Sitting of 11 June 1998

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

  LLOYDS TSB BILL [LORDS](By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Thursday 18 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Ethnic Minorities
    Ms Helen Southworth: How he intends to ensure that people from ethnic minorities have equal access to the new deal. [43751]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): Ethnic minorities will, of course, have the same entitlements as anyone else to all aspects of the new deal. For the first time in employment programmes, we have brought in ethnic monitoring, and we are working closely with ethnic minority groups and businesses. Trained personal advisers will help to tackle both barriers to employment and the discrimination that ethnic minorities face. A key priority of the new deal is to ensure full and fair opportunities for people, whatever their ethnic origin. As there are still appallingly high levels of unemployment among black and Asian people, that help is long overdue.
    Ms Southworth: Does the Minister welcome the fact that three black organisations have joined up to provide gateway services? Does he agree that every local new deal partnership has a responsibility to be a true, rather than just a paper, partnership that is inclusive of all members of the local community so that people from minority ethnic organisations can have equal access to the opportunities of the new deal, and a real step forward into employment?
    Mr. Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend's two good points. We are encouraging ethnic minority community groups and businesses to be involved at all levels of the new deal, and we are acting on their advice. A six-monthly review of the effectiveness of local partnerships in involving representatives of local ethnic minority communities will ensure that the new deal is reaching those clients.

    Independent-Maintained School Partnerships
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: What responses he has received during the period of consultation before his Department issues regulations governing partnership between local education authorities and independent schools. [43752]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): We intend to begin consultation on draft regulations once the School Standards and Framework Bill receives Royal Assent.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: Given that the Minister has demanded that Surrey council spends an additional 5 per cent. on education this year, while the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has cut Surrey's funding by 1 per cent., how does he expect Surrey to meet his desire when its efforts to do so in partnership with independent schools are being hamstrung by delays caused by his own Department?
    Mr. Byers: No delays are being caused by my Department. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 22 March and 12 May to ask for details of the scheme that is being promoted by Surrey. I regret that he has not replied to those letters or supplied me with details of the scheme. Perhaps he knows full well that Surrey's proposals have met almost universal opposition from schools in Surrey. The message to Conservative councillors in Surrey is that they should give priority to education in the county's own schools, as the Labour Government do. Those schools should be given every pound that the Government have provided to Surrey.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Who benefits from partnerships, and how?
    Mr. Byers: There is the possibility, in a positive sense, to have partnerships between the independent sector and the maintained sector in a way that actually builds bridges for the benefit of all children. What the Government are not prepared to see is the sort of scheme being promoted by some authorities which seek to replace the assisted places scheme with a local variation that is not about building bridges but about reinforcing divisions. The Government believe that the time has come to put dogma to one side, and to have a school system that meets the needs of all our children, not just a few.

    Class Sizes (Leicestershire)
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on primary school class sizes in Leicestershire. [43753]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): In January this year, the average primary class size in Leicestershire was 26. Last year, it was 26.7. Currently, 21.7 per cent. of children are in classes of more than 30. Last year, the figure was 23.4 per cent.
    Mr. Robathan: My figures show that the average primary class size has gone down by 0.06 of a pupil in one year. Even the Secretary of State would have to admit

    1179
    that it will take some time for that to work its way through to reduced class sizes. The children of most parents will have left primary school before there is any effect. What does the Secretary of State say to the 30 parents from Thistley Meadow school in Blaby who have written to me, some of whom voted Labour in the general election because they believed in Labour's pledge? When is a pledge an early pledge and when is it a late one? Was not the little card that I have with me, Labour's general election pledge card, a fraud perpetrated by new Labour on the parents of Leicestershire and the people of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Blunkett: Many more might have voted Labour if they had known that there would be a reduction of 0.7 per cent. in just one year [HON. MEMBERS: "0.06"] I am using the official figures. Leicestershire has received £291,000 and Leicester city £584,000 so that 4,100 children will be in smaller class sizes from September, with an extra 65 teachers.
    Mr. Andrew Reed: I am sure that my right hon. Friend remembers visiting Sileby Highgate school in Leicestershire, at which I am a governor, in 1996. He will recall that all its class sizes were well over 30. That was under the previous Administration, so we do not need to take any lectures. Will he confirm what he told me in a written answer last July—that in Leicestershire the cost of the assisted places scheme for the 447 pupils who were benefiting from it was £1.49 million? Does he agree that that money is much better spent on reducing class sizes in Leicestershire schools, particularly Sileby Highgate?
    Mr. Blunkett: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why those who buy private education put tremendous emphasis on class sizes. It ill becomes Conservative Members to proclaim that they are in favour of smaller classes for the children of those who buy private education but to be against it for the children whom they should represent.
    Mr. Don Foster: Does the Secretary of State realise that, to implement his Government's literacy scheme, teachers are required to create a maximum of five groups of six pupils? That is 30 for every class.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question relates specifically to Leicestershire.
    Mr. Foster: I assure you, Madam Speaker, that this is very much about Leicestershire. I hope that the Secretary of State is aware that his literacy scheme requires five groups of six pupils. Given that he has no plans to reduce key stage 2 classes—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry but the hon. Gentleman is not accepting my guidance. I am moving on. This is about Leicestershire.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: I hope it is, Madam Speaker, as I represent a Leicestershire seat. May I confirm what my right hon. Friend said about infant class sizes in the city of Leicester—that, because of the extra money that the city has received this year, there will be no infant class in excess of 30 from
    1180
    September this year? Does he accept that 10 per cent. of junior classes will be in excess of 30, however, and that one reason for that is that local heads and governors make the decisions on the distribution of class sizes? Will he signal his intention to offer guidance to heads and governors about the need to have smaller class sizes across the whole age group?
    Mr. Blunkett: A prerequisite of the plans that will have to be submitted this autumn will be that reductions in class sizes will not have a knock-on effect for primary schooling as a whole. Leicester and Leicestershire will benefit from the £62 million that we have allocated for this year and from the 1,500 extra teachers. Some 100,000 children will gain from the investment that we are making nationally.
    Mr. David Willetts: I am sure that the Secretary of State is familiar with the report of the Local Government Association, representing Leicestershire—and other parts of the country—on the devastating practical implications of the Government's class size pledge. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure parents in Leicestershire—and throughout the country—that there will be no reduction in parental choice and no increase in mixed-year teaching as a result of the Government's pledge?
    Mr. Blunkett: We have made it absolutely clear that parental preference is a critical part of enabling people to make the right choice in sending their children to the nearest high-quality school. We have made no bones about the fact that, where there are mixed-age classes, the guidance of Ofsted and the standards unit should be followed in making them work. I find it difficult to answer the question coming from an hon. Member who has written and spoken condemning the argument about class size, suggesting,
    "there is little evidence of any correlation between class size and educational achievements".
    No wonder he wrote it in a book called "Why Vote Conservative?" He knows he has the answer in the words he used.

    Schools (Bury)
    Mr. Ivan Lewis: If he will make a statement on the (a) performance and (b) level of funding of Bury's schools. [43755]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): Key indicators show that the performance of Bury's schools is above the England average. The level of Bury's standard spending assessment in 1998–99 was £67.8 million—an increase of 6.4 per cent. on the figure for 1997–98. That amounts to an extra £109 for every primary pupil and an extra £127 for every secondary pupil.
    Mr. Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Is he aware that, before and during the election, my hon. Friends and I promised people that five, six and seven-year-olds would be taught in classes of 30 and under by about 2001, which will be towards the end of the first term of the Labour Government? Is he further

    1181
    aware that from September 1998, 95 per cent. of five, six and seven-year-olds in Bury will be taught in classes of 30 and under?
    Mr. Byers: I offer my congratulations to those schools in Bury and the teachers responsible for the good standards that are now being achieved. I compliment my hon. Friend and his colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who have been great champions of the school system there. I am delighted to confirm that we pledged that, by the end of this Parliament, there would be no five, six or seven-year-olds in a class of 30 or more. I am delighted that, in September of this year, 3,500 fewer five, six and seven-year-olds in Bury will be in classes of more than 30. I am confident that, with that targeted support, Bury will be able to do even better for its children than it is doing now.

    School Exclusions
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What advice he has given to local education authorities regarding school exclusions and the making of alternative arrangements for the education of children who are excluded; and if he will make a statement. [43757]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): We have recently issued brief interim guidance on the changes to the law that come into force in September 1998. We are also preparing a new package of guidance on a range of exclusion issues that will reflect the recommendations of the truancy and school exclusion report.
    Mr. Mullin: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in many parts of the country, there is little or no provision for excluded school children? I am aware of a couple of cases in my constituency where children as young as 10 or 11 are left hanging around the streets for much of the day. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we allow the problem to continue, we will store up a big difficulty for ourselves in future? Will she tell us what plans we have to address this problem?
    Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right: sadly, children who are excluded from school are often those who need the most help and more education to raise standards, but they are excluded from any educational provision. It is not only in my hon. Friend's constituency that excluded children receive no education; it is a pattern that we found throughout the country when we took office a year ago. That is why we have already made a firm commitment, coming out of the school exclusion report, that children excluded for more than three weeks will have a right to full-time and appropriate education. That will be phased in when resources allow; the resources will be there and we intend that implementation should take no longer than three years in every local education authority throughout the country.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: Most parents, teachers and governors are concerned not about school exclusions but about when the Labour Government are going to
    1182
    deliver on the pledge they made at the general election to reduce class sizes. Class sizes in Bury might be going down, simply because there is substantially—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question is not about class sizes.
    Mr. Baldry: No, Madam Speaker; it is about school exclusions. The Government are making a lot of what they are doing about exclusions, but my point is that people in Oxfordshire are not coming up to me and expressing their concern about exclusions of children in Oxfordshire. They are concerned about when the Government are going to deliver on their policy and pledge to reduce class sizes—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Thank you very much.

    Universities (Access)
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: What assistance he proposes to give to those universities that wish to increase the numbers of students from mainstream comprehensives. [43760]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): From this autumn, we are doubling access funds and, from September, universities will be able to use a proportion of those funds to provide support and help for new access, and not merely for hardship among those who are already at university. We are also working with the university sector as a whole to link individual universities with schools and their communities, so that pupils can experience university life well in advance of deciding from the options available.
    Mr. Sheerman: That is quite a good answer, but my right hon. Friend could do better. We need to acknowledge the seriousness of the fact that the best universities for teaching and research are dominated by entrants from the private sector, from the best grammar schools, from comprehensives in affluent areas of the country and from sixth-form colleges. In the top 40 to 50 universities, the continued exclusion of students from average comprehensives who get three As at A-level is a national tragedy and a scandal. Will my right hon. Friend put the profile on the matter and make it a top priority to get something done about it?
    Mr. Blunkett: I shall try to do better, and will do so by following what we are already doing, which is holding detailed meetings with the university sector and the Higher Education Funding Council to achieve precisely what my hon. Friend rightly wants. It is true that in the West Riding of Yorkshire, in which his constituency used to be incorporated, more students from comprehensive schools went to Oxford and Cambridge in the days of Alec Clegg than do so now. The way to achieve a real transformation is not only to increase expectations and get the universities to be more embracing in their admissions policy but to transform the standard of education in schools so that every child has that chance.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's view that more students will go to university from mainstream comprehensives as a result of

    1183
    the introduction of tuition fees and the abolition of the maintenance grant? On reflection, does he not bitterly regret that it is under a Labour Government that our state education system will become no longer free at the point of access?
    Mr. Blunkett: I bitterly regret the fact that the Conservatives put a cap on entry to higher education; that they cut the unit cost by 40 per cent. and reduced quality; and that they did not concentrate on lifting standards for all children in our schools to get them into university. I am pleased that, from this autumn, an extra 1 per cent. of those leaving school—comprehensive or otherwise—are taking up higher education. We have every intention of extending that in future.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating King's college, Cambridge, which admits more than 90 per cent. of its students from the state sector? Does he welcome Cambridge university's advertising campaign to encourage more students from the state sector to apply?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I applaud what is being done by King's college and by students at Cambridge, who are reaching out—visiting, linking with and mentoring students in schools across the country. I just wish that it were happening in all colleges and all universities.
    Mr. David Willetts: May I tell the Secretary of State that my book, "Why Vote Conservative?" has a companion volume, "Why Vote Labour?", which has much less to say about raising educational standards? Following his letter to me yesterday about university applications, will he confirm that, during the debate on the Teaching and Higher Education Bill, Ministers deployed statistics that were embargoed by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service and showed that the proposed introduction of tuition fees is having a significant impact in reducing applications to Scottish universities from English students?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am inclined to read from another of the hon. Gentleman's books, "Is Conservatism Dead?"—the answer to which is yes. The answer to his question is no. Ministers did not use embargoed information. As I told him in the letter, the information was not made available until 4.30 pm on Tuesday, so Ministers could not have used it.

    Teacher Shortages
    Mr. Tim Boswell: What plans he has to modify teacher qualifications to take account of shortages. [43761]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): Ensuring that there are sufficient, well-trained, high-quality teachers is central to our aim to raise standards. We have no plans to boost recruitment by lowering the entry requirements to the profession.
    Mr. Boswell: The hon. Lady will be aware from correspondence between us of some hard cases concerning the transition between the licensed and the
    1184
    registered teachers schemes, and difficulties when somebody wishes to teach at primary level but does not have a degree in one of the national curriculum subjects. Nobody in the House would wish in any way to devalue the qualified teacher status or to reduce standards, but, given the growing teacher shortage, does she agree that is essential that the rules are interpreted as flexibly as possible to ensure that willing teachers are not deterred from the profession of their choice?
    Ms Morris: For once, I am in total agreement with the hon. Gentleman. I assure him that his constituent, Miss Morgan, who, if my memory serves me correctly, is seeking a place on a bachelor of education course, is fully entitled to do so given her degree. I am happy to reassure the House and those beyond it that nothing in the entry requirements to initial teacher training demands that one must have a degree in a national curriculum subject. Of course, by the end of the training course, one must have the necessary subject knowledge in order to teach effectively, but there is no bar to ITT if one does not have a degree in a national curriculum subject. If any hon. Member knows of any constituent who finds such a difficulty when they apply for teacher training, I would be most grateful to hear of it and would make the Government's views known directly to the initial teacher training institute concerned.
    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Will my hon. Friend look at the process of postgraduate certificates of education and of the clearing house through the graduate teacher training regime, as some things do not seem to match in that area? The entire process seems to be becoming disreputable.
    Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right; the subject needs looking at. There is a problem about the timing of applications and the way in which different institutions deal with them. We are determined that those who wish to apply for teacher training are able to do so as easily as possible and that institutions providing courses can choose the best and most suitable candidates. I am not entirely convinced that that is happening at the moment; we have the matter under review.
    Mrs. Theresa May: Does the Minister accept that the problem of teacher shortages is creating a growing crisis in our schools? Yesterday, it was reported that the chief inspector of schools, Chris Woodhead, called on the Government to take action to redress the problem. So far, the Government have produced a cinema advertisement and a plan for what the Minister for School Standards describes today in The Sun as a "super teacher grade", which is creating much concern in staff rooms. Will the Minister guarantee that, during this Parliament, there will not only be sufficient teachers to stand up in front of pupils in schools across the country but every child in a secondary school will be taught in every subject by a teacher who is a specialist in that subject?
    Ms Morris: I welcome the hon. Lady to her position on the Front Bench. This is the first opportunity that I have had to do so, although we have spent many months in Committee together, and I feel that we already know each other reasonably well. I remind her that being new to the Front Bench does not mean that she can wipe away

    1185
    18 years of Conservative Government. Her comments were amazing coming from somebody whose Government left a crisis in teacher recruitment. Year after year, we saw the number of people applying for teacher training courses decreasing, and the previous Government took no action.
    We inherited that situation, and, in the past 12 months, we have taken action and we shall continue to do so. We have provided £10 million for secondary subject shortage schemes; there are two new employment-based routes; we have established the General Teaching Council; we have set standards in initial teacher training; we have run taster courses for shortage subjects and targeted particular groups. The hon. Lady referred to the advertising campaign. That has led to about 1,000 new inquiries every week from people who might be interested in teacher training. Our record over 12 months of trying to improve teacher recruitment stands up very well compared with the inaction of the previous 18 years.

    Ethnic Minorities
    Ms Karen Buck: What plans he has to promote equal opportunities for ethnic minorities in training and employment. [43762]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth): We attach great importance to ensuring that people from ethnic minorities are not disadvantaged in training and employment. The Department for Education and Employment is committed to mainstreaming race equality in all our policies, programmes and services. That is part of our strategy across Government to build an inclusive society.
    Ms Buck: Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable that half of London's young black men are unemployed? Is he aware that there is genuine concern that the training and enterprise councils are not tailoring all their employment and training programmes to meet the skills deficit of young black men? Will he give us an assurance that he will review the TECs' performance in that respect, in consultation with representatives of black and ethnic minority groups?
    Mr. Howarth: I share my hon. Friend's deep concern about the problem she describes, which is particularly severe in London. The rates of unemployment among people from ethnic minorities are twice as high as those for white people. Across the country, the position deteriorated during the last 10 years of Conservative Government, but it is particularly concerning among young black people, for whom, as my hon. Friend says, the figure is vastly higher. I congratulate her on her strong personal commitment to improving equal opportunities in the part of London that she represents and to supporting our strategy across the country.
    We share my hon. Friend's concern about the unequal opportunities that members of ethnic minorities appear to have had in TEC-delivered training programmes. We have introduced a national minimum standard and required TECs to set demanding targets to deal with the problem.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: I remind the Minister that he was a Minister in the very Government
    1186
    to whom he referred. Will he confirm that the way to improve job opportunities for black people and other ethnic minorities in London and elsewhere is to instil in them a work ethic and improve their job and training opportunities, not to introduce a quota system for employers?
    Mr. Howarth: I should be sad to think that the hon. Gentleman was complacent about the position that the previous Conservative Government allowed to develop; I was not, as he knows. There is no question of imposing quotas. We are determined to ensure equal opportunities because Labour Members find racial discrimination abhorrent.
    Given that there is no significant disparity in advanced level and other adult qualifications between members of ethnic minorities and others and yet there is a disturbing gap in employment levels, part of the explanation must lie in employers' attitudes. We have to find the most constructive and effective ways to ensure that culture and attitudes change so that members of ethnic minorities get the opportunities which the hon. Gentleman, like all hon. Members, surely wants them to have.
    Mr. Derek Foster: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we are to keep faith with black and Asian communities, we must give the matter the highest priority? Will he look again at the modern apprenticeship scheme, where only 2 per cent. of the participants are black and Asian young people?
    Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend is right: we must do very much better in a range of Government-funded and training and enterprise council-delivered programmes. I accept the anxiety that he expresses about the poor performance of members of ethnic minorities in modern apprenticeships.

    Student Loans
    Mr. Phil Willis: What plans he has to allow part-time further education and higher education students to have access to income-contingent loans. [43765]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): The Teaching and Higher Education Bill contains provisions that will give the Government the power to make support available to part-time students by way of income-contingent loans.
    Mr. Willis: On 21 April, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), said in the Standing Committee on the Teaching and Higher Education Bill that the Government intended to move to resource accounting in 2001–02 and to use the student loan debt as a "balance sheet asset". Can the Minister confirm that? In those circumstances, what earthly reason is there for not allowing part-time students to have access to income-contingent loans from 2001?
    Mr. Byers: The year 2001 will take care of itself when it arrives. We must give the Government the power to provide part-time students with access to

    1187
    income-contingent loans. The Bill enables us to do that. In 2001, we may be able to make the finances available to secure access to those loans.
    We are putting measures in place before then, because current part-time students need support. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on Monday access to a fund for part-timers who are at present in work and who might become unemployed. He also announced that, for the first time, part-time students would have access to the access fund, and the money for the access fund was doubled. Practical steps are being taken now to offer new opportunities to part-time students—we are not waiting until 2001.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: One of the great things that we did this century was to create the Open university. Will Open university students qualify for part-time funding?
    Mr. Byers: Open university students will be in the position of other part-time students. The year 2001 may well be the time when they will have access to income-contingent loans. They will have access to the new measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Monday, and that will make a real difference to many of them.
    The Government are seized of the fact that Open university students are one of the categories of students for whom education has not been free. People speak of free access to education, but that is simply not the case. We believe that the status quo is not an option. Change must and will take place to extend opportunities and to provide higher education institutions with the money that they need.

    Standard Spending Assessment (Worcestershire)
    Mr. Peter Luff: What was the real-terms percentage change per pupil in the education standard spending assessment of Worcestershire for 1998–99 compared to 1997–98. [43766]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): The real-terms increase was 1.85 per cent. per primary pupil and 1.21 per cent. per secondary pupil. That amounts to an extra £94 for every primary pupil and an extra £106 for every secondary pupil.
    Mr. Luff: Does the Minister understand that, notwithstanding those figures, school budgets are being cut? Most parents, teachers and governors in Worcestershire think that, when the Prime Minister spoke of "education, education, education", he meant "education cut, education cut, education cut". Will the Minister give an early—preferably urgent—pledge that, next year, Worcestershire will have an increase at least equal to that of other education authorities, and preferably more, to make up for this year's frankly shocking settlement?
    Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman is letting his prejudices get in the way of fact. The reality is that an extra £106 will be provided for every secondary pupil in Worcestershire this year. That stands in stark contrast to what occurred in the five years between 1992 and 1997—a period in which the hon. Gentleman was a Conservative
    1188
    Member of Parliament for Worcestershire—when there was a real-terms cut of £177 for every secondary school pupil in Worcestershire. The facts are simple: in the last five years of the Conservative Government, there was a real-terms cut of £177 for secondary pupils in Worcestershire, and, one year into a Labour Government, there has been an increase of £106 for every secondary age pupil in Worcestershire. Those are the facts—not the prejudice of Opposition Members.

    New Deal
    Laura Moffatt: What plans he has to help unemployed people over the age of 25 years move from benefits into work. [43767]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): On 29 June, the new deal for those aged 25 and over who have been out of work for more than two years will get under way across the country. That will be another manifesto promise kept. In addition, in November we shall start pilot programmes bringing more intensive help to those who have been out of work for 18 months or a year. We have also introduced five prototype employment zones, which began in February.
    Laura Moffatt: Does the Minister agree that the extra £100 million for the long-term unemployed will help my constituent Maureen Wells? She has been a carer since she was a newly wed and now wishes to take her place in the work force, but she must have her self-esteem and employability improved. Will the new deal partnership help her and give her the time to sort herself out so that she may take her rightful place in full employment?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. A very important feature—and, according to the evidence so far, a very effective feature—of the new deal is that unemployed people are receiving personal counselling with the continuity of support that a dedicated personal adviser can provide, coupled with access to a range of specialist advice and help, including training courses. That support will be available for the long-term unemployed under the new deal which starts on 29 June and under the pilots, which have been announced for November and to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Minister do two things for unemployed people over 25 who live in the Ribble Valley? First, will he congratulate Skillshare—an organisation of volunteers and others who provide education for the over-25s, among others, and allows people to share their skills with the unemployed so that they have a better chance of education or employment? Secondly, will he contact Lancashire county council, because that Labour-controlled authority is stopping the £26,000 in funding for Skillshare? The organisation will close at the end of the month unless the county council continues that funding, which is essential for the unemployed in my area.
    Mr. Smith: I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating organisations such as Skillshare and other voluntary and community bodies that are dedicated to the education and training needs of the unemployed. They certainly need support, and they are getting it through the new deal.

    1189
    As to the hon. Gentleman's second point, I shall ensure that the new deal partnership in his area—which is almost certainly already in contact with Skillshare—investigates what means might be found to make sure that the invaluable services that Skillshare provides will continue to be available to local unemployed people.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: The Minister referred to pilot schemes for those who have been unemployed for a long time. Is he aware that many people who have suffered long-term unemployment have complex personal problems and difficulties? For example, many of them do not have great levels of literacy. Will the Minister ensure that assistance is given to people with literacy difficulties to help them enter a technological and increasingly information-based employment market?
    Mr. Smith: Yes. The assessment of the basic skills help that people need is an important feature of the gateway in the pilots which will begin in November. It is crucial that appropriate, effective and high-quality courses are available for the older and long-term unemployed as well as for the young unemployed so that they may achieve those skills that are a key component of employability and can do so much to enhance their prospects of gaining rewarding work.
    Mr. Damian Green: Why are the Government providing relatively less help for the unemployed who are over 25, when all the evidence shows that they are much more likely to need help to find work? Does that not suggest a gap between pious rhetoric of the policy and policy itself, which is dictated largely by short-term presentational gimmicks?
    Mr. Smith: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Front Bench.
    The priorities that we set out in introducing the new deal for the young unemployed and the new deal for the long-term unemployed reflect what we said and, indeed, go beyond what we promised in our manifesto. We cannot forget that youth unemployment runs at well over twice the level of unemployment across the rest of the work force.
    Everyone knows the particular damage to young people and to the community at large that is inflicted by exclusion from the opportunities and the responsibilities of work at an older age, but our new deal programmes are designed to provide the right assistance, right across the age range. As well as offering counselling and continuity of support from a personal adviser, the new deal for the long-term unemployed offers a £75 a week subsidy for the first six months of employment for someone who has been out of work for more than two years, and the opportunity to be educated or to train for up to a year. It really is a new deal for the long-term unemployed. The public will ask the hon. Gentleman why the previous Government did nothing about that.

    School Transport
    Mr. David Heath: What plans he has to review arrangements for home-to-school transport. [43768]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to review the arrangements for the provision of home-to-school transport.
    Mr. Heath: Given the large amount of money that some local authorities are forced to spend on school transport—Somerset, for example, has to spend £5.3 million, which is £26,000 a day, on bussing children around—and, given that the precise distances involved, such as the two-mile and three-mile limits, and the appropriateness of particular routes are major bones of contention between local authorities and families with children, does the Minister agree that it is time that the Education Act 1944 was thoroughly reviewed to consider the provision of a comprehensive and fairer system of school transport?
    Ms Morris: I appreciate that school transport is an important issue for local authorities in constituencies such as the hon. Gentleman's. It is one of the issues to which they must give careful consideration when allocating resources.
    The key point is that it is up to the local authority to make decisions about school transport, as long as it is acting within the law. The law says that transport is necessary for a pupil of a compulsory school age to attend the nearest suitable school if it is beyond statutory walking distance. Above and beyond that, his local authority, as well as many others, has flexibility to offer financial assistance where it thinks that is appropriate. It is up to local authorities to respond to local situations.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: None the less, my hon. Friend might have a gentle word with some local authorities about the quality of school transport. Although some counties are working hard to ensure that no contracts are handed out to substandard firms, does she agree that some buses that are on the road carrying school children need to be put off it as soon possible?
    Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right. She has a long-standing interest in the issue. The Department keeps it under review, and will continue to do so.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: But this Labour Government cut a £4.3 million grant to Bedfordshire county council which the previous Conservative Government gave to it. It is likely that school transport will be cut in Bedfordshire, because the Government have cut the money to it. Will the hon. Lady consider the money that rural parts of Britain are receiving from the Government, and do better? Rural parts of Bedfordshire need help, which the previous Conservative Government gave but which this Labour Government have denied.
    Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman has a bit of a cheek. One reason why school transport was cut year after year was that, year after year, local authorities had to manage with a diminishing budget from the Conservative Government. Local authorities now have more money to

    1191
    spend on education—an extra £850 million this year, which means that they will be able to decide to put money into school transport, as well as into school standards.
    Mr. Cynog Dafis: Does the Minister agree that it is important not just to provide transport for school children, but to enable them to walk and cycle to school? Is the Department working closely with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to develop the safe routes to schools scheme that would enable children to arrive safely at school, and also make an important contribution to reducing the amount of road traffic?
    Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman is right to ask that question. My Department has been working closely with Transport Ministers on the forthcoming White Paper. Making it safe for children to walk to school is crucial. There has been a massive increase in the number of children who are being driven to school, often for very short distances and to destinations that are not on their parents' way to work. We want to encourage children to walk to school, but we know that we cannot do that unless we can ensure that conditions are as safe as possible. That is what parents want and have a right to expect.
    This is an important agenda, and I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman looks forward to the publication of the White Paper.

    New Deal (North-east Lincolnshire)
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: When he plans to extend the new deal to older workers in north-east Lincolnshire. [43769]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): The new deal for people aged 25 and over will start on 29 June. In addition, the area will benefit from the November new deal pilots, as South Humber is one of the districts in which the private sector has been invited to tender. We are consulting on the content of that programme.
    Mr. Mitchell: This is mildly sycophantic on the Mackinlay scale, but I am delighted with my right hon. Friend's answer. I know that he is determined to extend the benefits of the new deal to older workers who need and deserve the boost—the help and support—that he has been giving to the young unemployed.
    I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to bear in mind the urgent needs of north-east Lincolnshire. We have not only higher unemployment, while unemployment in the rest of the country is still falling, but—on a new basis of calculation—one of the highest unemployment levels, if not the highest, in the whole of Yorkshire and Humberside. The need is urgent in north-east Lincolnshire.
    Mr. Smith: I agree with, and welcome, my hon. Friend's commendation of the programme, and its relevance to the needs of his constituents. I assure him that, whatever is the private sector lead, it will—together with the new deal partnership—engage in close consultation with the local community and local business
    1192
    to ensure that the particular needs of those older long-term unemployed people are dealt with effectively, and in a way that conforms to the high-quality standards that are the hallmark of the new deal.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that, in north-east Lincolnshire, as elsewhere—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Not "as elsewhere". The question applies specifically to north-east Lincolnshire.
    Mr. Edward Leigh rose—
    Madam Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). He represents Lincolnshire.
    Mr. Leigh: In view of the particularly helpful question put to him by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), will the Minister consider extending the new deal to him in the forthcoming Government reshuffle? Some of us admire the hon. Gentleman.
    The Minister ought to remember that unemployment is very high in Lincolnshire, especially in rural areas. I hope that he will not forget our problems, rather than directing his attention entirely to north-east Lincolnshire.
    Mr. Smith: We all admire my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. As for the needs of the part of Lincolnshire to which the hon. Member for Gainsborough has referred, partnerships in the new deal across the country have been invited to bid to have the opportunity to be one of the 20 pilots alongside the private sector pilots to which I referred. We shall evaluate those bids against the effectiveness and quality of what they offer the local community, and how much innovation they show in working with local authorities, training and enterprise councils and local private business.

    University Students
    Mr. Howard Flight: If he will make a statement on the number of new students at British universities (a) starting in autumn 1998 and (b) who started in autumn 1997. [43771]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): Some 507,000 students domiciled in England started either full or part-time courses in 1997. It is too early to say how many students will start in autumn 1998, but I am sure that the House will be delighted to know that, so far, applications from 18 to 21-year-olds have increased this year compared with last year.
    Mr. Flight: It is pretty poor that the Government do not know how many students will be going to university this autumn. Given the need for overall planning and budgeting, I see no reason why the figures should not be available. If, as I suspect, there is no increase, does the Minister attribute the outcome to the unwise changes that the Government have made, such as the introduction of tuition fees and those made as a result of the Government's particular interpretation of the Dearing report?
    Mr. Byers: There are two principal reasons why I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures for this

    1193
    autumn. First, the A-level results are not yet known, which is a significant factor for entry into university. Secondly, mature students are applying ever later in the cycle. This year, as in previous years, mature students are applying far closer to the start date than they did a few years ago. It ill becomes a Conservative Member to talk about access to higher education when his party not only starved the sector of resources, but put a 30 per cent. cap on the number of young people who could enter higher education. That was not merely a bureaucratic cap; it was a cap on the aspirations of tens of thousands of young people who had the qualifications but who, under a Conservative Government, never had the opportunity of going on to higher education, which their talents and abilities merited. No more of that under this Government: we shall extend and expand higher education. No more caps on aspirations: we shall meet the needs and desires of young people.
    Mr. Derek Twigg: On Monday evening, during the debate on the Teaching and Higher Education Bill, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), the shadow Secretary of State said that the Conservative party would introduce top-up fees. To be fair to him, he said that it would not be widespread. When challenged to say what areas would be included, he would not answer. Would not top-up fees have a detrimental effect and prevent wider access to higher education?
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The hon. Member who now speaks for the Conservative party on education matters wants to create an Ivy League of university establishments, which would divide the sector. As a result, many young people would not be able to go to the university of their choice. That is a good example of the policies pursued by the Conservative party, and it shows why the Conservatives will not be returned to office until they recognise the plot, which for education is quality provision in schools, further education colleges and universities for all our young people, not just for a few.

    EU Tobacco Advertising Directive
    Mr. Graham Brady: When he plans to publish an employment impact assessment of the effect of the EU tobacco advertising directive on UK employment. [43772]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): A preliminary regulatory appraisal was produced as part of the parliamentary scrutiny of the EU proposals and was deposited in the Library on 2 December. An updated assessment, including any employment effects, will be included in the White Paper, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will publish later this year.
    Mr. Brady: I thank the Minister for that response. Does he share my concern that an employment impact assessment after the Government decided to support the directive is of questionable value? Does he further share my concern that the Employment Commissioner, Mr. Padraig Flynn, has explicitly ruled out conducting an
    1194
    employment impact assessment across the European Union? If the Government think that such an assessment is worth doing, why does not the Commission?
    Mr. Smith: As I think the hon. Gentleman should know, when the Select Committee on European Legislation and Standing Committee B examined this proposal, they debated these matters in great detail and decided that the proper procedure had been complied with throughout. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should take note of the fact that 61 per cent. of respondents to the 1996 Office for National Statistics attitudes survey said that they did not think tobacco advertising should be allowed. The Government are not only implementing an important manifesto commitment, but going with the will of the people and implementing proposals that will be good for the public's health.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: We cannot disregard the employment implications altogether, but is it not somewhat sad that Conservative Members still do not believe that tobacco advertising has implications for the health of our constituents. We only have to look at what is happening in our hospitals—the deaths, amputations and other operations—to realise that the directive is right and should be fully supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. This is a manifesto commitment. It will save lives and it is good for health. It makes sense to get on with it.

    Postgraduate Researchers
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to discuss problems faced by postgraduate researchers on temporary contracts. [43773]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not been approached by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals on this issue. He would, of course, consider carefully any representation that it wished to make.
    Mr. Dalyell: Are temporary contracts a satisfactory way in which to reward researchers, who may be in their 40s and 50s and who have depended on this form of remuneration all their lives?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is well aware that this is a long-standing, very difficult and important problem. He will, I hope, at least share my pleasure that a concordat relating to contract researchers has been agreed between the CVCP, other bodies representing universities and colleges, the research councils, the British Academy and the Royal Society. The signatories are committed to improving the terms and conditions of employment of contract staff, to training and careers guidance, to appraising and reviewing their development and to the provision of maternity and long-term sickness benefit. A group has been established to monitor the concordat's implementation and to identify and encourage practice. It is chaired by Sir Gareth Roberts, whom my hon. Friend knows well. The group hopes to report in the autumn.

Economic and Fiscal Strategy
3.30 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement. The comprehensive spending review has been the most comprehensive and in-depth examination of Government spending and priorities for many years. The results of it will be announced in two stages. Today, I will announce an entirely new regime to apply to public spending control: a fundamental reform of the rules that govern our public finances. Later next month, I will set out the results of a wholesale revision of our spending priorities and the purposes of Government support in each Department.
The central challenge is to combine prudence and stability in public finance with investment and reform in public services. There are four key elements to our approach. First, the new regime must be consistently prudent and responsible. Strong public services cannot be sustained on weak public finances. The spending plans that we set must ensure sustainable finances over the whole economic cycle—rigorous financial discipline that, together with monetary stability, ends once and for all the boom and bust that for 30 years has undermined stability, hindered long-term investment in our public services and prevented this country from achieving its potential.
That is why we will enforce two fiscal rules: the golden rule that, over the cycle, current spending is covered by revenues, and the sustainable investment rule that there must be a prudent debt-to-gross domestic product ratio.
Secondly, in each Department, we are assessing radically what Government do and how and where they spend their money. The comprehensive spending review results, when published, will not only show changes in priorities within and between Departments, but must redefine the role of Government, so that they are enabling and empowering, not centralising and controlling. Where Government should be acting, we will do more. Where Government is unnecessary or restrictive, we should not act at all. The results of the spending review will mean reform and modernisation.
Thirdly, in respect of publicly owned assets, the essential test should be how best to meet the public interest, and we will, therefore, propose a radical change in Government policy towards investment and the assets that Government hold. Finally, where Government spend on public services, they should link spending explicitly to modernisation and reform for each Government Department. Where there is extra money, it will be tied to specific outputs. It will be investment, but only in return for reform.
First, therefore, the framework that follows for the future. For 30 years, British public spending has been characterised by the annual spending round rather than long-term planning; by the year-to-year bidding culture, with all the problems of hurried end-of-year corrections, instead of the strategic planning of resources; by incremental bids that are not tied to outcomes, rather than spending to achieve defined results. Too much attention has been given to current spending and muddling through, too little attention to long-term investment and reform. There has been too much focus on the public sector acting in isolation from the private sector and not enough long-term partnership with it.
1196
To break decisively with this old-fashioned and short-termist culture, we will first abolish the annual spending round. We will now set Departments firm plans and fixed budgets for three years at a time. Secondly, to ensure that our fiscal rules are met and to make possible long-term investment in our infrastructure, there will now be a separate capital budget and a separate current budget for each Department. Thirdly, in place of incremental budgeting, we will lay down new targets for efficiency and performance for every Department. Fourthly, instead of the old, sterile conflict between public and private sectors, we will now promote new partnerships between public and private sectors. Fifthly, for the first time, the Government are legislating for a Code of Fiscal Stability which requires more open and comprehensive reporting of the public accounts. The key assumptions have been and will continue to be audited by the independent National Audit Office.
My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, whom I thank for all his work in the review, and I are today publishing detailed figures both for the current balance and for capital spending. We will set out in these documents not only the public sector's net cash requirement—the PSBR—but the internationally accepted accruals measure of public sector net borrowing, which will provide a better guide to the underlying state of public finances—that is the public sector net borrowing. Copies of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report will be available in the Vote Office.
All these changes—the end of the annual spending round, a long-overdue distinction between investment and current spending, a new emphasis on outputs, more effective partnership between public and private sectors and proper public scrutiny of how Governments are meeting their fiscal rules—make clear the importance that the Government attach to reform and modernisation as the foundation for both sound finance and good public services.
I turn now to the public finance plans that follow from the fiscal rules. The Government inherited a national debt which doubled in the early 1990s. In the last economic cycle, debt as a proportion of national income rose by 18 percentage points and is now around £15,000 for every family in the country. As a result, we are paying more in interest payments than we spend on schools, or on housing and law and order put together.
In addition, we inherited an annual level of public borrowing that was unacceptably high. In the final year of the previous Government, the public sector net cash requirement was £23 billion, and public sector net borrowing was £27 billion. In the first year of the Labour Government, with the tough decisions that we took in our first Budget in July, public sector net borrowing fell last year from £27 billion to £6 billion. We kept within the spending ceilings that we inherited. In addition to a £400 million increase in the Budget for pensioners, we were also able to put £2 billion more into the health service and £2 ½ billion more into education.
Those who said that we would fail to meet our targets and would fail to show the discipline necessary have been proved entirely wrong. Indeed, over the first two years of the present Government, through setting tough departmental limits, spending is within budget as promised. But Britain must have sustainable public finances, not just for one year or two, but throughout the economic cycle. British public spending, which,

1197
for decades, has been denied a long period of consistency and stability, must now be subject not only to the framework for the future that is prudent, but to clearly defined limits.
As a result of the plans that I am announcing today, we will lock in the fiscal tightening that I announced in the March Budget, not just for this financial year, but for the next financial year as well. Over the three years from the time we came into Government—that is to 1999–2000—the fiscal tightening amounts to 2 ¾ per cent. of national income, measured by the public sector net cash requirement, and 3 ½ per cent. of GDP measured by public sector net borrowing. That is more than £25 billion since 1996–97. This is the fiscal tightening from 1996–97 to 1999–2000 that we promised in the Budget.
To meet our first rule—the golden rule—the Government will plan for balance on the current budget over the economic cycle as a whole. For 35 years, current spending has grown by an average of nearly 3 per cent. a year in real terms. Within that average, annual changes have ranged from plus 11 per cent. to minus 3 per cent. From 1989 to 1994, a surplus on the current budget of over £10 billion was transformed into a deficit on the current budget of £38 billion. So, in the same way as our economy has suffered from the instability of boom and bust, public spending has suffered from the instability of stop and go. The uncertainties caused by that short-termist approach have frustrated the long-term planning of decent public services.
Let us be clear about who has suffered first and who has suffered worst: the vulnerable who depend most on our public services. Imprudence in public spending is of no help to those who rely on public services being there when they need them.
In the previous economic cycle, Britain ran an average deficit on the current budget of 1 ½ per cent. of GDP—the equivalent of an annual deficit of £12 billion. By contrast, the plans that we publish today will ensure that, over the full economic cycle, Britain will have a current budget balance—current expenditure covered by revenues over the cycle—which other Governments have promised but not achieved.
So that we can deliver sustainable public finances—and, thus, sustainable public services—over the whole cycle, the plans that I am announcing today deliberately take a more cautious approach than previous plans in meeting the fiscal rules. That is why we need to plan for a surplus on the current budget over the next three years. The plans that we publish today are for a surplus on the current budget, next year, of £7 billion; in 2000–01, of £10 billion; and, in 2001–02, of £13 billion.
Within that new framework, I can confirm that current spending will grow in line with our cautious estimate of the trend rate of growth of the economy, which is 2¼ per cent. in real terms each year over the next three years. Current spending is now planned to be 39¼ per cent. of GDP every year for the rest of the Parliament.
It is because we are showing that prudence in public finance and because we are prepared to modernise in choosing our priorities that we will be able to invest in long-term improvements in our key public services—education and health—and also fulfil our commitments to those such as the elderly, who depend on public services.
As everyone knows, the public will be better served if we also ensure the best value for money and the most efficient possible use of resources. Inefficiency in the
1198
public sector is a cost which could be afforded by a Government who had a vested interest in proving that the public service could not work and believed in a philosophy of private, good; public, bad.
Inefficiency will not be tolerated by a Government who will modernise the public sector so that this country is properly equipped for the future. That is why, in our spending review, there will be no place for new spending unless there is reform through clear targets, new standards and rigour in the use of money. I can confirm that each Department will set efficiency targets as a result of our review. Each Department will also be set new quality standards. I can confirm that, as part of best value, we will introduce an inspectorate for housing that will help to improve management of council housing, set new standards for performance and guarantee the high quality of investment.
Before allocations are made from the comprehensive spending review, Departments will have to demonstrate how they propose to root out unjustified subsidies. Therefore, not only will we set ourselves fixed budgets for three years, but we are building in new disciplines to ensure that investment is conditional on reform. Just as those new disciplines will apply to current spending, they will be applied also to capital investment.
Our second fiscal rule is to ensure a stable and prudent ratio of debt to national income—the sustainable investment rule—which is essential if we are to contain interest payments on the national debt. If the Government simply left the debt-to-GDP ratio at the level that we inherited from the previous Government, we would be making interest payments of £25 billion more over the Parliament, at a cost to public services.
In the interests of greater stability, I propose to bear down on the debt-to-GDP ratio. The plans that we are publishing today show that the debt ratio falls from 45 per cent., when we came into government, to 40½ per cent. next year; and, in the following years, down again, to 39½ per cent., and to 38¼per cent. The comparable figure in the European Union is 78 per cent.
Britain will now plan on the basis that our debt-to-GDP ratio will be 40 per cent. or lower. For the first time for decades, we are set, over the cycle, to have both a current budget in balance and a prudent debt-to-GDP ratio. As a result of our two fiscal rules, public sector net borrowing, which was more than 3 per cent. of national income in the most recent economic cycle, will average 0.2 per cent. for this Parliament, 0.2 per cent. for next year, 0 per cent. for the following two years and 0.1 per cent. for the year after that. We will meet the fiscal rules that are laid down in the Maastricht treaty.
It is only because we have set this tough framework—based on strict control of public spending, a prudent debt-to-GDP ratio and a fiscal tightening—that it is possible to take the necessary action to reverse the chronic underinvestment in our country's education, health, transport and housing infrastructure and to re-equip Britain as a modern nation. In recent years, total investment, public and private, in Britain has fallen as a share of national income—it is far behind the rates of our competitors and those that we achieved in the 30 years after the war.
If Britain is to renew its infrastructure, as it should, we must be prepared to break with old dogmas. We will not succeed simply by throwing money at problems or by

1199
privatising the responsibility for them, so we must be prepared to look at new ways in which to manage our assets and, if necessary, to redeploy them so that they serve the future rather than reflect the past.
The British Government have property, land and other assets worth hundreds of billions of pounds. As we discovered in the first register of national assets, Britain has an accumulation of unused and underused properties and holdings. We can no longer afford a surplus of holdings when we have such a deficit in investment. There is no benefit to us in hoarding assets that do nothing to equip us for the future when we need to build a 21st century infrastructure. No public interest is served by continuing to hold surplus land and buildings that we know are not needed.
The fiscal projections set a new target for central Government to realise for investment around £1 billion a year for each of the three coming years from the sale of surplus holdings that we no longer need. In the next financial year, we will go ahead with the sale of all remaining debt held in British energy. We will realise the value of what we do not need, to invest in what we do need.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I will propose a new long-term framework for investment by local authorities to release resources for new investment and to co-ordinate the use of existing assets. Local authorities are now expected to realise at least £2¾ billion a year from property sales—again, that is a sale of what we do not need, to pay for investment in what we do need.
To maximise investment in the renewal of our infrastructure, public and private sectors must work together in a more effective and modern partnership. In the past, the private finance initiative was a means of substituting private investment for public investment—it was an excuse for abdicating responsibility for public investment, so there was no net gain to investment in our country.
As we have shown in our new deal for schools, public-private partnerships work best when public investment succeeds in levering in additional finance from the private sector. Moreover, as the Deputy Prime Minister has shown in the planned investment in the channel tunnel rail link and in London underground, private investment can be mobilised to serve the public interest.
The Government will apply a public interest test. What is the best means—whether through private or public investment—to secure the highest levels of investment in Britain's future, so ensuring the best public services? It is not to demand private ownership as a matter of dogma when it does not serve the public interest, and it is not to maintain state ownership when private and public partnership is the best way in which to advance the public interest.
It is obvious to the Deputy Prime Minister and me—[Interruption.] It is obvious that the levels of investment and efficiency that we need in National Air Traffic Services can be best achieved by a partnership between the public and private sectors, which will give NATS the ability to plan and finance the forward investment that they want to make.
1200
Safety is paramount: the Government's proposals will ensure that air safety regulation is conducted independently from National Air Traffic Services and is open and transparent. The regulator's remit will be to enforce the toughest safety standards in the world.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is to make a separate announcement today on the future of air traffic control services. Our preference is for 49 per cent. of the shares, and a golden share, to be held by the Government, and 51 per cent. by private investors, including employees. We will hold consultations on the details of the implementation of the proposals.
The realisation of assets will enable us to invest more in our transport infrastructure, as will our proposals for greater commercial freedom for financially sound regional airports such as Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds-Bradford and Norwich. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Brown: I thought that Conservative Members would be interested in plans for new investment in our airports.
The same partnership approach is appropriate for the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which needs new finance for higher investment in developing countries. The Secretary of State for International Development will introduce proposals to sell a majority holding.
We will consider how to extend the existing public-private partnership in the Tote into a broader partnership with the private sector. We are also agreed in principle that a new public-private partnership is the best way for the Royal Mint to take advantage of new commercial opportunities.
Those are four examples of new partnerships being evolved that show that we can make the long-term investment that we need while protecting and safeguarding the public interest. Public investment in reform and modernisation is also a means by which the Government can help to renew the infrastructure.
Under the previous Government, public investment fell below 1 per cent. of national income—to 0.8 per cent.—and we now invest less than our major European partners. The present Government recognise that we must invest properly in our economic and social infrastructure to equip us for the future.
We must invest in our schools and hospitals; our transport infrastructure; our science and technology base; and in building better housing and safer and stronger communities. To meet those challenges for the future, we are setting up a new programme: investing in Britain's future.
Over this Parliament, we will double the level of net public investment as a share of national income, raising it from ¾per cent. to 1½ per cent. Through realising unused and underused assets and being prepared to take tough decisions, we will plan to invest £29 billion a year in our economic and social infrastructure by the end of this Parliament.
In place of two decades of rundown in investment, Britain is now ready to invest in its own future. Our long-term aim will be to maintain the share of investment in national income at this sustainable and prudent level.

