Sitting of 29 July 1998

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

  Adjournment (Summer)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  9.34 am
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of dignity at work before the House rises for the summer recess. I wish to put down a marker, and I give notice that I shall return to the matter after the recess. I should also mention the good work already done in another place by the noble Lord Monkswell on bullying at work.
  Bullying at school is usually our first taste of the cowardly and thuggish behaviour of individuals. The perception of a bully is usually male—someone who picks on those smaller than himself—and his actions usually involve petty crime, such as stealing or demanding money. What I have just described happens, but the crude thuggery of bullying away from the school yard is commonplace in the workplace. It is often perpetrated through psychological abuse—often by women against women—and does not get the publicity it should. We often hear about sexual harassment at work, but there is substantial evidence of harassment by someone of the same sex.
  Another form of bullying can best be described as career assassination. Let me cite a constituency case in Lanarkshire involving a woman boss in charge of a dozen other women in an education department caring for children with special needs. I shall not name my constituent, but Mrs. X, as I shall call her, is a middle-aged, well-qualified, professional educationist. She is an excellent worker, conscientious and caring, and, because of her confidence in her own ability, she is the ideal caring professional whom we would all want to care for our own children if they needed her special care.
  However, because Mrs. X was popular and respected by her fellow professionals, her newly appointed boss saw her as a threat, and began undermining, demeaning and intimidating her. My constituent decided to deal with the problem by ignoring it, hoping that it would resolve itself when her new boss had got her feet under the table—but that did not happen. Unfortunately, Mrs. X's attempts to ignore her boss only made her all the more unreasonable, vicious and sly, and the psychological abuse continued.
  How can we deal with bullying? Perpetrators of such behaviour are usually sick. Their cowardly actions suggest that they have a form of mental illness.
  As a result of prolonged intimidation and psychological abuse, my constituent became ill, and took time off work. An expert in a profession where her skills are at a
  290
  premium has been off work for a considerable time, has lost thousands of pounds in earnings and her services to children who need her special care have been lost.
  The House may think that that is an extreme case—I should like to think so, too—but I suspect that such abuse is quite common. I suspect that every hon. Member present could give some example of similar bullying in their constituency. I therefore welcome the Dignity at Work Bill, promoted by Lord Monkswell, which was given a Second Reading on 4 December 1996. I give notice of my intention to persuade the Government to include protection for employees against bullying in the workplace in their legislative programme. I am pleased to have been successful in raising this important issue. I know that right hon. and hon. Members want to raise their concerns on other issues, so I will soon conclude.
  I was proud to be raised in a working-class home in a mining community—a humble background to some, but a very proud and particularly character-building experience for me. My parents instilled in me an ethos of always being considerate and respectful to others. One should be respectful to others if one wants to be treated as an equal. The right to dignity is not just about good manners, or even buzz words such as "good practice". It is a human right which should be available to all. The right to dignity at work is a human right, too.
  Employers—and, on occasions, some politicians—may indulge in such abuse. They could be called control freaks. Control freaks use many tools, such as the tools of patronage—a posh word for rewarding obedience. Careers are controlled by the carrot and stick of political patronage. Career assassination is viewed in this place not as a dastardly act, but more as an occupational hazard.
  The carrot takes many forms: a position in the Government—if it is a big carrot—a promise of a seat on a quango, or even a trip to Mauritius or some such exotic place. If everything else fails, the occasional knighthood or peerage has been known to thaw strong resistance. This week, some of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have had a lifetime of political carrots experienced a wee bit of the stick. A part of me thinks, "What did they expect?"
  I close my contribution by making a proposal that will send shivers down the spines of some of my political colleagues. If we are to protect and extend to our citizens the democratic process, we must open up government to them. Transparency, scrutiny and openness should be our three watchwords. When we talk of an inclusive process, radical constitutional change, and honour and integrity in public service, let us, in the words of the Prime Minister, say what we mean and mean what we say. If we are to do that, we must look radically at how the House of Commons and its whipping system operate. At best, the whipping system must be reformed—although there is a good democratic argument for abolishing it.
  9.44 am
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) may have been referring to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the post previously held by the Leader of the House—when he talked of character assassination. The right hon. Gentleman has been well known for some time for the character assassination of several of his colleagues. The hon. Gentleman has focused our attention on some of the events of the past few days.

  291
  I welcome the Leader of the House to her new post. She and I represent neighbouring areas in Derbyshire. As Leader of the House, I expect that she will become Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, and therefore provide a lead on several important decisions in the not too distant future.
  The hon. Member for Clydesdale talked of character assassinations, of which we have seen some interesting examples this week.
  Mr. Hood: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand my point—and I certainly do not want him to mislead the House. I talked about career assassinations, not character assassinations.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I stand corrected—although, given the machinations of the week, the two could be linked. We saw the departure from the Government of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the former Minister for Welfare Reform, who was originally asked by the Prime Minister to "think the unthinkable". Perhaps he did, and that was why he could not stay in the Government for very long. Perhaps we shall now be able to hear those thoughts expressed in the Chamber.
  My main reason for catching your eye,in this short debate, Madame Speaker, is to raise the issue of the proposed closure of magistrates courts in Derbyshire—particularly West Derbyshire. I want to do so because, as it happens, this morning I received a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, in which he explained to me that decisions on such matters are usually made within three months of the receipt of objections. For objections to be considered by the Lord Chancellor, the county council must first object to the proposals. Derbyshire county council made such an objection on 16 June. Given the three-month procedure for determining appeals, we may expect the Government to make an announcement before the House returns.
  There is, without question, a need for a magistrates court to serve West Derbyshire. I support the retention of the three magistrates courts in Ashbourne, Bakewell and Matlock until a magistrates court is built solely to serve West Derbyshire. If that long-term objective were proposed, I would consider a possible reorganisation of the courts structure in West Derbyshire.
  It is vital that justice is administered locally, and is seen to be so. It is a fundamental tenet of the system. The 1989 Le Vay report included the following nationally accepted definition:
  "the function of magistrates' courts is the delivery locally of local justice by local lay people. Justice in a given locality should be administered by lay people from among that community, who can bring to their judgements in court a knowledge of the area and an understanding of the community's values."
  Particularly in rural areas, people are concerned that more remote benches will not understand the rural way of life and the importance of the matters being brought before them. Furthermore, there are particular problems with rural accessibility contained in the proposals submitted by the magistrates courts committee in Derbyshire.
  292
  Nor does local justice stop at the court itself. The editor of the Ashbourne News Telegraph said in a recent article:
  "I know from experience that many defendants fear publicity more than the sentence. It would seem extremely unlikely, unless Ashbourne area cases had their own specific day for hearing, that we would travel to Chesterfield day after day in the hope of picking up a case involving a local defendant."
  However, it is accepted that blame and shame have a notable effect on local offenders and their victims.
  In coming to its decision, the magistrates courts committee suggested a travelling time of
  "60 minutes by public transport and within 15 minutes' walk from the nearest public transport node".
  It shows a marked lack of understanding of rural transport to assume that it is possible to travel via public transport from Sudbury, Hartington, Youlgreave, Fenny Bentley and many other villages throughout my rural constituency—which the Leader of the House knows well—to Chesterfield or Derby within an hour. I would argue that it is only just possible to do so in one's own vehicle in an hour, and that is in good weather. In winter, it would take considerably longer.
  If the proposals go forward, magistrates have said that there will be
  "a high probability of non-attendance and increased adjournments, adding to the usual list of excuses for non-attendance. Sophisticated bailees will simply wait for the Police to collect them."
  I received a letter the other day from one of the local magistrates who serves West Derbyshire. It pointed out West Derbyshire is not only a huge geographical area, but is one of the most visited parts of the United Kingdom, with more than 20 million visitors every year. The letter said that the magistrates court committee's proposal to split the division and to take the court work to Chesterfield and Buxton
  "was rejected after considerable public outcry, and in July 1995 the Committee stated then that 'Commitment should be given to provide a court in the West Derbyshire division in the long term.'
  This commitment was short-lived."
  We now have the proposals that the Government are considering.
  The magistrate's letter continued:
  "The Committee has also produced figures of court-hours to justify their proposals for the sitting of the courts. In 1995, the Home Office Courts Service Inspectorate severely criticised the Committee for the poor state of maintenance of the courts and lack of secure facilities, and instructed them to provide the latter. Their immediate response was to move West Derbyshire custody cases to Buxton and Chesterfield. Moving cases causes inconvenience to victims, defendants, witnesses, lawyers, police, probation and social services. There is also a considerable increase in expenditure in travelling, subsistence, and increased legal aid costs.
  There is a point that the magistrate particularly wanted me to make. The letter said:
  "Significantly it alters the court-hours differential between the `losing' and 'receiving' court by a factor of two. A court hour added to Buxton or Chesterfield and lost from West Derbyshire becomes two hours for the purpose of comparison of court needs for the area."
  The magistrate added that, during 1995 and 1996, many custody cases were moved from West Derbyshire:
  "The Bench were assured that these hours would be credited back to them, but this does not appear to have been done, and the Bench have not been able to obtain any figures, or access to court registers."

  293
  The magistrate said that a new dock and secure facilities were installed at Bakewell for 1997, and added:
  "Suggestions which would have enabled all West Derbyshire youth cases to be heard there, thus ensuring that young people were dealt with as near to their home as possible, which is the legal recommendation, were ignored. Youth Courts in West Derbyshire were cancelled, or held irregularly, and on some occasions, magistrates, staff, solicitors, co-defendants, police and social workers … waited in vain for the return of young offenders who had been improperly taken to Chesterfield and dealt with there. Some young defendants travelled from Clay Cross to Matlock (for Matlock offences) to a court which had been cancelled, as did a young defendant with a social worker who had travelled from secure accommodation in another county."
  At the same time, the youth court sittings at Buxton were increased from 25 to 38 days for the year, and a policy of adjourning all youth cases to the first available venue, regardless of the site of the crime, was instituted, without any consultation with the West Derbyshire members of the joint High Peak and Glossop panel.
  As one of the venues has 38 sittings and the other 12, the outcome is apparent; youth work has been taken to Buxton and Chesterfield from West Derbyshire. That is very expensive for social services. Time and money are being wasted on transport and waiting, and a day can be spent on one youth. The committee failed to make use of the facilities at Bakewell, provided at a cost of £18,000 from public funds.
  It seems that the committee has neglected to provide basic facilities for a large area of Derbyshire. When it was reprimanded, its reaction was to remove cases from that area to other courts. The committee has used the hours generated by those moves to increase the apparent need for courts in the receiving areas. That ensures that courts are built in the receiving areas, which already have reasonable court facilities, and the people of West Derbyshire are denied the facility for which they are paying.
  This may be a familiar subject to you, Madam Speaker. On 20 May—in a debate before the Whitsun recess—the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) raised the subject of magistrates courts in South Derbyshire, and I agree entirely with his comments near the end of his speech. He said:
  "Clearly, the proposal is ill founded and I very much hope that the paying authorities, Derbyshire county council and Derby city council, will not endorse it when they decide their position. The project will also be expensive—this is not a PFI that will save us a lot of money."—[Official Report, 20 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 884.]
  The issue has moved on since the last time the House debated it, and both Derby city council and Derbyshire county council have now objected. The proposals are now before the Lord Chancellor.
  I accept that the Leader of the House will not be able to comment in detail on the proposal before the Lord Chancellor, but I hope that she will assure me that my comments this morning will be brought to the Lord Chancellor's attention, so that, when he comes to make his final decision, he will be aware of the strong misgivings—shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House—about the court relocations. I hope that he will decide to reject the proposals, and to keep open the magistrates courts in West Derbyshire, and in other parts of Derbyshire which have made a similarly good case.
  9.57 am
  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: First, may I record my appreciation and gratitude to the Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), for her radical and remarkable tenure in office during the past 15 months or so? Following the reallocation of her duties, she will inspire the House with her leadership in terms of the programming of the House in the future.
  The subject I wish to discuss is the state and the future of the British horse racing industry. I must record my interest—not a pecuniary one—as the senior chairman of the renowned and famous bloodstock and horse racing group, Lords and Commons. Horse racing has been known as the sport of kings, but it is very different now. Satellite and terrestrial television bring sporting activity into our living rooms.
  What used to be a sport a couple of hundred years ago is now a major industry. The racing and betting industry involves 100,000 jobs, with an annual turnover in off-course betting of £4.6 billion. The Exchequer is always around to cream something off: £300 million in taxation and another £150 million for racing and breeding. That is no small change. When Chancellors are looking for a bob or two, they make statements that frighten the industry.
  Regular attendance at racing has topped 5 million. That is the highest figure since the 1960s. Obviously, with a Labour Government in office, there are a few more shillings to be spent, and more pleasure and adaptation to leisure to be had. After the world cup, racing is the most televised sport on terrestrial television.
  Despite its popularity, the industry is in turmoil. The new chairman of the British Horseracing Board is slugging it out with the director general of the Betting Office Licensees Association. The Horserace Betting Levy Board is, in my view, an unnecessary stratum of administration, and it is rowing with the National Association of Bookmakers. There is constant verbal jousting, which is not improving the industry's image or public relations. The family is at war in the racing industry.
  Unfortunately, the bookmakers cream off substantial amounts that should go to the levy board to be ploughed back into maintaining and improving the standard of British racing. One would not have said this as a Labour Member of Parliament some years ago, but I believe that Government should get out of the industry, which should stand on its own two feet, as it is no different from the chemical industry or any other.
  The Government are forced to adjudicate between the bookmakers, the British Horseracing Board and all the other organisations. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who used to be Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, must know all about it. The industry needs to be competitive and to sell its product. The new BHB chairman, Peter Savill, would want to find the highest bidder and plough the money back into the industry. We could have open competition, rather than the three monopolies that we have at present.
  As my right hon. Friend well knows, the Ladbroke-Coral issue is entirely clear. She referred it to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I must talk to her successor, because, when the commission reports

  295
  back, it will be for the new Secretary of State to make the decision. It is an interesting scenario, and we shall want to see what happens.
  I have made it clear to all the major figures in the industry that the poor old punter is stuck in the middle. Off-course betting in local betting shops accounts for 96 per cent. of the money. The poor old punter pays 9 per cent., and certainly does not get value for money in the sporting odds offered by bookmakers.
  The Exchequer takes £300 million a year, and the bookies make £100 million profit and are the majority shareholders in the satellite services company, which is a lucrative cream-off, yet the racing industry makes only about 1p in every £1 bet, which is the lowest proportion in the world.
  The BHB financial plan, drawn up by Peter Savill, is to be welcomed. The racing industry never had a strategy before. There are arguments about the money. The plan is for £25 million to be raised by the sport itself, and, it is hoped, for £80 million to come from the Government; but there is no way that will happen. The money must come from the industry itself, and, frankly, the bookmakers should be targeted. They should put more money back into the industry, and give a fairer share to both the industry and those who patronise it: the punters.
  Four separate Departments are involved in the racing industry: the Treasury, because of the huge tax contributions; the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, because it is a sport, although it should really be considered an industry; the Home Office, because of licensed betting; and the Department of Trade and Industry, because it is an industry. How many other industries have so many different Departments to deal with them? It is ludicrous.
  Bureaucracy in the sport must be reduced. The levy board is like a middleman. It collects and redistributes the money as it sees fit—I suppose there are criteria—although it is bound by regulation and bureaucracy. To be honest, it is an unnecessary stratum of administration. The distribution of money should be put under the auspices of the British Horseracing Board. Having one board to deal with the whole industry would be far more sensible. In the coming year, there will be a reduction of £5 million in the levy takings going back to the industry.
  My right hon. Friend knows very well about the merger I mentioned. I opposed it, and made a submission to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, because I believe that it would be against the public interest, especially for the punter, and that competition would go out of the window.
  I pay tribute to the Tote. Under Peter Jones, a determined and dedicated chairman, it has advanced no end in a short period. It gives efficient service, and distributes the money back to those who have put it in. Nobody plays around, creaming off profits here and there. It makes a remarkable investment back into the industry. I commend the initiative taken by the Tote, and hope that it will be successful. I hope that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission allows the Tote to buy the 830 Coral shops that are for sale.
  I applaud the BHB plan and hope that it will be successful. It would create 9,000 new jobs immediately. I commend the Racecourse Association. Remarkable
  296
  improvements have been made at Haydock Park, a beautiful racecourse which lies between Liverpool and Manchester. The initiative that has been taken means that families can go nearly any day of the week to enjoy not only racing but other leisure activities.
  The industry needs total deregulation, so that it can function like any other competitive business, offering the best services, standards and quality to the public and those who sponsor it. If we do not reform racing, more top racing and top owners will go abroad. We will lose our lead in the racing world, along with the revenue and prestige that the horse racing industry has always brought to the United Kingdom.
  10.10 am
  Mr. Paul Burstow: I want to discuss two issues that concern my constituents. The first arises from a visit to my surgery by Mrs. Gladys Peckham. She is widow of 85 who lives in a council flat. She feels very alone. Her only companion is her chihuahua, whose name is Penny. Gladys has a friend who lives a considerable distance away in Cobham. She wants to move nearer to her friend so that she does not feel so lonely, and she sought a transfer to sheltered accommodation. She received what at first seemed like a positive reply from the local authority involved, but she read on and found that she was being told that she would have to make alternative arrangements for her pet. She would not be allowed to keep Penny in the residential accommodation.
  The bond between people and their pets can be strong, especially with older people who rely heavily on their pets for companionship. Sadly, the emotional importance of pets to older people is not taken seriously enough by many local authorities and housing associations. In some cases, official indifference can result in heart-breaking consequences. More than 140,000 pets are taken to vets or animal sanctuaries each year because their elderly owners are moving to alternative accommodation, and 38,000 of those pets, are put down.
  It cannot be right for older people to be forced to choose between ensuring that they can keep their pets, the prospect of their beloved pets being destroyed or placed in other care and rehomed if they are lucky, and the desire to move into more appropriate sheltered or residential accommodation.
  I hope that more local authorities and housing associations will, in the first instance, take voluntary action to review their policies and practices, consult older people and draw up and develop pet-friendly policies. There is much good practice in the voluntary and housing association sector and local government. My local authority has good practice, but that is no help to Gladys, because she wants to move to another area.
  I am grateful to those hon. Members who have signed early-day motion 1573 on this issue. I hope that local authorities and housing associations that have not yet examined good practice will do so. If they are reluctant, I hope to persuade Ministers not to legislate but to advocate, persuade and be more active on the matter.
  Pet-friendly policies should include entitlement to own a pet if the resident can care for it and it is no danger or health hazard to others. If the pet dies, it should be possible to replace it. Residents must take responsibility for the health, safety and welfare of their pets, and ensure

  297
  that they are kept under proper control. If a pet must be rehomed, the housing provider must advise an appropriate animal welfare agency that can help. Social services departments should keep registers of private and public sector residential care providers with such policies. The worst thing is for older people to go to housing or social services departments only to be told that they must get rid of their pets, rather than being able to examine the available options.
  I hope that the Leader of the House will tell her colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions that this issue affects not only my constituent but many people who feel that having to abandon their pets to get appropriate housing is unacceptable.
  The second issue goes wider than my constituency. If we are honest, standard spending assessments are a mystery to most of us, and probably even to the officials who have to deal with this science, if one can call it that. A recent paper by the Association of London Government deals with some changes that are being considered by the DETR and the Department for Education and Employment that seriously affect the resources available to London boroughs and thus the services that they provide.
  Three changes are being considered: to the additional educational needs index; to the area cost adjustment, which was the subject of numerous inquiries at Environment Question Time; and to the children's personal social services formula. The main changes affect additional educational needs and children's personal social services.
  For AEN, it is proposed to drop lone parents, income support claimants and ethnic minorities from the index used to allocate funds. As a result, the index will under-predict inner London's unit costs for providing education services by about 10 per cent. Over the next three years, a council such as Tower Hamlets could lose up to £50.7 million from its education budget. My local education authority in Sutton could lose about £9.5 million.
  The second big change affects children's personal social services. If the new methodology had been used in 1997–98, London would have lost about £88 million, with 12 London boroughs losing more than 25 per cent. of their children's personal social services SSA. Over three years, that would cost London social services, and thus the services provided to children, around £300 million. The Health Committee has rightly identified that inadequate resourcing has been a major cause of failure in children's services, but we face the prospect of a reduction in funding for those very services in the capital. We know that, in parts of the capital, those services are already failing, and need greater investment and support to do their job properly and effectively.
  Taken together, the three changes could cost London and London services up to £1.5 billion over the next three years. Those resources are vital to the delivery of services. The welcome additional investment in resources for services by the Government has raised expectations that there will be improvements to services and standards. The changes will undermine the Government's efforts to raise standards in education and social services.
  To put that figure of £1.5 billion another way, if councils were allowed to raise their council tax to bridge the gap—it is certain that they would not be
  298
  allowed to do so—approximately a 70 per cent. increase in council tax would be required, which would add £485 a year to the average band D council tax across London. That is far too much, and would have a devastating effect on many of those who rely on the services. I hope that the Leader of the House will communicate that concern to the Department.
  I understand that this subject was to have been raised in an Adjournment debate later this week, but that, sadly, hon. Members will not now have that opportunity to raise their concerns. However, the Association of London Government, Labour leaders of many councils and many of my colleagues who lead London councils are seriously concerned about the impact on children's services and education. Therefore, I hope that, before final decisions are made, our representations will be taken into account.
  10.20 am
  Mr. Tom Cox: First, I join other hon. Members in congratulating the President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on her appointment. I am sure that her new responsibilities will be both varied and interesting, and I wish her great success.
  In this Adjournment debate, I shall talk about Cyprus. At the outset, I declare that I am chairman of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Cyprus group, to which hon. Members of all political parties in the House belong.
  I shall not go over in detail the events since the Turkish invasion of the Republic of Cyprus 24 years ago, because they are well known, as are the efforts made, year after year, to try to reach an honourable settlement, and the United Nations resolutions on Cyprus which have repeatedly called for a settlement. All hon. Members who belong to the CPA Cyprus group want an honourable settlement that recognises the rights and security of Turkish Cypriots just as much as Greek Cypriots; and we want a Cyprus in which all its people can live in peace and share in the development and prosperity of their country.
  As many hon. Members know, this country's links with Cyprus go back well over 100 years. It is a Commonwealth country, and we are one of the guarantor powers for Cyprus, yet Cyprus is today the only European country that is divided by a wall and barbed wire. A great deal of its territory is occupied by a foreign army, that of Turkey. There is a so-called "independent state" in northern Cyprus, which was set up in 1983; but, after all those years, the only country that recognises it is Turkey. The United Kingdom, the European Union, the Council of Europe, the United Nations and the United States of America all refuse to recognise that so-called independent state.
  For some time, the Republic of Cyprus has sought membership of the EU, and it is widely supported by many countries in that endeavour. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has left no one in any doubt of the UK Government's support for that application, and I warmly welcome that clear commitment.
  Despite that support, and despite President Clerides of Cyprus having made Turkish Cypriots a constructive and generous offer of a meaningful role in the discussions on membership, which has been refused, threats have been

  299
  made that, if the application continues and is successful, Turkey will annex northern Cyprus into its mainland; and Turkey has insisted that it should be admitted to the European Union before Cyprus. Those threats are totally unacceptable.
  I serve as a member of the British delegation to the Council of Europe. At the assembly meeting of the socialist group in Strasbourg in June this year, I opened a debate on Cyprus. The chair of the political affairs committee of the Council of Europe, Andras Barsony of Hungary, commented on the attitude of Mr. Denktash, the spokesman for the Turkish Cypriots, and on Turkey's attitude towards Cyprus's right to seek membership of the EU.
  I subsequently asked the House of Commons Library about the British Government's view; a reply dated 3 July stated a clear commitment. The Library wrote to me as follows:
  "The Foreign and Commonwealth Office have supplied the following statement in response to my inquiry about the Government's position on the Treaty of Guarantee in relationship to Cyprus' application for European Union membership:
  Her Majesty's Government does not believe there is any legal obstacle to the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Cyprus. The Governments of the other 14 member states of the European Union, and the Legal Services of the European Commission and the Council, all share this view. We consider the Government of the Republic of Cyprus to have acted legally in submitting its application to join the EU, and in pursuing it."
  I warmly welcome that clear statement. I hope that Turkey and Mr. Denktash are made fully aware of the Government's view.
  To my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House I say that I hope that the UK will now work actively with our colleagues and friends in the Austrian Government, who currently hold the presidency of the European Union, to continue that commitment to Cyprus. There can be no doubt that membership will benefit the whole of Cyprus, both Greek and Turkish communities. It will also bring security and prosperity to Cyprus. That is what I want, what many hon. Members want, and, indeed, what many Turkish Cypriots want. Regrettably, Mr. Denktash continues to refuse.
  As I said, Cyprus has had a long association with this country. Cyprus threatens no one, but it is now repeatedly threatened. I have here a cutting from The Daily Telegraph of 21 July, which states that the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Yilmaz, renewed threats of force against Greece and the Greek Cypriots on the 24th anniversary of Turkish military intervention on the island. We know of the presence of more than 30,000 Turkish troops in the north of the island of Cyprus; and we know that those troops have some of the most modern and sophisticated weaponry in the world. For years, President Clerides has called for the full demilitarisation of the island, and he has outlined proposals on that subject, but they have been rejected by Mr. Denktash and by Turkey.
  Every Member of the House knows of the crucial role played by Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean. Yet Cypriot airspace is repeatedly overflown by Turkish military aircraft. Turkey has repeatedly threatened to annex the northern area of Cyprus. Now the Republic of Cyprus is discussing the establishment of missiles in the south of the island.
  300
  I should much prefer that there were no missiles, but every country has a right to protect its territory from aggression. That is why the issue is so important, and all efforts need to be made to try to resolve it. Certainly, the Republic of Cyprus, the United Kingdom, Greece—which is another guarantor power for Cyprus—the United States and the United Nations all want a settlement. Turkey can undoubtedly play a major role in working towards such a settlement.
  Turkey talks about its future European role and its wish to be a member of the European Union, and I am in no doubt that it will, one day, join the European Union. However, it must begin to understand that, unless it changes its record on Cyprus and on human rights in Turkey, its action against trade unions and the press in Turkey and its treatment of Kurdish communities, it will make little progress towards achieving a role in Europe. Turkey must be told that, clearly and firmly.
  As I said, 24 years ago the Republic of Cyprus was invaded. Some 30 per cent. of its territory is still occupied. No UK Government can say, "That is sad, but it is not up to us to find an honourable solution." For the reasons that I have given, it is up to us. That is why I and many hon. Members on both sides of the House will repeatedly return to the issue of Cyprus until there is an honourable settlement for the island that will benefit all the people who live there, whether they are Greek or Turkish.
  I realise that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House may not be in a position to respond in great detail to my comments, but I am sure that she will convey them to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
  10.32 am
  Mr. David Maclean: I also welcome the Leader of the House to the Dispatch Box. Perhaps she belongs to the modernising faction in the Labour party, but I am sure that she will have a deep respect for the traditions and customs of the House, and an open ear for Madam Speaker's entreaties not to wreck some of the cherished procedures of the House in a frantic drive to over-modernise.
  I want to address a few issues that worry us in Cumbria, which the House ought to consider before it rises for the recess. I am also prompted by the comments about pet animals by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow)—who, sadly, is no longer in his place—to make a few introductory remarks to bring the House up to date on exciting developments in the puppy farming business.
  I am the right hon. Member who poked his head above the parapet and said that the Breeding and Sale of Dogs Bill was flawed, and I blocked it. That caused outrage from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I discovered that the Petcare trust, the National Canine Defence League, the Blue Cross, the Kennel Club, the British Dogbreeders Council and Justice for Dogs also had concerns about the Bill, and thought that it could be improved. I chaired meetings of those organisations, which wanted to work for a better Bill.
  I am pleased to tell the House that the RSPCA and the British Veterinary Association have now joined that working party, which is working to draft a better Bill that it hopes to have ready for an hon. Member who, in November or December, may be willing to

  301
  introduce it. I am delighted that I was the catalyst for that Bill, but I thought that it would be best if I backed out in favour of someone who is seen to be totally independent. The noble Baroness Wharton has taken over the chairmanship of that group, and is now working with all those animal welfare organisations, the Kennel Club and the British Dogbreeders Council to draft a better Bill.
  Compromises must be made, but I am certain that, when the group has drafted the Bill, with Government help in due course, it will represent a wider coalition of interests than the one drafted only by the RSPCA, which satisfied almost no one.
  My concerns about Cumbria relate, first, to the county council. For some extraordinary reason, it has decided to reorganise itself into what I can only describe as a politburo structure. We have passed no legislation saying that county council structures are improper or not working, but Cumbria county council heard a speech by the Prime Minister and assumed that, if it did not totally change its organisation, it would be attacked or criticised for not being modern enough.
  The council has come up with a structure that practically rules out the contribution in proper debate and scrutiny of Labour, Liberal, Conservative and independent council members, and concentrates all decision making on a little politburo of eight "cabinet ministers" and eight executives who will meet in closed session to decide the whole council policy. That has been described as a much more executive form of decision making. It will cut out many council committees and some bureaucracy, but I am afraid that it will also cut out much accountability to the electorate.
  That is a foolish move, which council members will one day regret, because their constituents, of all political persuasions, will find that the councillors cannot represent them because they cannot stand up in a committee or full council and make points on their behalf.
  I want also to make a point about education. The Queen Elizabeth grammar school in Penrith is working side by side and hand in glove with Ullswater high school. A few years ago, there was tension between the schools, mainly because the county council wanted to close one or other of them. I chaired meetings of staff, headmasters and governors, and they worked out a good working relationship. The Government then sensibly extended the scope of Ullswater high school so that it could offer A-levels, and of the grammar school so that it could take in younger pupils. The schools offer complementary courses, and are working together well.
  That is all in danger of being overturned by the decision of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to extend the voting procedure determining the status of grammar schools to catchment schools which may or may not send pupils to the grammar school. That doctrine of the franchise will create instability in a market town of 12,000 people which has two schools, both of which are centres of excellence. There is now no stigma for pupils attending Ullswater high school, because it is a centre of excellence offering courses different from those at the Queen Elizabeth grammar school. It is unfortunate that that should be destabilised in a frantic bout of political correctness.
  I suggest that the Leader of the House examines the guidelines that have been issued by the Secretary of State for Education, in which the procedure for voting on
  302
  school status is an extension of voting powers to people who have no legitimate say whatever in how a school is run. That procedure can be used to bring about a settlement for schools that is motivated by politics rather than local practicality and need.
  Another cause of concern in Cumbria is transport, which is vital to us in the far north-west of England. I know that many colleagues have long distances to travel, and there is always tremendous sympathy for Scottish colleagues who may want to go home on a Thursday evening. I have no sympathy for them. The last plane may be the Glasgow shuttle, which leaves at half-past 8—[HON. MEMBERS: "Eight o'clock."]—the 8 o'clock shuttle—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nine o'clock."]—the 9 o'clock shuttle to Glasgow, Edinburgh or Inverness. It is a tremendous distance. Those hon. Members will be home by 8 o'clock, 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock. The last train for Cumbria leaves at half-past 6. There is a slight extension in the summer—remarkably, we have Mr. Branson to thank for that. Currently, the last train for Cumbria leaves at half-past 7.
  That is not a personal sob story. I do not mind; I have become used to it over 15 years. I am merely illustrating the point that, whereas colleagues in other parts of the United Kingdom may live further from London, the transport links are infinitely better than those with Cumbria and the north-west. To reach our nearest airport, we must cross the Pennines to Newcastle or travel south to Manchester. We therefore depend fundamentally on motorway links and rail links, and on the forthcoming improvements to the west coast main line.
  Today I wish to focus on more parochial issues—well, not parochial, but not mega-stuff such as the £2 billion investment in the west coast main line. I wish to talk about the need to close the Cumberland gap—the last remaining stretch of dual carriageway at the top of the M6 before we hit the M74 and the improvements being made to it. That short stretch of dual carriageway is a death trap, because there is motorway either side.
  The contracts for upgrading that stretch of road to dual carriageway standard were ready a year ago last May. It is a private finance initiative thing, on which, naturally, the general election brought the shutters down. One cannot let contracts with an election in the offing. Then, unfortunately, we were caught up in the roads review.
  It is a small contract. Everyone knows that the work must be done. I expect that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will announce it today. I should be appalled if it were not announced today. We have wasted 15 months because that small contract was caught in the roads review. Although it was right for the Government to review their road strategy, it was unfortunate that such a small, necessary thing was caught in it.
  I do not know what announcement the Secretary of State will make about the A66 today. I merely say, as someone living in the north-west of England, in Cumbria, that, whereas some parts of the United Kingdom may have decided that they do not want more bypasses or roads, and that they are anti-transport, we have not. There is quite a list of roads that need improvement in the constituency of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), in Workington and in my constituency—especially the A66.

  303
  We would all welcome that funding. I ask the Leader of the House to convey to the Deputy Prime Minister the message that, if the Government announce today that they plan improvements to the A66, the A69 and other roads in Cumbria, no protest groups will lie down in Cumbria, saying, "No road improvements, thank you." If Mr. Scrumpy, Mr. Swampy, Mr. Stumpy, or whatever his name is, comes to Cumbria—he can bring some scrumpy to Cumbria—he will not be made welcome. Although we desperately care for our wonderful lakeland environment—for our Pennines, the Solway plain and all the other wonderful areas of Cumbria—we depend on road improvements, and we shall welcome them if the Government care to spend money on them.
  We are also worried about the Territorial Army. Following the strategic defence review, the Government announced in the White Paper that the Territorial Army would be cut from 56,000 to 40,000, and that the cuts would be concentrated in the infantry and the yeomanry. That announcement desperately affects us in Cumbria, because the only real Territorial Army units in Cumbria are infantry.
  The Fourth Battalion King's Own Royal Border Regiment has a company each in Carlisle, Workington and Barrow, and headquarters in Lancashire—as the Leader of the House knows, all Labour-held constituencies. It also has two platoons in Kendal. I believe that 24 per cent. of the members of that Territorial Army regiment are unemployed. It is a vital source of employment to young men and women in Cumbria. Each year, about 100 of them enter the Regular Army.
  It is a mistake to cut the Territorial Army infantry. They can be used even in the modern, high-tech mobile brigades that the Government envisage. A few years ago I, and many other colleagues, were thought good enough, as territorial infantry soldiers, to be part of the First British Corps on the Rhine. When we faced the Soviet Union—which was regarded as the most powerful adversary that the world and the western forces could have—the infantry were not told, "I am sorry; these Russians are too good for you. You people are not suitable." Tens of thousands of us had a role, integrated with the rest of the infantry, integrated with armour, in First British Corps, in a task facing the Soviet forces.
  Thank God, that has changed, but now we are told, "Terribly sorry; there is no role now for all you guys who were good enough to be part of the force facing the Russians. We shall have these new air mobile brigades. There will be rapid deployment, with all sorts of new things to do, but there is no role for you." That is wrong; of course there is a role. We do not need the same numbers, but the Territorial Army infantry could be used in the new role envisaged. Ten per cent. of our Territorial Army forces are in Bosnia; they can be used there.
  Although I believe that the cuts being made in the Territorial Army are wrong in principle and short-sighted, the White Paper is long-sighted enough to consider two new aircraft carriers—if we ever get them. If we get them, it will be wonderful. I believe that we might reconsider the Territorial Army infantry.
  Leaving that aside, we have a problem in Cumbria. If the Government are to make cuts of 16,000, the infantry must bear the brunt, and that could devastate us in
  304
  Cumbria. I plead with the Government to keep the Fourth Battalion King's Own Royal Border Regiment, or not to cut it so much that it is reduced to a meaningless shell.
  We may lose a company in Workington. Presumably Carlisle will have a case to keep a couple of platoons. Lancashire will have to keep something. It would be nice if we could keep something in Barrow. The whole thing may be cut drastically, and the Queen's Lancashire Regiment, to the south, may be cut drastically. The whole thing may be cobbled together to form a new battalion composed of a couple of platoons in Carlisle, a couple in Barrow and so on, which will have no real identity or core, and whose platoons will be unable to train together.
  The final point on which I wish to conclude is the plight of rural areas in Cumbria. We are worried about what is happening in the countryside. Undoubtedly agriculture is suffering because of the strength of sterling. Everyone who relies on agriculture is suffering. We are already seeing redundancies among agricultural supply companies, and cuts in a range of rural industries.
  Farm incomes fell by 46 per cent. in the year to March 1998, and are likely to fall by at least the same percentage this year. That is an incredible cut in income. We know how devastating it would be if our salaries were cut by 46 per cent. Only when that happens do we begin to realise how many industries rely on agriculture. One then becomes aware of the suffering of industries that one never imagined had such a key input from agriculture, and depended so much on it for their livelihood.
  The effects are widespread. Everyone in rural parts of Cumbria is suffering from the effects of the drop in farm incomes. If farm income drops 46 per cent., it is not a few wealthy farmers who are affected: in Cumbria, it is tens of thousands of hill farmers—small farmers. We do not have big grain barons with 10,000 acres. It is all small farmers in the sheep, beef and dairy sectors, and all those sectors are affected.
  The effect of BSE and the European beef ban continues to be felt. There can be no confidence in the future of agriculture unless we can find ways to speed up the lifting of that ban and to extract a date from the Commission.
  On a further point, we must keep green-top milk. The Government have sensibly kicked this into touch, and I hope that there is not one of those announcements that sneak out at four o'clock, hidden behind other announcements that the Prime Minister may make today, stating that it is abolished. Green-top milk is a small part of the overall milk trade in Cumbria and in the UK. Nevertheless, it is purchased by consumers who know what they are doing. There are adequate warnings, and there must be consumer choice. I am a great believer in labelling products, telling people what the risks are—we know that the risks of green-top milk are negligible—and leaving consumers to make a free choice. I could say that the same applies to beef on the bone, but I shall not go down that route now.
  I anticipate that many hon. Members will want to speak in the debates tonight. As I do not expect to get in then, I hope that one of them will mention the calf processing aid scheme, and point out to the new Minister of Agriculture how important it is that that scheme is kept going as a vital lifeline to livestock producers. I am sure that the right hon. Lady and her admirable staff will make sure that that point is conveyed to the new Minister of Agriculture.

  305
  I hope that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will intervene, following a further breakdown in talks between Milk Marque and the dairy trade. Dairy farm incomes alone have fallen 35 per cent. this year, and entire areas of dairying country such as Cumbria will suffer untold damage unless trends are reversed, with milk prices to the farmer rising. I am not making a plea for the doorstep pinta to be more expensive, but there is a widening gap between the price paid on the doorstep or at the supermarket, and the price that the farmer gets. Farmers' income is being cut drastically.
  The final point on rural areas—
  Mr. McLoughlin: The sixth final point?
  Mr. Maclean: Never trust a politician.
  The final point on rural areas is our concern about the new regional development areas. The northern part of Cumbria is to be amalgamated with Liverpool. That means that representation from Cumbria, which would have been small in the north-western area, is likely to be even smaller in the combined area of Liverpool and north-west Cumbria.
  Ideally, if a county such as Cumbria, which does not properly fall in with the north-east or the north-west, is in the north-west development area, it needs three representatives on the board. It needs someone from the industrialised west country who shares the concerns of west Cumbria and understands the needs there, as well as the industrial needs of Barrow, which are similar; it needs someone from the central lakes and the uplands there, who understands the needs of tourism and England's most important tourist area; and it needs someone from the agricultural areas and the Eden valley, to express the concerns of that part of the county.
  It is likely that, for the whole of Cumbria, we might end up with one person on the board. I should hate to have to suggest who, from such a gigantic county, should serve on a regional development agency that covers Liverpool, Manchester, Lancashire and the entire huge and important north-west area. Who in the name of goodness could we get to represent Cumbria, where we have important industries such as Sellafield—the nuclear industry—and England's biggest tourist area, as well as the agricultural areas? I plead with the right hon. Lady to tell the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, without setting any quotas, that Cumbria needs three people on the new regional development board, covering skills and disciplines wide enough to represent the whole county.
  On that point, which I am sure the right hon. Lady will take on board, I once again wish her success in her new job, and successful and happy holidays, when they come.
  10.54 am
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I shall try not to raise as many points as the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), or no other hon. Members will get in.
  I welcome the Leader of the House to her new position. She will be sadly missed as President of the Board of Trade.
  The topics on which I shall speak are car pricing, vehicle emissions and public transport. There are 24 million cars on the road in the United Kingdom, and the number is rapidly increasing. The UK car industry is extensive.
  306
  It is well documented that car prices in the UK are massively different from those in the rest of the European Union. The EU publishes the figures in six-monthly reports, and the UK is consistently at the top of the list for car prices. On 1 May, the European Commission published its 11th report on car prices, which shows that cars in Britain are 58 per cent. dearer than anywhere else in the EU. Of the 74 best-selling models, 60 were dearest in the UK.
  The greatest discrepancy involves the Ford Mondeo—the car for the world. That leading model from Ford costs us in the UK a staggering 58.5 per cent. more than elsewhere. The Ford Fiesta costs 44.7 per cent. more in the UK than in Spain. The Rover is built in Britain, but the 214, the 414, the 620 and the Land Rover Discovery models are 50 per cent. more expensive in Britain than in Holland. The Renault Clio, which we see in the advertisements—the sexy car, as it is called—costs 33.8 per cent. more in the UK than in Italy. The list goes on and on.
  Why is there such a difference? Why should UK consumers have to pay more for a car than our continental friends? What is good for the EU should be good for this country. We are part of the EU, and we should have the same benefits.
  The list price of cars is determined by general market conditions. Manufacturers tend to take account of the tax linked to car purchase. Therefore, it is believed that, in countries where special taxes are due for cars, the manufacturers will ensure that net car prices are among the lowest for any models. That is the case in Ireland, Holland and Portugal. However, where no such taxes are due, as in Britain, pre-tax prices are set at a higher level. That has a knock-on effect, which results in the higher retail price.
  Manufacturers argue that factors such as exchange rate differences, differences in specification and discounts offered by dealers account for the variation in price between Britain and the rest of Europe. That is not the case. Even if those factors are taken into account, Britain still pays about 10 per cent. more than other EU countries.
  Car manufacturers argue that the costs involved in producing right-hand drive vehicles are higher. That holds little water. In any case, under EU competition laws, all EU countries are required to produce right-hand drive cars. It is still possible to buy such a car on the continent and bring it back to the UK more cheaply than to buy it in the UK. That anomaly must be resolved.
  The strong pound has not made foreign vehicles such as BMW, Mercedes, Volkswagen, Renault, Fiat and those from other continental producers any cheaper. The prices are pegged and held deliberately. For example, one can buy a Nissan hatchback from Holland for £10,000. Even after paying VAT and bringing the car to Britain, one will still have made a considerable saving.
  Although car dealers are permitted to set their own prices, it is alleged that they are reluctant to lower prices because of agreements with the manufacturers. The manufacturers comprise that great body of people who claim to look after those who buy cars, but that is not the case. Manufacturers have been known to manipulate prices by threatening to remove the franchise from dealers should they lower their prices. Manufacturers are pegging prices, and that is not fair to the consumer.

  307
  Car pricing was raised at a meeting of EU Finance Ministers at York in March. That initiated an investigation into price disparities between EU markets. I hope that the outcome of that study promotes positive action. Something needs to be done to remedy the problem, as the consumer is already becoming more and more dissatisfied and more and more taken for a ride—if the House will excuse the pun.
  We do not want people to be forced to shop abroad for their cars. We should be encouraging people to buy cars from United Kingdom dealers. Personally, I should like to see them buy cars that are built in the UK. An important factor is to introduce measures to lower car prices. I hope that the Government will make that a priority, and take action on this important matter. First, that approach would certainly help UK manufacturing. Secondly, it would help to secure more jobs in that sector.
  There is a link between new cars, pollution and emissions. Perhaps, if car prices were lowered, the result would be more new cars with reduced emissions, which would have a beneficial effect on global warming. It would also allow us to get rid of the old bangers—the polluters that we see throughout the country. Lower new car prices would make more emission-efficient cars available to the public, which would be better for the community. Much could be done in that direction. As I have said, the problem of global warming could be reduced through this factor.
  I am keen to know whether the Government will assist in promoting the use of more environmentally friendly fuel for vehicles. Already the Government provide funding for energy savings—the powershift programme, which gives grants of up to half the capital cost of converting vehicles to run on alternative fuels. I would welcome that factor being taken on board.
  The Government have also conducted research into the use of alternative fuels. Local authority fleets and taxis have been tested. However, it is important to understand that fewer than 1 per cent. of vehicles in the UK rely on an alternative fuel. In 1997, 9,100 vehicles were registered as running on gas. There were 17,400 vehicles running on electricity. I would like to see these numbers increase. With an ever-increasing number of vehicles on the roads, I hope that the Government will continue seriously to consider the environmental damage that is caused by car pollution and all its implications.
  I hope that the Government will work on measures to improve the assistance that is given to the public and private firms who wish to convert their vehicles. Perhaps incentives can be offered to car manufacturers to produce more cleaner vehicles for general use.
  I recently supported an early-day motion that calls on the Government to look into the possibility of providing incentives to bus and taxi companies to convert their vehicles to liquefied petroleum gas or natural compressed gas. The motion has been supported by about 50 Members so far. Traffic pollution would be significantly alleviated if we set targets for converting vehicles to run on LPG or natural compressed gas.
  Vehicles such as buses and taxis run through our cities all day and all night. They are continually polluting our cities and the countryside. There is a golden opportunity
  308
  for the Government to undertake some radical tests, and to conduct trials to clean up our cities. That would not take much doing. I believe that LPG and compressed natural gas are the ways forward, and we should take that on board.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) represents a constituency that is a near neighbour of mine. He will initiate an Adjournment debate tonight on the cylinders that are produced by Lucas in his constituency. They are made for cars that run on LPG or compressed natural gas. Unfortunately, Lucas will close that factory, which is sad. I think that there should be investment to keep production in the United Kingdom. I welcome my hon. Friend's Adjournment debate.
  We should not lose sight of the fact that the car has an important role, but there should be an alternative to it, and that is public transport. Public transport must play a part, but it must be more widely available. That is why I welcome the important White Paper presented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We must ensure that public transport is not only available but more welcoming and more efficient, and that applies to bus stations and train stations. They must feel friendly and welcoming to the travelling public as well as safe at night. They must provide facilities.
  I shall give an example that shows how bad some companies are. Stagecoach, in my constituency, operates the bus station at Chorley, on land owned by the local authority, on a peppercorn rent. The bus station itself is owned by Stagecoach. When Stagecoach took over the bus station, the lease clearly stated that a public toilet must be provided. Everybody would expect that the general public could use that toilet. Stagecoach was taken to court by the local authority to be asked why the toilet had not been opened. Stagecoach objected, saying, "It states in the lease that a toilet must be provided, but it does not say that it should be open to the general public."
  That approach will not allow improvements to be made to public transport in bus and train stations. Improvements will not be made if companies do not provide facilities for the travelling public. That approach is not good enough, and it is not the way forward.
  I wish to take the view forward that there should be cheaper vehicles, alternative fuels, better public transport and better facilities for those who use public transport.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I wish to say before I call the next speaker that a number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. If contributions are reasonably brief, it will be possible to call most hon. Members who wish to speak. If contributions are not brief, many hon. Members will be disappointed.
  11.5 am
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I shall heed what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and try to keep my remarks to within about five minutes.
  I welcome the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) to her new position of Leader of the House. I wish her well in her arduous duties, particularly at a

  309
  time of constant change. The right hon. Lady will certainly receive support from the Opposition for sensible change.
  As we enter the holiday season, and for us at Westminster the summer recess, with I am sure a short holiday somewhere along the line, it is appropriate to raise the subject of quarantine laws. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) in his place. I know that he has introduced a ten-minute Bill on this subject and has worked extremely hard in trying to ensure that we have sensible changes in our quarantine laws. I hope that he, like me, will be pleased very shortly by some announcements that the Government may be making. An announcement is long overdue.
  There are 12 million pet owners in this country. Between 1972 and 1995, 170,000 pets were put into quarantine. During that period 2,500 of those pets died.
  People go abroad for many reasons, not only for holidays. Some do so by force of work. Indeed, the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) mentioned Cyprus, where we have air force bases. One person came to my attention. He was forced, when he finished his three-month stint in Cyprus, to return to this country. His dog had to go into quarantine for six months. That is a long time. If someone is in the armed forces, he might be moved somewhere else fairly shortly after returning to this country. Quarantine law is something that we should consider.
  A former Member, David Waddington, became governor of Bermuda. He took his dog with him. In due course he returned to this country and the dog went into quarantine. Unfortunately it died when in quarantine.
  The question that must be asked is whether there is room for sensible change. I know that a committee of experts is currently examining these matters. It is to be hoped that shortly it will make some recommendations. We would like early recommendations to come forward because there are many people who would delay holidays while waiting for an announcement while others would not take holidays: because they do not want to be separated from their pets, going abroad is completely alien to them.
  There are variable kennel standards within the United Kingdom. However, people do not want to be separated from their pets for six months, even if their pets are in the best kennels.
  None of us wants to see rabies introduced into this country, or even the threat of that happening. That applies to any other diseases for that matter. However, we must look at the facts. If there is a sensible alternative, which I believe there now is, particularly with the introduction of new technology and such things as passports for pets, we could take a sensible step and ensure that people could go abroad with their pets without being separated from them for six months.
  In 1995, the Select Committee on Agriculture recommended changes for cats and dogs and passports for pets. If we carry on with the current quarantine laws, some people will take their pets abroad illegally and smuggle them back into this country, which will be a problem. Between 1988 and 1995, 769 animals were detected and officially reported as being smuggled back into this country, so one can only imagine how many more pets were brought back in—they are a real threat.
  We need a properly regulated system under which we know that pets have been properly inoculated and have in their necks microchips which can be properly scanned.
  310
  That would ensure that pets are clean going out and clean coming back in. Now that new technology is available, we can do that. Some people will be deterred from the introduction of passports for pets by the expense, but putting pets in quarantine is extremely expensive. The cost is reckoned to be between £800 for cats and £1,500 for dogs, but that is not the only issue. People are concerned about the emotional separation of the pet from the owner.
  National Opinion Polls conducted a poll on the subject in 1996, and 86 per cent. of the sample said that they would prefer sensible change, if available. A sensible alternative is available. Will the Leader of the House take on board the fact that some people—for example, the blind, who have guide dogs—have no choice? They are unable to go abroad because the quarantine laws state that they would have to be separated from their guide dogs when they returned.
  If we cannot have an early announcement about quarantine laws generally, may we have one for those who rely on their dogs, such as the blind, so that they might at least have the opportunity to go abroad? Passports for pets are backed by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and 12 million pet owners are waiting to hear what the Leader of the House has to say about them.
  11.11 am
  Mr. David Kidney: I have abiding memories of a speech of some urgency made recently by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who spoke strongly about an escape of acid gas in his constituency. I echo the pleasure expressed by Madam Speaker at my hon. Friend's reappearance in the Chamber last Friday, following a recent stroke. I send him my best wishes for a full and speedy recovery.
  This issue has been pursued for some years by a constituent, Mr. G. Badley, of Stafford, who has pressed successive Home Secretaries and even petitioned the Queen on a subject about which he feels strongly. I support my constituent, a retired prison officer, on the issue of introducing a long service medal for prison officers. There were calls for such a medal in the previous Parliament and, for completeness, I should say that hon. Members also spoke of its covering good conduct and bravery. Although those are commendable criteria for recognition, I shall confine my remarks to a long service award.
  There has been a prison in my constituency for hundreds of years. Stafford prison is currently a category C training prison with a prisoner population of more than 600. I last visited it in March and, although some facilities are clearly not up to modern standards because of the prison's age, the regime is excellent, with reasonable but firm control by prison officers. A good job is done in demanding circumstances. Budgetary matters were raised with me by the management, and I took them up with the Home Office. I also canvassed serving prison officers about a long service medal, and there was overwhelming support for its introduction.
  The Imperial Service medal, which was introduced in 1903 for junior grades of civil servants in this country and abroad, is available to prison officers. It is a silver medal with the sovereign's crowned head on the obverse and the inscription "For Faithful Service" on the reverse. I asked

  311
  prison officers for their comments about it. One said, "Some staff are recommended for it after retirement and it appears to be awarded in an haphazard way." Another said, "Numerous staff are recommended for the award, but only a few receive it". A third member of staff wrote that
  "as it is only awarded after completion of service, the pride of wearing it on our uniform is not there."
  That is an important point to bear in mind in respect of the call for an award given during service.
  Other regular and volunteer services have long service awards. Perhaps the best example is the police service, whose current long service award was instituted in June 1951. The basic qualification is 22 years' service. I was reminded that the police have a long service award during the dispute between the Home Secretary and the Prison Officers Association about recognising the right to industrial action. Part of the Home Secretary's argument was that prison officers are office holders, not employees, and should not have such a right, just as the police are office holders and have no such right. Could not prison officers be like police officers and have a long service award?
  Curiously, my research about medals led me to the Colonial Prison Service long service medal, which still exists. It was instituted in October 1955 for 18 or more years of service in colonial prisons. It is odd that there should be such an obscure and backward-looking award, but not one that is modern and relevant.
  For several months, I have been asking the Prison Service and the Home Office to support my constituent's call for such an award. In January 1998, Mr. Richard Tilt, the Director General of the Prison Service, told me in a letter that the question has been under consideration for a number of years. It was kind of him to say that that consideration had been prompted from several sources, including Mr. Badley. Mr. Tilt confirmed that the Imperial Service medal was awarded for more than 25 years' service and only on retirement. Officers can of course be nominated for the OBE and the MBE.
  I have continued to press for a new long service award. In April, the then Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), wrote to me that, although the Home Office was willing for such an award to be created, the decision was in the hands of the ceremonial branch of the Cabinet Office. I am told that discussions have been going on for some time, but, at that stage, there were still outstanding concerns.
  I wrote again. The latest letter from my hon. Friend, which arrived in June, said that the Home Office was still willing to create a Queen's prison service medal to recognise long service, but was still waiting for news from the Cabinet Office. Interestingly, the letter also said that the future of the Imperial Service medal was under consideration, so the time is clearly right to consider introducing a new medal.
  I hope that this airing of the issues will speed a decision to institute a new long service medal for serving prison officers. To prepare for the debate, I read the Prison Service annual report for 1996–97, which was the most recent that I could find. If I have totalled up the columns correctly, assaults on staff in that year totalled 2,531, so
  312
  it is fair to say that they bravely carry out a tough job and fulfil part of the necessary task of maintaining public order. Prison officers deserve the recognition for which I am calling.
  11.19 am
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: I add my congratulations to the new Leader of the House on her appointment, and wish her well in the work that she will be doing to serve the House. Our congratulations are tinged with a little regret, because the precise timing of her appointment may lead to some delay in the much-needed work of the Modernisation Committee. It was something of an irony that 18 years of Conservative rule led to a thorough overhaul of every public body and institution in the land, except Parliament. I am sure that the new Leader of the House, when she reflects on her former role at the Department of Trade and Industry, will remember that she has not merely accepted, but often welcomed, the moves that the previous Government made, to improve the responsiveness, effectiveness and accountability of public bodies. I hope that, as the new Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, she will want to press ahead with reform of the House.
  I counsel the right hon. Lady not to listen to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) when he asks her to slow down the pace of reform. Were he present, I would remind him that he was an active supporter of a Government who believed that reform of public institutions should be undertaken vigorously, regardless of the special pleading of those who held office in such bodies.
  My regret about the delay is not because the new Leader of the House has shown any unwillingness to continue with reform, but because on Monday of this week the Committee was due to meet Madam Speaker and we were unable to do so because of the timing of the right hon. Lady's appointment. I well understand the reasons for that, but the projected report of the Committee will not now be available before the recess. In all probability, it will not be feasible to debate the report in the spillover session in October. I fear, therefore, that none of the proposals will be implemented in time for the new Session starting in November. We hope that the right hon. Lady will pick up the baton and run with it as vigorously as possible, and that she will help us to make up for the unavoidable lost time.
  The Modernisation Committee has been privileged to receive a great deal of material, including many letters from Members, encouraging us to go further and faster. We have also received the timetable for the Parliament in Canada. I can tell hon. Members, if they are interested, when the Canadian Parliament will rise for the Christmas recess in 2003, but I cannot tell them whether we shall be sitting in the first week of November 1998. That contrast between the capacity and ability of legislatures in other parts of the world to come to terms with the modern age; our reluctance and inability to do so are at the heart of my argument.
  If the Leader of the House wants to encourage us to adjourn for the summer recess, I hope that she will assure us that her commitment to pressing ahead with her predecessor's urge to reform and modernise the House and bring it into the 20th if not the 21st century is undiminished.

  313
  I remind the right hon. Lady that a distinguished former Member, Mr. Belisha, gave the country his beacons, and that another distinguished former Member, Kenneth Baker, now in the other place—[Interruption.] Perhaps there is some dispute about the qualifying adjective that I used. He has given every school staff room of the country Baker days. The new Leader of the House has the opportunity to give us Mrs. Beckett's calendar, and I hope that she will do so.
  11.23 am
  Caroline Flint: May I join my colleagues in congratulating my right hon. Friend on her appointment as Leader of the House? I am sure that, as the former President of the Board of Trade, she will bring experience in dealing with employers, who often do not want to consider change. When she addresses the issue of modernisation, and compares it with her task at the Board of Trade, she will realise that people in the House are a much harder bunch to crack than some of our major employers.
  I want to continue on the same theme as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), and specifically to deal with the issue of child care and family-friendly policies in the House, not just for the 659 MPs but for the many thousands of employees who work here every day for MPs and for the House. In the past 15 months, as a new Member of Parliament, I have tried not to rush in and suggest ways in which the House could improve and modernise. I have got involved in my work in the Chamber and in the Select Committee on which I am proud to serve, and I have thought about how my work has been affected and have listened to other hon. Members who are more experienced than I am. I have come to the conclusion that there is room for change.
  More than 300 of my constituents have visited the House in the past year, and, whenever possible, I have guided them round. In preparation for that, I have learnt about the building and its history. I have been struck by how much this place has changed. It has accommodated parliamentary reform: the people who are elected to the House have changed, and the enfranchisement of the population has brought about changes. The building has been adapted and modernised to accommodate the changes. Change has unfortunately sometimes been necessary as a result of fires or bombs. I hope that we do not have to resort to such drastic measures before the Modernisation Committee recognises that we can develop and change the building while maintaining the traditions that my constituents enjoy and like to see when they visit the House.
  My constituents enjoy learning about the history of the struggles for democracy in the United Kingdom and about the traditions of the House, as do I, being a history graduate. However, they are bewildered by our legislative procedures and by the working lives of MPs and those who work with them. The Modernisation Committee could take the lead on this issue, and could make ground-breaking progress towards making the House fit for the 21st century while respecting its traditions. It must be a modern place of work.
  We need fully to consider how this place can become a family-friendly environment. We must remind ourselves what the Government are asking employers outside the House. In their Green Paper, "Meeting the Childcare Challenge", they said:
  314
  "Employers have a vital role to play in delivering the strategy. We want to encourage and enable more employers to support childcare and adopt family friendly employment practices to help their employees to balance work and family life."
  If we face that challenge in the House and improve the opportunities for staff to combine family life and work, we will send out a good message to employers throughout the country. If we can find solutions in this place, they can certainly be found in other places of employment.
  I welcomed the Administration Committee's decision to conduct a survey of the child care needs of staff and MPs. However, I was disappointed with the outcome of that survey, as were the hon. Members who signed my early-day motion 1556. Rather than being a springboard for further debate on this important issue, it drew a line in the sand and said that we now needed closure.
  The Administration Committee pointed out that only just under 300 people said that they would be keen to use a child-care facility on site. The Committee considered that a poor response, but I think that it was pretty good when one considers that people were responding to a survey in a situation where there are no child care facilities on site. Having established two workplace nurseries, my experience is that demand increases once a facility is established. The number using such facilities would be greater once they were provided and staff could plan their child care better. Many probably already have to look elsewhere for such provision.
  It is interesting to note that of those who replied to the survey, 79 per cent. were in favour of child care and, of those, only 23 per cent. had children aged 12 and under. That is important because it demonstrates that staff, whether or not they have children, recognise that family life is important and that they could support better child care provision to help their colleagues with young families.
  If we started with a blank sheet it would be easy to improve facilities in the House, and outlooks and attitudes. I have high hopes that the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly will address such issues from the outset. For us, the challenge is greater. We must stretch our imagination to envisage a different way of organising things.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) has tabled an amendment to my early-day motion. As someone who is concerned about issues relating to children who are looked after, I respect his opinion, but I challenge his statement that
  "the payment of childcare vouchers allows parents to choose high quality childcare closer to home in a more child-centred milieu than the Palace of Westminster."
  In addressing the child care needs of people in this place, rather than presenting them with something which they have to accept, we must offer diversity and variety.
  It is important to remember that child care initiatives have developed in the most unusual places. During the second world war, child care was much in demand when women had to service industries while men were away at war. That challenge was taken up by creating child care in the factories and workplaces, enabling women to work so that we could win the war.
  If we look outside the House, which it is important to do, we find imaginative schemes have been established by employers, sometimes on their own and sometimes in partnership with others, in order to develop imaginative

  315
  solutions to their employees' child care needs. The European Parliament has already established a nursery. Therefore, we should not be too constricted by the need to provide a child-centred facility. What is important is that what we provide should be of good quality and accessible. As I have said, the building has adapted many times during the centuries and can adapt again.
  The Administration Committee made several points in objecting to considering child care in more detail. One point that it made was that it is unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to subsidise child care in this place. That is a bit rich because the taxpayer subsides many facilities in the House, whether catering, staff or offices. Facilities are subsidised in all sorts of ways to create a good working environment so that staff and Members of Parliament can do their job, and child care should be no exception. Child care provided for employees has been proven to go some way towards retaining skilled staff while helping people to cope with family life and work. That argument by the Administration Committee was a bit below the belt and did not fit in with all the other facilities subsidised by the taxpayer in the House.
  Just down the road in Whitehall, Departments are addressing child care issues and family friendly policies: the Administration Committee and others concerned with the issue have plenty of examples in their search for advice and other options.
  Most disappointing was the fact that the Administration Committee, having conducted a survey, which I welcome and applaud, and having received the report from the organisation which conducted that research, refused to hear from anyone else. My early-day motion asks the Committee to invite others with an interest in the area, perhaps employers who may be able to show by example what can be achieved, to contribute in order further to open up the debate.
  I am chair of the all-party group on child care, which, after the recess, is looking forward to hearing a representative from the Department of the Serjeant at Arms speak on child care in the House. I welcome all hon. Members to that meeting.
  It is vital that child care is one part of a modernising agenda and that we recognise that if we cannot find solutions it is difficult to ask others to do so elsewhere. I invite the Administration Committee to think again about the matter and allow the debate to be opened up once more.
  11.35 am
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: It is said that politicians develop thick skins, but, in health terms, we often do not think too much about skin. We tend to concentrate on the health of our internal organs, eyes and limbs, but not on our skin—until people suffer burns. People with serious burns need skin grafts or skin transplants. Skin can be taken from other parts of a patient's body, but when a person suffers extensive burns, that is not possible. Other people's skin has to be used. Therefore, it is important that Britain has skin-banking facilities. Skin transplants are permitted under the Human Tissue Act 1961, but we do not have a national skin bank and that is one of the deficiencies of our health service.
  We do, however, have one purpose-built skin bank, at Queen Mary's hospital, Roehampton—the Stephen Kirby skin bank. It is the only dedicated establishment in Britain
  316
  where skin can be retrieved, treated and stored. Its very existence is the result of a tragic but remarkable story that is dear to the hearts of people in my part of the country.
  In May 1994, Stephen Kirby and his family were taking a camping holiday in France when, in the early hours of one morning, their tent caught fire. Stephen helped his wife and daughter out of their tent but, sadly, his five-year-old son died. In rescuing his family, Stephen suffered 90 per cent. burns, and his daughter 25 per cent. burns. Stephen's wife, Kim, was devastated.
  Stephen was taken to the burns unit at Queen Mary's hospital, but his family were told that without skin he would die within three days. At that time, there was no facility to provide a supply of skin, so 12 members of his family and friends donated skin. Skin was removed from their bodies under general anaesthetic, but their recovery was extremely painful. Stephen's eventual death gave them even greater pain.
  Stephen's wife Kim decided that something must be done, so, with the help of a family friend, Nick Brighouse, they persuaded the Eastern Daily Press—the daily paper serving our area—to launch an appeal, with a view to establishing the first skin bank in the United Kingdom. That appeal captured the imagination and the hearts of people in Norfolk and north Suffolk and the target of £100,000 was reached in 14 weeks. Schools throughout the area, including the one at which I was teaching at the time, vigorously supported the appeal, and pupils found all sorts of ways of gathering money.
  Eventually, £250,000 was raised, and the Stephen Kirby skin bank was opened in March 1986 by Kim Kirby and Simon Weston—who, hon. Members will remember, was the officer who suffered appalling burns during the Falklands war. When he performed the ceremony he said that, had a skin bank existed then, he would have been saved 28 operations.
  Today, the skin bank stands as a memorial to the late Stephen Kirby. It is the first purpose-built dedicated skin bank in the country and it stores skin from cadaver donors. No other replacement for skin is as effective as skin itself, which prevents infection and loss of blood, encourages healing, reduces pain and can reduce the length of time spent in hospital. The Stephen Kirby foundation has established a research facility continually to refine and improve methods of storing, processing and using donated skin.
  Each year, numerous people sustain burns, many so extensive that those people have not enough of their own skin to replace the burnt skin. Burns units throughout the country must therefore obtain donated skin, and they can do so only from the Stephen Kirby skin bank—although skin is sometimes brought in from Holland and other countries. The Stephen Kirby skin bank is successful: this year there were 40 donors, and the bank is continuing despite the transfer of the burns and plastic surgery units to Chelsea and Westminster hospital under the current trust reconfiguration. The Stephen Kirby unit will remain on the Roehampton site, and the company Smith and Nephew is to use it as a service base for tissue culture work later in the year.
  Nevertheless, we do not have a proper skin bank system with nationwide cover. Two developments are needed for that to happen. First, we need more skin. I feel strongly—as do the supporters of the skin bank—that skin should feature on donor cards. The position of the Department of

  317
  Health, as set out in various letters from Ministers in the last and the present Governments, is that it is reluctant to allow that.
  A study conducted in 1995 revealed that people were put off the idea by the belief that taking skin from bodies after death would mutilate them. That is not the case. Nick Brighouse, whom I mentioned earlier, suffered a further tragedy when his wife died. He gave me permission to tell the House that, according to her wish, nearly all the skin was removed from her body for use in the skin bank. Having seen her body after the skin had been removed, he said that no one would have any idea that it had been removed. That is the most compelling piece of evidence that the use of skin for donor purposes does not mutilate a deceased person.
  I ask the Department to repeat its research, but to include a "priming" question making it clear that the process does not mutilate the body. I believe that those who support the idea of organ donation would then be keen for skin to be included on donor cards.
  I understand that the Department plans to improve publicity relating to organ transplants, that a committee has been formed and that a campaign will be launched in the autumn. My friend Mr. Brighouse would welcome the opportunity to be involved in the committee.
  Some people fear that, if the idea of skin transplants is taken up with too much enthusiasm, skin will be sold and donors exploited; but that is prohibited by the Human Organ Transplants Act 1989. Our second problem, however, is that there is no national network or national funding for skin transplants. At present, the Stephen Kirby skin bank supplies eight burns units countrywide, in areas as diverse as Glasgow, Belfast, Dublin and London. As the bank's work and produce becomes increasingly recognised, the number of burns units involved is expected to increase. It seems that the present collection of units may be "rationalised" into larger supraregional units, but at present they are having to be fed, and the whole system relies on one hospital trust. I think that it is too much to expect one trust to support a national system.
  I want a system of national funding, which would realise the full ambition of Stephen Kirby's widow and friends, and that of the people of East Anglia who supported the cause. The Government have an opportunity to make an innovative advance in the health service at very little extra cost—just a tiny drop of the £21 billion. That would be a credit to the party that founded the national health service.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the House's proceedings on important matters, but this morning I have been trying to table questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Table Office is unclear about what title that Minister will use when answering questions after the recess. Will it be "Minister for the Cabinet Office" or "Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster"? I am not sure what the Minister's responsibilities will be.
  The Leader of the House is present. I could not ask her this question outside, and I hope that she has heard my point of order. Surely we should know exactly what we can ask the Minister, whose title may well have changed by the time we return after the recess.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair, but no doubt the Leader of the House has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  11.45 am
  Mr. David Amess: I join others in congratulating the Leader of the House on her appointment, and wish her well for the future.
  This is my fourth Parliament. During my time here, I have found that this place has been devalued. We all have different perspectives. I listen carefully to the cry of "modernisation", but I feel that, in certain respects, modernisation may be the problem rather than the solution.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on his splendid speech about Cyprus. He was right to draw our attention to the issues that he mentioned. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). I agreed strongly with what he said about grammar schools. One hon. Member—not a Conservative, sadly—benefited from a grammar school education in my constituency. I was concerned to learn of the arrangements for ballots; we have four splendid grammar schools in Southend, and I hope very much that we will keep them.
  I also agreed with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said about roads. One reason why I was not present at 9.35 am is the disgraceful length of time that it has taken for the A12 to be improved between the Leytonstone and Gants Hill roundabouts. The fiasco that originally involved Swampy, or whatever he is called, has now been going on for more than five years, and there has been so much delay that the sign announcing the opening of the new road has been taken away.
  I agreed with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said about quarantine measures, and I hope that the Leader of the House will take it on board.
  I want to make four points. The first concerns the fire service. All hon. Members praise the fire service, but it seems to have gone unnoticed that there is already a strike in Essex, and there is shortly to be another in Surrey. I am rather concerned about that. No doubt the Leader of the House will say that it is not the Government's business to become involved, but there is growing anxiety about the disruption.
  In 1997, the average amount spent on the fire service in England was £25.77 per head. In Essex, we delivered a service on £23.92 per head. In 1997, the 38 Essex control-room staff handled about 40,000 calls, a 50 per cent. increase since 1988. The speech of the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) showed how much we owe the fire service. I am not taking sides in the dispute, but I represent my constituents, and we want an end to it.
  The chief fire officer has made five pledges. He has said that there will be no compulsory redundancies; that the number of pumping appliances will not be reduced; that no fire stations will be closed during the year—certainly I will not allow Leigh fire station to close—that minimum standards of fire cover will be unaffected; and that public and firefighter safety will not be adversely affected. The Fire Brigades Union disputes all five points; it is very upset. I do not wish to be political, but there is some confusion in the House. Essex county council is not Conservative controlled: nothing can be done without the agreement of the Labour and Liberal parties. The fire authority has a Labour chairman and a Liberal deputy chairman. The Fire Brigades Union is rather upset by the

  319
  fact that no formal meeting has taken place. I hope that the Leader of the House will consider asking Ministers to assist.
  Secondly, I should like to raise a matter that concerns the Minister with responsibility for school standards. We all salute the efforts of teachers and head teachers, but I am becoming increasingly concerned about some practices. Some teachers and head teachers take early retirement on grounds of stress. That is understood, but it is a little surprising that some of them return rather quickly to the classroom. Another extraordinary practice relates to school inspectors. A minority of teachers and head teachers whose schools have been critically inspected seem to retire early and become inspectors. I took the matter to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment who passed it to the chief inspector. He does not necessarily disagree with me, but says that his legal advice is to the effect that a poor teacher or a poor head teacher will not necessarily be a poor inspector.
  All hon. Members know about the nightmare that teachers go through when a school is inspected. It can be a traumatic experience and it will not fill teachers with confidence when they realise that some inspectors may have been poor teachers or head teachers. The legal advice is barmy, and perhaps the Leader of the House will have a quiet word with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and ask him to check it. School inspection is a serious matter. Teaching is a vocation, and a school inspector's job should not be a soft option. The House should take the matter more seriously.
  My third point relates to pre-school playgroups. Each year hon. Members attend a splendid tea party in the Members' Dining Room. We like to have our photographs taken as we make fools of ourselves drawing matchstick figures. We say that pre-school teachers are marvellous, but that seems to be as far as we go in supporting them. All my children have benefited from pre-school playgroups, but the modern trend towards nursery education pre-empts the role of the pre-school playgroup. The groups are right to be concerned about the way in which they are being undermined. Over the past 37 years, 20 million children have benefited from pre-school playgroups. They do a splendid job. Southend has 87 groups serving 3,500 people; the children are aged two, three and four.
  In some respects, the growth of nursery education is destroying the value of pre-school playgroups. The Government made a rather clever announcement at our most recent tea party, but I am not sure that all practitioners were convinced. Do the Government value the work of such groups? There is no doubt that all hon. Members witness the consequences of inadequate parenting, and pre-school playgroups have a valuable role in supporting parents. They introduce young children to activities that will later help them to make a success of their schooling.
  My final point for the Leader of the House, who is the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, concerns consumer protection. There are many senior citizens in my constituency, which, in that context, ranks 33rd in Britain. Some people whom I would describe as odd job men are exploiting the slight confusion of some senior citizens who want home improvements. Those elderly
  320
  people are being hoodwinked. I salute an organisation in my constituency that is addressing the problem. Two outstanding gentlemen, one of whom has had nine years experience in the Prison Service, have set up an organisation called the Official Consumer Protection Company to supply a service to homes and businesses and for vehicles. The company is checking on some of those odd job people.
  A classic example of one of the company's success stories is that of a local man who was tricked into paying £7,000 in advance for a conservatory. The company to which the money was paid vanished, leaving the job uncompleted. The man is 83 years of age, has suffered a severe stroke and has other health problems. That splendid protection company successfully negotiated with one of its member companies to finish the job free of charge. The Government should encourage such organisations.
  11.55 am
  Mr. John McDonnell: I shall try to deliver my speech in five minutes. I congratulate the Leader of the House on her appointment. I was one of those who supported her in her bid to become deputy leader of the party—never mind Leader of the House.
  I again draw the House's attention to the case of Diarmuid O'Neill. Some hon. Members will recall that, on the morning of 23 September 1996, radio and television news bulletins reported that an IRA suspect had been shot dead in west London. As the news developed, there were reports that the man had been shot in a gun battle and that there had been a bomb factory in the house. The man was Diarmuid O'Neill. It later transpired that Diarmuid was not armed; that no weapons were found on the premises; that the shots had come only from police weapons; and that there had been no explosives on the premises.
  The case raises many serious questions about the role of, and reasons for, police media briefings. It also transpired that Mr. O'Neill had been shot six times; that CS gas canisters had been fired at his back; that, with blood pouring from him, he was dragged down the house steps; and that he was denied medical treatment for 25 minutes. Curiously, a similar operation had been carried out at another house that morning, the O'Neill family house, where his brother Shane was arrested, although he was later freed. There were no shots fired at that house and no one was injured. The matter was referred to the Police Complaints Authority and is still with it.
  When the issue was raised in the House, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary reported that the progress of the inquiry had been delayed by court proceedings which were about to take place. Those proceedings were held in October, and at them taped evidence confirmed that Diarmuid O'Neill and the people who were with him were seeking to surrender while they were being shot. Six bullets were pumped into Diarmuid O'Neill, although the taped evidence made it clear that his hands were up and that he had informed the police officer that he had no weapons.
  The tape-recorded evidence draws out questions that need to be considered by the Police Complaints Authority. For example, why were six bullets pumped into Mr. O'Neill? Why was the action allowed to continue after the officer in charge had left the premises? Why was

  321
  there no deputy in command of the operation? Why was it decided to shoot Diarmuid O'Neill, and who was responsible for the decision? Why did the police give a false briefing when it was quite clear that morning, soon after the house was examined, that there were no arms or weapons on the premises? Why was Mr. O'Neill carried into the street for medical treatment when paramedics were on hand outside and could have treated him where he lay? Why was medical treatment delayed for so long? Why was it decided to effect the arrests in the manner that has been described, and who was responsible for that decision? Why was CS gas used in breach of the operational plan to use it only to cover withdrawal? In fact, it was used almost as an offensive weapon. Another key question is this: why did a marksman of—as we now gather from the trial—seven years' experience shoot Diarmuid O'Neill six times?
  There are questions about the Police Complaints Authority inquiry itself. Why is it that the Metropolitan police itself constitutes the inquiry team? Why is it examining its own actions? That is unusual for a PCA inquiry. In addition, why has there been such a huge delay? PCA inquiries have a service standard: they should report 120 days after an issue is first referred to them. It is now nearly two years since the issue was first referred to the inquiry on 24 September 1996. Why was the officer originally carrying out the PCA inquiry selected when he was about to retire, the discovery being made that he would have to be replaced?
  We have now discovered that the PCA team has not so far interviewed the officers who were also in the house at the time of the arrest. This inquiry, the inquiry in relation to my constituent Mr. Ricky Reel and the Lawrence inquiry demonstrate the need for the PCA system to be reviewed. We should go towards a new system of separate professional inquiry teams that produce public inquiries and public reports. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to take that matter back to the Home Secretary.
  12 noon
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I welcome the right hon. Lady to her new position as the Leader of the House and, in doing so, echo many hon. Members in all parts of the House. She is not entirely unacquainted with that responsibility, although the previous time, she was the shadow Leader of the House. During the time that she held that office, she showed that she had a high regard and affection for this place and we look forward to enlightened leadership under her.
  It would also be remiss of me not to pay a brief tribute to the right hon. Lady's predecessor, who is now the Government Chief Whip, a rather interesting transition. It is a bit like going from being lord of the manor to gamekeeper, but I am sure that she will bring great distinction to her new role; she certainly brought distinction to her previous one. I know that I speak for hon. Members in all parts of the House in paying tribute to her for the way in which she sought to discharge what is, by any standard, a very difficult job.
  I have referred to it before as a schizophrenic job because the Leader of the House is the Leader of the House of Commons and, in that sense, has a responsibility second only to the Speaker, but, at the same time, the Leader of the House is also a pivotal member of Her
  322
  Majesty's Government with responsibility to get legislation through. To balance the two duties is not easy. Although we were, from time to time, critical of the previous Leader of the House, I think that, without exception, we felt that she discharged her duties with good faith and real conscientious endeavour.
  I hope that the summer Adjournment debate, which is a feature of our proceedings, will never be modernised out of existence because it gives hon. Members in all parts of the House an opportunity to raise matters of particular concern to them. Today, we have ranged from a pet called Penny to Cyprus, an issue of great global importance. Indeed, the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) was an omnibus speech in itself. He has just about snatched the Amess award for omnibus speeches. He certainly supplied enough headlines for his local paper to last him through the recess.
  Mr. Maclean: That was the object of the exercise.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: My right hon. Friend certainly discharged it very faithfully.
  I refer, alas not in great detail, to each of the speeches that we have heard. The hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) talked about dignity at work and the problems of bullying. He raised many a wry smile when he talked about career assassination in the context of some of this week's developments, but he made a serious point point I am sure that the Leader of the House will wish to address, if not in detail today, at least in correspondence later. Whether she will wish to deal, especially bearing in mind what has happened to her predecessor, with his call for the abolition of whipping is another matter entirely, but, in the spirit of bonhomie at this time of the year, if the Government do decide to abolish whipping, we shall carefully consider whether we can do the same.
  We then had a very good speech from my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), the shadow Deputy Chief Whip. He raised what has happened to the man charged with thinking the unthinkable. All I will say is that we look forward to many distinguished contributions from the Back Benches from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field); there is no more distinguished Member of the House.
  My hon. Friend's main argument was a powerful plea for the retention of magistrates courts in those delightful Derbyshire towns of Ashbourne, Bakewell and Matlock. As one who also comes from a largely rural area where we have magistrates courts, I say that this is a serious matter. I hope that the Leader of the House will draw the attention of the Lord Chancellor to my hon. Friend's speech. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will, in turn, take those points carefully into account and, as he does so, bear in mind the origin of the magistracy and how important it is that it should have a local base.
  The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) is a great expert on horse racing. He made a powerful plea that Ladbrokes and Coral should not be allowed to merge. He talked about the need for total deregulation, but, throughout his speech, he was casting himself in the role of the punter's friend. I am sure that the punter could have no better friend, other than, perhaps, the Foreign Secretary.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) was eloquent on the subject of the chihuahua called Penny and talked about pets and old people. All I will say is that

  323
  he made an important point and I hope that it will always be regarded with sensitivity, but there are issues, such as hygiene, which those who have charge of local authority dwellings and other such places must always take carefully into account.
  The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox)—I am glad to see him here—who has worked indefatigably for the Cypriot cause, made a speech that was no surprise to any of us, but was none the less powerful. The underlying tensions in Cyprus are crucial to NATO as a whole. The thought of having two NATO countries at war with each other should fill us all with grave foreboding. It is crucial that efforts to achieve an honourable settlement in Cyprus, as he called it, should be pursued. We must all hope that that honourable settlement, which has so long evaded those who have pursued it, will be reached sooner rather than later.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border made so many pleas that I cannot refer to them all, but I was interested in his talk about the politburo in Cumbria. I totally support his general lines on grammar schools and on the Territorial Army. I hope that the Fourth Battalion King's Own Border Regiment is indeed reprieved and that it will not be reduced to the sort of numbers where it can supply merely the three members that he wanted for the rural development board.
  My right hon. Friend talked of the many needs of rural areas and made a powerful point about the loss of farm incomes—46 per cent. down—and the particular plight of hill farmers. They cannot have a more doughty champion than him.
  The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), a veritable chip off the old block of his noble father, talked about the car industry and raised the point about the incredible discrepancy in price. His plea should certainly elicit a good response from the right hon. Lady. We are told that the Labour party was elected by Mondeo man and as the Mondeo is apparently 58 per cent. more expensive here than in any other country, the right hon. Lady will wish to respond positively, if only to maintain the garnering of votes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) talked about the need for passports for pets and quarantine laws. None of us should lose sight of the crucial importance of making sure that the United Kingdom is rabies-free. However, few hon. Members are not persuaded that there is an extremely strong case for careful reconsideration and I hope that we shall soon have a definitive announcement from the Government.
  My neighbour, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) talked about the need for a long service medal for prison officers. As one who also has an important prison in his constituency, I echo his request. For some time, I have paid a quarterly visit to Featherstone. Indeed, I have been visiting that prison since before it had any inmates and I am always impressed by the dedication of the staff. There is no more difficult job than being a prison officer, and the plea that prison officers should have a long service medal similar to that for the police should not fall on deaf ears. I trust that we shall have a sympathetic response from the right hon. Lady and that she will add her considerable powers of advocacy to the plea made by the hon. Gentleman.
  324
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) would doubtless support that plea as he is a distinguished holder of the OBE. Today, he talked about modernisation. I understand his impatience, but I hope that he will not hassle the right hon. Lady and that she will have a chance to look at the papers. In particular, I hope that she will have the chance to take most carefully into account the considered comments of Madam Speaker on the recent proposals by the Modernisation Committee.
  The comments of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)—who could not be bewitched by her appearance or her arguments?—should be taken carefully into account, but she was a little dismissive of the thoroughness with which the Administration Committee has looked at the issue that she raised. Although she is right to campaign for something in which she believes so strongly, she should realise that hon. Members have looked at the matter sympathetically, as was demonstrated by the report of the Administration Committee.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) made classic use of the debate in an eloquent and moving plea for the establishment of proper skin banks. Nobody listening to his speech could fail to have been deeply touched by the account of the tragedy that afflicted the family of Stephen Kirby. Although I had never considered the donor card point that he made, I hope that the Secretary of State for Health will consider it carefully.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) was not quite up to his mammoth performance before Christmas when his speech ranged from world peace to the palace of varieties at Southend, but still contrived to raise four or five subjects and to make passing reference to two others. I was interested in what he said about standards in schools and the qualifications needed for school inspectors. His points about pre-school playgroups and consumer protection are also important.
  The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) raised a disturbing case. I could not begin to comment as I am not familiar with it. Although it would be uncharitable to hope that the right hon. Lady could give a definitive response, it is perhaps a subject that would lend itself to a specific half-hour Adjournment debate when we return in the autumn, and I would advise the hon. Gentleman to apply for one. Obviously, it is important that a Home Office Minister should have a proper opportunity to place on record the official response to the disturbing questions that he raised.
  We are approaching the end of a fairly long, gruelling time—not the end of the Session because we have a spillover period in the autumn—and it is good that, once again, we have had the opportunity of this debate. As I said at the outset, I very much hope that it is a tradition that will be maintained under the right hon. Lady's leadership of the House.
  Finally, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will take a little time off from the constituency duties that inevitably occupy us for most of the recess to have a good holiday and I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all in the House a very pleasant summer.
  12.14 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I thank right hon. and hon. Members for the kindness with which

  325
  they have welcomed me back to the Dispatch Box in a slightly different capacity. As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said, it is one in which I have had experience earlier in my career, albeit in opposition. As a result, I am aware of the value of debates such as this one to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and I am very conscious of the importance of preserving it, whatever steps may be taken to modernise the House, as has been the pattern of our development down the years.
  Like the hon. Member for South Staffordshire, I shall endeavour to touch on the contributions of the 14 right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken, raising a rich variety of subjects. However, if I inadvertently omit something or do not have the time to cover all the points, I shall write to the hon. Members concerned.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) raised the important issue of dignity at work and the difficulties that can be involved. He and all hon. Members will know that the Government are determined to encourage the new culture of co-operation and understanding in the workplace that has been developed voluntarily over recent years as many employers realise that it is the way to bring about innovation and to run successful modern companies. I certainly share my hon. Friend's view that we need to spread that culture of co-operation and partnership much more widely. I fear that I would not go so far as to agree with him that abolishing the Whips would contribute to that. Indeed, I do not think that I would dare do that. Perhaps I could gently remind my hon. Friend and the House that, despite what is at times a difficult role, the Whips are very much part of the management of the House and if we were to abolish the present system, I have absolutely no doubt that we should have to find a different way of managing the affairs of so many right hon. and hon. Members with many different concerns, as the debate has shown.
  The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) also said a little about the Modernisation Committee, but mostly spoke about the concerns that he and other Derbyshire Members including my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), have raised before, about the proposed closure of magistrates courts there. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor will have taken on board the concerns that have been expressed widely in the locality and in the House. I certainly undertake to draw them to his attention. In particular, I know that he will take on board the observations that the hon. Gentleman made about the concerns of those in rural areas as to whether or not they have what they see as secure access to justice in the locality.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) made a most distinguished speech, drawing on his long experience and involvement with the horse-racing industry. He said that his interest was not a pecuniary one. I shall not stray into the comments by my hon. Friends as to whether or not that was because he was not as successful as he might be in the hands of the tipsters, although I am confident that, if he takes the advice of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, he will not go far wrong. Certainly, he will know only too well that, even now, I am unable to comment on issues of merger policy. The House will understand his strong defence of the punter in horse racing and of the work and value of that
  326
  industry, and, indeed, share his view that it is very important that the industry continues to thrive and prosper.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) gave us a flavour of the rich variety of a Member of Parliament's postbag, case load and concerns. I understand, as I am sure does the whole House, the concern of people, particularly of elderly people, who have pets and who value their relationship with them. I shall draw his concerns and his constituent's anxieties to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
  The hon. Gentleman raised a separate issue about the potential impact of different methodology on standard spending assessments. I hope that he is aware that such issues are under review; no decisions have been made. It might have been possible from the flavour of his comments to assume that decisions had already been made and announced. That is of course not so. All such issues are under consideration. His comments and the concerns of the different local authorities that he quoted are certainly being taken into account and will be taken into account before any announcements are made.
  I have a long-standing relationship with my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), which goes back, if I recall correctly, to our previous occupancy of the Whips' Office when things were a little different, since the Government then had no majority to speak of. It was a close, comradely and successful relationship—because it had to be. I know that he has long taken an interest in Cyprus and has long been a strong and powerful advocate of the people of that divided island. He is entirely right to say that it is very important to pursue an honourable settlement. The Government strongly agree with that. We shall do everything that we can in a variety of ways to assist and promote such a settlement.
  The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) raised a rich variety of issues—I counted seven. I shall touch only very lightly on some of them. He mentioned, for example, balloting on schools—as did other hon. Members—and how those issues are decided. A casual listener might not have understood that consultation is taking place on how such ballots should be carried out. One might also not have entirely understood from his remarks that those who participate in such ballots are not a random selection of people who are entirely unconcerned with the fate of schools, but local parents. I understand his concerns; no doubt they will be taken on board by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The issue is under continuing discussion and we hope and believe that we can get a satisfactory answer.
  The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border also referred to the closure of the Cumbrian gap and the fact that announcements about the roads programme may be made a little later this week. The House will have to debate the issue that he raised concerning the Territorial Army in due course, as it will the wider issue of rural affairs. He will not expect me to comment on the restructuring of Cumbria county council, which is of course a matter for the council. I was certainly glad to hear, as I am sure that the House and country will be, that he believes that a satisfactory outcome to legislation on puppy farming may be within everyone's grasp. I know that there was considerable concern at the loss of the previous legislation.

  327
  I was reading this morning comments about political dynasties, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) referred. I am not sure how he came to be omitted from those comments. He is certainly following in a fine tradition not only as an hon. Member but in pursuing the very interests so frequently pursued by his distinguished father. He drew starkly to our attention the important issues raised, particularly in "Panorama". Material raised in that programme has been passed to the Director General of Fair Trading. My hon. Friend may know that, following an approach by the Government, the European Commission is also investigating price disparities in different European Union markets. He also spoke of the need to save energy and to use less-polluting materials. He will be aware that the Government have done what we can to provide fiscal incentives on the matter, including funding for the Energy Saving Trust's powershift programme, which we shall continue to pursue.
  The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who was courteous enough to let me know that he had a meeting and would not be able to remain in the Chamber for the winding-up speech, raised the very important issue of quarantine laws, which concern many. I must admit that I flinched slightly when he warned me in stentorian tones that 12 million pet owners would be hanging on my every word. I fear that I cannot at this moment give him the answer that he sought, but I assure him that I shall ensure that his concerns are drawn to the attention of the proper authorities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) raised the important and interesting issue of the lack of a long service medal for prison officers. Like the hon. Member for South Staffordshire, I believe that those people provide a little-sung and much-needed public service and do not always receive the support and sympathy that they deserve. Let me assure my hon. Friend that there is undoubtedly a growing consensus on the merits of a proposal of the kind that he raised. Consultation is under way. I shall ensure that his concerns are drawn to the attention of my Government colleagues.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) expressed support for modernisation of the House and hope that the slight change that occurs whenever there is a reshuffle will not significantly delay the Modernisation Committee's work. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire for his comments on the point. Of course, there may be some slight delay—I wish more deeply to familiarise myself with the issues in my new capacity—but it will be only small. I look forward to continuing to work with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove and other colleagues on the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House and hope to continue the good work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who previously held my post.
  328
  My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) raised several important issues about child care. I understand the strength of her case, which she expressed so firmly and clearly. I shall certainly ensure that her views and concerns are brought to the attention of the Administration Committee. I was interested to hear that the Department of the Serjeant at Arms will be represented at a meeting in the overspill period. I am confident that that will assist in taking forward the debate in the way that she sought.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) made a most moving and deeply serious speech on the availability of skin. I think that everyone in the House felt deep sympathy for the family whose appalling tragedy led to the foundation of the skin bank to which he referred. I shall draw his views to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. My hon. Friend made an interesting point on record—so that will get wider publicity—about how the statement on the donor card may deter people from donating skin. Everyone will have heard and understood his important points and will, I am sure, take them seriously and take them on board.
  The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) also raised the issue of grammar schools; I have dealt with that. He raised several other points, including the issue of Essex fire service. I am aware that Her Majesty's inspectorate has suggested that the proposals for reform of the Essex fire service have some sound foundation. The inspectorate is also looking at proposals for Surrey. Although it is of course regrettable that a dispute has arisen over the proposals for Essex, I express the hope that it will be readily resolved. He also made comments about teachers taking early retirement and then returning to work, which I shall pass to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, as I shall his remarks about pre-school playgroups. He asked whether teachers are valued in this House. I recall occasions in the previous 18 years when they suffered blows and knocks. However, I can assure him that this Government value their work, as we do the work undertaken on consumer protection—another important issue that he raised.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) raised a serious case and asked a number of extremely pertinent and detailed questions, which I know he will wish to have brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I undertake to do so. I have little doubt that, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire said, it is an issue that will be aired in the House again.
  A point of order was raised regarding questions to my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). His responsibilities will be set out in detail shortly.
  I join the hon. Member for South Staffordshire in his regards to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury, who previously occupied this post. Her service was distinguished and was warmly welcomed and applauded in the House.

  Railway (Lewes-Uckfield)
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Norman Baker: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the important question of the possible reopening of disused rail lines, and the Lewes-Uckfield line in particular. The debate comes at an opportune time, following as it does the publication of the Government's White Paper on transport.
  The last time I secured an Adjournment debate was on the subject of Newhaven port. On that occasion, the Minister, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson)—who I am pleased to see has not been shunted anywhere—confidently predicted that I would be pleased by the contents of the White Paper. I am happy to say that she was probably correct. At last, after so many years, the country is moving towards a sensible transport policy. As part of that, the train is at last emerging from the tunnel.
  As an aside, I was particularly pleased to see that the Government have at last put a stop to the sale of so-called redundant rail land. During my last Adjournment debate, I raised that issue on the basis that if I did so often enough, I might get what I wanted. The Minister on that occasion called it a drip, drip approach. Buoyed by the success of that tactic in respect of redundant railway land, I am hoping that perseverance on my part can bring a similar result in respect of the Lewes-Uckfield railway line.
  The line was closed in 1969 after more than 100 years of operation—not by the Beeching cuts, which destroyed so much of our rail network, but by East Sussex county council. The council wanted to put a new road bridge into Lewes and forced the line to close, effectively, to achieve that. That was an act of stupidity and environmental vandalism. Although none of the officers or members involved are still connected with the council, I believe that that body has a moral responsibility to try to make amends and help to secure the reopening of the line. I am pleased to say that it is now doing so.
  The Lewes-Uckfield line can and should be reinstated. That statement is born not of romanticism but of a hard-headed view that it makes economic, social and environmental sense. Almost as soon as it closed, a campaign was begun to secure the reopening of the line. The Wealden line campaign—as it is known—has consistently put the case for the reopening and has helped to keep the issue in the local papers for years. I congratulate those involved on their diligence and commitment in that respect.
  A cursory glance at the map shows how illogical it is that there should be no railway between the two towns. A line straggles down from London to Uckfield, and then there is a seven-mile gap between there and Lewes, the latter a major rail junction with access to Brighton to the west, Newhaven and Seaford to the south and Eastbourne to the east.
  North of Uckfield, on the London line at Eridge, there is an even shorter network gap between there and Tunbridge Wells. I should say that the evaluation for reinstatement which is taking place—and to which I shall refer in more detail later—is considering what is called the central rail corridor in total.
  There are essentially three parts to the central rail corridor. The first section, from Tunbridge Wells to Eridge, is held by a preservation society, and the track
  330
  bed and tracks are intact. The logistical problem of how to reconnect with the existing services at Tunbridge Wells has been solved by the consultants looking into the feasibility of reopening that stretch of the corridor.
  The second section comprises the existing Eridge to Uckfield railway line, currently operated by Connex South Central. The third section is a seven-mile gap south to Lewes. Here the track bed has been protected from Uckfield southwards, even through the new industrial estate, although much is now in the private ownership of farmers and the like.
  One section near Isfield continues to operate as a preservation railway, now called the Lavender line. Because of the new road bridge into Lewes, a reinstatement on the original alignment would be hugely expensive—perhaps even impossible—but there are two other solutions which could be put in place at much less cost. One is to follow the route of the track bed down to Hamsey just north of Lewes and then to create a new short stretch eastward to join the existing Lewes-London line. The other, more expensive, option is to create a new stretch westwards from the track bed to provide a new station at Ringmer, a fast-growing village in my constituency, and then to join the Lewes-Eastbourne line near Glynde. I happen to think that the first option is the more practicable.
  In the past two or three years, there has been a renewed momentum from the local authority sector in particular to push for the reinstatement of the link. The county council, not long after killing the line, adopted a structure plan policy that is still in place today, protecting the track bed from development so as not to prejudice possible reinstatement. That has been mirrored by the Wealden district and Lewes district local plans.
  In 1996, the county council commissioned a feasibility study into what it calls the East Sussex rail corridor which considered not just the Lewes-Uckfield line but another short stretch from Eridge to Tunbridge Wells. The Minister may recall that I presented her with a copy of the report when she was kind enough to meet me last year. The report, by Mott MacDonald, concluded that it was perfectly feasible to reopen the two closed lines and ended:
  "In summary, it may be concluded that at a reinstatement cost of £20–25 million such a long-term infrastructure facility (which might substitute for more expensive investment in road infrastructure elsewhere) might be considered a relatively cheap option."
  Since then, the county council and other local authorities—with some financial support from Connex South Central—have commissioned further work on a business case. That work is due to be finished shortly and will be discussed with Connex and Railtrack. I would like to present a copy to the Minister as soon as possible, if I may.
  Let there be no doubt that the matter is being treated seriously. The draft report confirms that there are no engineering and operating problems that cannot be overcome. Illustrative timetables have been produced to confirm the operational feasibility of a through line from Lewes to Tunbridge Wells, connecting with the London line at Eridge, and integrating with Connex South East services at Tunbridge Wells, and Connex South Central services at Eridge and at Lewes. These are based on a 30-minute frequency service, with a journey time from Lewes to Tunbridge Wells of around 50 minutes.

  331
  Financially, the business case has been developed using a local demand model based on travel times and costs for cars and public transport using the corridor. The results from that model have been validated by comparison with independent forecasts produced using Opraf's own regional planning tool, called Planet.
  Provisional assessments suggest that it will be possible for the route to cover its operating costs but not necessarily the capital costs of reinstatement. That, in effect, is the same conclusion as the one reached by Network SouthEast in 1986. It is worth mentioning that, in 1986, the then director of Network SouthEast, Chris Green, ordered a serious review of the case for reopening, and inspected the disused line personally in February 1987. British Rail at the time indicated that it was minded to allocate £1.5 million towards the estimated cost of £6 million, but no other sources of funding were forthcoming at that time.
  There has been interest from the rail operators for a long time, and it is worth drawing to the Minister's attention the fact that even in the Beeching days, British Rail recognised the value of the line. When the road bridge idea was first mooted, British Rail went so far as to secure parliamentary approval in the 1965–66 Session for a new route into Lewes—the same route used between 1858 and 1868—which would have kept the link open.
  In the event, the permission was allowed to lapse. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who is here today—and who represents the Uckfield end of the line—will remember that point, as he was in the House at the time.
  Why do we want the line reinstated? It would make considerable sense from an integrated network point of view as it would link existing rail infrastructure at relatively little cost by means of new short stretches. That would improve the viability and profitability of the lines to which it connected, as journeys previously impossible suddenly became viable propositions. For example, many who drive from Uckfield to Brighton might now take the train, thereby improving the use of the existing Lewes-Brighton line. Two members of my staff live in Uckfield and commute each day by car. They would prefer to use the rail line. There are many in that situation.
  The reinstatement would provide an important alternative line to London from Brighton and Lewes. There is a bottleneck on the current network north of Haywards Heath, so there are no more paths for trains despite the considerable potential for increased passenger numbers to London, and for freight movement to Newhaven.
  Connex South Central tells me that its figures show an increase in passenger numbers of about 12 per cent. over the past year, but the numbers cannot be pushed up further without an alternative route, because of the lack of train paths. Congestion has become so bad that Connex has to join trains at Haywards Heath to maximise use of the paths, leading to delays. Furthermore, if there is a problem on the London line, the nearest alternative routes north are via Hastings or Littlehampton: a very long way in either case.
  The line would provide a real alternative for those who currently pour into Lewes, or indeed Tunbridge Wells, every morning on the A26, as well as being a speedy
  332
  means of reaching key towns such as Brighton for those without access to the private car. A third of people do not have access to private cars, and their needs must be considered.
  The White Paper commits the Government to working to get people out of cars and on to public transport. Here, in my view, is an example of how that might be achieved. Uckfield, stranded at the end of the present line, is, I understand, the fastest-growing town in East Sussex, and there is no question in my mind but that there is considerable potential custom for a reopened line. I hope that the right hon. Member for Wealden will be able to speak about that.
  The line would provide rail access for communities currently not served by rail, such as Barcombe in my constituency, again helping to take cars off the road. By providing an alternative means of accessing Lewes, where many come to work in the public sector, the line would also help to protect from further damage by the motor car what is accepted as one of the top 50 heritage towns in the country.
  I was pleased that the Minister said that the Government were prepared to invest public money, where necessary, in rail capital projects. In a parliamentary answer to me, she wrote:
  "Such proposals could include new or enhanced local rail services, better facilities for passengers and re-opening of disused lines."—[Official Report, 23 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 679.]
  For some years, we have had the ludicrous situation of a huge roads programme being funded directly by the taxpayer while railways have been told that they have to fund their own improvements, with a requirement that they show an 8 per cent. rate of return—which is ridiculously high—when no such barrier has been applied to roads.
  The Government have said that they want to consider transport corridors, and it is absolutely right to take that view. Any sane assessment of the A26 transport corridor north of Lewes will conclude that rail investment makes much more sense than spending more money on roads, as is the case in many areas.
  A few years ago, the county council spent £1.5 million—probably borrowed from, or with the permission of, the Government—on straightening a couple of bends on the A26 north of Lewes. A similar amount pledged at that time would have matched the investment that Network SouthEast was prepared to put in, and might have been the catalyst for reopening the line. Too often in the past, the county council and the Government of the day were prepared to improve marginally an existing road facility rather than creating a brand new rail facility for the same money. We must not make such mistakes again.
  Might the Lewes-Uckfield line, and indeed the central rail corridor project as a whole, qualify for capital investment from public funds, under the terms of the parliamentary answer that I quoted? I appreciate that the Minister has not yet seen the business case, and I will be happy to give that to her as soon as it is ready, but I would like an in-principle answer.
  The line has considerable public support. I have with me a petition carrying 3,400 signatures, presented to me by George Yerby of Friends of the Earth, which I will hand to the Minister after this debate, if I may. I know that she is familiar with the project, and I hope that she

  333
  will agree that the time has come to forge again the link between Lewes and Uckfield. If the Government are looking for a relatively cheap rail project to demonstrate their new transport priorities, which I support, to symbolise what can be achieved by rail investment and to show that the reopening of rail lines has a part to play in the future, I can think of no better example.
  12.43 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) for raising this important matter, especially in the light of the recent transport White Paper. Unfortunately, this debate comes in the shadow of the franchising office's refusal to extend Connex South Central's franchise, but the company has a strong determination to reapply in 2003 and to go ahead with electrification. There is no doubt that the line needs modernising.
  It was most certainly a great mistake to break the link. I thought that the whole line was to be closed, but my strong protest and that of many others at least retained the line to Uckfield. In the years during which I have been a Member of Parliament, since 1965, there has been an enormous increase in the population, and there will be great development in Uckfield in the near future. No road infrastructure could make it easy for people to travel by road from the south of Sussex to the places where the jobs are. The job increases have been along the coast and up in south Croydon, so there is a crying need for a rail link.
  A truly integrated transport system must include not only modernisation of the line running north but the link between Uckfield and Lewes. I am happy to support everything that the hon. Member for Lewes said.
  12.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): From the remarks made by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) and by the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), it is clear that there is cross-party unity on the necessity for a properly integrated transport strategy. That is the Government's informing policy for the coming years.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes not only on securing this debate but on ending the Session as he began it: he has consistently presented his constituents' concerns in a most detailed and informed way. The proposal to reopen the Lewes-Uckfield line is but one such concern. On the previous occasion when we spoke across the Chamber, I said that his policy was drip, drip; the energy, commitment and detail with which he presented his argument today are more of a gush, gush.
  There is strong support for the reinstatement of a rail link between the Hurst Green-Uckfield line and Lewes, not only from the hon. Member for Lewes and the right hon. Member for Wealden, but from those who live and work in the area, as I learned from my visit to Lewes before the general election. The hon. Gentleman has written to me on the subject on several occasions and I have answered his questions in the House.
  Last week, we announced our plans for the future of public transport in our White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport". I thank the hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he gave that document, which reiterates the great emphasis that the Government place on the role that the
  334
  railway can play in achieving a properly integrated transport policy. We also set out our proposals for the establishment of the strategic rail authority and the future arrangements for regulation of the railway in our response to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's report.
  Those statements demonstrate our commitment to public transport enhancements at national, regional and local level, to the benefit of all sectors of our community. The functions of the strategic rail authority will include promoting the use of the railway within an integrated transport system; working closely with local and national organisations to promote better integration; and participating actively in the development of regional and local land use planning policies to ensure that, as far as possible, decisions on the provision of rail services dovetail with those policies.
  The White Paper is not the first initiative that the Government have taken concerning our railways. In November last year, we issued the franchising director with new objectives, instructions and guidance, dealing with the real issues that matter most to passengers. The objectives require the franchising director to facilitate investment in the railway, and to that end we approved—also in November last year—interim planning criteria for the reallocation of financial support, in order to provide an effective framework for developing and implementing worthwhile rail investment. The criteria will be revised in the light of "A New Deal for Transport" to take account of the development of multi-modal appraisal techniques that establish a level playing field between the transport modes.
  We also required the franchising director to produce an assessment of the sort and level of services that the railway network should provide. He is drawing up that assessment, having consulted widely with the rail industry, local authorities, passenger representatives and other parties, and will submit his conclusions to Ministers shortly.
  The hon. Member for Lewes referred to an answer that I gave which said that the Government could find new funding for capital investment in our railways in some instances. I am pleased to reiterate our announcement in the White Paper of two new sources of investment funding for the railway. More than £100 million will be made available over the next three years. The infrastructure investment fund and the rail passenger partnership scheme are aimed at supporting new investment proposals that produce significant wider benefits for integrated transport and a modal shift to rail that could not be taken forward without public sector financial support. Railtrack remains responsible for funding investment in rail infrastructure where there is a commercial case.
  The infrastructure investment fund is a new fund to support investment projects aimed at addressing capacity constraints at key infrastructure pinch-points on the rail network. As the hon. Member for Lewes said, such difficulties are already being experienced by Connex South Central. The rail passenger partnership scheme is a private-public partnership designed to encourage and support at regional and local level innovative proposals that develop rail use and promote modal shift. It will support innovative proposals to develop rail use, for example, by improving interchange with other modes, improving passenger security or accessibility, enhancing

  335
  local rail facilities, or introducing new local rail services. Funding for the scheme will be awarded through open competition, with financial support channelled through franchised train operating companies. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question about that.
  I encourage local authorities and others to present to the franchising director proposals consistent with the strategies set out in the White Paper. The new schemes will be co-ordinated with other Government programmes to ensure overall coherence in the provision of publicly supported rail services and ensure that proposed new schemes are complementary to existing ones. We will announce further details of both schemes in the autumn.
  There need to be partnership and accountability in developing the railways as part of an integrated transport system. The Government are determined to play their part in creating an effective public transport network that people will choose to use, but local authorities and the private sector, whether operators or developers, also have a vital role. Private sector initiative is already bringing some welcome improvements to our railways. For example, the franchisee for Chiltern Railway, and Railtrack, have taken forward a multi-million pound scheme to double-track capacity between Princes Risborough and Bicester North, where there were 19 miles of single track—a victim of the Beeching era. Half-hourly, rather than hourly, services have been introduced between Princes Risborough and Banbury, and the number of services to Birmingham Snow Hill has been increased. The introduction of new 100 mph trains has permitted a reduction in journey times of up to 18 minutes.
  Another example is the construction of a new Parkway station to serve Luton airport. My Department is providing £2.8 million of transport policies and programme funding, with Railtrack funding the remainder—the bulk—of the project. When complete, the new station is expected to divert car journeys from the existing station in the centre of Luton, increase the percentage of people accessing the airport by public transport, and divert some London-bound M1 car journeys by providing an attractive alternative rail option into the capital.
  We anticipate further initiatives between the private and public sectors, as well as closer liaison between central and local government on local transport planning. To that end, we will give the new strategic rail authority obligations to work with local authorities and regional planning authorities on local transport planning and integration.
  We are clear that local authorities have a fundamental role in initiating investment in local schemes, whether or not they involve support from the Government. Local authorities have a responsibility under the Transport Acts for planning and arranging public transport services in their areas, and they have a role in working up schemes with operators and third-party investors that will benefit passengers in their areas.
  Sponsors of schemes that may require financial support from the franchising director's budget should prepare a business case in consultation with the relevant train operator and Railtrack. The business case would allow the franchising director to estimate the likely level of public
  336
  sector funding required to support the scheme. He could then decide whether that funding was available from his budget, and whether the proposed expenditure represented value for money. I understand that East Sussex county council is considering the viability of a scheme to reinstate the Uckfield-Lewes line.
  The franchising director's interim planning criteria provide guidance to any party putting a proposal to him for changes to the passenger rail services for which he provides financial support. Under those criteria, he would look for genuine value for money and a real passenger benefit from schemes that he is asked to support. The Government expect him to undertake the appraisal of any proposal that is put to him objectively and to give fair consideration to all the proposals for new services that he receives.
  The franchising director has powers under the Railways Act 1993 to grant experimental status to new passenger services where they are operated over lines not previously served by passenger trains, and to new or reinstated stations. Experimental status can be granted for up to five years and enables the viability of a new service to be tested without the need to exercise the statutory closure procedure if it is decided to withdraw it. In certain circumstances, experimental designation could provide a disincentive for investors to open new services, so the franchising director can use his discretion not to designate a new service as experimental to ensure that it will remain an integral part of the rail network unless an application for closure is approved.
  The hon. Member for Lewes was concerned about the need to preserve the track bed that would permit reinstatement of the line from Uckfield to Lewes and about the implications of a possible redevelopment of the original Uckfield station site. I understand that it remains structure plan policy to restrict development that would significantly prejudice the possible reinstatement of the line. As Railtrack has no plans to reopen the line between Uckfield and Lewes, and in the absence of a financial commitment from the county council, I understand that the local authority felt that a land use policy to restrict development around the former route could not be justified and thus was not included in the local plan. I understand that any development of the original Uckfield station site is subject to the condition that the station buildings be retained and refurbished, as the local authority rightly considers them part of the town's heritage.
  It is open to the rail industry, the local authority or third party sponsors to propose investment in reinstatement of the Lewes-Uckfield line. The hon. Member for Lewes will, I am sure, continue to make his case to interested parties and will no doubt press the county council for an early statement about whether it believes that there is a case to support the reopening of the line. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Wealden will support his actions.
  I assure the House that the strategy and commitments that the Government announced in the White Paper "A New Deal for Transport" will serve generally to benefit rail passengers and facilitate worthwhile investment in new schemes, through partnership between Government, regional and local authorities and private sector operators and sponsors. Where there are genuine local needs, the local authorities—and the service providers—have the avenues to seek to address them. We want the railway to play its part in shifting traffic from

  337
  roads to rail, as no doubt do the constituents of the right hon. Member for Wealden and the hon. Member for Lewes.
  I will most happily accept the petition to which the hon. Member for Lewes referred. We all have an interest in enhancing the overall availability and quality of public transport options in the integrated transport network.

  Concessionary Television Licences
  12.58 pm
  Mr. Peter Bradley: I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to the Dispatch Box. While this is her first engagement in her new capacity, I am sure that she will grace the office for many years to come.
  It is one of the few privileges of a Member of Parliament to have the opportunity to air the grievances that have accumulated over a lifetime. I first encountered the concessionary television licence scheme and the anomalies that go with it more than 10 years ago, when a resident of Glastonbury house, a tower block of 160 flats not far from here, contacted me to ask why, although she and about 155 other tenants of those flats were of pensionable age, because of the presence of a handful of people below pensionable age, neither she nor her neighbours could qualify for a licence concession. For many years since, that anomaly, the lack of logic in the system and the injustice caused to so many have nagged away at me.
  It is clear from recent early-day motions that other hon. Members, of all political persuasions, share my concern. Early-day motion 1483 standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has already gathered 177 signatures. A second early-day motion currently circulating in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King) has collected 52 signatures. The sense of grievance is felt not only by Members of Parliament, local councillors and council officials, but by pensioners who are excluded from the scheme. It is impossible to quantify the resentment that many pensioners feel. A previous Minister from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Minister for Arts, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), said that the Department receives more correspondence on that issue than on almost any other issue that comes within the Department's control.
  The scheme's history is complicated. It was first introduced as a somewhat ad hoc arrangement by officials at the Post Office who, I believe exercising their discretion, granted concessions to some pensioners living in residential homes. The first statutory scheme was introduced in 1969, but it contained anomalies which, despite the passage of time, remain the cause of considerable grievance. More experienced Members of Parliament than me have tried to grapple with those anomalies. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North has been a champion in the campaign for many years: he proposed that concessions should be extended to all pensioners and promoted a private Member's Bill as long ago as 1987—which, surprisingly, was the last time the issue was debated in the House.
  Successive Governments have tried to improve the scheme, but each option that they have considered has given rise to a fresh batch of problems. It is my strong conviction, however, that the fact that it is difficult to right something that is wrong is all the more reason to seek to do so. The problem with the current scheme is that no one understands the regulations; no one believes that they are just; no one believes that they fulfil their

  339
  purpose; and no one thinks that they provide value for money. A letter to me from TV Licensing set out the details of the scheme, saying:
  "It is available to people living in

  (i) Residential homes; or

  (ii) Sheltered accommodation which

  (a) forms part of a group of at least four dwellings within a common and exclusive boundary (though up to 25 per cent. of units in a scheme can be properties purchased under the 'right to buy' legislation); and

  (b) is specially provided for occupation only by disabled people, people with learning disabilities or retired people of pensionable age; and

  (c) is provided or managed by a local authority or a housing association; and

  (d) has a person whose function is to care for the needs of the residents (eg a warden) and who either lives on site or works there for at least 30 hours a week."

