available and separately identifying the costs of London allowances and weightings. [30107]

  Mr. Hoon
  This answer covers the Headquarters of the Lord Chancellor's Department (with Associated Offices), the Court Service and the Public Trust Office. Paybill information for HQ and the Public Trust Office is for 1997–98. The figures for the Court Service represent pay levels as at 31 March 1997; the financial year 1996–97 is the last full year for which meaningful figures for the Court Service are available, as elements of their 1997–98 pay award are not due to be paid until April 1998; staff numbers have, however, been updated to 30 November 1997.

  Information on staff numbers for each part of the Lord Chancellor's Department includes staff up to and including the Senior Civil Service and includes casuals. It does not, however, include fee-paid ushers, who are paid locally and for whom central records are not kept. The judiciary are not included. The paybills for the Court Service are shown by circuit. The great majority of staff in LCD HQ and all staff in the Public Trust Office are based in London. London Weighting and equivalent

  723
  payments paid to staff in HQ and Associated Offices and in PTO have been consolidated with basic salary and are therefore included in the total paybill figures. In each case, figures are also shown for the cost of Local and Special Pay Additions currently payable.

  LCD HQ (with Associated Offices)

  Total staff numbers (October 1997): 910

  Total paybill: £23,385,429

  Local/special pay additions: £137,964

  Public Trust Office

  Total staff numbers (October 1997): 550

  Total paybill: £10,893,836

  Local/special pay additions: £40,508

  Court Service

  Midland & Oxford Circuit

  Total staff numbers: 1,602

  Total paybill: £19,042,626

  London weighting: £1,776

  Local/special pay additions: £21,280

  Western Circuit

  Total staff numbers: 908

  Total paybill: £10,849,273

  London weighting: £0

  Local/special pay additions: £31,870

  Wales & Chester Circuit

  Total staff numbers: 577

  Total paybill: £7,175,484

  London weighting: £0

  Local/special pay additions: £0

  North Eastern Circuit

  Total staff numbers: 1,278

  Total paybill: £15,034,001

  London weighting: £0

  Local/special pay additions: £0

  Northern Circuit

  Total staff numbers: 1,261

  Total paybill: £15,114,568

  London weighting: £0

  Local/special pay additions: £0

  South Eastern Circuit

  Total staff numbers: 4,295

  Total paybill: £57,818,226

  London weighting: £3,468,180

  Local/special pay additions: £168,720

  Principal Registry of the Family Division (PRFD)

  Total staff numbers: 430

  Total paybill: £5,596,664

  London weighting: £318,136

  Local/special pay additions: £13,670.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will give a regional breakdown of his Department's expenditure on(a) hospitality, (b) stationery and (c) travel in the last year for which figures are available. [30109]
  724
  Mr. Hoon
  The figures requested are given in the table.

  Business area

  Hospitality

  Stationery and small office equipment

  Travel and subsistence

  LCD HQ

  21,618

  520,625

  833,990

  Court Service HQ

  0

  111,129

  298,433

  Public Trust Office

  982

  291,246

  36,652

  South East Circuit

  558

  2,218,658

  929,213

  Western Circuit

  602

  303,228

  296,527

  Wales & Chester Circuit

  1,893

  367,264

  238,029

  Midland & Oxford Circuit

  0

  1,143,241

  395,085

  Northern Circuit

  1,255

  629,753

  282,902

  North Eastern Circuit

  649

  724,394

  325,141

  Total

  27,557

  6,309,538

  3,635,972

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many contracts of a value greater than £1000 his Department has with companies in(a) London, (b) South East England, (c) England, (d) Scotland, (e) Wales and (f) Northern Ireland; and what is the total value of such contracts for each such area. [30110]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Child Support
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many child support commissioner cases appeal has been sought to the Court of Appeal; which party sought leave; and which cases were granted leave to appeal. [30060]

  Mr. Hoon
  Since 1995, leave to appeal has been sought on 16 child support cases in England and Wales and leave has been granted in seven. The Secretary of State, on behalf of the Child Support Officer, has sought leave in seven cases, of which two were granted; the appellant has sought leave in seven cases, of which four were granted; and the respondent has sought leave in two cases, of which one was granted.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the total value of research projects he has commissioned with bodies in(a) London, (b) South East England, (c) England, (d) Scotland, (e) Wales, (f) Northern Ireland and (g) the UK. [130161]

  Mr. Hoon
  The figures are as follows:

  Breakdown of cost of research commissioned

  Area

  Cost (£)

  1996–97

  London

  138,110

  SE England (excluding London)

  18,912

  England (excluding London and SE)

  187,149

  Scotland

  4,500

  Wales

  6,457

  Northern Ireland

  —

  UK Total

  355,128

  725

  Breakdown of cost of research commissioned

  Area

  Cost (£)

  1997–98

  London

  163,857

  SE England (excluding London)

  32,492

  England (excluding London and SE)

  259,014

  Scotland

  2,500

  Wales

  —

  Northern Ireland

  —

  UK Total

  457,863

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the location and running costs in the last year for which figures are available of each of his Department's buildings. [301081]

  Mr. Hoon
  Details of accommodation charges (including rent, rates, service charges and contributions in lieu of rates), fuel and utilities charges in respect of the Departmental Headquarters Buildings for the financial year 1996–97 are as set out:

  Location

  Fuels and utilities

  Accommodation charges

  London

  Little St. James'

  6,327.51

  383,945.20

  22 Kingsway

  428.02

  431,830.19

  Southside

  1—

  2,231,468.63

  Chancery Lane

  53,460.07

  1,585,795.10

  Hepburn House

  2,741.00

  194,009.00

  Conquest House

  9,689.34

  599,629.40

  Millbank Tower

  16,965.45

  1,289,367.06

  Rochester House

  —

  21,453.36

  Selborne House

  216,466.36

  2,242,379.65

  Tufton Street

  13,545.23

  191,806.55

  Bristol

  Prudential Buildings

  3,574.49

  66,334.30

  Industry's employment needs and college output 1994–99

  000

  Managers

  Craft and semi-skilled

  Operatives and others

  Total

  Average annual replacement needs

  23

  86

  256

  356

  Average annual output from colleges

  5

  14

  3

  22

  Average annual shortfall of qualified staff

  18

  72

  253

  343

  Proportion of newly qualified to replacement needs

  22%

  16%

  1%

  6%

  The opportunities provided by NVQs/SVQs enable those working to obtain qualification. This goes some way towards making up for the shortfall in college provision. It also means that the industry can increase its skill level.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to address skill shortages in the catering and hotel industries. [27091]

  Dr. Howells
  In July 1997 the Hospitality Training Foundation (HtF) was recognised by the Secretary of State as a National Training Organisation (NTO), one of a growing number of National Training Organisations currently being established. NTOs have the key responsibility for developing education and training arrangements in their sectors.
  726

  Location

  Fuels and utilities

  Accommodation charges

  Westbury

  Burghill Road

  969.96

  18,557.82

  Gateshead

  Interchange Centre

  1,246.83

  11,600.00

  Leeds

  City House

  994.67

  33,667.51

  1 Incorporated into accommodation charges.

  2 Final rent payment.

  A total of £926,961.00 was also spent on maintenance, £15,434 on fuel (other than gas and electricity) and £3,336.614.72) on contributions in lieu of rates for the above buildings during the period 1996–97.

  In addition to the Departmental Headquarters buildings, the Court Service occupied 417 buildings during the same period and spent a total of £22.1 million on building maintenance, fuel and utility costs and £99.9 million on rent (including £49.2m which represents payments within Government in respect of buildings on the Civil Estate) service charges and contributions in lieu of rates. Not all items of expenditure for the Court Service are recorded by location and this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Hotel and Catering (Training)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate of the shortfall in trained personnel in the hotel and catering industry in the next three years. [27092]

  Dr. Howells
  The Hospitality Training Foundation's Report Employment Forecasts to 2004, published in 1996, provides the most recent data on this subject.

  HtF as NTO for the hospitality industry (hotel and catering) has a three year Business Plan which outlines its future direction and sets out a programme of work designed to address, directly and indirectly, the industry's skills shortages.

  HtF in its former role as Industry Lead Body for hotel and catering was responsible for monitoring future skill requirements and training needs.

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list each major new computer system that(a) his Department, (b) non-departmental bodies and (c) agencies under his responsibility have purchased in the last five years; what

  727
  was the initial purchase cost and what was the final cost; what was each system's (i) planned and (ii) actual date of commissioning; what major computer systems will be purchased by bodies in categories (a), (b) and (c) in the next financial year; and what is their estimated cost. [27852]

  Commissioning dates

  System

  Initial £000

  Costs Final £000

  Planned

  Actual

  (a) Departmental computer systems

  Census of employment processing system for ED/DfEE

  3,900

  3,920

  February 1994

  March 1994

  Vacancy circulation system for London Careers Service

  230

  230

  April 1996

  April 1996

  Personnel system for DfEE

  750

  760

  April 1997

  April 1997

  (b) Non-Departmental bodies

  Manufacturing systems for Remploy

  742

  742

  1996

  1996

  Human Resources system for Remploy

  122

  122

  March 1998

  March 1998

  Electronic Mail System for Remploy

  110

  110

  September 1996

  September 1996

  Levy Grant tracking system for Construction Industry

  393

  576

  April 1994

  June 1994

  Training Board (CITB)

  Training and qualification record keeping system for Construction Industry Training Board (CITB)

  269

  283

  March 1996

  March 1996

  Workflow management & document imaging system for Student Loans company

  740

  740

  February 1998

  February 1998

  Loan repayment follow-up case and telephone call management system for Student Loans Company

  507

  521

  April 1996

  April 1996

  Finance system for the Funding Agency for Schools

  107

  107

  April 1995

  April 1995

  (c) Agencies

  Employment Services Communications Project

  997

  997

  December 1997

  February 1998

  Personnel system for Employment Services

  1,300

  1,300

  April 1996

  May 1996

  Office Automation system for ACAS

  500

  500

  April 1993

  April 1993

  £000

  System

  Anticipated cost

  (a) Departmental computer systems

  Resource accounting system for DfEE

  500

  (b) Non-departmental public bodies

  Pay & personnel for Construction Industry Training Board

  150

  (c) Agencies

  Nil

  —

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the(a) amount

  TEC/CCTE administration costs

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  TECS by region

  Admin costs £

  Admin costs/ total income (%)

  Admin costs £

  Admin costs/ total income (%)

  Admin costs £

  Admin costs/ total income (%)

  Northern

  County Durham

  2,844,998

  10.62

  2,788,821

  10.80

  3,424,190

  14.05

  Northumberland

  2,170,801

  13.35

  3,286,182

  19.43

  3,330,965

  18.97

  Teesside

  3,501,000

  12.74

  4,101,000

  13.67

  4,036,000

  13.85

  Tyneside

  3,928,000

  9.49

  3,266,000

  9.03

  3,110,000

  7.50

  Sunderland (Wearside)

  1,589,414

  10.22

  1,561,552

  10.46

  1,798,644

  12.08

  Total

  14,034,213

  11.01

  14,993,555

  12.12

  15,699,799

  12.32

  Merseyside

  CEWTEC

  1,952,421

  10.40

  1,492,117

  7.84

  1,700,188

  8.28

  Merseyside

  4,626,182

  10.29

  4,160,515

  11.32

  5,575,071

  12.33

  St. Helens

  990,569

  12.05

  2,024,904

  26.83

  1,902,854

  19.53

  Total

  7,569,172

  10.45

  7,677,536

  12.12

  9,178,113

  12.16

  728
  Dr. Howells
  The list of major computer systems purchased by the department, associated non-departmental bodies and agencies over the past five years is given in the following Table 1. Table 2 is a list of planned purchases for the next financial year.

  and (b) proportion of overall budget spent by each training and enterprise council on administration, in (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96 and (iii) 1996–97. [28498]

  Dr. Howells
  I have provided figures showing spend on administration costs and the proportion ofthe overall income of each of the English Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) as stated in their consolidated annual statutory audited accounts, a copy of which is in the Library. It is not possible to identify separately administrative expenditure attributable to DfEE budgets.

  Any direct comparison of administration costs between TECs could be misleading, both because there is no statutory definition of administration costs and also because of the range of training and enterprise activities TECs undertake.
  729

  TEC/CCTE administration costs

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  TECS by region

  Admin costs £

  Admin costs/ total income (%)

  Admin costs £

  Admin costs/ total income (%)

  Admin costs £

  Admin costs/ total income (%)

  North West

  Bolton/Bury

  10

  10.00

  10

  10.00

  13,074,109

  120.40

  Manchester

  2,973,860

  7.94

  2,964,812

  8.33

  2,674,336

  6.16

  Wigan

  1,888,508

  17.36

  2,541,016

  24.63

  3,067,908

  26.90

  Oldham

  1,006,057

  12.51

  1,058,063

  13.44

  1,315,818

  14.81

  Rochdale

  656,133

  7.20

  694,865

  8.45

  845,669

  9.90

  South & East Cheshire

  1,051,417

  6.16

  1,066,414

  6.54

  1,095,807

  6.67

  Stockport & High Peak

  898,243

  8.74

  795,970

  8.50

  775,861

  6.88

  Cumhria

  2,060,190

  10.37

  1,737,220

  8.77

  1,787,020

  7.80

  ELTEC

  10

  10.00

  10

  10.00

  10

  10.00

  LAWTEC

  10

  10.00

  10

  10.00

  10

  10.00

  NORMID

  1,203,943

  7.89

  1,166,455

  8.08

  1,138,903

  7.08

  Total

  11,738,351

  6.05

  12,024,815

  6.67

  15,775,431

  7.73

  Yorks & Humber

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  2,259,000

  7.67

  2,651,000

  11.78

  2,533,000

  12.57

  Bradford

  1,514,564

  8.60

  1,834,388

  12.91

  1,867,564

  11.91

  Calderdale & Kirklees

  2,348,460

  11.47

  2,391,688

  13.02

  2,444,082

  12.17

  Humberside

  13,257,145

  110.08

  13,188,684

  111.19

  13,989,577

  112.51

  Leeds

  2,392.053

  12.43

  2,639,925

  14.65

  2,765,170

  14.83

  North Yorks

  1,481,000

  8.99

  2,438,000

  16.72

  2,662,000

  14.50

  Rotherham

  1,406,127

  11.78

  1,520,704

  12.35

  1,520,892

  11.94

  Sheffield

  1,649,000

  8.09

  1,635,000

  9.00

  1,352,000

  7.85

  Wakefield

  1,188,133

  10.24

  1,014,172

  10.85

  1,069,032

  13.20

  Total

  17,495,482

  9.75

  19,313,561

  12.38

  20,203,317

  12.40

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  1,518,605

  12.05

  1,585,159

  13.22

  1,764,509

  12.67

  Cambridgeshire

  1,103,244

  12.06

  1,029,725

  13.44

  1,021,075

  11.93

  Essex

  3,156,151

  9.80

  3,051,851

  11.00

  3,184,000

  10.00

  Gtr. Peterborough

  1,010,561

  10.22

  1,187,394

  12.59

  1,063,347

  9.22

  Hertfordshire

  1,698,000

  6.88

  1,590,000

  7.69

  1,651,000

  7.43

  Norfolk & Waveney

  2,841,000

  13.23

  3,066,000

  14.50

  3,450,000

  15.88

  Suffolk

  1,148,694

  7.97

  1,270,670

  8.72

  1,107,145

  7.33

  Total

  12,476,255

  10.03

  12,780,80,799

  11.29

  13,241,076

  10.60

  East Midlands

  Gtr. Nottingham

  1,521,000

  6.75

  2,059,000

  12.17

  2,209,000

  11.34

  Leicester

  2,293,012

  9.84

  2,231,128

  9.68

  2,616,201

  10.95

  Lincolnshire

  10

  10.00

  10

  10.00

  10

  10.00

  Northamptonshire

  1,237,785

  9.12

  1,346,628

  11.10

  1,608,134

  10.89

  North Derbyshire

  1,935,855

  13.11

  2,027,060

  17.20

  2,245,502

  16.14

  North Nottinghamshire

  1,364,870

  5.41

  1,073,908

  5.31

  1,035,340

  5.40

  South Derbyshire

  1,561,000

  8.76

  1,527,000

  9.05

  2,135,000

  12.28

  Total

  9,913,522

  6.99

  10,264,724

  8.31

  11,849,177

  8.92

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  2,954,000

  8.81

  2,921,000

  9.10

  3,270,000

  7.94

  Central England

  897,848

  8.25

  910,320

  8.18

  1,049,615

  9.35

  Coventry/Warwick

  1,336,237

  4.89

  1,376,763

  5.68

  1,571,268

  5.46

  Dudley

  1,273,292

  11.83

  1,502,820

  18.89

  2,046,690

  18.21

  HAWTEC

  1,153,623

  8.93

  1,208,427

  8.77

  2,531,101

  16.31

  Sandwell

  835,866

  6.61

  966,895

  8.13

  947,523

  7.62

  Shropshire

  1,175,098

  9.26

  1,210,530

  9.85

  2,163,446

  15.01

  Staffordshire

  2,995,000

  9.53

  2,942,000

  10.00

  3,440,000

  11.12

  Walsall

  1,367,391

  16.08

  1,219,799

  15.01

  1,267,271

  13.8

  Wolverhampton

  697,000

  6.66

  739,000

  7.91

  1,216,000

  11.34

  Total

  14,685,355

  8.58

  14,997,554

  9.36

  19,502,914

  10.51

  South West

  Werstec (Avon)

  2,950,000

  11.84

  3,171,000

  13.27

  3,317,000

  12.37

  Devon/Cornwall

  6,405,000

  14.82

  7,059,000

  17.67

  8,004,000

  18.91

  Dorset

  1,442,896

  9.05

  1,116,695

  8.13

  1,055,284

  6.97

  Gloucester

  2,726,513

  17.75

  1,312,168

  8.84

  1,556,058

  9.73

  Somerset

  1,822,761

  13.49

  1,508,920

  12.95

  1,736,696

  12.90

  Wiltshire

  1,792,597

  13.59

  1,940,660

  19.33

  2,109,602

  17.54

  Total

  17,139,767

  13.59

  16,108,443

  14.12

  17,778,640

  14.14

  730 731

  TEC/CCTE administration costs

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  TECS by region

  Admin costs £

  Admin costs/ total income (%)

  Admin costs £

  Admin costs/ total income (%)

  Admin costs £

  Admin costs/ total income (%)

  London

  AZTEC

  1,856,188

  13.66

  2,025,883

  17.25

  1,605,736

  11.86

  CENTEC

  2,878,041

  12.71

  4,048,449

  13.23

  1,605,678

  13.06

  CILNTEC

  3,116,232

  15.59

  3,226,423

  17.62

  3,356,523

  15.49

  LETEC

  3,814,563

  11.75

  3,108,749

  11.22

  3,246,756

  10.15

  North London

  2,587,420

  11.43

  2,697,670

  11.41

  2,960,868

  11.11

  North West London

  1,141,113

  9.67

  979,308

  8.96

  1,142,732

  9.67

  SOLOTEC

  2,684,946

  13.87

  4,691,000

  17.01

  3,318,000

  10.91

  West London

  1,747,613

  9.41

  1,873,074

  9.91

  1,897,613

  8.13

  Total

  19,826,116

  12.31

  22,722,506

  13.36

  22,133,906

  11.37

  South East

  Hampshire

  2,128,114

  7.09

  2,068,853

  8.54

  2,396,000

  8.24

  Isle of Wight

  544,541

  13.27

  639,016

  17.65

  588,434

  15.64

  Kent

  3,064,096

  83.25

  3,558,408

  10.4

  3,978,723

  10.76

  Milton Keynes/North Bucks

  1,005,491

  9.82

  1,089,104

  11.10

  1,035,079

  8.24

  Heart of England

  2,310,937

  19.62

  2,824,725

  23.69

  3,405,577

  25.37

  Surrey

  2,365,167

  18.62

  2,474,805

  22.60

  2,478,369

  19.90

  Sussex

  2,802,000

  12.10

  3,834,000

  19.32

  5,018,000

  20.81

  Thames Valley Ent.

  2,186,361

  6.99

  2,151,690

  6.69

  2,432,870

  7.45

  Total

  16,406,707

  12.92

  18,640,601

  12.60

  21,333,052

  12.93

  Grand Total

  141,284,940

  9.92

  149,524,094

  11.06

  166,695,425

  11.12

  1 These TECs/CCTEs have adopted a statutory accounting format which does not disclose administrative expenditure separately. The Companies Acts do not require disclosure, or a common definition of administration costs in the statutory accounts of limited companies. Therefore, it is not possible to make meaningful comparisons between TECs/CCTEs in respect of these costs.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the extent of overpayment from public funds to training and enterprise councils in 1996–97 and each of the three previous years. [29925]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department keeps records of overpayments arising in training and enterprise councils in England. For 1996–97 these amounted to £5,089,122.51.

  Figures for the three previous years were:

  1995–96: £2,320,846.51

  1994–95: £4,977,004.13

  1993–94: £4,616,440.57.

  Teachers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of teachers in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools are male. [29361]

  Mr. Byers
  The latest available figures show that 16 per cent. of teachers in maintained primary schools and 45 per cent. of teachers in maintained secondary schools in England in January 1997 were male.

  Schools (Toilets)
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the health implications of schools' dependence on outside toilets; and what priority he attaches to their removal. [29405]

  Mr. Byers
  The Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996 impose a duty upon local education authorities and the governing bodies of grant-maintained
  732
  schools to ensure that the health, safety and welfare of the occupants is reasonably assured in every part of a school building. They must undertake those assessments which they deem necessary in order to fulfil this duty.

  The New Deal for Schools should lead to an additional £2 billion being spent on repairing, renewing and improving school buildings, including toilets, during this Parliament.

  School Governors
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many representations he has received in support of the removal of local council representation on the boards of school governors; and if he will make a statement. [29380]

  Mr. Byers
  There will continue to be minor authority representation on all primary school governing bodies, where a governing body wants it. Regulations made under the School Standards and Framework Bill will make clear that governing bodies of all primary schools should consider co-opting a minor authority nominee. We will also, through guidance, strongly encourage LEAs to appoint minor authority nominees as LEA governors where a primary school serves a minor authority area and where the school has not already made provision for minor authority representation. We will consult fully with all the interested parties as we develop both the regulations and the guidance.

  The proposals to achieve minor authority representation through co-option was made in the Technical Consultation Paper on the Framework for the Organisation for Schools, which the Department issued last August. Forty five respondents supported our proposals on co-option.
  733
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals involving school governors he has to improve school standards. [29356]

  Mr. Byers
  As we said in our White Paper "Excellence in Schools" the purpose of governing bodies is to help provide the best possible education for their pupils. Accordingly, Clause 37 of the School Standards and Framework Bill places a new requirement on governing bodies to"conduct the school with a view to promoting high standards of educational achievement at the school".

  We are supporting governors in this role by ensuring that they have access to the information they need and by providing ring fenced funding for governor training under the 1998–99 School Standards Fund. The fund includes specific funding for training in target setting, as well as training for governors alongside professional staff as part of our National Literacy Strategy.

  Further Education
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the numbers of student governors in colleges of further education; and if he will make a statement. [29532]

  Dr. Howells
  No record of this kind is kept centrally.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many further education colleges were in deficit for the financial year 1996–97; what percentage of colleges this represented; and what were the equivalent figures for each of the four previous financial years. [29420]

  Dr. Howells
  Out of 424 colleges which provided information to the Further Education Funding Council it is estimated that 234 (55 per cent.) were operating a deficit in the 1996–97 academic year. Information is not available for the 1992–93 academic year. The figures for 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 are 204 (44 per cent.), 263 (58 per cent.) and 264 (58 per cent.) respectively.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many further education colleges there are in England; and how many teaching staff are employed in these colleges(a) full-time, (b) on short-term contracts and (c) as agency teaching staff. [29427]

  Dr. Howells
  In September 1997 there were 444 colleges in the further education sector. The most recently available data for staff numbers are at July 1996. These indicate that there were 52,800 full time staff and 58,900 staff on fixed-term contracts whose primary role was teaching. Information on the numbers of agency staff is not collected.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with the Further Education Funding Council about the future role of the Association of Colleges. [29301]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not had such a discussion with the Further Education Funding Council which deals with matters such as that concerning the further role of the Association of Colleges.
  734
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the total number of further education colleges running a budget deficit for the current financial year; and if he will list the current estimated deficit of each of these colleges for(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [29421]

  Dr. Howells
  On the basis of returns from 424 colleges the Further Education Funding Council estimate that 211 of these colleges will be running a budget deficit in the 1997–98 academic year and 205 will be running a deficit in 1998–99. Forecast information provided by colleges to the Council is commercially sensitive and it is not the Council's practice to release forecast figures relating to individual colleges.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to increase the total number of students within further education colleges during the financial year 1998–99; how the increase will be allocated between different regions; what methods will be used to ensure that targets are achieved; what additional funding will be available to colleges for students; and what the impact will be on the average level of funding per student throughout the sector. [29382]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State anticipates growth in further education colleges of some 20,000 students, in full-time equivalent terms, between the 1997/98 and 1998/99 academic years. We have announced an additional £100 million over the plans of the previous Government. The average level of funding per student will remain the same in cash terms, with the college sector as a whole absorbing only the costs of inflation. Allocations of funding to sector colleges are the responsibility of the Further Education Funding Council which will make them in the Spring. The Council's funding arrangements are designed to help ensure that college agreements are met.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice he has given to the Further Education Funding Council concerning the individual and collective responsibilities of the members of college corporations. [29302]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to announce his proposals for governing bodies of further education colleges following the publication of the consultation paper on Lifelong Learning.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many redundancies of(a) teaching staff, (b) support staff and (c) management posts were notified by further education colleges in England in each of the last four years; and what estimate he has made of the likely reduction in each of these three categories during 1998–99. [29300]

  Dr. Howells
  This information is not held centrally. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made no estimate of likely reduction.

  National Grid for Learning
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that the content of the National Grid for Learning is
  735
  accessible and relevant to teachers in (a) further, higher and adult education and (b) workplace-based learning. [29298]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government's proposals for developing the National Grid for Learning in all these areas of learning were set out in the consultation paper `Connecting the Learning Society' published last October. We are considering carefully the responses to this consultation, including responses from those concerned with further, higher and adult education, and work-based training.

  New Deal
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people claiming unemployment benefit are not eligible for inclusion in the New Deal. [29293]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The New Deal for young people covers those aged 18–24 who have been claiming JSA for more than six months. In January 1998 there were 375,000 18–24 year olds claiming JSA, of which about 120,000 had been unemployed for more than six months. The New Deal for people aged over 25 covers those who have been unemployed for more than two years. In January 1998 there were 1.1 million people aged over 25 who were claiming JSA, of which 216,000 had been unemployed for more than two years.

  The New Deals will continue throughout this Parliament, so they will help more than just the current stocks in the relevant durations. All 18–24 year olds who have been on JSA for less than six months and those aged over 25 who have been on JSA for less than two years will be eligible for the New Deal if they remain on JSA and flow through the relevant threshold. Currently between 15,000 and 20,000 18–24-year-olds pass the six months threshold each month and 5,000 to 10,000 people aged over 25 pass the two year threshold. Over the whole of the Parliament the New Deals will help several times the number in the current stock.

  There will also be New Deals for lone parents and for those on long-term sickness and disability benefits. These aim to provide help to individuals currently on non-labour market benefits who want to return to work.

  Careers Service
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what financial formula is being used to allocate the budget of the Careers Service(a) within London and (b) between the regions. [29209]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 12 February 1998]The Department for Education and Employment allocated its 1998–99 Careers Service budget to the English regions on a formula in which:72% of the value is represented by each region's proportion of 11 to 16-year-olds in full time education and
  28% is represented by proportions of those eligible or taking part in the Work based Training programme for Young People.

  The results of this formula were adjusted to give a weighting for higher costs in London and to ensure every region will have an increase on its 1997–98 budget.
  736
  The Government Office for London calculated initial 1998–99 contract values for its careers service companies using a formula in which:
  72% of the value is represented by each service's proportion of 11 to 16 year olds in full time education and
  28% by their proportions of 18 to 24 year olds who have been registered unemployed for more than 6 months.

  The Government Office adjusted the results to ensure every careers service in London will have a cash increase on its 1998–99 budget.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of(a) the fitness of the nation's schoolchildren, (b) measures within schools to improve fitness and (c) the effects of the proposed removal of physical education from the core curriculum. [29407]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Assessments of national fitness are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Physical Education is to remain a National Curriculum subject and will continue to be taught in all schools.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he proposes to take to ensure that primary schools set aside time for physical education following recent changes in the core curriculum. [29555]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Physical Education is to remain a National Curriculum subject and will continue to be taught in all schools. The allocation of time for teaching individual subjects is for schools to decide for themselves.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received from the National Coaching Foundation following the changes to the core curriculum relating to physical education. [29558]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  None.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr.Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will abolish the 16-hour rule for the Jobseeker's allowance; and if he will make a statement. [29531]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We have taken action on the Jobseeker's Allowance rules on education and training. We have extended the JSA Workskill pilots so that there are now pilots in eight areas allowing people unemployed for six months or more to undertake employment-related courses of education and training, full or part-time, for up to a year while on JSA. The pilots aim to test whether and how different benefit arrangements help unemployed people obtain and retain employment.

  We are also introducing more flexible arrangements in our New Deals for the unemployed. The New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds includes an option of full-time education and training for up to a year. People on this option will receive a training allowance in place of JSA. Those aged 25 years and over, unemployed for two years or more, will be allowed from June 1998 to undertake full-time employment-related education and training for

  737
  up to a year while receiving JSA. Learning for Work full-time education and training is also an option in all five prototype Employment Zones.

  We will further review the JSA rules on education and training in the light of the Workskill pilots and our welfare-to-work programme.

  Lifelong Learning
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what factors underlay his decision not to produce a White Paper on lifelong learning; and if he will make a statement. [29525]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has always intended to consult widely on our proposals for lifelong learning. As he plans to publish separate documents responding to the reports from the Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education and the Further Education Funding Council's Widening Participation Committee, my right hon. Friend intends to publish, on 25 February, the Government's proposals on lifelong learning in the form of a consultation document.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) which grant maintained schools have received extra funding from the FAS for urgent repairs since 1 May 1997; and in each case how much; [29267]

  (2) what total sum the FAS has distributed to grant maintained schools since 1 May 1997; [29269]

  (3) how many grant maintained schools have received extra funding since 1 May 1997; [29270]

  (4) how much extra funding has been provided per pupil to (a) grant maintained schools and (b) maintained schools in the (i) primary and (ii) secondary sectors, since 1 May 1997. [29271]

  Mr. Byers
  Recurrent costs at Local Education Authority (LEA) maintained schools are being funded by local authorities for the whole of 1997–98 on the basis of Local Management of Schools (LMS) schemes, determined before the beginning of the financial year. Recurrent grant for grant-maintained (GM) schools has been calculated by the Funding Agency For Schools (FAS) in accordance with The Education (Grant-maintained and Grant-maintained Special Schools) (Finance) Regulations 1997.

  For capital expenditure in 1997–98, LEA maintained schools are being funded. For GM schools, capital provision of £144.9 million was made available to the FAS for the current financial year and the administration of this is the responsibility of the Agency subject to direction given by the Secretary of State.

  I have written to Sir Anthony Tippet, Chairman of the FAS, to ask him to provide the recurrent and capital expenditure figures for GM schools requested.

  Secondary School Places (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans he has to discuss with Portsmouth City Council the provision of secondary school places to meet parental preferences; [29157]

  (2) what recent representations he has received from Portsmouth City Council concerning the provision of secondary school places in the city to meet parental preferences.[29159]

  Mr. Byers
  My right hon. Friend is aware of concerns in Portsmouth about the provision of secondary school places; officials met with Portsmouth's Education Committee earlier this month. He has recently approved the provision of 148 new secondary school places in Portsmouth. In addition, on 10 February my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing announced 23 more local authority PFI projects in line for revenue support, including a project to build a 1,000-place secondary school in Portsmouth using a Public Private Partnership.

  Oxford and Cambridge Universities
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take steps to end the prohibition on prospective students from applying to both Oxford and Cambridge universities in the same year. [29167]

  Dr. Howells
  The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge are, like all higher education institutions, responsible for their own admissions procedures and Ministers are prevented by law from intervening in such matters.

  Standard Spending Assessments (Buckinghamshire)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will state in respect of Buckinghamshire County Council(a) the education SSA for 1998–99 and (b) what would be the education SSA for 1998–99, calculated on the weighting and composition of the SSA formula for 1997–98 (i) in cash terms, (ii) per head of population in Buckinghamshire and (iii) per child in full-time schooling in Buckinghamshire. [28736]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 February 1998]The following table sets out the information requested. Buckinghamshire's education SSA for 1998–99 represents an actual increase of £7.8 million or 4.4 per cent. overs its education SSA for 1997–98.

  Education SSA

  £ funding per head of population

  £ funding per pupil

  (a)£183.782 million

  387

  2,585

  (b)£186.029 million

  392

  2,617

  Notes:

  1. The figure at (b) has been calculated on the basis of the 1997–98 education SSAs, but using the 1998–99 SSA national control totals.

  2. The per head of population figures are based on the Registrar General's estimates as at June 1996.

  3. The per pupil figures are based on the sum of pupils aged 4, 5 to 10, 11 to 15 and post-16, as defined in the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1998–99.

  Lipreading
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of the insistence of the FEFC on accreditation of courses funded by them on the quantity of lipreading classes, and the number of students attending them. [29166]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not made any assessment of this kind. The FEFC has a duty to secure adequacy and sufficiency of further education provision for which it is responsible, and in doing this to have regard to the needs of students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many local education authorities provide lipreading classes which are free of charge to users; and how many charge for the service; [29154]

  (2) if he will list the number of lipreading classes in operation in each of the last five years and the approximate number of students attending such classes. [29169]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not centrally available.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Martin Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if proposals that(a) there should be quotas or targets for the number of statements issued by LEAs, (b) in some circumstances statements could be less detailed with regard to the specification of the provision required to meet a child's needs, (c) statements could be discontinued when specified outcomes had been achieved and (d) tribunals should have regard to LEAs' policies as well as children's needs, in the Green Paper on Special Educational Needs, were included in the draft prepared by his Department's officials and presented to the Special Needs Advisory Group on 2 September 1997. [29046]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The draft Green Paper considered by the National Advisory Group on Special Educational Needs (SEN) on 2 September 1997 included proposals related to three of the four subjects mentioned. A proposal related to the fourth subject was incorporated following the Group's discussion.