1201
For years, we were told that prudence in public finances could be achieved only at the cost of running down public investment and neglecting public services. Those Conservative years ended with neither good public services nor prudence in public finances.
The framework that I am announcing today means that, with sensible and tough decisions about priorities in every Department in our spending review, this country will be able to ensure that the necessary resources are available for health, education and essential public services. Because of our toughness to modernise, our discipline and reform, our prudence today provides the solid foundation to invest in better schools, hospitals and public services today and tomorrow.
In place of short-termism and neglect of public services, we have a new long-term direction for renewal of our public services and of our country. Prudence and investment in reform are the way forward to creating a Britain that is modern, strong and fair. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr. Francis Maude: So far, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had a Budget in July last year, a pre-Budget in November, another Budget in March and a mini-Budget in June. Now there is a comprehensive spending review in July. Four Budgets in 12 months is not bad going for a self-proclaimed devotee of long-term planning and consistency.
In today's Financial Times we can read why he has been forced to do all that. It states:
"The announcement is expected to 'focus ministers minds' in the final stage of spending negotiations, says a government member."
We know where that came from—not from the Red Lion, but from the horse's mouth. The statement effectively announces the failure of the Chancellor's comprehensive spending review. It was designed to save money, but it has saved nothing.
We support the reduction in national debt—[Interruption.] We certainly support it, but we should like to know whether all Labour Members support it. If the Chancellor reads the papers, he will find that the reduction in national debt to which he has referred was due to be exceeded under the plans of the past Conservative Government. For him to claim the credit is quite cheeky.
I pay tribute to the Chancellor's courage in adopting a programme of modernisation of the public sector. I assure him that we shall give firm support to his plans to privatise a number of entities. We remember the comments that he and his colleagues made when those issues were debated in the past, and we shall do our best in the coming days to reconcile those remarks with his fulsomely enthusiastic remarks of today. No doubt such a reconciliation can be achieved; we are charitable folk and we shall do our best to seek one, and to give him the support that he deserves for his programme of public sector reform.
It is just a pity that whenever—[Interruption.] The Deputy Prime Minister should listen with enthusiasm because we are the only people who are supporting him; he will not find much support behind him.
The Chancellor's statement is of some importance. We always said that the Government would be a tax and spend Administration. We have already seen the taxes—the equivalent of 5p added to the basic rate of income tax in
1202
only 13 short months. Today, goaded by broken promises on waiting lists and class sizes, he has gone soft on spending. No one should doubt that today's statement amounts to a fundamental reversal of the Government's economic policy. It is not surprising that press stories over recent days have veered widely between—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down and listen.
Mr. Maude: Press stories have veered widely between promoting Brown the lion Chancellor and Gordon the giveaway spender. Today, it is goodbye Iron Chancellor; may he rust in peace.
Can the Chancellor confirm that the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee knew of his spending plans last week when it decided to put up interest rates again? If it did not know, how can it be expected to do its job when the monetary right hand does not know what the fiscal left hand is doing? If it knew, was not its immediate decision to raise interest rates a damning indictment of his change of policy? Once again, are not hard-working people paying the price for the Chancellor's mistakes?
On the Chancellor's claim to be abolishing the spending round, what will be the size of the contingency reserve for these three years? If it is substantial, does he understand that there will be a spending round? All his colleagues will wrangle about how it is divided up. If it is not substantial, how will he cope with the unexpected demands for public spending that arise, the necessities that cannot be avoided? Does he really think that the Secretaries of State for Health and for Education and Employment will sit quietly, accept it as it is and not wolf all their dinner at once and come back for more?
Before the general election, Labour made a string of incompatible pledges. It pledged not to raise taxes, to spend more on health and education while cutting spending on welfare, and to end boom and bust. If we had to count the number of times that we have heard the Chancellor and the Prime Minister use the words "boom and bust", we would run out of calculators. On promise after promise, the Chancellor is failing to deliver. He has delivered boom and bust at the same time. Manufacturing is in recession while inflation is rising. He has put taxes up 17 times, the equivalent of 5p on the basic rate of income tax. It is easy to be an Iron Chancellor when all it involves is putting his hand in other people's pockets.
Today, the Chancellor has had to announce that he has lost the battle with his Cabinet colleagues to keep spending down. Will he confirm that in his last set of Budget forecasts, he set three growth options for public spending: ¾per cent., 1½ per cent. and 2¼ per cent? Having failed to get savings from his colleagues has he not he been forced into the slackest, least prudent, least disciplined choice? Is not his central problem his failure to control welfare spending? He promised to cut it, yet every welfare reform so far has cost more, not less. The basic objective of the comprehensive spending review has failed.
Is not the baseline figure fiddled to begin with? Can the Chancellor say how much higher the control total would be without the fiddles to hide billions of pounds of public spending? Has he not changed the rules of the private finance initiative to get debt off the Government's balance sheet without the transfer of risk, which is

1203
essential? Can he confirm that the Accounting Standards Board is resisting his attempts to fiddle the books in that way? Is not the extraordinary treatment of the channel tunnel rail link, about which he boasted, the most brazen of those fiddles? How does he justify taking the cost of the new deal outside public spending altogether, as if, in some mysterious way, it is not public spending at all?
Will the Chancellor confirm what is said in one of the newspaper reports that mysteriously appeared this morning—that school repairs will in future count as capital spending? Is not the fudging of the difference between capital and current spending at the core of his great boast to be increasing investment? It is a good job that he is increasing public investment because his Red Book shows that private investment in business is scheduled to fall sharply in future years. That is directly because of the economic policies that he has pursued. Will the Chancellor persist, as one of the fiddles, in raiding the lottery for yet another slab of public spending? This is new Labour, new accountancy. It is the Chancellor's contribution to creative Britain.
The reality is that Labour was elected to office on incompatible pledges. To the City, it was an end to tax and spend; to the spending lobbies, it was jam today. The comprehensive spending review was designed to square that circle. The Chancellor has told us today that he has failed comprehensively. The Government made clear promises before the general election that they would not raise taxes but they have. They were going to control inflation, but the Chancellor has missed his target 11 months out of 12. Labour was going to support home owners, but they are all paying more now. It has all gone now. Prudence has been dumped. She was just another photo opportunity.
Mr. Brown: I should start by welcoming the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer to his new position. I hope that he will enjoy his period in the office. Conservative Members should have some pride in the fact that the new spokesman on financial matters was the Minister who in 1991 personally signed the Maastricht treaty.
The right hon. Gentleman started by saying that he supported us. Then he said that he opposed us. Then he said that he supported us. Then he opposed us. What he revealed as he went on is the extreme right-wing agenda that is now dominant in the Conservative party. He lectures us on debt, but it was his Government who ran up the national debt and doubled it. He lectures us on stop-go, but the worst two economic cycles happened under the Conservative Government when they caused two of the most difficult recessions for our industry. He lectures us on social security, but his Government, by their failure and by causing unemployment, massively pushed up social security spending simply to keep people out of work. He lectures us on tax, but his Government were responsible for 22 tax rises and for raising the amount of tax, against all promises that they made in their election manifesto. He even tried to lecture us on the channel tunnel rail link, but it was his Government's failure which caused all the problems that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister had to intervene to solve.
In all those areas, the shadow Chancellor has nothing to offer to the debate, except for one thing—that we should cut spending more. He says that we should cut
1204
spending and the share of spending. Over the next few months and years, he will have to explain to the British people through debates in the House which hospitals, schools, transport investment and housing expenditure he wishes to cut. We will relentlessly pursue the Conservative party over its real aims for the future of the welfare state.
It is wrong to say that there is any problem with the Accounting Standards Board.
The Monetary Policy Committee makes the decisions. It is independent and able to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned public spending as a share of national income. It will fall to 39 per cent. during the next three years, as I said in my statement.
Debt interest payments over the next few years will be at a prudent level because we are reducing the share of debt in national income.
We have a programme of investment and reform combined with prudence. During the Conservative years, we had neglect of investment, the run down of our public services, and imprudence and boom-bust in the economic management of this country. We offer the only way forward. The shadow Chancellor will have to go home and think again. The Conservative party is unfit not only for Government, but for Opposition.
Mr. Giles Radice: The Treasury Select Committee will want to look carefully at the Chancellor's statement and at the comprehensive spending review when it is announced later. Is my right hon. Friend aware that abolishing the annual spending round in favour of a three-year planning period will not only build in fiscal prudence, but will provide Departments with a long-term planning perspective which is so badly needed? Is he further aware that the public spending plans announced today will provide extra resources for badly strapped public services, especially education and health, and will promote badly needed capital investment and capital projects?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is the Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee. I shall be happy to work with it in reviewing the proposals, as will the Chief Secretary. My hon. Friend rightly points to the big change that we are announcing today, from an annual spending round to a three-year plan of spending, within which each Department will have far greater flexibility and the ability to plan over that period. I was surprised when I heard the shadow Chancellor say at lunchtime that the annual spending round was a tried and tested way of doing things properly. If it is the first commitment of the Conservative Opposition to restore the annual spending round, I hesitate to think what other proposals they will come forward with later.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the purpose of the spending review is to ensure that we can get the money that is necessary to the priorities that we have. Education and health are two of the greatest priorities for this country, but they were neglected under the previous Government. We are determined to make sure that those priorities have the resources they deserve. We are prepared to take tough decisions to make that

1205
possible. When I come back to the House in a month's time, we shall be able to announce the allocations for health and education over the coming years.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Chancellor accept that the Liberal Democrats welcome the timing of today's statement and, like the Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), the signs of greater long-termism in the Government's fiscal policy? The Chancellor may agree that, under the Tories, the short-term approach to budgeting and, in particular, to capital investment was extreme. To the extent that that is clearly going to change, his statement is immensely welcome.
The Liberal Democrats also welcome the Chancellor's greater emphasis within Government on outputs as a determinant of funding. However, if budgets for three years are to be set in one go, should not the Government open up the debate to wider public consultation, in line with the spirit of the pre-Budget report, rather than keep it so tightly under wraps that we have little opportunity to contribute? With budgets fixed for three years, will the Chancellor assure us that there will be a sufficiently funded contingency reserve to meet variations over that period?
Is not there a danger that the Chancellor is trying to satisfy two audiences at once? Would it not be better to choose more decisively than he has done between bigger public surpluses and better public services? Today's Financial Times was right to conclude:
"The question … is whether the increases he"—
that is, the Chancellor—
"will feel able to permit can meet the objectives for improved services the government has set."
Liberal Democrats welcome the boost to investment that the statement provides, but does the Chancellor not understand that quality education and quality health rely just as much on first-class teachers and nurses as on first-class buildings?
Will the Chancellor confirm that, even if control spending grows at 2.5 per cent. in real terms over the next three years, it will still have grown by only 1.5 per cent. per year over the life of this Parliament—less than the 1.8 per cent. achieved by the Tories over the past 18 years? Does the Chancellor accept that, even if spending growth was 3.75 per cent. per year over the remainder of the Parliament, it would still be no higher as a share of national income than it was under the Tories?
What will the extra money deliver in terms of services? That is the question people need to have answered. No doubt, the modest early years pledges are now deliverable by the later years of this Parliament, but can the Chancellor say whether average hospital waiting lists will be lower in this Parliament than in the last? Will primary school pupils of all ages be removed from oversized classes? Will nursery education be extended to all three-year-olds whose parents want it?
During the election campaign, the Liberal Democrats warned that keeping to Tory spending plans would mean worse education and health services. Sadly, so far, we have been proved right. Is not the reality that, although the Chancellor might have done enough today to stop things getting worse, he has done far too little to deliver
1206
the sort of radical improvement in our education and health services for which the British people thought they had voted and which they are now entitled to expect?
Mr. Brown: First, let me tell the hon. Gentleman where I agree with him. I agree with him when he says that we should concentrate on outputs and on the effectiveness of services and not simply on the size of the budget. I agree with him when he says that we should have three-year plans; indeed, that is what we shall do. I agree with him when he says that he wants to have a discussion on what level of public spending is necessary; no doubt, through the Treasury Select Committee, of which he is a member, he will involve himself in that debate. I agree with him that it is important that resources go to education and health, which are the two priorities.
However, the hon. Gentleman should congratulate the Government on what we are doing and what we plan to do. On education, he asked for £500 million to be invested in capital re-equipping of our schools. We are investing £2½ billion already and, of course, today's announcement makes more investment in the long term possible. He said at the election that we should invest £1¼ billion in the health service. We have already put £2 billion more into the national health service—£300 million last year and £1.7 billion this year. Of course, it is our aim to get resources to help. He should congratulate us on what we have done and on what we are doing.
The hon. Gentleman read out a list of items which, no doubt, the Liberal Democrat party has carefully costed. We will not make spending commitments in every single area, as he has been doing. The Liberal Democrats will not face up to difficult decisions about taxation in the Finance Bill; on public spending, their amendments to student loans legislation alone would have cost 1p on income tax. We do not know what they favour.
I should remind the hon. Gentleman that, in the first speech of this Parliament by the leader of his party, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said:
"If we tighten our belts now, we have a real opportunity to get to grips with the huge hangover of debt left behind by the Conservatives."—[Official Report, 14 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 74.]
That is the real world that we inherited; that is what we are tackling. In the spirit of the statement of the leader of his party, the hon. Gentleman should be supporting us.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I appeal for co-operation from hon. Members in asking brisk questions, and ask the Chancellor to give brisk answers, as so many hon. Members are seeking to put questions.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: The Chancellor is obviously right to draw the clear distinction between capital and current expenditure in a new form, which will be widely welcomed. He will be judged by how far that leads to the very large increase in capital investment that many of us want. Ending the annual spending round will be welcomed not least by spending Ministers, who will find themselves short of the annual misery, and by Treasury Ministers, who have the worst of it. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, over a long period such as three years, there will be a change in priorities

1207
and in their perception? How does he intend to ensure flexibility, other than, perhaps, by increasing the contingency reserve?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I very much appreciate his guidance and advice—first as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and since then. He is right to draw attention to the importance of capital investment in the modernisation of the country. We shall insist on the toughest efficiency standards in the use of resources. Some of the measures that we are bringing forward this afternoon are designed to achieve exactly that. We can prove that public investment and prudence can go hand in hand.
My right hon. Friend also raised the abolition of the annual spending round. As he knows, under its old form, end-of-year allocations were made simply to use up the budget. There was not the necessary flexibility to put the money forward for the best available purpose, and Departments were not able to plan ahead strategically, as we are now able to do. Of course, within their budgets, Departments will be able to examine their priorities and regularly assess them. It is one of the fundamentals of the review that standards and efficiency targets must be met. His fears about an inability to change when new priorities develop are not founded, because there are flexibilities in the budgets.
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I enjoyed the Chancellor's description of his medium-term financial strategy almost as much as I enjoyed his description of his privatisation programme. If he is really going to set before the House detailed three-year programmes, Department by Department, without the safety valve of an annual spending review, how will he accommodate, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) asked, not just shifts of priority in a Department's programme, but shifts in the Government priorities between departmental programmes? How will he deal with the inevitable unexpected event that will arise during this Parliament?
By setting firm programmes three years ahead, is not the Chancellor lining himself up for a spending crunch some time in this Parliament, or are we seeing the beginnings of a process that will lead to excuses for another round of tax increases later in the Parliament?
Mr. Brown: I welcome the sight of the right hon. Gentleman on the Back Benches. I hope that he will be able to speak his mind in the way in which he promised. Unfortunately, his first statement was to agree with the shadow Chancellor that the annual spending round is somehow of great merit. Perhaps its repeal should be the first item in the Conservatives' manifesto at the next election on which they can agree.
The problem in British public spending is not too much long-termism or that people have made decisions in advance and have not been able to change them, but too much short-termism and an inability to plan ahead. Of course, individual Departments will be able to consider priorities within their budgets, but the comprehensive spending review is considering priorities for the next three years. When I report, with the Chief Secretary, to the House next month, we shall be able to
1208
say not only what those priorities are, but how the modernisation and reform necessary to achieve them is working. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to welcome our proposals.
If the right hon. Gentleman thinks about his experience at the Treasury and as a departmental Minister, he will realise that it is the short-termism of Government that has made us unable to invest in our future. Public expenditure on investment is so low because it was very easy for Governments to transfer money from investment to consumption and not face up to difficult decisions. The result is a run-down Britain in terms of transport and other amenities that are vital for the future. We shall tackle that problem and take the necessary action. The right hon. Gentleman's perspective, and his writings—which I have read—mean that he should be in a position to support us.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: Could the Chancellor assure the House that the spending totals that he is setting will be sustained in real terms even if lower than expected GDP growth means that those totals would go beyond 40 per cent. of GDP?
Mr. Brown: The whole point of the spending figures that we are announcing is that we are working on a three-year basis. In other words, individual Departments will be able to consider their position over time and make the necessary adjustments. I want them to have flexibility, which we are introducing in other areas. Conservative Members were shouting when I announced our proposals to enable local authority airports to have greater commercial freedom to make investments.
On public spending as a whole, we shall not promise to allocate money that we do not have simply because decisions are not made by others. We shall set targets, which must be met. They will be sufficiently good to enable our health and education services to invest in the future. The three-year programme offers the flexibility necessary to deal with any problems that arise.
Mr. David Davis: The Chancellor will be aware that I was among those who welcomed his commitment to eradicate the deficit in all the years of this Parliament. I certainly welcome his commitment today to output and the associated realisation of under-utilised assets, which will help towards that end.
However, does not the Chancellor accept that it will be a tragedy if that commitment is viewed by the financial communities as an exercise in creative accounting? Earlier, he brushed aside the question of the independent Accounting Standards Board's concerns about his treatment of private finance as off balance sheet. That is not simply a technical issue; it means that the Government may conceal from the public the shouldering of large liabilities for the future. Will he tell the House how he will deal with that serious concern of the Accounting Standards Board?
Mr. Brown: I am happy at all times to discuss these measures, but the right hon. Gentleman is referring to a discussion within the accounting community about the specific treatment of items related to the private finance initiative. He referred to creative accounting. We shall not do as the previous Conservative Government did, which is why we have introduced public sector net borrowing as

1209
a better measure of the underlying state of public finances. The old public sector borrowing requirement figures did not reflect the true underlying state of public finances. If the right hon. Gentleman considers the public sector net borrowing figure, he will find that it is a better estimate of that state. I am happy to discuss these matters with the Accounting Standards Board, but PFI projects are a precise issue, which we and the board are dealing with.
Mr. Geraint Davies: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, particularly on the public-private partnership in National Air Traffic Services. Will he reiterate that its employees can now look forward—perhaps through having their own shares—to having a real share in the success of the services; that safety, while independent of NATS, will remain paramount; and that, taken with new commercial freedoms for regional airports, his statement is good news for investment in Britain's transport infrastructure and, therefore, for prosperity and success up and down the land?
Mr. Brown: A high level of investment in the air traffic control service will be necessary in future years. We have proved in other initiatives in which we have been involved that private finance can be levered in to support the public investment that is being made. Our preferred option for National Air Traffic Services will do exactly that. As a result, both the employees and the users of the service will see enhanced investment in the future service. Our proposal for the independent, wholly publicly controlled regulatory body is designed to ensure that we have the safest air standards in the world. I believe that when people study the proposals as they come forward, they will find them worthy of support.
Mr. Peter Brooke: I congratulate the Chancellor on keeping a straight face for most of his statement. What effect does he expect today's announcement to have for the balance of the year on the value of sterling?
Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman, who is a former Treasury Minister, knows that it is not for me to comment on the day-to-day movement of sterling. I have already said that I share the worries of exporters about the level of sterling. Most of the questions to me were tabled when sterling was at DM3.10. It is now substantially lower than that. Indeed, it is only 2 to 3 per cent.—if I am right today—higher than it was when the Labour Government came to power last May. The big rise in sterling took place in the years and months before the general election. The sterling rate in relation to the dollar is virtually unchanged over the past two years.
As I said, I share the worries of exporters about the pound, but what they fear most of all is what we are taking steps today to eliminate: the stop-go in our public economy and our national finances. By taking steps to ensure stability, we are doing the best service to exporters.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Rather differently from my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), may I express concern about the air traffic controllers? Has there been discussion with the representatives of their unions? What technical advice has the Treasury received on safety? As I understand it, we
1210
are proposing something which no other country in the world has done. Every other country has a public air traffic control system. The temptations in certain circumstances to take short cuts could imperil safety.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the question. A statement is being made this afternoon by the Minister of Transport. In time, he will also publish his reply to the Select Committee report that examined all the issues in relation to air traffic control. The proposed independent regulator will ensure that the air safety standards are the best in the world.
My hon. Friend might consider that we need new investment at the highest possible levels in our air traffic control services, and if, as a result of the partnership that we propose, we can lever in private investment in addition to the existing public investment, that will ensure a better future for both the employees and the customers of National Air Traffic Services. I give my hon. Friend a guarantee that the best safety standards in the world are our objective.
Mr. John MacGregor: I welcome the Chancellor's total reversal of his previous position and his conversion to the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services, but why the delay? Why did he not do that a year ago, as he could have done, as we urged him, and as the Civil Aviation Authority wanted, to avoid delaying its investment plans for a whole year?
Will the Chancellor answer the question on the private finance initiative that he has so far failed to answer? Will he give a guarantee that the Government will not engage in off-balance-sheet creative accounting on the new and substantial Government guarantees on private sector finance, such as the channel tunnel rail link, and will he include them in his public expenditure figure?
Mr. Brown: There is no question of that in the channel tunnel rail link proposals. The Deputy Prime Minister made clear the arrangements that we had agreed, which were put to independent authorities.
On air traffic control, we are determined to ensure the highest levels of investment that are necessary. When we came into government, the plans that the right hon. Gentleman suggests were well advanced were not well advanced at all. We have had to examine these matters in detail, and will continue to do so. I guarantee that we will want the highest standards of safety, and a public sector independent regulator will ensure that. Air traffic control will benefit, as will transport as a whole, from levering in more private investment. It is a private-public partnership in which the Government, under the preferred option, have 49 per cent. of the shares.
Mr. Alan Williams: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his good luck in the choice of shadow Chancellor, whose performance today almost made his predecessor appear competent? May we assume that the proceeds from the sale of council assets will be invested by those same councils? If so, how will my right hon. Friend ensure that the asset-poor councils do not slip inexorably further and further behind the asset-rich councils?
Mr. Brown: I said in my statement that the Deputy Prime Minister and I were considering a new framework

1211
for investment by local authorities. We aim to raise the levels of investment in our vital assets. That new framework with local authorities will be discussed by the Deputy Prime Minister, in the case of England, and by the Secretaries of State for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Those discussions will take place in order to ensure that we secure the best use of our assets. I assure my right hon. Friend that the distribution will be fair.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Chancellor recall the phrase "selling the family silver" and the political criticisms that he once shared about the folly of basing an economic strategy on the wholesale disposal of public assets? Was it not the Labour party's position hitherto that privatisation of air traffic control would jeopardise the new air traffic investment promised to Prestwick? What assurances can the Chancellor give Prestwick workers that that new investment will be delivered under the new privatised arrangement?
Mr. Brown: It will not prejudice the new investment. We are talking about higher levels of investment after years of uncertainty. I hope that the Scottish National party will not start the sort of scaremongering that it indulged in on many other issues, only to be proved wrong. I made it absolutely clear at the general election that we were prepared to consider this issue, and we have done so.
As to the hon. Gentleman's point about the use of resources from privatisation, I remember reading that the shadow Chancellor had said that the great thing about privatisation is that it can be used for tax cuts. We are releasing resources that we do not need, in order to fund investments that we do need. In view of this country's infrastructure and what needs to be done in the health service, in education and in transport, we must take a modern view of how we shall equip ourselves for the future and be prepared to release assets that we do not need in order, to make the investments that we do need. I am sorry to say that, once again, the Scottish National party—with its extreme and old-fashioned views—opposes us.
Mr. Alan Simpson: May I congratulate the Chancellor on recognising that having a medium-term economic plan is better than not having one? It has been a long time since the House was in such a position.
I have two specific questions. First, I am sure that the Chancellor is aware of the considerable economic arguments, particularly in the private sector, regarding whether it is better to use one's asset base to borrow against for investment purposes or to sell parts of it in order to use the capital for investment purposes. Will he put in the Library the comparative analysis that led him to the conclusion that it was better to sell assets than to borrow against them?
Secondly, the Chancellor will know also that the distribution of assets among local authorities is as inconsistent and uneven as the distribution of capital receipts. Would he consider it acceptable if local authorities that do not have surplus lands were to advance
1212
proposals to sell the properties in which their tenants live or the school buildings in which children are educated and the lands on which those buildings stand?
Mr. Brown: The discussions that the Deputy Prime Minister is having with local authorities and other Secretaries of State will consider issues in relation to the use of resources.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) will not raise groundless fears regarding particular assets that are important to individuals. His main question was about whether we would be prepared to relinquish some of our assets or to fund new investments by borrowing. I remind him that we inherited borrowing levels of £25 billion and that we are paying more in interest payments than we are paying to fund our schools. As a result of the previous Government's mismanagement, we are paying more in interest payments than we are spending on housing and law and order combined.
I want to create a situation where, instead of paying interest, we use the funds that we have to invest in our future. As I said in my statement, if we had continued with the debt-to-GDP ratio that we inherited from the previous Government, we would have been funding an additional cumulative total of £25 billion in interest payments over this Parliament. I am not prepared to use public money to do that when we want to be able to put it directly into houses, hospitals, schools and transport infrastructure.
My hon. Friend asked whether we are prepared to borrow. The answer is yes, but within limits. We are not, however, prepared to borrow in a way that would amass huge interest payments—that money could be better used for other things. I hope that he will now agree with me.
Sir Michael Spicer: Having given up control of monetary policy, the Chancellor of the Exchequer apparently intends to give up year-on-year control of fiscal policy, so what will be the point of his job? Perhaps he should consider adding the Treasury to the excellent list of sales that he announced today.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman spends most of his time criticising me for measures that I have taken, so I presume that he thinks that some of my decisions are sufficiently controversial not to be written off as irrelevant.
At the Treasury, we have inherited a situation in terms of debt and borrowing levels that has to be dealt with. We must reform the public finances, and the Chief Secretary and Ministers are doing that. I hope that, by the end of that process, the hon. Gentleman will agree that we have done things that should have been done a long time ago.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his radicalism and his pragmatism in his statement? He has been radical; we all know that longer-term planning makes sense and that some of the ideological baggage on this side needed to be buried, and buried now. Will he ensure that his radicalism carries through to the sort of investment that we need in this country? We must prioritise investment that leads to value added wealth creation in enterprise, innovation and intellectual property.
Mr. Brown: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and he rightly points to the wholly unacceptable neglect of

1213
investment over recent years. When hon. Members absorb the fact that, under our proposals, it will be possible to invest £31 billion in the last year of this Parliament to improve the infrastructure of this country as a result of the tough decisions that they are taking, they will begin to see the difference that we can make to public services and infrastructure.
We shall, of course, do that in a way that gives us a long-term plan for the future. The public-private partnerships that we propose are a means to realise resources for investments elsewhere and, at the same time, to lever in private finance to enhance the public investments that we are making. The policy of long-termism—planning for the long term—is one which we shall continue to pursue.
My hon. Friend mentioned investment in innovation and science. I can tell him that that is one of the priorities that we have identified. Hospitals, schools and transport are priorities, as are housing and building stronger communities, but I also mentioned the science and technology base. I hope that we will be able to show results in that area when we come to the end of the spending review. The rundown of science and technology under the previous Government is something which no Government should have allowed, and something which we are not prepared to tolerate.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the general thrust of the statement, especially the long-term view. About 13 years ago in the Northern Ireland assembly, we had carry-over from Departments so that we did not have mad spending at the end of a period.
May I press the Chancellor on the concept of the continual review to update matters? Will we have open accountancy so that we can see where the money is going? It is amazing how money is missed time and again in normal business practices, and we must admit that, even in Government circles, it is hard to understand some of the accountancy.
Mr. Brown: I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that some of the announcements that we have already been able to make in Northern Ireland have allowed us to begin to make provision for enhancing the infrastructure of the country in roads and railways, and in new investment in airports. That is an important means by which we can help to create new job opportunities and encourage businesses in the area. We shall continue to do that as a contribution to matching prosperity with peace in Northern Ireland.
As for the hon. Gentleman's point about openness of access, I entirely agree with him that independent audit and public scrutiny are needed. That is why the National Audit Office has been called on to scrutinise our figures and some of our assumptions—as it will continue to do—and why we are prepared to be judged on the basis of the fiscal rules that we set down. The fiscal responsibility clause in the Finance Bill shows that we are prepared to be judged on the basis of regular reporting to Parliament on these issues.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that system is far preferable to the one that we had before. It means long-termism, which he has supported, along with openness and proper scrutiny. That is right for Parliament.
Mr. Paul Goggins: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Will he
1214
spell out in more detail its implications for Manchester airport? Sixteen million passengers travel through the airport each year, and 15,000 people work there. It is estimated that that figure could be doubled by 2005, with proper investment. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that greater commercial freedom for Manchester airport will mean greater freedom to invest, bringing jobs to my constituency and to the north-west as a whole?
Mr. Brown: It is exactly because we want further investment, and want to give greater commercial freedom to enable it to take place, that we are making this provision as part of our comprehensive spending review. Manchester airport, which I have visited, has expanded enormously in recent years, and is set to expand again. We want to give that profitable airport the commercial freedom in key areas that will enable it to make the investments that will be necessary for the future. I hope that in Manchester, as well as in other areas where the same will happen, the move will be welcome. It is a contribution to a modern airports policy.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If the Chancellor is genuinely determined to adopt long-termism as against short-termism, and to facilitate greater capital investment publicly, privately and in partnerships with, for instance, Manchester international airport—a magnificent airport, serving the north-west—he has my support.
Wearing my hat as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, however, and describing the right hon. Gentleman as a modernising Chancellor, may I ask whether he backs the Committee in its desire to ensure that the House can scrutinise the estimates and public expenditure more effectively than it does at present? The current structure and system are outdated.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his initial remarks. I think that he speaks more for mainstream opinion than many Conservative Members, although they know that further investment—indeed, the modernisation of our infrastructure—must take place, and that we are making the tough decisions that are necessary to achieve that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue to speak out boldly on the issues that matter.
As for what the hon. Gentleman said about the Procedure Committee, I have talked to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is sitting beside me. We will consider the matter, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a final answer now.
Mr. Stephen Timms: Will the Chancellor ensure that the welcome increase in public investment that he has announced is targeted where it is most needed, so that we can tackle effectively the legacy of social exclusion and unequal public services left by the last Government?
Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to one part of my statement—the announcement of public investment to enable us to build stronger and safer communities.
Historically in this country, money invested in our communities has not been invested in a way that has tackled the causes of poverty, deprivation and

1215
unemployment. As part of the new deal for the communities in which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is involved, I want us to look at problems of social exclusion—in particular, at the causes of social exclusion—and to establish how, by investing in education or by providing new business opportunities, we can create the jobs that will enable people to move out of poverty.
I assure my hon. Friend that tackling social exclusion is a major priority of this Government. I want a country in which there is opportunity for all, and in which everyone knows that he or she has a contribution to make.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Chancellor accept that the broad welcome given to his statement by Conservative Back Benchers reflects the fact that he has today set in concrete Tory spending levels for the rest of the current Parliament? How on earth will he be able to adjust his policy to the reality of life year on year and the state of the economic cycle, when he plans to have precisely 39.25 per cent. of gross national product as current expenditure in each year?
Mr. Brown: In one sense, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has drawn attention to the problems of investment. He does not, however, follow me down the road in understanding what we must do about those problems. I propose that we invest in our future, and release funds with which to do so. The right hon. Gentleman should support me in that.
The funds to which I refer owe nothing to Conservative underinvestment in our future. The Conservatives refused to invest. Investment as a share of gross domestic product fell to 0.8 per cent; we inherited that problem, and are trying to deal with it. The right hon. Gentleman should support us when we are trying to secure more hospitals and schools, and a better transport infrastructure—but is this not typical of the nationalist parties, which are so extreme that they will not see the need for investment in our future?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must move on. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members are disappointed and are heaving sighs, but I have the names of those who have not been called, and I shall try to call them on another occasion. Forty-nine Members were rising to question the Chancellor, and they could not all be called in the space of an hour and a quarter.

Business of the House
4.45 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 15 JUNE—Consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill.
TUESDAY 16 JUNE—Opposition Day (13th allotted day).
Until about 7 pm, there will be a debate on NHS waiting lists, followed by a debate entitled "The crisis in Scottish local government". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motion on the Council Tax Limitation (Derbyshire County Council) (Maximum Amount) Order.
WEDNESDAY 17 JUNE—Until 12.30 pm, debate on the fourth report from the Social Security Committee on disability living allowance, followed by a debate on the first report from the Defence Committee on peace support operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
For three hours, consideration in Committee of the Human Rights Bill [Lords] (second allotted day).
For three hours, conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill.
THURSDAY 18 JUNE—For three hours, remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill.
Motion on the Church of England National Institutions Measure.
FRIDAY 19 JUNE—Debate entitled "Enterprising UK—the small business agenda" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows.
MONDAY 22 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 23 JUNE—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 24 JUNE—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration in Committee of the Human Rights Bill [Lords] (third allotted day).
THURSDAY 25 JUNE—Opposition Day (14th allotted day).
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion in the name of the minority parties. Subject to be announced.
FRIDAY 26 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
Sir George Young: We are grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving us details of next week's business and an indication of the business for the following week.
We are particularly pleased to learn that there will be a debate on the Floor of the House on the Derbyshire rate-capping order. Can the right hon. Lady confirm that her Government will follow the practice that has existed up until now—that if central Government want to control the expenditure of local government, that raises issues of sufficient importance for them to be debated on the Floor of the House rather than in a Standing Committee?

1217
We have just heard a very important statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which will be followed by another statement next month on the comprehensive expenditure review, setting the financial parameters for spending for the rest of this Parliament. Does the right hon. Lady agree that that raises issues of such importance that the House must debate them before we rise for the summer recess?
Can the right hon. Lady confirm that, contrary to what we had been led to believe, there will not be a statement next week or the week after on the transport White Paper? The reason that has now been given—that it has to follow the comprehensive expenditure review—goes clean against what the Government had said until a few days ago, which was that the White Paper would come first. Will she confirm that the real reason for the delay in the transport White Paper is the serious disagreement between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister?
Can the right hon. Lady confirm that a statement will be made to the House on the outcome of the strategic defence review when that has been completed? Is she aware of the growing uncertainty in the armed forces caused by the delay in the completion of that exercise?
May I revert to a question that I posed last week about the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and its request for a debate? The right hon. Lady said that the matter had been "overtaken by events". Does she, on reflection, agree that that is not the case? The request remains outstanding, and the Foreign Affairs Committee has rejected the offer by the Foreign Secretary.
As the Modernisation Committee addresses itself to the future of the parliamentary calendar, will the right hon. Lady turn her mind to the future of the summer recess and let us know whether she plans to invite the House to sit in August?
Mrs. Taylor: I shall deal with the right hon. Gentleman's points individually. I hope that he will accept that the usual channels work well on occasions. We are willing to be reasonable and to listen to representations. It is right that requests should be dealt with case by case. I am glad that we were able to reach an accommodation to enable the order relating to Derbyshire county council to be taken on the Floor of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it would be possible to have a debate on today's statement from the Chancellor and next month's statement on the comprehensive spending review. I think that it will be possible to have such a debate before the summer recess. We should perhaps have further discussions through the usual channels about the exact timing and nature of that debate.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for a statement on transport. I hope that that will be made after the comprehensive spending review, but before the summer recess. That shows that we shall be extremely busy at that time, because he also asked for a statement on the strategic defence review. He should not complain about the fact that that review is taking some time. Given his previous interest in that matter, he will no doubt agree that such consideration should be extremely thorough.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee. I said last week that discussions were taking place. I understand that the Committee is still considering what it wants to happen, and the subject is with it at the moment.
1218
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Modernisation Committee and the summer recess. We would all like as much notice as possible of the summer recess, but I am afraid that I cannot give details at this stage.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: Could we have a statement next week about the Government's energy policy and the consequences for the deep-mined coal industry? The Leader of the House will be aware that the current agreements run out on 30 June. In coalfield communities, not just in Nottinghamshire but all over the country, coal miners are asking for fairness, not favours. There is an urgency about the matter now.
Mrs. Taylor: I am aware of the deadlines surrounding the issue, and I hope that a statement can be made about it shortly.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I put two questions to the Leader of the House on matters that concern the role and the perception of the role of Parliament, and the way in which we conduct our business?
First, will the right hon. Lady give us some guidance on the status of the consultants' report that has come into my hands, on the issue of the Line of Route visitors to both Houses? It would appear that consultants are investigating the possibility of charging our constituents who visit the House perhaps £9.50, which is comparable with the charge to visit Buckingham palace, or £5, which Westminster abbey charges. Will she give us an assurance that those proposals will be considered carefully? Who in the House has seen the proposals, and on what basis was the consultancy report prepared? Will she assure us that she will defend the rights of our constituents to come free of charge to the House, to see how the people's Parliament operates?
Secondly, does the right hon. Lady feel that we can draw lessons from the success or otherwise of the experiment with programme Committees? Will she pay particular attention to what happened in the House on Monday evening, when, sadly, we did not have a proper opportunity either to debate or to divide on the vital issue of tuition fees, which I think she will acknowledge is one of the central proposals in the Teaching and Higher Education Bill? If the House is not able to scrutinise such proposals and give a view on them, the other place must have the opportunity to spend a considerable time doing so. Is not the lesson from what happened on Monday night that programme Committees should be a great deal more scrupulous in recognising the needs of both sides of the House, particularly Opposition parties, and should not simply do the bidding of the Government party? I hope that the right hon. Lady will acknowledge that there are lessons to be learned, and that the Modernisation Committee will shortly be given an opportunity to see what can be learned from our experience so far.
Mrs. Taylor: I am aware of the report about the Line of Route visitors, although I have not yet seen it. I shall put the report in context. There is no proposal to charge constituents for coming to see Members of Parliament or how Parliament works. At present, this building is not open to the public during the summer recess or at weekends. A study has rightly been carried out to see

1219
whether it would be possible to provide greater access to this historic building. Many tourists would want to visit the building if it were open at those times. It is right to consider charging in that context, but only in that context. We are still some way from any decision on the matter.
Programme motions and the Business Committee allocate the time that it is agreed should be devoted to any Bill. It is an all-party process: that is the essence of the agreement reached. I understand that an agreement was reached among all parties for the Bill that was debated on Monday. Decisions sometimes depend on which amendments are selected or are selectable. I refute the hon. Gentleman's claim that those Committees do the Government's bidding. All parties are represented, and there has always been agreement among the parties on the allocation of time within the overall limits. If there are lessons to be learned, it is right that we should learn them. This is an experimental process, and if anything can be done to improve the way in which we work, we should look into it.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the understandably timetabled business for Monday, would the Government look kindly on an amendment that would allow us to discuss the problems of the case of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright, with a view to clarifying their position? That case can now be discussed in the House of Commons only under privilege, as Mr. Ernest Telford, lawyer of Belfast, has taken legal action that makes it very difficult for papers such as The Spectator, the Daily Mail and others to have a serious discussion of the case, which is of deep public interest and concern. As it is only under privilege that the country can have a proper discussion of the case, will there be an opportunity for that amendment to be selected?
Mrs. Taylor: I am aware that my hon. Friend has tabled an amendment on that subject. It is not for me but for the Chair to decide whether such an amendment should be selected. If it is, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be as informative as she can in her response to a debate on that topic.
Mr. Philip Hammond: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the damning report by Sir Herbert Laming on the crisis in child protection in the Labour-controlled London borough of Ealing, which is to be published by the Department of Health this evening? It says that in Ealing
"children in public care and on the child protection register cannot be considered to be adequately safeguarded."
Is she further aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, who has responsibility for children's issues, has already issued a press statement saying how deeply concerned he is by that matter, and that he will call in the London borough of Ealing for consultation with him? Will she arrange for a statement by the Minister next week?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman raises what is obviously a serious problem that will concern hon. Members on both sides of the House. He mentioned that my hon. Friend the Minister has expressed his concern
1220
about that matter and is talking to the local authority involved. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's comments are brought to my hon. Friend's attention, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will respond directly to him.
Mr. Michael Clapham: Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing time to debate the latest report by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on energy policy? In that debate, we may be able to ascertain whether Lord Wakeham, who made a declaration in the House of Lords on 4 June that he was a director of Enron, the largest gas corporation in the world, knew that he would become a director of that company when, as a Minister in this House, he implemented privatisation plans for electricity. Those plans rigged the market against coal and pushed coal over the cliff.
Mrs. Taylor: The Government have welcomed the Select Committee's report and its contribution to the important debate on energy policy. My hon. Friend specifically refers to certain aspects of that report, and he may want to pursue them further either in an Adjournment debate or at Question Time next Thursday.
Sir David Madel: Will the right hon. Lady think again about her answer to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)? There was an agreement on the Teaching and Higher Education Bill as to the amount of time that should be spent on it—nine hours—but surely, when the Opposition parties agree to the total amount of time, they should have the right to slice up that time as they see fit. We should be allowed to discuss the amendments that we want. The Government should not be so greedy in wanting everything.
Will the right hon. Lady please arrange for the Deputy Prime Minister to come to the Dispatch Box on Monday to make a statement? There will be a two-day strike on the tube, which will cause great inconvenience. We should like to know how the Labour Government will sort that matter out. After all, a year ago, they said that left can talk to left. Why do we not find out what has happened?
Mrs. Taylor: I have little to add to what I said about programme motions. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comment that no one should be greedy. All views have to be taken into consideration; that, of course, includes the views of the Government, as well as those of others who might table amendments. The agreement on that programme motion encompassed all parties.
Industrial action on the tube would, of course, be regrettable. We hope that all those involved in these potential disputes will make every effort to achieve a quick resolution. None of us wants passengers to be inconvenienced. It is important that all the ramifications are taken into account by those involved.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is it possible to have an early debate, before the debate on the White Paper on integrated transport strategy, on the Government's policy on clean vehicle technology? I say that in the context of today's deputation at Westminster, by Lucas Aerospace. My right hon. Friend may know that it has served redundancy notices on 70 employees. If that goes through, it will mean the end of the only UK plant manufacturing cylinders for natural gas to power clean vehicles. That is

1221
of immense importance not just to Burnley—my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) is with the deputation at the moment and cannot be with me—but to my constituency. In a wider sense, it is of immense importance to the UK.
Mrs. Taylor: I agree that clean vehicle technology is of immense importance. My hon. Friend will be aware of the work that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been doing in that sector. I cannot promise my hon. Friend the debate that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) wish to have in Government time in the near future, but one of them may wish to apply for an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: May I thank the Leader of the House for arranging for the debate on the capping of Derbyshire county council finally to be taken on the Floor of the House? Was it not disgraceful that the Government attempted to debate that in Committee, which has never happened to any previous capping order? As a senior member of the Government and as an upholder of the rights of Members of Parliament, will she comment on the fact that the Government's original plans were to ensure that no Derbyshire Labour Members were appointed to the Committee to discuss the measure? Following strong representations from the Opposition, Derbyshire Labour Members will be fully able to support the Government next Tuesday, if they so wish, on that capping measure.
Mrs. Taylor: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been partly wearing his new hat and accepting that, on this occasion, the usual channels worked well.
Mr. John Cryer: Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the past 10 years of British foreign policy? It would allow the House to consider the contrast between the open and straightforward way in which this Government have dealt with the Sierra Leone question, and the way in which the scandalous and seedy manipulations of the previous Government led to the Pergau dam scandal, arms to Iraq and the Scott inquiry, during which they tried to manipulate the situation, so that the then shadow Foreign Secretary had only three hours to read five volumes before the statement. It is a scandalous and sorry story, which continues with the apparent machinations of Secret Agent Aitken.
Mrs. Taylor: I am in a slightly dangerous position because the Foreign Secretary is here echoing the demands of my hon. Friend. I have to tell them both that I do not see the prospect of that specific debate in the near future, but I understand its attraction.
Sir Sydney Chapman: May I join my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the shadow Leader of the House, in asking the right hon. Lady to look favourably on the need to find time for a debate on the statement that has just been made by the Chancellor, but may I differ with my right hon. Friend in one respect: we need that debate to take place ahead of the comprehensive spending review statement that the Chancellor will make next
1222
month? In the meantime, does she recognise that what the Chancellor said in relation to air traffic control, the Commonwealth Development Corporation and the Royal Mint presented an unassailable case for the privatisation of London Transport and the Post Office, among other public businesses, even if she and he prefer to call privatisation by any other name?
Mrs. Taylor: On this matter, I agree with the shadow Leader of the House that it would be appropriate to have a debate after the comprehensive spending review, and I think that I made my position clear on that. On London Underground or, indeed, the channel tunnel rail link, we should congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on the new approach that he has adopted and the successful partnerships that he has been negotiating. The whole House should wish them well.
Mr. Tony McNulty: My right hon. Friend will know that, in recent weeks, the London crime statistics have been published and that, in many national newspapers today, there is extreme concern about corruption among a small core of those in the Metropolitan police. It is usually at about this time of year that we have the annual Adjournment debate on policing in London. Would it be possible to squeeze it in this side of the recess, or may I have an assurance that it will take place as soon as possible after we return?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is usually a debate on crime in London at this time, but it is not that long since we had one, and it is more likely that the debate will take place later in the year, rather than in the next few weeks.
Mr. David Tredinnick: The Leader of the House will be aware that there are now three early-day motions on the Order Paper expressing concern about the Government's proposals to restrict the sale of vitamin B6; there are 177 signatures on one of the motions. Indeed, the Select Committee on Agriculture has examined the matter. Is she aware that many scientists in Britain believe that the report that the Government have used is fundamentally flawed, and that that view is backed up by the United States national academy of science, which suggests that the Government have got this completely wrong? Given the huge concern in the House and in the country—I speak having served for 10 years as an officer of the parliamentary group for alternative and complementary medicine; I have never seen as much concern on any other issue—does she not think that it is time for the Government to provide Government time to debate that matter? Restricting the sale of vitamin B6, if it goes ahead, will seriously affect ladies suffering from PMT, elderly people with Alzheimer's disease and a range of people who rely on vitamin supplements, particularly vitamin B6, to alleviate their afflictions.
Mrs. Taylor: I think that we all have received representations from constituents about vitamin B6. The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned the report produced in the United States. The Government have seen that report and Ministers have announced that they will take account of it in considering their responses to the consultation exercise. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has

1223
been considering the matter carefully. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all representations have been taken into account.
Judy Mallaber: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Labour Members representing Derbyshire constituencies look forward to the opportunity on Tuesday to promote our beautiful county, welcome the opportunity to discuss the council's successes in view of the Conservatives' intransigence towards our county over the past 18 years and are pleased that the Government have recognised our financial difficulties and allowed us to raise the spending limits? Does she agree that it promises to be an interesting debate as Conservative Members are now asking why the Government have not given Derbyshire everything it wants, when, previously, Conservative Members and local councillors were saying that the council should not ask for anything at all?
Mrs. Taylor: It will be an extremely interesting debate. The cap on Derbyshire has been increased by £2.9 million. Such debates often do not turn out in the way that some hon. Members expect. My hon. Friend's analysis is probably nearer to what is likely to happen than that of some Conservative Members.
Mr. Norman Baker: May I ask the Leader of the House for a debate on the important subject of genetic engineering? Is she aware that genetically modified crops are being planted in Britain, genetically modified food is on sale and experiments are being conducted in which animals are being genetically manipulated? Is she further aware that it is a matter of great concern to many people, including one who I understand I am not allowed to name in the House? Does she understand that the Government's ability to respond to the issue is being fatally undermined by the fact that the responsibility is split across so many Government Departments? Will she draw that fact to the attention of the Prime Minister?
Mrs. Taylor: The Government are determined to ensure that the use of genetic modifications to produce new crops and foods does not threaten public health or environmental safety. We are aware of all the issues that are involved and have campaigned in the European Union for better labelling, so that the public are properly informed. Full public consultations on the matter will take place in the next few months. The hon. Gentleman's point about proper co-ordination among Government Departments has been taken on board and, taking the wider issues into account, that is one reason why we have proposed a Food Standards Agency.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the essence of democracy is the ability of the legislature to check the Executive? Is it not the case that it is difficult to check the Executive when they perform their role collectively in Europe? May we have an early debate on that complicated issue? Many of us feel that legislatures across Europe are very weak vis-a-vis the ever-powerful and growing Executive tiger. Will she accept my invitation to join a group of parliamentarians from across Europe who are meeting tomorrow in Church house to discuss ways in which we
1224
can set up a virtual assembly, whereby nearly 5,000 parliamentarians will communicate using modern technology, so that we can start plotting and planning the downfall, or at least the curbing, of the European Executive?
Mrs. Taylor: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was planning to speak in this afternoon's debate, but I should have thought that he could make a significant contribution were he minded to do so and fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Speaker. I should also draw his attention to a report that the Modernisation Committee hopes to publish next week, on how the House deals with European legislation. It proposes some important alterations to the way in which we consider European legislation, which would benefit all concerned. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome that report. He could develop his other points further this afternoon.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 266?
[That this House welcomes Scope's report, Polls Apart 2—Disabled People and the 1997 General Election, which shows that 94 per cent. of polling stations surveyed on 1st May were inaccessible to disabled people voting independently, and that some disabled people were either unable to vote or were injured trying to get into their polling stations, the majority of which were located in public buildings; recognises that the majority of disabled people interviewed by Scope wanted to vote in person on election day and rejected postal votes as a suitable alternative; and calls on the Government to review the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and Home Office guidance to returning officers with a view to removing the barriers that currently prevent disabled people from exercising their right to vote.]
The motion deals with "Polls Apart 2", Scope's survey of the inaccessibility of polling stations during elections. I understand that a House of Commons Committee is looking at electoral reform. Can the right hon. Lady ensure that it looks carefully at the accessibility of polling stations, so that disabled people can vote in person, and the possibility of extending the time limits for postal votes? The new technology that was just mentioned by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) should mean that more people would have access to postal votes.
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman again raises an issue that should be of concern to us all, as we are elected through a democratic process. We should all want to make it easier for everyone to vote in person, wherever possible. We welcome the report that has been published and we are committed to establishing comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people. At present, we are considering how best to take forward that commitment and how advice and guidance to acting returning officers can be improved. We all have examples of such problems; before the general election, many hon. Members contacted returning officers in an effort to improve matters. I hope that we can build on that good work.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: May I ask the right hon. Lady to consider—if not next week, in the fairly near future—a full-day debate on the crisis in British agriculture? When the matter was last discussed in the House on 21 May, there was a three-hour debate in which

1225
the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food spoke for three-quarters of an hour. He glazed over Agenda 2000, barely mentioned agrimonetary policy and neglected to address the catastrophic fall in farm incomes. British agriculture needs a proper airing in the House, and the way in which the time was divided up on that day simply did not give it due credit. Will the right hon. Lady consider providing a full-day debate, so that all the issues can be discussed properly?
Mrs. Taylor: Ministers have made it clear, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that the Government are aware of the problems faced by many people in agriculture. I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman might have included in his reasons for a debate the excellent news that the European Commission has agreed a proposal for a date-based export scheme. Although there is a long way to go on that, perhaps he could put his comments in that context, too.
I cannot promise a debate in the near future, but I understand the concerns that were expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House at the time taken by Front Benchers in that and other debates on similar topics. It is important that those of us who speak from the Front Bench understand the pressures on the time of the House and do our best to make sure that as many hon. Members as possible have the opportunity to speak.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Would the right hon. Lady be kind enough to look again at the answer that she gave my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) on the special report of the Foreign Affairs Committee? We are asking essentially a very simple question. The Committee said that it wished to gauge the feelings of the House. Will she please provide an opportunity for the House to express its views in the very near future?
Mrs. Taylor: As I said earlier, the Select Committee is still considering the matter. My right hon. Friend the
1226
Foreign Secretary has heard that the Select Committee will be writing to him, but he has not yet received a letter on that point. At the moment, I do not think that it will serve any useful purpose to take it further in the House.
Sir George Young: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It concerns a matter on which I have written to you—the treatment by Ministers of questions from hon. Members. In respect of oral questions, you were good enough to say on 11 May:
"I certainly expect Ministers to tackle them and to give a proper answer."—[Official Report, 11 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 22.]
As for written questions, a number of my colleagues have tabled specific and factual written parliamentary questions, which were accepted by the Table Office. They have received replies from Ministers that refer them to previous ministerial statements or to other documents. However, nowhere in those statements or documents can the answer to the questions be found. Madam Speaker, are you prepared to give on the record a ruling on written replies that is similar to the one that you gave on oral replies?
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me some indication earlier of his point of order. My advice to Ministers on answering written questions is exactly the same as the advice that I recently gave on answering supplementary questions to oral questions. As the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate, the satisfaction of the questioner cannot always be guaranteed. However, for all that, I expect Ministers to tackle all questions asked of them and to give a proper answer. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's comments on questions and answers, I wonder whether it might be a good suggestion if I were to ask him to give some specific examples to the Leader of the House, who is in the Chamber. I am sure that she would be interested to see those examples.

Cardiff European Council
[Relevant documents: Minutes of Evidence taken by the Foreign Affairs Committee on 2nd June (HC 387-ii); White Paper on Developments in the European Union July-December 1997 (Cm 3961); and Proposals for Council Decisions on the Principles, Priorities, Intermediate Objectives and Conditions contained in the Accession Partnerships (presented by the Commission)—ten unnumbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 25th February 1998 (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia) Council Number 6637/98 COM (98)53 final.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
5.20 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I am pleased to announce at the outset of this debate that, today, the House of Lords has not insisted on its amendment to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. The Bill's parliamentary stages are now complete. We hope that Royal Assent will be granted very shortly, opening the way for the United Kingdom to ratify the treaty of Amsterdam in the near future. We shall be among the first three countries in Europe to do so. Under the previous Administration, the United Kingdom was one of the last two countries to ratify the Maastricht treaty. That contrast underlines the new priority and commitment that this Administration have given to Europe, and provides an excellent basis on which, on Sunday, we can welcome to Cardiff the leaders of the 15 member states of the European Union.
The leaders' agenda will be wide ranging. On Monday, they will meet Finance Ministers to discuss economic reform. At lunchtime, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will lead a discussion on the future direction of Europe. On Monday afternoon, they will discuss progress on enlarging the European Union, and the Agenda 2000 issues, such as reforming the common agricultural policy, simplifying the structural funds and securing budget discipline.
On Tuesday morning, the leaders will debate the summit's conclusions, including proposals from Foreign Ministers on current issues in foreign policy. It is with those foreign policy issues that I wish to start my speech.
On Monday, I chaired the preparatory meeting for Cardiff of Foreign Ministers, at which our discussion on the crisis in Kosovo was the most grave and sombre of our presidency. At the start of last week, Serbian security forces mounted a major military operation, with support from the Yugoslav army. Heavy machine guns and anti-tank weapons were used against villages and towns in Kosovo, particularly along the border area with Albania. The clear objective of the offensive was to empty those towns and villages of their civilian population. It is our belief that, last week, about 50,000 people were rendered homeless. Most of them were women and children; few could ever have been members of the Kosovo Liberation Army.
1228
Monday's meeting of Foreign Ministers strongly condemned the ratcheting up of military violence, and expressed our firm belief that
"these attacks are beginning to constitute a new wave of ethnic cleansing."
In our statement, we specifically reaffirmed that the remit of the war crimes tribunal on Yugoslavia applies to all parts of the former Yugoslavia, including Kosovo. Those who carry out extra-judicial killings or crimes against humanitarian law should not do so in the hope that they will escape justice.
In the meantime, the urgent task is to halt the violence. At the United Nations, Britain has taken the lead in the Security Council to seek a resolution, under chapter VII, that will provide a mandate for all necessary action to halt the conflict. I am pleased to report to the House that, on Monday, the Foreign Ministers of European countries unanimously expressed their support for such a resolution. As we speak, NATO Defence Ministers are meeting to hear reports from their military advisers, who are considering all options that might be taken under that mandate.
Tomorrow, I shall host a meeting in London of the Group of Eight Foreign Ministers, which was originally called to discuss nuclear escalation in India and Pakistan. All members of the contact group on the former Yugoslavia are represented on the G8. We will, therefore, take the opportunity of our gathering tomorrow to hold a special meeting of the contact group, to send a clear signal of our resolve to Belgrade.
President Milosevic must bear personal responsibility for the crisis in Kosovo. Last week, he authorised violence on a scale that has not been seen in the former Yugoslavia since the truce in Bosnia three years ago. He should not make the heavy mistake of assuming that, this time, the international community will be as slow to react as it was in the early years of the crisis in Bosnia. Nor can he hope to find a place for his country in the modern Europe unless he starts to abide by the democratic standards of modern Europe.
In the past fortnight, President Milosevic has removed the broadcasting licences of 33 independent radio stations. At the same time, he has given separate broadcasting licences to his wife, to his son and to his daughter. No one can be fooled that that outcome reflects an impartial assessment of the respective merits of those applications.
Finally, before leaving the subject of Kosovo, I should emphasise that Europe condemns the use of violence for political ends by either side. The violent repression by President Milosevic has been totally counter-productive: it has strengthened the Kosovo Liberation Army. However, the Kosovo Liberation Army's activities will not liberate the people of Kosovo, but will only ensure the continuation of their suffering. Our support in Kosovo is for the elected leadership of the Kosovar people, who, to their credit, have consistently pursued a peaceful path towards their goal of autonomy.
For that reason, as we hold the presidency of the European Union, I shall this evening receive Dr. Rugova, the elected leader of the Kosovar people, to demonstrate our support for those among the Kosovars who seek a negotiated, not a violent, means of achieving their aspirations. I am confident that both sides of the House

1229
will wish me today to convey to Dr. Rugova our united respect for his support for peace, and our resolve to halt the violence.
Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I would not disagree with anything that the Foreign Secretary has said in the past moment or two, and I welcome his comments on his intention of receiving Mr. Rugova later today. However, the Foreign Secretary will be aware that the possibility of obtaining a resolution on suitable terms from the Security Council of the United Nations will depend on Russia's attitude. Is he able—consistent with the usual diplomatic niceties—to give us some indication of what exchanges he has had with Mr. Primakov, his opposite number in Russia? What prediction can he make about the extent to which Russia will share the sentiments that he has just expressed to the House?
Mr. Cook: We have not, as yet, had any indication that Russia could support such a resolution. I very much hope that Russia would not choose to block such a resolution. It is worth recalling that Russia has now not vetoed a Security Council resolution for some half dozen years. I do not think that either Mr. Primakov or President Yeltsin would wish to break that very helpful moratorium on the veto by now using it to protect President Milosevic. One of the advantages of our meeting tomorrow is that Mr. Primakov will be present at the contact group, which will give us an opportunity of dialogue—in the hope that peer group pressure will get Russia to understand the strength of feeling in the rest of the international community.
Did my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) wish to intervene?
Mr. Dalyell: I had the same question, and the Foreign Secretary has given as much of a reply to it as he can.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is one of the few hon. Members who is honest enough to say that a question has been answered. I am grateful to him.
The ethnic confrontation and violence in Kosovo provide a stark contrast to the security and peace enjoyed by the peoples in the European Union. It is because all the countries of central Europe hunger for the security and stability that we enjoy that they now seek membership of the European Union.
As I look back over the months of our presidency, I believe that the achievement of greatest strategic significance was the successful launch that we gave to the enlargement process. We were able to develop a process in which all 11 countries were in the same pipeline, moving towards the same destination—the speed at which they arrive at the finish will depend entirely on the urgency with which they make the necessary reforms. We were also successful in negotiating a formula that dissuaded France from blocking the start of negotiations with Cyprus, which could have provoked Greece to block negotiations with any country.
In January, I made giving enlargement a flying start one of the objectives of our presidency—we have done that, which will be of long-term credit to Britain. Over the next decade, all the countries involved will become
1230
member states with full voting powers at the Councils of Ministers. It is important to our interests that they should remember the United Kingdom presidency as a time when we proved ourselves advocates and friends of their membership and competent managers of the process of enlargement.
It is equally important that the peoples of those countries should associate Britain with the benefits that they will enjoy as consumers as they lower the barriers to trade. When I addressed the House in the European debate in December, I mentioned the strong enthusiasm that I found in Warsaw for my insistence that membership of the European Union would require Poland to abolish the unfair, discriminatory and punitive taxes on whisky. I am delighted to report to the House that, last week, I received a message from the Foreign Minister of Poland informing me that the Cabinet had approved a reduction in the duty on whisky, to give it parity with brandy. I am confident that that news will be as welcome to drinkers of whisky in Warsaw as it will be to distillers of whisky on Speyside.
Enlargement is not the only historic step that is being taken under our presidency. Last month, the Heads of Government agreed that 11 member states could proceed to the final stage of economic and monetary union. Britain has not joined that first wave. We will judge whether we are ready to join on the basis of a hard-headed assessment of the economic interests of the British people; the Government are united in their view that the decision on the single currency must be determined on that basis.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: I was hoping that I would get a Tory Euro-sceptic, but the right hon. Gentleman will do.
Mr. Wigley: I am sorry that I cannot fit either bill. The right hon. Gentleman regards the well-being of the economy as the paramount consideration in deciding the timing for entry to the euro, but if the well-being of the economy so dictates, will the Government consider entry sooner than 12 months after the next general election—assuming that this Parliament goes to its full term—or does the well-being of the economy take second place to the commitment to wait until a referendum after the general election?
Mr. Cook: We do not expect any tension between the two commitments. We came to our conclusion because Britain and the continent are at very different points in the economic cycle. That substantial difference will not be lessened in the short term—it will take some years for true convergence to come about. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have no intention of joining before we are confident that it would be to the economic advantage of the British people.
Our unity of view on the single currency contrasts with the division among Conservative Members, who are united only in the strength of their contempt for one another's views on the matter. When the European Parliament voted last month on the single currency, half the Tory MEPs abstained and the other half voted in three different ways—a multiple split that makes the Tory MEPs much more representative of the Tory party than many of the Tory Euro-sceptics would admit.