  It is a fitting irony that the new regulations were introduced on 1 April 1997.
  The problem is that the scheme is not linked to individual need—although it does at least try to address that need—but, to quote the letter again, it is linked
  "to the kind of accommodation occupied and the way that it is provided or managed".
  The limitations of the scheme are clear: it is solely for narrowly specified groups whose accommodation must be run by a local authority or a housing association, and must contain at least four homes; and residents must have the services of a warden for at least 30 hours a week.
  I am indebted to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which in March this year published its report, "TV Sinners", which included several examples of the anomalies which occur under the scheme. I shall quote three. First:
  "A CAB in Hertfordshire reported an elderly woman living in sheltered accommodation. The client had been paying the reduced rate … licence fee of £5. Residents were informed that the warden's hours were being reduced from 35 to 20, and that as a result they would all become liable to pay the full fee."
  Secondly:
  "A CAB in Norfolk reported two pensioner clients living in sheltered accommodation. The housing association responsible for the development began to provide housing to single homeless people in addition to elderly people, and as a result elderly residents lost their … concession."
  Thirdly:
  "A CAB in Essex reported a man aged over 60 who was living in sheltered accommodation and paying £5 for a … licence. The housing association responsible for the accommodation took a decision to lower the qualifying age for residents to 55. This meant that the development was no longer exclusively available to pensioners, and TV Licensing decided that the concession could no longer apply. The client was therefore required to find the full fee."
  Mr. Martin Salter: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an absolute disgrace that those anomalies remain and that this country does not have a comprehensive concessionary TV licence scheme specifically targeted on pensioners? Will he give examples of other nations—especially European nations—that treat their old folk a little better than we do?
  Mr. Bradley: My hon. Friend is quite right, and I should pay tribute to his long-standing commitment to the
  340
  cause. For a number of years, both in the community and in this House, he has served his constituents very well in respect of this issue. Although the proposals that I shall put forward later in my speech might not meet fully the needs that he has identified, I can tell him that several European nations recognise the importance of caring for their pensioners. Austria, France, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Switzerland and Ireland are just a few of the countries that grant a full concession to pensioners. Several other European nations make similar concessions to people with disabilities, whether they are blind, deaf, or suffer from impaired mobility.
  The anomalies in the existing UK scheme mean that, while many are targeted by the spirit of the regulations, many more are excluded by the letter. Currently, 651,000 pensioners receive concessions, but about 10.5 million do not. Many people benefit who do not need to benefit because they have sufficient income to pay the full licence fee, whereas many of those who are not in receipt of the concession are on low incomes. It is not difficult to see the source of the resentment that has accumulated over the years.
  The next problem is the cost of the scheme to the BBC. Currently, it costs £60 million a year. If the £5 licence were to be extended to all pensioner-only households, the cost would rise to £437 million. The problem with such a universal solution is that it would apply equally to those on relatively high incomes as to those on relatively low incomes. Therefore, the large majority of members of the other House would qualify for a concessionary licence—although it might be argued that they would be better off at home watching "Men Behaving Badly" than coming here and ensuring that life imitates art. It would be difficult to sustain the argument for a concession that covered those who had no particular need of it.
  Extending the concession in that way would add £28 per annum to the cost of the licence fee. A free licence for all pensioners would cost about £628 million and result in a £36.50 increase in the price of a licence. That would severely affect those on low incomes who do not happen to be pensioners, and it was rightly rejected as a solution by the Secretary of State as recently as last November.
  There have been several proposals for change. As long ago as 1977, the Annan committee criticised the lack of relationship between cost and need, and recommended the phasing out of the current scheme. In 1986, the Peacock committee proposed that pensioner households on income support ought to receive a concession in recognition of their low-income status. Sadly, the previous Government rejected that proposal and said that the best way to meet need was to increase the level of pension. Most Labour Members—it is interesting to see that no Opposition Members are present—would agree with that proposition. The problem is that, far from increasing provision to pensioners, the previous Government cut it year on year.
  In the last debate on this matter, on 16 January 1987, David Mellor, then a Home Office Minister on his way up the slippery pole down which he more speedily descended, criticised Labour Members for raising the issue and proposing to extend concessionary licensing. He accused them of the "cynical exploitation of pensioners". The payroll vote on that occasion ensured that the Free Television Licences for Pensioners Bill,

  341
  which was a private Member's Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North, was defeated by just 21 votes.
  This Government can do better and I welcome the Department's proposal to review the licence fee beyond 2002 and the fact that the review will include consideration of the concessionary scheme. I should like to contribute by making a proposal. We should return to the basic principle of need, both income related and dependency related. There are people who rely on television not only for entertainment or information, but for company, and they are not exclusively pensioners. I urge the Government to include in the scheme people on low incomes and on benefits, and people who are housebound and dependent. The problem at present is that those people are not targeted.
  Not all pensioners would benefit from that scheme because a third of pensioners are in the upper half of the income bracket, but many people would benefit, including those who are of non-pensionable age, but who suffer from disabilities. I have tried to quantify those who would benefit, the costs of introducing the benefit and the practical means of offsetting those additional costs. I am indebted to a number of sources for the information on which I draw. The House of Commons Library has been helpful; answers to parliamentary questions have been illuminating; the BBC has co-operated and I am grateful for advice received from Age Concern. I have tried to be fair but practical in my proposal because although it is right that the scheme should be improved and more people should benefit, it is also right that the costs should be contained.
  Mr. David Drew: I welcome the debate on this important matter, during which my hon. Friend has put forward an excellent case. One anomaly that he has not mentioned, and about which I receive many letters, is the example of bungalows in a shared complex which may be connected by a joint alarm scheme, but which are excluded from the concessionary licence arrangements. That is unfair because many people living in such bungalows are on low income and feel particularly discriminated against. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?
  Mr. Bradley: My hon. Friend illustrates an important anomaly within the scheme. Another example was given by NACAB in its excellent report, which said:
  "A CAB in Greater Manchester reported a man over pension age who came to the bureau to ask why he had to pay the full licence. The client was living in accommodation fitted with an emergency alarm, and was identical to neighbouring properties. The properties were not classed as sheltered accommodation, and the client therefore had to pay the full price for his licence. However, because his neighbours had enjoyed a concession since before 1988, they continued to qualify for a concessionary … licence."
  That is not an isolated incident, but one of the many anomalies caused by the scheme's flawed provisions which affect people throughout the country. If I listed all the others, we would probably be here well into October, and I am sure that Members would dwindle in number. There are still no Opposition Members present—my reputation has obviously preceded me.
  My proposal is to phase out the existing scheme and replace it with a concessionary scheme that would require beneficiaries to contribute 25 per cent. of the fee. That is
  342
  reasonable because it would enable the scheme to include many more people. That would be a weekly payment of 50p, which is not unreasonable for people who enjoy full use of their television set. I propose that the scheme be extended to pensioners on income support, all those on disability living allowance and attendance allowance, and the registered blind and deaf.
  On that basis, I calculate that while 651,000 people currently enjoy the scheme, about 4 million would benefit from my proposals. That includes the following groups: 1.5 million pensioners on income support, at a cost of £84 million; 1 million pensioners on attendance allowance but not income support, at a cost of about £38 million; 1.2 million non-pensioners on disability living allowance, at a cost of £76 million, and the blind and deaf, at a cost of £16 million. The total cost would be £214 million.
  As I said earlier, the current scheme costs £60 million, so there would be a significant but containable increase. It would be containable because the costs could be reduced by ending the concession to hotels, which currently pay only for the first 15 rooms that contain a television set and then for each set of five rooms. If that concession were ended, the BBC estimates that an additional £31.5 million would be raised.
  If we went further and required offices and commercial premises to license individual sets, we could expect to raise a sum so significant that the BBC, with which I discussed the issue this morning, could not quantify it. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the figure would be at least equivalent to the £31.5 million raised from abolishing the concession to hotels. In the Palace of Westminster and surrounding parliamentary buildings, there must be at the very least 1,000 television sets. I understand that the privilege of the Crown means that we pay for only one, which seems a little absurd.
  If we included that additional revenue, we could expect to bring down the cost of the new regime that I am proposing to £150 million or less compared with the current cost of £60 million, which would be phased out. I should say at this point that those who currently enjoy the benefits of the scheme should not be deprived of them. Their rights should be reserved.
  The Government have introduced welcome concessions to pensioners. The winter fuel payments go a long way towards meeting need, and the national travel scheme, announced last week by the Deputy Prime Minister, will be extremely welcome in my constituency and elsewhere. The concessionary television licence scheme should in future be administered not by the BBC, but through the benefits system. That will have a number of advantages. It will preserve the BBC's integrity by removing any suggestion of the Government paying subsidy to the BBC to finance the scheme. It will relieve pressure on BBC budgets and, as the BBC will no longer have to bear the cost of the scheme, the full licence fee could be cut by about £3.50.
  Those proposals may or may not prove attractive to the Treasury or the Department, but I have another specific plea which I hope will receive a positive response. At present, 34,400 blind people who have a television set receive a concession of £1.25 on the £97.50 licence fee. That is a scandal. The amount has remained the same since 1965; it equates to the radio licence fee, which was phased out in 1971. Generously, the Government of the

  343
  day ensured that blind people would continue to enjoy the benefit of the £1.25 concession. It has not been increased since. That is shameful and utterly unjustified. It is the worst of the penny-pinching anomalies in the scheme. Surely it must end.
  The Government must devote urgent attention to the needs of blind people currently in receipt of a licence. They surely must enjoy a fairer deal. I calculate that the cost of abolishing the cost of the licence for those 34,400 people would be little more than £3⅓ million. If the cost were transferred to the full licence payer, it would be equivalent to about 19p a year on the licence—a cost which I am sure that the people of this country would be happy to bear. I hope that, if nothing else, the Minister will say that that petty injustice will be ended.
  I hope that these proposals, although imperfect, may at least help to refuel the debate and inform the thinking of Ministers, who must agree that the current scheme is not only inefficient and inequitable, but unsustainable.
  1.20 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Janet Anderson): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) for his well-timed congratulations, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who have campaigned on the issue; to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King), who sponsored an early-day motion on the issue; and to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has campaigned on it for many years.
  I am sure that most, if not all, Members of the House have received numerous representations about concessionary television licences, not only for pensioners, but for other groups such as the disabled, the unemployed and those on a low income. The subject frequently crops up in my constituency mailbag. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin specifically mentioned the position of people who are blind, and we listened carefully to what he said. As he said, and as the Government are very much aware, the system is illogical. It produces a great deal of resentment and a sense of grievance.
  The Government are keenly aware of the importance of television to many people, especially to those who are socially isolated as a result of old age, illness or disability, or who are unable to afford other types of leisure activity. I am only sorry that, for the majority of this important debate, the Opposition Benches have been empty. I can only conclude that Opposition Members do not accord this issue the importance that Labour Members do.
  Although we believe that the television licence fee, at 27p a day for colour and 9p for black and white, represents good value for money, we appreciate that it is a significant expense for people on a low income. The difficulty is that, for a large number—in fact, a substantial proportion—of households, a persuasive case can be made for a concessionary television licence. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin has gone some way to make the case for several categories of people.
  However, the BBC depends on television licence fee revenue for its home broadcasting grant. The Government's current agreement with the BBC
  344
  guarantees the licence fee as the mechanism for funding the corporation until at least March 2002. Any broadly based concession at a rate likely to be of real help to recipients would lead to a considerable loss of licence fee revenue. As a result, to maintain the level of the BBC's grant, everyone else's television licence fee would have to rise sharply.
  I give a few examples. The provision of concessionary television licences for all pensioner-only households would lead to an estimated loss of £489 million in licence fee revenue, and would require an increase of approximately £29 in the standard licence fee. Free licences for all pensioner-only households with at least one member in receipt of income support would cost an estimated £112 million, and would require an increase of about £5 in the full licence fee—an increase which would also fall on non-qualifying pensioners.
  Many non-pensioners may be thought to have an equally good case for a concessionary licence, as my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin eloquently argued. An estimated 19 per cent. of households with television have one or more members in receipt of income support, more than 5 per cent. have a member in receipt of disability living allowance and nearly 4 per cent. a member in receipt of attendance allowance. It would be very difficult to justify to a non-pensioner in such circumstances an increase of as much as 30 per cent. in his or her licence fee to provide a general concession for pensioners.
  It is sometimes suggested that the solution is for the Government to make good from public funds the cost of any concessionary arrangements. However, for good reason, the arrangements for funding the BBC have always been kept separate from Government spending. In addition to providing the BBC with a secure source of revenue, licence fee funding of the BBC grant preserves the traditional arm's-length relationship between the corporation and the Government. To abandon that arrangement might be regarded as prejudicing the corporation's independence.
  The possibility of funding concessions by charging hotels and other businesses a full licence fee for each television set installed has also been suggested. An estimated £33.5 million in additional revenue might be raised by charging hotels a full licence fee for each television set in use. However, no information is held centrally on the number of television sets installed at other business premises. In any case, the Government are not persuaded that it would be right to impose a significant extra burden on businesses to fund concessionary television licences.
  Charging a licence fee for each television set, whether for business premises or generally, would at present also require a significant increase in the costs of administering and enforcing the licensing system, which the Government believe would be unacceptable. Such a system may become possible in future, as digital receivers become the norm, but that day is some way off. Nevertheless, I assure my hon. Friends that it is a possibility, and that we shall keep it under consideration.
  Many hon. Members are also familiar with problems arising from the existing concessionary television licence scheme. Under that scheme, television licences are available for £5, but only to pensioners and disabled people living in nursing or residential homes, or in

  345
  directly comparable sheltered accommodation provided or managed by a local authority, a housing association or a development corporation. Those complications of the present scheme make it very difficult for people to understand how it works.
  The Government receive frequent pleas for changes to the concessionary scheme to tackle its perceived shortcomings, usually in relation to specific cases where an individual or a sheltered housing scheme fails to qualify. The concessionary scheme does give rise to many anomalies. Its shortcomings are of particular concern because they directly affect some of the more vulnerable members of our society. Since it was formally established in the 1960s, the scheme has undergone several amendments and extensions. None of them has succeeded in making it more popular, easier to administer or more comprehensible to the layman.
  It is clear from the history of the scheme, and from the wide range of criticisms levelled at it, that there is no possibility of resolving its shortcomings by fine-tuning the regulations. The amendments most frequently proposed involve extending the scheme to accommodation that is currently excluded. Examples include sheltered accommodation interspersed with mainstream housing, accommodation without a full-time or resident warden and private sheltered housing. However, such changes would leave out many people who, on grounds of health, social or financial circumstances, deserve a concession just as much.
  Another proposal that is often made in relation to the concessionary scheme is that the regulations should be flexible, to allow common sense to prevail in difficult or marginal cases. However, that flexibility would be likely to erode the framework provided by the regulations, increase the number of disputed cases and, in the longer term, make the concessionary scheme impossible to administer.
  The Government are by no means complacent about the concessionary scheme. I assure my hon. Friends that we accept that it is less than satisfactory, but we do not believe that changes to the existing scheme would result in arrangements that would be generally acceptable. On the contrary, it is almost certain that pressure for further changes would continue unabated.
  As hon. Members know, the Government's current agreement with the BBC guarantees the licence fee as the mechanism for funding the BBC only until March 2002. The agreement provides for a review of the funding arrangements before that date. I give the House an assurance that the Government intend to carry out such a review in good time to allow decisions to be taken before then. We shall use that opportunity to consider in detail not only the future of the existing concessionary scheme, but the wider matter of concessions.
  In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin for introducing this important debate. We have listened to him and others of my hon. Friends, and we shall certainly take their views into account in our deliberations.

  Pig Industry
  1.30 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I preface my remarks by declaring my interests. My financial interests in the pig industry are recorded in the Register of Members' Interests, of course. I have initiated the debate in my capacity as president of the British Pig Association.
  By common consent, the British pig industry is in a parlous state. I shall set out the industry's not inconsiderable achievements, summarise the main problems currently affecting the industry, and suggest how Ministers might help to ensure a viable future. I draw Ministers' attention to the high level of interest generated by the debate, as evidenced by the large number of pig industry representatives in the Public Gallery.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I would not want the hon. Gentleman to make any reference to anywhere outside the House.
  Mr. Gill: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I am pleased that, notwithstanding the awkward time of the day, many of my hon. Friends are present, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who has brought to my attention the problems faced by his pig producers; my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran), who has a large pig population in his constituency; my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who is the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee and has brought to my attention the unfair competition that pig producers are experiencing as a result of the United Kingdom having higher welfare standards than other parts of the European Union; my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who is on the Front Bench; my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer); my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior), who tells me that some of his constituents are contemplating, if not already carrying out, the gassing of in-pig sows because the situation is so serious and they see no future; my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who instances pig producers losing up to £25 per head on the pigs that they produce; and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who has sent me correspondence from one of his constituents, who says that he is not likely to survive the present crisis beyond September this year.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gill: No, I shall not give way, as I have much to say and little time to say it.
  The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) has asked me to instance the acute problems of the Northern Ireland pig industry, which have been exacerbated by the destruction of 40 per cent. of Northern Ireland's pig slaughtering capacity as a result of the recent fire at the Ballymoney pig abattoir.
  Mr. Hood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gill: No.

  347
  The UK pig industry is not a subsidised industry; nor does it want to be. One of the industry's proudest boasts is that what it has achieved, it has achieved by its own efforts. It has responded magnificently to customer demand for a consistent, healthy, lean and nutritious product. It has adopted the highest animal welfare standards in the world. It has instituted farm assurance schemes to authenticate the welfare and quality standards that customers increasingly demand. The industry itself is auditing those schemes to demonstrate its total commitment to high standards and traceability.
  The UK's genetic base makes it pre-eminent in the world as a source of breeding stock, which is exported to the four corners of the globe. In spite of all the difficulties, exports of pig meat this year are likely to be twice the tonnage exported in 1993, which was 100,000 tonnes.
  Until now, the pig industry has been a success story, making no demands on the public purse; making the UK self-sufficient in fresh pork and 50 per cent. self-sufficient in bacon; contributing substantially to the balance of payments; and creating employment in the countryside, in the processing industry, in the ancillary industries and in manufacturing industry. Clearly, it is in Britain's national self-interest to keep the industry going, but it is in crisis, and it needs help.
  Chief among the industry's problems are the weakness of continental currencies, which self-evidently makes imports highly competitive; the high cost of UK feedingstuffs, relative to other countries that continue to feed meat and bone meal; and the burden of additional costs incurred as a result of adopting the highest possible welfare standards. I remind the House that, from 1 January next year, sow stalls and tethers will be a thing of the past in the UK, but not in continental Europe, which will put us at an increasing competitive disadvantage.
  Other difficulties facing the industry are the ever-increasing costs of meat inspection and offal disposal, and the escalating cost of road transport, to which there is no alternative for the meat and livestock industry.
  There are various ways in which the Government could help. They could follow the commendable example set by the House of Commons Refreshment Department. I quote from a written answer that appeared in the Official Report on 20 July, when the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner), the Chairman of the Catering Committee, reported that
  "the procurement of fresh meat and poultry"
  will be
  "only from sources approved under an accredited 'farm assurance' scheme".—[Official Report, 20 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 406.]
  That example should be made applicable to all Government and local authority contracts.
  By making all imports subject to the same feed, health and welfare requirements as domestic production, Ministers would strike an important blow for the future well-being of the British pig industry.
  The Government could help further by giving encouragement to the rendering of exclusively pig offal in plants dedicated to that purpose, with the end product being exported or sold to the poultry industry, where I understand that it would be welcome. That would create
  348
  value in a part of the animal which, through no fault of the pig industry, has been made worthless by the offal ban. Offal is banned from being used in animal feedingstuffs because of the problems associated with BSE, but there is no evidence of BSE in the pig herd. It is unfair that the industry is penalised because that offal cannot be used.
  The Government should adopt a self-denying ordinance that neither the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food nor any other Government Department, will impose any further cost burdens on the livestock industry, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that imports are bearing the same level of overheads.
  As for transport, the new Labour Government have increased the rate of duty on diesel fuel by no less than 22 per cent. since coming into office on 1 May last year. Higher duty in this country combined with much higher vehicle licence fees than those in continental Europe mean that the cost of producing a kilogram of pork in Britain is about 2.6p higher than on the continent. That is purely on account of the higher cost of transport in the United Kingdom occasioned by higher road licence fees and the higher duty on diesel oil.
  Equally important, the Government could help the industry by using their best offices to cajole and persuade caterers and retailers to sell only pork and pigmeat products that meet the high welfare and quality assurance standards of home-produced pigmeat. Given that Safeway, for example, has given an assurance that all its pork is United Kingdom-sourced, I trust that it will not prove too difficult to get other retailers to make the same commitment. I would not wish Ministers to underestimate the influence that they can have on caterers and retailers of British pork. I hope that, in responding to the debate, the Minister will undertake that responsibility.
  The Government could help also by changing the legislation that prevents products being mandatorily labelled with the country of origin. Many pig producers feel strongly that it would be a great step in their best interests to see all British pork labelled clearly as British. By the same token, it would be helpful if the British public were able to see where pork was not British and from where it was imported. They could then exercise customer choice. As Ministers will appreciate, under the rules of the European Union there is no means by which that sort of labelling can be made mandatory, but it is an area that we need to revisit.
  I ask the Government to leave no stone unturned in helping exporters to take advantage of whatever financial assistance the European Union provides in the way of export refunds, export restitution, export credits or whatever. That sort of help would be of positive assistance to the industry. Finally, the Government could help by initiating research into alternative uses for meat and bonemeal, and helping to regenerate the market for tallow.
  With the spot price for pigs at its lowest this decade, pig producers are desperate for hope. Hope is an important thing to us all; we need to have hope for the future in whatever career we pursue. All things being equal, I have no doubt—I hope that the Minister has no doubt—that the British pig industry can compete with the best. However, if the industry is to survive, it urgently needs a signal of confidence. The alternative—I know that the message will not be lost on the Minister—is a high-welfare but decimated pig industry, and that would be in nobody's

  349
  interests—not those of the country, the industry, the retailers or the consumers. I venture to suggest that it would not be in the Government's interests, either.
  Pig farmers stopped producing fat years ago, but I trust that the Minister will recognise that such fat as they had on their own backs has long since gone. Previous years' profits have all been reinvested for a welfare-friendly future, in line with consumer preferences and legislation. The entire industry is now looking to see what Government are willing to do to help, and I look forward to the Minister's response.
  1.43 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The situation facing the pig industry is a matter of concern for the Government. I think that that concern is demonstrated by the fact that I have been joined by my right hon. Friend the recently appointed Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. We discussed the situation this morning. As I have said, we are concerned about the situation that is facing the industry.
  The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) put the case for the pig industry well and knowledgeably. As he will know, it goes through periodic cycles. It is now in a down cycle, but there is no doubt that, in terms of the down cycles that it goes through, this is a particularly bad one. There is certainly major concern about prices.
  The issue is not one for the United Kingdom pig industry alone. It is a European situation. Pigmeat prices have fallen by 25 per cent. on the continent as well as in the United Kingdom.
  I whole-heartedly endorse the points made by the hon. Member about the UK pig industry. As he rightly says, it is an unsupported sector of agriculture. It has always operated within its own markets. It has not asked for financial support. It is a very successful industry, which has increased market share within the UK in all sectors of pigmeat. It has been very successful in relation to welfare standards.
  We need to pay tribute to what has been done in the industry. The improvement in welfare standards—the phasing out of sow stalls and tethers—is being brought about by UK legislation. I know from my contacts with the industry—I have a constituency interest in the matter—that it wants to go for the highest welfare standards. It has invested at its own cost in high welfare standards, and that deserves to be recognised.
  Much attention is focused on the quality of the product. It is a fact that we do not feed meat and bonemeal to pigs in the UK, while it is still legal to do so on the continent. That is something that not many people know about. It is not only an issue of high quality standards but one of high welfare standards. That needs to be recognised.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I entirely endorse the point that the Minister is making, but surely the point is that, in relation to both feed and welfare standards, the improvements that we are seeing in this country, of which the industry is rightly proud—although concerned about costs—are not only not being matched by our continental partners: they are not even moving in the same direction. Does the Minister accept that the speech by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) could have been made
  350
  about two years ago in that respect? The sad thing is that the previous Government never tackled the problem of the uneven playing field.
  Mr. Morley: There is a great deal of truth in that. However, some continental producers have voluntarily introduced the same welfare standards that apply in the UK. They have been concerned about losing market share in the UK because of the growth of quality assurance and welfare schemes here. I shall touch on that in a moment, because I think that it is important.
  I emphasise that support, and reassure the hon. Member for Ludlow—I think that he knows this—that all of us as a ministerial team, at every opportunity in recent weeks, have taken the opportunity publicly to emphasise the high standards of the UK pig industry and the fact that British consumers want those high standards. We know that. They can have those standards and support the investment that has been made by supporting the UK industry through their pockets and their buying policies at the supermarket shelves.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend therefore lead a campaign to involve supermarkets in country-of-origin marking, which they could do, which would transform the situation and get rid of the surplus of pork?
  Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend is right. I shall come to that point, because it is something which I want to address.
  The issue is what we can do in supporting the industry. As I was saying, as a ministerial team we emphasise that. I recently held a press conference at the East of England show, in which I concentrated on supporting the UK industry. I drew the public's attention to the points that have been made. I spoke at a seminar on freedom food, which was attended by most of the main retailers in this country. Again, I emphasised that the standards we want to see, and the public want to see, are being maintained by the United Kingdom pig industry, but that they can be undermined by cheaper imports from countries with lower standards. Those retailers have the power to do something about that through their buying policies.
  I emphasise that my colleague, Lord Donoughue, recently hosted a successful seminar with the catering industry, which is a big outlet for pigmeat in this country. We want to ensure that the seminar is not the end of our contacts with the industry, or of our efforts to promote them, but the start of efforts to encourage caterers and processors to source more pigmeat from the United Kingdom.
  Mr. John Gummer: Given that the industry writes so much on menus—everything is "morning picked" and the like—will the Minister ask whether it would be sensible to make clear the ways in which British pigmeat is welfare-friendly? One in four meals are eaten outside the home, so putting that on every menu would remind diners of the advantage of eating British-produced pork.
  Mr. Morley: I agree, and hope that the industry notes those comments. They also apply to British veal, which is also produced to high welfare standards.

  351
  I note the particular problem in Northern Ireland, to which the hon. Member for Ludlow referred. The fire at the Lovell and Christmas bacon factory at Ballymoney has caused extra problems for the Northern Ireland pig industry. My colleague, Lord Dubs, rang me this morning to express his concern. He is holding discussions with the industry in Northern Ireland, and is trying to assist it with that problem.
  Mr. William Thompson: May I emphasise the critical situation in Northern Ireland? Many farmers cannot get their pigs away; the backlog is building up, and the pigs are getting heavier and heavier. Those farmers who can get their pigs away are getting a bad price.
  Mr. Morley: I understand. The hon. Gentleman draws attention to the problem that is being faced in Northern Ireland; Lord Dubs is talking with the industry, and exploring ways in which it can deal with it.
  The hon. Member for Ludlow asked me to consider a list of issues, and I shall deal with them in some detail. First, on buying policy, central and local government can have a significant impact, but they are restricted on sourcing, price and value for money by certain rules, some of which were introduced by the Conservative Government in 1988. That can make it difficult when cheaper imports are available. The hon. Gentleman will know, however, that we have already made representations to the Ministry of Defence, which is a major buyer of beef.
  I am glad to report that considerable progress has been made in getting Departments to source more from United Kingdom producers. Local authorities want to do the same, within the restrictions they face. I am sure that the issue will be considered.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned applying similar standards to imported pigmeat. We want welfare, quality and traceability standards to be raised in the European and international contexts, and are pursuing those issues through the European Union. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was arguing that we should allow imports produced at lower welfare standards to drag us down to the lowest common denominator. He would not want that, and nor would the industry, but imports are a concern in respect of competitiveness, and we take that into account.
  Mr. Gill: So that there is no misunderstanding, it is far more important that we drag others up to our standards, so that we can compete on the so-called level playing field.
  Mr. Morley: Absolutely—there is nothing between us on this issue. We are pursuing improved standards in the European and international contexts as well as in the United Kingdom context.
  On the hon. Gentleman's third point—dedicated offal rendering—I can give him an assurance that I will take his suggestion away for discussion with officials, and within the industry, to discover whether there is any scope for pursuing it.
  352
  Fourthly, the Government have to take into account the impact of cost overheads on all agricultural sectors, and all sectors of industry. We do that in the context of our national priorities and decisions. We also support industry: we doubled capital allowances to help all producers who are making capital investments.
  We take seriously the hon. Gentleman's fifth point, on urging United Kingdom-sourced meat from retailers. We meet the heads of the retail chains regularly, and I can assure him that we will raise the matter with them. We also want to ensure that there is adequate labelling in that respect. We are pursuing through the EU a new directive on labelling to achieve stronger powers on common standards, which would give consumers more information, especially about the source of meat, when they are making consumer choices.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred to labelling. At present, supermarkets can voluntarily introduce such standards and labelling. They have introduced quality assurance standards, and some have introduced freedom food labelling. I strongly support that approach, because it benefits United Kingdom producers. Although our producers can meet the high standards that consumers and retailers want, that would be undermined if cheaper, lower-quality and lower-standard pigmeat were imported after we had encouraged them to meet those standards and introduce their own quality assurance schemes through farm-assured British pigs.
  That decision is obviously for supermarkets and retailers to make, but I hope that they listen to what has been said in the debate. The Government are saying that our industry has the highest standards in Europe, if not the world, and that should be recognised in terms of sourcing. Consumers need information so that they can make an informed choice and support the industry.
  Promotion is an important area. The comprehensive spending review settlement will be announced today, and more money for promotion will be made available to Food From Britain. Its budget was frozen by the previous Administration, but we believe that marketing is important, and we intend to give it increased support wherever we can.
  One of the most important things we can do in the short term to assist the industry is to discuss market support with the European Commission. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have already asked it to take urgent emergency action because of the crisis facing the United Kingdom industry—and, indeed, the European industry.
  I am informed that a decision on what the Commission can do to improve market support is likely to be taken tomorrow. I hope that the announcement will bring some comfort to the pig industry, given the particular problems that it faces, and that the hon. Gentleman realises that we are taking what action we can, within the restrains under which we operate and the limits of our own powers, to support the industry.
  I come back to my original point: when the industry has gone through its periodic down cycles, it has never come to the Government with its hand out. It has always invested and planned, identified its own customer base, and been successful. It has also recognised the concerns about welfare standards, and is working with us to improve welfare across the board. We recognise that it is

  353
  ahead of European producers in the abolition of sow stalls and tethers; although that is a cost disadvantage, it will not be a marketing disadvantage, as long as retailers keep their side of the bargain and keep faith with the industry, which has invested and constructed itself in the way that I have described.
  The attendance today of hon. Members from all parts of the House shows the concern about the problems being faced by the industry. Earlier today, I met a pig industry delegation led by Ben Gill and John Godfrey, and gave assurances similar to those that I have given to the hon. Member for Ludlow. I hope that the industry will survive this down cycle; it certainly deserves to, given its
  354
  efficiency, its record and the way in which it has succeeded in the past. The people of this country can be proud of its product.
  It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
  Ordered,
  That Mr. George Mudie be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Keith Bradley be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Pope.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Micro-credit Projects
    Mr. Andrew George: What support she is offering less developed countries to promote micro-credit projects. [51320]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): We strongly support the provision of savings and credit to poor people. Experience shows that the poorest women use such schemes very creatively to enhance their family incomes, and are very reliable at repaying. Our current projects amount to about £60 million, and we anticipate increasing that figure. We are also working internationally to ensure that efforts are co-ordinated, and that we avoid the danger of a spread of badly organised micro-credit schemes.
    Mr. George: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that the guiding principle of micro-credit schemes in less-developed countries is that of empowering the poorest in society, especially women? Micro credit is one of the most effective initiatives available to donor countries and non-governmental organisations. What steps is the Minister taking to establish a programme of partnerships with others, including United Kingdom banks, to build on the good work achieved so far?
    Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is right about involving women and getting them to participate. We took part in the summits on micro-credit schemes: the first was held in Washington, and the second in New York on 28 and 29 June. We discussed expanding our activity in partnership with non-governmental organisations and banks. There are about 10,000 micro-finance programmes lending to about 15 million people. We want to increase that to 100 million people, so we have a huge task ahead of us, but we are ready to do everything that we can to meet that challenge.
    Mr. Andrew Reed: I welcome the announcement of £60 million for micro-credit schemes. That is an increase on the £42 million that was available one or two years ago. Does the Minister agree that micro-credit schemes offer the best opportunity for people to develop their skills, to make money and to assist their local communities? Will he ensure that micro-credit schemes gain from the increase in the aid programme over the next three years?
    Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is right that micro-credit schemes are cost effective: the repayment rates are high, and the schemes soon become self-sustaining. But we must not forget our other priorities, particularly health and education. I hope that the Opposition will recognise that, as a result of the settlement in the comprehensive spending review, which the hon. Member for South-West
    356
    Devon (Mr. Streeter) pooh-poohed at our previous Question Time, we shall be able to do a great deal more in those areas.

    Debt Relief
    Mr. David Stewart: If she will make a statement on the spending plans for her Department in relation to debt relief for developing nations. [51321]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The Government's policy is to speed up the implementation of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative and to apply it more flexibly to post-conflict countries. Our aim is that all eligible countries are on track for debt forgiveness by 2000. HIPC debt relief draws on resources not from budgets such as mine, but from the World bank, IMF and export credits. My Department continues to provide resources to help countries to qualify for HIPC and is helping countries committed to poverty reduction to pay debt while awaiting HIPC relief. We will continue to work in similar ways to secure debt relief for poor, heavily indebted countries that are committed to poverty reduction.
    Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her reply. Will she give an undertaking to speed up debt relief for heavily indebted countries and make a clear and transparent link between debt relief and poverty reduction in developing nations?
    Clare Short: As I have said, we are strongly committed to speeding up the implementation of HIPC. Shortly after we formed our Government, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced at the Commonwealth Finance Ministers meeting the target to bring three quarters of eligible countries on track by 2000. He and I went immediately to a meeting with the World bank and the IMF, but could not reach agreement on that. We obtained that agreement at the G8 summit, so we are having some effect, but there is more to be done. In particular, post-conflict countries do not have the track record that enables them to qualify, so we must be more flexible there. We are doing all that we can not to impose specific new health and education conditions but, rather, to require a good economic policy to obtain good economic growth to benefit the poor.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: What proposals and initiatives will the Secretary of State put forward for the annual meeting of the World bank and the IMF this autumn to relieve debt?
    Clare Short: As I have said, we must now seek to implement the agreement reached at the G8 summit between all the major donor countries to speed up the implementation of HIPC—a shift in the position of a number of countries—and the agreement to be more flexible about post-conflict countries, such as Rwanda, about which the hon. Gentleman and the Select Committee are worried. Rwanda has come out of chaos and does not have the track record over the years that would enable it to qualify for HIPC, but the levels of poverty there were so great that, without help to reduce

    357
    poverty, chaos could well return. Therefore, we need more flexible conditions and we shall be working on both fronts at the meeting.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: This Question Time should not go by without my taking the opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the large increase in her budget which she won from the Treasury. That will be welcome throughout the country. Will my right hon. Friend soon be able to announce how much more might be able to be done for health and education, given, as she has pointed out herself, that many countries are so heavily indebted that they spend more on repaying their debt than on the health and education of their populations?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her congratulations. The Labour party has kept its commitment to reverse the decline in development assistance which went on so shamefully under the previous Administration. Immediately after the election, we announced that we would increase by 50 per cent. our spending on health, education and water in Africa, and that is now being implemented.
    I caution everyone involved with debt relief not to see it as the only remedy for poverty. We need debt relief in order to reduce poverty, but there are some poor countries without debt, and debt relief must be seen in that context. We shall be disbursing our increased resources and making announcements in the autumn. I can promise my hon. Friend that a commitment to improve spending on education, health and clean water will be a theme of those.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about the HIPC initiative and wish her well in speeding up that process. Can she clarify the extent to which the Government support and intend to honour the specific aims and objectives of the Jubilee 2000 campaign?
    Clare Short: As I have made clear before, we welcome the Jubilee 2000 campaign. In the various cathedrals in Birmingham at the time of the G8 summit, I addressed groupings from all over the country campaigning on debt. I was proud that so many of the British people came to Birmingham to ask the representatives of the richest countries in the world not to forget the needs of the poorest. We are highly committed to making improvements. It depends to which of the demands of the Jubilee 2000 campaign one listens. Sometimes it talks as though all debt should be relieved unconditionally. We do not agree with that. There are countries with high levels of debt that have spent their money on luxuries or have excessive military expenditure. We believe that debt relief should be linked to a commitment to poverty reduction and sensible economic management. We believe in implementing HIPC more flexibly, not in cancelling all debt unconditionally.

    Palestine (Development Aid)
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What plans there are for future development aid to the Palestinian Authority. [51322]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): We expect to maintain a substantial bilateral programme of development projects that target the poor, promote sustainable livelihoods and encourage good government. We aim to help the Palestinian Authority to build its capacity as an efficient and accountable Government. We are conscious, however, that lack of progress in the peace process is causing increased poverty in the occupied territories. That undermines much of the work.
    Dr. Starkey: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. I have seen for myself the obvious benefits that the Palestinian economy can gain from projects that we, and the European Union, have funded; but, as my hon. Friend mentioned, its ability to benefit is undercut by the obstructions that the Israeli Government are putting in the way of the development of trade between the different parts of the Palestinian Authority, and between the Palestinian Authority and its neighbours. I am thinking particularly of obstruction on the border between Gaza and Egypt, where spurious security concerns are being used to limit the ability to trade. What representations is my hon. Friend making to his colleagues in the Foreign Office with the aim of removing those obstructions?
    Mr. Foulkes: I commend my hon. Friend for her sustained interest in this topic following her visit to the area. She has been to see me, and has pursued the matter through questions and by all other possible means. We share her concern, and I assure her that, through officials and Ministers, we are regularly in touch with our Foreign Office colleagues. All the good work that we are doing could be jeopardised—indeed, it is already being jeopardised—unless we receive full co-operation from the Israeli Government. As my hon. Friend has said, we are not receiving it now.
    Mr. David Atkinson: Does the Minister agree that, as well as giving aid to the Palestinian Authority and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for the Near East, the international community will in due course be required to fund the outcome of the final-status negotiations relating to Palestinian refugees, which are due to be completed by May next year? What consideration is the Department giving to the establishment of a new United Nations fund for that purpose—as proposed in the Atkinson plan, which the Council of Europe endorsed earlier this year?
    Mr. Foulkes: I do not think we need ask who the Atkinson plan is named after. I am glad that the author of that plan is here to present it to us. I must add, however, that we are not enamoured of the idea of establishing new United Nations funds. We are trying to streamline and improve the efficiency of the UN and its agencies in the delivery of assistance, and I feel that such tasks might be performed better by one of the existing agencies.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does the Minister agree that it is essential for the Palestinian Authority to develop accountable and democratic institutions to ensure that funds go to those for whom they are intended—the mass of people in its territories?

    359
    Does he agree that the responsibility for doing that lies firmly with the Palestinian Authority, and not with the Government of Israel?
    Mr. Foulkes: We continue to do a great deal to build up the capacity of the Palestinian Authority. We have been concerned about the financial arrangements, and have given advice in that regard. I assure my hon. Friend that all bilateral assistance given to the Palestinian Authority is used for the purpose for which it is intended: we make sure that that happens.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Minister agree that, in view of the catastrophic failure of American policy in the middle east and the grave instability that continues to arise therefrom, a special duty now falls on the European Union to assume leadership in the region? Will he talk to his American counterpart to ensure that the Americans follow our very successful programme to help the Palestinians, and that an even-handed approach is adopted to aid in the area? That is the only way in which we can hope eventually to see peace.
    Mr. Foulkes: Most of what the hon. Gentleman has said is principally a matter for the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office. I assure him, however, that the whole Government—from the Prime Minister downwards, and including the Department for International Development—are committed to making an extra effort to ensure that the peace process is enlivened, so that the money that we spend is used effectively and the Palestinian people do not continue to experience the poverty that they are suffering now.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Nigel Evans: If she will make a statement on the level of assistance her Department gives to Cyprus. [51323]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): Cyprus is a high-income country with gross domestic product per head of $13,000. Under our small grants scheme, we are completing some education projects valued at about £75,000 in the current financial year. We have no plans for future assistance of this kind. The European Union has allocated £51 million to Cyprus, of which the share attributed to our Department is £8.16 million.
    Mr. Evans: The European Union is putting a great deal of money into Cyprus. In the context of those funds, could the Minister ensure that people in the north of the island are recognised? I fully understand why the money has to go through the official Government of Cyprus. Does the Minister agree that if aid is spread throughout the island, people on both sides of it and the two Administrations will have to work and talk together about projects?
    Mr. Foulkes: Much of the European Union assistance relates to the accession process. The British preference is for a bi-zonal, bi-communal Cyprus joining the European Union. That process can bring a new impetus to efforts to reach a settlement in Cyprus.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: Can my hon. Friend assure me that he will do his best to see that the money is used to facilitate contacts and meetings between members of both Cypriot communities? Will he join me in appealing to Mr. Rauf Denktash, the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, to lift his ban on contacts between those living in the north and those in the south of the island?
    Mr. Foulkes: I am wary of entering into issues that are more correctly matters for the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Our aim is to ensure that money is spent effectively. As I said earlier, accession to the European Union is used as part of a process for getting better agreement between the two parts of Cyprus.

    European Markets (Access)
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What action her Department is taking (a) with other Government Departments and (b) with its EU counterparts to improve freedom of access to European markets for exports from low-income countries. [51324]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): During the United Kingdom presidency we worked with other Departments to reach agreement on the European Union mandate for the negotiations for a successor to the current Lome convention. The UK objective was to ensure that the mandate reflected our commitment, as set out in the development White Paper, to improve freedom of access to European markets for exports from the least developed countries, as well as protecting the current access arrangements for the non-least developed countries. Those objectives were secured in the mandate, and the negotiations themselves will open at the end of September.
    Dr. Cable: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that the considerable value of her aid programme is somewhat undermined by the persistence of trade barriers, notably on agriculture, and also by such measures as were introduced today—the big increase in textile tariffs at the behest of France with the acquiescence of the British Government? Does she further agree that she should take a lead in Whitehall in arguing for a liberal trade regime in Britain's interests and in the interests of low-income developing countries?
    Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must give good trade access to the poorest countries. The least developed countries' share of world trade is less than 0.5 per cent., so we can afford to be generous and build up the frailest economies. It has been agreed that the least developed countries should have zero tariff access to European Union markets, and we hope to entrench that agreement in the World Trade Organisation. I agree with the principle that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. The Lome record shows that the ability of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries to take up trade access has been disappointing. Their share of EU markets has fallen during the existence of the Lome trade concession. Therefore, we need to help countries to build up their capacity to take up trade preferences and use them. We should work on both fronts.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: May I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on arresting the

    361
    decline, year by year, in achieving the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent? On Europe, may I ask her to support sustainable tourism, including the protection of rain forests and greater monitoring of the transportation of dangerous materials?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I pay tribute to him for his work in this area, which I am sure helped to bring about that outcome. On sustainable tourism, I agree that many of the poorest countries are tourist destinations. If we can get high-quality tourism, with good training and good rates of pay for local people, it could be an important asset. Similarly, he will know of the Commonwealth-backed Iwokrama rain forest project in Guyana, which is meant to be an exemplar of good tropical forest management. One of the ideas to make that sustainable is to have high-quality ecological tourism. If we arrange that properly, it could be beneficial to all parties.
    Mr. John Bercow: Freedom of access to European markets for exports from low-income countries is obviously of the greatest importance, but will the right hon. Lady, in the name of international development, press for global free trade by 2020?
    Clare Short: As the hon. Gentleman will probably know, Mr. Ruggiero has called for universal zero tariff access for the least developed countries through the World Trade Organisation and we strongly support that. The hon. Gentleman will also know that another GATT round is coming up in 2000. My Department is doing all that it can to provide access to expertise for developing countries, which make up the majority of WTO members. If they together can decide what they want out of the next round, we could get a beneficial settlement, increase world trade, and ensure that it is equitably distributed and that the poorest countries benefit from globalisation.

    Sudan
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: What representations she has made to the international community on hardship in the Sudan; and if she will make a statement. [51325]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): On 18 May, I chaired a discussion held by EU Development Ministers on Sudan. Since then, I have discussed Sudan with the executive director of the UN World Food Programme, the United Nations Children's Fund and others. I am particularly concerned that the international community should take full advantage of the recently announced temporary ceasefire in the Bahr el Ghazal region of southern Sudan, and that we should seek to build on that to reach a negotiated settlement in Sudan, which is the real answer; otherwise, the war will cause a continuing threat of humanitarian crisis.
    I wrote to my EU Development Minister colleagues on 14 July, urging them to make additional resources available, but the situation remains very worrying and it looks as though the famine will continue through this year into next.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. Like her, I, other hon. Members and people throughout the UK share the concern over the suffering
    362
    of women and children in Sudan, particularly southern Sudan. What response has she received from other EU Governments to her appeal for more resources for Sudan and what advantage are EU Governments taking of the ceasefire in Sudan to help those people who are suffering, through no fault of their own? Will she give us some indication of what the future is for the people of Sudan?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The World Food Programme has said that, for the next couple of months, it has enough resources to deliver the food that is needed in southern Sudan, but let me repeat that 90 per cent. of the spend is going on air drops. That is terrible. People are hungry, and the international community is spending masses of money on aeroplanes. That is why the ceasefire, for which Britain has worked so hard, is so important. It means that we can move in trainloads of food. We are anxious to take advantage of the ceasefire. I have not yet received responses from my EU colleagues, but I stress again that food that is getting in for hungry people is being diverted by fighters. We have to extend the ceasefire. There needs to be a negotiated settlement in Sudan, or we will go from crisis to crisis.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Secretary of State and I agree that peace is the key to solving the famine in Sudan and I pay tribute to her Foreign Office colleague who I believe was instrumental in achieving the ceasefire recently. Does she agree that famine is being used as a weapon of war in Sudan by both sides, particularly by the Government of Sudan? Their ambassador stated at the International Development Committee recently that Sudan had sufficient food and was even exporting it, but was unwilling to provide food to its own people in the south of the country.
    Clare Short: I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman that peace is the answer. The real problem is that the international community has almost given up on Sudan and that humanitarian aid just props up the terrible war economy in which the conditions of the people get ever worse. I also agree that the Government of Sudan and the leadership of factions in the south care little for the welfare of the people and continue prosecuting this endless war. Both should be criticised, but we should all use our influence to extend the ceasefire and achieve a negotiated settlement, as that is the only way forward.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Secretary of State accept that her opposition to humanitarian emergency appeals to help the starving people of southern Sudan may—and I emphasise that word—have led some people to think that the British Government are allowing the Government of Sudan to get away with using starvation as a weapon of war? Does she accept that the USA is reported by some sources to be backing the rebels in southern Sudan, where there are oil deposits? In view of that perception, what discussions have taken place with the USA about its potential role in the peace process? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State replies, the House must come to order as one can very seldom hear the Members who are speaking. I want to

    363
    hear the response of the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] Order. The House must come to order. Conversations are much too noisy.
    Clare Short: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
    No. I do not accept that my suggesting that there needs to be international pressure on both sides to gain access rather than telling the public that the problem was lack of resources was in any way an error. The pressure of international public opinion made the Government of Sudan change their mind on flights and access and led the Sudan People's Liberation Army to agree to the ceasefire which, as the hon. Lady knows, it was unwilling to do at first.
    It is true that the USA is providing support for capacity building to the factions in the south. I have spoken to Brian Attwood, the head of USAID, about the need to back the ceasefire. Others worry that some elements in the Administration take the position that the hon. Lady put forward. It is absolutely crucial that countries do not line up on the war because of their criticism of the Government of Sudan and allow the people of Sudan to continue to suffer. We must do better to get everyone to work seriously for a negotiated settlement in Sudan.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: While I understand entirely what the Secretary of State is saying about the need for peace, and wish her well in her pursuit of a long-term political settlement, will she take the opportunity this afternoon to give a clear and unequivocal message to the British people that she now accepts that in the south of Sudan at least, more money, food and medical supplies are urgently needed to keep people alive? Will she whole-heartedly endorse the public appeals now being made by UK aid agencies?
    Clare Short: No. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, no one should play games with the crisis in Sudan. Millions of people are in danger of dying while 90 per cent. of the money that is provided goes on air drops. We are spending money on aeroplanes while people starve. Much of the food that is getting in is being diverted by fighters from the people in need. We need international concern about Sudan to keep pressure on both sides, first to get in massively more food—and we need the ceasefire for that—and secondly, to press for a negotiated settlement. That is what is needed and that is what I ask British public opinion to seek.

    Southern Africa
    Helen Jackson: What assessment she has made of the impact of the measures announced in the comprehensive spending review on aid to community development in southern Africa. [51326]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We are reviewing our programmes in southern Africa to ensure that they deliver poverty reduction and sustainable development. Community involvement is essential to ensure that services meet the needs of poor people. Total expenditure in the region will be about £70 million this year.
    Helen Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Like my colleagues, I congratulate her and the
    364
    Government on reversing the decline in aid spending that took place under the previous Government. I understand that she has recently visited Mozambique, which is of course one of the poorest nations in southern Africa. Does she plan—and if so, how—to increase the percentage of aid that goes to local, community-based projects in such countries, which help the people there?
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Yes, I have just visited Mozambique. It is one of the poorest countries in the world, where 65 per cent. of people live on the equivalent of less than half a dollar a day. The World bank reckons that living on a dollar a day is abject poverty. It is incredible that, despite Mozambique suffering everything monstrous that history can throw at a country, the people and the Government at all levels are determined to make progress—and are making it. I am very optimistic about likely progress in Mozambique. We are likely to treble our programme over the next few years from the extra resources made available, and we shall work with the Mozambique Government and local communities to involve all in improving health, education, economic management, enterprise development and crop-growing. There is lovely land in Mozambique, but much of it is under-used. Government systems and local communities need to work together to sustain progress in Mozambique.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 29 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Cunliffe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that legislation to abolish the cruel hunting of animals with dogs for human entertainment will never be accepted by the committed anti-democratic Members of Parliament on the Opposition Benches? Will he assure me that he will find ways in which to honour his and our party's pledge to accommodate a Bill similar to that promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) so that, once and for all, we can abolish the despicable, barbaric practice of hunting animals with dogs?
    The Prime Minister: Hon. Members have made clear their view, with a very large majority indeed in favour of banning hunting. My right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester—[HON. MEMBERS: "Right honourable?"] My apologies; no doubt he will be in due course, but not quite yet. Of course, the private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) failed through the action of its opponents, not the Government. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has discussed with him and others ways in which we can make progress on this issue. I cannot, of course, speculate about the next Session, although the Government's

    365
    priority will be to ensure both that our full legislative programme is intact and that we honour our manifesto commitments.
    Mr. William Hague: If the Prime Minister's welfare reforms are going as well as he has always said, why did he sack the Secretary of State for Social Security and provoke the resignation of the Minister for Welfare Reform?
    The Prime Minister: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that welfare reform will continue as we have set out in our Green Paper. Indeed, we have accomplished more welfare reform in our 15 months in office than the Conservatives did in 15 years. Of course, most of that reform has been opposed by his party.
    Mr. Hague: Is it not time for the Prime Minister to drop the pretence and admit that his programme of welfare reform in the past year has been an abject failure? Did he call in the former Secretary of State on Monday and say, "Congratulations on your numerous successes. You are fired."? Did he call in the former Minister for Welfare Reform and say, "You are so important to the Government in this Department that it is time you moved to another one."? Is not the truth that he has lost one of the few men of principle in his Government, whose name he has traded on and whose reputation he has used as a substitute for action? Is it not a fact that that Minister found that he did not have sufficient authority to act, demonstrating that, on this subject, the Prime Minister has been talk, talk, talk without a clue as to what to do?
    The Prime Minister: Let us deal with the facts, Madam Speaker. In relation to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), I have the greatest respect for him—but I must decide who is in the Cabinet. The decision as to who is in the Cabinet is mine alone.
    In respect of the specifics, over the past 15 months, we have reformed student finance; brought in proposals to reform legal aid; changed lone parent benefits; introduced £3.5 billion for young people getting off benefit and into work; proposed a fundamental reform of the Child Support Agency; and put together the first ever comprehensive strategy on benefit fraud. Each of those actions—plus the working families tax credit and the action to get disabled people off benefit and into work—has been opposed by the Opposition. They still will not say—perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will do so now—whether there is a single part of the welfare budget that they propose cutting. Perhaps he will do it now.
    Mr. Hague: It is my job to ask the questions and the right hon. Gentleman's job to answer them. He talks about his respect for the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). Other Ministers must be hoping that, by this time next year, he has not developed the same respect for them. He talks about the importance of welfare reform, but no new Minister for Welfare Reform has even been appointed.
    Will the annual report of the Government, to be published today, tell the real story of the last year—that welfare bills are higher than a year ago; that waiting lists are higher; that class sizes are higher; that taxes are higher; that interest rates are higher; that inflation is higher; that exports are falling; that unemployment
    366
    is rising; that output is stagnating—[Interruption.] Labour Members had better listen to this list because it will haunt them. Exports are falling; unemployment is rising; output is stagnating; industry is on the brink of recession; agriculture is in recession and the cronies are in clover. When will the Prime Minister stop his power struggles with the Chancellor and tackle the real problems of this country?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman accused me of not giving any specifics, but I have just given him a long list of our specific reforms. We have had two weeks since the comprehensive spending review. He still does not tell us whether he is in favour of more spending or less. We have given him a list of the social security changes. He still does not tell us whether there is a single one of those that he supports or opposes—indeed, he still will not tell us whether he supports the independence of the Bank of England or not, whether he supports any interest rate rises or not or whether he supports the minimum wage or not. He is all very well at the level of generality, but when it comes to specifics, he is Mr. Vague.
    We will put through the annual report detailing the changes that we have made. Above all, we shall show how the extra money that we are getting to schools and hospitals will give this country the public services it wants. People can then contrast that record of achievement with the 18 failed Conservative years that the right hon. Gentleman supported.
    Mr. Ken Livingstone: Given that 14 of the 20 most deprived council areas in Britain are in London, can the Prime Minister understand the concern among teachers and providers of social services at press speculation that the Government are considering switching £500 million of Government grant from London to tackle poverty elsewhere? Can he give the House an undertaking that will set that concern at rest by making it clear that poverty elsewhere will be tackled out of new resources that have been set aside, and will not involve taking resources from some of the poorest boroughs in Britain in London?
    The Prime Minister: There are no such proposals to cut hundreds of millions of pounds from the education budget—or, indeed, any other sum from any other service—in London. There are always such scares before the negotiations on standard spending assessments. The Government recognise that it costs more to provide services in London than in most of the rest of the country, and that there are many deeply deprived areas of London. We are determined to let nothing get in the way of our getting those extra resources that we have provided to the schools and hospitals. My hon. Friend will be aware that what some of the most deprived areas in London and elsewhere need is the new deal for tackling unemployment, the new deal for communities, the extra money for housing and the extra help for education, which will lift the standards and spirits of people living in the inner city of London.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Prime Minister talks about specifics. May I ask him a very specific question on the central issue of welfare reform? When the outgoing Minister for Welfare Reform, who resigned on

    367
    Monday, told his colleagues that the Chancellor was opposed to compulsory second-tier stakeholder pensions, was he right?
    The Prime Minister: We have made it clear several times that our welfare proposals on pensions will be published later, in the autumn. As I said a moment or two ago, who goes in the Cabinet, no matter how much respect I have for them, is in the end a matter for me as Prime Minister, and me alone.
    Mr. Ashdown: This is nothing to do with who goes in the Cabinet: it concerns whether we are to have genuine welfare reform policies. If the Prime Minister adopts the proposal to which I referred, this Opposition party will support it. Why do the Government not realise that there is only one viable, affordable way of ending pensioner poverty: to ensure that those in work contribute to the funding of their own retirement by using this new and innovative scheme? If the Government do not grasp that nettle on welfare reform, how on earth will they grasp the others?
    The Prime Minister: We are grasping that nettle. That is why we will publish our proposals in the autumn, at which time we can debate them. I have just listed some of the areas of welfare reform that we have engaged with over the past year. They are fundamental areas of reform: tackling unemployment; lone parents; student finance; and legal aid. We have more reform proposals coming up on asylum, on the working families tax credit and on other matters, but so far the right hon. Gentleman's party has opposed every single one of our proposals, and the Conservative party, which says that it is in general in favour of cutting social security, is not prepared to name one specific item that it would support changing. In those circumstances, people would prefer to stick with the strategy that we have proposed.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Has the Prime Minister seen the tribute paid this morning to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), saying that he has served his country and his party remarkably well as a Welsh Office Minister? Is he aware that the Welsh group of Labour Members is bewildered and unhappy about the decision to sack him? What is the Prime Minister's assessment of the value of my hon. Friend's work as a Welsh Office Minister?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I value the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has done. I understand the fact that when people leave the Government, for whatever reason, they may feel concerned about it, but I, as Prime Minister, have to decide who should serve in the Government, and in what position. That has always been the case with Prime Ministers, and it will continue to be the case with me.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is the Prime Minister aware that, earlier this year in the Keith Joseph memorial lecture, the former Minister for Welfare Reform said that 1998 would be a year to remember in welfare reform and added, "Watch this space."? Was he referring to a sacking or a resignation?
    The Prime Minister: I have already listed the areas that we have reformed. Let me now list the areas that are
    368
    set out in the Green Paper on welfare reform that we shall carry through over the next year: new proposals on disability living allowance; fundamental reform of incapacity benefit; a minimum income guarantee for pensioners; a single work-focused gateway into the benefit system; asylum and legal aid reform. These are proposals for welfare reform. The hon. Gentleman can shout about it as much as he likes but the truth is that we are reforming the welfare state, and we are doing it in the teeth of opposition from the Conservatives.
    Mrs. Sylvia Heal: The Prime Minister knows that certain sectors of industry have been somewhat critical of the strength of the pound recently. Despite that, some sectors of industry are by their own efforts achieving high exports. I am thinking in particular of a company in my constituency which for the third time has won the Queen's award for export achievement. In 1997–98, Griffin-Woodhouse increased its exports by more than 50 per cent. through the efforts of staff ranging from the managing director down to the people on the shop floor—a great team effort.
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend's firm. Although we of course understand the difficulties for manufacturers with the strength of the pound at the moment, the Conservative policy of perpetual devaluation is not the answer to Britain's manufacturing problems. Yes, we have had to raise interest rates since the election. They have gone up to 7.5 per cent., but let us never forget where they were under the Conservative party: interest rates were at 15 per cent. for a year or more and there was a 7 per cent. fall in manufacturing output. The Conservatives were the party of boom and bust, and we are not going back to that.
    Mr. Archie Norman: I was interested in the Prime Minister's answer to the previous question. He will be aware that in recent weeks the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken to berating business men for the productivity gap in British business, as if the deteriorating state of the economy is nothing to do with him. The Prime Minister will also be aware that future productivity is a function of investment today and the prospects for investment in this country are declining rapidly, as recent surveys have shown. For instance, the Institute of Management—
    Madam Speaker: Order. We want no for instances; we want questions at Question Time.
    Mr. Norman: Will the Prime Minister comment on recent surveys of business confidence that have shown that business confidence is plummeting to an all-time low and that export prospects, as shown by Dun and Bradstreet, are at their lowest level for 10 years? Is this what the Prime Minister had in mind when he said that the Labour party—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I require the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.
    The Prime Minister: It is important that we come through this period without returning to the boom-and-bust policies that did so much damage to British industry and investment over a long period.

    369
    We have to avoid the situation that we had in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which the Government whom the hon. Gentleman used to support put us into. Of course I understand the difficulties caused by the strong pound in certain sectors of manufacturing, but productivity is an issue in British industry. Devaluation is not the answer to all British industry's problems. As for productivity, I suggest that he concentrates a bit on that at Conservative central office.
    Mr. Tony Benn: Whereas the Prime Minister's power to appoint and dismiss members of the Cabinet has always been totally unchallenged, and rightly so, will the Prime Minister give the House an absolute assurance that he will not promote the Liberal leader, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), from a Cabinet consultative committee, about which I asked last year, to the full Cabinet post that he has been longing for, having failed to get elected?
    The Prime Minister: I think I shall stick with the conventions that I outlined a moment or two ago.
    Hon. Members: Oh!
    Mr. Hague: I think that we would all have welcomed a straighter answer to that question. Where in the Labour manifesto did it say that a Labour Government would make it more expensive for council tenants to exercise their right to buy their homes?
    The Prime Minister: I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the proposals on the right to buy, where we have restricted that right in terms of the amount of expenditure. The reason, of course, is precisely to save money on the benefit bills.
    Mr. Hague: Clearly that idea was not in the Labour manifesto. What we object to is cuts in help for people who are trying to be independent of the state—[Interruption.]—while the Government spend billions more on making people dependent on the state. Before the election, the Labour party went out of its way to stress its support for the right to buy. In "New Labour—New Britain", a useful little book, in answer to the question,
    "Doesn't Labour oppose council tenants' right to buy their homes?",
    why did it say,
    "No, we fully support the right to buy."?
    Why has the Prime Minister now gone back on that right to buy? Thousands of people will now find it more difficult to buy their homes. They have been hit hard and they do not know why—they are not even friends of the Chancellor. Is the Prime Minister going to guarantee no further reductions during this Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: Now the right hon. Gentleman is saying that we have got to guarantee no cuts—that is his cry. It is pathetic to see such opportunism on the part of the Opposition. For two weeks, he has opposed in general the increases in spending, yet he has supported every one in particular, and asked for more money. He has opposed the social security spending in general, yet he has opposed any measure to improve the situation in particular. His position is one of hypocrisy and opportunism, and typical.
    Mr. Hague: Is it not thoroughly pathetic for a Prime Minister to parade himself before the election as a friend of tenants who wanted to buy their home, and then to leave thousands of people wondering today whether they can still do so? Are they not entitled to feel deceived by that utter hypocrisy?
    The Prime Minister: They are actually still being given very considerable taxpayers' help in discounts. I repeat my question—and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us now: is there a single item of the social security budget that he would cut?
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister answers the questions; I ask them.
    The Prime Minister: I appreciate the fact that it is I who answer the questions and the right hon. Gentleman who asks them, but, perhaps he will answer, just this once. He has been in power as Leader of the Opposition for 15 months, so surely he can tell us whether there is one spending proposal that he opposes or one social security spending cut that he would make. Can he not at least give some leadership to his party?
    Ms Bridget Prentice: It is quite fun getting used to the sound of my own voice again. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the delight that will be felt on the Government Benches about the fact that, for the first time since 1995, there has been a downturn in the number of people waiting for hospital treatment? Given that that is something about which the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow health spokesperson have been banging on for some time, has my right hon. Friend received a message of congratulation from them? Has our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health received a message of congratulation from either of those people? If not, is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister either surprised or dismayed?
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly not surprised. Waiting lists are now coming down for the first time in years, and class sizes will start to fall for the first time from September. The Conservatives used to say that that was the test of whether we were serious about schools and hospitals, but we have not heard much from them since we started to deliver on those promises.
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Did the Prime Minister have time yesterday to read the extremely gloomy economic forecast in the Financial Times, which said that small businesses in the north-east are getting smaller every day? Does he agree that for workers in the north-east, size is, indeed, everything?
    The Prime Minister: I appreciate the difficulties experienced by some companies when there is an economic downturn, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), we have a simple choice—we can go through the economic cycle and return from the boom to bust that we had under the Conservatives, or we can take the measures that promote monetary stability and allow us to reduce interest rates in the long term. The hon. Lady should remember that long-term interest rates have fallen since this Government were elected. We have taken measures to cut the Budget deficit that we inherited from her Government.

    371
    In addition, we shall tackle the problems of productivity to which the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells referred by investing in education, skills, the transport infrastructure, technology and science, which this country needs. I understand the difficulties experienced by some firms at the moment, but the worst thing for them would be a return to the recession-led days of the Conservatives.
    Maria Eagle: What policies will the Government develop to assist those council tenants who exercised their right to buy during the Conservative years only to find, to their dismay, that they had purchased defective dwellings that were not designated defective and who are now stuck in crumbling homes which they have absolutely no chance of selling?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that matter. The programme that we have implemented for housing will give those people at least some help with the problems caused them by the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: Why does the Prime Minister's White Paper on immigration and asylum fail to deal with the huge problem of the tens of thousands of people in this country who have lost all their immigration appeals and should no longer be here, who have gone to ground and are at addresses that are not known to the authorities and who are effectively a huge burden on the taxpayer? I appreciate that the problem has existed for a long time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am being honest. Is the Prime Minister prepared to act on that? Will they be deported or given an amnesty? What will be done?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should be congratulated on realising that the problem has been going on for a long time. We inherited a backlog of more than 30,000 cases concerning people who have been here for five years or more. We have to try to deal with that as best we can by ensuring that we set up a new system in which we spend resources on dealing with cases quickly rather than allowing a backlog to build up over a long period.
    I am glad that the hon. Gentleman mentioned asylum, because the measures proposed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will dramatically reduce the costs of asylum. If we continued operating under the Conservatives' proposals, we would be spending roughly double the amount. Yet again, the Conservatives say that they want reduced spending but oppose our proposals to reduce it.
    Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: My right hon. Friend will be aware that those of us involved in working with local partnerships to develop the new deal very much welcome this week's announcement of help for homeless young people to have early access to the new deal. Does he agree that that will give many thousands of young people hope for the future for the first time in a long time?
    The Prime Minister: The initiative set out by the social exclusion unit should cut the numbers of people sleeping rough, by two thirds in three years. The essential elements of that are to try to ensure that we give people a roof over their head so that they can then get a job if
    372
    they are given the right help with skills, and also to try to prevent them from becoming homeless in the first place. That is precisely the type of strategy, which operates across Government Departments, that has been advanced by this Government but was wholly lacking under the previous Administration.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: May I remind the Prime Minister of one of his welfare reforms that he has not mentioned this afternoon—the benefit integrity project? During the next five weeks, three of my constituents with disabilities will, quite separately, go through the appeals procedure, because in the past few weeks they have lost the benefit that allows them to drive a Motability car. If, while the Prime Minister is sitting by his pool in Italy, he were to write a postcard to send to those people, what would he write on it?
    The Prime Minister: The benefit integrity project exists to ensure that those who are entitled to benefit get it but that those who are not entitled do not, and there is an appeals procedure that the hon. Lady's constituents can use. Yet again, we have a proposal that is designed to try to curb the rising costs of welfare, and the hon. Lady's question shows that, although the Conservatives say that they are in favour of welfare reform, they oppose every specific measure to do it. I also remind her that the benefit integrity project was introduced by the Government in which she served.
    Ms Helen Southworth: The Prime Minister is aware that, in the community of Warrington, people have raised £1 million in the past three months to build a peace centre. It is a place where younger people, living in areas that have been affected by the troubles in Northern Ireland, in southern Ireland and in England, will be able to meet, build some bridges, break down some barriers and make some friendships in an atmosphere of tolerance and understanding.
    Will my right hon. Friend give his full support to the people in communities all across these islands—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Members should read the latest Modernisation Committee report before calling those words out. Continue.
    Ms Southworth: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your support on this crucial issue. I am asking my right hon. Friend for his support for people in communities all across these islands who dare to believe that the future can be different from the past.
    The Prime Minister: We have, of course, given a lot of support to projects right across the islands which, as my hon. Friend says, promote the cause of peace. The Warrington peace centre and the Tim Parry exchange are two especially worthwhile projects. They show, above all else, that the progress that we are making in Northern Ireland, difficult though it is, is supported by people not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom. They deserve, and will get, the better future that we are prepared to give them.

Personal Statement
3.31 pm
Maria Eagle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: No. I must take the personal statement first.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)rose—
Hon. Members: Order!
Madam Speaker: Order. This House must come to order. That is disgraceful behaviour from Members on the Front Bench.
Mr. Frank Field: Madam Speaker, as I was saying, before I was interrupted by the privileges of office.
For a decade before entering Parliament, I worked on behalf of poor people, attempting to make their needs and views better known to the nation. In Parliament, to which I was elected in the political watershed election of 1979, I argued for welfare reform, and helped campaign to make Labour acceptable again, while representing the interests of my constituents in Birkenhead. In so many respects, all three battles overlapped.
My past 30 years have been characterised by helping to get changes made—calling for the sale of council houses, and for the money to be used to build new homes and repair old ones; initiating the one member, one vote, campaign; and spearheading the political drive for the introduction of child benefit. On those and other issues, the stress was on seeing reforms through.
Before my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) became the leader of the Labour party, I put it on the record that I did not believe that Labour would ever win an election again. My right hon. Friend transformed that position. The 1997 election result indicated the electorate's wish to embrace political change on a scale equal to, but radically different from, that made by Mrs. Thatcher.
On the Saturday after my right hon. Friend's election triumph, I was offered the post of Minister for Welfare Reform. I sensed then, only tentatively, that to reform welfare required a position of executive authority. I was to learn the full importance of that only later. In the end, I settled for a non-executive position, wishing as I did, and still do, for the welfare reform programme to be the big success for which the country longs, and wishing to play some part in that revolution.
I also knew that not to have taken that opportunity could have led to accusations that I had never been a team player, for that was a charge to which I was particularly open. I had spent most of my political life here in Parliament, where there was no Labour team worth playing for, and in trying to maintain some political sanity when others had lost their heads. I am pleased to see that so many are back in order.
On the Monday after the election, I talked to the Prime Minister about the welfare reform strategy. He gave me his immediate agreement to the production of a Green Paper. The idea was to produce a route map guiding the
374
way in which reform should be conducted. Then the difficulties began. However, it is not true that the Prime Minister ever vetoed earlier versions of the Green Paper as being too radical. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Over many years, the Prime Minister has commented on my publications. There was much about the way in which welfare was impacting on people's lives on which we agreed—how it affected behaviour, and how individuals saw or did not see their personal responsibilities and their duty to self-improvement. Here, then, was the central theme of the welfare reform strategy. People's natural wish to improve their lot and that of their families had to become once again the great engine force of social advance in Britain.
Much of current welfare expenditure counters that objective. Although the level of expenditure is an issue, the main concern is the cancerous impact that much of welfare has on people's motivations, their actions and thus their character. Those are the beliefs underpinning the Green Paper. There, the objectives of welfare reform are spelled out, together with 32 success measurements. No democratically elected Government have ever before stated so clearly at the start of their stewardship the measures by which they wish to be judged.
The process of reform was put out to consultation, which ends on Friday, although not before I had travelled more than 9,000 miles and listened and talked to more than 2,000 people.
The Green Paper lays down the framework within which welfare reform is to be conducted. Other Green Papers on specific topics are to follow. One on the Child Support Agency is already out for consultation. Again on the Prime Minister's authority, I and the DSS team produced within eight weeks a Green Paper on countering fraud.
Bigger decisions are now awaited. The reform of disability benefits is urgent. Housing benefit cannot be left providing millions of tenants with a free good for life, at the cost of giving landlords open access to taxpayers' money.
The biggest of all reforms should be heralded in the pensions Green Paper, where the battle is joined by those who see a limited operation as desirable, with a major role for means-tested provision not only for now but for many generations to come.
The alternative centres on proposals that I have made for a universal stakeholder pension. That would guarantee a pension from national insurance and from funded sources which links the interests of rich and poor into a single scheme. It involves some redistribution from richer people to their poorer neighbours, in return for guaranteeing a pension level that only the community can offer. I wish my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State for Social Security every success in that debate.
If the past 15 months have taught me anything, it is not only that the biggest of all reforms requires an executive position for a person with convictions about welfare reform, but that the entire Cabinet, especially the Chancellor, shares beliefs about that common endeavour.
I went into Government to see the welfare reform programme through. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister offered me other tasks on Monday, I resigned. It was from the other side of the House that I

375
put together the philosophy underpinning our welfare reform programme. It is from this side that I shall attempt once again to help to build a consensus for radical change which, while accepting the pivotal role of self-interest and its crucial link to self-improvement, does not collapse into a selfishness which excludes the poor.
May I thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to make this statement? Through you, may I thank the House for listening to me?

Points of Order
3.40 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have made it plain several times how much you deprecate the leaking of Government information in advance of statements in the House. I would ask you to rule on another example that has occurred today, when the Secretary of State for Health issued press releases signalling a substantial change in direction in the policy of care in the community, which had not been the subject of a statement in the House this afternoon.
Can it be right, Madam Speaker, that the House is not to be given the opportunity to question the Secretary of State about his intentions for mental health services, an issue that concerns many of our constituents, and which concerns the community at large? Surely the House should have had the opportunity adequately to question the Secretary of State. Will you give us a ruling, Madam Speaker?
Madam Speaker: A written question was answered at 10 o'clock this morning. Next.
Maria Eagle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As a relatively new Back-Bench Member, may I secure guidance on the appropriate behaviour when, as a Back Bencher, one receives, clearly inadvertently, a fax at the office from a senior member of an Opposition party? Should one be good enough to return it? Are there any matters of privilege that arise as a result?
Madam Speaker: That really is a poser. I would say that it depends on what it says. On the whole, I would be honest and return it with affectionate greetings and, "Have a good recess."
Sir Peter Tapsell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not almost unprecedented when a Minister makes a personal resignation statement in the House that the Prime Minister of the Administration that he or she is leaving does not show the retiring Minister and the House the courtesy of being in his place to listen to the statement?
Madam Speaker: I said only this week, on a similar matter when statements were being made, that it is a question for Ministers whether they remain in their places, or whether they have other duties to which they need to attend.

Parliamentary Oaths (Amendment)
3.43 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable a person lawfully elected to the House of Commons to take his seat without swearing the present oath or affirming; and for connected purposes.
On 4 December 1997, following a meeting with the Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) and for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness), you informed the House, Madam Speaker, as follows:
"Having listened carefully to their representations, I reaffirmed my decision of 14 May that those who choose not to take their seats should not have access to the benefits and facilities … in the House."
You said
"that it was their refusal to swear or affirm that prevented them from taking their seats, not any action by the Speaker."
Madam Speaker, you further explained that,
"as Speaker, I am bound by the law. Swearing the Oath, or affirming it, is a legal requirement that cannot be set aside by whim or any administrative action. Primary legislation would be needed to change the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866 or the form of the Oath."—[Official Report, 4 December 1977; Vol. 302, c. 487.]
I beg leave to introduce such a Bill. I do so with some trepidation, because the taking of an oath and the act of its swearing or affirmation is a matter of great moment in the life of a person or of a nation. No democratic institution would demand that its participants take an oath without reason. No person seeking election to perform a public service would take an oath without understanding the significance of such an act. It is considered a public, solemn and sacred undertaking. Believers swear on their holy books, which is why I always ask for the Douai testament.
I seek to challenge the reason and purpose of the current oath, and suggest an alternative for those who may not wish to take it. The era in which it was thought to be appropriate or fit for legislators to set a political or religious test for those deemed acceptable to enter the parliamentary club has long since passed. Our vision, and that of the Government, is inclusive representation. Parliament must be open not only to Catholic, Protestant or dissenter, but to involvement and engagement with those of all religions or of none.
We aspire to a democracy in which discrimination on grounds of race or religion might be assigned to the history books. The only test for inclusion and membership of this House should be the will of the electorate, freely expressed. This year, we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights. Article 21.2 provides:
"Everyone has the right to take part in the Government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives".
We recognise that the law must, without discrimination, respect the rights of citizens to seek political or public office, individually or as representatives of political parties or organisations, to ensure that the will of the people serves as the authority for government. We also recognise that parliamentary privilege is not for the benefit of Members, but protects the rights of the electorate, who depend on those whom they have elected to uphold their rights and interests in Parliament.
When we are heralding the potential of the Belfast agreement to advance an agenda of human rights and equality for all, to transform that sad political landscape
378
and the political landscape of these islands, and to create a new framework for the reconciliation of a divided country, it is ironic that we can be so unaware of the need to be seen to get our own house in order.
Every hon. Member understands that at least one source of the alienation and disaffection in Northern Ireland stems from the belief of a substantial number of the population that their identity is Irish, not British; that, given the choice, they would prefer to live in a united Ireland, rather than the United Kingdom; and that they do not want to be British, whether citizens, subjects or stakeholders.
Successive Governments have rightly proclaimed the superiority of the ballot box over the Armalite, and demanded that those from the Irish republican tradition renounce the use of violence and seek change exclusively by democratic and peaceful means. Is it not hypocrisy of the first order to argue that Irish republicans should contest elections, only to find when they have succeeded in winning that they are denied the right to fulfil their mandate and represent their electorate?
I have used the word "republican" mainly in an insular and Hibernian sense, but republicans from the rest of these islands are denied access to this House not only in that sense. For what democratic reason should a person of republican beliefs be required to renounce his or her political opinions to take a seat in this Parliament? How can a law requiring Irish or other republicans to take an oath of allegiance to a British sovereign be compatible with the principle of parity of esteem or equality of treatment?
Whether Sinn Fein republicans, because of their party's constitution, would or would not take their seats if the oath were removed or an alternative supplied is beside the point for the purpose of setting out the principles that should govern the law of admittance to this House. The question whether they would choose to take their seats is a matter for them and their constituents; it is not for this House to pose a barrier to them.
The law should require that all discriminatory barriers to participation in the political process be removed; as it stands, it denies access to the political process to people who elect republican Members of Parliament. Such a barrier protects Parliament from hearing the voices and views of sections of the electorate that sometimes it would prefer to ignore, but I do not believe that the Government would want to be associated with a policy of ignoring uncomfortable truths. After all, they boast about the tough decisions that they have had to take.
I believe that providing an alternative to the oath as it stands is a vital part of the modernisation of our democracy and of the House. To treat the oath as "traditional" in the sense of a folklore heritage would be to undermine and trivialise the significance of such a solemn undertaking. As with the great debate on the televising of proceedings of the House, once change was accomplished, a return to the old system would be inconceivable.
We should not duck this issue. Individuals, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), may add their own personal preface to the oath of allegiance. Others, such as the Minister for Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), may regress to infancy in the belief that crossed fingers can undo a promise that they do not want to make. Who

379
knows what other unheard or unobserved acts hon. Members have performed when taking the oath? The oath is a serious and public matter. It may assuage the consciences of individuals to act in that way, but it does not resolve the issue of how we, as a Parliament, deal with this problem. If we provide an alternative, we could overcome that difficulty. We could draw upon the oath taken by Scottish constables, who must swear before a sheriff or a justice of the peace:
"I hereby and solemnly and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of constable."
We could do that as Members of Parliament. We could adopt the oath proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, which stated:
"I do solemnly Declare and Affirm that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge the responsibilities required of me by virtue of my membership of the House of Commons and faithfully serve those whom I represent here."
I am not suggesting anything revolutionary. I am merely saying, in good conscience, that we should provide an alternative for those who, by taking an oath of allegiance to the sovereign so as to take their seat in the House, may be starting their parliamentary career on a note of deception and hypocrisy.
3.51 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: Madam Speaker, I thank you for affording me the opportunity to oppose the motion proposed by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). He was the first Member of the House to make representations to me in person when I became a Minister, and he has always been assiduous in pursuit of his constituents' interests, but he is perhaps even more widely known in the Chamber for his attention to Northern Ireland affairs, and to Irish issues in general.
By seeking leave to bring in the Bill, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt enlarge that reputation. His Bill addresses a larger constitutional issue at the strategic level, but alludes to a particular Irish dimension at the tactical level. The larger issue is whether the oath of allegiance, which has passed through many vicissitudes and variations, not least in the oaths that have sometimes replaced it and sometimes accompanied it, since the eras of Henry IV and Henry VI, should be changed again.
In 1964, an article in the Table—the journal of the Society of Clerks-at-the-Table in Commonwealth Parliaments— said:
"the modern wording of the Oath, as settled by the Promissory Oaths Act 1868, and of the affirmation permitted by the Oaths Act 1888, now conforms fairly closely to the medieval Oath of Allegiance. The circle is therefore complete: the old Oath of Allegiance which had disappeared was replaced by a series of religious Oaths; but the religious contents of those Oaths has been steadily purged away, until nothing remains but an Oath of Allegiance very nearly in the ancient form."
This has always been essentially a matter for the House. The legal cases ring down the ages: Burdett v. Abbot; Stockdale v. Hansard; and Bradlaugh v. Gossett—Gossett being the predecessor in 1883 of our present much-respected Serjeant-at-Arms. Blackstone says:
"The whole of the law and custom of Parliament has its original from this one maxim, that whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament ought to be examined, discussed and adjudged in that House to which it relates, and not elsewhere."
380
As Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, in the judgment on Bradlaugh v. Gossett, said:
"the jurisdiction of the House over their own Members, their right to impose discipline within their walls, is absolute and exclusive."
He went on to quote the words of Lord Ellenborough:
"they would sink into utter contempt and inefficiency without it."
I am not a lawyer, but it was on that rock of Parliament's exclusive jurisdiction within our own walls that the application for judicial review of your decisions, Madam Speaker, of 14 May last year with regard to the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) and for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness), fell in the High Court in Belfast last October, although I read in the press that, after the two hon. Members visited you in December last year, they were intending to challenge you at the European Court of Justice. I have no further intelligence on the progress of that case.
Her Majesty's Government made it clear last summer that they were not minded to take action in these matters. In answer to a question from a Government Back Bencher about the oath of allegiance, the then Leader of the House said:
"I do not accept the basic idea behind my hon. Friend's question: that we should either abolish or change significantly the oath itself."—[Official Report, 17 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 115]
That does not mean that the idea has not been visited in recent years—most notably, as the hon. Member for Hull, North said, by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). He would pale at any suggestion on my part of verisimilitude to an archdeacon, but he is a venerable Member, and his views, though sometimes idiosyncratic, are venerated throughout the House.
Rather in the manner of an elderly gentleman in Hampstead in my youth, who used, at regular intervals, to walk through private gardens in order to preserve an ancient right of way, so the right hon. Member for Chesterfield ventilates his views at intervals of a decade in Bills entitled, in 1988, Democratic Oaths, and, in 1998, Parliamentary Declaration, which are presented, printed and published, but then lie on the Table as written statements without further oral advocacy.
The oaths have been changed in the past. It was a predecessor in my constituency who was the first professing Jew to serve in the House as a result of just such a change. But if and when we come to make the change, it should be a considered judgment and not to solve a local difficulty.
In so far as there is a current local difficulty, we are accused by commentators outside of hiding behind the oath as a way of either excluding those we do not like or punishing those who voted for them. As I got into some trouble myself during the first ceasefire for saying that I thought that the hon. Member for Belfast, West, as he then was not, had been courageous in helping to create the ceasefire, I hope that I stand personally acquitted of that charge.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster himself has accused some British politicians of not adequately understanding Irish history; but it is not unreasonable for us to ask those who pride themselves on their Irishness and their Irish history to pay some attention to our own history.
The oath of allegiance cannot be regarded as a recent instrument of Parliament. In one form or another, it has been part of our constitutional procedures for centuries.

381
Anyone standing for Parliament knows the obligation that the oath involves. It may not have concerned those who wish to be abstentionist Members, but they cannot accuse us of having invented it to exclude them. Even Bradlaugh was not initially excluded because he would not swear the oath: it was Parliament which would not let him swear it. No such prohibition is present today.
Moreover, the Belfast agreement, to which the hon. Member for Hull, North alluded, which I acknowledge follows on from last year's events and upon the threat to take Madam Speaker to the European Court, underlines, underpins and copper-bottoms the principle of consent within the United Kingdom. If a man or woman seeks to sit in the House, the oath of allegiance is essentially the password to entry. Once the password has been uttered, it does not prevent an hon. Member from seeking to change the arrangements of our constitution, as the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do today, having himself sworn the present oath a year ago.
I call on the House to reject the motion moved by the hon. Gentleman:
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable a person lawfully elected to the House of Commons to take his seat without swearing the present oath or affirming; and for connected purposes."
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 151.

Division No. 350]

[3.58 pm

AYES

Atherton, Ms Candy

Dalyell, Tam

Austin, John

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Baker, Norman

Dean, Mrs Janet

Ballard, Jackie

Dismore, Andrew

Barron, Kevin

Dobbin, Jim

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Bennett, Andrew F

Efford, Clive

Berry, Roger

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Best, Harold

Etherington, Bill

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Fearn, Ronnie

Brand, Dr Peter

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Flynn, Paul

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Buck, Ms Karen

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Burgon, Colin

Fyfe, Maria

Butler, Mrs Christine

Gardiner, Barry

Cable, Dr Vincent

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Canavan, Dennis

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Cann, Jamie

Godman, Dr Norman A

Caton, Martin

Goggins, Paul

Chaytor, David

Golding, Mrs Llin

Clapham, Michael

Gorrie, Donald

Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Harris, Dr Evan

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Cooper, Yvette

Hepburn, Stephen

Corbett, Robin

Hinchliffe, David

Cousins, Jim

Hopkins, Kelvin

Cox, Tom

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Crausby, David

Iddon, Dr Brian

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)

Cummings, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Kemp, Fraser

382

Kidney, David

Ryan, Ms Joan

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Salmond, Alex

Kingham, Ms Tess

Salter, Martin

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Sanders, Adrian

Laxton, Bob

Sarwar, Mohammad

Levitt, Tom

Savidge, Malcolm

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Sawford, Phil

Linton, Martin

Shaw, Jonathan

Love, Andrew

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McAllion, John

Skinner, Dennis

McDonnell, John

Soley, Clive

McNamara, Kevin

Southworth, Ms Helen

McWalter, Tony

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Mallaber, Judy

Stinchcombe, Paul

Marek, Dr John

Stunell, Andrew

Maxton, John

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Todd, Mark

Mitchell, Austin

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Moffatt, Laura

Vis, Dr Rudi

Moran, Ms Margaret

Webb, Steve

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

White, Brian

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Willis, Phil

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Winnick, David

Olner, Bill

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Plaskitt, James

Wise, Audrey

Pollard, Kerry

Wood, Mike

Pond, Chris

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Pound, Stephen

Wyatt, Derek

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Prosser, Gwyn

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rapson, Syd

Mr. Gerald Bermingham

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

and

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Mr. Alan Johnson.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Fallon, Michael

Allan, Richard

Flight, Howard

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Arbuthnot, James

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Fox, Dr Liam

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Fraser, Christopher

Beard, Nigel

Gale, Roger

Beggs, Roy

Garnier, Edward

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Gibb, Nick

Bercow, John

Gill, Christopher

Beresford, Sir Paul

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Body, Sir Richard

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Boswell, Tim

Gray, James

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Green, Damian

Brady, Graham

Grieve, Dominic

Brazier, Julian

Hague, Rt Hon William

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Browning, Mrs Angela

Hammond, Philip

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Hancock, Mike

Burnett, John

Harris, Dr Evan

Burns, Simon

Harvey, Nick

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Hawkins, Nick

Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

Hayes, John

Heald, Oliver

Chope, Christopher

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Clappison, James

Horam, John

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Hunter, Andrew

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Collins, Tim

Jenkin, Bernard

Colvin, Michael

Johnson Smith,

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Cotter, Brian

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Cran, James

Keetch, Paul

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Key, Robert

Duncan, Alan

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Evans, Nigel

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Faber, David

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Fabricant, Michael

Lansley, Andrew

383

Leigh, Edward

Ruffley, David

Letwin, Oliver

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Lidington, David

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Sheerman, Barry

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Loughton, Tim

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Luff, Peter

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

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Mcintosh, Miss Anne

Spicer, Sir Michael

MacKay, Andrew

Spring, Richard

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Steen, Anthony

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Streeter, Gary

Madel, Sir David

Swayne, Desmond

Major, Rt Hon John

Syms, Robert

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Malins, Humfrey

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Maples, John

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Mates, Michael

Thompson, William

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Tredinnick, David

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Trend, Michael

May, Mrs Theresa

Tyrie, Andrew

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Viggers, Peter

Moss, Malcolm

Wells, Bowen

Öpik, Lembit

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Ottaway, Richard

Whittingdale, John

Paice, James

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Paterson, Owen

Wilkinson, John

Pickles, Eric

Willetts, David

Powell, Sir Raymond

Wilshire, David

Prior, David

Woodward, Shaun

Randall, John

Woolas, Phil

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Robathan, Andrew

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Tellers for the Notes

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Mr. Stephen Day and

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Mr. Nigel Waterson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Parliamentary Oaths (Amendment)
  Opposition Day
  [19TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Opposition Day

    Government Policy (Presentation)
    Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    4.10 pm
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I beg to move,
    That this House notes the view of the Committee on Culture, Media and Sport in its Fifth Report (HC 742) that the Department of Culture, Media and Sport is focused on trivial matters at the expense of important industries like tourism; believes this to be symptomatic of a Government which places undue emphasis on presentational issues in order to mask policy deficiencies; and deplores the culture of cronyism which is discrediting political life.
    This debate is not some end-of-term tease at the expense of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. It goes to the heart of the way in which this Government do business. This afternoon, Conservative Members will set out to expose the shallow, superficial and cynical way in which the Government approach their task.
    Fifteen months into this Parliament, there is more than ample evidence that power has gone to the heads of Ministers. I exclude, of course, those Ministers who lost their heads in Monday's reshuffle. Power in that case has gone to someone else's head. I welcome the two new members of the ministerial team to what one person in the museum world has described to me as the battlefield of art. I look forward to debating with them in the months ahead.
    We have a Government composed of a Prime Minister who thinks he is a president, a Chancellor of the Exchequer who thinks he is Prime Minister, a Lord Chancellor who thinks he is a cardinal, and a press secretary who thinks he is the whole lot rolled into one. But let us start with the Secretary of State, otherwise known as Mr. Cool, or, in the words of the novelist A. N. Wilson:
    "a philistine who talks twaddle and does nothing."
    I know that that description is not entirely fair. The Secretary of State will probably claim that it was a misleading headline. He should know, because, with the Prime Minister and the rest of the Government, he is an expert in misleading headlines.
    It is not hard to work out exactly why the Secretary of State attracts that type of adverse criticism. Consider his oeuvre "Creative Britain", produced to loud fanfares earlier this year. I will not embarrass him by referring to the critical reviews: I observe merely that it was described as a book. It looks and feels like a book and has a nice cover, but it is not a book. It is a pamphlet full of old speeches. Full marks for style; zero for substance.
    What about the allegation that the Secretary of State does nothing? When the Royal Opera house gets into difficulty, what does he do? He commissions a review. When the results of the review are published, what does he do? He sets up a committee to review the review. In sport, after eight months of delay, he finally announces, in a blaze of publicity, that the United Kingdom sports institute is to be set up in Sheffield. Since

    385
    then, he has almost nothing to show for his efforts. Have any contracts been announced? No. Have any been put out to tender? No.
    When the BBC suddenly announces out of the blue that it wants to renegotiate the terms of its licence fee, what is the response from the Secretary of State? Nothing. His Department is keen on putting out lengthy documents about media convergence, new broadcasting technologies and digital television, but does he understand who is going to pay for all that? Who will be the driver behind it? Advertising will pay for it. Nor do we hear anything from the Secretary of State about what he is doing to prevent the tide of politically correct EU and other home-grown initiatives that are designed to restrict and impede the advertising industry.
    Last December, the Secretary of State promised a much-vaunted tourism strategy by the early summer. Where is it? It is delayed until the autumn, or even the winter. Perhaps the Secretary of State is indulging in a bit of pathetic fallacy. He will know what I mean by that. He is imitating the weather, and turning summer into winter.
    There has been a lot of doing nothing over the past several months, but, when one considers what the Secretary of State is doing, that is probably just as well. Last Friday, he published his Department's comprehensive spending review: "A new approach to investing in culture". He chose to make it coincide with a photo opportunity sitting on a magic carpet.
    I shall return later to the bogus claims of the Secretary of State about the extra funding that he announced that day, but let us first have a quick look at the document, which is a fairly thick one. Across the board it presages a new era of meddling, interference and state control. When the Secretary of State finally got around to doing something, he chose to abolish the English tourist board, despite the fact that opinion polls in the industry suggest 97 per cent. support for the board. People wanted it to be enhanced and strengthened, not abolished. His decision comes at a time when the English and the Welsh tourist industries are going through a particularly difficult time, not just because of the bad weather, but as a consequence of the Chancellor's high pound. They also face a new tide of Government regulation. That is a particularly bad start for the Secretary of State.
    Across the board we see new structures to
    "develop new policies and spending programmes to deliver those objectives which focus on real outputs".
    The Government want to
    "develop tangible indicators of performance linked to our key policy aims".
    It may sound like officialese, but what it points to is more state control.
    There is much talk about new regional executive bodies acting as the Government's local agents. No doubt they will also be required to develop tangible indicators of performance linked to the Government's key policy aims. The dismemberment of autonomous national bodies will leave the regions exposed more directly than ever before to the Government's key policy aims. Just to make sure
    386
    of that, the Secretary of State proposes a new national watchdog which would
    "review and report to us on performance in achieving standards set, meeting aims and objectives and efficiency targets."
    I have been speculating about the new watchdog and wondering what it should be called. I thought that it might be called "Ofcult". Somebody else suggested "Ofart", but I am not sure that the Secretary of State will take up that suggestion. Nowhere is that idea more misguided, and nowhere will it be more resented, than in the arts.
    The music critic Norman Lebrecht has taken the promise of extra funding for the arts at face value. Even so, he realises what is going on. He writes:
    "The state has taken control of the arts for a mess of potage."
    The Government's approach to the arts is dirigiste, paternalistic old Labour. As if to reinforce the point, when the Association of Business Sponsorship of the Arts held a recent awards ceremony at the Globe theatre in London to celebrate a record year of business investment in the arts, not one Minister from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport bothered to turn up.
    Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend has given a fair assessment of the Secretary of State's performance to date. Has he, by any chance, seen the commentary of the distinguished parliamentary sketch writer, Quentin Letts, in yesterday's edition of The Daily Telegraph, in which he said:
    "By any gauge of parliamentary ability Mr. Smith would be lucky to have kept his job. He has an irritating tick of saying `er' and 'um', which might go down as coquettish in some parts of Islington but is just irritating in SW1"?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I did see the piece in question; and, er, we, er, look forward to hearing the Secretary of State's speech.
    Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman has said. Now we are the Government who are to blame for everything—naturally, they always are—including the weather, will he turn his mind to the following tiny fact? Why do more and more people want to come to this country for their holidays, why do we have a developing film industry, why do we produce some of the best music, and why are our people some of the most creative in Europe if this country is ruled by a Government who are not encouraging all those fields?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I am sorry to correct the hon. Gentleman, but he may have missed the fact that, in the first three months of this year, there was an overseas visitors deficit of £1.7 billion. I am afraid that the Chancellor's policies, mismanagement of the economy and the high pound have been a major deterrent to people visiting this country.
    I wonder whether the arts are safe in the hands of a Secretary of State who is on record as saying that Bob Dylan is the artistic equal of John Keats.
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Will the hon. Gentleman tell me exactly where I said that—because I have never done so?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting the record straight. He had better address his comments to The Spectator. He is also quoted in The Spectator as saying:
    "The distinctions between higher and popular arts are meaningless."
    If he really believes that, is it surprising that he has remained so dumb amid all the accusations that the BBC is dumbing down its programme quality? This Government are dumbing down politics altogether.
    Mr. Ivor Caplin: I assumed that the hon. Gentleman would say a little more about the arts. Will he reflect on comments on the proposals in the Evening Standard on Friday? It said that they were
    "genuinely radical proposals, and some financial news which delight those of us who have been fighting to ensure our great arts institutions do not crumble entirely."
    Mr. Ainsworth: It was not worth giving way, was it? When those at the Evening Standard consider the Secretary of State's proposals more carefully, they will realise that they are not the salvation that they think.
    "I don't mind Radio 1 trying to be trendy, but I can do without the Labour party trying to strut its funky stuff."
    Those are not my words; they are the words of Ben Elton, who is hardly a well-known Conservative supporter. He went on:
    "The present Government should be very careful: style is no substitute for substance.
    It's no good going on about our great designers if everything they design is made in China. Jobs are cool … I didn't vote Labour because they've heard of Oasis."
    The departmental Select Committee picked up a similar point. Its report on the Secretary of State's handling of his Department derided his promise that he would promote
    "everything from Beefeaters to Britpop".
    It was astonished that tourism, which is
    "far and away the largest industry for which the Department is responsible",
    was being
    "subordinated in favour of more glamorous and trivial matters".
    That is not surprising, given that the Prime Minister lent his name to an article in the national press that contains, among a heap of other vacuous platitudes, the following immortal line:
    "We are forging a new patriotism focused on the potential we can fulfil in the future."
    What on earth does it mean? It is a strange sort of patriotism which halves the British zone of the millennium exhibition and then spends £500,000 on a survey to discover what Britishness is.
    The millennium dome stands like a paradigm of the Government's approach to presentation. It is a fine structure—all are agreed about that—but what is inside it? At the moment, we are told that it is a distorted human shape with two heads and a single pair of legs. There is something equally disturbing at the heart of the Government, which stands where their principles should be—a void. In order to clothe it, the Government have created a whole new industry devoted to weaving and spinning. You, Madam Speaker, have had cause in the past to comment
    388
    unfavourably on the number of apparatchiks working in Government Departments.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend appears to be leaving the subject of tourism, but I am sure that he will agree that, if the Prime Minister needed a free holiday, any one of us could have found a wonderful place in our constituencies for him and his family to stay. All he wants to do is advertise that people ought to spend their time overseas in Italy, instead of using the wonderful facilities available in south Dorset—where many Labour Members come on holiday.
    Mr. Ainsworth: There are many wonderful opportunities in south Dorset for holidays, as there are in Scarborough, where I am going tomorrow. Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to come with me—on second thoughts, perhaps he might not.
    The job of the apparatchiks is quite clear—it is to engage in the cynical manipulation of news, irrespective of truth, to the advantage of the Government. This is not only a Government for journalists, but government by journalists. The press machine of the Government is headed by Alastair Campbell, as we all know, the Prime Minister's press secretary—formerly of The Mirror. It includes a number of other prominent former journalists, including—in a selective list—Lance Price, formerly of the BBC, now at No. 10; David Bradshaw, formerly of The Mirror, now at No. 10; Martin Sixsmith, formerly of the BBC, now at the Department of Social Security; John Williams, formerly of The Mirror, now at the Foreign Office, where he is not doing a good job; Sherrie Dodd, formerly of The Mirror, now at the Northern Ireland Office; and Phil Bassett, formerly of The Financial Times, now running something called the strategic communications unit at No. 10. I imagine that their meetings are rather jolly; it is probably a bit like an El Vino' s reunion party. They probably get the Liberal Democrats to come round and pour the claret.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of Alastair Campbell, is he aware that it is not two years since a judge referred to him as a witness in whom one could not have a great deal of confidence? Does my hon. Friend think that he is therefore an appropriate man to have running the press machine from No. 10?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I would have no confidence in a press machine run by Alastair Campbell, or any of the other cronies with whom the Government surround themselves.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: I want to be clear—is the hon. Gentleman attacking the role of journalists, or the lack of economy in the use of journalists by the present Government? We all remember Bernard Ingham.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Bernard Ingham is going back a bit, but I am certainly not attacking journalists—I am attacking the way in which the Government seek to manipulate journalists in a systematic way.
    Around the media men in the Government are a host of other figures—the cronies. These include people such as Roger Liddle of the policy unit, who, together with the

    389
    new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, so memorably prefaced their book "The Blair Revolution" with the words:
    "Both of us owe a special debt to Derek Draper, Peter Mandelson's former assistant … New Labour is fortunate indeed that it can boast a whole new generation with his quality of organisational energy, political commitment and realistic vision."
    O brave new world, that has such people in it.
    Ben Lucas, who ran the Prime Minister's political briefing unit during the general election campaign, has now set up his own lobbying firm, where he expects clients to
    "reshape their core corporate culture"
    that is not trivial—
    "in order to get in line with New Labour's vision."
    He neatly sums up the quality of that vision:
    "This is a Government that likes to do deals."
    The Government have created a political culture that would have done credit to a late mediaeval principality, and it is spreading outwards. Tucked away in a recent edition of The Times Educational Supplement, I came across an article entitled "Councils urged to spin, not whinge". It is a report of the recent Local Government Association conference, covering a speech made by Mr. Greg Wilkinson, who was until recently at the Audit Commission and is now a Labour councillor for Hammersmith and Fulham. To the assembled delegates, he said:
    "Learn the fine art of spin … In a world where perception is sometimes more important than reality, it is no longer enough to do well."
    The insidious culture of cronyism is discrediting political life. The Secretary of State is already a victim of it, and will become even more of a victim of a political culture that is moving ever further from the reality of life in Britain. No amount of media manipulation or photo calls on magic carpets will help the crisis in regional theatres; help manufacturing industry as it goes into recession—remember: jobs are cool; help people who are worried about their mortgages; or help the sportsmen and sportswomen who are waiting for the Government to fulfil their promises.
    No amount of spin will undo the damage to our constitution or offer comfort to thousands of small businesses in tourism and other industries. Fashionable ideas such as cool Britannia and the rebranding of Britain have precious little meaning to the people who live in the real world of Labour's Britain. They do not need to have their own money spent on telling them who they are. They know who they are. The majority of them do not live in Islington as the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister do, along with any number of Cabinet members; it appears almost to be a qualification for getting into the Cabinet to have an address in Islington.
    The majority of people do not share the Cabinet's metropolitan values. Their values are deeper; they are not glamorous, but they are strong. We saw people marching to protect the countryside, and we see them every day in suburban streets and city estates. They are increasingly bewildered by a Government who have abandoned their principles and placed style over substance. Nowhere is that more true than in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
    4.32 pm
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    `commends the Government for its progress on major matters of substance across all fields of responsibility, and in particular for its recognition of the cultural, social, educational and economic value of the areas of activity sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and for the concrete action taken across all parts of the Department's responsibilities over the last year to maximise that value; welcomes the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review, which provides for a significant investment in culture, sport, heritage and tourism alongside positive steps to reduce bureaucracy and ensure the most effective use of public money; and notes that this brings to an end a damaging period of real cuts presided over by the Opposition.'.
    The speech of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) demonstrated neither style nor substance. I wanted to take notes as he was speaking, but there were absolutely no points for me to answer. Quite apart from the fact that he could not get his quotations from me right, he could not get his quotations from Shakespeare right.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I am stung to my feet. I may have said, "O brave new world, that has such people in it", rather than "has such people in't", but the Secretary of State is being a little pedantic.
    Mr. Smith: It is important to get these things right; the hon. Gentleman did not.
    Last Tuesday, the Liberal Democrats launched an important debate about the relationship between Government and Parliament, which lies at the heart of some of the things that I think the Opposition are trying to get at. Not one Tory Back Bencher was in the House to listen. This morning, we had an important debate on concessionary television licences for pensioners, which was brilliantly handled by the new Minister in my Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson). Not one Tory was in the House. Those were matters of substance but they were clearly not interested.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: It is all right to say that we had a debate this morning on a question of substance, but what have the Government decided? Are they going to give pensioners concessionary licences, yes or no?
    Mr. Smith: No. Had the hon. Gentleman been here to listen, he would have heard the arguments.
    The Tories cannot stand the Government's success on matters of substance across the board. All they can come up with is an obsession with the froth of whether there are six or seven journalists working at No. 10 Downing street. They are not interested in our investment in the national health service; the money that we have provided for education; how we are genuinely tackling crime across the country; how we are integrating transport; the help for pensioners with their winter heating bills; the reduction of VAT on people's fuel bills; the new deal that is taking hundreds of thousands of young people off the dole and putting them into work; signing up to the social chapter; the introduction of the national minimum wage; the use of

    391
    capital receipts to allow local authorities to start building houses again; devolution for Scotland and Wales; a mayor and elected assembly for London; investment for the first time on a proper basis in science; the banning of trade in landmines; the banning of ownership of handguns; building on the work of the previous Government in the search for peace in Northern Ireland. Those are matters of substance but they are not interested in them.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Like the comprehensive spending review, the Secretary of State did not include tourism in his list. Why is the British Tourist Authority's chairman rushing down to see us in Dorset about the Secretary of State dismantling support for tourism? What are the Government going to do? This is one of our largest industries and important to my constituents. Will he give us a substantial answer?
    Mr. Smith: I shall come to tourism because it is referred to specifically by the Select Committee. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in tourism, perhaps he noticed the press release on the comprehensive spending review issued on Friday by the British Hospitality Association. Its chairman welcomed our announcement that we are increasing funding for tourism. That is precisely what we are doing. He said:
    "Chris Smith's announcement today that an additional £6 million has been allocated to tourism … is welcome news."
    That is the industry's response to last Friday's announcements. I shall deal with that in more detail later.
    I have described real, solid achievements by the Government. They have nothing to do with style, glamour, trivia or any of the things that the Opposition go on about. They are real and they matter to people. It was breathtaking chutzpah for the hon. Member for East Surrey to accuse us of endorsing the idea of cool Britannia. He said that it had precious little meaning to people in the real world. Perhaps he would care to look at the press release issued by the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) on 6 November 1996, when she was Secretary of State for National Heritage. It was headed:
    "Cool Britannia as Latest Tourism Figures Reveal Best August Ever".
    On 5 February 1997, the right hon. Lady issued a press release saying that we must ensure that more overseas and British tourists made "Cool Britannia" their first choice. On 5 March 1997, she issued a press release headed:
    "Cool Britannia rules the way."
    On 9 March 1997, she claimed:
    "'Cool Britannia' is now an internationally recognised phenomenon."
    Best of all, she used the phrase twice in her press release of 4 December 1996, describing
    "London's place as the coolest city on the planet"
    and adding that
    "'cool Britannia' rules."
    I have them all here—the hon. Member for East Surrey can have a look at them if he wants to, but certainly he cannot criticise us for leaping on some "Cool Britannia" bandwagon.
    392
    Turning to my own Department and related matters of substance, we inherited a situation in which all the areas for which the Department is responsible had faced neglect and cuts for many years; the arts in particular had suffered for years from cuts or standstill funding. The enormous opportunity offered by the lottery had been mishandled. School playing fields were being sold as local authorities throughout the country were forced to sell them. Some of our main national museums were having to introduce entrance charges and important arts organisations were staring closure in the face. The film industry was, as Bob Hoskins described it, like flowers
    "grown like grass through the concrete."
    Mr. Robathan: The right hon. Gentleman said that local authorities were forced to sell off playing fields, but nothing could be further from the truth. At that time, I was parliamentary private secretary to the then Minister of Sport, who worked extremely hard—as I know his successor has done—to prevent local authorities from selling off playing fields. We looked into the possibility of having a register, but the truth is that we did not have a right to order local authorities not to sell off the playing fields. Nevertheless, we tried very hard to stop them so doing.
    Mr. Smith: First, I am tempted to observe that the hon. Gentleman was not very successful if that was what he was trying to achieve. Secondly, he did nothing at all to ensure the withdrawal of the circular from the then Department of the Environment which insisted that local authorities throughout the country should look at the asset value of playing fields. That is the sort of thing that he ought to have done.
    Even within the self-agreed spending constraints that we have rightly imposed on ourselves for the first two years of the Labour Government, we have within the field of culture, media and sport been able to make a real difference. We introduced substantial reform of the national lottery, with our White Paper which was published a year ago and is now enshrined in the National Lottery Act 1998. New sets of directions are in place for the lottery distributors. We have established the new opportunities fund to make lottery funding available for projects related to health, education and the environment. We have established the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, or NESTA. We have ensured that lottery distributors place new emphasis on small-scale community grants and on making sure that more money goes to support people and activities, rather than to bricks and mortar. All that has been put in place in the last year.
    Mr. Bermingham: My right hon. Friend knows of my interest in the lottery. Will he undertake to continue to press the lottery distribution bodies to accelerate the rate at which money is distributed? Currently, much of it sits gaining interest when there is so much to be done on the types of project that he has just described.
    Mr. Smith: I will certainly do that. However, one of the issues that has to be addressed is the speed with which those organisations that have been awarded grants manage to get their projects off the ground and take up their grant.
    Our other achievements include the introduction of fiscal incentives in British film making; those are to be applicable for the next five years, rather than for three

    393
    years, which was the period in the measure that we introduced within weeks of coming into office. We have sorted out the Channel 4 funding issue with a requirement that Channel 4 puts more emphasis on original programme making and film making. We brokered the agreement that saved the Old Vic theatre in London for serious theatre.
    We have developed the new audiences fund to make money available to theatres and orchestras around the country to bring in new audiences to enjoy our greatest arts. We have developed the schools youth music trust to make available an additional £10 million a year for instrumental tuition for young people. There has been a savage decline in that over the past 15 years, which was presided over by the Conservative party. We are taking action on that.
    We are developing new technology in the public library service. We have made available £50 million for the digitisation of content and £20 million for the training of librarians. We have set up the Wolfson Challenge fund to assist with the development of infrastructure.
    We have stopped the unnecessary sale of school playing fields, which was achieved by co-ordination between my Department, the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We have established the UK Sports Institute. We took an idea that was completely unformed and off track under the previous Government and made it a reality. The institute will open in 2000, as everyone intends. We are providing backing for the 2006 world cup bid, transforming it from a gleam in the eye to a genuine possibility, which we are intent on pursuing in the coming years.
    We have saved Newstead abbey, which faced the threat of being undermined by coal mining. There is the prospect of a solution to the problems of presentation at Stonehenge, which is our greatest ancient monument. We are very close to reaching agreement between all the local communities, English Heritage, the National Trust, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Ministry of Defence to ensure that the landscape of Stonehenge can be restored. That will be a major achievement, which has required painstaking, difficult and patient negotiation and government of substance, not glamour or trivia.
    We have introduced a common grading scheme for hotels. There has been agreement between the English tourist board, the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club. We are ensuring that the tourism and hospitality industries take advantage of the new deal so that they can train more young people and solve their labour shortages. We have established the tourism forum, which regularly draws together all representatives of the major tourism organisations to consider tourism issues seriously.
    Those are all measures that we have introduced in the 14 months since we came into office, and that is a pretty good record for any Government.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Smith: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble).
    Mrs. Joan Humble: Does my right hon. Friend agree that tourism initiatives, especially the industry's involvement in the new deal, will improve the quality of services that so many of our resorts, including my constituency, need to offer to their thousands of visitors, or millions, in the case of Blackpool? Greater quality in staff training and recruitment is vital to improve our tourism industry, which is why the industry welcomes Government initiatives and its involvement in the new deal.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am looking forward to going to Blackpool in two months to enjoy the best that it has to offer. She is right to point out that it is quality of service that counts in the tourism industry and draws visitors back to resorts. Quality of service depends on decent remuneration, career prospects, motivation and training opportunities for staff. The tourism industry recognises that, which is why it has welcomed initiatives on the new deal, the minimum wage and the quality benchmarks that we are putting in place. That is why the Opposition, in their opposition to all those measures, are completely out of touch with modern tourism.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The Secretary of State has boasted a lot about the achievements that he is claiming in the arts, but he has not answered the question about the erosion of the arm's-length principle, and the extension of ministerial control into areas that had a degree of autonomy until the Government came to power. If he is so proud of his achievements in the arts, how does he account for the article written by Peter Hall as recently as a month ago, in which he says:
    "In a hundred years' time, our new government will, I am sure, be seen as having been in the great tradition of English Puritanism—narrow-minded and joyless. They are also indifferent to what really matters in life. If they destroy the British arts, they will look fools in the eyes of history"?
    Mr. Smith: Well, Peter Hall has now realised that we are not in the process of destroying the arts. On Friday last week, he said the following:
    "I am delighted that the deprivations of the last 20 years"—
    for which that lot are responsible—
    "have been stopped and that the government has at last realised that there is a serious crisis in the performing arts. Every pound put into the arts will earn its money back many times over … I hope this is the beginning of really progressive thinking about the arts by the government".
    Peter Hall recognises that it is, and the hon. Gentleman should get his facts up to date, not a month old.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Unquestionably, we all want the arts to flourish in this country, but the public will be gravely disappointed when they discover that the money that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about is not as much as he claims, and that it will be, as never before, under the control of the Secretary of State instead of under the control of people in whom they can have confidence.
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. First, the money is exactly what it says it is. It is £30 million, in cash, next year, £40 million extra, in cash, the year after and £55 million, in cash, in the third year—each of those sums in addition to this year's figures. Over

    395
    three years, it adds up to £125 million for the arts. In addition, there is £100 million for museums and galleries and £65 million for all the other activities that the Department sponsors. That adds up to the biggest enhancement ever for all the fields of cultural activity in this country. It will enable—
    Mr. Bercow rose—
    Mr. Smith: I am so fond of the hon. Gentleman that I shall give way.
    Mr. Bercow: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for generously giving way. Does he agree with the view expressed by his hon. Friend the Minister for Sport in the debate on 5 June 1998, at column 679, that children should receive an irreducible minimum of three hours per week of physical education? If he agrees with that view, why has he downgraded physical education as part of the curriculum?
    Mr. Smith: In a debate about the creative industries, we shall take no lessons from the hon. Gentleman about designer style.
    My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport was expressing an ideal aspiration that he has for children. The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that sport and physical recreation remain part of the national curriculum. They must be taught by schools. There is flexibility in when the school decides to time them in the school week, but they must be taught. They are part of the curriculum; to try to pretend otherwise is to mislead the public and the House.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Secretary of State for Wales has rejected that view, and has insisted that physical education remains part of the core curriculum in Wales?
    Mr. Smith: Sport and physical recreation never were part of the core curriculum. They have the same status in the curriculum as they have always had—they must be taught. That has been confirmed many times in the House by me, by my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
    To return to the £290 million that we have made available under the comprehensive spending review over the next three years—
    Mr. Ian Bruce: That is not what the right hon. Gentleman said before.
    Mr. Smith: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have realised that £125 million for the arts, £100 million for museums and £65 million for other activities adds up to £290 million. I am glad that he is not an Education Minister.
    The £290 million has enabled us to ensure that there will be improved access to our major national galleries and collections, with—if the trustees wish it—free entrance for all children next year, free entrance for all pensioners as well in the second year, and in the third
    396
    year of the settlement, free entrance for all, universally. That development will be welcomed by many people around the country, although not, I expect, by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will the Secretary of State deduct £912 million from £1,038 million? He said that Conservative Members could not do their arithmetic. The answer is £126 million. That is the figure in the Chancellor's Red Book, resulting from the comprehensive spending review, and that is the increase to which the Secretary of State referred—not £290 million, but £126 million. I am sorry to have to do the right hon. Gentleman's arithmetic for him.
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman does not understand what is being done. The figure that he cited is the year 3 figure, as compared with the current figure. That indeed represents a cash-terms increase of £126 million in the third year over the current position. There are also to be increases next year and the year after. By adding up the extra money for year 1, year 2 and year 3, we get the figure of £290 million. That is additional money for the arts, museums, culture, sport and tourism that was not in the Conservative Government's plans, which would not have been spent by them and will be spent by us. That is the difference. It is real money in cash—new money—and the Conservatives cannot accept it.
    We shall ensure free access to our great national collections. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that, but he has not done so, because the Conservatives were the party that presided over the introduction of entrance charges. Perhaps they could have welcomed the new money that we have allocated for the designated museums of national importance around the country. They put in place the designation system, but it was meaningless, because no money came with the act of designation. We are putting the money in place to make sure that designation means something.
    We are ensuring that the performing and visual arts develop new audiences and, perhaps even more important, that they develop more education sessions so that pupils have the chance to learn at first hand from people who are involved in the theatre and in music about the delights that the arts can bring. The Arts Council will have control of the money. It will be up to the Arts Council to make decisions, and I hope that it will use some of that money to keep some of our best arts organisations alive.
    We have ensured that there will be enhanced funds above inflation for the British Tourist Authority. We have also ensured that extra funds will be available for the United Kingdom Sports Council to make sure that it gets off the ground well in its new form. We are ensuring that we put right the cuts that we had to make this year in the national heritage memorial fund, and we have given a guarantee of future lottery income to the arts, sport, charities and heritage.
    Of course we have not said that that will be something for nothing; of course conditions must be attached. I am accused of being meddlesome, and I plead guilty to that. Presumably the Opposition would have given something for nothing. They would not have been interested in ensuring that taxpayers' money was well, efficiently and properly spent. However, that is what we are doing; that is all that we are doing. We are not dictating what happens

    397
    to that money. We are simply ensuring that it is spent in the right way, and it is absolutely right that we should do so.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Was it not a disgrace that, year after year, the previous Government did nothing to ensure that people with conditionally exempt works of art opened up their houses to allow members of the public to see them, when the owners were given enormous tax breaks by that Government?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to identify the enormous importance of making sure that we support excellence in this country—the best performances, the best companies and the best collections that are in our museums and galleries—and that ordinary people can get to see those performances, companies and collections, and enjoy them in ever greater numbers. That is the kernel of our arts policy: excellence and access going hand in hand. Conservatives, of course, do not understand any of that because they are interested only in tittle-tattle.
    Mr. Tim Loughton: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the effect of the Budget changes on historic asset items will be, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House have had letters to say, that people will be forced to sell historically important artefacts, which will go into foreign hands, with the result that there will be no access for anyone in this country because those artefacts will no longer be in this country?
    Mr. Smith: If the hon. Gentleman had followed the debates that took place in Committee on the Finance Bill, he would know that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is at this very moment conducting discussions with the Historic Houses Association, to try to ensure that we do not lose out in terms of heritage as a result of the tax changes that have been genuinely brought in to ensure that the loophole in the tax system could not be exploited by hundreds of people with no genuine heritage reason for doing so.
    The hon. Member for East Surrey mentioned tourism, as did the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. The Select Committee, rather interestingly, said that I was somehow not interested in tourism. In coming to that conclusion, it ignored the fact that we have ensured that tourism has a real and prominent role in the work of the regional development agencies; that we have made sure that a proper grading scheme for hotel and guest house accommodation in England can be put in place; that we have established the tourism forum, which I chair on a regular basis, to bring all representative bodies from the world of tourism together; that we have a monthly meeting of the strategic tourism working group—which again I chair—to bring leading representatives of tourism together to put our tourism strategy in place; that we have ensured that the British Tourist Authority and the British Council have developed good working relationships abroad so that we can have real synergy—
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth rose—
    Mr. Smith: Wait. There is a longer list to come.
    Those relationships have been developed so that we can have real synergy between the work of these important bodies. We have ensured that there will be enhanced
    398
    funding for the British Tourist Authority and the important work that it does. We have gone out to proper nationwide consultation on the future of the structures of support for tourism in England, which has been a consultation exercise welcomed by many people in the industry. We have guaranteed to ring-fence the funding of tourism support in England. It is a consultation exercise about the best structures rather than anything that is driven by the need to obtain finance or cuts
    Mr. Ainsworth: Will the Secretary of State now give way?
    Mr. Smith: I will now.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Has the right hon. Gentleman finished his list?
    Will he explain why it was that on Thursday 18 December 1997, he answered a written question from my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), stating:
    "I aim to publish a comprehensive and detailed tourism strategy next summer, spelling out how the Government intend to create and sustain an improved framework within which tourism, hospitality and leisure can flourish."[Official Report, 18 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 249.]?
    Yet nothing has happened.
    Mr. Smith: The reason for that is precisely the consultation exercise that we have launched. It would have been sheer folly to publish a strategic tourism document while we were consulting on an essential aspect such as the structure of support for English tourism. We intend to publish our tourism strategy in October, once the responses to the consultation have been received.
    There were some interesting responses when the Select Committee produced its report. Conservative Members thought, "This is useful; we can make some fun and have a go at the Secretary of State with bits and pieces of the report." Incidentally, those bits and pieces were inserted by Conservative Members. Let us consider what the sensible parts of the tourism industry had to say.
    Mr. Fabricant: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Smith: Talking of the sensible men, I will of course give way.
    Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He was not privy to the private discussions of the Select Committee—I was there. At that time, there were 10 members of the Committee. Is he saying that my talents are so all-embracing, and my powers of persuasion so great, that one other Tory and I dissuaded a Committee including one Liberal Democrat Member and seven Labour Members, including the Chairman, from producing a glowing report saying how brilliant the Secretary of State was? Is he saying that I single-handedly persuaded those hon. Members to change their mind? The right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), told everyone that, but is he so naive that he believes it?
    Mr. Smith: I am tempted to say yes, but, given the nature of the hon. Gentleman, such a response would

    399
    clearly be absurd and untrue. The records of the Select Committee proceedings and the list of amendments tabled to and included in the report clearly show that the report's final form differed substantially from that which it took when it was first considered by the Committee, but the important aspect is the difference between what the report said and what the tourism industry thinks.
    Let me tell the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who is a member of the Select Committee, what the chairman of the Tourism Society had to say. On 11 June, immediately after the Select Committee had issued its report, he wrote to me, saying:
    "It is extremely regrettable that the Select Committee Report created such a critical impression when the reality is the opposite."
    In a press release, the British Hospitality Association said:
    "The industry has never received so much interest from government and we are happy that we have built up a very fruitful relationship with both ministers and officials in government generally and at the DCMS in particular."
    On 12 June—[Interruption.] Conservative Members laugh, but these are important representative bodies—the lifeblood of the industry in this country, not piddling little Conservative Members who do not know what is happening in tourism.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I remind the House that contributions are normally made when hon. Members are on their feet. There are far too many sedentary interventions, and I should be grateful if they stopped.
    Mr. Smith: I have suddenly realised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I perhaps got carried away and was verging on unparliamentary language. I withdraw the word "piddling" and insert the word "two-bit".
    The Joint Hospitality Industry Congress wrote to me on 12 June saying:
    "Dear Secretary of State,
    I feel I must write and express my fullest support to you following what I consider to be uninformed and incorrect criticisms by the Select Committee concerning your interest and that of your Department in Tourism and, by implication, Hospitality as well. Nothing could be further from reality. Your personal keen involvement, coupled with the immense input from your officials, brings a clear-sighted leadership to our deliberations."
    That is the reality.
    This is a debate on an Opposition motion that demeans Parliament and brings discredit on those who tabled it. There are real issues and real matters of substance to be discussed, real progress to be made, real achievements to be heralded, and genuine difficulties to be tackled, some of which will not be easy.
    In the past few days, we have announced the largest ever new investment in the cultural life of our country. We have set in motion a widespread consultation that could lead to a radical restructuring, for the better, of the cultural heritage, tourism and sporting fields of activities and of Government support. That is what we should concentrate on, and what the world outside has welcomed and will study. It is a pity that the Opposition cannot find the seriousness of purpose to do likewise. Perhaps that is why they are, and will remain, the Opposition.
    5.10 pm
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: I, at least, am glad that the official Opposition chose to have a debate that enables us to focus on the work of the Secretary of State's Department, although they seem to have done so inadvertently. They have not chosen the debate to outline any constructive views of their own, never mind focusing sharply on the criticisms that could be made of the Government's record in this area over 14 months.
    Before I turn to the two matters on which I want to spend a little time in this rather short debate, I want to pay a personal tribute to the two Ministers in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport who have left office. Both were well-known enthusiasts for their subjects, particularly films and the performing arts, and both were unfailingly courteous in their dealings with me and, I believe, with all those with whom they worked. I also want to wish the new Ministers well in their very important roles.
    Mr. James Gray: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Maclennan: No, I shall not give way. Interventions have already been on the generous side, and it would be unfortunate to give way before I have even embarked on the substance of my speech. I shall give way later if the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene then.
    I should like to deal with tourism, which is the big spending industry for which the Secretary of State has responsibility. I think that he would acknowledge that the perception of representatives of the industry is that his Department does not give it the priority that is given to other more glamorous matters for which it has responsibility.
    It is clear from what the Secretary of State said today, and more importantly from the paper that he published on Friday, that important matters are being considered and are in the pipeline. He began his speech with a quick round-up of what he saw as the Government's general achievements, and I shall not follow him down that route, save to say that I do not entirely share his perspective on the Government's management of the economy. The reliance on the Bank of England as the sole controller of inflationary tendencies has resulted in an overvalued pound, which has made life exceedingly difficult for the tourism industry, and has almost certainly contributed both to the reduction in the number of visitors to this country and to a pretty lean summer.
    On the wider policy point, it is the view of the Liberal Democrat party that if we were to seek early entry into European monetary union, it would be of particular benefit to the tourist industry. It would not only reduce the transactional costs of tourism, but stabilise our currency in relation to Europe at a lower level, and, as a result, increase our competitiveness. Those matters will be debated in extenso on other occasions, but they seem to be conditioning the difficulties that are currently faced by the tourist industry.
    I want to focus on the Secretary of State's proposals for restructuring the public bodies for which he has responsibility. He has allowed a fairly short period for consultation, but, given that this matter has been considered before, it is not too short. I am happy to supply

    401
    the views of my party, as we published today our own consultative document, "Tourism Tomorrow". That will be a direct and first response to some of the issues that the Secretary of State has raised.
    However, I should like to supplement that by responding directly to the Secretary of State's paper setting out options and choices. I hope that some matters are not cast in stone and that he will be prepared to rethink in the light of responses. I am unclear whether the Secretary of State has fully taken into account the consequences of devolution for his departmental responsibilities, and its impact on the British Tourist Authority. The paper mentions devolution, but the main clients who should be concerned about the promotion of tourism abroad will, following the completion of the Government's decentralisation exercise, be the nations of the United Kingdom. It is more important that their representative voice be heard at national level. They should decide co-operatively how best to promote the separate and distinctive interests of the four constituent nations, rather than start from the proposition that the British Tourist Authority is the right body upon which to build.
    I like much in the Government's approach, but I do not think that the proposals for the English regions are apt. My experience of the tourist industry is that it looks to a higher level than the regions of England to determine strategic issues and national policy towards tourism. For the delivery of particular services, it looks to a unit much closer to the locality in which it operates than the regions. Notwithstanding the role of regional development agencies—which I am not seeking to diminish, because they will sometimes be deployed to the benefit of tourism—the proper unit for local provision of tourist services is the locality. Lumping the Lake district together with Liverpool in a region does not greatly assist: it creates a bureaucracy at an unnecessary level.
    In his paper, which covers many subjects for which he is responsible, the Secretary of State is clear that some streamlining of the bureaucracy is desirable. Perhaps that is what the right hon. Gentleman should look at with the coolest and most detached eye.
    I am however aware that, even in my northern constituency, for which the right hon. Gentleman has no direct responsibility save perhaps through the British Tourist Authority, there is discontent with the establishment of a local tourist board which covers half the land mass of Scotland as a region, when it is clear that the interests of even Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross would be better looked after locally by a body that does not seek to represent such disparate interests as are contained in the wider highland region. Big does not necessarily mean better here. We should not look to a building up of the regional dimension of tourist provision.
    I want to question the right hon. Gentleman a little about the tourism forum to which he referred. There is the germ of an important idea here, but I understand that, for the representatives of the industry, it is too large and in a sense, in respect of Government Departments, it is not sufficiently strong. It would be preferable to have, as suggested in the Liberal Democrats' paper, some commission to bring together under the right hon. Gentleman's chairmanship Departments that will also impact upon the development of tourism—such as the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for planning matters, and the Department for
    402
    Education and Employment for the important task of bringing quality education for management and service delivery to the forefront.
    Those structural changes seem desirable not only to ensure that there is no passing of the buck from the Secretary of State's Department to other Departments, which I do not suppose he would wish to do, but to give added clout within Government to the forum as the voice of tourism: as the strategic powerhouse for the industry which is so massively important and has such enormous growth potential.
    In some parts of the country, there is also another problem that must be recognised. Tourism must be sustainable and there are some parts of the country where setting up bodies to encourage tourism would be regarded as positively perverse. That adds to the force of my view that local tourist boards are better adapted than regional ones to tackle the particular needs of the tourist providers.
    I move from tourism to the arts, which have great importance not only in relation to tourism—they are one reason why many people come to Britain—and not only in respect of the cultural industries, to which the Secretary of State has referred on a number of occasions. I welcome the steps that have been taken, particularly in relation to the film industry and, to some extent, the music industry, and I hope that that will lead to a more powerful British film industry.
    I want to put into a little perspective some of the claims that have been made about the new spending directions and decisions. I read the Select Committee's report without a whole-hearted recognition of what it was talking about. It was a patchy report. However, it made a number of telling points. One of the legitimate points that it made was that there has been real underfunding of many of the Departments' dependent bodies of clients for a number of years, for which the Government cannot be wholly blamed. However, I do blame them for having accepted the budgetary settlements that were projected by the outgoing Administration. If they had a damaging effect in the health and education sectors, as I believe they did, they have also had a real and damaging effect in the arts and cultural sectors.
    When the Secretary of State speaks, as he did, about this being a record settlement, we must remember that we have had some pretty lean years and that, at the end of this triennial period, we shall only be roughly back where we were in 1992.
    Mr. Chris Smith: I have enormous respect for the right hon. Gentleman and I hesitate to put him right. The arts underfunding in real terms during the past five to six years, to which he refers, has been of the order of £35 million. In the first year of this new settlement we shall almost put that right. By the time we get to the third year, we will have done a lot more than put it right.
    Mr. Maclennan: I concede the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but I think that I am correct in saying—if I am not, I am happy to give way again—that if one takes into account his Department's expenditure as a whole, it roughly restores the position to where it was in 1992–93.
    Mr. Smith: The reason for the difference is that the Department' s responsibility for voluntary organizations

    403
    was transferred back to the Home Office so, given the Department's responsibilities, that enhances what we are able to do.
    Mr. Maclennan: On that I congratulate the Minister, although it is not a bonanza, and I do not think that he would claim that it was. Moreover, it might not be worth while. I take the point made by Sir Peter Hall, which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, about the value of investment in the cultural industries and how that money fructifies in the sector when it is invested. In considering the settlement, it is necessary to recall just how little money we are talking about in terms of Government spending as a whole. During the last financial year, the Government's cultural spend was one third of 1 per cent. of total Government spending. The new injection will increase that total by 0.03 per cent. per annum during the next three years.
    Britain has the balance wrong when it spends so little. If our expenditure on the cultural industries is compared with that of other countries—that is difficult because there are different parameters for measurement—we do not seem to be doing as well as other western European countries of comparable wealth. That fact has been brought out recently in some new research which has not been challenged; that should lend support to the Secretary of State's efforts to enlarge Government spending on the arts in Britain.
    Looking at the structural proposals for the arts, whose purpose is similar to those for the tourist industry, in that the Secretary of State is trying to slim them down, I must question whether the right hon. Gentleman has got it right. First, however, I strongly agree with him on a number of things. In the case of the arts, the right hon. Gentleman is entirely right to recognise that the regions are the appropriate level at which public funding should be spent, and I applaud the increased emphasis on the regional bodies. But it is not entirely satisfactory that they should be predominantly appointed, if that is his intention, by the Department or by himself. I would hope that the regional bodies would be more home grown.
    A second structural change that I think would help the arts is the introduction of improved planning arrangements, along with three-year funding settlements. Uncertainty about the future has forced many arts providers to devote a disproportionate amount of time to financial planning, particularly to the justification of planning applications before a proper outturn can be seen.
    I must question the Secretary of State about a number of other proposals. He said that he recognised the importance of the Arts Council as an advisory body—I think that should be its principal role—but qualified that by saying that he did not want it to have an adversarial relationship with the Government. The Secretary of State must surely acknowledge that, if advice is freely given, it may involve free criticism from time to time. I do not think that criticism from that body, or indeed from any body that is charged with giving advice, should be inhibited by the Secretary of State's talk of partnerships. I do not like the idea of a partnership between advisers and Government; I find it too cosy. I think that it would be sensible to enhance the independent aspect of the Arts Council's advisory role.
    404
    Here I enter more controversial territory. I feel that it is time to question fundamentally the arm's-length principle to which the Secretary of State has at least paid lip service. In fact, I think that he has embraced that principle. I am puzzled. Most of the elements in the package of measures proposed on Friday struck me as being designed to increase accountability—through the right hon. Gentleman's Department, ultimately—for strategies and policies set by the Department; but, at the same time, the right hon. Gentleman wants the arm's-length principle to apply to the delivery of those measures. I find that odd. Is the Secretary of State saying that his Department is not capable of making assessments of how money is being used? If he is making such a self-critical judgment, he ought to beef up his Department so that it is capable of ascertaining whether its strategies and policies are being implemented, rather than commissioning others to perform the task or seeking to fulfil its role of accountability in another way.
    There is one oddity—one innovation—in the package of proposals: the proposal for a powerful watchdog. I am not sure what that means, if it does not mean another tier of bureaucracy. I hope that the intention is not to sideline the work of the National Audit Office where it is responsible for such matters, or that of the Audit Commission where it is responsible for local government activities in this context. As the Secretary of State knows, such action certainly would not take the attention of the Public Accounts Committee away from the Department's activities.
    I fear that this could constitute a fifth wheel—or worse, an alibi enabling the Department to seek to avoid responsibility for the outturn of the strategies and policies that it is embracing and, indeed, requiring other bodies to have in mind when spending public money. Any such move would be a failure. It is becoming increasingly unacceptable for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, alone among the great Departments of State—for I think of it as a great Department of State—to be able to wash its hands of the way in which its strategies and policies are being implemented, and say, "That is not for us, because of the arm's-length principle".
    The arm's-length principle was dreamt up—probably by that liberal John Maynard Keynes or one of his friends—in the mid-1940s, against the background of the abuse of Government power with respect to culture by Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and, indeed, the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s. There were legitimate and understandable fears about Government involvement, Government meddling, Government dictation to the arts, and about the abuse of power. Today, however, we live in a very different world. If a Government sought to meddle in decisions about which play should be staged by which company, or about which composer was acceptable, or sought to burn the vanities, there would be—given the multi-media outlets that we have in this country—howls of abuse. I think that the time has come to dispose of the mantra about the arm's-length principle, and to recognise the reality that Ministers are expected to intervene when there is a problem.
    The Conservative party recognised that in government. The Conservative party saw that it was important to give English National Opera more stability by providing it with a home in the Coliseum. Mr. David Mellor did not hesitate, just before a general election, to ignore the arm's-length principle and provide ENO with the

    405
    Coliseum. Similar provisions were made by the Conservative Secretary of State for Wales to help fund Welsh National Opera when it was touring England. Again, the arm's-length principle was simply forgotten—rightly, in my view.
    There is now no case for distinguishing between the approach of Government to the funding of great national companies from that applying to, for instance, the British Library. There is no interposing body deciding what sort of money should go to the British Library; there is no "arm's-length" argument, although it would be possible to present such arguments. I think that the time has come to be frank, and to say that the Government are dealing with these matters and should be judged accordingly.
    Responsibility for wider funding of the arts, in which the issues are not so much national as local or regional, should be delegated to other bodies—preferably elected bodies—which should be judged according to their response to the perceived needs of regions and localities. That would build up a degree of competition in provision, which would be very healthy. East Anglia, for instance, is almost the only region not to have a resident orchestra. Although I do not think that it would be sensible for central Government to tell East Anglia that it should have a resident orchestra, I do think that the regional tier of government should consider the matter. That has been done in other parts of the country.
    I am not saying that, having abandoned the arm's-length principle, the Secretary of State should intervene at every level of decision-making, although what I am saying could be interpreted in that way. I believe, however, that the Secretary of State should be responsible for the future of major companies—responsible, as effectively he is, for the future of major museums and libraries. That would get rid of many illusions about what is needed, and would avoid the fantasy that, if the Royal Opera House gets into difficulties, it is all because of personal problems between its director and the chief executive of the Arts Council—or something or that sort. If tens of millions of pounds of public money are being spent, the Government must be involved.
    I do not want to speak for much longer, as this is a short debate; but I want to raise a specific structural issue. I hope that the Minister will look again at his proposal to graft the Crafts Council on to the new arts body that will replace the Arts Council. The Minister acknowledges in his paper that the Crafts Council commands widespread support among its clients. Its function is somewhat different from that of the Arts Council. It is closer to the Design Council in some respects, in that it assists people who seek to create little businesses trading in the decorative arts or crafts in which they are engaged.
    Scotland has experience of a unified body which the Minister might like to examine. I make no criticism of how the matter is handled in Scotland, but there has been a feeling in the Scottish crafts world that English crafts people were advantaged by a separate and separately run Crafts Council. No doubt the Crafts Council will consider the matter and make recommendations in due course.
    The Secretary of State has one of the most important portfolios in the Government. There has been a long gestation period for the proposals and I hope that we shall soon reach conclusions so that the structure for dispensing public money can be settled to enable people to get on
    406
    with the job. In framing that structure, it is important to bear in mind the fact that if artists and art providers have to spend too much time checking whether they are fulfilling strategies, meeting criteria and devising or contributing advice on new criteria, there will be much less time for the activity that is at the core of the arts and the work of artists. For that reason, a bloated bureaucracy is to be avoided.
    5.41 pm
    Mrs. Joan Humble: I agree with the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has one of the most important jobs in the Government. I say that not just because of the Department's great importance to our economy but because I enjoy so many of the facilities that it covers. I am pleased to take part in a debate that highlights the Government's exciting initiatives. Such proposals are sadly lacking among Conservative Members.
    I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), but there was no substance and, I fear, no style in his presentation. We should all welcome the biggest ever increase in resources for culture, and the fact that it has been placed in the context of a wide-ranging consultative document. There have been other initiatives in the past 15 months that are especially important to tourism in view of the difficulties that face many of our tourist resorts, especially seaside towns. I represent such a town, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), whom I am pleased to see in his place. We are both aware of the difficulties that seaside towns faced for many years because the previous Government did not support them. At last, we are looking forward to the support that we need.
    Mr. Gray: Has the hon. Lady heard from the Labour party whether it intends to return to Blackpool for the annual conferences? Her constituents must have been concerned by the recent announcement that the standard of hotels and restaurants in Blackpool did not come up to the high standards that Labour has come to expect in Islington and elsewhere.
    Mrs. Humble: My colleagues and I look forward to enjoying the party conference in the autumn in Blackpool, and to enjoying the hotel accommodation and restaurants and all the other facilities that Blackpool offers. We might go to see the illuminations. Seaside resorts should not be treated with the contempt that the hon. Gentleman has displayed. They have serious problems. Those who visit Blackpool in the summer and autumn see the bright lights, the theatres and a bustling town. They do not see behind those attractions the problem of unemployment and the difficulties that have been caused by many years of underfunding.
    At last, Britain has a Government who are investing not just in tourism but in housing to improve the housing stock. They are investing in health, education and new jobs. In north Blackpool, a new technology park is being built, and already there is a queue of people waiting to develop new technology and new jobs on that site. In recent years, Blackpool council and the tourism and hospitality trade have taken steps to ensure that Blackpool

    407
    remains Britain's premier seaside and tourist resort. However, local support, initiatives and endeavour will not be enough. The Government must be equally committed not only to Blackpool but to other seaside towns and to tourism as a whole. That is why all those who are involved in tourism and hospitality welcome many of my right hon. Friend's initiatives.
    Training and the new deal initiative are important. I was pleased to attend the higher awards ceremony at Blackpool and the Fylde college. The degree ceremony there is held in conjunction with Lancaster university, and many of the degrees are in tourism, hospitality and catering to enable people to provide for the many visitors who come not just to Blackpool but to other parts of the country. I felt proud of those students as they walked across the stage to receive their degrees. Those well-educated young people will deliver the quality service that we want, and that will encourage more overseas visitors and make life more enjoyable for those who take their holidays at home.
    There have been many plaudits for the minimum wage legislation. How can we develop quality services if we do not pay the rate for the job to the people, many of whom are young, who are engaged in the direct delivery of services? Those initiatives are sponsored by many Departments which have co-operated to develop a key industry. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has been involved in many other initiatives. I recently took part in the debates on the Bill that became the National Lottery Act 1998. I fear that my constituency is among those that have received the lowest lottery funding.
    Under the new legislation, there is hope for a more equitable allocation of resources so that the many deserving causes in my constituency and in many regions that have dropped off the list will be viewed much more sympathetically. People are already approaching me to know more about the sixth good cause, the after-school clubs and the healthy living centres. They are excited by the Government's new initiatives.
    I welcome the arts initiative. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering museums and art galleries, I hope he will remember that there are many excellent examples in the regions. A museum in Fleetwood has concentrated on the history of the fishing industry there. Unfortunately, that industry has declined in recent years, but many children can visit that museum to learn more about their heritage and about the industry in which their fathers, grandfathers and uncles worked. That museum is a centre of education, as well as providing an interesting afternoon out for many families. On Friday evening, I will attend the Grundy art gallery in Blackpool, where a new exhibition is to be unveiled. It regularly has new exhibitions which highlight local as well as national talent. There are many such art galleries and museums throughout the country, so, when we look at the arts, let us remember that we are talking not just about the royal opera or metropolitan organisations, however much we all wish to support them, but about local initiatives.
    I could talk at length about the theatre and the plays that I have seen in Blackpool. Instead, let me say that I just hope that the Secretary of State, when he visits Blackpool in the autumn, will take the opportunity to visit local arts establishments, as well as entering into debates
    408
    with the tourism and hospitality industries, and will see why many people enjoy coming to Blackpool and want to keep coming back.
    5.50 pm
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am very happy to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble). Having had many discussions with the people of Blackpool about the tourism and leisure industry—having visited Blackpool pleasure beach and talked about the importance of tourism—I endorse many of her points about the industry in Blackpool. I was especially pleased to hear the hon. Lady comment on the importance of training. At the recent British Hospitality Association annual lunch, Adair Turner commended the document that was produced by the Department of National Heritage on training and manpower issues in—I think—1996. That makes the point that the industry needs to train young people. I hope that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), whom I welcome to the ministerial team, will be able to deploy some of the expertise that he has developed at the Department for Education and Employment in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, because human resource issues are so important.
    Enjoyable though it has been, the debate so far has been characterised by a degree of selective memory. I hope that the Minister for Sport will be able to inform the House on these points in his winding-up speech. Surely, the biggest single increase in funding to culture in this country has arisen from the incredible significance of the national lottery. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will inform the House precisely how many museums, galleries, theatres and orchestras have benefited from the national lottery. For all the credit that should be given to the Department for its work, and to Britain's extraordinary ability to achieve a reputation throughout the world for its excellence in arts, sports and heritage, the person who must take the most credit is my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who said, of his founding of the Department:
    "Man cannot live by GDP alone … A country can only be strong, healthy and contented if it burnishes its heritage, encourages its citizens to pursue excellence in sport and cultivates widespread appreciation of the arts … It was in that spirit that I set up the Department of National Heritage. Its creation was a sign that Government should take such activities seriously. For millions of people, they are not optional extras, they are worth valuing in their own right."
    The most incredible boost in funding has resulted from the national lottery, which has enabled many more people to participate in the arts, sport, heritage, culture—the things that draw people together. A dilemma of modern life is that people's lives are more fragmented and more isolated. Now, however, they have the opportunity to build communities in a way that they never previously had.
    The Secretary of State was less than generous to my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister. Anyone who has served in a Department inevitably has a tremendous commitment and concern for the activities of that Department. The former Minister for Arts, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), consistently and generously paid tribute to those elements of policy for which the team that was present when I last held office had been responsible.