  The precise wording of the proposals in the Green Paper differs from that used in the question. In particular, the Green Paper proposes that there should be a national expectation of the proportion of children who might benefit from statements. It specifically states that these would not operate as strict quotas.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many primary schools have nurture groups for children showing early signs of emotional and behavioural difficulties with support from their local education authorities; and if he will list these local education authorities and the amount of funding they provide for such groups. [29707]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The term"nurture group" may apply to a variety of forms of structured intervention with group activity in support of children with emotional and behavioural difficulties in the primary years. It is not possible to provide the information requested without disproportionate cost.

  Voluntary Youth Organisations
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those voluntary youth organisations in the New Deal pathfinder areas which are(a) providing opportunities to unemployed young people under the full-time employee options, (b) providing opportunities to unemployed young people under the voluntary sector options, (c) providing opportunities to unemployed young people under the Environmental Task Force option and (d) helping to support unemployed young people under the Gateway period of the New Deal. [29198]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested is not held centrally. Many voluntary organisations are offering assistance to young people through the New Deal either as part of the additional help that can be offered to those in the Gateway; through the jobs option; or by offering placement on the Voluntary Sector option. These range from small locally based organisations to ones operating across the country such as the National Trust, Age Concern and British Trust for Conservation Volunteers. Some, such as the Councils for Voluntary Services, have been involved with the planning and development of New Deal in their area as partners and are now acting as an umbrella by bringing together and co-ordinating local voluntary organisations to deliver a full range of provision.

  It is worth remembering that New Deal offers young people help to increase their employability based on their individual need and as such specific assistance will be determined to meet an agreed Action Plan drawn up by the young person and their Personal Adviser. Involvement, then, of particular organisations will vary depending upon the needs of individual young person.

  Pupil Selection
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to abolish partial selection in maintained schools. [29984]

  Mr. Byers
  Our plans are clearly set out in Clauses 90–94 of the School Standards and Framework Bill. New partial selection by ability, other than for the purposes of fair banding to ensure a fully comprehensive intake, will be ruled out. The adjudicator will be able to end existing partial selection by ability where another admission authority in the area objects to its retention. Schools with a specialism will continue to be able to give priority, in filling up to 10 per cent. of their places, to children who demonstrate the relevant aptitude. The adjudicator will be able to resolve disputes between admission authorities over existing or proposed specialist places.

  Literacy Initiative
  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the division of funding between local and central government for the Literacy Initiative. [29487]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 16 February 1998]For 1998–99 the Government have allocated £59 million on expenditure through the Standards Fund for the raising of literacy standards. The Government and LEAs will share equally the responsibility for funding that expenditure, providing 50 per cent. each. In addition central
  741
  government has recently provided £22 million to schools, via local education authorities, to purchase reading books, for expenditure in 1997–98.

  Qualifications
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans he has to reform the 14 to 19 qualifications structure; and if he will make a statement; [29982]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the advantages of introducing a baccalaureate structure into post-16 education. [29983]

  Dr. Howells
  The consultation paper, "Qualifying for Success", published in October 1997, set out our proposals to take forward our manifesto commitments to broaden A levels and upgrade vocational qualifications, underpinning them with key skills. It also sought views on whether and how to move towards providing a high quality overarching certificate at advanced level, which retains achievement in existing qualifications and encourages greater breadth of learning. The consultation paper built on the recommendations in Sir. Ron Dearing's "Review of Qualifications for 16–19 Year Olds".

  We expect to announce decisions next month, in the light of responses to the consultation and advice from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the recently announced access package for higher education is designed to benefit part-time students; and how this will be implemented. [29980]

  Dr. Howells
  The extra £165 million for higher education in 1998–99 announced on 23 September 1997 included an access package of £36 million. Within this package £2 million will enable universities and colleges to remit tuition fees for part-time students who lose their jobs after their course has started. Access funds will be doubled at a cost of £16 million in the present financial year and eligibility extended to part-time students.

  It will be for higher education institutions, which administer the Access Funds, to make the decisions on individual payments to students whether full-time or part-time. We are currently considering how fee remission arrangements will be implemented.

  Applications and target intake to initial teacher training (ITT) courses England and Wales

  Undergraduate applications1

  Postgraduate applications

  Actual intake

  1996–97 ITT Target intake

  Undergraduate applications1

  Postgraduate applications2

  Actual intake

  1997–98 ITT Target intake

  Primary3

  92,293

  12,583

  13,819

  12,700

  78,117

  13,217

  13,020

  12,200

  Secondary

  Mathematics

  750

  1,873

  1,741

  2,700

  589

  1,579

  1,538

  2,370

  English4

  765

  3,197

  2,190

  2,210

  436

  3,104

  2,255

  2,270

  Science

  640

  3,698

  3,078

  3,905

  517

  3,265

  2,941

  3,460

  Technology5

  1,677

  1,549

  2,050

  2,880

  1,492

  1,605

  2,087

  3,380

  History

  75

  2,017

  1,006

  930

  0

  1,901

  1,043

  980

  Geography

  41

  1,297

  901

  900

  29

  1,188

  904

  960

  Music

  351

  594

  543

  650

  78

  549

  546

  650

  Art

  70

  939

  960

  970

  63

  1,503

  962

  1,020

  Physical Education

  9,132

  1,145

  1,455

  1,360

  7,843

  1,372

  1,725

  1,610

  Director of Information
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which firm of headhunters are presently helping with recruitment for the vacant post of Director of Information in his Department. [29582]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 16 February 1998]Korn Ferry International handled the initial recruitment of the Director of Communications post. The recruitment exercise ended in December 1997 when no appointment was made. Following the reorganisation of responsibilities within the Department the post of Director of Strategy and Communications has been advertised across Whitehall. The Department is handling the recruitment for this post. AT Kearney Limited are currently handling the recruitment of the newly created Head of News post.

  Training
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the future availability of training and retraining for people in employment aged over 18 years. [29989]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will set out his proposals on training for employed people in his consultation paper on lifelong learning. This is to be published on 25 February, together with our responses to the reports from the Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education and the Further Education Funding Council's Widening Participation Committee.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many applicants for primary initial teacher training there were at each higher education institution for each of the last five years. [29985]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many applied for teacher training courses in each National Curriculum subject in the current academic year; what the target figures were; and what these figures were in the last academic year. [29240]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows the applications, actual intake and target intake to initial teacher training courses, including National Curriculum subjects, for courses starting in 1996–97 and 1997–98.
  743

  Applications and target intake to initial teacher training (ITT) courses England and Wales

  Undergraduate applications1

  Postgraduate applications

  Actual Intake

  1996–97 ITT Target intake

  Undergraduate applications1

  Postgraduate applications2

  Actual intake

  1997–98 ITT Target intake

  Modern Foreign languages

  184

  2,680

  1,858

  2,440

  109

  2,561

  1,936

  2,860

  Religious Education

  142

  845

  672

  735

  77

  826

  675

  740

  Other

  2,433

  820

  390

  420

  2,229

  621

  300

  370

  Total Secondary

  16,260

  20,654

  16,844

  20,100

  13,462

  20,074

  16,912

  20,670

  1 UCAS count up to six applications per applicant, whilst GTTR count one application per applicant.

  2 Provisional figures.

  3 Applications and target intake for Primary are not split by National Curriculum subject.

  4 English includes Drama,

  5 Intake targets are set for technology as a whole; this includes design and technology, information technology, business studies and home economics.

  Source:

  Undergraduate applications—Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS)

  Postgraduate applications—Graduate Teacher Training Registry (GTTR)

  Actual intake—TTA Survey of ITT Providers (England) and HESES (Wales)

  Intake targets—DfEE.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the location and running costs in the last year for which figures are available of each of his Department's buildings. [30112]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department (including the Employment Service) has 1,294 properties nationally. Information on the cost of each of the individual properties could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Astra Pensions
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 1 December 1997,Official Report, column 10, on Astra pensioners, what further steps he has taken to press the liquidators and pension fund trustees to resolve the outstanding issues. [29848]

  Dr. Howells
  Following a thorough review of the issues surrounding Astra pensions, the Department has now obtained special approval for HM Treasury to offer ex-gratia payments to a small number of former members of the Department who transferred their accrued Civil Service pensions values into the Astra pension fund.

  The Government Actuary's Department is engaged in calculating the individual entitlements and until these are resolved, and until the offers and payments are made, detailed figures cannot be provided to the Astra liquidators or their pension fund trustees to take into account in resolving their outstanding work.

  The Department continues to work towards the earliest possible resolution to the ex-Astra issues and is also taking a number of other—non-financial—steps aimed at assisting the former Astra employees.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many contracts of a value greater than £5000 his Department has with companies in(a) London, (b) South East England, (c) England, (d) Scotland, (e) Wales and (f) Northern Ireland; and what is the total value of such contracts for each area. [30114]
  744
  Dr. Howells
  This information is not available without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Teacher Supply
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the current situation with regard to the supply of teachers. [29238]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The supply of an adequate number of well-trained and well-motivated teachers is central to achieving the Government's plans to raise school standards. The Government's response to the first report of the Education Select Committee on teacher recruitment, which was published on 29 January, sets out the action we are taking on this issue.

  Teacher Shortages
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate what shortages of teachers there are in each National Curriculum subject at(a) primary and (b) secondary level. [29239]

  Mr. Byers
  The following table gives the number of vacancies and the vacancy rates for classroom teachers in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England, at 16 January 1997. Subject information for nursery/primary teacher vacancies is not collected because all primary teachers are trained to deliver the full range of national curriculum subjects. Vacancies for headteacher and deputy headteacher posts are not included.

  Number of classroom teacher vacancies1

  Vacancy rates2 Percentage

  Primary3

  739

  0.5

  Secondary by subject

  English

  86

  0.4

  Mathematics4

  74

  0.4

  Science

  78

  0.3

  History

  9

  0.1

  Geography

  26

  0.3

  Design and Technology

  56

  0.3

  Information Technology

  16

  0.7

  745

  Number of classroom teacher vacancies1

  Vacancy rates2 Percentage

  Languages

  82

  0.6

  Art

  16

  0.2

  Music

  35

  0.8

  Physical Education

  27

  0.2

  1 Only those posts which were advertised at 16 January 1997 as full-time permanent posts or posts of at least one term's duration are counted as vacancies. Posts covered by temporary appointments on a contract of at least a term are not counted as vacant.

  2 The number of vacancies as a percentage of the number of full-time teachers in post.

  3 Subject detail not collected as all primary teachers are trained to deliver the full National Curriculum.

  4 Excluding computer science

  Source:

  DfEE annual 618G survey.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take further steps to outlaw discrimination against disabled people. [29583]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  On 1 October the Government announced their strategy to secure comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people. The Disability Rights Task Force, which I chair, was established in December 1997; its first task is to make recommendations on the role and functions of a Disability Rights Commission by the end of March 1998. It will make further recommendations on how best to secure civil rights for disabled people within the context of our wider society by July 1999.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will give a regional breakdown of his Department's expenditure on(a) hospitality, (b) stationery and (c) travel in the last year for which figures are available. [30113]

  Dr. Howells
  Information in the form requested could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the number of his Department's employees by UK region, indicating the wage bill(a) in total and (b) by region in the last year for which figures are available and separately identifying the costs of London allowances and weightings.[30111]

  Dr. Howells
  This question can be answered only at disproportionate cost.

  Pupil: Staff Ratios
  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will list the characteristics which distinguish reception classes for four year olds from nursery classes for four year olds; [29697]
  746
  (2) what is the maximum pupil to staff ratio permitted by the regulations covering (a) nursery classes for four year olds, (b) reception classes for four year olds and (c) pre-school play groups for four year olds. [29698]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department of Education Circular 2/73 on nursery education in maintained schools recommends an adult: child ratio of 2 : 26 for nursery classes attached to primary schools where one adult is a qualified teacher and the other a qualified nursery assistant. It also suggests reception classes should make provision for 4-year-olds comparable to that found in nursery classes.

  Pre-school settings registered with social services departments under the Children Act 1989 may apply the same adult:child ratio if the same qualified staff are present, if not the recommended ratio for 3–5-year-olds is 1: 8.

  In reception classes, some children will be of compulsory school age; this is not the case in nursery classes.

  The Department and the Department of Health will be consulting shortly on the regulation of early education and day care with the aim of creating a more uniform regime.

  Mines and Quarries
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many prohibition notices have been issued against employers relating to the control of dust at work for each of the geographical areas of the Mines and Quarries Inspectorate in each of the last 20 years. [28638]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety Executive's inspectors responsible for Mines and Quarries have not issued any Prohibition Notices against employers relating to the control of dust at work in any of the geographical areas. Prohibition Notices can only be issued by inspectors when there is a risk of serious personal injury. Problems of control of dust at work are normally dealt with by Improvement Notices which require remedy within the period of the Notice. For Mines, the Coal Mines (Respirable Dust) Regulations 1975 apply and these require the owner of a coal mine to notify HM Inspectorate of Mines when the levels of dust exceeds the permitted amount. The information in respect of notifications to HSE for each year, over the last 20 ears, for each geographical area, could be obtained only at disproportionate costs. However, during the last five years the following notifications have been received:

  Scotland and eastern England

  Wales and western England

  1993

  38

  —

  1994

  33

  —

  1995

  24

  13

  1996

  16

  7

  1997

  32

  3

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Fraud
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her Department's Appropriation Accounts 1996–97, what steps she proposes to reduce the amount of benefit fraud with particular reference to fraud on income support. [25733]

  Mr. Denham
  Tackling fraud and abuse is a top priority for the Government. However, questions on Benefits Agency operational matters are the responsibility of the Chief Executive, Peter Mathison. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Gisela Stuart, dated 17 February 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the steps she proposes to reduce benefit fraud.
  The Benefit Agency's aim is to create a secure benefit regime administered by staff committed to providing secure and accurate services for customers who in turn recognise their rights and responsibilities. Underpinning this aim is the Security and Control Programme (SCP) which is funded on an invest to save basis. Forty-five individual projects and initiatives are currently being funded by the SCP to tackle the problem of benefit fraud in all benefits, including Income Support. The long term aim is to shift the emphasis from fraud detection to prevention and deterrence whilst maintaining a comprehensive investigative capability.
  These initiatives include, increased visits and reviews on new and existing claims to benefit; increased vigilance and checks on personal details at the outset of processing claims; risk analysis to identify client groups which pose the potential to commit fraud; a programme of datamatching to identify duplicate and bogus claims; and a free and confidential telephone hotline service for general public to report suspected benefit fraud.
  The department is currently re-examining its strategic counter-fraud objectives, and work is going forward aimed at supporting the Government's objectives for welfare reform, with a greater emphasis placed on risk management, use of information, effective measurement and behavioural changes. These principles apply throughout the social security system and are the means by which we aim to achieve real and permanent reductions in the level of fraud.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the administrative costs of the additional fuel payments to pensioners in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [26468]

  Mr. Denham
  Winter Fuel Payments are one of a number of initiatives the Government have taken to help vulnerable people, especially the elderly, keep warm in the winter. This is the first time any Government have made a payment to all pensioners towards their heating costs.

  This is a enormous and unprecedented exercise, involving the making of around ten million payments to over seven million pensioner households at a total cost of around £200 million. Legislation has only been made for this winter's payments. We expect the scheme to be broadly similar for next winter but want to learn any lesson from the delivery of this winter's payments, before making amending legislation.
  748
  The administration of Social Security Benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 17 February 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question regarding what estimate has been made of the administrative costs of the additional fuel payments to pensioners in (a) 1997/98 and (b) 1998/99.
  The information is not yet available in the detail requested. It is estimated that almost ten million payments will be made with a total value of around £200 million.
  The current planning assumptions have estimated that the total administration cost of the 1997/98 exercise will be in the region of £20 million. This compares well with similar exercises.
  Planning assumptions for the 1998–99 exercise are still being developed. The process of making payments to eligible pensioners may differ from the methods used for 1997–98. Estimates of administration costs are therefore not currently available.
  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful at this stage.

  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how much additional money pensioners in Exeter have received as a result of winter fuel payments; [27658]

  (2) how many pensioner households in Exeter will receive (a) £50 and (b) £20 in winter fuel payments. [27659]

  Mr. Denham
  Winter Fuel Payments are one of a number of initiatives the Government have taken to help vulnerable people, especially the elderly, keep warm in the winter. This is the first time any Government have made a payment to all pensioners towards their heating costs.

  This is a enormous and unprecedented exercise, involving the making of around ten million payments to over seven million pensioner households at a total cost of around £200 million.

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Ben Bradshaw, dated 17 February 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking how much additional money pensioners in Exeter have received as a result of Winter Fuel Payments and; how many pensioner households in Exeter will receive (a) £50 and (b) £20 in winter fuel payments.
  Priority has been given to issuing payments to the poorest pensioners, those who are receiving Income Support. All those payments of £50 have now been issued.
  The number of £50 Winter Fuel Payments made for the area covered by the Benefits Agency office of Exeter was 6,902. This equates to a total of £345,100 paid.
  Winter Fuel Payments of £20 and £10 to other eligible pensioners will start being issued in March 1998. Nationally it is estimated that over 3 million payments will be issued for £20 and almost 5 million for £10 but we are unable to report on how many are expected to be made in Exeter.
  Thank you for the opportunity to explain the position.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the percentage of cases in which errors have been made by the Child Support Agency; and if she will make a statement. [26473]

  Mr. Field
  We are looking to ensure that the Child Support Agency provides a consistent, fair and efficient service to all its clients.

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 17 February 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security concerning errors made by the Child Support Agency.
  The Agency records information on the case value accuracy of assessments, in order to measure performance against the Secretary of State target on accuracy, which for 1997/98 requires "The cash value of all assessments checked in the year to be correct in at least 85% of cases". As at 31st December 1997, the latest date for which information is available, the Agency's performance for the year stood at 85%, exactly matching the target.
  The 1997/98 target differs from those of the previous two years, in that an aggregate (ie full year) figure of 85% cash value accuracy must be achieved throughout the year, rather than continuing in-month improvements culminating in achievement of the target in the final month.
  Accuracy rates for the Secretary of State target are measured by quality teams within each Agency Business Unit, and the results are validated separately by an independent team overseen by the Agency's Head of Internal Audit. Whilst the Agency's reported measure of accuracy is concerned solely with the cash value of assessments performed in the period, the investigations of the National Audit Office into accuracy have encompassed other aspects of the Agency's procedures, and examined assessments made in earlier years, thereby producing results which differ from those of the Agency. The different methods of measuring accuracy are a concern for the Agency and we are currently looking at ways to address the discrepancies.
  The current accuracy rate represents a considerable improvement on performance in the early years. The Agency recognises nevertheless that further improvement is necessary, and a number of initiatives are intended to achieve this. These include additional training for staff, particularly in difficult aspects of the formula, and the further development of the complete action service team technique, which brings together staff members with expertise in the different areas of casework to deal with individual cases as a team. Specific forms have been developed to assist Child Support officers to record systematically all evidence, decisions and calculations in processing an application. Also, the system of checks is to be modified, to introduce checks at various points in the assessment process, rather than at the end of the process, and the role of quality assurance teams is being extended. In addition, many of the other changes being implemented in the Agency, such as increased use of the telephone to gather information, should have a positive impact on the accuracy of the work.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many calls to the Child Support Agency's helpline over the past 12 months have been attributable to delays in dealing with claims; and what has been the cost of dealing with such calls. [27497]

  Mr. Field
  We are looking for substantial and sustained operational improvements from the Agency, in particular on getting more maintenance paid, reducing the backlog and improving customer service.
  750
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Helen Jones, dated 17 February 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about calls to the child Support Agency's helpline over the last twelve months.
  Telephone enquiries relating to individual case are dealt with by the Agency's Client Help Line. The number of calls received by the Client Help Line over the twelve months period to 26 December 1997 was 2,579,980.
  Calls to the Client Help Line service are charged to the public at local rate tariffs; the cost borne by the Agency for the calls over the twelve month period to 26 December 1997 was £943,017.85.
  Whenever possible Client Help Line operators will provide an immediate response to an enquiry. Where this is not possible, operators offer a call-back service. This service helps us give our clients accurate information, whilst keeping their telephone charges to a minimum. Calls to the service can cover any aspect of an individual case, and it is not possible to say how many calls were specifically attributable to delays in dealing with claims.
  To be more responsive to our customers' needs, the Agency has begun employing staff to work a wider more flexible range of working patterns over six days of the week to improve the telephone service offered. This will provide more opportunities for customers to contact the Agency and vice versa, and will enable the Agency to deliver a better standard of customer service through greater use of the telephone and faster throughput of cases.
  Also, the Agency has initiated a Positive Customer Contact project which will mean that staff will increasingly be making contact with customers at a much earlier stage in our dealings with them. The aim is that much more of our business will be conducted over the 'phone rather than by correspondence, this will allow us to gather the vast quantities of information needed more quickly, and help us speed up the assessment process. Our early contact with customers will give them the opportunity to raise issues or concerns and will help to reduce the need for them to contact the Agency about their case.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time taken by the Child Support Agency to process repeat claims. [27499]

  Mr. Field
  We expect the Child Support Agency to provide a consistent, fair and efficient service to all its clients.

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Helen Jones, dated 17 February 1998:
  I am replying to our Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security concerning the average length of time taken by the Child Support Agency to process repeat claims.
  The Agency defines a repeat claim as a re-application to the Agency for a maintenance assessment at any stage after the original maintenance assessment has been closed.
  The child maintenance formula requires the Agency to enquire, look at and consider over 100 pieces of information before an assessment can be made. On a repeat application, some new facts will need to be established, while others will already be available, and in general we would expect a repeat application to be processed more quickly than a new application. The Agency does not, however, collect information on the average processing time of new and repeat applications.

  751
  A key element of the Secretary of State target for maintenance assessment clearance time is to clear 60% of applications within 26 weeks; this has been in place for the last three years. In 1995/96, the Agency cleared 48% of applications within 26 weeks. In 1996/97 the performance achieved was 54%. In the current year, to the end of December 1997, the clearance rate stood at 72%.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many complaints about the operation of the Child Support Agency have been received from people in the Warrington, North constituency over the past 12 months. [27498]

  Mr. Field
  Children are entitled to the financial and emotional support of both parents wherever they live. We are looking closely at all aspects of the child support scheme to see where improvements can be made. We aim to bring forward proposals by the Summer.

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Helen Jones, dated 17 February 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security concerning complaints about the operation of the Child Support Agency.
  Statistics are collated on the numbers of complaints received by each of the Agency's 6 Business Units. Warrington North falls within the remit of Midlands Business Unit. In 1997, a total of 2,795 complaints were received by the Midlands Business Unit. A breakdown is not available on the number of complaints which were from people in the Warrington North constituency.
  It is important to consider the level of dissatisfaction within the context of the Agency's overall business. Since inception, the Midlands Business Unit has taken on almost 360,000 cases. A relatively small proportion of the workload, therefore, results in complaints.
  I am very conscious that there are still far too many justified complaints about the standards of basic customer contact and the service we provide, and we recognise that doing things right first time is the key to preventing complaints. It is an Agency Priority to improve the way in which complaints are handled; we have revised our training for all staff who deal with complaints and have introduced a new Complaints Guide, which sets out our policy and procedures for swift, effective complaints handling. We are aware that as we further tackle our backlog of cases from the Agency's first two years, there is potential for the volume of complaints to rise in the short term.
  From April 1997 the Office of the Independent Case Examiner has provided an independent investigation service for those customers who consider the Agency's internal review process has not satisfactorily resolved their complaint.
  In the coming years, I am committed to responding to the needs of our customers by bringing high quality levels of performance to every part of our operation as a matter of routine, thereby reducing the number of complaints received and enhancing the public perception of the Agency.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the CSA collection service figures for the amount of uncollected maintenance owing for each month since April 1994 indicating the amount attributable to(a) type A interim and (b) other assessments. [30043]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Mrs. Faith Boardman, the Chief Executive. She will write to the hon. Member.
  752
  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. lain Duncan Smith, dated 17 February 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about uncollected maintenance assessed by the Child Support Agency.
  The Agency's Financial Management System was enhanced from April 1997 to provide monthly information on category A interim maintenance assessments and other assessments, and this is shown in the table attached. Prior to April 1997 this breakdown is not available.
  A large proportion of the maintenance outstanding attributable to Category A interim maintenance assessments relates to the first two years of the Agency when interim maintenance assessments were more frequently imposed. The Agency is developing the way it contacts absent parents, and the emphasis is now to get in touch with absent parents as early in the assessment process as possible to reach agreement. This avoids the need to impose an interim maintenance assessment and prevents arrears of maintenance building up.
  Wherever it is possible to do so, the Agency converts interim assessments to full maintenance assessments. In the last year, the Agency has also started to clear the backlog of cases that had built up during the Agency's first years, again with the emphasis being on completing full maintenance assessments without the need for interim maintenance assessments. The Agency's increased performance in this area is well illustrated by the number of full maintenance assessments completed so far this year; up to 31 January 1998, 132,724 full maintenance assessments had been completed compared to 97,542 at the same time last year. When embarking on the conversion of interim maintenance assessments and clearing the backlog we realised that this would mean that the amount of maintenance outstanding would rise. However, our overriding aim is to ensure that the flow of maintenance increases and that absent parents who can afford to do so support their children.
  Of the £652,870,713 which is attributable to other assessments, approximately £309 million is the subject of agreements for repayment by instalments, which are closely monitored by the Agency. This leaves approximately £344 million of full maintenance assessment debt to be pursued.
  Another exercise will be carried out in March 1998 and the results will be published in the Agency Annual Report for 1997/8.
  I hope this is helpful.

  £

  1997/98

  Amount of uncollected maintenance attributable to Category A interim maintenance assessments

  Amount of uncollected maintenance attributable to other maintenance assessments

  April

  610,991,417

  533,449,097

  May

  621,622,348

  547,988,156

  June

  628,261,701

  560,507,426

  July

  635,910,762

  572,761,733

  August

  650,221,953

  586,672,588

  September

  660,426,008

  596,516,697

  October

  670,074,244

  609,286,475

  November

  678,313,253

  621,071,891

  December

  690,002,757

  635,522,889

  January

  697,444,217

  652,870,713

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the value of setting up a Child Support Agency Board as part of the review of the CSA. [30167]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We are looking closely at all aspects of the Child Support scheme to see where improvements can be made. We aim to bring forward a consultation paper on our proposals by the Summer.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for a war pension were made from 1 January 1996 to 7 April 1997; how many sought backdating of the pension beyond the date of latest application; how many applications for backdating (i) have been granted, (ii) have been refused and (iii) are awaiting determination; and how much money has been awarded in respect of backdated war pensions to the successful applicants. [26760]

  Mr. Denham
  One of our key aims is that delivery of service should be simpler and more efficient.

  Queries on operational matters concerning the War pensions Agency are for its Acting Chief Executive, Mr. Steve Johnson. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Steve Johnson to Mr. Paul Stinchcombe, dated 17 February 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the backdating of War Disablement Pensions.
  Between 1 January 1996 and 7 April 1997 there were 87,076 claims received by the War Pensions Agency and 61,473 claims were awarded.
  Information on how many War Pensioners sought backdating of their awards, the numbers granted/refused or awaiting determination and the value of the awards made is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  Despite the limited information available, I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Benefit Integrity Unit
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what criteria the Benefit Integrity Unit uses when deciding which claimants will be re-assessed. [27257]

  Mr. Denham
  One of our key aims is to rebuild integrity in, and public support for, the Social Security system and the way in which public money is spent. Benefits should go to those who are properly entitled to benefit. This is why we have continued with Benefits Integrity Project.

  The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with further details.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Jackie Ballard, dated 17 February 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question regarding what criteria the Benefit Integrity Unit uses when deciding which claimants will be re-assessed.
  The Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) is looking again at existing DLA awards of the higher rate of mobility component combined with either the middle or highest rate of care component. Such periodic review is usual in other benefits. There are exceptions to the re-assessment criteria, these include people receiving payments under Special Rules, quadriplegics, paraplegics, people who are both deaf and blind, double amputees and those within our definition of severe mental impairment.
  I hope you find the reply helpful.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what instructions concerning the frequency of 754
  visits by benefits officers to recipients of disability living allowance have been issued by her Department since 1 May 1997. [27180]

  Mr. Denham
  One of our key aims is to rebuild integrity in, and public support for, the Social Security system and the way in which public money is spent. Benefits should go to those who are properly entitled to benefit. This is why we have continued with Benefits Integrity Project.

  The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with further details.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 17 February 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what instructions concerning the frequency of visits by benefits officers to recipients of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) have been issued by her Department since 1 May 1997.
  No instructions have been issued since 1 May 1997 concerning the frequency of visits to recipients of DLA.
  It may be helpful if I explain that visits are currently being made in connection with the Benefits Integrity Project (BIP). Visits are arranged by the Disability Benefits Centre with responsibility for the area in which the customer lives. The customers visited are those in receipt of the highest rate of both the care and mobility components of DLA. During these visits specially trained DLA staff help the customer or their carer complete the BIP questionnaire to establish the care and mobility needs arising from their disability.
  Visits are notified well in advance and customers are encouraged to have a friend or carer with them. Visits can be rearranged if inconvenient for the customer or if the customer needs more time to arrange to have someone with them. It would be unusual for more than one visit to be necessary.
  I hope you find the reply helpful.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of disability living allowance in the Stoke-on-Trent area receive(a) the higher and (b) the lower rate of the mobility component. [27660]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Joan Walley, dated 17 February 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many claimants of Disability Living Allowance (DLA), in the Stoke-on-Trent area, receive (a) the higher; and (b) the lower rate of the mobility component.
  The number of claimants of DLA who live in the Stoke-on-Trent area and receive the higher rate of mobility component is 10,900. The number who receive the lower rate is 2,000. These figures are based on a 5% sample of cases, where benefit is in payment, carried out on 30 November 1997.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer on 9 February 1998,Official Report, column 80–81 on disability living allowance for disabled people whose predominant disability is deafness, if she will break the figures down to show the claimants for each age group who are claimants of (a) the mobility component, (b) the care component and (c) both components. [30047]
  755
  Mr. Denham
  The information is set out in the table.

  People in receipt of disability living allowance whose main disabling condition is deafness

  Age

  Mobility only

  Care only

  Mobility and care

  All awards

  All ages

  2,200

  6,640

  8,740

  17,580

  0–41

  —

  1,740

  —

  1,740

  5–15

  580

  1,780

  4,980

  7,340

  16–24

  380

  680

  920

  1,980

  25–29

  80

  380

  360

  820

  30–34

  160

  320

  360

  840

  35–39

  80

  320

  480

  880

  40–44

  120

  340

  220

  680

  45–49

  120

  280

  280

  680

  50–54

  80

  380

  420

  880

  55–59

  260

  260

  140

  660

  60–64

  180

  120

  400

  700

  65–69

  80

  40

  160

  280

  70–74

  80

  —

  20

  100

  75–79

  —

  —

  —

  —

  80 and over

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Persons under 5 years not eligible for the mobility component.

  Note:

  Unrounded figures relate to 30 November 1997.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 5 per cent. data.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many callers(a) in person and (b) by telephone, made use of the Benefits Agency offices in (i) Lanark, (ii) Carluke, (iii) Larkhall and (iv) Wishaw over the last 12 months; [27651]

  (2) if she will list the criteria used by (a) the Benefits Agency and (b) Ministers to assess the viability of local offices; [27652]

  (3) how many local offices the Benefits Agency has closed after approval by the relevant Minister over the last 12 months; [27653]

  (4) how many local offices her Department's Ministers have given the Benefits Agency approval to close in the past 12 months; [27654]

  (5) how many local offices the Benefits Agency has sought Ministerial approval to close in the past 12 months. [27655]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Frank Roy, dated 17 February 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions concerning the closure of Benefits Agency (BA) local offices and the number of callers in Lanark, Carluke, Larkhall and Wishaw.
  The BA were asked by Ministers to assess the viability of local offices under the following criteria:

  Wider access to our services for customers

  Improved quality, accuracy and security of service

  Achieving a fair balance between the needs of staff, policy and operational needs

  Increased efficiency and reduced costs.

  756
  Over the last twelve months, the BA has sought Ministerial approval to close nine outlets nationally. In March 1997, approval was granted in respect of four outlets which have now been closed and decisions are pending in respect of the other five.
  There is no BA office in Carluke, although Agency staff deliver Job Seekers Allowance within Carluke Jobcentre. Details of the average number of callers, in person, to the other three offices are as follows:

  Lanark: 295 per week

  Larkhall: 476 per week

  Wishaw: 418 per week.

  All customer telephone calls for the Clyde Valley District, which includes the above offices, are handled by two central telephone sections at Motherwell and Hamilton offices. Figures are not kept for the individual offices.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Blyth Valley
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the estimated level of social security fraud in Blyth Valley benefits agencies in 1996–97. [28212]

  Mr. Denham
  Tackling fraud and abuse is a top priority for the Government.

  Questions on Benefits Agency operational matters are the responsibility of the Chief Executive, Peter Mathison. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Ronnie Campbell, dated 17 February 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the estimated level of social security fraud in Blyth Valley Benefits Agencies in 1996–97.
  The estimate of the number of people claiming fraudulently is informed by an extrapolation from the results of a series of Benefit Reviews. The review programme which commenced in 1994 is looking at the extent of fraud and incorrectness in all major benefits. The reviews were conducted under the previous administration and the definition of fraud used to produce results is currently being evaluated in the light of the Benefit Review Programme.
  Results from the reviews refer to Great Britain and separate estimates for specific geographical areas are not available. Copies of all the published results of the reviews are available in the Library.
  An additional indicator is the number of successful investigations. These are cases where, following a fraud investigation, one or more of the following conclusions occurs: benefit is reduced or stopped, an overpayment is calculated or a prosecution instigated.
  During 1996–97, 1,592 successful fraud investigations into claims administered by the Benefits Agency were carried out by Northumberland Sector Fraud, which at that time included the BA offices at Ashington, Berwick, Blyth and Hexham.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many families are on(a) income support and (b) family credit in Blyth Valley; [28207]

  (2) how many Social Fund funeral payments were awarded in Blyth Valley in each year since 1990; [28209]

  (3) how many Social Fund applications for (a) grants and (b) loans have been turned down by local benefits agencies in Blyth Valley since 1994. [28213]
  757
  Mr. Field
  The administration of Social Security Benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Ronnie Campbell, dated 17 February 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking how many families are on (a) Income Support and (b) Family Credit in Blyth Valley; how many Social Fund funeral payments were awarded in Blyth Valley in each year since 1990; and how many Social Fund applications for (a) grants and (b) loans have been turned down by local Benefits Agencies in Blyth Valley.
  The information is not available in the format requested. The Benefits Agency (BA), collates statistics by BA District and these Districts do not correspond to constituency boundaries or specific geographical areas. Such information as is available is in the attached tables.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Number of families in receipt of Income Support and Family Credit for the Benefits Agency's (BA's) Northumbria District

  colspan="2" align="right">Number

  Number of customers in receipt of Income Support lone parent rate of the family premium as at 30 November 1997

  16,678

  Families in receipt of Family Credit as at 30 September 19972>

  7,022

  1 The Income Support data does not include those lone parent customers who are pensioners nor those registered sick who qualify for a higher rate premium such as a pensioner or disability premium. Since October 1996 unemployed customers with partners have claimed JSA.