1231
Europe faces many other challenges as a result of the two historic changes that I have outlined. A European Union in which Finns to Italians are paid in a common currency, and whose borders stretch from Poland to Portugal and from Scotland to Cyprus, will be a Europe that gives rise to new challenges as well as to new opportunities. We must ensure that we strike the right balance between the unity and cohesion of the Union and a flexibility that can reflect the diversity of its increased number of member states. That is why it is right that a centrepiece of the Cardiff summit will be a discussion by the leaders on the future of Europe.
In his Paris speech two months ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out his vision for Europe. He stressed the importance of reconnecting Europe with its citizens and of striking a better balance to respect not only the advantage of Europe acting in unity, but the individual identity of each member state.
The letter from Chancellor Kohl and President Chirac, which was released earlier this week, demonstrates that those arguments are winning the debate on the future of Europe. It represents a powerful statement of the case for subsidiarity, which the two leaders demand must be "strictly respected and applied" even more rigorously, and which rightly recognises that
"the citizen will not accept decisions at the European level unless it is clear that …such rules cannot be adopted at a satisfactory manner at the local, regional or national level."
That statement is unequivocal. It exposes the Euro-sceptics' fears of a centralised, federalised European state for the fantasies that they are—nightmares that have something of the night about them, but nothing of reality. If the Euro-sceptics will not listen to me, perhaps they will listen to the Conservative party's nominee on the European Commission, Sir Leon Brittan, who said the other week:
"Europe has changed and Britain has played a big part in changing it."
There could be no better place for Britain to demonstrate the leading role that it has played in promoting subsidiarity than Cardiff.
Mr. Wigley: Hear, hear.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support. As a result of the Government's policies—which the right hon. Gentleman is also welcome to support—Cardiff will become the centre of a democratically elected assembly which will make political decisions in Wales accountable to the people of Wales. That is a visible reminder that the Government not only preach subsidiarity in Brussels, but practise it in Britain.
We also welcome the strong recognition in the letter from Chancellor Kohl and President Chirac that decisions within Europe should be open and transparent. During the UK presidency, we have made making proceedings more transparent a priority. I am pleased to tell the House that more members of the public and representatives of non-governmental organisations have attended open Council meetings during our presidency than in any previous presidency. Indeed, we had broken all previous records before our presidency reached halfway.
1232
The more that Europe opens up its proceedings to the public, the more important it becomes that the public see that those proceedings focus on the issues that are of concern and relevance to them. When we launched the UK presidency, we stressed that its theme would be to make Europe work for the people and that we would focus on issues of popular concern, such as jobs, crime and the environment. Over the past six months, we have made solid progress on all three fronts.
On jobs, we were the first member state to produce a national action plan on employment, and Cardiff will be the first European summit at which the action plans, which have now been developed by every member state, will be reviewed. An unusual feature of the summit will be the morning discussion, with Finance Ministers, on economic reform to make Europe more competitive and to encourage employment.
We will also discuss reports from the Commission and from the business test panels on how we can encourage small and medium enterprises by reducing the complexity of European regulations. The objective is well expressed in the title of the Commission document—"Doing Less, but Doing it Better".
We have negotiated a pact on organised crime with all the countries that are candidates for membership of the European Union, to enable us to achieve greater co-operation in fighting the criminals who run major rackets in the drugs trade, money laundering and the sordid exploitation of the traffic in illegal immigrants.
Mr. Dalyell: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of crime, he will not be entirely surprised when I ask him whether there will be any discussion of the Lockerbie crime and relations with Libya, especially in the context of his meeting with Dr. Mudenge and others from Uganda, Cameroon and other African states, and of the possibility of a resolution of a crime that will be 10 years old at Christmas 1998.
Mr. Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the skill with which he has worked in a question which I know concerns him closely. I am happy to say that I had a very good meeting with the representatives of the Organisation of African Unity and the Arab League, at which I explained why we have full confidence in the standards of Scottish justice. I expressed regret at the fact that those two organisations did not respond positively to our invitation to them and the United Nations to send observers to study our legal system, and I repeated that offer to them.
I think that it is fair to say that Stan Mudenge and his colleagues left with the impression that they had had a fair hearing, and that I had explained exactly why we are robust in our faith in Scottish justice and why we are determined to ensure that the mass murder of 270 people is not allowed to pass without those who have been charged being brought to justice.
We have acted to implement the commitment in the Amsterdam treaty to integrate the protection of the environment across the broad range of European policies. Our presidency has witnessed the first ever joint meeting of the Transport and Environment Councils. As a result of that joint work on the environment and transport, we have been able to adopt tougher standards on vehicle emissions, which will produce cleaner air for our citizens.

1233
The decision last week to ban the drift nets that drown dolphins has been broadly welcomed by the many people in Britain who support the campaigns to protect wildlife.
As we deliver on our commitments in our presidency of the European Union, we are constantly aware that Britain is a country with major ties of history and culture, and alliances around the globe, and not only in Europe. In particular, we have forged an excellent working relationship with Washington, and an effective partnership with both the White House and the State Department.
Britain's current high standing in Washington has been of direct benefit to Europe. At last month's United States-European Union summit, we secured an agreement that will protect European companies from US sanctions and commits the United States Government to resist any legislation that will result in extra-territorial penalties on European companies that are breaking no national or international law.
We have averted what could have been division between Europe and the United States over trade, and replaced it with unity in our approach towards countries such as Iran. I believe that the successful outcome of the summit, which is good for both sides of the Atlantic, was largely due to the fact that it was Britain in its presidency that represented Europe there.
In our presidency, it has been our job to speak for all the member states. I am happy to say that that does not prevent us, and has not prevented us, from also speaking for Britain. I noticed last Sunday that the Minister for Europe in the previous Conservative Government, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), complained that we had not given enough priority to tackling the ban on British beef. That was a compelling example of how out of touch Conservative Members can be with what is going on in Europe.
On 1 June, only a fortnight ago, the ban was lifted on exports of cattle from Northern Ireland under the certified herds scheme, and yesterday, the Commission agreed to propose to lift the ban on the export of beef under the date-based scheme for cattle born after August 1996.
We are not over the obstacle course yet: there are further hoops through which that proposal must go before it gets Council approval and comes into effect, and there appear to be elements in the Commission's proposals that we regard as unnecessary and unduly restrictive, but the fact remains that we now have in sight an end to the beef ban for the British mainland, as well as for Northern Ireland.
The fact that we have got this far is a striking illustration of how much better the Labour Government have been able to promote British interests through their constructive and positive approach to Europe. By contrast, the policy of confrontation pursued by the previous Government left Britain on the sidelines of Europe, with neither influence nor respect, and did nothing to further Britain's interests on beef or anything else.
I noticed last month that, one year on from the general election, The Times had discovered that Labour led the Conservatives as the party with the most popular policy on Europe by a margin of almost two to one. I freely admit that it was not always like this: at the previous general election, the same pollsters found the Conservatives leading on Europe by exactly the same margin.
1234
The dramatic turnaround has happened because the public have had a year in which they have seen how much more can be delivered by a Government who have respect throughout the capitals of Europe and are taken seriously because the Europeans know that we are serious about doing business with Europe. In a spirit of fairness, I acknowledge the strong contribution made to our public support over Europe by Conservative Members, who have spent the past year unable to convince each other, never mind the public, what is the right policy for them on Europe.
The British public are much more sensible than many Conservative Members. They know that, in the modern world, we can make our way only by the health of our alliances and our trading links with the rest of the world. They know, too, that we shall not achieve security or prosperity in a global economy by being as rude as possible to our nearest neighbours.
The British public know that, if the Conservative party had, by some miracle, remained in power at the general election, the past six months of the UK presidency would have been squandered in the sterile and hostile confrontation that marked its last years in office. By contrast, we can look back with satisfaction on six months of steady achievement.
We have given a successful launch to an historic process of enlargement that will change the face of Europe; delivered real progress on our people's agenda of jobs, the environment and the fight against crime and drugs; developed a clear sense of direction for reform of the common agricultural policy; and injected momentum into the Agenda 2000 negotiations. Furthermore, we are winning the debate in Europe on subsidiarity, with the result that at Cardiff, we can launch a discussion that will confirm Europe's future as a union of sovereign states, not as one single, centralised state.
That is a record of achievement in which the whole of Britain is welcome to share our pride, including even the Conservative party, if it chooses to come out of the bunker, blinking into the light of the modern Europe. It is against that solid record of achievement through our presidency that we go to Cardiff, confident that we have set the right agenda for a constructive exchange and that it is we, not the Conservative party, who represent Britain at Cardiff, because it is we who represent the views of the people of Britain on Europe.
5.48 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: May I begin with one of the few points on which I agree with the Foreign Secretary? I welcome the fact that the European Council is taking place in Cardiff, in my native land, and I place on record the fact that it is taking place there largely because of the influence exerted by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he was Secretary of State for Wales. Apart from that, I fear that there will not be a great deal on which I can agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
No one has ever accused the Foreign Secretary of false modesty, but the speech that we have just heard was one of insufferable complacency and self-congratulation, born more of his fantasies than of the real world. Let us now return to the real world.
A couple of weeks ago, he addressed the European Parliament. I, alas, was not present, but it was not necessary to be present to judge the impact of the speech.

1235
The very next day, Members of the European Parliament voted on a motion that congratulated the United Kingdom presidency on its achievements, a motion tabled by Labour Members of the Parliament, who form the largest group of the party of European Socialists. That party, and its allies, has an overall majority in the Parliament, so the prospects for the motion must have seemed auspicious. Yet such was the impact of the Foreign Secretary's speech that the motion was lost. The European Parliament declined to offer the UK presidency its congratulations.
The Foreign Secretary had done it again. The man who single-handedly bungled the royal visit to India, who caused grave offence during his visit to Israel and who has done more than anyone to bring the concept of ethics into disrepute had once more snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Mr. Roger Casale: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what sort of approval rating he might have had from the European Parliament if he had been Foreign Secretary over the past six months?
Mr. Howard: I cannot answer that, because I have never had the great privilege of holding that office, but I can approach an answer.
The Foreign Secretary is fond of comparing the Government's attitude to and record on Europe to the attitude and record of their predecessor. An instructive comparison is, indeed, to be made. This was not the first time that the European Parliament voted on a British presidency. The European Parliament was addressed by a Foreign Secretary—Lord Hurd of Westwell—during our last presidency in 1992. Then, too, there was a vote on the UK presidency on the day after the Foreign Secretary addressed the Parliament. Once again, the motion was tabled by Labour MEPs, and it criticised the UK presidency. On that occasion, too, the motion was lost. The European Parliament took a more favourable view of that Conservative presidency than of the current Labour one. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will add that comparison to the list of which he is so proud.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is labouring his point. Perhaps he does not speak, for some reason, to Conservative Members of the European Parliament, but had he gone beyond the press reports he might have learnt that part of the reason for that vote was the view of many MEPs that the motion, a month before the end of the presidency, was premature. There was also concern about the European central bank fracas, which had nothing to do with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Howard: I shall have a word to say about what the hon. Gentleman describes as the European central bank fracas. His view that it had nothing to do with the UK presidency is by no means shared in the European Parliament or elsewhere in the councils of Europe.
The vote of the European Parliament two weeks ago was a humiliation for the Foreign Secretary. Behind that humiliation lies another truth: the presidency has been a flop. What a contrast with the high hopes set out six months ago. The Prime Minister and the Foreign
1236
Secretary were going to transform the continent. The Foreign Secretary told us that the presidency would provide
"a clear opportunity to demonstrate that Europe can deliver on the concerns of our people."
The Government, he said, were to offer
"active leadership in the world."—[Official Report, 4 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 521–22.]
The Foreign Secretary was so full of the prospects for the presidency that he quoted from the European press, telling us that we should read what the European papers said about the new Labour Government. I am always keen to take the Foreign Secretary's advice, and I have been reading the foreign press. The French journalist Pierre Beglau, writing for the magazine Le Point, said:
"The British Presidency of the European Union is … one of the most timid and poor in recent years."
The Italian newspaper Il Sole Venti Quatre Ore discovered what we have long known. There seemed, it said,
"to be a growing disparity between proclaimed intentions and reality."
Nowhere was that disparity more marked than in the half-term report that the Government published in March. I am not surprised that the Foreign Secretary did not refer to that half-term report. The House will understand why in a moment. The report was a British innovation. There is no tradition of half-term reports, but the Foreign Secretary was so keen to trumpet his achievements that he was determined to break new ground. The report was introduced by the Prime Minister in typical fashion. Great progress was being made, he said, on a number of policy issues. He added:
"Robin Cook has done a brilliant job in bringing together Ministers quickly and reaching agreement to help sort things out rapidly."
What were the 45 successes attributed to the British presidency in that report? The Secretary of State for Education and Employment had chaired a meeting about life-long learning. The need for measures to lower telephone bills was highlighted. A seminar of Government press officers was held, at which agreement was reached to disseminate more information on the EU via the internet. And what of the Foreign Secretary? Well, he was praised for "injecting new impetus" into the middle east peace process. Not a lot of people saw it that way at the time.
The whole ludicrous, self-serving exercise was viewed with incredulity by our European partners. One German diplomat said:
"It's funny, we always thought the British style was understated."
It is little wonder that we are now told, and perhaps the Foreign Secretary will confirm it, that the Government have abandoned their intention to follow up the ludicrous half-time report with a full-time assessment of their performance. There is not going to be a full-time report. The Government have at last recognised the only appropriate verdict on their presidency—the least said, the better. That did not stop the Foreign Secretary producing a half-time report, but he is not producing a full-time report because there is very little to say.
It is little wonder that, instead of dwelling on the achievements of the UK presidency—only three weeks from its end—the Foreign Secretary chose to spend much

1237
of his time today on the problems of Kosovo. Those problems are, of course, acute, and I do not underestimate them for one moment. The whole House will want to join him in expressing our dismay at the emergence once more of violence, murder and rape in the Balkans.
However, the Foreign Secretary should have made a separate statement on Kosovo so that hon. Members could question him. I hope that he will do so next week. Meanwhile, I hope that the Minister of State will tell the House why, when we have known about that problem for so long, the military options for NATO have even now not been prepared. The Secretary of State for Defence talked on the radio this morning about the need for quick action, but it was known months ago that difficulties were likely to arise in Kosovo. Why was work not put in hand then to prepare options for action? When do the Government intend to approach the Security Council for authority to take action? What action do they have in mind? Will the Minister of State assure us that any such action will have clear objectives, and that the Foreign Secretary will return to the House to make a proper statement before action is taken?
Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the situation in Kosovo dates back at least 10 years, and that there have been growing problems? It has until now been a peaceful conflict, without the kind of military intervention that we have seen in the past few weeks. There has been no fighting or incursions in the border area. The current situation is far more serious than when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in government.
Mr. Howard: I thought that one of the tasks of the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary was to anticipate what might happen in the world. It has not taken genius to anticipate that, for a very long time, the problem in Kosovo could have burst into the kind of violence that we have seen in recent weeks. NATO should have been asked some time ago to prepare options for action. It is astonishing that we were told only a week ago that NATO might have options ready for those who need to take these most serious decisions by the end of this month. Given that the seriousness of the position in Kosovo has been known, and raised in the House, for months, it is astonishing that NATO was not asked earlier to put the work on options in hand.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman contrast the situation in Kosovo and the meetings and preparations involved with those made by his Government two years ago, when there was civil war in Bosnia? For years, while tens of thousands of people were being killed, his Government remained inactive on the sidelines.
Mr. Howard: I do not recall the Labour party when in opposition calling for military action in Bosnia at an earlier date than that at which it occurred. I do not think that there was much dispute between the parties then about what should be done.
Mr. Robin Cook: I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was busy running the Home Office and was not present in foreign affairs debates, but I assure him that, for two years, we persisted in
1238
demanding more robust action in Bosnia. Preparations on the options available for NATO have been made for some time. We have no intention of publicly announcing in advance what those options might be to prepare President Milosevic, but we have been preparing them. That is in stark contrast to the way in which the previous Government spent years before they finally geared themselves up to intervening in Bosnia.
Mr. Howard: I do not think that we want to turn this into a debate on Bosnia, although I am happy to do so. I am talking about Kosovo, which is a serious problem. It was mentioned by the Foreign Secretary in this debate. It is astonishing that we were told at the end of last week that NATO might have its options on military action ready by the end of this month. Given the time that we have had to anticipate the difficulties that have arisen in Kosovo, that is an extraordinary state of affairs, and those who are responsible for it have a good deal to explain.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the elegance of his language, but we should not allow our admiration for that to conceal the fact that he has not shared with the House his proposals on Kosovo.
Mr. Howard: I would dearly like to see the NATO options, as I am sure would the hon. and learned Gentleman. Alas, I have not seen them. Clearly, several steps could be taken. I hope that we will have a proper opportunity to discuss the matter and that the Foreign Secretary will come to the House to make a statement on it. We can then have an informed discussion. I hope that we will be told a little more about how he intends to proceed.
Let consider how the achievements of the presidency match up to its promises and examine the key areas, the themes set out by the Prime Minister six months ago. First, there is economic reform. Has a single job been created as a result of action taken by the UK presidency? Has even one of the 18 million people unemployed across the European Union benefited from the rhetoric of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary? Unemployment in the UK is 6.4 per cent. That is still too high, but in Germany it stands at 11.4 per cent., in Belgium and France at 11.9 per cent., in Italy at 12 per cent. and in Spain at 19.6 per cent.
Even the Minister without Portfolio, speaking in Florence on one of his many forays into the Foreign Secretary's territory, recognised that job creation is the most difficult of all the issues that Europe faces. How can Labour speak with any authority on the subject when it embraces the job-destroying social chapter of the Maastricht treaty and when one of its close socialist allies in France sees the answer to the crippling unemployment from which it suffers in a 35-hour week?
What of the
"cost and waste of the Common Agricultural Policy"
which
"continue to grow year by year?"
Those were the words used by the Prime Minister when he launched the UK presidency in December. Not a word passed the Foreign Secretary's lips this evening about

1239
the CAP. There is no progress to report on the CAP, but the Foreign Secretary promised that its reform would be one of the key themes of the presidency. He said:
"We need a reformed CAP which gives a better deal all round—fair prices for consumers, flexibility for farmers, protection for the environment."
We all agree, but the CAP collapsed after the first meeting and member states have so far failed to find a common position to negotiate. Even the Foreign Secretary could not bring himself to claim that as one of the achievements of his presidency. CAP reform is buried in the small print of the half-term report.
What of enlargement? Labour's general election manifesto called it "a high priority". The Foreign Secretary said that getting it off to a good start was
"the step that will have the biggest impact on the shape of the European Union into the next century."
I agree. We regard enlargement of the European Union as the historic mission of our generation, but what evidence is there of progress?
The Prime Minister of Finland said that enlargement is
"looking more problematic than it did a year ago."
The truth is that we are going backwards, not forwards, in terms of progress on enlargement. Relations between the European Union and Turkey are at an all-time low. The Foreign Secretary completely failed in his efforts to persuade Turkey to attend the annual European Union-Turkey association meeting, yet he says that he is not disappointed. One shudders to imagine what would have to happen before he confessed himself discouraged.
The Cardiff summit will not be first European Union summit over which the Prime Minister has presided. He presided over the summit on economic and monetary union at the beginning of May, to which the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) referred. The Prime Minister's performance there did not receive rave notices. The Prime Minister of Luxembourg concluded that the summit proceedings were "absolutely shameful". The Italian Prime Minister, an ally in the Party of European Socialists, said that the Prime Minister was
"ill prepared for the negotiations".
The Austrian Chancellor, another ally in the Party of European Socialists, said that there were people much more experienced than he who said they had never seen anything like it. He added:
"We have now learnt how not to organise a summit."
That is the reality of the performance of the UK presidency, not the fantasy world into which the Foreign Secretary took us in his speech.
Nowhere has the gap between the Government's rhetoric and reality been greater than in the humiliation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the Euro X committee only a few days ago.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman concede that, at the end of the day, a successful euro will be launched on 1 January next year with 11 member countries? One shudders to think what would have happened if the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) had been president at the Brussels summit.
Mr. Howard: I do not agree. The truth is that the Prime Minister went to that summit pledged to ensure that there
1240
was no fudge and no fiddle. What happened was fudge and fiddle on a grand scale. It was fudge and fiddle not only in allowing member states that did not begin to comply with the criteria set out at Maastricht to join the single currency but in what was described by the hon. Member for Swansea, East as the fracas over the presidency of the central bank. To claim that summit as a success is to fly in the face of the facts, and it will convince no one.
Mr. Bill Rammell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party have made much about the convergence of Belgium and Italy on the key criteria. I think that that is a fig leaf for attacking the single currency in principle. Had the Conservative party won the general election, and had you been in power at the summit, would you—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must try to use the correct parliamentary language.
Mr. Rammell: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Had the Conservative party been in government at that summit and succeeded in negotiating the exclusion of Belgium and Italy, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman have been satisfied to proceed with the single currency on the basis of nine nations?
Mr. Howard: Of course. It has never been the view of my party that, if other member states wish to proceed with the single currency in accordance with the criteria set out in the Maastricht treaty, they should not do so. Of course they are perfectly entitled to do so. All that we would have insisted on would have been a firm application of the Maastricht criteria. They were set out in that treaty and they should have been observed. The Prime Minister said that he would ensure that they were observed, yet he did not. That is not likely to be conducive to the success of the single currency.
Mr. Robin Cook: I would not dream of pressing the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell us the circumstances in which he would join. My question is much more modest. He chides the Government for having taken too long at that particular summit meeting. Will he give the House some estimate of how long the meeting would have been had he been chairing it and telling a number of those countries that qualified that they could not take part?
Mr. Howard: The Foreign Secretary is entirely wrong. I never mentioned the length of the meeting. The criticisms of the way in which the meeting was conducted go far deeper than its length. That is made perfectly clear in the quotations that I have cited. The right hon. Gentleman does not need to take it from me. If the Austrian Chancellor says that this was an example of how a summit should not be run, he should be listened to with some respect.
I understand why that little flurry of interventions was designed to divert the attention of the House from the Euro X committee. It was the committee over which the Prime Minister fought such a public battle last year. As usual, he claimed a great victory. He said that he had got exactly what he wanted, that we would not be

1241
excluded from the committee's meetings and that all his aims had been achieved. What happened? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer turned up to chair the meeting, he was allowed to stay for an hour and then he was asked to leave. He was not even invited to dinner. Officials of the European Commission referred to him as a "gatecrasher".
That humiliation is the reality behind all the Government's claims to be leading in Europe. That is the reward for all those sacrifices of our sovereignty at Amsterdam. That is the background against which the Cardiff summit will take place.
In the past couple of days, we have witnessed an attempt by Chancellor Kohl and President Chirac to hijack the agenda for the summit. We have seen the patronising text of their letter to the boy Blair. We have seen how, under cover of lip service to subsidiarity, they make calls for further moves towards political union.
Mr. Gapes: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that, regularly over the past 10 years, the Christian Democrat leaders in Germany and the Socialist or Gaullist leaders in France have issued joint communiques prior to virtually every European summit, whether it was held in this or in another country? For example, President Mitterrand issued joint communiques with Chancellor Kohl. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that that is a regular occurrence?
Mr. Howard: It is a regular occurrence, but if the hon. Gentleman looks back under previous documents of this kind, he will find that the tone is somewhat different. I want to draw attention to the way in which in this document, under cover of lip service to subsidiarity, those leaders make calls for further moves towards political union.
May we have an assurance from the Minister of State when he winds up the debate that any such calls at Cardiff for further political integration and union will be resisted? May we have an assurance that one last attempt will be made to achieve the goals of the presidency with which, as I said when we last debated these issues six months ago, we substantially agree? May we have an assurance that, this time, the Prime Minister will make a real effort to rescue the United Kingdom presidency from the ignominy into which it has fallen?
The Cardiff summit should be the crowning glory of the UK presidency. Instead, it is likely to be its farewell whimper. I hope that my forebodings are misplaced. I suspect that they will be amply justified.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Petroleum Act 1998

Audit Commission Act 1998

Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Act 1998

Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998

European Communities (Amendment) Act 1998

Cardiff European Council
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
6.14 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: I join the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) at least in this: I welcome the fact that the Council is being held in Cardiff. I should have preferred it to be held in Swansea, but I concede that there is a stronger case for the Council to be held in Cardiff than there is for Cardiff to be the site of the assembly.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a number of points, most of which were rather petty. Clearly, he had trawled through a series of newspapers in Europe in the hope of finding some criticism of the Prime Minister. He emerged with one quotation from a right-wing French journal—hardly surprising—and one from an Italian journal which is very close to the Northern League—again, a rather right-wing journal. That is hardly an impressive result from what must have been an assiduous trawl by Conservative central office.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman criticised the Government for inaction over Kosovo. He hardly remembers that the real crisis there stems from 1989 when President Milosevic reduced the autonomy of both Kosovo and Vojvodina. The Government can hardly be criticised for the crisis or, indeed, for delays that come, understandably, from the hesitation of some of those in the contact group, such as Russia because of its close links with the Serbs.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that nothing was being done on the jobs front. Surely he recognises that the guidelines set out in the jobs summit in Luxembourg last November have been carried forward and that, for the first time, member states have produced action plans setting out how they are implementing those guidelines. In addition, a series of remarkable and new practical steps have been taken. There has been agreement on a package of venture capital support for small and medium enterprises, progress on setting priorities for the next generation of EU education, training and youth programmes, acknowledgement that the EU social fund should support national employment and lifelong learning strategies, demonstration projects and a series of meetings, including the Belfast meeting of Ministers, relating to the employability of women and issues such as child care, and a conference in Glasgow on work organisation. That is rather an impressive roll-call of initiatives on jobs.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has set out a remarkable feast of achievements. However, a number of spectres were at the feast, and I intend to refer to some of them. Over the period of our presidency, there has been considerable success in terms of technical organisation. From a number of my European contacts, I have heard high praise for the quality of civil service support. The period from 1 January has been one of the busiest for foreign affairs in our peacetime history. That has imposed enormous burdens on Foreign Office Ministers, and Ministers in other related Departments. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe mentioned, there has been a record number of summits—relating to

1243
EU enlargement, the first Europe-China meeting, the Europe-Russia meeting, the second Asia-Europe meeting, and preparation for Lomé—which must have imposed enormous burdens on both the machinery and the personnel, not least my right hon. Friend himself.
The presidency must be seen in the context of far greater warmth towards the United Kingdom among our European colleagues. I found significant the comment made on Wednesday morning by the National Farmers Union spokesman, who said that, had an attempt been made at diktat rather than negotiation, as had been made in the past—clearly, he meant by the previous Government—there would have been no progress in respect of BSE. Like my right hon. Friend, I cannot help but wonder what would have happened during the UK presidency had it been presided over by the Conservative party, which, as was shown by the shadow Cabinet reshuffle, is being pushed further in an unrealistic Euro-sceptic direction. Our European partners, at least for the time being, are prepared to give us the benefit of the doubt, in spite of our absence—temporary, I hope—from the euro.
It is clear that several of the objectives set by the Government at the start of the UK presidency have been met. I was especially impressed that my right hon. Friend achieved an unprecedented agreement on an EU code of conduct on arms exports. The ethical dimension of the foreign policy is often derided by its critics, but that code of conduct marks a serious change.
There is increasing Euro-realism among many of the leaders in Europe. I used to deride the previous Government's claims that Europe was adopting our agenda, at a time when there was clearly increasing divergence; but, in the tone of the joint letter by Chancellor Kohl and President Chirac, we see a greater willingness to accept subsidiarity, which is a theme of the Labour party. That is a highly significant acknowledgement. It was seen towards the end of last year during the Amsterdam debate in the Federal Republic of Germany, when the lander asserted their own views. It was Minister-President Biedenkopf of Saxony and the leaders of Bavaria who ensured, through the lander, that there was greater constraint on the federal Chancellor. If, as is predicted, the Social Democrats win the federal elections in September, there may well be a further move by the German federal Government in a direction that is favoured by this country.
In the past, there have been attempts to put an obstacle between France and Germany and to attract either France or Germany into the British orbit, but those attempts were misguided, because there is a clear foundation, from the Adenauer-de Gaulle era, for Franco-German friendship. I believe that Britain now has a real opportunity to enter that dialogue, not only because of the warmth towards and the acceptance of this country, but because of the direction in which the European agenda is moving and the practical vision of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
I was intrigued by what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said about the discussion to be held in Cardiff on the future of Europe. I understand that that is to be a lunchtime exchange of views, so it might have been a little overblown to speak of the future vision of Europe being decided between courses. Nevertheless,
1244
the discussion will be worth while and it will be interesting to see what political vision my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will feed into that lunch.
We cannot claim overmuch for our presidency, because any presidency is part of a continuum. The baton on the jobs agenda was taken up and carried forward by the UK Government after the jobs summit in Luxembourg last November. In exactly the same way, the themes that we have moulded and adapted will be taken up by our Austrian colleagues on 1 July. In my contact with the Austrians, I have been impressed by the way in which there is now a seamless gliding move from one presidency to the next, as themes are accepted and developed.
Whether the theme is jobs, the environment, crime, fraud or drugs, the overall agenda is now a people's agenda. There is a greater acceptance in the EU of the lesson taught by the first Danish referendum, which showed that the European elites had moved away from an agenda that had relevance to the people. I am glad that our Government are bringing us back to an agenda that our own people regard as relevant to their lives.
I see the importance of the scoreboard of performance in respect of the single market, which shows the greater strength of implementation, even among our Italian colleagues. The UK presidency would have been seen as an historic one in any case, because of the major decisions that had to be made on enlargement and on the European currency, but the success with which both those major advances have been completed is worthy of note; for example, on enlargement, the pre-accession strategies and dossiers have been agreed.
I was disappointed that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not dwell on the subject of Turkey. Although the snub to Turkey did not come during the UK presidency but in Luxembourg in December last year, Turkey had reasonable cause for dissatisfaction, and my right hon. Friend has tried hard to build bridges with Turkey. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is to reply to the debate, will say something about whether Turkey has so far indicated that it is prepared to enter a dialogue on the Commission suggestions on building bridges.
I also hope that something will be said about the meeting in Glasgow on Monday, in which a number of threats were made about delaying enlargement because of concerns about regional funds among those who benefit so substantially from them and who fear their loss, especially the Iberian countries, Greece and Ireland. Because of the German elections, I suspect that there will not be as much progress made in Wales as we might want on revision and agreement of regional aid.
It is fair to say that the euro was launched well, in spite of the fracas. The markets have spoken more eloquently than the politicians by responding favourably, then and now.
A month or two ago, it was assumed that the Cardiff Council would be one of consolidation and continued preparation for the Austrian and, subsequently, the German presidencies. Since then, an amendment has been moved in terms of the major foreign policy crises that have overcome the smooth functioning of the presidency. I recall a distinguished former Labour Foreign Secretary, Michael Stewart, telling me that his nightmare as Foreign Secretary was that, at any one point in the day, two thirds

1245
of the world was awake and capable of causing mischief. I fear that the Foreign Secretary must share that same nightmare.
There have been several crises over the past six months in respect of Iraq, Algeria and Indonesia, and I compliment the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), on acting consummately and very sure-footedly in respect of each. Now, we must face the situation in Kosovo, nuclear tests and the middle east crisis—as well as, perhaps, the fact that Germany is raising questions over its financial contributions to the EU. The common theme is surely the absence of decisive leadership from the United States of America, whether on Kosovo, the middle east or elsewhere.
The challenge for Europe, particularly in respect of the Balkans, which is on our doorstep, is what we will do. If Europe is to be taken seriously in foreign affairs, as the common foreign and security policy apparatus is put in place following the Amsterdam treaty, we must ask ourselves whether the troika arrangement—in this case Luxembourg, United Kingdom and Austria—raises Europe's credibility and provides essential leadership.
In spite of the difficulties, the Government can take some considerable satisfaction from the way in which they have handled the presidency. They have ensured a smooth glide into the Austrian presidency. Lasting foundations for a stronger Europe have been laid.
6.31 pm
Mr. David Heath: It is curious that, despite being told that Europe is such a vibrant issue in this place, fewer than 20 hon. Members are present for this essential debate on the eve of the Cardiff Council. It is extraordinary that it attracts so little interest. Nevertheless, this is a very important and interesting debate.
I listened with care, as I always do, to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I am in some difficulty because I share some of his elegantly phrased analysis of the British presidency, but, of course, I disagree with some of his conclusions. I find it extremely curious to suggest that the Conservatives, had they been in a position to do so, would have done better than the present Government. All recent history defies that proposition.
The right hon. and learned Member was right to draw attention to the start of the British presidency. The Government came in like a lion, but are going out rather like a lamb. There was the overblown hoo-hah, as the expression goes, of the advent of the British presidency. There were loud fanfares, loud assertions and even louder ties. Indeed, I see that the Minister with responsibility for Europe is sporting one.
It was probable that the rhetoric could never have matched the actions during the presidency, however successful Ministers were. That expectation has been justified by events. The British presidency has not achieved all the objectives set, and probably could never have done so. The rather offensive proposition—to many of our partner nations in Europe—that a newly elected Government would suddenly lead Europe has not been borne out by events.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, suggested that there was a feast of achievement to
1246
celebrate. I must say that it is rather a jejune feast, although there have been successes, and it is right that we should pay tribute to them. The accession talks, for instance, were well managed. I am pleased that progress has been made.
It is probably unfashionable to do so, but I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on his activities in Europe. He has made a complete mess of agriculture at home, but in discussions in Europe to promote such matters as the lifting of the beef ban, he has done a fair amount of good work.
The European Union code of conduct on arms sales, which the hon. Member for Swansea, East mentioned, will be seen as the single most important achievement of the presidency. We were disappointed by the code's final form; it could and should have gone further and been a more transparent arrangement. Nevertheless, it is a signal achievement to have got so far—which makes it even more surprising that it was not mentioned in the Prime Minister's half-term report, which, as the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe said, was more of a half-baked report. It laid claims to great successes that amounted to no more than holding a meeting or having a half-formed idea of something that might be good in the short term.
The Government have some cause for celebration.
Mr. Donald Anderson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman would fairly agree that any criticisms about the inadequacies of the code of conduct should be laid at the feet not of the Government but of the attempts to gain consensus among more reluctant partner countries.
Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, right in part; it was a process of negotiation. I believe that that process could have been taken forward had it been more open. Certain partner nations might have put rather more pressure on those more reluctant nations—let us not be mealy-mouthed—such as a particular one just across the English channel, which it might be said took a slightly different view. Nevertheless, let us simply accept that something has been done which should have been done, and a start has been made.
I agree with the Foreign Secretary that there is a record of environmental achievements; there have been tangible successes. There have also been moves towards more openness and accountability in EU structures—although not as quick as I would have liked. The baton of the Amsterdam treaty should have been picked up—without waiting for ratification—and taken forward on some suggestions which, under the treaty, require two years to be achieved. Nevertheless, some progress has been made.
Set against that background, there are the failures. The negotiations on European monetary union were a mess—by the Prime Minister's own admission. They did very little to promote the idea of a strong and stable arrangement which is consistent with the independence that is so crucial to the success of monetary union.
As far as I know, there has not been any success in cutting the costs of the EU. None of the range of options that we and others have put forward for cutting costs has been promoted or proceeded with. For example, it is a monstrosity that £700 million a year is spent on promoting the growth of tobacco—a substance which every member

1247
state's health department is actively trying to discourage people using. That needs to be addressed in double-quick time.
We have made very little progress on reform of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. The Agenda 2000 proposals are on the table, but no more than that. The most important thing that Ministers can achieve at the Cardiff summit is the establishment of a firm timetable for progress on talks concerning not just reform of the CAP and the CFP but of the structural cohesion fund and the institutions. Talks on each of those matters needs a firm timetable. Europe does not work without deadlines to meet. Those deadlines must be set if there is any hope of success.
I do not believe that we have seen a strengthening of common foreign and security policy across Europe. Indeed, some of the Government's actions over recent months have been retrograde in that respect. It cannot have been good for European cohesion for Britain to act on the difficult subject of Iraq as if it were a member of the permanent two rather than the President of the EU. Algeria is another example of the European Union signally failing to make the impact that it should have done on a significant problem on its doorstep.
We can set against that the position in Kosovo, on which the Foreign Secretary spoke at length. Liberal Democrat Members will give him every support in his proposals. I make two pleas to him: first, that he makes every possible effort to involve Mr. Primakov and the Russian Government in any demarche that is available to him. It is essential that the Russians use their influence on Mr. Milosevic, because no one else has the same reach. Secondly, he should consider carefully the position in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which is in grave peril from an overspill of the problems in Kosovo, and the position in Montenegro, because there could be a serious destabilising effect on that country. We could witness further inflammation in the Balkans.
The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe was clear in his criticism about NATO's lack of preparation. I do not recall—he may correct me because he remembers his words better than I—his mentioning that point when we heard a statement on Kosovo a few weeks ago. I do not remember the right hon. and learned Gentleman making an explicit request—perhaps he did, or perhaps he has thought it up since then.
Mr. Howard: I made certain suggestions at that time—for example, concerning the stationing and reinforcement of United Nations troops in Macedonia—some of which have now been implemented. However, it never occurred to me that NATO had not prepared its options. There was no suggestion at that stage that it had not done so, and I assumed that it had. It was only when I read newspaper reports about a week ago that I had the first inkling that those options were, astonishingly, still under preparation.
Mr. Heath: Of course, I take it at face value that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made those implicit assumptions.
The Government have further failed in the parliamentary scrutiny of European Union matters within the United Kingdom. We heard from the Leader of the
1248
House earlier that proposals on that may be made shortly. I hope that they are, because it is essential that Britain has more effective parliamentary scrutiny of European affairs. There is a series of measures that would achieve that higher level of scrutiny.
The real opportunity in Cardiff, which has already been mentioned by several Members, is for the new start to the European institutions offered by the letter from Chancellor Kohl and President Chirac. It lays out important positions that the Government, by the happenstance of the UK presidency, have the opportunity to achieve. I am astonished by the language used in the letter, because some of it could have been written by members of my party's policy division. I see no difference between the subsidiarity proposals in the letter and the proposals that we have repeatedly made. It is interesting that the letter begins with the suggestion of
"an open and sober discussion at the European Council",
for which the lunchtime venue does not bode well.
The letter goes on categorically to state:
"It cannot be the goal of European policy to establish a European central state".
Hear, hear. It adds that
"some European institutions are becoming increasingly remote from the citizens and their day-to-day problems",
which is absolutely right. The letter also says that decisions should be
"taken as closely as possible to the citizen. Citizens will only become more strongly committed to the common Europe if decision-making processes are clearly understandable and transparent".
We have made precisely that point on many occasions. There is a need to reform Europe's institutions.
Perhaps it is now time to look beyond the rather flimsy protocol on subsidiarity that was appended to the Amsterdam treaty. I have criticisms of that: it was essentially a good thing, but it does not go far enough. We should consider a far more fundamental review of the levels at which decisions are made and, perhaps, try to achieve a concordat or protocol—call it what one will—that will establish once and for all where power is appropriately exercised in the different tiers of European Government, whether it is at the national tier or the regional and local tier.
We need a clear mechanism for ensuring that power does not gravitate to the centre, but is deployed at the lowest possible level. That is now a prerequisite for the development of a European Union that works for the citizens of Europe.
My criticism of the protocol in the Amsterdam treaty is that it is not an acquis communautaire; it leaves in place everything that has already been decided. We are talking about a new Europe with new problems and challenges. It is right that we consider whether what was decided in the past is necessarily right for the new Europe. The principle that Europe should do less, but do it better should commend itself to the House.
Finally, one outcome of the Cardiff Council must be a clear understanding on the timetable for the series of reforms that I have mentioned and a continuity beyond the British presidency into the Austrian, German and Finnish presidencies so that there is a continuum of reform that makes Europe a better place for its citizens. If Ministers can achieve that at the Cardiff summit, they will have served this country and Europe well.
6.46 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am glad to have the opportunity to take part in this debate on the eve of the European Council in Cardiff, and to add a Welsh voice to the proceedings.
I am delighted that we had the news yesterday from the European Commission that there are strong moves towards lifting the beef ban. Naturally, for my constituents in the very rural area that I represent, the beef ban has been a severe problem over the past two years. I follow these issues carefully and I know that, over the past months, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his officials have worked hard in Brussels with the Commission to develop, first, the certified herd scheme and, now, the date-based scheme. If that scheme is passed by the veterinary committee and, eventually, the Council of Ministers, it will mean a lifting of the ban over the next few weeks and months. It may take years rather than months, but we expect to recapture the export markets that were once held by British beef. That will help to raise prices. I am pleased that that announcement was made yesterday. It forms an optimistic backdrop to the weekend's proceedings.
More generally on agriculture, there is progress—it is always very slow—on reform of the common agricultural policy. That is now driven by Agenda 2000 and the need, with enlargement, to devote relatively fewer resources to agriculture in those structural reforms. It is important that we move away from production-based subsidies. In the past few months, one of the problems in the disbursal of the £85 million that came from the Government last Christmas is that the small farmers, who needed most help, were receiving the least. Those with large stocks of animals received the most help, but needed the least. There is a perversion in the CAP, in that 80 per cent. of the money goes to the richest 20 per cent. of farmers. We need to move away from such production-based support to a system that is based rather on people or units of labour and the environment. Our farmers, especially in the upland areas, do an enormous amount of work to maintain the environment and to make the countryside attractive to tourists. The support structures must take account of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) referred to the importance of structural funds in the Agenda 2000 discussions. West Wales and the valleys are impoverished. The cases of Merseyside and South Yorkshire for objective 1 status have been accepted by the Commission. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will press hard for west Wales and the valleys to be recognised as eligible for objective 1 funding. Our gross domestic product per capita is below 75 per cent. of the European average, so we qualify and we need that support.
Mr. Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the gross domestic product per capita of his county, Dyfed, at 68 per cent. of the European average, and of Mid-Glamorgan at 62 per cent. and Gwynedd at 72 per cent. of the European average, are all below the GDP per capita of South Yorkshire and Merseyside, and therefore should certainly be granted objective 1 status?
Mr. Williams: I am grateful to my colleague, the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), for giving the latest statistics on our inheritance after 18 years of
1250
Conservative rule. We have lost much of our heavy industry in the industrialised parts of Wales, and west Wales has more difficulty in attracting inward investment such as Clwyd and south-east Wales have successfully attracted. Our case for European funding is strong, and I hope that it will be strongly argued by the Government.
When the history of the United Kingdom presidency is written, the most important single issue of the past six months—despite the difficulties of that weekend in Brussels—will have been the establishment of the single currency. It will start on 1 January 1999, with 11 countries signed up to it. I am disappointed, of course, that Britain is not a member. We could not join, because of our inheritance. In the discussions on the Maastricht treaty, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) achieved the opt-out from the social chapter and from economic and monetary union. A new Labour Government could not quickly join the single currency.
The Government are setting out the pathway. We are working with the public, the trade unions and business towards eventual membership of the single currency, which I hope will come early in the next Parliament. From the sidelines, we wish it well. Whether we are in or out, it is important for economic prosperity that the euro is a success. I note that, despite high unemployment, growth is returning to the economies of France and Germany. The latest figures are 3.5 per cent. growth in GDP in France and 3.8 per cent. in Germany. I hope that unemployment will soon start to fall in both countries.
In Britain, we must plan and work diligently for membership on 1 January 2002, pending a referendum. On that date, euro coins and notes go into circulation. That would be a reasonable time scale for us to join. If, as I am confident they will, our Government win the general election in 2001 or early 2002, we can hold the referendum to join by that date.
A major national debate is needed on the optimum value of the pound for joining the single currency. The pound is substantially overvalued. At DM3.10, it caused serious problems to farmers and manufacturing industry. The rate is now down to about DM2.92, but I do not believe that that is sustainable. If we joined at anything like that level, we should merely be repeating the sad experience of the exchange rate mechanism.
I do not know what the right figure is. I read all the economic commentators. I should be happy with DM2.70 or DM2.60. Some in the City favour DM2.50 or even as far down as DM2.30. There is a range of views. The Chancellor cannot give us his figure, because it is not conventional for the Chancellor to intervene in a matter that is so market-sensitive. The Confederation of British Industry, our leading businesses, trade unions, employers, chambers of trade and we as citizens should engage in a detailed debate to decide on a long-term sustainable value. For my part, it is below DM2.70. It is a critical decision, which we must get right over the next four to five years.
A further concern is the absence of any strategy to get our interest rates in line with those of France and Germany and those that will be set by the European central bank. The current interest rate of France and Germany is 3.5 per cent. Ours is 7.5 per cent. The Bank of England or the Treasury must develop a grand strategy over the next four or five years that would allow our interest rate to move from 7.5 to 3.5 per cent. Without

1251
creating a boom. If there was a rapid drop, there would be the danger of a house price explosion and of land values getting out of control.
We need a euro membership plan for 1999–2002, rather like the Chancellor's statement this afternoon on his fiscal strategy over the next three years, and the comprehensive spending review that will be published in July. Those critical background decisions are the Treasury's domain, but we must work on a larger national strategy for gearing ourselves to join the single currency.
We could be overtaken by events in the next year. Industrial corporations that do most of their trade on the continent will open accounts in euros. Banks will make it possible for farmers to have euro accounts. Ordinary citizens like us could open accounts in euros, instead of putting our money into building societies, for example. Indeed, there is the possibility next year of British citizens speculating against the pound by opening euro accounts, in the expectation that the pound will devalue as we approach membership.
I do not rule out the possibility of joining the exchange rate mechanism. We may need to consider that next year, if there is instability in the value of the pound. Perhaps we should join the exchange rate mechanism on 1 January 2000 at a negotiated rate. We would then be able to demonstrate stability for the two years before membership of the single currency.
Those are my thoughts on our relations with Europe. I am delighted that, despite last weekend's difficulties, the single currency will be launched on target on 1 January next year. I am convinced that it will be a great success and that we should join it. As the Foreign Secretary and the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), said earlier, when we look back on our presidency, we can be proud of many achievements in the past six months. It was never going to be an easy task because of our inheritance of Euro-scepticism from the previous Government. Relations with our European partners were badly damaged during the period of non-co-operation over the beef ban, and we have tried to repair that damage in the past 12 or 18 months.
Let us look forward three, five or 10 years. I hope that there will be a change of Government in Germany and that the new Administration will be more centrist or centre left. The days of President Chirac in France are numbered, and I hope that we shall see a new social democratic or centre-left Government. In three or five years' time, I hope that the European Union will lean more to the centre left and will be very much in tune with the philosophy of the new Labour party. I believe that our influence will become stronger over the years and that we shall pull Britain back into the heart of Europe.
7.1 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: In preparing my remarks for today's debate, I sought not to offend the Government because I want them to work enthusiastically towards achieving some objectives—particularly in development and including the renegotiation of the Lom é convention—before our presidency ends at the end of June. The Government set themselves the objective of agreeing the European
1252
Union's negotiating mandate for the renewal of the Lom é convention, which expires at the end of 2000. I understand that a ministerial meeting took place on Monday in an attempt to settle the matter, but I have not heard that real progress has been made. If it has, I hope that the Minister will inform the House what has been achieved. That is one item that I wish to highlight.
I was provoked by the speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I have rarely heard in the House such a self-satisfied and smug speech about the Government's achievements during our presidency. There has clearly been modest progress in some areas, but it is very modest. Let us take the issue of arms exports, about which we are all concerned. The Foreign Secretary heralded the agreement on the European Union's conduct of arms sales as a great achievement, but he over-egged the pudding. I suppose that we should be used to that from the Labour party, which trumpets the most modest progress to the press and the media as a great triumph.
I do not wish to upset the Government: they have tried, but they have made only a modest achievement. The Foreign Secretary did not give any details of that achievement. It has been agreed that, if any European nation refuses a licence to export arms, it must inform the other member states. That is progress—and we hope to build upon it—but it is very slight progress; we cannot claim that it is a huge advance. Let us be modest about it: we have a huge way to go in controlling arms sales and ensuring that arms are not sold to people with genocidal intentions or to countries that wish to control their populations by military means, such as Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Indonesia or anywhere else. We have a long way to go before we secure agreement on that matter, but some progress has been made.
The Foreign Secretary trumpeted the achievement of the subsidiarity letter of Kohl and Chirac. It is mind-boggling that we are asked to believe that that represents progress. The hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) and the Foreign Secretary extolled the virtues of economic and monetary union, but there is no more centralising policy adopted by the European Union than the decision to form a single currency. West Wales will rue the day that it had an advocate such as the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr, who believes in the single currency. If the people of west Wales think that they are isolated from economic decision making in Britain, they will be even more isolated in Europe.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I are in passionate agreement about subsidiarity: we welcome it. However, the Amsterdam treaty allows the European Commission to veto the appointment of Commissioners. That is a huge accretion of power to the centralised bureaucracy and to the President of the European Union. Let us see these great declarations for what they are: a mechanism for controlling political activity in Europe that is hostile to the increasing accretion of power in Brussels. In France and in Germany, they say, "Don't worry, old chaps, we believe that decisions should be taken as near to the people as possible, but we won't do anything about it. We shall do the reverse." We should not be fooled by the great declarations.
I return to the question of the management of aid under the Lomé convention, the renegotiation of that convention and the mandate that we must give to our European Union