    409
    The Secretary of State mentioned many initiatives that had a remarkably familiar ring. I seem to remember setting up a working group involving the British Council, the British Tourist Authority and the Department, and changing the lottery rules to allow lottery money to go into touring, to encourage access, participation and education. I remember many other themes. I was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman presented those in classic Labour fashion, rebranding and rebadging any good idea from the past, without any recognition of what had gone before.
    The one respect in which the Secretary of State did give me recognition concerned the adoption of the phrase "cool Britannia." I was Secretary of State for National Heritage. I am a Conservative who is proud of our past and who believes that there is continuity. Therefore, I was happy to adopt and to apply a phrase that identified the creative, dynamic, forward-looking potential of Britain.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Does the right hon. Lady agree with the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), who said this afternoon that "cool Britannia" is a phrase that has precious little meaning to people in the real world?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am going to explain why the use of the phrase "cool Britannia" has been hijacked and abused by the Labour party, why it is absolutely to the point and why the Opposition motion is so appropriate.
    New Labour believes in rubbishing the past. It really went for cool Britannia, the rebranding and rebadging of Britain, as if there were was no tomorrow, because it did not want to remember the past.
    Mr. Smith: During her time at the Department of National Heritage, the right hon. Lady issued at least five press releases about cool Britannia. I have issued not a single one since I took over after the election last year.
    Mrs. Bottomley: My purpose in speaking was not to engage in trivial exchanges with the right hon. Gentleman. I will talk about his record in a moment, but I wanted to make a more profound point about the significance of the phrase "cool Britannia" and its use by the Labour party, as opposed to its use by me in the context of tourism.
    I was Secretary of State for National Heritage, a Department that took great pride in our history, architecture and cultural traditions and wanted to convey the message that we were creating a country that was innovative in film, tourism, hospitality and food. The Secretary of state rightly praises the film industry. He will know that all the filming for "The Full Monty" and "Mrs. Brown" was completed way before the last election. The reason why the phrase has been wrapped around new Labour's necks, whether or not the right hon. Gentleman used it, is that the Prime Minister has exploited that message comprehensively.
    On the day when the House was cutting lone-parent benefit, the Prime Minister was entertaining another 400 celebrities, media personalities and pop stars at No. 10. This is a Prime Minister who has systematically sought to exploit the "cool Britannia" phrase, which has been spun out of No. 10. It has boomeranged into Labour's face because new Labour dislikes the past—anything that
    410
    represents the flourishing economy that the Conservatives left in place and anything that represents old Labour. Each is equally unappetising to new Labour.
    Mr. Loughton: Far from distancing himself from the ethos of cool Britannia, as the Secretary of State is now doing, does my right hon. Friend recall that in April, the Prime Minister interrupted his tour of the middle east—specifically, Saudi Arabia—to hold a press conference in defence of cool Britannia? Such was the importance that the right hon. Gentleman attached to the issue that he interrupted an extremely important foreign tour for it.
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has the message precisely right. When I was Secretary of State for National Heritage, my right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister would not have uttered the words "cool Britannia" for any amount of persuasion had I tried to encourage him. It was an appropriate phrase to promote the tourism industry, but it is not the way to badge a Government. That is its significance in the context of the motion tabled by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: I endorse entirely what my right hon. Friend says. We all know exactly what the Prime Minister and the Labour Government were trying to do in rebranding this country cool Britannia. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it does not matter who is in power, as these great renaissances in the arts, music, poetry and painting in capital cities go in cycles? I am now an old man of 50 and twice in my lifetime London has been deemed to be the cultural capital of the world. If the good Lord spares me, it may happen once again, but it has absolutely nothing to do with anything that Labour has done, and very little to do with what we did.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I beg to disagree with my hon. Friend, as I think that it has a great deal to do with what the Conservative Government did. The fact that, under the Conservatives, Britain set an economic and cultural framework in which initiative could flourish has meant that Britain has been the place in which many mobile and creative industries have wanted to invest. The growing pressure towards regulation, the introduction of a minimum wage and Labour's municipalising tendencies threaten to stultify much of the innovation that is taking place. That leads me to other serious issues surrounding today's motion.
    It is disappointing that the Secretary of State lost responsibility for voluntary organisations, volunteering and the voluntary sector, as they gave the Department a serious flavour and registered the significance of that work and that theme in community development. I endorse the approach of working with the regions. The Department is an important lever for economic and social development, and I frequently emphasised that role.
    Let me return to today's motion and the Government's preoccupation with style over substance. Various hon. Members have referred to the biggest ever increase in funding. I suggest that the biggest ever increase in funding was the input of well over £1 billion a year to the sector from the national lottery. Last week's announcement may have meant £290 million more in taxpayers' money, but in the same time frame the sector has lost £1 billion in lottery money. Worse, the Secretary of State has

    411
    essentially allowed the Chancellor to do what successive Chancellors will inevitably want to do—to nationalise the lottery. Not only is lottery money going into education and health but the document issued last week is full of ways in which the Secretary of State is seeking to control, nationalise or municipalise the lottery stream. That is why it is so dangerous to the arts, culture and sport.
    Mr. Caplin: I realise that the announcement was on Friday, but did the right hon. Lady miss the point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that lottery funding for sport, arts, heritage and charities has been reinforced for 2001 onwards? That has been widely welcomed by all those sectors as the guarantee that many Conservative Members were seeking during the passage of the Lottery Bill.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I regret to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Those sectors now receive only one sixth of the lottery stream instead of one fifth. The document is riddled with implications that there will be more interference and control over the way in which the money is spent. It suggests that there will be more influence from regional development agencies, and more control—other ways of municipal agencies getting their hands on the money.
    That brings me to another profound difference between Labour and the Conservatives. Labour's preoccupation with the concept of cool Britannia—from which the Secretary of State rightly now distances himself—is all about the future, not the past. The millennium dome is a futuristic building with little interest in the past history of Britain or the naval college alongside it. It is all part of Labour's branding, its image and its much-repeated phrases.
    The other true reflection of the nature of the Labour Government is their renaming of the Department as the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, by which they could not have said more. The Labour Government have a soviet approach to culture. Their controlling, municipalising instincts are always there. They also have a soviet use of language. Time and again, the Prime Minister talks about the people's decision, the people's party, the people's palace and goodness knows what else. That is really a way of saying, "We have decided and we shall railroad our policies through, come what may".
    The Conservative approach is much more to recognise that culture cannot be dominated and controlled from the centre and that it requires plural sources of funding. It is interesting that no Minister went to the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts event. During my term of office, I do not believe that I missed a single ABSA event. If I did, I am sure that a deputy stood in for me. I recall going time and again to ABSA events because I wanted to demonstrate as a Minister the degree to which what mattered was not only central Government funding, local authority funding, the box office and the philanthropy of individuals: it was businesses and others saying, "We want to play a part in the cultural life of this country". Labour always demonstrates that centralising, controlling tendency. The gut instinct comes through, come what may.
    The real truth about last week's statement is that it was an effort to get the spin through in advance. This morning, I was asked to speak on the "Today" programme about
    412
    today's statement on mental health reform. I said, "I do not know anything about it. I am only a Member of Parliament. I am not a journalist who gets all the information leaked in advance." I was given the information that the programme had at its disposal and I was then able to do the interview.
    Earlier this week, we had the Legg report. Again, I was telephoned by a journalist asking me to comment. I said, "I am only a humble Member of Parliament. I am not a journalist who gets all the information leaked in advance."
    Similarly, last Friday, from early in the morning, we had a distorted account of what was about to be announced because the Secretary of State did not want the confiscation of £1 billion from the lottery to be highlighted; he wanted the additional £290 million in taxpayers' money to appear in flashing lights. In addition, he was concealing the most serious aspect of that announcement—the death knell of the English tourist board. His consultation paper set out four options, none of which recognised the possibility that the English tourist board—with its weakness and its strengths—would continue in the role that it has performed over many years, and with increasing authority.
    It was on tourism that the Select Committee rightly condemned the Department under the leadership of the Secretary of State. Tourism was slighted by the new title of the Department, which includes almost everything else one can imagine. It is difficult enough to decide what to call a Department, but why omit tourism, which generates more new jobs, great prosperity for Britain and a vital industry throughout the country?
    I return to my right hon. Friend's motion on the emphasis on spin and style over substance. The Secretary of State is shameless in his selective reading of quotations. He did it again on Monday, when he referred to the English tourist board's press release following the statement, and he has done it time and again today. If he will forgive me, I shall complete some of the quotations that he used. He referred to the English tourist board's so-called welcome. David Quarmby, chairman of the ETB, said:
    "We believe that the tourism industry and local government want to see a national independent tourism body for England. They made this clear during last year's Agenda 2000 consultation exercise. This role cannot be fulfilled effectively by a committee or government Department, or a conglomeration of competing regional bodies with no natural national remit."
    That does not sound like a whole-hearted endorsement of a consultation exercise that leaves no scope for the English tourist board to continue.
    There has been an outcry because the Secretary of State not only made the announcement outside Parliament but allowed only seven weeks for consultation. Does it occur to hon. Members that the following seven weeks are the busiest of the year for the tourism industry? August is also the time when local authorities tend not to meet; it is a time of year when people go on holiday. The regular cycle of such meetings often omits August.
    Fiona Mactaggart: As I recall, the former Government constantly consulted on matters relating to schools, which, as we know, are shut at the moment and do not open until September, between July and the end of September. We are doing a little better than they did.
    Mrs. Bottomley: In making that comment, the hon. Lady implied that the reason for taking such an approach

    413
    to consultation was somehow devious and an attempt to railroad policy through. On such an important issue, surely the Government should not be afraid of a proper, open debate. To allow seven weeks at the peak of the tourism trade's year, and when local authorities often do not meet, inevitably creates suspicion, outrage and a sense that the Government are railroading policy for their own ideological reasons.
    Mr. Chris Smith: The right hon. Lady might like to know that the reason for the relatively short seven-week period for consultation on the paper is that that is precisely what representatives of the tourism industry in our strategic working group asked for. It was their recommendation that we followed when we set the consultation period.
    While the right hon. Lady is on the subject of selective quotations, might I complete for her the comments of the English tourist board on the document that we issued on Friday?
    "The English Tourist Board welcomes the DCMS' recognition of its Agenda 2000 consultation, its acknowledgement of the need for a national co-ordinating role, and its appreciation of the real value of the England mark, launched by the ETB last year."
    The ETB also welcomes our intention to continue to fund English tourism. That was a welcome.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I shall help the right hon. Gentleman by continuing the quotation of the English tourist board's press notice.
    "We will be making strong representation to Government for the continuation of an effective national body independent of commercial interests."
    On the launching of the England mark, he knows full well that the process began a little before he took office. Be that as it may, I shall return to our quotation competition.
    Ken Robinson, chairman of the Tourism Society, who was also quoted by the Secretary of State, commented:
    "It is illogical, unjustified and a non-sequitur to all the good work that the Department is doing. The money being saved is peanuts in the context of Government spending, but the consequences of doing away with the ETB are catastrophic for the tourism industry."
    Will the Secretary of State keep open the option of extending the consultation? Although the industry may have wanted to get uncertainty out of the way, I doubt whether it realised that the consultation would be in its busiest time. Will he make clear that, contrary to the impression in his document, he will consider allowing the English tourist board to continue—albeit following clarification of its relationship with the regions and tourist information centres? David Quarmby—also of the British Tourist Authority—and Tim Bartlett of the ETB do a remarkably good job. Their authority needs to be enhanced, yet the process that the Secretary of State has instigated simply offers them months of skirmishing over their future. Now, as never before, there is an opportunity for the Confederation of British Industry, the Government and the nation to argue that tourism is a huge boost to the economy and an industry that should be recognised in its own right. I ask the Secretary of State to look again at that area.
    I ask the Secretary of State to be more truthful about the degree to which he has raided—or allowed the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raid—the lottery. I commend him for changes in the Arts Council. Gerry
    414
    Robinson and Peter Hewitt are excellent appointments. Taking a more rigorous approach to their work is vital to our interests. Finally, when the Secretary of State speaks on these matters in the future, will he give more credit to the person who deserves the greatest credit for the flourishing nature of culture and the arts: my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon?
    6.15 pm
    Mr. Tom Levitt: I shall try to be brief, and to spend most of my time on matters of substance—unlike the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley).
    My constituency covers much of the Peak national park, which attracts 22 million visitors a year. That is the highest visiting figure for any national park in the world except Mount Fuji. Of those visitors, 2.5 million find their way to just one village—Castleton—in the heart of the constituency. It is a very small village at the foot of Winnat's pass, which will, I regret to say, be nothing more than a traffic jam for the next few weeks.
    Given that the Peak park is within an hour's drive of one third of the population, and that so many of the 22 million visitors are day tippers, the area is crying out for a sustainable tourism strategy. It sends the strongest message that a tourism strategy must be integrally linked with our transport strategy. I believe that, given the Government's direction, the two will work together in coming years.
    The car is causing not only congestion but chemical erosion. The very moorland that people visit is being eroded by the toxic products in car fumes. In addition, the Pennine way in parts of my constituency is being worn out—not by the use of the car but by people's feet. We must keep the needs of visitors, residents and people who work in the area very much in balance in a sustainable tourism strategy.
    I welcome the initiatives taken by the Peak national park authority, which has received European funding, to put traffic management for tourism at the heart of their management of the national park. I stress that a tourism strategy must link not just transport but housing, planning and environmental strategy—the very policies at the heart of national parks.
    My constituency is not just open countryside. There are several towns and villages in the area. Three of them—Buxton, New Mills and Glossop—have conservation areas in the town centre, which are funded by English Heritage. Buxton is a magnificent spa town; it makes Bath look like a tub with a leg at each corner. One only has to look at the 18th-century Georgian crescent to see its potential as a major tourism centre.
    Just behind the crescent, we have the unique dome—dare I mention the word—of the Devonshire Royal hospital which, like the crescent, is very much in need of large amounts of funding to preserve, maintain and enhance its heritage value. Literally, the funding is needed to save them for the nation. They are potential beneficiaries of lottery funding, and the Pavilion gardens in Buxton is an actual beneficiary. The gardens are being restored to their Victorian splendour.
    I have been delighted by the way in which the former chair of the heritage lottery board, Lord Rothschild, and his successor, Mr. Anderson, have expressed an interest

    415
    in the future of Buxton and its heritage value. They would be the first to agree that a heritage strategy should be just that, and not a series of piecemeal responses to situations as they arise. A strategy is needed for conserving our heritage to make sure that we do not just conserve, but that we enhance and promote access to our heritage and celebrate it. That, too, is something that the Department will do.
    There is another heritage building, if I can call it that, in Buxton—the 1902 Buxton opera house, which is a Matcham theatre. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) has acknowledged that she has a Matcham theatre in her constituency. The two are joined by a rather slow and unreliable railway line between Buxton and Blackpool.
    There is no resident company at the opera house, and it is perhaps the least subsidised theatre in the country. It has—it must be admitted—less than perfect facilities. It is the subject of bids for lottery funding from both heritage and arts sources, and it has not been easy to get the two wings working together and co-operating for the future. We are working on that, and the local borough council has been committed to getting the funds operating together.
    In arts, it is not just the building, but what goes on in the building, that counts. At Buxton opera house, we have opera—as the name suggests—traditional and modern theatre, comedy, the choir of the year competition and lots of music. People my age enjoy the opportunity once a year to see Robert Plant and Jimmy Page reminding us of what Led Zeppelin were like at their best. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] They are appreciated not only on this side of the House.
    Currently, the Buxton opera house has the Buxton opera festival, and a magnificent first night a couple of weeks ago was enjoyed not only by myself and the former Minister for Arts, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), but by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the mayor, the leader of High Peak council, the leader of Derbyshire county council and the local Member of the European Parliament—a Labour clean sweep, I hasten to add. The theatre lacks subsidy, and the festival deserves assistance to guarantee its future. It has a thriving and growing fringe, and Buxton fringe festival is now one of the premier fringe festivals in the country.
    This weekend, when the opera festival ends, the Gilbert and Sullivan festival starts, and after that we have the festival of musical theatre—the arts are well and truly alive in Buxton. Again, that is an example of the need for strategy in the arts and in promoting arts. It is not just a question of people coming to see them in all their various forms, but of their becoming involved and taking part in the arts. The Department has a vital role to play in that.
    A major television series may be relocating its permanent film base to High Peak, and that would be welcome. I regret that I do not have the time to go into all the ways in which the voluntary sector has benefited from lottery funding, and the sport sector is benefiting from lottery funding within my constituency. However, all that is welcome.
    I am delighted to say that, over the past few days, it has been noticeable that a number of people from local and national voluntary organisations have expressed their
    416
    appreciation of the fact that the £1.8 billion that they knew they would get from the current lottery contract has now been guaranteed. In addition, many of them will have the opportunity to bid for funds from the new opportunities fund as well. I was delighted by the Secretary of State's announcement that Baroness Pitkeathley will chair that fund. That is a welcome appointment.
    All the issues I have raised point to the need for strategies and co-ordination, and for people to talk together to make sure that they are not going off in contrary directions. There is a need to break down barriers and to ensure that strategies for the arts, tourism, sport and the media are delivered through the various avenues that are available. This is an example of what has been called joined-up government, and represents fields in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his team have made an excellent start. The further £290 million in his budget will go a long way, and will have a significant effect in putting strategies further into place.
    I am certain that, as a result of that further investment, things will be better, not just for the people of High Peak but for all the very welcome visitors who will continue to come to my area.
    6.25 pm
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) is a good advocate for High Peak, but I do not want to talk exclusively about the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. This is a question of style over substance.
    We should have known long in advance that style would play the predominant role in this Government's life. Before the election, the clues were all there. I call it "The Colour Purple"—but not because of the film about racial discrimination in the deep south. That was far more subtle.
    First, we saw the future Prime Minister change his tie. It was a gradual process. The tie changed from red to red with blue polka dots. Then there was a further transformation—a blue tie with red polka dots; then a blue tie; then the final transmogrification took place—the colour purple.
    The backdrop at the Labour party conference—sadly, for the last time in Blackpool—changed colour from red to puce. It would have been pale blue, but that would have clashed with Tony's tie. Of course, those were the days when Labour considered Blackpool. After September, Blackpool will be no more—[Interruption.]—despite the protestations from the Minister for Sport.
    It is not just about colour. The Government are about alliteration. Government policies must all begin with the same letter. We have seen welfare-to-work, but, sadly, all the predictions now are for work-to-welfare. Almost every day we hear of boom and bust—the Prime Minister used the expression twice today at Prime Minister's Question Time. Yet the Government are the product of bust before they have even boomed.
    It is also a question of history. Drawing from the dustbowl of the American 1930s, there is Roosevelt's new deal. Away with YOPs—youth opportunity programmes, for those too young to remember. We have brought in the new deal. Is nothing original? Is nothing sacred?
    We also have Americana. Spin-doctoring is an American expression, seized with enthusiasm here following the new Secretary of State for Trade and

    417
    Industry's internship with the Clinton re-election campaign. However, I am pleased to inform the House that, thanks to the tastes of President Clinton, the prince of darkness has not had to reach an immunity deal with special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, and will not have to give evidence to a grand jury without fear of prosecution.
    If you want to know how the Prime Minister and the prince of darkness work, worry not about the dome. Just watch John Travolta in the movie "Primary Colours"—on release at a cinema near you soon.
    Lottery money has been plundered, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) said, from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, and the additionality principle has been cast aside like an unwanted toy, as have the Labour party's principles. Money earmarked for charities, the arts, heritage, the millennium and sport—normally starved of cash—has been diverted to health and education, because the Chancellor got his sums wrong when he was in opposition. Of course we value the national health service and education, but they have always been paid for by taxation.
    What is the current spin? The hapless Secretary of State has just triumphantly announced that he can maintain the current spending on charities, the arts, heritage and sport into the next decade. A big hurrah. Where will the hundreds of millions of pounds a year from the millennium fund go when that is completed at the end of 2001? Will that be robbed from the Department, too? I invite the Secretary of State, who is leaning back comfortably, to say whether the hundreds of millions of pounds currently allocated to the millennium fund will be drawn back into the arts, heritage and sport. Will he answer me now? The silence is telling.
    I should have thought that the Secretary of State would thank the Select Committee for its support. By branding him nice but weak and ineffectual, we have preserved his place in the Cabinet. It is clear that the Prime Minister decided that he would not be dictated to by the press or Select Committees, as witnessed by embarrassments such as the Paymaster General and the Foreign Office Minister responsible for Sierra Leone, who have also retained their salary cheques and Government drivers.
    It is nice to see that both the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth)—who once served as a member of my party on the National Heritage Select Committee in the previous Parliament—and the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) are members of the team. The latter was also, in effect, on the same side as me, when we, alone except for Angela Rumbold, fought in Committee for Sunday trading and for ordinary people throughout the country who thought that they should not be dictated to by the nanny state.
    The biggest example of style or spin, and one that I believe is an attempt to mask the Government's biggest mistake, is the so-called independence of the Bank of England. It is not truly independent. Alan Greenspan enjoys an independent Federal Reserve in Washington. "Independent" means that he can set interest rate and inflation targets; but the Bank of England has no such authority in the United Kingdom.
    Eddie George has to act like a high street bank manager, obeying memos from the Chancellor saying, unreasonably, that inflation targets should stay as they are while they drift up slightly in Europe and the United
    418
    States of America. The object of having low inflation is to keep our goods competitive, but they are not competitive, because the value of the pound is so high.
    With brooding eyes and a dour face, Brown—I am sorry, I meant to say Brezhnev—used to write out spending and income proposals in the naive belief that, if it was written in his grand office, it would be done. It is not like that: one cannot set a three-year plan—a Gosplan. Despite all the spin, the welfare-to-work programme and all the other measures have failed to get welfare spending under control.
    Every week, another statement is issued on new Government spending, as a product of the departmental commissioning of yet another focus group paid for by our—the taxpayers'—money, yet every week analysis shows that there is double counting, with the inclusion of initiatives announced only the previous week. If the Government were a company, the Serious Fraud Office would already have launched a dawn raid, and the books would have been carted off in police vans.
    A Government who treat their electorate as gullible fools—with contempt—ignore the lessons of history. The Mississippi cardsharp and trickster may win in the short term, but he ends up with the bullet in the head. Democracy gives the electorate the loaded gun. The Government will be judged on what they can deliver, not on promises, style or spin.
    6.34 pm
    Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I want to dwell on the serious subject of tourism, which does not feature strongly in the Government's current priorities. I thank the Secretary of State for meeting the officers of the all-party tourism group this morning. It was a good meeting, and I hope that the discussions may be a spur to his Department to concentrate more on tourism.
    Tourism is a large and vital industry, worth £40 billion a year. It has grown successfully, largely unaided by Government—a fact which I applaud. My constituency is a seaside resort, and relies heavily on tourism. Tourism has grown to the point where strategic planning is essential to overcome the problems caused by fragmentation, and to protect the environment.
    The Department of Culture, Media and Sport—a new spin doctor title which does not even recognise Britain's fifth biggest industry—has produced a spending review document in which an industry of such importance to the creation of new jobs appears to have been tagged on at the end as a flimsy four-page afterthought.
    I join the many who applaud the increase in funding for the British Tourist Authority, which markets Britain so well abroad, but I cannot understand why England alone in the British isles should be singled out and—probably—left without a national tourist board that is independent of commercial and big business interests.
    Small businesses in England have already lost out over section 4 grants, which used to be available to improve and upgrade individual premises. The previous Government abolished them in England, but not, strange as it may seem, in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, despite the fact that England plays host to 80 per cent. of the tourists who come to Britain. What will the Government do for small businesses in our resorts and tourist attractions to make up for that loss of funding?

    419
    The existing accommodation facilities in many of our seaside resorts are falling below the standards acceptable to visitors. The owners can no longer find funding to upgrade, and they are shutting down in large numbers. What will the Government do to prevent seaside areas from turning into boarded-up streets with rundown houses in multiple occupancy? The appearance of such streets at the heart of our resorts drives visitors away, and whole communities are in danger of being lost for ever.
    I am talking not about old-style manufacturing industries for which there is no longer a market, but about viable communities that are relevant in the service industry age, and they require only modest funding to upgrade. Will the funding from regional development agencies pay only for grand projects, or can funds be directed to smaller businesses?
    Those agencies could become quangos—I hope not—and regional tourist boards are private companies, of which only 20 per cent. of the industry are members. The remaining 80 per cent. are small businesses. They are often excluded from regional tourist boards' information services, and almost always seek the advice and information that at present is provided free by the English tourist board. Who will provide that direct service for our severely pressed small businesses—a private company, the mandarins in the Department or the most sensible body: the English tourist board?
    In the Secretary of State's own words, the tourist industry is "byzantine and complex", which I am sure refers to the severely fragmented nature of the industry. He appears to want to pass strategic control to so many businesses in so many fields of the industry. Private companies compete—it is the nature of the market economy—rather than co-ordinate with one another. The English tourist board, as an independent organisation free from commercial interest, works hard to co-ordinate with local authorities, which have long been the greatest investors in tourism. Many private organisations still regard local authorities as an obstruction rather than a resource.
    The English tourist board, as a publicly funded organisation, is concerned with the 30 or 40 per cent. of the population who do not take any holidays at all. Many of those people are socially excluded: people with disabilities, carers, and the poor. The English tourist board has worked strenuously to promote such aspects as access at visitor attractions, accommodation, and other tourist facilities. It is not only the income-producing side of tourism that is of value; the cultural, educational and leisure side provided to the consumer indirectly benefits us all. The private sector is most unlikely to promote greater accessibility without a clear profit motive.
    The English tourist board has recently helped introduce, and is actively promoting, a new nationwide hotel accommodation rating system, as mentioned by the Secretary of State. We are finally starting to move away from the quaint and quirky stars and crowns that confuse many people, especially overseas visitors. The new system is simple, and facilities-based. It is being introduced across England, and the consumer is finally getting some clarity. Would competing regional tourist boards and development agencies introduce such a
    420
    system, or would they hold out for one that favoured their providers, as has occurred in other areas of the UK? We would then end up with no progress being made.
    Much of the work of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport has been concerned with image, but important issues such as the strength of the pound and the second highest level of VAT in Europe being levied on our accommodation providers are brushed under the carpet. An extensive report by Deloitte and Touche commissioned by the British Tourist Authority into the likely effects on the industry, and revenue to the Treasury, of cutting VAT on accommodation to average European levels has brought little response, positive or negative, from the Department or the Treasury, despite having being on the table for five months. Are its findings to be rejected outright, investigated further or ignored entirely?
    After 15 months, everything still appears to be under review. The enduring strength of the pound is a great concern to all tourism service providers, yet the Treasury appears not to recognise that the issue is crucial to businesses that seek to attract overseas visitors, who are increasingly discouraged from travelling to Britain, and to the small businesses of our resorts which are suffering from the loss in trade as customers take advantage of the cheapness of travelling abroad. Tourism is crying out for direction, but I do not think that the Government are giving it.
    6.42 pm
    Mr. Richard Spring: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated. As Opposition spokesman, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who were unfailingly polite and helpful. I wish them well in future.
    On Friday morning, the Secretary of State made an announcement about his departmental budget. Characteristically, he did not make it on the Floor. He said that it was the biggest increase in cultural funding and talked of a sum of some £290 million, which he used again today. I am afraid that he is arithmetically challenged. On his birthday recently, he turned 47. God willing, in a year's time, he will turn 48. Using the methodology employed in his departmental totals, he will not turn 48 but 95. Analysis of his figures shows that that is what has happened.
    The spin on the figure of £290 million is symptomatic of the media hype and distortion characteristic of the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman disbelieves me, he can check with the Library. He could send his parliamentary private secretary to the Members' Lobby to check the letter board, where there is a detailed explanation of how the figure is so entirely wrong. It is not £290 million or even half that. In real terms, allowing for 2.5 per cent. inflation, the figure is £52 million. So much for his fantasy figure.
    If one thing in the lifetime of this Government sums up everything that my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) talked about, it is tobacco sponsorship of sport. The Minister for Sport knows that angling is 85 per cent. supported by tobacco manufacturers, darts 95 per cent., and pool 75 per cent. It is the same for billiards, snooker, greyhound racing, show jumping and so on. All those sports are dependent

    421
    on this form of sponsorship, yet, out of the blue, the Secretary of State for Health announced that the situation would change. No one was consulted and no sports governing body was forewarned.
    In the following autumn, Bernie Ecclestone got an audience with the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing street. The great principle that we had heard about vanished overnight, and formula one got an exemption. The only thing lacking was lavender writing paper. The explanation given by the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about this fiasco and the betrayal of sporting bodies and interests was:
    "The Government behaved out of character. We acted against our own principles—that honesty is the first principle of good communications."
    Early in the year, representatives of the sports facing decimation met the Prime Minister to discuss the exemption. They were told that help would be forthcoming. In May, the Minister for Sport said that there was an adequate possibility of adequate substitutes being found. It is disgraceful that, again, the decision was made without consultation, or any knowledge of the level of sponsorship or the impact on individual sports. However, an exemption was given for a rich and powerful person, who was able to go to No. 10 having given a large amount of money to the Labour party. That is the truth because the task force has never met. Sporting bodies up and down the country are horrified about their treatment by the Government.
    The Government and the Labour party are controlled by a magic circle. We have heard about Derek Draper's 17 most powerful individuals, and the lobbyists and spin doctors with the ear, and influence, of politicians. They meet over endless quantities of champagne and canapés. In July, the magazine Tatler, which is widely read in Labour clubs, produced a list of the most sought-after guests in the best circles—the top party people.
    On 7 July, the Daily Mail printed the list of people described as the top 50 "Hot Guests". I am sorry to say that the Secretary of State was not among them—he was only No. 68—but, lo and behold, even ahead of Sarah, Duchess of York was the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We read that these:
    "Party-goers from the worlds of modelling, showbusiness, the arts and politics are among the most wanted guests."
    It must be a great pleasure to the members of the Hartlepool Labour Association to know that, when they sent their man to the House of Commons, not only did he come to have such great influence, but he came to mix in the extraordinary world that has been brought to our attention so dramatically in the past few weeks. How proud they must be of his achievements. The article starts:
    "Gilt-edged invitations spill from the mantlepiece and their champagne glasses run over. Seen at the best gatherings and sometimes known to host their own, their presence guarantees a party to remember".
    That is what the Labour party has come to: if one is rich and powerful, one gets favours from the Prime Minister, and influence is derived through a charmed magic circle of people who drink champagne and eat canapés together. I am sorry that the Minister for Sport is not a part of all that.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): I do not get invited.
    Mr. Spring: The Minister will just have to try harder.
    The one thing that has brought to light the whole spinning fiasco of the Government is the handling of the millennium dome—£758 million of public money has been allocated to the dome project, along with yet more spinning, more misinformation and more interference. On 22 February on "Breakfast with Frost", the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry spoke about the birth of a baby dome. I had been to the dome a matter of days previously and did not recall having seen anything like that. Nevertheless, the remark achieved the desired effect—the right hon. Gentleman got his headlines—but it was, of course, utter rubbish and no such thing as a baby dome existed.
    Other announcements that have brought the whole dome project into disrepute include the original proposals for a recumbent, androgynous figure. The figure was to have a baby in a nappy, but there was something wrong with the nappy and a case of infanticide ensued. Gradually, the recumbent, androgynous figure turned into a figure that was sitting up. Now, finally, the British people are being treated to the sight in their newspapers of Siamese twins—a combination of chest and breasts, seated, with only one pair of legs. The point is that that is no way to deal with an important project in the life of our country; it has been spun out of control and has turned the project into an utter laughing stock.
    Incidentally, we heard from the same right hon. Gentleman that the great millennial sport was to be something called surfball. However, we discovered that no such game existed—it was purely illustrative—and that, throughout, the right hon. Gentleman had been talking complete and utter surfballs himself.
    The Labour Government inherited what the International Monetary Fund called the finest economy anywhere in western Europe, but even Der Spiegel this week talks about the culture of cronyism, the atmosphere that surrounds the Government, the sense of decay and the setting in of recession. When the British people come to judge the Government, as they surely will, the issues of spin over substance and the appalling way in which major national projects and the economy have been treated will come home to roost. The part played by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and those like him will be central in making the people turn on the Government for leading them up the garden path.
    6.52 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): I have little time in which to respond to some of the points that have been raised. I have to say that the Opposition's contribution to the debate has not been a triumph of style over substance; as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, there has been no style and no substance. It is amazing that the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) should come along here, and moan and whinge about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when it seems that his main complaint is that he does not get invited to all the parties to which my right hon. Friend receives invitations.
    I did note that, when the hon. Gentleman mentioned the amount of champagne that apparently gets drunk at those parties, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) squeaked into life. When champagne is mentioned,

    423
    his interest is aroused. A little while ago, he ambled in from his club like some gargantuan summer pudding; he stayed for 15 minutes, made a wholly irrelevant point and then wobbled off back to his club. That is the sort of attitude displayed by Conservative Members that we have to deal with.
    The fact is that style is not a substitute for substance—of course one understands that point. However, style is important and the Labour Government are committed to a style of government that is open—a modern style of state in respect of constitutional change, and a greater democratic style through devolution. The idea that there is no substance behind the style of the Government is arrant nonsense, and the Opposition should understand that. After all, it was not the leader of the Labour party who went around wearing a baseball hat with his name on the front. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) was trying to remind others who he was, or trying to remind himself. Do not talk to us about style.
    As for the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), I thought at one point that he had taken leave of his senses and that Madam Speaker was contemplating using her powers under the Mental Health Acts to certify him. He spoke about purple ties and I do not know what he was going on about, but I should greatly prefer a purple tie worn by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the abortion that the hon. Gentleman is currently wearing around his neck. He was doing his impersonation of the boy standing on the burning deck, but let me tell him why the boy was standing there alone: everyone else had had the good sense to get off when they smelt burning. The hon. Gentleman still does not know when to get out of one of his own speeches.
    The speeches with which I should have liked to deal in some depth were the thoughtful ones made by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), who both made some very good points. I join Opposition Members in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). Both worked hard and assiduously, and did a lot of excellent work. We all know that, at times, politics is a rough trade, and that we might share their experience in future.
    The comments of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross about the arm's-length principle were extremely significant. He knows my personal feelings on that point—I feel that it is something that belongs to the past. We should be able to trust ourselves as politicians and as Ministers in terms of what we do because if we cannot, how can we expect others to trust us? The subject is worthy of being returned to and given careful consideration.
    It is not that we want to intervene daily in the arts or in sport. The right hon. Gentleman understands that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants to set out a broad strategy for arts, sport and culture in this country, while leaving the detailed working to those bodies that we have set up—the arts councils and the sports councils. In many ways, my right hon. Friend sees his relationship to those bodies as being like the Home Secretary's relationship to the police authorities: the Home Secretary
    424
    sets out a broad strategy, but does not interfere in the day-to-day operations of the police. The House should return to that subject, because it belongs to the days of Keynes. He said, in effect, "When circumstances change, I change my mind—what do you do?" That is a perfectly reasonable approach for us to adopt.
    On the question of the tourist boards, let me tell the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross that the chairmen of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland tourist boards attend the British Tourist Authority board meetings. The BTA co-operates closely with them and that will continue. A consultation period is currently under way, and we shall listen carefully to representations and take them into account. However, it is a fact that we have to look at the adequacy of the existing structures for supporting the tourism industry and it is right that we should do so.
    I have to tell the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) that it was she who coined the phrase "Cool Britannia". I wish that she had not done it, because nothing appears so silly as politicians using phrases that they think are cool in an attempt to seem in touch with popular culture. Of course we want to be popular, but not by trying to hijack other people's language.
    I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), whom we supported in setting up the lottery. The right hon. Lady was right to say that it has brought enormous benefits to sport, arts and culture. We warmly supported the lottery when we were in opposition, so we need no lessons about how it benefits people.
    There are many other points that I should like to make. On Blackpool—[Interruption.] I simply do not have enough time because so many Opposition Members used it up. We shall go back to Blackpool. We are taking the Labour party conference around the country to another good seaside town—Bournemouth—but I assure the House that I will again be seen walking down the front at Blackpool with my kiss-me-quick hat and a little stick of Blackpool rock in my hand. It is a great town and we love going there. I can assure the House that the Labour party will always return to Blackpool, knowing that there is no fear of contradiction from anyone.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 355.

    Division No. 351]

    [7 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Amess, David

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Clappison, James

    Arbuthnot, James

    Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Collins, Tim

    Bercow, John

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Cran, James

    Body, Sir Richard

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Boswell, Tim

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Brady, Graham

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Brazier, Julian

    Duncan, Alan

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Evans, Nigel

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Faber, David

    Burns, Simon

    Fabricant, Michael

    Cash, William

    Fallon, Michael

    425

    Flight, Howard

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Fox, Dr Liam

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Fraser, Christopher

    Moss, Malcolm

    Gale, Roger

    Ottaway, Richard

    Garnier, Edward

    Paice, James

    Gibb, Nick

    Paterson, Owen

    Gill, Christopher

    Pickles, Eric

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Prior, David

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Randall, John

    Gray, James

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Green, Damian

    Robathan, Andrew

    Grieve, Dominic

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Hammond, Philip

    Ruffley, David

    Hawkins, Nick

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Hayes, John

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Heald, Oliver

    Shepherd, Richard

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Soames, Nicholas

    Horam, John

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Hunter, Andrew

    Spring, Richard

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Steen, Anthony

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Streeter, Gary

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Swayne, Desmond

    Syms, Robert

    Key, Robert

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Tredinnick, David

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Trend, Michael

    Lansley, Andrew

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Leigh, Edward

    Viggers, Peter

    Letwin, Oliver

    Wardle, Charles

    Lidington, David

    Wells, Bowen

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Whittingdale, John

    Loughton, Tim

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Luff, Peter

    Wilkinson, John

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Willetts, David

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Wilshire, David

    MacKay, Andrew

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Woodward, Shaun

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Yeo, Tim

    Madel, Sir David

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Malins, Humfrey

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Maples, John

    Mr. Nigel Waterson and Mr. Stephen Day.

    Mates, Michael

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Alexander, Douglas

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Allan, Richard

    Benton, Joe

    Allen, Graham

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Berry, Roger

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Best, Harold

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Betts, Clive

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Blackman, Liz

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Blair, Rt Hon Tony

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Austin, John

    Blizzard, Bob

    Baker, Norman

    Boateng, Paul

    Ballard, Jackie

    Borrow, David

    Banks, Tony

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Barron, Kevin

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Battle, John

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Bayley, Hugh

    Brake, Tom

    Beard, Nigel

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    426

    Brown, Rt Hon Gordon(Dunfermline E)

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Fisher, Mark

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Browne, Desmond

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Burden, Richard

    Foulkes, George

    Burgon, Colin

    Fyfe, Maria

    Burnett, John

    Gapes, Mike

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Byers, Stephen

    Gerrard, Neil

    Caborn, Richard

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

    Goggins, Paul

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Canavan, Dennis

    Gorrie, Donald

    Cann, Jamie

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Grocott, Bruce

    Caton, Martin

    Hain, Peter

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Chaytor, David

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Chidgey, David

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hancock, Mike

    Clapham, Michael

    Hanson, David

    Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Harvey, Nick

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Healey, John

    Clelland, David

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Cohen, Harry

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Coleman, Iain

    Heppell, John

    Colman, Tony

    Hesford, Stephen

    Connarty, Michael

    Hill, Keith

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Corbett, Robin

    Hoey, Kate

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hood, Jimmy

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Cotter, Brian

    Hope, Phil

    Cousins, Jim

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Cox, Tom

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Cranston, Ross

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Crausby, David

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cummings, John

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Hutton, John

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Dalyell, Tam

    Illsley, Eric

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Ingram, Adam

    Darvill, Keith

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Denham, John

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Jowell, Ms Tessa

    Doran, Frank

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Dowd, Jim

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Drew, David

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Keetch, Paul

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

    Efford, Clive

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Kidney, David

    Ennis, Jeff

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Etherington, Bill

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    427

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Morley, Elliot

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Mudie, George

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Mullin, Chris

    Laxton, Bob

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Levitt, Tom

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

    Linton, Martin

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Livingstone, Ken

    Norris, Dan

    Livsey, Richard

    Oaten, Mark

    Love, Andrew

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    McAllion, John

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    O'Hara, Eddie

    McCabe, Steve

    Olner, Bill

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Öpik, Lembit

    McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

    Pendry, Tom

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Macdonald, Calum

    Pickthall, Colin

    McDonnell, John

    Pike, Peter L

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Plaskitt, James

    Mclsaac, Shona

    Pollard, Kerry

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Pound, Stephen

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    McLeish, Henry

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Primarolo, Dawn

    McNulty, Tony

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Purchase, Ken

    McWalter, Tony

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    McWilliam, John

    Raynsford, Nick

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Rendel, David

    Mandelson, Peter

    Rogers, Allan

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Rooney, Terry

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Roy, Frank

    Martlew, Eric

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Maxton, John

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Merron, Gillian

    Salter, Martin

    Michael, Alun

    Sanders, Adrian

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Milburn, Alan

    Sawford, Phil

    Miller, Andrew

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Mitchell, Austin

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Moffatt, Laura

    Sheerman, Barry

    Moore, Michael

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    428

    Singh, Marsha

    Truswell, Paul

    Skinner, Dennis

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Tyler, Paul

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Vaz, Keith

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

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Soley, Clive

    Wallace, James

    Spellar, John

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Wareing, Robert N

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Webb, Steve

    Stevenson, George

    White, Brian

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Willis, Phil

    Stunell, Andrew

    Wills, Michael

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Winnick, David

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Wise, Audrey

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Wood, Mike

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Woolas, Phil

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Worthington, Tony

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Timms, Stephen

    Wyatt, Derek

    Tipping, Paddy

    Todd, Mark

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. Greg Pope.

    Touhig, Don

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House commends the Government for its progress on major matters of substance across all fields of responsibility, and in particular for its recognition of the cultural, social, educational and economic value of the areas of activity sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and for the concrete action taken across all parts of the Department's responsibilities over the last year to maximise that value; welcomes the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review, which provides for a significant investment in culture, sport, heritage and tourism alongside positive steps to reduce bureaucracy and ensure the most effective use of public money; and notes that this brings to an end a damaging period of real cuts presided over by the Opposition.

    Rural Areas
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): At the outset, I should say that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    7.14 pm
    Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
    That this House deplores the Government's continued failure to protect both the Green Belt and greenfield sites from excessive development; is concerned about how transport and housing policy is neglecting the needs of the countryside; condemns the recent government proposal to cut the discount available to council tenants exercising the right to buy; and calls on the Government to end its systematic attack on the quality of rural life.
    I congratulate the Minister for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), on surviving this week's reshuffle. I do not know whether he was helped by the scorn poured on his head by a disgraced lobbyist a few weeks ago; he may care to enlighten us later. Even if the Prime Minister shared the lobbyist's view, he may have been reluctant to show it by moving the Minister from his post. I wondered whether the new Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), would attend the debate, but, apparently, he is not present. We may at least be relieved that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), will not reply to the debate; he is famous for his comments that the green belt was up for grabs and that the green belt west of London was a tip.
    It is six months and two days since the House debated the protection of the countryside, and that debate—like today's—took place in Opposition time. In that debate, the motion deplored the Government's decisions to allow large-scale development in the countryside. It expressed concern that the protection of the green belt and green spaces was being weakened. It urged the Government to increase the share of new housing built on previously development land. Such is the cynicism of the Government's approach that those concerns are as relevant today as they were six months ago. On that issue, as on so many others, the Government's rhetoric is not matched by substance; actions do not follow words.
    Sadly, we are getting used to the fact that new Labour breaks its promises on a huge scale—on taxes, on NHS waiting lists and on school class sizes. I suppose that we can at least say that those promises were all made before the Government took office. What is so disgraceful about Labour's approach to the countryside is the fact that it cannot even honour the pledges that it made six months ago.
    Today's debate, however, is about more than broken promises. It is about the damage being done, week in, week out, to the countryside and to rural communities throughout England—damage to environments that have been cherished for generations, environments that Labour is destroying with a ruthlessness that no previous Labour Government, however left wing, ever showed. [Laughter.]
    The debate is about the destruction of the green belt, a subject that Labour Back Benchers—this will not be recorded in Hansard unless I say it, so it needs to be said—find hilariously funny. The cornerstone of the protection that the planning system has offered the country for half a century is being destroyed by the Government and laughed at by Labour Back Benchers.
    430
    The debate is about the development on green fields that should be protected; about the erosion of the role of local authorities; about the transfer of power to remote and bureaucratic regional quangos; about how the rural areas are being starved of cash; about the record increases in council tax; about housing and transport policies that ignore the needs of the countryside; and about tenants who want to buy their own homes and who are now being penalised. The tragedy is that so much of that damage is irreversible.
    All that is made worse by the collapse of farm incomes—a collapse caused by new Labour and overseen by a Minister now promoted to the role of great enforcer. "Great executioner" would be a more apt title, after what he did to British farmers.
    Mr. David Taylor: I have frequently heard the hon. Gentleman, in Committee and elsewhere, mention the Government's damaging actions on the green belt. Does he agree that, considering the area of land on brown-field sites that has been built on since Labour came to power, our track record has been better—as have our targets for the next two or three years—than the last five years of the Government of which he was a member?
    Mr. Yeo: I did my best to follow the hon. Gentleman's point. With regard to the target, under the previous Government, the proportion of houses built on previously developed sites rose from 38 to 50 per cent. and was steadily rising, year on year. That is a record of which the previous Government could rightly be proud. It was only under pressure from the Opposition that the Labour party accepted that the target should continue to be set at a higher level.
    The Secretary of State—who is absent from his place today, as he was at the end of January when we debated protecting the countryside—made a statement in the House, on 23 February 1998, Official Report, columns 21–25, about planning for the communities of the future. He described the introduction of a sequential approach to the location of new housing and a phased approach to the release of land as "an important element" in his proposals. Recycled land in urban areas should be built on first, he said, before green-field sites were bulldozed. I agree.
    What has the Secretary of State done to carry out that pledge? What has he done to take forward that important Government policy? Nothing. Six months later, we are still waiting for a single action to be taken in support of the policy. No new planning policy guidance has been issued. Not a single county has been allowed to revise its structure plan. There is no sign whatever that the Secretary of State has the remotest intention of altering his policy of forcing more and more development on to green-field sites—a policy that he pursues regardless of local opinion and the damage that his decisions cause.
    On 23 February, the Secretary of State identified the first key element, as he called it, of the Government's new approach as "increased flexibility." Despite that, he has persisted in a totally inflexible manner with his legal battle to impose an extra 12,800 new homes on West Sussex, in defiance of the wishes of all three political parties on the county council. Even at this 11th hour, with the decision of the court expected any

    431
    day, the Secretary of State could repent. His refusal to do so makes it clear that the Labour group leader on West Sussex county council spoke the truth when he said:
    "This is the starkest possible illustration that the Government has no intention of trying to provide a greater share of the new homes said to be required by 2016 on brown field sites, rather than on green field sites in the countryside."
    Next door, in Hampshire, the county council has made clear its wish, in the light of the Government's February statement, to reduce the total of 56,000 houses in its draft structure plan to 42,000. As the leader of Hampshire county council said:
    "The people of Hampshire expect us to do this."
    What will the Minister tell the people of Hampshire tonight? Does he accept their view, or is new Labour's claim that the top-down system of fixing the number of new homes needed in a county would be abolished just another empty promise—a promise given to get through an awkward debate and then consigned to the rubbish bin?
    Mr. Tom King: I have the report of Somerset county council's consideration of the examination in public panel report. The county council is fighting against the proposal for more than 50,000 houses to be built in Somerset. It is as though the welcome statement from the Secretary of State those many months ago had never been made. The entire policy and process continue, with no move by the Secretary of State or the Department to draw up new rules and arrangements. Is not the situation grave? Pressure on green-field sites will not change, given the appalling crisis that agriculture faces, with farm incomes in the south-west—the worst affected region—predicted to be 80 per cent. below those of the previous year. The temptation for many farmers facing no prospect of a future in farming will be to sell their land for development.
    Mr. Yeo: My right hon. Friend is right. The words that the Secretary of State spoke in February and when he replied to our debate in January were empty phrases, devoid of meaning and lacking any follow-up action. As my right hon. Friend points out, this is a crisis of particularly serious proportions because of the difficulty faced by farmers throughout the country.
    The damage that results from the crisis and directly from the Government's failure to act on their previous statement is irreversible. In some senses, it is even more serious than the problem of someone who may be made redundant. It takes a week or two to get another job, but he does find another job. Once a green field has been built on, it practically never reverts to its original use. The damage that results, which my right hon. Friend correctly identified, is serious and permanent. It makes a mockery of the Government's claim in their amendment to tonight's motion that they are in favour of sustainable development. There is nothing sustainable about their present policy.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that redundancy is a serious matter, although he did not present it as such a moment ago? Does he also agree that unemployment in rural areas continues to fall? In the two rural constituencies in Cumbria, unemployment is 2 per cent. or below.
    Mr. Yeo: Of course redundancy is a serious matter. The distinction that I tried to draw is that it is a problem that has a solution, but, once a green-field site has been concreted over, there is no solution. With regard to the figures that the hon. Gentleman cites, they vary from one part of the country to another.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: One in 20 homes in the north-west lies empty. There are more empty houses in England than all the houses in Birmingham. One and a half million homes are unfit for human habitation; 1997 was not year zero. What did the previous Government do to address those issues, which would have relieved the pressure on green-field sites?
    Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman conveniently overlooks the fact that a high proportion of those empty homes belong to, and are managed by, Labour local councils. The worst 10 councils in the country for keeping council properties empty are all Labour. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about resources, why do five Labour councils have £.100 million of uncollected rent on their council properties? Up to one fifth of the rent roll in five Labour councils remains uncollected. No wonder there are some repairs that need attention.
    In Berkshire, 2,500 homes are proposed for a green-field site around the village of Grazeley. Wokingham council does not want such a big development there. The people of Grazeley do not want such a big development. Alternative brown-field sites exist nearby—sites that are closer to where all those new residents would work—but the Government refuse to act. This week, Wokingham council unanimously passed a motion urging the Government to redraft the relevant planning guidance. When will they do so?
    Those examples make a mockery of the Government's claim that they want to achieve a target of 60 per cent. of new homes on previously developed sites. The Secretary of State is a modern-day Nero, but worse—not just fiddling while Rome burns, and not just dithering while the bulldozers move in, but going to court to cover England with concrete against the wishes of the people.
    If the Government are to regain credibility, the Minister must first announce that all county structure plans currently in review must be halted to allow the counties concerned to change them in the light of the 60 per cent. target. Secondly, he must publish new planning guidance introducing the sequential approach. Six months have been wasted. No more time can be lost.
    The second key element in the Government's approach was "more decentralisation". That claim was made at the very time when the House was considering the Regional Development Agencies Bill, which proposed new powers for the Secretary of State to abolish the planning role of any elected council in England. The new powers would allow him to transfer that role to an unelected quango answerable only to himself. Opposition pressure forced the Government to abandon that outrageous idea.
    Regional development agencies will still take power and resources away from elected councils. Members of RDAs are appointed by Ministers, their budgets are set by Ministers, their strategies are determined by Ministers and they are accountable only to Ministers. Their entire agenda is urban based. It reflects what

    433
    Country Life described as the Government's "fixation with Britain's cities." As the Rural Development Commission pointed out in its dying breath,
    "policy makers are ignoring the problems"
    of rural areas and
    "the result is that rural areas lose out on essential programmes and funding."
    No wonder the commission is being abolished. Spelling out inconvenient truths is not acceptable to Labour's control freaks.
    The Government's response is to cut the resources of local councils in rural areas. This year, the Government slashed £94 million from the standard spending assessments of rural local authorities. Support for the police in Lincolnshire and Wiltshire was cut in cash terms. Oxfordshire's SSA was cut by £8 million, Kent's by more than £7 million and Suffolk's by £4 million.
    Two weeks ago, the small print of the comprehensive spending review warned that council tax will rise year on year on year as the Government cut their help for local councils. Council tax will rise in real terms by 5 per cent. in each of the next three years even if councils do not increase their services. Those rises will come on top of the record rises that we have already seen this year. In the current year, rural authorities are bearing the brunt of council tax rises. On average, council tax in the shire districts rose by more than 11 per cent., more than double the average increase in London. Many county councils fared even worse. In Norfolk, where central Government help was slashed, council tax rose by 15 per cent. How much worse will all this get?
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, alongside the swingeing attacks on standard spending assessment provision, there is a group of local authorities that is having special difficulties? Those groups are represented by the Town and Country Issues Group. They have combined rural and urban characteristics and, under the present regime, they are facing special difficulties that should be considered.
    Mr. Yeo: My right hon. Friend is right. There are particular difficulties for councils whose populations straddle two very different types of area. The danger is that rural councils and the taxpayers who live in rural areas will be penalised yet again.
    Last Wednesday, the Government sneaked out, by way of a press release, an important change in housing policy, using a procedure that prevented any hon. Member from asking a question. The document contained a warning that tenants wanting to buy their homes will now have to pay more than before. For almost two decades, council tenants enjoyed increasingly favourable opportunities for home ownership. This week, that policy has been reversed. From now on, councils will receive extra help to buy up privately owned homes in their areas.
    The right to buy transformed the lives of more than 1 million families, including many in rural areas. This week, new Labour has started to dismantle the right to buy. The changed housing policy involves a big role for councils, a very old Labour approach. Predictably, the needs of rural areas were scarcely mentioned in last week's document. That is another example of how new Labour always puts the interests of the countryside at the bottom of its agenda.
    434
    My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) will refer to transport when he winds up on behalf of the Opposition. The Government's approach to transport appears to be based on old Labour tax-and-spend instincts. There have been three huge increases in petrol tax—
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Yeo: No. I have given way too often.
    There have been three huge increases in petrol tax in less than a year, which have hit rural motorists hard. No amount of public spending, particularly that which is confined to buses and does not extend to taxis, can prevent people in small rural villages from remaining dependent on their cars.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that the fuel tax inflator mechanism that was put in place in the Budget, resulting in price rises of 6 per cent. over and above inflation, will result in a rise in diesel and petrol prices this year of more than 45p per gallon? Will that not hit people in rural areas especially hard, and is it not a mean measure from the Government?
    Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. It is a most shocking increase. It is a huge burden and one which is disproportionately borne by those who live in rural areas.
    I want to help the Minister when he responds to the debate because I shall ask for three assurances that are easy for him to give. None will result in extra public spending or require new legislation, but his answers will be the litmus test of whether his Government are willing to learn from their past mistakes. First, will the right hon. Gentleman publish immediately, without more delay, planning guidance incorporating the sequential approach supported by the Opposition and by many outside the House? Secondly, will he halt immediately further progress on all county structure plans in review so that counties may reflect the Government's target of 60 per cent. of new houses to be built on recycled land? Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman stop penalising rural councils and rural taxpayers by fiddling with the formula for distributing central Government cash to local authorities?
    Unless the Minister gives those assurances, the House will know that Labour's claim to be concerned about the countryside is just another failed soundbite. The Government's attitude to the countryside started with denial that any problem existed. From denial, it moved into panic at the huge level of public concern that was so effectively demonstrated in the march last spring. The Government now rest in confusion about how to tackle the mess that their policies have created. That is confusion for which all men, women and children in rural areas throughout the country are paying. It is confusion that is permanently damaging our rural heritage. This evening, we can take the first step to ending that confusion by approving the motion, and I commend it to the House.
    7.36 pm
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    `congratulates the Government on its commitment to promote sustainable development in all areas of the United Kingdom including rural areas; recognises the progress which has been made on improving rural services over the last fifteen months; welcomes the creation of powerful Regional Development Agencies which will promote prosperity in both towns and countryside; welcomes the creation of a new agency to promote the interests of the countryside in England by bringing together the Countryside Commission and parts of the Rural Development Commission; recognises the Government's determination to increase the proportion of new houses built on brownfield sites; and supports the Government's desire to give greater freedom for people to explore the open countryside.'.
    Having spent quite a long time in the House, I must say that I have rarely listened to such an over-the-top litany of synthetic whingeing. More than half the griping of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) was about green belt. No one would guess from his speech that 30,000 more hectares have been added to the green belt than have been taken away since the Government came to office.
    As for Hertfordshire, which the hon. Gentleman made much of, more than five times as much new land will be designated as green belt than the area proposed for development. Interestingly, and perhaps not surprisingly, the hon. Gentleman did not mention Newcastle. It is true that 500 hectares will be deleted from the green belt compared with 25,000 which the other local authorities in the north-east propose adding to it. In both Hertfordshire and Newcastle, more than 50 per cent. of new houses will be built on brown-field sites. In Newcastle, 8,250 of the 10,750 new homes needed will be built within existing built-up areas—more than 75 per cent.
    I ask—the House is bound to ask—what did the previous Government do? The previous Government—interestingly, this apparently escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice—directed three counties to increase their housing figures above those that they had proposed. In the case of Berkshire, that was an increase of 3,000 houses. It was an increase of just under 3,000 for Kent and one of more than 2,000 for Bedfordshire. As for West Sussex, which the hon. Gentleman also made much of, the proposal was that it should produce a 12,800 housing shortfall as against regional planning guidance, a cut of 25 per cent. What hypocrisy to suggest that the previous Government, having enforced increases on those three authorities, should have simply ignored the fact that there was to be a 12,800 shortfall in West Sussex.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all the Tories do when they loudly proclaim their love for the countryside is reveal their affinity for sheep? In power, they fleeced the rural areas; out of power, they bleat about them.
    Mr. Meacher: There are indeed quite a few fleecers and bleaters on the Conservative Benches, as this debate has shown.
    Listening to Conservative Members, one might think that the countryside was in crisis and that that situation had arisen since 1 May 1997. That is not only untrue, but laughable. The Rural Development Commission's most
    436
    recent survey showed what has been happening in rural parishes over the past two decades: 83 per cent. had no general practitioner; 75 per cent. had no daily bus service; 49 per cent. had no school; 43 per cent. had no post office; and 42 per cent. had no permanent shop. That survey was published in 1997, so which party presided over that unprecedented decline in rural services? Not Labour. It may be hard to believe that the motley crowd on the Conservative Benches were ever in government, but they were—for 18 years. What was their concern for rural Britain then?
    We came to power to put an end to the decline in rural services. Tonight, I have heard the most selective misrepresentations that I have ever heard, so I intend to set the record straight, in detail. In our first 15 months, we have provided an extra £50 million for rural transport; there are new proposals for supporting rural bus services; there is new rate relief for village shops to protect—
    Mr. Peter Luff: That was our policy.
    Mr. Meacher: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not concerned about extra shops. The aim of the relief is to protect single shops in some of our smallest communities. We have also provided extra protection for rural schools, so that any closure proposals must go to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment before a school can be closed. We are giving £150 million of extra support to the agricultural community as it begins to recover from the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis, which certainly began under the previous Government. And we are providing financial support to the dispensing services of pharmacists who are more than 1 km from another pharmacist.
    This afternoon, I announced details of my Department's proposed spending on rural programmes in the light of the comprehensive spending review. I am pleased to tell the House that spending will increase—[Interruption.] I do not think that that is particularly funny. If the hon. Member for South Suffolk was interested in the subject he purported to speak about, he would think it significant that spending will increase by more than 35 per cent. over the next three years. I shall discuss the announcement later.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: If all the Minister has said is true, why has the Labour MEP for Hereford and Shropshire said that the Government should listen to country people? He writes in Tribune:
    "In Shropshire, people genuinely thought that a Labour government would see the end of cuts in services such as education and social services.
    They were bitterly disappointed".
    Mr. Meacher: That is exactly what we are planning. There was a stream of closures under the previous Government, but we propose to put a stop to that, and any decision to close a school must come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. We are also concerned about the decline in social service provision in urban and rural areas, and the comprehensive spending review will make a massive difference after the decline of the past three to five years.

    437
    The hon. Member for South Suffolk is one of those who have continually said that Labour is an urban party and does not understand the countryside. Even he might have noticed that the electorate gave rather short shrift to that view, which is why the number of Labour Members representing rural constituencies is greater than the number of Conservative Members representing them. In fact, there are probably more Labour Members representing rural constituencies than there are Conservative Members.
    Judgment is not exactly a Conservative strong point. I too looked back at the countryside debate of 3 March. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) argued then that there was division between the Prime Minister and the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) over the countryside march. No doubt thinking that he was scoring a clever little point, he concluded:
    "It will not have done the right hon. Gentleman's career any good to have departed from the Prime Minister's line on the march."—[Official Report, 3 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 914.]
    The career of my right hon. Friend, who is now the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, is rather more successful than that of the right hon. Member for Fylde. With predictive powers such as that, no wonder the Tory Opposition lack credibility.
    The hon. Member for South Suffolk also forgets his history. I remind the House that a Labour Government created the town and country planning system, which has done so much to protect our rural areas from American-style urban sprawl, the green belt, national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. I admit that Labour did not create the Rural Development Commission, but then nor did the Conservatives. That was achieved by Lloyd George in 1909, in the teeth of fierce Tory opposition.
    Mr. Yeo: The Minister claims for Labour the credit for introducing the current system of planning controls. Be that history as it may, what a tragedy it is that the current generation of Ministers so fail to understand the purpose of the green belt that they think that building on one section of it is justified if, further out, they create more land that is designated green belt. The green belt surrounds an urban area; once that urban area starts to expand, the very purpose for which the green belt was created is destroyed.
    Mr. Meacher: That is simply nonsense. The purpose of the green belt is to provide an area surrounding cities for recreation in open countryside, but, as populations grow, as towns change in size, and as new towns are built, it is perfectly reasonable to intervene in the green belt if the overall impact is to increase its size. That has always been part of regional planning guidance note 2, and it is exactly the line that we have taken. Under the previous Government, there were interventions in the green belt without a corresponding increase in the size of the green belt overall.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister recall the Deputy Prime Minister saying that the green belt was a great Labour achievement and that we must build on it?
    Mr. Meacher: I remember that; my right hon. Friend has his own inimitable form of humour. As is always the case, we knew exactly what he meant and we agreed with him entirely.
    Labour is once again addressing the key issue of jobs and growth in rural areas through the regional development agencies. Average unemployment rates in rural areas have been coming down and are lower than those of urban areas. Business creation is strong and there is a high level of self-employment, but it is undeniable that some of the more peripheral rural areas have particular difficulties. Even in more prosperous areas, there are black spots. Thanks to the Conservative party, rural coalfields have lost almost 60,000 jobs in the past 15 years. Conservative Governments treated rural coalfields with the same vindictiveness as they showed towards urban coalfields. By contrast, we are determined to tackle rural unemployment head on through our coalfields regeneration programme and the regional development agencies, which will be established in April next year.
    We have been criticised for giving part of the Rural Development Commission's functions to the RDAs. That criticism is wholly misplaced. RDAs will be the key institutions for achieving sustainable economic development in their regions. It would not be sensible to exclude rural areas and to leave them isolated in a ghetto, as if there were no links between urban and rural economic activity. Integration is clearly the right route, but with safeguards.
    I give the hon. Member for South Suffolk these assurances. First, RDAs will have a specific remit to promote rural development. Secondly, each RDA will have at least one member—probably more—with a background in rural development. Thirdly, the money spent by the RDC on rural development will be ring-fenced, and will continue to be spent on rural development by the RDAs.
    Mr. David Heath: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves off the subject of planning, will he address the important point made by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)? Six months ago, the Deputy Prime Minister made a welcome announcement. However, it has had no effect in areas such as Somerset. There has been public examination of a structure plan that has increased, not reduced, the number of houses required in the county. That is not sustainable. We want the Government's policy to be applied in the context of a structure plan. How will that happen?
    Mr. Meacher: That is a fair point, and it is our intention to publish the regional planning guidance as soon as we can, which I expect to be shortly. The House should be in no doubt that we are still committed, as were the previous Government, to the best demographic data on housing requirements, which show that we need an extra 4.4 million houses in the 25 years to 2016. About 1 million of them have already been built.
    We do not propose a reduction in the number of houses to be built, but we accept that there should be greater flexibility in the planning process. The regional planning

    439
    guidance should allow regional and local planning authorities to have more responsibility for where those houses should be built.
    Mr. Peter Bradley: My right hon. Friend's comment about the possibility of there being more than one rural member on the board of RDAs will be widely welcomed in rural communities. When the Tories left office in 1979—[Interruption.] When was it? It seems so long ago now. Anyhow, when they left office, men in the rural county of Shropshire were 125th in a low wages league table of 151, and women were in 150th position. That is why they will profoundly welcome the introduction of a national minimum wage, which the Conservative party has consistently opposed, just as it did the introduction of RDAs.
    Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) secured an Adjournment debate on rural poverty, only three members of the Conservative party thought it important enough to attend? One was the shadow Minister, who sat down after five minutes because he wanted to hear from the Minister; one was a rural Member and the other was—
    Hon. Members: Speech!
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must sit down when I am on my feet. That was too long for an intervention. The art of an intervention is to be concise—but it seems to be a disappearing art.
    Mr. Meacher: It may have been a long intervention, but it was a very good point. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) is absolutely right that the minimum wage will have a great impact on improving household incomes in rural areas. There is no evidence that it will destroy jobs if it is pitched at a sensible level. I do not believe that it will do so: it will be very welcome in rural households on extremely low incomes.
    Mr. Tom King: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Meacher: Yes, but this is the last time.
    Mr. King: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for seriously addressing the issue that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I have raised. The regional planning conference has already produced revised guidance, with lower figures for the south-west. Somerset county council is producing figures that should be published in September. Can the council be sure that, if it produces proposals that are in line with the guidance that the Deputy Prime Minister has produced, no attempt will be made to override them and to go back to the old policy that has now been discarded?
    Mr. Meacher: The old policy to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is the previous Government's policy of predict and provide. We are trying to move away from that deeply unpopular policy. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the Deputy Prime Minister's welcome statement. If Somerset county council
    440
    can produce proposals that are compatible with the regional planning guidance, we shall consider them extremely carefully. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a commitment that we will necessarily accept them. We may, but we may not: it depends on the full content of the proposals.
    The Opposition motion mentions housing. I presume that that was another mistake, because one of the greatest indictments of the previous Conservative Government was their 80 per cent. cut in the housing budget, and all the misery that that caused. We recognise that a fine balance must be struck between building new houses to ensure that there are enough places for people to live in and controls on development to protect the countryside. Housing is an issue on which the Conservatives have campaigned. I remember seeing the Leader of the Opposition posing in an anorak outside Stevenage. I suppose that that is better than the baseball cap.
    The Opposition called on us to set a target of 75 per cent. of new houses to be built on brownfield sites. Or was it 66 per cent. or 60 per cent? The figure changes with bewildering speed, so I do not know what their position is. When they were in government and could do something about this matter, they actually achieved a figure of 42 per cent.—that is the most telling statistic. The hon. Member for South Suffolk alleged that there had been an increase, but the average figure was 42 per cent.
    Mr. Yeo: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Meacher: Hold on. The hon. Gentleman need not look through all his papers. We know what the figures are: they show an average of 42 per cent. He might as well throw his figures away, because we know what the facts are. Only since their election defeat have the Opposition discovered a concern to protect the green belt from housing. By contrast, we have recognised these pressures and have announced a new approach to future provision.
    Mr. Yeo rose—
    Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has found his figures, but we have now moved on. I am afraid that I must make progress.
    Mr. Yeo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister, unwittingly I am sure, has just quite seriously misled the House. The document that he—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can tell already that that is not a genuine point of order. It is a matter of debate, and if the Minister will not give way, he has the Floor of the House.
    Mr. Meacher: Once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have saved the hon. Member for South Suffolk from himself.
    By contrast, we continue to support the provision of affordable housing—for example, through the Housing Corporation's rural programme and the release of capital receipts of nearly £1 billion in the first two years. Following—I repeat again—the comprehensive spending review, which the hon. Gentleman somehow glided over, during the next three years an additional £3.5 billion will

    441
    be allocated to start tackling the backlog of repairs to the housing afnd stock throughout England, including in rural areas.
    Significantly, the Opposition motion says nothing about the Government's support for countryside and rural programmes—I presume because it is so good. As I announced this afternoon, money for my Department's countryside and rural programmes will rise from £128 million this year to £146 million next year, £162 million the year after and £174 million in 2001–02. That is an increase of more than 35 per cent. over a three-year period.
    Nothing shows the Conservative party in its true colours more clearly than its opposition to our proposals to improve access to the countryside, so that all those who love the countryside, not just those who are lucky enough to own large chunks of it, will in future be able to visit more of the countryside than ever before. For all their rather feeble attempts at modernisation, the Tories remain rooted in the 18th century—the party of exclusivity and inherited privilege; the party of the few determined to shut out the many.
    We will open up the countryside of England and Wales. Let no one be in any doubt about that. We have consulted on the means and we are still considering the responses. But the ends are not negotiable. We will deliver to walkers new opportunities to roam over mountain, moorland, heath, down and registered common land. If we decide to rely on the voluntary approach, we will need to be convinced that the access delivered will be of the same extent, quality and permanence as would be achieved through a statutory right.
    The Government have done more for rural areas in the past 15 months than the previous Government did in nearly two decades. The sheer vacuousness of the Opposition's motion is patent for all to see, and I invite the House to reject it with all the contempt that it deserves.
    8.2 pm
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: I shall not follow the Minister all the way in his self-congratulation at the end of his speech, but I shall follow him a considerable way in his attack on the Opposition's extraordinary motion and the no less extraordinary speech of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). The Conservatives' record of 18 years has magically disappeared. I thought that the motion was rather like a shooting gallery, with a set of feet neatly lined up for Conservative Members to shoot themselves in before our turn came.
    The range of issues for which people in rural areas have far from forgotten—let alone forgiven—the Conservative Government is immense: a debate as short as this does not allow us to cover it fully. We could consider what they did in relation to farming or fishing, which has affected many of the communities in my part of the world. We could consider the erosion of traditional industry in many rural areas, particularly heavy engineering in my part of the world. We could consider the extraordinary lack of funding for local authorities, not least in rural areas, many of which were discriminated against by the Conservative party's funding formulas, particularly in the rural and more peripheral areas of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. David Heath: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. Does he agree that it is.
    442
    extraordinary that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) should have talked about the funding of rural counties, given that, in my 12 years' experience of leading and being a member of a county council under a Conservative Government, there were reductions each year in essential services in rural areas and a capping regime which caused enormous trouble? The tragedy is not that something has changed but that nothing has changed.
    Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is exactly right. We do not have time to pursue every area, however, so let us concentrate on the matters dealt with in the Opposition's motion. I had assumed that that was what the hon. Member for South Suffolk would do, but, having written the motion last night, he clearly thought better of it, realising that there was little Conservatives could say on transport or on rural housing, homelessness and council house sales. I shall not let him off from my attack, but I understand why he did not mention those, and that may become a little more obvious later.
    The motion starts by concentrating on development in the countryside. Development in the countryside, indeed: we are talking about a policy of predict and provide; about 4.4 million homes; and about the real concern in county after county about the impact that that will have on the countryside and in some-green belt areas.
    All that concern is about policies pursued by the Conservative Government in their 18 years in office. Those policies were at their most rampant some years ago, when, as Secretary of State for the Environment, Nicholas Ridley approved every possible development in the countryside, encouraging out-of-town shopping, which has done so much to destroy our market town centres, and abolishing the Nature Conservancy Council because it so effectively argued the case for the protection of rural areas, leaving us instead with an emasculated and underfunded English Nature.
    Those developments did not stop, even in the last years of the previous Government under the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who, sadly, is not here to defend his policies. In Berkshire, the right hon. Gentleman forced up housing numbers against the wishes of local people. The same thing happened in Kent, and 400 acres of woodland in an area of outstanding natural beauty were turned over to the holiday village of West Wood, which includes 1,200 parking places. It is rather ironic that, on the site itself, cars are forbidden, in order to protect the rural nature of what is left of the wood.
    It is precisely the Conservative party's record that is under attack in the motion. The Government might have taken inadequate steps to change that—that they have not acted with enough speed is a realistic criticism—but for the hon. Member for South Suffolk to argue against the policies in such terms is an act of outstanding forgetfulness, if not hypocrisy.
    The Labour party's record has been mixed. There have been some wrong decisions, but the Deputy Prime Minister promised to break the mould and to abandon the predict and provide premise. The trouble is—the Minister did not adequately address this—that predict and provide is still all too much with us. For example, after his statement, Hertfordshire county council requested that the Deputy Prime Minister reconsider the number of houses

    443
    in the structure plan, and the proposals for the release of green-belt land around Stevenage, but they were adopted unchanged.
    Last December, the Deputy Prime Minister overruled West Sussex county council's argument for lowering housing figures and imposed an extra 12,800 houses—despite the fact that its case was well argued. The county council then applied for judicial review on the basis of what it understood from the Deputy Prime Minister to be the new policy, but there has been no change.
    Today, the Government approved a major opencast coal-mining site on green-belt land in Nottinghamshire, against local opinion and planning guidance and against the position taken by Labour before the election on opencast mining and green-belt development.
    Labour's rhetoric is good, and I think that the Government's intentions are genuine, but the practice clearly lags some way behind. Much worse than any individual examples is the fact that, on 1 April this year, the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions issued a statement outlining the implications for development plans and regional planning guidance of the Government's White Paper "Planning for the Communities of the Future".
    That statement on transitional arrangements showed that the full implications of the new policy await not only new regional planning guidance, which has yet to be seen—I hope the Minister is right when he says that it will be soon; he will forgive us if we are a little suspicious, but we have been used to 18 years of misleading statements from the Conservative party, and need proof rather than promises—but the reviews of the structure and local plans already in place. That process could take about 15 years. No wonder many developers are acting on a "business as usual" basis. It is hard to see how anyone could, as yet, act in any other way.
    The plans are already there. Much of the development has already been given permission, and more is being given permission all the time on the basis of outstanding policies. Exactly that case was argued for Somerset by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), and exactly the same problems are arising in Devon. We have seen them in Cornwall in the past, and we shall doubtless see them again. Indeed, we see them throughout the country. Hard work will be needed to change what is perhaps not yet set in stone—but the stones are rolling down the hill in a process that it will not be easy to stop. Change will have to be made within a certain time if it is to make a real difference, enabling people to judge Labour not by what it says it wants, but by what has happened at the end of the current Parliament—or the next, or, even worse, the one after that.
    Labour's argument that more green-belt land is being given than is being taken away misses a fundamental issue. Of course nothing can be guaranteed for ever, but the principle of the green belt is that, once allocated, it provides a protection on which people can rely. If new green-belt land is allocated, that is a bonus; but we are not talking about a mathematical equation in which people say, "We will take two pieces from here and add two here, and that will be all right. We might even add another half
    444
    piece on top to make it look a little sweeter". The green belt is intended to provide genuine protection for the countryside around developed areas. If we are to provide that protection, it must be long-term protection; it must not be eroded as needs are seen to arise.
    The Minister said that the figure for new homes was still 4.4 million. We could argue for ever about whether that figure is right, but there will certainly be a good many. It seems to be assumed that, county by county, broadly the same allocations should continue to apply as now, even if they do not apply to exactly the same locations within counties. An extraordinary feature of this country, however, is the erosion caused by people moving out of cities into rural areas. They are doing so for a number of reasons, but one of those reasons is clearly our failure to make our cities attractive places in which to live.
    People do not aspire to live in the centres of our great cities. I understand that London is virtually the only capital city in Europe to experience a major reduction in its central population—a reduction which is continuing. For a number of social reasons, if for no other reasons, policy must aim to reverse that process, and to make cities attractive. That does not simply mean that Sussex or Surrey must change where their new housing is, opting to use a little less green-field land and a little more brown-field land; it means that there should be less housing overall in the counties.
    Mr. Martlew: In other parts of Europe, the problem is that populations are leaving rural areas and moving into cities. Does the hon. Gentleman advocate that?
    Mr. Taylor: I do not want a problem to be caused. I want to see vibrant cities in which young couples with children can live and work, benefiting from good schools, freedom from crime and an attractive environment. That is important from the point of view of those living in cities now, as well as those whom we would like to live in them.
    Mr. David Drew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Taylor: I will, but I shall take no more interventions after this.
    Mr. Drew: I thank the hon. Gentleman. No doubt he knows of the Richard Rogers task force. Surely that is one of the most fundamental and innovative projects that any Government could take on, and we look forward to the results.
    Mr. Taylor: I do not think that a task force is ever fundamental or innovative, although its conclusions may be. Let us hope that the conclusions of this task force will be.
    The Liberal Democrats published detailed proposals today, including a proposal for immediate revision of planning policy guidance note 3 on housing, and a proposal for the calling in of controversial major development plans to be assessed in the light of the new PPG3. I believe that that would mean the calling in of plans for Stevenage new town, and no increase in housing figures for West Sussex. We propose a clear development hierarchy, with real backing from Ministers—particularly as regards the reuse of existing buildings, as well as

    445
    redevelopment of old sites, before the development of green-field sites. We believe that there should be a levy on green-field development, which could fund urban regeneration and provide new parks. That could improve the urban environment and, perhaps, lower council tax for all.
    I also believe—this is a more difficult issue—that we should consider the difference between the nil value added tax on new build and the 17.5 per cent. VAT on renovation. The equalisation of VAT could fundamentally change the way in which older buildings in urban areas are treated, and the state of existing housing stock. All those measures could minimise new development. I understand that some work has been put into that. Belgium, for example, imposes a low rate of VAT, not just on energy conservation materials—as is often said—but on all renovation work on buildings that are more than 20 years old. Some balance between VAT on renovation and new build might be needed so the programme could be self-financing, which would doubtless be controversial for new build. It should, however, be considered.
    There are two other key issues. I must be brief, because I have already used too much time. The first is transport. Not tonight, but on many other occasions, the Conservatives have attacked the fuel escalator. How ironic that is, coming from the party that introduced it in the first place. Over 18 years, the Conservatives increased excise duty on fuel by 600 per cent. Between 1992 and 1996 alone, they raised £58 billion from fuel tax, as well as selling off public transport services, taking no action over the loss of rural bus routes and cutting money for transport packages for local authorities. However, they cannot possibly claim to be friends of the motorist—quite apart from their ignoring the fact that one in four people in rural areas have no access to a car. Incidentally, whereas the real total cost of running a car has fallen since the early 1970s, bus and train fares have nearly doubled.
    Labour has tried to tackle one element of the problem by providing extra money for bus routes in rural areas over the next few years, but it is still a drop: £50 million is a small amount. If it were all spent on new buses, it would not even be enough to provide one new bus for every major town. Although the rhetoric is good, we must compare that with the extra £9 billion that Labour plans to raise in fuel duties.
    I believe in environmental taxation. I believe in a fuel duty escalator. I am not attacking that; I am attacking the hypocrisy of those Conservatives who now say that they oppose it, having implemented it in the first place. I also make a fundamental point about environmental taxation. I do not think that it will command public support if it is always "take" and never "give": it needs to be about changing taxes, not increasing them. That is why Liberal Democrats have consistently argued that the fuel escalator could be used to abolish vehicle excise duty for all cars up to 1,600 cc—two thirds of cars—and so encourage people to buy smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles. The proposal means that people are getting something back in return for the increases that they are paying. It is supported by the Automobile Association, the Royal Automobile Club and other motoring organisations. It is supported by the public in general. It means that people pay as they go—rather than paying to tax the vehicle up front, which gives them an incentive to maximise their return by using it as much as possible.
    446
    Although Labour has suggested that it will consider a small cut in vehicle excise duty to just £100 for some more environmental vehicles, it is not clear which vehicles will be covered. It does not appear that many will be covered, and I do not think that the public will see this as a bargain. I do not think that it is enough to make a difference; for the amounts involved, more could be done.
    Finally, let me say a little about rural housing. The real issue of council house sales, which is touched on in the motion, is the lack of replacement affordable homes for rent—either council or housing association homes—under the Conservatives. The percentage of socially affordable rented accommodation was always lower in rural areas. Between 1980 and 1991, 30 per cent. of rural local authority housing was sold—95,000 properties. In the same period, housing associations built just 10,800 rural properties, and much of that involved shared ownership schemes.
    That has meant that, while the wealthy have been moving into rural areas, displacing rural people and forcing up house prices so that private accommodation has become harder and harder to afford, there has been an increase in rural homelessness. According to the Rural Development Commission, homelessness is increasing fastest in rural areas—fastest of all in the deep rural areas, and especially in the south, where prices have risen as people have moved out of the cities and bought holiday and second homes, while also investing in homes to rent for the holiday market rather than full-time homes.
    My county of Cornwall is thought to be the one with the biggest gap between house prices and incomes, which are the lowest in the country. It does not have Britain's highest house prices, but they are fairly high and incomes are very low. Such poor rural areas have been devastated by council house sales, and matters have been made worse by the benefit restrictions that apply to the under-25s. They hit hardest in rural areas where private accommodation is limited. Many people do not get housing benefit that is equivalent to the rents that they pay. One of my local authorities, Carrick, has asked for a meeting with the Minister for Local Government and Housing to address the fact that it already has 88 people in unsuitable temporary accommodation and that there will be 27 more in the next three weeks for whom the council cannot find public housing. That escalator will continue to rise.
    A recent survey researched the number of those sleeping rough in rural Cornwall. They proved difficult to identify because, unlike such people in urban areas, those in rural areas may be in fields and will not necessarily remain in the same place. They move between towns and between short-term jobs, such as fruit or flower picking. The survey nevertheless showed that a significant number of rural homeless people were sleeping rough. That should not happen and it is an often forgotten rural problem. I hope that the Government will address it, and that the House can be united on the issue.
    8.20 pm
    Mr. Eric Martlew: The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) described a trip around Britain. In fact, it was around the south-east. The Official Report will show that he probably went as far west as Somerset and as far north as Lincolnshire, and ignored the north-west, Yorkshire, Cumbria, Northumbria and the midlands. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should be the Opposition spokesman for the south-east.

    447
    I am worried by Conservative rhetoric, by the propagation of the myth of town against country. Opposition Members want to divide the country to win back rural seats, but that is dangerous. My local paper, The Cumberland News, carried reports of Cumberland agricultural show, which is the largest one-day show in Britain and which is held in Carlisle. The British National party was there trying to recruit people, and it used the same language as the hon. Member for South Suffolk.
    Mr. Howard Flight: Shame.
    Mr. Martlew: I do not accuse the hon. Gentleman of being a fascist, but I issue the warning that people should not try to set one part of the country against the other. That is what the Conservatives have done.
    Cumbria has done well under a Labour Government. It received extra money for rural transport. Deregulation and the abolition of cross-subsidy were not mentioned by the hon. Member for South Suffolk. The people of Carlisle were happy to subsidise rural bus services, but the previous Government made sure that that was not possible. As a result, many rural bus services were lost, and the Government's grant of £50 million will help to restore them.
    Cumbria got an extra £7 million in its education budget. I was a county councillor for many years, and during that time such an amount was never put into the budget. Some of that money will pay for rural transport for schoolchildren. The pupils in Cumbria's rural schools probably do better in Ofsted reports than children in urban schools. Perhaps that should be tackled in urban areas.
    The county council is trying to introduce information technology to villages. Its two projects, Credits and Genesis, will take IT into village schools and also to the villages. The Department of Social Security is discussing with the county council a system under which people can communicate with a jobcentre from a kiosk. That gets rid of the need to take a bus, if there is one, into Carlisle to sign on. Village schools face a strange dilemma, because, although it is said that we should not close village schools, it is also said that we should not build any more houses. Lack of pupils poses a danger to such schools. In some way, affordable houses must be provided for young families, because it is often primary schools that are at risk.
    It is said that 60 per cent. of building should be on brown-field sites, and that is obviously pertinent to places such as London. Perhaps we should see whether there are brown-field sites in villages. Sometimes there are, but in my constituency one or two factories would have to be closed to meet the 60 per cent. requirement, and I am sure that that is not what the Government are about.
    Unemployment in my constituency is 4.9 per cent. In the neighbouring constituency of Penrith and The Border, it is 2 per cent., and the rate has fallen by 20 per cent. in the past two years. There is no crisis in the countryside there, but, even so, the Government have tackled the problem. They have made Cumbria a pilot area for the new deal. It started in January, and in urban and rural areas, it is getting young people back to work.
    448
    My constituency is to get a new district general hospital costing £80 million to serve Carlisle and the rural area. There were many objections when it was suggested that the name of the hospital should be changed. It is called the Cumberland infirmary, which shows that it will meet the needs of people in rural and urban areas. Rural north Cumbria is a health action zone. The Government have specifically designated it as such, and one of the key objectives is to tackle ill health in rural areas. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will visit Cumbria next week to launch that.
    Mr. John Hayes: I do not claim the hon. Gentleman's expertise on Cumbria, but does he think that people in remote rural villages will welcome the building or the improvement of hospitals to which many of them will have to travel 10 or 15 miles, as would be the case in my constituency? That is not delivering health care where people need it in rural communities, is it?
    Mr. Martlew: If I had a heart attack, I should prefer to go to a district general hospital rather than to a cottage hospital down the road. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we should spend even more to build district general hospitals in villages? That would be nonsense. We should have had a new hospital 18 years ago, but the Conservative Government did nothing about it. We are now to get one that will also serve the rural community.
    Agriculture is facing difficulties, although they are not showing up in the unemployment figures. BSE is a major problem in a dairy area such as Cumbria, and we all know who caused BSE. Opposition Members cannot say that problems in farming have been caused by the present Government. I hope that the common agricultural policy is reformed, and that Agenda 2000 works. We must help farmers, and especially those in the uplands and the national park—another innovation by a Labour Government. The Lake District national park suffers from overgrazing. Such problems need to be examined and resolved.
    Cumbria does not do enough to add value to its food products. The European Commissioners want to get rid of Cumberland rum butter, but I think that we may win that battle. We seem to have forgotten how to market Cumbrian food. The county has millions of tourists, and the tourist board, the county council and the National Farmers Union should work together to ensure that tourists to Cumbria eat food that has been sourced there. That has to be done.
    Even when we had a problem with BSE, this Government did something about it for the Cumbrians. We need a British Cattle Movement Service headquarters because of BSE. I understand that civil servants were going to put it in deepest Guildford; we may have a Labour Member for Guildford, but I am not sure.
    What happened? It was decided to put the headquarters in Cumbria. The Tories attacked the Ministry of Agriculture for sending 200 jobs to Cumbria—Workington, in fact: an area of high unemployment. Where else should they have gone than to a rural area, but the Tories said that they wanted to put the headquarters in Guildford.
    Therefore, we have done well under a Labour Government. We have had extra money for rural buses, for rural schools and for a health action zone, a new

    449
    hospital, extra money for the new deal and more than 200 extra jobs at the British Cattle Movement Service headquarters. The Labour Government have not let down rural areas in Cumbria. I look forward to the further expansion of the rural economy and to the bringing together of urban and rural people. This division between the two that has been created by the Conservatives has to stop, because it is in no one's interest.
    8.30 pm
    Mrs. Theresa May: When I came into the Chamber, I was intent on making some comments about the position of Berkshire and the threat to countryside and open space in the county in which my constituency lies, but, having heard the speeches of the Minister and of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), I want to comment on what they have said.
    First, may I say something about the frankly disgraceful opening remarks of the hon. Member for Carlisle. At the end of his speech, he returned to the issue of division between town and country. If anything is dividing town and country, it is the policies of the Labour party. It is the Labour party that has shown, time and again since May 1997, that it fails to understand the needs of rural areas and of the countryside.
    Personally, I have always said that we should look for a better balance of development between town and country, but the Government do not help the towns and cities by putting all the development into green-belt and green-field sites. The hon. Member for Carlisle should think again, reflect carefully on his remarks, and look at the policies that his party has produced, because it is those policies which are dividing town and country.
    The Minister will genuinely come to regret having said in the House that it was perfectly reasonable to make inroads into the green belt. I think that that statement will come to haunt him and the Labour Government. Throughout this country, Members of Parliament and councillors are desperately trying to defend their green belt from development proposals, and what do we see tonight? This Government are giving yet more comfort to developers that it is okay to build on the green belt. That is what the Minister said.
    Mr. Meacher: May I just help the hon. Lady by making it clear what I did say? I said that it is reasonable to go into the green belt as a last resort if no alternative means of expansion are available, and if there is a compensatory, much greater increase in green belt. In those circumstances, it is very different. I am not suggesting that there should be ready intrusion into the green belt. It is reasonable to go into the green belt only in exceptional circumstances, and in the two circumstances that I have mentioned.
    Mrs. May: It is obvious from that intervention that the Minister is already ruing his earlier statement. Hansard will show what he said, and I do not recall his making any reference to a last resort.
    Even so, what the Minister has just said again shows a complete lack of understanding about the purpose of the green belt. It is there as a protection and as an area of open space around an urban development. It is not something where we can say, "If we get a few more
    450
    people, we'll build into this and stick another bit somewhere else." That would fail to act as a protection. That is what the Government seem to be saying about green belt—that they can mix and match green belt and urban development here and there, and it does not make any difference.
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: Has the hon. Lady discussed what she has just said with the Country Landowners Association, which in the briefing that it sent us this week says:
    "The CLA accepts that some Green Belt areas will have to go to protect other countryside areas of even greater importance"?
    Mrs. May: The Labour party is desperately attempting to show that it is suddenly the friend of the Country Landowners Association. The Minister's remarks on open access and the right to roam will have been listened to with great interest by the CLA.
    Mr. Meacher: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. May: No. I have to make some progress.
    The Minister referred to rural schools and their closure. I tried to intervene on him at that stage and he did not accept my request, but he stated that the Government were protecting rural schools and stopping their closure. The House should be aware of exactly what happened on rural school closures.
    On the eve of the countryside march, the then Minister for School Standards, who has been promoted to the Cabinet, possibly because of all the mistakes that he was making in the Department for Education and Employment, stated that people need not worry about rural school closures, because, although the procedure for deciding on the closure of schools had been changed in the School Standards and Framework Bill, so that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment no longer had a role, the Secretary of State would have a role in the case of rural schools, and the Government would ensure that all rural school closures went to the Secretary of State before the decision was made.
    When pressed several times by Opposition Members, myself included, to enshrine that intent in legislation, the Government refused to do so—little wonder that people often feel that what they say is mere empty words. Again, we saw that the reality of their policy was different from the rhetoric. Their soundbite in the television studio did not reflect what the Government intended to do. Rural school closures are a prime example of that.
    I said that I wanted to comment on the position of Berkshire. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) has already referred to the problem faced by Wokingham district council over the proposed development of 2,500 houses at Grazeley. Those are the development pressures that Berkshire already faces, but I want to take the debate forward, to look at future pressures and the problem that we have at present.
    The south-east regional planning committee—Serplan—is putting forward proposals for the number of houses to be developed in Berkshire and the rest of the south-east by 2016. Once again, we have the difficulty that, despite all the rhetoric from the Government about 60 per cent. of development being on brown-field sites and protecting the green belt, planning conferences are

    451
    having to prepare their proposals for the future without the changed guidance in respect of planning policy guidance 3 that is required.
    Berkshire is the smallest county in the south-east—it represents only 4.9 per cent. of the area. Despite that, 15.4 per cent. of the county has been built on. It is three times more urbanised than Oxfordshire, for example, but the proposals from Serplan are that 46 per cent. of the additional green-field development in the south-east until 2016 would be in Berkshire.
    The plans provided by Serplan in respect of current potential supply from the housing capability study and in terms of options for the future show that, in every other county, the additional number of houses over and above the potential supply is either relatively small or reduced. In Berkshire, they envisage up to an extra 50,000 houses being required in the period to 2016.
    One of the difficulties in the way in which Serplan has put together its proposals relates to the guidance from the Government. The Berkshire housing development figures have been set so high because the Serplan planners say, "All the jobs are in Berkshire, and we need economic regeneration elsewhere in the south-east if we are to put housing development there." Yet the Government have asked Serplan to produce housing development figures before the regional development agencies—on which I take a different view from the Government—that the Government claim will be involved in the economic development of their areas, are in place.
    The Government have got it the wrong way round. They are requiring housing development figures based on the current economic position to be prepared, agreed and in place before the RDAs look at potential economic regeneration in other parts of the south east. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain why the Government are so keen to have the housing development figures in place before the RDAs are up and running and doing what the Government intend them to do in economic regeneration. The housing development needs could be so different if the figures were produced once the RDAs were in place.
    I am conscious that a number of hon. Members wish to speak on this very important issue. I have outlined just a few of the problems we face in Berkshire in respect of pressure for development. That pressure does not apply just to housing. We are also facing pressure for the development of a motorway service area, as are other parts of the country. The potential for noise pollution, light pollution and the impact on countryside areas is significant, and I sincerely hope that the Government will be able to give us some comfort in terms of reviewing the minimum distance rule between motorway service areas, which is currently 15 miles.
    I hope that the Government will take action on such issues. So far, we have heard a lot of words and seen a lot of glossy brochures, but the Government are failing to act. As in so many other sectors, Government policy does not match their rhetoric.
    8.41 pm
    Mr. Cohn Pickthall: I start by welcoming the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment at the end of his speech on
    452
    access to the countryside. He has been steadfast on the issue. I agree with what I think lies behind what he said—that it is unlikely that landowners will be able to deliver a watertight voluntary system, and that sooner or later, legislation will be inevitable.
    The Opposition motion
    "deplores the Government's continued failure to protect both the Green Belt and green-field sites from excessive development".
    During the past couple of months, the Labour Back-Bench rural affairs group, led by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley), has met some 25 organisations concerned precisely with the quality of life in rural areas. Almost without exception, they urged on us the need for flexibility in planning in green-belt areas, and raised that as a major issue. Their plea was reiterated by the Country Landowners Association in the quotation that I used in my intervention on the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May).
    My constituency is almost all in the green belt which prevents the spread of urban Merseyside and Greater Manchester towards the Ribble and the Irish sea. To that extent, the green belt performs the function described by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). The green belt is very jealously guarded by West Lancashire district council, although some farmers and landowners are very adept at getting around the restrictions. I could take my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to an agricultural worker's cottage that was built about 10 years ago in the middle of the green belt, which has 10 bedrooms, four bathrooms, and a kitchen—the only room I was allowed into—which is larger than my house.
    There is a serious and detailed debate to be had, which the terms of the motion and the recent sloganising about the countryside obscure. There is clearly a need for some appropriate development in the green belt. In my area, there is a desperate need for small industrial estates to serve the interests of packers and transporters who service the horticultural industry. There is clearly, too, a need, which I think is recognised generally on both sides of the House, for small housing developments, covenanted—hopefully—to needs in villages and hamlets. In the Lancashire green belt, however, it is vital that large residential and industrial development is strongly resisted. That is made more possible and important in my area due to the large concentration of brown-field sites in the north-west.
    Last week's report by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology—I pay tribute to its reports, which are always timely and very informative—showed that, in the north-west of England, 21.8 per cent. of the total area can be classified as derelict land. That is far and away the largest percentage of any English region. At the same time, the projected increase in demand for new homes in the north-west is 10.2 per cent.—the sixth lowest of all English regions.
    Obviously, the availability of such land and the demand for new homes differ from region to region. The needs and pressures in the north-west are obviously very different from those in some of the areas represented by Opposition Members. I strongly welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's policy to devolve strategic land use decisions to the regions, to Regional Development Agencies—and I hope, ultimately, to regional government.
    Mr. Hayes: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's interest in these matters. On the Library's figures,

    453
    he represents the 97th most rural constituency in Britain, which is pretty high as Labour Members go, as I shall explain in my speech. Will not rural Britain—this is certainly true of Lincolnshire and, I am sure, his area—be dominated by urban areas? People in Lincolnshire are frightened that the regional development agency will be dominated by Leicester, Derby and Nottingham. What will such cities care about south Lincolnshire, the Lincolnshire fens and other rural areas?
    Mr. Pickthall: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If he will allow me, I shall come precisely to that point a little further on in my speech.
    The use and abuse of green belt and other countryside areas must be subject to the most sensitive planning considerations, and decisions must be made as locally as possible. I hope that, as far as possible, the presumption will always be against building in such areas except in the direst necessity. I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment say almost exactly that in his intervention a few moments ago.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: It is of course said that the presumption will always be against building except in the direst circumstances, yet, in Hertfordshire, we are being asked to agree the building of 10,000 homes on a piece of unspoilt green belt west of Stevenage. The Deputy Prime Minister was personally approached and asked to intervene to save that green belt, but he totally ignored the request. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe all the Government's crocodile tears and weasel words?
    Mr. Pickthall: Of course I believe my right hon. Friend—what a silly question. The hon. Gentleman describes a region and county with which I am not intimately familiar, but, clearly, the pressures of population and the need for new homes are much greater in his region than in mine.
    The megaphone debate about rural areas has done no favours to the sensitive issues of green-belt and rural development. That is true also when we consider any aspect of rural life and conservation. We have had an extraordinary period of ersatz claims by the Conservative party that it represents, in some mystical way, rurality. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) recoined the phrase "truly rural" to describe herself and her colleagues, in an attempt to show that Labour Members, such as me, who represent rural areas—and Liberal Democrats—are not rural. On the other hand, she might simply have been proving that she could pronounce "truly rural".
    The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton spoke with real knowledge of the problems of rural areas, but that is not, by and large, the Opposition's concern in this debate. The trumpeting of "We are the party of rural England" by the Opposition has prevented the proper discussion in this place of the complex needs of people in rural areas, and has prevented us from asking—let alone answering—some awkward and serious questions. I am thinking of the sort of debate that the Local Government Association has undertaken in its recent document, "Behind the Scenery".
    There has been a tendency to separate the nature of rural life completely from urban life, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) pointed out,
    454
    ignoring, incidentally, suburban life in the process. Conservatives and the Countryside Alliance paint a picture of Britain where towns and cities are dark conglomerations of howling multitudes, whose involvement in rural Britain is to plunder—or, at best, ignore—it, while those in rural areas cower in fear of proletarian invasions.
    Life is not like that. My area is not untypical of the countryside. I have Skelmersdale in one corner of a huge rural area which has the small market town of Ormskirk in the centre.
    Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Pickthall: I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman will excuse me. I want to sit down as soon as I can to allow as many hon. Members as possible to contribute.
    The area is surrounded by Liverpool, Southport, Preston and Greater Manchester. All the transport systems, rail and road, have their roots in those towns, and serve the rural areas—however unsatisfactorily—on the way through. That interdependency of rural and urban areas is reflected in the county of Lancashire as a whole, which has vast rural areas edged by quite large towns. The county council—and, on a smaller scale, my district council—has worked over many years to hold together the interests of urban and rural areas and to explain each to the other in terms of their needs.
    The problems of service provision in areas of sparse population are well recognised and, at least in part, addressed by Lancashire, involving some redistribution of wealth from towns to rural areas. Urban areas constitute the largest part of the tax base of this country. Three of my villages have libraries, one of which is brand new. Two have sports complexes, and one large village has two sports centres. All of those have been provided largely by urban taxpayers.
    As bus deregulation destroyed rural bus services, the council has had to provide what alternatives there are, financed by urban and rural taxpayers. I am not trying to suggest that the rural areas of Lancashire are okay—far from it—but I am asserting their interdependency with urban areas and the need for greater understanding, rather than the constant drive to polarise.
    I wish to refer to a report by the Rural Development Commission, which—I ought to point out to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo)—has not been abolished; it has merged, and is still going strong. We have received briefings from it this week. The report states that, in rural Lancashire, the average weekly earnings are £45 lower than the national average, £41 lower than neighbouring Cheshire and £14 below neighbouring Cumbria. It is a fact that earnings in rural areas for those who work there are lower than those in urban areas. Employment is harder to come by and the new deal is harder to deliver. Services are much more sparse.
    Those crucial disadvantages must be addressed. I want to highlight the disadvantage of isolation. Of course, it is more than possible to be isolated physically and psychologically in urban areas, but the possibility of help or of pursuing solutions is much less in the countryside. There is a sort of gulag archipelago, and generally prosperous and thriving rural communities,

    455
    often composed of those who travel into urban areas to earn a living, disguise pockets of poverty and misery. Elderly people and those with mobility problems often occupy the gulag.
    The services—whether medical, environmental or housing, and whether public or private—are at best problematic and often non-existent. Where the services are supplied, they are vastly expensive, and shire authorities are well aware of the cost disparities. Lack of transport also isolates young people, leading to problems in many villages, including the importation of some of the difficulties that we more usually associate with towns and cities.
    Those with access to private transport travel to towns or to out-of-town supermarkets to shop, while lamenting the collapse of their village shops and post offices and demanding public funds, through council tax rebates, Rural Development Commission grants, or whatever, to shore them up.
    Many projects are designed to pick away at the problems of economic hardship and isolation in country areas, and they are all valuable, but, in the face of the dwindling of employment in agriculture, the slowness of replacing those jobs through new small enterprises and the collapse in transport, their impact is limited.
    To begin to resolve some of the social difficulties in the countryside, we need vision and determination such as is being exhibited in local government in the shires and shire districts. "Behind the Scenery" encapsulates that, and I congratulate the Local Government Association on it.
    Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Pickthall: No, I want to finish as soon as I can.
    "Behind the Scenery" concentrates on identifying social exclusion in rural areas and seeking solutions to it. The Local Government Association sees a large part of the solution lying in increased resources, and we have heard this evening how some of that, at least, is happening. The need to carry the rest of the tax-paying population along with that view has not been addressed.
    Maintenance and improvement of the quality of life in rural areas depend largely on enlightened local government and on the success of regional development agencies in improving economic performance and investment. There has been much debate about rural representation on RDAs. Personally, I do not think that putting one member from a rural area on the board is any answer. It would be all too easy for the rest of the board to listen respectfully and then carry on regardless, rather like the role of Dr. Weakling among the 40 thieves in "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists".
    The RDAs—I am speaking especially about the north-west—should have a rural filter so that every decision involves enhancing the rural economy as well as protecting the landscape, ecology and biodiversity of a region.
    I have long believed that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be replaced by a rural affairs Ministry, but further thought and discussions have changed my mind—not that I want to retain MAFF as it
    456
    stands—and I now believe that plucking rural bits out of so many different Departments would be likely to produce paralysis. There is, however, a need for a body that considers the needs of rural areas across the boundaries of existing Departments, and the LGA's suggestion of a Select Committee has some attractions.
    The megaphone debate on rural affairs has prevented us from asking some serious questions, which I would like to ask now. What do we do if and when people in rural areas wake up to the fact that 93 per cent. of public support for rural areas goes to agricultural production—excluding horticulture, pigs, poultry and egg production, which are the backbone of the industry in my constituency? What happens if, and perhaps when, common agricultural policy reform fails to curb production subsidy?
    What relationship should we foster between agriculture, tourism and leisure? Can we justify organising agricultural subsidy to run stock in inhospitable hill areas to keep the fells trim for tourists? Is there anything that Government or Parliament can do to check the power of the big supermarket chains that control farmers and growers? They tear up contracts at a minute's notice and switch their buying policies at the drop of a hat, to the ruin of certain sectors and regions.
    We do not discuss those important questions because we are too busy shouting about who is more rural than thou. We do not live in two countries, however much the hon. Member for South Suffolk sought to suggest it. I thank him for visiting my constituency—without telling me, of course. He figured prominently in my local newspapers, standing in the middle of an empty street. I am not sure whether he was trying to comment on the disappearance of rural shops.
    The Opposition are seeking to create a party political war between rural areas and the rest. If their pursuit of that objective is not ended, rural areas can only lose out as the rest of the country has forced down its throat what the Tories present as a rural whinge. In my patch at least, I do not hear that from rural people.
    9 pm
    Mr. Howard Flight: West Sussex has been mentioned several times and my constituency forms the greater part of it. There are four important points about the case of West Sussex.
    First, 45,000 people have signed the petition against the imposition of an extra 12,800 houses. Petitioners come from across the full range of party politics and there is cross-party support on the county council. An important plank of the new policy announced by the Deputy Prime Minister—something that will help judgment on whether it is to be believed—is that the new approach to housing should involve an element of bottom-up consideration and dilution of what has been accepted across the board as too many orders from on high under the old predict and plan. West Sussex is a classic test case from which we will judge whether the new policy is for real. The citizens of West Sussex have spoken more than loudly with those 45,000 names opposing the extra homes.
    Secondly, simple arithmetic shows that, under the structural plan, about 40 per cent. of the new housing will be on green-field sites and 60 per cent. on brown-field sites. With the extra 12,800 houses, the balance swings the other way. Such housing would have to be entirely on

    457
    green-field sites and the balance would change to 60 per cent. on green-field sites and 40 per cent. on brown-field sites. In deciding whether the Government's policy objective of reducing the extent of green-field sites is to be believed, their decision on cancelling their order to add the 12,800 houses, or reducing the number, will be important.
    Thirdly, West Sussex went to the length of having an independent environmental audit, for which it won a significant award. It succeeded in convincing the Department's inspectorate. In effect, the Minister overruled his own inspectorate. If we are to have a rational approach to the amount of additional housing with which rural areas can cope, without—in the words of the Minister—turning them into American rural suburbs, the principle of independent environmental assessments is important. They should be encouraged.
    Fourthly, and I am surprised that this has not come out in the debate on green-field and green belt, in a large metropolis such as Birmingham or London, one effect of the success of the green belt has been to tip the pressure out to the next layer, to the perimeter lying on a 40-mile radius. Country areas have been hit by issues such as overbuilding and whether the Government's change of policy is for real; the problem of agriculture going seriously bust; and the gerrymandering of the standard spending assessments with the result that counties such as West Sussex have had a 10 per cent. increase in rates but no effective increase in real spending. To put it candidly, country areas like my own want to stop being dumped on by the Labour Government.
    9.5 pm
    Mr. David Drew: In an effort to allow as many people as possible to contribute to the debate, I shall keep my remarks brief.
    Contrary to what might be imagined, I welcome this debate on the basis that, although we have debated similar topics five or six times before, the Opposition have yet to land a glove on us. I see that that proud record is continuing tonight. Much of the rhetoric in the Opposition motion is understandable, although their points about the green belt and green-field sites stick in the craw of Labour Members who spent the past 15 years working under Tory planning procedures, fighting those procedures through appeals and all manner of other processes, only to find that central Government had undermined what we were trying to achieve, with the result that we lost out to developers—developers who were often contributors to the Conservative party. Let that not be misunderstood.
    There are more important issues that should be discussed in a debate about rural Britain. I am sure that the fact will have escaped no Labour Member that all is not well in rural Britain, but we shall look at what we consider to be the real analysis of the real problems and the real dilemmas facing rural Britain—poverty, disadvantage and social exclusion. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) pointed out, earlier this year there was an Adjournment debate introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ), but only a limited number of Conservative Members bothered to turn up for that debate, albeit more than were present at this morning's debate on concessionary television licences.
    The Labour Government are prepared to accept that rural poverty exists, although it might be dispersed and difficult to measure. One of the previous
    458
    Government's legacies, and something that should never be forgotten, is that they commissioned a report on rural poverty during the mid-1980s. Even though it was their own report, they chose not to publish it or to own up to it; instead, they buried it. That is a disgraceful record. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment said, that report would have shown the scale of the problems of deprivation that were identified in the Rural Development Commission report published in 1997. I shall not reiterate the figures given by my right hon. Friend, but it is important that we understand how many communities suffer the problems of not having public transport or easy access to a GP.
    Why have the problems occurred? There are five key elements in the Conservative's legacy of failure. First, there are village services, which have declined out of all recognition. It was not without remorse that the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) recognised at last the folly of the policy that he kept in place for so long—out-of-town shopping development. He came to realise the damage that that was doing to villages and market town centres.
    Secondly, deregulatated public transport—which has been mentioned several times by my hon. Friends—and rail privatisation have done immense damage to our rural communities.
    Thirdly, I could speak at great length about housing, but I shall concentrate on the provision of affordable housing. It is all very well to talk about taking away people's rights to a discount on a council house sale, but what about the people who have no access to housing in rural Britain? The Conservative party practised social exclusion because it failed to allow any reprovision of council stock and denuded rural housing associations of any opportunity to provide the housing that is desperately needed. That is social exclusion of the worst sort.
    Fourthly, low pay is ever present in many rural areas, including my constituency. The Government can be proud that they have been able to introduce the national minimum wage, which will deal with low pay in all areas, whether urban or rural.
    Finally, there has been an overall deterioration in services such as health, education and social services, which of course has a disproportionate effect on the old, the young, the disabled, the low paid, the unemployed, lone parents and parents who are left at home.
    There is therefore no reason for the Opposition to warn us or tell us what we should be doing because the previous Administration let us down badly on rural matters. This Government take rural issues very seriously. We are fortunate to have so many Members who represent rural constituencies that we were able to form the rural Back-Bench group a year ago.
    Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Drew: No, time is very short.
    We formed that group and, only the other day, the Conservatives aped us. It is pleasing that they are now taking rural issues seriously.
    We have considered many rural matters and we shall continue to battle to get across our point of view on transport, on the reprovision of services and on dealing

    459
    with the ever-present rural housing issues. The Government will continue to listen to people in rural Britain and act on their views.
    9.11 pm
    Mr. James Clappison: This is an important debate on a subject that is of great interest to my constituents. The Government now know, if they did not before—I suspect that when they took office, they did not fully appreciate—how important the green belt is to many people, particularly those in certain parts of the country, including my constituents in Hertfordshire. More than anything else, those people want the full force of existing protection to be given to the green belt. There has been a change in the Government's pronouncements on this issue and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said, we shall seek proof of that in the Government's actions in future.
    We want full protection for the green belt and development to be permitted there only in exceptional circumstances. I was slightly concerned by what the Minister said about the contents of the White Paper, particularly the doctrine of compensation in other places through extension of the green belt, rather than protection of the existing green belt. I counsel the Government against moving too far in that direction. People want the existing green belt to be protected.
    I know that the Department is responsible for protection and conservation of wildlife as well as environmental protection. It would be strange if it applied its green belt principle to the conservation of wildlife. Ministers might say, for example, "The song thrush has become extinct, but never mind because we have added the skylark and the sand martin to the protected species list, which is a great triumph for conservation." They might say, "The Siberian tiger has become extinct, but we are now giving protection to the Indian elephant and the white rhino." We want a better policy than that.
    I was also concerned by the Minister's comment that, under the previous Conservative Government, there had been no corresponding increase in the size of the green belt. That is strange, and I seek an explanation because, under the previous Government, the green belt doubled, with the addition of 837,000 hectares.
    The Minister for the Environment produced an interesting figure of a 30,000 hectare increase, under the Government, in the area of green-belt land. It was an improvement on the one that the Prime Minister recently gave, when he told the House at Prime Minister's Question Time:
    "We have always made it clear that we will protect the green belt. In fact, there has been an increase in the amount of green-belt land since 1 May, so we do not need any lessons from the Conservative Opposition".-[Official Report, 4 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 1046.]
    When the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions was asked about the Prime Minister's answer in a written question, we were told that the basis of the Prime Minister's boast was
    "a net increase of nearly 4,000 ha"—[Official Report, 11 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 234.]
    in the green belt. That compared with an increase under the previous Government, between 1979 and 1993, of 830,000 hectares. According to my—admittedly
    460
    shaky—maths, that means that, if the present rate of increase continued, we would have to wait until 2205 for the Government to match the previous Conservative Administration's record. Even if the figure of 30,000 is correct, it would take the Government about 26 years to achieve what the previous Government achieved in 14 years. Has the figure of 30,000 been achieved, or does it represent an aspiration for the future? Perhaps the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), will tell us. She is bound to know the answer.
    The Under-Secretary can help us on another point. I listened carefully to the Minister's comments and claims about the Government's achievements. Some of them, especially on village shops, had a familiar ring; I wondered where I had heard them before. Then it occurred to me that, in the previous Parliament, I served on the Committee considering what is now the Local Government and Rating Act 1997, which introduced the rating discount for village shops. I know that it was late in the previous Parliament and, to give the Government credit, the then Opposition did not oppose the Bill, but the legislation was carried through by the previous Government. I am pleased to note that it is now an achievement of the present Government.
    More than anything else, we want proper protection of the existing green belt—the full force of existing protection. That is what my constituents want in Hertfordshire, that is what we want in the rest of the country and that is what Conservative Members will press for.
    9.16 pm
    Mr. Mark Todd: The 1997 general election result produced a major benefit for rural areas—it introduced political competition into parts of the country that had not experienced it for many years. We have a—
    Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Todd: My goodness; I have only just started. Time is short, so I am afraid that I must decline.
    As I have said to rural voters in my constituency—many of them have agreed—that political competition will be of benefit, because we are starting seriously to discuss issues that had previously been dealt with complacently by the Conservatives and with relatively little interest by Labour.
    The misguided Opposition motion fails to address the rural quality-of-life issues that my constituents care about. They are the ones that would be familiar in an urban constituency—the quality of schools, the availability of jobs, decent transport, affordable homes, crime and the quality of our environment. Those are the issues which most people in South Derbyshire care about, as I suspect do most constituents throughout the country.
    The previous Government's record on some key indicators reveals why their motion has been severely rubbished by all participants in the debate from other political parties. For example, in Derbyshire, in the last six years of the previous Government, the percentage of parishes with no rural daily bus service increased from 54 to 62 per cent. Eighty-seven per cent. of parishes in Derbyshire had no nursery, and there was a massive loss

    461
    of council housing in the rural areas. Many villages in my constituency have less than half the council housing that was once constructed, substantially reducing my constituents' choice of housing.
    The Government have focused on addressing those key issues. First, the additional £700,000 plus given to Derbyshire county council for rural bus services is gratefully received, with very many thanks. It will provide the platform for restoring services cut in the past—even for introducing new ones—and must be applauded.
    Secondly, the emphasis, within the comprehensive spending review, on nursery provision and on pre-school education generally, will increase the availability of pre-school places in rural communities in my constituency. I am delighted with that, too.
    Thirdly, if one examines the state of schools in my area, one sees that there has been a transformation, even in the 15 months since the last election. Schools in Findern, Hartshorne, Long Lane, Hilton, Barrow on Trent, Netherseal, Rosliston, Melbourne, Overseal and Egginton have already received promises of money from last year and during this year. By my reckoning, perhaps one of those schools would have received some resources under the previous Government. To put the matter in context, more than £1 million has been committed to those rural schools, as against the Conservative Government pledging in their last year just £2.1 million for the entire county of Derbyshire. That is the kind of thing that my constituents care about most.
    There remain issues to address. First, we must have a self-sufficient rural economy, diversifying away from agriculture. We must ensure that homes are available for workers in rural areas. We must sustain the environment of rural Britain and ensure that our citizens can enjoy it. We must recognise the increasing threat and fear of crime in rural areas, and we must maintain viable key services such as pharmacies and post offices.
    We must address those concerns holistically. If we accept a rural economy dependent on commuting, we shall damage our environment, force up housing costs in our rural areas, undermine critical rural retailers and other key services, and entrench a stratified society with a hidden minority of seriously deprived individuals concealed in our midst.
    Farm diversification is clearly critical to the task. The focus should be on trying to build local small businesses based around the food industry and providing additional jobs through that route. Local low-cost housing is essential to support that economy, together with cheap, reliable public transport. We do not need sprawling suburbia or protective nimbyism. In South Derbyshire, we require a clear balance between extra housing in our local plan and job growth. I would criticise the current county structure plan for lacking that balance in my area.
    We must build around local successes. We have many attractive, highly successful local primary schools. We should aim to build other key services around those schools, making them the focus of community life and maximising the efficient use of scarce resources. We must recognise the shortcomings of existing deprivation indicators in the standard spending assessment—in this context, I have considerable sympathy with some of the points made by Opposition Members, but they should recall that the rules were drawn up under their own Government.
    462
    The useful Rural Development Commission report on that shows that the current disadvantage indicators in the standard spending assessment are built around an urban slant, which clearly needs to be substantially altered. Deprivation is hidden in rural areas. Lack of advice services, paternalism and self-help often hide disadvantage that would be much more evident in an urban setting. Regression analysis based on past spending levels also works against low-spending rural authorities. Key services face higher unit costs than in urban areas. The Government's promised review of the SSA should correct those faults.
    The development of rural development agencies obliged to produce rural employment strategies should start to address farm diversification, as should the Government's lead on Agenda 2000. Other initiatives include the minimum wage, which has been applauded already by some of my colleagues, the new deal for unemployed groups and the work of the coalfield task force. My community has a significant coalfield legacy. The coalfields were largely in rural areas. The task force will be an important component in redressing the balance for our rural communities. All those initiatives will provide a platform for improvements in rural quality of life.
    Extra health spending will allow us to address the alarmingly poor performance of the Derbyshire Ambulance Service NHS trust, which currently produces the worst performance in the country in terms of response times—something which is a particularly acute problem in a rural constituency like mine. That is something that I am keen to see addressed.
    The Government are taking on board the key quality concerns of my rural constituents while the Opposition motion addresses the Opposition's old obsessions in their old way and offers no future.
    9.24 pm
    Mr. Owen Paterson: Representing as I do one of the most rural constituencies in the country, I can inform the House that the Government's long-term policies will cause extreme difficulties for rural areas.
    In Shropshire, an extra 36,000 houses are due to be built between 1996 and 2011, to conform to the ludicrous plan to build 4.4 million that the Secretary of State will impose on the country. That will lead to a 10 per cent. increase in the population of Shropshire, with an increase of 34 per cent. among those of retirement age. It will lead also to jobs and homes not being in balance with the economy—and certainly not with the services offered to the public by local agencies. The local council says that in Oswestry, for instance,
    "all options will require environmental capacity to be breached."
    The provision of 2,400 houses a year is being made at twice the rate required to cope with the natural change that would occur if immigration were ignored.
    In 1891, there were 236,000 people and 49,000 houses. Since then, there has been an incredible 70 per cent. increase in population and an amazing 330 per cent. increase in housing. That is partly due to social changes, but the Government must think about their long-term policies because so many more people will be divorced and single. By 2011, one-person households will take up one third of all houses in Shropshire.