  2 Information relating to the number of customers in receipt of Family Credit is normally only collated on a national basis. However, in September 1997 a scan of the Family Credit computer system was run by BA office.

  Note:

  The information provided relates to the BA's Northumbria District (which includes the offices of Ashington, Berwick, Blyth, Hexham, North Shields and Wallsend). The information is provisional and maybe subject to change.

  Social Fund statistics for the Benefits Agency's (BA's) Northumbria District

  Social Fund applications refused

  Funeral payments awarded

  Community Care grants

  Budgeting loans

  Crisis loans

  1990

  134

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  148

  —

  —

  —

  1992

  222

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  281

  —

  —

  —

  1994

  282

  —

  —

  —

  1995

  292

  2788

  2916

  2494

  1996

  316

  999

  919

  1,029

  1997

  313

  1.162

  1,002

  1,423

  1 The data provided represent April-December 1990. Information prior to the inception of the BA in April 1990 is not available in this format.

  2 Data are only available from April 1995. Prior to this the information requested is not available.

  Note:

  This is the latest available information, it is provisional and maybe subject to change.

  The information provided relates to the BA's Northumbria District (which includes the offices of Ashington, Berwick, Blyth, Hexham, North Shields and Wallsend).

  Income Support (Pensioners)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will provide details of the pilot schemes being launched in April designed to encourage pensioners to claim the income support to which they are entitled. [29605]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 16 February 1998]: We are particularly concerned about the million pensioners who are not claiming Income Support. We have already commissioned research into the reasons why pensioners do not claim their entitlement. This is due to report in the Autumn.

  In addition, we intend to run a series of local take-up pilots designed to test different ways of identifying potential claimants and the most effective and efficient ways of encouraging them to claim, including simplifying the claim process. Following a consultation meeting officials had with Help the Aged, Age Concern and others, we are finalising the design of the pilots. We will announce further details of the pilots shortly.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) of 9 February 1998,Official Report, column 76, relating to the disability living allowance, in what ways the additional evidence will be collected; and if those who have had their benefits removed will be entitled to have their cases reassessed on the basis of the additional evidence. [30046]

  Mr. Denham
  One of our key aims is to rebuild integrity in, and public support for, the Social Security system and the way in which public money is spent. Benefits should go to those who are properly entitled to benefit. This is why we have continued with Benefits Integrity Project.

  The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with further details.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Angela Browning, dated 17 February 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question regarding the pursuant to her Answer to the hon. Member for Tayside North, of 9 February, Official Report, column 76, relating to the Disability Living Allowance (DLA), in what ways the additional evidence will be collected; and if those who have had their benefits removed will be entitled to have their cases reassessed on the basis of the additional evidence.
  The Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) is looking again at some awards of DLA, through a programme of visits and postal enquiries to collect up to date information about the care and mobility needs of some disabled people and to make sure that the correct amount of benefit is being paid.
  From 9 February, no case likely to result in the reduction or removal of benefit will be passed to an Adjudication Officer (AO) for review without further evidence in addition to that supplied by the customer on the BIP questionnaire. This extra safeguard is to improve confidence in the decisions made by the BIP and to help safeguard the position of severely disabled people.
  Further evidence about a customer's care and mobility needs may include factual medical evidence from a General Practitioner or hospital or other health care professional, a full examination by a qualified medical practitioner or information from carers. The source

  759
  of the additional evidence will be determined by the officer acting on behalf of the Secretary of State in the light of the individual circumstances of the case.
  Although there are no plans to re-examine all benefit reductions made to date under the BIP, anyone whose benefit is reduced or disallowed, whether or not this follows receipt of the further evidence now being sought, is entitled to request a review by another AO. The AO will consider afresh the full circumstances of the award, based on all the evidence available.
  I hope you find the reply helpful.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 9 February 1998,Official Report, column 75, if she will list the categories of additional evidence which will be taken into account by adjudication officers involved in the Benefit Integrity Project; and if she will make a statement. [30159]

  Mr. Denham
  One of our key aims is to rebuild integrity in, and public support for, the Social Security system and the way in which public money is spent. Benefits should go to those who are properly entitled to benefit. This is why we have continued with Benefits Integrity Project.

  The administration of this programme is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with further details.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. John Swinney, dated 17 February 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if she will list the categories of additional evidence which will be taken into account by Adjudication Officers (AOs) involved in the Benefits Integrity Project (BIP).
  From 9 February 1998, if information obtained from a Disability Living Allowance (DLA) beneficiary as part of the BIP indicates that there has been a change of circumstances which may lead to a reduction or removal of entitlement to DLA, additional further evidence will be obtained before the case is passed to an AO for review.
  This additional information may be factual medical evidence from a General Practitioner, hospital or other health care professional, a full medical examination by a qualified medical practitioner or information from a carer. The most appropriate source of additional evidence will be used in the light of the individual circumstances of the case.
  I hope you find the reply helpful.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 8 July 1997,Official Report, column 464, concerning the Benefit Integrity Project, what are the outturn savings figures to date; and what is her current estimate of the total savings in 1997–98. [30222]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available at present. In the light of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State's recent announcement of additional safeguards and other factors statisticians have been asked to re-examine the estimated savings from the Project and to produce validated figures for the current financial year. I will write to the hon. Member again as soon as this information becomes available.

  Child Support
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what proportion of child support appeals one of the parties has requested an oral hearing;760
  how often one or both parties has attended; and in what proportion of cases a full decision has been requested in each of the last three years. [30057]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The operation of the appeals system is a matter for the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS).

  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available from the ITS is as follows.

  From December 1996 to December 1997 a total of 8,434 Child Support appeals were received and there were 5,949 requests for oral hearings. Current year-to-date figures show that 85 per cent. of Child Support appeals are heard orally and 15 per cent. are heard on papers, although this latter percentage has increased as the year has progressed.

  During the period December 1996 to December 1997 a total of 8,569 Child Support appeals went to hearing, and in 818 (10 per cent.) of those cases a full decision was subsequently requested by one or other of the parties.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much child support maintenance estimated in 1996–97 as not offsetting benefits savings was received by(a) family credit claimants and (b) private clients. [30055]

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

  Regular payments of child maintenance can transform the lives of lone mothers and their children, providing a stable income which can help them off Income Support and into work. In 1996/97, an estimated £110 million was paid to family credit claimants which did not offset their benefit entitlement.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of appeals to child support appeal tribunals are made by(a) absent parents and (b) parents with care; what proportion are referrals by (i) child support officers and (ii) the Secretary of State; and what proportion of appeals to child support commissioners are made by (1) absent parents, (2) persons with care and (3) the child support officer. [30059]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons with care have left income support for employment as a result of receiving a Child Support Agency assessment in each year for which figures are available. [30132]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is that between April and December 1997, 2,897 parents with care made a successful claim for the child maintenance bonus when they left Income Support for work.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research she is undertaking on the effect of a reduced benefit direction on children in the family since the increase in the benefit penalty in October 1996. [30139]
  761
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Department is continually monitoring and evaluating reduced benefit directions which apply only where a parent with care has failed to co-operate with the Child Support Agency without good cause. Although the Department has not conducted any research into the effect of the reduced benefit direction since October 1996, following a recommendation of the Social Security Select Committee, the Child Support Agency undertook detailed research on the requirement to co-operate provisions and the results were published in April 1996 in "The Requirement to Co-operate: A Report on the Operation of the "Good Cause" Provisions. Department of Social Security in-house report 14".

  We are looking closely at all aspects of the Child Support scheme to see where improvements can be made and we aim to bring forward a consultation document on our proposals by the Summer.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many child support appeal cases the appeals are over the 28 day time limit; and what proportion of these appeals are allowed to proceed. [30058]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The operation of the appeals system is a matter for the Independent Tribunal Service who report that from April 1997 to December 1997 a total of 1,962 Child Support Appeals were received which were over the 28 day time limit. During the same period 320 appeals were not admitted. Figures are not kept on the actual number of appeals allowed to proceed.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many departure applications have been refused by the Child Support Agency on preliminary consideration; what number of applications have been(a) successfully and (b) unsuccessfully made under each of the grounds for departure; and what plans she has to extend the grounds for departure; [30061]

  (2) how many applications for departure have been made to the Child Support Agency from absent parents and persons with care with new assessments since December 1996; how many such applications have been made by parents with pre-December 1996 assessments; how many of each of these were successful; and what was the average change in the assessment; [30125]

  (3) how long departure applications to the Child Support Agency are taking to process; what proportion of applications have been referred to an appeal tribunal by the CSA; and what proportion or departure decisions have been appealed. [30126]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  As at 31 January 1998 13,374 departure direction applications had been refused on preliminary consideration.

  Numbers of Successful and Unsuccessful Applications by Grounds

  Application grounds

  Successful

  Unsuccessful

  Travel to work

  1,418

  6,171

  Contract costs

  1,129

  6,786

  Illness and disability

  51

  1,700

  Debts of the relationship

  653

  7,253

  Pre-1993 commitments

  120

  2,109

  Step-children

  89

  1,719

  Property and capital transfers

  165

  1,760

  Assets capable of producing income or greater income

  59

  1,395

  Diversion of Income

  0

  840

  762

  Numbers of Successful and Unsuccessful Applications by Grounds

  Application grounds

  Successful

  Unsuccessful

  Lifestyle

  3

  5,502

  Unreasonably high housing costs

  56

  2,586

  Attributable housing costs

  1,026

  3,887

  Unreasonably high travel costs

  6

  229

  Travel costs to be disregarded

  11

  187

  Source:

  Child Support Agency management information statistics.

  Numbers of applications from existing absent parents and parents with care at December 1996 and from new absent parents and parents with care

  Applications relating to assessments in force prior to 2 Dec 1996

  Applications relating to assessments made on or after 2 Dec 1996

  Absent Parents

  14,881

  7,297

  Parents with care

  4,890

  1,738

  Source:

  Child Support Agency management information statistics.

  Information is not available about the proportions of such cases which were successful.

  The average reduction is the level of the maintenance assessment following applications from absent parents is £8.32 per week. The average increase in the level of the maintenance assessment following applications from parents with care is £14.67 per week.

  The average processing time for applications which

  (i) fail on preliminary consideration stage is 42 days

  (ii) are refused following full consideration is 93 days

  (iii) succeed is 168 days.

  139 applications, (0.5 per cent of all applications) have been referred direct to the appeal tribunal for determination. Around 9 per cent of decisions have been appealed.

  There are no current plans to extend the grounds for a departure. However we are looking closely at all aspects of the child support scheme to see where improvements can be made.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the benefits savings made as a result of Child Support Agency activity for the first half of 1997–98, the desired level of benefits savings required before a child maintenance disregard on income support is to be introduced and the estimated loss in benefits savings if the maintenance disregard was set at £5 a week. [30133]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Benefit savings as a result of child support activity in the first half of 1997/98 were estimated to be £223 million. We have not set a specific level of benefit savings which we expect to see before a maintenance disregard could be introduced. The longer term programme cost of a £5 disregard of maintenancein income support is estimated to be £65 million for a full year.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will give a regional breakdown of her Department's expenditure on(a) hospitality, (b) stationery and (c) travel in the last year for which figures are available. [30117]

  Mr. Field
  The information is not available in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Expenditure information for the Department's individual executive agencies for 1996–97

  £

  Hospitality

  Printing and stationery

  Travel

  DSS HQ

  7,159.84

  2,150,958.03

  1,033,982.41

  ISBs

  3,009.55

  1,839,438.85

  854,466.20

  Benefits Agency

  22,330.53

  47,408,861.26

  18,305,628.16

  Contributions Agency

  7,066.31

  2,028,915.64

  2,860,525.35

  Child Support Agency

  4,621.89

  3,820,404.92

  3,676,374.97

  War Pensions Agency

  2,006.67

  252,226.25

  314,450.64

  ITSA

  nil

  729,162.97

  872,804.10

  Total

  46,194.79

  58,229,967.92

  27,918,241.83

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the location and running costs in the last year for which figures are available of each of her Department's buildings. [30116]

  Mr. Field
  The information requested is not held centrally in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many contracts of a value greater than £10,000 her Department has with companies in(a) London, (b) South East England, (c) England,(d) Scotland, (e) Wales and (f) Northern Ireland; and what is the total value of such contracts for each area. [30118]

  Mr. Field
  The information is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the number of her Department's employees by UK region, indicating the wage bill(a) in total and (b) by region in the last year for which figures are available and separately identifying the costs of London allowances and weightings. [30115]
  764
  Mr. Field
  The information is set out in the table.

  Number of staff and salary bill for the UK and economic planning regions

  UK and economic planning regions

  Number of employees

  Salary bill £000

  London allowances and £000

  UK: Total

  107,667

  1,538,296

  12,355

  Scotland

  10,794

  151,028

  —

  Northern

  17,091

  240,976

  —

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  8,622

  127,207

  —

  North West

  23,436

  324,887

  —

  East Midlands

  4,638

  64,292

  —

  West Midlands

  8,125

  113,229

  —

  Wales

  4,952

  69,728

  —

  East Anglia

  1,889

  26,292

  —

  South East

  21,803

  337,526

  12,355

  South West

  6,304

  82,950

  —

  N. Ireland

  13

  181

  —

  Notes:

  1. The number of employees is correct at April 1997. Figures show number of individuals rather than whole unit equivalents.

  2. Economic Planning Regions are the only available geographical designation by which this data can be divided.

  3. The wage bill and London Allowances/Weightings figures represent an annualised figure as at April 1997.

  4. The wages bill covers annual salary, National Insurance and superannuation. London allowances are shown separately.

  5. The London Allowances included are London Weighting and London Recruitment and Retention Allowance.

  Disabled People (Appeals)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disabled people are awaiting appeals against reductions in their(a) incapacity benefit and (b) disabled living allowance; what is the average waiting time for their appeals to be heard; and what estimate she has made of the savings to public funds arising from the reductions in benefits during the waiting period. [29585]

  Mr. Denham
  The operation of the appeals system is a matter for the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS).

  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available has been provided by the ITS and is as follows.

  Appeals relating to Incapacity Benefit are heard by Social Security Appeal Tribunals (SSATs). Statistics do not differentiate between which appeals are against reduction in benefit and which are against some other aspect of entitlement, such as refusal. There was a total of 109,400 outstanding appeals to SSATs in July 1997, of which 51,624 concerned some aspect of entitlement to Incapacity Benefit.

  In the quarter ended 30 September 1997, the average clearance time for SSATs as a whole was 28.9 weeks, whilst for Incapacity Benefit appeals it was 29.3 weeks.

  Appeals relating to Disability Living Allowance are heard by Disability Appeal Tribunals (DATs). Again, statistics do not differentiate between appeals against reduction in benefit and those against other aspects of entitlement. Neither do they distinguish between appeals

  765
  to DATs concerning Disability Living Allowance and those concerning other benefits. In July 1997 there was an overall total of 29,566 outstanding appeals to DATs and an overall average clearance time of 30 weeks.

  Where an appeal tribunal determines that entitlement exists for all or part of the period between the date of the decision appealed against and the date of the tribunal hearing, benefit is paid in accordance with that determination.

  Benefits Reviews
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list each disability benefit currently subject to review, prior to the publication of a green paper; and if she will make a statement. [29584]
  766
  Mr. Denham
  Our Comprehensive Spending Review covers all Social Security benefits paid on account of incapacity for work, disability and caring. No decisions have yet been reached.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the disabled people's organisations that have made representations to her in respect of the review of welfare benefits; what has been the nature of their representations; and if she will make a statement. [29586]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are committed to reforming the welfare system in consultation with the people. We continue to hear views from sick and disabled people, and the groups who represent and support them, both through meetings and in correspondence, about how we can spend wisely and best direct help to enable disabled people to live with independence and dignity.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.

HMS "Cavalier"
Baroness Strangeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will withdraw the export licence to Malaysia of HMS "Cavalier", the only remaining RN destroyer which fought in World War II, and support her retention in Great Britain.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, the export licence issued in connection with the proposed export of this vessel to Malaysia has been returned to my department. I understand that the former licence holder no longer intends to export the vessel.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his, as always, courteous, if not helpful, reply. I, too, am aware that the first part of my Question has become overtaken by events. However, is the noble Lord aware that there is an HMS "Cavalier" Association which would be willing by public subscription to provide some funds towards the retention of HMS "Cavalier", perhaps at the historic maritime dockyard at Chatham, if other funds could be forthcoming?
Is the noble Lord further aware that 153 ships of this type were lost in the Second World War, with 30,000 members of their company giving their lives for us?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful for that supplementary question from the noble Baroness. Yes, I am of course aware of the work of the association and of its aspirations. One also recognises the contribution made to the war effort by those who sailed in ships of this class. It is also true that this is the last surviving vessel of its kind. But the fact is, as my right honourable friend the Minister for the arts said yesterday when he spoke at the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, that, while the Government are aware of the emotional attachment which undoubtedly this ship gives rise to, they do have to make hard choices about the availability of funds for preservation. I have to say that the vessel is not a top priority for the department that my right honourable friend represents. However, if other sources of funding can be made available, and, if a suitable location could be found, the Government would be delighted.
Lord Dixon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, until South Tyneside bought HMS "Cavalier" in 1987 from a company in Brighton which went bankrupt, that vessel might have been scrapped? South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council bought the vessel to be part of a national shipbuilding exhibition centre. The
222
"Cavalier" was to play a main part. It was to be based at Hawthorn Leslies shipyard, which built some of the finest naval vessels ever to be put to sea. I spent many years there as a shipwright.
Is my noble friend also aware that the reason the project did not go ahead is that the previous administration cut back on local government expenditure? The former Department of the Environment ruled that urban money could not be used for projects which were covered by urban development corporations; and the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation was too interested in prestige projects in Newcastle to be concerned about the project at South Tyneside.
Is he also aware that we would welcome some finance, because it cost the council tax payers of South Tyneside, of which I am and have been one all my life, over £600,000 to maintain this vessel and that project?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I was aware of most of that. I did not know that my noble friend had been a shipwright. I suspected that he probably was and still is a taxpayer. But I am most grateful to him for that information. Of course he is right in saying that the South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council did a stalwart job in seeking to maintain this vessel. I pay tribute to it in that regard.
Perhaps I may add this; it may help the House on the issue. At yesterday's Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, representatives of the National Heritage Lottery Fund indicated that it might be willing to consider an application for support for HMS "Cavalier" in its own right under its fast-track procedures. I thought that the noble Baroness in particular might be delighted to hear that.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, as "Cavalier" has given the country a very good run for its money over the years and as she is now on Tyneside, at the heart of the warship building industry, does this ship not symbolise more for the north-east than the fabricator's folly which has just been erected in Gateshead? Can the Government go that extra sea mile, as they did with "Britannia" and help find a proper home for this warship? She was never a first of class; she was never a flotilla leader, so far as I recall; but she is a survivor. I believe that she is worth a place in history.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the question was. It seemed more an assertion than a question. These matters are not within my area of responsibility. The noble Lord should write to the appropriate government department. As to the term, "fabricator's folly", no fabrications are known to this House as I understand it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that answers to questions that begin with a statement that a matter is "not within a Minister's area of responsibility" are not good enough in this House?

223
He answers for the whole of Her Majesty's Government. If he does not know the answer, could he perhaps write to the noble Lord?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am most grateful for that lesson, which the noble Lord imparted with his usual geniality. I do not seek to pass off responsibility. What I sought to say, perhaps inelegantly, was that the noble Lord would do well to write to the department concerned about this matter. If he wishes me to receive the letter in the first place, then I shall certainly act as a suitable postman.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, perhaps I may address the House as Able Seaman equivalent, Writer Cocks P/MX830065. I was very encouraged by the Minister's remarks. A great many people in the north-east pay into the lottery and there is a feeling that they have not received as much out of it as some other areas in the country. Will the Minister reinforce the plea and press the lottery fund? If this ship goes, coming generations will ask what on earth we were doing.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Able Seaman Cocks for that suggestion. I shall certainly pass on (and I hope that that will meet with the noble Lord's acquiescence) his assertion to those responsible for the lottery fund. I hope that the statement that I made yesterday before the Heritage Committee as to what the lottery fund had to say about the matter will prove helpful.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his earlier Answer. I am very grateful indeed for his encouraging reply.

Vitamin and Mineral Supplements: Toxicity
2.45 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What importance they attach to the assessment of the toxicity of vitamin and mineral supplements, as announced in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food press release of 18th December 1997, in the context of overall food safety.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, the Government are concerned to ensure that products sold under food law, including vitamin and mineral supplements, are not harmful to health. The establishment of the new ad hoc expert group will contribute to that aim.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. However, does he agree that this seems a rather curious use of public resources and expertise, given the enviable safety record that vitamins and minerals have and the absence of any scare,
224
complaint or other indication of problems? Will he acknowledge the very real worry among the public that the same kind of inappropriate criteria will be applied in this exercise as have been applied to restrict Vitamin B6?
Lord Donoughue: No, my Lords. Concerns have been expressed about the safety of high dose vitamin and mineral supplements. As the noble Earl, with his long-standing interest in this area, will know, that goes back to a joint departmental report in 1990. COMA has expressed concerns; the Consumers' Association has contacted us with concerns; and the European Union has issued a consultation document aiming to move towards aspects of control. So there are concerns. With public health as our top priority, we are in the process of setting up a committee of experts to advise us. That does not prejudge any conclusions and is an entirely responsible thing to do.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, whatever the Consumers' Association and the European Union may say, the Government are holding themselves up to public ridicule in relation to the argument about basic dosage. Should they not accept the findings of the National Poisons Unit, which has found no such dangers, against the evidence of either the ridiculous European Union or even the Consumers' Association?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it is possible to dismiss almost every body which is inconvenient to one's argument. However, in relation to Vitamin B6 we have received very serious scientific advice. The Committee on Toxicity examined it twice and consulted with the Food Advisory Committee and the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, and as a consequence submitted its advice. On the basis of that advice, we have made our recommendations. There will be opportunities for consultation. Perhaps I may point out to the noble Earl that the suggested dosage for Vitamin B6 is more liberal in this country than anywhere else in the European Union.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House whether there will be nutritionists on the new committee that is to review vitamins and minerals in food? Nutrition apparently comes very low in the training programme for doctors and they are not therefore fully qualified to debate the subject. Will he also tell the House why vitamins and minerals are being regarded as poisons to the extent that their toxicology is being examined, whereas in relation to medicines the risk-benefit procedure is used in deciding how much of the medicine can be taken? Why is there that enormous difference?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we take nutrition seriously. There will be a member on the committee with experience of nutrition, as there will be members with experience of the alternative medicine industry and consumer interests.
There is a clear statutory difference between medicines, which are covered by the Medicines Act 1968, and vitamin and mineral supplements, which are

225
considered to be food and come under the Food Safety Act 1990. The concern as regards vitamin and mineral supplements is that they should not be injurious to health.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what good Vitamin B6 does a person?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, there are differing views on that. There is very little scientific evidence, which is why we wish to look at the matter. I believe that among the alleged advantages which may interest the noble Lord is that it is thought by some to ease pre-menstrual tension.

EMU and the UK
2.52 p.m.
Lord Barnettasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for joining EMU.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government plan to join EMU only when the economic benefits are clear and unambiguous. Barring some fundamental and unforeseen change in economic circumstances, there is no realistic prospect of Britain having demonstrated during this Parliament convergence with the other European economies which is sustainable and settled. We need a period of stability first. But in order to give ourselves the genuine choice of joining early in the next Parliament, Government and business are now preparing intensively.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer—at least I think I thank him. Can he clarify the point he made about unforeseen circumstances? It for example, the Chancellor's five tests are met, which seems extremely likely, and it clearly would be in the national interest to join in this Parliament, can I take it that that is not ruled out?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we shall be delighted if we fulfil the Government's five economic tests. But, as I made clear in my first Answer, our concern is not only for spot compliance but also for sustained and settled convergence, and it is that which we think will take more time.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, can the Minister help the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and answer his Question by saying whether the Government would consider joining during this Parliament?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I repeat that I had already answered the Question in my first Answer. The answer is that, barring some fundamental and unforeseen change in economic circumstances, there is no realistic prospect of that. That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, assuming for a moment—although it is unlikely—that there is any
226
proposition in economics that is clear and unambiguous, I should like to ask this question. Does the Minister agree that we shall not have sufficient evidence until the countries which are likely to participate on 1st January 1999 have experienced how the single currency can weather a recession?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree that the additional qualification for our taking forward the EMU project in this country and seeking the approval of the people for entry to EMU is that the single currency itself should succeed. There will be many tests of that currency in the next few years; I hope that they will not include recession.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House an assurance that, in seeking the advice which they will undoubtedly have to seek when the new circumstances arise, the Government will remember what happened when, in October 1990, the Government received unanimous and very authoritative advice as to how it was indispensable to join the exchange rate mechanism, with results that are obvious to all of us? May we take it that the Government will have more regard to the facts of the situation, if they can understand them, than to advice?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that I appreciate my noble friend's comment about understanding the facts of the situation. It is an established constitutional principle that advice given to a previous administration is not available to current Ministers.
Lord Newby: My Lords, given that the decision on the first head of the European Central Bank is due to be taken during the British presidency, can the Minister tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that that difficult and contentious decision will be taken on time, and whether the UK will be promoting any particular candidate?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the process leading up to the appointment is on time and there is no reason to suppose that there will be any delay. As the noble Lord correctly says, we have a say in the final decision. We shall exercise that responsibility in a serious way.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Chancellor Kohl, whom we welcome to London today, has invited the Bundesbank to prepare a report on progress toward convergence of the EU member-states in anticipation of EMU, which will be discussed in the German Cabinet on 27th March along with similar reports from the European Monetary Institute and the Commission? Can my noble friend say whether, in view of the fact that we shall be chairing the critical meeting in May at which the decision on the initial participants in EMU will be taken, the Government will invite the Bank of England to present a similar report?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is open to any government in any member state to consult whom

227
they wish. There is no bar to Chancellor Kohl consulting the Bundesbank on this matter. No doubt in many other member-states there will be discussions between central banks and governments. As my noble friend reminds the House, the final decision will be taken on the advice given by the Commission and the European Monetary Institute.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the planning being undertaken will include the preparation of changes to our taxation system in order to fit with the taxation levied by members of EMU?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, fiscal independence is not a factor in this matter.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, has my noble friend taken note of the fact that doubts with regard to economic monetary union are creeping up in Germany, that 153 senior economists have cast doubt on the project and that the matter is to be discussed before the German constitutional court? Does he believe that that might have some effect on the progress of EMU? Can he say whether the British Government will take into account constitutional issues as well as economic issues before they decide whether we should join the third stage of EMU and the single currency?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, who am I to contradict 153 economists on the rare occasion when they all agree with each other? No, the Government have determined that, so far as this country is concerned, this is an economic issue, not a constitutional one.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may point out to the Minister that he would be in good company in dismissing the 153 economists. I believe that my noble friend Lady Thatcher did something similar in the early 1980s when 150-odd economists in this country criticised her policy.
Does the Minister hold to the view which we held that membership of the exchange rate mechanism will not be necessary prior to joining EMU? If that is not necessary, does he think that currency stability for two years will be necessary? Does he believe that that currency stability should be at the current level of the pound, which, according to Dr. Tony Scanlon, the outgoing president of the Engineering Employers' Federation in the West Midlands, is doing considerable damage to British manufacturing industry?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is certainly true that ERM 1 moved on to the prospect of ERM 2, which is slightly more voluntary than the previous expression. I remind the noble Lord that Article 109j provides for the possibility of normal fluctuation margins on the European exchange rate mechanism but that Article 109m refers to exchange
228
rates being a matter of common interest. I am sure that that will continue to be the case rather than existing exchange rates being fixed for all time.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, given the inevitability of the introduction of the euro, what are the Government doing to promote businesses in Britain to prepare themselves for the single currency?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury is responsible within Government for these matters. He appointed a business advisory group in September 1997 which reported to the President of the Board of Trade in December 1997. It is intended that that report will be published. The EMU preparation standing committee, which includes the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade, the Governor of the Bank of England, the CBI and the TUC, had its first meeting late in January. There is a comparable body ensuring that good preparations take place in Government itself.

Chewing Gum: Disposal
3.1 p.m.
Viscount Longasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will raise the matter of proper disposal of chewing gum with the Litter Advisory Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Litter Advisory Group was set up specifically to review the litter provisions in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and reported in July 1994.
We look to the Tidy Britain Group to advise us on all aspects of littering, including disposal of chewing gum. The group, which is largely funded by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, runs projects to promote the proper disposal of gum. It is also working with a leading gum manufacturer to develop effective cleansing methods and to investigate the possibility of changing the composition of gum to reduce its adhesive qualities.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her Answer. Can she go a little further? Does she agree that 300,000 pieces of chewing gum are removed from Oxford Street at any one time? Is not that a minnow compared to the rest of the country—towns, air terminals, stations and streets? Is it not the case that the situation is now so serious that Britain is beginning to look like an old English pudding called spotted dick? Furthermore, it is a far better sight to see a herd of cattle chewing the cud than to see a flock of tourists and

229
members of the British public not only chewing gum, but spitting it out or putting it around tables in restaurants.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I am reluctant to interrupt what I believe to be 15 years' silence on the part of the noble Viscount. However, he really ought to ask a question.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I agree that the sight of anyone, whether British or foreign, spitting out gum is not pleasant. I agree also that it is a growing and expensive problem. Surveys undertaken by the Tidy Britain Group suggest that the problem of discarded chewing gum on streets and pavements is getting worse. I cannot confirm official government figures on the number of individual pieces of gum, but I can say that Westminster City Council spends approximately £25,000 a year simply on removing chewing gum from streets and pavements. Whether the Westminster problem is specifically related to the inability sometimes suggested of politicians to walk and chew gum at the same time, I am not certain.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, would not the Government consider imposing a heavy duty on the sale of chewing gum and putting the proceeds towards paying for cleaning up the mess that chewers cause?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the House will understand that matters of taxation and duty are for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, I recognise that I respond for the Government in this House on this matter and I shall certainly pass on that suggestion to my right honourable friend.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, will the noble Baroness take on board the advice of some young friends of mine? There is a simple answer to all this. When one chews chewing gum, one should keep the wrapper. When one finishes with it, it should be put back into the wrapper and put in one's pocket until one finds a rubbish bin.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the House may be interested to know that the Tidy Britain Group provided 24,000 spring clean-up kits promoting good gum disposal and 16,000 youth packs for schools and youth groups suggesting the sort of action referred to by the noble Baroness. Those kits are being produced as part of the Tidy Britain Group's annual campaign—the National Spring Clean—which will take place in April this year.
Earl Russell: My Lords, do the Government accept the premise of the question that there is such a thing as the proper disposal of chewing gum?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, if the Government accept the premise that people chew gum and that it
230
should not be made a criminal offence so to do, then the Government accept the premise that the proper disposal of gum is an issue that they should consider.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, after 35 years of smoking, some of us managed to give up that habit by chewing, first, nicotine chewing gum and then ordinary chewing gum? Might it not be in the national interest if the noble Viscount, Lord Long, and other smokers were to contemplate the therapeutic joys of chewing gum?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am sure that it will be in the interests of public health that as many people as possible follow the example of my noble friend and give up smoking.

Forestry
3.7 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryferose to call attention to the case for a policy to expand forestry in the United Kingdom, based on partnership between the public and private sectors; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I declare an interest as the chairman of the All-Party Forestry Group. It may be helpful to those who are listening to this debate for me to establish one or two facts in relation to forestry. In this country only 10 per cent. of the country is covered by trees. In Germany it is 30 per cent. and in France it is 26 per cent. At the beginning of the century only 5 per cent. of the countryside was under trees; but now we have managed to increase that to 10 per cent. However, that is substantially below the woodland cover of our European friends and neighbours.
Forestry is a considerable industry. The current value of output in a year is £800 million and growing. Sixty per cent. of all woodlands are in private ownership. The Forestry Commission is responsible for only 40 per cent. of woodland ownership. Having established those facts about forestry, I should perhaps refer to an earlier debate on this subject, which took place in January 1995. As I said at that time, the Minister concerned had previously assured us that,
"It continues to he our policy to encourage the expansion of woodland cover in Great Britain".—[Official Report, 14/4/93; col. 1143.]
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was present for that debate. He had said in a debate on forestry in 1991:
"I have every confidence that the industry itself will increase the number of plantings".—[Official Report, 27/3/91; col. 1066.]
Those are the promises that were made in previous years. Since then investment in forestry has declined and new planting has substantially declined. The Forestry Commission, of which I was chairman some years ago, used to plant around 20,000 hectares a year. Last year, that was down to 400 hectares. In the private sector 10 years ago 19,700 hectares were planted. Today the figure is 16,000. This represents an industry in decline because of lack of concern and lack of acceptance of its importance to our economy.