1253
negotiators. I share the Government's ambition to achieve agreement during the United Kingdom presidency. That aim has not yet been realised, but there is still time. The International Development Committee has published a report on the matter—which I commend strongly to the House—which suggests that the European Union's approach to the issue is seriously flawed. I hope that I am right in assuming that the Government have not made progress because there is serious disagreement about the way in which the European Union should negotiate with the African, Caribbean and Pacific nations, which are the other parties to the Lomé convention.
The trade proposals are particularly damaging. The European Union proposes to enter into trade agreements with some of the poorest countries—which are African, Caribbean and Pacific nations—only if it can enter reciprocal free trade areas. The Lomé convention gives European Union countries free trade access to the European market, but they are now demanding free access to other markets. It has been calculated that, if that occurs, the value of 40 per cent. of European Union aid to vulnerable countries will disappear.
Under the agreement, which it has proposed, the EU will achieve huge trade advantages in respect of those small countries. What will that do to those vulnerable countries? South Africa is not as vulnerable in trade terms as countries such as Mozambique and Rwanda, but we should consider the EU's negotiations with it. At present, they have taken three years, and there is still no agreement. The EU is to give only five years for all those countries to enter into free trade agreements, yet it has not reached agreement with South Africa in three years.
Let us consider a little homespun story: the EU subsidises the production of tinned tomatoes, which it over-produces. Subsidised tinned tomatoes are exported to South Africa, now that it has opened up its markets at the request of the EU. What has that done to the tinned tomato factories of South Africa, which have traditionally exported to this country, to Europe and around the world? It has closed one factory and put more than 400 people out of work. That is an example of what the EU is trying to negotiate, not only with middle-income countries such as South Africa, but with the poorest countries of this world.
There has been a serious reversal of the trade policy that this country has offered to certain countries, some of which have been associated with us for 450 to 500 years. The EU wants us to abandon them and wants to force them into integrated free trade areas. We would then negotiate from the position of what I would characterise as the EU's seriously imperial ambitions in such areas, turning them into dependent countries and reducing them to producing only primary products at prices dictated by the hugely powerful EU.
That is not the right way to negotiate with such vulnerable countries, and the report of the International Development Committee makes that clear. I commend the report to the House and to the Government, because if the mandate is allowed to be settled on such a basis, we shall have a settlement that will be damaging to the countries about which we should be most concerned—the poorest countries.
I particularly want to discuss the banana protocol. Agriculture Ministers and Foreign Ministers have said to the Select Committee that they want the completion of
1254
a new agreement safeguarding the small farmers of the Windward Islands from being overrun by the big companies in the banana world, such as Chiquita and Dole. Few people are involved in comparison with the number at Chiquita, Dole and Del Monte, the huge companies which dominate the world banana trade. We are dealing with a tiny number of people—in St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Dominica—whose livelihoods are based on the industry. The sale of relatively few bananas accounts for 70 per cent. of Dominica's export earnings.
We must safeguard that trade. It is no good calling on such countries to diversify—diversify into what? Drugs? No. Into other agricultural crops? No, because the competitors are much more efficient. It would be much more sensible and practical to find a way to produce a formula. I believe that Ministers had the ambition to do so and that EU officials think that they can achieve one, but none has been forthcoming so far. Therefore, I ask Ministers to make another effort in the next six weeks. In particular, I ask them not to accept the advice that they are receiving from their civil servants, who are saying that the agreement has to be compatible with World Trade Organisation criteria. It does not. If Ministers decided so to do as a matter of policy, they could apply to the WTO to be absolved from its general rules. That evidence was given to the International Development Committee by WTO officials in charge of trade with developing countries and is spelled out in the report.
The EU has it in its power to get a waiver from the WTO, if, politically, it wants to do so. In European Standing Committee B, the Minister of State was unable to answer a question on the waiver, about which I have had correspondence with him. He revealed in a letter that he is under advice from civil servants—not only from this country, but from Europe—that they do not want to go down the policy route of seeking a waiver, to safeguard banana producers in the Windward Islands. That policy is wrong, unless an agreement can be produced to safeguard those producers by other means. The current proposals would simply benefit large producers—Del Monte, in particular—on the west African coast and would exclude and eventually eliminate the banana trade from the West Indies. I beg the Government to consider that seriously.
In respect of the report on Lomé, we must ensure that the management of European aid is improved vastly. It is constantly the subject of adverse Court of Auditors reports, and delivery of aid is slow—way behind the Lomé IV target. Aid that we are supposed to be disbursing now has not even begun to be disbursed, because we have not fully signed up to Lomé IV. European offices in recipient countries are short of staff and have to refer every decision to Brussels, because ministerial meetings must decide every nuance of policy. That must be decentralised, and there should be more competent staff in the field.
The report also suggests that EU nation states' bilateral aid programmes should be co-ordinated and should work together with EU efforts. Tomorrow, we are meeting at Westminster the chairmen of the equivalents of the International Development Committee from 11 of the 15 nation states to discuss how we can do that. Mr. Rocard, the chairman of the European Parliament Development Committee, is also attending, so we hope to contribute to the co-ordination of aid policy and its efficient delivery. I ask Ministers to redouble their efforts to reach agreement on the negotiating mandate for the Lomé convention before the end of our presidency.
7.17 pm
Mr. Mike Gapes: It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), who made an interesting reference to the World Trade Organisation. Although my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not refer to it in his speech, the European Union, under the British presidency, has moved to resolve the long-standing dispute with the United States about the Helms-Burton provisions, extra-territoriality and attempts, through American domestic legislation, to penalise European companies for trading with Cuba, Libya and Iran. Alone, this country or any other European country would not be able to achieve anything on that issue. We have made progress only through the strength of the EU, under the leadership of our Labour Government.
I shall refer to several matters that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary mentioned. First, I draw attention to the prodigious efforts of Ministers over the past six months. This week, our Prime Minister has done a massive amount of Henry Kissinger-style shuttle diplomacy around Europe. He was in three Scandinavian capitals in one day. Yesterday, I met a senior figure from the Swedish Social Democratic party, who was in London and had been in Stockholm when the Prime Minister was there. That person said that, although the Nordic model had always strongly emphasised partnership between the private and the public sector, and although the Nordic model had many similarities with policies that we were pursuing, our Prime Minister's visit received enormous coverage. The visit was regarded as significant in the context of building a new alliance between the British Government and Sweden, Finland and Denmark—the three countries which were visited during one part of the tour that has taken the Prime Minister all over Europe during the past week or so.
The Kohl-Chirac letter has already been mentioned, but I want to emphasise its importance. Earlier, in an intervention on the shadow Foreign Secretary, I said that such letters were nothing new. When they had leaders in different countries, the Christian Democrats often organised joint initiatives before European summits. President Mitterrand organised joint initiatives with Chancellor Kohl before a number of such summits, including Maastricht in 1991. What is significant about this initiative is the presence of so many themes that are similar to the policies being pursued in this country under the British presidency, which will be submitted to the meeting of Heads of Government at the end of next week.
Under a Conservative Government, we were pleased to be the odd one out—because we had "Madame No" as Prime Minister, or because, as happened in March 1997 in the last Parliament, our then Foreign Secretary told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that the British Government had a list of so-called show stoppers. That seemed to be a growing list: every time the Foreign Secretary answered a question, something was added to that list of show stoppers, designed to prevent any agreement at the Amsterdam summit. Those days seem very long ago.
I look around the Chamber—particularly at the Conservative Benches—and ask: where are the Euro-sceptics? I recognise the Opposition Whip, but I am not sure where the rest of them are. I have regularly participated in European debates during the past six years, and I do not think that I have missed many: I was present
1256
for the Committee stage of the Bill dealing with the ratification of the Maastricht treaty, and for our debates on the Amsterdam treaty. I remember speaking at midnight, and being berated by nine or 10 hon. Members who harangued me with intervention after intervention. Where are they today? I am waiting for them, but they are not here.
The fact is that the debate has changed. It has moved on. [Interruption.] The Opposition Whip should understand that the debate has moved on. The Euro-sceptics were partly routed at the last general election. I see that a Europhile has joined us: I am pleased that Conservative Europhiles are coming into the Chamber.
Euro-sceptics not only lost a number of seats; they no longer seem to have the arguments. The truth is that Europhobia and xenophobia are not popular policies with the British people. The British people want a pragmatic Government who get things done—a Government who co-operate with our European neighbours. That is what they have, and that means that, as the Austrian presidency takes over from the British presidency, there will be a very good period of co-operation between the two Governments during the transition. The Austrian presidency will continue to pursue many of the aims that we have pursued during the past few months, especially preparation for enlargement.
There is a lengthy agenda for the European summit. Many items on that agenda are very complex, and some, inevitably, are for the long term. It is ridiculous to think that any six-month presidency of an organisation such as the European Union, comprising 15 states, can make a massive difference to the process. With a bad presidency, things can go badly wrong; with a good presidency, things can be dealt with efficiently. What needs to be done can be done, and the agenda can be taken forward—which is what the British presidency has done, in a number of important ways.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams), who said that the country would incur costs by remaining outside the single European currency. I was pleased that, in his interesting statement today, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer specifically said that the Government would
"meet the fiscal criteria laid down in the Maastricht Treaty."
That is important: it means that, when the time is right, there should be no arguments about unnecessary delays in regard to British engagement in, and membership of, the European single currency. I believe that, when we meet the necessary economic conditions, and have reached a political judgment that the time is appropriate and a popular mandate is there, we should join quickly.
As the letter from Chancellor Kohl and President Chirac points out, the issue that must be discussed—it is one of the issues that they want to be raised in Cardiff—is the further development of political union
"in tandem with the Economic and Monetary Union".
Discussions on that are proceeding now—informally—among a number of European Union countries. If we are not part of the formal process within economic and monetary union, there is a danger that, in the long term, political discussions and developments that may impinge on this country will go ahead, and we shall not be part of

1257
them to the extent that we could be if we joined the 11 who are in economic and monetary union, as well as being one of the 15 members of the European Union.
Let me also say something about relationships between European Union countries. The letter from President Chirac and Chancellor Kohl is a sign of the close bonds between Germany and France. Those close bonds have been built up for long-term historical reasons. We need to recall only a few dates—1870, 1914 and 1940—to appreciate the reasons why, after 1945, democratic politicians decided that that relationship had to be built for the future peace and stability of the continent.
It is a mistake—some commentators have referred to this—to think that it is in Britain's and Europe's interests to try to break the relationship between Germany and France. It would be very dangerous and short-sighted for us, as British politicians, to take the view that we should be friendly with either Germany or France. It is essential for Britain to play a full role—alongside Germany and France—at the motor of the European Union, while retaining our historically excellent relationships with other European Union countries such as the Netherlands and Portugal, and our good relationships with countries outside the EU. An example is Norway, which, unfortunately, made the wrong decision in its referendum.
The victory of Gerhard SchrÖder in September will be a great boost to the new centre-left politics in Europe. Philip Stephens, in the Financial Times, pointed out that a Chancellor SchrÖder in Germany would take a more Atlanticist and northern approach than the present German Government. That remains to be seen, but it raises an interesting point. There might be less tension if the British Government had excellent relations with the United States and improving relations with the European Union, and the German Government had a similar approach.
Our approach should not be at the expense of our relationship with Lionel Jospin and the socialist party in France. The two countries have a different electoral system, and there are differences in the nature of the majorities. Prime Minister Jospin has a difficult coalition to manage, yet many of his policies are similar—leaving aside the rhetoric—to those that we have been pursuing. Over the next three, four or five years there will be significant cross-fertilisation. We shall learn from each other's experiences and build together coherent and constructive policies to create a new, dynamic, open, effective, efficient and more democratic western European and all-European political structure.
One of the difficult areas that we shall have to consider and which will cause great problems in the enlargement negotiations is the nature of the institutional framework for an enlarged European Union. It is absurd to think that we could continue the present structure and have an efficient decision-making process in a European Union of 25 or 27 member states. Therefore, there must be serious change. Everyone is agreeable in principle to change, except when it affects what they perceive to be their own vital national interests.
At the moment, we have two Commissioners, because we are a large country. It has been argued that the weighted vote of larger countries should be increased, because the present undemocratic system gives Luxembourg a large vote in European Union institutions. The voting system bears no relationship to the population distribution in the European Union. If Cyprus, Slovenia,
1258
Estonia and Latvia accede to the European Union, the problem will be compounded. However, we shall face difficulties if we move too far down that road.
How can the democratic legitimacy of decision making reflect the diversity of the different nation states in the European Union? We are not creating a single, centralised Euro state. That is also the contention of Kohl and Chirac. They are calling for more subsidiarity, less regulation and decision making that is more sensitive to the needs of particular countries. I thought that that was the agenda of the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), or so we were told. The best way to achieve that would be to use the process of enlargement to bring about the required institutional changes.
Mr. Robert Walter: Given that the Prime Minister came back from Amsterdam in great triumph, why was this matter not addressed in that treaty, because enlargement was on the agenda?
Mr. Gapes: I am grateful that at least one Euro-sceptic is present.
Mr. Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman is one of us.
Mr. Gapes: I apologise to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). I have embarrassed him. I assumed that he followed his party's official policy. I am sorry if I have slurred him, and I withdraw that remark.
The previous Government were in office until 1 May 1997. The Amsterdam negotiations were to come to a conclusion some six weeks later. The process had reached an impasse. Amsterdam was designed as an interim development before the discussions on enlargement. The Amsterdam agreement stated that negotiations would open six months after the signing of the treaty. It was important to get an agreement at Amsterdam so as to open up the process for enlargement. If the Conservatives had still been in government, we should have had no agreement at Amsterdam, so enlargement would have been a purely theoretical, hypothetical, distant question for the future.
Difficult decisions will have to be taken in the next few years. There will be arguments about objective 1 status for our regions. Objective 1 money has been important in the highlands and islands, in parts of England and in Northern Ireland. Many people have become more positive about the European Union because they have had the economic benefits of funding from Brussels.
As the EU is enlarged, the funding formula will have to change. As unemployment in this country is falling, it is questionable whether funding for some of our regions will be maintained for the future. It is important to emphasise not just the economic arguments for European Union membership, but the vital arguments about stability, security, environmental co-operation and the political integrity and democracy that come from having an organisation that gives us such a peaceful continent.
Mention was made of the crisis in Kosovo. I shall not go into that, but I believe that it is vital that the European Union does not allow ethnic and religious conflicts once again to develop across our continent. Extremists and fanatics in various communities want to foster hatred and

1259
animosity. The Balkan region—from Kosovo to Macedonia and involving Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria—could become another cauldron leading to a generalised regional conflict. It is vital that we act economically, politically and, if necessary, militarily to contain, control and prevent such regional conflict. The European Union has a vital role in such developments, and I am pleased that our Government are playing such a positive role to strengthen the European Union over the coming years.
7.39 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) and to pick up on his point about the importance of the European Union as a vehicle for peace. Twice in this century, this continent has torn itself apart in two bloody wars. The basic reason for the EU' s existence is to ensure that that never happens again. There are, of course, important economic arguments, but the political imperative brought that vision about. That is what we must always retain in our minds.
I welcome this opportunity to speak briefly in a debate before the European Council meeting in Cardiff, the capital city of Wales. I would rather, of course, that it was coming to Wales in its own right—that Wales was inviting the European Council and had the presidency. I may have to wait a little longer for that. In the meantime, the meeting is well worth having and I am glad, as are the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales, that it is happening now, at an important time in the EU's development.
In listening to the Foreign Secretary, what came home to me was that six months is a very short period and that one cannot expect miracles to happen. Perhaps he was dressing up many of the things that have happened to create a background of achievement by the Government, but no Government or presidency can be expected to change things overnight. Progress has been made on some issues. The most important issue has been brought out in this debate—indeed; it is brought out when we consider the hon. Members who are present. There has been a change in attitude towards the European Union and that can be only for the good.
There is no doubt that, in working with the grain of Europe, we have a greater chance of finding solutions to our problems—or at least acceptable compromises with which we can live—than we would if we just took Europe on, issue after issue. Whatever may have been the arguments in the 1980s for making a stand on certain issues, certain lessons must be learned.
In the opening comments of the debate, reference was made to the expansion of Europe. I am glad that we are considering the possibility of countries from the east coming in. I am glad that some of the small countries are coming in. Yes, there will be problems when Slovenia and Estonia come in, but they are part of Europe, and we have to adapt the structures to ensure that they have a proper place, while not disrupting the balance of current structures.
I hoped that progress might have been made with one or two of the other states that wish to come in, particularly Lithuania. I am sad that it is not in the tranche that is being considered. I should like to have seen Lithuania,
1260
Latvia and Estonia knocking on the door together. I hope that progress can be made in that direction as we look towards expansion.
The point about the dangers in Kosovo has been made. Surely we have learnt some lessons from the experience of Bosnia. There is a will in Europe to try to avoid an escalation of those conflicts. We should, if we have to, make a stand to try to ensure that no inch is given to undemocratic, totalitarian and fascist forces that may be using racist arguments to fan debates that would be better not heard. I hope that the European Union can take a positive lead in that direction—a more positive lead than was the case with Bosnia.
A little progress, which we welcome, has been made this week on an issue that has dominated the economic argument in large parts of Wales: the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis, which has led to a rural crisis, with a real-terms drop in farming incomes per head of 45 per cent; the actual figures have been quoted as over 90 per cent. Farms in Wales are small and family run. Farmers there are not barley barons who pull in hundreds of thousands of pounds; there is subsistence farming. Experiences such as those over the past couple of years can undermine the viability of those farms. A solution is desperately needed to the BSE crisis.
Good progress is being made on the date-based scheme. I hope that the veterinary committee that considers the matter next will support the moves, that support will then be found in the Council of Ministers, and that assurances to those in Germany and in other countries who are fearful about the quality of the food—one accepts those fears entirely—will be enough to ensure not only that we have the right to export, but that those other markets will have the confidence to want to buy our products.
In the meantime, not only beef farmers but dairy farmers need to take advantage of the resources that are available from the European Union for this financial year to compensate for the effect of the value of the pound against the green pound. There is no doubt that the agriculture sector is suffering enormously because of the pound's high level. It is suffering in terms of the value of aid coming through from Europe in subsidies. It is also suffering because countries such as the Republic of Ireland are selling their dairy produce to the United Kingdom, including Wales, and undercutting our produce with the benefit of assistance from the European Union, benefit that is available to our farmers, but which we have not taken up fully yet; it has certainly not been taken up in the dairy sector. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will give thought to that as discussions take place in Cardiff.
The parity of the pound has been of concern not only to farmers but to manufacturers. In my constituency, some 30 or 40 jobs are in danger of being lost this week at the old Ferodo factory, the Dynamex factory as it is now known, which depends largely on exports. It is finding that its markets have been undercut because of the value of the pound. That underlines the need for us to move towards the European single currency. Unless we do so, this problem will continue and possibly be exacerbated in the coming period.
Large companies in Wales are already preparing to deal in euros. Companies such as British Steel, Sony, Toyota, Nissan and Pilkington are already preparing to do so. We shall find ourselves with parallel currencies. As they

1261
do that—for good reasons—they will want transparency in their dealings and all the rest of it, and they will put pressure on their suppliers to deal in euros as well. Therefore, companies that want to sell products, components and other items to the large companies will be under pressure to deal in euros. It is likely that parallel currencies will operate in the UK, as they do in central America, where large companies deal in dollars and small companies in the local currency.
There are dangers that, when the euro has started up and there is a lot of international money moving around, some dealers will want to hedge their bets and come into sterling because they are not too sure about euros. Sterling's value could go up in that period again, causing even greater problems for our agriculture sector and manufacturing industry.
Of course, I am conscious of the fact that, in areas such as Wales, where we have severe economic problems in the old coal-mining areas and where, recently, those problems have arisen in some agricultural areas in particular, the advent of the euro will restrict some of the tools that have traditionally been available to Government to help depressed areas, where economic performance has not been so good. There will not be the option of devaluation, of playing around with interest rates, of deficit budgeting and of some of the Keynesian approach that we have had in the past. That is what makes objective 1 funding so important, to follow up the point that has been made by the hon. Members for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson).
No part of Wales has ever been designated for objective 1 purposes despite the fact that the only criterion for objective 1 eligibility is to be below 75 per cent. of the average European GDP per head. Unemployment is not a criterion for objective 1 status. We need areas of national statistics—nomenclature of units of territorial statistics, or NUTS 2 areas—that fall below the 75 per cent threshold. As we have had a rather stupid map—a north-south map—in NUTS 2 areas in Wales, neither the north nor the south has qualified, although there are large areas in both that would qualify. The east-west analysis in Wales is much more meaningful in terms of economic problems and development. If a NUTS 2 map were accepted that was based on the two old counties of Gwynedd and Dyfed through the coalfields of west Glamorgan and Mid-Glamorgan to Gwent—areas that have common problems—that area would have 72 per cent. of average European GDP and would qualify for objective 1 funding.
Northern Ireland, the highlands and islands of Scotland, Merseyside and South Yorkshire have had objective 1 funding, and I wish them the best of luck, but areas in Wales that have a low income per head desperately need assistance.
Mr. Quentin Davies:The right hon. Gentleman should think carefully about his suggestion that the criteria for eligibility for objective 1 funding should include unemployment, rather than being based on GDP per capita. If such a criterion were imposed on the system, it would end up subsidising people and regions who might have priced themselves out of employment by demanding to high and unrealistic
1262
wages and penalising parts of the Union where labour markets were more flexible and people were prepared to work for more realistic levels of income.
Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I was referring to the current rules, and we have to work within the rules unless they are changed. The only relevant factor is GDP per capita. I am not advocating that unemployment should be a factor; I am saying that there is high unemployment in many areas, but the only criterion is GDP per head.
In the old county areas, three of the five counties with the lowest GDP per head in the United Kingdom are in Wales—Mid-Glamorgan, Dyfed and Gwynedd. Wales has the lowest GDP per head of any country or region in Britain, yet no part of Wales has ever qualified for objective 1 benefit which depends on the factor of GDP per head. Surely there must be something wrong.
I urge the Government, in their negotiations with our European partners and the agencies of government—from the Office for National Statistics, through to Eurostat in Brussels—to turn every stone to get it right. It is not that we have a begging bowl mentality. I hope that the economy of Wales develops in the same way as the economy of Ireland to a point at which we do not need assistance, but, at the moment, we most certainly do in order to overcome our problems. That is one of the themes that will come through from the people of Wales to our friends from various parts of Europe who meet in Cardiff. They will get a strong message that we need that assistance to overcome our problems.
I hope that everyone who comes to Wales has a constructive and happy time and leaves with a feeling of greater cohesion, a vision for the future of Europe, ready to deal with the difficult problems ahead in a positive and co-operative manner that will give greater hope to our continent.
7.52 pm
Mr. Alan Simpson: Earlier this week, I took part in a Radio 4 round-table debate about a publication by DEMOS. This trailed a series of extensive surveys into public attitudes towards the European project and attempted to explain why there has been falling interest in or support for that project in recent years.
The panel comprised a representative from DEMOS, the former European Union ambassador to the United States and myself. We all took different views. The DEMOS line was that Europe's leaders had lost touch with their populations about the European ideal, or the European dream, and had pursued priorities that appeared to be bureaucratic and remote from people's lives. It suggested that a new agenda was emerging, embracing concerns such as crime and the environment. The only thing lacking was a bit more enthusiasm and leadership in Europe. If leaders would lead, the public would follow.
The European ambassadors' line was that the European project's fall in popularity was really no more than a press conspiracy—that a sustained attack on everything European had resulted in the growth of scepticism and hostility. My response is that it is difficult to describe 18 million people out of work in Europe as a press conspiracy. It could be described as a tragedy or a scandal. It ought not be described as something marginal to the lives of people in the United Kingdom or any other part of Europe.

1263
I believe that the fall in enthusiasm was caused by a quite healthy doubt about the credibility and accountability of European institutions, and a legitimate concern that its economics do not work. I am looking forward to going to Cardiff as part of the alternative summit that has been organised on a broad, pan-European basis, bringing together trade unions, environmentalists and various non-governmental organisations. These all seek to take issue with what may be the agenda of the summit the leaders are addressing, and seek to define a different European agenda that is not narrowly nationalistic, xenophobic or anti-European. The alternative summit simply opposes the monetarism currently driving the European project and is anti-Maastricht in character.
Hon. Members have already warned about the dangers of unleashing new tides of xenophobia and, in that sense, the alternative summit is anti-xenophobic. This in itself is a minor tragedy as it echoes what happened last year around the Amsterdam summit, when I took part in organising marches from every part of Europe, including eastern Europe. We wanted to say that we were not at odds with each other; we are not each other's enemies. The real enemies of the European project are unemployment, social exclusion, job insecurity and environmental instability. The alternative summit in Amsterdam was structured around those key themes, and the alternative Cardiff summit will have the same agenda.
I should like to flag up four key issues that will be discussed in a pan-European context outside the main summit. The first is the presumption that the economics that are currently driving the European project are wrong. The single currency will either be inadequately underpinned or divisive and inherently unstable. The democratic deficit is rapidly turning into a democratic deceit, and the agenda for jobs, the environment and sustainability will be sacrificed on the altar of international competitiveness.
Many of us argue that Europe's economics are wrong because, although many of our debates, both on Europe and generally, are still being conducted on the presumption that inflation is the big threat to our economy, the world teeters dangerously on the edge of a global recession. Events in south-east Asia and the collapse in eastern Europe show a series of economies in deep crisis. Moreover, many aspects of the crisis in other parts the world will make their way to Europe and to the United Kingdom. This is the same crisis that has affected the strength of the pound, and damaged United Kingdom manufacturing and exports. As manufacturing and exports are hit, so, too, are people's jobs, earnings, sense of inclusion and confidence about the future.
In response to the crisis, around the world, many major political and economic thinkers have been saying that we have to begin to deal with the economics of reflation—that we should not be obsessed with convergence terms established in the Maastricht treaty. This will require a shift in thinking that parallels the tragic misjudgments made at the end of the first world war.
France provides an important lesson to us all. At the end of the first world war, France decided that it would never again be invaded by Germany. It would protect its land frontiers so that no similar invasion would ever again
1264
be possible. It invested in an enormous project. The Maginot line had reinforced concrete that was tougher than anything Europe had ever seen, and a services and communications infrastructure that was unparalleled in many of France's cities. However, at the beginning of the second world war, German aeroplanes flew over the line, and German troops went round it.
My fear is that monetarism will be the Maginot line of the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. To squeeze ourselves into an economics of absurdity, we are putting at risk the whole sense of positive Europeanism. Rather than pursuing monetarist obsessions, we should go back and question whether those obsessions are leading us down sensible paths.
Monetarism is changing the way in which we perceive culture, society and economics. We have had many debates in this Chamber about the nature of public debt. Today's statement made it clear that the reconstruction of local government and changes in public spending and public debt are being undertaken to fit in with our Maastricht obligations. We have somehow blandly accepted that public debt is bad debt, that private debt is good debt, and that the private finance initiative is a way of taking spending off the books. We seem to accept that partnerships, which may leave the public sector with long-term financial obligations, will somehow be better if the debt is private rather than public.
I have to confess that I have never understood why having 40 or 50 per cent. of the economy in public debt—and thereby publicly accountable—should be a problem. I have always worried that more of the economy was not held to public account. The real risk arises when we push responsibility and accountability beyond public reach—which, under the terms of the Maastricht treaty, will happen when we are all left in hock to the private sector, and will cost us more.
It has never been cheaper to borrow personally and privately than to borrow collectively and publicly. Nevertheless, that is the ideology which is driving our view of the economy and society. We are all, therefore, part of the sacrifices demanded by Maastricht. The sacrifices have been called for on the presumption that—no matter how unpleasant the medicine—they will make everything better.
Before I was elected to the House, one of the last pieces of research I was involved in was on the sequence of invitations, expectations and deliveries in successive waves of the European jobs project. Beginning with the 1992 Ceccini report on the single European legislation, 1.8 million jobs were promised as part of the first wave of changes after the passage of that legislation. Although much fuss and publicity was given to Ceccini, two or three years later, the Neuberger report pointed out that rationalisation of European industry had caused massive job losses in smaller and medium-sized firms. We then realised that almost exactly the number of jobs promised by Ceccini were lost with passage of the Single European Act 1985.
We are now being promised that, if we can all pull together under the terms of Maastricht, Europe's 18 million unemployed people will disappear or be absorbed within the system. It is a wish, but it is not based on practical economics that will deliver jobs paying a living wage and offering secure prospects for the future.

1265
I am, therefore, deeply worried about the single currency—although I accept the good faith in which hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that the single currency will be the answer to European instability. It is, of course, possible for a single currency to work. A single currency works in America, and one works in Germany—where the former West Germany's amazing commitment to reinvesting in reunification has been underpinned by a massive solidarity tax of 7 per cent. The tax is raised in the west and transferred to the east, and will probably continue for another generation. It is an enormous tribute to Germany's commitment to that process.
If we are to make Europe work, we shall require a similar fiscal transfer system. In 1977, in the MacDougall report, the European Parliament made its first and only attempt to spell out what such a system would mean in the European context. The report set out the different stages Europe would have to undergo to reach a stable and integrated European theatre in which we all felt that we had a place.
I should like to deal with two aspects of the MacDougall report. The MacDougall committee's conclusions on the nature of an integrated Europe described two possible scenarios—one in which Europe had a small public sector, and another in which it had a more substantial and integrated public sector. The committee pointed out that the Community budget necessary for a small public sector on the Community level would be about 5 to 7 per cent. of Europe's gross domestic product. I should say at this point that the United Kingdom's current contribution to the Union is 1.27 per cent. of GDP.
The Macdougall committee stated that spending of about 20 to 25 per cent. of Europe's GDP would have to be spent to create a more integrated approach in Community provision, to deal with external shock or internal inequalities of economic impact. Although I do not object to those who wish such a scenario to be realised, I have yet to find a politician of any persuasion who will knock on his or her constituents' doors and say, "To create the single currency, we would like you to pay an amount that is a four-fold increase in Britain's tax contributions to the European Union. But that is the good news. If you want more provision from the European Union, you might have to pay a 12 or 20-fold increase in contributions."
If people want to pay for that, that is fine, but we should be honest about how we would have to fund the process. If we are not honest, we shall set people against one another because of the deficits that we build into the process. We cannot make something work on an economics that is based on a fraud. What terrifies me is that people who are not hostile to one another may end up saying, "If insufficiency is built into the common European pot, why the hell should we in Merseyside pay taxes so that jobs can be transferred to southern Spain?" People will see themselves stealing jobs from one another. Those who want to embrace a European ideal quickly have to be honest enough to say not only how they would achieve the ends, but how they would will the means of delivering those ends.
I am worried that that problem exists in the European Union even before it is expanded. Moreover, this applies against a backcloth of Germany having declared a desire to reduce its contributions to the European budget.
1266
My fear is that European states will end up locked in a fixed exchange rate mechanism, on the most suitable possible terms for the deutschmark, with fewer resources for fiscal transfers and a magnet effect that will suck resources into those areas that already have the greatest reserves.
That would be massively destabilising for a single currency zone. We must address the mechanisms of redistribution if the single currency is to have any prospect of working. Personally, I do not believe that it will be possible, given the different cultures and economies in Europe. There are, though, other very exciting ways in which these can be made compatible, just as a car has a clutch system that enables the gears to change. However, such compatibility will not be achieved in the context of a lumpen project that drives together and squeezes ideas in an assumption that if they can all somehow be put in the box, they will stay there for ever.
European institutions have been the central architects of the current proposals. When I was researching the resurgence of European racism and fascism, I spent some time in Brussels going through the commentaries on the re-emergence of far right organisations both within and outside the political system. The most interesting part of that experience was being inside the European Commission. Many people have spoken about the democratic deficit, but I was astonished by the fleet of corporate lobbyists who lay permanent siege to the European Union institutions. On one occasion during my time there, some trade unionists turned up. It was such a rare event that MEPs from the different parties of the left were really pleased. They rang one another up to say, "This is wonderful. Some trade unions are here; come and meet them."
We sometimes think that the House of Commons is inaccessible to the public, but the European institutions—the Commission and the Parliament—may as well be on another planet. That does not apply for corporate Europe, however, whose agenda is, I believe, putting at risk the agenda of civic Europe.
There are some interesting divisions of opinion on this. I pay a back-handed tribute to the work done by the European Round Table, an organisation pulled together by Agnelli of Fiat in the early 1980s. It comprises the chief executives of Europe's 45 biggest multinationals. The organisation has been engaged in a project systematically and insidiously to inveigle itself into the policy-making frameworks and decision-making structures of the European Union and of every Government in Europe. It has been incredibly successful in its aim. But what suits corporate Europe may be far removed from what suits civic and democratic Europe.
Divisions are opening up—I doubt whether the Cardiff summit will address them—between business and big business. Corporate demands are often in conflict with the interest of small and medium businesses, which underpin almost all our communities. Big business is becoming less and less interested in loyalty or obligation to the nation states in which they happen to reside. They are more interested in the subsidies they can secure from national Governments. When they receive a better offer, they hot-foot it to another country to pursue the cash waved in front of them.
Similar conflicts can be seen in agriculture. I am probably as non-rural as anyone can be, but in my discussions with farmers, many of whom have been

1267
committed to traditional farming practices, I have been told of the despair at the weighting of European policy in favour of big farming—agribusiness rather than agriculture—and at the incentives to overproduce and to overuse fertilisers, growth hormones and antibiotics, which increase the risks to all sections of our societies. That is part of the conflict that we are trying to address in the alternative summit.
On jobs and environmental sustainability, although I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his European colleagues on banning the wall-of-death netting, I should point out that that is not the only big environmental issue that Europe has to address. In many ways, the real pressure is shown in the absence of a European challenge to the rise of companies such as Monsanto, which want to dump genetically modified crops in Britain and other parts of Europe. I congratulate Austria on being the one country so far to have adopted the precautionary principle and to have banned the import of genetically modified products. It is somewhat rare for me to occupy the same intellectual space as Britain's most famous organic gardener—the Prince of Wales—but his newspaper article has set the tone for the debate on the subject. The House should follow suit in recognising the dangers to European agriculture of being driven by a big business, rather than an agricultural, agenda.
We have an opportunity to create a different, inclusive Europe. We cannot do so without central reference to the 18 million people in Europe who are out of work. If we are to set an agenda through which they can find sustainable jobs, we shall have to challenge the pillars of free-market assumptions that are driving not only the Maastricht agenda, but the dialogue between Europe and the World Trade Organisation. If we are really serious about sustainability, we can find ways in which to create full employment in all our localities, and in all the European Union countries, without having to steal jobs from one another.
We need to create a politics and an economics of redistribution, not to remove the barriers to the private sector, to deregulate Europe's economies or to pursue international competitiveness so as to risk employment and environmental sustainability. I do not expect the Foreign Secretary to address that agenda, but I ask him to use his intellectual power and courage at least to remind the leaders in Cardiff this weekend of the people's Europe debate, which is taking place outside the summit. It is a debate waiting to be let inside.
8.19 pm
Mr. Robert Walter: I am delighted that at least one Euro-sceptic Back Bencher managed to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, albeit from the Government Benches.
Mr. Simpson: I am not a Euro-sceptic, but a monetarist-sceptic and a Maastricht-sceptic. I am sceptic about—no, an opponent of—capitalism, but I am not a sceptic about Europe.
Mr. Walter: I stand corrected.
At several stages, I got the impression that this would be a Welsh debate. I strongly share the emotion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone
1268
and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who expressed pleasure at the summit being held in the capital city of our country of birth, but I also echo the thoughts of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who expressed regret at its not being held in the city of my birth.
With 15 members of the European Union, the presidency does not come around that often. If nothing changed, it would be another seven and a half years before we occupied that position again. If, as I sincerely hope, we enlarge before then, it will be somewhat longer. What a disappointment, then, that so little has been achieved in the six months in which Britain has been able to set the European agenda.
There was much fanfare at the beginning of our presidency, with funny stars made of pizza, and ties for all those who wanted to be on message, but so determined were the Government to demonstrate the break with the past that they played down the 25th anniversary of our membership of the European Union, which fell just as we assumed the presidency. The failure to celebrate the silver jubilee of the great achievement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) in any meaningful way signified a break not with the past but with reality and with the realpolitik of today's Europe.
As we approach the summit, there is much shuttling between capitals, but the reality, which Cardiff will not address, is of a missed opportunity and the failure of Europe, led for the past six months by the Government, to address the great challenges of today: the consequences of enlargement; the reform of the common agricultural policy; and, for Britain itself, a response to monetary union and the single currency.
On enlargement, we all welcome progress in opening negotiations with the applicant states, but one has to regret the somewhat cynical assumption in some quarters that the negotiations will take so long that the consequences for the existing members need not yet be addressed. At Amsterdam, all the European Governments failed to address the institutional consequences of enlargement. Changes in the size of the Commission, voting rights and the Council of Ministers will all require another intergovernmental conference if we take the enlarged membership beyond a further five states.
The position of Turkey remains largely unresolved and must be linked with the negotiations with Cyprus. It would be totally unacceptable to negotiate with the people of only one side of the green line.
The greatest unresolved obstacle to enlargement is the common agricultural policy. Agenda 2000 fails to address the key reforms that are needed. I declare an interest as a farmer and a beneficiary of the CAP, but I echo what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe said earlier: at the launch of the UK presidency in December, the Prime Minister criticised the
"cost and waste of the Common Agricultural Policy"
which
"continue to grow year by year".
My right hon. and learned Friend also quoted the Foreign Secretary, who, in Warsaw last November, said:
"We need a reformed CAP which gives a better deal all round—fair prices for consumers, flexibility for farmers, protection for the environment".
Agenda 2000, in either its original or its revised form, fails to cut the cost to the taxpayer. In fact, on the Commission's own figures, it ends up costing the taxpayer

1269
more. It fails to take into account the pressures on us in the next world trade round. The Foreign Secretary failed today even to mention that next round and what position the European Union will take in it. Agenda 2000 will be a building block, but I am not sure whether it will be one that is acceptable to those with whom we are negotiating.
If the Cardiff summit agenda were to tackle the key targets that the Government have set themselves, we could look forward to reading next week of a Europe genuinely making progress toward a realistic agricultural policy for the next century. Instead, we have a deceitful fudge: Agenda 2000 does not address enlargement, because there is a hope that, at best, the negotiations will last so long that the new states will not enter before 2006 or, at worst, a transitional arrangement will delay their accession to the common agricultural policy at least until after that date.
Agenda 2000 envisages a common agricultural policy costing more rather than less, because the Government, in setting their agenda, failed to convince the other member states that expenditure on agriculture has to be reduced. It may be that the forthcoming elections in Germany have made the subject sensitive. Well, so be it—with 15 democracies in the Union, tough decisions will always be inconvenient to one member state or another.
Those are internal matters. We must all wish for success in the next world trade round, but there can be no successful outcome with the kind of subsidised agriculture still envisaged in Agenda 2000. Over-subsidised agriculture serves no one well, least of all the efficient British farmer, who merely wants a level playing field.
The UK presidency and the Government have failed to deal with the consequences of the single currency for the United Kingdom. It has been said before that economic and monetary union is a reality. It will happen on 1 January next year: 11 member states of the European Union will merge their currencies and operate a single zone of monetary stability.
Those countries constitute our largest market, and the effect of the scheme will be the most significant monetary event since Bretton Woods. There are those in Britain who wish that it would go away, and those who are convinced that it will not work and that the original European Community Six, with some of the fastest-growing and richest smaller states of Europe, are rushing over the precipice.
There are those who so totally misunderstand the project that they do not believe that it starts until Frau Schmidt collects her pension from the post office in euros in 2002. The effect on Britain and British monetary policy will be greater than any of the post-war monetary shocks.
I am not advocating our joining on day one. I am warning that the effect of the monetary bloc on our nearest continent will give the lie to any concept of monetary sovereignty. That may seem to be the same old argument about Britain always getting on the train after it has left the station, and that is probably as true of monetary union as it was of many aspects of our post-war European adventure. However, that argument is not good enough for an intelligent electorate. Our press has failed to give the British people any guidance, save for rubbishing the whole project.
The Government must begin to rehearse for the electorate the arguments about why a single currency is a good or bad thing for Britain and for international trade, and for why economic and monetary union is the solution.
1270
I may differ from some of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the matter, but I approach it from a monetarist standpoint. What is money? More specifically in this context, what should money be? It should be a means of exchange and a store of value. The value of sterling since Bretton Woods broke down in the 1960s was a one-way bet until the late 1980s. We then manipulated the currency to an unsustainable level, and we joined the exchange rate mechanism at the wrong rate at the wrong time. The policy was not without benefits—inflation halved, and interest rates dropped from 15 to 10 per cent.—but the ERM ended in failure.
Today, we are back at an exchange rate that is unsustainable—perhaps, I should say unstable—against those of our major competitors, the problem being compounded by a not unrelated uncompetitive interest rate. I part company with those monetarists who believe that effective monetary policy and parliamentary democracy are somehow indissoluble, for the same reasons that I believe in an independent judiciary and would not want politicians to make clinical judgments in the national health service. In central banks that are independent of day-to-day political control, the central bankers should be accountable, but the experience of Germany and the United States shows that, when they are left to get on with the job, they have a much better effect than any succession of Chancellors of the Exchequer.
Why would the euro deliver the objective of independent monetary policy? Why not have a British solution? The Chancellor has attempted to answer that with the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, but that solution is not sustainable. British industry lives by international trade. The firms that make things and sell them on the world market—unlike the retailers who import cheap goods from the far east, and who finance Labour party campaigns—demand monetary stability. The chief executive of a United Kingdom-based multinational said to me the other day that he has eight manufacturing plants in the European Union in five countries for 15 markets. Which currency should he use next year? He will be pricing and accounting in the euro. His case is replicated across British industry. The Confederation of British Industry admits that the most enthusiastic supporters of early entry are medium-sized manufacturing exporters.
Who cares if British industry uses the euro? Manufacturers, the City and agriculture are, by the nature of their business, already committed to using it. However, it is an odd kind of sovereignty to abdicate monetary policy that determines the activities of major sectors of the economy to foreign central bankers. Such an abdication did us no harm during the period of our greatest imperial and industrial glory, when we all used gold. However, the experience of the gold standard during the inter-war years should tell us that a successful economy must work within a sensitive monetary framework. An independent European central bank could provide such a framework at some time in future.
The Government have a duty to prepare the industry and the people of Britain for the consequences of EMU. There is still no serious, informed debate on British membership. The promise of the razzmatazz around the UK presidency has fallen very flat. I still hope—a little—that the Government will address some real issues facing Europe and Britain in the dying days of our presidency. I hope that they will place the consequences of

1271
enlargement high on the agenda, along with a real discussion of genuine reform of the common agricultural policy that will go further than anything envisaged in Agenda 2000. I hope that they will encourage a domestic debate on monetary union.
8.34 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the bygone world when I was a new Member of Parliament and the father of the Opposition winder up—the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend)—was a distinguished Cabinet Secretary, a debate such as this would have been absolutely packed. I want to register, as did the right hon. Member for Wales—I mean the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)—that it is good to have a pre-summit debate. However, there was a time when Members of the House of Commons would have tumbled over each other to have some input to such a debate.
I understand well that the pressures of the presidency are such that the Foreign Secretary, who has Kosovo and other problems on his hands, cannot be here. However, I lay down a marker to the effect that, if there are further debates after we have given up our presidency, it will behove the Foreign Secretary and senior Foreign Office Ministers to listen to what the House of Commons has to say on such important matters. If they do not, they will dig at the root of the whole set-up of parliamentary democracy. That said, it is good that we are having the debate, which gives us an opportunity to ask a number of questions about what will be raised in Cardiff.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), who raised matters of great importance on the world trade round and agricultural prices. The farmers in my constituency wonder about milk prices, and hill farmers wonder how the price of tups—sheep meat—which was £58 last year, has fallen to £32 this year. My question is general. What will happen to hill farmers and milk producers when the Community expands and we take on possibly massive obligations to the farmers of Poland and Lithuania? Has that been discussed and worked out? After Cardiff, some of us will ask what was said there about the strain on the agricultural kitty caused by expansion of the Community. We should start thinking about that now rather than later.
I do not often agree with nationalists, but what the right hon. Member for Caernarfon said about firms in Wales being already involved in the ecu also applies to firms in my constituency, including Motorola, Hewlett Packard, Sun Electronics, Nippon Electric and Quintiles, where my constituents and those of my parliamentary neighbour the Foreign Secretary work. The Foreign Secretary says that the decision will be made in the hard-headed economic interests of the British people, if I have quoted him correctly. I make no bones about being one of those who would, even now, go in at the first opportunity.
I want to ask a factual question about a most succinct report on page 16 of The Independent on 5 June, referring to 4 June, under the byline of Katherine Butler in Luxembourg. The headline was
"Euro club shows Brown the door".
I do not know whether it is true. If it is, it is very serious. if it is not true, we should be told in no uncertain terms that it is a load of rubbish.
1272
The report states:
"Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, subjected himself to formal humiliation last night as ministers from the 11 euro-zone countries gathered at a chateau in Luxembourg for the inaugural meeting of their single currency inner circle, Euro-XI."
I am very interested in the whole question of the crucial Euro X. The report continues:
"As representative of Britain's European Union presidency Mr. Brown was insisting on his right to attend the opening formalities at Senningen castle, but was told he would have to leave the room almost immediately. He was not allowed to attend a dinner that followed the first meeting of the new G8-style body which will co-ordinate economic policy in the euro-area."
Was he told to leave a dinner?
The report continues:
"Senior officials of the euro-zone countries expressed amazement at his decision to muscle in on the informal meeting in the light of Britain's decision to opt out of the single currency. It merely highlighted Britain's political marginalisation, they said."
Katherine Butler goes on: "'He"— that is the Chancellor—
"is a gatecrasher', said a Bonn source, 'he is bringing himself down to a level even ambassadors would not accept."'
Was that said? The report continues:
"Another senior EU diplomat described British strategy as 'naive' and said it reflected the difficulty London has had in understanding"—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman and I have had discussions before about reading full articles into the record. That is not what is required. He could perhaps give us an abridged version.
Mr. Dalyell: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have said enough on that. Is there any question of British marginalisation? If there is, should not the matter be frankly addressed at Cardiff next week? It is not merely a question of going or not going in, but a decision whereby the world will be altered by what is happening in Europe.
I return to the fact that, in all our constituencies, firms are taking it into their own hands to trade in ecus. We are in a different position. This is a matter of enormous importance to jobs and prosperity. Part of the reason for my concern is that I was exiled for four years from this House to the European Parliament. I was a member of the budget committee and the budget sub-committee with colleagues such as Martin Bangemann, Erwin Langer and others, and I know how they react. If we are not going to be in the club, they will make sure that we do not attend its meetings. I want to know what exactly the position is at Cardiff. If the article that I quoted is factually wrong, no doubt the Minister will say so.
I should like to raise a third question. In November, a delegation concerned with the environment will go to Buenos Aires. I understand that we go as the immediate past-President and that the delegation will be led by the Austrians, who are very anti-nuclear. I am open about the fact that I am totally pro-nuclear. I am dismayed by what has happened on the north coast of Scotland. The press has been wicked in its descriptions of Dounreay, which is a whipping boy for everything. In fact, technically, the position is not nearly as bad as is being made out widely in Britain. Leaving that aside, nuclear energy is the only way to produce energy without large quantities of CO2being put into the atmosphere.