    463
    The pressure on local services has not been taken into account. Funding in Shropshire has been cut drastically since the Government came to power. For example, £100 million has been taken from the rural areas to the inner cities. It is ludicrous that an area such as Shropshire should have a standard spending assessment only 80 per cent. of Newcastle upon Tyne's. Shropshire is twice the area of London, but has only 4 per cent. of London's population. The Government do not understand that it costs more to provide services in a sparsely populated rural area.
    There are 522 settlements in Shropshire with fewer than 2,000 people. That is 26 per cent. of all our settlements. We need seven primary schools to serve 1,000 people—twice the number required in an urban area. However, we have an urban Government who do not understand that.
    Mr. Hayes: I notice that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who represents the 110th most rural constituency, according to Library figures, is laughing. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that, despite the claims made by the Labour party, the truth is that it does not represent rural Britain psychologically. If we take the 50 most rural seats in Britain, the Labour party is the third party of Britain after the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps that is why the Government do not understand the issues that my hon. Friend is speaking about.
    Mr. Paterson: That was a most helpful intervention; I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Labour party won many rural seats last year, but it does not understand rural issues. Nothing more clearly showed that than the local government settlement this year, when £10 million worth of cuts were imposed on Shropshire and there was a 17 per cent. increase in council tax. It was only after I led a march of 4,000 people, with the Bishop of Ludlow, who I suspect is not of my political persuasion, that the Government graciously lent Shropshire another £2.5 million.
    These circumstances will lead to real pressures to resist an increase in population. Cuts in services have not been thought through. There are real costs involved in delivering services to a rural area, and the most obvious is transport. The Government do not understand that. The White Paper which was introduced last week—[Interruption.] The Minister jumps up and down, and laughs, but 60 per cent. of people in Shropshire drive to work. It is just not on to pretend that we can impose a Gosplan-type fixed system—[Interruption.] It is not possible to impose a coherent publicly planned transport policy on an area such as Shropshire. In my constituency, which has 98 villages, that cannot be done. As I have said, 60 per cent. of people drive to work. [Interruption.] The escalator tax on petrol is a tax on every business throughout north Shropshire, as is the increase in the price of diesel. Distribution is a major business in north Shropshire. Diesel costs 30 to 40 per cent. more in this country than on the continent, the rate of vehicle excise duty in France is a sixth of the rate in this country—and the Minister laughs, even though 95 per cent. of goods are transported by road freight. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Until now, the debate has been very good natured. Hon. Members should not be shouting across the Chamber.
    Mr. Paterson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have used the last minute of my speech to show how exasperated my constituents are at the policies that are being imposed by an urban Government who do not understand rural areas.
    9.29 pm
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: As often happens in such debates, Back Benchers have provided original and relevant contributions. The hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) posed a number of questions that the Government would do well to answer, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) raised the West Sussex drama once again, and my hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made striking comments about the extraordinary admissions by the Government in respect of their new and bizarre philosophy for the green belt, which has turned it into an ever-moveable feast for developers.
    The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) forgot to mention that the Government have rate-capped his county council, which is the only one in the country that has been capped. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) spoke of the 10 per cent. increase in population that is being been forced on Shropshire by the Government; and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) for making such a welcome and useful intervention about the nature of the Labour party.
    When he replied to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), the Minister for the Environment did it again—new Labour has consistently shown that it does not understand the countryside. Nothing showed that better than the countryside march in the spring, and nothing surprised country dwellers and their supporters more than the strength of feeling that was mobilised against the Government, who were evidently surprised as well.
    New Labour means new taxes on the countryside. The people who live there know that, because they are already feeling the pain and bearing the brunt of the record council tax increases that the Government have imposed on the counties and the rural districts. The Minister for the Environment comprehensively failed to answer that point, which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk.
    The other taxes targeted on rural areas are taxes on the motorist. The Government will raise an extra £9 billion in fuel duties during this Parliament, over and above what would have been raised by our tax plans had they remained in place. The impact of Labour's tax rise is most cruel for those in far-flung areas, where there is no practical alternative to the car for the vast majority of journeys.
    In many cases, the car makes it possible for rural communities to survive. The Government campaigning against the car in today's countryside is as paradoxical as making a film about the wild west without horses. The urban dweller does little mileage, so increased fuel

    465
    costs are of little consequence. Country dwellers have to travel much greater distances; moreover, they have to pay the taxes, because they have no alternative to the car.
    The purpose of these taxes is to raise tax for the Treasury. The Government say that they are against regressive taxation. What is the choice for rural people? Pay the taxes and use the car, or lose their jobs, incomes and businesses, their contact with friends and family in neighbouring towns and villages and their ready access to public services and benefits that should be theirs by right.
    These motoring taxes do not redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Excessive motoring taxes hurt the poorest most, and those who need the car are often those who can least afford it: single mothers in part-time work; pensioner households, for whom the car is the last and most precious luxury; people on low incomes; and in particular, the self-employed. Come to rural areas and find forms of social exclusion that simply do not register on new Labour's urban radar.
    Under the Conservatives, there was a huge increase in access to cars across rural communities, and women and pensioners were the biggest beneficiaries. The car brought them freedom to travel and unparalleled opportunities to improve the quality of their lives. New Labour does not realise that, or it does not care. It may think that it is modernising, but it seems determined to turn the clock back. Those are the very people whom new Labour says it champions. Under new Labour, people who need their cars suffer most. If fuel poverty is bad, why is car fuel poverty acceptable?
    Yes, there are some public transport alternatives scattered across rural Britain. The Minister said that 75 per cent. of rural parishes have no daily bus service. Community transport alternatives are on the increase. Parishes with dial-a-ride schemes increased from 8 per cent. in 1991 to 15 per cent. in 1997. Conservatives will support any practical alternatives to the car in rural areas and anywhere else, particularly if they harness the enterprise of the private sector and the good will of the community. We have never pretended to have all the answers.
    Mr. David Taylor: I am pleased to hear the shadow Front-Bench spokesman say that the Conservatives will support any alternatives to the car. How does that sit with the deregulation of bus services, which removed much of public transport from the most rural areas which hon. Members on both sides of the House now represent?
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to what I was saying. One of the reasons for the decline in rural bus services is that people have the superior alternative of the car. In the last six years we were in office, there was a big increase in dial-a-ride services and community transport, which is much more applicable to rural areas.
    New Labour is a byword for wanton cynicism and opportunism. In March this year, the Chancellor announced that the Government were to devote an extra £50 million to rural bus schemes. That is a classic example of new Labour spin, and the Minister wantonly
    466
    spun it again today. This tokenism has gained publicity out of all proportion to the scale of the commitment. It would be instructive to compare that figure with the amount of extra money that the Treasury will suck out of the countryside through its draconian increases in fuel duty. The Library estimates that to be at least twice as much every year.
    As for the Minister's announcement of an increase in money for the countryside, the real increase is 26 per cent. spread over three years. The increase of 11 per cent. in the first year is only £18 million. How does that compare with the £9 billion in extra fuel duties? How many new bus services per village would £50 million buy? Even if it were to double the provision of rural bus services, a village would get perhaps four services a day instead of two. What alternative is that to a car? [Interruption.] The answer to that question was thought to be the transport White Paper. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must calm down: we need to hear the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Jenkin: I shall take it out of the Minister's time. The answer to that question was thought to be the transport White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", but it is a very poor deal for rural areas. Like the bad old days of British Rail, the Chancellor's £50 million for rural transport is announced again and again throughout the White Paper, but the policy itself never arrives.
    The White Paper is almost exclusively about urban and inter-urban transport. Virtually nothing in its 170 pages of waffle pays more than lip service to the transport problems of rural areas. Its central thesis is "pay up now and benefit some time in the future"—by way of little more than the faint prospect of improvements to public transport. When the Deputy Prime Minister made his statement last week, he called that hypothecation. In the here today, gone tomorrow world of Labour's Transport Ministers, that is what passes for a victory over the Treasury.
    The only other money the Government have to spend for the next five years comes as a direct benefit of rail privatization—the money freed up by reducing rail subsidies. The Government will take people off the road long before adequate alternatives are in place. The Council for the Protection of Rural England complains that the Government are creating a two-tier transport system—a new deal for the towns, but no deal for rural areas. It is new Labour tax on tax on tax from the party which, before the general election, solemnly promised no new taxes at all. No concessionary fares scheme can possibly compensate people in isolated communities for being priced out of their cars.
    In the section "Reducing social exclusion", the Government come up with another novel solution. Paragraph 4.88 states:
    "Planning has a role here, for example, in promoting the growth of key villages."

    467
    What exactly does that mean? I am reminded of the words of Jon Mendelsohn, the famous lobbyist and crony of the Prime Minister:
    "Tony is very anxious to be seen as green. Everything has to be couched"—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When we refer to the Prime Minister or any other hon. Member we use his constituency name.
    Mr. Jenkin: Speaking of the Prime Minister, the lobbyist said:
    "Everything has to be couched in environmental language—even if it is slightly Orwellian."
    In this Orwellian world, what is a key village and what do the Government mean by growth?
    The integration of planning and transport is meant to be a key part of the Government's integrated transport strategy. But the Government's house building policy flies in the face of what they say about land use planning.
    The Government rightly acknowledge the Conservative Government's changes in planning policy guidance. It was the Conservatives who took the first initiatives towards the integration of transport and land use planning—in PPG 13. However, the Government have not only accepted unquestioningly the projection that 4.4 million new homes will need to be built in the next 20 years, but the Deputy Prime Minister has set about the task of ensuring that they are built. Moreover, half of them are to be targeted on rural areas.
    We are pushing for two thirds of new build to be situated on brown-field sites; for the planning guidance which the Minister has yet to produce to reflect changes in Government policy; and for a halt to the structure plans until the guidance is issued—another point to which the right hon. Gentleman did not refer, not least because the Government do not seem to appreciate that the people who choose to live in those houses on green-field sites will need to own cars.
    Does the Deputy Prime Minister understand that, even if he realises his golden age of racehorse buses, his integrated transport policy will be no more than a pantomime horse if more and more people live away from the large conurbations and continue to use their cars? The whole purpose of land use planning is that people should live nearer where they work and the shops, offices and facilities that they need so that alternatives to the car can become available by choice.
    The Government's policy is a mess. The transport White Paper is the most manifest evidence that they have failed to appreciate the problems facing rural areas. The CPRE has made public its fear that
    "Transport corridors could become a location for 1990s-style ribbon development."
    As every schoolboy knows, that is exactly what the green belt was designed to prevent. As well as hammering the rural motorist with ever higher taxes and creating rural car fuel poverty, they are targeting housing in rural areas or, to reuse their Orwellian rhetoric,
    "promoting the growth of key villages".
    468
    That is not integration; it is a massive fudge. The Government's policies are destructive of the environment and ultimately self-defeating. But that should come as no surprise when key former advisers regard key green-belt areas as
    "just a bunch of mud tracts on the edge of town".
    Those are the words of Derek Draper, whose key contact in the Government is Mr. Geoff Norris of the No. 10 policy unit. It was he who ripped the guts out of the transport White Paper even before it had reached the dim world of off-the-record briefings.
    What happened to the environment? Let Mr. Draper explain:
    "He"—
    the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher)—
    "is very weak and basically he's irrelevant and nobody should have to take him into account … He's nobody going nowhere. I don't think he'll be in his job much longer."
    Mr. Draper got that bit wrong. I pay tribute to the outgoing Minister of Transport. The Government might well have done better to listen to his advice. I welcome his successor, the hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), but he has some catching up to do to win an Oscar nomination like that of the Minister for Transport in London.
    The real problem lies in the Government's mindset—in the Labour party's fundamental bias in favour of its urban heartlands. New Labour's first-hand knowledge of the countryside is from an Islington perspective: it is a mixture of James Herriot, "The Archers" and Postman Pat, laced with the poison of coercion and political correctness. The Liberal Democrats are completely divided on the countryside. They say what they want, depending on where they happen to be at the time. It therefore falls to the Conservatives to speak for rural Britain.
    The Government are determined to make the countryside pay for their failures and their policies. They are not just harming those who live and work in the countryside; they are failing Britain as a whole. Today, the populations in our great towns and cities may far outnumber those in the countryside, but the few are no less a part of our nation's history and greatness. When we sing
    "And did those feet in ancient time
    Walk upon England's mountains green?",
    we want to sing about the England of today, not about an England that has been laid waste by the Government's dogma and incompetence. While the Government and their cronies are trying to build some new Jerusalem of their own, the rest of us can see that the countryside is already our inheritance. It must not be squandered.
    9.45 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): This is, I believe, the third Opposition day on which Opposition Members have chosen to debate rural issues. On each occasion, they have markedly failed to convince either the House or the country that they are even vaguely what they continually claim to be—the party that speaks for rural interests.

    469
    What we have heard tonight has been the usual recycling of, in the main, inaccurate statistics, along with empty insults directed at the Labour Benches—where sit a Government and a party committed to the interests of our rural communities. If the Conservative party genuinely wishes to present itself as a party with even the slightest interest in the countryside and its people, all that it needs to do is apologise for the grievous damage that it inflicted on rural communities during the 18 years of its lamentable Government. It is the party which was responsible for vast unemployment in rural areas, for the reduction of housing in rural areas, for taking away public transport in rural areas and for causing grievous damage not only to agriculture but to the human food chain. It sat idly by and allowed BSE to take a poisonous grip on the country, and taxpayers are still paying vast amounts as a result.
    Let me now adopt a rather more factual approach to the issues raised tonight, and, perhaps, set the record straight on some of the issues that Opposition Members introduced time after time. The most obvious is the canard that the Government—and, indeed, the Labour party—are giving away the nation's green belt. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment pointed out, it was the Labour Government who introduced a green belt. It may interest the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who asked a direct question, to know that, since 1 May last year, the green belt has increased by 29,547 hectares.
    The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and, I believe, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) were much exercised by what they claimed to be the Government's plans for new house building over the coming decades. I understand that the need for 4.4 million new houses was first suggested by the previous Government who significantly failed to meet their target of 50 per cent. of new build on brown-field sites. They managed to average only 42 per cent. on such sites.
    The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) was much concerned about the effect of new build on Sussex. It is impossible for the Government, and it would have been impossible for the previous Administration, to accept a shortfall of 12,800 houses in that area. The hon. Gentleman claims that 60 per cent. of them will have to be built on green-field sites. The figure for the previous Government was 58 per cent., and our clear commitment is that the majority of our houses will be on brown-field sites.
    Mr. Yeo: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Ms Jackson: No, I will not.
    Mr. Yeo: Give way.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is not giving way.
    Ms Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Despite being exhorted by their leader to listen, Opposition Members are totally incapable of doing so. When I say no, I invariably mean no.
    Opposition Members have dwelt on the issue of the Government overruling local councils that want to build on the green belt. Their assertions were untrue. The Tories
    470
    overruled councils and approved building on green-belt land in Manchester, South Bedfordshire, Kent and Woking. In one of his last decisions as Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) approved development on 50 hectares of metropolitan green belt in Surrey.
    I hope that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) expressed her concern to the previous Administration. As I have said, Berkshire was one of the three counties that the previous Government directed to change its plans by increasing the number of houses to be built by 3,000. That direction resulted in adjustments to Berkshire's green-belt boundary. The hon. Lady spoke about the number of houses that the south-east regional planning conference has announced, but those are for consultation only. She also asked about motorway service areas. I am sure that she is aware that my noble Friend the Minister for Roads was paying particular attention to that issue and examined it in no small detail.
    The hon. Member for Maidenhead castigated the Government for what she decried as a policy for the closure of rural schools. We have made it abundantly clear that a proposal to close any rural school will have to be submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for a decision. The hon. Lady may be interested to know that, in 1997, a rural council survey highlighted the fact that, in 49 per cent. of rural areas, there was no school at all.
    In a sense, the debate began with the contribution by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) who touched on the issues that are genuinely important to people in rural areas. We would argue that they are also important to people in urban areas. Those issues relate to improving the quality of life. The hon. Gentleman made a valid point to which the Government have paid, and will continue to pay, particular attention. It was about how the previous Administration for 18 years allowed the quality of life in urban areas to deteriorate so lamentably that people moved from towns to rural areas. That happened despite loud pronouncements by the then Prime Minister, now Baroness Thatcher, that that Government had to take action on the cities. They markedly failed to do that. That is an issue to which we are, indeed, directing attention.
    The hon. Gentleman will know of Lord Rogers's task force. The whole thrust of our transport policies, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is to offer genuine alternatives to over-dependence on the private car. We are looking at issues such as home zones and the use of information technology to ensure that traffic does not pollute urban areas to such an extent that not only people but industry, business and retail outlets wish to move from urban areas.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: I touched on rural homelessness. I have now had information that, in Devon and Cornwall, the Government office has confirmed a 23 per cent. increase in homelessness acceptances. There seems to be a genuine problem, with the increase in homelessness perhaps linked to the increase in repossessions and to benefit changes. I hope that the Minister will ask some of her team to look at that problem.
    Ms Jackson: I have little doubt that my colleagues will read this evening's debate because, as I have made abundantly clear, rural issues and the quality of life in rural areas are of prime importance to this Government, but I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's point to my hon. Friends' attention.

    471
    It was Labour Members, who have direct experience of life in rural areas because they represent those areas, who touched on the issues that are of real concern to people who live in rural areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) pointed out, those issues include unemployment. He paid tribute to the Government's policy on the new deal. He also touched on the health needs of rural areas, again an area which was mercilessly attacked by the previous Administration, and highlighted again the Labour Government's health action zones.
    My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) also raised many precise, particular and detailed points as they affect his constituents in a rural area. He again made the point that it is only Conservative Members who have a desire to foster the entirely false premise that there is a difference between rural and urban. He made the point, as he has on previous occasions, that town and country are mutually dependent. It is certainly this Government's policy, as we have said on more than one occasion, to govern for all the people, which is why we are targeting so many of our activities and, indeed, so much of our finance, towards redressing the appalling damage that was inflicted on rural areas by the Conservative party. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. Too many conversations are going on.
    Ms Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    I repeat that it was left to Labour Members to introduce into the debate the issues that are of real importance to people in rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) touched on the total lack of transport in many rural areas because of the previous Administration's approach to public transport as a whole. They deregulated the buses and privatised our railways, leaving many rural areas totally isolated.
    My hon. Friend touched on social exclusion, which was introduced by the previous Administration: they denuded many rural areas of affordable housing and refused to allow rural housing associations to attempt to redress the balance. My hon. Friend paid tribute to the historic introduction by this Government of a national minimum wage, which will do much to redress the appallingly low pay that exists in rural areas.
    My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) again touched on the real issues—it was my hon. Friends who raised many of them for the first time in the debate—including crime. That is an issue, as this Government are aware, which is and can be as prevalent in rural areas as it has been in urban areas. Here, too, we are taking steps to attack and tackle the problem so that the quality of life in the rural environment can be improved.
    The Government are determined to address the real, everyday concerns of people in rural areas. They are the same concerns as those of their neighbours in towns and relate to jobs, schools, health, transport and the provision of services. As my right hon. Friend said earlier, the Government have a clear vision for rural areas—a living, working and sustainable countryside that contributes to the general prosperity of the country.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 304.

    Division No. 352]

    [9.59 pm

    AYES

    Amess, David

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Hunter, Andrew

    Arbuthnot, James

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Beggs, Roy

    Johnson Smith,

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Bercow, John

    Keetch, Paul

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

    Boswell, Tim

    Key, Robert

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Brady, Graham

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Brazier, Julian

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Lansley, Andrew

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Leigh, Edward

    Burns, Simon

    Letwin, Oliver

    Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

    Lidington, David

    Cash, William

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Livsey, Richard

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Clappison, James

    Loughton, Tim

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Luff, Peter

    Collins, Tim

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Cotter, Brian

    MacKay, Andrew

    Cran, James

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Madel, Sir David

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Malins, Humfrey

    Duncan, Alan

    Maples, John

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Mates, Michael

    Evans, Nigel

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Faber, David

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Fabricant, Michael

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Fallon, Michael

    Moss, Malcolm

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Oaten, Mark

    Flight, Howard

    Öpik, Lembit

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Ottaway, Richard

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Paice, James

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Paterson, Owen

    Fraser, Christopher

    Pickles, Eric

    Gale, Roger

    Prior, David

    Garnier, Edward

    Randall, John

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Gibb, Nick

    Robathan, Andrew

    Gill, Christopher

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Gorrie, Donald

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Gray, James

    Ruffley, David

    Green, Damian

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Sanders, Adrian

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Shepherd, Richard

    Hammond, Philip

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Hancock, Mike

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Hawkins, Nick

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Hayes, John

    Spring, Richard

    Heald, Oliver

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Steen, Anthony

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Stunell, Andrew

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Swayne, Desmond

    Horam, John

    Syms, Robert

    473

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Whittingdale, John

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Wilkinson, John

    Thompson, William

    Willetts, David

    Tredinnick, David

    Wilshire, David

    Trend, Michael

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Tyler, Paul

    Woodward, Shaun

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Yeo, Tim

    Viggers, Peter

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Wardle, Charles

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Webb, Steve

    Mr. Nigel Waterson and Mr. Stephen Day.

    Wells, Bowen

    Mr. Stephen Day.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Colman, Tony

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Connarty, Michael

    Ainger, Nick

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Alexander, Douglas

    Corbett, Robin

    Allen, Graham

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Cousins, Jim

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Cox, Tom

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cranston, Ross

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Crausby, David

    Austin, John

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Banks, Tony

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Barron, Kevin

    Cummings, John

    Battle, John

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Beard, Nigel

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Dalyell, Tam

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Darvill, Keith

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Benton, Joe

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Best, Harold

    Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

    Betts, Clive

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Blackman, Liz

    Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Dismore, Andrew

    Blizzard, Bob

    Dobbin, Jim

    Boateng, Paul

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Borrow, David

    Doran, Frank

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Drew, David

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Edwards, Huw

    Burden, Richard

    Efford, Clive

    Burgon, Colin

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Ennis, Jeff

    Byers, Stephen

    Etherington, Bill

    Caborn, Richard

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Flynn, Paul

    Canavan, Dennis

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Cann, Jamie

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Foulkes, George

    Caton, Martin

    Fyfe, Maria

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Gapes, Mike

    Chaytor, David

    Gerard, Neil

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Clapham, Michael

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edingburgh Pentlands)

    Goggins, Paul

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hain, Peter

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Cohen, Harry

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Coleman, Iain

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    474

    Hanson, David

    Mallaber, Judy

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Mandelson, Peter

    Healey, John

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Heppell, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Hesford, Stephen

    Maxton, John

    Hill, Keith

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hinchliffe, David

    Meale, Alan

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Merron, Gillian

    Hoey, Kate

    Michael, Alun

    Hood, Jimmy

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Milburn, Alan

    Hope, Phil

    Miller, Andrew

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Mitchell, Austin

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Morley, Elliot

    Hutton, John

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Illsley, Eric

    Mudie, George

    Ingram, Adam

    Mullin, Chris

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Jamieson, David

    Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

    Jenkins, Brian

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Olner, Bill

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Pearson, Ian

    Pendry, Tom

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Pike, Peter L

    Jowell, Ms Tessa

    Plaskitt, James

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Pollard, Kerry

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Pope, Greg

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Pound, Stephen

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Kidney, David

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Purchase, Ken

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Laxton, Bob

    Raynsford, Nick

    Leslie, Christopher

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Levitt, Tom

    Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Rogers, Allan

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Rooker, Jeff

    Linton, Martin

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Rowlands, Ted

    Love, Andrew

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    McAllion, John

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    McCabe, Steve

    Salter, Martin

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Sawford, Phil

    Macdonald, Calum

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McDonnell, John

    Shaw, Jonathan

    McFall, John

    Sheerman, Barry

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McIsaac, Shona

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Skinner, Dennis

    McLeish, Henry

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    McNulty, Tony

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McWalter, Tony

    Soley, Clive

    McWilliam, John

    Spellar, John

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    475

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Vaz, Keith

    Stevenson, George

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    White, Brian

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Wills, Michael

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Winnick, David

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Wise, Audrey

    Timms, Stephen

    Wood, Mike

    Tipping, Paddy

    Woolas, Phil

    Todd, Mark

    Worthington, Tony

    Touhig, Don

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Truswell, Paul

    Wyatt, Derek

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Mr. David Clelland and Mr. Jim Dowd.

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House congratulates the Government on its commitment to promote sustainable development in all areas of the United Kingdom, including rural areas; recognises the progress which has been made on improving rural services over the last fifteen months; welcomes the creation of powerful Regional Development Agencies which will promote prosperity in both towns and countryside; welcomes the creation of a new agency to promote the interests of the countryside in England by bringing together the Countryside Commission and parts of the Rural Development Commission; recognises the Government's determination to increase the proportion of new houses built on brownfield sites; and supports the Government's desire to give greater freedom for people to explore the open countryside.

    Northern Ireland (Sentences)
    10.14
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I beg to move,
    That the draft Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organisations) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 28th July, be approved.
    The Good Friday agreement commits the Government to providing for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners convicted of scheduled or similar offences. The Government introduced legislation to meet that commitment, and that legislation, the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, received Royal Assent last night.
    The Good Friday agreement was overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland, and it is our duty is to implement it as faithfully and as fully as possible. The agreement will work only if all parties honour the commitments that they have made.
    The purpose of the order is to specify organisations under section 3(8) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. The order is important and forms a key part of the scheme provided for by the legislation. Under section 3 of the Act, a prisoner will not be eligible for early release if he or she supports an organisation that is specified.
    In addition, prisoners may have their licences suspended and be recalled to prison if they support an organisation, regardless of whether it was specified when they were released.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If my right hon. Friend has seen Mrs. McBride, ought she not also to take an early opportunity to see Mrs. Wright and Mrs. Fisher or the Scots Guards Association?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I am aware of that point. I saw the family of the man who was killed in the incident, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence saw the Scots Guards Association. In that sense, both have had their voices heard by Government. I know the interest that my hon. Friend takes in the matter, and I assure him that I am well on the way to reviewing the case, and will make an announcement as soon as possible.
    Mr. Andrew Hunter: Is it not the case that, last year, the Secretary of State informed the release committee that she felt that it was inappropriate for her to become involved in individual cases? The impression that she has given by seeing the McBride family or its representatives is that she has contradicted her stated opinion and consulted one side and not the other in a matter for which, ultimately, she has responsibility.
    Marjorie Mowlam: The situation changed when I announced that the review was on, and the parents, who were extremely upset at the possible releases, wanted to express their views to me. That does not bias me one way or the other. I discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who has seen the association that is fighting the case for Mr. Fisher and Mr. Wright. I am reading the facts and making my own judgment, not talking to one side or the other in any way. I would have preferred to remain outside both, but, when the Secretary of State for Defence saw the one side,

    477
    and the parents were very upset, I thought that it would do no harm to hear of the pain that they felt they would continue to suffer.
    The conditions that I specified are not the only ones that a prisoner must satisfy. In addition to the requirements regarding the nature and length of the sentence, the commissioners who will make decisions under the Act must consider that the prisoner would, if released, not be likely to become a supporter of a specified organisation or become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: Can my right hon. Friend estimate the approximate numbers of republican and loyalist prisoners who might be affected?
    Marjorie Mowlam: There are approximately four to five hundred—probably 420—scheduled offence prisoners in the Maze. Their eligibility is for the commission, under the criteria that I am outlining, to decide. I do not have in my head the numbers of loyalists or republicans. My hon. Friend will understand that the numbers depend on which groups are specified; their prisoners will not be eligible for early release, and the commission will consider each individual case and make its decision.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I think that the Secretary of State said forty-five hundred—[HON. MEMBERS: "Four to five hundred."] I thank hon. Members.
    Marjorie Mowlam: Some reports say 400, some 500. The figure depends on the organisations that prisoners identify with, on whether they are transferred prisoners under scheduled offences, and on whether they are on remand. There are variations. I think that about 420 will in the end be eligible.
    Prisoners will not be permitted to be part of the scheme if they support a specified organisation or become involved in the commission or preparation of terrorist offences. A life sentence prisoner will not be released if he or she would be a danger to the public. The commissioners make that decision.
    Mr. David Wilshire: If a Sinn Fein-IRA murderer is released and Sinn Fein-IRA break their ceasefire, will that murderer be returned to prison?
    Marjorie Mowlam: If that individual supports Sinn Fein-IRA actively by leafleting, raising money or committing terrorist acts, yes.
    Mr. Wilshire: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Marjorie Mowlam: No. I am sorry, but I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman. I beg the forbearance of the House to allow me to make some progress before taking further interventions.
    In deciding whether to specify an organisation, I am required to make a judgment on two matters. First, I must judge whether the organisation is concerned with terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland,
    478
    or in promoting or encouraging it—that is, that it is a terrorist organisation. The second matter follows directly from the words of the agreement, which states:
    "Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements."
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Marjorie Mowlam: If the hon. Gentleman will let me make a little more progress, I shall certainly give way.
    In deciding whether an organisation has established and is maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire I must in particular take into account the following factors: first, whether an organisation is committed to the use now and in future of only democratic and peaceful means to achieve its objectives; secondly, whether it has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or preparation of violence; thirdly, whether it is directing or promoting acts of violence by other organisations; fourthly, whether it is co-operating fully with the decommissioning commission. Those factors are familiar to many hon. Members, and follow directly from the Prime Minister's speech at Balmoral on 14 May. I can, in addition, take into account other relevant factors, but, in making my overall judgment, I must take account of each of those.
    I have considered which organisations I am required to specify under the Act, and have decided to specify the Continuity Irish Republican Army, or CIRA; the "Real" Irish Republican Army; the Irish National Liberation Army, or INLA; and the Loyalist Volunteer Force, or LVF.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) first.
    Mr. Robinson: During the referendum campaign, the Prime Minister came to Northern Ireland. He indicated that no prisoners would be released unless the organisation of which they were part had given up violence for good. Over the past few weeks, the Provisional IRA has killed one man and brutally beaten another. Why is it not on the list?
    Marjorie Mowlam: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall refer to that matter in two or three points' time, when I shall go into some detail and answer him directly. Will the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) wait until then as well?
    Mr. Robathan indicated assent.
    Marjorie Mowlam: Good.
    Prisoners who support the organisations that I have specified will not be eligible for early release. I have reached those decisions on the basis of security assessments and following consideration of advice from the RUC; but, in the end, the judgment is mine.

    479
    I should like to say a little about my decision in each case as to whether or not an organisation has been specified. The Continuity IRA has been involved in acts of terrorism since 1994, and there are no indications that either CIRA or its political wing, Republican Sinn Fein, has any intention of abandoning violence as a means of pursuing its political objectives. I have therefore specified the Continuity IRA.
    The Real IRA has carried out a number of attacks so far this year, which have included car bombings and mortar attacks. There are no indications that the Real IRA intends to call a ceasefire, and I have therefore specified that organisation.
    The Irish National Liberation Army is a more established organisation, having been in existence since 1975. At no time since then has it declared a ceasefire. It has been responsible for many appalling attacks, and there are no indications that the INLA is yet ready to declare a ceasefire. Its political wing, the Irish Republican Socialist party, has spoken of the possibility of a ceasefire, but there are no indications yet that there is a serious prospect of that being delivered. I have therefore specified the INLA.
    The Loyalist Volunteer Force or LVF has been responsible for many murders. In May this year, the LVF declared a ceasefire—a welcome step. It has also named a contact person with the decommissioning body, and meetings have taken place. However, a ceasefire must be demonstrated in acts as well as words. I hope that that will be the case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but I have yet to be convinced that the LVF ceasefire is complete and unequivocal; therefore, I have specified the LVF.
    The three other organisations that I have decided not to specify in this order are the Provisional IRA, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force. In each case, the advice I have received does show that there have been serious deficiencies. In particular, although all three organizations—or in the case of the Provisional IRA and the UDA, the political party with which they are associated—have had discussions with the decommissioning body, there has been much less progress than I would wish to see.
    I take that extremely seriously, and will expect to see the progress on decommissioning that is envisaged in the Good Friday agreement. However, viewing the matter in the round, as I am required to do by the Act, I have concluded that all three of those organisations are maintaining complete and unequivocal ceasefires.
    Mr. Robathan: As always, the right hon. Lady is generous in giving way. Will she tell the House whether she has received information, intelligence or advice from the RUC to the effect that Direct Action Against Drugs is a front organisation for the Provisional IRA; and whether she has received information that Direct Action Against Drugs has carried out several punishment beatings and probably one murder? If she has not received such advice, will she go and walk the streets of west Belfast, where everyone will tell her that Direct Action Against Drugs is the same as the Provisional IRA, and is carrying out so-called punishment beatings and brutal acts of terrorism?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I shall turn to punishment beatings in a moment, when I shall respond to the hon.
    480
    Gentleman's point. There have been 960 punishment beatings by both sides since the first ceasefire. I have made it clear that I think that punishment beatings are appalling—[interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I do not want hon. Members to speak while the right hon. Lady is addressing the House. That is unfair.
    Marjorie Mowlam: My point is that the previous Administration realised that these are difficult matters. I have made it clear that punishment beatings have to stop. I shall explain later how I view that matter in the context of the judgment that I have had to make. That judgment has not been easy. I had to judge in the round, according to the four criteria, whether all four organisations should be specified. I shall explain in more detail why that is the case. I have taken the matter extremely seriously, and expect to see progress on decommissioning and other aspects very soon.
    Having viewed the matter in the round, as the Good Friday agreement says I should, I have concluded that the three organisations that I have not specified are committed to maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. I have taken into account the four factors. I know that certain hon. Members are dissatisfied with my conclusion, but it was far from an easy judgment. It was inevitably a balanced judgment, in which any specific failure by an organisation has to be weighed alongside all the other available information, and that is what I have done.
    There are organisations, particularly the Loyalist Volunteer Force, that have yet to establish a complete and unequivocal ceasefire, but appear to be moving in the right direction. I hope that those organisations will now embrace the democratic process that has been endorsed by the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. If they establish and maintain complete and unequivocal ceasefires, I will reassess their position. The process will be under continuous review, so other organisations, such as PIRA, the UDA and the UDF, which have established such a ceasefire, will have to continue to demonstrate that they are maintaining it to avoid being specified in future. That is the crucial test.
    Mr. Wilshire: The right hon. Lady speaks of an unequivocal ceasefire. Will she explain how many murders and punishment beatings an organisation is allowed to perform before a ceasefire stops being a proper ceasefire?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I have, I hope, made it clear to the House what the agreement asks me to do, including informing the House, as I am doing this evening. The agreement requires me to consider whether organisations are completely and unequivocally maintaining a ceasefire. There are four criteria by which I judge that.
    I have to make a judgment in the round, so, in answer to the hon. Gentleman, I cannot respond to hypothetical cases. I will make that judgment when I am given facts. That is the job I have been given, and I am making that announcement in line with the criteria and the information with which I have been provided. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman does not agree with my judgment. I have information that I have presented to the House, and I have other information that it is difficult to present to the House. I assure him that the judgment was difficult, but I have made it as fairly and justly as possible.

    481
    The process will be under continuous review, so it will be possible for groups to be specified and then removed from the list if the position changes. I shall monitor it carefully. I point out, to try to allay some of the fears of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), that the judgment will become more stringent over time, as the Prime Minister said when he announced the criteria, both for specified and unspecified organisations.
    The judgment will become more stringent in relation to progress made elsewhere. For example, people do not expect the dismantling of paramilitary organisations overnight, but dismantling must increase over time. Similarly, there should be progress on decommissioning over time. As I have said many times in the House, all forms of sectarian intimidation and so-called punishment attacks must end.
    I should like to say some more about that, in answer to the hon. Member for Blaby. Since the first IRA ceasefire was announced, in September 1994, there has been an appalling catalogue of punishment attacks—committed by both loyalist and republican groups. In each case, the RUC has done all it can to find those responsible.
    Despite the Good Friday agreement, those attacks have continued. As the RUC Chief Constable, Ronnie Flanagan, has said, members of both republican and loyalist organisations have been involved in violent criminal acts in recent weeks, which the hon. Gentleman listed. In particular, the RUC has said that it is pursuing a line of inquiry that assumes that the recent brutal murder of Andrew Kearney was committed by the Provisional IRA.
    This pattern of brutal punishment attacks is wholly unacceptable. It must come to an end. Paramilitary organisations have shown their ability to stop those activities in the past. Now they must stop them for good. As I have said, the judgments that I have made today will be kept under continuous review, and will become more and more stringent over time.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: During the run-up to the Good Friday agreement, there was a period when the Provisional IRA was effectively excluded because of the Chief Constable's judgment and opinion that it was behind the commission of certain acts of terrorism. The right hon. Lady has now told the House that it is the Chief Constable's opinion that at least one recent act is also the responsibility of the Provisional IRA. In those circumstances, how can we justify not placing the Provisional IRA on the list?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I chose my words very carefully. I said:
    "In particular, the RUC has said that it is pursuing a line of inquiry that assumes that the recent brutal murder of Andrew Kearney was committed by the Provisional IRA."
    I shall keep the situation under continuous review and, if the situation changes, I shall look at it again. I judge the situation now—and I can judge over time—in relation to the four Balmoral criteria, as to whether, in my judgment, groups are maintaining an unequivocal ceasefire.
    I consider the early release of prisoners an essential part of the Good Friday agreement, but it has to be matched alongside others. As we have said so often in the House, the agreement cannot be cherry-picked; it is an overall package, which I believe must be implemented in full.
    482
    I hope that we stick to that. We have all made solemn commitments to try to reach that goal. The future of the success of the agreement depends on it. I commend the order to the House.
    10.36 pm
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: This is a very sad day for the House of Commons, a sad day for democracy and a sad day for the rule of law in the United Kingdom. I regret to say that our worst fears about the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill—now enacted—are being confirmed.
    You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I described the Bill as fatally flawed when, sadly, the Government and the Secretary of State felt unable to accept an amendment in my name and those of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—now First Minister in the Assembly. That amendment would have said that any paramilitary organisation had to prove that it had renounced violence in all shapes and forms, and was co-operating with the decommissioning commission.
    Instead, clause 2(9) of the Bill says that the Secretary of State merely has to take into account—and tonight the Secretary of State has let the House know that she has taken into account—a series of criteria. One of those criteria is that the organisation is
    "committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means to achieve its objectives".
    Another is that the organisation has
    "ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence".
    I am grateful to the Secretary of State for being so frank and honest with the House; I know that the House will appreciate that. She has said that acts of violence are still being committed; she described them as wholly unacceptable. She was absolutely right, as every Member of the House would confirm. She has said that there are very serious deficiencies in so-called ceasefires. I agree with that, as would the entire House, and yet, when we read in the order the specified organisations that are listed as continuing to commit crimes of violence, we find that the Provisional IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association are excluded.
    You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, since the Assembly elections, there have been a series of punishment beatings and worse. I draw two of those to your attention tonight. I drew them to the attention of the House last week when the Northern Ireland Bill was proceeding through this place. First, there is the case of Mr. Andrew Kearney, who was dragged from his flat, knee-capped in a lift and left to die, which he subsequently did. That is believed to be the work of the IRA. Secondly, there is the case of the beating of Vincent McKenna, who was a peace worker in Belfast. He clearly recognised his assailants as being members of Provisional IRA.
    In the debate on the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) intervened on the Secretary of State and rightly raised the question of punishment beatings. In her reply she said:
    "It is clear that I will make a judgment on the four factors, in which are included punishment beatings and the instigation of paramilitary activity. That is one of the factors that, in the round, will be part of that judgment."

    483
    The rest of the quote is important. The Secretary of State continued:
    "Like the hon. Gentleman, I find punishment beatings obscene."—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1084.]
    There is absolutely no doubt that the Secretary of State and I share that view. In criticising her, I never question the fact that she finds as deplorable as the rest of the House the punishment beatings that are conducted by the Provisional IRA and loyalist paramilitary groups. Although it is known that that is happening, they have been excluded from the list.
    I shall quote from The Irish Times, a newspaper which is usually considered to be a fair and reasonable commentary on events in Northern Ireland. An article on the front page of last Saturday's edition states:
    "In a statement released yesterday, the RUC said: 'Detectives investigating the murder of Mr Kearney are pursuing a line of inquiry that suggests it was carried out by the Provisional IRA.'
    According to republican sources in north Belfast, it appears that Mr Kearney was killed at the behest of a senior IRA figure from Belfast. It is known Mr Kearney was in a brawl with the IRA man, who was linked to the Shankill Road bombing in October 1993 when 10 people were killed.
    Eight IRA men went to Mr Keamey's flat in the New Lodge area last Sunday and took over the entire block in what the Ulster Unionist negotiator, Mr Reg Empey, described as a 'military-style' operation.
    Mr Kearney (33) was cradling his two-week-old baby girl in the flat when an armed gang dragged him out and flung him into a lift before shooting him in both legs. Mr Kearney bled to death."
    That is the work of the Provisional IRA, and those people are not on the list tonight. Therefore, Provisional IRA prisoners will be allowed early release while the House is in recess, if the order is passed.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's giving way. Does he accept that the mythology is a misunderstanding of the workings of Provisional IRA? The security advice now to the Minister, as I understand it, is that it has not been centrally directed, and that it has been working on the basis of closed cells doing their own work.
    Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is underlined by the Chief Constable, who said in a BBC interview two days ago, on 27 July, referring to the Provisional IRA, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force:
    "If they think because their definition of a cessation of violence is a cessation of military operations they must be disabused of any notion that any other acts of criminality are any more acceptable."
    That is the point.
    What worries us is that because the Provisional IRA and the two loyalist paramilitary groups have caused a so-called military ceasefire, so that military and police targets and major so-called spectaculars on shopping precincts and elsewhere are not going on, it is thought by some that there is a complete and absolute ceasefire. There is not.
    Life is still hell for many ordinary, decent people on many estates in the Province because paramilitaries are dominating the estates. Punishment beatings and intimidation are taking place. We owe it to ordinary,
    484
    decent people to make sure that that activity ceases. The one way in which it can cease is if prisoners are not released unless the punishment beatings end. The message tonight, if we pass the order, will simply be that the punishment beatings can continue and the prisoners can be released. The people whom the House will be letting down are those who cannot speak for themselves on the estates. They are largely unemployed or on low incomes, and are not necessarily as articulate as we are. It is the duty of the Opposition to protect these people.
    I do not ask the Secretary of State or other Labour Members merely to accept my view. I shall refer to a press release that was issued today by Families Against Intimidation and Terror, an outstandingly brave cross-community organisation which has done much to help in the Province. The press release states:
    "The Good Friday Agreement states that these organisations"—
    the IRA, UVF and UDA—
    "can only qualify for early prisoner release if their cease-fires are intact. Since the agreement was signed, the IRA, UVF and UDA have all been engaged in acts of violence and have repeatedly breached their cease-fires. Are the Government really accepting a definition of a paramilitary cease-fire which allows paramilitary groups to beat, shoot and intimidate people? What sort of cease-fire is that? We do not believe that these organisations can in any way qualify for this scheme."
    The press release continues:
    "Many victims of the paramilitaries had problems with this section of the Agreement that related to the early release of prisoners, but nevertheless voted for the Agreement because they believed that it would stop the violence and create no more victims. With the death of Mr. Kearney, the beating of Vincent McKenna, the shootings at Derry and last night's shooting of a man in Newtownabbey, no one could possibly claim that the paramilitaries have ended violence."
    Families Against Intimidation and Terror concludes its powerful press release with this plea:
    "We continue to support the Agreement"—
    as we do on the Opposition Benches—
    "but we are saddened that the Government have dangerously compromised it with turning a blind eye to paramilitary violence."
    Mr. David Winnick: We all condemn the terrible crimes to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. No one in the House, for one moment, would try to justify them; obviously these are crimes that must always be condemned. However, when the previous ceasefire took place, which the IRA was to break—I am referring to 1995–96—the front organisation of the IRA, Direct Action Against Drugs, murdered quite a number of people. The then Secretary of State, now Lord Mayhew of Twysden, said to the House that the ceasefire was continuing, despite the crimes that were being committed by an IRA front organisation. The present situation is nothing new; it is a question of balance and what sort of conclusion should be reached by the Secretary or State in any given situation—[Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for North—East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) is heckling about.
    Mr. MacKay: Let me answer the hon. Gentleman clearly and precisely. It was clearly outlined in the agreement that the violence had to cease. We thought that that was outlined in the Bill, but not strongly enough.

    485
    That is why we sought to amend it. We were right to do so in the light of what has happened tonight. Let me say in answering the question—
    Mr. Stephen Hesford: Yes, answer it.
    Mr. MacKay: Yes, I would like to, if the hon. Gentleman would care to allow me to do so. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has great experience of these matters and I think that he would like to hear my answer.
    The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is clearly this: it was a tough and difficult decision that my Government, and, in turn, the present Government, took about whether they would continue with the talks, when there were clearly punishment beatings taking place. On balance—it was a hard call, but it was probably the right one by both Governments—it was decided that the talks would continue.
    We are now in an entirely different situation. We are asking whether the prisoners should be released, because we have the unique opportunity to stop punishment beatings and intimidation straight away by saying that the organisations' friends and colleagues will not be released. The beatings would stop and, in due course, organisations could be removed from the list and the prisoners could be released.
    I do not think that the hon. Member for Walsall, North has any doubts that this is a unique opportunity, because he is very experienced in matters relating to Northern Ireland. If he does, let me take him back to the Assembly elections. In a speech from the Back Benches that was so powerful that she has, I am glad to say, been appointed a Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), whom we congratulate on her appointment, said that IRA-Sinn Fein could turn the tap of violence on and off at will.
    Throughout the three weeks of the Assembly elections, there were no knee-cappings or punishment beatings; the people who carry them out were told to cease, because that was in the electoral interests of Sinn Fein-IRA. We know that such a ceasefire could happen again, but I deeply believe that it will not happen if the prisoners whom we are discussing are released. The two issues are inextricably linked.
    I am pleased that the Secretary of State has again made it clear that she has complete flexibility in these matters. One of the more attractive parts of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill is that paramilitary organisations can be added to the list, or taken off it, at short notice. That flexibility is essential. It is in the interests of the House to add the UDA, the UVF and PIRA to the list, because I believe that that would halt punishment beatings. Should that happen, I would welcome the Secretary of State removing their names from the list after a reasonable period so that prisoners could be released.
    On Friday, the House goes into recess until the middle of October, so I should like an undertaking that no terrorist prisoner will be released during that time if beatings are still going on. Perhaps I have misinterpreted the Bill and the order, but my interpretation is that excluding those organisations from the list would mean that any prisoner who applied who was otherwise eligible because of time served could be released during the recess. Punishment beatings could be going on in one part
    486
    of Belfast while paramilitary prisoners were being released down the road at the Maze. That would be horrendous. It would also be would be wrong, it could be damaging to the agreement and it would not be in the interests of democracy.
    Marjorie Mowlam: We should listen carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. All that he is doing is making a different judgment from mine about how to move forward. It is a matter of putting groups on the list or removing them. He suggests that adding organisations to the list would stop punishment beatings, but we do not know that to be the case and I cannot play that kind of game. I have to make a decision on the basis of the available information, which is what I am doing. This is not an easy situation, but I have made a judgment on the balance of the information that I have been given. I have made that overall judgment in relation to all the information that I have.
    When we were in opposition, I had to trust my predecessor when he had more information than I had. I did so, and I gave him that trust. When Lord Mayhew was in that position, I backed him—regardless of not having all the information. I am making this judgment on the basis of the information that I have, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is important to stick by the Good Friday agreement.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that I could not do anything during the summer if there was continuous review. Well, I can. I can continuously review and decide to specify or unspecify, and then come back to the House after the recess to debate the order. It does not tie my hands in the way that the he suggests.
    Mr. MacKay: May we assume that, if the people who have been arrested are subsequently charged for the murder of Kearney and are found to be members of the Provisional IRA, their organisation will be added to the list while we are in recess?
    Marjorie Mowlam: The right hon. Gentleman is asking me to do exactly what other hon. Members asked me to do. I have said that punishment beatings must stop, and that I will make a judgment as the situation develops. I cannot give him a categorical assurance, because it is my job to consider all four criteria in relation to the Balmoral statement, and to make a judgment on whether the ceasefire is being maintained unequivocally. I cannot make an ad hoc decision now, but I assure the House that I will make it during the summer if it is demanded on the basis of the information with which I am provided.
    Mr. MacKay: All the available evidence shows that punishment beatings, murders and knee-capping are continuing. They are being committed by PIRA, the UVF and the UDA. In such circumstances, it is wrong that those organisations are not on the list, and that it is perfectly possible for their prisoners to be released while the House is in recess. We believe that that is wrong, so, in the interests of the ordinary, decent people across the Province who are being petrified, I urge the House to vote against the order.
    10.57 pm
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: I speak in anger, and I expect that the Secretary of State will doubtless reply in kind. I do not know how many hon. Members have read

    487
    the transcript of the trial of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. That trial was a travesty. For example, the judge came to the conclusion that those two young guardsmen could not have thought that they were in any danger. Did he not understand that their colleague, Guardsman Shackleton, had been killed on the very same streets of New Lodge only weeks before? That is just one example, but there are others.
    I must not take up the time of the House, but I must tell my right hon. Friend that, for months, we have been told by Secretaries of State for Defence from both sides of the House that this is the business of the Northern Ireland Office. The truth of the matter is that the Ministry of Defence has behaved badly these six years, but that is by the by. It has repeatedly told us, "You must go to the Northern Ireland Office. This matter has little to do with us. We may be sympathetic, but it is up to the Northern Ireland Office."
    The fact of the matter is that, if my right hon. Friend, for perfectly humane reasons which I understand, sees Mrs. McBride, she is under a moral obligation to see Mrs. Fisher and Mrs. Wright and the Scots Guards Association. I beg her to do so.
    10.58 pm
    Rev. Ian Paisley: This is a very sad night for Northern Ireland. Those on both sides who have committed atrocious acts of murder and atrocious terrorist acts will be let loose on the community. During the Secretary of State's speech, there was an argument about whether organisations such as the IRA should have come into the talks. There is a great difference between talking to people and letting prisoners out. Let us not introduce that red herring across the Floor of the House on this issue. There is no comparison between the two. We know what happened in the talks. Those organisations were to come into the talks on certain conditions, but two of the parties to the talks did not keep to them. It was interesting to notice that, when the Secretary of State was considering the matter, the IRA could switch off the violence. While she was making the assessment, there was no violence, but, afterwards, the violence continued.
    I have in my hand tonight the speech made at Balmoral by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He said:
    "People want to know that if these parties are going to benefit from proposals in the Agreement such as accelerated prisoner releases and Ministerial posts, their commitment to democratic non-violent means must be established, in an objective, meaningful and verifiable way."
    When has the IRA met that condition? Is the murder of Mr. Kearney a verifiable way to tell the world that it has given up its violence? Do the shootings that took place in Londonderry from the other side verify anything? They tell the world that those people are still linked to violence. They are still carrying out violent acts. I heard it argued that, as punishment beatings had been carried out with batons and sticks, and, thank God, no guns were used, the ceasefire still held. Guns now have been used, so there is not a ceasefire—there is no complete ceasefire and no unequivocal ceasefire. Yet the Government go on with their plan to release those prisoners.
    What is more, the Prime Minister made it clear that there can be no fudge between democracy and terror; the agreement has to be implemented in all its parts.
    488
    The agreement has not been implemented in all its parts. We find tonight that the Government are prepared to fly in the face of what is happening and let those prisoners out.
    The Prime Minister, in clarifying whether the terms and spirit of the agreement were being met and whether violence has genuinely been given up for good, said:
    "there are a range of factors to take into account".
    What are they? He went on:
    "first and foremost, a clear and unequivocal commitment that there is an end to violence for good on the part of republicans and loyalists alike".
    Have we had that? Have we seen that? Have we heard the IRA leaders yet confirming that? I have heard that the IRA leadership was perfectly happy about its meeting with the Secretary of State, and happy that its prisoners would all get out, but there has been no keeping of the agreement.
    What is more, the Prime Minister said that we must be sure
    "that the so-called war is finished … gone".
    Go and tell the people in sorrow in Belfast tonight about what has happened in these past few weeks, and they will tell you that the sorrow has not gone. Evidence about that has been read from the Front Bench tonight. The Prime Minister expressly said:
    "the ceasefires are indeed complete and unequivocal: an end to bombings, killings and beatings".
    The Secretary of State gave us a list of what is happening. On the basis of the list that she mentioned, she should be saying to the House, "We cannot go ahead with releasing anybody until such time as the terms have been kept and have been seen to be kept, and they have not been kept."
    In an aside, I might say that I do not think that the Scottish guardsmen should be treated in the way that they have been treated. We should not be talking about a law to release terrorists in the same breath as we talk about men who did not go out to kill. They were only young men doing their duty. They may or may not have failed in certain parts of their duty, but they are in no way on a par with what we are dealing with here tonight. I say that with all the strength that I can.
    People in Northern Ireland are worried, because those who are coming out of prison are experts. They know how to make and use mortar bombs, and they know how to carry out desperate deeds of violence. The question for the House tonight is simple: can we afford to release such men into the Northern Ireland community? I say that we cannot afford to release them on to the streets of Belfast, or the streets of any town or village in Ulster. They should be kept behind bars until their organisations meet the criteria set for them by the Prime Minister.
    We hear much talk about what was voted for in the referendum. What the people voted for was what the Prime Minister said, and that has not been kept to. The Secretary of State has given us evidence of beatings and killings, and of the association of these people with those beatings and killings. On that basis, she should say, "I am sorry, but I must tell them that they have not met the criteria that we have set and, until those criteria are met, it will be dangerous to let those people out on to the streets."
    The Secretary of State was asked whether, if a prisoner who belonged to a certain organisation was released from prison and that organisation returned to violence,

    489
    the prisoner would be recalled. The Secretary of State said that would happen only if the prisoner were no longer associated with the organisation—but he would have been released from prison precisely because of such an association. He would have no credentials for release apart from his membership of the organisation. Does the Secretary of State think that he would cease to be a member of it after his release, or that the IRA would be stupid enough to let him be released in such circumstances? It will have a tight control on every one of its members who is released from prison.
    I say that if an organisation reverts to violence, all its freed members should be put back in prison. That is the way in which the system should work if we are to secure peace in Northern Ireland.
    From the beginning, those of us who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland have told the House what has been repeated here tonight. We have not been heated, but I say now that we shall see greater acts of violence if this continues. The people will say, "We could get our prisoners out anyway. We do not need to worry." But we have a great deterrent. The greatest deterrent that the Government can offer is to say to the IRA and other groups, "Unless you meet the criteria, your prisoners will not be released." That would show us their attitude, and that is what the Secretary of State should do: she should use that as a deterrent to stop the violence in our country.
    11.8 pm
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: I was enthralled by the rigorous defence of the Belfast agreement that we heard from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I never knew that we had such a firm defender of the agreement and the principles contained in it, and I welcome the fact that he has joined its supporters. Indeed, we should all welcome his raising of the very issues raised by the Prime Minister as being part and parcel of the agreement, and his demonstration of support for every issue in it when lesser mortals might have fallen by the wayside.
    As I listened to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), I wondered whether he was the same person who spoke on behalf of his party in the autumn of 1995 when the previous Government introduced the Bill that was to become the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995. Colleagues may recall that that was during a ceasefire when, although punishment beatings and other evil and dastardly acts were going on, prisoners were being regularly released under the terms of legislation that was presented by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, now Lord Mayhew. What is the difference between what was happening then and what is happening now, apart from the more rigorous conditions that the Government are imposing on the releases? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke about that.
    The right hon. Member for Bracknell was right when he said that such matters must pose difficult problems for the Secretary of State, as they did for Lord Mayhew. Decisions about releases and attempts to form an overall view of the situation cannot be easy. Such matters must be given the same consideration and accorded the same weight, and the understanding of my right hon. Friend's judgment must be the same, as that which was given when we were in opposition when the then Secretary of State,
    490
    in exactly the same situation, introduced the Bill that was to become the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act. That is the least that we should be entitled to expect from the right hon. Member and his right hon. and hon Friends.
    Mr. MacKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. McNamara: Perhaps I may be allowed to finish this point. On second thoughts, I shall give way now and return to my speech.
    Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman was shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He says that the bipartisan policy should be total and that the Opposition should always offer a blank cheque. Why, year after year, did he fail to support the renewal of prevention of terrorism orders? On some occasions, he led his Opposition colleagues into the No Lobby. Does not that make his assertions somewhat flimsy, to say the least?
    Mr. McNamara: Far from it. We are not comparing like with like. We are debating the wisdom or otherwise of releasing prisoners, something which happened under the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act and is likely to happen under the current legislation. While internment, which was the biggest recruiting sergeant that the Provisional IRA ever had, was still on the statute book, it was my duty to try to alter the Government's attitude and to tell my colleagues that we had to do it. If we had time, I could go through the other blunders that were committed by the previous Government and that helped IRA recruitment. Bloody Sunday is one that immediately springs to mind, and there were others.
    When I listen to Opposition Members, I sometimes feel that perhaps they do not want the Belfast agreement to succeed. I also sometimes think that they are striking poses in relation to that agreement because, if their proposals were carried through, the whole edifice would fall. I understand that from the dissident Unionists, from the Democratic Unionist party and from the United Kingdom Unionist party, but the attitude that has been taken by Her Majesty's Opposition on this matter seems specifically designed to weaken the whole of the Belfast agreement and to bring it down. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Bracknell is sitting there with a sneer on his face and muttering away. I shall give way to him if he wants to say his piece. I see. From the comfort of a sedentary position, the Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland can twitter away but, when challenged, he is not prepared to say anything.
    I come back to the point that I started on. My right hon. Friend has had to take an important decision. It deserves the support of the whole House. It cannot have been easy for her, but the success of the Belfast agreement depends on that decision's success and on her judgment of those matters, as do so many other things.
    11.15 pm
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: Before us is a list of the four organisations that have yet to abandon violence; I think that we can all agree on that point. I use the word "yet" because I am basically an optimist and I sincerely hope that, in the months to come, they may conceivably give up violence, with the other

    491
    organisations, and wake up to the political realities of the 1990s. Evidence is abundant that the one way to make progress in Northern Ireland is to participate peacefully in the conduct of Northern Irish politics.
    We can all agree that those who still seek to promote themselves through violence should not benefit from the peace. Again, I do not imagine that there is a single person in the Chamber who would question that point, or the fact that, if they do not accept the agreement, the agreement cannot accept them. However, I am confident that the list that has been drawn up by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was based on comprehensive advice from the general officer commanding and the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
    I am also confident that the Secretary of State's view is that the right organisations have been included and the right organisations excluded. In simple terms, it is a rather poor demonstration of bad faith for anyone in this Chamber to question the idea that the Secretary of State has sincerely attempted to make the best decision that she possibly can with the information that she has at her disposal.
    Let us not pretend that we all have the same quality of information before us. The Secretary of State, by the very nature of her job, has access to more insightful and more detailed information than others. [Interruption.] I hear a Conservative Member say that that is absurd.
    Mr. John Bercow: I said "subservient."
    Mr. Öpik: I am confused. I give way so that the hon. Gentleman can perhaps explain what he means.
    Mr. Bercow: I simply said that the hon. Gentleman was guilty of subservience. I certainly did not suggest that he was in any way suggesting that our position was that the Government's attitude was absurd. I said that his position towards the Government was subservient.
    Mr. Öpik rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We have a very limited amount of time for an extremely serious debate. Sedentary comments, whether from the Front or Back Benches, do not help.
    Mr. Öpik: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is appalling that any Opposition Member should imply that any one of us is here to be subservient to the Government. I grew up in Northern Ireland and one reason why I feel so strongly about this is that it affects the lives of individuals with whom I grew up. I sincerely hope that, by helping to try to make the right decision tonight, I might make the life of those people a little better. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the good grace to accept that view.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Öpik: I give way for the last time and then I must go through my speech very quickly because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
    Mr. Robinson: Has the hon. Gentleman been in contact with his sister party in Northern Ireland,
    492
    the Alliance party? Has he spoken to Glyn Roberts, a representative of Families Against Intimidation and Terror, who takes an entirely different view from his own? Is there a split?
    Mr. Öpik: I do not know whether it is relevant to the debate, but let me assure the hon. Gentleman that I am speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats tonight. I certainly encourage him to speak to any parties with whom he wishes to speak if he wants their views. I must now make progress and, for the sake of time, I shall take no more interventions.
    I want to make two brief points—one about the LVF and the other about the UVF. First, will the Secretary of State confirm that, in her view, the less than whole-hearted declaration from the LVF that accompanied the ceasefire is the key reason why that organisation has been specified; and that if its representatives can reassure us that they are no longer willing to engage in acts of terrorism or violence, they can benefit from the order? Secondly, I would welcome clarification that the Secretary of State regards the UVF as having the potential to benefit from the order as long as its representatives continue to show a genuine commitment to the ceasefire; more to the point, if evidence comes forward that they are not adhering to it, they can, I trust, be easily specified and will not benefit from the order. In essence, it works both ways. If I understand the order correctly, it is not a one-way ticket for organisations to enjoy prisoner release and then return to acts of violence and terrorism.
    I have had discussions with others outside the Chamber and I recognise that it would be difficult—in some cases almost impossible—to re-imprison anyone. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that this is a two-way process and that the mechanism exists to withdraw the privilege afforded by the order.
    It appears that the official Opposition are entering the debate in rather bad faith. I say that as they have gone beyond questioning the outcome of the assessment made by the Secretary of State and may be suggesting some other motive. I am disappointed by that. Obviously, hon. Members are entitled to differ with the Secretary of State's view, but we should all assume that the Secretary of State and the Government are acting in good faith. I always made that assumption in respect of the previous Government.
    Mr. MacKay: As I am the only hon. Member who has spoken for the official Opposition, will the hon. Gentleman say at what point in my speech I questioned the Government's good faith? I am disagreeing with the Secretary of State on a matter of judgment, nothing else. It is uncharacteristically unfair of the hon. Gentleman to misinterpret me.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is not conducting a conversation with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). He should be addressing the Chair.
    Mr. Öpik: The right hon. Gentleman has made a reasonable request. I am not casting aspersions on his position, but I was unhappy with a specific phrase that he used. He began his speech by saying that this is a very

    493
    sad day for this House and for democracy. If he is merely questioning the judgment of the Secretary of State, why is it a sad day for democracy? Ultimately, the judgment may be wrong in his view, but it does not entitle him to imply a failure of democracy in the House.
    I am in danger of straying far from my purpose tonight. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is assured of my good will towards him as an individual. I am just concerned that he is mixing up his views on democracy with questions about the judgment of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
    Let me move on to a point on which I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The punishment beatings must stop. If they do not, it behoves the Secretary of State to reconsider whether some organisations currently excluded from the list should be included. I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) on that point.
    Nevertheless, step by step, yard by yard, we must find ways of making progress. We will have to take some risks as we move forward. Is this order a risk? Yes, it is a risk; but which is the bigger risk: not proceeding in the spirit of the agreement or taking the risk of approving the order? Let us not pretend that there would be no opportunity cost if we voted down the order; of course there would be. Many would feel that we had acted in bad faith with regard to the Good Friday agreement.
    Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Öpik: I do not have the time to do so. I have nearly come to the end of my comments. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will attempt to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    It is not only a question of the risk. In the real world, we are dealing with people's lives. There is a risk of harming the democratic peace process if we do not act responsibly and attribute good faith to the very people whom we need to convince to stay in the political process.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the hon. Member give way?
    Mr. Öpik: I am sorry; I feel that I cannot do so.
    The public will take a very dim view if political cynicism is allowed to take over from the profound need to drive this matter forward. The public are also desperately in need of seeing us act in a non-partisan, non-party political way in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. I personally feel that, given the necessarily limited evidence and the Secretary of State's assurances, the best way forward is to take the risk of agreeing to the order.
    Mr. William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Öpik: I will not give way.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is quite clear that the hon. Member is not giving way.
    Mr. Öpik: I appeal to the official Opposition to think again about their pessimism concerning the order. I appeal
    494
    to all hon. Members to think very hard before they consider voting against the order. Tonight is a sad night only if we make it so. It is only a divisive night if we choose to obscure the issue before us with other considerations. It is a night for sombre reflection, judgment and the courage to see beyond our personal party political views toward the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. Above all, it is a night to remember that, if we fail to create the circumstances for peace, we will also be guilty of obstructing the process.
    To break with the past is to take a risk. The Liberal Democrats feel that that risk is worth taking. In supporting the Secretary of State's decision, we hope with all our hearts that she is right. Let us not pretend that anything besides history will prove us either right or wrong.
    11.27 pm
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: Down the years, I have had a thoroughgoing detestation for the activities of the so-called volunteers of the Provisional IRA. I think that Opposition Members would confirm that they have heard me say that I regard as absurd and obscene the Provisional IRA's claim to be conducting a military campaign in a mature parliamentary democracy.
    I know that we Scots Members of Parliament have largely been immune from such activities, even though we have young constituents in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I recently met members of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. Across that narrow stretch of water that divides the west of Scotland from Northern Ireland, members of families in my constituency have suffered death and injury. However, for some curious Celtic reason, the Provisional IRA took the decision not too extend their so-called military campaign to Scotland. There have been one or two incidents, and we have had lots of incidents of Protestant or loyalist extremists running guns and explosives across to Northern Ireland, as every hon. Member from Northern Ireland knows. Some of those extremists are still—rightly and properly—serving time in Scottish gaols.
    I wish to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that back in 1972—as someone with recent military experience—I knew that something had gone dreadfully wrong on that dreadful Sunday.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind the fact that there is very little time left and he is straying rather wide of the matter before us.
    Dr. Godman: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    It is the easiest thing in the world for the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), to offer comprehensive solutions to problems that appear to bedevil the administrators. The Secretary of State has to make enormously difficult decisions.
    I deeply deplore the dreadful punishment beatings that continue to take place in Northern Ireland. We must do as much as we can where those dreadful, vicious people are concerned. I will support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's courageous decision, but I urge her to keep under surveillance the people who are conducting those dreadful beatings.

    495
    May I tell the Secretary of State that there is a great deal of sympathy for Guardsmen Fisher and Wright? Many of us deal in our surgeries with people who come to plead on behalf of those two young soldiers. I wish to remind my right hon. Friend of that concern for those two young soldiers, who—as I have said in the past—were rightly and properly gaoled for what they did to that young man, McBride. I shall support the Secretary of State, but we need to keep a close watch on what is going on over there.
    11.31 pm
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the interest of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) over the years, but I would suggest that if the security services kept a watchful eye on those being released, the media and others would immediately start screaming, "Intimidation". That should be borne in mind.
    There is a degree of hypocrisy. The Loyalist Volunteer Force—I have no time for it—has had a ceasefire, and has renewed that claim. It is one of the two bodies that have appointed people as executors who are prepared to liaise with the decommissioning committee. The interesting thing is that the Ulster Volunteer Force is the other. Yet the security forces and the police have said that the UVF has been responsible for the blast bombings.
    We have had it reported in the press—without any correction from the Chief Constable—that the culprits around Carrickfergus who have been causing the depredation there were members of the Ulster Defence Association. It seems to me strange, meanwhile, that a judgment is being made about other organisations which are not to be acceptable—the LVF, the Irish National Liberation Army, the Continuity IRA and the real IRA. We accept that judgment, but the Provisional IRA battalion in Ardoyne was clearly responsible for the murder of a person in Belfast. The UDA is continuing its depredations—elements of the UVF likewise—and it has been judged to have been acting in a way that would allow the release of its prisoners.
    Some people outside may be acting as calmly as they can and trying to keep a lid on the situation because they have already heard from some of those in the prisons that, if they do not get out, their throats will be slit. That is not scaremongering; it is the reality of what is going on. We should not convey the message that we are prepared to let convicted offenders out without any prior response from them.
    I am speaking from my conscience and for my people. Most of my people did not vote for terrorists to be released or for their representatives to be in government in any shape or form. Those who keep talking about the Belfast agreement as the Good Friday agreement might have a point of connection: Good Friday was when the innocent was crucified and the prisoners were released.
    11.35 pm
    Mr. Andrew Hunter: There is a shameful and sordid predictability about the schedule to the order. The same comments may be applied to the
    496
    UDA and the UVF, although I am less certain of the evidence in their case, but the omission of the IRA from the schedule, although predictable, further undermines confidence in the Government's handling of the process and in the Secretary of State's objectivity and judgment.
    The core of the argument is straightforward: there is no compelling, unambiguous or unequivocal evidence that Provisional IRA falls outside the two subsections of clause 3(8) or that it complies with any of the requirements of the four subsections of clause 3(9). PIRA should be included in the schedule.
    On Second Reading, the Secretary of State and the Minister—the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram)—made much of the four clarifications in the Prime Minister's speech at Balmoral on 14 May. They were ultra-selective in their quotations. The Prime Minister's speech was much more precise than the requirements in the Bill or in the order. He talked about an end to bombings, killings and beatings. There has been no end to those beatings; everyone knows which organisations are involved, and they should be included in the schedule.
    Some of us needed no further evidence, but the order has provided us with it. What started as a peace process has turned into a process of appeasement, and we should all be ashamed of it. It is too late now—the Act is the Act—but would that we could have nothing to do with the Act or the order.
    11.38 pm
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Guardsmen Fisher and Wright still languish in gaol, having been sent by the Government to protect this country. Like every policeman and service man on the streets of Northern Ireland, they went out to do their duty. They made a grievous error, but for them to be still languishing in gaol when we are talking about releasing convicted murderers who went out to do murder is a disgrace. If the Secretary of State cannot reply now, will she write to me to say when she will make the decision on whether they are to be released?
    About a year ago, I said to the Secretary of State at a meeting of the British-Irish parliamentary body that all the concessions were coming from one side. She said that I had got it entirely wrong, that it was a peace process, and concessions had to be made by all sides. Once again, all the concessions have been made by the Government and none by the Provisional IRA, which has killed someone within the past fortnight and is carrying out punishment beatings. No one doubts the good faith of the Secretary of State, but the path to hell is paved with good intentions. She is making a fudge to keep Sinn Fein on board by failing to put the Provisional IRA—loyalist parties as well, but I home in on the IRA—on the list of specified organisations. If she wants peace to succeed, she must make a stand and say that the Provisional IRA and its political side, Sinn Fein, cannot take part in the peace process until they subscribe to all the parts of the peace process to which they have signed up.
    11.40 pm
    Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I want to home in on the criteria that the Secretary of State has used to reach her decision. The Belfast agreement states that there must be a complete and unequivocal ceasefire

    497
    for organisations to benefit from it. What does that mean? When the Prime Minister came to Balmoral during the referendum campaign he spelled it out clearly when he said that a complete and unequivocal ceasefire is
    "an end to bombings, killings and beatings, claimed or unclaimed; an end to targeting and procurement of weapons; progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures actively directing and promoting violence".
    None of the terrorist organisations of which I am aware in Northern Ireland meets those criteria. There are murders, beatings and bombings. If they are not carried out by those organisations, one suspects that they are done with the assistance of their members. There has been no abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures by the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defence Association or the Provisional IRA. Not one weapon has been decommissioned by any of the terrorist organisations. The Provisional IRA has so far failed even to appoint someone to liaise with the decommissioning commission. Under the terms of the legislation, how can the Secretary of State argue that the Provisional IRA is co-operating with the commission? It is not co-operating or decommissioning, and violence is continuing.
    The Prime Minister came to Northern Ireland and wrote some pledges for the people of Northern Ireland. He gave them his word. He wrote:
    "Prisoners kept in unless violence is given up for good."
    Are not the murder of Andrew Kearney and the beating of Vincent McKenna violence? Violence has not been given up for good. If the prisoners are to be released in circumstances where violence continues, the Prime Minister has broken his pledge to the people of Northern Ireland.
    I appeal to the Secretary of State. Last weekend, the Truesdale family, whose brother Norman was murdered by the Provisional IRA, invited the Prime Minister to watch the video of his murder so that the Prime Minister could get some of the hurt that they feel because his murderer is going to be released on to the streets. I invite the Secretary of State to watch that video. Perhaps the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) has watched it and understands. I spoke to the family yesterday. They live in fear because the man who murdered their brother lives just up the street. When he is released, he will be in the heart of their community. They live in fear because of what is being proposed. The Minister may think that that is unfair, but he must understand how people feel. The feelings and fears are real. People in Northern Ireland do not understand why, when violence and murder continue, murderers will be released on to the streets. I ask the Government to think again.
    11.43 pm
    Mr. William Cash (Stone): I have never witnessed so much nervous twitching as I did while the Secretary of State listened to the Opposition's arguments. This is the biggest sell-out that I have seen in my time in Parliament. The release of the prisoners and the arrangements to allow members of the Northern Ireland Executive to take part in running Northern Ireland when
    498
    they unquestionably have guns, either on or under the table, is one of the most abhorrent—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
    It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 86.

    Division No.353]

    [11.44 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Doran, Frank

    Ainger, Nick

    Dowd, Jim

    Alexander, Douglas

    Drew, David

    Allen, Graham

    Efford, Clive

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Ennis, Jeff

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Etherington, Bill

    Austin, John

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Barron, Kevin

    Flynn, Paul

    Battle, John

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Bayley, Hugh

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Beard, Nigel

    Foulkes, George

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Fyfe, Maria

    Benton, Joe

    Gapes, Mike

    Bermingham, Gerald

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Berry, Roger

    Gerrard, Neil

    Best, Harold

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Betts, Clive

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Blackman, Liz

    Godsiff, Roger

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Goggins, Paul

    Blizzard, Bob

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Borrow, David

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Hain, Peter

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Burgon, Colin

    Hanson, David

    Caborn, Richard

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Healey, John

    Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Cann, Jamie

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Chaytor, David

    Hill, Keith

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hoey, Kate

    Clapham, Michael

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hutton, John

    Clelland, David

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Coaker, Vernon

    Illsley, Eric

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Ingram, Adam

    Cohen, Harry

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Coleman, Iain

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Colman, Tony

    Jamieson, David

    Connarty, Michael

    Jenkins, Brian

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

    Cotter, Brian

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Cousins, Jim

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Cox, Tom

    Crausby, David

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Keetch, Paul

    Dalyell, Tam

    Kidney, David

    Darvill, Keith

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    499

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Rogers, Allan

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Rowlands, Ted

    Linton, Martin

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Livsey, Richard

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Love, Andrew

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    McAllion, John

    Salmond, Alex

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Salter, Martin

    McCabe, Steve

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Sheerman, Barry

    Macdonald, Calum

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    McDonnell, John

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    McFall, John

    Skinner, Dennis

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    McNulty, Tony

    Soley, Clive

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    McWalter, Tony

    Steinberg, Gerry

    McWilliam, John

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Martlew, Eric

    Stunell, Andrew

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Meale, Alan

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Michael, Alun

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Milburn, Alan

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Miller, Andrew

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mitchell, Austin

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Tipping, Paddy

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Touhig, Don

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Morley, Elliot

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Mudie, George

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Mullin, Chris

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Olner, Bill

    Webb, Steve

    Öpik, Lembit

    White, Brian

    Pendry, Tom

    Wills, Michael

    Pickthall, Colin

    Winnick, David

    Pike, Peter L

    Wise, Audrey

    Plaskitt, James

    Wood, Mike

    Pope, Greg

    Woolas, Phil

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Worthington, Tony

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Purchase, Ken

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Jane Kennedy and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    NOES

    Amess, David

    Fabricant, Michael

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Flight, Howard

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Beggs, Roy

    Fraser, Christopher

    Bercow, John

    Garnier, Edward

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Gill, Christopher

    Boswell, Tim

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Gray, James

    Brady, Graham

    Grieve, Dominic

    Brazier, Julian

    Hammond, Philip

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Burns, Simon

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Cash, William

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Johnson Smith,

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Clappison, James

    Key, Robert

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Leigh, Edward

    Evans, Nigel

    Letwin, Oliver

    500

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Spring, Richard

    Loughton, Tim

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Swayne, Desmond

    MacKay, Andrew

    Syms, Robert

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Maples, John

    Thompson, William

    Mates, Michael

    Tredinnick, David

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Trend, Michael

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Moss, Malcolm

    Wardle, Charles

    Ottaway, Richard

    Wells, Bowen

    Paice, James

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Whittingdale, John

    Paterson, Owen

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Pickles, Eric

    Wilkinson, John

    Prior, David

    Willetts, David

    Randall, John

    Wilshire, David

    Robathan, Andrew

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Mr. Nigel Waterson and Mr. Stephen Day.

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the draft Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organisations) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 28th July, be approved.

    LEGAL SERVICES
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    That the draft Conditional Fee Agreements Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.—[Mr. Allen.]
    Question agreed to.

    SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [21 July].
    That this House approves the Government's assessment as set out in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1998 and Comprehensive Spending Review for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.—[Mr. Allen.]
    Question agreed to.

    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND)
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
    That the draft Education (Student Loans) (Scotland) Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 17th July, be approved. —[Mr. Allen.]
    Question agreed to.

    EDUCATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation,
    That the draft Education (Student Support) Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.—[Mr. Allen.]
    Question agreed to.

    REGISTERS OF INTERESTS
    ordered,
    That the Resolution of 17th December 1985 be amended in line 31, by leaving out the words 'copies of the Registers be placed in the Library for the use of Members' and inserting the words `the Registers be made available for public inspection under arrangements to be approved by the Committee on Standards and Privileges'.—[Mr. Allen.]

    SELECT COMMITTEE ON MODERNISATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
    Ordered,
    That Mrs. Ann Taylor be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Mrs. Margaret Beckett be added to the Committee. —[Mr. Allen.]

    Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham Allen.]
    11.55 pm
    Mr. Peter L. Pike rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Will Members who are leaving please do so quickly and quietly?
    Mr. Pike: I want to draw attention to an important issue—the use of compressed natural gas in vehicles on our roads. It is an important environmental issue. It also has important implications in my constituency, where, in a few months, 70 people are likely to be made redundant as a result of lack of orders for the gas bottles they make for natural gas vehicles.
    Lucas Aerospace converted from defence production to the manufacture of a consumer product, and has done so extremely well. I have taken a close interest in the product since the idea was first considered, when the then site manager of the factory, Mr. Gardiner, invited me to the site to discuss it with the unions and management. The unions and management co-operated extremely successfully in finding a product that could use the existing skills of the work force and could transfer from defence to consumer use.
    The product started in production last year. On 24 April this year, I toured the factory, with the bottles, with their finished covering, in full production. I was very impressed by what I saw.
    On 17 February, the management sent me a detailed letter, making the case for compressed natural gas. That was from Jon Matthews, who is general manager now. At the time, I sent that letter to Treasury and Trade and Industry Ministers, and subsequently received replies.
    The point that Lucas Aerospace made in that letter; as a member of the Natural Gas Vehicle Association, was that it wanted to promote the use of natural gas as a clean, safe and efficient fuel. Its view was:
    "Of all the alternative fuel options, world-wide natural gas has become the preferred"
    option,
    "safe in use and storage,"
    with
    "world-wide availability".
    I accept that there is also an argument for liquid petroleum gas. One of the problems is that the two are competing with each other. That may be right, but it means that those in the retail trade find it difficult to know which product to supply.
    I am glad to see the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry in his place, because he has corresponded with me and met me to discuss the industry, and has been extremely positive and helpful. The work force recognise that he has tried to be positive in the way in which he has tried to help in tackling the problem. On 17 May, he wrote to me:
    "I am convinced that there is an environmental case for natural gas vehicles to take a share of the UK car population."

    503
    We all agree on the objective. The problem is how we achieve it.
    On 22 May, I received a fax from Lucas announcing 70 redundancies. Following that, the union representatives came to London and, together with me, Mr. Maciver, the divisional managing director of Lucas Aerospace, Terry Burns, the works convenor, and others, met the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry on 9 June. The unions had prepared an excellent brief, and presented a petition with a large number of signatures that had been gathered in the town centre in support of the work.
    The brief stated:
    "CNG vehicles are better for the environment. Natural gas is virtually pollution-free. Compared to gasoline powered vehicles, natural gas vehicles emit almost no carbon monoxide, much lower levels of nitrogen oxides, and less than half the amount of reactive hydrocarbons."
    The brief gave a number of reasons why we should change to CNG and pointed out what Lucas had done in this field. An extract from the Leifeld News, under the headline "Peace dividend a real bonus", stated:
    "The Lucas Aerospace facility at Burnley has for 15 years been one of the West's leading suppliers of steel rocket motor cases for missiles. In 1990 it was recognised that future reductions in defence spending would result from the ending of the Cold War.
    A resourceful management therefore initiated a search for non-defence related products which could be made drawing on in-house expertise in metal forming and utilising existing plant with a minimum of additional investment. The answer—high pressure seamless steel gas cylinders."
    That has been done extremely well, and represents a remarkable feat of co-operation between management and the work force.
    Unfortunately, another letter from Lucas on 15 June reported:
    "There is no visibility of any future orders for this product and therefore the action in respect of our employees will unfortunately have to continue.
    However, as far as the production equipment is concerned, I can confirm that no action will be taken to dispose of it within the next 3 months."
    Early-day motion 1443 has been tabled on the subject, and, as of last Thursday, 124 hon. Members from all parties in the House had signed it.
    Enterprise plc, Burnley borough council, and Members of the European Parliament Mark Hendrick and Michael Hindley have all tried to find a way forward. We all know that, in a few years, there will be a market for the product, even though the market is not sufficient to justify production at present. The danger is that, if Lucas goes out of production, when the market develops the gas bottles will not be made at Lucas in Burnley or anywhere else in the United Kingdom—we will end up importing them. That is why it is important to find a solution.
    In the local government magazine talkback, the Minister for Transport in London, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), is pictured launching an LPG vehicle. The accompanying article states:
    "Due to drastic reduction in emissions, both LPG and CNG powered engines are ideal for use in urban environments—one of the strong reasons why many municipal authorities have already added Ford alternative fuel vehicles to their fleets.
    504
    LPG is currently available from more than 80 sites nationally, and CNG from about 12; any lack of local refuelling facilities need not be a problem, however, because a mobile LPG refuelling unit or overnight CNG refuelling unit can be installed at a fleet depot."
    Matters are not quite as simple as the article would lead one to suppose.
    I have had letters from various Ministers, including the Financial Secretary and the Minister for Roads. There has also been correspondence with Moscow, where we tried to find a market for the product. Unfortunately, the market in Russia is falling. In addition, the Russians do not use such a high-quality gas bottle. As a result, they want a much cheaper product.
    On 8 July, Mr. Maciver from Lucas wrote to tell me that there was an additional six weeks' work, which will take work to mid-September, when the redundancies will now take place.
    I received today a letter from Ford. I had written to the company in the USA. The letter that I received was written by Peter Pestillo, the executive vice-president. He wrote:
    "We believe that in the long-run there will be a natural gas market, but as you know, it remains an emerging market. Underscoring our belief in the long-term strength of the CNG market is Ford's substantial investment in CNG vehicles."
    The letter continues:
    "Towards that end we welcome government assistance in developing much needed infrastructure."
    The key issue is securing that infrastructure.
    My hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry sent me a detailed letter on 22 July, in which he set out what the Government are trying to do and pointed to where he sees the problems. My hon. Friend has to admit at the end of the day that the Government are not able to come forward with the type of package that, in the short term, would secure the production of these gas bottles at Lucas at Burnley.
    British Gas, or whatever it is called these days—I never remember what its new name is—has written to me as follows:
    "Natural gas has significant environmental advantages over petrol and diesel and could, given the right incentives, play a major role in cutting vehicle emissions: it is virtually free of lead, sulphur and aromatic hydrocarbons. It produces less Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Benzene, Carbon Dioxide and particulates than petrol and diesel. Natural gas buses have a quieter car-like ride and therefore have a significant role to play in attracting people to make better use of public transport, meeting the objectives of the Transport White Paper. Urban depot-based transport operators often have restricted operating hours because of the noise impact of diesel-engine HGVs on the neighbourhood. HGVs powered by natural gas are significantly quieter, allowing these constraints to be lifted. This could lead to less congestion at peak hours."
    British Gas adds:
    "the Government could reduce the duty on natural gas … towards the EU minimum."
    It believes that that would be a help.
    Metrocab has written to me as follows:
    "The key issues seem to be:

    1. The additional initial cost of the gas vehicle. Maybe £1500—£2000

    2. The operating costs even with the differential in pricing between diesel and gas,
    are marginally higher.

    505

    3. The limited number of refuelling points."

    That is another problem. The fourth one is described as
    "the lower range between refuelling for a given size of tank."
    Those are the situations that Metrocab sees as problems.
    The Energy Saving Trust has a powershift programme that
    "aims to encourage demand for these fuels from businesses, local authorities and, ultimately, the general public".
    That is something that may well need to be followed up and encouraged, because it could lead to a solution.
    The letter from Energy Saving Trust adds that that aim is
    "accompanied by commitments from fuel companies and vehicle manufacturers. It seeks to make clean fuel vehicles more affordable through stimulating demand. This is being done by bringing companies and local authorities together to wield enough collective purchasing power to ensure substantial capital cost reductions, and offering up to 75% of the difference in the cost of clean fuel vehicles above the price of petrol/diesel vehicles."
    We all know of the situation which existed when we first had unleaded fuel. It was only when the Government introduced a sufficiently wide price differential that garages began to supply the fuel. It was only when we knew that we could go to any garage and obtain unleaded fuel that we were reasonably confident of buying a vehicle that operated on it.
    London Taxis International, makers of the famous black cab, says that it is "dedicated to producing a fully accessible low emission' taxi.
    As part of a study towards this end we have produced a vehicle which is in service, running very successfully on either petrol or CNG and we have also built a dedicated CNG vehicle …
    Whilst CNG creates lower local emissions, the difficulties for Taxi operators are that the vehicles do not follow a defined route nor necessarily return to a base at night, hence the need for a comprehensive refuelling infrastructure or a large driving range for the vehicles, both of which seem to be beyond us at the moment."
    Mobil CNG has also written to me. It
    "welcomes the Government's 'New Deal for Transport' … in particular the call for environmentally cleaner fuels and quieter vehicles.
    Mobil CNG offers the UK the most viable fuel option that is significantly cleaner and quieter than diesel vehicles. This means that it is particularly suitable for the commercial sector and bus fleets, being ideally suited to Mr. Prescott's bus for the 21st Century … We believe that CNG is the fuel for the future and that the Government should combine with industry to develop and manufacture environmentally friendly vehicles for the new millennium."
    Today, I received a fax from the unions. They think that Lucas has not done all it could. They recognise that investment in the aerospace industry takes a long time to pay back, but they also believe that a more positive approach could be achieved if Lucas Aerospace took such a view about CNG bottles. They think that the Government are committed to CNG, but are perhaps not doing quite as much as they could to get over this short-term difficulty.
    I recognise the problem, but we are considering something that will have a market in the next century. It would be a tragedy if we failed to save this production unit and did not encourage CNG vehicles to ensure that, when we have more of them on the road, their gas bottles are not imported, but made in this country.
    12.11 am
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: I shall spend no more than a couple of minutes emphasising the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike).
    Many of my constituents work at the Burnley plant, and it is simply inexplicable that the management over in the United States has decided to pull out of the market when it is about to take off. In the United Kingdom, 9,100 vehicles run on gas, or a mixture of petrol and gas, and the management at Lucas in Burnley forecasts that the market could be as high as 200,000 vehicles in six years.
    There is a colossal market out there, but how can we kick-start it? The Government have reduced fuel duty to achieve a differential between clean fuels and petrol, which is good. They have introduced the £500 reduction in vehicle excise duty for vehicles converted to run on clean fuels, which is good. They have also set up the cleaner vehicles task force, which is up and running and doing a good job. That is splendid, but what should they do beyond that?
    First, we need to set the road fuel duty for natural gas at the European Union minimum, like France, and like Germany. Secondly, we must provide grants to public service vehicle operators to convert to gas. There should be a 100 per cent. allowance for fleet operators who do the business and convert dirty, polluting vehicles to run on clean natural gas.
    Thirdly, only 50 or 55 local authorities out of more than 300 in the United Kingdom run vehicles on compressed natural gas. I should like my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to urge local authorities nationwide to do the business, and convert their rubbish vehicles and other depot-based vehicles to run on this clean, environmentally friendly fuel.
    12.13 am
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on securing this debate on an issue that he has raised with ministerial colleagues from my Department, from the Department of Trade and Industry, and from the Treasury. The importance that the Government attach to the issue he has raised is reflected in the presence on the Front Bench of the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley is not alone in highlighting this issue, which is clearly of particular and grave concern to his constituency and to his constituents. My hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) have also raised this issue in recent weeks.
    Air pollution has become a matter of increasing public concern and political importance in recent years. The Government are committed to improving the quality of the air we breathe, and we have set ourselves demanding objectives on air pollution. Road transport is responsible for a significant proportion of air pollution—around 50 per cent. of nitrogen oxides come from that source. Any attempt to improve air quality needs to address the problems that road transport causes.
    Environmental considerations are at the heart of the integrated transport White Paper, which was published last week. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley made

    507
    the point that we are discussing how we can create a more environmentally friendly mode, not only through vehicles but through fuel. Alternative fuels, such as compressed natural gas, have an important role to play in helping us to meet those objectives. Provided that the latest conversions are used, CNG can offer substantial reductions in emissions of pollutants such as carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, compared with vehicles running on diesel.
    CNG vehicles also emit less carbon dioxide, which is the main gas produced by road transport that is implicated in climate change. They also emit less visible smoke and odour than diesels, which is an important factor in urban areas. Vehicles running on CNG are also significantly quieter than their diesel counterparts. Compared with petrol engines, CNG can offer some emissions benefits for pollutants such as benzene.
    We are committed to a policy of encouraging the use of fuels, such as CNG, through a package of measures, including fiscal incentives. In his last Budget, the Chancellor announced that the extra cost of enabling company cars to run on road fuel gases will be disregarded in calculating the income tax charge on company cars. He also froze the duty on road fuel gases for the second year in a row, and, to provide some certainty to the market, we are committed to retaining the differential in duty rates between gas fuels and diesel that existed at the time of the Budget last year.
    There is now a significant difference in the duty on CNG and liquefied petroleum gas and the duty on conventional fuels. In fact, the duty on CNG is about one third that on diesel. That provides a significant fiscal incentive to switch from diesel to gas.
    Other cost savings are associated with road fuel gases: for instance, lower maintenance costs. The Government car service showed that there is a strong economic case for fleet operators to use gas fuels. It announced last year that the economic grounds for using road fuel gases, plus the environmental benefits, were strong enough to persuade it to convert its entire car fleet to run on CNG or LPG over the next five to six years.
    Mr. Pike: That is the key point. The quickest way of encouraging the market for CNG, and ultimately the gas bottles that are of consequence to Lucas, is to get fleets to convert. The measures to which my hon. Friend is referring are extremely important.
    Ms Jackson: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend.
    The price premium on larger gas-powered vehicles, such as buses and lorries, is more significant than for cars. That is partly because not enough vehicles are currently purchased to introduce significant economies of scale.
    In order to develop the market for alternative fuels further and to encourage people to buy gas-powered vehicles that are more expensive than their conventionally fuelled counterparts, my Department is providing £6 million of funding for the powershift programme run by the Energy Saving Trust.
    The aim of the three-year programme is to create a sustainable market for alternatively powered vehicles. It does that by setting up demonstration projects,
    508
    by assisting different companies and local authorities interested in purchasing alternatively fuelled vehicles to form partnerships, thus increasing economies of scale, and by providing grants for up to 50 per cent. of the additional cost of purchasing an alternatively fuelled vehicle.
    Another measure to offset some of the additional costs associated with gas-powered vehicles is the vehicle excise duty incentive which will be available from 1 January next year. Buses and lorries meeting stringent emission standards will be entitled to a reduction in VED of up to £500. Vehicles running on gas should qualify for that incentive. Bus operators operating routes eligible for fuel duty rebate who run their vehicles on gas are already entitled to reclaim all the duty that they pay on the fuel from the Government.
    The gas fuel industry should be further stimulated by measures designed specifically to reduce emissions from vehicles in urban areas. The alternative traffic in towns project, launched by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in April, is designed to produce concerted action by cities across Europe to give preferential access in certain areas to vehicles with zero or low emissions.
    Under the process of local air quality management, local authorities must put in place action plans to deal with poor air quality. It is likely that many of the actions needed to improve air quality in urban areas, where air quality tends to be poorest, will focus on transport, and some local authorities may look to introduce low emission zones, where only vehicles producing very low emissions will be allowed to enter certain areas of towns or cities.
    We have also been active in raising the profile of alternative fuels as much as possible. Ministers have launched a variety of gas-powered vehicles, including those purchased under the powershift programme. For instance, last year I launched the conversion of Adur district council's refuse collection fleet to CNG. I have not visited every local authority, but I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle that I and my Department are closely engaged in that activity. My Department also played a major role in organising a high-profile exhibition of alternatively powered vehicles in Chester in April this year. More than 20 alternatively fuelled vehicles were on display, showing just how far the market has already come.
    Therefore, substantial progress has been made in encouraging the introduction of alternative fuels. The Natural Gas Vehicle Association estimates that 50 local authorities and a number of private sector fleet operators have one or more vehicles that run on natural gas.
    However, we are aware that there remain a number of barriers to the further uptake of these vehicles. Some of these are inherent properties of the fuel—for instance, the tank required to store CNG is large and heavy enough to reduce bus capacity by one passenger, or a lorry's payload by around a tonne. However, there are also other problems, and the cleaner vehicles task force has set up a working group to consider the role for alternative fuels and what barriers stand in the way of their fulfilling that role. One of the most obvious barriers is the lack of refuelling infrastructure for both CNG and, to a slightly lesser extent, LPG. That is an area which we must look to the industry to resolve.
    As I have mentioned, CNG can offer significant environmental advantages, particularly over diesel and in terms of emissions on nitrogen oxides and particulate matter.

    509
    We have already taken a number of actions to promote the use of alternative fuels—including freezing the duty on road fuel gases, raising the profile of gas power through ministerial launches and the powershift programme, as well as exhibitions and contribution towards material such as the Natural Gas Vehicle Association's annual report. Officials in my and other Departments have had a number of discussions about the merits of conversion to alternative fuels, including in niche markets, such as buses and taxis.
    Officials have discussed with the Public Carriage Office the possibility of persuading more taxi drivers to consider the use of gas fuels, and have also discussed the issue with bus operators. The House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has a gas-powered car, as do my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction, and my noble Friend the Minister for Roads.
    Through this package of measures, plus initiatives taken by local authorities, business and others, the number of gas-powered vehicles on the road has increased substantially. The Natural Gas Vehicle Association estimates that the number of natural gas vehicles on the road has doubled since 1995, while the LP Gas Association believes that around 200 new LPG vehicles are appearing on the road every month. Many of the vehicles running on both fuels are operated as part of fleets by both the private sector and local authorities.
    Despite those measures, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley is disappointed that the Lucas Aerospace factory in Burnley has recently announced that
    510
    it will be closing the unit of the factory that had been converted to produce gas bottles for gas-powered vehicles because of a decline in the demand for this equipment.
    I understand—my hon. Friend referred on more than one occasion to his activities—that my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry has been pursuing a number of avenues to see if there is any scope for providing regional assistance to the factory. My hon. Friend the Minister wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley on 22 July, saying that he and officials
    "have explored all avenues of selective and regional assistance for the plant, but none has proven suitable".
    I appreciate that that was not the news that the my hon. Friend wished to hear. However, the Government are taking many steps to encourage the wider use of gas fuels, and I hope that industry will respond to that.
    Our primary aim in this area is to improve air quality, and to target climate change. We have received a number of representations—they were made in the Chamber tonight—saying that the duty on road fuel gases should be reduced to the European Union minimum. However, we have a duty to pursue our policies on air quality and climate change in as cost-effective a manner as possible. Government policy is aimed at encouraging the use of low emission vehicles, rather than being prescriptive about the type of technology used.
    The incentives to persuade people to switch to road fuel gases—
    The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Twelve midnight.

PRIME MINISTER

  Royal Household
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans the Government have for funding the procurement of communication and information services for the Royal Household. [53933]

  The Prime Minister
  The cost of communication and information services in connection with official Royal functions and engagements which are currently the responsibility of the Central Office of Information will be met from funds provided to the Royal Household by way of grant-in-aid from the Central Office of Information Vote.

  This change, which involves no increase in public expenditure, will bring the treatment of these costs into line with that of property services and travel. With this change, the Royal Household will assume financial control to match operational responsibility, with the continuing aim of achieving best value for money from this public money. Parliamentary accountability will follow the pattern of the existing grants-in-aid payable to the Royal Household, and there will be an annual report to Parliament.

  Security Commission
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the membership of the Security Commission. [53934]

  The Prime Minister
  I have recently appointed Sir John Foley and Sir Clive Whitmore to serve as members of the Security Commission. They have succeeded Sir Derek Boorman and Sir Christopher Curwen.

  The current membership of the Commission is:

  The right hon. the Lord Lloyd of Berwick (Chairman)

  The right hon. Lady Justice Butler-Sloss DBE (Alternative Chairman)

  Sir John Blelloch KCB

  Sir John Foley KCB OBE MC

  Lord Tombs of Brailes

  Sir Clive Whitmore GCB CVO

  Lord Wright of Richmond.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Departmental Research
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list the cost of all research undertaken by her Department since May 1997, excluding the cost of green 234
  papers and other public consultation documents drafted by her officials; and if she will list in each case the organisations which undertook that research. [52704]

  Mrs. Beckett
  No research has been commissioned by my Department since May 1997.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Refreshment Department
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what was the net cost of running the Refreshment Department outlets in the Palace of Westminster; and if he will list the major items of capital expenditure in 1997–98. [53026]

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  This information will be given in the Annual Report from the House of Commons Commission and in the Refreshment Department's Trading Account for 199–98, neither of which has yet been published. I shall ensure that copies of both documents are sent to my hon. Friend as soon as they are available.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  New Settlements (Traffic)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the traffic generating effects of smaller new settlements. [52264]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department has not yet commissioned research on the travel effects of smaller new settlements. The Department needs first to investigate the factors determining location decisions and how these in turn affect travel decisions in order to determine the travel generating characteristics of different patterns, types and scale of development. We hope to commission research in the next year.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance his Department issues to those constructing buildings for which it is responsible on the use of materials containing asbestos. [52306]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department has published guidance on asbestos, "Asbestos Materials in Buildings", available from the Stationery Office.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the number of council-owned properties in the London Borough of Wandsworth that have been empty for(a) over three months, (b) over six months and (c) over one year; and if he will make a statement. [52287]
  235
  Mr. Raynsford
  Details of the number of vacant council dwellings on 1 April, by reason for vacancy and time vacant are collected from local authorities for the annual Housing Investment Programme exercise. Wandsworth's 1997 return reported a total of 134 dwellings vacant for over 6 weeks and up to 6 months, 46 vacant for over 6 months and up to one year and 37 vacant for over year. The data collected do not separately identify dwellings vacant for over 3 months.

  New Deal
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people his Department is committed to employing during 1998 under(a) the subsidised job option and (b) the unsubsidised job option of the New Deal programme. [52587]

  Mr. Meacher
  Within my Department, some ten posts have so far been identified as suitable for young people under the job option (whether subsidised or unsubsidised) of the New Deal programme. We aim to fill as many of these posts as possible through the programme, subject to suitable candidates being found.

  Railways
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will ensure that adequate investment in new rolling stock is promised by rail operators before extending rail franchises; [52519]

  (2) what targets he will lay down for rail operators to meet before rail franchises are extended. [52518]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 28 October 1997,Official Report, column 806, and the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 20 July 1998, Official Report, column 786. The early re-negotiation or extension of franchises will be considered only where train operators offer improved investment and services and more demanding performance standards on a basis that provides value for public money. Cases will be considered on their merits against these objectives.

  Bus Companies
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what initiatives he has taken to encourage public-private partnerships between bus companies and local authorities. [52520]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The further development of bus Quality Partnerships between local authorities and operators is an important part of the proposals announced in New Deal for transport. We will introduce legislation to put such partnerships on a firmer footing by giving them a statutory basis. They will also form part of the new local transport plans to be drawn up by local authorities as described in the White Paper.

  Quarry Sites
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will amend the provisions of the Environment Act 1995 covering the reactivation of dormant and active quarry sites to provide greater protection for(a) areas of outstanding natural
  236
  beauty, (b) sites of special interest and (c) other environmentally sensitive locations; and if he will make a statement. [52322]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have no plans to amend the Environment Act 1995. The powers in Schedule 13 to the Act to review old mineral permissions and ensure that they are brought up to date with modern operating and restoration conditions are generally working well.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many quarry sites for which mining permission has been approved since the implementation of Schedule 13 of the Environment Act 1995 are(a) wholly and (b) partly within (i) sites of special scientific interest and (ii) areas of outstanding natural beauty. [52321]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many dormant quarry sites have been reactivated since the implementation of Schedule 13 to the Environment Act 1995. [52320]

  Mr. Raynsford
  According to information prepared by the Planning Officers' Society, there are 879 dormant sites in England and Wales. As at January 1997, 61 of these have had new conditions determined by mineral planning authorities, who are responsible for conducting minerals reviews under Schedule 13 to the 1995 Act. Dormant quarry sites cannot be re-activated until full modern conditions have been approved by the relevant mineral planning authority.

  Traffic Diversions (Disruption)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions under what circumstances compensation is payable to residents of properties on local authority roads who suffer disruption as a result of traffic diversions resulting from the temporary closure of nearby trunk roads. [52373]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There is no liability for loss of damage caused by the lawful exercise of statutory powers unless the statute provides a remedy or there has been some negligence by the authority in the way they have carried out their functions.

  Brown Land
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the area of brown land in the(a) Dudley, (b) Sandwell, (c) Birmingham, (d) Wolverhampton, (e) Solihull and (f) Walsall local authorities. [52436]

  Mr. Caborn
  There is no specific definition of 'brown land', but it is usually taken to mean land previously developed for urban uses. This includes vacant previously developed and derelict land. Estimates of the amount of derelict land in each English local authority district were published in 'Survey of Derelict Land in England 1993', a copy of which is in the Library. Phase 1 of the National Land Use Database, for which I announced plans on 19 May, will provide information on previously developed vacant and derelict land, and vacant
  237
  buildings which may be available for development, for local authorities in England. Summary results are expected by March 1999.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the standard spending assessments for 1997–98 and 1998–99, (b) the standard spending assessments for 1997–98 and 1998–99 as they would have been had the Elliot report on area cost adjustment been implemented and (c) the difference between these two figures expressed in (i) percentage, (ii) cash and (iii) pounds per head terms for (1) Buckinghamshire County Council, (2) Aylesbury Vale District Council, (3) Chiltern District Council, (4) South Buckinghamshire District Council, (5) Wycombe District Council and (6) Thames Valley Police Authority. [52633]

  Ms Armstrong
  The information requested is in tables that have been placed in the Library. They show the effects of re-calculating the standard spending assessments for 1997–98 and 1998–99 using the method of calculating the area cost adjustment proposed by the 1996 Review of the Area Cost Adjustment but keeping the indicators of need used in the current SSA formulae.

  Mine Works (Pollution)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to assess the risks of pollution from waste flowing from old mine works. [52375]

  Mr. Meacher
  Contaminated minewaters from abandoned coal mines are dealt with by the Coal Authority under a prioritised programme agreed with the Environment Agency and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency. The Authority spent £3 million in 1997–98 in tackling water pollution from abandoned coal mines, and this is anticipated to rise to £3.9 million in 1998–99. The Authority has undertaken detailed feasibility studies on 21 of the most environmentally significant overflows from abandoned mines, and works are in place or nearing completion at a number of these sites.

  In addition, the Agency is continuing to operate the treatment plant at the Wheal Jane tin mine in Cornwall, having spent £9.5 million since 1990 on research and treatment. The Agency is also continuing to monitor the situation at the recently abandoned South Crofty tin mine in Cornwall, carrying out further work to predict the timing of any outbreak, the likely quality of the minewater discharge and the appropriate treatment options. Similar monitoring is being undertaken by the Agency at the recently abandoned Whittle coal mine in Northumberland.

  Local Agenda 21 Initiatives
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what support his Department(a) is giving and (b) plans to give to Local Agenda 21 initiatives (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000, (iii) 2000–01 and (iv) 2001–02. [52424]
  238
  Mr. Meacher
  DETR's main role in the Local Agenda 21 process is to provide advice and encouragement to local authorities. In this capacity, during 1998–99 it is supporting the following, specific projects:Providing a telephone helpdesk and introductory guide for local authorities on the Eco-management and audit scheme (LA-EMAS)—£39,100.
  Supporting the collection and publication of best practice Local Agenda 21 case studies—£15,600.
  A seminar to consult on a menu of indicators of sustainable development for local use—£20,000.
  Contributing towards the cost of producing Sustainable local Communities for the 21st century which provides guidance to local authorities on why and how to prepare an effective Local Agenda 21 strategy—£2,600.

  In addition, through Government Offices, DETR supports a range of regional projects, events and seminars to promote Local Agenda 21, expenditure on which is estimated to be £55,000 during 1998–99.

  At this stage, it is not possible to provide details of spending in future years.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many Local Agenda 21 initiatives include allotment groups. [52425]

  Mr. Meacher
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce his decisions on the applications for Transport and Works Act Orders for(a) Stratford International Station and (b) the Channel Tunnel Rail Link connection to the West Coast Main Line. [52593]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  These proposed works are the subject of a single application, for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (Stratford Station and Subsidiary Works) Order. The Inspector's report following the public local inquiry into this Order is being considered by the Secretary of State. A decision will be made as soon as possible.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide a breakdown of the £3 billion benefits identified in A New Deal for Transport from the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. [52592]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is anticipated that the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) will provide £3 billion NPV of benefits to the UK comprising (with some overlaps between categories):

  £1,800 million from time savings to UK resident Eurostar passengers;

  £600 million from domestic services on the CTRL;

  £120 million of environmental and decongestion benefits;

  £1,000 million representing the regeneration programmes which would be required to deliver the same regeneration benefits as the CTRL.

  Disabled People (Transport)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make
  239
  a statement on the provisions in the Transport White Paper which will assist disabled people to be able to use public transport over the next 12 months [52872]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The White Paper sets the framework to promote better transport choice for disabled people. Measures include implementation of the transport provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act, starting with the rail regulations which will apply accessibility requirements to rolling stock coming into service from 31 December 1998. Dates for implementation of the regulations requiring buses, coaches and licensed taxis to be accessible to disabled people will be set in the light of recent consultation.

  Looking beyond the next 12 months, the new local transport plans will specifically address accessibility issues and the new Strategic Rail Authority will have a specific duty to promote the provision of accessible transport for disabled people.

  Land-fill Tax Credits
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to make available unused land-fill tax credits for environmental enhancement purposes. [52823]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have no power to compel landfill operators to make contributions to the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme. However, many have taken advantage of the tax credits available. £85.5 million has been contributed to date to fund schemes that provide clear environmental benefits including research into waste management, land reclamation and the provision of public amenity areas such as parks. HM Customs and Excise, together with other departments, are currently considering whether the scheme could be further improved, and in particular whether it could be amended to bring recycling within its scope.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria his Department uses to evaluate the environmental and waste management activity of local authorities. [52822]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department does not systematically evaluate the waste management performance of individual local authorities. Different waste management choices will make environmental sense in different local authority areas, depending on geography and local markets.

  Information and statistics on local authority waste management are available in "Municipal Waste Management 1995–96", published by my Department last year; data on 1996–97 are due to be published shortly.

  The consultation paper "Less waste: more value" explains our view that there is a case for individual local authorities or regions to be given an indication of the contribution towards national targets that the Government expect from them, taking into account their geographical circumstances. We are also considering what performance indicators on waste management should be prescribed under the new Best Value regime for local authority services, to support local accountability.

  Brownfield Sites
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what changes he is considering which will expedite the planning permission system for developers who wish to build on brownfield sites. [52825]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Current planning policy guidance already encourages the re-use of previously developed (or brown field) sites. The Government are currently revising Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (Housing) to reflect the higher target for building new homes on previously-developed land announced in Planning for the Communities of the Future, published in February. We hope to issue a draft PPG3 for consultation later this year.

  The Government are also helping local authorities and developers through their preparation of a national land use database which will for the first time produce a comprehensive picture of previously-developed land. The Government have also set up the Urban Task Force which will provide guidance on how local authorities can make better and more innovative use of such land. In addition, the Government are currently considering what role economic instruments might play in helping to bring forward more previously used land for development.

  Whales
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he supports the US proposal for establishing mandatory ship reporting systems to reduce ship strikes on endangered large whales; and if he will make a statement. [52826]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The United States proposals were discussed at the International Maritime Organisation's 44th session of its Safety of Navigation Sub-Committee (NAV 44) from 20–24 July, where they received the full backing of the United Kingdom Delegation. We believe that the proposed mandatory ship-reporting systems off the eastern coast of the United States will make a positive contribution to reducing the number of ship strikes on right whales. We will support the formal adoption of the systems at the IMO's Maritime Safety Committee in December.

  Public Houses
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the appeal decisions for each of the last two years where the local planning authority has refused planning permission for a change of use of shop unit into a public house and the inspector has upheld the refusal. [52280]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Chris Shepley to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 29 July 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about appeal decisions where the local planning authority has refused planning permission for a change of use of a shop unit into a public house and the Inspector has upheld the refusal.
  I enclose details of 17 planning appeals which were dismissed in 1996–97, and 38 which were dismissed in 1997–98. I believe this is an exhaustive list. The list includes all cases of a change of use

  241
  to a public house, not only those from a shop unit. It may also contain some appeals against the failure of the local planning authority to determine the application within the time limit.
  Should you require copies of the Inspector's decision letters for any appeal, please contact Colin Stevens (Room 1208 at the above address) directly and he will arrange for them to be sent to you. From these you will be able to see whether the Inspector agreed or disagreed with any reasons for refusal by the local authority.