231
It is important, now three years after that debate, that we should take stock of where the industry is going. I propose to say a few words about, first, its economic importance to the country; secondly, the environmental impact of forestry; and, thirdly, the importance of forestry in giving us a reasonable quality of life in our country.
As far as concerns the economics of forestry, we import over £6 billion of wood products a year. I attended a lecture upstairs just a few weeks ago when the head of the DTI Export Department told us about how much the Government are spending on export promotion and how they hold seminars and exhibitions overseas. I pay a compliment to the DTI for its endeavours in export promotion. However, very little is said about import substitution, which is equally important to our balance of trade. We should be looking at this tremendous bill of over £6 billion per annum for the import of wood products.
In the past 10 years the pulp and paper industries have expanded considerably. In that time over £1 billion has been invested in new plant and equipment. That investment is undertaken on the assumption that there will be supplies of timber from domestic sources in order to keep the pulp and paper industries going. However, the record of the past few years has shown that there is no possibility of the industries being sustained by domestic supplies.
The industries were based on the assumption that the quality and supply of British timber would enable them to be competitive in the world markets of paper production. There is nothing wrong with the quality of British timber. However, there is something wrong with the record of the planting programme. The industries depend on spruce, largely sitka spruce, as the material for paper and pulp production, but nowadays more than 50 per cent. of new planting is in broad-leaves, which have a rotation of 90 to 100 years. They contribute something to the environment but contribute little or nothing to maintaining the kind of industrial investment that has taken place. I therefore suggest that we have to look at forestry as an important industry and as an important contributor to national wealth.
I want to say a few words about quality of life. The Government spend a lot of time talking about sport and making people more healthy. I do not believe it is particularly healthy for 60,000 people to go to Old Trafford on a Saturday. I prefer to walk in the woods. I prefer the quiet. I prefer to escape from the trashiness of television. We should give people the opportunity to get out into the woodlands to walk. They would thereby become more healthy, physically and mentally.
Fifty million day visitors walked in the Forestry Commission estate last year. I am referring to the Forestry Commission estate, although the private sector has been similarly active. Chalets in the Forestry Commission woodlands were occupied for 1.2 million bed nights last year. The Forestry Commission is responsible for the management of 17 forest parks. All of these make an important contribution to good and healthy living. These factors have to be taken into
232
account when the Government talk about making us a healthier nation but spend a lot more on the glamorous aspects of sport and recreation. The Forestry Commission works closely with NGOs, English Nature and Scottish Heritage in maintaining the standards of our environment. The Forestry Commission is responsible for 70,000 hectares of SSSIs, which are important to our national heritage. Forestry, therefore, is not only economically important but is a national asset in terms of our quality of life.
When I was chairman of the Forestry Commission, the private sector and the state sector worked in partnership together. We shared research and training facilities. We were not competitors. We did our best to create a healthy forestry estate. I regret to say that under the previous government there was an upsetting of those partnership arrangements. The Forestry Commission has been run down, no money has become available for planting or acquisition, and substantial investment and grants have been made, rightly, to the private sector to encourage it to grow trees. I hope that as a result of this debate the Government will be encouraged to make a new start in this relationship and revive the old partnership concept. Instead of selling off the Forestry Commission estate and denying it the funds necessary for planting and acquisitions, I hope there will be the re-establishment of the relationship which existed formerly.
I was delighted to see the other day that forestry has featured on the Prime Minister's agenda. However, I believe that he overdid it a little when he made a statement on forestry. It was headed by his Press Office,
"Prime Minister Tony Blair has launched the most significant forestry document in the past decade".
That is encouraging, but I believe that it is going a little too far. Nevertheless, the fact that the Prime Minister is now taking an interest in forestry is a very good thing.
I hope that the Minister will pay attention to the party manifesto in connection with forestry. It says,
"We favour a moratorium on the sale of Forestry Commission land. The countryside is a great national asset and calls for careful stewardship".
I hope that that is a message that the Minister takes on board.
Perhaps I may make one further aside as regards the devolution debate which we shall have in due course. The fact that the Government will now devolve forestry and will make it a Scottish concern in Scotland, a Welsh concern in Wales and an English one in England will contribute nothing to improving the management and expansion of the forestry estate. I hope that the Minister will also take that on board in anticipation of the Scottish devolution debate.
I am delighted that a number of noble Lords are participating in this debate and I hope that their encouragement and voices will be heard. I beg to move for Papers.
3.21 p.m.
Lord Nickson: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for introducing this debate and somewhat flattered that, in responding to him, I find

233
myself first wicket down—which, in the West Indies (which we are not)—is not normally a healthy position to be in. I put my name down to speak to the debate this morning not because I wish to disagree with him about the importance of forestry, but because I wish to emphasise, as he has done, the recent document published by the Government entitled, The UK Forestry Standards, and the need for a balance between the environment and production.
To my great benefit, I live in the Queen Elizabeth Forest Park, which I hope will shortly become part of one of the first Scottish national parks to be created in Scotland. The Government have made that announcement. I already enjoy the huge benefits, to which the noble Lord has referred, of being able to walk out of my front door and straight to the top of Ben Lomond, some 15 miles away. I totally appreciate all that.
The noble Lord did not comment on the proportion of land in Scotland under trees, which I now believe is about 13 per cent. I agree with the noble Lord about the decline in forestry planting in recent years. There is a very simple reason for that. There has been very little increase in net planting by the public sector, the Forestry Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby—who was present a short while ago, but who is not now in his place—had the simple answer as to why the private sector stopped planting; namely, the removal of the tax incentives. The noble Lord also removed much of the incentive to invest in the forestry industry which many people, including myself, thought was highly undesirable. It was a tax break to encourage forestry production. However, I believe that that had a very undesirable effect on the type of forestry planted throughout the United Kingdom. I for one was extremely glad that that tax break disappeared. I was equally well aware that many people whom I know in the private sector used their forestry account because of that to carry out a great many activities that were not strictly forestry because of the advantages that the tax gave them, So I plead with the Government to be fiscally neutral and to try to achieve their objectives economically by way of planting and grant.
I was involved in the promotion of Scottish economic development and I do not argue at all about export substitution; nor do I argue about the need to try to encourage forestry planting on a productive scale.
In any government review I urge them to seek to bring forestry down the hill. The reason that it has not come down is because of land prices. Why are land prices higher? Because of the subsidies on farming, and particularly sheep. I see the Minister nodding and smiling at me, as he so often does. We need to encourage forestry to come down the hill. There better trees will grow. The land will produce more and environmentally it will be infinitely preferable to the terrible problems that have been created by a mass sitka mono-culture in the uplands.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, will understand that I do not seek to disagree with him on the purpose of this this debate. I do not seek in any way to criticise his highly distinguished period of office as
234
chairman of the Forestry Commission. I do not seek to criticise the forestry authority. I believe that great strides have been made in understanding the effect on the environment of forestry as so much was planted before the war and shortly afterwards.
I would like noble Lords to understand the appalling damage that that ignorance has created in the environment and the countryside. The damage to watercourses and to biodiversity is irreparable. We also suffer from the huge problem of acidity due, as we all know, to global warming. I am no scientist, but I believe it to be an established fact that two things have happened. Vast forestry and upland drainage, and the use of the Cuthbertson plough have meant that, whereas the uplands acted as a sponge for our watercourses, held water and fed it off gradually to the great benefit of the environment, we now have the rapid pulling of a plug and water flows straight out, giving rise to flash floods with huge effect. Forestry in the mass acts as a sieve in collecting and depositing the acid rain—something we can do little about. That is lethal to fish stocks and many other forms of wildlife.
I also believe that great strides have been made in understanding the effects of forestry on wildlife. But there is no doubt that intensive planting in the uplands has had great effect on the biodiversity of species that live on heather moorlands. It has vastly encouraged that rapacious predator, the fox, which has removed so many of our upland birds and has a sanctuary in upland forestry.
So in a sense I am saying, "Let us increase our planting, but let us be extremely careful". That is why I so much welcome the document published by the Government and launched by the Prime Minister on 19th January called The UK Forestry Standards. I regret to say that I had not read it or looked at it—there is a copy in the Library—until shortly before this debate. I have read it quickly. I commend it to anybody who, unlike me, has been ill-informed and not looked at it.
I would like to quote the Prime Minister's words in his introduction, to which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor has referred:
"The Government recognises the need to monitor UK forests and to take steps to correct anything found to he going wrong".
That is what I am pleading for. That is inconsistent with the Earth Summits in Rio and in Helsinki in 1992 and 1993.
In our future forestry policy we need a balance and equilibrium, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has so wisely said, between the public and the private sector. We need a partnership on which all the best bases are founded. We need to see that re-established and enhanced. We also need equilibrium between atmosphere, climate and forestry production. I welcome this debate and the attention given to forestry. I very much welcome the UK Standards document and the guidelines being issued by forestry managers. I believe that there is now a far greater understanding of what needs to be done in terms of the rest of the environment and forestry planting.
I plead that in any new steps that the Government take there is no financial incentive to take short cuts and to bypass, for reasons of financial gain, so many of the

235
wise limitations that have been set. It is a great temptation. It is easy to write documents and to say that guidelines should be monitored; it is far less easy to ensure that they are being enforced and it is far harder to tell the long-term effects of some of the actions that we may take in the short term.
I shall sit down in a moment, not having used all of my allocated time, but I must make one more point. The Forestry Commission and the forestry industry have not been subsidised to anything like the extent of agriculture. It may be true that the upland subsidies to agriculture, which have been based on food production, have done more environmental damage than forestry because of the over-grazing. That may well be so, but as the guidelines are enforced it is essential that we become far more aware of the environmental effects.
We also need greater awareness of the downstream economic effects of forestry production. Local authorities and highway authorities tell of the high costs of forestry extraction day after day. It is carried out mostly by contractors, not full-time employees. Such work has to be undertaken on bridges, culverts, narrow and country roads. Those who live on or by such roads will testify that the work and the cost of it is considerably greater than people imagine. By all means let us try to increase that 10 per cent. Figure—it is 13 per cent. in Scotland—but in doing so, let us be extremely aware of the environmental consequences.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the question of the allocation of land use in an overpopulated country like the United Kingdom lies at the root of a number of the problems we find ourselves discussing in this House. Last week we were discussing competing claims by rural interests and housing; today the debate is on the need to expand forestry, but it cannot be about forestry only since more land devoted to forestry is less land devoted to agriculture or housing or wilderness, or one of a number of other objectives. So, this is merely one part of an important ongoing debate and we must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for bringing before your Lordships' House not merely the whole subject, but also his unparalleled expertise in this area.
I did not put my name down for this debate until very late because I have no particular knowledge of forestry as a specialised subject and I had, and have, every confidence in my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie who was, and is, down to speak and to whose speech I eagerly look forward.
However, I was stimulated to add my name to the list of speakers when I received a briefing paper from the Council for the Protection of Rural England, a body with which I am in broad sympathy although I by no means always agree with its policies. I am all the more pleased that I am to speak largely to its briefing paper because I note that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is not speaking in this debate. The CPRE's brief was most helpful in underlining the basic problem of land allocation, on which subject I am, if not an expert, at least an enthusiastic pupil.
236
Well managed woodland can be a great benefit to the country and, indeed, the world in a number of ways. My noble friend Lord Redesdale was telling me recently of the big recovery of diversity of wildlife in some woodland which he had started managing both sensitively and aggressively—that is my description, not his.
In addition to diversity, woodlands also add, in the words of the CPRE,
"beauty and character to the landscape. They improve air quality and help temper local climates".
It is because those objectives are both acknowledged goods and not easily quantifiable in pounds and pence that I welcome the CPRE's insistence that the Government's target needs to be driven not by economic criteria alone, as the discussion paper (Woodland Creation: needs and opportunities in the English Countryside) suggests, but should be based primarily on environmental and recreational criteria which it will be easier to justify, implement and monitor.
This is not to say, as we might be caricatured as saying, that we want to decide what we would like to see and then throw money at it. Value for money must be taken into account at every stage of the planning. But it is to say that the objective and the result is not to be solely measured in GNP. It is to be measured in human satisfaction and welfare and also in the holistic good of God's creation (or nature or Gaia or whatever other name one likes to give to that overarching responsibility).
If we are to pursue those ends, we must proceed delicately and with circumspection. It is no use announcing plonking targets and then planting huge areas insensitively. Let us proceed little by little where the area calls for it, and do not let us designate large areas for single-species cultivation. Let us encourage diversity. Nor should we enslave ourselves to political shibboleths. There should not be a reliance on private enterprise for its own sake or public ownership for its own sake. Both have their part to play and we must organise our policies to encourage both.
We all know that one of the major problems in land allocation in the UK is the CAP. It is not only a massive problem; it is a complex one, but we should welcome the European Commission's expressed desire,
"to develop a more integrated rural policy for Europe in which agricultural, social and economic objectives are drawn together".
At the same time, in responding to a situation in which Europe tends to produce too much agricultural produce at too high a price for current markets, we must not lose track of the near virtual certainties; first, that more food will have to be produced to feed the world; secondly that, as this becomes more obvious, food prices will go up, and, thirdly, that the world must, and therefore will, move towards spreading its undoubted wealth better, so that fewer people will starve in the midst of plenty.
What I have just said may sound as if I am almost opposed to the spread of forestry—not at all; I am very much in favour of it. It is merely that I believe that we must proceed sensitively and step by step, a conclusion with which I hope that few of your Lordships will disagree.
3.37 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe correctly pointed out that the expansion of woodland in this country does not necessarily mean the expansion of forestry. We have seen a considerable effort to expand woodland in the United Kingdom over the past 10 years. That is appropriate because we are one of the least heavily wooded countries in the European Union.
Previous speakers have pointed out the benefits of woodland in terms of access and recreation, and for wildlife. Woodlands also make a modest contribution to the process of carbon sequestration to mitigate emissions of carbon dioxide and their impact on climate. They are important too in terms of landscape although I must confess to being mystified by the then Department of Transport and its belief that one could somehow mitigate the effects of building motorways by the salutary effort of planting a few trees alongside.
We have some excellent examples in this country of commitment to the expansion of woodland by private landowners and the public and voluntary sectors. I refer to the new national forest that is now growing in the Midlands and to my local community forest at Marston Vale which is revitalising and greening an area previously ravaged by brick clay extraction and landfill. Private landowners, often helped by the farm woodland scheme, have helped to create small woodlands across the country. Non-governmental organisations, such as the Woodland Trust and, dare I say it, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—here I declare an interest—have done their bit in terms of creating woodland.
However, I do not believe that that is what my noble friend Lord Taylor was talking about; he was referring to the expansion of forestry, which is different. The expansion of forestry will provide all of those benefits but also the economic benefit of timber production and, perhaps even more important, employment in rural communities. I well recognise the noble Lord's concerns about the future mismatch between the availability of commercial timber for processing and the processing facilities that we are developing in this country. Therefore, a significant expansion of forestry is called for as opposed to simply an expansion of woodland. But we need to find the solution to a number of issues, some of which have already been identified.
First, we must define how much forestry is wanted so that the targets are realistic. We must clearly define the types and location of the forestry required and how it will be delivered. In the past the targeting of forestry increase has been a problem. We must resolve the issues of land ownership that have already been pointed out. I refer to the current debate about the Forest Enterprise estate and whether it will continue at its present size or reduce dramatically. We must also consider the availability of new planting sites on agricultural land. The whole process of bringing forestry down the hill has so far been singularly unsuccessful on a commercial scale because of land prices. We must tackle the difficult issue of investment in public and voluntary sector planting.
238
I wish to put up a few markers on the environmental front. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, make a strong case for environmental protection as part of forestry expansion. Forestry expansion must be part of a vision for multi-purpose forestry delivering not only economic but environmental and social objectives, particularly taking forward some of the biodiversity objectives of the UK biodiversity action plan. I give an excellent example of how that occurred in a highly commercial forest. In Thetford, East Anglia, there is one of the most productive forests in the United Kingdom; yet there has also been a huge increase in numbers of woodlark and the return of the nightjar in proportions that are the envy of many areas of the country. It is also a delightful area in which to walk.
The expansion of forestry must take place in the context of a UK strategy that can be interpreted at regional and local level. It must deliver national biodiversity targets related to the overall strategy for forestry expansion. An excellent example of expansion under the biodiversity action plan that has already begun is the planting by Forest Enterprise of native Caledonian pinewood in Scotland.
One word of warning. We know from past experience that forest expansion can result in inappropriate trees in inappropriate places with inappropriate forest design. At the moment many NGOs and statutory bodies are spending extremely large sums of European Union money taking trees off heathland in the south of England which were inappropriately planted 20 or 25 years ago. Heathland is a fast diminishing habitat in this country. The only way to get it back is to return it to what it should be rather than afforest in inappropriate places. The most prominent example is what happened in the flow country. Many noble Lords may have seen the recent publicity about it. Not only are the inappropriately planted trees in the flow country not growing very well—it is a rather wet place—but they must be removed to put that internationally important habitat back into the condition in which it should have been. It does not seem to me to be a sensible way forward or an efficient use of resources to subsidise planting and then subsidise tree removal before it ever becomes a harvestable crop.
The incentive and regulation system that we now have in this country has developed dramatically over the past 10 to 15 years and is pretty good compared with previous practice. I praise the work of the Forestry Commission, the Forest Authority and Forest Enterprise in implementing some of these conditions and ensuring that we no longer have the inappropriate planting that occurred on a huge scale in the past. But the odd one still slips through. Inappropriate planting submissions still arise. I commend the Minister for his excellent decision recently to require substantial amendment to a planting proposal in Scotland which would have jeopardised the home hunting range of one of the last few pairs of golden eagles in that part of Scotland.
I conclude by asking the Minister to build on his excellent start and assure your Lordships' House that in the promotion of forestry expansion in the United

239
Kingdom the Government will ensure that the economy, including the rural economy, and the environment all benefit from the right trees in the right places.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, timber supply will increase with demand up to the year 2025. After that if no new planting is undertaken supply will fall while demand will rise. Yet a continuous level of supply of softwood is essential to satisfy the domestic wood processing industry. At present the peak of production will be reached in 2022 at 16 million cubic metres and thereafter drop to some 12 million in 2042. It is already too late to affect that trough, but the planting of conifers should be increased by some 275,000 hectares over the next 25 years to achieve a return to 16 million cubic metres. Meanwhile, the town environmentalist has more influence over forestry than the forester with the expert knowledge and thousands of hectares are being wasted in the name of environment. One example of this is the insistence on large proportions of hardwood in every new planting. How nice that sounds for the countryside. But private owners have been planting hardwood for generations and have created the hardwoods that the townies have discovered and wish to protect by bureaucracy. But the opposite is being achieved.
A mature hardwood tree covers some 100 square yards: that is to say, a diameter of some 30 feet. Planted in rows 30 feet apart and only in such numbers that can be economically pruned and looked after one ends up with a wood with nearly 100 per cent. high quality and valuable hardwood. Planted in between the hardwood rows to pull them up will be softwood thinned out during the first 40 years to help satisfy the demands of the mills. The present incentives insist on a very much higher percentage of hardwood to be planted per hectare. There is no softwood to pull them up. Most of the hardwood will be thinned out at little value, and there are too many for the final crop to be identified and to be economically pruned. The result is likely to be stands of firewood quality timber with no contribution to softwood demand.
The demand to plant high densities of hardwood is totally counterproductive and a waste of private and public money. These stands are planted without thought of future management and cropping. According to a paper prepared by Dr. Claire Ozanne, it is a myth that conifers are poor for the environment. For example, she claims that Corsican pine would double the density of anthropods (whatever they might be) compared with oak wood. Another drag to efficiency is the total and unwarranted distrust in the motivation of the private forester. One example of this is the inheritor of an arboretum that had been laid down by his grandfather. It had been allowed to deteriorate, and the new owner lavished care and expense on it to bring it back to its former glory. Having done so, it was immediately put under a conservation order so that he could no longer do anything with it without the permission of the planning officer. Small thanks for his efforts. Perhaps the local council thought that the owner, having done all the improvements, would suddenly try to fell the whole lot.
240
My own experience is somewhat similar. I should first have declared an interest. I am a forester. Having won a national hardwood prize, the compartment was immediately conserved. I can no longer go out and prune it without committing an offence punishable by, from memory, a £2,000 fine. As a result I no longer plant hardwood for fear that the local authority will conserve it and remove my ability to manage it properly.
Surely it would be better to identify blocks of unmanaged or ill-managed woodland and bring pressure to improve them than to harry and discourage success. Interference by bureaucracy and by the townie and the unrealistic antipathy to softwood is inviting long term stagnation of the industry and doing far more harm than good. There does not appear to be any realisation by critics that forests have to be managed over a very large number of years to become high value timber. It is not just a matter of planting and waiting for a huge profit.
There is far too much unnecessary red tape. Foresters used to have to deal only with the Forestry Commission when they wanted to take some action and this was bad enough. Now the Forestry Authority has to consult with every "which way" organisation and local authority before it can consent itself; and the better the forestry the more control is exercised. There is little incentive to grow quality.
The standard of amenity of privately owned woodlands is far higher than that of the public woods for the good reason among many others that the Forest Enterprise has largely to confine its input to production, while the private owner is prepared to spend resources on amenity and landscape. I know of one person that bought back some commission forestry and it was in such a ragged state that he just felled it, and replanted to bring it back to the standard of the rest of his estate.
All the arboretums and parks have been created by the private sector not the public, and they are mostly open to the public such as Westonbirt, Thorpe Perrow, and many parks. Capability Brown would have had a lean time without the private owners. Why should their descendants not be trusted and allowed to maintain and make their own creations for posterity to enjoy without the direction and interference of the bureaucrats? Far more of the Caledonian forest was destroyed by public forestry and turned into black hills of Sitka than by private interests.
There is then the whole question of sale to the public, and the cry that the woodland will be closed to the public. That is nonsense. If a commission wood is open to the public, its sale deed can stipulate that the wood remain open. If the site is an SSSI, then the new owner is subject to the same rules as a public body. The only difference is that the private owner is not free to ignore the restrictions, as is the public body in, for example, the trampling of an SSSI by a motorway.
Forestry gives a very low return but private owners have been prepared to accept this for the amenity value it provides and for the roll-over capital inheritance effect that allows value to be passed on to future generations. There is every reason to encourage private capital to take over from public in the industry wherever possible, either by private planting, or by sale of Forest Enterprise

241
land. Existing access can be assured by covenant, and the private interest will care for the trees better than the public sector. Alternatively Forest Enterprise could be turned into a company and as many shares as possible sold to the public.
The Forestry Commission was not formed to be a trading or profitable enterprise. It was formed to establish a strategic reserve in timber. Low yield public capital tied up in trees could be far better used on national services, leaving the private sector to maintain that reserve.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I join those noble Lords who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe on introducing this debate on the expansion of forestry based on co-operation between the public and private sectors. The relationship between the public and private sectors, which has existed since 1919 when the commission was first established, could be neutrally described as ambivalent. Private landowners have always been represented on the Forestry Commission. That was made clear from the start, but the Acland Report which set up the Forestry Commission was not greeted with universal approval. It is now suggested that Forest Enterprise should be turned into a private company.
Over the years the Forestry Commission has come in for a great deal of criticism. Many of the things it has done have been controversial. There have been arguments about the merits of sitka spruce versus other varieties and so forth. However, no objective observer of the scene could come to any conclusion other than that the FC has served the country well during the almost 80 years of its existence.
It is not often said, but the FC should be congratulated on its experiments in relation to where it grows timber. It has experimented with growing timber at higher altitudes than normally might be expected, in difficult terrain, and sometimes in boggy country in Caithness. Some experiments have been unsuccessful but some have been successful. The commission should be congratulated on the way it has carried out those experiments.
Experimenting in the growing of trees, in circumstances not otherwise thought to be viable, is a better approach than using up good agricultural land for planting trees. This debate may have to be taken further. I am sure that many noble Lords have seen the briefing from the Woodland Trust. It argues, for example, that changes in land ownership, along with the expansion of the state sector and investment in public and voluntary sector planning, will undoubtedly be required to deliver any meaningful expansion. The trust states:
"Imaginative ways of encouraging land out of agricultural production and into woodland must be identified since under the Common Agricultural Policy farmers have not found forestry a financially attractive land use".
I do not want to go too far into the controversy about the CAP. It is clear that there is a great deal of thinking going on about the purpose of forestry. Over the years the FC has undergone a great deal of change. I would
242
not say that it is the only industry which has been reviewed more than once. There have been umpteen reports into the FC. There has been a number of investigations by Select Committees. All along there has been a drift away from the importance of the FC as a public service body supplying timber towards the private sector.
The new company, Forest Enterprise, is a Next Steps agency. It has just completed its first year. We use such terms now without thinking about what they mean. The Next Steps agency was designed to take publicly owned companies, not just the FC, which have been wholly in the public sector into an agency. The next step was meant to be privatisation, as advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. I hope that that idea has run up against the buffers, and that that route will not be followed.
The importance of forestry is well illustrated by the figures. According to the latest figures, timber imports last year cost £8.1 billion. Neither the FC nor private landowners will be able to make significant inroads into that £8.1 billion in the foreseeable future. I do not know how much of the land would have to he covered to produce that import substitution. I suspect that there would not be much land left for anything else.
It is interesting to look at what is happening: 75 per cent. of the forestry estate is comprised of coniferous plantations which were laid down between 1945 and the 1980s. It is a comparatively recent planting. Forest Enterprise's latest accounts show a profit on timber sales of £8.11 million. Significantly, in 1994, some 14,950 hectares were sold for £18.6 million; in 1995, 10,808 hectares were sold for £12.7 million; in 1996, almost 10,000 hectares were sold for £15.2 million; and last year, 10,842 hectares were sold for £19.8 million.
As my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe made plain, the Labour Party manifesto made it clear that there would be no more large-scale disposals of forests. I join with him in asking my noble friend the Minister to make it clear that there will be no more sales of forest land.
I believe that the situation ought to be reversed. The Forest Commission should be given the power and authority to start buying land again. Restocking is down and there is a great deal of concern about replanting. Indeed, the Forestry Commission states that its programme makes a small contribution to the national planning objective. We cannot take that lightly. Until now, the Forestry Commission has been a supplier of raw timber.
My late father-in-law, John McEwen of Blairgowrie, a distinguished forester, had the odd tussle with my noble friend from time to time. He was a vigorous exponent of public ownership and, although at times a severe critic of the Forestry Commission, he certainly believed that its role should be expanded. If we are to have a private sector-public sector partnership I do not see why it should not be expanded into added-on value.
I do not know the price of finished timber compared with the price when it leaves the forest, but it must be considerable. I believe that the Forestry Commission should share in that. It is looking at ways of expanding

243
its role and it is considering leisure facilities. It is worth while taking a brief look at Forest Holidays. The companies, which have subsidiaries, are getting more like private enterprise every day. The business of Forest Enterprise is expanding. It is about to refurbish its cabin sites, which will be carried out under the private finance initiative. That business does not generate a huge amount of money. The company spent £1.1 million on the cabins and cottages and received an income of £1.3 million. It spent £2.3 million on camping and caravan sites and received an income of £2.9 million. That represents a gross profit of just under £900,000 and a return on capital of 9.6 per cent. That is higher than the return on timber production, but I do not suggest that the scheme should be proceeded with only on that basis.
More can be done by the Forestry Commission to look at new ways in which it can serve the public. The Forestry Commission does not exist simply because someone decreed that there should be a Forestry Commission; nor is public enterprise necessarily better than private enterprise. The whole ethos of public enterprise should be to serve people in the communities. The Forestry Commission is now doing a great deal of that with its forestry programme. It is an example of how people can work together.
Some of my noble friends jib at the private finance initiative. Many of my friends, especially those in the other place and outside Parliament, believe that it is diluting the pure milk and water of socialism. However, it is curious that most public companies, and, I suspect, the Forestry Commission, raise money by borrowing from private sources. Therefore, it would be far better if the two worked together in order to produce a better result.
I ask my noble friend the Minister to say that, looking to the future and to expanding forestry, there will be a real attempt to reverse the decline of the Forestry Commission's planting programme. It is essential to our future well being. I hope that the Government, in the spirit of opening the horizons of government, will look at ways in which the Forestry Commission can play a more vigorous and expansionist, even aggressive, role in a joint enterprise in the finished products of timber as well as the timber which we take off the land.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, the noble Lord spoke in support of the Forestry Commission. As one who had the privilege to represent the constituency in which its headquarters is situated, I believe that it carries out its duties with great professionalism and dedication.
Perhaps I may mention a family interest in agriculture and forestry. There is a general community interest in the best use of forestry to enhance the environment. In Scotland, tourism is the largest single employer and many tourists greatly appreciate the opportunity to have access to appropriate forest walks. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, mentioned some 50 million visits. It is to his credit, and to his success as chairman, that the infrastructure has been developed by the Forestry Commission for those walks to be greatly enjoyed. I also
244
pay tribute to Scottish Natural Heritage and Magnus Magnusson who has helped to obtain access and management agreements of many environmentally sensitive sites in an acceptable way.
One initiative with concern for the environment at its heart, not only to develop woodlands in Scotland, but also to do it in an environmentally acceptable way, has been the Central Scotland Countryside Trust which has received a great deal of support from the Government. I should be grateful if the Minister could say what progress has been made, as many of the sites scarred by the Industrial Revolution were intended to be renovated.
The word "partnership" represents the key to what is required. I wish to raise three issues with the Minister. First, on the subject of a devolved Scottish Parliament, how is the funding to be arranged as regards the Forestry Commission? Will the Scottish executive be able to determine how much is spent in Scotland? How will the running costs of the headquarters of the Forestry Commission in Edinburgh be apportioned? Furthermore, will there be scope for different planning policies north and south of the Border?
It would help if the Minister could give a picture of what is envisaged and how the administration of the commission will be carried out in Scotland, England and Wales. Can he, for example, give a commitment that an environmentally friendly forestry policy will be followed in all parts of Britain, bearing in mind that loss of habitats can put surviving species at risk? I am thinking in particular of the red squirrel, the European otter and the capercaillie, to mention but a few.
Secondly, it is within my knowledge that Scotland has in the past been considered for inward investment in connection with wood processing and paper. But a number of issues have been raised relating to the following questions. Did the Forestry Commission have sufficient mechanisation? I was, for example, shown a machine in Finland which cut up a pine tree into measured poles, taking off all its branches, after cutting it down, and all within a few seconds. Such high-powered mechanical assistance, with an operator, could do the work of perhaps 16 men all working flat out with mechanical saws. More importantly, I was asked whether the forestry concerns in Scotland could guarantee a sufficiency and continuity of supply in the years to come. Those concerns were passed on to the Forestry Commission and it will help if the Minister could reassure the House that mechanisation and modernisation have taken place. Can he also confirm that there will be a steady supply of timber in the years to come?
Thirdly, can the Government give a strong message of support to the concept of a 67 per cent. increase in timber production by 2025, backed up by a pledge to review the funding arrangements under the woodland grant scheme? It may be that the scheme will need recasting so as to deliver an adequate cover for new planting and support for good, workable stewardship. Forestry is a long-term crop and should be so regarded. We have a relatively low coverage of forestry in Britain compared to other European countries. One of the obvious reasons for strongly supporting forestry is that

245
a healthy, thriving domestic industry will reduce this country's dependence on timber imports, thus assisting the balance of payments.
Our wood processing industry is one of the most advanced in the world. Many of our saw mills, panel and paper manufacturing plants can well be described as state of the art. I believe that the reason for that is that many of the processing companies have recognised that British forestry can, over a prolonged period of time, deliver the finest products of sufficiently high quality to justify the enormous investment that has taken place.
It was the present Prime Minister who wrote, in relation to new standards for managing forests, in a preface:
"What is at stake is a high proportion of the Earth's species, the equilibrium of the atmosphere and climate, and the lives of millions of people who depend on forests for food and shelter".
It is with those standards in mind that the excellent working relationship between the Forestry Commission and the private sector is in the country's national interest. That relationship is built on trust and co-operation, accompanied by a desire to expand and develop Britain's forests. It is a genuine partnership and I hope that the Minister will be able to strengthen that partnership with his words today.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I join previous speakers in offering commendation and gratitude to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe on securing this debate. I join with them in paying tribute to the long and dedicated service he has given to the cause of forestry, a dedication which was amply fulfilled today.
It is appropriate that there is an English Member from this side of the House to speak in the debate and much of what I say will be with specific reference to England. However, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, that I was delighted that, like my noble friend Lady Young, he touched upon the ecological importance of forestry. That is why I became interested in forestry myself. The first time I became really concerned about it as a politician was soon after I entered the House of Commons when the Treasury produced a cost-benefit analysis, which I described in an earlier speech in your Lordships' House as an example of utter imprudence. The analysis, issued in July 1972, demonstrated that it was not worth planting a single tree in Britain for commercial reasons. Three weeks later, the Russians trebled their timber prices and other timber producers followed suit. The analysis was knocked very hard on the head but unfortunately the Treasury did not react. I understand that your Lordships' House debated the matter some weeks later and that a large number of noble Lords criticised the then government, fortunately not of my political persuasion, for their inertia against that reality.
However, my main interest in forestry remains an ecological one. I spent a fair amount of time in the 1960s studying badgers and sharing the joys of being quietly within a wood rather than watching soap operas on the television, as my noble friend Lord Taylor said
246
in his fine speech. Unfortunately, the last government privatised the forests where I watched those badgers and the right of public access was removed. I could go into those woods only as a trespasser, and noble Lords would expect me to be obedient to the law.
I have an anxiety about access. I am not in any way suggesting that people should be prevented from enjoying woodlands and the countryside. However, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 rather excessively and slavishly ignores all considerations except human demand. One of the Private Member's Bills which I took through the Commons, and which your Lordships passed largely without amendment in 1978, provided for the conservation of wild creatures and plants. Under the terms of the 1981 Act, as recently interpreted, we see an absolute requirement to provide public access without any regard to the conservationist interest.
I quoted an example a few weeks ago at a meeting with Ministers, which some noble Lords attended, and it is worth repeating. One of the plants protected under the 1975 Act was the lady's slipper orchid. At that point, as far as we could tell, there remained one single plant in these islands and it was protected. As the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, otherwise a perfectly splendid piece of legislation, is being interpreted, if a group of people, including perhaps some of the more extreme members of the Ramblers' Association who believe they have the right to walk anywhere and everywhere, claim—such claims not always proving to be as accurate as they might be—that once upon a time people had walked through a field or a wood then that right should always exist even if it means trampling on the last lady's slipper orchid. The last findings and decisions that I have seen in relation to footpath inquiries give cause for some anxiety about preserving important environmental and ecological features. I hope that the situation can be re-examined.
Another area of interest was in relation to my work on the Council of Europe. I cannot remember whether the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, was a member of the Council of Europe at the time. I know, however, that he gave much dedicated service to the agricultural committee. I acted as rapporteur and presented a report on forestry in the late 1970s which recognised the international as well as the national need in that regard. Unfortunately, the world has not seen forestry develop as the Council of Europe recommended, and that may be because it lacks power. We have not planted enough trees. One of the main reasons for that is the pursuit of privatisation and dogma. I do not like dogma in the British countryside. It can take things to extremes, damage relationships and so on.
Moreover, money may well have been used for the purchase of existing woodland which could have been devoted to the planting of new woodland. That diversion of resources has been extremely damaging and this country will regret it. Nevertheless, the Forestry Commission survived. Some of us were worried about whether it would be allowed to do so given the dogmatic approach adopted in the 1980s. In my view, it can make a very powerful contribution and needs to do so.