1273
Is policy for Buenos Aires going to be discussed at Cardiff? Unlike Kyoto, are representatives of the Department of Trade and Industry, who, it might be hoped, would put the nuclear side of the argument, going to go to Buenos Aires? When I first knew the Minister, he was an effective official of the GMB union, and many of his members are much concerned because they work in the nuclear industry. I should like a comment in his reply or by letter on Buenos Aires.
My fourth question concerns Kosovo. I listened carefully to the Foreign Secretary and agreed with what the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said about consulting the Russians. However, I do not think that I am wrong in saying that the military option was not ruled out because of the appalling things that are happening. Last May, I stayed with my former national service regiment, now the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, in Bosnia. It was the tank regiment in Bosnia at the time. As one who never wanted us to go into Bosnia in the first place, I must say, having seen the situation, that we cannot possibly withdraw from Bosnia in the foreseeable future. I am not prepared to sit on green Benches and be involved in the former Yugoslavia without our having heavy armour there. Without it, there will be a repeat of what happened to the sappers who were taken hostage. Unless heavy armour is present, one does not have the perceived authority to carry out the job.
In the discussions in Cardiff, I hope that no one will think that air strikes will be at all effective. Air strikes are counterproductive. They simply unite those who are hit against those who are doing the striking. In Cardiff, will there be discussions, if action is to be taken in Kosovo, on sending armour? For Britain, that means sending what I understand from those who have to drive them in the way that I did 40 years ago, excellent Challenger tanks. I am told that driving the great, heavy Challenger tank is much easier than driving the Centurion, which some of us had to do, with mixed success.
Fifthly, there may be discussions of European policy on Iran. As one who was in Iran on holiday last October, I strongly hope that the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), representing the European presidency, will go, if only to show support for the mayor of Tehran and the many other enlightened people in that country.
Sixthly, will there be a discussion of European policy towards the former Soviet republics of central Asia? My hon. Friend came to give an excellent speech to the Kyrgyzi delegation that was over here. He knows a lot about this and clearly takes an interest in this aspect of affairs. He will know how important it is that Europe has some policy towards the emerging republics, such as Kyrgyzstan, if I may put it that way.
Will there be a discussion of NATO expansion? I will not pursue the matter further if the Minister stands up and says that that is not on the agenda. Some of us think that it should be on the agenda, given the letter to the Prime Minister signed by Sir Hugh Beach, Dr. Helga Graham, Sir John Killick, Sir Michael Atiyah, Sir Michael Beetham, Frank Blackaby, Field Marshal the Lord Bramall, Field Marshal the Lord Carver, Sir Frank Cooper and many others—I have only reached the Cs—who are expressing extreme concern about the expansion of NATO to the Russian borders. Did I interpret the Minister as saying that that will not be discussed? I am not sure
1274
what the signals mean. The European Community must discuss the matter in relation to its own problems with the Soviet Union.
I warned the Foreign Secretary and others that I wished to raise the matter of European relations with Libya. I have had 14 Adjournment debates on the subject. It is not just a matter of obligations to the relatives; it is a matter of our whole relationship with the Arab world. This will be known to the Foreign Secretary because he has recently had meetings with Dr. Mudenge representing the Organisation of African Unity and, indeed, the African states.
On 21 December it will be 10 long years since that airliner went down over Lockerbie—10 long years of agony for the relatives and of increasingly festering relations not only with Libya but with many Arab countries. In these circumstances, should there not be a discussion, particularly with the Italians who have ceased to have any inhibitions about breaking sanctions? Italian Ministers have trade relations with Libya. Should not Europe discuss the whole position of the United States in relation to Lockerbie? After all, it is the United States that is driving the policy.
There is a growing belief among the relatives that certain leading Americans—Vincent Cannistraro, Buck Revell and Oliver North—had a kind of Faustian agreement with some unpleasant elements after the Vincennes shot down the Iranian airliner carrying pilgrims to Mecca. It may be most serious to say this in the House of Commons, but serious people believe that when Ali Akbar Mohtashemi, the Iranian Minister of the Interior at the time, raised the spectre of half a dozen, 10 or a dozen airliners being blown up in revenge for what the Vincennes had done, there was a tacit agreement that if one American airliner went down that would be tit for tat—the end of the matter. It would not be right to go in to all the details now and one has to be a professor of Lockerbie studies, but I would argue a case for this being taken seriously with any Foreign Office official.
Tonight, I ask that there be a frank discussion over lunch at Cardiff about how on earth the situation with Libya is to be resolved. It can be resolved, as Dr. Swire and Professor Black found out, by the Libyans sending those two alleged criminals—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is one matter to say that European allies can try to help with Lockerbie, but to go into great detail about Lockerbie now is to go outwith the scope of the debate.
Mr. Dalyell: I do not wish to abuse the debate.
My final crisp point is this: at Cardiff I hope that this whole Lockerbie saga will be discussed with a view to resolving it.
8.55 pm
Mr. Michael Trend: I join those who paid tribute to Cardiff, especially the hon. Members for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) and the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), and I congratulate Cardiff on hosting this important event at the weekend and next week.
This evening's speeches have covered a wide variety of areas; I want to concentrate particularly on the road that the Government have taken to Cardiff. My hon. Friend the

1275
Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) made a splendid contribution and put a convincing case on the review of the Lomé convention and, in particular, economic relations with the West Indies. He is the House's expert on the banana regime and it was good to hear the subject raised again tonight. We have just heard a characteristically thoughtful contribution from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) struck the right tone in his comprehensive and highly effective attack on what he rightly described as a flop of a presidency. He was spot-on in underlining several specific areas in which the Government have achieved little or nothing during their tenure of the presidency of the Council of the European Union.
On jobs, enlargement, human rights and reform of the common agricultural policy—the areas that matter for Cardiff—we remain at the same square one as when the Prime Minister embarked on his radiant, starry-eyed launch of the British presidency.
The road to Cardiff began at the PR launch for the British presidency. That was, we have heard, at Waterloo station. It was our first glimpse of the style-without-substance presidency. How many times have we heard the overworked metaphor about the necessity of being on the Euro train and not being left behind at the station, in the sidings or on the slow track? At Waterloo that day, the train finally turned up and it was a PR special. Two things hugely amused the Journalists that day: when the train turned up, it was empty; and when it left, it went nowhere. There was some powerful symbolism in that, so perhaps that was the last we shall hear of the wretched train.
The House will recall the rhetoric of that launch. The Prime Minister, ever mindful of the improvement that a group of children make to a photo call, was surrounded by the children who had painted the logo for the presidency. He told us:
"The children who produced the stars worked in teams. We want a Europe that works together as a team."
A new metaphor, one to replace the train, was born—the team. However, judged by that, the Prime Minister has not done well with his European partners in the six months of the presidency. According to the French Finance Minister, Britain—our team—has now been relegated to the second division. On another occasion, one of the Commissioners told the Prime Minister that he was no longer even in the game; he was on the touchline, and
"You cannot lead the game from the touchline."
During our debates, we have heard about the reception given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Senningen. He was deliberately left out of the team photograph, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow pointed out.
What has happened in the past six months is that reality has caught up with rhetoric, and the Government will pay a high price for a problem that is entirely of their own making. By exciting high expectations, but falling well below them, the Government have made a rod for Britain's back. It was not necessary to do that. More realistic ambitions and more tempered language would have served British interests much better.
1276
Let us return, for the last time, to those heady days, early in the new Government, when the Prime Minister said that he wanted to shape a new Europe. He told us that we were heading for a new era, a new millennium, a new Europe; Government insiders told the press that the children's logo was "very cool"; a think-tank was commissioned to "rebrand" Europe using focus groups. The message was: new Labour, new Britain, new Europe—next stop, new Jerusalem. That almost Messianic fervour inspired one Italian newspaper to declare the Prime Minister to be "Tony Blair Superstar"—perhaps Lord Lloyd-Webber is working on the musical.
Those were heady days—the days before the Prime Minister encountered the big players in Europe. The big players have cut him and the Government of this country down to size. The agenda was overblown; as the hon. Member for Swansea, East rightly said, any presidency is part of a continuum, which is why the Government made a mistake in making such claims in the first place. It was all part of the propaganda effort that is so characteristic of the Labour Government in all areas of activity.
I am glad to say that the spin doctors were also put in their place in Europe: The Sunday Times tells us that one Austrian journalist described Mr. Alastair Campbell as
"the tall, arrogant Brit with the coarse tone."
The overblown expectations encouraged by the Government's spin doctors and the arrogance with which they have approached their task in Europe were neatly summed up this week by Martin Walker in The Guardian, who wrote:
"Fair Europeans … conclude that the main problem was the inflation of expectations."
Marc Champion of The European said that, in his view, the UK presidency emerges from its six months
"bruised by a mix of hubris and political naivety."
We could not have put it better ourselves.
Another verdict on the presidency should not go unnoticed. Less than a month ago, at a conference in Brussels of the European Movement, the Minister without Portfolio, on another of his excursions to Europe, told his listeners:
"Europe lacks leadership and a sense of mission and too many people don't feel part of it."
Is that the Europe being led by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? Is that the view of a politician who plays a central role in the propaganda surrounding the Government? There was an opportunity for the Government to do something about leading opinion in Europe. There was an opportunity to bring forward policies that would force down the people's unemployment that so bedevils Europe. That opportunity is about to pass away at Cardiff and it is no use complaining or blaming others at precisely the moment when the Government have had a chance to do something—a chance to put forward or fight for a concrete idea.
Presidencies and Governments can have big ideas and two of the biggest in recent years came from Britain: the single market and subsidiarity, both of which came from and were driven by the Conservatives. Both are now taken for granted—indeed, they are trumpeted by the Labour Government and even by Chancellor Kohl, who has an appointment with the voters—but those ideas had to be

1277
fought for. That shows that real achievements are possible and that big ideas—real ideas—can be pursued. What a marked contrast with the current presidency.
Only today, the Foreign Secretary told the Daily Express that, at Cardiff,
"We are going to look at the future of Europe and address the big questions"—
about time too, we on the Conservative Benches say. That is what the Government should have been doing over the past six months.
I shall go into the lion's den on one issue, about which we heard earlier: the common agricultural policy. I should like to set the context. The Foreign Secretary, on numerous occasions—particularly in a speech at Warsaw, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) mentioned in his excellent speech—the Deputy Prime Minister, during the Queen's Speech, and the Prime Minister himself, in a speech at the Mansion House, all made considerable reference to reforming the common agricultural policy. They said that it would be a central aim of their presidency. What happened? On 1 April, The Daily Telegraph told the story:
"EU throws out farm reform plans".
Perhaps it is understandable that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and I missed the Foreign Secretary's reference to the CAP today. As it was such an important issue for the Government, we assumed that somebody in the Foreign Office would have written a section, a couple of paragraphs or a brief on CAP reform during our presidency. In fact, we heard less than a sentence—11 words—on the subject. I am told that the Foreign Secretary said that the Government have a
"clear sense of direction for reform of the common agricultural policy".
There are two things wrong with that. First, it is wrong, and secondly, does it really cover the importance of the Government's top priority? Is the throwing away of a handful of words in the middle of a speech the right response at the end of a presidency to a matter that was thought to be at the top of the agenda at the beginning of it?
Let us go to another matter: the appointment of the president of the European central bank. My right hon. and learned Friend cited a vast array of criticisms that were levelled at the British presidency at that time. It is astonishing that Britain's Government and Prime Minister were criticised by, among others, the President of the European Parliament, the Prime Ministers of Luxembourg and Italy and the Austrian Chancellor, who said:
"We have now learnt…how not to organise a summit".
That phrase will haunt the Government throughout their tenure of office.
The Government have fared little better in the press. As the Foreign Secretary will know, he had a very hard time when he visited Turkey and Italy—and when he went to Strasbourg, as well as when he did not go to Strasbourg, even though he was expected there in February. When he did go to Strasbourg, as we have heard, the fawning motion put before the Parliament was too clever by half, and it was lost. It was a spin too far for Members of the European Parliament.
I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will pack his bags for Cardiff with a huge sense of relief that the ordeal is almost over. I hope that he enjoys his brainstorming
1278
lunch, which appears to be the major feature of the occasion, for when the Government as a whole get to Wales this weekend, they will have very little to show for their presidency of the Council. I am sure that there will be many photo opportunities; it is always good to welcome President Mandela to our country. I am sure that it will not be unhelpful to the Prime Minister for the President of South Africa to join the President of the European Council for the cameras. It is probably a matter of great relief for the Government that they can hold the presidency only once in the lifetime of a Parliament, on a rota basis, rather as we get tickets for the Gallery.
The summit in Cardiff will be the last opportunity for the Euro-President Prime Minister to be centre stage. I am sure that the occasion will be made to work for all its worth. Many of the important issues that hon. Members have aired in this debate will not be touched on; many important concerns about the development of Europe will not be touched on. It will be a gigantic photo opportunity for the Prime Minister, and an attempt to paper over the cracks of the presidency.
We may well see a Welsh walkabout, which will, perhaps, be better organised than the visit by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his partners to the great city of York, where he marched them up and down the street to the accompaniment not of the cheers, but of the jeers of the burghers of York, who know that many of the great figures of Europe are not exactly marching in tune with the peoples of Europe.
The Government's gigantic public relations exercise and their attempt to spin-manage Europe are getting Britain into serious trouble with our friends, partners and colleagues in Europe. That trouble is entirely of the Government's making. If that is how much influence Britain can wield and how much respect we can command in Europe while we hold the presidency, heaven help us when we are no longer in that potentially powerful position.
Whatever happens at Cardiff, it can only be a matter of time before the lessons learned about this Government in the past six months by the political leaders of Europe filter down to the people who matter most to us in this House—our constituents. Politicians cannot live by style alone. A realisation of the Government's failure in their presidency of the European Council, which mirrors a lack of achievement in so many aspects of their performance, will soon break through to the public at large.
9.10 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): I welcome the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) to his post and congratulate him on his appointment. I am not one of those politicians who like to give advice to other politicians, but if the hon. Gentleman is to stay in his job, he was misplaced in criticising Eurostar, because he may find that he has to avail himself of its services from time to time, as I shall tomorrow morning at 6.14 on my way to Brussels.
We have had a thoughtful debate, which is different from past debates on Europe in which I have taken part, both in this capacity and when in opposition. Previous debates were characterised by ideology and zealotry. I am pleased to say that today's debate heralds a new approach, and there have been many thoughtful contributions from

1279
hon. Members on both sides of the House. The absence of ideology on the Opposition Front Bench has not been too obvious, but several contributions from Conservative Back Benchers have examined the issues that we face in Europe. I find it interesting that the Opposition, of all people, should be fond of quoting the press in their defence. That is a strange reversal of a role that I have known some Conservative Members to adopt in the past.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that he believed that the presidency would be the busiest period for British foreign policy in peacetime. I do not know whether that is true, but it certainly feels as if it is. We have had an active and productive six months during our presidency, which has one or two weeks to run.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) said that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been deeply involved in European issues, which is the protocol for European matters when there is a summit at the end of the six-month presidency. My right hon. Friend has visited all the countries in the European Union over the past two weeks to examine the issues relating to the development of the European Union that are considered important not only by the presidency, but by other partner states.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East said that he had detected more warmth in Europe towards the Government. I cannot resist saying that that is not a difficult achievement when one considers the temperatures that existed before 1 May last year. There is a new warmth and a feeling that everyone in Europe is in a family. That does not mean that everyone always agrees on every issue or that one does not fight one's corner hard, but there are many issues on which we must look beyond Europe and decide how we can best co-operate. That has been a strong theme during the past six months.
Mr. Howard: Is that why the Chancellor of the Exchequer was treated as he was, just a few days ago?
Mr. Henderson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, like one of my hon. Friends, reads too much into newspaper reports. The rules on the relationship of the various nations to ECOFIN and Euro X were clearly defined at the Luxembourg summit, when there was no doubt that the major issues of macro-economic policy in Europe are determined by ECOFIN, and that the Euro X committee deals with the details of the currency and its relationship to other currencies. There are occasions when it is appropriate for the four non-members of the currency to be present, and other occasions when it would be inappropriate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman refers to a situation when it was recognised that the 11 members wished to discuss matters specific to the currency.
The main focus of the presidency, and a topic that will feature prominently in Cardiff, is the enlargement of the European Union. An historic decision was taken in Luxembourg and has been driven hard by the British presidency over the past six months. It will change the future shape of Europe, uniting a Europe that was previously divided.
There are different views on the issue. In his introductory remarks, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) expressed the
1280
view that we had gone backwards over the past 12 months. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) thought that the session had been well managed. Any objective person would recognise that the mandate that was given to the presidency by the Luxembourg summit has been fulfilled in its entirety.
That is the strong view of the states that want to join the EU. The Romanian European Minister said that it was an historic day and that the European conference had further added to that process. Indeed, some of the negotiators for countries that want to accede to the EU criticised me six or eight weeks ago because we had brought forward the screening process too quickly and they could not meet some of the detailed requirements set by the Commission officials. I pleaded guilty, because that is what they had asked for. They have worked hard, and I think that they are pleased now that considerable progress has been made on the screening process.
Mr. David Heath: When I said that the process was well managed, I meant that as a compliment. I hope that the Minister will agree that to start the accession process without a clear timetable for CAP reform, institutional reform and structural and cohesion fund reform is to invite the applicant countries to apply on the basis of a false prospectus. It is essential for the timetable to be in place.
Mr. Henderson: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is not retracting his support for the accession process. I agree that it is essential to recognise that the enlargement of the EU entails not just the changes that those countries must make if they want to accede to the EU; it also involves the changes that the existing members of the EU must make to respond to that challenge. That has been one of the important aspects of our presidency and will be discussed at Cardiff on Monday afternoon, when the leaders of the nations of Europe will seek a formula that will allow that process to go forward.
From a presidency position, we shall push forward the reform of the common agricultural policy, a key issue which several hon. Members raised. After the German elections in September, we shall be able to address the paper issued by the Commission for reform initially in cereals and beef. If carried through, that alone would save British consumers about £1 billion a year, so it is worth while. There is support for some of the proposals in the farming industry.
On structural funds, there is a need for reform if funding is to be available to assist the countries that want to accede to the EU. In the future, from the total pool of structural funds, there will be fewer resources available proportionally to be distributed to existing members of the EU. That is also recognised.
I shall return to the specifics of the structural funds, to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred. At Cardiff, we hope to make a commitment to work hard to try to bring those issues to a conclusion by March next year. The European Parliament, through its procedures, can then give assent to the aspects of any deal to which it is required by treaty to agree before the European elections next June. If the matter is not resolved by April, there will be no time to consider it until October or November—which is nearing the end of the existing structural funds regime. There are many reasons why we want to put the timetable in place, and we shall strive hard to do that in Cardiff.

1281
My hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) and the right hon. Member for Dyfed asked what reforms are taking place in structural fund procedures. There must be a fair system if there is to be acceptance and understanding on the part of the 15 nations that wish to accede to the European Union. Areas in Europe that have the same characteristics should receive the same sort of support, regardless of their location. As the right hon. Member for Dyfed—
Mr. Wigley: Caernarfon.
Mr. Henderson: I apologise. My geography of Wales tends to be a bit anglicised. I must do some homework, lest I get into trouble with the right hon. Gentleman and others.
As the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, it is not simply a matter of the new structural funds regime—although that is important to the whole United Kingdom. In some places in Wales, England and Scotland, the description of the area is a key factor. The right hon. Gentleman explained how one can calculate different GDP per capita definitions depending on whether Wales is divided north-south or east-west. The statisticians at Eurostat and the Commission must deal with that matter on the basis of what is fair and reasonably objective.
We have given our people a mandate to negotiate, and we are seeking a fair system. We must be able to say that areas that are classified as objective 1 in the United Kingdom are, broadly speaking, comparable to similar classifications made in other European Union countries. If that is achieved, it will be a fair settlement. I do not wish to comment on the specifics of any areas while the negotiating process is continuing—I am sure that hon. Members will understand why. The Government take a firm view and will try to advance the process.
We have been active on many other issues during our presidency.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Before my hon. Friend moves on, will he refer to the proposals for institutional reform? Have the Government made specific proposals in respect of a conference concerning institutional reform? What are the prospects of that occurring?
Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend is moving ahead of me. I shall turn to that issue. There will be a discussion over lunch involving the Heads of Government—[Interruption.] I assure hon. Members that lunches are not perks in a European context. It means that one gets indigestion while eating at a meeting—and the Heads of Government are no more exempt than my right hon. Friend or I.
There will be an open discussion during which any contributor may lay any issue on the table. There is a desire to explore to what extent further integration is necessary if there is to be effective decision making and to what extent subsidiarity must be redefined and worked out in a way that is acceptable to member nations and will serve us well in the future. Those are the philosophical parameters of the discussion. It may go into institutional issues such as the role of national Governments, of the European Parliament and of the Commission, the size of the Commission, the scrutiny process and many others.
1282
There is a wide agenda, and we shall aim to take it forward to the Vienna summit in December, where it could be progressed a little further along the line. Hon. Members on both sides of the House understand that there is no magic formula for reforming an organisation as complicated as the EU, and that reform does not happen quickly, because consent is essential for lasting agreement.
We have been active in many other areas, such as improving action against crime at an international level. On the environment, we have achieved discussion of the Kyoto obligations at the EU and practical decisions on new regulations on landfill and on drift nets. On the single market, there have been agreements on a research and development framework, which is important for British scientific institutes and universities, on mobile phones and on the introduction of a scoreboard system, so that we are not only saying that we are committed to the single market, but making everyone else aware of what we have done to achieve that. National obstacles to the single market will become transparent under the system, which is an important development.
Hon. Members will be pleased that there has been progress on beef this week, as was acknowledged in some of the speeches tonight. The Government will be pushing the Commission proposal through the various channels to achieve acceptance at the earliest stage.
The new arms code is a major achievement. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked why it was not announced in the March half-time report. It was not agreed then, but only three or four weeks ago. I believe that it is a significant achievement and puts huge pressure on member states to play the game, not to act unreasonably and not to undercut foreign policy positions on those matters. That is an important move forward, which has been acknowledged by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Dalyell: Is this a convenient point to ask my hon. Friend about Kosovo, or will he come to it later? If not, may I repeat my question about air strikes? Some of us feel strongly that if there is to be a military option, which has not been ruled out, it should not be air strikes, but infantry supported by armour, which is totally different from counter-productive air strikes. Can he say anything about the thinking on air strikes?
Mr. Henderson: I had hoped that hon. Members were satisfied with the response of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who intervened on the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe to answer his points relating to those matters. Nothing is ruled out. We are considering the situation, and, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, there is a G8 Foreign Ministers meeting tomorrow and there has been a Defence Ministers meeting today. European Foreign Ministers will have an opportunity to discuss those matters at their lunch on Monday. There is a build up in the United Nations for seeking as much consensus as can be achieved to get the necessary resolution through.
Mr. Howard: May I bring the Minister back to the code of conduct on arms sales, which he was dealing with before he gave way to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? Is not the most significant new feature that the EU code will introduce the obligation on a country to

1283
notify other countries when it has refused to grant a licence for the export of particular arms? Will that not present such an order, on a plate, to any other country that chooses to adopt a different interpretation of the code? For the first time, if a country refuses to grant a licence for an order, it will have to notify everyone else, and any other country could notify its industry to take advantage of the order.
Mr. Henderson: I understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman is worried about that, but, given my understanding of the defence industry—I have been involved in it a bit; in fact, I once worked for Rolls-Royce— I can say that the main contractors are large-scale operators, who generally know who seeks what kind of purchase and the type of offer that will be made. I believe that they already have access to such information.
What the code of conduct does is inform those people and others that there is a reason why a sale has been rejected by one country, and that, if they are then going to undercut the politics of that decision, they will have to do so publicly, and justify their stance. I believe that that will have a major impact, in that, when there is a need to stop the sale of a particular weapon for a particular political reason, that reason will—hopefully—be upheld by those who were potentially alternative suppliers.
Mr. David Heath: At what point does the hon. Gentleman consider that it would be appropriate to return to the European Union negotiating table to strengthen the code of conduct, making it into something nearer what was originally envisaged?
Does the hon. Gentleman envisage any discussions with the United States about the code, with a view to reaching some agreement with the US about American arms manufacturers?
Mr. Henderson: I think common sense will suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we need to see how the code works. There is a commitment to review its procedures every 12 months.
It clearly makes sense to secure as much agreement as possible with the United States, so that the same policies are adopted by defence industries throughout the part of the world where there is the capacity to make the goods that we are normally discussing. We want to achieve that.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) referred to the Lomé mandate, which was discussed at this week's General Affairs Council. Considerable progress was made, and officials are now looking at some of the detail. The principles of the British position are as I described them to the hon. Gentleman when I gave evidence to the Select Committee, and we are pushing hard on them. The banana issue has been taken on board, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that any decision must be consistent with World Trade Organisation rules. Otherwise, in the long term, it will not stick, and there will be problems. We shall return to that issue on 29 June, at the next meeting of the General Affairs Council. I hope that we shall be able to conclude the mandate then.
Much is expected of the weekend's proceedings in Wales. We are all looking forward to going to Cardiff. I always enjoy my visits to Wales, to see some of my old friends and some of my new friends. I believe that this will
1284
be a busy and productive summit. Important improvements will be made, and important progress will be made on economic reform, on enlargement and on Agenda 2000. There will be an important dialogue on the future of the European Union, and that that dialogue will concentrate on making the EU relevant to what people feel and to issues that they know are crucial to them. I believe that, at Cardiff, there will be a desire to provide continuity through to the Austrian presidency.
I must say that I think it was a little unworthy of the hon. Member for Windsor to demean the meeting between President Mandela and the Heads of Government. I think it very fitting that that meeting is taking place.
Mr. Trend: I am delighted that President Mandela is coming to the country: he is a hugely distinguished international politician. I merely sought to make the point that it was unlikely that he would not take advantage of a photo opportunity with the Prime Minister. I cannot help feeling that there may just be a slight amount of contrivance in this matter—but, as I have said, we shall be delighted to see President Mandela.
Mr. Henderson: I am grateful that we have managed to draw the tooth from the hon. Gentleman on that issue. It is fitting that President Mandela is meeting the 15 leaders of Europe. That is an important dialogue and an occasion to celebrate President Mandela' s great contribution to democracy and freedom in the 20th century. The values that he felt were important to fight for over his years of political life are the principles and values that will set the European Union in good stead for the future. I look forward to that occasion in Cardiff on Tuesday.
Ms Bridget Prentice: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NORTHERN IRELAND (SENTENCES) BILL (PROGRAMME)
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill.

Committee of the whole House
1.—(1) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed at two sittings.
(2) The following proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion, unless previously concluded, in accordance with the following table:

Proceedings

Time, after commencement of proceedings in Committee at the first sitting, at which proceedings to be concluded.

Amendments up to page 2, line 22.

2 hours

Amendments up to page 2, line 47, other than amendments inserting words at the end of line 47.

4 hours

Amendments inserting words at end of line 47.

5 hours

Remaining proceedings on Clause 3 and proceedings on Clauses 4 to 7.

6½ hours

(3) Proceedings in Committee shall be brought to a conclusion, unless previously concluded, 3 hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee at the second sitting.
(4) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings in Committee for any part of the periods of—

(a) 6½ hours, at the first sitting, and

(b) 3 hours, at the second sitting,

which fall after Ten o'clock.

Report and Third Reading
2.—(1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at one sitting and shall, unless previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion three hours after commencement.
(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings for any part of the period of three hours after commencement which falls after Ten o'clock.

Conclusion of proceedings
3.—(1) For the purpose of concluding any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others):—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.

(3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(4) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, or under sub-paragraph (1)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single question in relation to those amendments, Motions or provisions.

Miscellaneous
4. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on the Bill.

5. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which proceedings on the Bill are taken.

6. If on an allotted day a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matters that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day or to Seven o'clock—

(a) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under or by virtue of this Order are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion, and

(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill for the period after Ten o'clock for which sub-paragraph (a) permits them to continue.

7.—(1) If a Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to amend this Order and an effect of the Motion would be to provide a greater amount of time for proceedings on the Bill, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.
(2) If a Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to supplement the provisions of this Order in respect of further proceedings on the Bill, the Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, at any hour and the proceedings, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three-quarters of an hour after they have been commenced.
—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Professor David Lowery
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
9.35 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: I am aware that some hon. Members have already had meetings about this case with the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). I have become involved because it transpires that Professor Lowery has a home in my constituency; if he were living in the United Kingdom, he would be in my constituency. Consequently, to all intents and purposes he is my constituent.
I discussed the matter with the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) two or three weeks ago before his visit to Portugal. He was kind enough to tell me that he would try to ensure that the case was on the agenda, and that he would raise the matter if he got the opportunity. Unfortunately, in his discussions, he was unable to get to that item on the agenda, so the matter was not raised. I appreciate the fact that he tried to raise it.
I shall describe Professor Lowery's character by referring to his background. He is an academic; he graduated from Queen's university in Belfast in 1969. Since then, he has worked at a number of colleges in the United Kingdom, lastly at Warwick university where he worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Mr. Cranston). After that, he left for America, and, while working at colleges and universities there, he was awarded a professorship. Since then, he has moved to work in Portugal.
I contend that my constituent is being treated unfairly by the Portuguese authorities, who have refused him bail on several occasions. They have even refused to contemplate house arrest. It is clear that he is being treated much worse than a Portuguese national would be treated; it seems that he is being discriminated against because he is a foreigner. I say that because we can make comparisons with similar cases in which Portuguese nationals have been treated differently.
I should like to bring to the House's attention the case of Pedro Caldeira, who was charged with white collar crime; it was a similar charge to the one that Professor Lowery faces. That man was given bail despite the fact that there was evidence that he might flee the jurisdiction, as he had previously absconded. I am told that the man even confessed to his crime on a national television programme. The Portuguese authorities saw fit to give him bail, whereas my constituent has been refused bail. Therefore, it appears that my constituent is being refused bail simply because he is a foreigner. From what I have been told by his legal advisers, there is a strong indication that he has not been treated as innocent until proven guilty, the concept that is supposed to underlie the Portuguese legal system.
My constituent was arrested in April 1997 and held for a year before charges were made. That is in accord with the Portuguese legal code; a person can be held for 12 months before charges are made. In this case, my constituent was charged on the 365th day. In such a situation, it becomes very difficult for defence lawyers because they are not able in that 12-month period to see

1287
prosecution evidence. Therefore, they are unable to mount—this was true of the lawyers in this case—a substantial challenge against a refusal of bail.
In this case, there have been five applications for bail, and five appeals have been rejected. My constituent's applications were accompanied on each occasion, I understand, by a statement from his doctors pointing out that he should be released on bail or on house arrest for health reasons. The prison doctor service has rejected that evidence. I am told by my constituent's legal advisers that it did so without even giving him a cursory medical examination. The medical evidence has just been disregarded.
No evidence has been provided by the Portuguese authorities that my constituent is violent, that he would be likely to flee the country if given bail or that he would interfere with the investigation. Those tend to be the reasons why a judge would decide against giving bail, but my constituent is not of that nature. It would seem, therefore, that there is no good reason to refuse him bail.
My constituent has already surrendered his passport, I am told. He has offered sureties and agreed to report frequently to a police station if given bail. Additionally, he has a genuine, long-standing relationship with a Portuguese woman, so he has every reason to remain behind to see this thing through. Therefore, there is no reason why he should have been refused bail.
As a result of the difficult situation that my constituent has been put in, he has become so frustrated that he has started the process of making a complaint to the European Commission of Human Rights, with the help of his legal advisers, Gudrun Parasie of the European legal advice service and Edward Fitzgerald QC. Those violations of my constituent's basic human rights seem to be legal in Portugal because, according to its penal code, a person can be held for a year, with no charges made until the 365th day, and there is no way in which his defence can have sight of prosecution documents. That tends to suggest a violation of human rights. I understand that it is on that aspect that the complaint will be made.
It seems that the contradiction within the Portuguese legal code comes about because of an outdated system, which needs to be thoroughly reviewed. I understand that it has been in place since the days of Salazar. One can understand why such a legal system operated in the days of that dictatorship, but it needs to be reviewed and brought into accord with the rest of Europe.
I am told that, although the Portuguese authorities have had a year to prepare their case, the documentation that has now become available has been shabbily put together, and there appears to have been a complete mix up. The prosecution evidence refers to no fewer than three individuals called David Lowery. What appears to have happened is that the Portuguese police asked Interpol and other police services for information on David Lowery without providing a date of birth. Consequently, the documents refer to three separate individuals. That does not inspire confidence that justice will be done.
I reiterate that, based on the information available, it appears that Professor Lowery is being discriminated against and that bail is being disallowed simply because he is a foreigner. When one bears in mind the mix up in the prosecution documentation, one fears that justice will
1288
not be done. It is all the worse for Professor Lowery because his health is failing. He is 54 years of age and the conditions in Portuguese prisons are notoriously bad. His family went out to visit him at the bank holiday and they are most concerned about him, although he has been seen by a doctor. They feel that his health is beginning to fail.
I am advised that the death rate in Portuguese prisons is 125 times the national average. The average age of prisoners is 30 and Professor Lowery is 54. Bearing in mind the conditions and the death rate in Portuguese prisons, and the age of Professor Lowery and the fact that he has a health problem, it is obvious why his family are extremely concerned.
Recently, the Portuguese newspaper Püblico likened a prison sentence in Portugal to a death sentence. That gives some indication of the severe and harsh conditions in Portuguese prisons. The case has attracted a great deal of attention because of the human rights violations that seem to be built into the Portuguese penal code, such as the right to hold a person for a year without bringing charges. A prominent English QC has written a 17-page report listing the human rights violations in this case alone.
In conclusion, Professor Lowery is 54 years of age. He is not very robust and his family feel that if he has to wait more years in prison, his health may fail. Therefore, I should be pleased if my hon. Friend did his utmost to raise the case of my constituent as a matter of urgency with his Portuguese counterpart, with a view to pressing for either bail or house arrest. Although house arrest would confine him to his home, he would be in an environment in which his health was not in jeopardy, as it is now. He could remain there until his case was dealt with.
9.49 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) for bringing Professor Lowery's case to the attention of the House. I should like to respond by explaining some of the background detail in the case, the way in which the Foreign Office has supported Professor Lowery, and, specifically, the role in it played by our embassy and consular staff.
I tell my hon. Friend that the Government are committed—as any United Kingdom Government would be—to supporting and helping all British nationals who are detained in overseas prisons. We shall ensure that we meet that broad commitment in the case of my hon. Friend's constituent, Professor Lowery.
The House might find it useful if I were to give some of the background to Professor Lowery's case. Although my hon. Friend briefly mentioned some of the points, hon. Members may gain a greater understanding of the case if I provide that background.
Professor Lowery was working in Portugal as the director of a company involved in buying and selling stocks and shares, collecting commercial information and conducting telemarketing. The company was called Paramount Portugal Consultadoria Commercial Limitada, and was established with the majority of the initial capital provided by Paramount Securities and Trust SA, of Switzerland, and the remainder by Professor Lowery himself.

1289
As my hon. Friend said, Professor Lowery was arrested on 22 April 1997, following complaints received by the Portuguese authorities from one or more investors in Ireland that share certificates marketed by Professor Lowery's company had been forged and were valueless. Professor Lowery was then detained in Caxias prison, pending police investigations into the complaints against him and the company.
Remand custody may be applied only if bail is considered inadequate, if there is a strong indication that a crime punishable with a maximum term of imprisonment of more than three years has been committed, and if the court considers that there is a danger that the defendant might flee. My hon. Friend has made some points on those criteria, but the court decided that, in this case, Professor Lowery came within some of those criteria. He was consequently held in detention without bail.
It might be useful if I were to explain some of the aspects of the Portuguese criminal procedural code. The code limits the length of custody on remand to six months, to allow the authorities to investigate accusations. The term can be increased to 12 months when the process is exceptionally complex because of the number of defendants, the number of plaintiffs or the highly organised nature of the alleged crime. The period can be lengthened also if crimes such as forgery of currency or credit instruments fraud are involved.
As my hon. Friend said, Professor Lowery was formally charged, in accordance with Portuguese law, on 21 April 1998. He was charged with criminal association, falsification of titles of credit, aggravated fraud and misuse of computerised data.
My hon. Friend may wish to know that the British embassy in Lisbon became aware of Professor Lowery's detention on 9 May 1997. The Portuguese authorities confirmed his arrest with the embassy on the same day. I am happy to report that consular staff sought immediate access, and visited Professor Lowery on 13 May. I can therefore tell my hon. Friend that—despite the points that he has made on legal procedures in Portugal and the nature of Portuguese law—consular staff were quick to respond as soon as they had information that Professor Lowery had been detained.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, it is now the responsibility of the Portuguese authorities to set a date for Professor Lowery's trial. Under Portuguese law, the maximum time that any prisoner can be held on remand is four years in total. In this case, that will include the time that Professor Lowery spent on remand before being charged.
That is the some of the background to the case. I am sure that hon. Members who are familiar with our consular role will be interested to know how we have responded to Professor Lowery's case. The job of our consular staff is to ensure that British prisoners overseas receive the same treatment as other prisoners, that they have proper and full access to a lawyer, that they have information about the legal and prison systems and that any medical problems are dealt with quickly. Moreover, if we learn of a justified and serious complaint about ill treatment, we take it up vigorously with the police or prison authorities. We are concerned that all British
1290
nationals who are detained overseas are dealt with in accordance with local laws; we take appropriate measures to ensure that they are.
As I have now answered a number of Adjournment debates on consular cases, I can tell my hon. Friend that we have responsibility—which we carry out—for looking after the well-being of British citizens in prison overseas and for ensuring that they receive their full rights in the context of the local law. However, as the UK Government, we cannot interfere with a country's legal system—in this case, the country is another member of the European Union.
It is crucial that we understand that the role of the consular service is to safeguard the welfare of British prisoners overseas. Our consular staff in Portugal aim to visit British prisoners on a regular basis. Consular staff in Lisbon have visited Professor Lowery four times since his arrest on 22 April 1997, most recently on 14 April this year. The ambassador in Lisbon has also agreed to visit Professor Lowery in prison; he will be in contact with him in the very near future about the proposed timing.
My hon. Friend referred to my recent visit to Lisbon. Unfortunately, because of the programme—I was there to visit Expo 98—I was unable to arrange to meet the Portuguese Foreign Minister, but I took the opportunity to express again to our ambassador in Lisbon the interest of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members in Professor Lowery's case. I know that the ambassador is keeping a close eye on the case, as is shown by the fact that he will visit Professor Lowery in prison, largely as a result of the excellent representation that my hon. Friend has made for his constituent; the embassy's commitment and interest are demonstrated by the fact that it is rare for an ambassador to pay a prison visit.
Since Professor Lowery's arrest, our consular staff in Lisbon have maintained close contact with the prison authorities and with Professor Lowery's legal representatives. I understand that Professor Lowery is in close contact with his family and is visited regularly by his friends. If he wants our consular staff at any time to pass on any information to his family, they will be glad to do so.
My hon. Friend talked about Professor Lowery's health, and we fully understand the problems. We know that Professor Lowery suffers from high blood pressure; he told our consular staff when they visited him on 20 January this year that he had developed two lumps in his throat and had seen a private doctor. Since being informed of that development, our consular staff in Lisbon have pressed the prison authorities vigorously to ensure that Professor Lowery receives the medical attention that he needs and deserves.
The ambassador in Lisbon has written to the Minister of Justice on three occasions about Professor Lowery's health. Professor Lowery has now been seen by a specialist; he has also undergone tests in a private clinic outside the prison. He has been seen at the prison on a number of occasions by his own doctor, and he has also been seen by a dentist. The ambassador also wrote to the Minister of Justice on 17 February—on a humanitarian,

1291
rather than a legal, basis—to express concern at the length of time that Professor Lowery had been detained without charge.
I hope that all those points will convey to my hon. Friend that the consular staff and the ambassador have been extremely busy and fully involved. The consular staff will continue to monitor Professor Lowery's case and to do all that they appropriately can to help.
Professor Lowery's case has to remain a matter for the Portuguese legal system. That is how such cases are dealt with. It is not right or proper for us to try to interfere in that process, as I am sure my hon. Friend will understand. The legal system is independent of the Government in the Portuguese system, so the question of bail or release is for that system. The role of the Foreign Office and our consular staff is to ensure that Professor Lowery gets all his rights.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
Mr. Fatchett: We will ensure that Professor Lowery receives all the support that he can from consular staff. If my hon. Friend feels that the professor's rights are being violated and that the embassy could help him, will he please let us know?
We heard what my hon. Friend said about possible legal action under human rights charters of the European Union, and we will be interested to see how that proceeds. We understand his concern, and will continue to take an interest in the case and do what we can to assist his constituent. We understand in particular the concerns about Professor Lowery's health and the prison conditions, and I assure my hon. Friend that the Foreign Office and our consular staff in Lisbon will be vigilant.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Ten o'clock.

  Freedom of Information
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he intends to publish the 1997 report on the operation of the code of practice on access to Government information.[45947]

  Dr. David Clark
  I have published this report today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Public Bodies (Boundaries)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the public bodies which it is proposed to reorganise to make their boundaries coterminous with those of the Government Offices of the Regions.[44224]

  Angela Eagle
  Of bodies within my Department's area of responsibility, the regional office structure of English Partnerships is being reorganised to match the boundaries of the Government Offices for the Regions, in order to facilitate the transfer of functions from English Partnerships to Regional Development Agencies in April 1999. There will similarly be some reorganisation of the regional office structure of the Rural Development Commission.

  Road Fuel Gases
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action his Department is taking(a) to encourage the spread of gas-powered vehicles and (b) widening of access to LPG. [44799]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government have already undertaken a number of measures to promote the use of road fuel gases including freezing the duty on road fuel gases in successive budgets and providing £6.5 million to the Energy Saving Trust's Powershift programme to help stimulate the market for alternative fuels. The Government have also announced the introduction from January 1999 of an incentive of up to a £500 reduction in VED for lorries and buses meeting stringent emission standards.

  These measures are significantly reducing the operating costs of gas-powered vehicles in order to make them competitive with conventional petrol and diesel fuelled vehicles. By stimulating demand in this way the Government anticipate that refuelling facilities will
  630
  gradually increase though it seems likely that they will be confined, at least initially, to urban sites for use by dedicated fleets.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of propane as a fuel; what steps he proposes to encourage its use; and if he will make a statement. [45129]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Vehicles powered by liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), of which propane and butane are the primary constituents, can make a contribution towards meeting our air quality objectives, particularly when used in well engineered applications by commercial fleets operating in urban areas. The steps being taken to encourage the use of LPG were the subject of my reply today to a question from the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard).

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on 19 March 1998,Official Report, column 693, if he will include in the information to be collected centrally under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 the lengths of hedgerow for each local planning authority in England that have been the subject of (a) notification under the regulations, (b) hedgerow removal notices and (c) hedgerow retention notices. [44808]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department's consultation with representatives of local government on what information should be collected centrally in relation to the operation of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 sought views on whether this should include data on the length of hedgerow for each local planning authority in England or Wales subject to hedgerow removal notices (served by those wishing to remove a hedge), and subject to hedgerow retention notices (served by the local authority). It also sought views on whether the information collected should include data on length of important hedgerow for each planning authority in England and Wales in respect of which retention notices were not issued. We are considering the results of that consultation.

  This information is currently held at the local level. Each local planning authority in England and Wales is required, under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, to compile and make publicly available a record containing, among other items, a copy of every hedgerow removal notice received by it; every notice given by it stating that a hedgerow may be removed; and every hedgerow retention notice issued by it.

  East Midlands Regional Development Agency
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in establishing a regional development agency for the East Midlands; and what consideration has been given to locating its headquarters in Loughborough. [44939]

  Angela Eagle
  The Regional Development Agencies Bill, under which Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) will be established, received its second reading in Another Place on 18 May 1998,Official Report, House of Lords,
  631
  columns 1290–1354. Work is continuing at a regional and national level in anticipation of the creation of RDAs. As I stated in my answer on 27 January 1998, Official Report, column 305, the RDA for the East Midlands will be best placed to decide where its offices should be.

  Access to the Open Countryside in England and Wales"
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the respondents to his consultation paper, "Access to the Open Countryside in England and Wales", indicating what arrangements have been made for these comments to be viewed by the public. [44645]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 10 June 1998]: Responses to the consultation paper, Access to the Open Countryside in England and Wales, were requested by Friday 5 June. A list of non-confidential responses will be placed in the libraries of both Houses once all responses have been logged. Copies of non-confidential responses will be placed in my Departments's library and will be available to members of the public for inspection by appointment.

  Blight
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the outcome of consultation on the final report of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Blight; what proposals he has to change the law relating to compulsory purchase and blight; and if he will make a statement. [45538]

  Mr. Caborn
  The results of the consultation have shown that blight is just one issue which needs to be reviewed in relation to compulsory purchase and land compensation. I have, therefore, commissioned a fundamental review of the law and procedures which relate to the compulsory acquisition of land. I have placed a copy of the terms of reference of the review in the Library of the House. I would expect to have an interim report on this by the end of the year.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will consider separately the case for reform of the law in Scotland.

  Nuclear Materials (Transportation)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many aeroplane flights he estimates occurred in(a) 1996 and (b) 1997 in UK airspace in which radioactive material was carried. [45378]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department does not collect information of the kind requested. The Department has no more recent estimate than that given to the hon. Member on 14 July 1997,Official Report, column 15.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Government will make it their policy further to restrict the transportation of radioactive materials(a) via the Channel Tunnel and (b) on their passenger ferries.[45379]
  632
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Such transport is permitted subject to(a) the rules and restrictions of Eurotunnel, as approved by the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority of the UK/France Intergovernmental Commission and (b) compliance with The Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants) Regulations 1990 (SI 1990 No. 2605) and Merchant Shipping Notice No. M 1620, "The Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants in Packaged Form on Ships". These place no restriction on the number of transports.

  Local Authorities (Pilot Schemes)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the pilot schemes announced since 1 May by his Department that involve local authorities in a lead or partnership capacity; if he will list each of the local authorities involved in each case; and what revenue and capital funding each local authority will receive through the pilot in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [45337]

  Angela Eagle
  Local authorities are involved in a wide range of activities across my Department, and it is not possible to provide a definitive list.

  However, pilot schemes that have been announced by my Department since May 1997 and which involve local authorities in a lead or partnership capacity include Best Value pilots and the joint commissioning of new social housing schemes.

  The relevant details are as follows:

  Best Value

  On 4 December 1997, my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing announced the selection of 37 pilot projects to test the best value framework in advance of the introduction of the Government's best value policy. The pilots began on 1 April 1998 and are expected to run for 2 or 3 years. No additional funding is being provided by the Government. The successful authorities were:

  Birmingham City Council

  Bradford City Council

  Braintree DC Brent LB

  Brighton/Hove, Tandridge, Wealden DCs

  Bristol City Council

  Camden LB Carrick DC

  Cleveland Police Authority

  Cumbria County Council

  CWOIL group (Cambridge, Welwyn, Oxford, Ipswich, Lincoln)

  Exeter City Council

  Gosport BC

  Great Yarmouth BC

  Greater Manchester Police

  Greenwich LB

  Harrow LB Ipswich BC

  Leeds City Council

  Lewisham LB

  Lincolnshire County Council

  633

  Manchester City Council

  Newark and Sherwood DC

  Newcastle upon Tyne City Council

  Newham LB

  Northamptonshire County Council

  Oldham MBC

  Portsmouth City Council

  Reading BC

  Redcar and Cleveland BC

  Southampton City Council

  South Norfolk DC

  Sunderland City Council

  Surrey County Council

  Warwickshire CountyCouncil

  Watford BC

  York City Council.

  Joint Commissioning

  Joint Commissioning involves the development of a long term housing strategy and a set of investment priorities for both ADP and non-ADP fund ing, agreed between the Housing Corporation and a local authority. It also often involves the competitive selection of a set of RSLs who are then invited to bid for funding for social housing schemes. The objectives are to ensure that investment in social housing is based on sound long term strategies and to reduce the amount of wasteful competition between RSLs for ADP funds each year. The 42 local authorities involved in the Joint Commissioning pilot scheme are set out according to the Housing Corporation Region in which they are located:

  London Region

  Redbridge

  Hillingdon

  Kensington

  Greenwich

  South West Region

  Bournemouth

  Cotswold

  Cornwall SNAP (Special Needs Across the County)

  Taunton Dean

  South East Region

  Surrey

  Eastbourne

  Crawley

  Spelthorne Swale

  Brighton and Hove

  Portsmouth New

  Forest Reading

  East Hampshire

  East Midlands and Eastern Regions

  Ipswich

  Essex Strategic Reserve (supported housing)

  Harlow

  Newark and Sherwood

  Ashfield

  Northampton

  Fenland

  Leicester

  634
  North West Region

  Chester

  Oldham

  Manchester

  Preston

  Bolton

  Merseyside

  Wirral

  West Midlands Region

  Oswestry

  Wrekin

  Wychavon

  Cannock

  Yorkshire and Humberside and North Eastern Regions

  NE Lincolnshire

  Sheffield

  Sunderland

  Derwentside

  South Tyneside

  Hull.

  Workplace Injuries
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 27 October 1997,Official Report, column 721, on work-place injuries, if he will publish the finalised figures for 1996–97 and provisional figures for 1997–98, indicating the percentage change in each year since 1992–93. [45426]

  Angela Eagle
  The table shows the total number of fatal and major injuries to employees and self employed people reported to all enforcing authorities between 1992–93 and 1996–97 (years commencing 1 April) and indicates the percentage change from the previous year since 1992–93.

  Year

  Employees

  Percentage change from previous year

  Self-employed

  Percentage change from previous year

  Fatal Injuries

  1992–93

  276

  —

  63

  —

  1993–94

  245

  -11

  51

  -19

  1994–95

  191

  -22

  81

  +59

  1995–96

  209

  +9

  49

  -40

  1996–971

  207

  -1

  80

  +63

  Major Injuries

  1992–93

  16,938

  —

  1,115

  —

  1993–94

  16,705

  -1

  1,274

  +14

  1994–95

  17,041

  +2

  1,313

  +3

  1995–96

  16,568

  -3

  1,166

  -11

  1996–971

  27,964

  +69

  1,356

  +16

  1Definition of a major injury extended when The Reporting of Injuries, Disease and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 came into force on 1 April 1996

  Note:

  Provisional figures will be available in July 1998 and a copy will be placed in the House of Commons Library

  Greater London Authority
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to ensure that the aims and methods of the
  635
  Better Government Programme for Older People are applied to the transitional arrangements for the establishment of the Greater London Authority. [45421]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Yes, where relevant.

  Air Safety
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to improve(a) airport and (b) aircraft safety. [45044]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for the safety regulation of UK civil aircraft and airports. They constantly monitor the civil aviation industry and seek to improve safety standards by systematically defining and addressing safety risks. Consequently the UK has one of the best civil aviation safety records in the world.

  The UK also plays a leading role in raising international aviation safety standards through its active membership of the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the joint Aviation Authorities. In addition, as part of the Presidency of the EU we are progressing proposals to establish a European Aviation Safety Authority.

  Airport Noise
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to introduce measures for the control of airport noise for airports outside London; [45040]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the report on the Review of Airport Noise Legislation prepared for the previous Government; [45041]

  (3) what plans he has to introduce noise abatement schemes at or in the neighbourhood of airports. [45043]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are examining airports policy generally in the context set by the wider Integrated Transport Policy review. I am aware of proposals arising from the review of aircraft noise legislation in 1991–93. The environmental impacts of airports and the case for new legislation are being considered and proposals will be made in due course.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received on(a) noise and (b) safety issues at airports. [45042]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend and I have received various representations from time to time on noise and safety issues at airports. These tend to focus on current concerns, which include night restrictions and noise limits at the designated London airports, Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.

  Derbyshire County Council
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) of 8 June 1998,Official Report, column 420, on the final cap for Derbyshire County Council, what estimate he has made of the cost for each property in the county to be re-billed. [45361]
  636
  Mr. Raynsford
  The County Council's estimate of the cost of re-billing is £320,000

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) of 8 June 1998,Official Report, column 420, on the final cap for Derbyshire County Council, what estimate he has made of the council tax reduction for a person living in a property in (a) Band A, (b) Band B, (c) Band C, (d) Band E, (e) Band F, (f) Band G and (g) Band H. [45376]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The amounts are(a) £2.87, (b) £3.35, (c) £3.83, (d) £5.27, (e) £6.23, (f) £7.18 and (g) £8.62. These figures are for a two person household (i.e. a dwelling which does not attract any discount), and the amounts of the reduction given may be a penny different in practice, owing to rounding.

  South Downs
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received following the Countryside Commission recommendation to the Government not to designate the South Downs as a national park; and if he will make a statement. [45363]

  Angela Eagle
  Ministers have not yet received the Countryside Commission's formal advice on the future status of the South Downs; we expect to receive it later this month. We will need to look at the precise terms of the Commission's recommendations very carefully, together with all the information available, before taking any final decisions. We hope to be able to announce our conclusions in the autumn.

  London Road Network
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to consult on which roads should form the strategic London road network for which the Greater London Authority will have responsibility. [45989]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have today published our consultation document on a strategic London road network. Copies have been placed in the Library and sent to the London local authorities, the Association of London Government, London Transport and others with an interest in the movement of people and goods in London.

  This fulfils an undertaking in the White Paper—A Mayor and Assembly for London (Cm 3897 published on 25 March 1998) to consult about precisely which roads should be part of the strategic London road network. The White Paper made clear that we start from the presumption that this network should be based on the present primary and red route networks. This comprises about 220 miles of trunk roads and 105 miles of borough roads. The transfer of the trunk roads to the GLA will represent a major shift in responsibilities from central to local Government.

  The consultation document sets out possible additions to and deletions from the primary and red route networks in order to form the strategic network for which the Greater London Authority will take responsibility. Comments on the proposals are invited by 7 August.
  637

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Government have reached a decision on the future of the national air traffic services. [46057]

  (Dr. Strang
  We have been considering the future of the National Air Traffic Services (NATS) taking account of the views expressed in the Report by the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on Air Traffic Control published in April.

  Safety is paramount. The Select Committee raised major concerns about the current arrangements in their report. The Civil Aviation Authority is currently responsible both for the provision of air traffic control services through NATS and for regulating the safety of those services. The Government will bring forward proposals to ensure that air safety regulation will be conducted independently from NATS. We will ensure that regulation is open and transparent and that the aviation industry and its employees can play a full part. The regulator's remit will be to enforce the toughest safety standards in the world.

  We have looked at a number of options for the future of NATS, including those mentioned in the Select Committee's Report.

  In the planned multi-billion investments in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and London Underground, we have demonstrated our ability to mobilise private capital to serve the public interest through public/private partnerships.

  The Government believe that the level of investment and efficiency that we need in our National Air Traffic Services can best be achieved through a partnership between the public and private sectors. A partnership of this kind would help NATS to finance the investment it needs to operate effectively and would mobilise private sector resources.

  Our preference is that 49 per cent. of the shares, and a golden share, are held by the Government; and 51 per cent. by private investors including employees.

  This package, taken together, will guarantee the highest safety standards as air transport increases in the future. It will retain a large public stake and golden share in NATS. And it will ensure that NATS can finance its future investment effectively within a secure framework of safety and economic regulation.

  The Government will consult interested parties further on the implementation of their decision in principle and will then bring forward the necessary legislation.

  Local Authority Airports
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what changes are planned by the Government to free local authority airports from borrowing controls. [46056]

  Dr. Strang
  All borrowing via local authority airports currently counts against the public expenditure control total. This is not conducive to the proper commercial management of these airports.
  638
  We now intend that local authority airports whose finances are sufficiently sound should be given the flexibility to borrow to finance airport related capital investment in the UK, where the lending would be genuinely commercial. This will allow airports such as Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds Bradford and Norwich to compete for business on a level playing field with private sector airports, while safeguarding the interest of the taxpayer.

DEFENCE

  Foreign Nationals (Security Clearance)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many defence projects for which foreign nationals have been cleared have then been reclassified to a higher security classification in each of the last five years. [45093]

  Mr. Spellar
  Information is not held on the number of defence projects for which foreign nationals have been cleared which have then been reclassified to a higher classification. However, it is rare for any major defence project to be so upgraded.

  TRACER Programme
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will sign a memorandum of understanding with the Government of the USA on the TRACER programme; and if he will make a statement. [45091]

  Mr. Spellar
  We are currently considering the TRACER programme and hope to reach a decision shortly.

  HMS Ocean
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on repairs for HMS `Ocean' since her launch; and what repairs have been carried out. [45127]

  Mr. Spellar
  The cost of repairs to the damage sustained to the hull of HMS Ocean during her launch on 11 October 1995 amounted to £1.125 million and was paid by the MOD under its Indemnity scheme. The ship also underwent repairs, by VSEL sub contractors, to her tail shaft bearings while in dry dock at Portsmouth in May 1998. The cost and liability for the damaged tail shaft has yet to be established.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of damage caused to HMS 'Ocean' during refloating at Portsmouth naval base following repairs; and if he will make a statement. [45126]

  Mr. Spellar
  During the re-floating of HMS Ocean on 2 June 1998, some very minor damage was sustained to a handrail. This was repaired immediately at no significant cost.

  Arms Tactical Training Centre
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the cost of the new arms tactical training centre due to be installed in Germany for the British Army. [45029]
  639
  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]: The latest estimated acquisition costs of the Combined Arms Tactical Trainer facility to be installed at Sennelager in Germany are £57 million.

  Heavy Lift Aircraft
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has evaluated for a heavy lift aircraft for HM forces to be manufactured by the Airbus consortium. [45277]

  Mr. Spellar
  A provisional Request for Proposals has been issued to Airbus, Turkish Aerospace Industries, Alenia and FLABEL pending the formation of Airbus Military Company. We are still discussing with our partners when Requests for Proposals will be issued to potential suppliers under competitive arrangements. A procurement decision will be made in the light of the conclusions of the Strategic Defence Review and of the responses to the Request for Proposals.

  Low Flying (Brecon Beacons)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce low-level flying exercises in the Brecon Beacons. [45139]

  Mr. Spellar
  The amount of low flying training undertaken throughout the United Kingdom is already limited to that strictly necessary for aircrews to achieve and maintain operational effectiveness. We remain committed to achieving as equitable a distribution of low flying activity as practicable, taking into account geographical, climatic and operational considerations. Since 1988, low flying in Wales has reduced by about half accordingly. There are no plans to reduce military low flying training carried out in the Brecon Beacons.

  Apache Helicopter
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implementation of the direct industrial offset commitments by the Boeing company for the construction in the United Kingdom of the Apache helicopter for the British Army. [44874]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Boeing company, in common with all other overseas companies holding Industrial Participation obligations, is required to submit regular reports of the work placed in the United Kingdom in order to fulfil the commitment it has made. These reports are monitored and assessed within the Ministry of Defence. The company is progressing satisfactorily towards its direct Industrial Participation target.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 June to the hon. Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones),Official Report, columns 50–51, what plans he has for the future provision of in-cell televisions with access to (a) satellite
  640
  television services, (b) sporting events broadcast on satellite television services and (c) adult channels on satellite television services. [44610]

  Ms Quin
  There are no plans for the future provision of non-terrestrial in-cell television.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 June to the hon. Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones),Official Report, columns 50–51, what limits will be placed on the times at which prisoners will be able to have access to in-cell television. [44611]

  Ms Quin
  This will be a matter for local rules. Steps will be taken in all establishments holding juveniles to ensure observation of the threshold for unsuitable programmes set by the broadcasting authorities.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 June to the hon. Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones),Official Report, columns 50–51, how many levels of privilege are generally in operation throughout the Prison Service. [44616]

  Ms Quin
  Three: the basic, standard and enhanced privilege levels.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 June to the hon. Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones),Official Report, columns 50–51, if video recorders are to be made available to prisoners as part of the increased availability of in-cell television. [44614]

  Ms Quin
  There are no plans to allow prisoners to have video recorders as part of the policy on in-cell television.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 June to the hon. Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones),Official Report, columns 50–51, in respect of the procurement process for in-cell television, what is the average cost per television; if the televisions will be new; and if they will contain (a) digital technology and (b) teletext. [44615]

  Ms Quin
  The Prison Service has begun a procurement process for new, non-digital, 14 inch colour television sets. Teletext will not be included but, where there is networked aerial cabling, there will be the capacity to use spare channels to communicate by text information such as establishment routines. The unit cost of televisions purchased depends on the outcome of the tendering process and will not be known until a contract is awarded.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the programme of inspections of each county probation force by HMIP and what thematic inspections are planned. [44846]

  Ms Quin
  Between 1994 and the end of 1998, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation will have inspected each area probation service once under its quality and effectiveness inspection programme. This programme also involves a follow up inspection about 18 months after the publication of the area inspection report. Consideration is now being given to the form of inspection which will follow the completion of the quality and effectiveness programme.
  641
  Future thematic inspection reports will cover probation hostels, life sentence prisoners (jointly with Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons) and supervision plans.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average number of days sick leave taken by probation staff in each grade in each probation service in England and Wales in each of the last three years. [44852]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested is not collected centrally; however, a recent study based on samples of probation service staff suggested that the average sick leave across services in 1997 was about nine days.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what (1) was the staff turnover rate for each category of staff in each probation service in England and Wales in each of the last three years; [44851]

  (2) what were the absenteeism or unauthorised absence rates for each grade of probation staff in each probation service in England and Wales in the last three years. [44850]

  Ms Quin
  The information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average case load for each probation service in England and Wales in each of the last three years. [44853]

  Ms Quin
  The readily available information refers to the court order caseload for 1995 and 1996 and is shown in the table. In addition to the 15.6 cases per officer shown, there were 12.0 cases of pre and post-release supervision for England and Wales. The latter figure would be available by probation area only at disproportionate cost.