  Taxis (Smoking)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce further measures to allow licensed taxi drivers to exclude passengers who wish to smoke from their vehicles. [53581]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  When Parliamentary time permits, we intend to propose a change in the law to enable licensed taxi drivers to designate their vehicles as "no-smoking cabs", thereby relieving them of the obligation to carry passengers who insist on smoking.

  Overhead Power Lines
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultations(a) he, (b) his Ministers and (c) his officials have had with (i) the Secretary of State for Health, (ii) health ministers and (iii) officials from the Department of Health, concerning the possible carcinogenic effects of overhead power lines. [53136]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Secretaries of State and Ministers of both Departments are aware of public interest in this area through correspondence and questions raised in the House. Officials from DETR and other Government Departments with a direct interest meet regularly with the national Radiological Protection Board to review information and consider developments regarding non-ionising radiation, including the alleged carcinogenic effects of overhead power lines.

  An investigation into electromagnetic fields and childhood cancer is being funded by the Department of Health and forms part of the United Kingdom Childhood Cancer Study. When the results of this study are published, the Secretary of State for Health will consult colleagues as appropriate.

  The current consensus view is that in normal domestic circumstances there is no quantifiable risk to health from electromagnetic field from power lines or sub-stations.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue planning guidance notes to local authorities to advise against building homes underneath overhead power cables and next to pylons; and if he will make a statement. [53135]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 19 June 1998,Official Report, column 331, which explained that the Government intend, later this year, to issue a draft circular for consultation on development in proximity to electromagnetic fields. This would include the health and safety aspects of overhead power lines.

  Departmental Research
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list 242
  the cost of all research undertaken by his Department since May 1997, excluding the cost of green papers and other public consultation documents drafted by his officials; and if he will list in each case the organisations which undertook that research. [52693]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The provision for DETR research spend in 1997/98 and the planned spend for 1998/99 were published in March in `DETR Opportunities for Research and Development', which is available on the DETR Website. A summary is given in the table. Records on all research contractors are not currently kept centrally. This information is now being collected with a view to publishing it in the next edition of `DETR Opportunities for Research and Development'. I will arrange for this information to be sent to the hon. Gentleman when it is ready.

  DETR science and technology expenditure

  £ million

  Research area

  Provision 1997–1998

  Plan 1998–1999

  Air Quality

  9.7

  9.7

  Global Atmosphere

  13.56

  13.56

  Radioactive Substances

  0.88

  0.88

  Water and Contaminated Land

  3.5

  3.5

  Chemicals and Biotechnology

  3.0

  3.0

  Noise

  0.45

  0.45

  Environmental Policy Analysis

  0.45

  0.45

  Waste Policy

  0.25

  0.25

  Planning and Minerals

  3.7

  3.7

  Countryside

  1.3

  1.4

  Darwin Initiative

  3.0

  3.0

  Local Government

  0.82

  0.8

  Housing and Regeneration

  6.5

  6.5

  Construction

  22.9

  22.0

  Environment Technology ETBPP and ETIS

  0.25

  0.25

  Land Transport

  18.1

  18.8

  Road Safety

  4.3

  4.5

  Vehicle Standards and Engineering

  5.9

  6.2

  Urban and Local Transport

  4.8

  4.8

  National Roads Policy

  1.2

  1.3

  Cross-cutting central programmes

  1.9

  2.0

  Civil Aviation Services

  0.7

  0.4

  Transport Security

  1.7

  1.7

  Highways Agency

  12.8

  13.2

  Total Research and Development

  103.56

  103.54

  Technology Transfer

  Construction

  0.5

  0.5

  Environment Technology EEBPP and ETIS

  2.5

  2.5

  Energy Efficiency

  15.0

  15.0

  Total Science and Technology

  121.56

  121.54

  Private Hire Vehicles
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he will take to ensure that the provisions allowing private hire operators to subcontract services to operators licensed outside London are not used to introduce lower standards than those which apply in London. [52197]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The matter will be considered as necessary in the light of circumstances as indicated by Public Carriage Office's monitoring.
  243
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria the Public Carriage Office will use when it monitors the use of subcontracting by London's private hire industry. [52198]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The matter will be considered as part of the implementation arrangements for the legislation on London minicab regulation.

  Federal Aviation Administration
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has made to the US Government concerning the delays by the Federal Aviation Administration in processing applications by United Kingdom companies for FAA approval. [53012]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None.

  Concessionary Fares (Pensioners)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to introduce concessionary bus fares for pensioners. [53579]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Most local authorities do already offer concessionary travel schemes for pensioners. Our White Paper "A New Deal for Transport" (Cm3950) said that we will introduce a national minimum standard for local authority concessionary fares schemes for elderly people, with a maximum £5 per year charge for a pass entitling the holder to travel at half fare on buses. The necessary legislation will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time permits.

  Mobile Homes
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to bring forward reforms to the Mobile Homes Act 1983; and if he will make a statement. [53570]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) on 6 May 1998,Official Report, column 389 and to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on 17 June 1998, Official Report, column 204.

  M25, Spelthorne
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the proposal to widen the M25 in the Spelthorne constituency. [53218]

  Dr. Reid
  We plan to make an announcement on the outcome of the Roads Review before the Recess.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about the current planning controls on the erection of telecommunications masts. [53841]
  244
  Mr. Caborn
  We have received a number of representations from local authorities, from industry and from the working group which has been considering the effectiveness of my Department's Code of Best Practice for telecommunications prior approval procedures.

  After careful consideration, I have concluded that the use of permitted development rights continues to be appropriate for this type of development but that there is scope for improving procedures in order to address a number of concerns.

  In doing this, we aim to strike the right balance between facilitating a competitive national telecommunications network and protecting our environment. I have today published a consultation paper on proposals for changes to the control of development by licensed telecommunications operators under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library.

  The main change proposed is a new two-stage procedure for ground-based masts erected under permitted development rights, to allow time for greater public consultation over their siting and appearance. This will give the public a clear opportunity to comment upon the installation of a mast in sensitive cases where such development would impact upon their amenity. We also propose to increase the protection currently afforded to Sites of Special Scientific Interest in this context by making telecommunications development in these areas subject to similar constraints as already apply in areas such as National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This would include development such as the installation of masts and antennas being made subject to a full planning application in SSSIs.

  Planning (Sport and Recreation)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to revise Planning Guidance Note 17 on Sport and Recreation. [53940]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department will shortly be publishing a research report which examines the Effectiveness of Planning Policy Guidance on Sport and Recreation. The findings and recommendations in that research point clearly towards the need to revise PPG17. We agree. The PPG, which dates from September 1991, urgently needs to be brought up to date, not least to take account of the Government's sustainable development objectives. Work on a revision will therefore start later in the Summer, and I hope that a draft revised PPG17 will be issued for public consultation around the turn of the year.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to appoint chairs for the boards of the proposed regional development agencies; and if he will make a statement. [53941]

  Mr. Caborn
  Formal appointments to the boards of the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) cannot be made until the Regional Development Agencies Bill, currently before Parliament, has received Royal Assent. However,
  245
  we propose to engage a chairman designate for each RDA on an advisory basis prior to Royal Assent to assist in preparations for the establishment of the RDAs.

  Our choices are as follows:
  Eastern RDA: Vincent Watts—Vice Chancellor of the University of East Anglia
  East Midlands RDA: Derek Mapp—Formerly Chairman of Tom Cobleigh plc. Currently part-time Executive Chairman of Leapfrog Day Nurseries
  North East RDA: John Bridge—Chief Executive of the Northern Development Company
  North West RDA: Lord Thomas of Macclesfield—Formerly Managing Director of the Co-operative Bank and founding Chairman of the North West Partnership
  South East RDA Ltd: Allan Willett—Chairman and founder of Willett International
  South West RDA: Sir Michael Lickiss—Chairman of Edexcel Foundation (previously BTEC)
  West Midlands RDA: Alex Stephenson—Managing Director of Rover Group Power Train
  Yorkshire and Humber RDA: Graham Hall—Chief Executive of Yorkshire Electricity Group plc.

  There was a strong list of candidates in each region and we were able to appoint people of the highest calibre to lead each RDA. Candidates for chairman of each RDA were sought from a wide range of sources, including a public advertisement, nominations from regional and national stakeholders, and details of people who had previously expressed an interest in public service. Independent assessors were involved both in the short listing process and in interviews. All appointments have been made on merit and in accordance with guidance issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  There will also be a development agency in London. The creation of the London Development Agency will take account of the new arrangements for the government of London including the way that appointments are made.

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what performance targets he has set the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre Executive Agency for 1998–99. [54062]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Agency's principal financial target for 1998–99 is to achieve a minimum contribution to the Exchequer of £963,000.

  Operational targets have been set to increase occupancy of the Churchill Auditorium to 190 days; the Fleming Room to 210 days; and the Mountbatten Room to 165 days.

  The Agency is also being required to achieve additional room hire revenue from banqueting of £75,000, and has the following key customer service targets to meet:

  1. An overall score for quality of service from client questionnaires of at least 78 per cent.

  2. 98 per cent of clients to report that they would use the centre again.

  3. The number of complaints received to be less than 4 per 100 events.

  4. An average response time when answering complaints of less than 4 working days.

  5. An overall score for quality of service by catering staff of at least 88 per cent.

  Non-domestic Rating
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for legislation on valuation for non-domestic rating; and if he will make a statement. [54063]

  Ms Armstrong
  In its decision dated 11 March 1998 in the case of Benjamin v Anston Properties, the Lands Tribunal decided that, in valuing a property for non-domestic rating purposes, it cannot be assumed that the property is in a reasonable state of repair if, on the material day, it is not. This decision runs counter to the approach adopted for compiling and maintaining rating lists under the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The Government therefore propose to introduce legislation as soon as Parliamentary time allows to reverse the effect of the Lands Tribunal decision.

  It is intended that this legislation will have effect from 1 April 1990, when the first rating lists under the 1988 Act were compiled. However, outstanding cases in which the proposal for reduction in the rateable value was made on or before 11 March 1998, will not be affected.

  Environmental Protection
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government will undertake public consultation on the review of legislation relating to the Environment Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. [54134]

  Mr. Meacher
  I announced on 8 April 1998,Official Report, columns 306–07, that we would review the legislation relating to the Environment Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, with a view to identifying any barriers preventing the Agencies from taking an integrated approach to the environment. We are issuing the relevant consultation paper today, copies of which have been placed in the Library. We are sending it to a wide range of bodies, and publishing it on the Internet.

  Countryside and Rural Programmes
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out his spending plans for the countryside and rural programmes of his Department following the Comprehensive Spending Review. [54135]

  Mr. Meacher
  The review of countryside and rural policy, conducted jointly by my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has concluded that there is a strong case for Government intervention to support rural communities, protect the landscape and wildlife resources of the countryside, and promote access to and enjoyment of the countryside. This Government want to see a living, working and sustainable countryside, and are determined both to increase resources towards meeting these objectives, and to improve the co-ordination and delivery of countryside and rural programmes in the future.
  247
  Support for individual DETR agencies or programmes will be as follows:

  English Nature's allocation will rise from £38.5 million in 1998–99 to £44.6 million in 1999–2000. This will allow the agency to continue and develop its nature conservation work, deliver obligations under the EU Birds and Habitats Directives, improve the management of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and accelerate the implementation of the Biodiversity Action Plan's species and habitats plans. We have asked English Nature to assist its smaller voluntary partners to play a full part in the Biodiversity Action Plan process.

  The merged agency to be formed on 1 April 1999 from the Rural Development Commission and the Countryside Commission will receive an increase of £8.68 million in 1999–2000. This will give the agency an effective start by strengthening its work protecting and conserving the natural landscape, supporting rural communities, and promoting access to and enjoyment of the countryside, and will also provide for pilot projects. Part will be used for necessary restructuring costs.

  The National parks and Broads Authority grant will increase from £17.412 million in 1998–99 to £19.277 million in 1999–2000.

  Support for the National Forest Company will increase from £2.5 million in 1998–99 to £3.1 million in 1999–2000, to help meet its planting targets, increase the resources available for partnership formation and bidding, and begin to develop the tourism potential of the Forest.

  Funding for DETR's countryside research will grow from £1.527 million in 1998–99 to £1.727 million in 1999–2000, and countryside publicity from £0.257 million in 1998–99 to £0.317 million in 1999–2000.

  In addition to increasing resources, we also intend to improve the delivery and co-ordination of programmes for the countryside. The Regional Development Agencies, which will begin operation in April next year, will be responsible for developing an integrated approach to economic development and regeneration in rural areas, in a way that contributes to sustainable development. At the centre, DETR and MAFF already work closely together in many ways, but there is room for improvement in the way the Government deliver rural policy in an integrated way. Together with the decision already taken to merge the Rural Development and the Countryside Commissions from 1 April 1999, we will be taking forward steps to improve co-ordination of the countryside programmes across the two Departments, to ensure that our countryside and rural policy objectives are fully met.

  Further decisions on the level of resources for the following two years will be announced in 1999, in the light of the joint financial planning to be developed by DETR and MAFF.

  Sewage Treatment and Disposal
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish his response to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's report on Sewage Treatment and Disposal, HC 266-I of Session 1997–98. [54147]
  248
  Mr. Meacher
  I will be laying before the House tomorrow the Government's formal response to the Second Report of the Environmental, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee on Sewage Treatment and Disposal tomorrow. Copies will be placed in both Libraries of the House.

  Within days of taking office, we called a Water Summit to signal our intention to ensure a world-class, water efficient, environmentally sustainable water industry. We remain firmly committed to that goal. We welcomed the publication of the Select Committee's report as an important contribution to the debate.

  Within our broad objective, the Government's response to the Select Committee will set out significant elements of our approach to the quality of the water environment. Our approach will strike a balance between the need for and value of environmental improvements by the water industry and the need to protect consumers from large increases in their water bills as a result of those improvements.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  National Disability Council
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the National Disability Council will report on its activities during the 1997–98 financial year. [54064]

  Ms Hodge
  I am pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has today laid the National Disability Council's third annual report before Parliament. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries.

  The Council has worked very hard during the year on an impressive array of initiatives and to develop proposals for a code of practice on improved rights of access to goods and services for disabled people. These new rights will be introduced in October 1999. The Council, therefore, has another busy year ahead as it consults on and refines the proposals. I look forward to continuing to work with the Council on this and on other initiatives to help end discrimination against disabled people.

  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects the report of the quinquennial review of the Equal Opportunities Commission to be published; and if he will make a statement. [52504]

  Ms Hodge
  We expect to publish the report immediately after the summer adjournment.

  Post-16 Education
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will ensure that all year 11 pupils receive information on appropriate post-16 providers who operate courses in their immediate locality. [52809]

  Mr. Mudie
  To improve the current system of providing information on post-16 learning opportunities, the Government have proposed that careers services, in
  249
  their role as independent broker, are best placed to take responsibility for ensuring that all young people in years 10 and 11 have access to the full range of information at times, and in ways, appropriate to their needs. To do this, careers services would need to work closely with local schools, colleges and other training providers arrangements for the provision of this information would be agreed locally.

  Design
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many full-time students in higher education are currently enrolled on design-related courses; and how many there were(a) five and (b) 10 years ago. [52291]

  Mr. Mudie
  The available information is given in the table:

  Full-time students1 on courses of design studies

  Thousand

  Academic year

  Number

  1987–88

  18.6

  1992–93

  31.8

  1997–982

  44.7

  1 In former UFC establishments in the GB, and former polytechnics, HEIs and FEIs in England

  2 Provisional

  Further Education Colleges (Hampshire)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding has been allocated to further education colleges in Hampshire in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98 and (iii) 1998–99. [52189]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 24 July 1998]: Funding has been allocated to further education colleges in Hampshire for academic years 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99 as follows:

  £000

  Year

  Amount

  1996–97

  112,116

  1997–98

  109,956

  1998–99

  110,381

  Training
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements are in place to harmonise legal requirements between New Deal trainees and those being trained with TEC or private sector funding separately identifying those relating to health and safety measures. [52342]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: The contracts which the Employment Service has entered into with all organisations delivering New Deal set out the obligations of New Deal providers, including their statutory obligations. The contract places a duty of care on the provider requiring that Health and Safety requirements are met. Fulfilment of these responsibilities will be evaluated by ES together with other aspects of
  250
  contract compliance; with these arrangements in place there is not a current need to harmonise regulation with that operated by TECs and other training providers.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the New Deal partnerships which expressed an interest in leading a pilot for the New Deal for over 25 year olds; and what percentage of these has been invited to submit a full proposal for a pilot in their area. [52778]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  73 partnerships expressed an interest in leading a New Deal 25+ partnership pilot. The following 43 partnerships have been shortlisted for around 20 pilots:

  Argyle and the Islands

  Ayrshire

  Bexley and Greenwich

  Birmingham

  Bolton

  Bradford

  Brighton

  Bristol and South Gloucester

  Camden and North Islington

  Cardiff and the Vale

  Cornwal

  Coventry

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Ealing

  Eastbourne

  Fulham

  Grampian

  Hammersmith

  Hereford and Worcester

  Hounslow and Richmond

  Hull

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Lanarkshire

  Leeds

  Manchester

  North Derbyshire

  Oldham

  Oxfordshire

  Peterborough

  Portsmouth and S.E. Hampshire

  Powys and Ceredigan West Wales

  Rotherham

  Sheffield

  South Derbyshire

  Southampton and S.W. Hampshire

  Stockport

  Suffolk and Waveney

  Sunderland

  Sutton, Epsom, Merton and Wandsworth

  Teesside

  West Norfolk

  Western Isles

  Wigan.

  251
  50 organisations completed 79 expressions of interest to take part in the New Deal 25+ private sector led pilots. 22 organisations have now been shortlisted and have submitted 38 bids for the 10 private sector led pilots. These are as follows:

  Action for Employment Ltd.

  Belgrave Development and Enterprises

  BTCV Enterprises Ltd.

  Christian Care Training

  DHP Enterprise Trust

  Fernly Business Services Ltd.

  Instant Muscle Ltd.

  JHP Group Ltd.

  Leicestershire Chamber of Commerce

  Lothian Training Ltd.

  Manpower plc

  Pelcombe Training Ltd.

  Pertemps Group Ltd.

  Reed W2W Ltd.

  Scout Enterprises (Western) Ltd.

  SEETEC Business Technology Centre Ltd.

  The MARI Group Ltd.

  The Shaw Trust

  The Training and Business Group (London) Ltd.

  TP Training Ltd.

  Triage Central Ltd.

  Van Hee Transport Ltd.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Security Service
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide further information about files held by the Security Service; and if he will make a statement. [54146]

  Mr. Straw
  During an adjournment debate in this House on 25 February 1998,Official Report, columns 341–48, I undertook to make an announcement, before the summer recess, on the subject of the Security Service's file holdings and on the Service's file destruction programme. I now fulfil that commitment. I do so having consulted the Director General of the Security Service, and having been advised by him that the information which I shall be revealing for the first time today may be disclosed without detriment to the requirements of national security or to the operational effectiveness of the Service.

  The Security Service currently holds in total about 440,000 files which have been opened at some time since its establishment in 1909. Of these, approximately 35,000 files relate to Service administration, policy and staff. A further 40,000 concern subjects and organisations studied by the Service. About 75,000 files relate to people or groups of people who have never been investigated by the Service, such as those who have received protective security advice. This leaves about 290,000 files relating to individuals who, at some time during the last 90 years, may have been the subject of Security Service inquiry or investigation. Of this 290,000, some 40,000 have been reduced to microfilm and placed in a restricted category to which Security Service staff have access only for specific
  252
  research purposes. A further 230,000 files are closed so that Security Service officers may use them where necessary in the course of their current work, but may not make inquiries about the subjects of the files.

  It will be apparent that only a small proportion of the Security Service's file holdings relate to individuals who may be under current investigation by the Service. The number of files which fall within that category is around 20,000. Of that number, about one third relate to foreign nationals—typically, members or associates of foreign intelligence services or terrorist groups. This leaves in the order of 13,000 active files on United Kingdom citizens. To place it in context, this compares with about 5.7 million records on individuals on the Police National Computer. It represents about 3/100ths of one per cent. of the current adult population, and only a tiny proportion of the 13,000 are likely ever to be under close investigation at any one time.

  Of those 13,000 files, more than half are for individuals who have come to the Service's attention in a terrorist related context, while the remainder relate to the Service's other fields of investigation, such as espionage, proliferation and serious crime. A proportion of these files are for individuals who are co-operating with the Service against these threats to national security. Following the collapse of Soviet Communism and the decline in the threat from subversive groups, the Service scaled down its counter-subversion work over a number of years to the point where it is no longer running any investigations in the field of subversion.

  Detailed criteria govern the opening of files on individuals and organisations. These criteria specify the circumstances in which opening a file and initiating inquiries are justified within the terms of the Service's statutory functions. They are kept under continual review and are formally checked on an annual basis for currency, relevance and propriety.

  It has long been the policy of the Security Service to review its file holdings and to destroy those files which it no longer requires for operational purposes and which do not merit retention on grounds of historical interest. In the period between its formation in 1909 and the early 1970s, the Service destroyed well over 175,000 files. The destruction programme was then halted in response to concern that it had impeded investigations into espionage cases. In the early 1990s, following the collapse of Soviet communism and the associated decline in the threat from subversion, the review and destruction programme was reinstated. Since then, more than 110,000 files have been destroyed or have been earmarked for destruction.

  In reviewing files for destruction, the Service takes account of their operational value, their historical significance, and the Service's obligation to retain certain categories of records against the possibility of a complaint to the Security Service Tribunal. With these criteria in mind, the Security Service continues to review its holdings of closed files for destruction and will continue to destroy files which no longer need to be retained on those grounds. The rate of review and destruction is dependent upon the resources which the Service can afford to spare for the task.

  I have said that the Service takes account of the likely historical significance of each file before sending it for destruction. It is a matter of interest to professional

  253
  historians, writers and journalists that records which might be of real historical value should be kept for posterity. It might, therefore, be helpful if I explain how that process is governed.

  The Security Service, as with Government Departments, is subject to the Public Records Act 1958. This Act, among other things, regulates policy on the selection of files for preservation. In common with many other Departments, the Service has drawn up guidance to govern this process and this has been approved by the Public Record Office. I published the criteria applied by the Service in response to a Question from the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), on 20 January 1998, Official Report, columns 519–20. The Service also takes advice from the Public Record Office on the retention, preservation and release of historical records.

  The operations of the Public Record Office are, in turn, scrutinised by the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Council on Public Records, chaired by the Master of the Rolls. There are three eminent historians on the Advisory Council and others with an academic or professional interest in 20th century records, including a Professor of Politics and Mr. Andreas Whittam Smith, former founding editor of The Independent newspaper.

  Panel of Historians

  Earlier this year, in response to a question from the Public Administration Committee, I said that I was looking at whether there was a need for a panel of historians to advise the Security Service on the retention of its files for historical reasons. With the agreement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and the Director General, I have asked the Advisory Council specially to review the criteria which the Service currently apply in determining whether files which they would otherwise destroy should be kept on grounds of historical interest. The Council has agreed to carry out such a review, and I am grateful to the Chairman for accepting the invitation. The Council will welcome submissions from those with an interest in the subject. Representation should be submitted, in writing, to the Advisory Council at the following address:

  Tim Padfield

  Secretary, Advisory Council on Public Records

  Public Record Office

  Kew

  Richmond

  Surrey

  TW9 4DU

  Telephone: 0181 876 3444 ext. 2351

  Fax: 0181 392 5295

  E-Mail: tim.padfield@pro.gov.uk

  Correspondence should be received by 30 September. The Council will aim to report by the end of the year.

  Release of Security Service files into the public domain

  The Security Service is fully committed to a policy of releasing as much material of historical significance as it can. But in determining which files may safely be released, there are important considerations which the Service will always have to take into account. These include: the need to protect sensitive investigative techniques; to protect information supplied in confidence by agents and liaison services; and to bear in mind the potential impact of release on those individuals concerned and their families. The Service's current programme of reviewing its early records of historical interest has
  254
  already resulted in the release of almost all the surviving material covering the years 1909–1919. The Service is now actively reviewing its more extensive stock of records from World War Two, but, as with the review for destruction, this process will continue to depend upon the resources available for the task.

  I am aware, however, that the Intelligence and Security Committee has, itself, been reviewing these issues and may have more to say about the subject in its Annual Report. I look forward with great interest to seeing what they have to say.

  Booklet

  Finally, I am pleased to announce that the Security Service is, today, publishing the third edition of the booklet which describes the Service and its work. The booklet is even more informative than its predecessors. This reflects our policy of making available as much information about the Service as we sensibly can, without undermining the effectiveness of its operations or risking the safety of its staff or its agents.

  I have arranged for copies of the booklet to be placed in the Library.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make additional appointments to the Metropolitan Police Committee. [54138]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today appointed the following as members of the Metropolitan Police Committee:

  Councillor Lincoln Beswick (Labour, Brent)

  Councillor Toby Harris (Labour, Haringey)

  Councillor Barbara Hughes (Labour, Camden)

  Councillor Tim Joiner (Conservative, Westminster)

  Councillor Serge Lourie (Liberal Democrat, Richmond upon Thames)

  Councillor Maggie Mansell (Labour, Croydon)

  Councillor Derek Sawyer (Labour, Islington)

  Councillor Michael Slaughter (Conservative, Bexley)

  Councillor Ala Uddin (Labour, Tower Hamlets)

  Councillor Ron Gee (Independent, Epsom & Ewell).

  They will join the eleven existing members, who are Sir John Quinton, who will remain Chair, Miss Maria Callaghan, Mr. Thomas Chan, Councillor Maurice Heaster (Conservative, Wandsworth), Major General Malcolm Hunt, Councillor Margaret O'Neill (Labour, Bexley), Mrs. Shahwar Sadeque, Mr. Mark Souhami, Mr. Inder Uppal, Mr. Reginald Watts and Ms Rachel Whittaker.

  Nine of the new members were nominated by the Association of Local Government, in response to my request for nominations reflecting the current make-up of London Boroughs. The tenth is the representative of the Outer London Metropolitan Police Group.

  The new members will take up their appointments on 1 September 1998. The Committee's task will continue to be to advise me in relation to the discharge of certain of my functions as police authority for the Metropolitan Police. The functions in question are based on those

  255
  which, outside London, are the responsibility of the police authorities established under the Police Act 1964, as amended by the Police Act 1996.

  In particular, I look to the Committee to prepare for the Metropolitan Police Authority which we intend to establish as part of our proposals for a Mayor and Assembly for London.

  The next couple of years bring new challenges, with the Crime and Disorder Bill, efficiency plans and the preparation for the Metropolitan Police Authority. The whole Committee has much to contribute on these and other key issues.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the funding of the transitional arrangements necessary to enable those parts of the Metropolitan Police District not within the Greater London boundary to be transferred to neighbouring police force areas in April 2000. [53213]

  Mr. Michael
  The changes to the Metropolitan Police District boundaries are expected to come into effect in April 2000. It is likely that transitional costs in transferring those areas not within the boundary of the proposed Greater London Authority to other forces will fall in the financial year 1999–2000. It is too early to give an accurate estimate of the size of such costs but they will be taken into account when considering the needs of the police areas affected.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 April 1998,Official Report, column 255, about the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997, when he expects to issue a consultation document on the Government's proposals for the amendments; and if he will make a statement. [54140]

  Mr. George Howarth
  As I explained on 8 April, the European Commission has expressed some concern about our implementation of the fire safety aspects of the European Framework Directive (89/391/EEC). We expect to be in a position to publish a consultative document on our proposals for amendments, to allay the Commission's concerns, in early August. Copies of the document will be available to hon. Members through the usual sources. However, as the House will be in recess at the time of publication, my hon. Friend and others may like to know that copies may also be had, free of charge, from Christians Limited, whose details are as follows:

  Orderline/telephone number: 0181-867-3434

  Fax number: 0181-867-3234

  E-mail address: firesafe@echristians.co.uk

  Freepost address:

  Fire Safety Consultation Document,

  FREEPOST HA 4441,

  Hayes,

  Middlesex UB3 1BR.

  Juveniles (Secure Accommodation)
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the provision of secure accommodation for juveniles. [54141]
  256
  Mr. Straw
  The Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] will provide courts with more appropriate custodial remand and sentencing powers to deal with the most serious and persistent young offenders. To complement these changes, the Government have undertaken a review of all forms of secure accommodation for young offenders and young people held on remand. The Government believe that present arrangements for the provision and management of secure accommodation are inefficient and incoherent and are in need of reform. The review of juvenile secure accommodation was completed at the end of March and the Government have decided now on a programme of further work to be undertaken, a summary of which has been placed in the Library.

  The main focus of this further work involves extending the role of the new Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, expected to be in place by October this year. The Crime and Disorder Bill already provides for the Youth Justice Board to advise on the setting of standards for secure accommodation for remanded and sentenced juveniles and to monitor the delivery of those standards. The Government have decided in principle to extend this role to include the commissioning and purchasing of secure accommodation for juveniles on remand and under sentence. This additional function will enable the Youth Justice Board to provide a much-needed central focus for the delivery of high quality secure facilities for remanded and sentenced young people. Subject to the outcome of further detailed work, the Government envisage that it should be possible for the Youth Justice Board to take on the function of commissioning and purchasing secure accommodation by April 2000. This will involve making an order under clause 42 (6) of the Crime and Disorder Bill.

  A priority for immediate action is to improve the standard of care and quality of regimes in accommodation currently used for those remanded and sentenced as juveniles. Ninety per cent. of these young people are held in Prison Service accommodation. The Prison Service is already working on the development of new regime standards for juveniles and is planning to pilot improved regimes in two establishments, Werrington and Huntercombe Young Offender Institutions. Proposals to help achieve greater separation of juveniles from adult prisoners are also being taken forward. This work will pave the way for the introduction of the detention and training order, contained in the Crime and Disorder Bill, which will involve a programme of improved education and training to tackle offending behaviour, undertaken partly in custody and partly in the community.

  The Government plan to set out their detailed proposals on the future role of the Youth Justice Board in respect of secure accommodation early next year.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to make further appointments to the Police Complaints Authority. [54142]

  Mr. Straw
  I have decided to appoint Mr. Ian Bynoe and Miss Mehmuda Mian as Members of the Authority.
  257
  Mr. Bynoe has most recently been engaged in research work commissioned by the Institute for Public Policy Research. He was previously Legal Director of MIND (The National Association for Mental Health). He will take up his post on 3 August.

  Miss Mian was until recently a senior caseworker in the Solicitors Practice Unit of the Office for Supervision of Solicitors. She will take up her post in the autumn.

  Their appointments, which are initially for three years, bring to 13 the number of Members of the Authority, including the Chairman and Deputy Chairman.

  Crime Prevention
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral statement of 21 July 1998,Official Report, columns 914–28 on crime prevention, how much will be spent on the extension of closed circuit television in each of the next three years. [52522]

  Mr. Michael
  Further announcements on how the £250 million crime reduction strategy will operate will be made in the autumn.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance his Department issues to those constructing buildings for which it is responsible on the use of materials containing asbestos. [52314]

  Mr. Straw
  In each building contract that the Home Office enters, the contractor warrants that asbestos will not be used in constructing the works.

  CS Spray
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the numbers of incidents when CS spray has been used by the police force in Gloucestershire for the most recent five years for which records are available; [51391]

  (2) what representations he has received on the potential dangers posed by CS spray; [51393]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the police use of CS spray. [51394]

  Mr. Michael
  Since 1 January 1996, there have been 46 Parliamentary Questions about police use of CS spray, and the Home Office has received 55 letters from hon. Members on the subject. Since 1 April 1997, 69 letters on the subject have been received from members of the public.

  CS sprays have been discharged by Gloucestershire police officers in 138 incidents since its introduction there on 14 April 1997.

  In December 1996, the Home Office Police Research Group published an assessment of police operational trials of CS spray. The trials involved 16 forces and took place between March and August 1996.

  In October 1997, my right hon. Friend reviewed the available evidence relating to the use of CS spray by the police and confirmed our support for its use. During operational trials, it was found that CS typically took
  258
  effect within five seconds. We have no doubt that, in many cases, its use has not only prevented injury to police officers and members of the public but prevented any injury to the person who would otherwise have been subject to physical restraint.

  Violence in Families
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will evaluate the cost to his Department arising from violence within families; and if he will make a statement. [52440]

  Mr. Straw
  The way in which statistics are held centrally does not readily allow a comprehensive estimate of these costs.

  However, a report by Professor Elizabeth Stanko (Brunel University) and others, "Counting the costs; estimating the impact of domestic violence in the London Borough of Hackney", has recently been published by Crime Concern. This estimates the total cost in 1996 to the public sector of providing services for women and children facing domestic violence in Hackney at around £90 per annum per household. This report estimates the total cost for Greater London to be around £278 million per annum.

  I have placed a copy of this report in the Library.

  New Deal
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people his Department is committed to employing during 1998 under(a) the subsidised job option and (b) the unsubsidised job option of the New Deal programme. [52585]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department is actively considering proposals for recruiting under the New Deal scheme and expects to sign up formally to participation as a New Deal Employer by autumn 1998.

  The Home Office will act as an employer for the subsidised employment option and will aim to recruit approximately two to three per cent. of new intakes into appointments suitable for New Deal participants. Those seeking employment through the New Deal unsubsidised option may apply through open competition for posts in the Home Department. Selection will be made on the basis of merit alone.

  Crime Prevention (North-west)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effects of the extra £250 million investment on crime prevention in(a) the North West and (b) Chorley. [52458]

  Mr. Straw
  The crime reduction strategy which I announced on 21 July 1998,Official Report, column 913, is designed to produce long term benefits in reducing offending as well as having a more immediate impact on certain kinds of crime, such as burglary. I shall make further announcements in the autumn on how the crime reduction strategy will operate.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will estimate the impact on the number of police officers on the beat of the creation of a North West regional police force; [52459]
  259
  (2) what assessment he has made of the savings and efficiencies which will be created through the development of a North West regional police force based on the RDA. [52460]

  Mr. Michael
  We have no proposals to create regional police forces in England and Wales, and consequently have made no assessment of the effects of doing so.

  It is for individual chief constables to determine the number of police officers on the beat within available resources. We are working with the police to ensure that the resources which the Government make available to them are used as efficiently as possible, with the emphasis on outputs and outcomes rather than on inputs.

  British Board of Film Censors
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the annual report 1997–98 of the British Board of Film Censors to be published. [53266]

  Mr. Michael
  My right hon. Friend expects to receive the 1997–98 Annual Report from the British Board of Film Classification and to lay it before Parliament by the end of this week.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review staffing levels at the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. [52506]

  Mr. Michael
  Staffing and other resources required for the operation of the 1990 scheme under the aegis of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and of the tariff-based scheme by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) are reviewed regularly, as shown in CICA' s business plans. Copies of the plan for 1998–99 should shortly be available in the Library.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeal cases against decisions of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board are pending; and what assessment he has made of the total capacity of the Board to process decisions annually. [52505]

  Mr. Michael
  The Board advises that there are currently some 16,800 appeals and other hearings cases pending under the 1990 scheme. The plan for clearing such cases at an annual rate of 10,000 was set against the overall target for this year of clearing over 90,000 claims under both the 1990 scheme and the new, tariff-based one (effective for claims made on or after 1 April 1996). That will result in payments of over £200 million, thereby giving victims of violent crime a high degree of priority in the allocation of finite resources.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the withholding of benefit payable by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board where a complainant appeals against a reduction; and if he will make a statement. [52507]

  Mr. Michael
  I have no plans to review the withholding of an award in these circumstances. The position under the schemes is that a claimant has no title to any award offered until he accepts it in full and final settlement. Where he appeals, any earlier decision 260
  falls; the case must be examined completely afresh and a new decision made upon it. That may be a full award, a reduced award, or no award at all.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the vehicles due for replacement by(a) his Department and (b) bodies listed in the National Asset Register in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01 will be replaced by vehicles using (1) petrol, (2) diesel, (3) natural gas, (4) electric batteries and (5) other. [52616]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: It is not possible to make accurate predictions two or three years in advance, as each case is considered on merit at the time of replacement. Factors such as fitness for purpose, expected rate of use, location, available funds, technical developments, fuel cost etc. are taken into account.

  Our best estimate is that like for like replacements will continue until further technical developments take place in alternative power sources.

  Cycling
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what parking facilities for cycles exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible and for each agency for which he is responsible. [52686]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: The Home Office Central London estate provides 41 secure spaces for parking bicycles. The formal facilities include:
  the provision of a bicycle shed in one car park where bicycles can be chained to metal loops
  the provision in another car park of spaces where bicycles can be chained to a metal frame secured to the ground by concrete
  spaces in a basement storage room.

  Generally, there is some provision for parking bicycles for most offices and sites throughout the rest of the Home Office estate (including those occupied by the Agencies). However, details of these are not available centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the employees of his Department and of the employees of each agency for which he is responsible cycle to work; and what measures he plans to increase that proportion. [52687]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My Department has no record of the mode of transport used by its staff to travel to work.

  Existing measures to encourage the use of cycling to work include the provision of secure cycle parking, showers, and interest free loans for bicycle purchase.

  Measures to increase the proportion of employees cycling to work are being considered as part of the development of green transport plans for building occupied by the Department and its Agencies.

  Bedfordshire Police
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish the numbers and
  261
  rank of (a) police officers and (b) civilian staff employed in the administration support units of Bedfordshire Police Force. [52658]

  Mr. Michael
  I understand from the Chief Constable that there are 66 civilian staff employed in the Administration Support Units of the Bedfordshire Police. No police officers are deployed to these units. The Bedfordshire Police is restructuring its Criminal Justice Department, which will include the provision of new IT systems. These changes are likely to reduce the number of civilian staff employed in Administration Support Units.

  Custody (Girls)
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many girls aged under 18 years from Wales were sentenced to custody in each year since 1992. [53256]

  Ms Quin
  The available information relates to the number of girls aged under 18 years sentenced to immediate custody in Welsh courts and is given in the table.

  Number of girls aged under 18 years sentenced to immediate custody1 at all courts for all offences, Wales, 1992–96

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Total sentenced immediate custody1

  11

  4

  9

  15

  10

  Detained under S53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 19332

  —

  2

  —

  1

  4

  1 Sentenced to imprisonment at a Young Offender Institution

  2 Detainees may be held either in Prison Service establishments or in local authority secure or open community homes or Department of Health Youth Treatment Centres. The youngest detainees are automatically held outside Prison Service establishments

  Juries
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he is proposing to the way juries(a) in serious fraud and (b) in other cases are compiled and appointed; and if he will make a statement. [52858]

  Mr. Michael
  We are currently considering the responses to the recent consultation exercise on the use of juries in serious fraud trials. We will consider the issue further in the light of the responses.

  New Voting Systems
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what action his Department is taking to increase public awareness of the new electoral systems which will be used in(a) European Parliament elections and (b) elections for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly; [52824]

  (2) what budget he has allocated for informing the public of new voting systems to be used for (a) the European Parliament elections and (b) the elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly; [52828]
  262
  (3) how much his Department will be spending in informing and educating the public on the new electoral system to be used for the European elections. [53683]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No budget has been allocated for informing the public of the new electoral system for European Parliamentary elections.

  The Government are supporting the efforts of the Institute of Citizenship and the London office of the European Parliament and others to publicise the new electoral system.

  Publicity arrangements for elections to the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales respectively.

  Women's Prison, Ashford
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to submit a formal planning application to build a Women's Prison at Woodthorpe Road, Ashford (Middlesex). [53214]

  Ms Quin
  The Prison Service is aiming to submit a formal planning application to Spelthorne Borough Council during August.

  Football Hooliganism
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many England supporters were(a) arrested, (b) detained and (c) removed from France by the French authorities during the World Cup. [51995]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: The latest information that we have available is as follows:

  Arrests in France during the World Cup: 275

  Given custodial sentences: 20

  Expelled from France during the World Cup: 14

  Refused entry to France during the World Cup: 363

  Awaiting trial or on bail for offences committed during the World Cup: 11.

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women have been sentenced to imprisonment in England and Wales in each of the last five years for offences relating to (i) physical abuse of children, (ii) sexual abuse towards children, (iii) manslaughter of a child and (iv) murder of a child under the age of five years. [52089]

  Mr. Michael
  Information taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database is given in Table A. It should be noted that it is not possible to identify all violent (including sexual) offences where the victim is aged 16 years or under.
  263
  Table B provides information taken from the Homicide Index.

  Table A—Number of persons sentenced to immediate custody at all courts for violent offences against children by sex and type of offence, England and Wales, 1992–1996

  Offence

  Gender

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Indictable offences

  Violence against the person

  Murder of infant under 1 year of age

  M

  —

  2

  2

  4

  8

  F

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Infanticide

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Child destruction

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cruelty to, or neglect of children

  M

  41

  44

  32

  55

  64

  F

  12

  15

  12

  29

  37

  Abandoning children under 2 years

  M

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Child abduction

  M

  11

  14

  15

  35

  29

  F

  2

  2

  1

  4

  4

  Sexual offences

  Buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  M

  113

  106

  93

  75

  5

  F

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Attempt to commit buggery with a boy under the age of 16 or with a woman or an animal

  M

  12

  10

  12

  11

  2

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male of a male under 161

  M

  —

  —

  —

  28

  62

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged 16 or 171

  M

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged 16 or 171

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male with a female under 161

  M

  —

  —

  —

  4

  14

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male aged 21 or over with a female aged 16 or 171

  M

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Buggery by a male aged 18–20 with a female aged 16 or 171

  M

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Indecent assault on male person under 16 years

  M

  140

  152

  170

  203

  213

  F

  2

  3

  2

  1

  1

  Gross indecency by a male aged 21 or over with a male aged under 182

  M

  —

  —

  —

  4

  4

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gross indecency by a male aged 18–20 with a male aged under 182

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rape of a female aged under 163

  M

  —

  —

  —

  94

  185

  F

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Rape of a male aged under 163

  M

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Attempted rape of a female aged under 163

  M

  —

  —

  —

  16

  27

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Attempted rape of a male aged under 163

  M

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Indecent assault on a female under 16

  M

  559

  609

  654

  823

  911

  F

  2

  4

  3

  3

  3

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 13

  M

  48

  50

  36

  54

  35

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  M

  47

  55

  64

  85

  86

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Incest with a girl under 13

  M

  36

  44

  25

  12

  18

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse

  M

  1

  1

  4

  2

  —

  F

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Householder permitting unlawful sexual intercourse with girl under 16

  M

  —

  2

  2

  1

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Person responsible for girl under 16 causing or encouraging her prostitution etc.

  M

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Male aged 21 or over procuring or attempting to procure a male under 18 of gross indecency with another male2

  M

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Abduction of unmarried girl under 16

  M

  5

  3

  5

  5

  1

  Gross indecency with boys aged 14 or under

  M

  30

  35

  32

  28

  20

  F

  —

  3

  1

  —

  —

  Gross indecency with girls aged 14 or under

  M

  60

  54

  46

  57

  58

  F

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  264 265

  Table A—Number of persons sentenced to immediate custody at all courts for violent offences against children by sex and type of offence, England and Wales, 1992–1996

  Offence

  Gender

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Summary Offences

  Violent offence

  Cruelty to or neglect of children

  M

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  F

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Buggery and attempted buggery offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 Section 12 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Section 143

  2 Indecency between males offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 Section 12 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Section 144

  3 Rape and attempted rape offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 Section 1 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Section 142.

  Source:

  Home Office Court Proceedings database

  Table B—Persons1 sentenced to imprisonment for offences of manslaughter of a child2 and murder of a child under the age of five years by sex, England and Wales, 1992–1996

  Offence

  Gender

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Homicide offences

  Manslaughter of a child2

  M

  17

  19

  16

  11

  16

  F

  3

  3

  5

  1

  4

  of which:

  Manslaughter of a child under the age of 5 years

  M

  15

  14

  14

  5

  7

  F

  2

  3

  5

  1

  2

  Murder of a child under the age of 5 years

  M

  14

  5

  11

  12

  6

  F

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1 As at 1 August 1997; figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and by the courts, or as further information becomes available

  2 Child aged 16 years or older.

  Source:

  Homicide Index

  Fire Stations
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Surrey County Council's application for permission to close Staines and Sunbury-on-Thames fire stations and replace them with a single new fire station based in the Spelthorne constituency. [53216]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Surrey County Council has applied for approval, under section 19(4) of the Fire Services Act 1947, to the above change in fire cover arrangements. In considering such an application, my right hon. Friend grants approval only where he is satisfied that the fire authority has consulted as appropriate and that the national standards of fire cover will be maintained. The County Council's application, and the representations that we have received, are being carefully considered in consultation with her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate.

  Voting System Commission
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he expects to announce the conclusions of the Independent Commission on the Voting System. [53181]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I understand from the Commission that they hope to complete their work at the end of October. Their report will be published very shortly thereafter.

  Mr. Peter Bleach
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions Mr. Peter Bleach met officials of Her Majesty's Government and its agencies in relation to the issue of arms exports; and on what dates and where. [51878]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: Mr. Bleach was interviewed by officers of North Yorkshire Police at his home address on 14 September, 22 September and 8 December 1995 about an alleged illegal shipment of arms. I understand that he also met officials at the London office of the Defence Export Services Organisation of the Ministry of Defence in late 1994 regarding the supply of helicopters to Bangladesh. This led to subsequent meetings with the British Defence Attaché in Dhaka.

  Wandsworth Prison
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the refurbishment of A and B wings at Wandsworth Prison; and when this work is planned to be completed. [52786]

  Ms Quin
  Wandsworth prison's A and B wings were decommissioned shortly before 1 April 1996 because they did not meet the stipulation that all prisoners from 1 April 1996 must have 24 hour access to sanitation. A refurbishment and modernisation programme for the wings (covering integral sanitation, cell doors/windows,
  267
  roofs, electrics, heating, health and safety, security measures, food services and prisoner and staff facilities) is nearing completion. The programme has encountered construction and labour difficulties which have necessitated programme revisions. Replanning the work and extending working hours has enabled acceleration of the works to be achieved. Work to A wing is now due to finish this week with occupation in September; B wing is now programmed to finish in early October in time to meet the planned programme of occupation in late October or early November.

  Norwich Prison
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to(a) receive and (b) publish the report on the suicides of prisoners at Norwich Prison. [52763]

  Ms Quin
  The area manager has received a copy of the review of suicide awareness procedures at Norwich prison following the recent sequence of self-inflicted deaths at the establishment, as he commissioned that review. This is an internal review which is confidential. The current Prison Service policy is that internal reviews or reports are not disclosed. This policy is currently being reviewed but any change will not apply retrospectively.

  Police (Racial Discrimination)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many outstanding cases of racial discrimination brought against police forces are awaiting a hearing by industrial tribunals; how many in each case were brought by(a) officers and (b) civilians; and if he will provide a breakdown by police force; [53094]

  (2) how many cases of racial discrimination against police forces have (a) been settled out of court and (b) been won by civilian and officer applicants in the last five years; how many in each were brought by (i) officers and (ii) civilians; and if he will provide a breakdown by police force. [53095]

  Mr. Michael
  It is a matter for each chief officer to investigate claims of racial discrimination made to his or her force and to the police authority, in consultation with the police authority. The information requested is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost by contacting each police force.

  1993–94

  £

  Northern Ireland Office

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  Department of the Environment

  Cornerstone Community

  —

  37,600.00

  —

  Corrymeela

  —

  148,100.00

  —

  FAIT

  —

  39,700.00

  —

  Victim Support (NI)

  207,000.00*

  —

  —

  Women Together

  —

  25,100.00

  —

  Hunting
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce legislation to ban hunting with hounds. [52898]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Several approaches to the question of hunting with hounds are being discussed.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Victim Support
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list those self-help groups, organisations and agencies offering assistance to victims of the conflict and their families funded by her Department; how much public funding each body has received in each of the past five years; and how much is earmarked to each for the current year and each of the next three years. [48469]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 7 July 1998]: The Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments fund a number of self-help groups, organisations, and agencies which assist victims of the conflict and their families. Some of these organisations do not, however, exist solely to help victims, and there are other organisations which assist victims but do not receive public funding. I have set out the available information, for each of the years requested.

  With the exception of the NIO's grant to Victim Support (NI) (those sums marked *), payments made by NIO represent 25 per cent. fully additional funding towards projects which have received 75 per cent. funding from the EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation (EUSSPPR), which began in 1995.

  In the case of the EU Special Support Programme, it is not possible to indicate current and future funding specifically for groups assisting victims, as the Government's commitment is to the Programme as a whole, however the Government expect to pay some £157,405 to those bodies listed for the lifetime of already approved projects.

  Funding made available by DOE has been provided through Making Belfast Work; and that by DFP through the Central Community Relations Unit.

  I plan to initiate an analysis of the number of support groups, organisations and agencies which assist victims of the conflict and their families and the funding which they receive. Once this has been completed I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy in the House of Commons Library.
  269

  1994–95

  £

  Northern Ireland Office

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  Department of the Environment

  Cornerstone Community

  —

  38,000.00

  —

  Corrymeela

  —

  148,100.00

  —

  FAIT

  —

  15,000.00

  —

  Newtownabbey Victim Support

  —

  —

  750.00

  Victim Support (NI)

  280,500.00*

  —

  —

  WAVE

  —

  —

  2,740.00

  Women Together

  —

  25,000.00

  —

  1995–96

  £

  Northern Ireland Office

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  Department of the Environment

  Ballynafeigh Community Development Initiative

  —

  7,300.00

  —

  CALMS

  —

  9,000.00

  —

  Cornerstone Community

  —

  41,600.00

  —

  Corrymeela

  —

  165,000.00

  —

  CRUSE

  7,000.00

  —

  —

  FAIT

  —

  43,400.00

  —

  Victim Support (NI)

  370,000.00*

  —

  —

  WAVE

  —

  24,000.00

  280.00

  Women Together

  —

  25,800.00

  —

  1996–97

  £

  Northern Ireland Office

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  Department of the Environment

  European Union

  Ballynafeigh Community Development Initiative

  —

  21,000.00

  —

  —

  CALMS

  7,000.00

  18,000.00

  —

  28,000.00

  Community Development Centre North Belfast

  —

  16,500.00

  —

  —

  Cornerstone Community

  —

  44,600.00

  —

  —

  Corrymeela

  —

  165,000.00

  —

  —

  CRUSE

  5,682.50

  —

  —

  22,730.00

  Institute for Counselling

  2,200.00

  —

  —

  8,800.00

  FAIT

  —

  30,200.00

  —

  —

  NI Music Therapy

  4,000.00

  —

  —

  16,000.00

  Newtownabbey Victim Support

  —

  —

  570.00

  —

  Partnership for those affected by the Troubles

  10,000.00

  —

  —

  40,000.00

  Shankill Stress

  750.00

  —

  —

  3,000.00

  Survivors of Trauma

  9,200.00

  —

  —

  36,800.00

  Treetops

  187.50

  —

  —

  750.00

  Victim Support (NI)

  3,000.00

  —

  —

  12,000.00

  398,000.00*

  WAVE

  9,000.00

  33,000.00

  —

  36,000.00

  Women Together

  —

  37,100.00

  —

  —

  1997–98

  £

  Northern Ireland Office

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  Department of the Environment

  European Union-Peace and Reconciliation

  Ballynafeigh Community Development Initiative

  —

  21,000.00

  —

  —

  Barnardos

  8,650.00

  —

  —

  34,600.00

  Bogside and Brandywell Initiative

  7,536.25

  —

  —

  30,145.00

  CALMS

  8,750.00

  —

  —

  35,000.00

  Coleraine/Ballymoney Branch Reg UDR

  750.00

  —

  —

  3,000.00

  Columba Support Services

  2,358.00

  —

  —

  9,432.00

  Community Development Centre North Belfast

  —

  44,000.00

  —

  —

  Cornerstone Community

  —

  44,600.00

  —

  —

  270 271

  1997–98

  £

  Northern Ireland Office

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  Department of the Environment

  European Union-Peace and Reconciliation

  Corrymeela

  —

  165,000.00

  —

  —

  Cost of the Troubles Study

  —

  —

  10,125.00

  —

  CRUSE

  8,977.75

  —

  —

  35,911.00

  DPOA

  5,025.00

  —

  —

  20,100.00

  Institute for Counselling

  550.00

  —

  —

  2,200.00

  FAIT

  —

  31,600.00

  —

  —

  FEAR

  750.00

  —

  —

  3,000.00

  Lifeline

  800.00

  —

  —

  3,200.00

  NI Intermediate Treatment Association

  9,600.00

  —

  —

  38,400.00

  NI Music Therapy

  1,000.00

  —

  —

  4,000.00

  Partnership for those affected by the Troubles

  2,500.00

  —

  —

  10,000.00

  St. James Community Forum

  5,300.00

  —

  —

  21,200.00

  Shankill Stress

  17,075.00

  —

  —

  68,300.00

  Survivors of Trauma

  10,507.50

  —

  8,300.00

  42,030.00

  Victim Support (NI)

  3,750.00

  —

  —

  15,000.00

  480,000.00*

  WAVE

  17,865.00

  36,400.00

  13,414.00

  71,460.00

  Women Together

  —

  32,100.00

  —

  —

  1998–99

  £

  Northern Ireland Office

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  Department of the Environment

  Ballynafeigh Community Development Initiative

  —

  21,000.00

  —

  Community Development Centre North Belfast

  —

  44,000.00

  —

  Cornerstone Community

  —

  44,600.00

  —

  Corrymeela

  —

  165,000.00

  —

  Cost of the Troubles Study

  —

  —

  1,687.00

  FAIT

  —

  33,500.00

  —

  Survivors of Trauma

  —

  —

  800.00

  Victim Support (NI)

  667,000.00*

  —

  —

  WAVE

  —

  35,000.00

  12,264.00

  Women Together

  —

  32,100.00

  —

  1999–00

  £

  Northern Ireland Office

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  Department of the Environment

  European Union

  Cornerstone Community

  —

  44,600.00

  —

  —

  Corrymeela

  —

  165,000.00

  —

  —

  Survivors of Trauma

  —

  —

  191,000.00

  1274,000.00

  Victim Support (NI)

  747,000.00*

  —

  —

  —

  WAVE

  —

  35,000.00

  —

  —

  Women Together

  —

  32,100.00

  —

  —

  1 Over three years

  2000–01

  £

  Northern Ireland Office

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  Department of Environment

  Cornerstone Community

  —

  44,600.00

  —

  Corrymeela

  —

  165,000.00

  —

  Victim Support (NI)

  747,000.00*

  —

  —

  WAVE

  —

  35,000.00

  —

  272 273
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total budget for assisting victims and their families in(a) each of the last five years, (b) the current year and (c) each of the next five years. [48470]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 7 July 1998]: Assistance for victims and their families has been provided from resources within a number of Government Departments. It has never been a separate Government Programme and has, therefore, no specific budget.

  In anticipation of the publication of the Report of the Northern Ireland Victims Commissioner, the Prime Minister announced, in May of this year, that £5 million would be made available to provide support for victims and their families in the current year.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research has been commissioned and what estimate her Department has made of the future expenditure that might be required to support the victims of the conflict and their families. [48471]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 7 July 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland established on 24 October 1997, a Commission, headed by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield,
  "to examine the feasibility of providing greater recognition for those who have become victims in the last thirty years as a consequence of events in Northern Ireland".

  Sir Kenneth's subsequent Report, launched on 13 May 1998, entitled "We Will Remember Them", and the recently published report of the Social Services Inspectorate, "Living with the Trauma of the Troubles", which aimed to
  "examine and promote the further development of services to meet the social and psychological needs of individuals affected by the conflict",
  contain a series of recommendations relating to the needs of people who have become victims of the conflict and their families. Both reports are currently the subject of extensive consultation and, until the outcome of this is known, it will not be possible to estimate what future expenditure might be required.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultation preceded allocation of the additional £5 million victim support fund announced by the Prime Minister in May; when this money will be distributed, and to whom. [48472]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 7 July 1998]: The recommendations in Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's Report, "We Will Remember Them", were the result of a 6-month consultation exercise with victims, their families and their representatives. I announced on 30 June 1998 a number of initiatives representing an expenditure of almost £1 million. The remainder of the additional £5 million is yet to be allocated and the Victims Liaison Unit, which I have established to drive forward progress in implementing the recommendations in Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's report, is currently carrying out a consultation exercise which will help to identify and prioritise a package of measures for victims, and inform the future allocation of funding, including the remainder of that £5 million.
  274
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is her policy towards the provision of statutory and voluntary sector services for victim support; and what measures she is planning to promote this policy. [48473]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 7 July 1998]: I acknowledge the excellent work currently undertaken by both the statutory and voluntary sectors. Both deliver an important and diverse range of services, and I have already given a commitment that any measures put in place for the future assistance of victims will take full account of the need to sustain a balance of both sectors' interests.

  Ulster-Scots Language
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made in assisting the further development of the Ulster-Scots language. [49982]

  Mr. Ingram
  In 1997–98 the Ulster-Scots movement received Government funding amounting to some £108,000. The Government also propose to commission independent academic research which will help to determine whether Ulster-Scots should be treated as a language for the purposes of the Council of Europe Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.

  Churches (Attacks)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) Catholic and (b) Protestant churches have been attacked in each month since January 1996. [50195]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 14 July 1998]: The table shows the number of attacks on churches during the period in question. The records do not distinguish between Protestant and Catholic (or other) churches.

  Month

  1996

  1997

  1998

  January

  1

  1

  3

  February

  0

  1

  2

  March

  1

  1

  0

  April

  2

  13

  0

  May

  0

  3

  4

  June

  3

  2

  3

  July

  24

  10

  111

  August

  6

  3

  —

  September

  2

  3

  —

  October

  1

  1

  —

  November

  7

  2

  —

  December

  5

  1

  —

  Totals

  52

  41

  23

  1 to 3 July

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidance her Department issues to those constructing buildings for which it is responsible on the use of materials containing asbestos. [52311]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Those constructing buildings for which my Department is responsible are required to comply with the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations (NI) 1995 which cover the use of hazardous materials such as those containing asbestos. These
  275
  regulations in turn require compliance with other statutory regulations, approved codes of practice and Health and Safety Executive guidance notes relating specifically to, and giving guidance on, the use of materials containing asbestos.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what cumulative net increase in compliance costs has been estimated in compliance cost assessments published by his Department since 1 May 1997. [52970]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: The net cumulative increase in compliance costs as estimated in compliance cost assessments published by Northern Ireland Departments during the period 1 May 1997 to 30 June 1998 is as follows:

  Estimated compliance costs

  £ million

  Range

  Non-recurring

  19.6–13.4

  Recurring (annually)

  2.3–1.2

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the compliance cost assessments published by her Department since 1 May 1997. [52971]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: Between 1 May 1997 and 30 June 1998 compliance cost assessments were published in respect of the following Northern Ireland measures laid before Parliament at Westminster.
  Horse Racing (Charges on Bookmakers) Order (Northern Ireland) 1997
  Industrial Pollution Control (Northern Ireland) Order 1997
  Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997
  Company Accounts (Disclosure of Directors Emoluments) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997
  Activity Centres (Young Persons Safety) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998
  Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1998
  Gaming (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order (Northern Ireland) 1998
  Horse Racing (Charges on Bookmakers) Order (Northern Ireland) 1998.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list those compliance cost assessments since 1 May 1997 in which there is a net reduction in compliance costs resulting from a legislative proposal. [52972]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: There is presently no requirement on Departments to carry out compliance cost assessments where legislative proposals are expected to be cost neutral or result in a saving to business.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) of 21 July 1998,276
  Official Report, column 439, at what (a) age and (b) mileage level the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service considers ambulances become out of standard and requiring replacement. [52788]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: DHSS Guidelines for the replacement of accident and emergency ambulances stipulate that vehicles should be replaced after they have reached 7 years of age or whenever they have covered 140,000 miles, whichever is the sooner. For patient care service vehicles this is 5 years or 70,000 miles.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency's 1997–98 Annual report and Accounts will be published. [53935]

  Mr. Worthington
  The Northern Ireland Child Support Agency will publish its 1997–98 Annual Report and Accounts today. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  It is pleasing to note that the Agency has met all Ministerial and Milestone targets for the second year running. Given the strong emphasis which the Agency has placed on improving the quality of service, it is particularly gratifying to see that the bulk of new maintenance applications (94℅) are now being cleared within 26 weeks. The report also records continuing progress on all major fronts over the past three years.

  During the year the Agency collected £7.6 million in maintenance, a 43℅ increase on 1996–97 and is striving to improve the collection rate further through additional measures, such as the recruitment of staff to work alternative working patterns including evenings and Saturdays.

  Closer working with the Social Security Agency to improve working practices, contribution to the Lone Parent Initiative and the successful transfer of all pre-Maintenance Assessment work to the Area Offices is yet a further demonstration of the Agency's commitment to make its services more efficient and accessible to its clients.

  The Agency has delivered an effective performance during 1997–98 within the allocated resources. With the substantial progress made to date the Northern Ireland CSA is well placed to contribute effectively to the Active Modern Service Programme.

  Valuation and Lands Agency
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Valuation and Lands Agency in 1998–99. [53936]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  For 1998–99 the following key performance targets have been set for the Agency:

  1. To complete rating and client service cases—equivalent to 48,600 casework units.

  2. To achieve a productivity for caseworking valuers of 355 work units.

  3. To reduce the unit cost of casework by 2 per cent. in real terms.

  4. To achieve a standard in domestic rating valuations such that 90 per cent. of those determined on appeal are within plus or minus 10 per cent. of the initial assessment.

  277

  5. To achieve a standard in non-domestic rating valuations such that 80 per cent. of those determined on appeal are within plus or minus 10 per cent. of the initial assessment.

  6. To complete 93 per cent. of domestic rating appeals within 6 months of receipt.

  7. To complete 82 per cent. of non-domestic rating appeals within 6 months of receipt.

  8. To complete 93 per cent. of a representative sample of client services casework within agreed time limits.

  9. To issue 90 per cent. of certificates for Continuous Revision Cases subject to retrospective backdating within 12 months of the event giving rise to the revision of the Valuation List.

  Full details are set out in the Agency's Corporate and Business Plans, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Military Complaints
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps she has taken to fill the post of Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures. [53937]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have today re-appointed Mr. Jim McDonald as Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland. Mr. McDonald's appointment will continue, while an Army presence is required in Northern Ireland to act in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, until 24 August 2000.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she will take to monitor the effectiveness of her Department's increased support for education resulting from the Comprehensive Spending Review. [51327]

  Clare Short
  We are committed in our Development White Paper to mobilising the international community to meet the agreed target that every child should be in quality primary education by 2015. We are increasing our spending on this objective. We have also reviewed our scholarship programmes to ensure that we support training that assists development. We monitor and evaluate all our programmes and are strongly committed to the comprehensive spending review emphasis on measuring success by measuring outputs, which is why we place such stress on the poverty eradication targets.

  Mr. Patrick Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how she intends to spend the increased resources made available for international development assistance following the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, with particular reference to anti-poverty programmes. [51342]

  Clare Short
  Our budgetary increase of £1.6 billion provides substantial new resources for development. The additional resources will be used to fund partnerships with developing country Governments who are committed to policies which will reduce poverty and increase support to multilateral agencies committed to this objective. We plan to agree allocations in the autumn.

  British Council
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what priority her Department gives to the activities of the British Council. [51328]

  Clare Short
  We have concluded that it would be more efficient for the British Council to be responsible to a single department. The FCO will, therefore, assume responsibility for the British Council and the resources previously set aside in DFID' s budget for the Council's grant in aid will transfer to the FCO. We have agreed that at the least the transferred element of the grant in aid must continue to benefit poorer countries and will therefore qualify as official development assistance.

  Bilateral Aid
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money out of the increased resources allocated to her Department in the comprehensive spending review will be spent on bilateral aid. [51330]

  Clare Short
  We will agree the allocation of our increased resources in the Autumn. The International Development White Paper makes clear that we are now giving greater priority to seeking to influence multilateral systems to achieve a stronger commitment to the international poverty eradication targets. We are also redirecting our bilateral efforts to this purpose.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the principal priorities within her bilateral aid programmes on which the additional funding over the next three years announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 14 July will be spent. [51344]

  Clare Short
  The primary objective of the development assistance programme, as our White Paper sets out, is to contribute to the elimination of poverty through the implementation of the international development strategy. The key target of the strategy is to reduce by one half the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015. The additional resources available to the Department for International Development (DFID) as a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review will be allocated to contribute to the realisation of that target.

  We have set out as part of the CSR some specific targets for DFID. For the twenty largest recipients of British assistance we will aim to achieve by 2002 an annual increase in GDP per capita for the poorest 20 per cent. of the population, a reduction in the under five and maternal mortality rates and an increase in the number of children in primary school.

  Latin America
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to increase British support for development projects in Latin America. [51331]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We are not a major donor in Latin America, but our programmes are set to increase by 40 per cent. over the next 3 years and we contribute through our support for international agencies. We are also collaborating more closely with the major multilateral
  279
  agencies in the region. Our support will be firmly focused on promoting the sustainable elimination of poverty, which includes improved management of environmental resources.

  India (Child Immunisation)
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department has taken in respect of the immunisation of children in the Indian sub-continent since May 1997. [51332]

  Clare Short
  Vaccine preventable diseases kill 9 million people every year. Immunisation programmes are the backbone of our efforts to meet the target of reducing by two-thirds the death rate of children under 5 years by 2015. In 1997, we committed £51 million to the polio eradication programme in India—the largest contribution to immunisation in developing countries Britain has ever made. We have also made new contributions to immunisation programmes in Pakistan and Bangladesh. In Sri Lanka, we are helping the Ministry of Health improve vaccination delivery to those displaced by conflict.

  Tanzania
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the help her Department gives to Tanzania. [51333]

  Clare Short
  Our development assistance for Tanzania last year was £38 million. This included £25 million of support for debt relief, and support for projects in areas such as health, education and public administration. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced a new £18 million commitment to work with the WHO to eradicate polio in East Africa which of course includes Tanzania. I plan to visit Tanzania next month and will be reviewing our strategy.

  Russia
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to assist the Government of Russia with economic and political reform. [51334]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We are assisting the Russian Government, and other Russian organisations, with economic political and social reform.

  We also provide assistance through multilateral agencies, especially the EU Tacis programme.

  A copy of our new Country Strategy Paper for Russia, which places an increased emphasis on the need to reduce poverty, has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Debt
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to reduce the debt burden of the world's poorest and most indebted countries. [51335]

  Clare Short
  As part of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Debt Initiative, my Department has provided over £6 million to help the African Development Bank meet its share of the costs for Uganda, as well as 280
  making £10 million funds available to help Mozambique qualify for HIPC relief. We have also provided over £25 million of interim debt relief to Tanzania and Mozambique. Part of a new £30 million pledge for Rwanda will be earmarked for a multilateral debt trust fund, established to ensure Rwanda is able to meet its debt obligations during the period leading up to HIPC eligibility. Under the Commonwealth Debt Initiative, eight countries have benefited so far, at a cost of £25 million, and we have provided £400,000 to enable Debt Relief International to assist countries with their debt management. With the additional resources provided under the Comprehensive Spending Review, I look forward to doing more to help reduce the constraints which debt imposes on development.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on progress to reduce the debt of poorer developing nations. [51348]

  Clare Short
  The Government's Mauritius Mandate presses for the speedy and flexible implementation of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. This was endorsed by G8 Leaders at their Summit held in Birmingham in May. So far, six countries have qualified for debt relief under the Initiative, and decisions on a further three countries are expected this year. The IMF and World Bank are currently undertaking a review of HIPC which will be considered by Governors at the Annual Meetings of the IMF and World Bank in October.

  Farmers (Caribbean)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to assist small farmers in Caribbean countries to diversify their crops. [51337]

  Clare Short
  Substantial EC resources to which we contribute are available to promote efficiency in the banana industry, agricultural and economic diversification. We also provide help for infrastructure and education. We are currently in the process of drafting a strategy paper for the Windwards. We are consulting widely and are open to ideas for new initiatives that have a poverty focus.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the St. Helena island authority about providing facilities for air travel and improved seaport facilities. [51339]

  Clare Short
  My Department and the St. Helena Government have agreed to undertake in 1998, a preliminary desk study into the basic technical and economic viability of an airlink to St. Helena. We have agreed to a feasibility study if the outcome of this desk study is positive. European Development Fund resources have been approved in principle for a major wharf improvement project at Jamestown. In the meantime, improved cargo handling equipment funded by my Department will be delivered later this year.

  Development Issues
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to promote greater public understanding of development issues; and if she will make a statement. [51340]

  Clare Short
  My Department runs an active information and development awareness programme.

  As outlined in the development White Paper, the Department attaches high priority to promoting greater awareness of development issues. I have recently doubled the budget for work in this field. I have also set up a Development Awareness Working Group to agree strategies for this work. In November, we will hold the first Development Policy Forum which will enable a wide public debate on development issues.

  In addition, the Department produces publications on its work, attends exhibitions, runs a mobile roadshow, produces its own magazine, "Developments", and has its own internet site. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I are currently undertaking a series of regional visits to promote greater understanding of development issues.

  Malawi
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the review of aid to Malawi. [51341]

  Clare Short
  I have approved a new Department for International Development Country Strategy Paper for Malawi which has been agreed with the Malawi Government. The Paper envisages a strong long-term partnership to promote sustainable development, equity and human rights in Malawi.

  I will send the hon. Member a copy of the Country Strategy Paper and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the Government's plans for new aid expenditure in southern Africa. [51343]

  Clare Short
  During my visit to South Africa and Mozambique last week, I saw the impressive progress that has been made. But much more needs to be done to reduce poverty and create opportunities for some of the poorest people in the world. Our programmes with all countries in Southern Africa are being reviewed this year to ensure we implement the commitments of the development White Paper. Proposals for future allocations are being prepared for all the Department for International Development's programmes.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will estimate how much additional aid will be committed to sub-Saharan African countries over the next three years as a result of the comprehensive spending review. [51345]
  282
  Clare Short
  We are working on proposals for the internal allocation of resources over the next three years. Allocations will be finalised for all programmes in the Autumn and will be published in the Departmental Report early in 1999. We expect to increase our allocations to sub-Saharan African countries, to enable us to further our work on the objectives set out in the White Paper.

  Sudan
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions her Department has held with other Governments and international organisations about the situation in Sudan. [51346]

  Clare Short
  I have had various discussions and contacts with other Governments and international organisations about Sudan among these are the following:On 30 April, I met the Coordinator of Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS) (Southern Sector)
  On 18 May, I chaired a discussion of EU Development Ministers on Sudan
  On 4 June, I met the UN Under Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs
  On 9 June, I spoke to the Executive Director of the World Food Programme
  On 23 June, I met the Heads of Save the Children Fund, OXFAM, Action Aid, Christian Aid and CAFOD
  On 9 July, I met the Executive Director of UNICEF
  On 14 July, I wrote to Development Minister colleagues urging them to make additional resources available for the relief effort in Sudan
  On 16 July, I spoke on the telephone to the Administrator of USAID.

  I addition, my officials maintain frequent contact with all agencies looking for a negotiated settlement to the crisis in Sudan. They regularly update me on the situation. For example, they attended the meeting of the International Advisory Committee of the OLS on 18 May and on 24 June they were at a World Food Programme briefing session.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many tons of food aid have been allowed through to the south of Sudan by(a) train, (b) road and (c) air since the ceasefires by the Government of Sudan and the SPLA. [53245]

  Clare Short
  The World Food Programme report that between 15 July, when the cease-fire began, and 26 July 2,753 tonnes of food have been delivered to the south of Sudan by air and 323 tonnes by road. No food aid has yet been delivered by train. In addition, on 23 July, a barge carrying 2,125 tonnes of food left Kosti in northern Sudan. It will drop food at 33 points in the south.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to provide assistance to the most vulnerable groups in Indonesia. [51347]

  Clare Short
  Indonesian community groups are working to prepare a Community Recovery Programme. I have agreed that we should provide an amount up to £6 million needed to complete the programme design and
  283
  run its first six months of operation as a pilot phase. The Community Recovery Programme will provide rapid response grant assistance for the most vulnerable people affected by the crisis in Indonesia. It will focus particularly on people without land or jobs and look to meet needs otherwise unmet by existing support mechanisms in such areas as food security, basic social services, income generation and job creation. Ultimately, the Programme will look to secure funding of up to £25 million from various donors.

  EU Development Programmes
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to ensure that European Union development programmes are targeted at the poorest people in recipient countries. [51349]

  Clare Short
  Our aim is for the EC's external development programmes to make an effective contribution in meeting the international poverty eradication goal. My Department seeks to work closely with the European Union to help improve the poverty focus and effectiveness of the Community's aid programmes.

  In agreeing the EU mandate for negotiation with those Africa, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) party to the Lomé Convention, we succeeded in securing stronger backing for the International Development Strategy and targets. When negotiations open in September, we will strongly argue that aid allocations should focus on poverty.

  We are also seeking to ensure that a larger share of external assistance allocations goes to poorer countries. We are trying to influence the new Financial Perspectives, which will set the ceiling for spending on external assistance through the EC Budget for the years 2000–2006, and the 1999 EC Budget.

  Iraq
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department has provided to treat or help the victims of Halabja in northern Iraq following the chemical weapons attack by Iraqi military forces on the town in March 1988; what work her Department has funded to monitor the long-term effects of the chemical weapons on the residents of the town since the attack; and if she will make a statement. [53091]

  Clare Short
  We share the widespread concern for the people of Halabja, who are suffering from the continuing effects of the chemical weapons attack. We have been working with NGOs, other donors and medical experts to determine what best can be done to help. Earlier this year, we funded an initial delivery of basic medical supplies to Halabja. We have also contracted a medical specialist to carry out research into the types of illnesses suffered by the people and possible treatments, with a view to developing immediate and longer term health care programme in collaboration with the World Health Organisation, taking into account the difficulties of working in northern Iraq. Other donors have expressed an interest in providing funding towards such a programme and we continue to liaise with them closely.

  Multinationals (OECD Guidelines)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 7 July 1998,Official Report, column 436, on the OECD, when she will publish the specific objectives of the current review of the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises. [53137]

  Clare Short
  The next meeting of the committee responsible within the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development for reviewing the Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises will be in November 1998. Prior to that meeting, the Department of Trade and Industry, (DTI) in conjunction with my Department and other interested Departments, will be drawing together UK experience with the Guidelines and objectives for the review. The DTI will be consulting business and trade union representatives, together with those NGOs who have expressed an interest in the Guidelines, and our aims for the review will take account of the views that they express. We expect to make our objectives public nearer the time.

  World Day for the Eradication of Poverty
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has to mark 17 October as the World Day for the Eradication of Poverty. [53005]

  Clare Short
  The eradication of poverty in developing countries is the Department for International Development's purpose, and the focus of our work throughout the year. We currently have no plans to single out 17 October as a specific day for the eradication of poverty. However, we will consider any opportunities that do arise for taking forward our work in the context of the day.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what guidance her Department issues to those constructing buildings for which it is responsible on the use of materials containing asbestos. [52309]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development (DFID) does not undertake the construction of any buildings. In those buildings that it occupies there are strict guidelines laid down to protect staff and visitors from any hazard to health. All areas in which such a hazard exists (such as certain partitions in the Victoria Street Headquarters) are clearly marked.

  Construction standards for buildings constructed with DFID assistance in developing countries do not permit the use of asbestos.

  Occasionally DFID has assisted with projects involving the modification of buildings which are found to contain asbestos. One such case occurred with the Zimbabwe Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) in the upgrading of air traffic control systems. DFID introduced specialist technical assistance for DCA staff and contractors to deal with this problem in the short term and to be aware of it for the future.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Reviews
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the reviews his Department initiated in the years(a) 1974–75, (b) 1979–80 and (c) 1992–93. [48524]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: The information is not held centrally by my Department and comprehensive details of all such reviews cannot be provided. The following table lists certain reviews for the years in question which have been obtained from published information.

  Year

  Review

  1974–75

  Review of financial support for shipping services to the Islands

  Review of school leaving date arrangements

  Dunning Committee on O Grade examination structure

  1979–80

  Committee of Inquiry into Local Government in Scotland

  Working party on provision of non-university tertiary education in the Dundee area

  1992–93

  Review of bursaries scheme for non-advanced further education students

  Review of councillors' expenses

  Loch Lomond and Trossachs working party

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance his Department issues to those constructing buildings for which it is responsible on the use of materials containing asbestos. [52301]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Scottish Office issues copies of the common guidance prepared by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, "Asbestos Materials in Buildings" to those who require it.

  Domestic Abuse
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that the links between domestic abuse and child abuse will be recognised in the Scottish Strategy against domestic abuse, and that children's experiences of domestic abuse will be included. [52269]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 24 July 1998]: The links between domestic abuse and child abuse are increasingly becoming recognised. The Scottish Partnership on Domestic Violence can be expected to take account of this as it develops the Scottish strategy on domestic violence. The wide range of membership of the Partnership should ensure that all aspects of domestic abuse are considered.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to follow up the research on service provision to women experiencing domestic violence in Scotland, published by the Scottish Office Central Research Unit with initiatives and research to address the needs of children and young people experiencing domestic abuse. [52268]
  286
  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 24 July 1998]: The research we have already published "Service Provision to Women Experiencing Domestic Violence in Scotland" has provided us with a good basis for the improvement of services. We will consider the need for further initiatives and research in the light of the recommendations which will be received from the Scottish Partnership on Domestic Violence.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how he intends to facilitate consultation with children and young people who have experienced domestic abuse in developing policy, practice and provision. [52262]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 24 July 1998]: Our aim in establishing the Scottish Partnership on Domestic Violence is to ensure that it contains a wide range of interests, including those who are knowledgeable about the problems faced by children and young people who have experienced domestic abuse, so that they can reflect this in the work of the Partnership. It will also be open to the Partnership to carry out its own consultations with children and young people.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legal safeguards to prevent women and children being placed at risk of further abuse due to contact between children and abusive fathers. [52261]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 24 July 1998]: The Children (Scotland) Act 1995 provides for parental responsibilities and rights (such as contact) to continue after separation or divorce. If contact results in risk of abuse, a range of protective measures are available. The Children (Scotland) Act 1995 allows a court to deprive a person of parental responsibilities and rights. The Act also introduced orders to protect children and to exclude a named person from the family home. As part of its remit, the Scottish Partnership on Domestic Violence will take full account of the impact of domestic violence and will consider the adequacy of existing safeguards. The matter of consultation will be for the Partnership to determine as its work progresses.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to increase access to support and protection following domestic abuse for(a) women and children from rural areas, (b) ethnic minority women and children and (c) those who have a family member with disabilities or special educational needs. [52260]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 24 July 1998]: The remit of our proposed Scottish Partnership on Domestic Violence will include a requirement to consider particularly the problems in obtaining access to services which affect women and children living in rural areas; women and children from ethnic minorities; and women or children who have disabilities.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue guidance to local authorities on the treatment of children and young people experiencing domestic abuse in local authorities' children's services plans. [52793]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: Extensive guidance on the provisions of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 was issued last year. Although the guidance does not specifically refer to children and young people who experience domestic abuse, it does identify children

  287
  who are in need of protection and children whose health and development is suffering among those categories of children for whom local authorities should plan services.

  I do not propose to issue further guidance at this stage, but the existing guidance will be reviewed in due course in the light of experience and of any recommendations received from the Scottish Partnership on Domestic Violence.

  Football Clubs
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact on soccer in Scotland of UEFA's proposed ban on multi-club ownership. [52330]

  Mr. Dewar
  I appreciate the concern about the potential impact of the ruling, and it is very important that the integrity of football competitions is not undermined. The football authorities are best placed to decide how far the new ruling is required to ensure fair competition, and pursue as necessary with UEFA.

  Scottish Parliament (Parking)
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many car spaces are planned to be provided for the new Scottish Parliamentary building; to whom these spaces will be made available; and how much they will cost to provide. [53101]

  Mr. Dewar
  On present plans, the proposed number of car parking spaces to be provided in the new Scottish Parliament building is 170. This figure comprises 129 secure dedicated spaces for MSPs with the remainder being available for visitors and staff, including special provision for disabled users. The cost of providing car parking facilities will be met within the overall project budget.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what cumulative net increase in compliance costs has been estimated in compliance cost assessments published by his Department since 1 May 1997. [52945]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: It is not practicable to give a single net figure, because of the diverse detail contained within some of the individual compliance cost assessments.

  In the majority of the compliance cost assessments produced by The Scottish Office, measures have been confirmed as being cost neutral or not imposing any cost on business. The compliance costs for 3 of the measures, however, have been estimated as follows:
  the building (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1997—amendments to Part J of the Technical Standards for compliance with the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations 1990. The net cumulative increase in compliance costs in respect of any typical year, range from a minimum of £30m to £60m per annum. The amendments will lead to an improvement in the energy performance of buildings resulting in a reduction of energy costs. Overall, the measures can be expected to pay for themselves in approximately 8–15 years.
  the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1997; and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Amendment
  288
  Order 1997. The recurring cost of compliance across all business sectors affected will be in the range £50,000 to £100,000.
  the Building (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1997—amendments to Part K of the Technical Standards for compliance with the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations 1990. The building construction costs are likely to increase by about £75 for an average sized house. This, as a percentage of total construction costs, is considered negligible and should have little effect on construction costs, is considered negligible and should have little effect on construction firms. It is estimated that the total additional building costs for the Scottish house building industry as a whole will be —1.7m per annum.

  For the detail, I refer the hon. Member to Cmnd Paper 3938 and the individual compliance cost assessments held in the House Library.

  Environmental Agencies
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Government will undertake public consultation on the review of legislation relating to integration within the Environmental Agency for England and Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. [54144]

  Mr. Dewar
  I announced on 8 April 1998,Official Report, column 241, that we would review the legislation relating to the Environment Agency for England and Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, with a view to identifying any barriers preventing the Agencies from taking an integrated approach to the environment. We are issuing the relevant consultation paper today. We are sending it to a wide range of bodies, and publishing it on the Internet.

  Scottish Education Unit
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the forthcoming policy and financial management review of the Scottish Education Unit. [54145]

  Mr. Dewar
  My Department will conduct a review of the Scottish Further Education Unit during 1998 under the programme of five-yearly non-departmental public body reviews. The review will examine the status and functions of the Scottish Further Education Unit in accordance with Cabinet Office guidance.

  The review will be conducted in two distinct stages. The initial stage of the review—the "prior options" stage—will focus on whether the body is required at all, whether NDPB status is correct, and whether the functions are being delivered in the most effective manner. As part of this, The Scottish Office will thoroughly examine the case for abolition, transferring part or all of the functions to another body, rationalisation, privatisation, and continuation as an NDPB. The second stage of the review will then examine the Scottish Further Education Unit's financial management and control systems.

  The first part of the review will also examine the roles of other organisations involved in the development and support of further education in Scotland and the scope for co-ordination of their activities with those of the Unit to ensure maximum value for money from the central government resources available for further education in Scotland.
  289
  This study will commence in the autumn and will be carried out by the Scottish Office Management and Organisation Unit.

  In order to help ensure that all options are considered fully, comments from interested parties will be welcome. Comments should be sent by mid October 1998 to:

  Dr. David McAllister

  Further Education Funding Division

  The Scottish Office Education and Industry Department

  Area 1-C

  Victoria Quay

  Edinburgh

  EH6 6QQ.

  Leases
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many leases of residential properties extend to a period of 99 years or more in Scotland; and how many of these tenants are liable to be affected by the expiry of such long leases and consequential claims by the Landlords for excessive payments. [53138]

  Mr. Dewar
  It would require a time-consuming and exhaustive search of the Register of Sasines and the Land Register of Scotland to establish how many leases of residential properties in Scotland extend to a period of 99 years or more. It is therefore impossible to verify how many of these tenants are liable to be affected by the expiry of such long leases. The Government are aware of the difficulty of assessing compensation payable to a landlord if the tenant wishes to buy the property when the lease expires. Because of this and other difficulties caused to the tenant, residential leases of more than 20 years' duration were prohibited by the Land Tenure Reform (Scotland) Act 1974. The Scottish Law Commission will examine leasehold tenure when it completes its work on abolition of the feudal system and the reform of real burdens.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research has been commissioned by his Department into the number of tenants holding long leases and the levels of rent payable thereunder. [53139]

  Mr. Dewar
  No specific research has been commissioned into the number of tenants holding long leases in Scotland, which are leases for more than 20 years. Leasehold tenure is relatively rare in Scotland and is concentrated in specific geographical areas. The vast majority of property is held under feudal tenure. Long leases, for example for 999 years, were very often granted as an alternative to feuing because of restrictions on the power to feu. Levels of rent payable under these long leases tend to be minimal.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research he has commissioned from the Law Commission into the law of Scotland relating to long leases; and if he will assess the advantages of converting tenant's interest into(a) a registered title in the Land Register of Scotland and (b) a recorded title in the Register of Sasines. [52811]

  Mr. Dewar
  Under its Fifth Programme of Law Reform, the Scottish Law Commission has an objective to undertake, as a long-term project, an examination of leasehold tenure, in particular long leases of residential subjects. Although some work has already been carried 290
  out, it is unlikely that the Commission will be able to resume its work on this subject until it has completed its work on abolition of the feudal system and the reform of real burdens, which takes priority because the vast majority of property in Scotland is held under feudal tenure.

  It has been possible to record the tenants' interest in a long lease in the Register of Sasines since the passing of the Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act 1857. The Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979 allows the tenant's interest in a long lease to be registered in the Land Register of Scotland.

  Departmental Research
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the cost of all research undertaken by his Department since May 1997, excluding the cost of green papers and other public consultation documents drafted by his officials; and if he will list in each case the organisations which undertook that research. [52701]

  Mr. Dewar
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and arrange for a copy of the reply to be placed in the Library.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were on(a) in-patient waiting lists and (b) out-patient waiting lists, by quarter in each of the last three years. [53258]

  Mr. Dewar
  The number of patients on waiting lists for in-patient and day case treatment in NHS hospitals in Scotland at the end of each quarter for the last three years is given in the following table. Information on the number of patients waiting for out-patient appointments on a given date is not collected centrally.

  Date

  In-patient and day care waiting list

  30 June 1995

  78,582

  30 September 1995

  80,482

  31 December 1995

  82,811

  31 March 1996

  82,640

  30 June 1996

  81,106

  30 September 1996

  79,843

  31 December 1996

  82,848

  31 March 1997

  84,649

  30 June 1997

  84,813

  30 September 1997

  84,981

  31 December 1997

  87,766

  31 March 1998

  89,525

  Source:

  ISD Scotland

  Ambulance Age
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many ambulances and similar vehicles operated in each of the Scottish Ambulance Service NHS Trust's 10 regional divisions are(a) under one year old, (b) between one and three years old, (c) between three and five years old, (d) between five and seven years old and (e) over seven years old. [52540]
  291
  Mr. Dewar
  The information is set out in the table.

  Number of vehicles at 31 March 1998 by age band

  Ambulance Division

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  Total

  Argyll and Clyde

  19

  27

  36

  21

  29

  132

  Ayrshire and Arran

  4

  27

  23

  15

  16

  85

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1

  11

  22

  12

  7

  53

  Greater Glasgow

  27

  56

  32

  12

  19

  146

  Fife

  11

  18

  12

  17

  13

  71

  Lothian, Borders

  27

  34

  28

  44

  25

  158

  Forth Valley, Lanarkshire

  23

  29

  28

  5

  40

  125

  Grampian, Orkney, Shetland

  13

  31

  31

  31

  12

  118

  Highland, Western Isles

  9

  27

  30

  22

  10

  98

  Tayside

  10

  21

  19

  28

  15

  93

  Total

  144

  281

  261

  207

  186

  1,079

  Scotland AEU1

  71

  130

  135

  109

  7

  452

  PTV2

  47

  94

  84

  86

  154

  465

  Support3

  26

  57

  42

  12

  25

  162

  1 Accident and Emergency Units

  2 Patient Transport Vehicles

  3 Mobile Ambulance Control Units, Emergency Support Units, Response Units, Motorcycles, District Ambulance Officers' Cars and Workshop Vehicles

  Elections
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of advantages of making the times of the opening and closing of the poll the same for the elections to both the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish local authorities on 6 May 1999. [52630]

  Mr. McLeish
  A Working Group has been set up comprising officials from the Scottish Office, the main political parties, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and the Association of Electoral Administrators to look at the arrangements for the conduct of elections on 6 May 1999, including the polling hours.

  The current assumption is that the polling hours should be the same for both elections, but no conclusion has yet been reached on the precise times.

  Bed Blocking
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each health board in Scotland the number of beds blocked on average in March of the current year. [52629]

  Mr. Dewar
  Information on the number of patients occupying beds although they are ready for discharge to the community is not collected routinely.

  Mental Illness Grant
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to increase the mental illness specific grant for 1999–2000 and subsequent years; and if he will make a statement. [52503]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Mental Illness Specific Grant (MISG) will continue to provide ring-fenced resources totalling £18 million a year towards community-based mental health projects in Scotland.

  In addition to the MISG, the Mental Health Development Fund is providing £9 million over 3 years up to 2000–2001 to assist local agencies to work together to provide integrated support for people with mental
  292
  health problems, in line with the principles set out in the Framework for Mental Health Services in Scotland. Following the Comprehensive Spending Review, the non-ring-fenced Grant Aided Expenditure allowances to local authorities for their social work responsibilities, including for mental health services, will increase by £279 million over the next 3 years. Over £90 million is also transferred each year from Health Boards to local authorities to reflect the shift from psychiatric and other NHS hospital care to care in the community.

TREASURY

  Foreign Earnings (Deductions)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the impact of recent changes to the foreign earnings deduction arrangements on(a) operating costs of British charities and (b) in the gross and net tax revenues accruing to Government. [52539]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In reaching the decision to end the general Foreign Earnings Deduction, full consideration was given to all likely practical consequences. Based on information provided on behalf of UK charities, any costs arising as a result of this legislative change will be very low. Most aid agency employees working abroad will not be UK resident for tax purposes and so will be unaffected by the change. The net full year Exchequer yield from the withdrawal of the general Foreign Earnings Deduction is forecast to be at least £250 million a year and the gross figure will be higher than this.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the impact of recent changes to the foreign earnings deduction arrangements, on the overseas earnings and competitive position outside the United Kingdom of(a) the consultancy sector, (b) consulting engineers, (c) contractors and (d) industries in the United Kingdom which supply goods and services for British consultants and contractors operating overseas. [52538]
  293
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  In reaching the decision to end the general Foreign Earnings deduction, full consideration was given to all likely practical consequences. It is important to note that FED was available to all employees and provided a loophole exploited not only by UK employers. It is, therefore, impossible to measure precisely the effect on overseas earnings of the withdrawal of this relief. More importantly, in terms of international competitiveness, it is misleading to look at one feature of the tax system in isolation. We believe in support for all businesses through economic stability and broad based relief. We have already reduced the main rate of corporation tax by two percentage points. A further one per cent. reduction is proposed for 1999. Advance corporation tax is also being abolished. It is measures such as these which makes the UK attractive to business and which will result in the creation of jobs and closing discredited loopholes such as FED helps to fund these measures.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide his assumptions for(a) the number of people unemployed and (b) the percentage of the workforce unemployed in respect of his estimates for social security expenditure in the Comprehensive Spending Review. [51472]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 20 July 1998]: The unemployment assumption was set in line with the convention, audited and approved by the National Audit Office—a flat profile for future years based on the most recent outturn.

  Departmental Research
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the cost of all research undertaken by his Department since May 1997, excluding the cost of green papers and other public consultation documents drafted by his officials; and if he will list in each case the organisations which undertook that research. [52694]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 22 July 1998,Official Report, columns 581–82.

  The organisations which undertook the research projects listed are as follows:
  SA public information campaign: Research International
  SA budget payments Plans: NOP
  Two alcohol and tobacco smuggling surveys: Customs and Excise (Monitored by the Government Statistical service)
  Presentational aspects of the individual savings account: Fishburn Hedges
  Presentational aspects of the working families tax credit: Ogilvy and Mather
  Various surveys of PEP/TESSA holders: NOP, ONS, MORI.

  The aggregate cost of the projects is £350,250. Pricing information can be commercially sensitive and the contractors have asked for certain individual project costs not to be disclosed. However, I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on 19 May 1998, Official
  294
  Report, column 303 and on 30 March 1998, Official Report, column 441, which gave information on the individual costs of some of these projects.

  Euro
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has commissioned on the impact of the euro on the United Kingdom mortgage market. [53009]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have not commissioned research into the impact of the euro on the United Kingdom mortgage market. However, the Government are familiar with the range of outside studies on the subject.

  Ecu Mortgages
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many United Kingdom home buyers have taken out ecu mortgages in each year since 1989. [53010]

  Ms Hewitt
  These statistics are not readily available.

  Houses-builders Federation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with(a) the House-builders Federation and (b) other organisations concerning the implications for the United Kingdom housing market of the introduction of the euro. [53011]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer holds regular discussions with a wide range of organisations on the implications of EMU for the UK economy, including the housing market.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many recipients of disability living allowance are liable for taxation at(a) the highest, (b) the standard and (c) the basic rate; and what proportion these constitute of all recipients of disability living allowance. [53034]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: The information requested is given for 1998–99 in the table. It is estimated that there are 2.1 million recipients of disability living allowance in 1998–99. Very few recipients, if any, are liable at the higher rate.

  Marginal rate tax

  Number of recipients of disability living allowance

  Percentage of total recipients

  Basic rate

  200,000

  10

  Lower rate

  200,000

  10

  ICL Pathway Project
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 July 1998,Official Report, columns 652–53, on the ICL Pathway Project, (1) if he will list the firm or firms who have supplied the consultants; [53160]

  (2) on what date the consultants were appointed; and whether their appointment followed a competitive tender. [53164]
  295
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: The PA Consulting Group, Mr. Alec Wylie and Mr. Bill Robins were engaged to assist with the monitoring of the ICL Pathway project. The Government have a call off contract with PA Consulting through the CCTA service catalogue. PA Consulting started work on 28 April 1998. Mr. Wylie and Mr. Robins, with whom contracts were signed on 1 May, were selected after a number of candidates were interviewed.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 July 1998,Official Report, columns 652–53, when the objectives set by the Government will be achieved by the ICL Pathway Project. [53161]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: Present plans provide that the programme to automate all post offices will be completed by end 2000.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 July 1998,Official Report, columns 652–53, on the ICL Pathway Project, if he will list the parties involved. [53163]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: The parties to the contracts are: the Benefits Agency (on behalf of DSS), Post Office Counters Limited and ICL Pathway.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 July 1998,Official Report, columns 652–53, for what reasons the Government have decided not to assess alternative options to the ICL Pathway Project. [53162]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: ICL Pathway are engaged in a project to automate post office counters under contracts agreed in 1996. The Government remain committed to the objectives of the project.

  Coinage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) planned and (b) current sterling coins match the dimensions of euro coinage; what discussions have taken place (i) on potential problems arising from duplication, (ii) between the Commission and his Department and (iii) with representatives of British business; and if he will make a statement. [53829]

  Ms Hewitt
  None.

  ECOFIN Council
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on public access to the January ECOFIN Council; what publicity was given to the meeting; if representatives from(a) political parties and (b) lobby groups were admitted; what audience vetting took place; and to what proportion of the conference public attendance was permitted. [53773]

  Ms Hewitt
  The first agenda item of the 19 January Council Meeting was the presentation and discussion of the Presidency and Commission work programmes for the UK Presidency. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer told my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on 28 January 296
  1998, Official Report, column 264, this took the form of an "open debate". This was the only agenda item to which public attendance was permitted.

  Open debates are regularly held, but as part of the UK commitment to openness, took a higher profile during our Presidency. Eight open debates were held during the UK Presidency. More than three times as many members of the public attended the UK's open debates as under the previous Presidency, and the Presidency took the initiative actively to invite the public to watch the debates. The Council Secretariat sent invitations to the first two open debates (ECOFIN work programme, 19 January and GAC work programme 26 January) to 2,800 Brussels based organisations, including NGOs, consultants, law firms, educational organisations and thinktanks.

  Some 200 people pre-registered for the ECOFIN debate, and the Secretariat estimate that this number, together with about 100 journalists, watched the debate through a video link to Justus Lipsius Press Conference room, which was full to capacity. Europe by Satellite also broadcast the debate. The Chancellor referred to the initiative in his post-Council press conference.

  Personal Investment Authority
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the non-requirement for the Personal Investment Authority's disciplinary committee to publish its rules of procedure. [53780]

  Ms Hewitt
  None. The rules governing discipline are published in the rulebook of the PIA.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what form practitioner involvement will take in the operation of the Financial Services Authority; and when such arrangements will be in place; [53779]

  (2) what is the timetable for the Financial Services Authority in drawing up the guides envisaged in its consultation document designing the FSA handbook of rules and guidance; [53785]

  (3) when the Financial Services Authority will publish details of the system it intends to operate for monitoring independent financial advisers. [53778]

  Ms Hewitt
  I understand that the Financial Services Authority intends to publish further details of its approach to regulation shortly.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what activities his Department's Green Minister has undertaken relating to his environmental responsibilities since being appointed. [52437]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As the Treasury's Green Minister, I am committed to 'greening' the Department's operations, to integrating environmental considerations into other policy areas, and to improving the economic analysis underpinning the Government's environmental initiatives.
  297
  Information campaigns have been run on the recycling schemes in place and energy awareness. The Treasury also has the "Bag It and Bin It" campaign, and the "Going for Green" campaign.

  The Statement of Intent on Environmental Taxation, released with the July 1997 Budget, committed the Government to exploring the scope for using taxes to help reduce environmental damage. The last two Budgets contained a considerable package of environmental tax measures and commitments to further action. I was involved in its preparation, and in drawing up the assessment of the environmental impact that appeared within the Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  On a number of occasions I have met environmental non-Governmental organisations (NGOs) and other interested bodies to discuss, among other matters, their proposals for environmental taxes. I have also given evidence on the Treasury's environmental performance, and on the Government's use of environmental taxes, to both the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee.

  Individual Savings Accounts
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from(a) friendly societies, (b) building societies and (c) co-operative societies on the individual savings account and its regulation; and if he will make a statement. [53904]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The Inland Revenue has received over 100 responses to the draft regulations for the individual savings account, which were issued for consultation in May. Six of these were from individual building societies and two from friendly societies, and

  Tax, National Insurance, Child Benefit and Family Credit payments at multiple of gross earnings

  Gross earnings (£ per week)

  150

  200

  250

  300

  400

  2 earner married couple with 1 child under 4

  National Insurance

  3.88

  9.76

  14.76

  19.76

  29.76

  Income Tax

  0.00

  2.38

  12.25

  22.75

  44.55

  Child Benefit

  11.45

  11.45

  11.45

  11.45

  11.45

  Family Credit

  24.97

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Tax and NICs less Child Benefit and Family Credit as a percentage of gross earnings

  -21.69

  0.35

  6.22

  10.35

  15.71

  Net income

  182.54

  199.31

  234.44

  268.94

  337.14

  Equivalised Net Income

  154.69

  168.90

  198.68

  227.92

  285.71

  2 earner married couple with 1 child aged 4 and 1 child aged 6

  National Insurance

  3.88

  9.76

  14.76

  19.76

  29.76

  Income Tax

  0.00

  2.38

  12.25

  22.75

  44.55

  Child Benefit

  20.75

  20.75

  20.75

  20.75

  20.75

  Family Credit

  37.32

  8.10

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Tax and NICs less Child Benefit and Family Credit as a percentage of gross earnings

  -36.13

  -8.35

  2.50

  7.25

  13.39

  Net income

  204.19

  216.71

  243.74

  278.24

  346.44

  Equivalised Net Income

  146.90

  155.90

  175.35

  200.17

  249.24

  Note:

  The figures are calculated on the basis that all earnings are from employment and that there are no other sources of income

  The Married Couples Allowance has been allocated to the person earning 60 per cent. of the total

  The standard McClements scales have been used to determine equivalised income. This is the same process that is used in the DSS's Households Below Average Income publication

  Some of these families may also be entitled to housing benefit and council tax benefit. However, as this will depend upon the composition of the housing costs (between mortgage payments, council tax, and rent) housing benefit and council tax benefit have been left out of these figures
  298
  responses were also received from the relevant representative bodies. No representations were received from co-operative societies. We are grateful for all the points made to us, which have been carefully considered.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many income tax payers there were in each of the tax years from 1990–91 to 1998–99. [51735]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of income taxpayers in each of the specified years is given in the table. They are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes for 1995–96 and earlier years. Figures for 1996–97 onwards are projected in line with the March 1998 Budget forecast.

  Number of income taxpayers (million)

  1990–91

  26.1

  1991–92

  25.7

  1992–93

  25.4

  1993–94

  25.0

  1994–95

  25.3

  1995–96

  25.8

  1996–971

  25.9

  1997–981

  26.1

  1998–991

  26.2

  1 Provisional

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 9 July 1998,Official Report, column 577, if he will provide comparable figures for two earner married couples with (a) one child aged four and (b) two children aged four and six. [51165]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The data requested are given in the table.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on reform of the regulations governing credit unions; and if he will make a statement. [53777]

  Ms Hewitt
  A number of representations have been received on reforming credit unions, including one from the Association of British Credit Unions. We will shortly be issuing a consultation document containing a package of measures designed to lift some of the restrictions in existing legislation, whilst maintaining the movement's focus on the less well off.

  Widowers and Widows Benefits
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government will extend the entitlement to widows bereavement allowance to widowers. [53342]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on 3 July 1998,Official Report, columns 330–31.

  Self-assessment
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many late-filing penalty notices have been issued by the Inland Revenue to taxpayers due to submit 1996–97 self-assessment income tax returns; and how many of the penalty notices have proved(a) to be incorrect or (b) to be issued in error. [52761]

  Dawn Primarolo
  670,000 late filing penalties have been issued to taxpayers whose 1996–97 self assessment tax returns were received after the filing deadline. About 8 million tax returns were filed on time. There are a number of circumstances in which a penalty notice may need to be cancelled. A common example would be where the taxpayer turns out to have a reasonable excuse for delivering the return late. However, there are no available statistics for the numbers of penalties which were discharged simply because they were incorrect or issued in error.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department spent on IT, itemising(a) personal computers, (b) main-frame, (c) mini-computers and (d) file servers in the last year for which figure are available. [52876]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In 1997–98 Her Majesty's Treasury spent as follows:

  (a) on Personal Computers £612,512.00

  (b) on Main-frame Nil

  (c) on Mini-Computers Nil

  (d) on File Servers £653,495.00.

  Alcohol and Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many successful prosecutions there have been in each of the last five years for smuggling(a) alcohol and (b) tobacco into the United Kingdom from mainland Europe. [52297]
  300
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The information requested is not available in this form, however, specific figures are available for the number of prosecutions generated by Excise Verification Officers for the smuggling of alcohol and/or tobacco from within the European Union.

  1993–94: 44

  1994–95: 515

  1995–96: 438

  1996–97: 502

  1997–98: 417.

  Charities Taxation
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress on the Review of Charities Taxation. [53938]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Over 3,000 replies were received in the first phase of the Review. The Government are determined to devote the time and attention necessary to do justice to all these contributions before launching the next phase. We expect to publish a Consultation Document in the autumn.

  Funeral Payments
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to regulate pre-payments for funerals. [53939]

  Ms Hewitt
  The planned legislation to establish the Financial Services Authority as a single financial regulator provides the opportunity to put in place some essential protections for pre-payments for funerals. Pre-payments for funerals will be included in the scope of regulation under the Bill. However, we will be looking at ways of excluding from direct regulation under the Bill arrangements that offer sufficient protection, such as plans backed by life insurance policies, which meet certain criteria. Consumer concerns about the conduct of the funeral business will remain the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry.

  The Government will be consulting on the proposals in due course. A consultation document will explain our plans in more detail. As part of the consultation we will be seeking views on possible criteria which life policies backing pre-paid funeral plans might meet if the plans are to stay outside the scope of the Bill. The key aim in setting these criteria will be to see that appropriate safeguards exists, so that when the funeral is delivered, the money is there to pay for it.

  I am determined to see that pre-payments for funerals are kept safely and are sufficient to meet the funeral costs. The framework I propose is designed to ensure that, as far as possible, consumers get the funeral for which they have paid.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  New Deal
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people his Department is committed to employing during 1998 under(a) the subsidised job option and (b) the unsubsidised job option of the New Deal programme. [52586]
  301
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is committed to the following programme in support of the New Deal programme:Phase 1—Plans are underway to employ eight (8) people under the subsidised job option and no members of staff under the unsubsidised job option in 1998.
  Phase 2—We will look at employing people under the unsubsidised job option, and increasing the number of people employed under the subsidised option in the next calendar year.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proposals outlined by General Abubakar in his national broadcast on Tuesday 21 July. [52755]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We welcome General Abubakar's commitment to the restoration of democratic civilian government by May 1999, after free and fair elections in early 1999. We also welcome his undertaking to respect human rights and democracy, including the release of the remaining political prisoners. This is the best news that we have had from Nigeria for a long time.

  The time has now come to re-establish dialogue between Nigeria and Britain and the wider international community. We are working to secure the agreement of EU partners that members of the Nigerian Government should now be allowed to visit EU member states where that would help General Abubakar's programme and promote constructive dialogue.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to assist with arrangements for the international monitoring of the forthcoming Nigerian elections. [52758]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are considering, with our Commonwealth and other partners, how to respond to General Abubakar's invitation to observe the elections in Nigeria.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from British industry concerning the situation in Nigeria. [52757]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I am in contact with a range of companies, either individually or through the West Africa Committee, who represent the majority of British companies active in Nigeria. A welcome has been expressed for recent positive developments in Nigeria.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the restoration of air services between Nigeria and the UK by British Airways. [52760]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I am pleased to announce that on 23 July General Abubakar, with immediate effect, lifted the ban on British Airways' flights to Nigeria.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official contact the Government have had with the Head of State of Nigeria since the visit of the Minister of State. [52756]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to General Abubakar by telephone on 24 July. He welcomed General Abubakar's statement of 20 July committing himself to the restoration of 302
  democratic civilian government by May 1999, after free and fair elections. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister re-iterated that Britain was ready to help Nigeria with the implementation of the programme. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also thanked General Abubakar for resolving the air services dispute.

  Biological Warfare
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the laboratory tests on the fresh samples of missile warhead fragments which were removed from Iraq earlier this year and are alleged to contain traces of VX nerve gas and VX stabiliser are expected to be completed. [53104]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  On 14 July, fresh samples were collected from missile warhead fragments in Iraq by an UNSCOM team including French and Swiss experts. The samples are now being analysed in Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) accredited laboratories in France and Switzerland. UNSCOM does not expect to receive the full results of the new tests before September.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the vehicles due for replacement by(a) his Department and (b) bodies listed in the National Asset Register in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01 will be replaced by vehicles using (1) petrol, (2) diesel, (3) natural gas, (4) electric batteries and (5) other. [52621]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The expected replacement programme for official vehicles at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is:

  Year

  Overseas

  Home

  1998–1999

  189

  5

  1999–2000

  254

  9

  2000–2001

  160

  8

  Detailed information about the fuel types to be chosen for replacement vehicles to be purchased at FCO Posts overseas is not known. In each case, this will depend on the type of vehicle required, and the availability of fuel types in each country at the time of purchase.

  Of the vehicles to be replaced in the FCO home fleet, the five replacement vehicles for 1998–99, have already been bought and consist of 3 petrol saloon cars and 2 diesel commercial vehicles. No advance decisions have been taken about the types of fuel for the replacement vehicles needed in future years. This will be carefully assessed at the time, based on vehicle requirements, technical advances in commercially available fuel types and availability.

  Cycling
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what parking facilities for cycles exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible and for each agency for which he is responsible. [52688]
  303
  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: This Department has 200 secure cycling spaces—108 in London and 92 at Hanslope Park, near Milton Keynes.

  Burma
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the situation in Burma. [54149]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We continue to deplore the authorities' disregard for human rights and democracy. Ministerial statements have unequivocally condemned abuses. We continue to exert pressure on the regime to engage in substantive dialogue with opposition leaders, including Aung San Suu Kyi. We used our Presidency to renew EU measures against Burma and to draft the tough resolution agreed by the UN Commission on Human Rights in April.

  We do not encourage trade with or investment in Burma: in present circumstances we will include in any responses to inquiries about the market from British companies a very clear statement about the nature of the regime; and any briefings will emphasise the Burmese political and human rights situation and the state of the economy.

  We also wish to draw attention to the views of the pro-democracy leaders in Burma that it would be inappropriate for tourists to visit Burma at present.

  Panel 2000
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Panel 2000 will be making public its recommendations. [54150]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Panel 2000 is in the final stages of producing a Consultation Document. This is intended to stimulate public debate on how Britain's identity is projected abroad. The Panel will welcome comments from all those with an interest in how Britain is perceived overseas. As soon as the document is finalised it will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Sudan
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the approval of an export licence for the supply of two Bedford trucks to Church Ecumenical Action in Sudan. [54151]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Government recently approved the export of two Bedford trucks to CEAS to help with the distribution of humanitarian aid in southern Sudan. While the trucks were once owned by the MOD, they have been stripped of all military hardware and painted white. They will now be used to help ease the terrible crisis in southern Sudan of which we are all aware. We were therefore glad to be able to approve this export as an exception to our interpretation of the EU arms embargo on Sudan. This decision does not affect the Government's continued support for the EU common position on arms exports to Sudan.

  Entry Clearance Report
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to lay before 304
  the House the report covering 1997 by Dame Elizabeth Anson, the Independent Monitor, of refusal of entry clearance where there is no right of appeal. [54152]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I have arranged for copies of Dame Elizabeth's Report covering 1997 to be placed in the Libraries of the House today. I welcome the Report and note Dame Elizabeth's recommendations, which will receive careful consideration.

  Wilton Park
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the Wilton Park executive agency performed against the targets agreed for 1997–98; and what are the agreed targets for the current year. [54154]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Wilton Park exceeded all four of the agreed targets set for the 1997–98 financial year, for the number of conference participants, income, cost recovery and cost per head to the FCO overall. The 1997–98 targets were:Income: £1,554K
  Recovery of costs from commercial activities: 78 per cent.
  Number of Wilton Park Conference participants: 1,750
  Costs to FCO per conference participant: £247.

  The following key targets have been agreed for the financial year, 1998–99.
  To increase overall income to £2,051 K.
  To increase cost recovery to 81 per cent.
  To increase the target for the overall number of Wilton Park Conference participants to 2,000.
  To reduce the average cost to the FCO of each participant to £240.

  Chagos Archipelago
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to designate vulnerable areas of the Chagos Archipelago as marine protected areas. [51336]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 24 July 1998,Official Report, column 713.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Small Claims Courts
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will establish performance measures for small claims courts for the(a) implementation of orders and (b) response times to correspondence from the public. [51850]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Court Service is not responsible for implementing court orders. This is for the parties to decide. However, the Court Service aims to prepare court orders and reply to correspondence from the public within 5 working days, but no longer than 10 working days. The target for 1997–98 was 92 per cent. within 5 working days, although the courts' achieved 98.3 per cent. This includes the performance of all county courts and the Supreme Court Group.
  305
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the enforcement procedures for orders made by small claims courts; and if he will make a statement. [51849]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor recognises that there are widespread concerns about the enforcement of civil court judgments, including judgments resulting from the small claims procedure.

  For that reason, the Lord Chancellor has directed that a Review be carried out to examine the effectiveness of current methods of enforcement, identify changes necessary to enhance their effectiveness and make recommendations. The full Terms of Reference are set out in my reply of 25 March 1998, Official Report, column 141–42.

  Ms Marian Temple
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects the Chief

  LCD Research projects completed May-December 1997

  Project title

  Cost (£)

  Date completed

  Researcher details

  Law-and-Economics: State of the Art and Questions for the Future

  4,000

  May 1997

  Professor Anthony Ogus, Rachel Amass University of Manchester

  Rationing and Cost-containment in Legal Services

  8,000

  June 1997

  Professor Robert Dingwall, Professor Paul Fenn, Jackie Tuck University of Nottingham

  The Workings of the Child Abduction Conventions

  6,457

  June 1997

  Professor Nigel Lowe, Alison Perry University of Wales, Cardiff

  Omnibus Survey: Court Customers Experience of the Courts

  2,400

  July 1997

  Office of National Statistics

  Review of the Court of Appeal

  13,486

  July 1997

  Professor Hazel Genn University College London Joyce Plotnikoff and Richard Woolfson Consultants in Management, IT and the Law

  Regulating Legal Services

  9,000

  August 1997

  Professor Robert Baldwin London School of Economics

  The use of Judicial Appointment Commissions: A Review of the US and Canadian Models

  2,250

  August 1997

  Dr. Kate Malleson London School of Economics

  Judicial Appointments in Continental Europe

  8,400

  August 1997

  Dr. Cheryl Thomas Wolfson College, Oxford University

  Contracting for civil litigation: modeling volumes, access and regional distributions for certified non-matrimonial civil legal aid

  1,800

  September 1997

  Tamara Goriely TPR Social and Legal Research

  The Division of Marital Assets Following Divorce With Particular Reference to Pensions

  4,900

  October 1997

  Professor Antony Dnes University of Hertfordshire

  Monitoring the Small Claims Limit: Litigants' Experiences of Different Forms of Adjudication

  22,800

  November 1997

  Professor John Baldwin University of Birmingham

  Ethnic monitoring of defendants appearing at Leicester Magistrates' Court 1995

  3,000

  November 1997

  Professor Phillip Bean Loughborough University

  Total

  86,493

  306
  Clerk of Bow County Court to reply to the letter of 17 April 1998 from Ms Marian Temple, 43a Grove Park Road, Wanstead. [51851]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Chief Executive of the Court Service wrote to my hon. Friend about this matter on 2 June of this year. This letter was also in reply to Ms Temple's letter of 17 April. At the time Ms Temple wrote, the court was experiencing difficulties and delays largely due to the introduction of a new computerised system, which has been introduced in all county courts. These problems and delays have now been resolved.

  Departmental Research
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the cost of all research undertaken by his Department since May 1997, excluding the cost of green papers and other public consultation documents drafted by his officials; and if he will list in each case the organisations which undertook that research. [52696]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is listed in the following tables.
  307

  LCD Research projects completed or due to complete in 1998

  Project title

  Cost (£)

  Date completed

  Researcher details

  Contracting For Legal Services with Different Cost Rules

  6,200

  March 1998

  Gwyn Bevan London School of Economics and Political Science Professor Paul Fenn University of Nottingham Dr. Neil Rickman University of Surrey

  Costing Fast Track Procedures Through Hypothetical Case Studies

  96,000

  March 1998

  Tamara Goriely, Farah Butt, Professor Avrom Sherr Institute of Advanced Legal Studies

  Review Papers on Marriage causes, and ways of preventing marital breakdown

  79,150

  March 1998

  One plus one

  ADR in the Court of Appeal—Preliminary Work

  5,000

  March 1998

  Professor Hazel Genn University College London

  Economic Impact of Law on Ancillary Relief

  4,000

  April 1998

  Professor Antony Dnes University of Hertfordshire

  The Central London County Court Pilot Mediation Scheme—Evaluation Report

  23,615

  May 1998

  Professor Hazel Genn University College London

  Effect On Magistrates Of Learning That The Defendant Has A Previous Conviction

  33,940

  May 1998

  Dr. Sally Lloyd-Bostock University of Birmingham

  Criminal Justice Reform and the Organisation of Criminal Defence Services

  15,200

  June 1998

  Professor Lee Bridges University of Warwick

  Toward a Civil Justice Audit

  32,168

  June 1998

  Professor Joanna Shapland University of Sheffield

  Study of the services to litigants in person provided by the Citizens' Advice Bureau in the Royal Courts of Justice

  10,693

  June 1998

  Joyce Plotnikoff and Richard Woolfson Consultants in Management, IT and the Law

  Court Customer Needs

  4,200

  July 1998

  Sarah Beinart (Independant consultant)

  Empirical Analysis of Standard Fees in Magistrates' Courts

  6,000

  July 1998

  Professor Paul Fenn University of Nottingham

  Review of the law relating to profits from crime

  7,500

  July 1998

  Professor Gareth Jones Trinity College, Cambridge University

  Government Policies and Lawyers' Roles

  11,075

  September 1998

  Phillip Lewis Wolfson College, Oxford University

  Ancillary Relief Pilot Scheme

  206,703

  September 1998

  KPMG

  Applicability to other tribunals and court jurisdictions of organisational principles/practices of the London Parking Appeals Service

  22,787

  October 1998

  Dr. John Raine University of Birmingham

  Economic Impact of the Quality of Legal Machinery

  2,500

  October 1998

  Dr. Alice Belcher University of Dundee

  Fast Track Simulation Pilot

  31,386

  December1998

  John Peysner Nottingham Trent University

  Information Meeting pilots a monitoring, evaluation, consultation and spatial mapping exercise

  692,876 —since May 1997

  1998

  University of Newcastle

  Safeguarding Children's Welfare After Divorce

  78,080 —since May 1997

  1998

  University of Wales

  Total

  1,369,073

  308 309

  Combined research costs May 1997–98

  £

  May-December 1997

  86,493

  January-December 1998

  1,369,073

  Grand Total

  1,455,566

  In addition, £18,853 has been contributed to a study entitled 'Baseline Customer Research' commissioned by the Legal Services Ombudsman. The study is being run by Customer Management Consultancy Ltd and is due to complete in March 1999.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Tobacco Sponsorship
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what definite offers he has received from companies willing to replace moneys currently received from tobacco companies for sports sponsorship; [52515]

  (2) when the Tobacco Sponsorship Task Force last met; who attended the meeting; and what recommendations were agreed; [52514]

  (3) what research his Department has evaluated into the extent to which companies would be prepared to replace tobacco sponsorship of sport. [52509]

  Mr. Banks
  The Task Force has not yet been formally constituted, although I have had an initial informal meeting with sports and business interest, and will hold a further meeting in the autumn when the current exercise to collect sponsorship information from the sports concerned should be completed.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from arts organisations in the United Kingdom regarding withdrawal of tobacco companies' support. [52512]

  Mr. Banks
  In the last 15 months, my Department has received written representations from four arts organisations in the United Kingdom, expressing concern about the potential impact of any future withdrawal of support by tobacco companies.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what assessment he has made of whether the period of time set out by the EU Directive on Tobacco Advertising for the withdrawal of sports sponsorship will be complied with; [52511]

  (2) if he will list those events his Department will treat as world level events in accordance with the terms of the EU Directive on tobacco advertising. [52513]

  Mr. Banks
  The future individual sponsorship arrangements are matters for the sports and businesses concerned, although they will have to comply with the legal requirements of the European Union Tobacco Advertising Directive. The Government's detailed proposals for implementing the Directive will be set out in a White Paper to be issued later this year.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will undertake a study into the financial implications for sport of the EU Directive on Tobacco Advertising. [52508]
  310
  Mr. Banks
  I have no plans to do so. I have set up a Task Force of sports and business interests to help identify and secure alternative sponsors.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those compliance cost assessments since 1 May 1997 in which there is a net reduction in compliance costs resulting from a legislative proposal. [52949]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: My Department has not undertaken any compliance cost assessments since 1 May 1997.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the compliance cost assessments published by his Department since 1 May 1997. [52948]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: My Department has not published any compliance cost assessments since 1 May 1997.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what cumulative net increase in compliance costs has been estimated in compliance cost assessments published by his Department since 1 May 1997. [52950]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: My Department has not published any compliance cost assessments since 1 May 1997. There is presently no requirement on Departments to carry out compliance cost assessments where legislative proposals are expected to be cost neutral or resulting in a saving to business.

  New Deal
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people his Department is committed to employing during 1998 under(a) the subsidised job option and (b) the unsubsidised job option of the New Deal programme. [52577]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department is currently considering how best to support the New Deal programme and will be finalising plans shortly.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what guidance his Department issues to those constructing buildings for which it is responsible on the use of materials containing asbestos. [52292]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  For any significant construction of buildings, the Department employs professional project managers, and, where applicable, planning supervisors. They would be responsible for ensuring compliance with the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994. If the project did not require notification under those regulations, they would be responsible for ensuring compliance with the Control of Asbestos at Work (Amendment) Regulations 1992, plus others where specialist work is required.

  Cricket Test Matches (Live Coverage)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many representations he has received
  311
  opposing the Gordon Committee's recommendations to remove live coverage of cricket test matches played in England from the events listed under Part IV of the Broadcasting Act 1996; and how many of those representations have been from hon. Members. [52451]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Between the publication of the report of Lord Gordon's Advisory Group on 20 March and my announcement of the revised list on 25 June, I received 699 representations opposing the Group's recommendations on Test cricket. Of the 103 hon. Members whose representations are included in that figure, 36 expressed opposition to the Gordon proposals. 67 hon. Members enclosed letters from their constituents without comment.