247
One area about which I feel some anxiety, although the Minister went a long way towards assuaging my fears in answer to a question the other day, is in relation to the community forest. About 15 years ago—my noble friend Lord Taylor will perhaps recall it more clearly than I do—there was a presentation in the Grand Committee Room to Members of both Houses concerning the proposed establishment of the Heart of England community forest, a splendid project. I recall saying at the meeting that we should not merely have that forest but a ladder of community forests from that initial forest through to Kielder, the great forest of Northumberland.
There were huge ravaged areas of north Nottinghamshire, north Derbyshire and south Yorkshire comprising far more land than was needed to be reclaimed for housing or economic development
I had accompanied my parliamentary neighbour, Stanley Crowther, on a canal visit from Leeds to Ferrybridge. It was an astonishing experience. Along the side of the canal were hundreds and hundreds of acres of opencast mining sites, areas which had been affected by industrial devastation in the early 1980s, and closed collieries. There was a great deal of land. I suggested that the area could very easily accommodate a community forest. As has already been explained, a community forest does not mean absolute 100 per cent. comprehensive tree cover; indeed, we must also have open spaces.
The same could be true in Durham. There we could most usefully see a community forest develop. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister a question. If he does not think that a community forest could loom very largely in the planning activities of the regional development agencies, does he agree that the relationship between the regions and localities is most important?
I turn to my final point; namely, the arrangements after devolution. As my noble friend Lord Taylor said, many of us should, and do, walk in the countryside. At weekends my wife and I walk to the highest point of what was my constituency. It is surmounted by a pyramidical folly built by the Marquess of Rockingham to commemorate the quelling of the most unnatural rebellion of 1745. The Marquess was a Prime Minister who hated coming to London; indeed, he preferred racing horses at York and Doncaster, but was otherwise a perfectly splendid man. He planted many trees in my area which still remain. That pyramidical structure also marked the establishment of a just and balanced peace in Europe. It is interesting to note that Mr. William Hague was brought up just under the shadow of that particular folly.
I am concerned about the future of England under the forestry administrative arrangements following devolution. I trust that we will not find ourselves in the position which applied in the House of Commons for a time when those of us who wished to ask questions on English forestry had to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland and incur the wrath of my honourable friends from Scotland who did not like Englishmen trespassing
248
too much on Scottish preserves. The fact remains that there must be increasing interest in forestry in England and there must be increased planting in England. I hope that Members of this and another place will not have to go to Edinburgh when seeking answers to such questions.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, the original batting list of today's speakers indicated that my noble friend Lord Nickson was to be first wicket down, but I was not mentioned in it. However, I understand that there is now a revised list and, once again, I shall be Tail-end Charlie. Nevertheless, I am very pleased to be able to speak and I shall be quick.
I should like first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for giving us the opportunity this afternoon to discuss forestry. I should also like to thank him for his very carefully worded Motion in which he mentions the partnership between public and private forestry operations. At the outset, I must, like all good Scots and Angus boys, declare an interest. At the last count this morning, I was advised that Kinnordy estates are involved in 320 hectares—or, as we say, "thereby"—of commercial forestry operations. That is disregarding what are known in Scotland as policies regarding rhododendrons, other arboretums and ornamental shrubs.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and other speakers like Lord Hardy, who has just spoken, have the entire forestry programme right in that it involves an enormous and very valuable partnership. It does not matter who does the planting or who carries out the forestry operations, so long as they are accomplished.
Trees and forestry have always been part of my life. I have seen pictures of the events surrounding my birth well before the war when a bonfire was lit. That was not necessarily a "Bonfire of Vanities", nor of furniture from the house, but of spare firewood from clear felling on top of one of the hills which I think is visible from the new home of my new neighbour the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, let alone from his old abode.
During the war, I well recall enormous felling taking place. There was one event which marked my schooldays. There is a reference to it in Westminster Hall of all places. Just about the time of the death of the late Queen Mary, 31st January 1953, there was a wind storm which devastated—and that is putting it lightly—the forestry operations in east and north-east Scotland. That was also accompanied by floods which devastated Canvey Island, as well as causing enormous damage in Holland. The events of that day left an enormous scar on the woodlands and forestry in our area, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, will well remember. I remember the plantations during my school days. I refer not just to our plantations but also to commercial woodlands, which were severely damaged by the events of that day.
The silviculture (which I believe to be a rather grand name for the operations outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor) also cover land use. That was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Silviculture operations, such as I see around my home at present,

249
with felling and clear felling, leave an enormous mess. That leads me on to the thought that if silviculture is carried out on bare or open land, what does one do with it afterwards? Perhaps our forebears, the Founding Fathers in the United States, let alone the people who are carrying out operations in the Amazon rain forest, may be able to give us some advice as to what one does after one has planted and felled.
In other words, does one go back to forestry or does one go in for other land usage? My neighbour, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and my noble friend Lord Hemphill will certainly know that my homeland—the glens of Angus and the area around Kirriemuir in Scotland—is the start of what I call "the forest country". I say that because there is an enormous amount of land in that area which is not really adequate for CAP purposes or for agriculture. That is of particular relevance and importance, as my noble friend Lord Nickson pointed out, regarding employment.
As noble Lords are aware, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said that silviculture and forestry require an extremely long financial time-scale. Even the most experienced and aged noble Lords might get perhaps two, and if they are very lucky three, "crops" of softwood in one generation. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, pointed out that for hardwood one would be very lucky if one got a 100-year rotation, which I believe to be beyond the scale of most of us in this House.
I should like to express my gratitude to the Minister for the grants that are available. Any grant is most helpful to private woodland owners in their planting operations. But in typical upland land that I have described in and around the braes of Angus, if one starts planting it is something like an advertisement in the informal nature news, as it almost puts out a little notice saying, "Opening immediately at Kinnordy". Every red deer, roe dear, vole and rabbit will rush in for what I can only describe as a feeding frenzy. Therefore, major fencing and other operations, should not be carried out otherwise time, effort and finance will be pretty well wasted.
Therefore, proper silviculture—proper planting—in the uplands, requires a fair amount of fencing, and that means extra costs. That is why the fairly generous grants, for which we are most grateful, are in no small way dissipated by the costs of fencing. The Minister, being one of the many speakers appearing on today's list whom I could call a woodlander in that he lives in a fairly rural area, although he may not immediately say so, and although he was a white rose of Yorkshire originally—but is wearing a dark blue jersey today when he speaks for Scotland and for forestry—will know that red deer are pretty athletic. Fairly tough fences have to be erected to stop them getting in, let alone the roe deers and rabbits who can get underneath the fence. Therefore, there are considerable costs involved when carrying out proper and professional silvicultural operations.
I should stress to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, who pointed out the
250
various uses of forest land once trees are planted, that much discussion has taken place in this House about access. My noble neighbour the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, will certainly know about the woodlands around Kirriemuir. I will invite the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to visit the area in summer. He will find all sorts of things going on in the woodlands which perhaps the young people will tell him about.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, may be a little startled to hear that one of the more popular events that take place in the woodlands in Strath Ardle around Perth and around our area of Scotland is motor rallying. Kindroggan Forest in Strath Ardle is not too far from the area that the noble Baroness knows. Some 25 years ago one of the forest wardens there said to me while we were watching the cars go by, "Yon will be nay *** use if he takes longer than 24 seconds between these two areas". Such was the enthusiasm of the forest warden for all kinds of uses of the forest. That was a somewhat unorthodox use of forest land in summer. I was astonished that it was taking place but it did not damage the roads too much. I do not think that the Forestry Commission was entirely charitable; I suspect that it obtained a fair rent and a fair sum in compensation for that activity.
In my own area in Glen Isla in the Forestry Commission plantation there is the most marvellous cross-country ski area. When the snow conditions permit, there is dog racing with huskies. I understand this also takes place in the Cairngorms. All kinds of activities take place on forest land which are far removed from those in the imagination of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and I thank the Minister, in anticipation, for taking on board the desperate need for the partnership that we are discussing. That partnership is of immense significance and it is a great success. I hope that this partnership will ensure that planting continues where it is needed. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, has given us the relevant figures. I believe he said that the planting covered 25 to 30 per cent. of the available territory. I seem to remember that the figure for the Federal Republic of Germany was 25 per cent., and for France it was 26 per cent. I am delighted to hear that the figure for Scotland is 13 per cent. I hope that that will increase, and I hope that the Minister will give us encouragement that figure will rise.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and I wish to add a few words. However, before I do so, I refer to the famous woods of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, Caddam Woods, about which a good fiddle tune has been written. Those woods are the walking place for every dog in Kirriemuir. For some reason those trees seem to grow and grow. The fertiliser must be excellent!

251
Good landlords in Scotland have opened their woods to the public. On the whole the public have used those woods properly. I cannot understand why the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, introduced this debate on forestry. It must be a new interest on his part!
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, it is essential to have this debate because we have gone badly wrong in this area in recent years. The Forestry Commission has been downgraded and the situation with regard to planting has been disastrous. I take issue a little with the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, who made an admirable speech, and obviously knew his subject, when he said that he disapproved of the tax concessions which gave rise to some bad publicity as some well-known comedians and others put their money into forestry. However, properly administered, that money would have been extremely useful. Of course, at that time taxes were so high that the planting involved no cost to the people concerned. However, the scheme resulted in many trees being planted. When the Tory Government abolished the concession, the amount of planting being undertaken plunged, with bad results.
I accept that we must be careful about where we plant trees. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, spoke of the flow country. The Forestry Commission should not have permitted that planting to occur. Perhaps that took place because the Forestry Commission was not properly funded and could not properly oversee planting throughout the country. We in Scotland know about the pulp mill at Fort William and the pulp mills in Ayrshire. It is scandalous that after having invested money in the mills the companies concerned suddenly find that due to changes in policy there is no longer an adequate supply of timber to enable them to operate the mills. Co-operation between the Forestry Commission and private owners must be genuine and must be stimulated by the Government. The Government must provide money to enable that to happen. I trust and hope that they will show a great deal more understanding than has been the case with agriculture, which has suffered badly. Without proper backing of the Forestry Commission we shall not achieve the results we require.
I was interested to note that my noble friend Lord Beaumont and I are in complete agreement on this matter. We frequently disagree but on this occasion we are in complete agreement. It is extremely important that we realise the importance the public attach to seeing good looking trees about the place; deciduous trees, hardwoods and so on. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, is obviously an extremely practical forester. He put his finger on the matter when he said that without softwoods forestry is not economic. Many of the estates in Scotland could not possibly survive without an income from the sale of softwoods for the pulp industry or whatever. At the moment maturing softwood is worth £1,000 an acre. If that money is realised every now and then, it keeps an estate going and keeps communities going in the countryside.
252
We need to plant sitka and other trees of that kind. We can at the same time plant the excellent Scots pine and the Douglas fir. We should also plant the European larch. In Deeside there is some admirably mixed planting which gives joy to everyone. There is also the "black forest" planting. Larch opens up the soil, the vegetation and the habitat. Hardwoods grow up in between the plantings of sitka or some fast-growing species. Therefore it is necessary to plant softwoods to encourage the growth of the oaks which will delight our great-grandchildren.
The simple fact is that the Forestry Commission must be reconstituted and given enough money to do its job. It must be able to buy land for planting, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, said, and play its part alongside private enterprise. If that is done, we should at least be able to supply the pulp mills with timber and have a great deal of valuable timber for ordinary domestic use. The figures are horrifying. We have heard of the more than £6 billion that we spend on importing timber into this country. We have less than half the timber of France and of Germany and certainly a good deal less than that of Sweden. Therefore we must take this matter extremely seriously.
I do not wish to speak for much longer. I end with a story about my father and my uncle, both of whom had been chairmen of the North of Scotland College of Agriculture. At my father's golden wedding anniversary, a former official of the college was proposing a toast and told this story. He said, "Many years ago I was going through some woods with my chairman, Mr. John Mackie, and I said, 'Lovely woods, Mr. Mackie'. His reply was, 'Aye, grand woods to walk in wi' a lassie'. Some years later my chairman was Mr. Maitland Mackie. We were going through the same woods, and I said, 'Grand woods, Mr. Mackie'. His reply was, 'Aye, these woods will be worth £1,000 an acre".
That illustrates the two points of view. We have to marry them. The Forestry Commission is the body which has to do that. The Government have to see that the Forestry Commission has the money.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for this debate on forestry. It is some time since I took part in a debate on forestry. One of the joys of Opposition—I think probably it is the only joy—is that one can move out of the departmental brief that one has been given and revisit subjects of interest. Certainly forestry is an interest of mine for a number of reasons.
In another place, for five and a half years I was the Minister who answered for the Forestry Commission to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, for example. I well remember his questions about English forests which I found fascinating and enjoyed the interchange. However, I also remember that some of my Scottish colleagues were less than pleased at the introduction of English forestry into Scottish Questions. But being the lead Minister and having to look at forestry throughout the United Kingdom was a fascinating task. While I was

253
the lead Minister for some of that time, for the remainder I was the spokesman in the Commons for my noble friends Lord Gray and Lord Mansfield. They were the lead Ministers on forestry.
That allows me to ask the Minister two or three questions. He may not wish to answer them today; he may wish to leave them until the devolution Bill. My noble friend Lord Selkirk mentioned these points, as did the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. Some of us are puzzled as to what will happen as regards forestry after devolution. I am pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, in her place. I noted that in a debate on forestry. instigated again by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, on 29th October, she said:
"The commission will however continue to be the government department with responsibility for forestry throughout Britain. The commission will report separately to the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly but will still be a national responsibility. I hope that that provides some comfort and confidence to my noble friend".—[Official Report, 29/10/97; col. 1125.]
I do not know what it did to her noble friend but it puzzled me, and still puzzles me. The commission will still be a national responsibility, and yet it will report to those different parliaments and assemblies. Will there still be a lead Minister? If the Scottish Minister is responsible for forestry in Scotland, for example, how will he deal with the Treasury regarding grants, and so on? We know how important grants are in this business.
What will his position be vis-í-vis the English Minister who will live in, if I may so describe it, the same treeless forest of Whitehall as the Treasury Ministers. If the English Minister sees his priority as encouraging broadleaves and wishes to skew the grant to broadleaves, yet the Scottish Minister, for reasons I shall come to shortly, wants to skew the grant towards conifers, who will win? I would prefer to be in the forest with the English Minister when working out who will win. I think that the situation will be difficult. It will be difficult for the forest enterprise and forest authority to deal with three masters. We are advised that no man can serve two masters. I suspect that Sir Peter Hutchison and his successors will find it difficult to serve three masters.
What will happen to the headquarters of the Forestry Commission'? The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, was too modest to mention that he took the Forestry Commission headquarters out of London to Edinburgh. Will the commission be broken up? Will Edinburgh become the Scottish headquarters of Scottish forestry, and somewhere in England, the English headquarters?
How will the commission receive its budget? Will it receive three different tranches: from the Welsh assembly and Scottish parliament, and from Westminster on behalf of the English part of the operation? Those are difficult questions. I appreciate that the Minister may not wish to address them today. However, I give him notice that I shall want them addressed on another day.
My other claim for interest is that my old constituency is arguably the most heavily forested part of the United Kingdom, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and his friends, and the private sector. There were many forests, and access was important. However, in Scottish terms I cannot get too
254
worked up about access. If one went for long walks in the forestry woods, private or public, one did not meet many people. On the short, easy walks one met a few people. So the people who demand access do not want to walk but to cause trouble. There is plenty of access and there are plenty of roads in forests on which to walk.
Perhaps I may say a few words on an important aspect. I am surprised that no one mentioned it. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, came nearest to doing so. I refer to the ancient woodlands of Scotland and England—beechwoods in the south of England, oakwoods in Argyllshire and the Caledonian pine forest. Those are all important. The commission is doing good work in re-establishing the pine woods.
However, forestry is not about access. It is not about being a playground for people. Its primary objective is the production of wood. We need that wood, as we have heard. We import something like 90 per cent. of the forest products we use. We have a balance of payments deficit in forestry of £6 billion to £7 billion. Yet in this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, pointed out, we have good growing conditions. Trees in Britain take two-thirds of the time that the trees of many of our supplying countries take to grow to maturity. Indeed, there are many places in Scandinavia, which is heavily forested, where the trees take twice as long to grow. That gives them some advantages, but also some disadvantages, especially in pulping for example.
It is conifers which are in demand. It is conifers that people use. If we can substitute for some of the imports, we may well be helping to halt the felling in some parts of the world which environmentalists are so against. It is odd that many of the same environmentalists are against our planting any trees in this country. When we plant them, they are against us felling them 30 years later. I have listened to campaigns against planting, and a few years later the same people bob up campaigning against felling. It seems most odd.
However, the important emphasis is on employment in the countryside. I refer to Shotton and Irvine, Highland forest products outside Inverness, and caberboard. In today's Glasgow Herald there is a report of a £50 million chipboard mill at Auchinleck in Ayrshire. All those areas need employment. Auchinleck certainly needs it. Much good employment has been provided. I have sat round the ministerial table at the Scottish Office when we managed to achieve the new pulp mill at Irvine, and we were very pleased about that. But in the country areas also, the planting, tending, felling and transporting of trees creates a lot of employment. In many areas it creates more employment than sheep farming. One can see that in Argyll where much of the forest is now mature and is being felled—and again it is conifers.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough pointed out that there would be a doubling of production over the next few years. and that by 2022 it would peak. He asked: what will happen afterwards? I, too, pose that question. What will happen afterwards is a worry. The noble Lord the Minister gave the House some figures on 21st January about planting. They seemed encouraging.

255
But I suspect that the great bulk of them were replanting rather than new planting. Perhaps he will give us some details of that breakdown.
My noble friend Lord Nickson and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, pointed out that with changes in the CAP we should look at planting, as they say, further down the hill. There must be quite a few areas in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire—there certainly are in Lanarkshire and Ayrshire—where trees would do no harm, if I may so put it. In fact, at the risk of alienating people who come from those parts, I think they would enhance the landscape slightly. They would do a lot to improve those parts of the world.
Of course planting has to be better done. There was some bad planting in the past, when we had less knowledge than we have now. As my noble friend Lord Nickson pointed out, hardwoods could be used along watercourses, and to ease off the edges of trees. Those ideas are important. However, we should not become too obsessed about hardwoods. They do not provide the type of employment to which I refer, and we should not lose sight of the importance of such employment.
The previous government started the national forest in the Midlands, and that is important. Again, it illustrates the point: 60 per cent. deciduous; 40 per cent. softwoods. I am not sure that we shall keep Shotton going on that kind of ratio. My worry is that, if too much of the grant money goes into that sort of ratio, we are not going to see conifers being planted..
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, referred to rich people putting money into trees. I have no great objection to that. It will mean less asset-stripping, since the trees have to stay there. It is a lot better than putting their money into offshore trusts. The money is invested in Britain, and in jobs in Britain.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, reminded us about the flow country. Dare I say to the noble Baroness that the real folly of the flow country was that it is not in fact a good place to plant trees. The ground is too soft and they will find it hard to grow to maturity. With CAP reform, we need to look to trees being planted further down the hill, in places where we have not previously envisaged tree planting. It is important to keep in mind the economic importance of conifers. I hope that the Government will examine the targets again to see how they can be met.
It gives me no comfort to say that the government of which I was a Member failed miserably to meet the planting targets. I encourage this Government to look again at these issues to see whether they can produce planting targets, for both deciduous trees and conifers, which will not merely be met but will look to the employment potential way into the future and to the industries that we have set up to deal with conifers. The Minister will have my support in doing that.
4.52 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, perhaps I should begin not so much by declaring an interest but admitting to a lack of competence. The trees that
256
I planted several years ago are all deceased. So it is with no great sense of achievement that I address the House this afternoon.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for providing this opportunity to discuss forestry. The noble Lord has a distinguished history of involvement in forestry and the forestry industry and is a distinguished past chairman of the Forestry Commission, where he made a notable contribution.
The debate has been not merely interesting, but positive. Many noble Lords came up with imaginative suggestions as to the way forward for forestry in this country. I look forward to giving more thought to the many suggestions made.
I am also particularly heartened by the fact that, possibly with one exception, all noble Lords endorsed the work of the Forestry Commission. I wish to recognise the commission's considerable work and achievement over the years—not always in the easiest of circumstances.
There is one particularly important point that I wish to raise now so that it is not lost. Its importance relates to the whole business of inward investment and downstream development. During the course of the debate the point was made, initially by my noble friend Lord Taylor, that existing industries would not be sustained by the timber from existing forests. That is not correct; it is a mistaken view. Because of the rapidly rising graph in terms of timber harvesting over the next couple of decades, the timber produced from our forests will be more than sufficient to sustain our existing timber industries. In addition, we have the opportunity to plant and make sure that there is replacement for the time beyond that, when the graph begins its downturn. It is important to be clear about that. There is no problem in regard to security of supply for existing industries. That worry should be removed immediately.
Many speakers raised the issue of devolution. My noble friend Lord Taylor suggested that the devolution of forestry to Wales and Scotland, and, I may say, England, would not improve forestry management. I am not sure whether my noble friend is changing his position on that matter. I remember a question raised a few weeks ago when he urged me not to make a decision on a forestry matter until a Scottish parliament is able to make its position clear. I believe that forestry will benefit from being devolved. There will be the opportunity to make sure that forestry policy in the various parts of the United Kingdom—in Scotland, England and Wales—can respond more sensitively to policy priorities in the three countries in terms of rural development and general questions of rural land use.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, focused particularly on the grant systems. Because forestry is devolved, it would be perfectly possible for the grant system in Scotland to be different from that in Wales, and from that in England. Clearly, the grant systems exist to facilitate particular policies. If policy priorities are different, it is quite proper for the grant systems to be different as well. So, in the noble Lord's example, it would be possible in England to have a grant

257
system that encouraged softwoods and a system in Scotland that encouraged hardwoods, or vice versa. There is no difficulty in that regard.
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe emphasised his wish to see more forestry in Britain, and in particular to see more trees planted as a result of partnership between the public and private sectors. I concur with him and with other noble Lords that that is indeed the way forward. We certainly want to increase the area of woodland in Britain. As many noble Lords observed, our coverage in European terms is low. It runs at about 10 per cent. It is higher in Scotland—but then one would expect all good things to be more plentiful in Scotland. It is therefore one of the lowest percentages in the world.
We are increasing that percentage (and this is my brief, my Lords) at about 0.1 per cent. each year. So progress is being made—but at 0.1 per cent. a year I do not think it would convince even the Fabians in their belief in the inevitability of gradualness. The 10 per cent. figure compares with an average figure of 36 per cent. for the European Union. Indeed, only Ireland has a smaller percentage than Britain. Denmark and the Netherlands are roughly the same. So the opportunity for an increase in forestry planting and woodland cover is there. I do not think that we ought necessarily to follow the mercantilist fallacy, which may best be illustrated by the "pineapple problem"; namely, it would be possible for us to achieve self-sufficiency in pineapples but that would not be a good use of our resources. In forestry, that is not a particular danger. We can increase forestry cover without any maldistribution of resources.
We are determined to increase the area of woodland in Britain. It is one of the key aspects of our forestry policy. That is best summarised in the mission statement of the Forestry Commission:
"To protect and expand Britain's forests and woodlands and to increase their value to society and the environment".
Well-designed forests not only provide timber but also good wildlife habitats, as my noble friend Baroness Young of Old Scone observed, and excellent opportunities for recreation, whether with young ladies or not, while also enhancing the landscape.
How are we to increase forestry? As the noble Lords, Lord Nickson and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, indicated, a major consideration is CAP reform. Land is a finite resource; we cannot increase the amount. We can bring about changes in land use. A major factor affecting land use is the common agricultural policy. The inevitable consequence of an expansion of forestry cover would be a decrease in land used by agriculture. That is particularly the case as forestry and trees come down the hill. In some areas that message is not welcome. Frequent attempts are made to persuade me, as an agriculture Minister, that increased support for agriculture is necessary in order to maintain the present coverage of land for agricultural use.
The Government have made clear that we are working towards reform of the common agricultural policy, which we expect will eventually lead to a significant increase in forestry in Britain. Land has to be taken out
258
of agricultural production, and forestry is perhaps the most important and viable alternative use. But it will take time; it will not happen overnight.
In the meantime, we are offering generous grants and participating in a range of initiatives to encourage the creation of new woodlands. In total, 17,000 hectares of new woodland were created in Britain last year. Of that, nearly 5,000 hectares were new woods in England and nearly 12,000 hectares new woods in Scotland. Sadly, less than 500 hectares were planted in Wales, which is why we have launched a special challenge fund to encourage people in Wales to plant trees on land which is currently growing bracken. In response to a point made by my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath, I can say that we are also making a special effort to convert derelict land—for example, old mining areas—into new woods which will be an asset to the community instead of an eyesore. I very much take the point that forestry has a major part to play in the role of the regional development agencies.
As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said, the public sector has to work in partnership with the private sector to create new forests. There are many examples of such partnerships creating new woods throughout Britain. These range from the high profile initiatives of the National Forest in the East Midlands, the community forests throughout England and the Central Scotland Forest to much more local initiatives for individual woods, sometimes in commemoration of a particular individual. In every case, the public sector and the private sector are working together, providing not only funds for the new woods but also enthusiasm and expertise.
In response to my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside, perhaps I may say that the Forestry Commission works closely with the private sector to manage its whole estate as effectively as possible. For example, it is planning to use private sector expertise and finance to improve the management and standard of its forest cabins, bringing in private capital on a partnership basis. As another example, the commission is encouraging private industry to invest in new harvesting machinery by offering long-term harvesting contracts. I believe that that is a positive way forward, bringing the strengths of the public and private sectors together for a common benefit.
The National Lottery Millennium Fund is participating in other initiatives, notably the Millennium Forest for Scotland and the Woodland Trust's Woods on Your Doorstep scheme. Both of these involve public and private funds in addition to the funds from the lottery. There is thus a significant gearing of resource going into forestry, and that is to be welcomed.
In addition, the Forestry Commission, through Forest Enterprise, is buying and planting land, targeting its limited funds on those areas where it can make the greatest contribution, such as the National Forest. In many cases the Forestry Commission, by demonstrating what can be achieved, provides an example which encourages other bodies and individuals to create their own forests.

259
Several noble Lords asked about the sale of Forestry Commission land. We imposed a moratorium on the sale of forest land managed by the Forestry Commission in May last year. That moratorium is still in place. The only areas of forest land that the commission has sold since then were areas which it had agreed to sell before the general election. In some cases sales take time to finalise. Those have been the only sales that have taken place.
Nevertheless, as well as being able to buy land, the commission needs to be able to sell land if it is to manage its estate effectively and efficiently. Indeed, in some situations the commission could increase the value of its estate to the public by selling one area and buying another. That type of disposal and acquisition is in the long-term interests of both the public and the Forestry Commission.
When the commission sells land in future, for whatever reason, we shall ensure that public access is preserved wherever possible. I attach a high degree of priority to that. The Forestry Commission encourages quiet and peaceful recreation in all its forests, except where that is prevented by legal constraints or safety considerations. As was mentioned by noble Lords, about 50 million day visits are made to commission woods each year. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, might not meet them, but they are there somewhere. In addition, I know that many noble Lords take advantage of the commission's policy of opening its forests to walkers of all ages and abilities.
We wish to preserve these opportunities for informal recreation. If any such woods are sold in future, we shall therefore expect them to remain open to the public. The commission will normally enter into an access agreement with the local authority before the land is sold, thus preserving public access to these woods in perpetuity. Obviously there will be cases where that is not possible because of the nature of the legal basis upon which the Forestry Commission holds the land, but I very much hope that such cases will be the exception.
We have seen the Forestry Commission come through a difficult period. I see forestry as an increasingly important industry in the countryside and our rural areas, but not just in rural areas, as it contributes to downstream employment in our towns.
I realise that I have not been able to deal in detail with all the points that have been made, particularly with the detailed questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas. I assure the noble Lord that I shall write to him on those points. We have had a good debate. It was right and proper to highlight the contribution of forestry, not only to the economy of the countryside but also to that of the country.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he answer the question I asked about the split between new planting and replanting on the 30,000 hectares which he claimed were planted last year? Of those 30,000 hectares, what proportion was replanting of timber on areas that had
260
been felled and what proportion new planting? If he cannot answer me now, I should be happy for him to write to me.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am happy to write to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on that point. However, perhaps I can again assure the House that there is increasing recognition, particularly in the context of CAP reform, that forestry will play an increasing role in the rural economy. It must be developed in a way that is environmentally sensitive and takes our citizens with us.
I believe that in the past we have been a little insensitive in the way that forestry planting has taken place. I take the point about the need for softwood. But most people regard such planting as monocultural blots on the countryside which are neither aesthetically pleasing nor environmentally sensitive. We must get the balance right. A swing, at least, towards some hardwood planting is long overdue.
Discussion can take place where there are proper differences of view. But, on the central point of the increasing importance of forestry, I believe we are all agreed.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, first, I thank all those who participated in the debate. On a previous occasion when this subject was before us there were some 24 speakers, many of whom had come down from the Highlands to make their contribution. They were allocated four minutes each. As a result, I believe some of them decided that the journey was not worthwhile. Nevertheless, we have heard a number of interesting comments from people who know the subject. That was most encouraging.
I was interested particularly in the commitment of the Minister and the fact that he is in favour of the expansion of forestry. But I was somewhat surprised by his reference to selling off land. He said that if the Forestry Commission sells off land, it will have more money to buy land. That is not true. The money from the land it sells off goes to the Treasury and does not go back into forestry at all. The increased selling of land therefore diminishes forestry; it does not encourage forestry. I would regard it as a betrayal in Scotland if there was any departure from the moratorium of selling off Forestry Commission land.
The Minister made another interesting point. He said that there is no difficulty about continued security of supply to the pulp and paper industry. I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend on the Front Bench, but that is nonsense. The supply to those industries is maintained because planting took place 20 years ago. The sitka spruce are now being harvested. If the Forestry Commission planting programme was reduced 20 years ago from 20,000 hectares to 0.400 hectares this year, what will happen in 20 years' time? Where are the trees being planted now to maintain the security of supply which the Minister says is assured? It does not exist. Even the private sector planting dropped from 20,000 or 30,000 hectares in past years to 19,000 hectares total

261
forestry planting. If we reduce our planting programme to that extent, we cannot possibly give guarantees that there will be continuity of supply 20 years hence. The trees are not being planted now and the only way to secure continuity of supply in long-term contracts which will encourage those companies is to maintain a planting programme.
I am sure that we will return to the question of devolution when we debate the Scotland Bill. I do not believe that devolving forestry from central headquarters is worthwhile. When I was chairman of forestry my headquarters were at 25 Savile Row, W.I. I put it to my board that we should move nearer the trees. My board was divided into three Scotsmen, three Englishmen and one Welshman. I put it to the Welshman that we should get out of Mayfair and move nearer the woods. He said, "Yes, Cardiff is the place." I was able to say to him that if he proposed Cardiff and it failed, perhaps he would support Scotland. Of course, the Celtic alliance was established and the Forestry Commission headquarters for the United Kingdom are based in Edinburgh.
I do not believe that it will create another acre of trees to devolve the Forestry Commission to three or four separate commissions. It may increase the revenue of British Airways flying people here and there, but it will not increase forestry, which is our major concern. I hope we will return to that topic when we reach the Scottish debate.
Again. I thank the Minister for his commitment this afternoon. His statement that he is committed to the expansion of forestry is recorded in Hansard. I look forward to the fulfilment of that promise. It has been a good debate. Again, I thank the Minister and noble Lords who took part. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Nazi Victims: Restitution of Assets
5.16 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstonerose to call attention to the need for the restitution of assets to victims of Nazism in Britain and elsewhere; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for the chance to raise in this House the restitution of assets to victims of Nazism in Britain and elsewhere. At the start I thank those who have helped in what has certainly proved to be one of the most remarkable campaigns.
I thank Malcolm Rifkind, the then Foreign Secretary, for producing the first report on this issue. I thank him for agreeing to tie up—not to distribute—the residue of gold in the hands of the Tripartite Gold Commission. I thank Foreign Secretary Robin Cook for setting up the Nazi Asset Conference. He promised he would do it if Labour was elected and, as soon as it was elected, he carried out his promise. It was a remarkable gathering of 43 nations and authorities who were seeking to produce the truth and justice and some measure of restitution to victims of Nazism, even 50 years after the disaster had occurred.
262
I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, with whom I have fought side by side in this battle and who accompanied me to Switzerland and to the Vatican, and laboured so hard for the results we won. I pay my special tribute to Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat, to the American Congress and to the American people for their support in this matter, even though it has created difficulties for the United States as it is doing for us here in Britain.
Finally, our first targets were the Swiss Government and banks who at first behaved in a most disgraceful and dishonourable way. Over the course of a year they have changed. Under the leadership of their now President, Flavio Cotti, they have set up the Bergier Commission, the Volker Commission and the Humanitarian Fund. They have promised a Solidarity Foundation and have moved in a way that is honourable and worthy. I hope that they achieve results. I hope that our country will be prepared to do what they have undertaken; that is, to seek the truth, to do justice, and to make restitution.
Their work has been carried out largely under the leadership of the Holocaust Educational Trust, its director Janice Lopatkin, Stephen Ward, Dr. Danny Somerfield and their young and energetic team, with whom I am proud to work; and of historians and archivists from all over the world who have given us their time and effort in a cause which they regard as urgent and just.
The Motion refers to a need for the restitution of assets to victims in Britain and elsewhere and perhaps I may briefly refer to elsewhere before turning to Britain.
Other countries have moved in a way that a year ago no one would have believed possible. Countries have established commissions to ferret out how their nations profited from the assets of Nazi victims. That has happened not just in Switzerland and the USA but in Portugal, Spain, Argentina, France, Uruguay. Brazil, Sweden, Belgium, Croatia and the Czech Republic, and we are even starting to get some movement in the Vatican, following the visit paid by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, Sir Sigmund Sternberg, Janice Lopatkin and myself last weekend. Your Lordships will be pleased to know that senior Vatican officials told us that when we have researched the 12 volumes of documents produced some 30 years ago, we should come back to them with the questions which we need answering. That research has immediately begun. So in that centre of morality, we hope that light will shine soon through the curtains of darkness which have so far shrouded their archives.
What about here? In Britain, after the war, our economy was bankrupt and, not surprisingly, our then government were looking for assets. They appropriated bank accounts and valuables belonging to enemy aliens. The Custodian of Enemy Property worked under the then Board of Trade. He appropriated these enemy assets, properly in the case of Nazis and their supporters but totally improperly in the case of people who were victims of the Nazis. The three main safe havens from 1939 onwards and even during the war—were