  Table: Average caseload1 of criminal court orders per maingrade officer2

  Cases per officer

  England and Wales 31 December

  1995

  1996

  Avon

  19.2

  20.2

  Bedfordshire

  13.2

  14.3

  Berkshire

  15.1

  16.5

  Cambridgeshire

  11.5

  12.9

  Cheshire

  13.1

  16.2

  Cornwall

  14.4

  24.3

  Cumbria

  11.8

  14.2

  Derbyshire

  15.1

  18

  Devon

  14.7

  15.0

  Dorset

  16.9

  16.4

  Durham

  18.5

  22.8

  Essex

  13.9

  14.7

  Gloucestershire

  18.0

  17.6

  Hampshire

  14.1

  15.3

  Hereford & Worcester

  10.7

  12.9

  Hertfordshire

  14.2

  16.3

  Humberside

  18.0

  19.6

  Kent

  16.5

  18.6

  Lancashire

  16.3

  16.4

  Leicestershire

  11.5

  13.2

  Lincolnshire

  13.4

  13.0

  Greater Manchester

  15.9

  17.1

  Merseyside

  12.5

  13.2

  Norfolk

  11.8

  14.2

  Northamptonshire

  9.3

  10.0

  Northumbria

  13.6

  14.9

  Nottinghamshire

  12.3

  14.1

  Oxford & Buckingham

  12.2

  13.3

  642

  Table: Average caseload1 of criminal court orders per maingrade officer2

  Cases per officer

  England and Wales 31 December

  1995

  1996

  Shropshire

  13.6

  13.3

  Somerset

  14.3

  16.0

  Staffordshire

  15.5

  16.6

  Suffolk

  10.7

  12.8

  Surrey

  12.3

  13.3

  East Sussex

  11.9

  13.7

  West Sussex

  13.1

  12.5

  Teesside

  18.0

  20.3

  Warwickshire

  14.3

  16.1

  West Midlands

  14.9

  15.7

  Wiltshire

  15.3

  16.0

  North Yorkshire

  16.6

  18.4

  South Yorkshire

  13.1

  15.1

  West Yorkshire

  15.2

  16.2

  Inner London

  15.6

  15.9

  NE London

  12.2

  14

  SE London

  15.1

  14.4

  SW London

  11.8

  13.3

  Middlesex

  13.4

  14.8

  Dyfed

  18.3

  20.4

  Gwent

  15.3

  17.9

  North Wales

  14.0

  15.8

  Powys

  18.3

  20.1

  South Glamorgan

  12.1

  11.2

  Mid Glamorgan

  13.8

  14.2

  West Glamorgan

  15.1

  15.0

  All areas

  14.4

  15.6

  1 Excludes community services. Includes cases supervised by staff other than maingrade officers

  Excludes persons with life supervision. Persons receiving more than 1 supervision are counted in the court orders caseload only for the first supervision which applies

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy to maintain a network of probation offices outside the largest towns and cities. [45331]

  Ms Quin
  The probation service needs to provide supervision programmes and facilities which are reasonably accessible to offenders who are required to attend. The number and location of offices are for probation committees to determine within the grant provision they have. In reaching decisions, I look to committees to take account of the potential additional costs and savings which more centralisation of accommodation could bring; the potential effect on operations and enforcement; and the potential contribution which other, more flexible, arrangements (such as mobile offices) might make in their circumstances.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the British Government's policy towards asylum seekers who have been active in opposition parties and are from the English speaking regions of Cameroon. [44930]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Every application for asylum is decided in accordance with the provisions of the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. Anyone who demonstrates a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion would be
  643
  recognised as a refugee. Any rejected applicant has the opportunity to appeal to the Immigration Appellate Authority.

  The Government's assessment of the conditions prevailing in Cameroon is based on information from a variety of sources, including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the United States Department of State and international organisations, such as Amnesty International. A country assessment on Cameroon, prepared by the Country Information and Policy Unit of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, has been produced and will be revised and updated approximately every six months.

  The Home Office country assessment reports concerns about human rights abuses in Cameroon. At this time we have received no evidence to show that mere membership of an opposition party or a Cameroonian's status as an anglophone would single a person out for persecution for those reasons alone.

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated total cost to public funds in the last 12 months of making provision for applicants for political asylum. [45182]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Costs directly attributable to asylum seekers are not separately identified within spending figures, hence only a broad estimate is available. This estimates that the costs to public funds of provision for asylum seekers is around £500 million for 1997–98. This cost includes processing costs of asylum applications and appeals, and costs for providing support to asylum seekers via Department of Social Security benefits, support provided by local authorities under the National Assistance Act 1948, legal aid and health and education.

  Recent claims that the total cost of asylum is in excess of £2 billion are wildly misleading.

  Extradition
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of the last 15 years the number of extradition warrants issued by police forces in England and Wales for persons sought by them for terrorist type crimes whom the police believed to be resident in the United States of America; how many of the persons sought were returned to the United Kingdom in each year; and if he will give the same information in respect of persons sought for crimes not related to terrorism. [44916]

  Mr. Straw
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Scotland are responsible for extradition requests based on offences committed within those jurisdictions.

  An arrest warrant issued in England and Wales cannot form an extradition request. Extradition arrangements with the United States are conducted on a treaty basis. A formal extradition request by the United Kingdom is prepared by the relevant prosecuting authority and is made through diplomatic channels, typically when the fugitive has been located in a particular country.

  Home Office records of extradition requests do not indicate as a matter of course whether the offence which formed the basis of an extradition request was related to terrorism. Records do show, however, that between 1983and 1997, one request was made to the United States for the return of a person on the basis of terrorist offences. That person was returned to the United Kingdom in 1996.
  644
  The table sets out the total number of requests made by the Home Office to the United States in each of the last 15 years, and the number of people returned from there in each of those years.

  Year

  Number of requests made to the United States

  Number of people returned from the United States

  1983

  3

  3

  1984

  4

  5

  1985

  6

  4

  1986

  4

  7

  1987

  10

  5

  1988

  8

  8

  1989

  5

  3

  1990

  7

  5

  1991

  6

  7

  1992

  7

  6

  1993

  4

  5

  1994

  2

  3

  1995

  8

  3

  1996

  3

  4

  1997

  8

  3

  Note:

  Twelve requests made during the period were subsequently withdrawn.

  Animal Research
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 6 April 1998,Official Report, column 26, concerning wild-caught primates, what were the scientific procedures the wild-caught baboon was subjected to; when the transplantation occurred; if the baboon is still alive; how many visits to the establishment where the procedures took place have been made by the Home Office Inspectorate since 1 January 1997; and what regulated procedures will be performed on the second wild-caught baboon. [45427]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The first animal was used in an orthotopic heart transplant procedure (in which it received a heart from a transgenic pig) on 23 March. It has since been humanely killed.

  Since 1 January 1997, inspectors have visited the establishment on five occasions.

  The second animal was considered to be an unsuitable candidate for surgery and was humanely killed without being used in any regulated procedures.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the letter of the Under-Secretary of State, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (AP/98 1/10/86), what action he is taking to reduce journey times of primates imported for research; and what plans he has to facilitate the flying of such animals directly to the United Kingdom. [44048]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Journey times are unduly long in some cases because, following a campaign by anti-vivisection groups, airlines stopped flying primates directly into the United Kingdom. Instead, the animals are flown into mainland Europe to be transported to this
  645
  country by road and ferry. The Home Office has no powers to insist that airlines carry primates or other animals directly into the United Kingdom.

  In deciding whether to allow primates to be acquired from overseas sources, the transport arrangements are taken into account.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statistics his Department collates about the countries from which primates are imported to the United Kingdom. [44049]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I assume that my hon. Friend is interested in statistics relating to the breeding and supplying centres and not in general statistics about the countries concerned.

  In deciding whether to give approval for the acquisition of primates from overseas for use in regulated procedures in the United Kingdom, information about the breeding centre is scrutinised. This information includes details of the breeding colony (its size and composition); animal accommodation and husbandry; health status and monitoring arrangements; breeding performance; staffing; and arrangements for transportation to the United Kingdom.

  Metropolitan Police Review
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy that changes in the level of police resources arising from the review of Metropolitan Police boundaries and divisional commands are subject to full public consultation. [45213]

  Mr. Straw
  Under the 1996 Police Act, I have a power to alter police areas by order. I have no power to alter police divisional boundaries within a police area, as this, and the deployment of police resources within a police area, are matters for the chief officer of the relevant police force. However, section 96 of the Police Act 1996 requires police authorities and, in the case of the Metropolitan Police District, the Commissioner, to make arrangements for obtaining the view of local people about matters concerning the policing of their area.

  I am currently considering representations that changes to the boundaries of the Metropolitan Police District should make them conterminous with those of the proposed new Greater London Authority.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the advantages of introducing greater conterminosity between police divisions and borough council boundaries in his review of the boundary of the Metropolitan Police. [45214]

  Mr. Michael
  Yes. The Government are keen to align boundaries in the criminal justice system wherever possible. Conterminous boundaries improve efficiency in the delivery of local services, increasing the effectiveness of joint working between agencies, particularly in partnership arrangements such as those proposed in the Crime and Disorder Bill[Lords]

  Under the Police Act 1996, the Home Secretary has a power to alter police areas by order but has no power to determine police divisional boundaries within a police area, which are a matter for the chief officer of the relevant police force.
  646
  We are currently considering representations for changes to the boundaries of the Metropolitan Police District to make them conterminous with those of the proposed new Greater London Authority.

  psom Police Station
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to relocate the command, control and management functions currently located at Epsom Police Station to within the Greater London boundary. [45212]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner tells me that a new station for Epsom and Sutton Division of 4 Area is planned at Sutton. It will be funded through the private finance initiative. It is planned that the divisional headquarters staff and the command and control suite currently based at Epsom Police station will be relocated to the new Sutton police station.

  Animal Rights Activists
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the letter of 12 January from the Under-Secretary of State, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to Dr George Poste of Smith Kline Beecham, what monitoring he has conducted of the efficacy of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in relation to violence by animal rights activists. [44067]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have undertaken to review the use of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and to report our findings. The review will cover all types of cases brought under the Act and will start later this year.

  Immigration Service
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration service staff are currently employed for on-entry control duties at ports; and if he will make a statement. [45186]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  On 1 June 1998, the Immigration Service Ports Directorate employed a total of 2,343 staff at ports, of whom 2,172 were operational grades of Inspector, Chief Immigration Officer, Immigration Officer and Assistant Immigration Officer.

  Police Service Budget
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the real term increase in the budget for the police service for the current year; and if he will make a statement. [45184]

  Mr. Michael
  The revenue budgets of police authorities in England and Wales rose by £255 million in 1998/99. This represents an increase of 3.7 per cent. over 1997/98.

  Port Arrivals
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of arrivals at ports, in the last 12 months, broken down to show(a) EC and (b) other arrivals; and if he will make a statement. [45187]
  647
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Provisional data for the 12 months April 1997 to March 1998 are given in the table.

  Million

  Total passenger arrivals

  80.1

  of which British citizens1

  252.4

  other nationals of countries in the European Economic Area (EEA)

  216.7

  non-EEA nationals

  11.0

  1Including residents of the Irish Republic and passengers of all nationalities in direct transit who did not pass through immigration control

  2Estimated

  Embarkation Controls
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what embarkation controls he has removed or reduced at which airports and ports; and what protection he has put in place at those ports and airports for children who are victims of attempted abduction from Britain. [44908]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The previous administration had already removed, in 1994, embarkation checks for passengers departing from ferry ports and small airports for destinations within the European Union/European Economic Area, with the consequence that some 40 per cent. of all departing passengers were not seen by an immigration officer. This meant that those seeking to evade embarkation controls could do so by using these ports.

  Implementation of the new embarkation arrangements, which I announced on 16 March 1998, Official Report, columns 506–07, commenced on 14 April at Heathrow Terminal 3, Gatwick North and Stansted. Gatwick South started on 7 June. These arrangements are due to come into place at the remaining major ports—Heathrow Terminals 1, 2 and 4, Birmingham, Glasgow and Manchester—on 1 July, or as soon as possible thereafter.

  These intelligence-led embarkation checks are more effective than those which existed before; they include the increased use of Closed Circuit Television and enhanced co-operation between border agencies, port operators, and airlines. An important part of this liaison is the operation by the police of the All Ports Warning System in order to frustrate child abduction.

  Human Rights
  (Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 24 April 1998,Official Report, column 722, on human rights, if he will state which aspects of the Government's human rights policy are his Department's responsibilities. [44877]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Home Office is responsible for the Human Rights Bill[Lords]. We also work with other Departments on the operation and application of international mechanisms for protecting human rights, with a particularly strong interest in the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European and United Nations Conventions against torture.
  648

  Non-custodial Sentences (Electronic Monitoring)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria will be used in evaluating bids by companies to manage electronic monitoring arrangements for home detention and community orders. [43877]

  Ms Quin
  The main criteria used in elevating bids both technically and commercially concern:

  the deliverability of the whole project;

  the quality and reliability of the service;

  the ability of the proposed equipment to meet the required standards; and

  the price.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  South Africa
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will provide help to the Republic of South Africa in the form of secondments of academic staff and administrators to South Africa. [44047]

  Clare Short
  There are in fact already extensive academic links between British and South African universities arranged under the Higher Education Links programme funded by my Department and managed by the British Council. 26 such links have been established.

  Iwokrama International Rainforest Centre
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to the letter of 17 June 1997 from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what support her Department has given to the Iwokrama International Rainforest Centre to provide forest research capacity for the Guyana Shield. [44066]

  Clare Short
  My Department has committed £3 million to the Centre's Sustainable Human Development Project in order to develop sustainable forest management approaches which will benefit forest-dependent communities living in the Iwokrama Rainforest. It will include support for applied research and capacity building. The European Commission is appraising for EU funding a complementary project on the sustainable and equitable use of biodiversity in the Forest.

  The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is committing £100,000 to the Centre's research programme which is also being assisted by Canada and which will benefit from close association with the Guyana Forestry Commission, also supported by DFID. Some of the Centre's research will be conducted in collaboration with the Tropenbos Foundation.

  Annual Policy Forum
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on progress in setting up the annual policy forum proposed in the Government's White Paper on International Development. [45990]
  649
  Clare Short
  The National Development Policy Forum will take place in Birmingham on 9 November. This will be preceded by a series of regional forums in ten locations around the UK. The dates and locations are as follows:

  Date

  Location

  Monday

  7 September

  Norwich

  Wednesday

  9 September

  Birmingham

  Monday

  14 September

  Bristol

  Wednesday

  16 September

  Portsmouth

  Monday

  21 September

  York

  Thursday

  24 September

  Cardiff

  Monday

  5 October

  Manchester

  Wednesday

  7 October

  Edinburgh

  Tuesday

  13 October

  Belfast

  Friday

  16 October

  London

  The Forum is one of a number of ways in which we are seeking to share experience and strengthen analysis of development issues across different sectors of society, and to broaden public awareness. This will be an annual process and full reports of the outcome will be available.

  Our current estimate of the cost is between £200,000 and £300,000.

TREASURY

  Tax Avoidance
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of personal portfolio bond holders who hold such instruments with the sole or main objective of avoiding tax. [45120]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]It is not known how many people hold personal portfolio bonds with the sole or main object of avoiding tax.

  Public Houses (Uniform Business Rate)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if his Department publishes guidelines in relation to uniform business rates and the value of public houses; [45019]

  (2)what measures are taken to monitor the accuracy of information given on forms used to assess uniform business rates for public houses; [45020]

  (3)if (a) turnover prices and (b) the value of a property are taken into account in the setting of uniform business rates for public houses. [45018]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]: No general guidelines are published in relation to uniform business rates by HM Treasury. A guide relating to the valuation of public houses, entitled "Public Houses—Approved Guide to Valuation", is available to the general public as part of the Tolley's Tax Link CD-ROM from Tolley Publishing Co. Ltd. The guide forms part of the Valuation Office Agency's Rating Manual and sets out the agreement between the Valuation Office Agency and the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association as to the method and broad levels of the value to be adopted for public houses as part of the revaluation of non-domestic property for business rates purposes, which came into effect on 1 April 1995.
  650
  The rateable value of a public house, in common with other non-domestic property subject to business rates, is an estimate of the amount of rent for which the property might reasonably be expected to be let. The capital value of the property is not taken into account. In arriving at the rateable value for public houses, the Valuation Officer, an employee of the Valuation Office Agency, has regard to turnover when estimating fair maintainable receipts. This yardstick is adopted to analyse rents and to compare properties.

  The Valuation Officer has a statutory power to request information which is required to compile and maintain lists of rateable values for business rates purposes. Those supplying the information, usually the occupiers/owners of the property or their representatives, sign a declaration of authenticity. The supply of false information can lead to prosecution. The accuracy of information given on forms will be considered at both the valuation stage and when dealing with appeals.

  Self-assessment
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many demands for a sum of 24 pence or less have been issued by the Inland Revenue since 1 January to taxpayers who have been held to have under-declared their earnings under the self-assessment scheme. [44816]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]: The information is not available.

  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxpayers were billed for amounts of less than £5 under self-assessment. [44318]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is not available.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax demands have been issued under the self-assessment initiative for sums under(a) £1 and
  (b) £10. [44973]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is not available.

  Economic and Fiscal Strategy

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of surpluses on the current balance measure of the UK budget deficit over the next five years; [44294]

  (2) what is his policy on the ratio of public debt to national income; and if he will make a statement. [45174]

  Mr. Darling [holding answer 4 June 1998]
  I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to the House today,Official Report, columns 1195–1201.

  Disabled Person's Tax Credit
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide details of the timetable for consultation on the eligibility criteria for the disabled person's tax credit. [44900]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]The disabled person's tax credit will replace the disability working allowance from October 1999. The Government are presently considering ways to ensure the disabled
  651
  person's tax credit can be made more effective and attractive than the disability working allowance, and will be making announcements and consulting in due course.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the tax yield from making child benefit taxable for(a) mothers who are higher-rate tax payers and (b) fathers who are higher-rate tax payers; and what would be the administrative cost of doing so. [44626]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]If child benefit were taxed as part of the income of those mothers or lone fathers liable to tax at the higher rate of 40 per cent., the yield for 1998–99 would be about £40 million. If the benefit were taxed as part of the income of fathers and lone mothers liable to tax at the higher rate of 40 per cent., the yield for 1998–99 would be about £450 million. The administrative costs would depend on the precise way in which any tax charge was imposed.

  Pensions (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the yield for allowing income tax relief only on pension contributions up to a ceiling of(a) £4,000 per annum, (b) £6,000 per annum, (c) £8,000 per annum and (d) £10,000 per annum. [44627]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]The distribution of tax relief by level of contribution of participants in occupational and personal pension schemes is not available.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer of giving tax relief on that part of employee and employer national insurance contributions which are treated as contributions to SERPS and which are not payable by those who have contracted out of SERPS. [44628]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]The cost of income tax relief at the basic rate for the employee part of the age-related national insurance rebate if all those currently in SERPS contracted out into appropriate personal pensions is tentatively estimated at around £300 million each year at 1998–99 levels of earnings. Extending basic rate relief to the employer part of the national insurance rebate would cost approximately an additional £850 million.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to constrain the growth of Departments' running costs; and if he will make a statement. [45181]

  Mr. Darling
  The Government are committed to delivering high-quality public services at best value to the taxpayer. Expenditure on Departments' running costs is being closely scrutinised in the Comprehensive Spending Review. Controls on running costs will be maintained within the new spending plans announced at the conclusion of the Review.

  Savings Income (Channel Islands)
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to oppose the application to the Channel Islands of the proposed Council Directive on the minimum effective taxation of savings income (COM(1998)295). [43687]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We will be discussing this issue with the Channel Islands.

  Golden Rule
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Treasury definition of capital expenditure for the purposes of the Golden Rule. [45178]

  Mr. Darling
  Definitions used for the purposes of the golden rule were set out in Annexe B of the March 1998 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Foreign Earnings Deduction
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the proportions of the expected yield arising from the proposed abolition of the foreign earnings deduction to be paid by media and entertainment personalities with very high incomes. [44642]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 10 June 1998]About one half of the yield arising from the proposed changes to the rules for foreign earnings deductions will come from media and entertainment personalities.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of those claiming foreign earnings deduction earned(a) less than £40,000 per annum, (b) between £40,000 to £50,000 per annum, (c) £50,000 to £60,000 per annum, (d) £60,000 to £75,000, (e) £75,000 to £100,000 and (f) above £100,000 per annum, in the latest year for which figures are available. [44641]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 10 June 1998]The degree of disaggregation requested is not available.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of those claiming the foreign earnings deduction were people considered by the Treasury to be very high-earning individuals in the latest year for which figures are available. [44643]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 10 June 1998]There is no standard definition of what constitutes very high earnings.

  Tax Evasion
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to end tax evasion through the use of company status by persons who would normally be considered to be(a) employees and (b) in receipt of additional income from sources outside their main employment. [45183]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Arrangements for the evasion or avoidance of tax are kept under review by the Inland Revenue who take action where appropriate. In addition, legislative steps are taken if necessary.
  653

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) on what dates HM Customs and Excise interviewed(a) Mr. Peter Penfold, (b) Mr. Craig Murray, (c) Linda St. Cook, (d) Mr. Tim Andrews, (e) Mr. Philip Packham, (f) Lt. Col. Peter Hicks and (g) Colonel Andrew Gale in the course of their investigation into possible breach of UN Resolution 1132 and the consequent Order in Council; [41820]

  (2) which civil servants have been interviewed by HM Customs and Excise in the course of their investigation into possible breach of UN resolution 1132 and the consequent Order in Council; and on what dates. [41821]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]Customs have announced the conclusion of their investigation into the alleged breaches of the UN/Sierra Leone arms embargo. It is established practice that the Commissioners do not comment further on the details of their investigations.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action the Government are taking to investigate possible violations of arms sanctions in respect of Sierra Leone. [41114]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 8 May 1998]Customs have conducted an investigation of alleged breaches of the UN/Sierra Leone arms embargo and have announced their conclusions.

  I also refer the right hon. Member to the statement by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in the House on 18 May 1998, Official Report, columns 604–11, in which he announced the investigation by Sir Thomas Legg KCB QC into allegations about Government involvement with the supply of arms to Sierra Leone by UK citizens and firms, and said that the Terms of Reference would be placed in the Library of the House. The Foreign Secretary intends to publish the report of the investigation.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans Customs and Excise have to interview the Secretary of State for International Development or officials of her Department in the course of their investigation into possible breaches of the UN Security Council Resolution 1132 concerning Sierra Leone. [41944]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None. The Customs and Excise investigation has been concluded in the terms of the announcement of 18 May 1998,Official Report, columns 604–11.

  Information
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy not to supply factual information requested by hon. Members if that information would be liable to misinterpretation. [43980]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]I refer the right hon. Gentlemen to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) on 12 May 1998,Official Report, column 82.
  654

  Taxable Pay Tables
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost of the reprint of taxable pay tables LR+B to D marked May 1998; and what was the reason for the mistake in the originals. [44337]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The cost of reprinting the tables was £127,363.

  The user testing did not identify errors within the instructional guidance contained in the new Calculator Tables. However, the revised tables (identified as May 1998 Issue 2) were issued by 16 May 1998 in time for the implementation of the Budget changes on the first pay day after 17 May 1998 in line with the original implementation date.

  Training (Tax Relief)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the administration of the vocational training tax relief scheme and the possible introduction of a composite form for use by training providers. [44913]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In an Inland Revenue Budget press release issued on 26 November 1996, comments were requested on a draft new form to replace the two eligibility forms in use for vocational training relief (VTR). The draft form was not welcomed by all training providers and, in the light of representations received, the Inland Revenue felt that they could not go ahead with the proposals as they stood.

  Partnership Initiative
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the treatment for tax purposes of contributions made by private companies to educational institutions under the Partnership Initiative. [44680]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I am not sure what my hon. Friend has in mind. There are special rules granting tax relief for gifts of equipment to educational establishments. Otherwise, normal tax rules apply. If my hon. Friend wishes to write to me about any specific point, I will be happy to look into it for him.

  Borrowing Targets
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the Government's performance against targets in reducing borrowing in 1997–98. [45870]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As a result of the lower than expected outturn in government borrowing in 1997–98, and taking account of the Government's latest forecast for Central Government net borrowing in 1998–99, the Government have reduced their financing requirement to £12.1 billion in 1998–99. This is a reduction of £3.1 billion, compared with previous plans. The revised financing requirement is expected to be met from gilt sales of £11.6 billion, and a net contribution from National Savings of £..; billion. The revised financing arithmetic is set out in the table, followed by revisions to paragraph 4 of the Debt
  655
  Management Office remit for 1998–99, and the revised auction calendar for 1998–99. There are no other changes to the Government's plans for debt management, or to the rest of the Debt Management Office remit, as set out in the 1998–99 Debt Management Report.

  Central Government Financing Requirement 1998–99

  £ billion

  Central Government net borrowing

  0.2

  Loans and sales of financial assets

  1.9

  Accruals adjustments

  1.4

  Central Government net cash requirement

  3.5

  Expected net change in official reserves

  0.0

  Gilt redemptions

  16.8

  Gilt sales residual from 1997–98

  -8.2

  Financing requirement

  12.1

  Less net financing from:

  National Savings

  0.5

  Certificates of Tax Deposit

  0.0

  Treasury bills and other short term debt

  0.0

  Gross gilt sales required

  11.6

  of which:

  Ultra-short conventionals (1–3 years)

  0.0

  Short conventionals (3–7 years)

  2.5

  Medium conventionals (7–15 years)

  2.5

  Long conventionals (over 15 years)

  3.1

  Index-linked gilts

  3.5

  Over 1998–99 as a whole, the Debt Management Office will aim to make 30 per cent. of its gilts sales in index-linked stocks, with the remainder in conventional stocks, spread across the maturity ranges. On current forecasts, this implies index-linked gilt sales of £3.5 billion and conventional gilt sales of £8.1 billion. Three auctions of conventional stocks are now scheduled for 1998–99, including the auction already held on 20 May, when the DMO successfully auctioned £3 billion of long stock. The remaining two auctions of conventional stocks will be used to issue short and medium stocks, in broadly even proportions. The Government do not necessarily intend to maintain issuance in each maturity area in these proportions in future years.

  Auction calendar 1998–99

  Date

  Wednesday 20 May 1998

  Conventional

  Wednesday 29 July 1998

  Conventional

  Wednesday 28 October 1998

  Index-linked

  Wednesday 27 January 1999

  Index-linked

  Wednesday 24 March 19991

  Conventional

  1 Subject to Chancellor's decision on the Budgetary timetable

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Walker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the 10 legal establishments in Northern Ireland which were awarded most in legal aid in the last two financial years and the amount awarded in each case. [44589]
  656
  Mr. Hoon
  The administration of the legal aid scheme in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the Law Society of Northern Ireland under the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. This function is exercised through the Legal Aid Committee which is a Committee of the Council of the Law Society of Northern Ireland and the Legal Aid Department which is a Department of the Law Society. The Legal Aid Department is also responsible for the administration of criminal legal aid on the Lord Chancellor's behalf.

  The information can be provided only at disproportionate cost. The computer system in the Legal Aid Department is out of date and the Department is presently in the process of procuring a new computer. It will then take some considerable time before all new cases are in the system and in respect of which such information could be readily available.

  Child Abduction
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the outcome of the international review meeting in 1997 of the Hague Convention on Child Abduction; and what follow-up action the British Government are taking. [44906]

  Mr. Hoon
  The review of the operation of the 1980 Hague Convention in March 1997 achieved a wide measure of consensus between contracting states on improvements to the operation of the Convention, and in particular on the standards needed to ensure that new states parties can implement the provisions of the Convention effectively. The Government have followed up the review by promoting judicial and administrative contacts to discuss and improve the operation of the Convention between the UK and other contracting states. In the wider international field, my Department has been working to promote improvements in relations with justice ministries in other European Union Member states as part of the UK's Presidency of the European Union.

  Human Rights
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to the answer of 24 April 1998,Official Report, column 722, on human rights, if he will state which aspects of the Government's human rights policy are his Department's responsibility. [44875]

  Mr. Hoon
  As a central part of their human rights policy the Government are giving further effect to the rights in the European Convention on Human Rights, through the provisions of the Human Rights Bill which is currently before Parliament. The Lord Chancellor is Chairman of the Cabinet Committee responsible for taking this forward.

  The Lord Chancellor is responsible for ensuring compliance with the relevant Convention rights as they affect the machinery of justice in England and Wales. The Lord Chancellor is also responsible for ensuring that civil and family law give effect to Convention rights.
  657

SCOTLAND

  Road Accidents
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the European Commission's Statistical Office figures for road death rates in the Highlands and Islands region relative to the rest of Scotland.[44685]

  Mr. McLeish
  Detailed information about road accidents in Scotland is published annually by the Scottish Office in "Road Accidents Scotland", copies of which are available in the Library of the House. This publication includes information about the number of casualties and casualty rates per 100,000 population by each police force area, each local authority area and by severity, whereas the European Commission's Statistical Office figures show casualties for only 4 sub-divisions of Scotland.

  The Scottish Office reviews annually accidents on trunk roads in Scotland with the aim of identifying clusters of accidents at particular locations and routes with high accident rates. This review provides the basis for the investigation of accidents on trunk roads and for appropriate remedial measures. The investigation and prevention of accidents on local roads are the responsibility of local road authorities.

  Breast Cancer
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a breakdown by age range of the incidence of breast cancer in women in Scotland in each of the last five years. [44935]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Number of registrations of incident cases of breast cancer (ICD-9' 174) among women in Scotland by age group and year of registration, 1992–1996

  Age Group

  1992

  7995

  1994

  1995

  1996

  15–24

  4

  2

  5

  1

  2

  25–34

  76

  67

  80

  59

  73

  35–44

  284

  302

  294

  289

  285

  45–54

  654

  659

  627

  706

  766

  55–64

  874

  751

  762

  806

  741

  65–74

  615

  624

  634

  654

  641

  75–84

  512

  497

  455

  468

  451

  85+

  225

  220

  240

  235

  189

  All ages

  3,244

  3,122

  3,097

  3,218

  3,418

  Holyrood Parliament Building
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what powers the Scottish Parliament will have to(a) amend and (b) reject the Government's proposals for the Holyrood Parliament Building; and if he will make a statement. [45329]

  Mr. McLeish
  It is intended that responsibility for the Parliament Building at Holyrood will transfer to the Parliament's Corporate Body at an appropriate point after 658
  it is established following the elections in May 1999. The completion of the project will then be a matter for the Parliament.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the cost of each of the options on the shortlist for the Holyrood Parliament Building. [45330]

  Mr. McLeish
  The intention is that whichever team of designers is chosen will produce a building which can be constructed within the building cost estimate of around £50 million announced previously.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    EU Fisheries Council
    Miss Begg
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Luxembourg on 8 June; and if he will make a statement. [45615]

    Dr. John Cunningham
    I chaired the meeting of the Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on 8 June. The Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) represented the United Kingdom together with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, Lord Sewel.

    The Council agreed by qualified majority, with France and Ireland voting against and Italy abstaining, a ban on high seas drift nets. The use of drift nets to catch tuna and swordfish will be phased out by 31 December 2001. The UK favoured a shorter phase out but several delegations were sympathetic to arguments for a longer one. The compromise of 3z years secured the necessary qualified majority and was accompanied by a commitment that in 1998 the number of vessels licensed to fish with drift nets in each Member State will be at least 40% below the number that fished in 1995, 1996 or 1997 in that Member State. In a joint statement the Council and Commission agreed to decide before the end of 1998 on compensatory measures to help fishermen adapt to the ending of the drift net fishery.

    The Commission proposal on drift nets has been on the Council's table since 1994. The UK Presidency made it a priority to reach an agreement in order to protect dolphins in particular and I am delighted that, after a long and hard negotiation, this has now been achieved.

    The European Commission introduced a proposal to strengthen fisheries monitoring, inspection and surveillance, together with an action plan for further improving enforcement under the Common Fisheries Policy over the next 2–3 years. In an orientation debate, the UK welcomed the prospect of more effective and consistent enforcement and called for an annual report from the Commission to enable the Council to review progress. As chairman, I concluded that there was agreement that the Commission's proposal addressed key areas where enforcement can be enhanced and a decision should be taken at the Council's next meeting in October. The action plan will be used as a framework for improving control standards.
    659
    There was also an orientation debate on a communication from the Commission on options for the future of the Community's fisheries market regime. In a wide ranging discussion, delegations, including the UK, generally shared the Commission's view that it is important to maximise the value of scarce fish resources, maintain competitive catching and processing industries in an increasingly global market and take account of consumers' concerns. Many delegations agreed that changes to both the internal and international aspects of the current market organisations are called for. The Commission will now take account of the points made in drawing up detailed proposals for consideration by the Council.

    The Council considered a communication from the Commission reporting on steps taken to follow up discussions by North Sea Ministers at a meeting in Bergen in 1997. The Council unanimously agreed conclusions stressing the importance of integrating fisheries and environmental policies and of making further progress in implementing the Bergen commitments. It also invited the Commission to provide a full report on further progress next year.

    The European Commission reported on preparations being made for the review of the Common Fisheries Policy in 2002.

    The Council had a preliminary discussion of the implications for fisheries of the reform of the Structural Funds under Agenda 2000.

    The Council also adopted a decision providing for ratification by Member States and the Community of the UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Species. This will in due course add the 15 EU member states to the list of countries which have ratified the Agreement. It will become law when 30 countries have ratified.

    Organic Farming
    Kate Hoey
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms have converted to organic farming in the past year. [44870]

    Mr. Morley
    134 farms have converted to organic farming in the past year in the UK.

    Kate Hoey
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of United Kingdom farms is classified as organic. [44869]

    Mr. Morley
    The percentage of United Kingdom farms classified as organic is 0.5 per cent.

    Animal Welfare
    Mr. Fraser
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the policy statements which he has made during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Community on the welfare of farm animals throughout the Community; and if he will make a statement. [44698]

    Mr. Morley
    My right hon. Friend and I have repeatedly made clear during the presidency that the Government's policy is to press for new and revised EU measures to improve standards of farm animal welfare throughout the European Community. Under our 660
    presidency we have made considerable progress in resolving the long-standing deadlock on the proposed general Directive on the welfare of animals on farm. We have also prevailed on the European Commission to bring forward its overdue proposals on the welfare of laying hens, and have opened the negotiations on these without delay.

    Flood Defence
    Mr. Maclean
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what flood defence works for the Cumbrian coast are planned over the next four years. [44865]

    Mr. Morley
    While this Department has overall policy responsibility for flood and coastal defence in England and administers grant aid for capital defence schemes, the planning, design, construction, maintenance and operation of defence measures is the responsibility of local operating authorities. Full information on coastal defence plans is therefore obtainable from the Environment Agency and relevant maritime councils.

    However, from information submitted to this Department, I can advise that their plans for the remainder of 1998–99 and the following three years include the following proposed capital works for which they would hope to obtain Ministry funding:

    Operating authority

    Proposed works

    Allerdale Borough Council

    Harrington (coast protection)

    Allerdale Borough Council

    Silloth Skinburness (coast protection)

    Allerdale Borough Council

    Maryport Harbour (coast protection)

    Copeland Borough Council

    Salthom Pit (coast protection)

    Barrow Borough Council

    Askam in Furness (coast protection)

    Other works may be proposed following the completion of ongoing studies. Ministry funding of all such schemes is considered if proposals meet technical, economic and environmental criteria and achieve an appropriate priority scheme.

    Fish Quotas
    Mrs. Humble
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to proceed with the introduction of fixed-quota allocations; and if he will make statement. [45991]

    Mr. Morley
    From 1 January 1999, the annual allocation of fish quotas to producer organisations, the non sector and other groups will be linked to fishing activity (catches) that took place in the reference period 1994 to 1996. These arrangements, referred to as fixed quota allocations (FQAs), will apply to all quota stocks caught in domestic waters except for North Sea herring taken as a by-catch in industrial fishing, and to certain stocks taken in external waters. The Fisheries Departments are writing to the owners of over 10 metres vessels, producer organisations and other interests to advise them of the new arrangements.

    A consultative paper setting out proposals for the introduction of fixed quota allocations for domestic waters was issued by the Fisheries Departments last November and was sent to the owners of some 2,300 fishing vessels over 10 metres, as well as producer organisations and

    661
    other interests. Almost 300 replies have been received. There was strong support for a system of fixed quota allocations from producer organisations who, together, represent some two thirds of the over 10 metre fleet and catch more than 90 per cent. of the UK's quota. That was not the case with individual responses, although the vast majority of individual fishermen offered no comment. After careful consideration of all the arguments we have come to the view that there would be significant benefits to be gained from moving to fixed quota allocations although we would wish to review such a system in 3 years' time in the light of the experience gained.

    Producer organisations will have a key role to play during the introduction of fixed quota allocations. There is apprehension among fishermen that moving to a fixed quota allocation system may disadvantage those whose fishing activities were curtailed during the reference period 1994 to 1996. The arrangements that are being introduced will provide scope for POs, acting with their members, to undertake internal adjustments to take account of anomalies that may have arisen in the reference period. Separate arrangements are also being made to cater for those fishermen that belong to the non sector.

    Concern was expressed during the consultation exercise that fixed quota allocations would pave the way to the introduction of individual transferable quotas (ITQs) and separately could lead to increased pressure on non quota stocks. On the first point, the Government have no plans to introduce ITQs and no such action would be taken without full and proper consultation with the industry. On the second point, the Fisheries Departments will be monitoring the impact of fixed quota allocations and if necessary action to safeguard the position of non-quota stocks will be considered. In this context, and given more general concern over growing pressure on scallop stocks, we shall be consulting the fishing industry and other interests about proposals to limit future access to the scallop fisheries.

    The proposals would involve the introduction of new licensing arrangements with effect from 1 January 1999. From that date, in the case of vessels over 10m in length, permission to fish for scallops would be granted only to vessels which met the qualifying criteria at 31 May 1998. These criteria may include both a track record of scallop landings prior to that date and the use of appropriate fishing gear during the corresponding period. No activity in the scallop fishery after 31 May 1998 would be taken into account. The arrangements for fishing by under 10 metre vessels would not be affected by the proposed licensing changes, although they will continue to be required to comply with the technical conservation rules applying to scallop fisheries. These rules are under separate review.

    A separate consultation exercise on the application of fixed quota allocations to external waters stocks at North Norway, Svalbard and Greenland met with unanimous support. Fisheries Departments therefore intend to introduce fixed quota allocations for these fisheries on 1 January 1999 as part of the process of applying fixed quota allocations more generally. Detailed aspects will be explained in a forthcoming consultative letter on proposals for the future licensing of fishing opportunities in external waters.
    662

    Wild Boar
    Mrs. Gilroy
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the plans for shooting enthusiasts to kill wild boar on private land near Tiverton, Devon; and what representations he has received on this matter. [45103]

    Angela Eagle
    I have been asked to reply.

    The Government have not been consulted about this proposal. The responsibility for licensing the keeping of wild animals, including wild boars, rests with local authorities. The control of the keeping of firearms is a matter for the police in this context.

    It is not an offence to kill a wild boar humanely. However, under the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, it would be an offence to inflict unnecessary suffering on a boar.

    My Department has received an inquiry from the League Against Cruel Sports on this matter.

    Milk Development Council
    Mr. Livsey
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department's guidelines for the Milk Development Council will be published. [40106]

    Mrs. Beckett
    I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Industry and Energy on 1 June 1998, Official Report, column 124.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Damien Thorne
    Mr. Waterson
    To ask the Attorney-General if he will use his powers relating to unduly lenient sentences in respect of the sentence imposed on Damien Thorne on 21 May. [45216]

    The Attorney-General
    The Criminal Justice Act 1988 gives me power, in specific circumstances, to apply to the Court of Appeal for sentences which I consider to be unduly lenient to be reviewed. The Act imposes a twenty-eight day time-limit, starting from the date of sentence, within which an application in a particular case must be notified to the Court of Appeal. The Crown Prosecution Service is to provide me with the necessary case papers so that I can consider the sentence imposed on Damien Thorne within the statutory time-limit.

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Paramilitary Violence
    Mr. Robert McCartney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the acts of paramilitary violence carried out in April, indicating to which paramilitary organisation the police have attributed responsibility. [42162]
    663
    Mr. Ingram
    [holding answer 18 May 1998]: The following acts of paramilitary violence were carried out in April:

    Offence

    Total number

    By Loyalist

    By Republican

    Unknown

    Deaths

    4

    2

    11

    —

    Shooting Incidents

    18

    9

    8

    1

    Bombing Incidents

    5

    2

    2

    1

    Casualties as a result of paramilitary style attacks

    15

    9

    6

    —

    Shootings

    8

    3

    5

    —

    Assaults

    7

    6

    1

    —

    11 claimed by INLA

    Note:

    1.The RUC advise that it is not possible at present to be more specific on attribution other than for the incident claimed by INLA. Attribution is based on the information currently available and may be subject to change or adjustment. In addition there was one further shooting incident when the RUC shot at a stolen car which tried to run down a member of a patrol

    2. Care should be taken not to add all incidents together as some are included in more than one heading, e. g. all four deaths were as a result of shooting incidents as were all eight paramilitary style shooting attacks

    Veterinary Students
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Northern Ireland students are presently studying veterinary science in(a) the Irish Republic and (b) Great Britain; what estimate she has made of the number of graduates in veterinary science required in Northern Ireland in each of the next four years; and what has been the number of applicants for university places in that science from Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [44555]

    Mr. Worthington
    There are 52 Northern Ireland students studying veterinary science in the Irish Republic and 115 in Great Britain. It is not possible to estimate the overall number of graduates in veterinary science required in Northern Ireland; however, it is anticipated that the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland will require the following:

    1998: 5

    1999: 3

    2000:3

    2001:3

    The number of applicants for university places is:

    Before 1994: No details available

    1994: 110

    1995: 85

    1996: 90

    1997: 92

    Guardsmen Fisher and Wright
    Mr. MacKay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date she commenced her review of the cases of guardsmen Fisher and Wright. [45362]

    Marjorie Mowlam
    I am currently looking at the cases in light of Mr. Justice Coghlin's judicial review judgment which was delivered on 22 May. I received advice on this matter on 2 June—i.e. within 5 working days.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what dates she referred the letter of 8 April from the hon. Member for Thurrock to the RUC Chief Constable; and when she expects the Chief Constable to issue a substantive reply. [44646]

    Mr. Ingram
    My hon. Friend's letter dated 8 April was received in my office on 29 April 1998. The matter was referred to the RUC Chief Constable on 8 May 1998 and I received his reply on 9 June.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Special Advisers
    Dr. Fox
    To ask the Prime Minister if he will state the number of special advisers in each Government department and the total annual cost of employing each adviser, broken down by departments. [39914]

    The Prime Minister
    [holding answer 27 April 1998]On the number of Special Advisers in each Government department, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on 13 November 1997,Official Report, columns 615–17, and my answer to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on 5 May 1998, Official Report, column 278

    In addition, one Special Adviser has been appointed to each of the following Departments: Privy Council Office, Department for Trade and Industry, Lord Chancellor's Department and Scottish Office. One Special Adviser has resigned from No.10.

    In line with the practice under previous administrations, individual salaries are not detailed in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

    Based on the number in post on 5 May, the total annual salary cost of employing Special Advisers in 1998–99 is estimated to be some £3.6 million.

    Sierra Leone
    Mr. Maclean
    To ask the Prime Minister on what dates between 2 May 1997 and 4 May 1998 his Private Office received submissions or briefing notes on the situation in Sierra Leone. [42083]

    The Prime Minister
    [holding answer 14 May 1998]: As part of the usual flow of information on international issues, various submissions and briefing notes referring to the events in Sierra Leone were received in my Private Office during the period in question.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Prime Minister which ministers were consulted on the decision by Sir Thomas Legg QC to advertise for witnesses to the Sierra Leone investigation in a national newspaper; and if he will make a statement. [45270]

    The Prime Minister
    Ministers were rightly not consulted, although my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was informed of Sir Thomas Legg's decision before the advertisement appeared.
    665

    Government Buildings
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy in respect of the use of Government buildings for Labour party events. [44217]

    The Prime Minister
    Paragraph 63 of the Ministerial Code states that Government property should not generally be used for constituency work or party activities. A particular exception is recognised in the case of No. 10 and No. 11 Downing Street, Carlton House Terrace and other official residences where senior Ministers are required to live for the purpose of the job. Where Ministers host Party events in these residences or other Government property, it should be at their own or Party expense with no cost falling to the public purse. This was the practice of the previous administration and there has been no change in the arrangements.

    Intelligence Services
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the potential for increasing parliamentary accountability of the central intelligence machinery consistent with the need to protect national security. [44412]

    he Prime Minister
    [holding answer 9 June 1998]:The central intelligence machinery in the Cabinet Office is accountable to Ministers, and through them to Parliament, in the same way as any part of the Government service. While the nature of its task necessarily means that details of its work have to be protected, my colleagues and I seek to provide as full information about it as is consistent with the public interest.

    Mr. Corbett
    To ask the Prime Minister what changes have been made to the composition of the Intelligence and Security Committee. [45807]

    The Prime Minister
    In accordance with Section 10 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, and after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, I have appointed the Right Honourable the Lord Archer of Sandwell QC to be a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee as a replacement for Baroness Ramsay, who was appointed as a Minister on 2 December 1997.

    Lord Archer's appointment came into effect on 30 March 1998.

    Duty Free
    Mr. Gale
    To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 3 June 1998,Official Report, column 215, concerning duty free, what the stance was of Germany and Italy at the ECOFIN Council meeting on 19 May towards reversal of the decision to end the duty free trade; if support for a study into the effects of the ending of duty free trade was given by France, Spain and Greece; and if he will make a statement. [45015]

    The Prime Minister
    [holding answer 9 June 1998]The Rules of Procedure of the Council of Ministers make clear that, in general, deliberations in Council meetings are covered by the rules of professional privacy. It would 666
    therefore be inappropriate to give details of the views expressed by other delegates in the Council's discussion of duty free on 19 May, at which no formal vote was taken.

    Lockerbie
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the oral answer from the Secretary of State for Scotland of 19 May 1998,Official Report, column 718, if he will review the Government's policy of not disclosing details of discussions between the office of the Lord Advocate and US officials. [44905]

    The Prime Minister [holding answer 10 June 1998]
    I have no intention of doing so.

    Telephone Tapping
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 4 June 1998,Official Report, column 301, if he will make it his policy to inform hon. Members, on a confidential basis if necessary, when an hon. Member has been party to a communication where an authorised interception is in force in respect of the other party to the communication. [45428]

    he Prime Minister
    No. It would be contrary to long-established policy and to common sense to notify a third party that another person's telephone was, or had been, subject to interception under warrant, and would divert the clear will of Parliament as expressed in the Interception of Communications Act, 1985.

  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    UK Sports Institute
    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the budget for the UK Sports Institute is in the current financial year. [44728]

    Mr. Banks
    [holding answer 10 June 1998]A budget has not been set. Consistent with the competition set in motion by the previous Government, Lottery funding will be a key element and is dependent on the achievement of project milestones in order to draw down lottery funds, agreed by the Lottery Distributing Bodies, the United Kingdom Sports Council and Sheffield.

    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the relationship will be between the UK Sports Institute and (i) the English Sports Council and (ii) the Sports Councils for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. [44737]

    Mr. Banks
    [holding answer 10 June 1998]: The Home Country Sports Councils are represented on the United Kingdom Sports Council which will provide strategic direction to the United Kingdom Sports Institute (UKSI).

    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how the budget for UK Sports Institute is planned to be distributed between the central site and the network of regional sites. [44729]

    Mr. Banks
    [holding answer 10 June 1998]Public funding will come mainly from the Lottery and the decisions will be taken by the Lottery distributors. However, they have indicated that between £40 million
    667
    and £60 million of capital Lottery Sports Fund may be made available for the United Kingdom Sports Institute Headquarters development by the home Countries' Sports Councils out of £160 million which may be available for the whole network.

    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he has identified sites for the network of regional centres for the UK Sports Institute. [44733]

    Mr. Banks
    [holding answer 10 June 1998]The Home Country Sports Councils have been asked to identify prospective regional centres, and details of the United Kingdom Sports Institute network will be announced in due course.

    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he will take to ensure the participation of sports men and women from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the UK Sports Institute. [44736]

    Mr. Banks
    [holding answer 10 June 1998]The intention is that sportsmen and women from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will have the same opportunity to use the services and facilities of the United Kingdom Sports Institute Network as those from England.

    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many regional centres there are planned to be in the UK Sports Institute network. [44735]

    Mr. Banks [holding answer 10 June 1998]
    There are likely to be about eight regional centres planned for England, and other separate centres planned for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which body will have responsibility for the UK Sports Institute. [44738]

    Mr. Banks
    [holding answer 10 June 1998]The United Kingdom Sports Institute (UKSI) will be subject to the strategic direction of the United Kingdom Sports Council. A separate corporate body will be agreed and set up to run the UKSI Headquarters.

    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when construction is planned to begin on the UK Sports Institute central site. [44730]

    Mr. Banks
    [holding answer 10 June 1998]Construction of the Headquarters building is planned to commence in May 1999.

    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has for the funding of the UK Sports Institute following the initial National Lottery grant. [44739]

    Mr. Banks [holding answer 10 June 1998]
    In addition to capital Lottery funding, the Lottery distributors have indicated that up to £9 million of revenue funding per. annum may be made available to help operate the United Kingdom Sports Institute Headquarters, provided a suitable application is made to the Lottery Distributing Bodies.

    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how the programme of activities at the UK Sports Institute is planned to be structured. [44731]
    668
    Mr. Banks
    [holding answer 10 June 1998]The UK Sports Council will determine the overall strategy, which will reflect the Government's key policy aims. The UK Sports Institute will deliver that national strategy and the arrangements will be decentralised with many services provided in the regional centres to standards accredited by the Headquarters in Sheffield.

    Technical and support services in particular will be developed in close consultation with the governing bodies of the sports concerned, and the athletes and coaches who will use them.

    There will be three main phases of development, each going forward as Lottery funding is made available. The first phase (1998–2000) will see the UK Sports Institute drawing together the threads of the World Class Performance Programme. The second phase (1999–2002) will be marked by better co-ordination nationally of these services. In phase three (2000–2004) new buildings and related facilities will be used to provide significantly more support than is possible at present.

    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what the criteria will be for the involvement of individual sports in the UK Sports Institute; [44732]

    (2) if he will list the sports that (a) have agreed to participate in and (b) have been invited to participate in the UK Sports Institute. [44726]

    Mr. Banks
    All sports will be encouraged to participate. The United Kingdom Sports Institute (UKSI) will provide first class facilities for a range of Olympic and other non-commercial sports for our very best sportsmen and women.

    Discussions have been taking place with eight sports—athletics, swimming, cycling (road), judo, triathlon, netball, squash and table tennis—about the development of their national training facilities at the UKSI HQ in Sheffield. Major spectator sports like football, cricket and rugby league which have plans for their own sports specific academics will also be able to tap into the top quality sports science, medicine and coaching expertise offered across the Institute's HQ facilities.

    Mr. Reed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress he has made in the allocation of the regional centres of excellence for the Institute of Sport. [44944]

    Mr. Banks
    There are likely to be about eight regional centres planned for England, and other centres planned for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Home Country Sports Councils have been asked to identify prospective regional centres with a view to siting the centres where they are needed most. Details of the United Kingdom Sports Institute network will be announced in due course.

    National Lottery
    Yvette Cooper
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much National Lottery
    669
    funding has been distributed by (a) the National Lottery Charities Board, (b) the Millennium Commission, (c) the Heritage Lottery Fund, (d) the English Sports Council and (e) the Arts Council of England for projects in (i) Pontefract and Castleford constituency and (ii) the Yorkshire and Humberside Region. [44588]

    £

    Pontefract and Castleford

    Yorkshire and Humberside Region

    Distributing body1

    Value of awards

    Number of awards

    Value of awards

    Number of awards

    Arts Council for England

    244,933

    6

    54,818,541

    798

    National Lottery Charities Board

    561,655

    7

    61,073,053

    809

    Heritage Lottery Fund

    100,700

    1

    53,653,345

    146

    Millennium Commission2

    Nil

    Nil

    142,272,924

    18

    Sports Council for England

    2,016,484

    6

    64,601,230

    264

    Total

    2,923,772

    20

    360,478,430

    2,035

    1 The information for this table has been provided by the distributing bodies

    2 The Millennium Commission has set aside £200 million for 34 award partners to run the Millennium awards scheme which will benefit 15,000 individuals around the country

    Minimum Wage
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received on the impact of the minimum wage on the uptake of the new deal places for 18 to 24 year olds by the tourism industry. [43778]

    Mr. Tom Clarke
    I have received representations on the impact of the minimum wage from a number of companies and associations in the tourism, hospitality and leisure industry. The Independent Low Pay Commission, in formulating its recommendations, received written and oral evidence from a large number of individuals and organisations, including many of the industry's representative bodies. I am very impressed by the response from the tourism industry to the initiative on the New Deal. Neither at the conference my Department, the Department for Education and Employment and the British Hospitality Association hosted last November, nor in my frequent contacts with the tourism industry since, has specific representation been made to me about the impact of the minimum wage on the New Deal.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Regional Affairs Committee
    Mr. Mitchell
    To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to refer matters to the Standing

    Section

    1997 AADF

    2000 AADF

    2005 AADF

    2010 AADF

    2015 AADF

    2020 AADF

    High Growth Forecast

    M48 Newhouse-Rogiet Jns. 2–23

    10,400

    11,300

    12,600

    13,800

    15,100

    16,300

    M4 Rogiet-Magor Jns. 32–23A

    54,900

    59,600

    66,300

    72,700

    79,400

    85,800

    M4 Magor-Coldra Jns. 23A-24

    61,000

    66,200

    73,700

    80,800

    88,200

    95,300

    M4 Coldra-Caerleon Jns. 24–25

    83,700

    90,900

    101,200

    110,900

    121,200

    130,900

    M4 Caerleon-Malpas Jns. 25–26

    69,300

    75,200

    83,700

    91,800

    100,300

    108,300

    M4 Malpas-High Cross Jns. 26–27

    91,200

    99,000

    110,200

    120,800

    132,000

    142,500

    M4 High Cross-Tredegar Park Jns. 27–28

    85,500

    92,800

    103,200

    113,200

    123,700

    133,600

    M4 Tredegar Park-Castleton Jns. 28–29

    89,500

    97,200

    108,100

    118,600

    129,600

    140,000

    M4 Castleton-Pontprennau Jns. 29–30

    49,900

    54,100

    60,300

    66,100

    72,200

    78,000

    M4 Pontprennau-Coryton Jns. 30–32

    56,700

    61,500

    68,400

    75,100

    82,000

    88,600

    670
    Mr. Banks
    The table shows the value and the number of Lottery awards made to date in (i) Pontefract and Castleford constituency and (ii) the Yorkshire and Humberside Region. Details of Lottery awards can be found on the Department's internet website, at www.lottery.culture.gov.uk.