  Football Clubs
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the impact on soccer in England of UEFA's proposed ban on multi-club ownership. [52332]

  Mr. Banks
  I appreciate the concern about the potential impact of the ruling, and it is very important that the integrity of football competitions is not undermined. The football authorities are best placed to decide how far the new ruling is required to ensure fair competition, and pursue as necessary with UEFA. I am discussing the implications with interested parties.

  Departmental Reviews
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the reviews his Department and its predecessors, initiated in the years(a) 1974–75, (b) 1979–80 and (c) 1992–93. [48514]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport was created in July 1997. Its predecessor, the Department of National Heritage (DNH), was created in April 1992 from parts of six Government Departments, and for that reason it is not possible to answer the question in respect of 1974–75 or 1979–80. In 1992–93, DNH initiated the following reviews: review of competitive tendering and market testing in museums and galleries; policy review of the public library service in England and Wales; review of library and information provision in rural areas; study of library services for children and young people; consultation on the future role and financing of the BBC and the Calcutt Review of Press Self-Regulation.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much his Department spent on IT itemising(a) personal computers, (b) main-frame,(c) mini-computers and (d) file servers in the last year for which figures are available. [52887]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport spent £64,962 on personal computers and £66,678 on file servers in financial year 1997–98. The Department has no mainframes or any mini-computers.

  Rugby League
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress he has made for finding a new sponsor for the Rugby League Challenge Cup. [52718]
  312
  Mr. Banks
  I will chair a Task Force to help all sports in receipt of tobacco sponsorship to identify alternative sponsors. The Task Force has not yet been formally constituted, although I have had an initial informal meeting with sports and business interests, and will hold a further meeting in the autumn when the current exercise to collect sponsorship information from the sports concerned should be completed.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on proposals for a national centre of excellence for Rugby League. [52604]

  Mr. Banks
  Discussions are ongoing between the Rugby Football League, the British Amateur Rugby League and the English Sports Council with a view to formulating a facilities strategy for rugby league at all levels. Fundamental to that strategy will be the identification of a national centre of excellence as a keystone to a network of local centres, and a feasibility study will shortly be launched to establish a critical path to bring the requirements of the game to fruition.

  Tour de France
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he has taken to bring stages of the Tour de France to the United Kingdom. [52605]

  Mr. Banks
  The British Cycling Federation are constantly lobbying for stages of the Tour de France to return to the United Kingdom. However, with the race's planned visits to other countries already booked for the next few years, they are concentrating their energies on promoting our own annual international stage race, the Prutour.

  English Tourist Board
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many written communications he has received(a) in favour and (b) against the continued existence of the English Tourist Board. [52748]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To date, we have received 178 written communications in response to press speculation, of which

  (a) 176 favour the continued existence of the ETB; and

  (b) 2 are against.

  Sport (Women)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of Lottery money has been apportioned to women's sport groups since 1 May 1997. [51780]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: All English Sports Council (ESC) Lottery awards, capital or revenue, are accessible to women's sport groups, as openness and equality are essential principles of Lottery Sport funding.

  There are currently 589 female athletes benefiting from Lottery funding under the World Class Performance Programme.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many of the vehicles due
  313
  for replacement by (a) his Department and (b) bodies listed in the National Asset Register in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01 will be replaced by vehicles using (1) petrol, (2) diesel, (3) natural gas, (4) electric batteries and (5) other. [52618]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: The information for the Department (including The Royal Parks agency and the Government Art Collection) is as follows:

  Number of vehicles to be replaced each year

  Fuel Type

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–2001

  Petrol (unleaded—vehicles fitted with catalyst)

  3

  —

  —

  Diesel (vehicles fitted with catalyst)

  2

  5

  —

  Natural Gas/Electric

  —

  —

  20

  Total

  5

  5

  20

  The information for the bodies listed in the National Asset Register is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Church Bells
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will(a) provide additional funding and (b) amend the procedures under section 3A of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953, to allow English Heritage to fund the repair and replacement of church bells. [52402]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: Under the new spending plans announced on 24 July, DCMS's support for the heritage will increase by £10 million over the next three years. It will be for English Heritage to allocate funding between its various grant schemes. There are no plans to amend procedures under section 3A of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953. Nevertheless, funding is already available for the repair of church bells under the joint English Heritage/Heritage Lottery Fund scheme for churches and other places of worship.

  British-made Films
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of British-made films he estimates will be accepted into general cinema distribution in 1998. [53039]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: My Department cannot forecast the future distribution of British films. However, the report of the Film Policy Review, "A Bigger Picture", sets out a strategy to strengthen the distribution of British films.

  Sir Rodney Walker
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the directorships and other declarable interests in sports-related companies held by Sir Rodney Walker, Chairman of the UK Sports Council. [50741]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 16 July 1998] [pursuant to his reply, 22 July 1998, c. 550–51]: The information provided was incomplete, the full answer is as follows.
  314
  Sir Rodney Walker has the following directorships and other declarable interests in sports-related companies:

  Chairman—Rugby Football League

  Chairman—Leicester City Plc

  Chairman—Brands Hatch Leisure Plc

  Trustee—London Marathon Charitable Trust

  Governor—Sports Aid Foundation

  Vice President—Youth Charter for Sport

  Chairman—Resero Technology Systems Ltd.

  The Council has procedures for Members to declare potential conflicts of interest when decisions come before them and to make appropriate arrangements to handle any potential conflicts which arise.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Servants (Criticism)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received from civil service trade unions about the recent public criticisms of civil servants in the Department of Trade and Industry by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths). [52867]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  None.

DEFENCE

  Animal Experiments
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy on the use of animals in defence research. [54399]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr. Savidge) on 27 July 1998,Official Report, column 40.

  Cost-effectiveness
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to ensure that his Department remains open to innovative proposals from industry for more cost-effective ways of meeting defence requirements. [54143]

  Mr. Spellar
  The close involvement of Industry in conducting the Strategic Defence Review has been of considerable value to MOD. We are determined to build on this to foster closer and more co-operative relationships for the future. With this in mind, I am pleased to be able to announce that, following consultation with Industry, a MOD "Code of Practice on the Handling of Innovative Proposals" has been published today. The code explains what innovative proposals are, how my Department will deal with them, what they should include, and to whom they should be addressed.

  A copy of the Code has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Royal Naval Hospital Haslar
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the capital expenditure at the Royal Hospital Haslar and its predecessor the Royal Naval Hospital Haslar in each of the last 10 years. [53022]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Secondary Care Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Major General C. G. Callow to Mr. Peter Viggers, dated 29 July 1998:
  1. I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about capital expenditure at the Royal Hospital Haslar over the past 10 years as this matter, falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Secondary Care Agency.
  During the financial year 1997/98, £0.939M was expended on capital works. Unfortunately, prior to that financial year, it is not possible to accurately separate capital expenditure from the Hospital's day to day running costs. However, we estimate that capital expenditure costs were approximately:

  £ million

  1996–97

  13.6

  1995–96

  7.8

  1994–95

  2.6

  1993–94

  3.0

  1992–93

  1.7

  1991–92

  1.7

  1990–91

  1.7

  1989–90

  1.6

  1988–89

  1.6

  Agency Newsletters
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 June 1998,Official Report, columns 14–15, for what reasons Post Notes, the staff newsletter of the Defence Postal and Courier Agency, is classified restricted; and if his Department plans to remove this classification. [53372]

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

  Letter from Richard Bugler to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 29 July 1998:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the Agency newsletter 'Post Notes', as this matter falls within my area of responsibility in the absence, on leave, of the Chief Executive of the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency (DPCSA),
  The Chief Executive recently took the decision to classify 'Post Notes' 'Restricted' because he was concerned for the security of both the civilian and military personnel of the Agency, whose personal details and movements are sometimes given in the newsletter. There was some evidence to suggest that the unauthorised reproduction of articles and notes from the newsletter was more widespread than was intended for what is essentially an in-house staff journal. There are currently no plans to remove this classification.

  Armed Forces Pay Review Body
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will publish the Supplementary report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. [50665]
  316
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), 28 July 1998,Official Report, column 132.

  Army Recruits
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of regular soldiers were recruited from (i) former territorial army personnel, (ii) the public, including school leavers and (iii) former Army cadets in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [51029]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The percentage origins of regular soldiers are as follows:

  percentage

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  (i) Former TA personnel1

  7.6

  7.6

  5.4

  (ii) The public (including schools leavers)

  70.7

  71.9

  76.8

  (iii) Former Army or Combined Cadet Force service

  22

  20.5

  17.8

  1 These figures do not include Reservists mobilised for service in Bosnia, or ex-TA personnel on special S Type engagements

  The year 1997–98 represented the best year in numerical terms for recruiting soldiers to the Army since 1991. The increase was largely from among members of the public, reflected in the higher percentage received from this group last year, shown in the table. We are encouraged by this progress, which demonstrates that improving recruitment has been, and continues to be, one of our top priorities.

  NATO Expenditure
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the current and planned levels of expenditure on NATO commitments over the planning period; and if he will make a statement. [51890]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 24 July 1998]: The estimated costs of UK forces declared to NATO, and associated support costs, is some £13 billion in the current financial year. We expect the level of expenditure in the coming years to be broadly constant. These forces contribute to a number of missions, under NATO, non-NATO, or national command, in support of the Government's security and defence policy. The UK's annual net contribution to NATO's common budgets, at current exchange rates, and other command and HQ costs, are currently some £220 million.

  The costs of the UK contribution to NATO operations in the Balkans for 1997–98 are still being collated.

  The Strategic Defence Review stated that NATO will continue as the cornerstone of our defence planning, and that we intend to build on our role as a leading European member of the Alliance.

  Atomic Weapons Establishments
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 15 July 1998,Official Report, column 186, regarding the Atomic Weapons Establishment, if he will place in the Library

  317
  a list of the titles of the research projects, specifying the university concerned, and the duration and value of each project. [53159]

  Mr. Spellar
  Details of the research projects, their duration and values are commercially confidential and I must, therefore, withhold this information in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information relating to Third party commercial confidences.

  As I said in my answer of the 15 July 1998, Official Report, column 186, I will write to my hon. Friend regarding the universities involved and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each incident involving(a) radioactive and (b) toxic material at (i) AWE Burghfield and (ii) AWE Aldermaston in the last five years. [52162]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information, in the form requested, is classified and I am, therefore, withholding it in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information relating to Defence, Security and International Relations.

  However, in total over the last five years, there have been 802 incidents involving radioactive material, 12 of which have been injury incidents and 642 incidents involving toxic material, 281 of which have been injury incidents. All members of staff at AWE are encouraged to report incidents of all types as part of a safety awareness campaign and the majority of the injuries reported are of a very minor nature, such as cuts or abrasions.

  These figures compare very favourably with industry in general and, over the past 5 years there has been a year on year reduction in the number of injury incidents. In fact, AWE have recently been awarded a Gold Award for workplace safety by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect of the reduced warhead production programme on radioactive emissions from AWE, Aldermaston. [52212]

  Regular COs

  TA COs

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Royal Armoured Corps

  2

  3

  2

  2

  3

  2

  5

  5

  Royal Artillery

  3

  2

  2

  1

  3

  4

  4

  5

  Royal Engineers

  7

  5

  6

  7

  2

  4

  3

  2

  Royal Signals

  6

  8

  7

  5

  5

  3

  4

  6

  Infantry

  28

  32

  29

  26

  8

  4

  4

  7

  Army Air Corps

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Royal Logistic Corps

  4

  4

  5

  6

  4

  3

  2

  1

  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  3

  3

  3

  3

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Army Medical Service

  1

  3

  5

  4

  16

  14

  12

  13

  University Officer Training Corps

  14

  12

  12

  14

  5

  7

  7

  5

  All figures are as at mid July which is the date at which COs would normally take up appointment. The figures for
  318
  Mr. Spellar
  Activities such as decommissioning and maintaining safety standards within facilities make up by far the largest proportion of discharges from AWE, Aldermaston. The reduction in the number of warheads announced in the Strategic Defence Review is expected to have a minimal effect on emissions from the site.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the facilities intended to be decommissioned at AWE Aldermaston; and if he will make a statement on progress in decommissioning each of these facilities. [52163]

  Mr. Spellar
  Buildings A37 and A50 at AWE, Aldermaston are currently undergoing decommissioning. Building A1.1 and parts of A45 are being prepared for decommissioning by Post Operative Clear Out, POCO. There will be a rolling programme of POCO and decommissioning as buildings come out of use in the future.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the total amount of radioactive waste to be generated as a result of decommissioning operations at AWE Aldermaston; how much of this waste is intended to be stored on-site; and what the total estimated cost of decommissioning will be. [52164]

  Mr. Spellar
  The current estimate of the amount of radioactive waste expected to result from the decommissioning of buildings at AWE, Aldermaston is based on a relatively small sample of completed work. It is, therefore, subject to confirmation. Measures to reduce the amount of waste generated during decommissioning can be expected to improve as more experience is gained.

  Nonetheless, the current estimate is that a total of 39,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste will be generated in the next 10 years at AWE, Aldermaston. Of this, 3,000 cubic metres is expected to be categorised as Intermediate Level Waste and will be stored on site. The estimated cost of the associated decommissioning work over the 10 year period is some £460m.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Territorial Army battalions and regiments are commanded by(a) TA commanding officers and (b) regular army commanding officers, broken down by arm and service, and what were the figures (i) one, (ii) two and (iii) three years ago. [53257]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The information is as follows:

  Infantry excluding SAS(V), the Gibraltar Regt. and the Royal Irish (Home Service).
  319
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect the implementation of the Strategic Defence Review will have upon the number of Territorial Army soldiers(a) serving in Norfolk and (b) based in Norwich. [53182]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Following the announcement of the results of the Strategic Defence Review, work has now commenced to establish the future organisation and structure of the Territorial Army. It is too early to say how this work will affect the numbers of TA soldiers serving in any particular area, but we expect to be in a position to make detailed announcements during the Autumn.

  Soldiers (Imprisonment)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many serving soldiers sentenced to imprisonment or detention in the last 10 years have been(a) discharged and (b) retained. [48362]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 8 July 1998]: Details of those discharged and retained following the imposition of a custodial sentence are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances the Army Board may decide to discharge a soldier serving a term of imprisonment after that soldier has been retained by his commanding officer; what rules would govern such discharges; and how many such decisions have been made in the last 10 years. [48365]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 8 July 1998]: Under the terms of Queen's Regulations for the Army, paragraph 9.404, a soldier is to be discharged if he has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Commanding Officers do not have the authority to retain soldiers in such circumstances, though they can make a submission to the chain of command for a soldier's retention if there are believed to be exceptional reasons for doing so. It is not required that the Army Board consider these cases, although the Board will adjudicate when the chain of command submits a case to them.

  Guardsmen Wright and Fisher
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 May 1998,Official Report, columns 282–83, by an officer of what rank and on what date the decision was taken to retain Guardsmen Fisher and Wright following their conviction. [48363]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 8 July 1998]: The future of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright is a matter for decision by the Army Board. The Board has not yet made any decision regarding the future in the Army of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright.

  Sri Lankan Army Staff College
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the support in terms of(a) finance, (b) personnel and (c) advice which his Department is supplying to the Sri Lankan Army Staff College at Batafanda. [50940]
  320
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]: My Department currently provides one Colonel as an instructor at the Sri Lankan Army Staff College. The cost of this post, some £116,991 per annum, is shared between the FCO and MOD and includes elements to cover the Colonel's pay and allowances, his national insurance and pension contributions, local overseas allowances, 1oan service pay and incidental movements costs. The Colonel is currently serving on a one year tour of duty.

  Trident
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if each missile on board Trident submarines will carry the same number of warheads; and if he will make a statement. [52217]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I am withholding the information requested under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information relating to defence, security and international relations.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the (i) minimum and (ii) maximum range of the Trident missile as deployed in accordance with the plans announced in the Strategic Defence Review. [52213]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The maximum range of the Trident D5 missile is in the region of 6,000 miles. I am withholding further details of the performance of the Trident missile under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information relating to defence, security and international relations.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many days each of Britain's Trident submarines has spent on patrol in each of the last four years. [52168]

  Mr. George Robertson
  In each of the last four years the number of days that each Trident submarine spent on patrol is as follows:

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Vanguard

  211

  132

  184

  65

  Victorious

  0

  169

  181

  89

  Vigilant

  0

  0

  0

  49

  Vengeance

  (in build)

  The remaining patrol days in 1995 and 1996 were covered by our last Resolution class submarines. The figures for 1998 cover the period up to 22 July.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the reasons for the payments made to the US Government under the heading Trident Refit Feasibility Study; and if he will list the total amount to be paid for this item. [52166]

  Mr. Spellar
  The feasibility studies were carried out on behalf of the United Kingdom into the emergency dry-docking of United Kingdom Trident submarines in the United States. This has nothing to do with refitting. The studies were undertaken to determine the practicability of conducting an emergency docking and essential repairs in the event that United Kingdom Trident submarines suffered damage or failure while deployed in the United
  321
  States for their work-up trials. The total amount we expect to pay for these studies is in the region of £850,000, subject to exchange rate variations.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when it is intended to roll-out the fourth Trident submarine. [52183]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The fourth Trident submarine, HMS Vengeance, is due to be rolled out on 19 September 1998.

  Nuclear Materials (Recycling)
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to recycle the nuclear material extracted from retired nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement. [52169]

  Mr. Spellar
  The amount of nuclear material declared in the Strategic Defence Review includes that to be extracted from retired nuclear weapons. This will be retained for Defence purposes.

  Plutonium Contamination
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the plutonium contamination incident at AWE, Aldermaston on 15 December 1997; and if he will place in the Library copies of his Department's reports on this incident. [52160]

  Mr. Spellar
  This matter is currently the subject of a prosecution of the Atomic Weapons Establishment plc. and Hunting-BRAE Ltd., the Atomic Weapons Establishment's managing contractor, by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. The matter, is therefore, sub judice and I must withhold details under Exemption 4 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, relating to Law Enforcement and Legal Proceedings.

  HMS Spartan
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of cancelling the planned refit of HMS Spartan at Rosyth. [52737]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: We estimate that the irrecoverable costs which would have arisen from the cancellation of HMS Spartan at Rosyth would have amounted to about £60 million. In addition, we estimate that the cost of reimbursing Babcock Rosyth Defence Limited, the owners of the Dockyard, for their redundancy costs would have been about £30 million.

  Royal Marine Reserve
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future role of the Royal Marine Reserve following the Strategic Defence Review. [52762]

  Mr. George Robertson
  No changes are planned to the role of the Royal Marines Reserve following the Strategic Defence Review.

  Cycling
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the employees of his Department and of the employees of each agency for which he is responsible cycle to work; and what measures he plans to increase that proportion. [52681]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: Information on the number of Ministry of Defence and Defence Agency personnel that cycle to work is not available. However, this data and much more covering a very large number of MoD sites will be gathered during the preparation of departmental Green Transport Plans.

  HMS Splendid
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost of cancelling the refit of HMS Splendid at Devonport. [52738]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: No costs have been incurred to-date in respect of the decision to cancel HMS Splendid's refit, which had been planned to take place at Devonport in 2003. Devonport Management Limited, the owners of the Dockyard, are required, as far as is possible, to mitigate the loss of the refit. In addition, we may decide to re-profile Devonport's allocated workload to take account of the peaks and troughs in the programme, thereby reducing the effect of the cancellation. Once this work has been completed, nearer to 2003, we anticipate that the irrecoverable costs associated with the loss of Splendid will be minimal, but it is too early to say. It is also too early to say whether any redundancy costs, for which MOD might be liable, will arise.

  Armed Forces Historical Branches
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to combine the Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force historical branches. [52800]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: The three Service Historical Branches are collocated and work closely together. There are currently no plans to create a Defence Historical Branch.

  Departmental Research
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the cost of all research undertaken by his Department since May 1997, excluding the cost of green papers and other public consultation documents drafted by his officials; and if he will list in each case the organisations which undertook that research. [52702]

  Mr. Spellar
  The latest information on expenditure on defence research can be found in Table 2.1 of "Science, Engineering and Technology Statistics 1998", published on 13 July 1998 (CM 4006). A complete list of all organisations supplying research to MOD is not held. However, the principal sources of research for the MOD are the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, the Atomic Weapons Establishment, and the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency, although much of the research activity itself is subcontracted to industry.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals from Defence Costs Study 15 on defence medical services remain outstanding. [53023]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There are no proposals outstanding from Defence Costs Study 15. Some recommendations have been subject to further work in the light of subsequent studies.

  West Indies Guard Ship
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the West Indies Guard Ship. [52655]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: We will continue to deploy a West Indies Guard Ship (WIGS). However, following the adjustments in destroyer and frigate numbers as part of the Strategic Defence Review we are adopting a more flexible approach to some of our peacetime Naval tasks, including that in the Caribbean, designed to make more efficient use of our naval assets.

  We will maintain a very high level of commitment to the Caribbean with a destroyer or frigate deployed as WIGS for a large part of the year. It will be present during the whole of the hurricane season with flexibility to increase coverage at other times by adjusting other commitments, if necessary. During that part of the year when a destroyer or frigate is not in the Caribbean, a destroyer or frigate will be earmarked to deploy there at short notice, and when other ships deploy to the region, they will be used to cover some of the WIGS tasks.

  We aim to maintain the effectiveness of our counter drugs efforts by ensuring that the WIGS programme is focused more on counter-drugs operations, and by involving other RN maritime assets in this work when they are in the region.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the advantages of remediating depleted uranium contaminated battlefields in Kuwait and Iraq. [43051]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Ministry of Defence has made no assessment of the advantages of remediating areas in Kuwait and Iraq in which depleted uranium (DU) based ammunition was fired during the Gulf conflict; nor has any specific review of the environmental and health effects of firing this ammunition in the Gulf been undertaken by MOD. The Government do not have any information concerning the levels of DU currently present in Kuwait or southern Iraq and cannot, therefore, comment on this matter in any detail. The use of the DU rounds by UK forces was not in conflict with the United Nations Charter or any other International agreement or convention. In the use of these rounds and other weaponry, my Department complies strictly with international law.

  Divisional Headquarters, Shrewsbury
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to announce his decision on the future of the divisional headquarters in Shrewsbury. [50551]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No proposals on the future of the divisional headquarters at Shrewsbury have been made to Ministers. Closure of the headquarters is not, however, an option being considered under the review by the Army of its divisional and district structure in the UK.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what financial help towards housing costs is available to those claiming jobseeker's allowance who(a) are tenants and (b) have a mortgage. [52372]

  Mr. Denham
  For those Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) claimants who are tenants, help with housing costs is mostly provided through the Housing Benefit scheme. For those with a mortgage, help for those who are eligible is included in their JSA payment.

  Where tenants are receiving income-based JSA they are "passported" to maximum Housing Benefit. Deductions may be made from the maximum Housing Benefit where non-dependents are involved. Tenants who are receiving contribution-based JSA have to make a claim for Housing Benefit on low-income grounds from their local authority.

  Those receiving income-based JSA receive a contribution towards the interest payable on loans to purchase the home and certain home improvements and some other housing costs which are not met by Housing Benefit. It does not cover all mortgage liabilities, for example capital repayments, endowment premiums, insurance or help with arrears. There is no help with mortgage payments for those who are only entitled to contribution-based JSA.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which local authorities in England and Wales do not disregard war pensions totally when assessing housing benefits and local authority charges; what amount of disregard these local authorities currently apply; which political party controls the local authorities concerned or, where there is no overall control, which party has the most seats on the council; if he intends to extend the statutory requirement to disregard only the first £10 of a war pension in England and Wales; what assessment he has made of procedures in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [52572]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) to my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) on 29 July 1997,Official Report, column 231.
  325
  Mandatory disregards for War Disablement and War Widow's Pensions already exist in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. This is in recognition of the special nature of these pensions, and ensure pensioners receive preferential treatment. For example, a war pensioner can currently have between £10 and £175 of his pension disregarded on a statutory basis.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much the Child Support Agency cost to run in the last financial year. [53555]

  Mr. Denham
  The cost of running the Child Support Agency in 1997/98 was £210.6 million.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the costs to the Child Support Agency of the implementation of the Green Paper, "CHILDREN FIRST: a new approach to child support". [53572]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are consulting over their proposals for reforming the current child support scheme and the detailed arrangements will not be decided until that process has been concluded. It follows that we cannot, at this early stage, estimate the full costs to the Child Support Agency of moving to a radically simpler system. However, excluding computer costs which may form part of a wider Departmental programme, transitional costs could be in the order of £30 million spread over two to three years.

  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the new procedural instructions will be put in place for the payment of arrears in cases of CSA maladministration. [52245]

  Mr. Denham
  We expect the Child Support Agency to provide a consistent, fair and efficient service to all its clients. We have set out proposals for radical reform in our Green Paper "Children First: a new approach to child support" (Cm 3992).

  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 Faith Boardman to Mr. Ian Pearson, dated 28 July 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about new procedural instructions for payment of arrears in the Child Support Agency.
  The Agency is extending its special payments scheme to make provision in certain circumstances for payments of arrears to be made to parents with care. Where there is clear evidence that the Agency's maladministration has caused the arrears to accrue we will consider the payment of arrears to the parent with care in advance of maintenance being received from the non-resident parent.
  The criteria to be used for considering such payments are expected to be finalised shortly. These have been developed in consultation with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Once the criteria have been agreed, procedures for the consideration and payment of arrears will be written as a matter of urgency so that payments that are appropriate can be made without any further delay.
  Once available, guidance will be placed in the Library.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many single pensioners and pensioner couples he expects to qualify for the guaranteed minimum income who would not qualify for income support if it were increased only in line with prices. [52411]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is in the table.

  IS Pensioner Benefit Units

  Thousand

  Floaters-on from April 1999 increases

  Year

  Singles

  Couples

  1999–2000

  55

  10

  2000–01

  50

  10

  2001–02

  50

  10

  Notes:

  1. All estimates exclude cases in residential care and nursing homes as insufficient information is available on these cases to be able accurately to model the additional cases who may float-on under the increases

  2. Estimates have been based upon latest Income Support forecasts, following the changes announced as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review, and information from the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey

  3. Under Income Support rules, one partner in a couple need be aged over 60 years to be classed as a couple pensioner benefit unit

  4. Estimates have been rounded to the nearest 5,000 cases

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated additional cost of the guaranteed minimum income compared with that of uprating income support for pensioners in line with prices, assuming no increase in take-up; and by how much this figure would be increased if full take-up were achieved. [52413]

  Mr. Denham
  The table illustrates the estimated additional expenditure effect of increasing the Income Support rates above the normal price uprating for;

  (a) existing cases and those who "float on" as a result of the increase and;

  (b) those pensioners who become entitled as a result of activity to increase take-up.

  Estimated expenditure effects of increases to Income Support rates from April 1999

  £ million, cash prices

  Year

  Increases to IS rates based on current take-up rates

  Increases to IS rates based on 85 per cent, take-up expenditure

  1999–2000

  265

  275

  2000–01

  270

  305

  2001–02

  270

  330

  Notes:

  1. All estimates exclude cases in residential care and nursing homes as insufficient information is available on these cases to be able to accurately model the additional cases who may float-on under the increases

  2. Estimates have been based upon latest Income Support forecasts, following the changes announced as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review, and information from the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey

  3. Estimates relate to the expenditure effects in Income Support only

  4. Estimates have been rounded to the nearest £5 million

  5. Take-up estimates are based on achieving 85 per cent. take-up expenditure by the end of year 3.
  327
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much the guaranteed minimum income will be higher for older pensioners. [52412]

  Mr. Denham
  The current rates of Income Support will be increased by £4.60 per week for single pensioners aged 75 to 79, and by £4.70 per week for pensioners aged 80 and over.

  The full range of the increases is given in the table.

  £

  Age

  Current rate: single

  Rate from April 1999

  Current rate: couple

  Rate from April 1999

  60–74

  70.45

  75.00

  109.35

  116.60

  75–79

  72.70

  77.30

  112.55

  119.85

  80+1

  77.55

  82.25

  117.90

  125.30

  1 The rate for pensioners aged 80+ also applies to pensioners aged 60 and over, who are disabled

  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the full year cost of disregarding the first £10 of income from(a) savings and (b) private pensions when calculating means-tested benefits for all pensioners. [52573]

  Mr. Denham
  No account is taken of actual income from savings. It is not possible to provide information on personal pensions as they cannot be identified separately from other types of annuity income in the Family Resources Survey. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Estimated annual expenditure across the income related benefit system from disregarding the first £10 of income from occupational pensions

  £ million

  Benefit

  Cost 1998–99 prices

  Income Support

  70

  Housing Benefit

  95

  Council Tax Benefit

  45

  Total

  210

  Note:

  Costs have been rounded to the nearest £5 million

  Source:

  Costs in Income Support were obtained from the 1998–99 Income Support Simulation Model, based on the May 1996 Quarterly Statistical Inquiry, and those for Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit were calculated from the 1998–99 Policy Simulation Model, which is based on the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will investigate the procedures and regulations followed by the Independent Tribunal Service in relation to the appeal for a disability living allowance appeal lodged on 17 June 1997 by William Kirane of Caernarfon; and if he will review the reply sent by Mr. Peter Mathison of the Benefits Agency dated 25 June sent in response to representations made by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon to the Secretary of State for Social Security of 23 April. [53563]
  328
  Mr. Denham
  The operation of the appeals system is a matter for the Independent Tribunal Service. However, one of the purposes of the changes which will be introduced under the Social Security Act 1998 is to speed up the hearing of appeals.

  In respect of the reply sent previously concerning the case of William Kirrane of Caernarfon, I have asked Peter Mathison to look into the matter and to write to you again.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated average cost of(a) a review of a DLA application and (b) an appeal against a DLA award. [52780]

  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 Mr. Bill Etherington, dated 28 July 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what is the estimated average cost of (a) a review of a Disability Living Allowance (DLA) application and (b) an appeal against a DLA award.
  The information requested is not readily available since the costs will be made up of a variable number of items, depending on the circumstances of the case.
  Two of the major costs are staff and medical evidence. If a review is requested under 3 months, the staffing costs would be £23.51 per review. If a review is requested over 3 months, the staffing cost would be £16.68. The cost of an appeal would be £34.82.
  Costs attributable to obtaining further medical evidence, depends on the nature of the evidence required. The cost of obtaining a General Practitioners Factual Report is £17.00. The cost of obtaining an Examining Medical Practitioners Report is £56.90.
  Tribunal costs will also vary. An average cost, however, is £85.28 per hearing, derived by dividing the whole cost of setting up a Tribunal, £343.28, by the number of listings per day.
  I hope you find the reply helpful.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the population claiming social security benefits have(a) never paid national insurance contributions and (b) not paid sufficient national insurance contributions to qualify for the contributory benefit claimed; and if he will quantify the total expenditure for (a) and (b) for (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 1997–98 and the estimated expenditure for (1) 1998–99, (2) 1990–2000, (3) 2000–01 and (4) 2001–02. [52545]

  Mr. Denham
  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of those over the retirement age have(a) not paid any national insurance contributions and (b) paid insufficient to qualify for a full contributory pension. [52526]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  There are 10.4 million people over pension age residing in Great Britain. Of these 6.7 million receive a full contributory pension based on either their own or their

  329
  spouse's contributions, and 3.3 million receive a pension at less than the full rate.

  Sources:

  1. 5 per cent. sample of the Pensions Strategy Computer System, at September 1997

  2. Population projections at June 1997 produced by the Government Actuary's Department.

  Great Britain—class 1 and class 1A national insurance contributions

  £billion

  Cash terms

  June 1997 prices

  Year

  Employee

  Class 1 Employer

  Class 1A

  Total

  Employee

  Class 1 Employer

  Class 1A

  Total

  1982–83

  8.3

  12.2

  0.0

  20.5

  16.4

  24.3

  0.0

  40.7

  1983–84

  9.2

  12.1

  0.0

  21.3

  17.5

  22.9

  0.0

  40.4

  1984–85

  9.9

  11.9

  0.0

  21.8

  17.9

  21.6

  0.0

  39.4

  1985–86

  10.7

  12.4

  0.0

  23.1

  18.3

  21.1

  0.0

  39.4

  1986–87

  11.5

  13.5

  0.0

  25.0

  19.0

  22.3

  0.0

  41.3

  1987–88

  12.6

  15.0

  0.0

  27.5

  20.0

  23.8

  0.0

  43.8

  1988–89

  13.9

  17.0

  0.0

  30.9

  20.9

  25.4

  0.0

  46.3

  1989–90

  14.4

  19.1

  0.0

  33.5

  20.0

  26.6

  0.0

  46.7

  1990–91

  14.3

  20.9

  0.0

  35.2

  18.1

  26.5

  0.0

  44.6

  1991–92

  14.9

  21.8

  0.0

  36.7

  18.1

  26.4

  0.0

  44.5

  1992–93

  15.2

  22.2

  0.4

  37.8

  17.8

  26.1

  0.5

  44.4

  1993–94

  15.2

  23.6

  0.4

  39.2

  17.5

  27.3

  0.5

  45.3

  1994–95

  17.8

  23.4

  0.5

  41.6

  20.0

  26.3

  0.6

  46.8

  1995–96

  19.0

  24.4

  0.5

  43.9

  20.7

  26.5

  0.5

  47.7

  1996–97

  19.5

  25.7

  0.5

  45.7

  20.7

  27.3

  0.5

  48.5

  1997–98

  21.3

  27.1

  0.5

  48.8

  21.9

  27.8

  0.5

  50.3

  Notes:

  1. Figures may not sum to totals shown due to rounding

  2. Class 1A figures are in respect of employers only

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the extent of benefit fraud for each of the benefits provided through the Benefits Agency in the current year; and if he will make a statement on plans to tackle fraud. [53252]

  Mr. Denham
  Figures estimating the extent of benefit fraud for each of the benefits provided through the Benefits Agency (BA) are not available for the current year. Reliable estimates of the level of fraud within individual benefits are informed by the BA's Benefit Review programme. These reviews are a snapshot of the level of fraud at the time the review was carried out, and these estimates can change. The first review of each benefit sets a baseline to establish the nature and extent of incorrectness, including fraud and abuse, and repeat

  Estimates of the extent of fraud in benefits provided through the Benefits Agency

  Benefit

  Percentage of claims where fraud is confirmed or strongly suspected

  Estimated level of fraud

  Results announced

  Income Support (First Review)

  9.7

  £1.4 billion

  July 1995

  Unemployment Benefit

  7.8

  £86 million

  July 1995

  Retirement Pension

  up to 0.13

  up to £40 million

  March 1996

  Invalid Care Allowance

  6.5

  £37 million

  July 1996

  330
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the receipts from National Insurance contributions split between (i) employers and (ii) employees in(a) cash terms and (b) at June 1998 prices for each year since 1982–83. [53209]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is in the table.

  exercises enable the Benefits Agency to identify changes in those patterns over time. The programme of Benefit Reviews of all major benefits began in 1994 and the table details the findings of all the reviews of BA benefits completed so far.

  The Government are determined to reduce the level of fraud and have set out their new comprehensive anti-fraud strategy in the Green Paper "Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business: Securing the Future". The strategy will focus on minimising the opportunity to commit fraud in the first place with improved benefit design and tighter operational procedures. We will also seek to establish an environment conducive to anti-fraud work and to work in partnership with others across central and local government and in public bodies and the private sector. A key element is the development of better measures of the amount of fraud, and the savings which flow from particular preventive and detective activities.
  331

  Estimates of the extent of fraud in benefits provided through the Benefits Agency

  Benefit

  Percentage of claims where fraud is confirmed or strongly suspected

  Estimated level of fraud

  Results announced

  Disability Living Allowance

  12.2

  £499 million

  February 1997

  Income Support (Second Review)

  11.1

  £1.77 billion

  July 1997

  Child Benefit/Child Benefit (Lone Parent)

  15.4

  2£184 million

  July 1998

  1 Presented as 1.7 per cent, 'fraud' and 3.7 per cent, 'high suspicion of fraud' in the Child Benefit (CHB) review report

  2 Presented as £51.6 million 'fraud' and £132.5 million 'high suspicion of fraud' in the CHB review report

  Notes:

  1. Information is based on the results of Benefit Reviews completed so far

  2. The total figures from each of the reviews cannot be added together to give total overpayments. This is because an unquantified proportion of the estimate for fraud will not result in losses/overpayments overall. For example, non-entitlement to Invalid Care Allowance can result in payment of a higher rate of another benefit such as Income Support

  3. As explained in the Green Paper "Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business: Securing the Future", estimating fraud in Disability Living Allowance presents particular difficulties. This is because entitlement depends upon care and mobility needs which are not easily estimated other than through the formal adjudication process. As a result, the estimates of confirmed and strongly suspected fraud for DLA will include errors by customers

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the performance of the London Organised Fraud Investigation Team indicating(a) the number of cases (i) investigated, (ii) completed, (iii) rejected and (iv) resulting in prosecutions and (b) the level of (i) claimant fraud, (ii) landlord fraud, (iii) landlord and claimant fraud and (iv) overpayment; what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the team against its agreed objectives; and if he will make a statement. [53582]

  Mr. Denham
  The London Organised Fraud Investigation Team (LOFIT) was established in December 1996 as a specialist dedicated team to investigate and combat organised fraud in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit in London.

  The latest available performance figures are for the period from 2 December 1996 to 31 March 1998. During this period, 73 cases were referred to LOFIT. Of these cases, 47 have been, or are being, investigated; 13 cases have been completed; 26 cases were rejected; and 4 reached prosecution stage. The table shows investigation cases categorised by type of fraud and total amount of overpayment identified.

  Number of cases

  Overpayments identified (£)

  Claimant

  13

  192,890

  Claimant and landlord collusion

  10

  729,340

  Landlord

  18

  407,144

  Multiple identity cases not included above

  6

  87.719

  Total

  47

  1,417,093

  The planned end of year Value For Money study by the Audit Commission is in its final stages and will be published shortly. We have also arranged for the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate to undertake a joint study with the Association of London Government to evaluate the effectiveness of LOFIT in tackling organised fraud and in working with other organisations in the field.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases of benefit fraud have been detected in each month since 1 May 1997. [53109]
  332
  Mr. Denham
  Tackling fraud and abuse is a top priority for the Government. Questions on Benefits Agency operational matters are the responsibility of its Chief Executive, Peter Mathison. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, dated 28 July 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of cases of benefit fraud which have been detected in each month since 1st May 1997.
  The figures in the attached table detail the number of successful investigations carried out by Benefit Fraud Investigation Service month by month since May 1997.
  Benefits Agency Security Investigation Service (BASIS) investigates fraud of an organised or systematic nature which tends to involve longer periods of investigation and results are only available for the year. BASIS carried out 1,742 successful investigations for the period April 1997 to March 1998.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefit fraud investigation service successful investigation figures1 since 1 May 1997

  Number

  May 1997

  45,409

  June 1997

  42,961

  July 1997

  48,059

  August 1997

  41,565

  September 1997

  47,875

  October 1997

  48,822

  November 1997

  46,389

  December 1997

  42,028

  January 1998

  48,486

  February 1998

  41,913

  March 1998

  39,631

  April 1998

  46,513

  May 1998

  38,145

  June 1998

  41,531

  1 Figures are provisional and subject to change

  Income Support
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate for 1999–2000(a) the additional cost, (b) the additional income to parents with care and (c) the likely overall reduction in income support payments to parents with care if a £10 maintenance disregard is introduced in April 1999. [52537]
  333
  Mr. Denham
  The additional cost of a £10 maintenance disregard for parents with care on Income Support would be £100 million in 1999–2000, or £80 million if the Child Maintenance Bonus were also to be abolished. The average gain to parents with care would be around £8.50 a week. There would be no reduction in Income Support payments, although maintenance in excess of £10 a week would continue to be taken into account as now.

  World Day for the Eradication of Poverty
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans his Department has to mark 17 October as the World Day for the Eradication of Poverty. [53006]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are making tackling poverty a priority for every day through their policies designed to help people into work where appropriate and to make extra help available where it is not, such as the guaranteed minimum income recently announced for pensioners.

  Widowers and Widows Benefit
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to equalise benefits between widowers and widows; and if he will make a statement. [53366]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Written Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) on 23 June 1997,Official Report, column 413.

  Low Income Gas Users
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money was paid to British Gas on behalf of low income gas users in the last year for which figures are available in the form of interim payments; how many overpayments were made; how much of the overpayment has been recovered; and to what other companies interim payments are made on behalf of low income customers. [52343]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: The information is not available in the format requested. The available information is as set out.

  In 1997–98 £59.4 million was paid to British Gas in the form of interim payments. We also have the facility to make payments to the following companies:

  Scottish Gas

  Eastern Electricity

  East Midlands Electricity

  London Electricity

  Manweb

  Midlands Electricity

  Northern Electricity

  Seeboard

  Scottish Hydro-electric

  Scottish Power

  South Wales Electric

  South Western Electric

  Southern Electric

  United Utilities

  Yorkshire Electricity.

  Benefits Office, Evesham
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of the closure of the Evesham Benefits Office on the service available to residents of the Vale of Evesham; and if he will make a statement. [52843]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of the Benefits Agency is a matter for Peter Mathison, its Chief Executive. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Peter Luff, dated 28 July 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question, asking what assessment she has made of the impact of the closure of the Evesham Benefits Office on the service available to residents of the Vale of Evesham.
  The Benefits Agency (BA)'s Evesham caller office was open on a part-time basis of 2 days per week (5½ hours a day), which offered a service limited to customer enquiries and the provision of advice and information. This office was closed at the end of March 1998 following an extensive consultation exercise. During this exercise the BA identified that services to the customer could be improved with closer working with the Local Authority and by using existing facilities at Worcester BA office and Evesham Employment Service Jobcentre (ESJ).
  Since the introduction of Jobseekers Allowance in October 1996 there is a full-time BA presence in Evesham ESJ and BA representatives in ESJs are prepared and equipped to deal with enquiries from other customers.
  Since the closure of the caller office, the level of enquiries from Evesham customers has been carefully monitored. There has been no noticeable effect on telephone enquiries or personal callers to the Worcester BA office, or on the level of callers to the BA representative located in the Evesham ESJ.
  The Evesham "One Stop Shop", a facility run by the Local Authority, had undertaken to boost its service following the closure of the caller office, and was provided with training and leaflets to this end. The number of enquiries dealt with by the "One Stop Shop" increased from 311 for three months prior to the closure to 390 in the three months ending 30 June 1998. However, this relates to all enquiries, not just BA queries. Nevertheless, the staff there report a greater demand for BA leaflets since the closure of the Evesham caller office. It is perceived therefore that the number of enquiries on BA matters has also increased to some extent. The "One Stop Shop" is able to cope with this extra volume of business.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many failed winter fuel payments there were in the current year; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for failed payments. [53177]

  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. Originally a total of £400 million was committed for two years (97/98 and 98/99), to help pensioners with fuel bills to pay.

  As announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State on 17 July 1998, Official Report, columns 703–05 a further £0.5 billion has been allocated to extend the scheme beyond next winter. This will provide each eligible pensioner household with a £20 Winter Fuel payment.
  335
  The administration of Winter Fuel payments is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, dated 28 July 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many failed winter fuel payments there were and what assessment has been made of the reasons for the failed payments.
  The making of winter fuel payments to almost 10 million pensioners, in over seven million households, before the end of March 1998 has been a challenging task for the Benefits Agency (BA). This has been achieved whilst maintaining normal benefit business.
  By 31 January 1998 we had issued £72,080,700 to 1,441,614 of the poorest pensioners, those receiving Income Support (IS) or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA). By the end of March we had issued a further £122,930,850 to a further 8,326,715 pensioners.
  Three different methods of payment have been used to make the payments to all eligible pensioners. A number of factors were taken into account in determining the appropriate method. The factors included: the normal method of payment used by the customer to receive their benefit; the ability of the relevant benefit system to make one-off payments by a number of different methods; the speed in which payments could be made; and, the cost and timescales required to introduce new methods of payment on individual computer systems. Payments were made based on information held on our computer systems during week commencing 5 January 1998. Payments have been made by the following three routes:
  Automated Credit Transfer direct to the pensioner's bank or building society account where the qualifying benefit is paid in this way (except where the qualifying benefit was Income Support, income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, Invalid Care Allowance, an industrial injury benefit, or one administered by the War Pensions Agency);
  Payable order sent to the pensioner's home address, where the qualifying benefit is Invalid Care Allowance, an industrial injury benefit, or one administered by the War Pensions Agency; otherwise,
  Girocheque sent to the pensioner's home address or the Post Office where the pensioner collects their qualifying benefit.
  The decision to send girocheques to the pensioners' Post Office was based on the fact that these customers represented by far the largest qualifying group and this was considered the most secure method of payment for them.
  However, not all those payments sent to the Post Offices were collected by the pensioners concerned. We have estimated that around 107,000 (2 per cent. of the volume issued) were not collected and these girocheques were returned to the nearest BA office, after 1 May 1998.
  BA District offices have been investigating the reasons for the non-collection, which have included recent death, hospitalisation, absence on holiday or the pensioner using a different Post Office. This is a time consuming process. Our deadline for the clearance of the payments which were returned was 30 June 1998. Feedback from the BA's District offices indicate that the majority of payments have now been made.
  As stated previously, according to our records, all payments should now have been made. The total amount of money paid out in Winter Fuel Payments to pensioners is £195,011,550. Priority was given to making the payments of £50 to the poorest pensioners, those receiving IS or income-based JSA.
  Other eligible pensioner households were entitled to a payment of £20. If there was more than one eligible pensioner in the household, each eligible pensioner was entitled to £10. In order to establish whether a payment of £20 or £10 was appropriate it was necessary to establish eligible pensioners, correctly identify pensioner households, and determine the amount each should
  336
  receive. To achieve this it was necessary to correlate data in around fifteen million computer records, involving fifteen qualifying benefits, across nine computer systems.
  The legislation states that the decision on whether a £10 or £20 payment was due would be based on 'official records'. Where pensioners live alone, or are the only eligible pensioner in a household, they were entitled to £20; otherwise, they were entitled to £10, including each person in a pensioner couple if they were both in receipt of a qualifying benefit.
  The £20 and £10 payments were issued in March 1998 following the data correlation exercise. Due to the huge volume of these payments, over 8 million, they were issued on a staged basis throughout March. Around 5 million of these payments were made by girocheque to the Post Office network and the BA liaised closely with the Post Office Counters Limited to try and ensure the prompt receipt of the payments by the pensioners concerned.
  All eligible pensioners should now have been issued with a Winter Fuel Payment, with the exception of a small number where BA is having difficulties in ascertaining the reason for non-collection from the Post Office. Where someone has not received a payment but is expecting one, they should contact the office which normally deals with their pension or benefit.
  Thank you for the opportunity to explain the position. I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is her Department's deadline for the clearance of all overdue winter fuel payments; [51938]

  (2) how his Department determines the priorities for payment of the winter fuel payment; [51937]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the factors underlying the delays in paying out the winter fuel payment of £20; [51939]

  (4) what is the value of the backlog of the winter fuel payment to pensioners; [51940]

  (5) how much money has been paid out in the winter fuel payment to pensioners; and how much is still owing. [52008]

  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. A total of £400 million has been committed for two years (1997–98 and 1998–99), to help pensioners with fuel bills to pay.

  As announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State on 17 July 1998, Official Report, columns 703–05, a further £0.5 billion has been allocated to extend the scheme beyond next winter. This will provide each eligible pensioner household with a £20 winter fuel payment.

  The administration of winter fuel payments is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Michael Colvin, dated 28 July 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions concerning winter fuel payments scheme.
  The making of winter fuel payments to almost 10 million pensioners, in over seven million households, before the end of March 1998 has been a challenging task for the Benefits Agency (BA). This has been achieved whilst maintaining normal benefit business.

  337
  By 31 January 1998 we had issued £72,080,700 to 1,441,614 of the poorest pensioners, those receiving Income Support (IS) or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA). By the end of March we had issued a further £122,930,850 to a further 8,326,715 pensioners.
  Three different methods of payment have been used to make the payments to all eligible pensioners. A number of factors were taken into account in determining the appropriate method. The factors included: the normal method of payment used by the customer to receive their benefit; the ability of the relevant benefit system to make one-off payments by a number of different methods; the speed in which payments could be made; and, the cost and timescales required to introduce new methods of payment on individual computer systems. Payments were made based on information held on our computer systems during week commencing 5 January 1998. Payments have been made by the following three routes:
  Automated Credit Transfer direct to the pensioner's bank or building society account where the qualifying benefit is paid in this way (except where the qualifying benefit was Income Support, income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, Invalid Care Allowance, an industrial injury benefit, or one administered by the War Pensions Agency).
  Payable order sent to the pensioner's home address, where the qualifying benefit is Invalid Care Allowance, an industrial injury benefit, or one administered by the War Pensions Agency; otherwise,
  Girocheque sent to the pensioner's home address or the Post Office where the pensioner collects their qualifying benefit.
  The decision to send girocheques to the pensioners' Post Office was based on the fact that these customers represented by far the largest qualifying group and this was considered the most secure method of payment for them.
  However, not all those payments sent to the Post Offices were collected by the pensioners concerned. We have estimated that around 107,000 (2 % of the volume issued) were not collected and these girocheques were returned to the nearest BA office, after 1 May 1998.
  BA District offices have been investigating the reasons for the non-collection, which have included recent death, hospitalisation, absence on holiday or the pensioner using a different Post Office. This is a time consuming process. Our deadline for the clearance of the payments which were returned was 30 June 1998. Feedback from the BA's District offices indicate that the majority of payments have now been made.
  As stated previously, according to our records, all payments should now have been made. The total amount of money paid out in Winter Fuel Payments to pensioners is £195,011,500. Priority was given to making payments to the poorest pensioners, those receiving IS or income-based JSA.
  Other eligible pensioner households were entitled to a payment of £20. If there was more than one eligible pensioner in the household, each eligible pensioner was entitled to £10. In order to establish whether a payment of £20 or £10 was appropriate it was necessary to establish eligible pensioners, correctly identify pensioner households, and determine the amount each should receive. To achieve this it was necessary to correlate data in around fifteen million computer records, involving fifteen qualifying benefits, across nine computer systems.
  The legislation states that the decision on whether a £10 or £20 payment was due would be based on 'official records'. Where pensioners live alone, or are the only eligible pensioner in a household, they were entitled to £20; otherwise, they were entitled to £10, including each person in a pensioner couple if they were both in receipt of a qualifying benefit.
  The £20 and £10 payments were issued in March 1998 following the data correlation exercise. Due to the huge volume of these payments, over 8 million, they were issued on a staged basis throughout March. Around 5 million of these payments were made by girocheque to the Post Office network and the BA liaised closely with the Post Office Counters Limited to try and ensure the prompt receipt of the payments by the pensioners concerned.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.
  338
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many pensioners have returned overpayments of winter fuel payment to her Department; [53030]

  (2) how many winter fuel payments were the subject of administrative error; [53032]

  (3) in how many cases official records used for the distribution of winter fuel payments have been found to be incorrect; [53031]

  (4) how many pensioners have complained to his Department about incorrect calculation of their winter fuel payments. [53033]

  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 this winter. Originally, a total of £400 million was committed for two years (97–98 and 98–99), to help pensioners with fuel bills to pay.

  As announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State on 17 July 1998, Official Report, column 703–05, a further £0.5 billion has been allocated to extend the scheme beyond next winter. This will provide each eligible pensioner household with a £20 winter fuel payment.

  The administration of Winter Fuel Payments is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 28 July 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions concerning winter fuel payments.
  The making of winter fuel payments to almost ten million eligible pensioners, in over seven million households, before the end of March 1998 was a challenging task for the Benefits Agency. This was achieved whilst maintaining normal business.
  Around one and a half million of the poorest pensioners, those receiving income Support (IS) or income-based Jobseekers's Allowance (JSA), received their payment of £50 during January. Other eligible pensioners were entitled to a payment of £20 or £10. Where they lived alone, were the only eligible pensioner in a household, or were of no fixed abode, they were entitled to £20; otherwise, they were entitled to £10.
  In order to establish other eligible pensioners, correctly identify pensioner households, and determine the amount each should receive, it was necessary to correlate data. This involved around fifteen million computer records, fifteen qualifying benefits, across nine computer systems. Where only one eligible person was identified as living at an address a payment of £20 was made. Where more than one eligible person was identified as living at an address a payment of £10 was made.
  In excess of 9.7 million Winter Fuel Payments were made automatically by 31 March 1998.
  Three different methods of payment have been used to make the payments to all eligible pensioners. A number of factors were taken into account in determining the appropriate method. The factors included: the normal method of payment used by the customer to receive their benefit; the ability of the relevant benefit system to make one-off payments by a number of different methods; the speed in which payments could be made; and, the cost and timescales required to introduce new methods of payment on individual computer systems. Payments were made based on information held on our computer systems during week commencing 5 January 1998.

  339
  Where official Departmental records were not correct or incomplete, it was possible that the amount of some payments may not have corresponded with the actual circumstances. For example, there were cases where two eligible pensioners lived at the same address and in the same household, but the address details held on the relevant benefit computer records were incorrect or incomplete for either or both of them. In such cases, the data correlation exercise may not have identified more than one eligible person at an address and in accordance with the provisions of the legislation each were entitled to a payment of £20. There is no overprovision in such instances, but any voluntarily offer to repay any amount would be accepted.
  Out of the 1.5 million £50 payments made to IS and income-based JSA pensioners in January we are aware that some payments were incorrectly made or duplicated. We know that 9,357 payments were made where information held within official records indicated payment was inappropriate. A further 211 duplicate payments were made to those pensioners who transferred from IS to Income-based JSA during the qualifying week of 5 January 1998. Of the relevant payments this represents a 0.68 per cent. error rate. In financial terms the total cost of these errors amounts to £488,400, and again this represents 0.68 per cent. of the total sum issued of £72,080,700.
  In addition we also know that due to a computer operator error, 40,801 IS payments were sent out with an incorrect issue date on them. All these girocheques were replaced automatically within 72 hours. To date we are aware that 438 pensioners have cashed both the original and replacement payments.
  Information relating to the number of returned payments is currently being collated. I will provide this figure as soon as it becomes available.
  Information relating to the number of cases where official records have been found to be incorrect is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  Although a dedicated helpline is available to the public, the number of complaints we have received regarding the issuing in error of winter fuel payments is not recorded separately.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Family Credit (Scotland)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people currently claim family credit in Scotland. [53171]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of Family Credit is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Rendel, dated 28 July 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people currently claim Family Credit (FC) in Scotland.
  The information is not available in the format requested. FC is administered centrally by the FC Unit in Preston and, as such, statistics are produced on a national basis.
  A periodic scan of the FC computer system produces details of the numbers of families in receipt of FC, at that particular date, with each local Benefits Agency (BA) office area. Such information serves as a "snap-shot" of the position at the date of the scan and does not provide details of the number of families in receipt of the benefit annually.
  The latest scan was conducted on 30 April 1998. On that date a total of 69,565 people were in receipt of FC in the areas covered by the BA's Scottish offices. Please note that this figure is provisional and subject to change.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Internet
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her Department's policy on the imposition of tariffs on trade over the Internet. [52903]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  Supplies made over the Internet are treated as services and as such are liable to VAT but not to Customs duty. Goods ordered via the Internet but supplied physically, from outside the EU, are treated as a normal importation and are liable to duty and VAT at the appropriate rate.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Calf Processing Aid Scheme
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he will take when the operation in the United Kingdom of the calf processing aid scheme becomes voluntary on 30 November. [54381]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  1.2 million calves have been processed under the Scheme since April 1998. The UK has thus made the most significant contribution to reducing beef output in Europe. The obligation to operate this Scheme or the Early Marketing Scheme for Veal Calves expires on 30 November 1998 and it seems unlikely that many Member States will opt to slaughter young calves, that scheme alone being available thereafter on a voluntary basis.

  Throughout its life in the UK, the Calf Processing Aid Scheme has been criticised from a number of quarters. It has also inflated the cost of calves for beef production to the detriment of beef finishers.

  After widespread consultation with industry interests, my colleagues and I have decided that it would be inappropriate to maintain this Scheme in the UK. Its continuation would distort calf prices in the short term and artificially constrain the production of home-reared beef in the medium term. It must be borne in mind that we will continue to make a very significant contribution to balancing the European beef market by operating the Over Thirty Months Scheme for cattle, at very considerable expense to the UK Exchequer.

  The Government have therefore decided that the Scheme will close on 30 November 1998.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the oral statement by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) of 14 July 1998,Official Report, column 262, on what information he based his statement that the decision to close the Calf Processing Aid Scheme on 30 November 1998 was taken before the General Election. [53001]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: The EU Agriculture Council meeting on 28–30 October 1996 decided to introduce compulsory measures to reduce the potential surplus of beef. Member States were accordingly required to operate either the Calf Processing Aid Scheme or the Early Marketing Scheme for Veal. It was decided that both Schemes should operate for a period of two years only, i.e. from 1 December 1996 until 30 November 1998. The UK representative voted in favour of this decision in the Council.

  Beef Export Ban
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will report progress in lifting the ban on beef exports from the United Kingdom. [54380]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  In June the EU Commission made a proposal for a Decision that would allow the restarting of beef exports on a UK basis from animals born after 1 August 1996. Some progress has been made in discussions of the proposal, but agreement will not now be possible before the summer break.

  One element of the Commission's proposal is that before beef exports resume a cull of offspring of BSE cases should have been completed. I am anxious that this should not delay the renewal of exports. To this end I am today announcing that from early August the culling of all offspring born on or after 1 August 1996 to BSE cases will begin on a voluntary basis. Details of how the voluntary cull will operate are today being placed in the library of the House.

  Farmers will receive the market value for their animals, in some cases taken from a scale rather than individual valuations. These offspring will be slaughtered at the Government's expense. I believe that, with the active support of the NFU and other farming bodies, rapid progress can be made in tackling the cull.

  Payments for offspring surrendered on a voluntary basis will rest on the sole authority of the Estimates and the confirming Appropriation Act. The voluntary cull will be superseded by a compulsory offspring cull as soon as agreement is reached in Brussels on the Date Based Export Scheme (DBES) and powers exist to make UK regulations. Farmers will be compensated for the market value of their animals under the compulsory cull on the same basis as the voluntary cull, ensuring equal treatment for owners of BSE cases' offspring whether slaughtered under the voluntary or compulsory phases of the cull.

  SEAC's advice is that the UK's existing controls to protect the consumer are sufficient. None the less, I believe that the prompt start of the offspring cull will minimise the time between agreement being reached on the DBES and exports resuming.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his Ministry's spending plans for the next three years following the Comprehensive Spending Review; and if he will make a statement. [54382]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The results of the Comprehensive Spending Review for MAFF, and the spending plans that have resulted from them, were summarised in Chapter 18 of the White Paper on "Modern Public Services for Britain: Investing in Reform" (Cm 4011). The key figures for MAFF are as follows:

  £ million

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Domestic (England)

  685

  744

  711

  751

  of which:

  Current budget

  551

  589

  590

  572

  Capital budget

  134

  155

  121

  179

  BSE (UK)1

  689

  495

  466

  459

  1 Includes Intervention Board expenditure

  342
  These figures do not include payments made by the Intervention Board under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). I am making a separate statement today about the Intervention Board's spending plans. A major uncertainty at this stage is the impact that Agenda 2000 will have on our spending plans. Details of the additional provision needed to meet the UK's Agenda 2000 commitments will not be known until the negotiations in Brussels have been concluded.

  MAFF will have a new aim:
  "To ensure that consumers benefit from competitively priced food, produced to high standards of safety, environmental care and animal welfare and from a sustainable, efficient food chain; and to contribute to the well-being of rural and coastal communities".

  MAFF will also have the following key targets for delivery by the end of the Parliament:

  set up the Food Standards Agency and establish a new role for MAFF;

  resolve the problem of BSE and take action against other animal diseases;

  press for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and reduce its cost to consumers and taxpayers;

  work to sustain and enhance an attractive and accessible countryside;

  encourage the restructuring of the farming and fishing industries.

  I should like to explain in more detail how the CSR settlement will impact on MAFF's programmes over the next three years and assist the Ministry in pursuing its new aim and delivering the reforms set out in the White Paper.

  Protecting public health

  Protection of the public will continue to be a top priority. The White Paper explained that food safety would be put on a new footing through the establishment of the Foods Standards Agency (FSA) and that MAFF would have new targets for reducing the incidence of animal diseases that have implications for human health.

  We have made it clear that over time the Government will recover from the food industry more of the costs of financing food safety work and protecting the public, in a way that is administratively simple and fair to small business. For the CSR period, the Government intend to recover from industry the new costs associated with the FSA. The final amount to be recovered cannot be determined until nearer the launch of the Agency, but over the CSR period it will not exceed £50 million a year.

  Sustaining and enhancing the countryside

  Another key priority is caring for the environment. We will continue to expand the areas under agreement under the major agri-environment schemes. Subject to the approval of the European Commission we propose from next year:
  to enhance the payment rates under the Organic Aid scheme on the lines of the recommendations which were published in April. I will announce the full details as soon as possible. As explained

  343
  in the April announcement, I plan that those who joined the existing scheme on or after 2 April will be able to switch to the new scheme on the first anniversary of their agreement;
  to introduce new upland options into the Countryside Stewardship scheme and to make those new options available as part of the planned upland experiments in the Forest of Bowland and on Bodmin Moor;
  to keep open the pilot Arable Stewardship scheme for a second and third year in 1999 and 2000; and
  to fund improvements to the six Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) schemes which are under review this year on lines similar to the improvements made in the 16 ESAs which were reviewed in 1996 and 1997.

  The Government remain wholly committed to maintaining the environment and social fabric in the hills, but have concluded that the support mechanisms should be modified to address those objectives more specifically.

  The Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances (HLCA) scheme will continue until it is replaced by new arrangements flowing from the Agenda 2000 proposals. These proposals currently envisage a move away from payments based on the number of sheep and cattle to a system of area-based payments with more clearly defined environmental objectives. We will consult extensively on our proposals to ensure that all interests are taken into account.

  We will bring the Nitrate Sensitive Areas scheme to a close. Existing agreements will run their course and applications already received will be processed and authorised under the existing rules. Since the last application period under the present scheme closed on 6 July, no further applications will be considered. However, we will also consider the scope for retaining at least some of the benefits gained under the Scheme, including the possibility of future enhancements to the Countryside Stewardship Scheme.

  Rural development

  We will continue to encourage rural development in the various Objective 5b areas with both EU and national funds.

  In addition, we shall (as the CSR White Paper indicated) be taking steps to improve co-ordination of the MAFF and DETR countryside programmes to ensure that the Government's countryside and rural policy objectives are fully met.

  Flood defence and coastal protection

  The level of investment in grant aid for flood and coastal defences will increase significantly, unlocking the door to more new schemes over and above those which we have already indicated that we will consider for grant aid in 1999–2000. This demonstrates our determination to provide increased protection for the developed and natural environment which is currently at risk from flooding and erosion.

  Conserving fish stocks and securing a sustainable future for the fishing industry

  We will continue to conserve fish stocks for future generations and encourage a reduction in excess catching capacity in the fishing fleet.

  There will be additional provision for the commissioning of a new marine research vessel to replace the two aging vessels currently operated by the Centre for
  344
  Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS). This will enhance MAFF's contribution to conserving fish stocks and reducing marine pollution.

  New provision will also be made towards restructuring of the fishing fleet, to complement the effort control arrangements already introduced. We will also be continuing the range of other grant assistance currently available to the fishing industry and the ports in which it is based.

  Securing a more economically rational CAP

  MAFF will continue to press for reform of the CAP to reduce production related subsidies, redirect support towards environmental and social objectives and cut the cost of the CAP to consumers and taxpayers. Reform along these lines, as acknowledged in the CSR White Paper, will result in a period of transition for British farmers. The Government will help with this restructuring where it sensibly can.

  I have decided, however, not to introduce at this stage an early retirement scheme for farmers. While the response to our consultation showed clear support for the principle of an early retirement scheme, the limitations imposed by the current EU rules were regarded by the majority of respondents as inappropriate to the UK and a major bar to uniform and effective uptake. I consider that the Agenda 2000 rural development proposals should provide the flexibility to introduce a scheme better adapted to UK circumstances and we will take forward this work under those proposals.

  There will be additional funding to modernise the administration of CAP payments to farmers. A new integrated IT system, incorporating a Geographical Information System (GIS) to control area data for CAP schemes, will enable the Ministry's Regional Service Centres to deliver payments more efficiently and cost-effectively. And they will help safeguard the taxpayer's interest.

  R&D

  We will be seeking a greater contribution from the industry to the funding of that part of the Ministry's research programme from which industry benefits directly. The Postgraduate Agricultural and Food Studentships Scheme will be closed to new applicants. However, we shall continue to fund a substantial and wide-ranging research programme in support of the Department's aim and objectives, ensuring that priority areas such as food safety and consumer protection are maintained.

  BSE

  Expenditure on BSE will continue to fall as the incidence of the disease in cattle declines. After widespread consultation with industry interests, my colleagues and I have decided that it would be inappropriate to maintain the Calf Processing Aid Scheme in the UK. Its continuation would distort calf prices in the short term and artificially constrain the production of home-reared beef in the medium term. It must be borne in mind that we will continue to make a very significant contribution to balancing the European beef market by operating the Over Thirty Months Scheme for cattle, at very considerable expense to the UK Exchequer. The Government have therefore decided that the Calf Processing Scheme will close on 30 November 1998.
  345
  The Government have also decided that 1998–99 will be the last year in which the UK participates in the EU Surplus Food Scheme. We have been disappointed in the uptake of this scheme and we know that charitable organisations distributing beef under it have found the rules overly bureaucratic.

  Conclusion

  MAFF's spending plans over the next three years demonstrate the Government's continuing commitment to protecting consumers, caring for the environment and creating the conditions for a competitive and sustainable industry. Focusing on the needs of the consumer will restore confidence in food. That in turn will benefit the farming industry.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he plans to publish the conclusions of his recent consultation on agricultural restructuring; [53188]

  £ million

  1998–1999

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  CAP (non-BSE programme)

  2,616

  2,503

  2,458

  2,658

  of which:

  Current budget

  2,582

  2,422

  2,369

  2,569

  Capital budget

  34

  81

  89

  89

  CAP (BSE programme)

  591

  436

  417

  412

  of which:

  Current budget

  486

  375

  364

  359

  Capital budget

  105

  61

  63

  53

  CAP Administration (non-BSE)

  46

  45

  46

  46

  of which:

  Current budget

  44

  43

  44

  44

  Capital budget

  2

  2

  2

  2

  CAP Administration (BSE)

  13

  22

  22

  22

  of which:

  Current budget

  13

  22

  22

  22

  Capital budget

  0

  0

  0

  0

  The role of LB is to operate the Common Agriculture Policy Guarantee Section with the UK as economically, efficiently and effectively as possible in accordance with the policies laid down by Agriculture Ministers. I have commented separately on BSE in my answer covering MAFF.

  CAP Programme Expenditure

  CAP expenditure in the UK is annually managed Expenditure and will be subject to review. The forecasts take into account known changes in scheme operations and anticipated levels of activity.

  The capital budget consists almost entirely of intervention purchases of cereals, beef and milk and milk products.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department spent on IT itemising(a) personal computers, (b) main-frame, (c) mini-computers and (d) file servers in the last year for which figures are available. [52882]
  346
  (2) if he will list those who responded to his consultation document on restructuring the United Kingdom beef sector on 18 March. [53201]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean),Official Report, columns 341–45.

  A list of those who responded to the consultation document on Agricultural Restructuring issued on 18 March was placed in the Library of the House on 24 June.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the Intervention Board's spending plans for the next three years following the Comprehensive Spending Review settlement; and if he will make a statement. [54384]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The results of the Comprehensive Spending Review for the Intervention Board (IB) are incorporated into Chapter 18 (MAFF) of the White Paper on "Modern Public Services for Britain: Investing in Reform". The key figures for IB are:

  Mr. Morley
  In 1997–98, the Department (core-MAFF and Agencies) spent some £3.6 million on the procurement of personal computers, and £3.1 million on mini-computers/file servers. There was no expenditure on mainframe computers. Including ancillary/related equipment (eg printers, cabling and network hardware), total capital costs amounted to some £11 million.

  These figures (which are VAT inclusive) exclude related consultancy, support and running costs, as provision of this information would incur disproportionate cost. However, as a further indication of expenditure on IT technology in core-MAFF (only), total IT programme expenditure for 1997–98 amounted to some £41 million.

  New Deal
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people his Department is committed to employing during 1998 under(a) the subsidised job option and (b) the unsubsidised job option of the New Deal programme. [52588]
  347
  Mr. Morley
  The Ministry has signed up to the New Deal programme but has not given any commitment to employ a specified number of young people under either category.

  Forest of Dean
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what factors underlay the decision not to include the Forest of Dean as an area to receive part of the £11 million grant to farmers involved in tourism. [52043]

  Mr. Morley
  The figure of £11 m refers to the total cost of four farm tourism projects approved under the Northern Uplands Objective 5b Structural Funds Programme. The European Commission designated the areas eligible for Objective 5b support in 1994 using criteria which required areas to have a low level of GDP along with a high share of agricultural employment in total employment, a low level of agricultural income and a low population density and/or a significant depopulation trend. A number of other economic, social and environmental factors were also taken into account. The Forest of Dean was not among the areas designated. Only those who live and work within a designated area are able to receive grant from projects supported under an Objective 5b programme.

  Drift Nets
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which EU countries permit the use of drift nets. [52055]

  Mr. Morley
  Drift nets are widely used from the Baltic to the Mediterranean to catch a range of fish species. Because their use is permitted under European Community rules, all Member States must permit the fishermen of other Member States to use drift nets in their waters where there are rights of access. However, the June 1998 Fisheries Council agreed to ban from the end of 2001 the use of drift nets by Community fishermen to catch certain species, including tuna, swordfish, sharks and cephalopods. These particular drift net fisheries are responsible for a high level of casualties among dolphins and other non-target species.

  Tobacco (EU Subsidies)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total cost to the EU of subsidies for tobacco production in the EU per individual member state for the most recent five years for which figures are available. [52106]

  Mr. Rooker
  Expenditure on subsidising tobacco production for the last five years to the nearest £ million is as follows:

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Belgium

  8

  4

  3

  3

  2

  Germany

  36

  22

  21

  20

  20

  Greece

  431

  326

  332

  302

  254

  Spain

  86

  92

  102

  113

  89

  France

  54

  60

  66

  71

  59

  348

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Italy

  291

  302

  268

  328

  287

  Austria

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  1

  0

  Portugal

  11

  4

  11

  11

  13

  Total (EU)

  916

  810

  802

  852

  725

  Note:

  Totals may not add, due to rounding

  Source:

  EAGGF Guarantee annual reports

  Departmental Reviews
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the reviews his Department and its predecessors, initiated in the years(a) 1974–75, (b) 1979–80 and (c) 1992–93. [48519]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: The following is a list of published review reports initiated in the years 1979–80 and 1992–93. No published reports of reviews initiated in 1974–75 have been identified.

  1979–80:
  Consultation Paper on the review of inland and coastal fisheries in England and Wales. MAFF, Welsh Office, 1981.
  Mineral, trace element and vitamin allowances for ruminant livestock. The report of an interdepartmental Working Party set up to consider the findings contained in the ARC (1980) Technical Review "The nutrient requirements of Ruminant Livestock". ADAS, MAFF, DAFS, FANI, UKASTA, BVA, ADAS, 1983.
  Review report on food safety and food quality and spoilage. MAFF, 1981.
  Review of statistical services. MAFF, 1982.
  Survey of mycotoxins in the United Kingdom: the fourth report of the Steering Group on Food Surveillance. HMSO, 1980.
  Survey of vinylidene chloride levels in food contact materials and in foods: the third report of the Steering Group on Food Surveillance. HMSO, 1980.

  1992–93:
  Food Advisory Committee review of food labelling: table of recommendations and the government's final response. Food Advisory Committee, 1992.
  Hill livestock compensatory allowances: review of the economic conditions in the hills and uplands 1992. MAFF, 1993.
  Report on the review of the emulsifiers and stabilisers in food regulations. HMSO, 1992.
  Report on the review of the use of additives in foods specially prepared for infants and young children. HMSO, 1992.
  A review of radioactivity in the Irish Sea: a report prepared for the Marine Pollution Monitoring Management Group. MAFF, Directorate of Fisheries Research, 1992.
  Sources of mortality and associated life-cycle traits of selected benthic species: a review. MAFF, Directorate of Fisheries Research, 1993.
  Review of the rules for sewage sludge application to agricultural land: food safety and relevant animal health aspects of potentially toxic elements: report of the Steering Group on Chemical Aspects of Food Surveillance. MAFF, 1993.
  Review of the rules for sewage sludge application to agricultural land: soil fertility aspects of potentially toxic elements: report of the Independent Scientific Committee. MAFF, 1993.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for(a) his Department and (b) bodies listed in the National Asset Register, how

  349
  many vehicles are currently (i) owned and (ii) leased; if he will indicate their (A) fuel types and (B) engine cubic capacities; and how many vehicles are expected to fall due for replacement in each of the years (1) 1998–99, (2) 1999–2000 and (3) 2000–01. [49228]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: The Department and its Agencies currently own 533 vehicles—none is leased. Detailed information about engine capacities, fuel type and projected replacement dates is not maintained centrally and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to change the method by which the incidence of TB in cattle is calculated to one based on cattle numbers. [52857]

  Mr. Rooker
  The definition of incidence in EU legislation has recently changed, but it is still based on the number of confirmed herd breakdowns as a percentage of the total number of herds. We will be reviewing the testing frequencies to be used in different parts of the country on this basis.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to extend the trial areas in which badgers can be culled. [53021]

  Mr. Rooker
  An independent scientific group was established in February this year to advise on the implementation of recommendations in the Krebs Report, including the design of the culling trial which will produce scientifically robust results. The Group's advice has just been presented to Ministers. An announcement will be made once this advice has been fully considered.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the incidence of TB in cattle in areas where badgers are rare. [53013]

  Mr. Rooker
  A report by Wilson, Harris and McLaren entitled "Changes in the British badger population 1988 to 1997", published in 1997 by the People's Trust for Endangered Species, shows the areas of lowest badger main sett density in Great Britain to be Scotland and East Anglia, with the north of England also being estimated to be relatively low. Outside areas of high incidence of TB in cattle in the west of England and in south Wales, the incidence of TB in cattle herds in Great Britain is less than 0.1 per cent. However, Professor Krebs concluded that there was a considerable local variation in risk of TB incidents and recommended that further work should be done to assess the reasons for this.

  Office of Veterinary and Phytosanitary Inspection
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list each establishment producing meat in third countries which exports to the United Kingdom, indicating when it was last inspected by the Office of Veterinary and Phytosanitary Inspection or its approved agents. [53191]

  Mr. Rooker
  Lists of the many hundreds of establishments in third countries from which imports of fresh meat are permitted can be found at the Ministry's350
  Internet site. We do not have information on the dates on which these establishments were last inspected by or for the European Commission.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how frequently the Office of Veterinary and Phytosanitary Inspection visits plants in each country of the EU. [53199]

  Mr. Rooker
  Regular inspections and audits covering all parts of the food production chain are carried out by the Commission's inspectorate. They involve visits to all EU Member States and to countries outside the EU. Most visits are carried out by small, multidisciplinary, inspections teams. We do not have data on the frequency of visits to each member state.

  Animal Waste
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 3 July 1998,Official Report, columns 317–18, what guidance his Department has issued on how the livestock industry will dispose of waste in a safe and sustainable manner. [53234]

  Mr. Rooker
  In March 1998, the Department wrote to representatives of the farming industries, asking them to urge their members to continue to use knackers' yards or hunt kennels to dispose of their fallen stock, particularly for larger animals. The letter reminded them that, if carcases are buried on-farm, the provisions in the Code of Good Agricultural Practice for the Protection of Water (published in 1991) must be followed to minimise the risk of causing water pollution. On 2 July 1998, the Department issued a guidance note on the disposal of animal waste, including burial.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's consultation with farming representatives on disposal of fallen stock. [53194]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is for the livestock industry to take responsibility for disposing of its waste in a safe and sustainable manner, and to work out how best to achieve this. Nevertheless, the Department is willing to facilitate a solution and met with representatives of the National Farmers' Union, the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, the Farmers' Union of Wales, the Ulster Farmers' Union, the Tenant Farmers' Association, the British Pig Association, the National Sheep Association and the National Cattle Association on 9 February 1998, and with the National Farmers' Union on 19 March 1998, to discuss the disposal of fallen stock and possible future arrangements. Officials are continuing to maintain contact with the National Farmers' Union.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy towards the building of incineration plants. [53195]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government recognise that, in the absence of a viable market for some animal waste products, incineration plants could play a useful role in their disposal. Such plants must, however, comply with all relevant environmental legislation and be subject to the usual requirements of Local Planning Authorities.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the inspection, approval and monitoring of establishments producing meat in third countries. [53200]

  Mr. Rooker
  Council Directive 72/462 provides for lists of establishments from which Member States may authorise the importation of fresh meat or meat products to be drawn up by the Commission and considered by the Standing Veterinary Committee. In deciding whether an establishment should appear on the lists, particular account is taken of the guarantees offered by the third country with regard to compliance with Community rules; regulations with regard to administration of substances which might affect the wholesomeness of the meat; the establishment's compliance with the conditions for approval of fresh meat plants situated in the Community; and the organisation, powers and supervision of the country's meat inspection services. The Directive also provides for inspections to be carried out on the spot by veterinary experts of the Member States and the Commission to verify whether the conditions for approval of establishments are being applied in practice.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list each occasion when an approved border inspection post has refused meat imports from third countries. [53192]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is not possible to list all occasions on which meat has been rejected at a Border Inspection Post, except at disproportionate cost. But in the first quarter of this year 186 consignments of products of animal origin (which included meat) were rejected at Border Inspection Posts. The numbers of rejections because of failure to comply with national legislation concerning specified risk material are set out in the Ministry's monthly BSE Enforcement Bulletin, copies of which can be found in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the means by which the European Commission enforces harmonised Community rules in third countries. [53197]

  Mr. Rooker
  The principal means by which Community standards are upheld in third countries is through the negotiations of bilateral and multi-lateral trade agreements by the Commission on behalf of the European Union.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that consumers are informed of the country of origin of imported meat by labelling. [53240]

  Mr. Rooker
  Food labelling rules already require the place of origin of any food, including meat, to be given if omitting it could mislead the purchaser about the true place of origin of that food.

  More specifically, the labels on pre-packaged poultrymeat must give an indication of the country of origin when it is imported from outside the Community and we are currently taking steps to require this information to appear on labels, tickets or notices near where unpackaged poultrymeat is offered for sale. Poultrymeat produced in the Community must include the registered number of the slaughterhouse or cutting plant
  352
  which supplied the produce (except where cutting and boning is carried out at the place of sale). These registered numbers are prefixed with the initials of the member state concerned.

  Livestock Carcases (Classification)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 6 July 1998,Official Report, column 415, if he will list the criteria used to measure the performance of British livestock. [53180]

  Mr. Rooker
  The criteria used to classify carcases of livestock are set out in Council Regulation 3220/84 (as amended) for pigs; Council Regulation 2137/92 (as amended) for sheep; and Council Regulation 1208/81 (as amended) and Commission Regulation 2930/81 (as amended) for cattle.

  Genetically Modified Maize
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food following the Court of Appeal judgment on Tuesday 21 July, Regina v Watson, if he will instruct NIAB to de-tassle the genetically modified maize at Hood Barton. [52850]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: No. The Court of Appeal drew a clear distinction between the health and safety implications of releasing genetically modified organisms dealt with by the Environment Protection Act 1990 and the National List regime, which is essentially concerned with marketing. The Court rejected the application to order destruction of the genetically modified maize. Moreover, it said explicitly that the Minister himself could not properly destroy or require destruction of these plants under the National List regime.

  Seed Listings
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 14 May 1998,Official Report, columns 198–99, how many National Seed List applications have been made since 14 May; and how many of those (a) are now listed, (b) were unsuccessful and (c) are still awaiting approval. [52848]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: Since 14 May 1998 a total of 11 National List applications have been made. As indicated in my answer of 14 May 1998, DUS tests and VCU trials are conducted on such applications pursuant to Regulation 11 (1) of the Seeds (National List of Varieties) Regulations 1982 as amended. Such tests and trials normally involve a minimum of two growing seasons and therefore in answer to (a) none is currently listed, (b) none is yet unsuccessful, and (c) none will be considered for approval until completion of the necessary tests and trials.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 14 May 1998,Official Report, columns 198–99, on which date in 1995 the decision was made not to require applicants for National Seeds Lists to comply with Regulation 11(3) and by whom; and for what reasons the information was deemed of little value. [52847]
  353
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: The requirement to submit the results of replicated trials was introduced (in 1979 initially) to reduce the volume of National List applications for the common species to a manageable level. Its purpose was to encourage breeders to screen varieties before entering them into the statutory system and to deter them from entering varieties which had little chance of addition to the National List, at a time when the trialling system was overloaded and also heavily subsidised by the tax payer.

  A fundamental review of the National List trials system was undertaken in 1992, in consultation with plant breeders. Following this, a streamlined system of trials for Value for Cultivation and Use (VCU) was introduced, which reduced the burdens on the trials system. The staged reintroduction of fees for official VCU trials in 1994 and 1995 reinforced these measures. The requirement to submit the results of replicated trials had no value once the pressure on the system was relieved. So far as we can tell from the records, no formal decision was taken that applicants need not comply with Regulation 11(3), though industry representatives were aware that the requirement was not enforced as the need for it no longer existed. It appears that enforcement of the requirement finally ceased on or around April 1995.

  Seed and Biotechnology Companies
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the dates of each meeting he or other members of his Department have had with(a) seed and (b) biotechnology companies since 9 July 1998 and in each case the names of those met. [52849]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: The meetings listed have taken place between officials and Ministers with seed and biotechnology companies since 9 July 1998.

  The then Minister, the right hon. Jack Cunningham MP, met Mr. H. Grant and Ms A. Foster from Monsanto on 15 July.

  Officials met on 15 July with Mr. J. Gilbert from Germinal Holdings and Mr. N. Bark from British Seed Houses, and on 24 July with Mr. H. Manning from AgrEvo and Mr. M. Coy from the English Sugar Beet Seed Company.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade who will have responsibility for investigating cases of carbon monoxide poisoning following the introduction of competition into the domestic gas market. [50928]

  Mr. Battle
  I am advised that Regulation 7(14) of the Gas Safety (Management) Regulations 1996 places a specific duty on the person who has supplied the gas to cause an investigation to be carried out to establish, as far as is reasonably practicable, the cause of the escape and accumulation of the carbon monoxide gas. During last Autumn and Winter, my Department circulated a safety advice leaflet on the dangers of carbon monoxide, through 354
  doctors' surgeries and direct to 19 million households with their gas bills. A new campaign is planned for later this year, to coincide with the onset of colder weather.

  Energy Review
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions she has had with environmental groups since her statement on the Government's energy review on 25 June 1998,Official Report, columns 1169–85. [51282]

  Mr. Mandelson
  My office has received six written representations from environmental groups since the statement. None has sought a meeting.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her oral statement of 25 June 1998,Official Report, columns 1169–72, when she expects to announce the conclusions of her Department's energy review. [52636]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: My Department is giving careful consideration to all the contributions we have received in response to the Consultation Document dated 25 June 1998. It is our intention to reach and announce conclusions on the Review shortly, after assessing the material we have received.

  UK Firms' Competitiveness
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps his Department is taking to improve the competitiveness of UK firms. [52390]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: Improving productivity is at the heart of the Government's drive to improve the competitiveness of UK companies.

  The responsibility for this lies largely with business itself, but Government have a role in partnership with business. It is for this reason that my predecessor set up six business-led working parties last year to make recommendations about how such a partnership can help to promote competitiveness. I am also co-hosting, with the Chancellor, a series of seminars on the UK's productivity gap over the Summer and Autumn.

  This work will contribute to a White Paper on competitiveness to be published in the Autumn.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research her Department has evaluated into the competitiveness of UK firms, with particular reference to their funding, management and production functions. [52391]

  Mr. Mandelson
  My Department monitors research into factors affecting competitiveness, including funding, management, and production functions. The results are used to produce reports such as the Competitiveness UK document 'Benchmarking for Business' published in November last year.

  Foresight Programme
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial assessment she has made of the outcome of the Foresight Programme. [53084]
  355
  Mr. Battle
  The Foresight Programme develops visions of the future to guide today's decision-makers and stimulate innovation. It aims to increase wealth creation and enhance quality of life but, given the nature of its objectives, it will inevitably be some time before its ultimate impacts can objectively be assessed.

  In the meantime, it is clear that Foresight is creating new networks of people from business, academe, and Government working together for mutual advantage. Well over £350 million has also been committed since 1995 to public and private sector collaborative research programmes and projects reflecting Foresight priorities. These include:
  Nineteen new LINK programmes worth some £160 million which have been launched in Foresight priority areas.
  The Foresight Challenge Competition which brought together £30 million of public funds with over £60 million from the private sector in a range of projects, some involving businesses with no history of collaboration with the science base and
  The Foresight LINK Awards which have stimulated an exciting range of proposals for further projects. £10 million of public funds will be matched by at least the same amount from the public sector.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact on the United Kingdom science base and the competitiveness of the United Kingdom's science-based industries of the burden of regulation on applications for research and development projects involving animals. [50701]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: It is important that the use of animals in regulated procedures is properly controlled to ensure that animals are used only where it is fully justified. Applications need to be carefully scrutinised and processed. There is a responsibility to ensure that alternatives which replace or reduce animal use, and which refine procedures to minimise suffering, are used wherever possible.

  We do not consider that scientific research and the competitiveness of the UK's science-based industries is unduly hampered. The Animal Procedures Committee is carrying out a review of the operation of the Animals (Scientific procedures) Act 1986 which is due to be published later this year.

  Management Costs
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact of management costs on the competiveness of UK firms. [52392]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: My Department has not made any assessment of the impact of management costs on the competitiveness of UK firms. The focus of my Department's work in this area is on the 'quality' of management in companies.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of EU structural funding for the United Kingdom will go to rural areas in(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000. [52596]
  356
  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: Rural areas of the United Kingdom receive funding under Objective 1 in the Highlands and Islands, and under Objective 5b and the LEADER Community Initiative. Structural Funds allocations for these programmes for both 1998 and 1999 are some 9 per cent. of the total Structural Funds allocation to the United Kingdom. Allocations for 2000 are not yet known. Part of the funding under the national Objective 3, 4, and 5a programmes and under the Northern Ireland Objective 1 programme, also goes to rural areas; however, the amount is not separately identifiable without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much EU structural funding rural areas of the United Kingdom received in(a) 1995, (b) 1996, (c) 1997. [52595]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: Rural areas of the United Kingdom receive funding under Objective 1 in the Highlands and Islands, and under Objective 5b and the LEADER Community Initiative. Structural Funds allocations for these are shown in the table. Part of the funding under the national Objective 3, 4, and 5a programmes and under the Northern Ireland Objective 1 programme also goes to rural areas; however, the amount is not separately identifiable without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Structural funds allocations to UK rural areas—1998 prices

  million ecu

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Highlands and Islands SPD

  50

  53

  56

  UK Objective 5b SPDs

  136

  156

  157

  LEADER Community Initiative

  13

  15

  15

  Total

  199

  224

  228

  Gas Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what external forecasts on job losses in the gas industry resulting from the moratorium on gas-fired power status she has evaluated. [52601]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: A great deal of material has been submitted to my Department in response to the Consultation Document dated 25 June 1998, and it is being evaluated.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what mechanisms prevent the Scottish and Welsh Offices from competing against(a) each other and (b) her Department for inward investment. [52597]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: Neither Scotland, Wales, or any other part of the UK do not compete with my Department for inward investment. The Invest in Britain Bureau chairs the Committee on Overseas Promotion, part of whose role is to monitor rules agreed by Departments to avoid wasteful competition between the inward investment agencies of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the English regions.
  357
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if she has completed her discussions on the co-ordination of inward investment; and when she expects to announce her conclusions; [52598]

  (2) when the Concordat on Inward Investment will be published. [52599]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: There will be an announcement when, through collective discussion and agreement, Ministers have concluded arrangements which will ensure that offers made to inward investors are value for money for the taxpayer and fair to all parts of the UK.

  European Regional Aid
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much European regional aid the UK received in each of the last five years; and how much is forecast in the next three. [52603]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: Total allocations to the United Kingdom under the EU Structural Funds for the last five years (1994–98) and for 1999 are shown in the table. No decisions on funding post-1999 have yet been made.

  Total structural funds allocations to the UK (including community initiative)

  billion ecu, 1998 prices

  Year

  Total

  1994

  1.83

  1995

  2.28

  1996

  2.39

  1997

  2.48

  1998

  2.50

  1999

  2.60

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to announce the conclusions of her review of the pool price for electricity. [52602]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: The recent Report on Pool Price Increases in Winter 1997–98 is a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply.

  Nuclear Material
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will set out the number of withdrawals of nuclear materials from safeguards that have been notified to the relevant authorities under the 1978 United Kingdom-EURATOM-IAEA tripartite safeguards agreement since it entered into force; how many were permanent withdrawals; what quantities and types of nuclear material were involved in the permanent withdrawals; and if she will provide details of the purpose to which the materials involved in the permanent withdrawals were put in each case. [53096]

  Mr. Battle
  A total of 591 advance notifications of the withdrawal of nuclear material from safeguards have been made in accordance with the provisions of Article 14 of the UK/Euratom/IAEA Safeguards Agreement. The majority of these have involved either the temporary withdrawal of the material concerned or, in the case of 358
  permanent transfers to MOD sites, the withdrawal from safeguards of material such as depleted uranium for source shielding or small amounts of other nuclear materials for R&D or analytical purposes.

  As part of the Strategic Defence review, the Government have indicated that future withdrawals of nuclear material from safeguards will be limited to small quantities of material not suitable for explosive purposes, and that information on these withdrawals will be published from time to time.

  Post Office
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she will take to increase investment in the Post Office. [52094]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Individual decisions in investment within the Post Office are for the Post Office Board within the overall framework of financial targets set by Government. We plan to give the Post Office greater commercial freedom so that it can meet the challenges of domestic and international markets. The second phase of the Post Office Review, which my predecessor announced on 6 April 1998,Official Report, column 63, will be making recommendations on the Post Office's future structure, organisation, and financing that will best deliver greater commercial freedom for the Post Office within the public sector. In the meantime, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) announced, with immediate effect, limited freedoms for the Post Office to enter into joint ventures in the domestic market in a similar way to those they have in the international market. Further details are set out in the Government's observations to the Trade and Industry Select Committee on the third report of the 1997/98 session on the Post Office, which was published by the Committee on 14 April.

  Private Office Staff
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many private office staff have left the offices of each Minister in his Department in the past 12 months. [52859]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Twelve staff out of a total of 53 have left private offices in the Department of Trade and Industry over the past 12 months. This movement rate of 23 per cent. is slightly lower than the average for DTI Headquarters as a whole, which is 28 per cent.

  Gas Storage Bullets
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will instruct OFGAS to draw up plans for the removal of pressurised gas storage bullets from residential areas; and if she will make a statement. [52324]

  Mr. Battle
  Gas storage bullets are a means of providing the short-term storage capacity necessary to handle short-term (within the day) fluctuations in demand for gas, and are an integral part of the gas transportation system. In order to fulfil this function, they must be situated near to the gas consumer. Their location is an operational matter for the public gas transporter concerned, subject to planning considerations and to meeting the requirements of safety legislation enforced by
  359
  the HSE. The HSE has the power to prohibit any activity, including the storage of gas, if it involves the risk of serious personal injury.

  Research Studentships
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council financial level of research studentships for postgraduate students. [52071]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 24 July 1998]: I am pleased to announce that additional funds are being made available to the Research Councils. As a result, from this Autumn, the minimum stipend for a Research Council student will be £6,455 which, for the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, is £1,000 above the previously planned level. The Government attach much importance to the investment which the Research Councils' provision for post graduate students represents.

  The Research Councils will be publishing further details, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend receives a copy.

  Written Answers
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the average time taken by her Department to provide a substantive reply to a written question tabled for answer on the first available named day since 1 May 1997. [52334]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. However, up to 24 July, my Department has answered 77.33 per cent. of the

  Title of regulation

  Compliance Costs (£) Recurring

  Non recurring

  The Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) (Amendment) Order 1997

  62,360

  144,720

  The Telecommunications (Voice Telephony) Regulations 1997

  20,000 to 60,000

  180,000

  The Wireless Telegraphy (Control of Interference from Videosenders) Order 1997

  375,000 to 450,000

  —

  The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997

  1,700,000

  810,000

  The Copyright and Rights in Database Regulations 1997

  3,500,000

  17,500,000

  The Telecommunications (Interconnection) Regulations 1997

  250,000

  250,000 to 300,000

  The Consumer Credit (Increase of Monetary Limits) (Amendment) Order 1998

  40,000

  60,000

  The Consumer Credit (Further Increase of Monetary Amounts) Order 1998

  The Consumer Credit (Realisation of Pawn) (Amendment) Regulations 1998

  The Offshore Petroleum Production and Pipelines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1998

  10,000,000

  —

  The Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 1998

  11,372,000

  5,021,000

  The Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours (Amendments) Regulations 1998

  2,000,000 to 4,000,000

  —

  The Restriction on Agreements and Conduct (Specified Domestic Electrical Goods) Order 1998

  2,200,000 to 4,400,000

  250,000 to 500,000

  Total

  31,519,360 to 35,834,360

  24,215,720 to 24,515,720

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the compliance cost assessments published by his Department since 1 May 1997. [52942]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: Details of all published compliance cost assessments are contained in the bi-annual Command Papers of Compliance Cost Assessments. Details of final compliance cost assessments published by my Department between 1 May 1997 and 31 May 1998 are as follows:

  June 1997
  The Supply of Beer (Tied Estate) (Amendment) Order 1997
  360
  named questions within five sitting days of the named day, with 29.24 per cent. of these being answered on the day.

  Dounreay
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much spent fuel, in tonnes, is currently in storage in the Dounreay nuclear establishment; and of this total how much is(a) fast reactor spent fuel, (b) UK research reactor spent fuel and (c) foreign research reactor spent fuel. [48029]

  Mr. Battle
  There are 58 tonnes of spent fuel in storage at Dounreay. Of this, fast reactor fuel, including breeder material, accounts for 99 per cent. This includes a small amount (less than half a per cent.) from foreign fast reactors. The remaining 1 per cent. comes from foreign power reactors. There is no spent fuel from other UK research reactors, and the only spent fuel from other foreign research reactors is the 4.364 kilogrammes from Georgia.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what cumulative net increase in compliance costs has been estimated in compliance cost assessments published by his Department since 1 May 1997. [52943]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: The net cumulative increase in compliance costs, as estimated in final compliance cost assessments published by my Department between 1 May 1997 and 31 May 1998, is as follows:

  July 1997
  The Telecommunications (Voice Telephony) Regulations 1997
  The Wireless Telegraphy (Control of Interference from Videosenders) Orders 1997

  September 1997
  The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997

  November 1997
  The Copyright and Rights in Database Regulations 1997

  December 1997
  The Telecommunications (Interconnection) Regulations 1997
  The Insurance Companies (Accounts and Statements) (Amendment) Regulations 1997
  361
  April 1998
  The Consumer Credit (Increase of Monetary Limits) (Amendment) Order 1998;
  The Consumer Credit (Further Increase of Monetary Amounts) Order 1998; and The Consumer Credit (Realisation of Pawn) (Amendment) Regulations 1998
  The Offshore Petroleum Production and Pipelines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1998

  May 1998
  The Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 1998
  The Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours (Amendment) Regulations 1998
  The Restriction on Agreements and Conduct (Specified Domestic Electrical Goods) Order 1998.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those compliance cost assessments since 1 May 1997 in which there is a net reduction in compliance costs resulting from a legislative proposal. [52944]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: There is presently no requirement for Departments to carry out compliance cost assessments where regulatory proposals are expected to be cost neutral or result in a saving to business. However, between 1 May 1997 and 31 May 1998 my Department laid eight amending regulations which resulted in compliance cost savings to business. These are as follows:
  The Wireless Telegraphy (Network User Stations) (Exemption) Regulations 1997
  The Gas Act 1986 (Exemption) Order 1997
  The Insurance Companies (Accounts and Statements) (Amendment) Regulations 1997
  The Restrictive Trade Practices (Non-Notifiable Agreements) (Sale and Purchase, Share Subscription and Franchise Agreements) Order 1997
  The Restrictive Trade Practices (Non-Notifiable Agreements) (Turnover Threshold) Amendment Order 1997
  The Cosmetic Products (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1997
  The Wireless Telegraphy (Licence Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 1998
  The Trade Marks (Amendment) Rules 1998.

  Motor Industry
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the number of jobs in the UK which are dependent upon the motor industry. [53185]

  Mr. Battle
  It is estimated that 714,600 jobs at the end of March 1998 were directly reliant on the UK automotive industry: 222,300 in vehicle and component manufacturing and 492,300 in the retail, distribution, servicing and repair (but excluding petrol sales) sectors.Source:
  Labour Market Trends.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many jobs in Britain are accounted for by the production of cars and automobile components. [53184]

  Mr. Battle
  The vehicle and component manufacturing sectors at the end of March 1998 were estimated to employ 222,300 people in the United Kingdom.Source:
  Labour Market Trends.

WALES

  NHS Staff Absences
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many working days were lost through sickness, ill health or injury by NHS staff in Wales for the latest year for which figures are available; and what was the estimated total cost of those lost days. [51237]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]: The information requested is not available centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost. However, deaths and injuries at work are reported to the Health and Safety Executive. Based on provisional estimates, there were 686 cases reported to them relating to NHS employees in Wales in 1997–98. However, the HSE do not collect the number of working days lost due to injuries more generally, or to sickness absence.

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what are the Government's priorities for expenditure in tackling social exclusion in Wales; [52429]

  (2) how much money will be dedicated to tackling social exclusion in Wales in 1999–2000; [52426]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the factors underlying differences in his Department's spending priorities for tackling social exclusion in Wales relative to those in (a) England and (b) Scotland; [52431]

  (4) what initiatives his Department (a) has taken and (b) proposes to take to tackle social exclusion in Wales; [52435]

  (5) what funding will be made available for tackling social exclusion in Wales in 1998–99. [52450]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Social Exclusion Programme for Wales—"People in Communities"—was launched on 1 May. It aims to tackle social exclusion in a co-ordinated way through community development with an emphasis on action research. We have invited local authorities to put forward bids from which we will select, this autumn, around six pilot communities on which the programme will focus. The programme has been drawn up in response to the particular needs of Wales, and taking account of existing development programmes. We have, however, taken note of the work of the Social Exclusion Unit in England in devising our programme for Wales.

  £750,000 is being made available for the initial twelve month development phase. This will enable the six or so selected communities to undertake an extensive needs assessment to identify local priorities for action. In the second stage of the programme, funding will be made available through mainstream Programmes, and my Department will be seeking ways to ensure that pilot communities have access to a wide range of sources of support.

  We want to identify and to promote what works in securing long-term and sustainable community-based regeneration. We will look, for example, at the way we bring on board initiatives such as Employment Zones and New Deal Pilot Projects, or handle Capital Challenge and

  363
  Strategic Development Scheme money. We will aim to disseminate good practice as widely as possible across Wales.

  In addition to the "People in Communities" Programme, my Department is taking account of the impact on social exclusion in developing policies in other areas such as the "Better Health Better Wales" Green Paper and housing policy.

  My Department is also taking forward for Wales the commitments given in relation to England in the Social Exclusion Unit report on Exclusions and truancy to reduce levels of permanent and fixed term exclusions from school and unauthorised absence.

  Rough Sleeping
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which health authorities in Wales have dedicated resources for initiatives related to the problem of rough sleeping; how much they spent in the last year for which figures are available; and on what projects. [52430]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The information requested is not held centrally. 1 understand that Bro Taf, Iechyd Morgannwg and Gwent Health Authorities directly support projects, including the provision of GP sessions and district nurse hours, to help meet the health needs of people sleeping rough.

  Millennium Stadium
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure the effective supervision of the Millennium Stadium project and its timely completion; and if he will make a statement. [47243]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  On 3 July in response to proposals from Millennium Stadium PLC, I announced that I would be prepared to make available a grant of £3 million towards the River Walk project, which is necessary to ensure the timely operation of the stadium at full capacity for the Rugby World Cup finals next year. My Department is in discussion with the company on the detail of those proposals including the company's plans to make fresh appointments to the PLC Board. The Chairman of Millennium Stadium PLC has assured me that the construction of the new stadium will be completed on time.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department spent on IT itemising(a) personal computers, (b) main-frame, (c) minicomputers and (d) file servers in the last year for which figures are available. [52890]

  Mr. Hain
  The Welsh Office has a Private Finance Initiative contract for the supply of IT services to the desk. These services consist of personal computer workstations, a suite of office automation products, the underlying network infrastructure, hardware and software maintenance and education and training. The inclusive cost for 1997–98 was £3.878 million. The contract serviced 1,965 personal computers and 27 file servers at the end of the year. In addition, in 1997–98 the Department spent £0.031 million on a mainframe computer and £0.892 million on minicomputers.

  Reviews
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what internal and external reviews have been established by him; and what is the remit, starting and concluding date of each. [53097]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the size and location of landfill sites in Wales; and if he will make a statement on his plans to tackle pollution from these sites. [53690]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Details of landfill sites which are licensed or registered as exempt from licensing are available in public registers held by the Environment Agency at its principal Area Offices. The Agency monitors these sites on a regular basis and if pollution is detected, they will take appropriate action.

  Full information is not available on landfill sites that closed prior to the introduction of licensing. However, when the new contaminated land regime is implemented in Wales, this will provide for the identification of such sites, and for their remediation where necessary.

  North Wales Coast
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many incidents of illegal dumping of dredged material have been recorded off the North Wales coast in each of the last 20 years. [53691]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  None.

  A licence is required under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 to dispose of dredged material at sea: licences involving deposits in waters adjacent to Wales are issued on my behalf by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Data on illegal dumping are not readily available prior to 1991 when amendments to the 1985 Act introduced under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 required information about convictions to be held on a public register. Since 1991 a number of alleged breaches of licence conditions and other infringements under the Act have been investigated but none has involved the disposal of dredged material off the North Wales coast.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which(a) organisation's and (b) company's working computer models of the hydrographic regimes of the North Wales coastal region have been commissioned by the Environment Agency. [53686]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 23 July 1998,Official Report, column 629.

  Clinical Psychologists
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the current waiting time for a child to be referred to a clinical psychologist in each of the health authorities in Wales. [53688]
  365
  Mr. Ron Davies
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Welsh Language Board
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to make changes to the membership of the Welsh Language Board prior to the establishment of the National Assembly. [53369]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have no such plans at present. The terms of office of none of the Board's members expires before or soon after the establishment of the National Assembly.

  Health authority waiting lists, by length of wait, 1992–96 Numbers waiting for treatment as an inpatient or daycase

  Length of wait

  31 March 19921

  31 March 19931

  Waiting list at 31 March 1994

  31 March 1995

  31 March 1996

  Clwyd Health Authority

  Less than 12 months

  7,597

  7,990

  8,518

  9,071

  8,441

  12–18 months

  2—

  2—

  641

  453

  270

  More than 18 months

  2—

  2—

  86

  74

  41

  12–24 months

  900

  625

  2—

  2—

  2—

  More than 24 months

  87

  1

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Total

  8,584

  8,616

  9,245

  9,598

  8,752

  Dyfed Health Authority (an amalgamation of East Dyfed and Pembrokeshire Health Authority figures)

  Less than 12 months

  7,940

  7,679

  8,651

  8,277

  8,778

  12–18 months

  2—

  2—

  900

  570

  837

  More than 18 months

  2—

  2—

  288

  109

  130

  12–24 months

  1,330

  883

  2—

  2—

  2—

  More than 24 months

  0

  48

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Total

  9,270

  8,610

  9,839

  8,956

  9,745

  Gwent Health Authority

  Less than 12 months

  9,165

  8,313

  8,797

  8,391

  9,327

  12–18 months

  2—

  2—

  846

  306

  962

  More than 18 months

  2—

  2—

  207

  2

  185

  12–24 months

  1,170

  1,586

  2—

  2—

  2—

  More than 24 months

  456

  23

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Total

  10,791

  9,922

  9,850

  8,699

  10,474

  Gwynedd Health Authority

  Less than 12 months

  4,084

  3,974

  4,534

  4,943

  4,738

  12–18 months

  2—

  2—

  481

  93

  224

  More than 18 months

  2—

  2—

  62

  22

  6

  12–24 months

  626

  513

  2—

  2—

  2—

  More than 24 months

  233

  1

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Total

  4,943

  4,488

  5,077

  5,058

  4,968

  Mid Glamorgan Health Authority

  Less than 12 months

  8,662

  8,636

  10,102

  11,643

  10,301

  12–18 months

  2—

  2—

  780

  846

  848

  More than 18 months

  2—

  2—

  375

  203

  148

  12–24 months

  503

  1,332

  2—

  2—

  2—

  More than 24 months

  1,004

  130

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Total

  10,169

  10,098

  11,257

  12,692

  11,297

  Powys Health Authority

  Less than 12 months

  1,756

  1,722

  1,775

  2,334

  2,697

  12–18 months

  2—

  2—

  105

  0

  66

  More than 18 months

  2—

  2—

  1

  0

  6

  12–24 months

  102

  202

  2—

  2—

  2—

  More than 24 months

  0

  5

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Total

  1,858

  1,929

  1,881

  2,334

  2,769

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients in each health authority area were waiting for treatment under the NHS in January each year since 1992 for(a) six months and under, (b) six to 12 months, (c) 12 to 18 months and (d) over 18 months; and if he will make a statement. [48189]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Information on waiting lists by area of residence was not collected in January until 1997. Data for 31 March are therefore, provided for each year since 1992.
  367

  Health authority waiting lists, by length of wait, 1992–96 Numbers waiting for treatment as an inpatient or daycase

  Length of wait

  31 March 19921

  31 March 19931

  Waiting list at 31 March 1994

  31 March 1995

  31 March 1996

  South Glamorgan Health Authority

  Less than 12 months

  6,585

  6,264

  7,295

  7,582

  8,567

  12–18 months

  2—

  2—

  915

  785

  827

  More than 18 months

  2—

  2—

  311

  156

  255

  12–24 months

  849

  998

  2—

  2—

  2—

  More than 24 months

  263

  89

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Total

  7,697

  7,351

  8,521

  8,523

  9,649

  West Glamorgan Health Authority

  Less than 12 months

  5,542

  5,102

  6,467

  6,174

  5,934

  12–18 months

  2—

  2—

  437

  339

  260

  More than 18 months

  2—

  2—

  258

  100

  53

  12–24 months

  994

  620

  2—

  2—

  2—

  More than 24 months

  208

  5

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Total

  6,744

  5,727

  7,162

  6,613

  6,247

  Notes:

  1Indicates that complete data in respect of GP fund holding practices were not reported until March 1994

  2Indicates that the requested breakdown by time of wait is not available

  Health authority waiting lists, by length of wait, 1997–98 Numbers waiting for treatment as inpatient or daycase

  Length of wait

  31st March 1997

  Waiting list at 31st March 1998

  Gwent Health Authority

  Less than 12 months

  11,998

  11,894

  12–18 months

  1,534

  1,654

  More than 18 months

  612

  809

  Total

  14,144

  14,357

  Bro Taf Health Authority

  Less than 12 months

  15,672

  15,588

  12–18 months

  1,371

  2,092

  More than 18 months

  378

  844

  Total

  17,421

  18,524

  Dyfed Powys Health Authority

  Less than 12 months

  11,644

  13,346

  12–18 months

  1,274

  895

  More than 18 months

  180

  187

  Total

  13,098

  14,428

  North Wales Health Authority

  Less than 12 months

  12,530

  15,094

  12–18 months

  275

  808

  More than 18 months

  42

  77

  Total

  12,847

  15,979

  368

  Health authority waiting lists, by length of wait, 1997–98 Numbers waiting for treatment as inpatient or daycase

  Length of wait

  31st March 1997

  Waiting list at 31st March 1998

  Morgannwg Health Authority

  Less than 12 months

  9,491

  9,495

  12–18 months

  418

  433

  More than 18 months

  190

  203

  Total

  10,099

  10,131

  Agricultural Payments
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what factors underlie the delays in payments of(a) HLCA, (b) sheep annual premium and (c) suckler cow premium. [53246]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Payments were delayed because of the need to comply with additional EC finance data requirements, requirements under the SCP Scheme to administer a BSE-related compensation scheme, and to process Agrimonetary compensation schemes under SAP and SCP on top of the usual business commitment. The need to complete Integrated Administration and Control System (IASC) Whole Farm Inspections was also a delaying factor.

HEALTH

  Cancer Services
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for a centralised audit to ensure Calman-Hine plans are being implemented across the country. [50214]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 13 July 1998]: We are committed to improving the quality of and speed of access to cancer services, including breast and cervical screening and palliative care, to deliver a consistently high standard of care for all patients and thereby maximise their chance of cure and increase their quality of life. The measures set out in A First Class Service will strengthen our capacity to monitor and evaluate all aspects of care; providing information which can be used to improve standards still further. We will work with the National Cancer Forum, regional and professional groups and the voluntary sector to ensure that we meet national quality and evidence-based clinical standards within the National Service Framework for the provision of cancer screening and the ongoing implementation of the Calman/Hine recommendations.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to correspond electronically with(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public. [49851]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 13 July 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 17 July 1998, Official Report, column 315, regarding corresponding electronically with hon. Members.

  The Department has set up a number of mechanisms to correspond electronically with members of the public. On the central DH internet site, a number of specific email boxes are available covering a number of areas, including open government, research and development and the regional offices. In addition, a number of committees, including the Royal Commission for the Long Term Care of the Elderly, the Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, the Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment also have email boxes. Among the Department's Agencies, the Medical Devices Agency have an email mailbox for general inquiries, the Medicines Control Agency have an email mailbox for the Committee on Safety of Medicines, and National Health Service Estates has an email mailbox used for complaints and general inquiries.

  The Department's internet site also has a number of web pages with electronic feedback forms, including those for the Chief Medical Officer, performance tables, NHS Annual Report 95/96, as well as a general feedback form for the whole site.

  As well as the range of specific email boxes the Department has, it is also currently examining the setting up of a corporate email box for general correspondence.
  370
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to reply to the letters to him dated 16 March, 18 May and 22 June from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to support of the section 64 funding application by HIV Alliance. [53259]

  Mr. Dobson
  I have replied today to my right hon. Friend's letter of 16 March 1998. The Department has no record of receiving the letters dated 18 May or 22 June, but I understand that they were reminders relating to his earlier letter.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how staff numbers in his Department have varied between 1 May 1997 and 31 March 1998. [48879]

  Ms Jowell
  Staff in post information is provided to the Cabinet Office on a quarterly basis from 1 April each year so is not available for the exact dates requested. It is provided in the table for the nearest available dates. For the purposes of staff in post information, staff are counted as full-time equivalent (FTE)1 not headcount.

  1 April 19972

  / April 1998

  Permanent staff

  Departmental (excluding agencies)

  3,682.7

  3,491.2

  Medicines Control Agency

  389.2

  435.2

  Medical Devices Agency

  117.7

  132.7

  NHS Pensions Agency

  362.6

  403.4

  NHS Estates Agency

  144

  133

  Casual staff

  Departmental (excluding agencies)

  73.4

  90.9

  Medicines Control Agency

  25

  44

  Medical Devices Agency

  8.6

  3.6

  NHS Pensions Agency

  9

  18.5

  NHS Estates Agency

  3

  6

  1 In FTE part-time staff are counted as a proportion of full-time hours worked

  2 Civil Service Staff in Post Summary, copies of which are available in the Library or on the internet at www.open.gov.uk/co/cseg/pmcsd/stats/apr97int.htm

  Lariam
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on the basis of what prior trials and other research Lariam (Mefloquine) was granted marketing authorisation in the UK in 1989; and if he will make a statement. [48749]

  Ms Jowell
  The decision to grant a marketing authorisation for lariam (mefloquine) was based on all the available evidence, published or unpublished and whether or not favourable to the application. The data submitted by the company were assessed by the Medicines Control Agency, who sought the advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM), the Government's independent drug safety advisory body. The CSM was satisfied as to the safety, quality and efficacy of the product, the sole criteria under both European Community and national legislation.

  Breast Implants
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many silicone gel breast implants were undertaken in the past five years by(a) the NHS and (b) the private sector. [51676]
  371
  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 22 July 1998]: The available information is in the table. We record the number of episodes in which a breast implant was inserted; whether the implants were filled with silicone-gel or another material is not known. There are no equivalent figures for the private sector.

  Number of episodes by primary operation; ordinary admissions and day cases combined, National Health Service hospitals, England

  Year

  Breast implants

  1991–92

  1,514

  1992–93

  1,680

  1993–94

  1,234

  1994–95

  1,320

  1995–96

  1,435

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics OPCS4R Codes B30.1 Insertion of prosthesis for breast, B31.2 augmentation mammoplasty and B31.8 other specified plastic operations on breast

  We have accepted the recommendation of the Independent Review Group on Silicone Gel Breast Implants for the compulsory registration of details of each breast implant and explant operation with the National Breast Implant Registry. This will, over time, give fuller data on the annual number of operations carried out in the United Kingdom.

  Smoking
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding his Department is currently providing to initiatives to tackle(a) under-age smoking, (b) teenage smoking and (c) passive smoking. [52154]

  Ms Jowell
  In 1998/99, we are funding:the "Respect" anti-smoking campaign at a cost of £1 million, which is targeting 11–15 year olds, addressing why young people start smoking and seeking to create a positive lifestyle as relevant to the two thirds of teenagers who don't smoke as to the third who do; and
  the Health Education Authority's adult anti-smoking campaign at a cost of £5.5 million, which especially targets young people (and in particular women) in the 16–24 age range.

  Both the teenage and adult smoking education campaigns include information on the dangers associated with passive smoking.

  Our future plans to tackle smoking prevalence will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper on Tobacco Control.

  Group B Streptococcus
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many babies were born with meningitis as a result of the mother carrying the Group B streptococcus bacteria in each of the last three years. [52039]

  Mr. Boateng
  The figures presented are derived from laboratory reports of culture-confirmed cases in England presenting in the first week of life. This may not be a complete estimate of neonatal disease due to Group B streptococci since not all cases are reported to the Public Health Laboratory Service. The laboratory reports are either from blood or cerebrospinal fluid or other specimens which indicated meningitis as a clinical feature.
  372
  The disease in neonates may present as bacteraemia or meningitis or both. It is difficult to establish, beyond doubt, whether Group B streptococcal infection is the result of vertical transmission, but infection in the first week of life is highly likely to have been acquired from the mother. This association decreases as the age of the baby increases.

  Year

  Number of reports

  1995

  243

  1996

  220

  19971

  258

  1 Data for 1997 are provisional at this stage. Data supplied by Public Health Laboratory Service

  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will carry out a comparative cost analysis of conducting a standard urine test for all pregnant mothers to detect Group B streptococcus and the cost of treatment for babies born with meningitis; [52040]

  (2) if a standard urine test is carried out for all pregnant women to determine if they are Group B streptococcus carriers. [52042]

  Mr. Boateng
  The National Screening Committee considers the effectiveness and feasibility of individual population screening programmes and advises Ministers about their introduction. It is currently not known whether the introduction of screening for asymptomatic urinary infection (including Group B streptococcus) would be beneficial in reducing the risk of meningitis in new-born babies, but all the related research evidence will be taken into account by the National Screening Committee's Antenatal sub-group in its forward programme, before making recommendations to Ministers.

  The standard urine test given to all pregnant women checks for, among other things, signs of protein which may indicate the presence of an infection. If an infection is indicated, a urine sample is sent for further laboratory investigation which would identify women who are Group B streptococcus carriers.

  HIV-AIDS
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the percentage change in the number of HIV positive cases has been over the last five years. [52225]

  Ms Jowell
  The number of new HIV diagnoses reported each year has remained constant at about 2,500 but the number of deaths among people with HIV infection has fallen, especially since the introduction of combination antiretroviral therapy. This increasing life expectancy means that the number of HIV-infected people in the population has increased but data are not available to calculate the percentage change.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the percentage change in the number of HIV-positive cases in the next five years. [52228]

  Ms Jowell
  Projections for AIDS cases and severe HIV disease for 1995 to 1999 were published in November 1995 and work is currently under way to evaluate the effect on these projections of introducing combination therapy.
  373
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been unable to take up places in HIV wards in the United Kingdom over the last five years owing to a lack of beds. [52438]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department is aware that the length of in patient stays needed by people with HIV/AIDS has been declining since the introduction of combination therapies. The Department does not have any evidence that any patient with HIV has been denied in-patient treatment because of a lack of beds.

  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of advances in drug treatments for people with HIV/AIDS; and what plans he has to introduce drug resistance testing for people with HIV/AIDS to ensure that new drug treatments are used as cost effectively as possible across the whole of the United Kingdom. [52300]

  Ms Jowell
  We are aware of the continued success of combination therapies in the treatment of people with HIV/AIDS, in that the onset of symptoms is delayed, more people are being managed on an out patient basis and the number of deaths has fallen. The latest surveillance data show that the numbers of deaths from HIV/AIDS in the United Kingdom have declined since 1995 and this decline in deaths has accelerated with the introduction of combination therapies in 1996. Between 1995 and 1997, the numbers of deaths fell by nearly two thirds, from 1533 to 525, in men and by nearly a half, from 234 to 125, in women.

  The issue of testing for drug resistance—as are all the complicated issues around the prescribing and monitoring of combination therapies—is one for the physician in discussion with the patient. The current clinical guidelines on the use of combination therapies, issued by the British HIV Association, contain guidance in the event of drug failure due to resistance, and how best to avoid this. The Department continues to monitor developments in drug treatment and draws such guidelines to the attention of health authorities in the annual guidance circular on HIV/AIDS.

  Stroke Patients
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were admitted to hospital in(a) the North West and (b) England in each of the past five years having suffered a stroke. [52289]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is shown in the table for the financial years 1992–93 to 1996–97 (the latest year for which figures are available).

  Primary diagnosis of stroke—number of admissions in North West Regional Office (RO) and England, National Health Service hospitals, England

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  11996–97

  North West RO2

  16,059

  17,453

  17,628

  13,442

  12,874

  Other ROs

  98,661

  102,517

  103,932

  81,582

  73,940

  England

  114,720

  119,970

  121,560

  95,024

  86,814

  Notes:

  1 1996–97 is derived from ungrossed Hospital Episode Statistics data

  2 For the years 1992–93 and 1993–94 data for North Western and Mersey regions were amalgamated

  1992–93 to 1994–95—ICD-9 codes: 430–438

  374
  1995–96 and 1996–97—ICD-10 codes: 160–164, 167.2–167.9, 169 Because of the change in classification, data for 1995–96 and 1996–97 may not be directly comparable with earlier years 1992–93 and 1995–96 data are grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics

  NHS Costs
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total cost to the NHS of(a) treating non-United Kingdom residents for all medical care and (b) providing abortion services to Irish citizens in the last year for which figures are available. [52180]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Juveniles (Secure Accommodation)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answers of 11 March 1998,Official Report, column 203 and 18 March 1998, Official Report, column 614, how many places in local authority secure accommodation the Government plan in addition to those referred to in his answers. [52382]

  Mr. Boateng
  The review of juvenile secure accommodation was completed at the end of March and we have decided now on a programme of further work to be undertaken. A summary has been placed in the Library. This further work will include consideration of the creation of a new mechanism to determine the volume of places provided in juvenile secure accommodation, the cost of these and the standards which apply. It is proposed that the Youth Justice Board should take on this responsibility which should help ensure the appropriate volume and geographical spread of secure places.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those compliance cost assessments since 1 May 1997 in which there is a net reduction in compliance costs resulting from a legislative proposal. [52959]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]There is presently no requirement on Departments to carry out compliance cost assessments where legislative proposals are expected to be cost neutral or resulting in a saving to business.

  Two compliance cost assessments which identified savings were:
  Proposal for a Council Directive on the Advertising of Tobacco Products
  The Medicines for Human Use and Medical Devices (Fees & Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1998.

  Medical Devices Agency
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the 1997–98 Annual report and Accounts of the Medical Devices Agency. [54139]
  375
  Ms Jowell
  We have received the Report and Accounts of the Medical Devices Agency and copies have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of Sections 5(2) and 5(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921.

  Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the remit of the independent inquiry into the situation at Plymouth Hospital NHS Trust concerning the postgraduate qualifications of a thoracic surgeon; who will chair the inquiry; which individuals he has appointed to the inquiry; when it will report; to whom it will report; and what plans he has to extend the investigation into similar instances in other NHS trusts. [53255]

  Mr. Milburn
  On Thursday 23 July 1998, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State announced the establishment of an independent review of the investigation by Plymouth Hospitals National Health Service Trust into concerns raised about Mr. Joe Rahamim and the thoracic surgical services at the trust. The membership of the review team, its remit and its terms of reference will be announced shortly.