263
Switzerland, the United States and the United Kingdom. The Custodian of Enemy Property took, among other assets, the savings, the property and the earnings of people who had been murdered by the Nazis, people who were the victims of the Nazis. Those assets were worth some £30 million in those days and would be worth far more today.
Britain, the United States and Switzerland, as the safe havens, have all to look to see what has been done and what could be done in order to provide restitution to these people. At first, no assets were returned to any of the victims. But, on Christmas Eve 1948, the then Government set up what they were pleased to call an ex gratia scheme for victims seeking the return of their money. As a lawyer, I have always regarded that use of the term ex gratia as disgraceful. Ex gratia means that you do it out of grace; you do it when you do not have to do it; you do it not because you must do it but because you wish to. There is nothing ex gratia in a payment which is a repayment to people of that which was theirs. It is the return, in this case, of stolen goods, of goods which did not belong to this nation but were the property of others. But at least the Government started the process.
Then these claimants had to prove what in most cases was the impossible. They had to show that they were "deprived of their liberty". It did not count as enough to have been incarcerated in a labour camp, to have been deported to a ghetto or to have fought in the woods with resistance movements. If a victim hid to avoid the Nazis, it was voluntary, and that did not count.
They had to have left their home countries. If they were trapped behind the Iron Curtain, they received nothing. Rightly, they must not have acted against the allies. Again rightly, they must not have enjoyed full rights of citizenship under the Nazis. But heirs could claim only if the victims had died during hostilities.
This deadline was later extended to 1947 but we know of people liberated by our army from Belsen who survived, who were ill and then, when they died, their heirs received nothing because the victims had survived for that time. Suicide as a result of Nazi behaviour was not enough. One victim committed suicide when the Gestapo knocked at her door to take her to a concentration camp. Believe it or not, her heirs did not qualify because she had not died in captivity.
The burden of proof was on the victims. Heirs had to show that there were witnesses to the death and they had to produce affidavits or death certificates, which was hardly possible when people had been murdered in Auschwitz or other death camps.
What then happened? The Board of Trade Solicitor said in October 1951:
"We are not bound either morally or legally to test the propriety of our interpretation of the policy … We decide whether certain property shall or shall not be released".
I reject that proposition totally. Anyone who wished to receive assets had to claim before 1956. After that date the money had been used by the British Government to compensate British companies or people who had lost assets in enemy countries as a result of the war.
264
I thank my noble friend Lord Haskel for his consideration in these matters. I know that he will help if he can. However, the problem is that when I last asked at Question Time what the Government were going to do, he said that none of this money was left. Of course there is no money. It has been given away. But it was not only the money of Nazis that was given to British companies or individuals; it was the money of people who had had their lives wrecked by the Nazis. That is why there is nothing in the kitty. It has been emptied for other purposes.
Thanks to the efforts of campaigners, including Sir John Foster, QC—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will refer to him—and my own father, some refusals were overturned. A £250,000 gesture was paid into a fund to help a small number of victims. Some payments were quietly made, even against the rules, through the 1960s. But many survivors and heirs of survivors—some within but most outside this country—received nothing. If no one in a family survived to make a claim, nothing was paid. Above all, some did not know how to claim, or that they could. When moneys were repaid, it was the same sum that was put in, without any interest, and the Government deducted a 2 per cent. handling charge.
Last year the Holocaust Educational Trust produced a document on ex-enemy Jews and the fate of assets in Britain of holocaust victims and survivors. Some of the survivors were Jewish, some were non-Jewish. but none of those who have sought their money since then—their assets, placed here for safekeeping—has succeeded. I pay tribute to the Government, who said immediately that they would investigate these allegations, and to the British Bankers Association, which swiftly responded with promises of their own investigations.
What has happened since? We were led to believe that the report of the Department of Trade and Industry would appear before the Nazi Asset Conference at the end of last year. It has not appeared. We thought it would appear at the beginning of this year. It has not appeared. We asked when the report would appear. We were told that the department does not know. Why not? Survivors will not survive forever. This is a matter of urgency.
On this matter I regret to say that the Government have not shown urgency. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was kind enough to provide me with a copy, in confidence, of the draft report. It is fair to say there is nothing in it—I am sure the Minister will not mind my saying this—nothing that contradicts anything that was in the report of the Holocaust Educational Trust. But that is as far as we have got. Now we want to know what will happen.
I wrote to my noble friend and received his reply. He said yes to the request that the Government should publish a list. I appreciate that very much. However, if they are to publish it, they must do so in a way that will let people know it is there. In his reply the Minister said that it will be on the internet. That is not enough. Too many people do not know how to consult the internet or where to look on the internet. At the very least we must do as a minimum what the Swiss have done, which is

265
either to publish the names in the newspapers or to let people know through appropriate newspapers that the names are available. If nothing is published in the newspapers, most people will not know where and how to look. I ask the Minister to look at that again.
What depressed me most was the very sad final paragraph of the noble Lord's letter in which he says,
"Finally, you raise the possibility of a mechanism to deal with claims. It is clear from history that successive British Governments have made great efforts over a number of years to respond appropriately and justly to the confiscation of assets as a result of trading with the enemy … "
I hope that I have said enough to show that that was not the case at all; that successive governments made efforts to return as little as possible to as few as possible. That is certainly not dealing "appropriately and justly". I am so sad that my noble friend has seen fit to reply in that way. I hope that he will modify that reply today. He goes on to say,
"In addition, over £2 million was paid to victims of Nazi persecution under the ex gratia scheme".
Some of them were repaid some of what had been taken from them. The noble Lord does not say that they will take action on behalf of the rest. Instead, he says,
"The Government is considering, in the light of the report, whether anything further should be done".
I beg the Minister at least to give the House the assurance that action will be taken and that we will not be shamed by taking even less action than the Swiss did. A survivor came to see me yesterday and said to me, "Look, it is a matter of morality. I do not need the money, but it is wrong that it is dealt with in this way". A woman telephoned from New York and said, "I do need the money. I am suffering and I am old and ill. I could lead a decent quality of life on the money. The money is mine. Why are you British keeping it from us?". I had no answer.
We cannot expect the Swiss, the Vatican and others to work towards justice if Britain, which at one time stood alone during the war for justice, morality and decency, refuses to take the action it should. We should agree now that there should be compensation. We should remember that in one of Winston Churchill's famous speeches during the war he said, "We are faithful servants of truth and justice". All that we seek is truth to know what happened. We seek justice in so far as it possible to achieve it now, which is not a great deal. There should be restitution, where possible, to our victims, which should not be "ex gratia", but because it is honourable and right that they get back what we took from them. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, my noble friend has done the House a commendable service both in calling for this debate and in setting out so clearly the facts and the shame. But this debate is not simply about what is to happen to certain sums of money. Sometimes factual, historical events take on a sacramental quality. They become symbolic of deeper and more universal truths. They enable us, by the way we construe them and react to them, to ritualise our understanding of good and evil.
266
Events in Germany between 1933 and 1945 had that quality. It was not just that evil people did evil things, it was that they took over an entire country. They organised the whole administration to administer evil. They organised the education system to teach evil. They extended their evil to every part of the world they could reach. What was evil became what was normal. It was as though hell itself had opened up and everything that was twisted and horrifying in humanity took over the minds of ordinary human beings, destroying everything in its path and ultimately destroying itself in the final Armageddon.
Different groups reacted in different ways, but few were left wholly untouched. The victims who survived—I have been privileged to talk to a large number of them over the years—and the families of those who perished did not just feel polluted, but humiliated and dehumanised. They were not just victims; they were symbols of something much deeper. Above all, they needed to be reassured that what they had undergone was not a judgment on them, that they had done nothing to cause it and that they had not deserved it. Many of them needed physical help, as my noble friend said. But more than that, they needed to know that the world cared about them. They needed recognition that they had suffered injustice because on that depended their self-esteem. In this materialistic generation, which judges everything by its market value, that could be done only by financial compensation or, more particularly, by financial restitution of what had been taken from them or from their families. As my noble friend said, the money was sometimes needed, but it was even more important as a symbol. The world failed them.
I understand that there have to be procedures. Perhaps there had to be procedures back in 1948 at the time of which my noble friend was speaking. The then government agreed that some of the assets confiscated in the United Kingdom from Germany and from German nationals should go to recompense the victims of persecution who could establish to bureaucratic standards that they were victims of persecution and that they had assets which had been seized. Hardly believable, as my noble friend pointed out, a 2 per cent. administrative charge was deducted for handling. I appreciate that despite the obstacles some people were compensated; but for too many the world failed them. That failure may be rectified soon, but for some it is too late and with every passing month the number for whom it is not too late is decreasing.
That is one aspect of what we are debating today, but it is not the whole. It was not only the victims who were marked by those events. What happened consisted of the actions of human beings; people like us growing up, marrying, working and shopping just as we did. They were a part of humanity just as we were. It was part of the history of the whole human race and those millions of nightmares were happening to individuals at the very time when we were getting on with ordinary, everyday life. We lived through that and yet life seemed pretty normal. The whole of humanity—at least in the West—had been polluted and humiliated.

267
I was just too young to take part in the war. Those who did—there are a number of noble Lords in the House today who did—were different. I hope that they will forgive me when I say that in some ways they had less difficulty than we had in coming to terms with what happened. They had done what they could to resist the evil and ultimately to overcome it. They suffered and that itself, if I may say so, helped them because they had shared in the suffering. My generation came to adulthood with the revelations of what had happened and perhaps with the guilt that while it was happening we had given it scarcely a thought. Those who were born later probably felt it less than we did, but the whole world continued to bear the scars. We want to pay the debt. We need to pay it, but those to whom it is chiefly owed are passing.
Our community, nationally and globally, is come to judgment. We need to settle the account and lay the ghosts to rest. I hope that my noble friend, who I know feels much sympathy with what some of us are trying to do, will take that message today to his colleagues in government and to their officials.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I beg the indulgence of the House for intervening in this debate. I promise to be brief. I rise to express support for the Jewish community, our brothers and sisters, in Britain and in other parts of the world in their quest for justice. The stealing of the assets from families during the period of the last war by the Nazis has an inexcusable and ugly history. It was evil. Certain banks and other institutions have been involved in an exercise of withholding information about those assets although knowing that there was a linkage with the Nazis. In the meantime, many account holders and their heirs have been treated very unsympathetically when submitting claims for a return of their rightful assets. I appeal to Her Majesty's Government to ensure that all account holders or their heirs receive the assets which are legitimately theirs from the banks with no further delay.
5.41 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I intervene in the gap with great diffidence, but I felt that I had to speak. The headmistress of my London secondary school, a very great woman, together with Eleanor Rathbone, a distinguished Somervillian who represented the universities in Parliament, went to Germany before the war and brought back several young German Jewish children of the first victims of Nazi oppression even before the war to live with her and to be educated in the school. In the years of the Spanish Civil War, she also brought back Basque children.
By 1937–38 I was already aware as a schoolgirl of what the Nazis were doing to Jews and to many other targets of their destructive and brutish hatred: academics, clerics, and principled men and women of every walk of life. In 1938, as a London schoolgirl, I stood in the crowd when Mr. Neville Chamberlain announced that he had brought back "Peace with Honour", and I wept with shame.
268
During the war I served with the Special Operations Executive and met and trained some agents, both men and women, who served in the Resistance and who escaped to England to be trained. Some were members of the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry (FANY), as I was. Some wore the uniform of the Women's Auxiliary Air Force (WAAF) when they were in England, but in France and elsewhere they operated as wireless operators, couriers and agents. Many of them died in such terrible camps as Mauthausen and Belsen. Odette Churchill, as she then was, also a FANY, was in one of those.
After the war, the few who survived were in a pitiful state—kept alive only by their own indomitable courage. I can remember visiting one young Frenchman, a brilliant athlete before the war, who was living in a tiny flat in the Invalides, as a grand mutilé, paralysed for life. He had lost his father and two brothers in the Resistance. He faced life with indomitable courage and humour and was preparing to be a lawyer.
I do not know how many of those had family assets which were sequestered, but I do know that we owe it to them and to all those other unnamed victims to do all that can be done to ensure that if assets belonging to them exist and can be identified, they or their heirs should have them. I do not believe that we have the right to do nothing because, "It is all so long ago". People like Primo Levi and the very young victims about whom Martin Gilbert has written, who came to England after the war and who had lost every single member of their family, may have the right to forgive, though they cannot forget. We must neither forgive nor forget. If anything further can be done to secure some justice for them, it should be done.
We must couple that with vigilance. There are ominous stirrings in the unreconstructed undergrowth in what used to be East Germany. Fortunately, Germany as a whole is committed to a liberal, decent way of life, but the economic climate is nearly as volatile as it was in the 1930s.
All those who died had a right to believe, if they had put their assets, as they thought, in a safe place with honourable men, that they had provided for their children and families. If we can ensure that, even so many grievous years later, some of the survivors receive what is their own, we shall have done no more than our duty.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I had not thought to speak in this debate because I am really very ignorant of the subject in the sense that I have never studied it in detail. However, speaking as someone who fought in the last war, I feel humiliated in a sense which I could not have believed possible until I heard the full tale which the noble Lord, Lord Janner of Braunstone, put before us.
How has this arisen? I do not want to speak of the moral case which has been so admirably expounded this afternoon. I want to examine what happened in the ministry. How do such things happen in ministries? They happen because of the Civil Service mentality. When faced with an awkward problem, in which money,

269
the Vote of the departments, is concerned, every sinew is brought into action to give a negative response. Time and again, the file comes up. Time and again, it is said, "Oh, no, here's that bloody old file again. What are we to do about it this time?". That is the spirit which so often defeats the best intentions of Ministers because when a department makes decisions on such matters right down at a low level—because, "We cannot possibly face the PUS with such a demand"—and when that spirit is rife in a department, the civil servants know that their Minister will naturally defend their actions as best he can. The loyalty of Ministers to their civil servants is a great tradition in this country, but, in many cases such as this, it is a disaster.
I beg the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, who is to reply, to understand that some of us here know how such things happen in departments. We are not asking for any member of the department to be castigated, but we are asking the noble Lord to put matters right.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Janner of Braunstone, deserves our gratitude for initiating this significant debate. He wears his father's mantle, campaigning long and hard for justice for the victims of Nazi persecution, and for their families. In what I say I can only supplement what the noble Lord has eloquently and powerfully explained already, giving a little more information about this stain on Britain's reputation for fair play. I cannot match the experience or testimony of noble Lords who have spoken, including that of the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. However, I shall try to answer to some extent the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, although I should not like it to be thought from what I have to say that Ministers of the time were not aware of what was happening because it is fairly clear from the official documents that they were.
Almost 50 years ago, Sir John Foster QC, Conservative MP for Northwich, former head of my Chambers and a great advocate for justice and human rights, tried repeatedly and without much success to persuade successive governments to be fair and generous in releasing property in the UK that had belonged to the victims of Nazism. After the war the Western Allied powers agreed to make ex gratia releases to victims of Nazi persecution subject to conditions. In the case of the UK, the British Government imposed unjust conditions that were unfairly construed and caused great injustice and real hardship. Elsewhere, notably in the United States and Denmark, the rules were fair and justly interpreted. The anomalies and hardships caused by British government policy reflected, as Sir John Foster observed, on this country's reputation for fairness.
Throughout the war the victims' property had been held, as the noble Lord, Lord Janner, explained, as enemy property at the Crown's disposal under the Trading with the Enemy Act 1939. With the signing of the peace treaties, the UK was given the right to seize property in the UK belonging to Italian, Romanian and Hungarian nationals as well as German nationals and to apply those assets to the partial satisfaction of reparation
270
or UK creditor claims. Under the post-war British legislation the victims' private property was therefore turned by Parliament into public property. The Government retained a discretionary power to make exemptions from confiscation and grant an ex gratia release of property to the former owners who had survived the Nazi terror. There was nothing in law to prevent the executive from taking a generous, fair and humane approach in relation to those victims who somehow had miraculously survived the Holocaust, but there was an inherent conflict of interest in the government's scheme. The more that was returned to the victims of Nazi persecution the less of the newly-acquired "public property" was available to the Treasury for reparations and to satisfy British creditors with foreign debts.
The international agreement approved by the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency in Paris in November 1947 had specifically provided that the property of enemy victims need not be taken by the state in the same way as that of ordinary enemy. Justice and humanity required this. Many enemy victims had no other means to support themselves and their families except the property that they had been able to salvage and keep in what they thought was a safe place in this country.
As the noble Lord, Lord Janner, pointed out, in early 1948 the UK Administration of Enemy Property Department within the Board of Trade announced that it would consider the ex gratia release of property in the UK of so-called "enemy" nationals who were the victims of racial or other discriminatory laws and of the UK estates of heirs of legatees of enemy nationals who had died as the direct result of such persecution. The Board of Trade imposed five extraordinary conditions. They have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and I need not repeat them. Sir John Foster, among others, drew repeated attention to the many respects in which the Board of Trade's rules and practices were unsatisfactory and harsh in their effects. For example, the civil servants regarded the five conditions as cumulative and would not grant a release of property unless all five conditions were met. This was in sharp contrast with the United States approach which required only that a claimant should have fulfilled one condition; namely, that as a consequence of any discriminatory law of the nation of which the claimant was then a citizen or subject he did not enjoy full rights of citizenship between 7th December 1941 and the abrogation of the law. A claimant in such a case was entitled as of right to a return of his property and, if the American Office of Alien Property refused an application, the claimant had a right of recourse to the courts. A simple single rule like the US rule would, as Foster commented, have prevented,
"almost all the absurd quibbles and technicalities which had arisen in applying the Board of Trade Rules".
Sir John Foster complained of the absurdly narrow way in which the department interpreted the first condition; namely, that the applicant had to show that he or she had been "deprived of liberty". One example concerned Mrs. K, a German woman of Jewish origin living in Berlin, who had been summoned in September 1939 to appear before the Gestapo. The department

271
refused a release of £300, the sole remains of Mrs. K's once large fortune, to her son on the ground that although she had killed herself in those circumstances she had not been deprived of her liberty.
Sir John Foster also cited cases where Hungarian and Romanian Jews had been forced to go into hiding for many months to escape persecution at the hands of the Nazis but had been refused release of their property on the ground that they had not been deprived of their liberty. Until pressed by Foster and others—also, I believe, by the noble Lord's father—the department even refused to recognise incarceration of Hungarian Jews under the Hungarian labour law as sufficient, since on its face the Hungarian law applied to all Hungarians without discrimination. That was the bizarre approach of the department, of which the noble Lord is now a Minister, even though this was one of the laws under which the vast majority of Hungarian Jews had been collected together for despatch to extermination camps and the gas chambers. Forced segregation into a ghetto, notably in Budapest, was another means employed by the Nazis for assembling Hungarian Jews for despatch to the gas chambers. The department continued to refuse to recognise confinement in a ghetto as a deprivation of liberty for the purpose of returning the property.
Sir John Foster drew attention to other examples of unfairness. One of the department's conditions insisted that the applicant had to leave the enemy country where he was resident, or intended to leave there, within a reasonable time and establish permanent residence outside enemy or ex-enemy territory. Mrs. D, a widow of 57 years of age, owned some jewellery in this country. She had to live underground in Berlin during the war hunted by the Gestapo. As a result of her hardships she fell ill and became paralysed. For over two and a half years after the liberation she was treated in hospital. In 1951 she was still suffering from diseases of the liver and heart. When she tried to sell her jewellery to obtain medical treatment in Switzerland the department rejected her claim because she was still resident, paralysed, in Berlin.
Another Board of Trade condition imposed on claims by the heirs of victims was that the death should have occurred before September 1947. This led to absurd results. Mrs. O, a Romanian Jew, had been incarcerated in various concentration camps. In April 1944 she escaped and returned to Bucharest. As a result of her sufferings she fell ill and eventually died in June 1949. A release to her heirs was refused on the ground that she had died after September 1947.
Sir John Foster gave other examples of manifest absurdity, harshness and unfairness in the treatment of these cases and made concrete proposals to ensure that no real injustice would occur in any particular case. His representations fell on deaf ears. The relevant civil servants circulated internal memoranda containing not a single word of sympathy for the claimants to whom they consistently referred as "victims". In their internal documents they accused Foster of pro-Jewish bias because during the passage of the 1949 Act he, (to quote from the records),
272
"with Messrs. Silverman and Janner, were the vocal opposition to certain parts of that Bill".
The civil servants relied upon the ex gratia nature of the scheme to disclaim any obligation to act consistently or in accordance with the legitimate expectations created by the scheme.
One of Sir John Foster's lifelong friends, Miriam Rothschild, the eminent scientist and writer—still happily alive and vigorous in her late eighties—also wrote to the government questioning this policy and asking for reconsideration of specific individual cases. The same civil servants who had brushed aside Foster's representations made it clear in their internal minutes that with Treasury support they regarded their priority as preferring the claims of UK creditors to the claims of foreigners. They rejected the claim of Mrs. K, described as "a Jew by race" because she had committed suicide on 18th September 1939 in fear of the consequences had she lived. She did not therefore satisfy the "deprivation of liberty" test.
In response to one of Sir John Foster's submissions, the civil servant with main responsibility during those bleak years, one Sir Henry Gregory, wrote, on 15th November 1949:
"The acceptance of the proposals implied in the criticisms would mean that we should probably have to release all money or property held by Jews … I understand … that the World Jewish Congress have asked the Treasury that this should be done and that the proceeds should be paid over to them on trust for Jewry … I am inclined to think that the claim is being made because of the economic position of Palestine … the Treasury is not impressed".
Fifty years ago, English judicial review had not been developed into a strong set of legal principles to ensure that public powers are exercised lawfully, rationally and fairly. The official documents reveal practices and procedures involving serious and continuing arbitrary abuses of the statutory and prerogative powers delegated by Parliament and the prerogative to the Board of Trade. Even now there could and should be effective redress for the remaining survivors and their families.
I hope that in his reply the Minister, for whom I feel some sympathy at the moment, will confirm the accuracy of what we have said in the debate. I gave him notice of what I would say, troubling him with the notes of my speech. The noble Lord is a member of a government who believe in freedom of information. I hope also that the Minister will be able to assure the House that his department's report on the subject will soon be published; that the report will deal fully and frankly with the relevant policies and practices; and that the report will contain practical proposals to enable the surviving victims of Nazi persecution and their families to be traced, and, at last, to be treated with common humanity and simple justice.
On 15th January 1998, in answer to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Janner, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel said:
"I am sure the right thing will he done in the end".—[Official Report, 15/1/98; col. 1135.]
I do hope so.
6.2 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, first, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Janner, for giving the House the opportunity to debate this important subject this afternoon. There must be no excuses in revisiting this subject time and time again. In fact, it is extremely important that people of my generation—I am probably the youngest Member in the House at the moment—and generations to follow, are made aware of the facts that have caused such a debate in your Lordships' House: 6 million murdered; 1.5 million children.
Those who suffered under Nazi Germany, and those whose countries were occupied during the last war, were the victims of one of the darkest—if not the darkest of all—periods in European history. The bestial crimes of the Nazis were matched by their greed, and cunning, in stealing the resources of their victims and salting them away in places which made it almost impossible in some cases for survivors, or their families, to recover.
One's heart goes out to those involved in the many stories that have been told in this House today and in other places. Many of them are people whose lives have been blighted by appalling experiences and who are now old. I believe we would all wish whatever uncertainties can be resolved to be cleared up as soon as possible.
As the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said, under the previous government, the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Rifkind, ordered a detailed inquiry into the historical facts behind the handling of Nazi gold. The findings were published in 1996 and 1997 in two important documents which I believe have been very helpful in establishing the truth behind the fate of this gold in the aftermath of the war.
As other noble Lords have said, restitution was part of the treaty at the end of the War. Germany paid DM 3 billion to the state of Israel and DM 450 billion to various Jewish organisations. Since then further payments have been made by Germany.
Under the 1946 agreement the western allies agreed that gold and other valuables should be allocated in two different ways—monetary gold from confiscated reserves should be returned to those formerly occupied countries through the Tripartite Gold Commission, and non-monetary gold should be used for the resettlement of displaced persons.
The facts surrounding those transactions were covered in depth in the researches commissioned by Mr. Rifkind. But there were, of course, problems both in the handling of funds by former communist countries in particular, while in a number of countries, as the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said, the burden of proof was laid heavily against victims and their families.
In the United Kingdom, under the present Government the Foreign Office followed up the publication of their research by convening an international conference on those matters in London last December. That was a most valuable initiative, and we on these Benches certainly welcome warmly Mr. Cook's action in carrying these investigations forward and seeking common international agreement on positive action for Holocaust victims.
274
We welcome the action taken in establishing a fund which will serve as a mechanism by which any country can offer money to help the victims of Nazism and their families. We hope that the details of how that fund will actually operate will be speedily agreed.
It is clear from the historical research that the authorities and the banks in this country and in others were not always as open and helpful as with hindsight it is clear they should have been in releasing the details of dormant accounts and in facilitating the efforts of survivors and their families to establish a claim to resources.
I know, as the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has told the House, that further inquiries have been continuing within the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope that the Minister who replies will he able to tell the House that the fullest possible information will be published on the accounts concerned and that all reasonable assistance will be offered to Holocaust victims
This is one of those issues on which I believe the whole House would be united, and we will support the Government in whatever further action they think appropriate to respond to the reasonable requests of victims and their families.
We look forward to hearing, as the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said, from the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, what steps the Government now intend to put in place for the mechanism for processing claims that was discussed at the London conference and elsewhere.
A great deal of attention has been given to the role of the authorities in Switzerland in this matter. I have no doubt that mistakes were made, and that there was excessive caution, as in many other countries. We ourselves are not beyond reproach. The complaints made by holocaust victims and their supporters have aroused real concern in Switzerland, where, in the past year, disbursements have been made from a special fund.
The noble Lord, Lord Janner, mentioned the Bergier Commission, an independent group of researchers; the Volcker Commission; and, of course, the Swiss Bankers' Association, which has published a list of unclaimed pre-1945 accounts. That is an example which it would be expedient for us in the UK to follow. I welcome the undertaking given in the House by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, to publish those accounts, and also those of accounts handed to East European countries. I hope that he will be in a position to tell us today that this will be done speedily.
Nothing ever can—or should—remove the stain of Nazi infamy from our memories. We all owe a special duty to the families of their victims. I welcome the action, however belated, now being taken in so many countries to assist the tracking down of confiscated resources.
It is right, as in this debate, that the stance of individual governments and financial institutions be challenged. Nothing can repair the damage done to those people who suffered in the Holocaust and their families. But, so long as we can be, and are, satisfied that

275
governments and banks today are sparing no efforts to assist them, then we should, I believe, be careful to avoid too much recrimination among nations today.
I that way we should be allowing the poison of Nazism to corrode and distort relations between states—a process which may actually hinder that untiring and unflagging search for restitution and justice that all of us would wish to see completed.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, this has been a passionate and emotional debate. It is a passionate and emotional matter. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and to thank him for raising it in the House today.
In explanation, but not in mitigation, in the years following the war it was difficult for governments and individuals to cope with the tragedy that had befallen Europe. The tragedy and horror of the events were so great that nations and individuals had great difficulty in facing up to the reality of what had happened. Therefore, at that time, the emphasis was on rebuilding devastated nations and devastated lives. I sympathise with the outrage of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, and other noble Lords. I came to Britain as a refugee and I experienced the situation at first hand. We who came to Britain were the only members of my family who survived.
Against that background, there were bound to be insensitivities. It is only fairly recently that time has enabled us to look back on those dreadful years with a deeper understanding. The Government are concerned, and they recently demonstrated their concern by hosting the Nazi Gold Conference in December, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Janner. I acknowledge my noble friend's important contribution and that of the Holocaust Educational Trust in helping the Government to recognise the importance of this issue.
Even after all these years, it is still a very emotional topic but it is important for us to look back at what was done in the intervening years, in particular at the impact on those who deposited their assets in the United Kingdom before the start of the Second World War. As we have already heard, these assets were dealt with under the trading with the enemy legislation. Perhaps I may crave your Lordships' indulgence and spend a few minutes outlining how the legislation operated, what were its consequences and how those were unravelled in the postwar years. It is only by examination of those details that noble Lords will understand the position of the present Government and what we are trying to do.
On 3rd September 1939 we were at war. We had to prevent the enemy from acquiring assets which could be used to fund or help their war effort. So the Trading with the Enemy Act became law. Companies and individuals were prevented from trading with the enemy and bank balances and other assets were blocked in order to prevent the enemy from drawing upon them. At first, it applied to countries which declared war on the
276
United Kingdom (the belligerent enemies) and then to other countries (the technical enemies) as they were occupied by the belligerent armies.
This was a serious step, but it was a serious situation. However, there was a due process of law. My noble friend Lord Janner was perhaps a little dramatic, but the legislation gave custodians appointed under the Act the power to seize assets from companies which were registered in enemy countries and individuals who were residents of enemy countries. Nationality and religion played no part in defining who was and who was not to be classed as an enemy. The assets seized included bank accounts, stocks and bonds, physical assets and trade debts. Records show that some 220,000 returns covering individuals and commercial organisations were made to the custodians. In all, some £360 million worth of assets were seized.
When the war in Europe came to an end on 8th May 1945, the powers of the custodians remained in force and work began on the process of unwinding the assets held by the custodians. By 1949, most of the technical enemies had concluded some form of bilateral payments agreement with the United Kingdom. The majority of technical enemy property in the form of bank balances and securities was released relatively quickly. By 1951, 90 per cent. of the assets of technical enemies held by the custodians had been released. It was many years before the final 10 per cent. of claims were settled.
Of course, it is possible that some bank balances which were unfrozen were not claimed and have been lying dormant in the banks for more than 50 years. This Government have been in contact with the main clearing banks and we know that they have been searching their records for any dormant accounts for the period in question. The banks have also been in contact with the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and the Holocaust Educational Trust about those dormant accounts. Indeed, they have supplied detailed responses to some of our questions and to those of the trust.
However, in the case of the belligerent enemies, with the exception of Germany, the Government negotiated peace treaties which set out the arrangements for handling the confiscated property. Again, there was a due process of law. Acts were introduced to implement the treaties; the Treaties of Peace (Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland) Act 1947 and the Japanese Treaty of Peace Act 1951. Those treaties, with the exception of those of Finland and Italy which so far as possible restored property to its original owners, provided for confiscated property to be disposed of by the Government to the extent necessary to offset its claims and the claims of its nationals in respect of property confiscated in the enemy country. The former enemy countries undertook to compensate their own nationals whose property had been seized by the custodians.
Arrangements for Germany necessarily differed, primarily because there was no single government representing the whole of German territory. But the Federal Republic of Germany undertook to compensate its nationals for the loss of seized assets under the terms of the Bonn Convention in 1952. An administrator was

277
appointed for each belligerent enemy state. While the duty of the custodians had been to preserve the property, that of the administrators was to liquidate and distribute the assets sold. Some £30 million was realised by the administrators, around 90 per cent. of which was trade debts or other commercial property. The sums raised were primarily used to settle claims from British companies and nationals who had lost assets in the enemy countries but were insufficient to meet their claims, and distributions were made. I have the details of the distributions which were made in the various countries.
However, some of the liquidated assets were diverted to other purposes. For example, £3 million of Japanese money was donated to benevolent organisations to help former Japanese prisoners of war. A further £2 million was paid as compensation to victims of Nazi persecution. I shall return to that matter later.
The winding-up process took many years. The confiscatory powers of the Government were terminated by a series of directives issued in the 1970s and the various administrator posts were wound up, with the exception of the administrator of German enemy property, which still remains in existence.
I turn to the question of compensation for victims of Nazi persecution. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for giving me notice of the points that he wished to raise. I shall respond to them in due course. As he told us, in 1947, in response to requests from Jewish organisations and individuals such as Sir John Foster, requests were made to release the assets of individuals who had been victims of Nazi persecution. The Government instituted a scheme whereby victims could make a claim for property which had been seized by the custodians. It is important to make the point that we are not talking about the deliberate seizure of property from a religious group, such as was carried out by the Nazis. Losses suffered in the United Kingdom were an unintended by-product of necessary action taken to prevent enemy countries from securing assets in this country for their war effort.
Yes, the Government adopted the criteria which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and my noble friend Lord Janner mentioned. But those criteria were agreed by the Inter Allied Reparations Agency concerning the release of property to a German victim of Nazi persecution. The five conditions were as noble Lords explained, and I shall not repeat them. However, I emphasise that those criteria were agreed internationally and were not, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, seemed to suggest, domestic criteria imposed by the Board of Trade.
The then government did, however, agree to extend the scheme to cover the victims of Nazi persecution in the satellite countries—Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania—and expand the criteria so that an heir of a victim could also apply for compensation.
Noble Lords are right: the first condition, the need to have been deprived of liberty, was the most contentious. But I say to my noble friend Lord Janner and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that after considerable discussion it was agreed—I agree not until 1951—that persons who had undergone forced labour service, whether civil or
278
military, or who had been held in custody for a short time but under the threat of death or who had been forced to live in a closed ghetto satisfied the qualifying conditions. In fairness, I must point out that all previous applications for compensation were re-examined in the light of those modified criteria without the need for applicants to reapply. Therefore, there was an attempt to be fair.
While it is true that the scheme continued to have its critics, it is true also that the government's modifications to the original criteria attracted support. For example, Mr. Sydney Silverman MP, who had supported representations from the World Jewish Congress, expressed gratitude to Mr. Arthur Bottomley, Secretary for Overseas Trade, on 5th May 1951 when he said that in his view,
"most of our points have been adequately met".
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, also drew attention to UK actions compared with those of other countries, and in particular he compared them with the United States' more liberal interpretation of the Inter Allied Reparations Agency conditions. At this distance in time it is difficult to draw firm conclusions. However, it is interesting to note that by 1953 the United States had returned only 15 per cent. of assets applied for whereas the United Kingdom had refused only 13 per cent. of applications for compensation. Therefore, other criteria are involved. There is evidence also that in practice the United Kingdom ignored some of the conditions when assessing claims.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, mentioned also specific unsuccessful claims for compensation. I understand that, in a memorandum in October 1951, Sir John Foster drew attention to the case of Mrs. D., a German widow who wished to sell jewellery held in this country to pay for medical treatment in Switzerland. We have done some work on that and, although we do not know whether Mrs. D. ever received payment, officials have found a record which shows that at the time Sir John raised the case the person who had brought the jewellery into the United Kingdom denied that it was Mrs. D's property. Therefore, there was a debate about proof of ownership.
I believe that that illustrates the difficulty, after so many years, of being absolutely clear about the complete story surrounding particular cases. That is why, in the forum of this debate, I shall not go into further details of individual cases.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that explanation. Looking back now, does he agree with me that the way in which those five conditions were interpreted by Board of Trade officials at the time seems like an arbitrary abuse of power? Does he agree that that is wholly out of line with the way in which, these days, claims would be dealt with? Does he agree also that the fact that the United States and Denmark had a different and more