    Committee on Regional Affairs under Standing Order No. 117. [45313]

    Mrs. Ann Taylor
    None at present. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 14 May 1998,Official Report, column 533. There has been no significant demand from hon. Members for reference of matters to the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs although the Government have not ruled it out and I will consider any representations about appropriate topics.

  WALES

    M 4
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of (x) the current traffic flows and (y) the (i) high and (ii) low predictions of traffic flow on the M4 from(a) Newhouse to Magor, (b) Magor to Coldra, (c) Coldra to Caerleon, (d) Malpas to Tredegar Park, (e) Tredegar Park to Castleton and (f) Castleton to Coryton in (1) 2000, (2) 2005, (3) 2010, (4) 2015 and (5) 2020. [44075]

    Mr. Hain
    The Annual Average Daily Traffic Flows (AADT) based on the current High and Low National Road Traffic Forecasts (NRTF)
    1997 are given in the table:
    671

    Section

    1997 AADF

    2000 AADF

    2005 AADF

    2010 AADF

    2015 AADF

    2020 AADF

    Low Growth Forecast

    M48 Newhouse-Rogiet Jns. 2–23

    10,400

    10,700

    11,300

    12,000

    12,700

    13,300

    M4 Rogiet-Magor Jns. 32–23A

    54,900

    56,000

    59,400

    63,100

    66,800

    69,800

    M4 Magor-Coldra Jns. 23A-24

    61,000

    62,200

    66,000

    70,100

    74,200

    77,500

    M4 Coldra-Caerleon Jns. 24–25

    83,700

    85,400

    90,700

    96,300

    101,900

    106,500

    M4 Caerleon-Malpas Jns. 25–26

    69,300

    70,700

    75,000

    79,700

    84,300

    88,100

    M4 Malpas-High Cross Jns. 26–27

    91,200

    93,000

    98,800

    104,900

    111,000

    115,900

    M4 High Cross-Tredegar Park Jns. 27–28

    85,500

    87,100

    95,600

    98,300

    104,000

    108,640

    M4 Tredegar Park-Castleton Jns. 28–29

    89,500

    91,300

    97,000

    103,000

    109,000

    113,800

    M4 Castleton-Pontprennau Jns. 29–30

    49,900

    50,900

    54,000

    57,400

    60,700

    63,400

    M4 Pontprennau-Coryton Jns. 30–32

    56,700

    57,800

    61,400

    65,200

    69,000

    72,000

    BSE
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many BSE cases he has recorded in 1998; and if he will make a statement.[44599]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    The number of suspected cases of BSE reported in Wales in 1998 up to 29 May was 139, of which 49 cases had been confirmed.

    The BSE epidemic continues in sharp decline. The number of suspected cases so far reported in 1998 in Wales is 32 per cent. less than for the same period in 1997.

    Cataract Operations
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes to tackle waiting lists in(a) Wales and (b) North East Wales for cataract operations; and if he will make a statement.[44601]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    (a) An additional £20 million will be spent in 1998–99 on reducing inpatient and day case waiting lists to below the level which the Government inherited. This supports the Government's commitment to reduce waiting lists over the lifetime of this Parliament by 100,000.

    (b) £4.124 million of this is available to North Wales Health Authority to reduce waiting lists in its area. The Authority is also considering establishing an ophthalmic treatment centre to provide additional capacity to treat patients with cataracts.

    Prostate Cancer
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he proposes to reduce the incidence of prostate cancer; how many prostate cancer deaths there were last year; and if he will make a statement. [44602]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    In relation to the steps we are taking to reduce the incidence of prostate cancer, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) on 11 February 1998,Official Report, column 255. In 1997, there were 532 deaths in Wales from prostate cancer registered with the Office for National Statistics.

    Knacker Trade
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are employed in the knacker trade in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [45002]
    672
    Mr. Hain
    The Office for National Statistics 1996 Annual Employment Survey estimated that there were 700 employees in Wales employed in industries concerned with the production and preserving of meat. No further breakdown is available.

    Directors of Education
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many directors of education there were in Wales in(a) 1988 and (b) 1998; and if he will make a statement.[45006]

    Mr. Hain
    In 1988, there were eight, one for each of the old counties. In 1998, there are 22, one for each of the new unitary counties.

    Mental Health
    Ms Julie Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what psychological therapy services are available in Wales for individuals with mental health problems. [45001]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    Psychological therapies are provided on the NHS as appropriate to the needs of the individual. A wide range of therapies are available; the most common interventions include supportive psychotherapy, dynamic individual psychotherapy, group therapy, cognitive and behavioural therapy.

    Electro-convulsive Therapy (Bro Tap
    Ms Julie Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many ECT treatments were carried out in the Bro Taf Health Authority in each of the last five years; and how many of these were carried out without the consent of the patient.[45000]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    Centrally held statistics are not robust for the years in question. The best indication of the number of ECT treatments comes from a Welsh Office-funded survey of the first 6 months of 1996. This showed that in the Bro Taf area over that period a total of 90 patients received this treatment. The mean number of treatments per patient was 6.75 per completed course of treatment.

    ECT treatment may not be administered to informal patients without consent, and may only be administered to formally detained patients in very exceptional circumstances. The Mental Health Act Commission monitors the proper use of the Act, including the administration of ECT. The survey quoted above shows

    673
    that in the first 3 months of 1996, in all of Wales, 161 patients commenced ECT treatment, of whom 12 received it without their consent.

    Health Trust Mergers
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many and which of the proposed mergers of health trusts in Wales have been subject to objections by(a) individuals and (b) organisations affected; what consultation procedures will apply to the hearing of such objections; and what is the time scale for this process.[45155]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    My right hon. Friend and I have received a number of objections, in particular, to our proposals for the creation of a single trust in Carmarthenshire and a new trust for Powys and Ceredigion. We have also received a smaller number of objections to our proposals affecting other areas of Wales. I refer my hon. Friend to my previous reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 14 May 1998,Official Report, columns 159–60, in which I gave details of the number of these objections.

    Formal consultation on our proposals will commence later this month and will last for three months. My right hon. Friend and I hope that many groups and individuals will take this opportunity to make their views on these matters known. We shall consider all views we receive during this formal consultation period carefully before making final decisions, which we expect to do in the autumn.

    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters he has received from(a) hon. Members and (b) others expressing opposition to the proposed merger of health trusts in Wales.[45157]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    I have received over 2,800 representations in respect of our plans to restructure NHS trusts in Wales. Eighty-seven of these have been from hon. Members. I have also received over 15,000 petition signatures on the same matter. Of these views expressed, some have opposed any restructuring, while others have opposed individual options and supported alternatives. A small number have expressed full support for the process of particular proposals.

    Employment
    Mr. Denzil Davies
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of public sector employment as a percentage of private sector employment in (i) 1970, (ii) 1975, (iii) 1980, (iv) 1985, (v) 1990 and (vi) 1995 in Wales.[45371]

    Mr. Peter Hain
    Information on public and private sector employees in Wales is available from the quarterly Labour Force Survey. The Autumn 1995 survey estimated that public sector employees as a percentage of private sector employees was 49 per cent.; there were an estimated 673,000 employees in the private sector and 331,000 in the public sector.

    Comparable data for the earlier years requested are not available.
    674

    Gross Domestic Product
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the gross domestic product per head for 1996, for each of the new unitary authorities which are being used by his Department for economic policy purposes.[45162]

    Mr. Peter Hain
    I will write to the right hon. Member as soon as possible and will place a copy of my reply in the Library.

    Rural Areas (Social Exclusion)
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provisions are being made for the needs of rural areas within the Social Exclusion Initiative of his Department.[45160]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    The Social Exclusion Programme for Wales, which I announced on 1 May, will address social exclusion in a range of geographical and cultural settings, including rural areas.

    Students
    Mr. Barry Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his current estimate of the number of students in(a) further education and (b) higher education in Wales broken down for (i) North Wales and (ii) South Wales and by individual institution; and if he will make a statement.[45005]

    Mr. Hain
    The numbers of student enrolments for the 1997–98 academic year are shown by individual institution in the table.

    Institution

    Number

    Further Education Enrolments1

    Aberdare College

    2,395

    Afan College

    2,756

    Barry College

    6,900

    Bridgend College

    8,201

    Carmarthenshire College of Technology & Art

    12,104

    Coleg Ceredigion

    2,178

    Deeside College

    7,996

    Coleg Glan Hafren

    10,162

    Groseinon College

    3,607

    Gwent Tertiary College

    28,312

    Coleg Harlech

    266

    Coleg Llandrillo

    13,018

    Coleg Llysfasi

    1,997

    Coleg Meirion Dwyfor

    2,424

    Coleg Menai

    9,937

    Merthyr Tydfil College

    3,496

    Neath College

    10,370

    Pembrokeshire College

    7,166

    Pencoed College

    849

    Pontypridd College

    8,123

    Coleg Powys

    5,043

    St. Davids Sixth Form College

    940

    Swansea College

    15,119

    Welsh College of Horticulture

    1,680

    Workers Educational Association (North)

    1,670

    Workers Educational Association (South)

    4,272

    Yale College

    9,798

    YMCA

    569

    Ystrad Mynach College

    5,575

    University of Wales, Aberystwyth

    906

    University of Wales Institute Cardiff

    512

    University of Wales College, Newport

    648

    Swansea Institute of Higher Education

    143

    675

    Institution

    Number

    University of Wales, Bangor Welsh for Adults

    1,127

    University of Wales, Cardiff Welsh for Adults

    608

    University of Glamorgan Welsh for Adults

    245

    North East Wales Institute

    49

    University of Wales, Swansea Welsh for Adults

    424

    Trinity College Carmarthen Welsh for Adults

    22

    Sponsored Institutions

    395

    Higher Education Enrolments2

    University of Glamorgan

    15,179

    University of Wales, Aberystwyth

    6,968

    University of Wales, Bangor

    7,726

    University of Wales, Cardiff

    14,555

    University of Wales, Lampeter

    2,398

    University of Wales, Swansea

    9,635

    University College of Medicine

    2,777

    University of Wales Institute, Cardiff

    7,209

    University of Wales College, Newport

    7,057

    North East Wales Institute of Higher Education

    4,520

    Swansea Institute of Higher Education

    3,888

    Trinity College

    1,730

    Welsh College of Music & Drama

    549

    Carmarthenshire College of Technology & Art

    359

    Llandrillo College

    155

    1 All FE enrolments in Wales at November 1997

    Source:

    Further Education Funding Council Wales

    2 All HE enrolments in Wales at November 1997

    Source:

    Higher Education Funding Council Wales

    Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what functions are ascribed to the Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting under section 6(1)(e) of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997; and if the board receives funding in respect of these functions.[45949]

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    The Board is required to provide training for teachers and those intending to become teachers of nurses, midwives and health visitors and also to provide information to the public about careers in the professions of nursing, midwifery and health visiting in Wales (SI 1993/614).

    Funding for this is not authorised by statute and is the subject of separate approval by the Treasury until March 1999, after which new arrangements will be introduced.

    Rural Transport
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the distribution to Welsh local authorities of the additional funding for rural transport announced in the Budget.[45948]

    Mr. Hain
    The Welsh share of the additional funding announced in the Budget is £2.5 million in 1998–99. Of this, £2.25 million is being distributed to local authorities to provide additional funding for socially necessary bus services in rural area, with the remaining £250,000 retained centrally to be used in support of rural community transport initiatives.

    A Special Grant Report will shortly be laid before the House setting out the proposed allocation of the £2.25 million to local authorities and the conditions attached to the grant. Following consultation with the
    676
    Welsh Local Government Association, I intend to distribute the additional resources using a formula which is based on the population of electoral wards where the population density is less than 4 persons per hectare. The provisional allocations are:

    £

    Isle of Anglesey

    119,523

    Gwynedd

    197,250

    Conwy

    76,293

    Denbighshire

    90,764

    Flintshire

    107,241

    Wrexham

    76,471

    Powys

    221,080

    Ceredigion

    125,236

    Pembrokeshire

    145,130

    Carmarthenshire

    276,750

    Swansea

    58,017

    Neath Port Talbot

    117,660

    Bridgend

    91,448

    The Vale of Glamorgan

    85,212

    Rhondda Cynon Taff

    95,587

    Merthyr Tydfil

    29,686

    Caerphilly

    75,782

    Blaenau Gwent

    23,418

    Torfaen

    52,151

    Monmouthshire

    109,472

    Newport

    33,443

    Cardiff

    42,386

    Class Sizes
    Mr. Öpik
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of classes in(a) primary, (b) middle and (c) secondary schools have over (i) 30, (ii) 35 and (iii) 40 pupils in each local education authority; what has been the annual percentage change in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.[45458]

    Mr. Hain
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 17 December 1997,Official Report, column, 204–05, in response to his question on primary school class sizes. Figures for January 1996 are the earliest available for the current local education authorities. Results from the January 1998 Schools' Census are not yet available.

    There are no middle schools in Wales and no information is collected centrally about class sizes in secondary schools.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Arms Exports
    Sir Peter Emery
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many references were made to the Restricted Enforcement Unit during the two years up to 18 February concerning breaches of regulations arising from a United Nations resolution, reinforced by British law, relating to the export of arms;[43686]

    (2) how many references were made by the Foreign Office to the Restricted Enforcement Unit during the two years up to 18 February concerning breaches of regulations arising from a United Nations resolution, reinforced by British law, relating to the export of arms.[45188]
    677
    Mr. Tony Lloyd
    During the two years up to and including 18 February, FCO representatives raised at meetings of the Restricted Enforcement Unit three items of information concerning possible breaches of UN arms embargoes by UK companies or individuals.

    Panchen Lama
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress was made in securing the freedom of the Panchen Lama during the visit of EU ambassadors to China in May.[44234]

    Mr. Fatchett
    [holding answer 8 June 1998]: During their visit to Tibet in May, the EU Troika Ambassadors expressed their concerns for the welfare of Gedhum Choekyi Nyima, who has been recognised by the Dalai Lama as the reincarnation of the Panchen Lama, and asked to meet him in order to confirm his well-being. The authorities of the Tibetan Autonomous Region did not permit such a meeting, but said that the boy was in good health. We shall continue to raise his case at every appropriate opportunity.

    China
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the advances in human rights in China which have followed his decision not to support a resolution against China at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.[44233]

    Mr. Fatchett
    [holding answer 8 June 1998]: Since the EU' s decision on 23 February not to support a resolution on China at the Commission on Human Rights, China has announced that it is preparing a sign the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and has released Wang Dan, a leading dissident.

    Club of Three
    Mr. Cash
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role of his Department in supporting the visit of the Minister without Portfolio to the Club of Three meeting of September 1997.[44999]

    Mr. Doug Henderson
    The Minister without Portfolio attended the Club of Three meeting in Munich in his Ministerial capacity, following an official visit to Bonn. The FCO provided him with background briefing for his official calls, and the Ambassador in Bonn accompanied him on these and to the Club of Three meeting, for which the Ambassador had a separate invitation.

    World Cup Tickets
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what hospitality tickets are available to officials of the European Commission for the 1998 World Cup;[45171]

    (2) how many world cup tickets have been purchased at what cost by European Community institutions for (a) members of staff and (b) guests; and what guidelines determine eligibility of award of tickets.[45172]

    Mr. Doug Henderson
    The Foreign and Commonwealth Offices does not have this information.
    678

    General Affairs Council
    Mr. Maclean
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the General Affairs Council on 8 and 9 June.[45658]

    Mr. Doug Henderson
    The outcome is as follows:General Affairs Council: 8–9 June 1998

    1. At the General Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 8–9 June, the Council took note of the EP Resolutions, Decisions and opinions adopted in its part-session in Strasbourg from 11–15 May, and listed in document 8459/98, copies of which will be placed in the House Library as soon as they become available. The Council adopted the A points in Document 9125/98, with the exception of point 14 which had previously been agreed by the Committee of Permanent Representatives on 3 June. A copy of this document will also be placed in the House Library.

    2. We provided a draft progress report on Agenda 2000 negotiations. Foreign Ministers agreed this should go to the Cardiff European Council as a basis for discussion. Some emphasised key national concerns.

    3. The Presidency set out its programme for the Cardiff European Council.

    4. The Council had a detailed discussion of the deteriorating situation in Kosovo. A declaration was agreed sending a firm message (including on the possibility of Chapter VII action in the UN Security Council) that the escalation in violence and reported ethnic cleansing would not be tolerated. A Common Position was also adopted banning new investments in Serbia, with agreement to adopt a regulation on a freeze of funds belonging to the FRY and Serbian Governments as soon as possible.

    5. Separately, the Council approved a Joint Action providing financial support for the mission of the EU Special Representative to the FRY, Mr. Felipe Gonzalez. The Council also welcomed the results of the recent parliamentary elections in Montenegro and agreed to consider ways to provide further assistance to Montenegro.

    6. The Council agreed an EU declaration on Bosnia, and to the establishment of a Consultative Task Force. Both are aimed at fostering peace and economic regeneration by helping Bosnia in its efforts toward a closer relationship with Europe. Ministers also held a working lunch with Bosnian Foreign Minister Prlic and Deputy Foreign Ministers Zivalj and Bozanic, representing all three ethnic communities in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    7. The Council agreed that the ad hoc meeting of Euro-Mediterranean Foreign Ministers in Palermo on 3–4 June had revitalised the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. It noted that this should provide a good foundation for a successful third Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conference in Stuttgart in April 1999.

    8. The Council had a brief discussion of Iran. Ministers welcomed the positive report of the first exploratory meeting of the EU/Iran dialogue held in Brussels on 19 May and reaffirmed their interest in resuming substantive and comprehensive talks soon.

    9. The Council issued a Declaration on the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan condemning the tests; calling upon the leaders of India and Pakistan to engage urgently in dialogue on regional stability issues, including with China, and to agree Confidence Building Measures to reduce tension; and urging India and Pakistan to take early steps to adhere to international nonproliferation regimes, including signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The Council agreed it would take all necessary measures if India and Pakistan fail to comply. Member States agreed to review the advisability of IFI lending to Pakistan. The Council asked the Commission to extend its review of India's GSP preferences to Pakistan, and withdraw its earlier request to the Commission to expedite signature of an EC/Pakistan Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

    679

    10. The Council discussed the provisions for future trade arrangements between the EU and the 71 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States. Discussions will continue in Coreper with a view to reaching agreement on the EU's negotiating mandate at the General Affairs Council on 29 June.

    11. The Council welcomed political reforms announced by President Habibie of Indonesia and called for the release of remaining political prisoners. It looked forward to early rescheduling of the visit to East Timor by EU Troika Heads of Mission in Jakarta, and called for renewed commitment to the UN sponsored talks on East Timor.

    12. The Council expressed its dismay at the hostilities between Ethiopia and Eritrea, and called on both sides to cease hostilities immediately and to resume peaceful negotiations. The EU stood ready to offer assistance to this effect.

    13. The inaugural Cooperation Council under the terms of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) between the EU and Ukraine took place in the margins of the GAC on 8–9 June. Over dinner on 8 June, Ministers had a useful exchange of views on foreign policy issues of mutual interest and EU/Ukraine relations in general. On 9 June, the Council discussed the implementation of the PCA and adopted the Rules of Procedure establishing the foundations for the future work of the Cooperation Council and Committee as well as the Joint Work Programme for 1998–99.

    14. The ninth Council of the European Economic Area (EEA) took place on 9 June. The Council noted with satisfaction the continued expansion of the EEA agreement to include more of the EC acquis and discussed the impact EU enlargement would have for the EEA. A political dialogue was held after the main Council session.

    Legg Inquiry
    Sir John Stanley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are is the postal address, E-mail address, telephone number and fax number of Sir Thomas Legg' s Inquiry.[44907]

    Mr. Robin Cook
    The details are:

    Sir Thomas Legg KCB QC

    Sierra Leone Arms Investigation

    26 Old Queen Street

    London SW1H 9HP

    Fax 0171 222 3874

    e-mail Sir Thomas Legg slai@btinternet.com

    Nuclear Reprocessing
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the arrangements by which articles 2(b), 3, and 4(1)a(i) of the Agreement between the United Kingdom and Japan for Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy (Cm 3948, May 1998) will be put into effect in respect of Tokai Mura magnox spent fuel reprocessed with magnox fuel from British Nuclear Fuel reactors, at Sellafield; what segregation arrangements will be made; and if Article 12(g) will cover commercial confidentiality in respect of contractors.[44111]

    Mr. Battle
    I have been asked to reply.
    680
    The purpose of the new UK/Japan Agreement is to provide the necessary secure framework for ensuring that trade in civil nuclear materials and equipment is carried out only in conformity with the UK's nuclear non-proliferation obligations. In particular, it updates commitments concerning the application of safeguards and physical protection measures to nuclear material transferred between Japan and the UK.

    Irradiated fuel from Tokai Mura and other safeguard magnox reactors has, since December 1986, been reprocessed in campaigns which are separate from those for unsafeguarded fuel. These safeguards arrangements for such sequential campaigns were agreed with the Euratom Safeguards Directorate in June 1986. Article 12(g) of the UK/Japan Agreement defines the term "unclassified information" as meaning information not classified as restricted, confidential, secret or top secret; such a term is used in the context of article 1(b) of the Agreement.

  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Millennium Compliance
    Mr. David Atkinson
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress her Department has made in compiling a directory of organisations offering solutions to the Millennium bug; how much each organisation is charged for an entry; and if she will make a statement.[44603]

    Mrs. Roche
    In conjunction with the Computing Services and Software Association, Action 2000 issued in January 1998 a Factsheet which registers over 50 companies which offer Year 2000 products or services. The register is also available on the CSSA website. The supplier must either be a member of the CSSA or have agreed to abide by the CSSA code of practice. The structure and content of this register are under review for a new edition of the Action 2000 Information Pack due for release in July. The intention is to collate additional data and to make the information available dynamically through the Action 2000 Helpdesk and Website. At this stage entry to the Register is free of charge.

    A further, more detailed register of providers of Tools and Techniques has been drafted by Action 2000, initially as part of its support to Business Links but also as a major component of the revised Information Pack. This will be accessible in the same way and entry will also be free of charge.

    Cloning
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will review the recommendation of the Banner Committee that an advisory standing committee be created with a remit covering broad ethical questions relating to current and future developments in the use of animals.[44069]

    Mr. Battle
    As I said in my reply to my hon. Friend's similar question on 15 January 1998,Official Report, column 295, we shall be giving careful consideration to this recommendation in the light of the results of the public consultation exercise on developments in the biosciences, which is now underway.
    681

    Ecology Institutes (Merlewood and Windermere)
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the letter of 27 November from the Chief Executive of the Natural Environment Research Council to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, if she will list the new scientific opportunities arising from the merger of Merlewood and Windermere.[44046]

    Mr. Battle
    I am advised by NERC that the merger of the Natural Environment Research Council's (NERC) Institute of Terrestrial Ecology at Merlewood and the Institute of Freshwater Ecology at Windermere (part of NERC' s Centre for Ecology and Hydrology) provides the opportunity to bring together scientists from a wider range of disciplines to pursue research in environmental microbiology, environmental chemistry, pollutant transport, surface water acidification, and environmental monitoring.

    The merger will also facilitate access to workshops, chemical analytical facilities and expertise in geographical information systems.

    Music (Internet)
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to regulate the distribution of British music over the Internet.[44987]

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    In general, the law applies to material sent on-line, such as over the Internet, in the same way that it does off-line. United Kingdom copyright law already covers transmission in this way, and the UK supports work at EU and international level to ensure comparable levels of protection elsewhere.

    Institute of Chartered Accountants
    Dr. Lynne Jones
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the number of complaints she has received(a) from hon. Members and (b) from others in each of the last five years about the Institute of Chartered Accountants; and how many of these relate to their arbitration scheme.[44914]

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    The information is not available in the form requested; the approximate number of representations made to the Department about the Institute's role as a Recognised Statutory Body for company auditors is as follows:

    Number of cases

    MPs

    Others

    1994

    10

    —

    1995

    11

    —

    1996

    6

    6

    1997

    22

    18

    1998

    14

    16

    Note:

    The figures include ongoing representations from the same person on the same issue. Figures do not include duplicate copies

    The Department's responsibility is for the effectiveness of the system of audit regulation. We do not know whether the underlying disputes with the Institute's members went to independent arbitration, nor is the information available from the Institute.
    682
    Comparable information is not available in connection with the Institute's responsibilities as an Insolvency recognised professional body.

    Sierra Leone
    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licences for the sale of weapons to Sierra Leone were granted in the last 12 months.[41177]

    Mrs. Beckett
    [holding answer 8 May 1998]: The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained.

    Between 2 May 1997 and 3 April 1998, one Standard Individual Export Licence was issued covering the export to Sierra Leone of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, the so-called Military List. This licence covered goods controlled under entry ML1 of the legislation. It was revoked by the Secretary of State on 16 October 1997, because of the introduction of the arms embargo against Sierra Leone in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1132 (1997). No Open Individual Export Licences covering such exports were issued in that period.

    This information does not cover Media OIELs issued during this period. Media OIELs authorise the export to all destinations of protective clothing, mainly for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists, when working in areas of conflict.

    This information should be considered in light of the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71. For part of this period, Sierra Leone was a permitted destination on two Open General Licences:
    The OGEL (Export After Exhibition: Military Goods), which covers the export after exhibition in the UK of any Military List goods except anti-personnel landmines and specially-designed components therefor; leg-irons, gangchains, shackles and electric-shock belts, specially designed for restraining human beings; portable devices designed or modified for the purpose of riot control or self-protection by the administration of an electric shock (including electric-shock batons, electric shock shields, stun guns and electric shock dart guns (tasers)) and components therefor specially designed or modified for such a purpose.
    The OGEL (Military Surplus Vehicles), which covers ground vehicles and components therefor specially designed or modified for military use including trailers but excluding tanks, self-propelled guns, armed vehicles, armoured vehicles, vehicles fitted with mountings for arms, half-tracks, gun-carriers, tractors and trailers specially designed for towing or transporting ammunition or weapons systems and related load-handling equipment, mobile repair shops specially designed to service military equipment, and components specially designed or modified for military use for goods specified above.

    It cannot be assumed from this that any such export to Sierra Leone actually took place. Sierra Leone was removed from both licences in accordance with Resolution 1132 on 17 October 1997.

    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what export licences have been granted to Sandline International in the last year.[42379]
    683
    Mrs. Beckett
    [holding answer 18 May 1998]: The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. Between 2 May 1997 and 26 May 1998, no Standard or Open Individual Export Licences were issued to Sandline.

    This information should be considered in light of the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–871.

    During this period, there were a number of Open General Export Licences (OGELs) in force. OGELs are not issued to individual exporters but instead are valid for any exporter wishing to export the goods listed to the destinations allowed, providing they meet the restrictions and conditions of the licence. Copies of all OGELs valid at any time during the period are in the Library of the House.

    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contacts(a) officials and (b) ministers in her Department have had with Sandline over the last year.[42380]

    Mrs. Beckett
    [holding answer 18 May 1998]: I am not aware of any contacts between my Department and Sandline International since this Government took office, prior to receipt by my office of a copy of the letter of 24 April to the Foreign Secretary from the company's legal representatives, S. J. Berwin & Co.

    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when information was first placed in her red boxes about military intervention to restore the Government of President Kabbah of Sierra Leone; [42593]

    (2) when she was first notified of the involvement of Sandline International in Sierra Leone;[42589]

    (3) when information was first placed in her red boxes about the involvement of Sandline International in operations in Sierra Leone;[42595]

    (4) when (a) she and (b) her Private Office first received reports of proposed military intervention to restore the Government of President Kabbah of Sierra Leone;[42591]

    (5) when information was first placed in her red boxes about the Customs and Excise investigation into involvement of Sandline International in operations in Sierra Leone;[42594]

    (6) when her Private Office was first informed of the involvement of Sandline International in operations in Sierra Leone;[42590]

    (7) when she was first notified of the Customs and Excise investigation into the involvement of Sandline International in operations in Sierra Leone;[42588]

    (8) when her Private Office was first notified of the Customs and Excise investigation into the involvement of Sandline International in operations in Sierra Leone;[42592]

    (9) when she was first informed of the involvement of a British company in the restoration of the democratic Government in Sierra Leone.[42377]
    684
    Mrs. Beckett
    [holding answer 18 May 1998]: In relation to when I first saw the letter from Sandline's solicitors, I refer the right hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 4 June 1998, Official Report, column 317. In relation to more general questions about Sandline, I refer the right hon. Member to the statement by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in the House during the debate on 18 May 1998, Official Report, columns 604–11, in which he announced the investigation by Sir Thomas Legg KCB QC into allegations about Government involvement with the supply of arms to Sierra Leone by UK citizens and firms, and said that the Terms of Reference would be placed in the Library of the House. The Foreign Secretary intends to publish the report of the investigation.

    Mr. Redwood
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to answer the questions for answer on 18 May from the right hon. Member for Wokingham relating to Sandline and Sierra Leone, question numbers(a) 42379, (b) 42380, (c) 42588, (d) 42589, (e) 42590, (f) 42591, (g) 42592, (h) 42593, (i) 42594 and (j) 42595.[45720]

    Mrs. Beckett
    I have answered these today.

    Social Chapter
    Mr. Evans
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received from businesses in the North West on the impact of the UK signing up to the Social Chapter.[43759]

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    I am not aware of having received any representations specifically from business in the North West on the impact of the UK signing up to the Social Chapter.

    Unfair Dismissal
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact on employment in smaller firms of proposals to reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims from two years to one year.[43789]

    Mr. Ian McCartney
    Reducing the qualifying period should help to promote a more flexible labour market and encourage a more committed and productive workforce. It will therefore contribute to a fair and competitive labour market which will benefit small firms as well as large.

    Shipbuilders
    Dr. Whitehead
    To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those United Kingdom shipbuilders which have been in receipt of regional selective assistance in each of the last five years; and what is the value of the grants paid in each case.[45101]

    Mrs. Roche
    There have been no payments of RSA to UK shipbuilders over this period.
    685

  HEALTH

    Health and Social Services (Co-operation)
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government have taken to promote co-operation between social care professionals and health care professionals.[44837]

    Mr. Boateng
    The Department encourages joint training between health and social services and fosters projects for staff from both services to share practice placements in the early years of training. We expect that the Social Services white paper, due in the summer, will further develop the theme of joint training. The proposed establishment of National Training Organisations in both the health and social care sectors offers an additional opportunity for working together.

    The National Health Service White Paper calls for co-operation between the services on service delivery. In particular the establishment of Primary Care Groups, from 1 April 1999, will enable primary care and social services to call on their different local knowledge and agree programmes with local people to improve services for users, thereby ensuring closer working and cooperation between health and social care professionals and the community served by the group.

    Health Targets
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what, representations he has received alleging agism in the Government's proposed targets to reduce death from heart disease, strokes and cancer among the under 65s. [45011]

    Ms Jowell
    We have received a substantial number of representations from both organisations and individuals suggesting extending the age limit for the targets on coronary heart disease, stroke and cancers, proposed in "Our Healthier Nation", to people aged 65 and over. These representations will receive careful consideration in the formulation of our health strategy for England, which will be outlined in a White Paper later this year.

    Smoking
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated gross cost of anti-smoking campaigns in England aimed at children and young people has been since 1988; and what assessment he has made of the impact of the campaigns on teenage(a) boys and (b) girls.[44018]

    Ms Jowell
    The gross cost of anti-smoking campaigns in England aimed at children and young people, each year since 1988 is currently being looked into and I shall write to my hon. Friend with further information, as soon as it is available.

    However, all of the Government's anti-smoking campaigns are continually evaluated. The Health Education Authority make qualitative and quantitative assessments of the campaigns and the Office for National Statistics track the impact of the campaigns by monitoring national prevalence figures.

    The assessments of previous campaigns will be considered as preparations continue for the forthcoming Tobacco Control White Paper.
    686

    Surplus NHS Property
    Ms Jenny Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the value for money criteria used by the NHS Executive in assessing bids for the development of former hospital sites.[44964]

    Mr. Milburn
    Surplus National Health Service land is sold on the open market in accordance with the advice contained in the Department's Estatecode, which follows Her Majesty's Treasury rules. The criteria are that surplus NHS property should be sold as quickly as possible, at the best price which can reasonably be obtained on the open market. In order to obtain the best price, consideration should be given to obtaining planning permission for the highest value alternative use. All proceeds from sales are re-invested in the NHS.

    The NHS employs, both in-house and externally, professionally qualified valuers to advise on disposal methods; to advise on which offers represent best value for money for the NHS (usually the highest bid); and to obtain information on the creditworthiness of any bidder.

    Children (Employment Byelaw)
    Mr. Colvin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the new Model Byelaw on the Employment of Children will be published.[45301]

    Mr. Boateng
    The new model byelaw on the employment of children was issued to all relevant local authorities, and copied to interested parties, on 15 April 1998.

    Viagra
    Mrs. Browning
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to licence Viagra under section 58 of the Medicines Act 1968.[45360]

    Ms Jowell
    The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products is currently considering an application for a European marketing authorisation for this product. Decisions on whether to grant marketing authorisations for such products are taken by the European Commission after consultation with the competent authorities of the Member States. The United Kingdom is not, therefore, in a position to consider any application for a national authorisation under Section 58 of the Medicines Act 1968.

    Podiatric Services
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to encourage health authorities to draw up and adopt footcare strategies.[45420]

    Mr. Boateng
    We already encourage health authorities to give priority to services that will enable people to live as independently as possible in their own homes or in homely settings in the community. We are reviewing the provision of podiatric services to identify a strategy that will take into account examples of good practice and promote the provision of a cost-effective service.

    Prescribing
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 November 1997,Official Report, column 60, concerning administration of medication, when the review of the prescribing, supply

    687
    and administration of medicines in nursing and residential care homes will be concluded and submitted to Ministers.[45430]

    Mr. Milburn
    The review of prescribing, supply and administration of medicines, chaired by Dr. June Crown, is currently developing its second and final report which is expected to be submitted to Ministers later this summer. The review is not focused on nursing and residential care homes. It is looking more broadly at the current arrangements under which medicines are prescribed, supplied and administered, and considering whether health professionals inside and outside the National Health Service might take on new responsibilities with regard to those functions.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 17 November 1997,Official Report, column 60, concerning information technology and prescribing, over what period PRODIGY is to be evaluated; and when decisions will be made about its extension to all general practitioner practices.[45429]

    Table 1: The number of patients aged 75 and over who were readmitted to hospital as an emergency within 28 days of discharge for each quarter since April 1996

    1996–97

    1997–98

    Quarter 1

    Quarter 2

    Quarter 3

    Quarter 4

    Quarter 1

    Quarter 2

    Quarter 3

    Quarter 4

    Northern and Yorkshire

    2,154

    3,283

    3,380

    3,713

    3,691

    3,147

    3,712

    3,802

    Trent

    2,916

    2,785

    2,752

    3,031

    3,056

    3,173

    2,973

    2,932

    Anglia and Oxford

    1,309

    1,875

    2,512

    2,258

    2,086

    2,013

    2,273

    2,371

    North Thames

    1,614

    2,470

    2,730

    2,183

    3,021

    2,569

    2,948

    3,270

    South Thames

    3,645

    3,107

    3,190

    4,251

    4,007

    3,563

    3,871

    4,029

    South and West

    3,637

    3,511

    3,285

    3,125

    3,093

    3,389

    3,481

    3,496

    West Midlands

    792

    1,650

    1,809

    1,894

    2,087

    2,108

    2,241

    1,809

    North West

    2,537

    2,767

    3,195

    3,170

    3,157

    3,125

    2,907

    3,333

    England

    18,604

    21,448

    22,853

    23,625

    24,198

    23,087

    24,406

    25,042

    Table 2: The per cent, change on the previous quarter in the number of patients aged 75 and over who were readmitted to hospital as an emergency within 28 days of discharge

    Per cent.

    1996–97

    1997–98

    Quarter 2

    Quarter 3

    Quarter 4

    Quarter 1

    Quarter 2

    Quarter 3

    Quarter 4

    Northern and Yorkshire

    52.4

    3.0

    9.9

    -0.6

    -14.7

    18.0

    2.4

    Trent

    -4.5

    -1.2

    10.1

    0.8

    3.8

    -6.3

    -1.4

    Anglia and Oxford

    43.2

    34.0

    -10.1

    -7.6

    -3.5

    12.9

    4.3

    North Thames

    53.0

    10.5

    -20.0

    38.4

    -15.0

    14.8

    10.9

    South Thames

    -14.8

    2.7

    33.3

    -5.7

    -11.1

    8.6

    4.1

    South and West

    -3.5

    -6.4

    -4.9

    -1.0

    9.6

    2.7

    0.4

    West Midlands

    108.3

    9.6

    4.7

    10.2

    1.0

    6.3

    -19.3

    North West

    9.1

    15.5

    -0.8

    -0.4

    -1.0

    -7.0

    14.7

    England

    15.3

    6.6

    3.4

    2.4

    -4.6

    5.7

    2.6

    Direct Payments
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 March 1998,Official Report, column 46, if he will publish the terms of reference and timetable for his Department's review of scope for extending direct payments to people over 65 years of age; and what arrangements have been made to consult older people in the course of the review.[45175]

    Mr. Boateng
    I announced a review of direct payments on 24 April 1998, whose scope and timetable were set out in Local Authority Social Services Letter (98)7, copies of which are available in the Library. Letters were sent
    688
    Mr. Milburn
    The fieldwork for phase I of PRODIGY was carried out from October 1995 to April 1996, and that for phase II from April 1997 to September 1997. The phase I final report has been completed and will be published shortly. Decisions will be made about the future of the project when the findings from both phases have been carefully considered.

    Hospital Readmissions
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 March 1998,Official Report, columns 45–48, concerning hospital readmissions, if he will publish the equivalent figures for the last quarter of 1997–98; and if he will update the table to show the percentage change from one quarter to the next since April 1996.[45173]

    Mr. Milburn
    The number of patients aged 75 and over who were readmitted as an emergency within 28 days of discharge for each quarter since April 1996 is shown in table 1. Table 2 shows the per cent. change from one quarter to the next since April 1996.

    inviting comments from various interested bodies and individuals, including voluntary groups such as Age Concern and Help the Aged.

    Local Authorities (Pilot Schemes)
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the pilot schemes announced since 1 May by his Department that involve local authorities in a lead or partnership capacity; if he will list each of the local authorities involved in each case; and what revenue and capital funding each local authority will receive through the pilot in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000 and (iv) 2000–2001.[45334]
    689
    Mr. Boateng
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the first wave of successful Health Action Zone pilots on 31 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1033–36. These are listed in Table 1. We have not yet announced the funding arrangements.

    Table 1:

    First Wave HAZs

    Local authorities

    Plymouth

    Plymouth City Council

    East London and the City

    The Corporation of London

    London Borough of Hackney

    London Borough of Newham

    London Borough of Tower Hamlets

    Manchester and Salford and Trafford

    Manchester City Council

    Salford City Council

    Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council

    Sandwell

    Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

    Bradford

    Bradford Metropolitan Borough Council

    Northumberland

    Northumberland County Council

    Berwick District Council

    Alnwick District Council

    Castle Morpeth District Council

    Wansbeck District Council

    Blyth Valley District Council

    Tynedale District Council

    Tyne and Wear

    Gateshead Metropolitan District Council

    Sunderland City Council

    Newcastle City Council

    North Tyneside Metropolitan District Council

    Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

    London Borough of Lambeth

    London Borough of Southwark

    London Borough of Lewisham

    Luton

    Luton Borough Council

    South Yorkshire Coalfields

    Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

    Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

    Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

    North Cumbria

    Allerdale Borough Council

    Copeland Borough Council

    Carlisle City Council

    Cumbria County Council

    Eden District Council

    Twelve of the thirty-five Best Value pilots, which started in April 1998, have a personal social services element. Table two lists the PSS pilots, which are expected to be self-financing. Successful bids were announced by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions which has the lead on Best Value in local government.

    Table 2:

    Authority

    Subject Area

    Birmingham

    Services for the elderly

    Bradford

    Home care and domiciliary services; youth justice

    Cumbria

    Residential facilities; day care and home care

    Exeter

    Community care

    Greenwich

    Domiciliary care

    Harrow

    Domiciliary care

    Leeds

    Social services

    Lincolnshire

    Children in care; home care

    Northamptonshire

    Residential care for the elderly

    Portsmouth

    Social services

    Redcar

    Occupational therapy

    Sunderland

    Youth justice; After care

    690
    My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health launched the Health Schools Initiative on 14 May 1998. Eight pilot health education partnerships will each receive £150,000 from the Healthy Schools Initiative. The partnerships are:

    Cornwall

    Doncaster

    Durham

    Hounslow

    Manchester

    Norfolk

    Staffordshire

    West Sussex.

    Hospital Ventilation Systems
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the letter of 21 October 1997 from the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, POH (2) 5437/17, what monitoring he has carried out of ventilation systems in hospitals with regard to bacteria testing.[44068]

    Ms Jowell
    The responsibility for monitoring ventilation systems in hospitals with regard to bacteria testing, in line with regulation, guidance, and in accordance with well developed good practice principles, is determined locally by National Health Service trusts.

    Organ Transplants
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the oral answer of 20 May 1997,Official Report, column 505, concerning shortages of organs, what was the outcome of the talks with the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority, the medical profession, the British Kidney Patients' Association and the National Kidney Federation; and what are the latest figures for organ shortage.[44070]

    Ms Jowell
    A publicity committee, including clinicians and people from the relevant voluntary organisations, has been set up to help the Department develop a new organ donation publicity campaign to start in the autumn. We are watching with interest a postal campaign being conducted by the British Kidney Patients Association. My noble Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, Baroness Jay of Paddington, had discussions recently with the newly appointed chairman of the United Kingdom Transplant Support Service Authority (UKTSSA) who is giving urgent consideration to this problem with health officials. A review of UKTSSA is due this year. We will continue to consider options for the way forward in organ transplantation, working with the professional and voluntary organisations involved.

    2,788 solid organ transplants were performed in the United Kingdom in 1997, of which 1,523 involved the transplantation of kidneys. At the end of May 1998, 6,474 people were awaiting organs, 5,684 of them for kidney transplants.

    Health Authority and Trust Boards
    Mr. Jenkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he last met representatives of health authorities
    691
    and National Health Service trusts to discuss matters relating to the appointment of chairpersons and non-executive directors to these organisations;[45279]

    (2) what guidance he has issued to health authorities and NHS trust boards on the appointment of chairpersons and non-executive directors to health authorities and trusts;[45281]

    (3) what representations he has received from hon. Members and others regarding the appointment of chairpersons and non-executive directors to health authorities and NHS trust boards.[45280]

    Mr. Milburn
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not issued any guidance to health authorities and National Health Service trusts on appointments as he is responsible for the appointment of chairmen and non-executive members to health authority and trust boards. However, details of our new procedures for the appointment of non-executives and chairmen to trust and health authority boards are available in the Library. The Secretary of State has regular meetings with representatives of health authorities and NHS trusts at which the appointments process, among other issues, is discussed. Since we took office we have received a number of letters from hon. Members and others about different aspects of the NHS appointments process. We have also received over 1,400 recommendations from hon. Members alone in response to our requests for nominations of people to serve on the boards of NHS bodies.

    Dr. Harris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) of 2 June 1998,Official Report, columns 157–58, if he will list the Labour hon. Members who did not reply to his letter requesting nominations for trust boards last year.[44910]

    Mr. Milburn
    The overall picture for nominations by hon. Members for membership of National Health Service trust boards in the 1997 round of appointments is as follows:

    Labour

    Conservative

    Liberal Democrat

    MPs invited to submit nominations

    308

    162

    33

    MPs submitting nominations

    200

    52

    16

    Nominations received

    714

    135

    68

    Per cent. MPs submitting nominations

    64.9

    32.1

    48.5

    Average nominations per MP

    2.3

    0.8

    2.1

    Hon. Members were invited to submit nominations where vacancies were due to arise at trusts which served their constituencies.

    Hospital Services (London)
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for a further review of hospital services in South West London.[45268]

    Mr. Milburn
    A review of burns and plastics currently provided at Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton has been completed and following objections by the Wandsworth 692
    Community Health Council, we are considering Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority's recommendations.

    Following the changes to services provided at Queen Mary's, Roehampton and the publication of the White Paper "The New NHS" a further review is underway on the configuration of services currently provided at the following trusts: Merton and Sutton Community National Health Service Trust; Wandsworth Community NHS Trust; Teddington Memorial NHS Trust; and Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton NHS Trust.

    A strategic review has also been initiated by the chairman and chief executives of the six south west London acute trusts and the two south west London health authorities to determine how the trusts can work together to improve health services and make best use of available resources.

    Any major changes to health services in the area will be subject to public consideration.

    NHS Ambulances
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the typical mileage covered by an NHS ambulance after it has been in service for seven years.[45332]

    Mr. Milburn
    Owing to the wide variations in conditions between different Ambulance National Health Service trusts, there is no typical mileage.

    Paediatric Cardiac Services (Bristol)
    Mrs. Browning
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 4 June 1998,Official Report, column 337, concerning paediatric cardiac surgery services at the United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust, if a public inquiry is one of the options being considered.[45377]

    Mr. Milburn
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 4 June 1998,Official Report, column 337.

  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Access-to-work Scheme
    Mr. Russell Brown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the access-to-work scheme.[43770]

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    Independent research into the effectiveness of the Access to Work programme was carried out in 1995 and in 1997. Reports of the research have been published.

    Sixth-form Colleges
    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's future funding for sixth-form colleges.[43774]

    Mr. Byers
    This Government have already announced an additional £100 million for the further education sector, including sixth-form colleges, over and above the plans of the previous Government for 1998–99. Funding for 1999–2000 and beyond will be announced later in the year.
    693
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will visit Godalming and Farnham sixth form colleges to discuss funding of sixth-form colleges. [43776]

    Mr. Byers
    My right hon. Friend presently has no plans to do so.

    Drug Misuse
    Mrs. Ann Winterton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps his Department has taken to provide information to primary schools on the dangers of drug misuse. [43775]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    Certain aspects of drug education remain a statutory requirement of the National Curriculum at all key stages, including the primary key stages. In support of the Government's recently published new 10-year anti-drugs strategy, the Department will be issuing further guidance on the provision of drug education to teachers, youth workers and other professionals later this year. The guidance will outline the vital role that primary schools can play in the very early stages of a child's school career in concentrating on the development of the skills they need to resist drugs before they are drawn into experimentation.

    Higher Education (Access)
    Mrs. Anne Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to increase the opportunities for people to go on to higher education. [43779]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    The Government are committed to the principle that anyone who has the capability for higher education should have the opportunity to benefit from it. The funding package for higher education for 1998–99 includes £4 million to enable a start to be made on resuming growth at sub-degree level. Plans for later years will be announced in the light of the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

    New Deal
    Mr. Gapes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what will be the nature of the help offered to unemployed people aged over 25 years in the pilot schemes announced in the Budget. [43780]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    The New Deal pilots for unemployed people aged 25 and over will provide help and support for adults who have been unemployed for a year or more. The pilot provision will be individually tailored, and will give participants a range of help to get them back to work, including: a job with an employer supported by trial periods and an employment subsidy; job-related training; help into self-employment; and work in the voluntary sector. The Department is currently consulting widely on the details of the provision.

    Mr. Ben Chapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress on the new deal in the pathfinder areas. [43784]
    694
    Mr. Andrew Smith
    It is, of course, early days for this ambitious undertaking, but I am encouraged by the progress in the New Deal Pathfinder areas which started on 5 January. 22,851 clients have been invited to initial Gateway interview.

    Of those who have left the Gateway;

    1,176 have started unsubsidised jobs;

    1,501 have started subsidised jobs;

    955 have started on the Full Time Education and Training Option;

    258 have started on the Voluntary Sector;

    241 have started on the Environment Task Force.

    New Deal was launched nationally on 6 April and early results are equally encouraging.

    Further Education (East Sussex)
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's plans for the further education sector in East Sussex. [43781]

    Mr. Byers
    For the 1997–98 and 1998–99 financial years, East Sussex has received capital funding of some £23 million from Annual Capital rounds and the New Deal for Schools to support building improvements at its schools. Applications have been submitted in response to the Secretary of State's recent announcement of an extra £90 million to improve heating systems, remove outside toilets and reduce infant class sizes. We hope to announce decisions on this latest initiative later this month.

    In England, the New Deal for Schools has enabled capital projects to proceed worth £115 million in 1997–98 and over £500 million in 1998–99. There are still three further phases of New Deal for Schools to come, by the end of which the Government expect that an extra £2 billion will have been spent on capital projects at schools.

    School Exclusions and Truancy
    Ms Dari Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the publication of me social exclusion unit's first report on school exclusions and truancy. [43782]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    The report has highlighted the devastating effects of truancy and exclusions.

    We are taking urgent action to implement the report's recommendations. These include new targets for reductions in truancy and exclusion; new financial incentives to schools to prevent exclusion; incentives to admit children excluded from other schools, and new statutory guidance to prevent schools from excluding for trivial reasons.

    Mr. Blizzard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he is taking to reduce truancy and exclusions in schools. [43786]

    Mr. Paul Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he is taking to reduce school exclusions and truancy. [43754]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    We are implementing the wide-ranging recommendations in the recently published report on Truancy and School Exclusion. A copy of this report has been placed in the Libraries.
    695
    My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards will chair a cross-departmental Task Force in order to make swift progress.

    Education Action Zones
    Mr. Hope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress made in developing education action zones. [43783]

    Mr. Byers
    The Department has now completed its round of visits to those proposals that are candidates for the 12 education action zones to start in September 1998 and the 13 to start in January 1999. We expect to make an announcement later this month.

    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the potential of education action zones for raising standards in deprived areas. [43952]

    Mr. Byers
    Education Action Zones are a key part of the Government's strategy to drive up standards in schools. They will allow groups of schools in deprived areas to work in partnership with others to provide a better education for their pupils. They will test new ways of delivering that service.

    After-school Clubs
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's strategy for encouraging after-school clubs in rural areas. [43787]

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    Our aim is to ensure good quality, affordable childcare for children aged up to 14 in every neighbourhood. We recognise that there may be particular problems in rural areas. The Green Paper, 'Meeting the Childcare Challenge' asks whether there are areas of the country which particularly require attention under the strategy.

    Independent Schools
    Jackie Ballard
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to change the regulatory and inspection regime for independent boarding schools; and if he will make a statement. [43788]

    Mr. Byers
    All independent boarding schools are monitored to check compliance with their statutory duties to provide satisfactory standards of premises, accommodation, instruction, staffing, and pupil welfare. Following the consultations on Sir William Utting's report on safeguards for children living away from home, we will be announcing our plans to improve these arrangements.

    Literacy
    Gillian Merron
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in implementing the Government's literacy strategy in primary schools. [43758]

    Mr. Goggins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in implementing the Government's literacy strategy in primary schools. [43777]
    696
    Mr. Byers
    Since the beginning of the year, we have agreed literacy targets for 11 year olds by 2002 with every LEA in the country; allocated £59 million of Standards Funding to support training and development at LEA and school level; produced a detailed scheme of work for teaching literacy—300,000 copies have been distributed since the end of March to meet demand from schools; and prepared and distributed distance learning materials to every primary school in England. These materials will support the INSET training all primary schools will devote to literacy in the next school year.

    Over 300 LEA appointed literacy consultants have been trained, and every primary school will be trained this term on the management of literacy at school level.

    Education Authority Funding
    Mr. Todd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make arrangements to meet representatives of the E8 group of least-funded education authorities. [43785]

    Mr. Byers
    I have agreed to meet representatives from the E8 group of education authorities at a date to be arranged in due course.

    Schoolchildren (Farm Visits)
    Mr. Jenkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance his Department has issued to schools and local authorities regarding visits to farms by schools. [45282]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    The Department wrote to schools and local education authorities in June 1997 with a checklist of the precautions they should take to ensure pupils' health and safety during visits to farms. A further reminder appears in the Department's more widely ranging draft guidance in The Health and Safety of Pupils on Visits: A Good Practice Guide, on which we are currently consulting. We intend to publish the final version for schools this autumn. The Department was also involved in the preparation of Avoiding Ill Health at Open Farms: Advice to Teachers, an information sheet recently published by the Health and Safety Executive.

    Pre-school Groups
    Miss Melanie Johnson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the provision of interim funds for pre-school groups threatened with closure. [43764]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    Following discussions with the Pre-school Learning Alliance and other organisations, we shall shortly announce how eligible pre-schools and playgroups can apply for grant.