  Adoption
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to prevent individuals from evading established procedures by making private arrangements for the adoption of children from overseas. [52199]

  Mr. Boateng
  Guidance issued by the Department to social services departments and voluntary adoption agencies sets out the arrangements put in place for adoption from overseas. The procedures are designed to safeguard the welfare of children who are to be adopted, and to assist with the process of obtaining entry clearance for such children to enter the United Kingdom. The Department makes no secret of its opposition to the use of private home study reports, which attempt to circumvent the proper procedures for intercountry adoptions. The commissioning of private home study reports has recently been found to be illegal by a recent High Court judgment. The Department continues to oppose privately commissioned home study reports both in its guidance and in correspondence.

  Officials continue to liaise with authorities overseas seeking their co-operation in accepting only those homestudy reports which have been prepared by social services departments in the United Kingdom and are accompanied by the Department of Health's Certificate of Eligibility. In addition, officials are negotiating with a number of countries to obtain formal agreements about the handling of adoption applications. An agreement with Romania came into force earlier this year. These agreements are drafted on the principles and procedures outlined in the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption.

  Applications to courts in the United Kingdom to adopt children under the Adoption Act 1976 who have been adopted overseas with the help of a privately commissioned home study report are normally referred to the High Court.
  376
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the 1993 Hague Convention on intercountry adoption. [52200]

  Mr. Boateng
  Legislation to ratify the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption will be introduced when Parliamentary time allows.

  Sunburn and Sunstroke
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the annual cost to the National Health Service of treating sunburn and sunstroke in each of the last three years. [53142]

  Ms Jowell
  There has been no study specifically into the costs to the National Health Service of sunburn and sun stroke. However, sunburn is a risk factor for certain types of skin cancer, notably the most dangerous form, malignant melanoma. It has been estimated that in 1992/93 in England, malignant melanoma accounted for 0.06 per cent. of total hospital in and out patient expenditure of about £16,200 million1. There are about 3–4,000 new cases of malignant melanoma and approximately 1,300 deaths from this cancer in England each year.
  1 Source: "Burdens of Disease", NHSE, 1996.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people received treatment in National Health Service hospitals for sunburn and sunstroke in each of the last three years. [53141]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information shown in the table is for in-patient treatment in National Health Service hospitals for the financial years 1994–95 to 1996–97 (the latest year for which figures are available), and is based on Finished Consultant Episodes, which represent the number of episodes of care under individual consultants.

  Primary diagnosis

  Year

  Sunburn

  Heatstroke and sunstroke

  1994–95

  385

  38

  1995–96

  156

  82

  1996–97

  88

  42

  Notes:

  ICD Coding

  1. 1994–95—ICD-9 codes—Contact dermatitis due to solar radiation (sunburn)—692.0; heatstroke and sunstroke—992.0

  2. 1995–96 and 1996–97—ICD10 codes sunburn L55; heatstroke and sunstroke T67.0. Because of the change in classification, data for 1995–96 and 1996–97 may not be directly comparable with 1994–95

  3. 1994–95 and 1995–96 data are grossed for both coverage and unknown invalid clinical data

  4. 1996–97 is derived from ungrossed HES data, and may not be directly comparable with earlier years

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES)

  Estimated number of Finished Consultant Episodes (FCEs) by primary diagnosis: ordinary admissions and day cases combined, NHS hospitals, England.

  Bradford (Funding)
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional funds have been allocated to the Bradford area since 1 May 1997 over and above previous plans listed by (i) capital and (ii) revenue, indicating for each whether they were subject to a bidding process. [53211]

  Mr. Milburn
  The table shows Bradford Health Authority's share of the additional resources announced to date since 1 May 1997. These additions were all for revenue and comprise proportions of:The extra £10 million for breast cancer services announced in May 1997
  The extra £1 billion announced in July 1997
  The extra £300 million announced in October 1997
  The extra £500 million announced in March 1998

  Bradford health authority—additional funding—1997–98

  Purpose

  Addition (£000)

  Winter pressures1

  1,700

  GMS Cash Limited—salaried doctor scheme

  37

  Breast cancer services1

  93

  Initial revenue allocation for 1998–99 includes an additional £ 11.229m growth/uplift, £6.323m higher than sustainable under the previous plan

  6,326

  Waiting list addition

  2,883

  Whole systems support for waiting lists1

  659

  Total

  11,698

  1 Regional budgets were established pro rata to the general allocations of their health authorities. Health authorities submitted proposals to regional offices for spending the regional budgets

  Women Doctors
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the proportion of (i) all and (ii) women medical graduates from medical schools who are practising medicine 10 years after qualification(a) full-time and (b) part-time. [52862]

  Mr. Milburn
  Studies commissioned by the Department in respect of medical students who graduated in 1983 (the latest cohert for which data are currently available) show that, in 1993, the patterns of employment of those doctors working in the National Health Service were:

  Percentage

  Women

  Total

  Full time employment

  57.6

  81.35

  Part time employment

  42.4

  18.7

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to encourage women doctors back to work in(a) hospitals and (b) primary care. [52863]

  Mr. Milburn
  The increasing numbers of women in medical schools and at all levels within the medical profession is producing more demand for flexible working and training opportunities in the National Health Service, including facilities for taking a career break and then returning to practice. There is also a more general trend in the economy which is seeing a greater demand from both men and women for working arrangements which 378
  reflect domestic and family responsibilities; and we are committed to supporting working parents in balancing the demands of their work and home life.

  A number of measures are already in place to make the NHS a more "family friendly" place for women doctors to work. The new arrangements for flexible training, which were introduced with the specialist registrar (SpR) grade, devolved the funding of flexible training to the postgraduate deans where it could be more responsive to local and specialty demands. The National Training Number (NTN) allows new entrant SpRs who want to train flexibly to have a place reserved for them so that they can take up training as quickly as possible without further competitive barriers. If a complete career break is needed, they have a "passport" back into training via their personal NTN which they hold throughout training. Trusts are continuing (under the New Deal on Juniors' Hours) to introduce working patterns and practices that enable doctors to balance the demands of work with family life. The Quality Framework for hospital and community medical staffing, which was issued as a draft compendium of guidance in April last year, emphasises the need for trusts to develop flexible working and training arrangements as part of their medical workforce planning.

  Over the past year, we have introduced a new retainer scheme and a salaried general practitioner scheme for NHS general practitioners each of which will encourage women doctors back to work in primary care.

  Information about the career paths and working needs of women doctors is collected regularly through the Medical Careers Research Group, whose work is funded by the Department and informs the medical workforce planning process. A separate survey is also under way at present, examining the working preferences and career development needs of doctors now in higher specialist training. The results are intended to inform the design of hospital consultant posts, helping to ensure that women doctors with family responsibilities are able to work within the NHS at a level commensurate with their skills and abilities. The Department is also funding a support network for consultants who are working part-time.

  A number of initiatives are under way to support family friendly working and to encourage women doctors to return to the NHS. The Don't Waste Doctors project in the North West Region looked at ways to prevent doctors from leaving the service, or to bring them back. In Wessex, a pilot scheme has been running to assess the needs of unemployed GPs and to help them back into the NHS. We hope that both schemes will provide models for wider use. The Department has also funded trials of a self-rostering software package in the NHS. Most of the participants in the trials have been nurses, but the package may have much wider application. This scheme is currently being carefully evaluated, and a report is expected early in the autumn.

  Health Authorities (Overspending)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those health authorities which overspent in 1997–98. [52864]

  Mr. Milburn
  No health authorities overspent their cash limits in 1997–98.

  Radiotherapy
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to replace cobalt sources with linear acceleration machines in radiotherapy units. [52813]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have made no central plans, as this is a matter for local decision making. A report about availability of radiotherapy was published by the Royal College of Radiologists on 8 July 1998; it provides valuable information for the local planning of services. The report indicates that in 1997 there were 22 cobalt machines in use in the United Kingdom, of which only 3 were less than five years old. This suggests that recent purchases have been of linear accelerators; it is expected that this trend will continue as cobalt machines reach the end of their useful lives and are replaced.

  Breast Cancer
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a list of the measures which NHS trusts have taken using the funding made available for breast cancer services in 1997–98. [52812]

  Mr. Boateng
  Over 300 projects are being supported by the £10 million made available recurrently in 1997–98 for improvements to breast cancer services. These focus primarily on rapid access to diagnostic services, speedy access to treatment and the provision of high quality care delivered in line with published guidance by specialist multi-professional, multi-disciplinary teams.

  Health authorities are monitoring achievement of all the approved funding and will provide a comprehensive report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this autumn on the measurable improvements delivered in the services they provide.

  Health Spending
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the projected annual average percentage increase in health spending between 1999–2000 and 2001–02 for(a) England and (b) the United Kingdom. [53130]

  Mr. Milburn
  The projected annual average real-terms percentage increase in National Health Service Total Expenditure between 1999–2000 and 2001–2002 is 4.2 per cent. net in England. The United Kingdom net figure is 4.0 per cent.

  Radiotherapists
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his plans to increase the number of radiotherapists in the National Health Service. [53144]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department maintains an overview of the supply of trained personnel for 'the National Health Service.

  Local employers should plan the numbers of radiotherapists (doctors) and therapy radiographers needed to deliver their radiotherapy services. These plans are used in assessing levels of training needed to produce the required numbers of fully-trained staff for the future.
  380
  At the same time, Specialty Workforce Advisory Group (SWAG) advises the National Health Service Executive and the Welsh Office on the number of higher specialist trainees needed, to ensure an adequate supply of properly trained doctors in each specialty. It carries out annual reviews of each specialty's need for consultants. SWAG has identified the specialty of radiotherapy (or clinical oncology) as having significant shortages.

  For 1998–99, SWAG recommended further increases in the number of higher specialist trainees, in radiotherapy. It has recommended that these increases be treated as a priority.

  NHS Waiting Lists
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients were suspended from National Health Service waiting lists for reasons other than clinical unfitness for surgery in(a) 1996 and (b) 1997; [53016]

  (2) what projection he has made of the number of patients who will be suspended from National Health Service waiting lists for reasons other than clinical unfitness for surgery in 1998; [53015]

  (3) what proportion of the estimated reduction in waiting lists based on provisional figures is accounted for by (a) administrative clean-up and (b) reprioritisation of the list; and if he will make a statement; [53140]

  (4) if he will estimate the number of patients who have been removed from waiting lists since 2 May 1997 without their consent and without having received the treatment originally intended; and if he will make a statement. [53008]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information is not available centrally in the form requested.

  Cancer Surgeons
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if cancer surgeons are currently receiving higher rates of remuneration for waiting list operation surgery than for other surgery performed as part of their regular duties; [53007]

  (2) if he will make a statement on pay disparities between health authorities for cancer surgeons. [53014]

  Mr. Milburn
  The national salary rates applicable from 1 April 1998 for hospital consultants are specified in Advance Letter (MD) 1/98, copies of which are available in the Library. The salary rates apply to all consultants on national terms regardless of the speciality concerned. However, under arrangements introduced by the previous administration, trusts do have the flexibility to employ consultants on individual contracts of employment which may be remunerated on a higher basis than national terms and conditions of service. Trusts must ensure that the expenditure incurred represents good value for money and it will be open to scrutiny by auditors at the end of the financial year.

  GP Resignations
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of GP resignations since the publication of his White Paper; and if he will make a statement. [53020]
  381
  Mr. Milburn
  Information on the number of general practitioner resignations and their causes is not held centrally.

  Spending Statistics
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the annual percentage average increase in health spending between 1990–91 and 1992–93 for(a) England and (b) the United Kingdom. [531431

  Mr. Milburn
  The information is in the table.

  Real Terms Growth in National Health Service total expenditure

  Percentage

  1990–91 and 1992–93

  England (net)

  6.3

  England (gross)

  5.8

  United Kingdom (gross)

  5.8

  Notes:

  1. UK net figure is not available on a comparable basis

  2. Consistent with Gross Domestic Product deflator figures used in the Comprehensive Spending Review White Paper

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the actual annual average percentage increase in overall health spending for(a) the United Kingdom and (b) England in real terms between 1979–80 and 1996–97. [53131]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is in the table.

  Percentage

  Real terms annual average growth in NHS total expenditure between 1979–80 and 1996–97

  England net

  3.1

  England gross

  3.3

  UK gross

  3.1

  Notes:

  1. United Kingdom net figure is not available on a comparable basis

  2. Consistent with the Gross Domestic Product deflator figures used in the Comprehensive Spending Review White Paper

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the projected annual average percentage increase in overall health spending for(a) England and (b) the United Kingdom in real terms between 1997–98 and 2001–02. [53133]

  Mr. Milburn
  The projected annual average real terms percentage increase in National Health Service total net expenditure between 1997–98 and 2001–02 is 4.1 per cent. in England and 3.9 per cent. in the United Kingdom.

  Millennium Compliance
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the planned timescale for the verification of equipment replaced or altered in order to achieve year 2000 compliance for all systems within the Health Service and his Department. [53179]

  Mr. Milburn
  Chief Executives of health authorities and trusts have been instructed to ensure that by 31 December 1998 they have identified and resourced effective solutions for all Year 2000 problems that would 382
  otherwise compromise the safety of patients and staff, and the continuity of services.

  In addition, chief executives have been instructed to ensure that by 30 September 1999 all parts of the National Health Service are fully prepared with compliant equipment or effective contingency plans in place.

  The Department plans to complete Year 2000 compliance testing on all business critical systems by September 1999.

  The plans were analysed by the Central Information Technology Unit and the Central Communications Technology Agency and their conclusions reported to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He arranged for the completed questionnaires and a summary to be placed in the Library and published on the internet. An update on the progress by the Department will be available in the autumn.

  Ashford Hospital
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make it his policy to oppose further transfers of services from Ashford (Middlesex) hospital to St. Peter's hospital, Chertsey; [53219]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the future of the intensive care unit at Ashford (Middlesex) hospital. [53215]

  Mr. Milburn
  Ashford and St. Peter's Hospitals National Health Service Trust was established on 1 April 1998 from the merger of two neighbouring acute NHS trusts. The trust is currently reviewing its services and the configuration of these between the two sites at Ashford and St. Peter's. We expect the trust and its health authorities to consider the interests of patients in any changes to service delivery. There will be public consultation on any significant service changes.

  The trust is reviewing the capabilities of both hospital sites in view of the need to provide hospital services, including intensive care, that are fit for the 21st century. The trust must be able to meet accreditation standards for training doctors, and must be able to deliver high quality treatment and care. In considering its reconfiguration plans, the trust will be expected to maintain a broad range of services on site for the local population.

  Mental Health Act 1983
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the Mental Health Act 1983; and if he will make a statement. [53678]

  Mr. Dobson
  I am setting up a review of the Mental Health Act 1983. The aim of this review will be to ensure that mental health legislation supports the safe and effective delivery of modern patterns of clinical and social care for people with a mental disorder, and to ensure that we achieve a proper balance between individual rights and the requirements of the safety of both the individual and the wider community.

  As a first step in this process, I am going to appoint a small team of experts to advise me on the areas of the current legislation which need to be revised or

  383
  supplemented to support effective, modern mental health services. The group will comprise representatives from the legal profession, professional groups involved in the delivery of mental health services and user/public interests, and they will report to me next spring. I will specifically want their advice to include consideration of possible measures such as compliance orders and community treatment orders.
  384
  We aim to ensure that the legal framework that we will put in place for the new millennium is appropriate to deliver a full range of services in line with our proposals for a national service framework for mental health services, and will provide a prompt and effective legal basis to ensure individuals get supervised care if they fail to comply with their medication or if their condition deteriorates for any other reason.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chichester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Laming
Sir William Herbert Laming, Knight, CBE, having been created Baron Laming, of Tewing in the County of Hertfordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Weatherill and the Baroness Pitkeathley.
Lord Burns
Sir Terence Burns GCB, having been created Baron Burns, of Pitshanger in the London Borough of Ealing, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Simon of Highbury and the Lord Butler of Brockwell, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Diplomatic Posts and Comprehensive Spending Review
2.42 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Comprehensive Spending Review will affect the number of overseas diplomatic posts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we want to deploy resources to where they are needed most to meet today's priorities. The CSR outcome will help. It gives us a significant real terms increase in our budget, the best deal for six years. But we need to reprioritise existing activity, too. That includes strengthening some posts and closing others. We are starting to review the options and we hope to reach conclusions in the autumn.
We aim to provide additional resources for posts in areas of greatest opportunity, including in the EU and NATO applicant countries; in the Caspian region; and in priority export markets such as China and Brazil. In addition, we may want to reinforce some areas in London such as the department dealing with West Africa. The Foreign Secretary also wants to step up work in vital areas such as the fight against the drugs trade.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, that is an extremely comprehensive and interesting Answer. Is the Minister aware that many of those who travel extensively overseas on business promoting British trade and investment recognise that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is the smallest and by far the
1500
most efficient department in Whitehall? As a result, they would wish to see an increase in the number of diplomats overseas in general and in particular in Latin America, which is a priority area in which I must declare a longstanding prejudice and interest.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his kind remarks about the Diplomatic Service. He is right; we want to reinforce the commercial sections of embassies in target markets where we are under-represented compared with leading competitors. Our objective in export promotion is to add value.
In my original Answer, I spoke of the particular priority export market in Brazil, and the noble Viscount has drawn attention to Latin America. The trade growth in Latin America is now outstripping much of the world and British exports to Brazil have tripled in the past five years, reaching £1 billion for the first time. But the UK still has only 2.5 per cent. of that market in comparison, for example, with the Germans who have 9 per cent. I agree with the noble Viscount that this is indeed a target area.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an assurance that in view of the completely unauthorised establishment over the past few years of no fewer than 123 embassies, so called, on behalf of the European Community there will be no withdrawal of any British representation with the object of passing any of its functions or delegations on to the so-called embassies which have emanated from the European Union?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have some 220 posts throughout the world. As I indicated in my original Answer, these posts are being examined to see whether they meet the Foreign Secretary's criteria as set out in his mission statement last year. In the autumn, there will be a report on which posts are to remain.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, when will we be exchanging ambassadors with Iran?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Viscount may know, we have chargés with Iran. He may also know that the EU is considering ways of improving across the board our relations with Iran. This country still operates under a chargé. We are doing our best to improve our diplomatic exchanges. I hope that the noble Viscount can be satisfied with that answer at the moment because I cannot tell him that there is a definite date for an exchange of ambassadors.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, in recent days, much has been made of the need to increase the numbers in the Africa section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Minister made reference to that. Will it include the possible reopening of embassies which were closed during the past 10 years in some countries in

1501
Africa which are looked after rather unsatisfactorily by the missions next door, some of which I visited recently?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are considering our relations across the board. The remarks I made in the House on Monday related to the staffing of the Africa (Equatorial) Department in London. There are no current plans to open new posts in Africa. As the noble Lord may know, we are not represented in some 19 states in Africa. I should be happy to list those for the noble Lord in writing, if he would find that helpful, but I regret to say that at present there are no plans to open posts elsewhere.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while it is important to increase our commercial strength in embassies abroad, if we are to play the role that we have set for ourselves of leadership in Europe and fulfilling our responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, we must never in the future of the Diplomatic Service underestimate the importance of the traditional political work which is done by that service across the world?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes, of course I can agree with that point. I was answering a specific point made by the noble Viscount about the importance of commercial work, which certainly cannot be overlooked. But when my right honourable friend made his mission statement he did not talk solely about matters of prosperity where such commercial posts are vital; he talked also about the importance of the continuing security of the United Kingdom and of our overseas territories and about the importance of our humanitarian effort overseas. Perhaps I may also draw to the noble Lord's attention the increased emphasis that Her Majesty's Government are placing on environmental issues and on the difficulties that we are facing in combating the deplorable drugs trade which flourishes internationally.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say when the first advertised vacancies for diplomatic posts will appear? Will she confirm that the main criteria in the appointment of heads of mission overseas will continue to be merit and professional qualifications, including the mastery of relevant languages?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I was able to tell the House on Monday, we have a programme of modernisation and efficiency of which my right honourable friend spoke in his Statement. We are looking at exchanges with the private sector and indeed at bringing in some outside expertise in particular areas such as management and other areas within the London part of the FCO.
The noble Lord asked in particular about ambassadorial appointments. Those will continue to be made on the basis of expertise and merit. We shall
1502
be looking at that over the course of the next few months or so and I hope to be able to say something further about it in the autumn.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I hope the House will forgive me if I take this opportunity warmly to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who, until yesterday, was the Government Whip responsible for foreign affairs, on his much-deserved promotion to full ministerial rank.
As the real increase in the FCO's budget in year one of the next three years is accounted for by the welcome additional funding to the BBC World Service and as, on the Foreign Office's own figures, years two and three see subsequent cuts in real terms, can the Minister give some indication as to where those cuts are likely to be considered during the process announced over the summer?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, first, I join the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in the tribute which he paid to my noble friend Lord Whitty who I have particular cause to value. He has been an invaluable support as my Whip over the past year or so.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, makes some assumptions about the FCO budget. I do not recognise the figures which the noble Lord has produced. He says that they are based on Foreign Office figures. I have inquired quite specifically, as I thought the noble Lord would ask me, about the increases. There is new money not only next year but the year after and the year after that. Perhaps I may be specific. After inflation has been taken into account and disregarding the money set on one side for the BBC World Service, which is indeed very welcome money—I am glad that the noble Lord recognised that—the new money next year will be £18 million, the year after that £15 million and the year after that £8 million.

Welsh Assembly: Translation of Documents
2.58 p.m.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the arrangements being made for the adequate translation of documents into the Welsh language in time for the first sitting of the Welsh Assembly in 1999.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Government are committed to the principle that the Assembly should, in carrying out its business, treat the English and Welsh languages on the basis of equality so far as is appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable. The arrangements that are being made for both document translation and interpretation will facilitate that.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, first, I congratulate the Minister on his well-deserved elevation. As he will

1503
appreciate, I am sure that I am expressing that sentiment on behalf of all sides of the House. I wish him the best for the future. Those are the kindest words that I shall eschew about him in this Parliament.
I turn to the Answer to my Question. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that the passing of the Welsh Language Act 1993 and the taking out of party political controversy the status of the Welsh language in Wales really means that the assembly, when it starts, must not start at any disadvantage as regards bilingualism. Is the Minister really sanguine that, with all the pressures on the translating service at present, all the documents will be in place when the assembly meets next year?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is very important that the under-privileged, the less-favoured and the unfortunate should be properly protected so those who cannot speak Welsh will obviously be entitled to full translation facilities. In fact, there is work in hand. The Welsh Office is recruiting a new head for the assembly's translation services. That postholder will have a key role in designing the structure of the new services. We believe that we are well on track to provide a proper level of service. I thank the noble Lord Diolch Yn Fawr.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will the Minister go a little further and assure the House that when our national assembly comes into being in May next year, it will, as a minimum requirement, be able to conform with the provisions of the Welsh Language Act?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that that will be the position. We are consulting widely, not least with the National Assembly Advisory Group on which the noble Viscount has given such service. Its reports dealing with those particular matters will be available for the Secretary of State in a matter of days. We are taking advice from the Welsh Language Board, the Association of Welsh Translators and in particular Gwynedd County Council which has a very good record in that regard.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I too add my congratulations to my noble friend who is the most distinguished of our bilingual barristers. Will he agree that the steps taken by the Welsh Office and by the Welsh Language Board, which I chair—and I therefore declare an interest—to ensure bilingualism in the assembly will bring about precisely the circumstances which the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, set out; namely, that there shall never again be conflict on language issues? Will he agree also that when we come to legislate on delegated legislation in Cardiff, it will be the first opportunity since the great days of Hywel Dda for us to do that?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it will be the first opportunity since the great days of Hywel Dda, who of course had a codified system of laws long before it
1504
was thought of in other countries. Being the first in the field of bilingual barristers in your Lordships' House confines it to a very small field indeed.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord on his elevation. He will be well aware of the variety of services, including translation services, which will be required by the assembly. Does he not consider it wise to establish some sort of body to co-ordinate the provision of the variety of services required?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we shall have a new head of translation services who will make a full analysis of the size and structure of what needs to be provided. We do not need a separate body, but we need arrangements in place to give the assembly a first-rate start in May of next year. I believe that preparations are well in hand for that.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will arrangements be made to give lessons to those unfortunate people who cannot speak Welsh at the present time?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, every encouragement will be given in Wales for English speakers who are monoglots and therefore not as well favoured to learn the language which is likely to be so important in the new Wales as well as in the new assembly.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, will the proceedings be held in both languages and will there be instantaneous translations for that purpose?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the probability is, subject to the advice that we have from various bodies, that there will be simultaneous translation and any person will be able to speak in either of the two relevant languages—Welsh or English.

Israel: US Transfer of Strike Aircraft
2.58 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider it to be in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 487 and 687 that the United States should transfer to Israel 25 strike aircraft capable of reaching Iran.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Security Council Resolution No. 487 condemned the Israeli air strike against Iraq in 1981. Security Council Resolution No. 687 upholds current sanctions against Iraq. I reply on the basis that my noble friend's question refers to his concern that Israel might use those US aircraft to attack Iran's weapon development programme.
Article 51 of the UN Charter enshrines each member state's right to self-defence. Therefore, it is a matter for Israel to decide what equipment it needs to exercise that

1505
legitimate right. Defence sales between the US and Israel are a matter for those countries. The way to address concerns about the development of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East is through international diplomatic efforts, including through relevant multilateral fora. The United Kingdom will continue to play an active part in those efforts.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, given that Israel disposes of 200 or more nuclear warheads and has publicly threatened to take out the Iranian civil nuclear facility, is it wise, in the opinion of HMG, of the United States to make available to it this large number of extremely advanced aircraft? If it is not, can my noble friend say whether the Government will be able to say anything outside the framework of international treaty or convention rules?
Baron Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I said, it is a matter for the United States and for Israel. Indeed, it is a matter for the US provided that the sales do not contravene the international obligations and commitments of the United States to enforce UN embargoes or internationally agreed non-proliferation treaties or conventions. However, I should remind my noble friend that the F15-I aircraft is a conventional weapon.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a clear contradiction between the continued readiness of the United States to provide military assistance of this sort to Israel and its apparent unwillingness, as evidenced by a statement by Mrs. Madeleine Albright this week, to put any pressure at all on Mr. Netanyahu to get him to return to the peace process, to stop and reverse his illegal settlement policies and to agree to American proposals for the withdrawal from 13 per cent. of the West Bank?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the US—I hope that the noble Lord will agree with this—has worked hard in recent months to produce the package of proposals which are under discussion. It is still our position that we believe that these represent the best way of breaking the current deadlock in the peace process. We have indeed welcomed President Arafat's acceptance of the proposals, and the UK Government continue to urge the Americans to use all their influence to persuade both parties, including Mr. Netanyahu, to agree.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although these matters about the peace process are very important, the major threat to peace in the Middle East comes from the acquisition, or likely acquisition, by the Government of Iran of weapons of mass destruction—rockets that pose a great threat even beyond the Middle East? Therefore, ought we not to concentrate on how to prevent this happening?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are of course concerned about weapons of mass
1506
destruction wherever they may appear. That is certainly so, as the noble Lord indicates, as regards the extremely volatile situation that pertains in the Middle East. As the noble Lord pointed out, there are concerns about what is happening in Iran and we should not forget the continuing concerns that exist about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We should also remember UNSCOM' s effort to try to establish the nature of those weapons of mass destruction. We must look at all the countries in the Middle East where such weapons of mass destruction exist.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend specifically share the concern expressed last week by President Clinton at the testing and development of long-range equipment for the delivery of ballistic missiles? Further, should we not welcome the increase in the ability of democratic Israel to defend itself, as opposed to Iran, which people have accused of many things but never of being a democracy?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I indicated, such problems exist in all the countries in a very volatile part of the Middle East. Any escalation in an arms race, whether we are talking about an escalation in conventional arms or in weapons of mass destruction, is an escalation which other countries like the United Kingdom and the US must keep under firm review. Of course I agree with my noble friend that at this difficult juncture in the Middle East peace process, which I believe all noble Lords acknowledge, anything that escalates the amount of available weaponry is a matter of concern to all.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister recall the Foreign Secretary's visit to Israel some months ago and the clear demonstration that British and European policies in that region are not identical to those of the US? Further, does the Minister share the concern of some of us that American policy appears to have been captured by the Israeli lobby and that, therefore, it requires the British Government, in concert with their European partners, to begin to spell out rather more clearly how our interests across the Middle East, not only in regard to the Israeli/Arab conflict but also as far as concerns the Gulf, differ from those of the United States?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I recall my right honourable friend's visit. I hope that the noble Lord also recalls that there was a full discussion of the Middle East peace process at the recent Cardiff Summit. EU partners shared the very brave concern of Her Majesty's Government at the continuing deadlock in the Middle East peace process and the threat that that poses to the stability of the region. However, we reiterated our strong support—as, indeed, did all EU countries—for the efforts of the US to gain the agreement of the parties to the package of proposals which, if accepted, would open the way to relaunching the final status talks. As I said, we have already welcomed the Palestinian acceptance of those proposals,

1507
and the UK Government continue to call on the Government of Israel to give now a clear and positive response to them.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is really no such thing as a conventional bomber aircraft? Indeed, bombers are bombers and may be conventional or nuclear, according to what is put in them.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, what may be a perfectly innocent vehicle in one respect can become a vehicle for a weapon of mass destruction in another. Indeed, I imagine that even a rucksack full of canisters of anthrax could be considered in some circumstances to be a highly lethal vehicle for delivering a weapon of mass destruction. I take my noble friend's point. However, in relation to the specific question that he raised, the aircraft under discussion that the US is committed to selling to Israel are conventional weapons.

Private Sector Executives: Remuneration
3.6 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will expedite their report on progress made in monitoring the application of "best practice" principles set out in the Greenbury, Hampel and Cadbury reports on payments made to private sector executives.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, the Government have made it clear that they expect to see early evidence of companies complying with the spirit of both the Greenbury Code of Best Practice and the Hampel Report. The Government also expect senior executives to show that they understand the importance of sustainable pay rises in all sectors and at all levels. Although we will not be rushing into unconsidered action on directors' remuneration, we are equally not ruling out any particular policy response at this stage.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. As there are now three reports on the matter and as the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have recently made yet another strong criticism of what they call "boardroom greed", is not early action—indeed "early" as my noble friend just said—necessary? Does my noble friend agree that there are at least two aspects which cause concern? First, there is the understandable pressure that is now coming from workforces for higher than inflation wage increases, a pressure which, I suspect, will grow even more in coming weeks; and secondly, there is the serious danger to a Labour Government in allowing an ever-increasing gap to emerge between the richest and the poorest in society.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, in commenting on the statements that have been made, I am quite sure
1508
that all of us would wish that shareholders, with whom the responsibility lies, take appropriate action on settlements within companies that do not appear to reflect their performance and their progress. On my noble friend's second point, I am sure that none of us wishes to see settlements that do not reflect productivity and which, therefore, make much more difficult the sustainable and effective management of a balanced economy, which will encourage investment, create more jobs, and make more companies successful.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the recently issued Stock Exchange code of best practice brings together many of the points raised in the three reports to which reference has been made? Therefore, does he agree that, if the latter are properly followed and observed, many of the fears raised by the noble Lord will be removed?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that observation. I absolutely agree with him. Indeed, I believe that the final Stock Exchange report included all of the many sensible and well-supported suggestions contained in the Cadbury Report, the Greenbury Report and the Hampel Report, whose author, I am glad to say, is now sitting in the Gallery listening to our debate. All those suggestions, if better applied, would cause companies, the workforce, the shareholders and other stakeholders to see better governance and better performance in our country.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in view of the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, pointed out in his Question, there have now been three reports on the subject of corporate governance, and indeed the Stock Exchange has also produced reports on the subject, is it not appropriate that the Government should produce a consultative document on the issue to include the vexed and controversial issue of senior executive pay?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the observation but that is precisely what the Government have done. On 4th March the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that there would be a review of company law during the course of this Parliament in which we would review among other things the role of the shareholder and the relationship between shareholders and senior management on such issues as remuneration. I think our policy is well known. We want to see more openness, more accountability and more involvement of the shareholders, whose responsibility these issues are. I am quite certain that that will be considered as we go forward with the company law review.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, in the meantime does the Minister agree that a better example should be set in this area by the present president of the CBI?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I cannot comment on the example of the present president of the CBI because he has hardly been in post long enough to set one. My view is that he, like many of the

1509
management team of the CBI, is as involved as we all are in strengthening our industrial performance, improving our governance and ensuring that shareholders do what is appropriate to ensure that good governance is applied throughout our nation.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, as my noble friend will know, some 70 per cent. of shares in the major companies are in the hands of institutions. Would he care to prepare any new papers—although we have had enough on this subject—showing how the Government measure productivity in the hands of major company directors?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, in a good company the relationship between directors and the company is a symbiotic one. The result in terms of the value that is created for all the stakeholders in the company is positive. I think there are many ways of measuring performance, but what we must do as a principle is to make sure that governance ensures that the performance of individuals and of the workforce in general are taken into account in relation to all the awards in the company.

Energy Efficiency (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
3.12 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make further provision for energy efficiency. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Ezra.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Standing Order 70
3.13 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
In moving the Motion I take the opportunity to thank the usual channels for agreeing that this important order should be discussed even though the Joint Committee has not yet reported on it. That is necessary for the timetable of the primary legislation under which it is laid, and because of the need for the order to be approved by both Houses before the Summer Recess. Business Motions such as this are unusual, but I hope in these circumstances that the House will approve the Motion today.
Moved, That Standing Order 70 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with to enable the Motion to
1510
approve the draft Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organisations) Order 1998 to be taken tomorrow notwithstanding that no report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the draft order has been laid before the House.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Liaison: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 133) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I wish to express my regret that the Liaison Committee in its recent consideration of possible subjects for ad hoc Select Committees has decided for administrative reasons that the inquiry which I had proposed into our overseas trade should not be undertaken now, but reconsidered at some later date. If ever there was an issue which I feel should be considered for parliamentary scrutiny at the present time, it is this one. The latest trade figures showing a major adverse balance, the difficulties of the Rover company, the recently published CBI trends survey, the trends survey of the Engineering Employers' Federation, and the views expressed by the TUC and many other organisations suggest that there is deep unease about the situation affecting our overseas trade. I regret therefore that we shall not use the clear knowledge and experience in this House to look at this urgent issue. If we are not to do so, I very much hope that will be done in another place because I feel that this is a matter which deserves urgent parliamentary scrutiny.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I quite understand the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that at this stage your Lordships' Liaison Committee did not find it possible to recommend that an ad hoc committee should be set up straightaway on this matter. However, I ought to tell your Lordships that the committee regarded this proposal as a powerful one, as indeed it did the proposal which it is recommending to your Lordships for an ad hoc committee on monetary policy. The Liaison Committee was torn between those two powerfully advocated proposals. It was not divided, but it was torn between those two proposals. However, it was unanimous in its decision.
Perhaps I may bring a certain amount of comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. As your Lordships will have appreciated from the report before the House, the matter is to be returned to in the autumn. I received a substantial number of recommendations for the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, not only from within your Lordships' House but also from organisations outside. Those who wrote to me were in the main leading people from those organisations. Therefore it has not escaped the attention of the committee that this was a powerful proposal.

1511
The only other point I wish to add is the following. While I am sure your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will appreciate that I am not in the circumstances able to give any guarantee, I have no doubt whatever that when the Liaison Committee reviews these matters in the autumn, although it will have to do so in the light of any other proposals which have emerged in that time, it will return to this proposal with some sympathy. I shall also ensure—Members of the committee will have already appreciated this—that the additional comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, are borne firmly in mind.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pensions (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
The ex-service community is most grateful to noble Lords in all parts of the House for their support for the Bill and for their help in facilitating its passage.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Morris of Manchester.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Government of Wales Bill
3.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons and amendment be now considered.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF A COMMONS AMENDMENT TO A LORDS AMENDMENT AND COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OTHER LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 98 as first printed for the Lords]

LORDS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 4, page 2, line 42, leave out from ("have") to end of line 9 on page 3 and insert ("one vote (referred to in this Act as a constituency vote).
(2) The constituency vote is to be given for a candidate to be the Assembly member for the Assembly constituency.
(3) There shall also be calculated the number of additional member votes for each registered political party which has submitted a list of candidates to be Assembly members for the Assembly electoral region in which the Assembly constituency is included.
(3A) The number of additional member votes for each party shall be the same as the number of constituency votes for the candidate of the party in that constituency.").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
3A Because it would unjustifiably restrict the right of voters to
1512
choose the persons who are to be members of the National Assembly for Wales for the electoral regions.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 3A. With the permission of the House, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 5 to 12, 14 to 16, 18 and 20 to 22.
These amendments are concerned with the electoral system. They would have the effect of allowing electors only one vote rather than two, as the Government proposed both in our White Paper and in this Bill. Another place has taken the view that your Lordships' amendments would unjustifiably restrict voters' ability to exercise a meaningful choice of their regional representatives—as was pointed out in this House, the effect of the amendments would be to create a method of indirect election of regional members via a constituency vote rather than allow electors to vote directly for the party or independent candidate of their choice.
We have debated this matter on several occasions. We are into the realms of hypothesis when considering the possible manipulation of the electoral system. We on this side of the House are, however, clear that whatever the validity of that hypothesis, the solutions proposed in this and other amendments would be worse than the hypothetical problem—and that view has been accepted by another place.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 3A.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, first, perhaps I may congratulate the noble and learned Lord who was until yesterday Solicitor-General on his translation to the Cabinet Office. We are grateful to him for his explanation of the Commons' rejection of our amendments relating to the PR system proposed by the Government. I am sure that the House will be relieved to hear that I certainly do not intend to argue the case for these amendments yet again. That has been done superbly and refreshingly on several occasions already by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
One of the highlights of our debates was the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, on the first day of Report on 1st July (col. 685 of Hansard) that he had been confirmed in his position that first past the post is "easily the best system". As I understand it, it is the noble Lord's diamond wedding anniversary this week. I am sure that there are many noble Lords in the House who would like to congratulate him and Lady Callaghan on that celebration.
Our belief on this side coincided with that of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. It was our starting-point in the debate about the PR system. Nevertheless, we acknowledged that the Government held a different view on proportional representation and were intent on the additional member system now proposed.

1513
We were also aware that there were defects in that system. We were particularly concerned about the "split ticket" or "alter ego" party problem highlighted by Dr. Michael Dyer of Aberdeen University, whereby political parties could manipulate the two-vote system to their own advantage by using different descriptions of themselves for constituency and electoral region elections.
We were anxious to assist the Government to avoid that pitfall in the legislation. I can vouch for the fact that some of my noble friends and other colleagues devoted much time, thought and argument to meeting the challenge posed by the potential abuse arising from that defect. The noble and learned Lord the former Solicitor-General, the Secretary of State for Wales, and the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Welsh Office, Mr. Win Griffiths, all accepted that there could be a problem. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish also candidly acknowledged that there were shortcomings in his single vote solution, although, resourceful as ever, he had ideas for meeting those imperfections.
I say all that in order to impress upon Members of both Houses the sincerity and genuineness of our debates on this issue. Our amendments have nothing whatsoever to do with Conservative Party prospects under the PR system as alleged in Monday's Western Mail. That article was very wide of the mark. If any party should fear the two-vote system, I believe it is the Labour Party. If the latest BBC poll is to be believed, it stands high in the voters' favour, but of course the Labour Party must wonder just where its supporters' second preference will lie.
My major point is that throughout we have been concerned to ensure the integrity of the PR system proposed in the Bill. In the words of my noble friend Lord Mackay at Third Reading,
"Here is a problem that we all see; nobody denies that it is possible for it to happen. We should do something about it now".— [Official Report, 15/7/98; col. 263.]
The Government have failed to offer a legislative remedy as yet and have contented themselves with the assurances given by all parties that they would not abuse the system. But such assurances, alas, may not endure in the face of obvious party advantage should that occur. We suspect that the assurances given both here and in the other place will barely outlive those who have given them. But we have received assurances, too, from the noble and learned Lord that the Government have given considerable thought to this matter and do not have a closed mind on the issue. We may therefore return to it when we discuss the Registration of Political Parties Bill. Meanwhile, we have no intention of pursuing our current amendments.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am happy to assist the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, as to where the second preference votes are going from the Labour Party according to the BBC poll. They are going to the Welsh Liberal Democrats. One would expect no less in the Welsh community.
1514
We have consistently supported the provision of two votes under the list system. The suggestion that the people of Wales are incapable of casting two votes has always struck me as entirely ludicrous. We are pleased that the matter has been resolved in the House of Commons and we support the Government's position.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am not ashamed to be standing here as everybody's second preference. I wish to congratulate my noble and learned friend the former Solicitor-General on his elevation. It seems to me that government Front Bench Ministers who are associated with the Wales Bill receive instant elevation. I can only hope that it applies to all of us, whether here or in another place.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and disagree once again with the baron who shares a boundary with me in our baronies in the Conwy Valley. As we say in the valley, he is once again flogging a dead sheep. He is repeating himself in the direction, as my noble friend Lord Thomas said, of trying to assert that the people of Wales are unable to make clear, rational decisions. I shall not refer to the BBC Wales opinion poll. However, I have a feeling about its meaning wherever I go. Its meaning has interest for him and for all parties. But that is not the issue. The issue is about making democracy as inclusive as possible. I was impressed, as I often am, by the statement by my right honourable friend Mr. Ron Davies in the article in the Western Mail that has already been mentioned. He said that it was not the issue whether or not certain parties were benefiting from the poll, because the assembly itself would be inclusive. That is what the polling system is all about. It is about allowing the opportunity for people to make rational choices. Those decisions are made within the electoral system. The attempts of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, and of his noble friend—who is not present because he is preparing yet again for the Scotland Bill—continually to change the electoral system are proving unsuccessful because the arguments, let alone the majority in another place, are not carrying any weight. Therefore, I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy intends not to insist on the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Elis-Thomas, for their kind words of congratulations. Perhaps I may also wish the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and Lady Callaghan, many congratulations on their diamond wedding anniversary.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, has reiterated his views in his characteristically careful and moderate way. Those words were written down in advance of him doing so, to show the respect in which he is held by those who formerly worked for him. However, I do not believe that he brought forward any new arguments to support his case. As has been made clear throughout, following the clear statements made by the representatives of all parties in this and another place, we believe that the type of improper manipulation talked of will not occur. Attempts to deal

1515
with it in the form of these amendments which another place has rejected produce a much worse result than the alleged problem. I ask the House not to insist on their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
5 Clause 5, page 3, leave out lines 32 and 33.
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
5A Because it would unjustifiably restrict the right of voters to choose the persons who are to be members of the National Assembly for Wales for the electoral regions.
6 Page 3, line 40, leave out subsection (5).
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
6A Because it would unjustifiably restrict the right of voters to choose the persons who are to be members of the National Assembly for Wales for the electoral regions.
7 Clause 6, page 4, line 9, leave out ("electoral region") and insert ("additional member").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
7A Because it would unjustifiably restrict the right of voters to choose the persons who are to be members of the National Assembly for Wales for the electoral regions.
8 Page 4, line 16, leave out subsection (2).
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
8A Because it would unjustifiably restrict the right of voters to choose the persons who are to be members of the National Assembly for Wales for the electoral regions.
9 Page 4, leave out lines 21 to 24 and insert ("for a registered political party under subsection (1)(b) is referred to in this Act as the electoral region figure for that party").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
9A Because it would unjustifiably restrict the right of voters to choose the persons who are to be members of the National Assembly for Wales for the electoral regions.
10 Clause 7, page 4, line 26, leave out ("or individual candidate").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
10A Because it would unjustifiably restrict the right of voters to choose the persons who are to be members of the National Assembly for Wales for the electoral regions.
11 Page 4, line 28, leave out ("or individual candidate").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
11A Because it would unjustifiably restrict the right of voters to choose the persons who are to be members of the National Assembly for Wales for the electoral regions.
12 Page 4, line 39, leave out subsection (4).
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
12A Because it would unjustifiably restrict the right of voters to choose the persons who are to be members of the National Assembly for Wales for the electoral regions.
14 Page 5, line 6, leave out ("or individual candidates").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
14A Because it would unjustifiably restrict the right of voters to choose the persons who are to be members of the National Assembly for Wales for the electoral regions.
15 Page 5, line 13, leave out from ("figure") to end of line 15.
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
15A Because it would unjustifiably restrict the right of voters to choose the persons who are to be members of the National Assembly for Wales for the electoral regions.
16 Page 5, line 17, leave out ("or individual candidates").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
16A Because it would unjustifiably restrict the right of voters to choose the persons who are to be members of the National Assembly for Wales for the electoral regions.
18 Clause 8, page 5, line 24, leave out from ("vacancy") to end of line 27 and insert ("the Assembly member for the Assembly constituency shall be returned under the simple majority system.
(3A) No election held under this section shall call into question the election of Assembly members for the Assembly electoral region in which the Assembly constituency was included at the last ordinary election.").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
18A Because it would unjustifiably restrict the right of voters to choose the persons who are to be members of the National Assembly for Wales for the electoral regions.
20 Clause 9, page 6, line 3, leave out from beginning to second ("the") in line 4.
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
20A Because it would unjustifiably restrict the right of voters to choose the persons who are to be members of the National Assembly for Wales for the electoral regions.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 5 to 12, 14 to 16, 18 and 20 en bloc to which the Commons have disagreed for the reasons numbered 5A to 12A, 14A to 16A, 18A and 20A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 5 to 12, 14 to 16, 18 and 20 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reasons numbered 5A to 1 2A, 14A to 16A, 18A and 20A.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
21 Clause 9, page 6, leave out lines 8 to 11 and insert—

("(a) is included on the same list as the last person to occupy the vacant seat,

(b) is willing to serve as an Assembly member for the Assembly electoral region, and

(c) is not a person to whom subsection (3A) applies.

(3A) This subsection applies to a person if—

(a) he is not a member of the party, and

(b) the party gives notice to the regional returning officer that his name is not to be notified to the presiding officer as the name of the person who is to fill the vacancy.").

The Commons agreed to this amendment, with the following amendment—

COMMONS AMENDMENT TO A LORDS AMENDMENT
21A Line 2, leave out ("the same list as the last person to occupy the vacant seat") and insert ("that list").
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21A to Lords Amendment No. 21.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21A to Lords Amendment No. 21.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
22 Clause 9, page 6, line 20, leave out from beginning to ("there") in line 22.
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
22A Because it would unjustifiably restrict the right of voters to choose the persons who are to be members of the National Assembly for Wales for the electoral regions.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 22 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 22A.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 22 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 22A.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
27 Clause 12, page 8, line 9, at end insert (", or (e) he is a Minister of the Crown.").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
27A Because it is not appropriate for Ministers of the Crown to be disqualified from being members of the National Assembly for Wales.
Lord Crickhowell Lord Crickhowell rose to move, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 27, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 27A, but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO A LORDS AMENDMENT
27C Clause 54, page 28, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) A Minister of the Crown may not serve as an Assembly First Secretary or as an Assembly Secretary for a period of more than 12 months from the first sitting of the Assembly.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. The amendment that we passed in this House at Report stage would have prevented a Minister of the Crown serving as an assembly member. In another place, it was argued that the amendment went far too wide and that there was no reason why ministers should not stand for election.
However, Mr. Peter Hain, speaking for the Government at the start of the debate on 22nd July 1998, correctly identified the fact that in this House we were particularly concerned with the possibility that the Secretary of State wished to combine that office with that of first secretary of the assembly.
The debate that took place on 22nd July was remarkable. The arguments against the proposition that the Secretary of State might serve in both those offices simultaneously, which I had pressed so hard in this House, found support in all parts of another place. The concerns that I had voiced here were repeated again and again, none more powerfully than by the Minister himself. His contribution was in marked contrast to the words uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in his response at Report stage in this House.
As congratulations are the order of the day, it is time that I congratulated the noble Lord Williams on having edged his way a little further up the slippery pole. I hope that he hangs on to it well and may, in due course, even climb a little higher. We have enjoyed his contributions during the debate on this Bill. We have admired the way he has handled it and we wish him every success in the future.
Having said that, in moving to my new amendment I cannot possibly present a stronger case than was collectively put in another place. Mr. Hain both opened and concluded that debate. Right at the start, he said:
"I freely acknowledge that quite different constitutional functions will be exercised by the Secretary of State for Wales and the First Secretary of the National Assembly".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/7/98; col. 1173.]
He added, at col. 1174:
"We have never suggested that they could or should be exercised by the same person in perpetuity".
I emphasise "We have never suggested." I do not recall many suggestions from Ministers in this House or another place previously that he would time-limit his holding of the two offices. So that was a welcome step forward right at the beginning.
Mr. Öpik, representing the Liberal Democrat Party, who, like his noble friends in this House, supports the dual mandate in general, was also kind enough to say at col. 1177 that the Conservative Party had raised legitimate concerns and that his party would be willing to try having both roles held briefly by one person. So the Liberal Democrats have now altered the argument and concluded that they were only pressing for the particular dual mandate to be held briefly.
Ms Julie Morgan, the Labour Member for Cardiff, North, had rather stronger feelings on the subject. She said that in her view any dual mandate should be for the shortest possible time. At col. 1178 she said:
"There are strong feelings in the Labour party against any dual mandates".

1519
She observed, at col. 1179, that, as her honourable friend the Minister had said,
"it is obvious that, in practical terms, a member of the British Cabinet could not be at the same time a Member of the Welsh Assembly or First Secretary for anything other than the shortest transitional period because of the conflicting loyalties that would arise. The First Secretary would be voted in as leader of the Assembly by Assembly Members or by her or his political party—it is a bottom-up approach. She or he would then represent those people. The Secretary of State for Wales is appointed by the Prime Minister and is bound by Cabinet collective responsibility. There is a clear conflict between the two roles, which could not be combined other than for the shortest possible transitional period".
So once again we have a clear statement that the only acceptable way to proceed would be on the basis that any dual mandate should be for the shortest possible transitional period.
Mr. Alan Williams, a well respected senior member of the Labour Party and the Member for Swansea, West, also had strong views on the subject. He regretted that there had been an attempt to dismiss the matter with what he called "some quite irrelevant comments" because he felt that it struck at the heart of the constitutional basis of Cabinet government. He added, at col. 1180:
"Under Cabinet government, there is Cabinet responsibility and Cabinet accountability. If a Minister cannot accept what the Cabinet decides, he or she must leave the Cabinet. With all respect to my right hon. friend, how on earth can he give his full loyalty to a separate Assembly that may have different perspectives—although it may have the same political background—on policy, expenditure and so on. How could he give equal loyalty to each or full loyalty to either? When he steps out of No. 10, and is interviewed by the BBC and HTV, how will we know which hat he is wearing? When he disagrees, how will we know whether he is speaking for the Assembly and when he is speaking for the Assembly how will he preserve Cabinet responsibility and accountability?".
Those were all the questions which I have asked in this House on a number of occasions, being frequently chided by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, for having an obsession.
Then Mr. Hain, the Minister, came to wind up the debate. He started with a remarkable statement—I wish it had been made in this House; we might have saved time. He said,
"Nobody seriously argues that the same person can be Secretary of State for Wales and Assembly First Secretary in perpetuity. It would be politically unacceptable and constitutionally undesirable".
He then went on,
"There is a very strong case for a transitional period, particularly at the beginning when the Assembly is bedding down and the order transferring the functions of the Secretary of State has still to be implemented"—[col. 1118.]
He is talking there of a pretty short transitional period—only a few months at the outside. At this point I am bound to say that if we have something which is constitutionally undesirable, it seems to me that there is a case to alter the Bill to make sure that it cannot happen. The things that are politically unacceptable we can perhaps leave to others but, if they are constitutionally undesirable, it would be a mistake to pass a Bill that includes them and makes them possible. However, we shall see a little later how far the Minister is prepared to go in dealing with that matter.
The Minister having said that this should happen for only a short transitional period, he was then challenged by the leader of Plaid Cymru, the right honourable Dafydd Wigley, who asked whether he would accept an amendment limiting the period. Mr. Wigley expressed unhappiness that yet again the situation should be allowed to continue for anything but a transitional period. Mr. Hain said that he would not accept such an amendment, but did not give any explanation for his refusal.
We then had a situation in which all the spokesmen—the Conservative spokesman added his support for the proposition—for all the parties in another place had now said that what was proposed, what was possible in the Bill and the proposition to which I objected was undesirable and should be allowed to happen only for a transitional period.
We then reached the end of the debate on 22nd July in another place when the Minister, Mr. Peter Hain, yet again made a remarkable statement. He said of Mr. Ron Davies, to whom he paid tribute—he quoted my tribute too to Mr. Ron Davies, and reminded the House that I had paid such a tribute—that,
"He is choosing willingly to leave a Cabinet post—one of the highest posts in the Government, to which most Members of Parliament aspire only in their dreams. He is giving that up—at some point in the future—and is prepared to take a salary cut and all the reductions in status that his self-removal from the Cabinet will entail in order to help give birth to Wales's new democracy".— [col. 1184.]
Having said all that, he referred to the assurances that he had given.
We now had the situation that there was general acceptance that the dual mandate should be allowed to happen only for a transitional period. We had a statement by the Minister that indicated that Mr. Ron Davies, after an unspecified period, intends to give up the office of Secretary of State and hold only one office.
I tabled an amendment—I believe generously and reasonably framed—to suggest that the transitional period should be no more than 12 months from the first sitting of the assembly. My noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy takes a more stringent view and tabled amendments for shorter transitional periods, perhaps on the basis that the Government could make a choice. I know that Mr. Wigley in another place favours a shorter period than I do, but I do not want to be difficult at this stage. If we are going to have a transitional period, we do not need to tie it too tightly. All the things that have been argued for could be covered within 12 months.
I would much prefer to see this limitation put into the Bill. If it is then argued, "That is impossible at this stage. We must not prejudice the Bill. We must pass it and cannot risk losing it", I would say that that is not true. To begin with, even if the Bill was delayed until the overspill period, it would not be a disaster—we need only look at the stage which the Scotland Bill has reached. In any case, it would be possible to introduce an amendment. We do not have to spend days ping-ponging backwards and forwards. I well recall sitting in the House of Commons when we adjourned for a short period having sent an amendment down to this place and waited for it to be "ponged" back. That process could be carried out in a single day.
Therefore, if the noble and learned Lord wished to accept an amendment, it could be done perfectly well and in many ways it would be highly desirable that it should be done. We should not allow things that are constitutionally unacceptable to be permitted by the Bills that we pass. However, I know that Mr. Ron Davies is giving a party this evening on the Terrace to celebrate the passing of this Bill. I would not want to upset his entertainment, though if he is there with all his supporters, they could come in, pass the amendment and then have even greater grounds for celebration.
However, the other place was given certain statements—he called them undertakings—by the Minister. They differ considerably from anything that has been said before in this House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I reread the speech that he made at Report stage. I do not know what my noble friend on the Front Bench will do with his amendments. However, if it is accepted that the period should be transitional—I acknowledge the argument that there may be other transfers with responsibility which might conceivably make it desirable for another Minister to come in with responsibility for, say, broadcasting and serve for a brief transitional period; so I am not limiting the argument to the Secretary of State—if we can obtain a clear statement from the Minister that it is the intention of the Government that any Minister coming in in this way will serve only for a transitional period, and if we can obtain a clear statement from the Minister as to what he thinks the maximum transitional period will be, this House may feel that we can leave the matter there. But we need some clear statements. We have some alternative amendments. I do not know what my noble friend will do with his amendments. If we can obtain categoric statements to satisfy the House, I may well be prepared to withdraw my amendment. But if we cannot, then we should go for one of the shorter periods rather than one of the longer. I would then withdraw my amendment with the suggestion that my noble friend should press his.
We have a situation where there is a clear expression of view in the other place. I am merely asking the House to endorse what Ministers and others have said in another place and to write it into the Bill. I await the Minister's response.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 27 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 27A, but propose Amendment No. 27C in lieu thereof.—(Lord Crickhowell.)
3.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, in my anxiety to assist the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, in the short debate we had on Amendment No. 3, I omitted to add my personal congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. His elevation is a matter of considerable personal pleasure; it is a pleasure to the people of Wales, to the Welsh circuit and, if I may say so, to the Members of this House who sit on the Liberal Democrat Benches for the way in which he has conducted this Bill.
1522
I say also to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that he discovered the way to promotion through attending to Welsh affairs. Your Lordships may recall that on one occasion, as a spectator, I referred to the contest that was taking place between "Taffy" Mackay of Ardbrecknish and "Iestyn" Falconer responding for the Government. It seemed to me that they had adopted Welsh identities in putting forward their respective cases.
I turn to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. Our position has been clear throughout. We are of the view that after the first assembly it would be right for the dual mandate to cease. The first Welsh assembly is due to last for a period of four years. We believe that during that period it would be sensible for the Secretary of State for Wales to give his great experience—should he be elected to that assembly and become the first secretary—to ensuring that the position of the first secretary is well bedded down.
I feel sometimes that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is looking to the past and the days when he was the Secretary of State for Wales. I have paid tribute to the way he conducted that office during that time, when he did a great deal of good for Wales. I think that he sees the position through his eyes at that time, where the responsibilities that he held were so great that it would be impossible to take on other responsibilities. The important point is that the role of the Secretary of State in the Westminster Parliament under the devolution proposals will considerably change. No doubt there will be a period of adjustment in relation to the role that the Secretary of State has to fulfil and the role that the first secretary in the Welsh assembly has to fulfil. If the positions are to be held by one person during that period, it will be to the advantage of the people of Wales.
We cannot support the amendment of the noble Lord. We will vote against it if he presses it. We will do the same in respect of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, although he was third in the Western Mail opinion poll. I do so because I am accused, yet again, by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, of accusing him of having an obsession with Mr. Ron Davies. The noble Lord has, once again, proved the point. He has spoken about Mr. Ron Davies for 15 minutes, I think for the third time. His speeches are now apparently written by Members of all parties in another place. Nothing that has been said in another place is different from what I have said in response to him in the debates here in relation to the matter of transition.
My objection to his amendment, yet again, is that he is legislating for one person in a particular circumstance to prevent the people of Wales from making a democratic choice; to prevent a political party and a certain politician from pursuing a career. That is not a matter for this House. This House is legislating for a new democracy in Wales. The former Secretary of State must understand, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, that we are in new circumstances.

1523
As I have argued before, the transition that is taking place should enable Ministers of the Crown to move from Whitehall to Cardiff and vice versa. The noble Lord conceded that it might be possible that a DCMS Minister for broadcasting might find him or herself in Cardiff.
Let me remind the noble Lord of what I described in one debate as a "call for Ron" scenario. In other words, a Prime Minister of the United Kingdom might call for a very successful politician from Cardiff, of any party, to join a London administration. That is the order of the day as regards the way that democracies function throughout the European Union.
We are not yet in the Federation of the United Kingdom. Many of us wish we had been at the end of the 19th century. When we are making a democracy of the United Kingdom in its federal relations between nations within that kingdom at the end of the 20th century, let us do it properly. Let us not put on the face of Bills clauses which prevent successful politicians elected to one place from going to serve in another.
Let me declare a personal interest. If this were to become an elected House under a new administration, and if I were elected to Cardiff, I might decide, at the grand old age of 58, after two terms in Cardiff, to test the will of the Welsh electorate to be elected here. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is against dual mandates, but that is the nature of the position in quasi-federal systems. We should not be trying to legislate again tonight for one person. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is already on the record as inviting himself to Mr. Ron Davies' party. I would not want to delay his going.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in this Bill. I have not done so before. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is right. When we have a general election for a Parliament in the United Kingdom, it is a new parliament. When there is a general election for the Welsh assembly, it will be a new assembly. Will not this amendment cover each new assembly and not just the very first one?
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has rather personalised this debate in a most unfortunate way. Nothing has been said against the question of a dual mandate and a Member being a Member of both the Welsh national assembly and a Member in the other place, or even, if he was fortunate enough—which might indeed become the case—being a Member in this place. The debate is about whether somebody in the Cabinet, with a very specific loyalty, can also serve as the head of the Welsh national assembly at the same time.
We are legislating at a particular point in time. There is only one constitution now involved. It is inevitable therefore that the context is in the context of one person. It is not personal at all. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell is correct: this is a constitutional issue and a matter that stands in its own right. There is no question of personalities being involved.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly intervene here. From the very start of the consideration
1524
of this Bill, as I said informally to the Secretary of State, I was not in favour, after the first four years of the assembly, of any Member being a Member of the assembly and a Member of the House of Commons or the European Parliament. In principle I am against a dual mandate of Secretary of State and first secretary.
That does not deal with the problem as I see it. We are embarking on a completely new venture, a devolution of power and administration over the distribution of funds which are raised by Parliament here. It is important that the assembly should have the option of appointing as its first secretary a person, whoever he or she may be, who has had experience of administering the very powers that have been devolved to the Welsh assembly. That period will be a settling-in period.
If the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, had put down an amendment that after the first four years of the Welsh assembly nobody could hold a dual mandate, I would have supported it. Everybody generally is agreed that in the longer term it is undesirable, politically and constitutionally, that a person should hold both positions. I anticipate that at the end of four years the position will be very much clearer. I suspect that the Prime Minister will decide during that period whether it is politically acceptable; it depends on how things develop in the Welsh assembly. I think it will generally be thought of as constitutionally unacceptable. That does not mean to say that for the first four years, when we are establishing something entirely new, we should not have the option at least of the existing Secretary of State taking on, for a time, the responsibilities of the first secretary as well. I am not saying necessarily that will happen. It may be that the Prime Minister will not approve of it; one does not know, but the option should be there.
4 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, these three amendments could perhaps be described as a "strategic retreat". Alternatively one could be complimentary and describe them as a "damage limitation exercise". However, I want to challenge the logic of the amendments because in his Motion (No. 27B) the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, states:
"That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 27 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 27A".
The reason given by the Commons is:
"Because it is not appropriate for Ministers of the Crown to be disqualified from being members of the National Assembly of Wales".
That reasoning, which has been accepted also by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, is applicable equally to these amendments because it categorically states that it is not appropriate for Ministers of the Crown to be disqualified from being members of the national assembly for Wales. In that wording, whether the period is three months, six months, nine months or four years is irrelevant.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but I should correct this point straightaway. If the noble Lord will read my

1525
amendment, Amendment No. 27C, he will see that it no longer states that that person should be disqualified from being a member of the assembly, but simply from being a member of the executive of the assembly or being assembly first secretary. That is a wholly different proposition.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that, but the amendment is not as important as the reasoning of the Commons. They have disagreed to the original amendment for exactly the same reason as they would disagree to the current amendments.
Having said that, I should like to take up the point about the new assembly for Wales. It will be a new democracy. That is what we want for the benefit of the Welsh people, and the assembly and the people of Wales can only benefit if, in the formative years of the development of the assembly, the first secretary is also a Minister. That is my view of the matter. I believe that the position will change within four years, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said. However, we need that time because the assembly, and particularly the first secretary, will face considerable difficulties. Those difficulties may be enormous and it can only be helpful if the first secretary is also a Minister of the Crown.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am sure that I shall be allowed to speak to all of these amendments now, including my own. I find intriguing, to say the least, the reason given by the other place for rejecting my noble friend's amendment. The Commons state:
"it is not appropriate for Ministers of the Crown to be disqualified from being members of the National Assembly for Wales".
That was a substantial part of the argument that was put forward by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Peter Hain, when the Commons considered our amendments on 22nd July. He pleaded for the right of Ministers to stand for the assembly, as did the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General in this House and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, last night during the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill in this House. Of course, he was speaking not of the Welsh assembly, but of the Scottish parliament.
During that debate on 22nd July, the Rev. Ian Paisley pointed out:
"No Member of the European Parliament can hold any office in any Parliament or Assembly".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/7/98; col. 1183.]
The foundation of the Rev. Paisley's comment was Article 6 of the 1976 Act concerning the election of the representatives of the European Parliament, which states explicitly:
"The office of representative in the European Parliament shall be incompatible with that of:
—a member of the Government of a Member State".
The article goes on to list other incompatibilities.
1526
That and subsequent legislation is summed up by Erskine May as meaning—I quote from page 822:
"members of national governments are generally held to be ineligible"
to stand for the European Parliament.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He may be a Welsh Presbyterian, but it is hardly relevant to quote the Rev. Ian Paisley in this context because the European Parliament is an entirely different structure from an assembly structure within a member state of the European Union.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am coming to precisely that point. I disagree with the noble Lord about the Rev. Ian Paisley, who participated and intervened in that debate on 22nd July.
The fact of the matter is that the Government are breaking new ground by allowing Ministers of the Crown to stand for membership of the assembly—or by not disqualifying them from doing so. As the noble Lord said, it will be argued that the European Parliament is different from the assembly—as, indeed, it is. However, I wonder whether the differences that exist between the European Parliament and the assembly justify the addition of this particular difference. I believe that that is questionable. Ministers of the Crown bring powers with them. They will certainly be a cut above the ordinary members of the assembly and they will be better placed to secure election or selection to the executive.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he agree that the role of the Secretary of State for Wales will be dramatically different following devolution and that at this precise moment no one can foresee in just what way the powers will be curtailed or how they will be exercised? Therefore, does not the noble Lord agree that it makes sense in the logic of events that, for the first sitting of the assembly in its first period of four years, a person of experience should be at the helm?
Lord Roberts of Conwy: On the contrary, my Lords. I do not accept what the noble Lord has said. We know perfectly well what the Secretary of State will be doing. We know that according to Clause 22 he will hand over his functions to the assembly. We also know that as first secretary of the executive, under Clause 56 he will then take up those functions. The question is: how can those duties be reconciled?
The question of holding two government posts, as opposed to representative offices, is entirely different from the matter of which I was speaking earlier. We were discussing the role of the dual representative mandate. We are talking now about the dual ministerial mandate. Again, the Government appear to be breaking

1527
new ground because paragraph 106 of Questions of Procedure for Ministers 1992 states:
"When they take up office, Ministers should give up any other public"—
I repeat the word "public"—
"appointment they may hold. Where it is proposed that such an appointment should be retained, the Prime Minister must be consulted".
Similar words appear in the 1997 ministerial code. I believe that it was the latter point—that is, the Prime Minister's interest—that the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General had in mind when he asked us to consider appointments from that point of view. He said at Third Reading:
"If the Prime Minister takes the view that a particular person, already serving as an assembly secretary, is the best appointee also to be a Minister of the Crown, I do not see that it is our place, by a provision in this Bill, to deny the Prime Minister that choice".— [Official Report, 15/7/98; col. 328.]
It was at that point that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell intervened to indicate that this was a move into very new territory. The noble and learned Lord was quite right to consider the situation from the standpoint of the assembly. He then said:
"If the assembly is content to have as a member of the executive committee someone who is already a Minister of the Crown, or if it is content to retain as an assembly secretary someone who is subsequently appointed as a Minister of the Crown, why should your Lordships seek to deny that by amendment to the Bill?"
We are aware that when there is a dual ministerial mandate there is the possibility of a conflict of loyalties.
In the course of our debate reference has been made to split-ticket voting. Here we are talking about split ministerial responsibilities and loyalties. As my noble friend pointed out in a speech earlier this afternoon, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Hain, takes a very different line from the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General. His is a very different point of view. He stated that it would be politically unacceptable and constitutionally undesirable to have this kind of dual ministerial mandate.
I shall return to that matter in one moment. I should like to deal with the position in which we now find ourselves, my noble friend Lord Crickhowell having proposed an amendment in lieu of the one with which the Commons have disagreed. He has proposed that a Minister of the Crown should not hold office simultaneously as a member of the assembly executive for a period exceeding 12 months from the first sitting. We have given the Government the further choice of six months or three months. Those proposals arise from the statements by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the other place on 22nd July and the general knowledge that the Secretary of State for Wales appears to be intent on seeking election to the assembly as first secretary. He has let it be known that his holding of the two posts would be temporary. That was reflected in the remarks of Mr. Hain at col. 1181 when he said:
"Nobody seriously argues that the same person can be Secretary of State for Wales and Assembly First Secretary in perpetuity".
Perhaps he meant "permanently".
"It would he politically unacceptable and constitutionally undesirable".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/7/98; col. 1181]
1528
Mr. Hain has been left in no doubt about the validity of that last two-pronged sentence not only by the Conservative spokesman in the other place Dr. Liam Fox but by his own Labour supporters Julie Morgan and the right honourable Alan Williams.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain how the conflict of interest will arise? The noble Lord has said that if a Minister of the Crown is first secretary there may be a conflict of interest. However, Ministers of the Crown are allowed to sit in the Welsh assembly, albeit not as Ministers or as first secretary. In that case is there not a conflict of interest in the noble Lord's argument? Does the noble Lord believe that any possibility of a conflict of interest, which would be a disadvantage, would be outweighed by the enormous advantages that would accrue to Wales and the Welsh assembly by having within it a person of stature in its formative years? The assembly is new and we want it to succeed. Is it not better to leave it to the responsibility of the individual concerned rather than envisage the very rare possibility of a conflict of interest?
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I hope that my tongue did not slip. I was talking about a conflict of loyalties. A Minister of the Crown belongs to the United Kingdom Government and shares in the collective responsibility of that government. He has to support the decisions taken collectively by that government. If the same Minister of the Crown is also first secretary of the assembly and executive he will have a collective responsibility to that executive and assembly. It is quite clear that there may be a situation in which a conflict of loyalties arises between the functions of the Secretary of State as a Minister of the Crown and a member of the United Kingdom Government and the functions of the first secretary of the executive of the Welsh assembly.
Having acknowledged that joint office-holding of the kind proposed was fundamentally wrong, Mr. Hain went on to say:
"There is a very strong case for a transitional period"—
we have heard that argument this afternoon—
"particularly at the beginning when the Assembly is bedding down and the order transferring the functions of the Secretary of State has still to be implemented. There is a great deal of sense in having some continuity in the interests of stability and good government". [Col. 1181].
That view gained a good deal of sympathy. We all have sympathy with that view. But when the Minister was asked by Mr. Wigley, President of Plaid Cymru, whether the Government would consider a time limit on a dual ministerial mandate the answer was a flat no. It is to be hoped that the Government have had time to reflect on that blunt response and consider the wealth of alternatives that we have presented to them. If all of them are refused—the 12 months, the six months and the three months—I shall not know whether to laugh or cry or launch into the slaves' chorus from "Nabucco". The effect of that on this Bill would be the total negation of devolution in any meaningful sense. It would mean a greater concentration of power in the hands of the Secretary of State-cum-First Secretary. Where would his

1529
first loyalty lie? Would it be to the assembly and his executive or to the Prime Minister at No. 10? I believe that that would be the reverse of what was intended. We would end up by tolerating what was in effect an elected dictatorship and it would show a complete lack of trust in the judgment of the assembly.
Noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite will realise that our amendment shows a willingness to compromise, even on fundamental principles, in order to ensure a smooth transition of functions from the Secretary of State to the assembly if time alone is required. But one is bound to ask why the Secretary of State is so concerned about the transition of functions and the structure of government proposed under the Bill that he must also hold the first secretaryship. Why is it so important that the two offices should be conjoined even for a time? Are there inadequacies in the Bill? What are the difficulties that the Secretary of State anticipates? Does he anticipate a conflict of wills between himself as Secretary of State and First Secretary—as there was between himself and Mr. Russell Goodway, Leader of Cardiff County Council, about the choice of the location of the assembly? Obviously, it would be desirable for the Secretary of State and the elected first secretary to work closely and harmoniously together. But it is possible that they may not and that in the years to come there will be a clash of personalities. They may end up at loggerheads with each other.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, is not the noble Lord forgetting about the fact that there are such things as elections? It is certainly not automatic that the present Secretary of State for Wales is going to be leader or first secretary of the new assembly.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. That is a point that I am coming to as I bring my speech to an end. Perhaps I may just make this point. The relationship between the Secretary of State and the first secretary will, we may be sure, vary considerably over time, but that is no reason for delaying the full implementation of the Bill.
There is a great deal of concern over this matter, as those who have studied proceedings in the other place will be aware. That concern extends far beyond the Opposition Benches both here and there. There is a danger, of course, that the Secretary of State may make a nonsense of devolution by over-centralising power in himself and arrogating too much power to himself. There is also the danger that he may make a fool of himself, as the noble Lord implied, by being thwarted in his ambitions by the will of the assembly and failing to be elected as first secretary. Neither of those scenarios makes for a promising start to the assembly.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have never approached this question on the basis of personalities. When we discussed this at some length earlier I said that I recognised the principles behind the amendments. I said that I would give them decent regard because I honour the motive that engenders them. That is the way I wish to approach matters.
1530
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, spoke about the fundamental principle. The fundamental principle for which we contend is that this is a devolution measure. That means the devolution of powers; it means the devolution of discretions, of choices or, to use the phrase that the noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Thomas, used, it means the devolution of options.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and I are both retired lawyers, but we are not so long retired that we cannot recognise selective quotation when it is offered before us on a plate. What Mr. Hain said is perfectly correct and I am happy to say that I can endorse fully the comments and assurances made by Mr. Hain in another place. However, what Mr. Hain actually said—I hate to go to accuracy—was this:
"Nobody seriously argues that the same person can be Secretary of State for Wales and Assembly First Secretary in perpetuity"—
I underline those words.
"It would be politically unacceptable and constitutionally undesirable".—
in other words, a permanent dual mandate, in the same way as the Austro-Hungarian Empire wanted to be a permanent dual monarchy.
The important matter is this: the question was then put by Mr. Wigley to Mr. Hain: would the Government in that House consider a limited dual mandate, in effect, on the face of the Bill? Mr. Hain replied:
"No, we would not be willing to consider that".
He developed his reasons. He said that there might be some circumstances in the future where it would be mutually beneficial to the Westminster Parliament and the assembly in Cardiff if a duality were available.
Two institutions have to agree. The assembly has to agree and Parliament here has to agree. If there were the significant prospect, either of a conflict of loyalties, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, or a conflict of interests, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, it is for the two institutions respectively to come to their conclusion.
I believe that the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, was intended to be flexible and helpful, and I hope to respond in exactly the same way. I ally my answer to his approach, if I may, to the questions put distinctly by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. He asked what would be the requirement in the earlier transitional periods. It is not a fearful prospect; it is simply that the purpose of a transitional period is to ensure that those things which ought to be done are done efficiently, appropriately and in a timely way, such as the transfer of functions, the adoption of concordats with government departments and making the necessary financial arrangements. I can say with the specific authority of the Secretary of State that I should be very surprised and disappointed if that transitional period extended even as long as 12 months. I hope that I have responded in the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, put his questions.
What we are saying is that we do not see the virtue or the value of saying that it will be three months, six months or 12 months. I do not say this tendentiously, but the original amendment, which was carried against

1531
the advice from this side of the House, was, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, pointed out, a disqualification against the Minister being even a member of the assembly. That has been abandoned. It is possible, and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, very fairly said this, that in the future, if there were transfers of new functions—he gave the example of broadcasting functions—there might be occasions where a duality might be of value to the Westminster Parliament and it might be of value to the Welsh assembly. It works the other way round, of course. There may well be occasions when there are people of outstanding quality, not only holding the function of first secretary—this amendment is wider than that—but of any secretary in the Welsh assembly, and his or her talents might well be wanted in Westminster. Why should we disable the Prime Minister of the day from looking for that source of talent if it would be in the national interest, I readily concede, for a short period of time?
We have discussed over a long period whether there should be a possible duality between being a member of the assembly and any Minister of the Crown. The amendment was not limited to first secretary or Secretary of State for Wales. That has been abandoned or not pursued. What we now have is this position. There is a general recognition, and I do not dissent from it or water it down in the slightest way, that it would not be politically acceptable or constitutionally appropriate for the duality to continue for ever. I do not believe that Westminster would stand for it, and I am quite certain that Cardiff would not stand for it. That, as the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, said is what elections are for, to correct, if there were any, a tendency towards the elected dictatorship which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, spoke of.
What we are saying is this: if we are approaching this voyage on the basis of trust in devolution we must let the assembly come to its own conclusion. I believe that the questions which have been raised and the amendments which have been put have drawn out sufficient indications, assurances and comments to satisfy the reasonable requirements of those who had conscientious doubts about the scheme of the Bill. The Bill is about devolution. It is about a devolution of options. There might well be a period in five years' time when a short duality, subject to the mandate of both institutions, might well be appropriate. Why should we not trust the assembly to make that choice? In the end, that is the fundamental principle for which I contend. I do not believe that there is a fundamental principle which can be identified in any of the amendments because the internal logical inconsistency cannot be explained away.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, perhaps I may extend to my noble friend dual congratulations. First, I join all other Members of the House in congratulating him on his new appointment. Secondly, although lawyers are not usually accused of brevity, I must congratulate my noble friend on managing to reply to 49 minutes of argument in seven minutes.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, in moving the Motion, I paid tribute to the Minister, and repeated a tribute that
1532
I had paid previously to the right honourable Secretary of State for Wales which I genuinely meant. I take the opportunity of paying it again. I admire the way in which he has carried through the Bill. To take up a point made earlier in the debate, in pressing the amendment nothing was addressed personally against the Secretary of State.
Having paid my tribute to the Minister, perhaps I may say at once that he has responded in the helpful way I hoped he would. I began by giving a text to the House. I referred to the remark by Mr. Peter Hain in another place:
"Nobody seriously argues that the same person can be the Secretary of State for Wales and Assembly First Secretary in perpetuity. It would be politically unacceptable and constitutionally undesirable".
I cited his argument for a transitional period.
As I observed earlier, it was perhaps a pity that some of those points were not made at an earlier stage by government Ministers. However, we had a clear statement in another place from Mr. Hain and I am extremely pleased that the Minister has gone out of his way to endorse fully and comprehensively the comments of Mr. Hain. That means that both Houses of Parliament have now had the assurances that we have been seeking.
I still feel a slight sense of discomfort that something that is constitutionally undesirable might occur as a consequence of the Bill, but because we all want the Bill to be the basis for a successful assembly we should now be prepared to accept the assurances given. The Minister was particularly helpful in what he said. He went perhaps further than Mr. Hain on this occasion. Mr. Hain was almost as warm in his praise for the Secretary of State as I was, and he brought tears to the eyes of those in another place when he spelt out the sacrifices to be made. However, he did not spell out how long those sacrifices might be postponed.
We have now had a clear statement which has been most helpful. We have been told that certain things need to be done. I refer to the transfer of functions; the concordats that need to be put in place; and the financial arrangements to be made. The Minister said that when he spoke of those matters he was speaking with the authority of the Secretary of State, and that he would be surprised and disappointed if the period was as long as the 12 months that I put as an outer limit in my amendment. In those circumstances, it is right to accept those undertakings and the statement that the Government have now made about their position. I express my gratitude for the fact that they have done so clearly in this House—even more clearly than in another place. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, in view of the assurances given by the Minister in reply to our earlier debate, I shall not move the amendments in my name.
[Amendments Nos. 27E and 27G not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, accordingly, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 27, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 27A.
Perhaps I may rectify a gross canard—in fact I shall try to shoot it—which was unloosed earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. Should the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, be attending and joining us this evening, they are not intruding; they are there as the result of genuinely well-meant invitation.
Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 27, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 27A.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Minimum Wage Bill
4.36 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons and amendment be now considered.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT TO A LORDS AMENDMENT AND COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OTHER LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to H.L. Bill 87 as first printed for the Lords.]
LORDS AMENDMENT
1 After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

EXCLUSIONS
(" .—(1) If it appears expedient to the Secretary of State, he may, by order made by statutory instrument, provide for the total or partial exemption from the provisions of this Act of—

(a) any area, sector of employment, trade or industry;

(b) undertakings of different sizes;

(c) persons of different ages; or

(d) occupations or categories of persons.

(2) The power conferred by subsection (1) includes power to make such incidental, supplemental or transitional provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.
(3) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under this section includes the power to vary or revoke its provisions or to limit its operation for a specified period of time by means of a further such order.").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
1A Because the Commons consider that the national minimum wage should, so far as reasonably practicable, be uniform for all workers in the United Kingdom and that it is not appropriate to make different provision for different areas, sectors of employment, trades or industries, sizes of undertaking, occupations, or ages over 26.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A. With the leave of the House I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7.
The new Clause 2 amendment—the power to make total or partial exemption at the whim of the Secretary of State—has been described by the noble Baroness opposite in earlier debates as providing real flexibility, a discretionary power, even—in one of her more fantastic flights of fantasy—trying to save the Government from making an horrendous mistake. It is simply not the case that the clause provides a harmless or helpful bit of flexibility. The clause exposes a fundamental difference between this side of the House and Members on the other side. We want the national minimum wage; they do not, and they have never denied that fact.
Despite what the Liberal Democrats have argued, this clause is not about regional variations. It is about exemptions and exclusions, and about tearing an enormous hole in the Bill. We have made clear both here and in another place that we shall resist any attempts to destroy or weaken the Bill. We are told that it is only a discretionary power. But why is it needed? What would be the criteria? Who might benefit from its use? Certainly not the workers who would have the protection that we have fought so hard to provide removed from them because a Secretary of State thinks it expedient.
I suspect that the clause is a device which will allow the Opposition to promise to the electorate at some time in the future that they will not repeal the National Minimum Wage Act. Indeed, with this clause they will not need to do so. It will be killed by the death of a thousand cuts, sector by sector, region by region. Beginning with the smallest firms, the national minimum wage would disappear. Firms may even be tempted to play roulette with their payroll numbers to remain small enough, or to locate to different regions, in order to be exempted.
The power would allow for a fragmented complicated, unfair system where some people have protection; and others, no doubt those most in need of it because they would be in the lowest paying sectors, would be left with no protection. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will, I am sure, tell us that the clause is there as a "just in case" measure. Just in case of what, my Lords? In case workers, in some sectors and regions, are no longer entitled to a minimum standard of pay? We reject that argument entirely.
We have acknowledged before, and I do so again, that the Bill already contains certain powers to exempt or vary the rate. Those are contained in clauses currently numbered Clauses 4 and 5. However, those were drafted carefully and deliberately because of our concern to avoid creating dangerous loopholes. That is why they were limited and did not permit variations by region, sector, occupation or size of business.
The Opposition's consequential amendments remove those limitations. A general power to exempt will have one certain result: endless special pleading from employers who do not want to have to pay the minimum

1535
wage. Let me remind the House that the minimum wage will be set at £3.60 for the full rate. It is a floor to wages not a going rate; and it is not an enormous sum. For a 40-hour week it comes to £144 a week, and that is before tax. It is important to remember these realities. That is what the Bill is all about. We are talking about gross pay of less than £7,500 a year. I believe it is important that workers have the protection of a national minimum wage. The electorate agree. I urge that the House does not continue to press this amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1A.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, perhaps I, like other noble Lords who spoke in the previous debate, may congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I probably have to agree with what was said, namely that his promotion was due to the fact that he was involved in the Welsh Bill. Other Ministers who were involved in the National Minimum Wage Bill were not so fortunate and did not survive the reshuffle.
I am disappointed, but I have to confess not surprised, that the one amendment your Lordships made to this Bill, apart from the consequential ones, has been rejected by the other place. After all, we were told by the Minister of State there that it was a wrecking amendment when it was nothing of the sort. We were told that by a Minister who yesterday in the other place once again described the hereditary Peers as descendants of robber barons and cattle thieves and who chastised the Liberal Democrats for siding with what he described as sweatshop owners and backstreet exploiters. He suggested that those who came in to vote on that occasion came in leaving their Ferraris and Mercedes in the carpark with the engines running. I suggest that he has never looked in our carpark. It seems to be that the only new cars there are the government cars.
I am totally amazed that the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister left that particular Minister in place while he dismissed the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and his Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, both of whom so courteously and ably dealt with this matter in this House. Clearly, the Minister of State in the other place does not understand this place in using the words that he did. Nor do I believe that he understood my amendment. It was a purely permissive amendment that gave the Secretary of State reserve powers to modify the application of the Act which would never be used unless the Secretary of State chose to do so.
I heard with interest what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said a few moments ago, that bit by bit, sector by sector—I am not sure whether he said area by area—but whatever he said, the Bill would be eaten away. It certainly would not. Unless there was a need for the Secretary of State to implement any of these sections, he certainly would not need to do so and the powers my amendment gave could quietly remain in
1536
their pigeon hole gathering dust. Only the Secretary of State could decide to exercise the powers, and nobody could force him to do so.
However, what the amendment did wreck was the excuse that the Secretary of State could make if he was faced with an overwhelming case to modify the national minimum wage, the excuse that "Yes, you are quite right, but unfortunately I cannot help you because the law does not permit me to do so".
The amendment, I admit, would have wrecked the cosy pre-election deal with the unions that in return for their giving up Clause 4 and the power of their block vote within the Labour Party, and in return for not requiring the Government to repeal all the trade union legislation passed by the previous government, they would get the national minimum wage as a consolation prize.
I should like to remind your Lordships, as I have done on several occasions in the various stages—
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, the noble Baroness is not correct in her history. Policy within the TUC and the Labour Party to introduce a national minimum wage was in 1986. Certainly the question of Clause 4 did not come about within the Labour Party until 1994.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, it may well be that the noble Lord has more knowledge of these matters than I have. If I have said something that is incorrect, of course I apologise for that.
All other countries which have a minimum wage also have exemptions of various sorts to cover various local circumstances. The Government have consistently claimed one essential reason for refusing various amendments. They said that the Bill was sufficiently flexible as it was. This clause gave the Secretary of State the greatest degree of flexibility possible. The Government's refusal of my constructive amendment shows a degree of obstinacy and inflexibility that defies description.
On the occasion of Second Reading I said:
"we … fully respect and honour by virtue of the Salisbury convention, the Government have a mandate for introducing … a minimum wage, however misconceived we believe the idea to be. We are, however, entitled to invite the Government to think again on some of the details".—[Official Report, 23/3/98; col. 1035.]
Well, we have invited the Government to think again on just one detail and they have adamantly refused to do so. Only yesterday I appealed to the new Secretary of State to think again, but I have received only a stony silence.
Your Lordships have the power to refuse to accept the Commons' rejection of our amendment, which would considerably delay the passage of this Bill. But I will certainly not invite you to do so. I would not do so over this particular issue; an issue where the Government, I believe, are making a grave mistake which I have no doubt they will come to regret at a later date. Certainly, I hope that I am wrong. I hope that young people in certain occupations or in certain parts of the country do not suffer and do not feel the pinch as the recession,

1537
which is undoubtedly coming, starts to hit home. I believe that is a mistake which will eventually force the Government to come back to Parliament with fresh primary legislation wasting valuable parliamentary time.
No, this is a case where most definitely we should allow an intransigent Government to stew in their own juice. I therefore advise your Lordships that we should, with every degree of reluctance, accept the decision of the other place.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, as your Lordships are aware, from these Benches we have taken a completely different approach to this Bill from the approach that has been taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. We have consistently argued in support of the Government's position that the era of sweatshop wage rates should be over for ever. We support completely the principle of the minimum wage. It was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto in the same way as it was in the Labour Party manifesto at the last election.
The only area where we have parted company with the Government has been the area touched on by this amendment. We believe that the Government should enshrine permanently into the legislative structure the permanent status of the Low Pay Commission. We believe that the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission should in future years be virtually automatically accepted by the Government and that the Secretary of State should have the power by way of regulation to bring in its recommendations without having to go back to primary legislation.
That is where we have parted company with the Government. The Government's position has consistently been that they are in favour of one national minimum wage rate; that should apply to the whole country and if at any future stage there should be any variation of that, a government should need to come back to Parliament with primary legislation to change it.
We have argued consistently in the other place and here that the Government should have the power to look in the future at regional variation. We accept that the first rate will be on a consistent basis throughout the country. We accept that the report of the Low Pay Commission, when it touched on regional variation, did not make the case for regional variation. However, we think that when we get to future years, into the millennium, it may well be that the changing economic circumstances of this country, in particular following our entry into European monetary union, may require the Government to look again at that issue.
However, I am somewhat surprised by the arguments that were used yesterday in the other place against the Liberal Democrats. I have no knowledge of whether I am the descendant of a thief or a robber baron, as was suggested by the Minister in the other place. Whether I am or not, I know that it is not the basis of my attendance in your Lordships' House. I certainly did not arrive in a Ferrari or a Mercedes in order to vote on the amendment and I have never been regarded as naïve.
However, the fundamental point made by the Minister in the other place, and which I find difficult to cope with, is that the substantive reason why the Government
1538
are not prepared to accept the amendment—which, after all, only empowers a Secretary of State to take action and is not prescriptive—is that there appears to be a naïve belief on the part of the Government that at some future stage we shall have another Conservative government. They do not trust a future Secretary of State in a Conservative government not to emasculate the national minimum wage by the operation of this clause. That is where I part company with the Government. It is beyond my credibility that in my lifetime there will be another Conservative government. Therefore, I find naïve the Government's reluctance to agree the clause because of the fear of the power they might put into the hands of the noble Baroness when she becomes Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. However, having shared that view I shall not press the matter.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind words of congratulations. Perhaps I may pay a genuinely felt personal tribute to my noble friends Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Haskel for their considerable part in piloting the Bill through this House. I thank them for the great personal kindness that they have shown to me in guiding me on this complicated issue. The Bill owes its passage through this House much more to them than to me.
I shall not reiterate the arguments that have been put forward on many occasions as to why we object to this amendment. I say simply that we have made it clear that, save in relation to the limited circumstances put forward by the Government in their Bill, we do not believe in anything other than a national minimum wage. This amendment would permit such a principle to be breached and breached repeatedly. Moreover, it would give any other government a power to destroy the national minimum wage by a thousand cuts. We therefore believe that it is not right as a matter of principle and it goes against what we set out in our manifesto. I ask the House not to insist on their amendment to which the Commons have disagreed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
5 Clause 2, page 2, line 34, leave out subsection (7).
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
5A Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed.
6 Clause 3, page 3, line 4, leave out subsection (3).
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
6A Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed.
7 Clause 4, page 3, line 18, leave out subsection (2).
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
7A Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reasons numbered 5A, 6A, and 7A.

1539
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reasons numbered 5A, 6A and 7A.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
25 Clause 42, page 26, leave out line 18.
The Commons agreed to this amendment and proposed the following consequential amendment to the Bill—

COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT TO A LORDS AMENDMENT
25A Clause 42, page 26, line 30, leave out ("or paragraph (a) above").
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25A. It is a consequential amendment to the Bill.
The amendment to Clause 42, which the Government tabled on Third Reading in this place, left a drafting anomaly which needs to be corrected. It is minor, but I shall take this opportunity to explain why it is necessary. Without the amendment, there would be an erroneous cross-reference to "paragraph (a) above" in Clause 43 which would not make sense. It refers to the previous paragraph (a) which the Government amendment removed. This is an error which we ask the House to support us in putting right. We do not wish the Bill to contain cross-references which do not make sense and will lead to confusion.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 25A.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Finance (No. 2) Bill
4.54 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is the second Finance Bill of the new Government that your Lordships' House has considered. It continues the process of modernising the British economy with the objective of raising the sustainable rate of long-term growth and ensuring that everyone has a share in rising prosperity.
It implements the Government's second Budget; a budget which will help turn ambition into achievement and which encourages work, promotes enterprise and supports families. And this Finance Bill, as with the Budget, takes an unashamedly long-term view. There are no quick fixes. Instead, this is a radical reform package designed to bring about long-term gain for the country.
First, we need economic stability, a commitment to low inflation and sound public finances. This is the essential foundation for building long-term growth and rising prosperity.
1540
Last May, the Government inherited an economy showing all the signs that yet another short-term inflationary boom was in prospect, reflecting the previous Government's failure to heed the advice of the Bank of England and take the necessary action. Inflation was way above target and the public finances were in substantial deficit.
Since coming to power, this Government have set out new long-term economic frameworks for both monetary and fiscal policy and taken immediate and tough decisions to prevent a consumer boom and a return to the stop-go cycles which characterised the economy under the previous government. The decisions that we have made since coming to power will achieve the necessary economic stability to ensure that Britain gets back on track for steady and sustainable growth.
Secondly, we are determined to promote enterprise. This Bill introduces a range of tax initiatives to boost investment, help small firms and promote research and development.
Thirdly, I turn to welfare reform. In order to help sustain growth, we need a highly skilled and trained workforce. We are determined to end the waste of resources when people want to work but face barriers to doing so. We will therefore encourage work by making work pay.
Fourthly, in order to create a fairer and therefore more efficient society, we are introducing measures to support families, to protect the environment, and to improve public transport.
These four themes underpin the current Bill, and I will say a little more about specific measures in a moment.
First, I should say a few words about our Comprehensive Spending Review. The public sector will spend over £330 billion this year. That is equivalent to over £5,000 for every man, woman and child in the UK. The CSR has taken a radical root and branch look at how this money is spent to ensure that departments meet the Government's priorities. The Government are investing in reform; investing for the long term.
The new spending plans announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review focus spending on the Government's priorities and root out waste and inefficiency. Over the next three years, there will be £19 billion more for education; over £20 billion more for health; £1.7 billion more to improve public transport; and £4.4 billion more to regenerate our cities and housing.
As I said a few minutes ago, the essential precondition for long-term sustainable growth is economic stability and a commitment to openness and transparency in the management of the economy. That is why over the cycle we are committed to ensuring that the Government meet the golden rule; borrowing to invest, not to fund current spending. And we will make sure that debt is kept at a prudent and stable ratio. Indeed, from now the Government will plan on the basis of reducing debt to below 40 per cent. of GDP.

1541
Clauses 155 to 157 of the Bill implement the Code for Fiscal Stability. The code puts Britain at the forefront of economic policy reform and represents an important step forward in the modernisation of our economic policy framework.
It complements the Government's reforms to the framework for monetary policy by building on that disciplined, transparent and accountable approach, this time in the context of fiscal policy. In the global economy, transparency provides an essential underpinning of a successful economy. And it allows Parliament and the public to scrutinise policy to ensure that it is set in the UK's long-term interests.
As a result of the code, the Government will be required to conduct fiscal policy with regard to a clear set of principles, set down in legislation. Detailed reporting arrangements—such as the requirement to produce an annual economic and fiscal strategy report—and proper accounting standards, including a move towards resource accounting and budgeting, are also integral parts of the code.
The Government will be required to state their fiscal objectives explicitly. And the Bill also establishes a formal role for the National Audit Office in assessing the assumptions and conventions that underpin the projections of the public finances. These changes will ensure that fiscal policy contributes to the economic stability which is necessary for growth and employment to prosper.
I also described how the last Budget was a Budget to encourage work and to make work pay. Measures will be brought before Parliament to implement the working families tax credit which will make work pay. And our reforms to the national insurance system will mean that barriers to work which faced so many people in the past have been removed, encouraging employment. The New Deal will be extended to provide new employment opportunities to the long-term unemployed, partners of the unemployed, the long-term sick and disabled and the disadvantaged communities.
The working families tax credit is a major reform to the tax system. And it is necessary because the labour market has changed almost beyond recognition from that of 20 or 30 years ago. Up and down the country, firms are reporting skill shortages. At the same time, there is a huge pool of unused talent—people who want to work. That is why we are determined to give them the skills and opportunity they need. So the working families tax credit, the reform of the national insurance system, together with our increased investment in education, training and skills, will all begin to ensure that we have the labour market to meet the needs of the 21st century.
The Budget also demonstrates our commitment to fairness. Clause 25 keeps our election promise to hold the basic and top rates of income tax. The married couple's allowance will be restricted to give relief at 10 per cent. in April 1999, which will enable us to channel more support where it is needed most; that is, to families with children. Pensioners who benefit from enhanced allowances will have the value of those
1542
allowances protected. What matters is need. That is where resources will go. Our primary aim is to support families through supporting children.
We inherited the situation where one child in three grows up in poverty. And the Budget, together with this Bill, increases support for all families with children to begin to tackle child poverty. So, from April 1999, child benefit for the eldest child goes up by £2.50 a week, and there is an equivalent increase for poorer families. Indeed from November this year, child premium, income support and JSA are increased by an additional £2.50 a week for each family under 11 with the result that families on income support with two children under 11 will be better off by £7 a week. That demonstrates the Government's commitment to target help where it is needed most.
And the new childcare tax credit in the working families tax credit will pay up to 70 per cent. of the cost of childcare, up to a limit of eligible costs of £100 a week for one child or £150 for two or more children.
Side by side with labour market reforms goes the need to promote enterprise which is an essential part of an economic policy. The Bill further reforms the corporation tax regime. Clause 29 reduces the main corporation tax rate from 31 per cent. in 1998 to 30 per cent. next year—the lowest rate ever. And the Bill abolishes advanced corporation tax from 1999. This will simplify the corporation tax regime and encourage investment. From 1999, about 20,000 large companies out of 700,000 in total, will start to pay their corporation tax by quarterly instalments, bringing the UK into line with other major industrial countries. We consulted extensively on these reforms, which have been widely welcomed.
As the Chancellor has said, both the main and small corporation tax rates will be held at the new levels or less for the lifetime of this Parliament. When our reforms are in place, companies will pay around £1.5 billion less in corporation tax each year.
This Bill introduces a capital gains tax taper to reward risk taking, promote enterprise and encourage long-term investment by taxing more favourably gains on assets that have been held for longer periods, particularly gains on business assets. When it is fully in place, it will represent a significant simplification to the tax system. The taper, which is introduced by Clause 121 of the Bill, will produce an effective 10 per cent. rate for business assets held over 10 years.
That is on top of other measures to boost research and development. The Budget introduced a new university challenge fund, a private-public partnership, to provide £50 million in venture capital to help turn good research into good business. And we are looking at other ways of improving our record on R&D.
Clause 84 extends the enhanced first year capital allowances which we introduced last year. First year allowances will be set at 40 per cent. rather than 25 per cent. for spending by small and medium sized businesses during the year to 1st July 1999. More than 99 per cent. of small and medium businesses may

1543
qualify for one form of enhanced allowances or the other which will improve their cash flow and help them grow.
Clause 83 contains the legislation for part of the package of measures which the Chancellor announced on 12th May aimed at creating a new framework of prosperity in Northern Ireland. During the four years starting with 12th May this year, expenditure on machinery or plant incurred by a small or medium-sized business for use in Northern Ireland will be eligible for a 100 per cent. first year capital allowance; in other words such expenditure may be written off for tax purposes in full straightaway.
Encouraging saving is also an essential part of our strategy. This Bill introduces the new individual savings accounts making it easier for people to save, extending the savings habit to more people than ever before. We now have a savings regime that is sustainable and where tax relief is fairly distributed.
The Budget also delivers our commitment to close tax loopholes, which taken together with measures from our first Budget will yield £2.8 billion over the next three years.
We are also committed to protecting the environment. Clause 7 increases road fuel duties in line with our commitment to an annual increase of at least 6 per cent. in real terms, having met the targets agreed at Kyoto. For this, credit too must go to the last government who of course were committed to increasing duties by at least 5 per cent. every year. They will no doubt welcome our continuation of their policy. Clause 16 reduces vehicle excise duty for lorries and buses which meet low emission standards.
We recognise that car ownership is necessary in very many parts of the country. That is why we will be consulting on new measures to reduce vehicle excise duty on smaller and more environmentally friendly cars. The use of cleaner fuels like ultra-low sulphur diesels and road fuel gases are also being encouraged. Vehicle excise duty for lorries and buses which meet a low emission standard will also be reduced under Clause 16. This is a Budget that is looking to the future.
This Bill implements many important parts of the Budget, a Budget that was designed to promote long-term sustainable growth, encourage work, encourage entrepreneurship and increase fairness. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
5.8 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, Finance Bills tend to pass through this House rather unnoticed because we cannot either amend or vary them. Therefore, I shall avoid dwelling on any of the details of this Bill, some of which are welcome and some less welcome. But it would be more helpful to confine my remarks in the main to the trends which are apparent in the Chancellor's general strategy.
A useful starting point was to look back at the Budget Speech—the Financial Statement—made in March. I read that with some interest last night. I noticed that
1544
the Chancellor gave the due ration of blame to the previous government and to his inheritance. That occupied quite a large part of his speech. But generally speaking, he made the speech with consummate skill. It was the sort of speech that every Chancellor of the Exchequer of whatever party makes to put his goods on display in best form but it was rather short when it came to the delivery of the goods. I regret that that is the case here.
I give just one example of something which was rather misleading and I am sorry that the noble Lord repeated it just now with regard to corporation tax. In his speech, the Chancellor referred to the fact that companies would pay more than £1.5 billion less in corporation tax each year as a result of the changes he had made. Of course, there were reductions in the corporation tax. However, what he did not refer to at all was payment by quarterly instalments. I am told that the effect of that will be to increase the bill for corporation tax in the future very substantially. Indeed, instead of being a reduction of £1.5 billion, there will be a very substantial increase in corporation tax over the lifetime of this Parliament. That is quite apart from the other taxes which are falling upon corporations. Leaving aside the windfall tax which was forecast well in advance, I am told that some £20 billion in additional taxation will fall on corporations during this Parliament.
There are many other matters that I should like to mention; indeed, the Minister referred to savings. The effect of the Budget will be adverse to savings. The noble Lord did not refer to pensions, although the Chancellor the Exchequer did, but the effect of the Budget will be adverse to them.
There is only one small matter that I should like to refer to; namely, retirement relief. That relief has been abolished, but it was of great benefit to small businessmen in enabling them to retire. Throughout the proceedings in the other place, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, not a single Labour Member—many of whom must have gone searching for the votes of small businessmen in May of last year—made any protest about the possible effects of the decision on retirement relief falling upon their constituents.
I should like to mention one other matter in the Budget speech—the differentiation between capital and current expenditure. It is a great idea and absolutely right. I am sure that every Chancellor of the Exchequer, and certainly every Chief Secretary, has endeavoured to bring this about during his time in office. But every time he will no doubt have received conflicting advice as to what is capital. The one that I remember is a battleship, but many other examples are given. The Treasury has a portfolio, which I am sure is pulled out and shown to every Chancellor of the Exchequer who suggests such a division—at least I hope that that is so. Of course, in principle, that is absolutely right, but capital and current expenditure is different in government from capital and current expenditure in industry.
Perhaps I may refer to the big picture for a moment. The Budget speculates on what growth there could be for the rest of this Parliament and commits all of it, lock,

1545
stock and barrel, for expenditure over the next three years. Indeed, that is all set out in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy report which we debated yesterday. To make that degree of commitment when the world economy—that is, the Asian economy and many others, including our own—is perhaps less strong or optimistic when looking towards the future than was the case back in March, constitutes a high risk. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right. But if he is not, in my view there will be an awful lot of blood on the carpet.
My main concern relates to the overall strategy which the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopted from the word go. The Chancellor is responsible for the economic management of the country. Until last year, he had two vital controls: he had a lever controlling his fiscal policy and a lever controlling his monetary policy. Those two levers enabled him to endeavour to steer the ship of state in the direction in which he believed it should go. Right or wrong, it was not always a success; indeed, I do not claim that it was. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer then surrendered one of those levers—his monetary policy lever—to the Monetary Policy Committee. He is now powerless to do what I am sure he must want to do, and what many others want him to do, in order to balance the economy, the exchange rate and to deal with our overseas trade.
Many people may refer to the examples of the National Federal Bank and the USA Government on the one hand, and the Bundesbank and the German Government on the other, where independent banks operate in a happy and usually fairly successful manner. I could make many distinctions in that respect, but I shall not detain your Lordships by going through them now. Indeed, evidence submitted to a Select Committee from the former president of the National Federal Bank and from the Bundesbank shows many of the differences which arise between their systems of monetary and fiscal policy and the one now in operation in this country.
Prior to last May, there had not been a Chancellor of the Exchequer who had ever approached his Budget, or thought through the economic policy of the nation, without considering what his monetary and fiscal policy should be. Sometimes it is necessary to go in for a touch of taxation or a reduction in interest rates, and so on. I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a great error in that direction. It is sufficient to ask how he can possibly produce a balanced budget when he has no control over his monetary policy.
In the past, the Chancellor of the Exchequer always had guidance and advice from the Governor of the Bank of England. That guidance and advice was no doubt greatly respected and mainly accepted. Of course, if the Governor of the Bank of England disagreed strongly enough, he always had the power to resign from it. However, now we have the position where it is not a matter for the Governor of the Bank of England but one for the Monetary Policy Committee, which is made up of a group of unelected but extremely able men. They are able to decide the monetary policy which I believe
1546
is central to our economy. I dread the consequences of that sort of control moving over to Frankfurt if this country should ever take a further step down the road to monetary union.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I shall not follow everything that the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, has said. I am happy to say that we served together at one time. Indeed, he was a member of my committee on the European Central Bank on which we produced a report. I know that the noble Lord did not agree with every single dot and comma of that report, but we were unanimous in the end. We all heard some of the evidence to which he referred from major world bankers. Like the noble Lord, I shall not refer to the Finance Bill in detail because, in this House, we normally talk about its economic consequences.
I should like to point out to my noble friend that not only have I heard what he said today, but I also took note of what he said yesterday. Indeed, at col. 1425 of Hansard, I was delighted to see that he said that he believed the single currency "will" work. I emphasise that for the benefit of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. In replying to my committee on the European Central Bank, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not exactly say the same. Since the reshuffle, I am pleased that my noble friend is able to be so free with his choice of language and that he agrees that the single currency will work. Of course, that is not directly related to the Finance Bill, but he did say that. I hope that he will not withdraw those remarks when he responds to this debate.
Before I comment on the tax and spending plans, perhaps I may say a few words about monetary policy and about giving the powers, to which the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, referred, to the Monetary Policy Committee. I should stress that I completely disagree with the noble Lord in that respect. I support the Government's policy in giving such powers to that committee. If I may say so, I would rather at least have the benefit of one woman who was better than most of the men on that committee; indeed, I would rather they had the power to decide interest rates and monetary policy on entirely non-political grounds than leave it to Chancellors of the Exchequer. With respect, we all know—indeed, it is quite clear—that the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer should have increased interest rates and taken control of what would happen to inflation long before May 1997. Anyone looking objectively at the situation would be bound to agree with that view. Therefore, I agree with the Government's decision to give the power to the Monetary Policy Committee, provided there is full accountability. I think that is crucial. Your Lordships may not have appreciated that today this House approved the appointment of a Select Committee to look at the work of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. I hope that will provide the kind of accountability to which I have referred.
I think all the men on the Monetary Policy Committee have been wrong to increase interest rates in the way that they have. It would have been better if they had

1547
deferred to the woman member of that Monetary Policy Committee who clearly was rather more sensible about this matter. Having conceded power on monetary policy, I do not think the committee should have acted in the way that it has. However, both Houses of Parliament agreed to that. Section 11 of the Bank of England Act 1998 refers to maintaining price stability. I would add,
"and subject to that, support the Government's economic policy".
In other words, the Government's economic policy comes a bad second to control of inflation. My noble friend Lord Peston and myself moved an amendment to delete the words "and subject to that" to enable the Monetary Policy Committee to consider both inflation and the Government's economic policy. That seems to me the more sensible course, but few people in your Lordships' House or in another place supported that. The fact remains that the legislation is as it is, and I am afraid we are left with the situation that the Government's own economic policy comes a bad second to considering the policy on inflation.
As we have no control over monetary policy, let me turn to fiscal policy where the Government have control, subject, of course, to what is happening in the rest of the world and—I know that many of my noble friends and noble Lords opposite will appreciate this—also to what happens in the European Union, whether we are members or not. I refer to the three-year expenditure plans that we have had recently. If I may say so, the totals are somewhat misleading. That is probably an understatement. I assume that was done quite deliberately by adding the three years together and then adding inflation. At the end of the three years you get quite a big figure. I assume that my right honourable friend the Chancellor did his calculations in that way because the totals look better. They certainly appear to be larger sums of money. Nevertheless in my view the idea of having a three-year policy for expenditure is sensible. However, I am not clear whether cash limits apply. No doubt my noble friend will be able to tell me about that. The words "cash limits" seem to have been lost since I introduced them some 20 years ago. The Barnett formula still exists, but the cash limits seem to have disappeared. If the rate of inflation is higher than has been assumed over the three years, would departmental budgets then be cut in real term figures? I hope that my noble friend can answer that question and that I have made myself clear. If inflation is a little higher, or a lot higher, than the 2.5 per cent. given to the Bank of England—or the 2.25 per cent. that has been assumed—will there be a cut in the real term expenditure of departmental budgets?
The case against the three-year expenditure plans was put succinctly by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman; namely, that we are, as it were, spending before we know what the revenue will be. The logic of that, of course, is that one would never spend anything because one does not know for sure what the revenue will be over the next three years. There has to be an assumption—not guesses—about what the growth of revenue will be over the next three years. My noble friend Lord Desai would have a guess, as would hundreds of other economists. They would not all agree. However, on the whole question of economic growth,
1548
and therefore revenue, the argument is—this is the point the noble Lord made—that the Government have been too optimistic in planning to spend all that money before they had it. I leave aside any party political questions about what one would cut if one did not have that expenditure. That is a matter for another place. We are more serious in your Lordships' House. The consequences of such a policy is that the revenue would be short so we would need either higher tax or higher borrowing. That is the argument that is advanced. If we do not receive the revenue that the Government have assumed over these three years, something would have to give. Either there would be higher taxes, or higher borrowing, or a cut in expenditure. You cannot have it all ways.
Personally, I would not object if expenditure was a little higher. That may seem an odd statement from a former chief secretary but I never enjoyed having to cut expenditure for all those years because I did not enter public life so to do. I wanted to improve public services. But the pessimistic view advanced by the noble Lord and by many others both inside and outside your Lordships' House, and the pessimistic assumptions on growth, are serious and must be taken seriously. I have to accept it is possible that the growth in the economy will be slower if the inflation target that the Monetary Policy Committee has been given is to be met. I should have thought that most people would accept that there has to be a slowing of the economy if inflation is to come down to a reasonable figure.
I wish to show my noble friend that I have read every detail of his speech yesterday. He said yesterday at col. 1426 of the Official Report that 45 independent forecasters and the Government's forecasters are not miles out of line on this matter. There may be one forecaster here and there who may disagree, but they are not wildly out of line. Even the gloom mongers or "doomsters" are still forecasting that the borrowing requirement will be 1 per cent. of GDP at the end of the three years. That may be slightly worse than the Government's forecast, but it is hardly a disaster. Some 1 per cent. of GDP for borrowing is well below the Maastricht criteria in the European Union, which is 3 per cent.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I like to give my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington something to amuse himself with. The figure I have mentioned would be well below the Maastricht criteria.
I have always envied the so-called experts—especially those in the Monetary Policy Committee—who argue that you need to increase interest rates by a quarter of 1 per cent. to be able to say with any certainty that in two years' time inflation will be 2.5 per cent. I find it odd that anyone can know with such certainty what will happen. I confess to being what might be called a "don't know" because I do not know what will happen tomorrow, let alone in three years' time. Nevertheless we have to manage an economy. That is the Chancellor's job. If he is to meet the golden rule to which my noble friend referred again today—I agree

1549
with that—that current income should meet current expenditure; namely, at 2.25 per cent. over the three years, that is fine. However, it is not altogether clear what will happen if the current income that I have mentioned turns out to be slightly lower than has been assumed in the golden rule. Will the Government then cut public expenditure? Is that what they would have to do?
I know my noble friend will say that that is a hypothetical question. He will say that that will not happen and we shall not really have that problem. I hope he is right. However, as he has shown since yesterday's "shuffle", he is prepared to be rather more open and not just read his brief, and tell us the truth. Will he tell us—I hope he can—that the Government have not ruled out the possibility of increasing tax or borrowing if the revenue growth is not as high as forecast in the Government's plans? I know that my noble friend will be able to answer those two small questions.
To sum up, I believe that the Chancellor has over-stated the modest annual growth in expenditure. I note that even that is subject to performance targets, which are to be overseen by the new Cabinet committee chaired by the Chancellor, not the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I am beginning to wonder, and to worry somewhat, about what job the new Chief Secretary will do. So far as I can see, there is not much left for him to do. I thought that the reshuffle might remove the post of Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I put that question to my noble friend the other day. He replied effectively that the Chief Secretary will have plenty to do. So the post of Chief Secretary has been retained. I gather that the new occupant of the post is very bright—even if he cannot do his multiplications.
Inevitably, the figures are uncertain when we are talking about a period of three years. But they are clearly set out. This is not a matter of creative accounting. Indeed, it is to do a disservice to creating accounting to call it such. The plain fact is, all the figures are there. They may be wrong, but they are there, as are the assumptions behind them.
If my right honourable friend the Chancellor has over-stated the position, as is clearly possible, the critics over-state the consequences even more. If the Chancellor has been too optimistic, he will still achieve a modest growth in expenditure with a borrowing requirement well below any crisis levels on any kind of historic comparison. So, on balance, it is more likely than not that the growth targets will be met. Indeed, I should have preferred even higher growth targets; and I should have been prepared to accept a 1 per cent. higher borrowing requirement. If my noble friend takes the inflation figures for the European Union, this country is already well below 2.5 per cent., because a different method is used to calculate inflation, and quite a nice one. The figure for this country is about 1.7 per cent.
The Bank of England Act as it stands requires a change in the way the so-called independent Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee are able to work. I should have preferred to amend the Act itself, but it is now too late. I ask my noble friend to pass on
1550
to the Chancellor a request from me, which I am sure he will accept; namely, to give the Monetary Policy Committee greater flexibility in regard to the inflation target—let us say, to use the European Union target—or give the committee a better chance of achieving the perfectly reasonable objective on growth and income and expenditure by making the inflation target in the Bank of England Act rather more flexible.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, in the early months of this Government being in power, one was quite often asked whether or not it really was a "New Labour" Government. My answer used to be: I do not think, frankly, we can judge them on the first Budget, but we should judge them on the second Budget. I believe that the Government have passed the test so far on that second Budget. The Government are doing pretty well on most of the major economic policies for which they have been responsible.
I have a worry, not unlike that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. I shall turn to it presently. First, I issue a reminder to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. During debate on the Statement on the Comprehensive Spending Review I mentioned the inheritance of this Government, and the noble Lord began attacking the Conservatives for wasting North Sea oil revenues. I would remind the noble Lord, and colleagues on both sides of the Chamber, of the astonishing legacy inherited by this Government. The exciting thing was that for the first time in my life, and perhaps in the lives of all of us, socialism was off the political agenda in this country. We had actually elected a Government who believed in capitalism and sought to make it work. That is a huge and enormously encouraging change.
I return briefly to the Government's inheritance: taxation down from top rates of 75 per cent. on earned, or 98 per cent. on investment, income to a top rate of 40 per cent. on all personal income; corporation tax down; a much more sensible structure for capital taxation; and trade unions, which used to run the country, now relegated to the much more important job of trying to improve the lot of their members. Privatisation has been a huge success. Had it not been thought a huge success, there would have been attempts to reverse it, which is not the case.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, of the extent of the restructuring which took place in the British economy over the 18 years of Conservative government. I shall take as examples eight major industries in this country in which the number of jobs has fallen by 1½million. The most dramatic fall is in the vehicle manufacturing industry, where, in 1978, 755,000 people were employed, and in 1996, 200,000. Yet with half a million fewer people half a million more vehicles were produced.
We all know that such restructuring is the product of two factors: international competitive forces and the opportunities provided by technology. It may all seem so easy, obvious and necessary now, but in 1978 it was not. At that time people were fighting to preserve those jobs.

1551
The second biggest change I have identified is in retailing where there are 426,000 fewer people. Has the efficiency of the service that retailing offers to the people of this country declined over that period? The third is in textile manufacturing with 300,000 fewer people employed.
I have always thought that underground coal mining was the most awful job and that the sooner people could be liberated from it, the better. The numbers employed in coal mining have gone down by 260,000. In the steel industry there are 200,000 fewer people; on the railways, 170,000 fewer; and even in agriculture, where there have been huge increases in productivity, there are 83,000 fewer employed. In the ports and docks there are 34,000 fewer people.
We have wonderful docks such as Felixstowe. It has to be compared with the old docks of east London. I remember that the first time I went there I saw dockers loading baked beans in small cartons which they were wedging together with motor car tyres. So there has been a huge change. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that North Sea oil revenue was wasted. The revenue from North Sea oil was used to make that structural unemployment tolerable. There could not have been a better use for that revenue.
Turning to today's problems, first, one must not forget that this Government presently appear to regard inflation as the number one economic priority, in the way the previous government did. That is very important. Inflation is a systemic problem in this country in a way that it has not been in other countries. There is an expectation here, and has been for generations, that no one should suffer from inflation, and that income should always be made up to compensate for it. As we all know, that merely leads to more inflation. It is a wholly unsustainable approach. The Government are doing right in keeping inflation as their top priority.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, that it is basically a good thing that monetary policy has been delegated to those splendid men and women on the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. It is the right policy. Given the particular problem that Britain has in regard to inflation, it is very hard for politicians to be brave enough to do the right thing about interest rates. To remove those temptations must be a good thing. My noble friend Lord Boardman said that he could think of differences between the United States and the Fed. and the Bundesbank and our system. But the paramount requirement to control inflation through the central bank is a greater similarity than whatever differences there may be.
We are now facing a real problem. There are recessionary forces facing us, yet we must keep interest rates high. And the high pound is a serious problem for British industry. Unemployment is now arguably too low in quite a lot of areas in the country. In November 1944, when Beveridge produced his Full Employment in a Free Society, he defined full employment as 3 per cent. or less. That was to allow for the structural problem. Every month, a document is produced, available in the Library, giving unemployment by
1552
constituency. I find it much the most useful indicator of unemployment. At present, out of about 650 constituencies 200 in this country have unemployment of 3 per cent. or less. Mostly that is in particular geographical areas in the south. The balance is a crucial problem, one which any government have to handle. In the 35 constituencies with the highest and the lowest levels of unemployment thank goodness none is now over 20 per cent. All the lowest are under 2 per cent. It is a remarkable situation. But there is a problem in knowing how to deal with both the problems that come from recession and the problems that always exist with inflation. At the moment the Government are probably doing the right thing.
I am however somewhat worried about the rate of increase of earnings. It is currently about 6 per cent. When earnings rise as a result of more overtime being worked, it is good because it probably means more efficient use of labour. What I am not sure about is how much of that 6 per cent. is due to unit wage costs and how much to increased use of labour through overtime. So it is a difficult figure to examine.
We must remember that manufacturing in this country is now only about one-fifth of total output. That is a huge change and yet in some ways it makes the economy easier to manage.
I wish to refer to two other points: first, EMU. I think the Government have taken the right line. I must admit that I am basically a sceptic on EMU for the simple elementary reason that the exchange rates take the strain. If we lose the ability of the exchange rate to take the strain, it means we must have either unemployment or cross-subsidisation. We know the difficulties that the Italians have in being prepared to subsidise the south and the difficulties west Germany has in being prepared to subsidise east Germany. There may be built-in problems which will emerge with the single currency. I hope they do not; I hope it is all a great success. But we are right to wait until we see how it works before we consider joining. It may be a cliché, but the decision that we will join when it suits Britain to do so is a sound position to take. I wish my own party would take a similar position. There would be no loss in doing so, in my opinion.
We must remember that we have the big advantage of having restructured our country in a way that France, for example, has not done. The French economy has still not been restructured. Every time they try to do it and people take to the streets, French governments tend to give in. That is unlike Britain where, when people take to the streets, public opinion tends to support the Government in power. It does not like people making nuisances of themselves on too big a scale on the streets. Sometimes that does not apply—with the poll tax, for example—but it did with the miners' strike. Public opinion in Britain seems to fall in behind the Government when they are trying to do something sensible. In France, I suppose it is because they do not have a parliament which will protect their citizens in the way our House of Commons is seen as protecting the individual. It is a different scene.