279
liberal policy shows that there was nothing to prevent the British government from acting in a more generous and compassionate way than they did at the time?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord that the United States and Denmark had a more liberal policy. It depends how one defines liberality. As regards the five conditions, it is very difficult to judge by today's standards actions which were taken all those years ago. Values were different; different things were important; and there were different priorities.
As regards the assets that were seized, the original assets, which in some cases had been sold, were not simply released. Instead, as my noble friend Lord Janner told us, ex gratia compensation payments were made which were equivalent to the amount of money which had been seized by the custodian less a 2 per cent. administrative charge.
The words ex gratia in this case are used in a rather bureaucratic and legal way. It is not a term of condescension. It is used because some of the assets have been sold and so an ex gratia payment was made which was equivalent in cash to the value of the asset. That was the only way that those assets could be returned. Compensation was in fact paid to about 1,000 claimants with only some 16 per cent. of those who applied being refused payment.
In addition, in 1957 the Government decided to waive their legal rights to the sum of £250,000 from liquidated assets and donated it to the Nazi Victims Relief Trust to alleviate the poverty of and provide education for victims of Nazi persecution.
Last summer, my noble friend Lord Janner and others raised concerns about the application of the wartime trading with the enemy legislation, and the fact that it had resulted in assets in the United Kingdom of people who became victims of Nazi persecution being confiscated. In response, this Government agreed to set in train a research project in the Foreign Office and the DTI to examine the relevant papers held on the subject. The research, which was led by historians from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, revealed a difficult and complex subject which took time to get right. The research is now completed.
I can understand noble Lords' frustration at the delay in publishing the report. The Government share this frustration, as we believe the report will demonstrate that successive British governments have made great efforts over a number of years to respond appropriately to these issues. However, the report has taken longer to finalise than we had hoped. A great deal of work has gone into reconciling some of the details in the report. I regret that I cannot give a date for publication. However, I can assure noble Lords that the President of the Board of Trade is taking this subject very seriously and that the report will be published as soon as possible.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but can he give the House some indication as to what is the problem? If the historical
280
research has been completed and the draft report has been completed by officials, what on earth is the reason for any further delay in publication, given that this House has been pressing on various occasions for sight of the report? Why do we have to wait for more than another four weeks?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I understand that a draft of the report was given to the Holocaust Educational Trust and some questions were raised regarding some of the figures in the various annexes and those must be researched further.
The Government recognise that some of the information currently held at the Public Record Office will be of partciular interest to Holocaust survivors or their families who may wish to check their family histories. As I announced here on 15th January, we have therefore agreed to publish a list of names and other details of those who had their property seized. As there is no means of identifying which of the property seized by the custodians may have belonged to people who became victims of Nazi persecution, the Government have decided to publish a list of all the names that they can. The list will comprise the names and details of those from belligerent enemy countries whose property was seized, plus limited details of those in other countries, around 25,000 names in total. It is not possible to publish a full list of 220,000 names as the individual case files have not been preserved. Our intention is to publish the list on the Internet. Putting information on the Internet has the advantage of being more long-lasting than publication in the newspapers.
The noble Lord, Lord Janner, told us about the Nazi Gold Conference in December of last year. It was an historical fact-finding forum, not a decision taking one. It achieved its aim of helping to establish a sound body of historical fact relating to gold looted by the Nazis and what subsequently happened to it. I am grateful to the American Jewish Congress for its detailed account of the whole matter of the confiscated gold.
The United Kingdom's involvement in this question stems from our membership (with the United States and France) of the Tripartite Gold Commission. The commission was set up following the 1946 Paris Agreement on Reparations to distribute monetary gold recovered from Germany by the Allies to the former occupied countries whose gold reserves had been looted by the Nazis. Just under 2 per cent. of the pool, worth around £38 million, remains to be distributed to the claimant countries.
The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, asked about that fund. I can tell him that it will provide relief for needy victims of Nazi persecution who have so far received little or no compensation. Its aim is to try to avert the second tragedy of those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis having to live out their days in poverty. Payments will be made to non-governmental organisations involved in this type of work. The United Kingdom is giving £1 million to the fund, and contributions so far stand at around £23 million.
The question of compensation for, or the restitution of, Jewish property expropriated during or in the years immediately after the Second World War only achieved

281
international prominence following the collapse of Communism. The original attempts to pass laws in the post-Communist countries which would allow for the return of stolen Jewish communal property were closely followed by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research in London, which published a number of important papers drawing the attention of a wider public to those moves. Those reports have subsequently proved very useful for all those involved in dealing with these difficult issues. I am grateful to the institute for having undertaken that work.
In my capacity as Deputy Chairman of Jewish Policy Research, I attended a conference in Strasbourg in June last year, hosted by the Council of Europe, where this matter was discussed. It became clear that where funds had been available, as compensation for communal property, those funds were used to create communal centres which benefited the whole community, Jewish and non-Jewish, in which they were situated.
I have taken up too much of your Lordships' time—
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister sits down, I wonder whether he can answer the 64,000 dollar question; namely, when the report is published and when people respond to the list that he mentioned, how long can we expect it to be before claims are actually settled?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give my noble and learned friend a response. Obviously the list will be published when the Government are in a position to consider what needs to be done.
Today's debate has demonstrated the breadth and complexity of this sensitive subject. I hope that we have made progress in shedding some light on the key issues. I am sure that the publication shortly of the research into the history of enemy property and the list of names will also help to further understanding of this subject. I can tell noble Lords that further action is in hand. The Government have initiated inquiries to clarify to what extent the provisions of the post-war peace treaties were implemented by the foreign governments involved, and how those governments would respond to any new claims for compensation which might now be made under the terms of those treaties. That is one reason why I am in some difficulty in responding to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer.
However, there are some positive developments in that respect. For example, we have learnt that in Hungary, following a constitutional court decision in 1996, legislation is being drafted to implement Article 29 of the Treaty of Peace with Hungary, which concerns compensation for Hungarian nationals whose property was confiscated by the allies. Further, we have heard within the past week that the Romanian Government have approved a finance ministry memorandum on the need for legislation on this issue. The Ministry of Justice has the task of preparing a draft law.
I should tell noble Lords that the Government are sympathetic to the plight of victims of Nazi persecution and their families. Over a number of years, successive British Governments have tried to respond appropriately
282
to the losses suffered. Sometimes they succeeded, as evidenced by the £2 million which was paid in compensation to victims of persecution under the ex gratia scheme; but sometimes they did not, as the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and of other noble Lords, have shown.
In the light of the research that has been undertaken and the representations that have been made, including points raised by noble Lords today, the Government are considering whether anything further should now be done. This is an honourable and decent Government. This Government will act in a decent and honourable way.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, my noble friend's final words constitute the redeeming sentence in an otherwise, if I may say so with respect, deeply sad and disappointing speech. I have never understood why the Swiss Government until recently spent so much time trying to justify the intolerable behaviour of previous governments, 50 years ago. Similarly, I see no reason why this Government, who I support so fully and who I regard as being honourable and worthy, should seek to justify clearly insensitive and often wicked acts by a British government, 50 years ago.
The House is entitled to know what this honourable and worthy Government, which I am proud to support, are going to do now. We are told that the research has been completed and that is good news; but we have had no undertaking regarding when the report on such research will be published. I can assure my noble friend the Minister that none of us in this House who spoke today will let the weeks go by without reminding the Government that survivors will not survive indefinitely, and that those whom my noble friend referred to as having "devastated lives" need help now and not in two, three or four years' time; nor, indeed, when the Romanian Government may decide one day perhaps, having approved a memorandum, to make some restitution to some Romanian victims.
I was very deeply moved by many of the speeches that were made today. I have in mind especially the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. As a youngster, I was a war crimes investigator in Germany. I always hoped that there would be some way to try to do what my noble friend referred to as helping rebuild devastated lives.
I look back on our debate with appreciation, but I have grave reservations about my noble friend's speech. For example, he referred to distributions in various countries. Yes, indeed, distributions were made to Communist countries behind the Iron Curtain. What happened was they were allowed to set off moneys which were owed to people who were resident in their countries, including victims, against what those countries owed to British companies on the basis that they were going to repay individual victims in their countries. But everyone knew that those people would not get a penny and they never did. Our Government also should have known that such victims who were stupid and dire enough to claim the money would end

283
up in a communist concentration camp for their efforts. At that time there was no question of any of these victims getting anything back. It was an unworthy ruse by a government who sought to dispose of debts, albeit brought about by a war which we fought bravely.
I shall of course write to the noble Lord on matters which he has mentioned. I shall make one or two further points. The difficulties of making restitution provide no reason for doing nothing. We do not have much time. I would have expected the Government to say in this House, "This is what we are going to do. We have completed our research and we shall publish it within two to three weeks. We shall then announce to the House what steps we shall take".
I did not expect the Government to say to the House, "We shall consider whether or not we shall take action". That is no answer for this House in view of what the noble Lord himself has said of devastated lives, and what he called insensitivities and what I call gross, unconscionable injustices. We want to know what the Government will do and when. We shall not rest until we get a reply.
Once again, I thank all those noble Lords who have contributed to this important and moving debate. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Life Prisoners: Release Procedures
6.41 p.m.
The Earl of Longfordrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of recent comments by the Lord Chief Justice, they will consider applying the same procedure to the release of mandatory life prisoners as is applied to discretionary life prisoners.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I begin by welcoming the distinguished speakers who are to follow me in the debate. I am only sorry that each of them will have only nine minutes in which to speak. I am allowed 10 minutes but I shall not use those 10 minutes in order to leave a little margin for the other orators. I am particularly pleased that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn is honouring us by making his maiden speech tonight. I believe that he will bring us good news from the Synod. The Home Secretary is his "constituent" and therefore I think we can regard him as the Home Secretary's spiritual adviser, or even director. I hope that the Home Secretary will pay close attention, to say the least, to what his spiritual director says tonight.
I take my text from some recent remarks made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice at the end of an appeal case concerning Myra Hindley. I pass over his actual judgment and refer to his final comments. He said that he left the case with a certain uneasiness because he felt that the deepest issues underlying the situation had not been discussed and were not before the court. He was referring to the whole question of whether the Home Secretary should be allowed to make the final decision about the length of time that mandatory life prisoners spend in prison. He hinted that that ought to
284
be debated. He appeared to desire an urgent debate on the issue of whether mandatory life prisoners should still be left to the mercy of the Home Secretary, or whether they should be placed on the same footing as discretionary life prisoners where the final decision rests with the judiciary. That is the issue I raise tonight. I realise from the quality of the speakers that it is one which interests many of your Lordships.
The real arguments against leaving such matters to the decision of the Home Secretary are two. The first is one of principle and the other is one of practice. The matter of principle concerns whether any Home Secretary, however enlightened—we know that the present Home Secretary is a good Christian socialist—should be placed in the position where he may have to choose between what is right and what appeals to the multitude. That is the present situation. If I draw on the case of Myra Hindley it is not because she is the only person convicted of murder I have ever met; I have met many. Off and on I visit half a dozen "lifers" at the moment. However, I take that one case out of the 3,000 mandatory "lifers". I believe that there are 400 or 500 discretionary "lifers". I return again to the remarks made by the noble and leaned Lord the Lord Chief Justice as regards Myra Hindley. He pointed out that her counsel had argued that she would never receive a fair trial because of the emotion that had been stirred up against her by the tabloid press and others. Was that an unreasonable contention in that case, and would it be unreasonable in other cases? What would be the situation of the Home Secretary if he had to consider what kind of woman she is?
The other day a taxi driver drove me home after I had visited a prison. He did not know that I knew Myra Hindley and he confided in me that he had four children and if "that woman", as he called her, came out of prison he would fear for his children. He showed that amount of hysteria about a middle-aged lady who has been in prison for 31 years. Where does that hysteria come from? To some extent it comes from politicians in the background, but primarily it stems from the tabloid press. The Sun newspaper has played a leading and discreditable part in generating that hysteria. Not long ago the Sun had a headline which ran, "Myra Hindley, the most evil woman who ever lived". We in the House of Lords may say that no one takes the Sun newspaper seriously. I read it every day but I think I am the only person here who does. Noble Lords may brush it aside and decide they need not bother with it. However, when I asked the taxi driver where he got his information from he told me it was from the Sun newspaper. As a result he told me that he feared for the life of his children if Myra Hindley were to leave prison. That is what we have to cope with and that is what the Home Secretary has to cope with.
If the Home Secretary were to tell his Cabinet colleagues that he was thinking of giving Myra Hindley a chance, they may reply, "That might suit your conscience, but what about our careers and our party. Would it suit the party?" It would be difficult for a Home Secretary to act in that way. It is frequently said that no Home Secretary would ever dare to let her out. I hope that is not true but it is frequently said. The Home

285
Secretary can ignore the good opinion of her held by old-fashioned "do gooders" like me. However, even if he ignores me and people like me, a succession of priests have known her well. Perhaps people may wonder whether she is ministered to by Catholic priests. She is a Catholic. However, there is also the opinion of the Reverend Peter Timms who is a former governor of Maidstone Prison and is now a Methodist minister. I must refer to one recent opinion of a Catholic priest who ministered to Myra Hindley for four years in Cookham Wood. He said that he found her to be sensitive, caring, intelligent and polite. There is that opinion on the one hand, but on the other hand there is the opinion of the Sun newspaper.
That is the situation today and that is what the Home Secretary is faced with. People may ask whether the Home Secretary would want to give up this responsibility we are discussing. I should have thought that he might be quite pleased to be rid of it. However, that is neither here nor there. Therefore there is the argument that we should take such a decision away from someone who, to some extent, is bound to be at the mercy of popular emotion.
The other argument concerns practice and how one arranges matters. At the present time a discretionary life prisoner can make an application to the Parole Board and can be represented before it and can, of course, appear in person. The decision of the Parole Board, with a judge presiding, is final. If the Parole Board decides that a prisoner should be released, that prisoner is released. That is the existing machinery. That is much fairer than the present arrangements for Myra Hindley. She or her lawyers have to make representations in writing to the Home Office and a reply is given without providing any real reasons, unless you call some reference to deterrence and retribution a reason. That is the difference between the machinery in the two cases. I do not say that the present arrangements for discretionary life prisoners are perfect. I regularly visit two discretionary life prisoners who find the arrangements unsatisfactory. If one seeks to apply the arrangements to 3,000 prisoners instead of 400 or 500, they need modification. I only say that in principle it is correct that the decision should be removed from someone who is at the mercy of popular emotion. Arrangements should be made to give the prisoner proper representation before a tribunal whose decision would be binding.
I hope that other speakers will bring their own expert knowledge to bear in different ways. Although I cannot expect a positive answer today, I hope that we shall at least hear from the Government that they are giving the matter careful attention.
6.50 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I speak for the first time in your Lordships' House in this debate on a sensitive matter which provokes strong responses in people of opposing views. I do so not because I am told that the diocese of Blackburn contains more prisons than any other in the northern province, nor—despite the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Longford—because the Home Secretary is
286
the much respected Member for Blackburn in another place. My concern goes back over 30 years to the time when I was curate of the parish of St. Anne in Wandsworth. Three weeks before my ordination, the parish had no accommodation for its new curate. Parishes behaved like that in those days. So I ended up with a room in the gatehouse of Wandsworth prison. Every day as I sat at my desk I looked out on prisoners exercising in the yard below. Later, as a relief chaplain in that prison, I got to know some of them including a number serving life sentences. That experience has never left me.
Mandatory life prisoners and their release was the subject of a debate in the General Synod of the Church of England in July 1995. It was on the motion from the Diocese of Sheffield,
'That this Synod recognises that the system of mandatory life sentence gives rise to many injustices and therefore recommends that the penalty for murder should be a maximum of imprisonment for life".
The motion was carried by a massive 317 votes for to only one vote cast against. The debate, as I remember it, was both sombre and serious. Members of the Prison Service, the Probation Service and the judiciary all took part. There was a widespread recognition of the pressures facing the Home Secretary in relation to the sentence for murder. Synod members felt that the present system of mandatory life sentence for murder led to injustice because it was not possible for the sentence to be fitted in individual cases to the particular crime. Nor was the Synod happy with a situation in which the length of the custodial sentence is determined by the exercise of the Home Secretary's discretion rather than by a judicial decision in open court.
In the light of that debate, and in response to it, in 1995 the then Home Secretary said that retribution, deterrence and public safety would all be factors to he taken into consideration, but so too would public opinion. The real concern that that raises is that in principle, even if not in practice. it could lead, as we have heard from the noble Earl, to individual cases becoming vulnerable to the political influence of the day and could be altered with a change of Home Secretary.
The mandatory life sentence for murder is based on the assumption that murder is a crime of such unique gravity that the offender should forfeit his right to freedom for the rest of his life. I believe respectfully that such an assumption is perhaps a fallacy. It arises from divisions between the legal definition of murder and that which lay people believe to be murder. The common law definition of murder embraces a wide range of offences, as I understand it, some of which are truly very grave indeed. But logically, constitutionally, and in jurisprudence, surely the decision on punishment should be made in open court. The judge after trial should be able to pass such sentence as is merited by the facts of the case which have been laid before the court.
The Christian Church has always believed in the importance of human life and its dignity under God who created life in his own image. In that context we look to the prison system not only for deterrence and punishment but also for the rehabilitation of offenders so that they may know the gravity of their offences.

287
Sadly, at present, prison does not always help the rehabilitation process and does not allow individual decisions to be considered for individual people. Christ always treated individuals as unique in their own right. As I think back to those men in the prison yard at Wandsworth all those years ago, I am very conscious that the present system of sentencing for murder may be denying to some individuals the proper particular attention that the facts of the case demand.
These are very grave and sensitive matters. But I believe truly that if judges were allowed to have specific powers in the case of murder our judicial system would be the better served for the future.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, it is my pleasure on behalf of the whole House to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn on his maiden speech. We have waited for this speech since 1995 when he first entered your Lordships' House. It has been well worth waiting for.
The right reverend Prelate is a Countryside Commissioner as well as a bishop and is keen on the right to roam, although not a member of the Ramblers themselves. He has spoken robustly on the subject, stating about the idiom that an Englishman's home is his castle that, "It is not their castles, brother, that we're talking about. It is their open spaces".
He has also spoken on the subject of my right honourable friend William Hague spending his time in his diocese in a double-bedded room with his then fiancée who is now his wife. He disapproved of that. But he has given his blessing for ITV's new religious series, "Heaven knows", described as the ultimate quiz.
He is a man of many thoughts. In fact he might have been a journalist. But he also possesses a deep religious fervour, and now that he has broken the ice here in your Lordships' House, I trust that we shall hear from him on many more occasions.
I must also thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for introducing this most interesting debate. Discretionary life sentences are set by the judiciary, and mandatory life sentences by the Executive. But that has come about only as a result of the abolition of the death penalty. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that it must be right that judges, the judiciary, should decide on the length of a prison sentence. They are on the spot, so to speak.
But it is also important that the judge is given parameters from the Executive within which to work, otherwise sentencing depends on the judge's own moral code. Several judges seem to have had very different views upon the subject of rape—first, second, or even third-time rapes—and on murders. That cannot be right. We must have a better system.
I believe that the whole system is the wrong way round. Judges set the term, and prisoners have time off for good behaviour. Why on earth do we do it that way round? Surely the judge should set the term and then there should be "add-ons" for bad behaviour. A prisoner's behaviour should always be good. That is the purpose of the custodial sentence. The whole idea of
288
putting someone into prison is to make them better and to enable them to see the error of their ways and the unacceptability of their behaviour towards the community. So if a judge passes a sentence of 15 years, the public think, "Well, he might be there for 10 years, or it might be seven years". But they do not really know how long it will be.
The transition period would be difficult. But the general public would be happier knowing that if someone receives a sentence of 15 years, that is what they are getting.
As for Myra Hindley, as the Lord Chief Justice said, in a recent extract from his judgment to the Secretary of State:
"The applicant clearly feels that she is held hostage to public opinion, condemned to pass the rest of her life in prison, although no longer judged a danger to anyone, because of her notoriety and the public obloquy which would fall on any Home Secretary who ordered her release".
I feel sure that when the noble Earl, Lord Longford, says that she is a reformed character, he sincerely believes that; and I honestly believe that an awful lot of other people sincerely believe that. But I also believe that the general public would not let her survive for five minutes outside gaol. She is the most reviled woman in Britain, and she will never be forgotten or forgiven—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. Is the noble Lord seriously saying that respectable members of the public would murder her? Surely he cannot be making that allegation against the British public.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I am indeed saying just that. I am positive that someone would carry out the murder of Myra Hindley were she to be outside gaol. Her crimes towards those children whom she helped murder all those years ago will never be forgotten, whatever the rights and wrongs of her present situation.
Before anybody says that I am bigoted, I employ criminals in my own life. Just yesterday I was at a meeting in the other place with Apex Scotland. That organisation provides criminals with work, and has done a very good job too. So I am not bigoted. But it is my view that if Myra Hindley wishes to see the rest of her life, the best place she can be is inside gaol, and I mean that most sincerely.
So the answer to the interesting question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is: yes, we should now harmonise the procedures between mandatory and discretionary life sentences, as there is no chance of this country returning the death penalty to the statute book. But we should do so only when a life sentence really means life and not anything less; when 25 years means 25 years, and the punishment fits the crime.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I respect enormously the views, work and courage of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, displayed over so many years. I speak in his support. In doing so I should make it clear that I do not wish to express any personal view of the Hindley case. I have not studied it in great detail. I did read the recent

289
judgment of the Lord Chief Justice, and I have no idea what decision I myself would take if I had the responsibility to take it—which, thankfully, I do not. I wish to examine the treatment of mandatory life prisoners in principle.
Before doing so, I should like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn on a powerful and persuasive maiden speech. During my short time in this House I have become aware of how much this House values the contributions from the Bishops' Bench. I hope that we shall hear many more such contributions from the right reverend Prelate.
I have in a sense to declare an interest. For many years I have been a member of the council of the human rights organisation, Justice. I was for six years chairman of its executive committee. I wish not merely to declare that interest but to emphasise it because Justice published in 1996 a powerful report under the title, Sentenced for Life, which explains the history of the release process and proposes reforms.
The first question that might be asked is: how did the Home Secretary become concerned at all with the release of life prisoners? Historically, the release of life prisoners, like the commutation of the death sentence or the grant of a royal pardon was a matter of the royal prerogative and was exercised in the normal constitutional way through the Home Secretary. The power of release was put on a statutory basis by the Criminal Justice Act 1948, which provided for release on licence by the Home Secretary. Under the Criminal Justice Act 1967 the Parole Board was created. It was provided that no life sentence prisoner could be released unless the Parole Board recommended release to the Home Secretary.
It was later established by two important cases in the European Court of Human Rights that in relation to discretionary lifers that procedure was in breach of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There was the Weeks case, decided in 1987, and the case of Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell, decided in 1990. It was held that the procedure for the release of discretionary lifers had to be a judicial procedure involving a judicial decision.
In response, the Criminal Justice Act 1991 produced a revised procedure for the release of discretionary lifers. That procedure is capable of some improvement, but is broadly speaking open and fair. Once the tariff for retribution and deterrence set by the judge at the trial has been satisfied, the prisoner has a right to apply to the Parole Board. The Parole Board considers his application. That is a judicial process in which the prisoner can make representations. He is entitled to see most of the material placed before the panel; to an oral hearing before the panel; to representation by a lawyer; and to legal aid. The board is required to give full reasons, and of particular importance is the fact that the Home Secretary is required to accept the recommendations of the board.
The procedure for mandatory lifers is much less favourable. If there is a reference, the prisoner may submit written representations but is not entitled to an oral hearing and has no right to legal aid. The
290
recommendations of the Parole Board are advisory only. and the final decision as to whether or not the prisoner is released is taken by the Home Secretary, who is entitled—or claims to be entitled—to take into account the public acceptability of early release.
One might ask: what justification is there for the difference in the treatment of those two types of life prisoner? In my view the answer is that there is no such justification. The seriousness of the offence cannot justify the distinction because, in fact, the discretionary lifer procedure applies to those who receive mandatory life sentences under Section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997; that is, those who commit second, violent offences. So the discretionary lifer procedure under that Act may apply to a violent rapist. On the other hand, the mandatory lifer procedure applies to a wife who kills a violent or alcoholic husband in circumstances which fall just short of provocation, which would reduce the crime to manslaughter.
It is true that the European Court of Human Rights has so far held that judicial procedure is not required for the review of the detention of adult mandatory lifers. But it is coming steadily closer to changing that view. It said in 1996, in the Hussain case, that judicial procedure was required for the consideration of the release of persons who were under the age of 18 when they committed murder. That was duly enacted into British law in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. I understand that a case is on its way—though its admissibility has not been finally determined—to the European Court that raises the same question in relation to the sentencing of 18 to 21 year-olds.
But even if the European Court does not change its position it seems a matter of plain common sense that the release of all life prisoners should be subject to judicial and not to executive decision. We have already moved quite a long way in that direction. I must say, if I were Home Secretary, I should be more than pleased to get rid of the remainder of that burden. We should bring the mandatory lifer procedure into line with the discretionary lifer procedure, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has asked. The simplest way of doing that would be to get rid of mandatory life sentences. In 1991 this House passed an amendment to abolish mandatory life sentences and to make life sentences for murder discretionary, with a maximum of life. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, played a large part in achieving that amendment. It was, regrettably, removed from the Bill in the other place. That, however, is another debate for another time. On this occasion I simply say that, as long as mandatory sentences are retained, we should bring the mandatory-lifer procedure for release into line with the much more preferable procedure for discretionary lifers.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, once in a while—very infrequently—I have the illusion that my limited powers of advocacy, now virtually extinct, have made a convert. I greatly treasure those rare occasions, one of which occurred on 20th February last year. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the very distinguished Home Office Minister in the previous Government,

291
conceded (Hansard, col. 824) that not all murders were uniquely heinous. It was not a very great concession; it was just novel to hear it. It was not a very great concession because, not long before she made it, Trooper Clegg, who had murdered a passenger in a car by shooting at her, intending to kill, had been released after two and a half years in prison.
I am confident that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will share the view that murder is not a uniquely heinous crime. Why then are the release mechanisms when a person is sentenced to life imprisonment for murder different from those when a person is sentenced to life imprisonment in other cases, the judge using his discretion?
The differences are not supported by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, either when he was in opposition or since this Government have come to power. In the debate on 6th November 1989 on the recommendations of the Select Committee on life imprisonment, on which I had the privilege to be a member, he said:
"The point is that the duration of imprisonment should be decided by judges in an open process and not by the Executive behind closed doors, without even the authority of Parliament".—[Official Report, 6/11/89; col. 522.]
I brought him up to date during a Starred Question on 24th June last year (Hansard, col. 1463) when, having in advance of the question drawn his attention to the quotation I have just made, I asked him in terms whether he still agreed with the proposition that the decision as to how long a person should spend in prison was a judicial decision to be made by a judge in open court after hearing argument, subject to a right of appeal, and should not be made by a politician in secret without any right of appeal. To that the noble and learned Lord said:
"The only difference between my position as expressed then and now is that today I have a keener awareness of the arguments on the other side …".—[Official Report, 24/6/97; col. 1463.]
The present Leader of the House, when in Opposition, was of like view to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. In the debate on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, in 1991, to which reference has been made, which achieved the proposition that the automatic life sentence should go, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said:
"We may he told that the public require that Ministers and not judges should make those decisions. In my view there is absolutely no evidence to justify that belief, which I am sure is sincerely held. No evidence has ever been put forward to justify it. In fact, I believe that precisely the reverse is true. To be blunt, I believe that the public have an infinitely greater confidence in judges than in Ministers—of any government—to make decisions on the length of sentences".—[Official Report, 18/4/91; col. 1570.]
The matter came before the Home Affairs Committee in 1995, when it considered both the question of the mandatory life sentence and the position of the Home Secretary. The committee reached a preliminary conclusion on that occasion, in paragraph 103:
"the responsibility for setting the tariff and for taking decisions on release should be removed from the Home Secretary. The basis for this view is that it is wrong in principle for the executive (i.e. a politician) to have a role in decisions which effectively determine how long a person subject to a mandatory life sentence spends in prison, a role it does not have in discretionary life sentences".
292
The matter came before the committee again the following year, when it considered further evidence. The committee reached the same conclusion and confirmed that that was its view.
In paragraph 10 of Appendix 8, Justice made these observations:
"The present Home Secretary has told Parliament that he has a function additional to the assessment of risk: gauging the public acceptability of release. We agree with the Committee that this seems to be in response to a few notorious cases. It is trite to state that hard cases make bad law. The fact that there are some difficult decisions in the offing does not justify the assertion of a new power, and a new power created not by legislation but by Parliamentary statement. Further, we consider that 'public acceptability' is an inappropriate criterion for such individual sentencing decisions: it is both too loose and too susceptible to ill-informed public pressure…
"It is in our view unsustainable in a modern democracy to seek to retain such an excessive power over the freedom of a citizen, however grave his offence, in private, extra-judicial proceedings. This power is all the more anomalous…"
Justice then goes on to deal with the statutory power to recall from prison.
This matter was considered by an extremely expert committee, an independent inquiry into the mandatory life sentence for murder, commissioned by the Prison Reform Trust and presided over by the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane. He specifically referred to the so-called additional power, "the third phase" as he referred to it, "acceptable to the public". The Committee said:
"The introduction of a third phase after punishment is complete, and dangerousness is no longer an issue, bids fair to alter the whole framework of the system…
"Experience teaches that when politicians resort to 'public opinion' as a basis for a change of policy or a fresh course of action, it is advisable to scrutinise the proposals with particular care.
"This proposed alteration of the rules seems to us to demonstrate, as clearly as anything could, the case for taking such decisions on the liberty of the subject out of the hands of politicians and putting them under the control of a body independent of both politicians and the Executive".
I submit that it is deeply depressing that, a government with the power that this Government have at the moment, should suffer from such a pathological fear of "going soft on crime", that the recommendations from the sources I mentioned should go unlistened to.
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I listened with great interest and admiration, and with some awe, to what noble Lords said on this subject. They demonstrated more knowledge, wisdom and skilful argument than I could ever hope to illustrate. I also add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech. I made mine what seems like only five minutes ago, and he made an excellent fist of it.
I am not a lawyer and have no legal training. My experience has been confined to working with people who cope with the practical outcomes of our system of justice and those who have to see through the realisation of the decisions that are made in court. I was originally a social worker in East London and helped to set up the first visitors' centre for prisoners' families at Pentonville. I was the co-founder, 12 years' ago, of the

293
Butler Trust, of which I am still a trustee. We give awards to people working within the prison services of the United Kingdom who have done outstanding work in some way or other and essentially concern ourselves with the standards of best practice in prisons today.
My interest is in what legal decisions mean, when translated into reality, for large numbers of people in our society. They directly affect all those involved in the prison services as well as the community-based services which work with offenders and the penal system. There are two issues. The first is public confidence concerning sentencing and release decisions for both mandatory and discretionary lifers; the second is the enormous impact on our prison and community services—both human and financial.
Now, like never before, justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done. Where mandatory sentences are concerned, it is not seen to be done because they are made by the Home Secretary on expert advice, including the Lord Chief Justice, but in private without the benefit of hearing all the evidence of the court and against which there can be no appeal. When the executive and not the judiciary take such momentous decisions, how can political considerations play no part?
Furthermore, when it comes to decisions about release for mandatory lifers, they are not only determined by judgments on retribution, deterrence and future risk as with discretionary lifers, but in addition by the Home Secretary's own assessment of public confidence. How, I wonder, is that assessment arrived at? Is it being "tough on crime"? He also has the power to revise upwards the tariff or minimum sentence period. That includes the option of "whole life tariffs" when prisoners end their days in prison.
By contrast, the discretionary life sentence prisoner, whose tariff has been set by a judge and whose sentence and tariff are subject to appeal, will have his release on licence decided by the Parole Board following an open judicial procedure for release and recall. We have already heard mentioned one or two of the committees which looked into this matter. I noted no less than seven parliamentary or independent committees which have looked at the issue since 1975 and their findings were unanimous; that is, that the systems governing the tariff and release of mandatory life prisoners must be brought into line with those of discretionary lifers. The professionals of the penal world, therefore, are in agreement; it is the politicians who are maintaining and driving the current state of affairs and the punitive aspect of our system.
The realities are these. We have more than 3,500 lifers in our system at the moment out of a total prison population of over 64,000 in England and Wales. Thirty of those are destined to die inside. The rest will eventually pay their debt to society and come out of prison. They represent more than the entire lifer population of Europe put together. What does that tell us about our sentencing policies? Can we really accept that the population of Britain is so very much more criminal than anywhere else in Europe? I doubt it. The average length of time a lifer stays inside has been creeping up and is now around 15 years, costing an
294
average of £25,000 a year. It usually starts at around £40,000 and comes down to around £20,000 at the end of the sentence.
Those people become the responsibility of our prison services. When a prisoner goes inside to serve a long sentence, it often feels like the end of a story to the public at large. In fact, it is the beginning of another very long story for all those involved in the custody, containment and care of that person. We never hear about that; nor do we want to unless something goes wrong, like an escape or a riot. Prisoners are likely to become increasingly institutionalised and it is left to the prison services to do what they can to address their offending behaviour and all the range of problems that such dysfunctional and often inadequate people bring with them.
For example, one of the most difficult situations of all to work with constructively in prison, for both staff and inmates alike, is uncertainty, which is a key feature of life sentences. It does not take much imagination to realise the difficulties of sentence planning at the beginning or setting up pre-release schemes at the end under those circumstances. There tend to be management problems, particularly with young men serving long sentences when 15, 20 and 25 years are meaningless periods of time. They must then be prepared for life outside and the hope is to return them no more damaged than when they went in.
The difficulties and cost of maintaining those prisoners on release then follows and the cost in human terms to children and families is yet another element in the equation. I have seen mothers go through extraordinary charades to conceal from their children where their father is, and have seen the effects on children of the bullying and ostracism that having a father inside can involve.
Of course, we must have a system which can punish appropriately according to law across the range of punishments available to the courts. I simply ask your Lordships and the Government to consider: what price our retribution? Can it ever become too high? How can it be that we are so out of kilter with the whole of the rest of Europe? With men and women who have committed a range of types of murder between which in this country no distinction is made and for whom there is a mandatory life sentence, their tariff and their future lies in the hands of the executive and not the judiciary. How long, in all commonsense and justice, can we allow that to continue?
7.28 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as we are a few minutes ahead of time and I spent three years in charge of the Prison Service under the Home Secretary of the day, perhaps your Lordships will allow me not more than two minutes for each of those three years to make two small points.
The first is that people change in prison. The right reverend Prelate—whom I also congratulate on his maiden speech—referred to the rehabilitative role of prisons which has been much diminished. Nevertheless, people change in prisons and not to recognise that fact—

295
as my noble friend Lord Rowallan would not recognise it—is not only brutal but brutalising to the people in prison. I pay tribute to the enormous tenacity of the noble Earl who launched this debate in favour of those who, in his view, change.
But the more pertinent fact is a more simple one and it undercuts the arguments that we heard on the legal history of committees and legislation. It strikes me because the one aspect of imprisonment that I could not deal with as a Minister in the Home Office and a Member of this House was life sentences. That was deemed to be so political that it had to be answerable in the House of Commons. It was therefore the responsibility of another Minister of State under the Home Secretary—the Home Secretary had the duty of dealing with mandatory life sentences. I see that a former Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, is present in the Chamber. He may want to venture a view in the next few minutes. However, I cannot believe that it was ever an agreeable duty in that I cannot believe any Home Secretary would actually cling to it.
What we had—and it struck me as odd—was the whole of the judicial system in the hands of people whose careers were devoted to being insulated from political pressure and the tide of public opinion in order to give an entirely fair, independent and unbiased view on the issues under their control, except for the most serious cases which were handed to someone who had only attained his position through exercising very great skills in understanding political pressure, newspaper reports and so on, and who held on to that position only if he continued so to do. Therefore, those decisions, which were taken in the exact focus of public interest, were likely to be the most political decisions of all.
I cannot see that there is either consistency or justice in that. I hope that the Minister will listen to some of the powerful arguments that have been put in favour of the noble Earl's Motion.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for raising an anomaly which has no logic either in morality or in law. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn on what he said. I was particularly impressed by the way in which he stressed the importance of the individual and how each individual needs to be considered within the prison system. He rightly said, in words that were echoed by my noble friend Lady Linklater, that the facts differ so much from case to case. I know that the Minister will remember many such cases, which can range from a wife giving way for a moment to stress and anger, all the way through to the deliberate execution of a bank guard with a handgun in the course of the carrying out of a robbery.
It is helpful to consider how we arrived at this position. The life sentence has never meant the imprisonment of a person for the remainder of his natural life. It is simply an indeterminate sentence. The duration of the mandatory life sentence was decided by the Home Secretary prior to 1983 subject only to two
296
fetters. One was that he had to have the advice of the Lord Chief Justice and, if possible, the trial judge. The other, after 1967, when the Parole Board was set up, was that there had to be a favourable recommendation from the board. Until 1983, the cases of all life prisoners were considered after four years by a joint Parole Board/Home Office committee which recommended a date for review. No distinction was drawn until 1983 between those serving a discretionary life sentence and those serving a mandatory life sentence. So we are not dealing with some long tradition when we address this subject. It is a practice that has grown up over a period of some 15 years. There is no lengthy legal history behind it. It has arisen in a series of steps.
On 11th October 1983, in a speech to the Conservative Party conference, the then Home Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan, explained that there would be important changes in practice. Murderers of police or prison officers, terrorist murderers, sexual and sadistic murderers and murderers who used firearms in the course of robbery could normally expect to serve at least 20 years. As to decisions on the release of prisoners, he said that he would look to the judiciary for advice on the time to be spent by lifers for retribution and deterrence and to the Parole Board for advice on risk. The scheme he then proposed was that, after three years from the date of the life sentence, the judiciary would be asked to express an initial view on the appropriate period to be served for retribution and deterrence after which the Home Secretary would decide the date for the first review. After that announcement prison policies hardened. They crystallised into a two-tier approach to sentencing: the fixed period for retribution and deterrence became known as the tariff, to be served in all save the most exceptional circumstances. Only then could consideration be given to the progress of the prisoner, his motivation and the likelihood of his reoffending. That was the first step.
The second step occurred in 1987. Following the Divisional Court case of Handscombe, the Home Secretary was told that he should receive the advice of the judiciary on the tariff as soon as practicable after sentence and should not substitute his own views for those of the trial judge. It was also said that in discretionary sentencing the trial judge was to take account of the notional reduction of one-third remission on "an equivalent determinate sentence" in fixing the tariff. This was accepted by the then Home Secretary, now the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, who required the trial judge who was passing a discretionary life sentence to write to him. The date for first review would be three years before the expiry of the tariff period.
It was at that point that the treatment of discretionary and mandatory life prisoners began to diverge considerably. The then Home Secretary said that, since in mandatory life cases the sentence was not at the discretion of the judge, no question of "a notional equivalent determinate sentence" could arise. He therefore reserved the right in mandatory cases to take into account other factors, including the need to maintain public confidence in the system of justice, when determining the tariff.

297
This opened the door, unhappily, to the practice whereby a Minister can adjust the judicially recommended tariff upwards if in his view the tariff did not match the gravity of the crime. So we were moving away from judicial control, as the Divisional Court had desired in Handscombe, to a system whereby the Home Secretary could put in his personal view; and as it was his personal view, no doubt based on advice, it could well be an arbitrary decision.
The procedures were condemned by the European Court of Human Rights in the Thynne decision, to which my noble friend Lord Goodhart referred. That required judicial consideration of loss of liberty and the lawfulness of detention. Then, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out, attempts were made in the Criminal Justice Bill in the 1990–91 Session to abolish mandatory life sentences and to ensure that judicial procedures, rather than the arbitrary decision of the Home Secretary, should govern the setting of the tariff and the decisions on release after the expiry of the term. Amendments were passed in this House with the support of two former Lord Chancellors, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and five Law Lords. But they were reversed on a whipped vote on strict party lines in the other place. I regret to say that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, will remember that, because he was the Home Secretary at the time. The only concession that was made in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 was that the trial judge was required to announce the tariff when imposing a discretionary life sentence. The differences between the treatment of the discretionary life prisoner and the mandatory life prisoner have been fully set out by my noble friend Lord Goodhart. There is no need for me to repeat them.
All this has led to a position in this decade whereby there has been a populist approach to crime and punishment, which has filled the gaols of this country to a degree unknown to our European partners, and continues to do so. To this day, hundreds of millions of pounds are being wasted on prison building rather than being spent on crime prevention, compensation for victims, rehabilitation programmes and much more constructive ways of trying to prevent offending. The posturing on the Conservative Government Benches was matched by the rhetoric of the Labour Opposition, all, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out, just in case votes could be lost in the election that was seen to be approaching.
Judges, whose sentences have increased under the pressure of that rhetoric—goal sentences have gone up right across the board—were characterised as soft, do-gooders and even liberals. In the attack on the judges, on civil liberties, on the Parole Board and on the humane traditions of penal policy to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred, which were mounted by the last government, I regret to say that the Labour Party was not an effective, articulate Opposition. They were collaborators.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to Myra Hindley who has been in the middle of all this change of policy. I recall that I was present in court with my noble friend Lord Hooson, who represented Ian Brady,
298
when the jury came back in that case. I have to say that at the Chester Assizes, as it was in those days, it was the most horrific case that is remembered to this day. But this unfortunate woman—this wicked woman, if you like—has nevertheless been subjected to changes of policy over the past 25 years. The tariff of 25 years that was fixed by Lord Lane in 1982 was increased to 30 years in 1985, but she was not told about it. It was then changed to whole life in 1990, but she was not told about it. In 1994 Mr. Howard, the then Home Secretary, announced that those upon whom whole life tariffs had been imposed would not thereafter be able to gain release. There would simply be a review every 25 years to see whether a determinate sentence could be put into effect only on questions of retribution and deterrence. The tariff on Myra Hindley was set afresh as whole life in February 1997. It is not as though her crimes had become any more heinous; she had simply become demonised by the press and votes were seen to be in it. The present Home Secretary has confirmed that tariff, although he has said that he is open to the possibility that exceptional circumstances, including exceptional progress in prison, might render reduction appropriate.
There are no rational grounds for distinguishing between a mandatory and a discretionary life sentence. If it is discretionary, it means almost by definition that the person who is sent to prison for life for rape or robbery is a dangerous person, and far more so than so many people who have, under stress, momentarily lost control of themselves and committed murder. It is wrong to equate those two sorts of crimes at all. Murder, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, remarked in the debate to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred, can vary enormously in gravity.
The public interest demands a rethink altogether on penal policy. We must break away from the blinkered mindcast that we have had over the past few years. We must reduce the number of people who are sent to prison. There must be a fresh and a bold start in considering the best use of resources when dealing with offenders. The political sensitivities of Ministers must not be allowed to influence release decisions. I certainly echo the noble Earl, Lord Longford, whose tenacity the noble Lord, Lord Elton, praised, when he said that no Home Secretary should choose between what is right and what is pleasing to the multitude. Let that be his message.
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I, too, add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn on his maiden speech. He pointed out that this was a matter of a sensitive nature, the discussion of which can cause strong opposing views. How true indeed, as it has been proved tonight and, I am sure, will continue to prove to be both here and outwith this Chamber.
I thank the noble Earl for introducing this debate and, like others, I pay tribute to his deep and enduring commitment to this subject. Disagree we may, but I always respect his sincerely held views.

299
The debate tonight is on a narrow point, but one which is of public importance. The question is, I believe, whether the Parole Board or the Home Secretary should exercise the final discretion as to whether or not a person serving a mandatory life sentence should be released. The debate is not about whether or not mandatory life sentences for murder should be abolished, although that issue has crept in now and again tonight. I note that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, gave a commitment on that matter at Question Time in the House on 15th July last year (at col. 907 of Hansard) when he stated in answer to a Question put by his noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke that,
"the Government have no plans to abolish the mandatory life sentence for murder".
As the noble Earl pointed out earlier, the debate has arisen out of the remarks made by the Lord Chief Justice and reported in The Times Law Report. The Lord Chief Justice stated that there was room for serious debate as to whether the task of determining how long convicted murderers should serve imprisonment as punishment for their crimes should be undertaken by the judiciary, as in the case of discretionary life prisoners, or, as now, by the executive. That was, he said, in large measure a political and constitutional debate, not a question for decision by the court. Those remarks were made, I believe, as a statement of fact and not a recommendation that changes should be made. Tonight's debate is indeed in the correct forum. The Lord Chief Justice has made no recommendation either that we should hold such a debate, nor indeed as to what the outcome should be.
Several noble Lords have referred to the history of the development of the rules governing the release of mandatory and discretionary life prisoners. In brief, the rules governing the release on licence of mandatory life prisoners are clearly set out in Section 35(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. If the Parole Board recommends that a person should be released on licence, the Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, together with the trial judge, if available, release on licence that life prisoner who is not a discretionary life prisoner. Section 35(3) provides that the board shall not make a recommendation under subsection (2) unless the Secretary of State has referred the particular case to the board for its advice.
The setting of the tariff in the first place is a matter to which the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, referred in a Written Answer published in Hansard on 15th December 1997 (at col. WA74) where he stated that,
"The Secretary of State attaches considerable weight to the judicial recommendations on tariff in mandatory life-sentence cases but is not bound by them and may set tariffs lower or higher than those recommended".
Those discretionary life sentences are, of course, subject to a different procedure. I shall not go into further detail. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, elaborated admirably on that point.
300
The view taken on these matters by my right honourable friends who served as Home Secretaries in another place and some of whom now serve in this House—and, as has been pointed out, one or two are with us this evening—has been both constant and consistent. It is that the Home Secretary's role in determining the release date of mandatory life prisoners should be retained. We believe that in this particular category of crime public interest and concern justify the Home Secretary's exercise of his discretionary powers to set and vary tariffs.
As I understand it, at the time of the abolition of capital punishment it was said in debate in both Houses that a unique penalty for the crime of murder would remain. This reflects the fact that the taking of human life is a matter which must not be devalued in itself. After all, it involves two intents: to kill or to do really serious physical injury. It was said in debate in both Houses that the public should be reassured that no murderer would be released except on the expressed decision of the Home Secretary who would then be accountable directly to Parliament if anything went wrong.
Tonight the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has stolen from me many quotations made by the Government when in Opposition, but I am glad that he has left me one to which I may refer. I note that a different view was taken in this House by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on 11 th March 1996, when he said:
"We have come to the view that the judges, the Parole Board and the prison system as a whole are responsible for the tariff for mandatory life prisoners rather than a politician, the Home Secretary".—(Official Report, 11/3/96; col. 683.]
I assume that the Government's position has subsequently changed in view of the statements and actions of the current Home Secretary. I do not criticise such an adjustment of policy, I welcome it.
The present Home Secretary made a statement in response to the case of R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Pierson 1997. He made it clear that he would continue the practice of setting and reviewing adult murderers' tariffs. I hope that the Minister will tonight confirm that the Government's position remains the same.
7.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I commend the noble Earl, Lord Longford, on his tenacity. I believe that I should be entitled to particular spiritual reward because it is normally my leg that bears the imprint of his teeth marks when he has been so tenacious! I congratulate also the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn on his persuasive and attractive maiden speech.
I recognise that the judges have always been uneasy about the mandatory life sentence for murder. In 1965, when the Bill which led to the abolition of capital punishment was being discussed, the then Lord Chief Justice proposed that the penalty for murder should be at the discretion of the trial judge. His view did not

301
prevail. Most, if not all, of his successors have shared that view, supported by most, if not all, members of the higher judiciary. However, it is a fact that Parliament has not changed its view on that issue, which remains contentious, although it has had many opportunities to do so since 1965.
The noble Baroness is right in that in July of last year I gave an answer to my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke—and it remains government policy—that we have no plans to abolish the mandatory life sentence for murder. The question which the noble Baroness rightly identified for this evening is not whether there should be a mandatory life sentence for murder, but the more focused, and therefore necessarily more limited, question: how should that sentence be administered?
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, indicated, prior to abolition of the death penalty for murder, the Secretary of State had the discretion—and the burden, as the noble Lord rightly said—of deciding on life or death, reprieve or not. Parliament thereafter, consonant with that historical scheme, put on the Secretary of State the responsibility to decide whether or not a mandatory life sentence prisoner should be released. Initially, the only statutory requirement was that he should consult the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, if available. The Criminal Justice Act 1967, which introduced the Parole Board, required the Home Secretary to refer life sentence cases to the Parole Board for its advice before ordering release on life licence. However, it was always the Secretary of State who decided if, whether, and when to refer such cases and he was not bound to accept the Parole Board's advice to release. That has remained the position throughout.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, rightly pointed out, the principal change occurred in 1983 with the introduction of a tariff system by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Brittan. That has been amended following the decision by your Lordships' House in the case of Doody and others. A period is fixed at the beginning of the sentence to reflect the length of time to be served in custody for retribution and deterrence. The tariff, thus fixed, takes no account of future risk. It is the period regarded as necessary for punishment in all the circumstances of that particular case. It is set by the Home Secretary. The trial judge makes a report to the Home Secretary, with his recommendations. Every such recommendation is seen by the Lord Chief Justice who adds his comments and views. Those reports and judicial recommendations (excluding only references to future risk) are disclosed to the prisoner within a short time along with any other material which the Minister is to consider before setting the tariff. The prisoner can make recommendations which are then put before the Minister. That means that unless there is delay on the part of the prisoner, or an appeal against conviction, tariffs can be set reasonably quickly. We believe that that is an equitable system. Every murder case is therefore considered by the Lord Chief Justice and by the same Minister.
Perhaps I may put a counter argument to what has been the prevailing view tonight. In the case of Doody
302
and others, which extended the rights of mandatory life sentence prisoners, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill—I do not think that anyone can sensibly accuse him of lacking either experience or independence of mind and judgment—said:
"I can see no reason why the anomalous task of fixing a 'tariff penal element for an offence in respect of which the true tariff sentence is life imprisonment is one for which the Home Secretary and his junior ministers, informed by his officials about the existing departmental practice, are any less experienced and capable than the judges".
That is a fairly authoritative statement of a view which I readily understand runs counter to most of the views expressed this evening.
The judicial views—of the trial judge and of the Lord Chief Justice—are advisory only, but normally the tariff is set within the judicial limits. Of 622 tariffs in new cases in 1994–97 only 36 were set higher than either judicial recommendation, and 35 were set lower. Where the tariff departs from the judicial recommendation, the prisoner is given written reasons. I have set out the tariff position in some detail because it is important to have the factual background correct, including the fact that on virtually as many occasions as the recommendation from the judges was increased, there were decreases. I repeat that there were 36 increases, with 35 decreases.
The Parole Board has no function at all in relation to the setting of the tariff. It seems to me that the general thrust of the Lord Chief Justice's concerns in giving judgment in Myra Hindley's case related mainly to the Secretary of State's role in setting tariffs. The tariff simply determines when the case first goes to the Parole Board. The first review by the board starts three years before the expiry of the tariff. The board is asked to advise on whether the prisoner presents a sufficiently low risk to the public to be released or to be moved to open conditions. Four members of the board consider the case on the papers. The prisoner sees all the papers beforehand. He can comment on them in writing and personally to a member of the board.
Every recommendation for release is considered personally by the Home Secretary. I concur with what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said. It is not a burden which Home Secretaries welcome. In a sense, it would make their thorny bed rather easier if they did not have that responsibility.
Ministers do not always take the same view of risk as the Parole Board. The Home Secretary has broad constitutional responsibilities for public order and not least for that sometimes rather difficult creature, maintaining the public's confidence in the criminal justice system. If the release of a prisoner at a particular time might undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system, we suggest that it is reasonable for the Home Secretary to be able to defer that release. We believe that the Government, in the person of the Home Secretary, should continue to have the final word on the release of adults convicted of murder.

303
The position on discretionary life sentences is different. The circumstances of those sentences have been fully and, I believe, generally accurately recorded. The noble Baroness said that tariffs have been creeping up in terms of time served and that the average length of sentence is now about 15 years. In fact, the figure for 1997 is 14.2 years. That is the most recent figure available, but it is, of course, provisional. In the previous year, the average was 13.2 years, but the year before that was 14 years, and in the year before that it was 15.4 years. So the perception that there has been a gradual increase is not uniformly borne out by the facts. In 1993 it was 14.5 and in 1992 12.4. Obviously, different factors determine the number of years served, not simply the inevitable consequences of who said what at which party conference. I do not therefore trespass on your Lordships' time in respect of discretionary sentences.
A good deal of time this evening has expectedly and necessarily been devoted to the case of Myra Hindley. It is not proper for me to say much on that. My information is that the appeal against the decision of the Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Hooper and Mr. Justice Astill remains to be heard. It is not constitutionally right that I should say too much. All I will say about Myra Hindley's case is that it turned out in 1987 that the two murders for which she was convicted and on which the tariff was based were the last two of five separate murders of children committed over a period of more than two years. All three Home Secretaries looked at the case in detail and concluded that a whole life tariff is warranted because of the gravity of the offences, leaving aside other considerations like risk.
Of the over 3,000 mandatory life prisoners in custody there are only 29 with whole life tariffs. As indicated earlier, the Home Secretary announced on 10th November that he would be wiling to review tariffs where there were exceptional circumstances including, I stress, exceptional progress in prison.
304
The noble Earl asked specifically whether the Home Secretary planned to consider seriously giving up his current involvement in tariff-setting for murderers. The Lord Chief Justice said, rightly if I may say so without presumption:
"There is room for serious debate whether the task of determining how long convicted murderers should serve in prison as punishment for their crimes should be undertaken by the judiciary .. or, as now, by the executive".
As the noble Baroness observed, that is in large measure according to the Lord Chief Justice a political and constitutional question. I omit some words because the judgment is well known. The Lord Chief Justice goes on to say:
"But the applicant [Myra Hindley] has, no doubt wisely, made no accusation that any Home Secretary has acted in had faith".
That is the sober conclusion at which the Lord Chief Justice has arrived and I believe that it is worth repeating. We believe that in some circumstances in the general public interest the Home Secretary needs to retain these powers. We are more than content to hold the serious debate for which the Lord Chief Justice has called. The first chapter in that debate, which will continue for a long time, has begun and ended this evening.
I should like to deal with one particular matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan. He was concerned about the spelling out of sentences and whether the public was left in doubt. I am sure he will be pleased to learn that as recently as 22nd January of this year the Lord Chief Justice issued a practice direction to judges to ensure that courts spell out what sentences really mean in practice so that the offender, the victim and all those concerned with the case, including the wider public, know the effect of a particular sentence. I pay tribute to that step by the Lord Chief Justice, it being remembered that almost the first words that I uttered when I began this job were that we wished to restore a decent regard for the opinions of the higher judiciary. That adamantly remains the policy of the Home Secretary.
I have not satisfied everyone in this House, but that is the response that the Government give and presently maintain.
House adjourned at four minutes past eight o'clock.

  Video Recordings: Designated Authority
  Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  When they will make changes to the authority responsible for making arrangements for the classification of video works under the Video Recordings Act 1984. [HL695]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn)
  My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has today designated Mr. Andreas Whittam Smith under Section 4(4) of the Video Recordings Act 1984. Mr. Whittam Smith was appointed as President of the British Board of Film Classification on 1 January 1998, and my right honourable friend has designated him, in that capacity, to replace the Earl of Harewood and Lord Birkett of Ulverston.

  Copies of the Notice of Designation and the text of a letter my right honourable friend has sent to Mr. Whittam Smith confirming the designation have been placed in the Library.

  Deaths in Custody: Coroners' Procedures
  Lord Avebury
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they have received any criticisms concerning the handling by coroners of recent cases of deaths in custody; and whether they consider that any changes are needed in the procedures and methods of coroners. [HL544]

  Lord Williams of Mostyn
  Criticisms regarding inquests into deaths in custody are received from time to time. There are no current plans to amend coroner legislation in relation to the need to sum up evidence and give directions to a jury, but we are considering the recent recommendation from the Home Affairs Select Committee regarding the disclosure of relevant information in advance of such inquests.

  Mentally Disordered Offenders
  Lord Judd
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they have studied the report by the Penal Affairs Consortium entitled An Unsuitable Place for Treatment; and to what extent they endorse its conclusions and recommendations, particularly that "there is a powerful case for ensuring that effective psychiatric assessment services are in place in every police and court area". [HL553]

  Lord Williams of Mostyn
  The Government fully share the conclusions of the report that mentally disordered people who commit offences should have WA 42
  ready access to treatment and care, and that they should not be imprisoned unnecessarily. Effective inter-agency arrangements around the country are essential if the needs of mentally disordered offenders are to be addressed appropriately. The Home Office and the Department of Health are working together to encourage local agencies and services to develop the most suitable arrangements in the light of local circumstances.

  Scotland: Musical Education in State Schools
  Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What is their policy on the teaching of music in state schools in Scotland. [HL541]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel)
  The curriculum in Scottish state schools is not prescribed by statute but guidelines on the content of the curriculum are issued by the Secretary of State. Guidelines on the expressive arts, for pupils between the ages of 5–14, include music, and music is also available at Standard Grade and Higher Grade. A wide range of music options will also be available under the new Higher Still arrangements.

  Scotland: Council Tax Payers
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What is, for each local authority in Scotland:

  (a) the number of electors;

  (b) the number of council tax payers;

  (c) the number of council tax payers on full rebate;

  (d) the number of council tax payers on partial rebate;

  (e) the percentage of the electorate paying a full council tax. [HL595]

  Lord Sewel
  The available information is shown below:

  (a) Number of Electors in each Local Authority (1997)

  Authority

  Number

  Aberdeen City

  172,066

  Aberdeenshire

  172,767

  Angus

  86,929

  Argyll & Bute

  69,971

  Clackmannanshire

  36,927

  Dumfries & Galloway

  116,828

  Dundee City

  117,166

  East Ayrshire

  94,368

  East Dunbartonshire

  84,978

  East Lothian

  69,870

  East Renfrewshire

  67,597

  Edinburgh City

  362,788

  Eilean Siar

  23,315

  Falkirk

  110,692

  Fife

  276,989

  Glasgow City

  476,784

  Highland

  164,711

  WA 43

  (a) Number of Electors in each Local Authority (1997)

  Authority

  Number

  Inverclyde

  67,805

  Midlothian

  61,423

  Moray

  65,361

  North Ayrshire

  106,478

  North Lanarkshire

  246,599

  Orkney

  15,658

  Perth & Kinross

  104,464

  Renfrewshire

  139,766

  Scottish Borders

  86,051

  Shetland

  17,012

  South Ayrshire

  90,787

  South Lanarkshire

  236,038

  Stirling

  65,798

  West Dunbartonshire

  72,611

  West Lothian

  115,326

  Scotland

  3,995,923

  Source:

  General Register Office (Scotland), Estimate 1997.

  (b) Number of Chargeable Dwellings in each Local Authority (1997)

  Authority

  Number

  Aberdeen City

  95,967

  Aberdeenshire

  90,056

  Angus

  47,306

  Argyll & Bute

  41,582

  Clackmannanshire

  20,387

  Dumfries & Galloway

  64,668

  Dundee City

  67,528

  East Ayrshire

  50,513

  East Dunbartonshire

  41,988

  East Lothian

  37,528

  East Renfrewshire

  34,197

  Edinburgh City

  197,334

  Eilean Siar

  12,370

  Falkirk

  60,825

  Fife

  147,907

  Glasgow City

  263,236

  Highland

  92,819

  Inverclyde

  37,543

  Midlothian

  31,513

  Moray

  34,526

  North Ayrshire

  59,558

  North Lanarkshire

  130,206

  Orkney

  8,814

  Perth & Kinross

  58,565

  Renfrewshire

  76,981

  Scottish Borders

  47,741

  Shetland

  9,252

  South Ayrshire

  48,774

  South Lanarkshire

  123,879

  Stirling

  33,707

  West Dunbartonshire

  42,213

  West Lothian

  60,764

  Scotland

  2,170,247

  Source:

  Statistical Return—Council Tax Base, October 1997.

  (c) The Department of Social Security estimates that in May 1996 there were 365,000 people in Scotland receiving a rebate equal to the full amount of council tax;

  (d) The Department of Social Security estimates that in May 1996 there were 209,000 people in Scotland receiving a rebate less than the full amount of council tax;

  Information is not held centrally on numbers receiving full and partial rebates for each local authority area in Scotland.
  WA 44
  (e) No information is held centrally on the number of people who pay council tax. It is therefore not possible to provide estimates of the percentage of the electorate paying council tax in full or part.

  Scottish Local Elections: Turnout
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What was, for each local authority in Scotland, the turnout at the last local government election. [HL596]

  Lord Sewel
  The information is set out in the table below. The figures relate to the elections held in 1995 except in relation to the Orkney Islands, Shetland Islands and Western Isles Areas, where the last elections were held in 1994.

  Authority

  Votes Cast

  Percentage Turnout

  Aberdeen City

  64,425

  38.0

  Aberdeenshire

  65,046

  39.7

  Angus

  37,279

  43.7

  Argyll & Bute

  30,337

  51.2

  Clackmannanshire

  17,214

  46.9

  Dumfries & Galloway

  39,296

  50.2

  Dundee City

  50,252

  43.8

  East Ayrshire

  50,206

  53.2

  East Dunbartonshire

  43,851

  52.8

  East Lothian

  33,288

  48.4

  East Renfrewshire

  32,539

  49.2

  Edinburgh, City of

  156,195

  44.5

  Falkirk

  49,877

  45.8

  Fife

  115,546

  42.6

  Glasgow, City of

  183,669

  38.9

  Highland

  65,920

  46.4

  Inverclyde

  32,127

  47.0

  Midlothian

  27,178

  44.9

  Moray

  22,578

  40.1

  North Ayrshire

  46,718

  49.4

  North Lanarkshire

  115,208

  48.1

  Orkney Islands

  3,735

  60.9

  Perth & Kinross

  52,064

  51.3

  Renfrewshire

  63,970

  47.4

  Scottish Borders

  27,121

  40.3

  Shetland Islands

  3,680

  58.1

  South Ayrshire

  49,411

  55.5

  South Lanarkshire

  107,903

  46.8

  Stirling

  34,566

  54.2

  West Dunbartonshire

  36,065

  49.7

  West Lothian

  52,156

  46.7

  Western Isles

  7,211

  62.1

  Teaching: Improving Standards
  Lord Patten
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What action they intend to take in the light of the observations of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, contained in his fourth report, published on 3 February 1998, concerning:

  (a) the 13,000 teachers staffing classrooms who are incompetent; and

  (b) the one in eight lessons which are less than satisfactory. [HL602]

  WA 45
  The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone)
  In his annual report for 1996–97, HM Chief Inspector of Schools in England did not focus on the issue of teacher incompetence. He emphasised that more teachers were teaching more effectively.

  In the Excellence in schools White Paper, the Government confirmed their view that good teaching is the key to high standards. The Government have introduced rigorous new standards for the award of Qualified Teacher Status, which all trainees will be required to meet from May in order to gain entry to the profession. We recognise the importance of investment in in-service training for teachers in order to raise standards and have increased funding significantly. We recently announced plans to improve the arrangements for teacher appraisal by linking it more closely to raising standards of pupil achievement.

  These measures, combined with the many other aspects of the Government's drive to raise school standards, should ensure that in future even more teachers will be teaching more effectively.

  Working Hours Directive
  Earl Russell
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  When they intend to introduce measures to implement the European Union Working Hours Directive. [HL496]

  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis)
  Our aim is to publish draft regulations for consultation around the end of March and complete consultation in time to have regulations in force by 1 October.

  DTI Transcripts: Use in Guinness Trial
  Lord Spens
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether, in the light of the announcement by the Attorney General on Tuesday 3 February in relation to the use of DTI transcripts in future trials, they intend to continue to oppose the application to the European Commission on Human Rights of Messrs. Ronson, Parnes and Lyons in connection with the use of such transcripts in the first Guinness trial. [HL547]

  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury)
  Under the Rules of Procedure of the European Commission of Human Rights, pleadings before the Commission are confidential. It would therefore be wrong of the Government to answer questions about their pleadings.

  Depleted Uranium Ammunition
  The Countess of Mar
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What is their current scientific advice on whether depleted uranium munitions and other depleted
  WA 46
  uranium materials used by British troops, both for training purposes and in combat conditions, are hazardous. [HL385]

  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert)
  Details of our current scientific advice on Depleted Uranium were given in my letter to the noble Countess on 2 February, and subsequently published on 9 February (Official Report, col. WA 138) and repeated on 17 February at col. WA 17.

  The Countess of Mar
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What controls were instigated by British Commanders at the end of Operation Granby regarding the collection and retrieval of materials from the battlefield, including those regarded by British troops as souvenirs, and whether there was any risk assessment conducted of the possible hazards associated with these materials. [HL437]

  Whether they have any records of items, not issued to British troops for the purpose of carrying out their official duties during Operation Granby, which were brought back to the United Kingdom at the end of hostilities as trophies or souvenirs; whether any of these items were tested for depleted uranium contamination, either chemical or radioactive, at the time they were transported to the United Kingdom; and whether they are aware of the current location of these items. [HL471]

  Lord Gilbert
  Surviving contemporary departmental records indicate that MoD instructed Headquarters British Forces Middle East, HQ BFME, to set up procedures for the collection, cataloguing and securing of captured Iraqi equipment to be considered for possible return to the UK or Germany. Precise details of these procedures and the extent to which they were followed, or disseminated to troops other than those specifically involved in recovering such equipment, are not known. Units arriving at Al Jubail prior to returning to the UK or Germany were instructed to declare certain items of captured Iraqi equipment in their possession. However, it is likely that some captured Iraqi equipment left the Gulf undeclared. In the time available, the Ministry of Defence has been unable to determine the current location of items of recovered captured Iraqi equipment.

  Further guidance, concerning the collection and retention of war souvenirs by individual Service personnel, was also issued by HQ BFME to subordinate formations. This guidance explained which items individuals were permitted to take out of theatre without restriction, which items required the permission of an officer not below the rank of Major, and which items could not be taken out of theatre by individuals in any circumstances, such as weapons, explosives and live ammunition. The Ministry of Defence has no knowledge of the whereabouts of personal souvenirs which may have been removed either in accordance with or in breach of these instructions.
  WA 47
  Between 1992 and 1994, the Defence Radiological Protection Service (DRPS)—now known as the Defence Research and Evaluation Agency's (DERA) Radiation Protection Services—visited 41 Army establishments in the UK and Germany to undertake radiation surveys of foreign vehicles and trophies brought back from the Gulf with the purpose of identifying instruments which used radioactive materials as illuminants so that the establishments concerned could conform with EU regulations. These surveys would have detected any radiologically significant quantities of depleted uranium contamination. I am assured that no traces of DU were detected by any of these surveys.

  DRPS radiation protection advisory visits are made on a regular basis to Royal Navy, RAF and DERA establishments. These cover all radioactive materials on site, including any military equipment returned from the Gulf which might contain radioactive material, such as that used to luminise instruments and switches. Where such radioactive materials are identified they are monitored and appropriate precautions are taken. No evidence of depleted uranium contamination on military equipment returned from the Gulf has come to light during any such visit.

  No record has been found on departmental files of any tests carried out to determine whether captured Iraqi equipment or personal souvenirs were contaminated with depleted uranium, or of any risk assessments carried out on recovered captured Iraqi equipment.

  The Countess of Mar
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Henley on 6 December 1994 (WA 77), whether they still maintain that no dosemeters were issued to British troops during Operation Granby. [HL436]

  Lord Gilbert
  I am advised that the Written Answer to which the noble Countess refers was given in the context of dosemeters issued to those who were involved in the handling of DU ammunition in the Gulf, rather than to British troops generally. Dosemeters were not issued specifically to personnel who handled DU ammunition during Operation Granby. However, radiation dosemeters, designed to detect the high level radiation exposures expected in nuclear warfare rather than the very low level of radiation which is characteristic of depleted uranium, were issued to some British troops by units in the Gulf. These dosemeters would have been of no use for monitoring the very low levels of radiation emitted by DU ammunition.

  Armed Forces: Nationality Criteria
  Lord Hardy of Wath
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  When the review of the nationality criteria for entry into the Armed Forces will be completed. [HL696]
  WA 48
  Lord Gilbert
  A comprehensive review of all nationality issues for employment in the Armed Forces has just been completed. It has now been agreed that, with effect from 1 April 1998, the rules relating to nationality extraction, that is the nationality of an applicant's parents, should be relaxed in line with the changes made for Civil Servants. In the majority of cases parents of applicants will no longer need to be British or Commonwealth citizens, or Republic of Ireland nationals. In certain circumstances, where security is of paramount importance, applicants will be looked at on a case by case basis.

  It has also been agreed that the residency rules should be changed. The five year UK residency requirement for most applicants is to be relaxed to allow those who have spent less than five years in the UK entry into the Armed Forces.

  We believe that these rule changes will ensure that the Armed Forces become more open for potential recruits, particularly among the ethnic minorities.

  We have concluded that the existing rules relating to an applicant's own nationality should remain, namely that an applicant should be a British, British Dependent Territories or Commonwealth citizen or a Republic of Ireland national.

  Armed Forces: Meat Supplies
  Lord Burton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What quantities of meat and meat products were supplied to British servicemen at home and overseas in each of the last 12 months, and whether they can break the figures down; (a) by type of meat or product, and (b) by country of origin. [HL481]

  Lord Gilbert
  I regret the information sought is not available for the past 12 months, but our new contractor, Booker Foodservice, has estimated that the quantities of meat expected to be supplied to the Armed Forces for the 12 month period ending September 1998 and its country of origin to be as follows:

  Commodity

  Estimated Annual Volume (tonnes)

  Country of origin

  Estimated percentage by volume

  Beef

  2,220

  UK

  38

  Australia

  36

  Uruguay

  18

  New Zealand

  8

  Pork

  1,200

  UK

  100

  Gammon & Bacon

  1,440

  UK

  50

  Denmark

  30

  Holland

  20

  Lamb

  750

  New Zealand

  50

  Uruguay

  50

  All figures are subject to variation dependent upon which markets provide the best value for money.

  Conditional Fees
  Lord Ackner
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether, since the publication in September 1997 by the Policy Studies Institute of its report, The Price of Success, they have carried out or caused to be carried out any research to determine whether the practice of conditional fees is working; and if not why not. [HL487]

  The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg)
  In the five months since the Policy Studies Institute report was WA 50
  published, I have not commissioned further research on the practice of conditional fees. As the noble and learned Lord will know, the Policy Studies Institute report concluded that many of the potential problems identified with conditional fees before they were introduced appear to have been successfully addressed. I accept that further research, at the appropriate time, may be necessary and I plan to seek views on what further research might prove useful in the consultation paper that I plan to issue shortly.