1553
Finally, I will say a word about public spending. It is a little unclear exactly what rate of growth has been assumed. I remember when it was raised, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that it was a rate significantly below some of the predictions. I fear that we may be going into a more rapid decline, but not because of our situation. I suppose Japan is the biggest single worry: no one knows who runs Japan. Probably it is no one; its prime ministers certainly do not. Possibly the civil servants do, but they do not do it well. They thought they could keep the Nikkei at 30,000 when it had fallen from 40,000, by intervening, but the Japanese ignored the axiom of my noble friend Lady Thatcher, "You can't buck the market". These are real worries and will be a problem.
I wish to conclude by underlining two questions which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, asked the Government. Given that they have decided to put in these three years' expenditure figures, which may be dangerously high—the cash limit is an important point—I would hate to go back to Plowden. The noble Lord will remember that in 1953 there was invented the brilliant Plowden system which would allocate expenditure in resource terms. That led to Parliament being asked, year after year, for more and more supplementary estimates automatically because it had been agreed. That led to the situation in 1976 when the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, helped by the great Treasury mandarin, Sir Leo Pliatzky, realised the need to introduce cash limits. Those limits are still important and I hope that the expenditure pattern will be subject to them. Perhaps most important I hope it will also be subject to the growth rate which is actually achieved.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, the Chancellor's Budget was delivered against the background of uncertainty of the overall effect on the world of the Asian crisis and in the UK, particularly over the health of the manufacturing sector. The Treasury forecasts of GDP growth that accompanied the Budget suggested a slower rise of 2 per cent. to 2.5 per cent. in calendar year 1998 compared with 3 per cent. in 1997 and 1.75 per cent to 2.25 per cent. in 1999, followed by 2.25 per cent to 2.75 per cent. in 2000.
More recent government forecasts such as those contained in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1998 show that the forecasts for 1999 and beyond have been brought back to the low end of the range. I believe they may yet have to be revised lower still.
Meeting the inflation target of 2.5 per cent. remains the Government's key priority. However, I have to disagree with the two previous speakers, in that the Monetary Policy Committee has in my view failed to take properly into account that the economy is slowing of its own accord, especially affected by the Asian crisis, and has continued to raise interest rates unnecessarily. To support my view, I note that the respected London Business School holds a similar opinion in a report published today stating that the MPC has greatly underestimated productivity improvements
1554
made by manufacturing companies in the past few years and so exaggerated wage inflation. The result of the MPC's interest rate increases has been to make sterling appreciate substantially, especially against European currencies. As a consequence, there is a great danger that due to our weakening competitive position we will be led into a recession. This is a word much more talked about recently, as companies even like the bell-wether ICI disclose how difficult life is.
Turning to more detail in the Budget, there were sensible measures to abolish advance corporation tax, to reduce mainstream corporation tax by 1 per cent. from April 1999 and to increase capital allowances for businesses in the first year in certain cases. The national insurance increases were, however, unwelcome, especially for service industries as they raise costs for employers in a sector where employment costs can be high anyway and the break-even point of £23,000 is not particularly generous.
Turning to personal tax, there was a pleasant surprise that income tax was broadly unchanged, although on the indirect tax front the increase in fuel taxes was an unnecessary additional blow to rural communities already suffering from hardship in other areas.
While at first glance the capital gains tax proposals were welcome, once the details were revealed it made an already complex tax a nightmare. Consider, briefly, a situation where an investor has held a share at 1982 and bought further shares since. If that share has a rights issue now and the shares are then sold subsequently to 6th April 1999, the calculation of the tax becomes immensely complex. First, you have to divide the shares into different pools pre-1982 and post-1982. Then you allocate the rights issue to those different pools and index them separately up to 5th April 1998. Finally, you apply tapering relief according to a complex sliding table—different of course between a business and non-business asset—not forgetting of course the free bonus year. If you do not know whether you are a basic or higher rate taxpayer you really are in trouble. The only beneficiaries of this complexity are the accountants, for whom it will be a dream. This desire to confuse can only be due to general ignorance of the mechanisms of the tax. It is certainly not simpler than the previous regime.
With regard to inheritance tax, I wish to make a comment on the plans to give the public better access to heritage assets which are currently available to be seen by written appointment. I have to declare an interest in that I am the owner of some heritage assets. It is apparent that the new access proposals will be a burglars' charter, since they may be able to gain access to a house under false pretences. It is my belief that the current regime is perfectly adequate for heritage assets access, especially as very full details are already available on the Internet which fulfils the need for security without deterring the genuinely interested person from locating and seeing the items concerned. In addition, wherever possible I encourage all interested local societies to visit. However, having recently been a victim of a burglary where heritage assets were lost, I feel I speak with experience on the problems of unlimited access. The proposal could well encourage the

1555
disposal of heritage assets as their owners, especially where they are elderly or housed in small flats where access is difficult, may feel that the Inland Revenue demands are too onerous.
An event which has taken place since the Budget but which will affect future government financial calculations is the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review. As a recent editorial in the Economist magazine stated, while growth rates of GDP cannot be predicted, one thing can. The Comprehensive Spending Review will mean comprehensively higher spending.
While the Chancellor and the spending Ministries have been bingeing after their 15-month fast, behind them is drifting the smell of the books being lightly sautéed. As alluded to in the short debate in this House last night on the Government's Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1998, the Comprehensive Spending Review is full of accounting tricks which may permit departments to raise spending by more than the overall figures suggest; for example, by allowing them to net off extra spending against fees and levies they collect. For instance, as mentioned in yesterday's debate, family credit—which currently amounts to around £2 billion of the social security bill—is to be replaced with a more generous subsidy called the working families tax credit. But because the working families tax credit is a tax relief, the Government argue that it should not count as social security spending. Thus it is presented as a £2 billion cut in benefit bills.
Potentially more seriously, the Government are changing the rules about dealing with departments' outside income. At the moment, if a department makes money from, say, renting land, the income is handed over to the Treasury. That will change. In future, many departmental receipts from rents, levies, fines and dividends will be for departments to keep and spend. And because the receipts will count as negative public spending, the extra money can be spent on top of the budgets agreed with the Treasury and will not show up in spending plans. The Government are therefore taking a gamble that buoyant economic growth will compensate for this departmental largesse which could be a dangerous policy if we face a serious slowdown.
The Chancellor earmarked £21 billion more to be spent on health and £19 billion on education over the next three years. There will be more for pensioners, more for scientific research, more for the poor in the Third World and more for the BBC World Service. It was difficult to think of a deserving cause that the Chancellor missed out.
The Chancellor promised to deliver big spending increases without sharp increases in taxation or borrowing. He stated that, although public spending would rise by 2.75 per cent. in real terms between 1999–2002, he will nevertheless keep the books in balance throughout the period. Can that be a correct assumption?
While last March the Chancellor's economic assumptions could have been called sensible, the subsequent actions by the MPC and the Comprehensive Spending Review now mean that there is a serious danger that his sums will not add up. By setting out his
1556
expenditure plans so far ahead, he leaves himself little room for manoeuvre if his forecasts are seriously wrong. And even though the Government believe they are being cautious, there is serious scope for error. Take, for one instance, social security. Note that this is the department where expenditure has not been fixed for the next three years. No wonder the Minister told to think the unthinkable resigned. His plans to cut welfare payments clearly failed.
In summary, the Finance Bill contained several sensible measures for businesses. It is what has happened since in terms of loosening the purse strings that may well make future Budgets much more unpalatable. To pay for all the promises in the Comprehensive Spending Review must involve higher taxes if my analysis of the slowing economy is correct, or higher borrowing, returning us to the "stop-go" economy that the Chancellor is so anxious to avoid.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, if there is one thing that the country may be grateful to the present Government for, it is their vitality. I have been in politics for a long time and have seen governments come and go. I have watched the vicissitudes of Ministers, some of them high and some of them low. But this much I know about Her Majesty's present Government. They have brought a new vitality to the whole of government. It involved and is still involving a detailed investigation into most areas of our national life. In my experience, this is the first time that it has happened in this way and on such a scale.
The Government appointed—and correctly appointed, though sometimes one may query their composition—various task forces, committees and bodies with vastly different terms of reference, granting them every facility to go into practically every aspect of the affairs of the country as a whole. And that is most welcome. Of course, it sharpens the responsibilities of those—fortunately or otherwise—who have been around for quite a time. It makes it extremely difficult to do anything that will in any way inhibit the terrific vitality of the present Government.
The Government are going to need every bit of that vitality. Ministers have had only one year to accomplish detailed reviews of their departments; to be able to know and become more certain of the way in which the whole system of administration works. That presented them and will continue to present them with considerable difficulties. Therefore I applaud the production—albeit in sketchy form; albeit heavily reliant on figures, not all of which are reliable—of a three-year forecast. That should commend itself to the country as a whole because the difficulties facing the Government are enormous. They reflect perhaps the difficulties of our country.
The Government may be optimistic—sometimes they have to be—even though they may know that there are what are called "dangers impending". Nevertheless they are right to express as favourable a view as they can and to put the best possible construction upon events that are taking place not only in the British economy but in the world as a whole.

1557
The difficulties are indeed formidable. They are set out in terms and from sources that should command considerable attention. For example, according to Dun and Bradstreet, business confidence has sunk to a five-year low in the wake of the Bank of England's unexpected decision to raise interest rates and to go on raising them. The group's survey of 1,400 finance and managing directors showed that confidence is falling in the service, retail and wholesale sectors as well as in manufacturing. Expectations of profits are at their lowest since 1993 and confidence in export prospects at its lowest since the survey began 10 years ago.
I speak of matters which your Lordships know, which you have read and which you may or may not have discounted. Oxford Economic Forecasting expects that business investment will fall from a growth of 10 per cent. in 1997 to 5.5 per cent. this year and less than 1 per cent. in 1999. Moreover, it will not have escaped your Lordships' attention that the balance of payments, the balance of trade, is once again in deficit—mainly of course involving our trade with the European Union countries. This is not at all comforting.
Today's CBI survey called upon the Bank of England to cut interest rates as manufacturing and business confidence fell to its lowest level for seven years. This is on page 8 of the Financial Times; it is not an irresponsible source. The survey also found that domestic orders in manufacturing fell in the last quarter for the first time in more than two years, while export orders dropped at the fastest rate for 12 years. The strength of sterling has worn down exports.
These are not matters of imagination. It is clear that opinion is virtually unanimous in the business circles that matter that the slow-down in the economy, which is now manifest and cannot be denied, is due to the high level of the pound, which squeezes exports, and a slowing of domestic demand from consumers following last year's rise in interest rates.
There are dangers ahead. I venture to suggest that when these vigorous and wholly admirable inquiries which are now in progress are complete there will be changes in policy. There have to be changes in policy. To hope to keep down inflation by slowing down growth is the silliest proposition that can ever be put. Yet there is an apparent acceptance of the inevitability of growth going down, not up. Surely any accountant knows perfectly well that the higher your output the greater the overhead recovery; the lower therefore the relative cost. If you start lowering production, the first thing you get is a rise in costs. This is known to all accountants—certainly it is well known to my noble friend Lord Barnett, who is an eminent accountant to my certain knowledge.
How do we deal with these problems? Certainly not by ignoring them. We will not be helped in any way until we get a more accurate presentation of the figures. At the moment—as my noble friend Lord Barnett will confirm—the figures are presented as a mixture of cashflow figures on the normal cash-in, cash-out basis, plus, but only partially so far, the introduction of resource accounting. That, as my noble friend well
1558
knows, will bring the Government closer into conformity with the accounts produced by business enterprise.
I have read through the papers on resource accounting and how it will be introduced. It is clear that for a time our figures will not be as reliable as we would like. Nowhere is this better illustrated than by our reliance on completely unreliable unemployment figures. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred to 2 per cent. and 3 per cent. unemployed. He is quite right of course. In the coalition White Paper of 1944, 3 per cent. unemployment was reckoned to be full employment. It is much higher than that now.
On the basis of the claimant count, unemployment was low at 1,400,000. When it came to the ILO category, which covers people who had looked for work in the past four weeks, the figure was 1,807,000. If you take into account the Labour Force Survey as carried out by the Government, the total number who are economically inactive, which is the official definition for people who wanted a job but had not looked for one in the past 12 weeks, was 2,387,000, giving a total without a job of somewhere near 4 million.
Over the past few years—and everybody knows it—I have taken the liberty, without contradiction from many sides of the House, of putting forward the accurate figures produced by the Royal Institute of Statistics. These have not been queried. We are not dealing with a situation in which there is any leeway on the question of unemployment. We are dealing with an economy which, whatever people in the City think—and they tend to think that they are the whole economy; that if they are doing well everybody else is—is doing very badly indeed. We have to do something about it.
What shall we do? First, we shall have to re-examine the doctrine put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Statement on 14th July, when he said:
"To achieve this"—
that is, the Government's objectives—
"two fundamental economic reforms have been undertaken for the long term: to take monetary policy out of party politics through operational independence for the Bank of England".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/98; col. 187]
I repeat that the Chancellor referred to taking monetary policy "out of party politics". But what are the politics of the bankers? My experience not only in this House but also in another place has indicated to me that bankers tend to have politics of their own and that they are most certainly non-party. Party politics as such are vital in a democracy. Democracy is exactly about dissent, about putting forward proposals and having them criticised. One need only consider the way in which the debating Chambers of this House and another place are set out to realise the truth of that. Our Chambers anticipate the clash of progressive argument.
Was the Chancellor saying to himself, "I must put temptation behind me. I fear that I might be weak enough to produce a Budget which favours one party or another. Am I confident in my judgment?" If he was really saying, "I don't trust myself. I don't trust my judgment", that was grossly insulting to himself because I am sure that he is a man of considerable intelligence

1559
and dedication. The Chancellor referred to taking monetary policy "out of party politics", but that is exactly what happened in the 20 years immediately after the war and immediately before we entered the then European Economic Community or the Common Market. We had run out of ideas. We were bored and we were tired. It was exactly because party politics did not exist then that we got ourselves into that intellectual inertia. I am all for argument.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way, but how would he feel about our interest rates being determined by a central bank in Frankfurt?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I believe that my feelings on that are already known—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, I do not know them.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, my feelings on that are already well known, but the answer is in the negative. I would most certainly not approve. My noble friend Lord Barnett made the observation in his recent report on the single European currency—he is bound to regret it sooner or later—that some, if not all, economists were in agreement with having the single currency. I venture to think that that is a slight exaggeration.
Let us have vitality of argument. Let us not assume always that our opponents are wrong and that we are always right. Let us have a real examination of the real facts. We shall then be able to find the solutions, by discussion, as we have always done in this democracy of ours. I am most reluctant to suggest to the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not make his own decisions—
The Earl of Dartmouth: In the case of Europe?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am coming to that, fear not.
I am most reluctant to suggest that the Chancellor is eventually coming round to agree. In his latest speech, to the News International Conference on 17th July last, he concluded with these remarks:
"Great causes to argue and fight for".
That is probably good news not just for those who believe that to be the case, but for a global media which I hope will continue to be interested in what we say. I repeat that the Chancellor referred to:
"Great causes to argue and fight for".
Let us do just that.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, hymns the vitality of the new Labour
1560
Government. Should they ever reach the level of the old vitality displayed by the noble Lord and perhaps even combine that with his command of, and attention to, detail, the Government will have made real progress.
I share the noble Lord's concern about the accuracy of the figures on which the Government are operating. On a previous occasion, I treated the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to a long diatribe on why I feel that the inflation rate, for technical reasons, is overestimated by perhaps 2 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has today questioned the unemployment figures on which the Government are operating.
The noble Lord also addressed the question which interests me almost as much, which is: how is the level of wage inflation estimated? Wage inflation is inflation only if it means that increased wages are being paid for the same output for the same job. I believe that we are in danger of creating in people's minds the impression that wage inflation is running at 6 per cent., although that is a long way from the truth of the actual level of wage inflation.
As is usually my custom on these occasions, I do not wish to engage in a long and general speech. I should like to address one particular aspect of this Finance Bill—with any luck an aspect on which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will find that he has not been briefed. On this occasion, however, I am not seeking an answer, although I would be grateful for a gentle smile of approval. What I would really appreciate is a considered and complete letter at some stage over the next couple of months addressing the points that I raise.
Clause 155 sets out the basis for the code of fiscal stability. It includes the words:
"The key principles are transparency, stability, responsibility, fairness and efficiency".
Under Clause 156, provisions are made for annual reports to be made to Parliament under the code. That is an interesting and worthwhile approach to economic management. What I want to do today is to urge the Government to expand those principles and practices to the ordinary taxpayer and to commit themselves to making the ordinary taxpayer's life simpler and easier. More and more, the ordinary taxpayer is being asked to take on responsibility for his own tax affairs. Self-assessment is but the most recent aspect of that.
More and more lower paid and unsophisticated people are coming within the tax net. Someone can be a taxpayer if they are paid only £2 an hour, let alone the minimum wage. There are almost 4 million self-employed people, about half of them with profits of less than £7,500 a year. The Government are encouraging self-employment as a way out of unemployment for people who are otherwise unable to make use of their present skills. Many people have a couple of part-time jobs going at any one time. People may move from one job to another in rapid succession. For ordinary people, the existing tax system is ill adapted to both of those practices.
Those who have complicated financial affairs are generally wealthy enough to employ accountants. As part of the great union of accountants in this House, I applaud the Government for introducing capital gains

1561
tax legislation which is so complicated as to increase their earnings! That seems to me to be a very worthy part of what the Government are doing! My concern is for the ordinary taxpayer, for someone who is certainly not rich enough to employ an accountant and whose basic affairs are simple. However, as the Chartered Institute of Taxation's low income action group pointed out, the taxation arrangements that are applied to that income can be fiendishly complicated.
Like, I suspect, many Members of your Lordships' House, I do not understand how the Inland Revenue arrives at my PAYE coding. It is an obscure system. The figure just arrives from the Inland Revenue and I suspect that few among us question how the Revenue arrived at it. It sets out to reconcile a system of deductions and a system of credits—and they do not match particularly well. That is complicated by the Revenue's commitment to trying to deal with any past under or over-recovery of tax rather than adopting an end-year position. All of that makes PAYE coding extremely complicated for people who are changing jobs or have a succession of part-time jobs. That can result in people being substantially over taxed. That can be a great inconvenience to people who do not earn a great deal of money, although they may get it back in the end.
The taxation system that is applied to the married couple's allowance combines odd rates, odd rules and frequent changes and is difficult to comprehend. The additional personal allowance for children is horrendously convoluted. It has difficult forms and it is difficult to understand how to take advantage of it. Even before the recent changes in dividend tax there were considerable difficulties in relation to pensioners' savings.
I understand how these complications arise. When the Chancellor is putting together a Budget the underlying legislation cannot be written because the civil servants do not know exactly what is in the Budget. The process of getting a finance Bill through so that the Government can be financed does not allow for complications and the smoothing out of the system to be addressed in the way that it might be. I also understand why finance Bills do not seek to redress past inconveniences and difficulties. One always has winners and losers and one is merely creating unhappy people without achieving any great benefit at the time.
I urge the Government to recognise that there is a difficulty here. A good number of people are being asked to take responsibility for their tax affairs while being faced with an unnecessarily complicated situation. I urge them to follow their own principle in Clauses 155 and 156 and make a declaration that tax laws shall follow the same five principles: transparency, stability, responsibility, fairness and efficiency. I add to that simplicity and comprehensibility so that the ordinary taxpayer has some hope of improvement over the years. I also ask the Government to commit themselves to making an annual report on progress. The Government have put in place a system to ensure that they improve the whole economic management of the nation and it is one in which clearly they believe. What works for the nation may well work for the tax system. There is no
1562
particular imposition or anything that binds them to any particular course of action, but over time the interaction between the ordinary citizen and the tax system should improve.
I have some immediate and practical suggestions to the same end. First, from time to time various people have urged that there should be two separate finance Bills: one dealing with the immediate matters emerging from the year's Budget and one dealing with technical matters. That would perhaps allow the technical Bill to be published in advance and certainly to be discussed over a longer period, because it would not incorporate matters of fiscal urgency for the Government. If the Government pursued that policy I believe that it would be a good vehicle for rules and regulations to be simplified. They could be exposed and considered at length and comments could be received from the public. The whole process of simplifying the tax laws could be taken out of the mad rush in getting through the Finance Bill.
Secondly, one of the final acts of the right honourable Harriet Harman was to initiate the setting up of a team to provide benefits advice to the elderly. I believe that that would be a perfect vehicle to provide taxation advice to the elderly. The Inland Revenue estimates that over 1 million old people get taxation wrong and lose out every year. The Chartered Institute of Taxation points out that the elderly have particular problems with their tax. Many of them deal with more than one tax office and most of them are reliant on hard-to-follow Inland Revenue literature. The various bits and pieces of the Inland Revenue have an inconsistent strategy for dealing with elderly people. The Inland Revenue has settled on the telephone as the means of communication, whereas old people need to be communicated with in writing so that they can consult others and take time in reaching their decisions. The taskforce that is to be set up by the Department of Social Security appears to be a perfect vehicle for the Treasury to make use of to alleviate some of the admitted Treasury iniquities which older people suffer in dealing with their tax affairs.
Thirdly, I suggest to the Government that they follow the US and Australian examples and support voluntary groups that give free tax advice to those on low incomes. The Inland Revenue is notably friendly to the small taxpayer. Generally, the Inland Revenue is helpful, courteous and does its best, but staff numbers have been falling. A voluntary group staffed by experts who give their time freely is likely to be more efficient and cost-effective than if the Inland Revenue takes on the job itself. In addition, a voluntary group would be seen by the individual taxpayer as being independent of the Government. That must be an advantage. The Inland Revenue cannot completely escape suspicion. However nice it may wish to be on the surface, there is always the element of the "traffic warden" about it. There is already in existence an excellent small charity that provides that service. I refer to Tax Aid, which is a charity of which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is a patron. In its own small way it does an excellent job and provides a nucleus upon which the Government may consider building to make advice available to the low paid on how to sort out their tax affairs.

1563
As I said at the beginning of my speech, I do not expect a detailed reply from the noble Lord today. However, I should be grateful to receive a detailed letter.
6.26 p.m.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, I humbly apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, for my ignorance of his views about the desirability or otherwise of Britain joining the single currency. By way of extenuation, he may well be ignorant of my views on the same subject.
I am very grateful to have this opportunity to speak on the Finance (No. 2) Bill because this is an area in which I have some small knowledge. Monetary policy has been very ably addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and by my noble friend Lord Boardman. My noble friend Lord Marlesford has been more than eloquent in outlining the golden economic legacy of which this Government are the inheritors. I intend to restrict my remarks to drawing the attention of the House to three specific taxation measures in the Bill and their constitutional aspects. From these I shall draw some general and, I hope, interesting conclusions.
First, I address the abolition of retirement relief for small businessmen. This has been a long established relief whereby the proprietor of a small business can sell up, retire and pay no capital gains tax on the first £250,000 of proceeds. The Bill proposes to phase out that relief completely within four years. In four years' time the proprietor of a business in this category will be liable to capital gains tax at the full rate. People make rational decisions especially when encouraged to do so by the tax system. The inevitable effect of this abolition will be to encourage many proprietors of businesses in this category to sell up immediately before the tax relief begins to be phased out.
This clause in the Bill enables me to make a very important general point about the economy. The government party has been tremendously successful in getting some chairmen of big corporations to support them, or at least to acquiesce in what they are doing. However, when one looks at the pattern of employment over the past 15 years the fact of the matter is that big corporations have been reducing their activities and contracting out—they call it down-sizing—and therefore they have substantially reduced the number people they employ.
The maiden speech yesterday of the noble Lord, Lord Alli—he is not in his place today—who is a principal in a substantial independent television production company, enables me to give a graphic illustration of the point. Only 10 years ago Yorkshire Television and Tyne Tees Television employed, as independent companies, over 2,000 people. Today both companies have been merged and are owned by Granada. A good estimate of the numbers that Yorkshire Television and Tyne Tees Television together employ today is fewer than 300. The government party and the Chancellor are right to be concerned about unemployment and jobs. But they will not be getting the new jobs in television that they want from their new
1564
friend, Gerry Robinson, Chairman of Granada. On the other hand, they may just get some of these jobs from the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and his other colleagues in the independent television production sector. Likewise, in other industries and in other sectors it is not the Government's new friends who are chairmen of big corporations who will be providing jobs. The jobs for the millennium will come from small businesses and small businessmen, some of whom will be the big businesses of tomorrow. I submit, therefore, that it is extraordinarily ill-judged for the Government to put forward this measure in the Finance (No. 2) Bill, phasing out retirement relief. This simply gives a built-in incentive for proprietors of small businesses to sell up forthwith.
The next area I want to address is the proposals for capital gains tax. I very much to want to be constructive in what I say, and I must credit the Chancellor for re-establishing the distinction between short-term and long-term capital gains for taxation purposes. However, his proposals abolish the indexation of capital gains for the purpose of establishing the tax liability. There is a very important principle at stake here. Since indexation was introduced it has meant that the taxpayer has had to pay tax only on the real gain made after taking into account inflation. The effect of the abolition of indexation means that the taxpayer is now potentially liable to have to pay tax on artificial gains. This means that, should the Government make a mess of managing the economy so that once again we get roaring inflation, perhaps because of excessive Government expenditure, it is the Government who would then benefit from their own mismanagement. The taxpayer will be paying tax on the illusory gains created by the very inflation for which the Government would have been responsible. This is a very serious point which I suspect will give great concern to many taxpayers in the future.
The further aspect of the Bill's proposals for taxing capital gains is, as ably described by my noble friend Lord Northbrook and my noble friend Lord Lucas, their breathtaking intricacy. I, too, am a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and I should declare what might be termed a reverse interest. Many of my fellow accountants will in future years be kept in a style to which they have hitherto not been accustomed because of the sheer complexity and difficulty of the Government's proposed rules on capital gains tax. I would therefore characterise the entire section on capital gains tax as ill-thought out.
The next aspect of the Bill which I propose to address—and this will be the last specific measure I shall cover—is the Government's new plans for taxing the corporate sector. The headline rate of corporation tax remains mercifully low. However, the Government are requiring corporations to bring forward tax payments so that tax payments will now be made on a quarterly basis. There is nothing particularly wrong with this in principle and it is indeed a practice in other countries. However, the immediate effect is the cost to the corporate sector of an additional £2 billion per year based on the principles of net present value and discounted cash flow.

1565
As my noble friend, Lord Howell, stated yesterday with his customary knowledge and eloquence, there are storm clouds brewing in the Far East about which we should all be very concerned. It looks very much as if a downturn in the British economy is imminent, not least because such a downturn is also imminent in the United States economy. As I showed yesterday in another debate, the cycle of the British economy mirrors that of the United States. It is not a question of whether this is a good or bad thing; the fact is that it does so already.
The Government are currently and quite rightly looking to the corporate sector to create, among other things, new jobs, to increase investment and increase productivity. There is almost never a good moment to heap another £2 billion in concealed taxation on the corporate sector, but I submit to the House that the fiscal year 1998 could hardly be more ill-timed to do that very thing.
Finally, there is in the Finance (No. 2) Bill a constitutional aspect which I feel will be of great interest to your Lordships. I made my maiden speech just over two months ago, although it seems much longer, in an important opposition debate which related to the impact of the Government's policies on the authority of Parliament. I certainly never suspected that it might be appropriate to return to this subject in the context of the Finance (No. 2) Bill. However, what is interesting about the Finance (No. 2) Bill is not so much what is in it but what is not in it. There is nothing in it, for example, about the Government's welfare-to-work programme, which is a centrepiece of their entire economic programme. There is nothing in it about expenditure, which is in any case now separate. Most worrying of all, there is nothing in it on large sections of the tax changes which are to be presented by means of statutory instruments and secondary legislation. These have not even seen the light of day, let alone been scrutinised by either House. The Government is bypassing Parliament yet again.
I would categorise that aspect of today's Finance (No. 2) Bill as being thoroughly evasive. This is important. Everybody is affected by tax, not least very low paid people, as ably stated by my noble friend Lord Lucas. There is enormous expertise on this subject in both Houses of Parliament. It would be highly desirable if the Government would take full advantage of that expertise; otherwise the taxpayer will be the loser.
In summary, therefore, and this is my closing statement, I believe that this very brief tour of a few specific areas of the Finance (No. 2) Bill enables the House to come to a conclusion about the whole Bill. As I have demonstrated in relation to certain of its specific parts, this Bill is ill-judged, ill-thought out, ill-timed and evasive.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we customarily debate the Finance Bill after it is no longer relevant because circumstances have changed. I should like to urge the Government to adopt a practice which I believe I can claim to have started about four years ago so that we
1566
debate the Budget Statement, if not the Finance Bill, in the very week in which the Budget is presented. Since we cannot amend it, we might as well discuss it. What is the point of not allowing us to discuss the Finance Bill? I believe that it was possible until last year, but this year it was not possible. As I expect the present Government to be in power for a long time and that we shall get to some sensible management of parliamentary business, I believe it will be a good thing to have the Budget Statement debated early on. Then we would not need to bother about the technicalities of the Finance Bill.
Secondly, I also very much welcome the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about dividing the Bill into its more technical and less technical aspects. I am perhaps the only person to speak in the debate who is not an accountant. I am not an expert in taxation. I am much more interested in the economic messages that the Budget sends out. We should be able to discuss those after the Budget much more quickly and sensibly. The technical parts can be left to people who actually understand them and who can amend the Bill properly.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor has made a number of major statements. In this debate we have discussed the Budget and the Comprehensive Spending Review. We have also referred to the independence of the Bank of England and have looked forward to the single currency.
Change has rightly been made in the setting out of the economic framework of Her Majesty's Government. That change began under the previous government. We now have consensus about the economic framework to be set out. My right honourable friend has sharpened it by hiving off monetary policy to an independent Bank of England, leaving himself only the fiscal policy.
I wish to draw attention to another change. At the same time he has taken the view—he and I disagree on it—that fiscal policy is an instrument only for long term growth of the economy. Fiscal policy should not be used for short-term stabilisation purposes. Monetary policy should be used for short-term stabilisation purposes. I am not a great friend of an independent Bank of England, but I am not willing to go to the stake on the issue. I am not worried about the independence of other central banks but about their competence or otherwise. I have never been quite sure about the Bank of England; I have said this before. It is a competent body. However, once the Monetary Policy Committee is set the task of controlling inflation, it cannot be asked to do other things. Monetary policy has only one instrument—interest rates. A monetary authority can fix either the quantity of money or interest rates.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. He talks of the Bank of England controlling monetary policy. Would it not be more accurate to say that it is controlling interest rate policy? The two are not the same. As regards monetary policy—the control of the money supply—that appears still to be under the Treasury.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. In modern financial markets no one

1567
controls money supply. It is very much influenced by what various financial institutions decide to do with financial innovations. As we discovered during the great monetarist days of the 1980s, with M1, M2, M3, M4, and so on, the monetary authority is no longer in charge of the money supply—perhaps base money but very little else. But it can control interest rates. However, it is only one instrument. Therefore it can have only one objective. Once one sets inflation as a target, it will use interest rates to control inflation. But one cannot add other objectives. The Bank of England or the Monetary Policy Committee does not have the instrument to pursue other objectives.
One of the few things we know in economics—we do not know many—is that one has as many instruments as one has objectives. Unless one hands over economic policy completely to the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, that committee will not be able to achieve more than one objective. It may be that the objective should not be control of inflation; that is another issue. The objective may be to ask the Bank of England to achieve full employment. I do not know how it will do that, with the only instrument being interest rates. That is not a good instrument for pursuing that objective. But given that the brief of the Bank of England is to control inflation by interest rates, there is still a role for a fiscal policy for short-term stabilisation.
This is an intellectual argument; it is not a party political point. There is a substantial body of theory in favour of what the Chancellor is doing, although I disagree with it. I believe that there is still scope for fiscal policy in the short term to do various things that monetary policy cannot do to stabilise the economy. I think that the disagreement will continue until some future date.
In the Comprehensive Spending Review my right honourable friend rightly set out the long-term public finance framework—what economists call the steady state. But there is a great deal of misunderstanding about this. The Comprehensive Spending Review does not tell you what will happen year on year. For example, the cyclical component is longer anyway. The cyclical component will obviously be rather large. The surpluses of £7 billion, £9 billion and £11 billion are the long-term steady state surpluses. I would expect—I am sure my right honourable friend knows this too—that the outcomes on both expenditure and revenue will not be as laid down in the Comprehensive Spending Review because that is a long-term picture.
As the Chancellor pointed out in his November Statement, we shall have a slow down of the economy. The recession in the economy was forecast as long ago as November. It has nothing to with the Asian crisis but with other issues. However, given that there will be a slowing down of the economy—we do not know whether it will be a soft or a hard landing—some of the surpluses may be absorbed by cyclical spending and we may have to borrow. Alternatively, the surplus may be larger than expected. But the Comprehensive Spending Review involves the steady state picture of the economy for the next three years; and I believe that the actual outcomes will be different because the economy will not be in a steady state. It never is. If my right honourable
1568
friend achieved his great dream of eliminating boom and bust, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that he would be eliminating capitalism. Perhaps it will require socialism to have an economy of no boom and bust, but while capitalism lasts we shall have a cycle—and a cycle will be our problem.
Today we face the difficulty that we are not sure whether the recession will be a soft or hard landing. Some noble Lords may have seen an excellent article by Mr. Gavyn Davies in the Independent on Monday. He pointed out that it depends on whether one thinks of the long-term rate of growth of the economy as 2.75 per cent. or 2.25 per cent. Noble Lords often make critical remarks about economists. They must understand our problem. Even meteorology has more resources for data collection than the economists. We shall not find out where the economy was in July 1998 for about six months. One is asking economists to drive a car on a rainy night with fog, with no steering wheel and almost no indication of the speed of the car. When I was young I used to think that I could build mathematical models that would precisely control the economy. The older I get, the less faith I have in such things.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the noble Lord is making a fascinating speech. I appreciate a great deal of what he says. But if, as I am sure is right, the measurement of the economy is becoming more and more obscure, in particular in a global context, how can short-term fiscal changes—changes in taxation—influence it? That is what he argued at the beginning of his speech.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. I always give the analogy of climbing a mountain in a fog: one step at a time is all right; I know where the next step is.
In my car I can do the next 10 feet or 10 yards but beyond that I do not know. We are asked to write out this fantastic map from here to eternity and say, "The short term will take care of itself." The long term is much clearer because we make assumptions—for example, 2.25 per cent., 2.75 per cent.—and draw nice little lines.
A myopic decision-making rule would perhaps be better if one is trying to stabilise the economy. I am not against making long-term plans but the basic problem for the British economy has always been that short-term stabilisation has defeated Chancellor after Chancellor.
I should like to say a word in that respect. I referred to the article by Mr. Gavyn Davies. He said that much depends on what we thought the long-term rate of growth would be. To say that if the economy is fast-moving it will be a soft landing and if it is slow-growing it will be a hard landing, is correct but not good enough. I should like to argue that mere micro-economic aggregates are misleading us about where the economy is. It is not that the economy is growing faster or slower but that there are imbalances in the economy. Consumption is growing too fast and

1569
investment is not growing fast. Services are growing and manufacturing is not. The south east is prospering and the north is not.
Monetary policy cannot tackle these problems. It is not possible for the Monetary Policy Committee, even given infinite wisdom, to do anything about that with a single interest rate. We need a combination of a variety of regional policies and environmental policies and perhaps a little thinking about the exchange rate if we are to tackle the problem of unemployment in the economy to which my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington drew attention. I do not believe that there is a single natural rate of unemployment in the economy. There are a variety of natural rates in the economy and they depend on what we are able to do by way of structural policies.
In conclusion, I should like to say that it has been argued that somehow unemployment could rise because of wage bargaining. Many noble Lords have pointed out that it is not wage growth that matters but wage growth relative to productivity growth. So it is the growth of unit labour costs that matters rather than wage bargaining.
I believe that Professor Robin Maths pointed out, when the Monetary Policy Committee last met, that the growth of earnings depends very much upon technical matters, like how one treats bonuses. If one strips bonuses out, the wage growth is much lower than if one keeps bonuses in. What really matters here is not wage growth but whether the economy is able to sustain outward growth and employment growth. As soon as we stop having employment growth one may suspect that something is going wrong.
I believe that one of our problems is an over-valued exchange rate. I do not think we should start debating the lack of productivity growth in manufacturing. Even with the best of productivity growth you would not be able to employ people if the exchange rate is over-valued. That, perhaps, is something we cannot do much about. But I believe that if we are ever to join a single currency, we will not join at the present level of exchange rate. We may be able to join when it gets nearer to 2.70. I know that my noble friend is becoming impatient and so I shall sit down.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I understand that I am speaking in what is known as the gap. I have only been here for nine months and I only learnt about it today. I apologise and I shall not detain your Lordships for long.
I should like to begin by saying that I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, concerning the time when this House debates the Finance Bill. It was a great shock to me, when I arrived nine months ago, to discover that Finance Bills, monetary matters and even main economic matters play a small role in this House and that there is no authority or power for us to do anything other than perhaps occasionally debate them, as on this occasion, far too late to have any influence.
1570
That came as a surprise to me. This House probably has more industrialists and business people of experience than the other place. Therefore, I should have thought that they would at least have something to contribute. That is as it is, but maybe it will be possible to debate such matters at an earlier time in future.
Broadly speaking, I agree with the Government's budget policy. I approve of their economic stance from the day they took power. They were still faced with a £20 billion budget deficit and their prime objective was to maintain a tight fiscal stance and to reduce that deficit as rapidly as they could.
The Government have been criticised in some quarters—not, I am glad to say, here tonight—for proposing to increase public expenditure at a significant rate for the next three years. Having maintained a tight fiscal stance for two years, their rate of increase is not that great, taken over a five-year period. The previous Government increased over five years by 2¼ per cent. a year. This Government are proposing taking five years overall to increase public expenditure at the rate of 1¾ per cent. a year. So their growth in public expenditure is slower. But what they are doing is at least letting public expenditure grow when the budget is in surplus rather than deficit. That is something for which I strongly commend them.
I have one criticism of the budget. I should like to echo the words of the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, regarding capital gains tax. I confess that I, too, am a chartered accountant, although not practising these days. However, I helped to advise one or two people on the new provisions for capital gains tax. Frankly, the principles that they proposed were extremely good, that is that we should have a short and a long-term capital gains tax. With that I heartily agree.
However, when they take away indexation of capital gains tax they might as well have left it alone. The net effect of the two, if you compare one with the other, is very little indeed. This is a country of fairly low direct taxation. It compares favourably with America except in one respect, which is capital gains tax. There, we are now significantly worse off. We were not when we had indexation; we compared reasonably, although we had a much higher rate of tax. I hope, come the next budget, that the Government will have had enough representations—or rather will have listened to those representations, as they will certainly receive plenty—and will improve the situation next time.
The area that I should like to comment on does not directly come into the budget but has been referred to by several noble Lords earlier; that is, the question of the role of the Monetary Policy Committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me. The Companion says that any speaker in the gap should confine his remarks to four minutes.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, having been informed that I was entitled to speak, I was not told of that fact. I therefore apologise. Would I have permission to speak for one more minute?
A noble Lord: Please.
Lord Jacobs: Thank you. My Lords, I should like to say that the approach of the MPC regarding wage

1571
inflation is quite unrealistic. It says that if wage increases continue at a higher rate it will have to slow them down. It does not have regard to the fact that all negotiations on wage increases are based on the headline rate of inflation. That is what unions look at, and what all negotiators look at. It is impossible to get around that point.
7 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, this has been a most extraordinary portmanteau of a debate covering a broad sweep of macro-economic policies and detailed issues and technicalities of business taxation. The point made by a number of noble Lords about the way in which this House discusses such issues bears further consideration. It has been demonstrated again today that within this House there is significant expertise on all these matters. Yet in a debate which will last less than three hours we are attempting to cover issues which in the Commons are dealt with in the Budget debate and on Second Reading and at all subsequent stages of the Finance Bill. In my view, that is unsatisfactory. As was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, we could discuss the Budget Statement within a week of it being made.
As we come next year to look at the composition and functions of this House, we should look again at the way in which it addresses economic and financial matters. The proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which has been around a long time, about a second technical tax Bill would be worth considering at that stage.
I turn, first, to the overall economic position, the way in which the Chancellor has formed his judgment and the future of the economy. It is crystal clear from our debates today and yesterday that we are at a stage in the economic cycle when it is uniquely difficult to see any far distance into the future. The fog on the mountain described by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, is particularly thick at the point when the economy is turning from a period of sustained growth into the downturn and vice versa.
That is noticeable, for example, if one looks at the point when the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, as Chancellor, was forming his Budget judgment in 1986 at the beginning of what subsequently became known as the "Lawson boom". The advice he was getting both internally from the Treasury and externally was not that he should be preparing for a boom but that the economy was faltering and that he should be stimulating it rather than dampening it down. That demonstrates the difficulty of the position in which we find ourselves not least because there is the major external uncertainty over which we have no control; namely, the short to medium-term future of the Japanese and the other Far Eastern economies.
A great deal of discussion has been directed today at the workings of the Monetary Policy Committee and its specific decisions. We on these Benches have supported the establishment of that committee. Some of the criticisms we have heard today remind me of the position in which a football manager sometimes finds himself when the team is not doing as well as people
1572
might expect and there is a star player or another team selection to be made. There is perhaps a sense that he should be bringing on Beckham or Owen, but the manager believes that perhaps now is not quite the time. That is an analogy to the Monetary Policy Committee.
There is a widespread sense shared by many Members of this House that now is not the time to be putting up interest rates but probably the time to be bringing them down. Like the football manager who has become used to a longer term series of decision making and who has to live by the decisions, there is greater caution on the part of the Monetary Policy Committee. My preference would be to give it the benefit of the doubt for the time being. Although it would not be the unanimous view of the House, we on these Benches believe that the committee is but a transitional body between the Chancellor of the Exchequer setting interest rates, having been advised by the Bank, and interest rates being set for a European single currency in which the UK will be playing a full part.
We welcome many aspects of the Government's overall fiscal stance and budgetary policy. As my colleagues in another place have been ready to point out, we have some concerns about the vulnerability of the Chancellor's plans and about a number of risks contained within them. I shall mention only three. The first relates to inflation and the extent to which the Chancellor's expenditure plans depend on the inflation targets being met. The noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Marlesford, asked whether in setting out cash limited expenditure for the next three-and-a-half years the Chancellor really did mean that it was cash limited or whether, if inflation were to rise beyond that set out in the Government's plans, the cash limit would be relaxed. So far, the Government's statements have been confusing.
In the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report, the Chancellor stated that the cash figures would be reviewed if inflation varied substantially from the forecast. Yet on 18th July, when he appeared before the Treasury Select Committee, he said:
"I am not proposing to make any additional cash payments. These are budgets that they have to work within".
I suspect that the truth is that if inflation exceeds the targets the Government will take all the options open to them in part and slightly increase the expenditure to take account of increased inflation. They will somewhat increase borrowing so that it takes some of the strain and they will probably raise taxes in order to make up any remaining shortfall. But given that the inflationary outlook is not wholly clear, and given that the Government have not met their inflation targets, there is an implied risk in the Government's forward inflation figures.
The second point—I apologise to noble Lords who heard me make it yesterday evening—relates to the contingency reserve, which is now at a negligible level. It stands at more than £8 billion over a three-year period to cover government spending of £1.1 trillion. In the first two years of that three-year period, those amounts are 0.5 per cent. and 0.7 per cent. respectively of government expenditure. I am not sure what the level was when the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was

1573
Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but I suspect that it was 2 or 3 per cent. rather than less than 1 per cent. I do not believe that a contingency reserve of less than 1 per cent. can be described as a prudent figure. There is a risk.
The third risk—the risk we have spent most time discussing—relates to growth and to what happens if the Government's plans on growth are not met. Clearly, the Government are making plans for a soft landing. As the Minister reminded me yesterday evening, the majority of commentators are predicting that. He also accused me of being unduly gloomy about the prospect. I was not doing that. I was pointing out that because of a number of decisions which the Government have already made they have tightly boxed themselves in in terms of their response to any downturn in growth without breaking election pledges on taxation, the golden rule or the other constraints which individually would make sense but when taken together provide a tight fiscal box for the Government to remain in.
Those are the three risks that we feel are inherent in the Government's fiscal and growth plans. As I said last night, we are not hoping that those risks prove to be realities. When we are assessing the Budget and forming our views on the Chancellor's overall stance, it is fair to take those plans into account.
I turn briefly to three specific matters in the Finance Bill which cause us concern. In one or two cases, I should welcome a ministerial response. We have had a limited discussion on ACT today. It is clear that, whatever the merits for the overall abolition of ACT, a whole raft of anomalies has arisen which the Government have so far failed to rectify. In another place, amendments were moved to attempt to deal with the problem of the impact of the change on members of the public who are non-taxpayers and who have to pay tax for the first time on their dividends. It amounts to about 300,000 people paying on average an additional £75 per year. By definition, those people are poor and that is an impost which I am sure the Government did not intend as one of the consequences of the abolition of ACT. However, it is an impost which has flowed from it. While the Paymaster General in another place has accepted that the situation is unsatisfactory, nothing has so far been done about it. I should welcome anything which the Minister will say about how that may be tackled next year.
Another matter which has been raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, and the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, was the abolition of capital gains tax retirement relief. We totally support the concerns raised in that regard. It is extraordinary that a tax-neutral change which has to do with the laudable aim of encouraging people to hold capital for a longer period has the effect of benefiting those whose assets are extremely high and hitting those whose assets are very low, with a cut-off at about £0.5 million.
Again, that seems to be an outcome which the Government cannot have desired. A number of suggestions have been made, not least from the Forum of Private Business, about how a transitional relief could
1574
be introduced and how an additional taper could be put in to ensure that no small business was worse off. That is an issue to which we should return in another year.
The final tax change to which I should like to refer which has not been discussed at all this afternoon relates to the introduction of the individual savings account. We welcome the ISA proposals in general and welcome also the process by which the Government have sought to introduce what is a complicated and technical change. Quite a significant change has been made as a result of the consultation and the more recent consultation on the CAT marks. The principle behind having a simple CAT mark is entirely laudable. Some of the arguments which have been made against the proposals on behalf of the independent financial adviser industry do not bear too close a scrutiny, given the recent history of bad advice to low-income earners. However, it is quite clear that significant changes could be made to the proposals contained in the Treasury discussion document on CAT marks and I hope that they will be taken into account.
In that consultation document, the Treasury said that it will be publishing draft regulations this month. I understand that that is not the case. I am not surprised because so many suggestions were made and to accommodate them all, or even a large proportion of them, will take time. But perhaps the Minister will give an indication of when those regulations may be forthcoming. As it is almost certainly the case that they will be published during the Recess, will he give some idea of the subsequent parliamentary timetable which may be followed? They are peculiarly important regulations in terms of a significant tax change which will affect potentially very large numbers of small income earners.
This has been a fascinating debate. As I said at the start, in some ways it has been unsatisfactory because it has tried to do too much. I hope that as one looks to our further debates on those issues, they can be conducted with a rather more rational division between a macro-economic discussion and the technical matters contained in any future Finance Bill.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, it will come as no surprise to your Lordships' House that I disagree fundamentally with the opening remarks of the Minister with regard to the Government's economic inheritance, both for the reasons which my noble friend Lord Marlesford put forward with regard to structural changes over the past 20 years or so and for the other reasons put forward by, for example, my noble friend Lord Dartmouth. I take the view that this Government had the best economic inheritance of any government since World War II.
What surprised me was the Minister's remark that there had been an inflationary boom in prospect and the Chancellor had taken firm fiscal action to stop a consumer boom. If there is one thing which this Chancellor has failed to do it is to take action in relation to the consumer situation. Not only that, but he has also taken action which has tended overall to deter savings, which is the other side of the coin to consumption. The

1575
two go together. I do not know what the Minister was talking about when he spoke of that firm action to curtail consumer expenditure.
The reality of the situation is that after two budgets, two Finance Bills, an economic and fiscal strategy report and a Comprehensive Spending Review, I fear the situation now is that the position which the Government inherited is being frittered away. On top of that we have clearly had a complete reversal of the Government's declared strategy in a number of important respects, in particular as regards a major U-turn on public spending and more specifically on social security spending. I note that in his opening remarks the Minister referred to many increases in public expenditure but significantly did not mention the extremely substantial increase in relation to social security expenditure.
Since I have not spoken before in one of these debates, I thought it appropriate to carry out some research into earlier debates. I was struck by a remark made by, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, when he said that the House of Lords debates Finance Bills after it is too late to do anything about them. That is probably the reality of the situation as regards the specific tax proposals. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, pointed out, the debate this afternoon has contained a number of speeches on specific tax matters, but in addition to that we have had a wide-ranging debate on the state of the economy. Therefore, I wish to make one or two remarks on the specific proposals before I turn to the broader issue.
I have great sympathy with the view expressed by both the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Newby, as regards the future structure of this debate. There is a strong case for us to have an opportunity to debate the Budget soon after it takes place.
In that context, I wish to say also, and again agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that the case for a separate taxes management Bill is overwhelming. It is not all that long ago that the Finance Bill was contained in a single volume. It then became two volumes. We now have 409 pages of volume II entirely devoted to schedules. That is at a time when I understand that a committee under the chairmanship of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon is trying to simplify the existing structure of tax legislation. It is going far faster than my noble and learned friend and his committee can possibly hope to keep pace with. Therefore, the case for those matters being debated quite separately—on the one hand, the Chancellor's proposals as far as they affect the economy and, on the other hand, the technical stuff, which I am almost inclined to describe as "garbage", which turns up in the other more esoteric aspects of the matter—is overwhelming.
As regards the specific measures, my noble friend Lord Boardman referred specifically to corporation tax and challenged the Government on the overall situation. The Minister gave the impression that the overall effect of the Chancellor's proposals over the lifetime of this Parliament would be to reduce corporation tax and the revenue derived from it. My understanding is that that is not the case. No doubt the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong. If I am correct, I hope he will say that
1576
the overall impact will be to increase corporation tax, taking all the measures into account, rather than otherwise.
Similarly the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and my noble friends Lord Lucas, Lord Northbrook and Lord Dartmouth all referred to the capital gains tax changes with regard to retirement relief. I share the views which they expressed in relation to that. The issue of ACT has been debated already at considerable length and I do not wish to detain your Lordships' House on that subject now.
However, as we are talking more and more about the overall economic situation in terms of a three-year period, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the matter which we debated at some length during the proceedings on the Social Security Bill some while ago; namely, the Budget Statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 17th March in another place, in which he said:
"Further reforms will also ensure that no one pays national insurance for the first £81 of their weekly earnings. All employees earning between £64 and £81 will have their rights to benefits protected".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/3/98; col. 1106.]
Noble Lords will recall that in the debate on the social security legislation there was much dispute about whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to "further" or "future" reforms. However, at all events, it was a major feature of the Budget speech and was certainly picked up in press reports. Nevertheless, your Lordships will look in vain to find any reference to it in this Finance (No. 2) Bill. As this is a matter involving some £1.3 billion, we should at least ask the Government whether this will happen at any time over the three-year period which we are considering, or whether it is simply some aspiration for a time far into the future which will not be relevant to our discussion of the overall economic situation.
I should like to pick up on another point that I raised yesterday; indeed, I have raised it three times now but have not as yet received an answer. I refer to the way in which the figures are presented and the extraordinary way in which the substantial sum of money involved in the working families tax credit—some £5 billion—has been shifted out of the budget of the Social Security Department and put into a so-called "accounting adjustment", together with a further £10 billion covering various other items. Clearly, the overall effect is very important. The Minister was kind enough to say last night that he would give me a clear answer in that respect.
The Minister referred to a particular response that the Government had given which he described as evidence that had been given to the Treasury Select Committee in another place. However, I have managed to obtain a copy of the relevant document and it does not cover the point that I was making originally; namely, whether it is the case that the Office for National Statistics does not approve of the way in which this matter has been handled. Indeed, the amount has been shifted out of the social security budget into the so-called, "accounting adjustment".

1577
From time to time there are occasions when one can say that such matters are a tax reduction or a public expenditure increase. But this is not a matter of that sort. Although it is to be handled by the Inland Revenue, the reality is that something like 80 per cent. of the working families tax credit will actually be cash which is handed out. One cannot conceivably regard that under any possible rules as a tax reduction. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, would not take that view. It is only if one assumes that everything that everyone has belongs to the Government that such a handout could be regarded as a tax reduction. Therefore, it is most important to clear up the issue. Equally, it is clear that, as far as concerns the reality, one ought to add back the figures into the social security budget.
I have one further point to make on public sector borrowing. Again, I hope that we will receive an answer tonight. The Government's objectives have changed significantly since the Budget was announced in March and this finance Bill has stemmed from it. We were told in March in the Red Book that, from the year 2000, there would be a budget surplus in each year until the end of the planning period. My understanding is that that is not so. We were told that there would be a reduction in the national debt; but again my understanding is that that is not so. We were also told that there would be a reduction in the percentage of national income taken by the state from now onwards to the end of the period. Again, my understanding is that that is not so.
My noble friend Lord Lucas referred to Clause 155 of the Bill. That deals in some considerable detail with the code for fiscal stability which is actually embodied in this legislation. Had that code been formulated in March, it would have had to be radically rewritten by now. Quite clearly, there has been some fundamental change in the Government's overall policy between then and now. That brings me to the major point; namely, the major reversal which has taken place.
The declared policy of the Government before the election and immediately afterwards was very clear: it was to pay for increases in the budget of the education and health departments from savings on social security. That simply has not happened; indeed, it has been a demonstrable failure. Regrettably, in some ways, we have seen that reflected in the decisions as far as concerns the composition of the Government during the past few days. In passing, I feel bound to say that I greatly regret the fact that Mr. Frank Field felt unable to go on serving in the Government. Certainly government of any quality and of any party need people with the kind of expertise and experience that he has.
However, the proposals which were made were clearly not implementable and, therefore, were not implemented. But what strikes me as quite extraordinary is that we now have a new Secretary of State for Social Security, Mr. Alistair Darling, the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury. As Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Darling was presumably trying to achieve the Government's objectives of reducing the amount of money which was spent in the social security budget. As far as one can see, he ought to have been pressing
1578
on an open door as regards social security Ministers. However, between them, they failed to cut the welfare budget and, correspondingly, there has been a massive change in the Government's overall policy. We have been assured by the Prime Minister and others during the past few days that it has all been a terrible mistake but that now Mr. Darling will sort it out. It is not simply a case of him being a poacher turned gamekeeper or a gamekeeper turned poacher; indeed, in effect, he is a gamekeeper turned gamekeeper. But the birds have already flown.
We have been told time and time again—indeed, by the Minister last night and again today—that the Government are now planning public expenditure over a three-year period. Unlike periods in the past when previous governments always looked at such matters over a three-year period but did not seek to set them in concrete, such plans are now fixed and cannot be changed. But those plans include a massive increase in social security expenditure. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us today what the actual outcome will be. Will it suddenly be the case that these plans are not as set in concrete as they were before, or will we have a cut in the social security budget which Mr. Darling, having failed to achieve it as Chief Secretary, will now manage to do as Secretary of State for Social Security?
That brings me to the overall situation with regard to public spending in relation to this Finance Bill. It is sometimes said that the danger lies in the increase which is now planned, in contrast to what was thought to be the case last March when this Finance Bill was coming to fruition. We were told then that there was a danger that there might be spending into a recession. Of course, it is always possible to do that if one has a boom or bust and stop-go policies, which the Government have declared they are not going to have. We are told that there will be a sustainable rate of economic growth, and I shall turn to that point in a moment. However, the Government have really short-circuited that boom and bust process.
I turn now to certain points which many noble Lords have raised during the course of this debate; namely, the situation as regards the independence of the Bank of England. Many press statements issued in the past few days have indicated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is supporting the policies of the Bank of England. But, in that context, it is important to realise that the Bank of England, independent though it may be—or at any rate is said to be—can only operate within the context set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
That brings me to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, with regard to fiscal policy. The Government's failure to do what they said they would do in the comprehensive spending policy document means that there is bound to be upwards—not downwards—pressure on the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee to increase, not to decrease, interest rates. The Chancellor cannot wash his hands of the whole affair. What he is doing is setting the framework; what the Bank of England is doing is simply spelling out the consequences.

1579
It is tempting to go into the point, which I made in an intervention to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, as to whether the Bank of England is concerned only with interest rate policy and not monetary policy. My feeling is that monetary policy is still in the hands of the Treasury as regards the funding of the PSBR. However, it is unfashionable to talk of M1, M2 or M3, which used to preoccupy many of us some years ago. Therefore I shall not pursue that point. However, I shall pick up a point which a number of noble Lords have made, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, my noble friend Lord Northbrook and my noble friend Lord Birdwood, with whom I have discussed the matter. He had hoped to be present this afternoon but was unable to be here. I refer to the point of whether the guidance to the Bank of England should be changed and whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer should ask it either to change its timescale on this matter—that point was made recently in Mr. Kearn's National Westminster review—or should tell it that inflation is important but it must also take into account growth and the overall economy.
This debate has been rather divided between economists and accountants. I declare myself in the first camp rather than the second. In that context I think there is a problem here as regards the way in which the Bank of England operates. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, with regard to one instrument and one objective. I suspect that point may have been missed by some of the accountants. In all events I think it would be difficult for the Bank of England to change its remit in the way suggested because effectively it would take over the whole of economic policy, not just the determination of interest rates.
The overall effect of this Finance Bill, and particularly the public expenditure change, gives one real cause for concern with regard to the future of the economy. That is a matter which all of us must regret. That situation has manifested itself more and more. I refer to recent statements by the board of Rover, or the CBI, or this morning's statement by the London Business School. I refer also to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, with regard to productivity and the exchange rate. It is extraordinary that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have attacked particular companies on their productivity without really examining whether they were service companies or manufacturing companies. I do not think there is any doubt that the effect of the public expenditure exercise, combined with the effects on monetary policy and the effects on interest rates, and the upward rather than downward pressure on the exchange rate, will have a serious effect on many sectors of the economy. I fear that we are heading for "stagflation", to use an old-fashioned term.
While the Government have said that they are aiming for a high and sustainable rate of economic growth, the reality is that the rate of growth which they now anticipate is, by historic standards, remarkably low. I declare an interest as a governor of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which has suggested that the rate of growth may be minimal for the remainder of this year and probably only about
1580
1.5 per cent. or so the following year, and not much higher the year after. By historic standards those are low rates of growth. We may avoid a recession—although I fear that may not be the case for reasons I have mentioned—but we are in no great danger of a boom or bust situation because the rate of economic growth I have mentioned does not indicate any major change. I believe we face the prospect of higher interest rates, more borrowing, and—as a number of noble Lords have suggested—higher taxation, too. That, after a year of the new Government is a gloomy picture.
Certainly there is one thing which is true: forecasts of all kinds are extraordinarily unreliable. I see that the Minister nods his head in agreement. Just 18 months ago I said in another place that I was making my final speech on a finance Bill. That was after 33 years of speaking on finance Bills with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and others. As there is often more than one finance Bill in a year, I suppose I have spoken on more than 40 finance Bills. They have varied greatly in quality but this one gives me considerable cause for concern for the future.
7.36 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, ended his speech by saying that forecasts are notoriously unreliable. I nodded approval because I was reminded of Casey Stengel, the manager of the New York Yankees, who said exactly what the noble Lord has said. He said that forecasts are notoriously unreliable, particularly when they concern the future. They are the worst kind, he said.
We have been criticised for the timing of the debate on the Finance Bill. I was interested to hear the point made by my noble friend Lord Desai, which was echoed by the noble Lords, Lord Jacobs and Lord Newby, and finally by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. As my noble friend will remember, we had a debate on the economic situation soon after the Budget because that was in Opposition time. If there is any lesson to be learnt perhaps it should be learnt by the Opposition Chief Whip, who might wish to devote some Opposition time to a debate on the economic state of the nation immediately after the Budget when your Lordships' undoubted expertise may have greater influence than it is likely to have some two days before the Summer Recess.
Noble Lords complain that we do not have an input into taxation matters but that was, after all, the result of the Parliament Act 1911. That Act was enacted because Lloyd George's "People's Budget" of 1909, having been debated in all-night sittings in the House of Commons all through August and September with Cabinet Ministers speaking in relays to defend the budget, was then overturned by the House of Lords, plunging the country into chaos. I do not think that we want to go back to that situation. I think we should maintain our inferior status as regards taxation.
The debate was of great interest to me. As has been said, so many noble Lords who took part are accountants and economists. I am a mere market researcher and therefore I must do my best to keep up. I was interested to note that, for once, overall approval for the Budget

1581
and for the Government's economic strategy came from both Opposition Benches. Not all Members of both Opposition Benches approved of it, but it was useful to have support from the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford and Lord Jacobs, for what we are trying to do.
I have listed 14 topics that I must cover. Therefore I shall race through as best I can. First, there is the fundamental issue of growth forecasts and whether we are being prudent in our spending plans and in our taxation plans. The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, said that the spending review commits everything that we have available. My noble friend Lord Barnett said that we should take pessimistic forecasts seriously. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made the same point. My noble friend Lord Bruce referred to the CBI surveys indicating a downturn in business expectations. All of those things are true. It is true that we should take a particularly prudent view of public expenditure and public revenue in the light of the likely future for the economy. That is exactly what we have been doing. Indeed, in the Comprehensive Spending Review and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report, we have down-sized expectations on the previous position. The result is that our expectations are very much in line with the expected growth of the average independent forecasts and, importantly, our spending projections are based on the lower end of the ranges. We continue to expect growth of 2 to 2½ per cent. this year and 1¾ to 2¼ per cent. next year. Our spending projections are based on the lower end of those ranges.
But in many ways there are still buffers between us and the disaster that so many noble Lords take some delight in forecasting. First, we are over-achieving on the golden rule. The margins on the current Budget build up with surpluses of £7 billion, £10 billion and £13 billion. Our short-term projections, as I said, are on a lower growth path than they were before. Let me be precise about what they are now—what I have given are the earlier figures. The figures are: 2 per cent. in 1998 and 1¾ per cent. in 1999. That is in line with the latest view of most independent forecasters.
We have made cautious assumptions which have been audited by the National Audit Office, including: a 2¼ per cent. trend growth instead of the previous 2½ per cent; only direct effects of our Spend to Save programmes; a modest downward trend in VAT receipts as compared to the flat trend that we assumed before; and reserves in both the Annually Managed Expenditure and managed Departmental Expenditure Limits. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that there are significant reserves. However, they are less necessary when public spending has been set out in a firmer way for three years than when it is for only one year. The opportunity for departments to plan their expenditure more effectively is very much greater with three-year planning. I simply do not accept that our expenditure plans or expectations of revenue are unsustainable. Of course departments must stay within the cash limits, as they have always had to do. But the buffers that I have described are enormously important.
1582
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, returned to the charge that he has made before about social security expenditure. I say to the noble Lord again that social security expenditure, at 2 per cent., is below the expected rate of growth and below the expected rate of inflation. That is a reduction in real terms.
But, more importantly, social security expenditure is not so much the kind of hand-out expenditure that we had, given the higher unemployment in the 1980s and early 1990s, but is much more positively family related expenditure. I mentioned that in my opening remarks. Our deliberate intention is to reduce child poverty. We believe that to be a profoundly important investment in our future. If that counts as social security expenditure, then so be it. Whatever our plans are, they are to cut spending in areas of failure, not spending on positive benefits. The aim is to cut child poverty and poverty among the disabled and the long-term poor.
We talked about the role of the Monetary Policy Committee and the respective role of monetary and fiscal policy. Although there was disagreement, it was not particularly on party lines. Some of the distinction made between monetary and fiscal policy has been too facile. Of course the Monetary Policy Committee considers fiscal matters, and the Treasury considers monetary matters including the question of money supply. But delegation of decision-making on short-term interest rates to the Monetary Policy Committee means that the Government cannot, as in the past, rely on fiscal drag, an inflation tax to cover up a poor control of public expenditure. That is important in relation to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
I say to my noble friend Lord Desai that in that respect we have not abjured using fiscal policy for short-term ends. What we are saying is that it should be used, if necessary, for short-term ends but always within the context of the golden rule for the economic cycle as a whole.
I now turn to the issue of the golden legacy to which the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford and Lord Higgins, appear still to adhere. I find that increasingly extraordinary as we move away from the election. Thanks to the boom-bust policies of the party opposite, the past 20 years have seen the two deepest recessions and one of the largest booms since the war. It cannot be denied that that is the case. They have damaged growth, held back investment and cost jobs. Last May we inherited an economy that was in the middle of another short-term inflationary boom caused by the fact that the then Chancellor refused to accept the advice of the Governor of the Bank of England and take the necessary action. We inherited a history of excessive government borrowing and rising public debt, while public investment had been neglected. The burden of public debt under the previous government doubled from 1991 to £350 billion; that is about £15,000 for every family in the country. It cannot be said that that was a golden legacy, however one attempts to massage the figures.
We were criticised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, who has raised the matter before, for the treatment in the accounts of working families tax credit. The situation is very straightforward. Income tax credits count as

1583
government expenditure when payments to an individual exceed that individual's total income tax liability. As the noble Lord said, that is money that is handed out. The position of mortgage income relief at source (MIRAS) or life assurance premium relief at source (LAPRAS), is exactly the same as it was under the previous government. In other circumstances it is negative revenue which reduces government receipts. But 80 per cent. of working families tax credit will count as government expenditure. It will appear in Annual Managed Expenditure and therefore it will appear in Total Managed Expenditure. There will be no departure from previous practice. All the definitions have been approved by the National Audit Office and the Office of National Statistics, which will make a final decision about the accounts when they receive the European System of Accounts update for 1995, in September this year. Nothing underhand is being done. Nothing is being concealed. There are no smoke or mirrors of any kind.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am deeply grateful for the trouble that the Minister has gone to so far as this matter is concerned. Is he saying that 80 per cent. of the working families tax credit will appear as part of the social security budget?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not say it would appear as part of the social security budget; I said it would appear within the Annually Managed Expenditure. Frankly, I do not know the answer offhand as to in which category it will appear, but it will appear as public expenditure. Anyone can aggregate or disaggregate the figures as they wish.
We then had some debate about wage inflation. The conflict between the fears of the Treasury Select Committee which reported today and the London Business School which reported this morning is significant. We do not in any way underestimate the dangers of wage inflation. We systematically seek to separate out wage increases which are the result of increases in productivity from those which are not. We are properly concerned about the latter category.
Noble Lords also referred to the unemployment figures. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, expressed great interest in the constituency figures, which are only claimant unemployment, whereas, as my noble friend Lord Bruce rightly recognised, we have moved from emphasis on the claimant unemployment to internationally recognised figures for employment based on the Labour Force Survey. I believe that that is a recognised improvement. There was criticism from the noble Lord, Lord Boardman.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, that may well be but the fall in the figure of unemployment is quite remarkable. In the United Kingdom between the years 1996 and 1998—a period for which, in terms of unemployment, the previous government had some responsibility—total unemployment fell by 37 per cent.
1584
It may be that absolute figures are different, depending on whether you use the ILO or the claimant measure. The proportion of the fall is very considerable.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course, and no one denies that there has been a fall and the two sets of figures go in parallel. I remember the late Lord Wyatt of Weeford accusing me of throwing 500 people onto the dole by using higher figures derived from the Labour Force Survey. He said: "Where shall we find the money for them?"
I turn now briefly to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, about secondary legislation. There has been no change in the practice. The same proportion of tax legislation arises in secondary legislation or primary legislation as in the past. Secondary legislation is useful because it allows for proper consultation with the professions and business and other interested bodies.
As for corporation tax, there was general agreement that we ought to get rid of advance corporation tax. Doing so meant that we had to change the method of payment of corporation tax. We did so by phasing in over four years the system of instalments. That change applies only to 20,000 out of 700,000 companies in this country.
The change means an increase in corporation tax take in one single year, but after that the figures are the same as they would have been in previous years, except that, as I made plain in my opening speech, corporation tax is at a lower level than ever. I repeat to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that in total we shall take £1.5 billion less in corporation tax over the period of this Parliament than would have been the case under the old system.
On capital gains tax, I do not accept even the view of accountants that the situation will in the longer term be more complex. Of course, while we have indexation and the taper for investments which cover both periods, we have to calculate on both bases. But in the longer term, first, the indexation calculation is frozen and will never change again. Secondly, in the longer term there will be fewer and fewer indexation calculations and more of the simpler taper calculations. The most important point about capital gains tax—I refer to those who mentioned the abolition of retirement relief—is the distinction which is made between business assets and other assets. I believe that that is an important change for small businesses. I sold the majority share in my business in 1988 after 25 years. Because I was under 60, I did not receive any retirement relief at all. Retirement relief was subsequently improved, although it was extremely difficult to get.
However, with the taper, all the investments which I had had in a business asset over more than 10 years would have been taxed only at 10 per cent. That is a real improvement for small businesses. Therefore, I do not accept the charges which have been made.
On heritage assets and conditional access, we shall be quite flexible. For example, the conditional access requirement could well be fulfilled not by a "burglar's charter" but by having the assets exhibited in a local museum or gallery for part of the year. That has been generally welcomed and negotiations are still going on about it.

1585
Starting with the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, there have been criticisms about the distinction between capital and current expenditure. I must insist that the distinction which we are making—and we are doing it, not just talking about it as it has been talked about for 40 years—is consistent with the national accounts. It will be consistent with the European System of Accounts and it will be made to work. The important point is that when there is any disposal of assets, whether directly by central government or by local government, the receipts from that disposal of assets will be required to be used for investment purposes and not for tax cuts or for current expenditure, as they were under the Conservative government.
I must correct something I said earlier about growth projections in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report. I misread something that I had been told. In fact the growth projections for the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report and the CSR were the same as those in the Budget. I apologise for that mistake.
I have dealt with working families' tax credits. I must reply to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about his understanding that it is not the case that we are continuing to plan for a surplus on current Budget accounts. I have given the figures. We are still planning for a surplus on the current Budget of £7 billion, £10 billion and £13 billion over the next three years. Government plans show net debt falling to less than 40 per cent. of GDP, which is exactly what we were saying before. It is only sensible to look at the debt in relation to the size of the economy, not in cash terms.
Some doubt was expressed as to whether there would be upward pressure on interest rates as a result of our spending plans. The Monetary Policy Committee has met since our spending plans were published and it did not raise interest rates. So I believe we can be assured of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, expressed concern about advance corporation tax abolition and the effect particularly on elderly shareholders. The Paymaster General has undertaken to review the position of shareholders of modest means who are non-taxpayers. He has met Age Concern to discuss it and will announce his decision as soon as possible.
I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the issue of tax simplification to which he referred. But it is a general concern. We recognise its importance. We think that self-assessment, after the first year, will make life much easier for taxpayers rather than the reverse. For tax returns submitted by September, self-assessment will not be required. Therefore, anyone who is in any fear of being confused by complicated tax has only to submit his return by September to get out of it. We have even won prizes for our instructions from the Campaign for Plain English, and that surprised me as much as it will surprise your Lordships.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I do not underestimate for one moment the difficulty of replying to a debate like this and I apologise therefore for interrupting the Minister again. However, were we not told in March
1586
that there would be a reduction in the National Debt during the course of this Parliament? Is that still the case?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we were told that there would be a reduction in the National Debt as a proportion of GDP, and that is what will happen. That is what I understood the noble Lord to be talking about.
A specific point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in relation to CAT marks for individual savings accounts. We have just completed the consultation exercise on that and shall be considering the responses and announcing the decisions in due course. Therefore I ask the noble Lord to be patient on that matter.
I am sure that I have omitted many other aspects of this debate. It has been extremely complex, long, and well informed. I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in it. If I have missed out any points that I ought to have covered, I shall certainly write to noble Lords, though whether I shall do so in the next two days is another matter.
I believe that, on the whole and with few exceptions, there has been some consensus that the Government are tackling the economic problems of this country with a degree of seriousness which the country, in due course and now, will commend, recognise and respect. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 9th March), Bill read a third time and passed.

Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 1998
8.2 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg) rose to move, That the draft rules laid before the House on 2nd July be approved [40th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the draft rules provide the necessary procedural framework for the new commission created by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997. That Act, which received Royal Assent in December 1997, established new appeal arrangements for the small number of cases where the Home Secretary exercises his powers to deport or to exclude someone from the United Kingdom on national security grounds or for other public interest reasons.
The commission replaces a non-statutory advisory panel, known as the Three Advisers, which had existed for the previous 25 years. Its role had been to review the case against a person liable to deportation, and to advise the Home Secretary before he made a final decision. However, in 1996, the European Court of Human Rights found that the arrangements for

1587
challenging the Home Secretary's decision in cases involving deportation on national security grounds were in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court's judgment followed an application by Karamjit Singh Chahal.
Mr. Chahal had been made the subject of a deportation order. As that decision had been made on national security grounds, he had no right of appeal against it, nor against the refusal of his claim for asylum. The case against Mr. Chahal was considered by the advisory panel. Then, having exhausted his domestic remedies, including judicial review, Mr. Chahal applied to the European Court of Human Rights.
The court found that the remedies available to Mr. Chahal did not comply with Articles 5(4) and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 5(4) entitles a person to have the basis of his detention reviewed by a court. The advisory panel was not considered to be a court because, for example, individuals were not entitled to legal representation and it had no power of decision. On the other hand, the domestic courts were not in a position to review whether the decision to detain a person was justified on national security grounds.
Article 13 entitles a person whose rights under the convention are violated to an effective domestic remedy. However, the substance of the decision refusing Mr. Chahal's claim for asylum could not be considered either by the advisory panel or on judicial review.
By establishing the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, the Government are remedying the deficiencies identified by the European Court of Human Rights. In addition, it has given a right of appeal to the commission to those who are excluded from the United Kingdom in cases where European Community law is relevant—either because the person to be excluded is a European Economic Area national or because he is otherwise exercising his rights of free movement under the Treaty of Rome.
The commission is significantly different from the advisory panel. Its members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor, who also makes its procedural rules. Its decisions will be published and will be binding on the Home Secretary. It will also be able to deal with bail applications. The appellant will have the right to be represented. There will be a right of appeal from the commission to the Court of Appeal on a point of law.
Nevertheless, because of the need to safeguard highly sensitive material, the commission's procedures depart from what would normally be required to satisfy natural justice. It is for that reason, and because the procedures are not set out in detail on the face of the Act, that the Government decided that the rules should be subject to affirmative resolution.
During the passage of the Act, draft rules were made available to give a flavour of the procedures which were likely to be adopted. Since then, the draft rules have been developed and improved. Interested organisations and individuals have been consulted. Changes have been made as a result of their suggestions. The Government are indebted to those who responded for the care with which they considered the proposed procedures.
The European Court of Human Rights acknowledged the need for safeguards in cases involving confidential material, and that what is needed is a remedy which is as effective as it can be, given the obvious risk to national security. The court commended the procedures adopted by Canada, which were drawn to its attention during the Chahal case. Those procedures were taken as a starting point, and we acknowledge our debt to Canada, but I believe that the rules before the House today offer even better protection to appellants because their interests will be more effectively represented.
The conflict in these cases is obvious. There is both a need to ensure that a decision is properly reviewed as well as a need to secure that information is not disclosed contrary to the public interest. I am satisfied that the rules satisfy both requirements.
The commission will have three members—a High Court judge, a legally qualified senior member of the Immigration Appellate Authorities and a member with knowledge of national security issues. As far as it is possible to do so, without disclosing confidential information, the appellant will be allowed to attend proceedings. Where he cannot, he will be given a summary of the case against him and the reasons for the commission's decision. If the case involves an asylum claim, the United Kingdom representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees will be treated as a party if he so requests.
The commission has to be able to exclude the appellant, his representative and the UNHCR representative, when it is considering confidential material, or an objection by the Secretary of State about the disclosure of material. Whenever that happens, however, the appellant's interests will be safeguarded by a special advocate appointed by the Attorney-General.
The special advocate will see all of the Secretary of State's material. He will be able to test it; for example, by cross-examining witnesses. He will be able to make representations to the commission; for example, about the material to be withheld from the appellant. He will not, however, be able to communicate with the appellant as a representative normally would. There is a risk of inadvertent disclosure through an apparently innocent remark. He will be able to apply to the Commission to seek specific information from the appellant.
The role of the special advocate is different from that envisaged in the draft provided during the passage of the Bill. Then, it was expected that he would act more as if he were counsel to the commission. We have now created a much more pro-active role on behalf of the appellant.
The Attorney-General will be invited to appoint a special advocate as soon as it becomes apparent that the appellant is likely to be excluded. For this to happen at the earliest possible stage, the rules require the Secretary of State to notify the Attorney-General that he intends to object to material being disclosed to the appellant. This brings me to one of the most significant changes made following the consultation exercise.
The special advocate and appellant will not have a traditional 'client-representative' relationship. However, during consultation, respondents suggested that, before

1589
he sees confidential material, the special advocate ought to be able to communicate freely with the appellant. We have adopted that suggestion. We have imposed on the Secretary of State the requirement to notify the Attorney-General of the potential need for appointment of a special advocate at the time he decides to oppose the appeal. In that way, the special advocate will have the maximum time possible to communicate freely with the appellant. Once he has received the Secretary of State's material, the special advocate's access to the appellant will be restricted, but he will be able to apply to the commission for authority to seek information, in connection with the proceedings, from the appellant or his representative.
There is one further point to which attention should be drawn. If the Secretary of State objects to the disclosure of material to the appellant, the commission may overrule that objection. The Secretary of State will not be forced to disclose this material provided he does not then rely upon it in opposing the appeal. As in any case in the courts, the commission will ignore entirely any material it has seen but which is subsequently withdrawn.
Inevitably, the rules have to underline the commission's responsibility to ensure that information is not disclosed contrary to the public interest. I am satisfied that the rules achieve this objective in a proportionate manner and provide important safeguards for the rights of the individual.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, whose interest in the subject matter of these rules is well known, cannot be with us tonight. If he were he would strongly endorse the rules. I know that he is happy for me to bring his support to the attention of your Lordships. I invite your Lordships' approval of the rules.
Moved, That the draft rules laid before the House on 2nd July be approved [40th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, Her Majesty's Opposition would like warmly to congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for contriving such an imaginative solution to a seemingly intractable problem.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Appeal (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
8.14 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The case of Iain Hay Gordon is the stimulus behind the Bill. He was tried on indictment in Northern Ireland in 1953 for the crime of murder. The jury returned a special verdict under the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883 that he was guilty of the act charged against him but was insane when he did that act. He was committed in consequence to an institution from which he was released in 1960. He made an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission,
1590
set up under the provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, seeking to have his case referred to the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland with the object of having the jury's verdict reviewed.
The commission took the view, after giving full consideration to its jurisdiction, that it did not have power to refer such a case to the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal under Section 10 of the 1995 Act but decided to seek the assistance of that Court of Appeal in order to get its view on the issue of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland decided that the commission's decision was correct.
Your Lordships may recall that Section 3 of the Act of 1995 abolished the power of the Secretary of State, previously exercisable under Section 12 of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1980, to refer cases to the Court of Appeal. The Criminal Cases Review Commission was established by Section 8. Its powers to refer matters to the Court of Appeal were set out in Section 10. Section 10(1)(a) provides that:
"Where a person has been convicted of an offence on indictment in Northern Ireland, the Commission may at any time refer the conviction to the Court of Appeal".
The commission's powers in respect of cases involving insanity are contained in Section 10(6) which reads:
"Where a finding of not guilty on the ground of insanity has been recorded in Northern Ireland in the case of a person, the Commission may at any time refer the finding to the Court of Appeal; and a reference under this subsection shall be treated for all purposes as an appeal by the person under section 12 of the 1980 Act against the finding".
Mr. Gordon submitted to the commission that it had power to consider and refer his case since the wording of Section 10 was sufficient to cover a case in which the verdict was one of guilty but insane. The subsequent issue therefore was whether a specific verdict under the 1883 Act is a conviction, sentence or finding of a nature which comes within the scope of Section 10 of the Act, so empowering the commission to refer it to the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland for review.
I can take the reference to the historical situation of the legislation quite shortly. Where a defendant is of unsound mind he is regarded by the common law as unable to form the guilty mind required to found a conviction. Before 1880, when the jury found that a defendant had committed the act but was insane, it could either return a general verdict of not guilty or a special verdict that he had committed the act but was non compos mentis in which event the court would enter a verdict and judgment of acquittal. The judges had power to order him to be detained in custody as a dangerous person although it appears that this practice was not always followed.
The practice was made mandatory by the Criminal Lunatics Act 1880, under which if a defendant was found not guilty of a felony by reason of insanity the jury had to return a special verdict to that effect; then the court was obliged to order the defendant to be detained during His Majesty's Pleasure.

1591
The terms of the special verdict were changed by Section 2(1) of the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883, which prescribed that it was to be to the effect that,
"the accused was guilty of the act or omission charged against him, but was insane at the time when he did the act or made the omission".
The special verdict under the 1883 Act was no different in substance from that given under the 1880 Act. There was, of course, no right of appeal.
The general law governing mental health was modernised in Northern Ireland by the Mental Health Act 1961 which brought into law a range of powers for dealing with persons suffering from mental disorder. Section 56 enacted new provisions for persons found to be insane. Subsections (2) to (4) of Section 56 are close to the provisions of the 1883 Act, which was repealed in its application to Northern Ireland in the following terms:
"(2) Where upon the trial on indictment or on an information of any person charged with the commission of an offence—

(a) evidence is given that the person charged was insane at the time the offence was committed; and

(b) the jury find that although the person charged did the act or made the omission charged, he was insane, so as not to be responsible according to law for his actions at that time;

the court shall direct a finding to be recorded to the effect that the person is not guilty of the offence charged on the ground of insanity".
The special verdict under the 1883 Act was accordingly replaced by a finding, a term echoed in Section 10(6) of the 1995 Act to which I have referred.
The current provision relating to findings of insanity is contained in Article 50 of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, as amended by Article 50 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. It is basically similar in terms to that contained in the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Act 1961 and provides for a finding to the effect that the person is not guilty of the offence on the ground of insanity.
Thus, the primary submission advanced by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper on behalf of Mr. Gordon was that Parliament, in enacting the words in Section 10(6) of the 1995 Act,
"not guilty by reason of insanity",
intended to include the phrase "guilty but insane". His thesis was that the two phrases are interchangeable in essence and intent and that the change from the first to the second and back again was no more than terminological.
However, the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland concluded that the wording of Section 10(6) of the 1995 Act is on its face clear enough, that only a finding of not guilty on the ground of insanity recorded in Northern Ireland may be referred by the commission to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal considers that there is not a sufficient reason to depart from the plain meaning of the words of Section 10(6) of the 1995 Act that a reference can be made in respect of a finding of not guilty because of insanity, which applies only to cases decided since
1592
1961, and not in respect of cases where there was a special verdict under the 1883 Act of "guilty but insane".
In my submission, the omission of the verdict of "guilty but insane" is a simple error in drafting, but it has created the long-standing and tragic absurdity that Mr. Gordon cannot have his case investigated. That outcome was never intended by the Runciman Commission, the work of which established the commission. I understand that the commission has expressed the wish for the law to be changed. Mr. Gordon is not the only "guilty but insane" case. It is generally recognised that it would be absurd for "guilty but insane" verdicts to be excluded. Their effect was the same. Only the nomenclature of the verdict changed. Not to include them, and not to amend the Act, would be to perpetuate in those cases the lack of appellate rights and to perpetuate what could be a violation in that respect of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It would certainly be to obstruct justice in the particular case to which I referred. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Ackner.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have notified the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, to whose interest in this matter I pay tribute, that the Government agree with the intention of this Bill and accept that the 1995 Act should be amended to extend the commission's powers in this way. I hope that that is helpful.
The Earl of Portsmouth: My Lords, I had intended to speak in support of the Bill moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, but in view of the assurances that I have been given by the Minister, I have nothing further to say except to express to him my gratitude for his co-operation and understanding.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, there is nothing that I can usefully add to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Earl, Lord Portsmouth, have said. I am delighted that the Minister has intervened in the way that he has. The Bill has, of course, the full support of the Opposition.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful. The Government accept that there is a gap in the law. It is important to maintain confidence in the criminal justice system. It is important, above all, to individuals who believe that an injustice has been done that there should be an avenue of appeal or some other mechanism to review the verdicts of the courts.
By today's standards it is an injustice that someone who has been found guilty but insane should have no possibility of appeal and it remains an injustice, despite the fact of, and no less for, being a long-standing injustice.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, may wish to reintroduce this Bill into the House in the next Session. If he does, and if it is of assistance—I have

1593
indicated this to him privately—I should be most happy to ask officials to discuss the drafting with him. It may be that a Private Member's Bill could be introduced in another place. The Government themselves will give further consideration to what legislative vehicle might be appropriate for the introduction of such a measure.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. I commend the Bill to the House and respectfully ask that it be given its Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure for five minutes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.29 to 8.34 p.m.]

Civil Procedure Rules
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose to move, That this House take note of Her Majesty's Government's proposals for Draft Civil Procedure Rules (contained in the document Access to Justice dated July 1998) as part of their proposals for civil justice reform.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in April 1999 I shall be introducing the most fundamental reform of the civil justice system since the Judicature Acts of the 1870s. That last great reform of the civil justice system took place under the direction of Lord Chancellor Selborne. It was driven by public dissatisfaction with the cost, delay and complexity involved in bringing cases before the courts. The majority of my civil servants who work directly to me do so out of Selborne House in Victoria. It is of course named after Lord Selborne. My programme of reform is motivated by the same concerns as affected him. It stems from the distinguished work undertaken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in his historic Access to Justice report. No one is more welcome than the noble and learned Lord to contribute to this evening's debate.
The reforms aim to provide a single system of civil justice based on the fundamental principles of proportionality, clarity and efficiency. The Government believe there should be an end to different procedures for the High Court and the county courts and greater consistency among county courts. The unified system will be the key which will unlock the door through which we will show out our enemies, excessive cost and complexity, and welcome in our allies, greater speed, fairness and certainty.
This is a rolling programme of reform. Uniformity will first be achieved in April 1999 with the introduction of the first phase of the Civil Procedure Rules—the unified code which will incorporate the newly drafted plain English rules that will apply both to the High Court and county courts which has been developed from
1594
the initial text provided by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, more familiarly known as "Brown Book 1" published in July 1996. I intend the rules to be interpreted and applied as a complete code of civil procedure to implement the expressed objectives of the new system. Judges and lawyers must resist any temptation to look back unnecessarily at the old words, old case law and the old ways.
When in Opposition, as Shadow Lord Chancellor I tabled an amendment to the Civil Procedure Bill (Hansard, 20th November 1996; col. CWH26) aimed at ensuring that the Civil Procedure Rules would be approved by Parliament by affirmative resolution before they came into force. I was content to settle for the pragmatic compromise of my noble and learned predecessor, made in response to a report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, that drafts of the new rules would be debated before they were signed off by the Rule Committee and the Lord Chancellor.
Tonight I am pleased to be able to deliver what I pressed for all that time—an opportunity for this House to debate the new draft rules. I shall not try to respond to all the points noble Lords will make this evening. I am here primarily to listen to your Lordships' views. I shall also make sure that the Rule Committee is aware of them and can take them into account before the rules are finalised.
The rules that I have brought before the House tonight reflect the most essential part of my reforms. These rules have been informed by the policy I settled after wide consultation with judges, legal practitioners, consumer groups, whose contribution has been most valuable, and individuals. I welcome the active role that many have played in helping to develop the rules and procedures and the support given to the reforms. I am particularly indebted to the Bar Council and the Law Society and their various working groups for the time and effort they have devoted to help ensure the reforms are a success.
I know that some consider that implementation should be delayed, particularly as full IT support will not be available from day one. However, I will not continue for any longer than is necessary systems which have shown themselves to be slow, inefficient and expensive. I have been persuaded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, that we could gain a significant advantage by introducing the new rules in April 1999, even though the case tracking IT system will not be on stream before 2000. There would also be considerable risks in introducing the new rules at precisely the same time as new IT systems.
Litigants and practitioners should benefit at the earliest opportunity from a quicker, more predictable civil justice system, enhanced by all the improvements that increased case management will bring. It must also be remembered that any further delay in implementation would risk losing the momentum created so far. That was the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and it is my view too. The timetable is challenging but achievable.
The Civil Procedure Rule Committee has worked tirelessly over the last year on the draft rules. It recently decided to increase the frequency of its meetings to once

1595
a week so that it could meet its deadlines. This involves not just spending more time attending the meetings but also requires as much time for preparation outside the meetings as the meetings themselves occupy. The willingness of members to give up more of their own time—I emphasise, their own time—to the committee's work is impressive evidence of their commitment and dedication to public service and their determination to achieve an excellent end product which will work.
This supreme effort has made possible the transformation of the rules governing civil proceedings—a transformation which has two parts. The first is a coherent set of rules to provide the framework for a wholly new approach to dealing with civil cases. The second is to achieve greater simplicity and clarity than has ever been achieved before or, I would add, attempted. The bid to turn some of the most technical aspects of the civil justice reforms into plain English is to be applauded. I know this aspect of the committee's work owes much to the influence of the representatives from the voluntary advice sector and consumer organisations. Their involvement in a committee of this kind is an innovation, and one that has proved highly successful.
The committee still has much work ahead of it before it seeks my approval and signature to the new rules, prior to laying them before Parliament. But the fundamental principles within these drafts are sufficiently settled for me to wish to invite your Lordships' views.
Before I do so, let me say a little about the key issues dealt with by the rules. Recognition of the principles of the reforms is given expression at the very beginning of the new rules. Part 1 articulates the overriding objective: to enable the court to deal with cases justly. This includes dealing with a case expeditiously and fairly in ways which are proportionate, and saving expense. The court must seek to give effect to this overriding objective when it exercises any discretion given to it by the rules or interprets any rule.
There will be a major transfer of power from lawyers to judges so that cases can be closely managed. For example, judges will be required to monitor the progress of a case by setting timetables and controlling compliance with those timetables by applying sanctions. They will ensure that cases will be heard by the appropriate level of judge. This increased level of responsibility for the control of cases and the maintenance of proportionality is vital to the overall success of the reforms.
Control and proportionality appear again in the rules dealing with evidence, witness statements and disclosure. New powers will allow the court to direct that evidence may be given by one expert only. Adapting to this will require a culture change. Rules will also spell out the expert's overriding duty to the court. These are all elements which will assist in the control of the amount of work done proportionate to the needs of the case.
Proportionality will be achieved by greater control over the content of witness statements. They must cease to be lawyers' reconstructions, bearing no similarity to the evidence the witness could give unaided from the
1596
witness box. A statement will in future contain only the evidence that a person would be allowed to give orally at a hearing.
Part 27 includes powers which will enable courts to limit or even dispense with disclosure of documents. This will help judges bear down on work which is unnecessary for the value or complexity of the case.
My reforms provide three routes to justice through the courts. I am increasing the number of people who can benefit from the small claims jurisdiction by raising its limit to £5,000, while recognising the particular needs of those with personal injury, housing disrepair, harassment and unlawful eviction claims. For example, it should be possible for a litigant to pursue a claim for a minor injury—and we are speaking of cuts and bruises—without recourse to lawyers and legal representation. I consider the full-blown processes of the law disproportionate and unnecessary to this type of claim. Similarly, while the small claims regime is appropriate for the disposal of low-value housing disrepair cases, higher-value claims are likely to involve substantially more complex issues both of law and fact. As a result, the small claims limit for personal injury and housing disrepair claims has been set at £1,000. Housing-related harassment and unlawful eviction claims are to be excluded from the small claims regime altogether.
I am introducing the fast track for most types of claim between £5,000 and £15,000. Its features include a 30-week timetable from allocation to conclusion and a presumption against the use of oral expert evidence at the hearing.
I am introducing the multi-track for higher value, or more complex cases, where strict judicial control will govern the volume of work done by the parties in preparation for trial in line with the needs of the case.
To proceed to one or other of these routes, however, a case will need to be appropriately allocated when it is defended. Part 24 provides judges with the power to do just that. This is the point at which judicial case management commences and judges should take control of a case. This might include ordering a stay of the proceedings to allow the parties to attempt resolution of the dispute by alternative means or to attempt settlement. A judge's responsibility is to ensure that the case proceeds in the most effective way possible to secure a just resolution of the dispute. That resolution must be achieved with regard to proportionality of time and expense, or it is not just.
The rules are one part of the armoury judges will have to bring about the civil justice revolution. Practice directions, giving litigants and their representatives the details of what they must do to comply with the rules, are being developed under the supervision of the Vice Chancellor, Sir Richard Scott, and will be published with the final versions of the rules.
I expect to be able to include in that published package protocols which will regulate pre-action behaviour for some types of case. Tough sanctions for non-compliance with protocols, where proceedings are issued, will be a further weapon to support tight case

1597
management. Judges should recognise that material non-compliance with the protocols should result in heavy sanctions.
There is one omission from the package which I am putting before you. You will not find draft rules relating to fixed costs in the fast track, an issue which I know and acknowledge is very important for practitioners. I have deliberately taken time to consider how to approach that issue. I commissioned research to assist me in forming my view. I regard the issue as so important that in June I issued a consultation paper seeking views on a range of options. That consultation process is not yet complete. I am not yet able, therefore, to ask the Rule Committee to consider rules on this.
I have given your Lordships a flavour of the radical nature of these reforms. Let me now invite you to give me your views on the drafts I have brought before you for your consideration. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of Her Majesty's Government's proposals for Draft Civil Procedure Rules (contained in the document Access to Justice dated July 1998) as part of their proposals for civil justice reform.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
8.50 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I welcome the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in setting the background to the debate. We welcome the opportunity to give our views. I have been involved in the day to day administration of the law for over 30 years. As I explained to the House last week, I acted for plaintiffs for the first 10 years and for the past 20 years I have acted almost exclusively for defendants. Anyone who has been so involved would join the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in saying that the system of civil justice has long been in need of reform. There is much to praise in what has been achieved so far by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his predecessor.
From the outset I pay tribute to the work of the Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who has approached the task with the clarity of thought which makes so much of his report Access to Justice seem like obvious good sense despite its revolutionary approach. In particular, the idea of cutting away the adversarial culture and encouraging dispute resolution through judge-led case management has deservedly gained wide acceptance in the legal profession and among the public at large.
Moreover, the report's "big idea" is supported by a range of good practical ideas such as a combined set of rules for all civil courts, written in plain English and comprehensible by all. What a tremendous ambition, and one very close to being achieved. But it is in the context of those rules which now come before your Lordships' House for consideration that I wish to sound three notes of caution, not criticism. Now is not a time for detail, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said. Conscientious committees are combing through not only the rules but the practice directions and forms associated with them to make the detailed wording as clear and effective as possible.
1598
My three points concern broad issues of principle. First, I hear fears in many quarters now about the danger of a piecemeal introduction of the new rules. I reflect immediately the irony of urging delay in implementing a process the very purpose of which was to remove delay from the system. But partial implementation of the rules without adequate time for preparation is likely to make the eventual outcome far worse.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has always made clear that the reforms must be regarded as a package, and I have sat at his feet listening to him on many occasions saying just that. The wisdom of that approach is self evident. The timetable for implementation now looks decidedly optimistic. With a commencement date of 1st April 1999—I am not sure why that day of the month has been chosen, but wiser minds than mine have selected it—it is worrying that the final version of the new rules is not expected to be available to the profession and the public until January next year.
Moreover, there are significant changes planned to the procedures followed before proceedings are issued. I greatly welcome that. They are a fundamental part of the new reforms. But the protocols which will cover that have only just been published, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out. The one for general personal injury claims is still marked "draft" so that we cannot be sure of the final form. I regret to say that I am not aware of any extensive research or modelling on how the various protocols, rules and practice directions will work together. I understand from those who know much more about it than I do that in order to keep the rules simple, matters of detail have been left over to practice directions. There is a concern that matters of detail are now left over from the practice directions to separate guidance notes and forms. There are dangers in the approach. However, the work which has been done so far represents a great opportunity for constructive change. I urge the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to think carefully about the timetable, in particular about implementing a system which is still far from ready.
My second concern relates to the resources which are being devoted to the process, and whether they are adequate to sustain two key central elements of the new system: case management and information technology. Case management depends on training both existing and new junior judges in the skills required. Existing judges have been selected for their legal skills and, knowing several of them, there are not many who have detailed practical experience of managing cases. They will, I know, make excellent case managers, but the training available so far has necessarily been limited because the rules and practice directions have not been available. Moreover, I am sure that more judges will be required, but there does not seem to be much in the budget at present. Indeed, I read of the closure of some regional courts being planned and I do not think that augurs well.
Information technology is also a key factor. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out, the essence of the new fast track will lie in closely timetabled cases with high speed electronic communication between the court, the judiciary and the

1599
parties. The Court Service already acknowledges that the new IT system cannot be in place by 1st April; and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to that. I accessed the Internet yesterday and produced a very good brief which began:
"There are now only 9 months to go before the implementation of the core package of civil justice reforms in April 1999 … but there remains much to be achieved".
It states:
"A full IT support system for case management"—
having been in Government for 16 years, I can read sensitive words which do not quite mean what they appear to say; and this is a classic example—
"is expected to be in place by early 2000".
I note that in its brief, the Law Society talks about the IT system not being ready until at least 2000. Only the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would know the internal workings, but I am very nervous about some of this phraseology. I am nervous that we might not see the new system until 2001. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can give me some comfort on that, I shall be very grateful indeed. I do not believe that the reforms will succeed without adequate IT support. They are at the heart of the reforms. I am worried that there does not appear to have been any consultation with users about the type of system which would meet the standards to which the legal profession operates. I hope that we will have an open approach to costing the resource implication of recruitment, training and IT and a proper assessment of whether the Government are prepared to fund the necessary resources required.
My third chief area of concern is the extent to which the financial savings which the civil justice reforms offer may prove illusory if cost transfer is mistaken for cost saving. So none of the reforms can be seen in isolation. There have been other recent developments which have imposed huge additional burdens on defendants. I took the opportunity in the debate last week, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may recall, of referring to the decision of the Judicial Committee in this House in Wells v. Wells and also to the impact of paying success fees and insurance premiums where plaintiffs are, in future, funded by conditional fee agreements. I also mentioned the full cost of additional repayments to the compensation recovery unit. I see, in Post Magazine and Insurance Week, the headline "Insurers reeling from decisions." I do not plead anything other than this. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor paid tribute to the innovative methods which insurers will find of meeting demands and the ability to introduce new products. But insurers and defendants need to have a reasonably balanced system of justice.
I am concerned that under the new rules there are other hidden penalties. Here, perhaps I may give one example. Part 36 of the new rules introduces heavy penalties on defendants if they fail accurately to assess an offer to settle made by the plaintiff. Comparisons are drawn with the effect of a payment into court by the defendant, but there is a crucial difference. The plaintiff, of course, and his solicitors, hold all the information
1600
about what the case is worth and the defendant will, I contend, need vigorous protection from the court if that assessment is to be made on all the evidence which should be made available.
Similarly, defendants may be penalised for failing to comply with pre-action protocols, but plaintiffs of course may not give them all the information they require. I urge the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to ensure strong protection from the court to achieve a proper balance between the responsibilities placed on defendants and those on plaintiffs. I suppose that most defendants are insured and it is felt that the cost will be met by increasing premiums. But the costs are not just disappearing; they are merely being conjured away to be paid by a less visible purse.
Most defendants are not necessarily insurers or insurance backed. Many are government departments; many are health service bodies directly dependent on public money. It is crucial that no aspect of these reforms should proceed on the basis that there is available a crock of gold which can be raided without expense to the public at large. Any savings must be real and not illusory.
That is the sum of my concerns. I wish these reforms well. I believe that if they are successful, under the leadership in his report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, combined with the reforming zeal of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, then we will succeed. But we will only succeed if we do that at a proper pace with proper detail and proper resource, in particular on training, IT and with the necessary people found to implement the reforms. Certainly, we need a little more time to consult and so ensure that whatever we introduce will be right.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Woolf: My Lords, the rules that your Lordships are considering could be said to have had a favoured start in life. That is nothing to do with me, although I appreciate the generous comments made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral.
As regards the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I can assure him that they will be taken very much into account by the rules committee. Why the rules have had such a favoured start in life is because their conception was due to one distinguished Lord Chancellor and their birth to another.
However, the period of labour in between has been difficult. I should like to acknowledge the great credit that is due to the drafting team which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has provided, the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, of which I am a member, the Vice-Chancellor who is deputy chairman of that committee, our respective private secretaries and, not least, our respective personal secretaries who have ensured that the rules committee, during its period of labour, has not wanted for being well nourished. Labour is not an inappropriate word to use to describe the work on which the rules committee has been engaged. The process has been prolonged and hard but it is remarkable

1601
what can be achieved in a period of nine months. I say that to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, because there are, as he points out, nine months yet to go until April next.
As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated, the committee initially met for a day once a fortnight. We now meet once a week. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is absolutely right in saying that there has to be at least a day's preparation for each of those meetings. I certainly commend and echo the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in acknowledging the contribution of the non-judicial members of the committee who have given their services at, no doubt, considerable personal cost.
A feature of the committee is the width of its membership. I hope that the quality of the rules reflects that membership. I refer, in particular, to the representatives of the consumer organisations. The rules are based on the Brown Book No. 1 which was attached to my Access to Justice report as long ago as July 1996.
Comparing those rules to the ones which your Lordships are considering will show the significant changes which have been made in the interim. Those changes have been the result of a continuing process of consultation. It has not been our intention to make changes for change's sake. We have not made changes unless they will serve a useful purpose. I can assure your Lordships that in developing those changes I have not always had my own way. Anyone passing the Court of Appeal conference room where we meet on a Thursday or a Friday in any week would from time to time hear the sound of vigorous debate. Indeed, on one occasion when we were split equally—my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had to be called upon to arbitrate between the Vice-Chancellor and myself. I am very happy to report that the noble and learned Lord found in my favour.
I believe that these rules differ from those produced in any other jurisdiction in the process of change which is taking place in almost every developed society. An outstanding feature of our rules is Part 1, which provides the framework for the rules and identifies the principles which underlie them—the principles of equal, economic, expeditious, efficient and proportionate justice. Those who have to apply the rules will be required to bear in mind those five important principles. But so will the parties. The rules recognise the significance of co-operation in an efficient and effective civil justice system. In that regard, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the whole idea of the protocols and the rules is that both parties will be required to adopt an open approach, which is so often lacking in litigation at the present time.
A further feature of the rules which is novel is that they encourage parties to behave in a reasonable and rational way and to resolve their disputes without becoming involved in litigation. Although I recognise the immense contribution which the insurance industry plays in protecting those who suffer injury from the consequences of those injuries, I am bound to say, having been engaged for many years in personal injury
1602
litigation, that it has always astonished me that insurance companies so often feel that they have to see the door of the court before they reach a settlement.
As an answer to that kind of phenomena, the rules also provide the foundations for the protocols of sensible pre-litigation behaviour. Those protocols will flourish if they are supported by the courts. They have to be supported by the courts in an equal manner and I am sure that they will be supported in that way. There will not be any distinction between claimants and defendants. Both will equally have to comply with the protocols.
As a reminder of the general approach, I refer the House to the terms of Part 1.4 of the new rules. They set out the overriding objective in actively managing places. They include an expressed requirement encouraging the parties to use alternative dispute resolution procedures. If the court considers it appropriate, the court must facilitate the use of those procedures. Part 1.4 requires the court to encourage parties to co-operate with each other in the conduct of proceedings. It places a responsibility on the court to help the parties to settle the whole or part of the case. This approach is supported by sanctions which can be applied by the courts where parties behave—and I emphasise this—in an unreasonable manner.
It is also supported by the offers to settle to which the noble Lord referred—the offers to settle which are contained in Part 36. Offers to settle by either plaintiffs or defendants will be effective only if they are given teeth by the courts' powers to award increased interest and costs.
Another important principle reflected in the rules is that of simplicity—simplicity of procedure and simplicity of language. The rules are framed in plain English. They are intended to be easier to understand both for practitioners and litigants. The principle of simplicity is carried through to the procedures themselves. Under the two sets of rules which exist at present, there are at least eight ways in which to bring proceedings. Symbolic of the new approach is that under the new rules there will be just one.
Simplicity also underpins reducing the differences between the courts. Currently, there are separate rules to which I have referred—separate rules for the High Court and the county court. The new rules will apply to all non-family civil proceedings and the procedures will be the same wherever proceedings are brought. The focus will be on ensuring that the correct level of judge hears the appropriate case. The current distinction between High Court and county court will therefore be minimised so that if it is decided to remove the distinction altogether, the new rules will not stand in the way.
The word "pleadings" is given a timely demise. It is banished from the new rules. In its place will be the statement of case. The change of name is important because it marks a break with the past, a break which is underlined by the requirement of the new statement of truth. That is a requirement for the litigant to certify that he believes the facts set out in his statement of case to be true. Parties will not be able to make allegations, ignoring whether or not they are justified.

1603
A further area in which rule changes significantly alter the current position is in relation to experts. Expert evidence has become a feature which is bedeviling current litigation. It increases costs, thereby reducing access to justice, and can have the effect of amplifying the differences between the parties and prolonging litigation. Those rules will play an extremely important part in placing a new responsibility on experts, and one which I believe they will welcome. It gives them an overriding duty to the court. That must be contrasted with the present position, where I am afraid all too often experts see themselves as the hired guns of a particular party.
With the new duty goes a greater opportunity to use single experts, to reduce costs and narrow the differences between the parties. If experts are to fulfil their new duty, the courts must in turn accept additional responsibility. That is reflected in the ability of an expert to ask the court for guidance to help him carry out his duties.
Although the rules are primarily the work of those to whom I have already referred, they have benefited also from the consultation process. In particular, I pay tribute to both the Bar Council and the Law Society and their respective working groups. Unlike the experience in so many other jurisdictions, I am happy to say that in that jurisdiction both sides of the profession are to be congratulated on the way they have supported, instead of turning their face against, change.
I am aware of the concerns to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred and which have been expressed by others about the timetable for the implementation of the programme of reform and information technology to support the new rules. I am confident that the present programme of implementation is reasonable. For those not directly involved in the implementation process, it is easy to underestimate the vast amount of work already done in preparation for April 1999.
The momentum for change is considerable. It is vital that that momentum is not lost. Delay beyond April 1999 could have put that momentum at risk. I congratulate and support the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on his decision to press ahead with the implementation of those rules, which form the heart of the civil justice reforms, in advance of the availability of full technological support.
The decision was not taken lightly. I would not say that without being fully satisfied that the success of the reforms will not be put at risk by the non-availability of the technology. I rely on the Court Service to provide all the necessary support to ensure that the rules are implemented successfully. Indeed, I am becoming more and more convinced that delay in relation to technology might be a blessing in disguise. There would have been a considerable risk in trying to implement the new rules and the new information technology simultaneously.
The implementation plan which has been decided upon will reduce that risk and ensure that the new rules start their life in April 1999 with the best possible chance of success. We in the courts shall then be charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the new culture of ivil justice thrives. We will do our best.
9.19 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I should like to begin by joining the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, in thanking my noble and learned friend for giving us this opportunity to debate and comment upon the new procedure rules. I should also like to join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in congratulating my noble and learned friend on taking forward the reforms which were instigated by his predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern—reforms which I clearly remember had his full support when he was the shadow Lord Chancellor. Therefore, I believe that we are blessed by two reforming Lord Chancellors and we are certainly blessed by a reforming Master of the Rolls, and his colleagues, who worked so hard upon the reports which have come out as the Access to Justice reports.
The changes in the rules will bring about a single set of civil procedure rules in simple language which conforms to the needs of the modern litigant in the brave new world of technological resource. Gone will be these large tomes used by those of us who have practised the law for as many years as I have—30 years or more—the "White Book" covering the Rules of the Supreme Court and I only hold volume one of it. There is a volume two and the supplement on the Bench beside me! There is also that other rather large tome, the "Green Book", which covers the County Court Rules.
As my noble and learned friend rightly said, these new rules represent the most significant change in civil procedure for over 100 years since the Judicature Acts of the 1870s. However, there is another point that I should like to emphasise which derives from the words spoken by my noble and learned friend. The new rules will shift in a very fundamental way the responsibility for the effective conduct of court proceedings from parties and counsel to the judge. That is quite fundamental and most important.
Other than speeding up and simplifying the trial process—the use of statements of case and other matters to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, referred—there is much that is very imaginative in the new rules which goes back to the work of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and his colleagues. I refer, first, to offers of settlement which are contained in Part 36 of the document. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was supping those new proposals with a rather long spoon, but I would remind him that the current procedure of payments into court certainly induces and puts a lot of pressure on the plaintiff; but there is no similar process which puts pressure on the defendant. As a result, as the noble and learned Lord said, it is the experience of those of us who do practise in the courts—for example, in personal injuries cases, and the like—that it is only at the door of the court that settlements are achieved in many cases involving insurance companies. Therefore, the new proposals contained in this part dealing with offers of settlement of inducing defendants to settle by imposing a percentage on damages—which is quite modest; indeed, I believe only about 7 per cent.—and also by stiffening up the orders of cost are, I believe, to be welcomed.

1605
Another imaginative part of the rules is contained in the new cost rules which are to be found in Part C of the document from page 227 onwards. I have often argued in your Lordships' House that the rule of "costs following the event" is clumsy and sometimes plain unfair on parties. Therefore, I find it sensible that in the new rules conduct is now to be taken into account. Indeed, on page 234 of the document, we have reference to the kind of conduct which can be taken into account; for example,
"the manner in which a party has pursued or defended his case or a particular allegation or issue"
and,
"whether a claimant who has won his claim exaggerated the value of his claim",
and so on.
If my recollection is right, I think in the original report of the noble and learned Lord he and his colleagues said that cost was one of the greatest problems in the conduct of litigation. I believe that the new approach to costs, and not the slavish policy of costs following the rules, is much to be welcomed.
But having given a solid welcome to these new rules, I would like to make a few points about them. First, they will work only if the judges make them work. Case management is a discipline in which judges must be trained, as they are, for example, in sentencing. If judges do not intervene, the new dawn will never come. But if judges become too interventionist, the appeal process will clutter up the system and the new dawn will be darkened.
The second point I wish to make is that these new rules will not work unless there is sufficient support from information technology. This requires much training and much money. I am not saying that is a reason for not pressing forward now but I am saying it is most important that there is sufficient IT resource.
Thirdly, the civil procedure rules should, if possible, come into force as a single package. My noble and learned friend referred to it as a rolling programme of reform. But rolling or not, we should not be left in an interim state where we are half referring to the new rules and half referring to the old rules. Both in the draft rules provided by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in the "Brown Book" as it is called, and in the rules that we are considering now, we are told that these are just the "core" rules. It is to be noted that in the rules we are currently considering third party proceedings and consolidation are not covered; the appeals process is not covered and enforcement of judgments is not covered. In so far as certain matters that are covered, for example, court service in Part 6, we are told that for service "out of jurisdiction" we have to apply to specific rules of the High Court, to the Rules of the Supreme Court, Order 11, Rule 1, or to the County Court rules, Order 8, Rule 2.1. I believe that that is unsatisfactory. It will cause confusion and is most undesirable.
Fourthly, I believe that some of the new rules need more work. I refer, for example, to the new rules concerning the disclosure of documents in Part 27. The requirement here on a party who has to make the
1606
disclosure only to carry out a reasonable search of documents not in his or her possession is a test which I believe could be abused. I also refer to the use of expert testimony in Part 32. I am fully aware of experts who give evidence according to the hand that pays them. I am perfectly aware of the disadvantages of the adversarial system in the employment of experts. But there is a danger the other way round, and that is of the single expert usurping the role of the judge. Certainly the experience in some jurisdictions of court appointed experts is not good. For example, I refer to the system in France, of which I have some knowledge.
I would also like to make one small but I believe important point concerning the proposed new procedure of statements of truth. That is to be found concerning the statement of case of the claimant in Rule 7.6; the statement of case of the defendant in Rule 9.7; and for an application in Rule 10.7. I believe that the statement of case should not be signed by anybody but the litigant; that is, the claimant or the defendant. It should not therefore be signed by the "litigation friend" or the "legal representative". It is a personal commitment of truth on the part of the party and it would be wholly unsatisfactory if it were to be signed by persons other than the claimant or the defendant.
My position is therefore this. I believe that more time and work are needed: for the judges to be trained; for more IT resource to be made available; for the rules to be further worked upon; and, if possible, for a single, complete package to be provided. But in asking for that, I am not asking for delay. There is still time in the gestation period of nine months to address those issues. We are stepping into a new dawn. Profound congratulations should go to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to my noble and learned friend, and to the new Civil Procedure Rules Committee.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, these draft rules are clearly vital to the reforms which have been master-minded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who even before their implementation has already done so much to improve the culture, the mechanics and the pace of litigation in this country. I join in paying tribute to his immense hard work.
In a case in the Court of Appeal decided and reported in 1996, Lord Justice Millett said:
"Litigation is slow, cumbersome, beset by technicalities, and expensive. From time to time laudable attempts are made to simplify it, speed it up and make it less expensive. Such endeavours are once again in fashion. But the process is a difficult one which is often frustrated by the overriding need to ensure that justice is not sacrificed. It is easy to dispense injustice quickly and cheaply, but it is better to do justice even if it takes a little longer and costs a little more".
These rules skilfully try to strike that balance—between, on the one hand, efficiency for the benefit of all court users and taxpayers and, on the other, over-prescriptive control, which can be counter-productive. The unhappy history of the automatic striking out rules in the county court provide an example of the latter.

1607
The "overriding objective" stated in Rule 1 includes consideration of the parties' financial position. Fears have been expressed that litigants will be able to plead poverty in order to avoid the normal obligations of disclosure, or even that the courts will be asked to assess a party's true financial position if it is disputed and if it is thought relevant to do so. That will be undertaken so that the court can decide how a case should proceed. I believe that those fears are misplaced. However, they illustrate the danger of focusing too closely on one part of the definition of the overriding objective stated in the first rule.
Many of these rules are old friends in simpler, modern clothing. It is essential that the language of the rules, their structure and the sanctions can be readily understood, not just by lawyers but by unrepresented litigants, who increasingly occupy the courts. So it is that we shall say farewell to plaintiffs, writs, summonses, discovery, interrogatories and subpoenas. I note, however, that affidavits have hung on by the finger-nails.
I shall not take time this evening raising queries about details of the rules but, like other noble Lords, shall refer to a few broad areas of concern. The first is expert witnesses. The vice of too adversarial partisan experts is well understood. I have recently completed a case in which no fewer than four pathologists had to carry out a post-mortem examination of a body In the event three of those four agreed with each other in every respect.
I suggest, however, that there might be in the rules greater prominence of and emphasis on the appointment of single experts. In the draft rules, under Rule 32.8, there is a discretionary power. Would it not be preferable for the appointment of joint experts to be more clearly the first step to be taken rather than an option which the court may or may not encourage? Likewise, Rule 32.9 provides for joint experts to be separately instructed. I suggest it would be preferable for joint instructions to be the normal starting point and for that to be clearly stated in the rules.
Secondly, I question whether the rules could place more emphasis on settlement. Under Rule 1.4, active management of cases by the court includes helping the parties to settle, but it is not clear how that will be achieved in practice. Rule 24.5 permits a party to request a stay of proceedings for settlement to be attempted which the court will normally grant. But I question whether that is enough and suggest that there is some merit in trying to follow the lines of the remarkably successful and cost-effective pilot scheme operating in matrimonial ancillary relief cases. That scheme obliges the parties to place all their cards on the table face up at an early stage and to disclose to the court all offers of settlement at a privileged hearing in order to facilitate a compromise, which is often achieved before the case has to go any further.
That system may not be capable of wholesale transposition to other civil litigation, but I would like to see more emphasis on a positive duty to negotiate which undoubtedly obtains in family law disputes. It must be possible in most cases to bring the parties, not just their lawyers, to the court to negotiate face to face and for a
1608
judge at a privileged hearing to explore the realities of the case and to give a provisional view of the merits and of the likely outcome of the litigation.
In any event, the parties should, as happens now in matrimonial cases, be from time to time, as a matter of mandatory requirement, made to look at the movement of the costs meter on the expensive taxi cab in which they are riding.
Finally, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and others, these draft rules are not yet comprehensive. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explained, it is understood that there will have to be specialist rules, for example in housing cases and judicial review cases. It is regrettable if this important body of reform comes in too piecemeal.
As has also been observed by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, the rules do not cover appeals—either appeals within the same court from district judge or master to the judge in the county court or the High Court, or, of course, appeals to the Court of Appeal. However, Rule 2.1 in the draft rules suggests that in due course the Court of Appeal rules will become incorporated into the overall body of the new rules.
The current rules and provisions governing the Court of Appeal—and I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, will forgive me for this—are increasingly impenetrable and complex and take up a large part—I suggest a disproportionate part—of the current white book. Of course, I understand that the rules of the Court of Appeal are themselves subject to separate review, but it would be helpful if the opportunity could be taken this evening for an indication to be given of when that review will be completed and when new rules for the Court of Appeal will be incorporated.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said, the rules do not cover enforcement. Again, concern has recently been expressed that the courts in this country do not provide enough help in enforcing judgments, so depriving the litigant, and in particular the unrepresented litigant who has struggled through the procedures. of the opportunity to achieve his judgment. They do not provide enough help in recovering the benefit of the judgment which he has obtained. There is of course a limit to what the court can do, but I suggest that there is a definite need for simpler, more speedy procedures. Again, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will confirm that some consideration is being given to that by his department.
It is a cliché that procedural rules are servants, not masters. The new rules have the potential to serve us well. There will be a new responsibility on the legal profession to make them work. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, referred to their conception and their birth. Following birth, there will certainly be a period of nursery education and training which we hope will not be too expensive or drawn out.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor most

1609
warmly on the single-minded way in which he is implementing the reforms originally proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf.
I shall not weary your Lordships' House with a further exegesis of the rules. These have already been admirably discussed by noble and learned and noble Lords. Such was the scope and quality of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, that, save only for questioning his hesitations in relation to the qualities of the adversarial system, I adopt entirely his speech on behalf of the Opposition.
9.41 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I acknowledge the Government's debt to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, yet again. At the outset of his speech he was too modest; he has nothing to be modest about. However, I found it difficult to conceive of the image of myself as a midwife.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, expresses concern in relation to partial implementation. He reminds us that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, describes the proposals as a package. I say this. There are always those who say, "Festina lente". But if I may mix my Latin metaphors, we cannot expect Rome to be built in a day, but we can make a good and improving start.
Essentially, the noble Lord asked how I can expect practitioners to be ready when we consider that the rules will not be signed by me until the end of the year. He suggests that there is simply not enough time for adequate preparation. But practitioners have had ample warning and opportunity to prepare for next April on the basis of the large amount of information currently available in relation to the reforms.
These changes have been developed in an open way over a lengthy period. The professions have known essentially what they will have to cope with for a long time. I refer in particular to the need to identify the key issues in a case, hence the relevant documentation and other material and also the need to run cases to a timetable. To assist them further, my department is placing the latest draft rules on the Internet with updated versions being added as the rules committee continues its work. Practice directions will also be placed on the Internet in due course.
I have already delayed implementation by six months to allow more time for preparation. I share the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, that further delay would risk loss of momentum. We should not wait any longer than necessary to bring the considerable benefits of the reforms to litigants. We can produce significant benefits before full IT back-up is available.
1610
Allowance has been made in the court service budget for IT support. The exact figures are subject to negotiation with the IT suppliers and obviously therefore, I can go no further. The Judicial Studies Board has been allocated £680,000 to meet the funding for training for the judiciary. This will enable us to deliver the reform training programme for the full and part-time judiciary.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, invites me to offer him some comfort as to when the full IT back-up will be in place. I am neither an optimist nor a pessimist but a realist. We all know that IT systems have a worrying habit of being late, but I remain hopeful for 2000. I endorse the general point made by the noble Lord that the rules and the protocols must be balanced and fair to both plaintiffs and defendants.
I welcome the support of my noble friend Lord Hacking. He was right to emphasise the fundamental transfer of power from the lawyers to judges which the new system will entail. He is also right that the new rules will only work if the judges make them work. The judges must not flinch from imposing toughly the sanctions that are available to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, made interesting suggestions about experts, which I shall consider, as will the Rule Committee. He also made other suggestions, all of which will be considered.
Finally, let me say this. The Rule Committee will finalise its work on these rules in November of this year. Subject to my approval, they will be laid before Parliament before Christmas and published in January 1999 for introduction in April of that year. This is a substantial start to a historic process of reform—but it is only a start.
Work is already under way to reform the practices and procedures of the Court of Appeal in line with the Beaumont Report. That meets some of the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Meston. Work is also under way to bring the rules governing proceedings in housing cases into the new plain English style and to overhaul radically the enforcement process to increase significantly the number of claimants who are able to achieve satisfaction of the judgments given in their favour.
I accept that we have some way to go but I am convinced that we are on the right road and that we will get there in the end.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lloyds TSB Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before ten o'clock.

  Security Commission: Membership
  Security Commission: Membership
  Continental Coach and Lorry Drivers
  Continental Coach and Lorry Drivers
  Vehicle Recalls
  Vehicle Recalls
  Allotments: Report
  Allotments: Report
  Customs and Immigration Facilities: Cost
  Customs and Immigration Facilities: Cost
  Entry Clearance Refusals: Independent Monitor's Report
  Entry Clearance Refusals: Independent Monitor's Report
  Burma
  Burma
  Wilton Park Executive Agency
  Wilton Park Executive Agency
  Panel 2000
  Panel 2000
  Sudan: Supply of Trucks to Church Ecumenical Action
  Sudan: Supply of Trucks to Church Ecumenical Action
  Law Commission Reports
  Law Commission Reports
  Prisoners with Disabilities
  Prisoners with Disabilities
  Police Service: Sickness Absence
  Police Service: Sickness Absence
  Prisons: Private Finance Initiative
  Prisons: Private Finance Initiative
  Metropolitan Police Committee: Membership
  Metropolitan Police Committee: Membership
  Security Service: File Holdings
  Security Service: File Holdings
  Police Complaints Authority: Appointments
  Police Complaints Authority: Appointments
  Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997
  Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997
  Plant Breeding International Cambridge Ltd.
  Plant Breeding International Cambridge Ltd.
  Household Division Ethnic Minority soldiers
  Household Division Ethnic Minority soldiers
  Scholarships Provided by Public Bodies
  Scholarships Provided by Public Bodies
  Rough Sleeping: Single Room Rent Restriction
  Rough Sleeping: Single Room Rent Restriction
  Rough Sleeping: Housing Benefit for Prisoners
  Rough Sleeping: Housing Benefit for Prisoners
  Northern Ireland Assembly: Briefing Programme
  Northern Ireland Assembly: Briefing Programme