    New Deal (Young People)
    Ms Blears
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress he is making in securing the involvement of employers in the new deal for the young unemployed. [43763]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    We are making excellent progress. I am pleased to announce that over 10,100 employers have now signed New Deal employer agreements, of which 128 are leading national employers, covering over 400 subsidiary businesses.
    697
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many participants in the New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds there were in each of the four categories available in each of the pilot areas. [43368]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    On the 27 May, I made public the latest statistical data for the Pathfinder areas, for the period 5 January to 31 March 1998. This information has been placed in the Library. It is, of course, early days for this ambitious undertaking, but I am encouraged by the progress in the New Deal Pathfinder areas.

    University Applications
    Mr. Cranston
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the latest university applications figures. [43750]

    Dr. Howells
    The latest figures will be published tomorrow. I expect them to confirm that the gap between last year's and this year's applicant numbers has been narrowing and that the number of young home applicants is running above the 1997 level. This is a welcome sign that many prospective students and their parents now understand the fairness of our proposals.

    Accountancy Students
    Mr. Pearson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent by the Further Education Funding Council in 1997–98 in support of students studying for accountancy qualifications. [43432]

    Dr. Howells
    In 1995–96, the latest year for which information is available, total expenditure by the Council in support of students studying for accountancy qualifications was £34 million.

    Mr. Pearson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current unit cost of providing Further Education Funding Council supported training for the(a) CIMA and (b) ACCA accounting qualifications. [43356]

    Dr. Howells
    In 1995–96, the latest year for which information is available, the Further Education Funding Council provided an average of £610 in support of CIMA accountancy qualifications and an average of £630 in support of ACCA accountancy qualifications.

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. Jenkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to ensure TECs are accountable for their spending [43112]

    Dr. Howells
    As private companies delivering public services, TECs have a responsibility to be fully accountable organisations. We believe the arrangements we have put in place, including those in the TEC contract, provide a sound basis for accounting for public funds spent through TECs. As part of the review of the future role of TECs, which the Secretary of State announced on 698
    13 May, we will be looking at the way we fund and contract with TECs to ensure that the funding system properly supports the achievement of our objectives and provides best possible value for money.

    Mr. Jenkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the role of (i) monitoring systems, (ii) evaluation and (iii) performance indicators to measure the efficiency and effectiveness of TECs; and if he will make a statement. [43110]

    Dr. Howells
    DfEE has implemented a research and evaluation programme on TECs as policy delivery mechanisms. Studies have been commissioned on the role of TEC Boards, relationships with stakeholders, employers' views of TECs and their services, use of local flexibility and discretionary funding. These are available in the House of Commons library. Through its monitoring systems, the Department receives monthly information on TEC programmes. Performance indicators are publicised each year on a number of measures of outcomes for trainees, including on equal opportunities.

    Mr. Healey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to issue new strategic guidance to TECs. [42677]

    Dr. Howells
    The Government plan to issue new Strategic Guidance to TECs in the autumn.

    School Inspections
    Mr. Fraser
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools in England were placed into the special measures category following OFSTED inspections in 1997. [44697]

    Mr. Byers
    In 1997, 242 schools in England were judged by HMCI to require special measures. Five of those schools no longer require special measures and five have been closed.

    Special Educational Needs
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many referrals since 1 September 1994 have been made to his Department under section 99 of the Education Act 1993 and section 497 of the Education 1996 regarding failure of local education authorities to discharge their statutory duties towards children with special educational needs; and in how many cases action has been taken by his Department on behalf of parents which has resulted in local education authorities discharging their legal obligations. [45014]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    Since 1994, the Department has received annually some 1,500 letters from parents about special educational provision for their child. Few specify whether they are making a formal complaint under the legislation mentioned; some are complaints about a school rather than an LEA; but in every case the Department investigates the parent's concerns until it is clear either that there is no breach of a statutory duty, or appropriate remedial action has been taken, in some cases following a formal direction by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    699
    Mr. Maclean
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children in Cumbria were statemented; and what was the total funding available for their needs in each of the last 10 years. [44863]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    The number of statements maintained by Cumbria in January of each year was as follows:

    Statements maintained in January by Cumbria—1989–1997

    Year

    Amount

    1989

    1,510

    1990

    1,511

    1991

    1,708

    1992

    2,049

    1993

    2,076

    1994

    2,506

    1995

    2,660

    1996

    2,874

    1997

    2,642

    Figures are taken from Cumbria Local Education Authority's returns to the Department. They include all pupils statemented by Cumbria LEA, including those placed outside Cumbria, and exclude pupils with statements maintained by other LEAs who are in Cumbria. Figures before January 1989 are not readily available.

    Expenditure information is not available on a consistent basis for this period. In 1995–96, the most recent year for which Cumbria have supplied full information, their net expenditure on provision in support of pupils with statements was £11,078,000.

    Further Education Funding
    Mr. Michael J. Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations have been received supporting single value funding for full-time students aged 16 to 19 years. [43682]

    Dr. Howells
    We have received representations supporting greater equity of funding from the Further Education Sector, and right hon. Members and hon. Members.

    Wheelchair Users (Welfare to Work)
    Mr. Berry
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what inter-departmental meetings have been held to consider how severely-disabled people can be enabled to participate in Welfare to Work through having their clinically-assessed needs for indoor/outdoor powered wheelchairs met; [43372]

    (2) what action his Department is taking to ensure that severely disabled people, with clinically-assessed needs for indoor and outdoor powered wheelchairs have these needs met to enable them to participate in Welfare to Work. [43373]

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    The Department has close contact with the Department of Health on a range of issues including the development of the New Deal for Disabled People.
    700
    Clinically assessed need for severely disabled people to have access to indoor/outdoor powered wheelchairs is a matter for the Department of Health. Between 1996 and 2000, the Department of Health is making an additional £50 million available to NHS wheelchair services to enable them to provide electrically powered indoor/ outdoor wheelchairs for those severely disabled people who can benefit from them.

    This, together with Access to Work, will help people who need such wheelchairs in order to lead a full working and independent life.

    Schools (Cumbria)
    Mr. Maclean
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of(a) the extra number of teachers which will be required in Cumbria in order to reduce all class sizes to 30 and (b) the consequent funding required in Cumbria over the next three years. [44862]

    Mr. Byers
    Cumbria education authority has been allocated £146,000 to keep 600 infant pupils out of classes over 30 from this September. For future years, the LEA will have to submit to the Secretary of State in the autumn an implementation plan setting out, among other things, the number of extra teachers needed to reduce infant class sizes in the schools in its area by September 2001. Funding for the authority to reduce class sizes in those years will be determined in due course.

    Mr. Maclean
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which schools in Cumbria did not submit(a) papers and (b) results for the (i) Key Stage 2 tests and (ii) Key Stage 3 tests in 1997. [44864]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    All maintained mainstream schools in Cumbria submitted 1997 Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3 National Curriculum Assessment results. It is not possible to determine the number of special schools which will not submit results, as it is impossible to differentiate between those schools whose pupils were all disapplied from the National Curriculum Assessments, and therefore had no results to return, and those schools which chose not to return results. Participation by independent schools in the National Curriculum Assessment tests is voluntary and, therefore, they have not been included in this analysis. It is not possible to differentiate between results and papers.

    Graduates
    Mr. Fraser
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of people who will graduate from United Kingdom universities and places of higher education in 1998. [44696]

    Dr. Howells
    Our latest published forecasts of the annual numbers of new first-degree graduates were reproduced in Chart 3.1, Report 7 of 'Higher Education in the Learning Society' produced by The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education in July 1997. The Department produces forecasts of graduates from British institutions only.
    701
    It is estimated that around 230,000 home domiciled students will graduate from British higher education institutions in academic year 1997–98.

    Further Education
    Mr. Colvin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students currently attend further education colleges(a) full-time and (b) part-time. [44693]

    Dr. Howells
    Provisional figures for 1997 are 736,800 full-time and 1,670,000 part-time students studying on 1 November 1997 in further education colleges in England.

    Mr. Colvin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to end the incorporated status of further education colleges. [44695]

    Dr. Howells
    None.

    Mr. Colvin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many local education authorities have discontinued discretionary awards to further education college students. [44798]

    Participation and labour market status of 18 year olds, England, end 1988 to end 1996

    Percentage

    End 1988

    End 1989

    End 1990

    End 1991

    End 1992

    End 1993

    End 1994

    End 1995

    End 1996

    England

    Full-time education1

    19

    21

    24

    28

    33

    37

    38

    39

    38

    Part-time education or training excluding job related training

    6

    6

    6

    7

    8

    8

    8

    8

    9

    Job-related training2

    16

    16

    16

    15

    14

    14

    13

    13

    13

    of which full-time education3

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    0

    1

    1

    0

    of which part-time education

    8

    9

    9

    8

    7

    6

    5

    4

    4

    Employment without training or study

    51

    48

    40

    34

    28

    26

    28

    27

    28

    ILO unemployment without training or study

    6

    6

    10

    10

    12

    11

    8

    9

    7

    Economically inactive without training or study4

    2

    4

    5

    6

    5

    5

    5

    4

    6

    1 Includes those in education who are also in job related training, unemployment or inactive. The size of the overlap between education and job related training is shown at3

    2 Includes all in Government-supported training and employer funded training; including the overlap with those in full-time education

    3 Also shown in the full-time education category

    4 Those not in employment nor seeking work on the ILO unemployment definition

    Sources:

    Education Censuses, TECs' Management Information Database, the Trainee Database and the Labour Force Survey

    Yvette Cooper
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of school leavers at age 16 years entered(a) full-time or part-time education, (b) job-related training (Government or employer-based), (c) employment without a training

    Participation of 16 year olds, England, end 1988 to 1996

    Percentage

    End 1988

    End 1989

    End 1990

    End 1991

    End 1992

    End 1993

    End 1994

    End 1995

    End 1996

    England

    Full-time education1

    52

    55

    59

    67

    70

    73

    71

    71

    70

    Part-time education and training excluding job related training

    5

    4

    3

    3

    3

    3

    5

    4

    5

    Job-related training2

    26

    26

    22

    19

    16

    14

    14

    13

    12

    of which full-time education3

    2

    2

    2

    2

    1

    1

    2

    1

    1

    of which part-time education

    13

    12

    10

    7

    6

    5

    4

    3

    3

    Employment without training or study

    14

    12

    8

    5

    6

    5

    7

    6

    7

    ILO unemployment without training or study

    3

    3

    5

    7

    5

    4

    3

    4

    5

    Economically inactive without training or study4

    2

    3

    4

    2

    2

    2

    2

    3

    2

    702
    Dr. Howells
    The latest available information on discretionary awards made by local education authorities in England and Wales to further education students is for academic year 1996–97. Provisional information indicates that four authorities did not make any discretionary awards to further education students and a further two made no new awards. In addition, four authorities were unable to supply full information.

    School Leavers
    Yvette Cooper
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of 18 year olds leaving further education entered(a) full-time or part-time education, (b) job-related training (Government or employer-based), (c) employment without a training element and (d) unemployment in (i) England and (ii) Wakefield Local Education Authority area in each year since 1988. [44288]

    Dr. Howells
    The proportion of all 18 year olds in the given categories are shown in the table. It is not possible to indicate how many of these had previously been in further education, post-16 schooling or other routes. Information on 18 year olds in Wakefield could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    element and (d) unemployment in (i) England and (ii) Wakefield Local Education Authority area in each year since 1988. [44287]

    Dr. Howells
    The proportion of 16 year olds in each category is shown in the table.
    703

    Participation of 16 year olds, England, end 1988 to 1996

    Percentage

    End 1988

    End 1989

    End 1990

    End 1991

    End 1992

    End 1993

    End 1994

    End 1995

    End 1996

    Wakefield LEA

    Full-time education

    52

    55

    53

    59

    65

    66

    65

    67

    5—

    Part-time education

    11

    10

    10

    8

    7

    7

    8

    4

    5—

    Government supported training

    5—

    5—

    5—

    5—

    5—

    5—

    16

    14

    5—

    1 Includes those in education who are also in job related training unemployment or inactive The size of the overlap between education and job releated training is shown at footnote 3.

    2 Includes all in Government-supported training and employer-funded training; including the overlap with those in full-time education.

    3 Also shown in the full-time education category

    4 Those not in employment nor seeking work on the ILO unemployment definition

    5 Not available

    Sources:

    Education Censuses, TECs' Management Information Database, the Trainee Database and the Labour Force Survey

    Teachers' Pay
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what factors led his Department to stage the pay award for teachers for 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [44374]

    Mr. Byers
    The Government have taken a common approach to staging for all the pay review body group's recommendations this year. Public Sector pay settlements need to be fair, affordable within existing spending plans, consistent with the good inflation prospects, and responsible in terms of a general approach to pay throughout the economy that will contribute to higher growth and more jobs.

    Veterinary Medicine
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many places there are for students of veterinary medicine in each university providing such courses; how many students currently studying on such courses are from(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the EU and (c) overseas; what estimate he has made of the number of graduates in veterinary science required in the United Kingdom in each of the next four years; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which adequate numbers of veterinary surgeons will qualify in each of the next four years to meet demand. [44558]

    Dr. Howells
    The number of students on first degree veterinary medicine courses in the UK for 1997–98 is given in the table.

    Home

    EU

    Overseas

    Total

    Nene College

    7

    1

    0

    8

    The University of Bristol

    333

    1

    22

    356

    The University of Cambridge

    373

    9

    2

    384

    The University of Liverpool

    339

    8

    70

    417

    The Royal Veterinary College

    458

    6

    62

    526

    University of Edinburgh

    381

    15

    49

    445

    University of Glasgow

    372

    9

    28

    409

    Total

    2,263

    49

    233

    2,545

    The Government do not assess requirements for veterinary student places. Under the current funding arrangements, institutions are free to respond to market
    704
    forces when deciding which courses they will offer and how many students they will enrol on each programme. However, the Royal College of Veterinary Students, the British Veterinary Association and the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons are jointly conducting a survey of the manpower requirements of the profession, the results of which are expected soon.

    Aggregated Schools Budget (Hereford and Worcester)
    Mr. Michael J. Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the aggregated schools budget for(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1995–96, (d) 1996–97 and (e) 1996–97 for Hereford and Worcester Local Education Authority (i) in cash terms and (ii) at 1998 prices. [44971]

    Mr. Byers
    The table shows the amount of the Aggregated Schools Budget for Hereford and Worcester local education authority for the financial years 1992–93 to 1997–98 inclusive, both in cash terms and at 1998 prices.

    Hereford and Worcester LEA

    £000

    Aggregated schools budget

    Actual

    1998 Prices

    1992–93

    146,187

    165,898

    1993–94

    146,957

    162,062

    1994–95

    157,182

    170,765

    1995–96

    157,335

    166,316

    1996–97

    164,598

    169,042

    1997–98

    168,404

    168,404

    Delegated Schools Budget
    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the amount of the delegated schools budget spent(a) per primary pupil and (b) per secondary pupil in each local education authority area for the last 10 years for which figures are available. [44461]

    Mr. Byers
    The table shows, for England, the amount of the Aggregated Schools Budget per primary pupil and per secondary pupil for the financial year 1997–98, taken from the section 122 Budget Statements published
    705
    by local education authorities for that year. Figures for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Aggregated schools budget per pupil—England—1997–98

    Primary school

    Secondary school

    City of London

    2,968

    0

    Camden

    2,060

    2,845

    Greenwich

    1,909

    2,604

    Hackney

    2,078

    2,772

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    2,103

    2,868

    Islington

    1,982

    2,720

    Kensington and Chelsea

    2,384

    3,241

    Lambeth

    2,325

    3,035

    Lewisham

    1,995

    2,810

    Southwark

    1,995

    2,608

    Tower Hamlets

    2,014

    2,590

    Wandsworth

    1,935

    2,521

    Westminster

    2,051

    2,736

    Barking/Dagenham

    1,790

    2,332

    Barnet

    1,725

    2,456

    Bexley

    1,408

    2,202

    Brent

    1,906

    2,583

    Bromley

    1,630

    2,196

    Croydon

    1,715

    2,379

    Ealing

    1,796

    2,303

    Enfield

    1,648

    2,319

    Haringey

    1,798

    2,508

    Harrow

    1,827

    2,625

    Havering

    1,598

    2,478

    Hillingdon

    1,684

    2,549

    Hounslow

    1,867

    2,295

    Kingston

    1,608

    2,212

    Merton

    1,758

    2,281

    Newham

    1,587

    2,415

    Redbridge

    1,553

    2,378

    Richmond

    1,787

    2,312

    Sutton

    1,666

    2,358

    Waltham Forest

    1,819

    2,560

    Birmingham

    1,716

    2,313

    Coventry

    1,574

    2,252

    Dudley

    1,578

    2,174

    Sandwell

    1,496

    2,134

    Solihull

    1,560

    2,123

    Walsall

    1,493

    2,139

    Wolverhampton

    1,464

    2,242

    Knowsley

    1,570

    2,191

    Liverpool

    1,509

    2,086

    St. Helens

    1,452

    2,154

    Sefton

    1,483

    2,251

    Wirral

    1,453

    2,024

    Bolton

    1,432

    2,050

    Bury

    1,368

    2,000

    Manchester

    1,463

    2,218

    Oldham

    1,470

    2,149

    Rochdale

    1,424

    2,117

    Salford

    1,484

    2,159

    Stockport

    1,458

    2,015

    Tameside

    1,350

    1,875

    Trafford

    1,284

    2,161

    Wigan

    1,473

    2,231

    Barnsley

    1,288

    1,958

    Doncaster

    1,483

    2,189

    Rotherham

    1,452

    1,985

    Sheffield

    1,452

    1,959

    Bradford

    1,479

    1,752

    Calderdale

    1,420

    2,119

    Kirklees

    1,412

    2,043

    Leeds

    1,615

    2,171

    Wakefield

    1,377

    1,864

    Gateshead

    1,486

    2,092

    706

    Aggregated schools budget per pupil—England—1997–98

    Primary school

    Secondary school

    Newcastle

    1,485

    2,112

    North Tyneside

    1,463

    2,012

    South Tyneside

    1,436

    1,963

    Sunderland

    1,525

    2,107

    Isles of Scilly

    2,537

    4,361

    Bath and North East Somerset

    1,615

    2,235

    Bristol

    1,619

    2,399

    North Somerset

    1,523

    2,218

    South Gloucestershire

    2,239

    2,242

    Hartlepool

    1,363

    2,045

    Middlesbrough

    1,408

    2,218

    Redcar and Cleveland

    1,435

    2,136

    Stockton on Tees

    1,423

    2,074

    Hull

    1,524

    2,108

    East Riding

    1,503

    2,128

    North East Lincolnshire

    1,538

    2,152

    North Lincolnshire

    1,519

    2,089

    North Yorkshire

    1,486

    2,198

    York

    1,415

    2,141

    Luton

    1,476

    2,223

    Milton Keynes

    1,394

    2,310

    Derby City

    1,236

    2,118

    Poole

    1,391

    2,016

    Bournemouth

    1,320

    1,985

    Darlington

    1,316

    1,993

    Brighton and Hove

    1,475

    2,211

    Portsmouth

    1,637

    2,213

    Southampton

    1,670

    2,276

    Leicester City

    1,450

    2,051

    Rutland

    1,716

    0

    Stoke-on-Trent

    1,424

    1,984

    Swindon

    1,376

    2,079

    Bedfordshire

    1,447

    1,965

    Berkshire

    1,528

    2,187

    Buckinghamshire

    1,367

    2,221

    Cambridgeshire

    1,389

    2,030

    Cheshire

    1,486

    2,142

    Cornwall

    1,473

    2,042

    Cumbria

    1,495

    2,147

    Derbyshire

    1,275

    2,026

    Devon

    1,466

    2,127

    Dorset

    1,445

    1,956

    Durham

    1,414

    2,045

    East Sussex

    1,498

    2,257

    Essex

    1,518

    2,264

    Gloucestershire

    1,435

    2,008

    Hampshire

    1,609

    2,164

    Hereford/Worcester

    1,456

    1,943

    Hertfordshire

    1,500

    2,247

    Isle of Wight

    1,544

    1,925

    Kent

    1,480

    2,142

    Lancashire

    1,430

    2,098

    Leicestershire

    1,495

    2,081

    Lincolnshire

    1,486

    2,257

    Norfolk

    1,583

    2,302

    Northamptonshire

    1,469

    2,048

    Northumberland

    1,474

    1,863

    Nottinghamshire

    1,290

    2,112

    Oxfordshire

    1,534

    2,018

    Shropshire

    1,394

    2,249

    Somerset

    1,514

    2,082

    Staffordshire

    1,367

    1,936

    Suffolk

    1,295

    2,579

    Surrey

    1,642

    2,102

    Warwickshire

    1,444

    2,035

    West Sussex

    1,505

    2,191

    Wiltshire

    1,436

    2,023

    England average

    1,521

    2,165

    707

    Social Exclusion
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate how many young people aged 18 to 24 years regarded by the Government as socially excluded are not eligible for the New Deal. [43969]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    No such estimate is available. However, the Government believe that their Welfare to Work policy, of which the New Deals form part, together with the work of the Social Exclusion Unit, provide extensive help for those at risk of social exclusion. Depending on their circumstances, individuals may have access to help as part of the New Deal for the Young Unemployed, or the New Deals for Lone Parents or People with Disabilities.

    Under the New Deal for the Young Unemployed, individuals likely to be particularly disadvantaged in the labour market—such as those with disabilities; returners to the labour market; ex-regulars in HM forces; ex-offenders; lone parents; people whose first language is not English, Welsh or Gaelic; those with reading, writing or numeracy problems; those who have become unemployed due to large-scale redundancies; and those who have recently left local authority care—can get early access if they are claiming Jobseeker's Allowance. The Employment Service will also have discretion to enable early access to others where their New Deal adviser believes they are at particular disadvantage in their search for work.

    There are also a range of other policies being developed to tackle disadvantage and social exclusion, including the New Deal for Partners and the New Deal for Communities.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by disability for each month since December 1996 the number of people who sought Access to Work support in the first six weeks of their employment. [45031]

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    [holding answer 9 June 1998]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter from Peter Collins to Mr. Mark Oaten, dated 10 June 1998:
    As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked Leigh Lewis to reply to your question about the number of people who sought Access to Work support in the first six weeks of their employment since December 1996, listed by disability. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr. Lewis as Chief Executive of the Employment Agency.
    I am afraid that we do not hold information centrally on the number of people who seek Access to Work support in the first six weeks of employment broken down by disability. However, recent research carried out for the Employment Service in 1997 has provided an analysis by disability of people applying for Access to
    708
    Work support. The results are set out in the attached table. It is based on a sample of 492 Access to Work applicants who applied for support between 1 February and 31 May 1997.
    I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful.

    Clients receiving Access to Work support by type of disability1

    Percentage

    Problems or disabilities connected with the arms or hands

    17

    Problems or disabilities connected with the legs or feet

    21

    Problems or disabilities connected with the back or neck

    29

    Difficulty in seeing

    18

    Difficulty in hearing

    18

    Severe disfigurement

    —2

    Skin conditions, allergies

    2

    Chest or breathing problems, asthma, bronchitis

    3

    Heart, blood pressure or blood circulation problems

    2

    Stomach, liver, kidney or digestive problems

    1

    Diabetes

    —2

    Depression, bad nerves or anxiety

    1

    Epilepsy

    3

    Specific learning difficulties

    3

    Severe learning difficulties (mental handicap)

    1

    Mental illness or suffer from phobia, panics or other nervous diseases

    1

    Progressive illness not included elsewhere

    7

    Other health problems or disabilities

    17

    1 IES Survey of ATW applicants, 1997

    2 Not sufficient numbers with this category of disability to provide a percentage

    Nursery Education (Worcester)
    Mr. Michael J. Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many nursery places were available for 4 year olds in Worcester in each year between 1979 and 1997. [43681]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    Figures for Worcester Local Education Authority (LEA) area are not available.

    For Hereford and Worcester LEA area, there were 1,879 four year olds in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools in January 1997; there were 1,613 in January 1996. Figures for four year olds prior to January 1996 were not collected centrally.

    Figures for pupils under five years of age in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools in the Hereford and Worcester LEA area in January 1981 through 1997 are shown in the table. Figures prior to January 1981 are not available.

    Numbers of pupils under five years of age1 in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools January 1979–1997

    Hereford and Worcester local education authority area

    Number

    1979

    —2

    1980

    —2

    1981

    719

    1982

    799

    1983

    797

    1984

    964

    1985

    941

    1986

    997

    1987

    909

    1988

    974

    1989

    998

    709

    Numbers of pupils under five years of age1 in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools January 1979–1997

    Hereford and Worcester local education authority area

    Number

    1990

    1,204

    1991

    1,289

    1992

    1,274

    1993

    1,296

    1994

    1,287

    1995

    1,682

    1996

    2,179

    1997

    2,639

    1 Excludes those pupils who became 5 years of age by 1 January

    2 Not available

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Industrial Injury Benefit (Bladder Disease)
    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applicants have been successful in claiming industrial injury disablement benefit for prescribed diseases for C23 primary neoplasm of the epithelial lining of the urinary tract in each of the last 10 years; and how many of the(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful applicants were in the printing and related industries. [44352]

    Mr. Denham
    The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the tables.

    The information on claims has only been collected in this form since 1995 and cannot be broken down by industry. The information on assessments has been collected since 1990 and can be broken down by industry.

    Number of claims to industrial injury disablement benefit prescribed disease C23 (papilloma of the bladder)

    Period

    Number

    April 1995–March 1996

    110

    April 1996–March 1997

    100

    April 1997–March 1998

    50

    Source:

    DSS Analytical Services Division, 10 per cent, sample data.

    Figures for assessments, i.e. those whose disablement has been assessed by a doctor are available from April 1990.

    Numbers of diagnoses of prescribed disease C23 (Papilloma of the bladder)

    All industries

    Printing and related industries

    Year

    Under 14 per cent.

    14 per cent, or over

    Under 14 per cent.

    14 per cent, or over

    1990–91

    5

    7

    0

    0

    1991–92

    4

    14

    0

    0

    1992–93

    13

    19

    0

    0

    1993–94

    4

    23

    0

    0

    1994–95

    10

    21

    0

    1

    1995–96

    1

    17

    0

    0

    1996–97

    6

    22

    1

    1

    Note:

    Benefit is payable only if a person's disablement is assessed at 14 per cent, or more.

    Source:

    DSS Analytical Services Division 100 per cent, count.
    710

    Local Authorities (Pilot Schemes)
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the pilot schemes announced since 1 May by her Department that involve local authorities in a lead or partnership capacity; if she will list each of the local authorities involved in each case; and what revenue and capital funding each local authority will receive through the pilot in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000 and (iv) 2000–2001. [45338]

    Mr. Keith Bradley
    Local Authorities have an important role to play in the development of a Social Security system that promotes the wider aims of welfare reform work.

    Also, in my Written Answer on 15 May 1998, Official Report, column 124, we announced that the Department had begun two prototypes to test integrated service delivery, in partnership with Camden local authority and Lewisham local authority (LA).

    The Camden prototype aims to provide a single point of contact to lone parents who are claiming Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit and who make applications for child support. Camden will not receive revenue or capital funding as the prototype is reciprocal and aims to provide benefits to both partners as well as for the lone parents themselves.

    The Lewisham prototype aims to provide better sharing of information and will provide an integrated service to customers by the co-ordination of visits to this Department's and LA customers and the provision of advice and information from central points within the borough.

    During 1997–98, Lewisham received funding of £73,500. £19,000 of this amount was required for the implementation of video-conferencing links between the Benefits Agency (BA), the Local Authority and Public Video Booths. The remainder was required for information technology development, project management, communications and training costs. A similar bid has been submitted for 1998–99 and is currently under consideration.

    No other specific initiatives have been announced since these, although Local Authorities can apply for funding to be provided in relation to a number of initiatives. These include, for example, funding to assist with the resourcing of fraud investigation work, joint BA/LA anti-fraud activities and improved liaison/information sharing (e.g. installation of terminals with access to this Department's systems within LAs).

    Paternity Pay
    Mr. Cohen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment her Department has made of the advantages of introducing statutory paternity pay; and if she will make a statement. [43608]

    Mr. Denham
    The Government support a strong family-friendly culture in the workplace. Family-friendly employment policies are good for parents—mothers and fathers—good for children, good for business and good for the economy. We are working with employers, voluntary organisations and trade unions to promote family-friendly policies and encourage best practice. We are also introducing for the first time a framework of
    711
    rights for employees—these rights will include time off for mothers and fathers at the time of the birth, as well as time off for parents when their children are taken ill. We are reviewing maternity pay and considering the introduction of statutory paternity pay as part of our wider review of family-friendly working arrangements.

    Sick and Disabled People
    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will establish a database of case studies of good employment practices, available to disabled jobseekers and employers as part of the New Deal for Sick and Disabled People. [43557]

    Mr. Denham
    The evaluation of the New Deal for Disabled People will include research with employers and disabled jobseekers into employment practices affecting disabled people. The results of this research will be published, and will be available to disabled jobseekers, employers and others with an interest.

    Laryngectomy Patients
    Mr. Alan Johnson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will ensure that laryngectomy

    Inquiry/review

    Established

    Chairman

    War pensions: review of the scientific basis of the assessment of noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss

    June 1997

    Sir Kenneth Caiman, Chief Medical Officer

    Pension provision group

    September 1997

    Tom Ross, Aon Consulting

    712
    patients automatically qualify for disability benefits; what representations she has received on this issue; and if she will make a statement. [44389]

    Mr. Denham
    We have received no recent representations from people with laryngectomies or from any organisations representing laryngectomy patients.

    Normal eligibility rules apply to people with laryngectomies who claim a disability benefit. Entitlement to Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance is based not on specific disabilities, but on the effects that a person's disability has on their need for help with personal care and/or mobility.

    Reviews
    Mr. Allan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list, for each of the last four years, the departmental inquiries and reviews instigated by Ministers which have been chaired by individuals outside her Department; and in each case if he will give the date of establishment and the name of the chairman. [44364]

    Mr. Field
    The reviews instigated by Ministers in this Department are listed in the table.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

Athens Olympic Games: Counter-terrorism Measures
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the decision to hold the Olympic Games in Athens in 2004, they will ask the European Union to urge the Greek Government to take effective action against the "November 17th" group.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government condemn terrorism wherever it occurs, including the activities of the "November 17th" group and other terrorist groups active in Greece. We discuss such matters regularly with the Greek authorities. We have made clear our willingness to assist them in promoting effective counter-terrorism measures. To that end, the Greek Minister of Public Order visited London in December last year.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware though that this group has in recent years killed more than 20 people in Greece and that its targets have included not only Greek property and Greek individuals but also American, French, German and British nationals? Is the Minister worried by the thought that militant groups traditionally use and exploit the Olympic Games for spectacular attempts to gain publicity? That being the case, and as this is now an international matter, will he advise his right honourable friend to raise this question in the margins of the Cardiff Summit?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware of the targets of the "November 17th" group and certain other terrorist organisations within Greece. They have encompassed businessmen, diplomats and other foreign nationals. We are deeply concerned. We have specifically offered assistance to Greece already in establishing effective security arrangements for the 2004 Athens Olympics. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has offered the services of his department and police expertise in helping the Greeks in this area.
Lord McNally: My Lords, as the Minister has said, terrorism always surrounds international sporting events but they are also of tremendous economic benefit. Will
1144
he indicate whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to try to bring the Olympics to the United Kingdom at any time in the next 20 years?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not immediately aware of a bid for the Olympics. I shall have to consult my colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We shall report to the House in due course.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, can the Minister kindly enlighten some of us as to exactly what the "November 17th" group is about?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, its basic ideology is a little obscure. It is an anarchist organisation which appears to have close links with some of the Kurdish terrorists who operate in the area.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, in the light of the decision to hold the Olympic Games in Athens, what offers of assistance—rather more specific than the Minister has already mentioned—and counter-terrorism assistance do the Government intend to make to the Greek Government? Furthermore, have the Government offered the Greek Government the assistance of the Directorate of Counter-Terrorist Expertise set up by the G7 countries under a British initiative of the previous government which enables expert help to be made available immediately to countries which need it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the UK and Greece work closely together to combat terrorism. The UK has provided technical assistance and advice to the Greek police on a number of occasions, most recently in February this year. As I indicated, the Greek Minister of Public Order visited us at the end of last year. In the European Union and elsewhere—for example in Interpol—the UK and Greece have, in common with other countries, established good police liaison for sharing intelligence in order to fight crime and terrorism. In relation to the G7 initiative, clearly that is available to Greece, as it is to other countries faced with terrorist problems.

Pensions: Administrative Costs
3.10 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lady Castle of Blackburn owing to illness, at her request and with the permission of your Lordships, I ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what percentage of the contributions paid for national insurance, pensions, occupational pension schemes and personal pensions goes on administrative costs.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the administration costs charged to the National Insurance Fund for awarding and paying state retirement pension and collecting and maintaining records of national insurance contributions

1145
were some £622 million in the financial year 1996–97. This represents about 1.5 per cent. of the fund's income in that year.
Little information is currently available about the costs of running occupational pension schemes. The Government Actuary's Department has carried out a study and will shortly publish a report of findings in this area. The Government do not collect information on the cost of administering personal pensions.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. As I understand the matter, there may be a policy move towards encouraging personal pension schemes in the private sector. Will the Government at least pay some attention to the costs of such schemes in comparing them with the possible alternative of extending public sector schemes?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, personal pensions are a private contract between the pension provider and individuals. As we know, some charges attached to personal pensions are too high and inflexible. Individuals must therefore consider very carefully the charges that attach to personal pensions before entering into such contracts. The purpose of the stakeholder pension is to attempt to reduce some of those costs for people who cannot afford them.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is absolutely scandalous that the previous administration, in promoting personal pension schemes, did not set up a mechanism to monitor the administrative costs associated with their provision, which would have been available to the Government now?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend.
Lord Meston: My Lords, have the Government yet received any reliable estimates from the pensions industry or elsewhere as to the additional administrative costs which may be incurred when pensions come to be split on divorce?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, that will form part of a study that was announced last week by my right honourable friend into the whole matter of pensions splitting. Other matters enter into it. There may be single-sum payments, which would reduce administrative charges. The whole question of whether one or other spouse can afford their share of the split pension also has to be examined. It is quite an involved matter.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn, has put a remarkable series of questions over the past few days. Perhaps I may express a personal hope in that I trust she is well.
So far as concerns comparative administrative costs, presumably the ratio would be better, as regards the Government's proposals for a stakeholder pension or a
1146
second pension, if that is made compulsory rather than if it is not. Despite the delay in publishing the Government's Green Paper on pensions, presumably estimates have already been made as to the comparative figures. Will the noble Lord give them to the House?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, no estimates have been made. The study is still continuing. The whole purpose of the stakeholder pension is to reduce the costs below those of personal pensions, which are considered to be rather high and unaffordable by the low-paid, those in intermittent employment and some of the self-employed.

NHS: Missed Hospital Appointments
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:
In how many cases a patient failed to attend a hospital appointment in 1996–97, and in 1997–98; and what proportion of total hospital appointments these absences represented in each year.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the figures available are for 1996–97. During that period, more than 6 million clinic appointments were missed by patients in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That represents roughly 12 per cent. of all appointments. In Scotland, the data available are for first clinic appointments only: 148,000 first appointments were missed, representing 11 per cent. of the total.
Figures for missed procedures, which might be operations or other procedures booked on a day case and normal admission basis, are only collected in this form in England. The latest figures indicate that 156,100 people failed to turn up. That represented 4.6 per cent. of the total.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a problem clearly continues? Does she further agree that it is a surprising problem, given the huge expansion of NHS bureaucracy under the previous administration? Since a large wastage of NHS resources clearly applies, would it not be advisable for good practice to be encouraged across the country in order to ensure that some of the criticisms offered by noble Lords no longer apply?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that the figures I have mentioned represent a considerable waste of resources within the NHS. It is difficult to calculate why appointments are missed. It may be that people simply forget; or it may be for administrative reasons, as my noble friend suggests. Frankly, it is difficult to calculate precisely what loss of resources it represents. An out-patient appointment at a clinic may be for some very simple matter, or for a complicated procedure. If we take as an average £61 for each out-patient appointment,

1147
the NHS could be losing as much as £360 million a year on missed appointments. It is certainly a matter that needs to be actively considered.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that many hospitals have taken into account the number of patients who fail to arrive? In my experience as chairman of the Royal Free, we found that 15 to 17 per cent. of out-patient appointments were not kept. Do other trusts, as we have done, factor that in, in the way in which airlines tend to over-book? Although that may represent a large saving to the National Health Service, it could present great difficulties if all the patients turned up. Is the Minister aware of that?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am aware, to use the noble Baroness's analogy, that some hospital trusts are "over-booking". Perhaps it would be even better if they offered people large sums of money to get off aeroplanes or out of health service clinics if they were there when there was a surplus! I understand that some trusts, including one in Burnley, have set up a reminder system for patients. Although it was concerned that that might lead to a rather unwelcome influx of people who had been, as it were, built into the system as not attending, in fact it was able to cut the rates of "do not appear" people, as they are called, in some clinics by one-third. So it was clearly worth doing.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, may we hear more about the £360 million lost by people missing appointments? It is a common experience—certainly it is mine—that, whatever the nature of the appointment, it always runs late because the staff concerned do not have a minute off between one appointment and the next. That being so, they are always, by definition, usefully employed. Where is the £360 million going?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I cannot speak for the noble Lord's personal experience. It is calculated that the real wasted costs are in, for example, writing to patients who do not appear and rebooking their appointments, as well as the extremely important loss of time by highly paid and very highly skilled members of staff within the clinics who, contrary to the noble Lord's experience, are often sitting around waiting for people to appear. I spoke today to a consultant in what one would have thought was a very oversubscribed, busy London clinic who said that six of his 10 booked appointments in the previous clinic had just not turned up.
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is possible that some patients who are to have an investigative procedure panic at the last minute? It might be helpful if the procedure and its importance were to be explained to them, either by the GP or in writing by the hospital.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Baroness has made an important and sympathetic point. A great deal can be done. I am looking at the issue carefully in terms of preparing people for appointments,
1148
as well as doing the simple, courteous, administrative things such as reminding people who may have been sent an appointment some weeks ahead and may therefore just forget it.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, because of the length of time it takes to get appointments in some disciplines, a few of the no-shows that she mentioned may have died?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is always possible. But perhaps I may quote the latest figures for out-patient appointments in England for the last quarter, which show that 81 per cent. of those waiting for appointments waited under 13 weeks and 96 per cent. waited under 26 weeks. Those waiting times conform with the Patient's Charter standard set by the previous administration.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does the Minister have any information on what happens to the patients who fall out of the system by not attending an appointment? Do they subsequently reappear for a later appointment—in which case they perhaps ought to have a black mark against their name—or do some fall out altogether and simply do a runner?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord a universal answer to that question, because I suspect there is not one. He talks about people having a black mark against their names. One has to remember that, as I said when replying to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, people can genuinely forget an appointment. When we raised some concerns about this matter publicly a few months ago, I had several rather pathetic letters from people, particularly older people who had been waiting months for a cataract operation, who simply forgot on the day and then found themselves back again at the beginning of the queue. This is something that needs to be addressed, both sympathetically and administratively.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister have figures for cancellations of appointments which had been organised—or disorganised—by the hospitals themselves and for the percentage of appointments that represents?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the most recent figures show that there were 50,000 cancelled appointments in 1997–98, which is a lot; but that compares with the 156,100 patients who failed to turn up.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there is any analogy in this matter with private healthcare and whether those who pay a higher premium for their healthcare turn up on a regular basis for treatment or appointments with doctors compared with those who pay through the National Health Service?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have any comparative figures with the private sector, but perhaps the noble Viscount has a point.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will the Minister look into the matter of reminders for older people? I find

1149
that, at the age of 87, I cannot read my diary, anyway. I have several diaries and miss my appointments simply through inadvertence. Old people do need to be reminded.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for reinforcing the point I made more generally in my earlier answer when I said that I had received some concerning letters from people who had had exactly that experience. It is clearly a matter which needs to be addressed. A possible solution is answering machines, which would enable people who found at the last minute that they could not attend to leave messages; but that would not address the noble Earl's problem.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is it possible that, where a GP knows that a patient may forget or not understand an appointment, the hospital could also notify the GP of the appointment so that his staff could ring and remind the patient of it on the day beforehand or early on the day of the appointment?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Countess for that useful suggestion. With modern technology—and, after all, the telephone is not very modern—there must be systems to enable people to be reminded and prompted to take up appointments which may have been set some weeks or months in advance.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, has the Minister considered whether patients—apart from elderly, forgetful patients—who miss their appointments should have to pay some form of penalty before another appointment is granted?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I have seen that suggestion.

Manufacturing Industry: Interest Rate Increase
3.25 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parkside Lord Evans of Parkside asked Her Majesty's Government:
What estimate they have made of the effect on employment in the manufacturing sector of the Bank of England's decision to raise base rates to 7.5 per cent.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Monetary Policy Committee raised interest rates in order to ensure that the Government's inflation target is met. I am sure that the House, manufacturers and businesses generally will agree that we must avoid the boom and bust policies of the past, since higher inflation today results in fewer jobs, lower growth and higher interest rates tomorrow.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply, I ask him to recall the period 1979 to 1982 when the then new Conservative Government, in pursuit of a high pound and high interest
1150
rate policy, destroyed huge tranches of Britain's industry and created mass unemployment, particularly in northern England. Is my noble friend aware that Labour Government supporters such as myself are becoming anxious that the present Government appear to be following a similar high pound and high interest rate policy and that manufacturing industry is again beginning to feel threatened? Can my noble friend give me an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will do their utmost to ensure that Britain's manufacturing base is protected and the jobs of workers in industry safeguarded?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am indeed old enough to recall the period to which my noble friend refers. I also recall the period between 1988 and 1993 when a million jobs in manufacturing were lost. The Government will always be very conscious of the risks involved in higher interest rates. The present evidence is that, although manufacturing industry is not expanding, it is not in recession, and the forecasts for next year are encouraging.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the main factors in the strength of sterling is the high base rate? As has been said, that high rate is threatening our export markets because, as far as overseas buyers are concerned, our goods are more expensive. Does the Minister further agree that the role of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to oversee the whole of the economy of the country and that it is quite wrong of him to shrug off responsibility for the base rate to the Bank of England?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord makes two points. On the first point, it is undeniable that there is interaction between exchange rates and export performance. On the second point, the Government maintain control over both fiscal and monetary policy in the economy. They have devolved decisions on short-term interest rates to the Bank of England.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thought my noble friend said in his first Answer that we were concerned about the level of inflation today. Was he suggesting that the most recent ¼ per cent. increase in interest rates would affect inflation today, or was he telling us that, in practice, for some reason the Monetary Policy Committee is able to forecast that in two years' time inflation would be lower if interest rates were increased today?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was not quite suggesting that. What I suggested in my first Answer was that the Monetary Policy Committee raised interest rates in order to ensure that the Government's target for inflation was met. We shall see whether or not I am right in five weeks' time.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that changes in interest rates are bound to affect many aspects of the economy which are controlled by

1151
the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Does he therefore regret the change which the Government made last May, or does he have no confidence in the ability of the Chancellor, if he had control of interest rates, to protect us against inflation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord puts forward a false syllogism. Of course the Government have confidence in the Chancellor to maintain control of all aspects of fiscal and monetary policy. There is no derogation from that in the fact that there has been a devolution of decision making on short-term interest rates.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, will the Minister accept that, having listened both here and in another place to the points made on "boom and bust" when this question is asked and answered, the implication of the Government's statement is that they are simply leaving the effect of interest rates and fiscal policy on manufacturing industry to the operation of the markets? Is not that a surprising stance for new Labour to take?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, far from it. In many ways the Government have been directly active in helping manufacturing industry. Such policies as lowering corporation tax rates, easing regulatory burdens on businesses, extending first-year capital allowances and the creation of new venture capital funds are all directly designed to help manufacturing business.
Lord Paul: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the Bank of England has knowledge of the condition of the manufacturing industry in mind when fixing interest rates and is not worried about inflation alone, which is distorted by the service sector?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Bank of England Act, which came into force on 1st June, specifically requires the Court of the Bank of England to ensure that the Monetary Policy Committee has available to it information on economic trends, both regionally and by sector, therefore including manufacturing business. I can therefore give my noble friend the assurance for which he asks.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, manufacturing business is one thing, but is the noble Lord aware that in the farming industry the pound is causing total chaos? Farming incomes are now zero and it will not be long before many farms are emptied because nobody will be able to afford to work them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are aware of the difficulties caused to agriculture by a strong pound. Many of the actions I described in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, apply also to farming.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, on balance, nobody wants to see high interest rates? Does he agree also that this is a
1152
question of making the right short-term decisions to ensure that we get long-term stability in our economy, which is vital to investment, productivity and jobs?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend puts the issue concisely and accurately. For over a year the Chancellor has been seeking to persuade the people of this country of that point, with a considerable degree of success.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the Minister join me in welcoming back to our midst my noble friend Lord Clark of Kempston?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, will the Minister take on board the anxiety raised by his noble friend—an anxiety shared by many of us? Big and small companies in Scotland are not facing a boom or bust; they are facing a bust. Perhaps I may highlight a tiny one. In a remote part of what used to be my constituency, a company called Mountain Technology was founded when I was a Member to manufacture ice axes. From that small company eight jobs have been lost in a new massacre of Glencoe—I have little doubt but that the noble Lord will remember Glencoe. According to the managing director on closing down the firm, apart from the mild winters—for which I cannot blame the Government—the problem has been that sales abroad have been non-existent for the past year.
Will the noble Lord take on board the concerns of manufacturing industry? Does he accept that there is a relationship between the difficulties manufacturing industry face with the high pound and high interest rates? Firms could perhaps cope with the high pound if they had low interest rates, but they cannot cope with both.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I know which side my clan was on at Glencoe; I am not sure on which side was the noble Lord's clan, or indeed whether we were on the same side. Of course I have great sympathy for the eight people who lost their jobs at Glencoe. But the noble Lord is carrying his practice of arguing from the particular to the general to unprecedented extremes. It is true that the connections he suggests exist. But it is also true that the Government are aware of them and have been promulgating policies to deal with them ever since they came to office.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is my noble friend as puzzled as I am by the comments of the spokesman for the Opposition? Does he recall that there was a time when the Conservative Party was in favour of sound money? One might have expected therefore that they would be in favour of giving operational independence

1153
to the Bank of England in order to pursue monetary policy in order to keep inflation under control. Is my noble friend as mystified as I am by the fact that they have adopted my role of old-fashioned Keynesianism, while I adopt what I take to be their role of old-fashioned monetarism?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I try to keep to a minimum my comparisons between this Government and the previous administration. But my answer to my noble friend is that I am no longer surprised by anything that the Opposition Front Bench does.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, in view of the almost universal criticism of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee increasing the base rate to 7.5 per cent., will he and his ministerial colleagues consider altering the balance of the committee by having more members with knowledge of industry and fewer academics on the committee?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall cause great difficulty in the ranks of Government Back-Bench supporters if I take sides as between manufacturing industry and academics. Both have a role to play and the Chancellor is conscious of the importance of manufacturing industry when he makes appointments to the Monetary Policy Committee, just as he is when he insists that the Monetary Policy Committee should have proper information about developments in manufacturing industry.

Business
3.36 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, after consideration of the Commons Reason on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill today, my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on economic and fiscal strategy. I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement following the end of the Minister's initial reply to the Opposition spokesmen should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of others.

Business of the House: Scotland Bill
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I hope that the Government Chief Whip will not see it as a discourtesy if I rise to ask for clarification, first, on some general points of business management and, secondly and more importantly, on the Second Reading of the Scotland Bill which is due to take place next week.
1154
The House will remember that my noble friend Lord Cranborne and I both gave warnings last summer of the potential consequences in terms of pressure of business in this House if the government programme were too full and there was not a proper balance between the weight of legislation introduced in this House and in another place.
We said that this House could not and would not be held to account if, as a result of the way in which the Government packed and arranged the programme, we were forced into a very prolonged Session. Since then, and in many cases for good reasons, further government legislation has been added to the programme. However, most of the Government's main programme Bills were introduced in another place and the most far-reaching and complex of all its Bills, the Scotland Bill, is yet to receive a Second Reading.
In such a crowded programme it behoves the Government to assist us in scrutinising legislation. From the first, we have not always received that to which the House is entitled. I will not go through the sorry saga of the past 12 months—that will be well known throughout the Chamber—but we are seeing signs of increasing pressure and haste on the part of the Government at a time when the legislative programme is still growing. There is a risk of this House being pushed too far when there is plenty of time in the spillover to complete the programme with full and proper scrutiny.
The Government Chief Whip and the usual channels have not been entirely unsuccessful. I wish to put on record how grateful are the Opposition for the extra half-day that we received on the Wales Bill. But it should never have been envisaged that such a major constitutional Bill could have been settled in less time.
My specific point is on the Scotland Bill. It has been announced that that Bill will have its Second Reading next week. But in the first edition of Forthcoming Business it is believed by the Government that it can be completed within a single day. Over 60 speakers have put down their names to speak at Second Reading. Since then the Government have accepted that there should be a second day. They have simply put on the Forthcoming Business,
"It is expected that debate on the Second Reading of the Scotland Bill will be continued this day, as first business".
I welcome that.
However, I wish to have clarification as to how that will work in practice. When will Peers know whether they have been selected to speak on Wednesday or Thursday? Might it not be wiser to decide now to split the subjects for debate on the Scotland Bill? Having seen the list of speakers so far, might it not be appropriate to spend the first day dealing with the political issues of devolution and on the second to look more at the legal aspects? A number of speakers have already put their names down to speak on this matter.
I want to avoid any accusation that the Government wish to confuse this House in their approach to this important Second Reading and that they would like the debate to take place in the small hours of Thursday

1155
morning rather than on Thursday afternoon. I hope that the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip will be able to give clarification on that point.
The last time this subject was debated was 20 years ago. On that occasion the House was given two full days. There were some 60 to 65 speakers. Moreover, next Thursday is the day on which the Government have decided to have the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, the chairman of the European Union Committee, on the European central bank. I hope that the noble Lord will not accept having his debate pushed further into the night and that he will ask the Government for the debate to be rescheduled.
I fully understand the need to expedite business, particularly at this time of the year, but I believe that there is no need to hurry. There is plenty of time for this House to give full and effective scrutiny to this legislation. I very much hope that the Chief Whip will take this opportunity to clarify the situation.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word before my noble friend replies. I have little or no sympathy for the Opposition Chief Whip, but I have sympathy for those who wish to participate in a major debate on the European central bank, including members of my committee. I would find it quite intolerable were the Chief Whip to tell us that that debate will take place after the second day of the debate on the Scotland Bill. That would be outrageous. Many noble Lords on all sides of the House wish to participate in the important debate on the European central bank. I hope that my noble friend is able to assure me and others in this House, regardless of what the Opposition Chief Whip wants, that we shall have a full day's debate early on another day rather than have it late at night on the day suggested.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I understand the point made by the Opposition Chief Whip. But I recall that when the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was Government Chief Whip in the last Parliament his attitude was remarkably different from the position he has set out this afternoon. I remember with great clarity the refusal of the then government to provide adequate time for a major Bill involving policy on criminal justice. But I do not propose to go down that particular avenue save to comment on the particular point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as regards the Scotland Bill.
Given the number of speakers, the Government have, as I understand it, agreed that part of the debate should spill over into Thursday. That is acceptable. I found it a little puzzling to hear the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, suggest that the Government were embarked on a policy of attempting to confuse the House. I suspect that his complaint would have been the intolerable arrogance of Ministers if the Government had not agreed to provide additional time for the Second Reading of the Scotland Bill. The noble Lord cannot have it both ways.
The position is quite clear. I do not think we can separate the debate on the Scotland Bill into two sections relating to different parts of the Bill. It would lead to a most confusing and unsatisfactory debate. That
1156
being so, I very much welcome what I understand the Government Chief Whip will say about the Scotland Bill. I very much hope that we have a valuable debate on this very important measure.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has said. In this Parliament there has been only one debate in this House on the Government's proposals in relation to Scotland and that was 10 months ago. That debate was on what had been described as a White Paper. It was published only five days before the debate. It was a very sketchy brochure containing meagre proposals and a scant outline of what they were. The debate took place on the day before the Recess, if my memory serves me correctly. It was time-limited and the speakers had only 10 minutes to speak on proposed major constitutional changes.
There is now a substantial Bill before us and the Government apparently intend to time-limit that debate. It is no surprise that so many speakers have put down their names because the constitutional effects go far wider than Scotland; they affect the whole of the United Kingdom. Therefore, I support what my noble friend has proposed.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on this matter. At the Cross-Bench meeting this afternoon I raised the matter that only one day was to be given to the issue. General support was given to the view that that was not enough. It is a vital issue not only for Scotland but also for England. The fact that there are no fewer than 60 speakers strongly supports the view that this measure is critical for all of us. If we are to prevail on the Act of Union we should have a proper debate on it, but not at two o'clock, three o'clock or four o'clock in the morning. I very much support urging the Government to divide the debate into two days.
Lord Renton: My Lords, there is one fundamental point that I wish to raise. On the Opposition Benches in another place there are scarcely any Scottish Members. Indeed, there are no Conservative Scottish Members although there are still quite a lot of Conservatives in Scotland. In your Lordships' House we have a formidable array of Scottish Peers with wide experience. That is one of the main reasons why so many noble Lords wish to speak in the debate. Will the Government Chief Whip kindly bear that in mind?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, over 50 speakers have put down their names to speak in the debate and, obviously, they cannot be accommodated within the day or day-and-a-half proposed. It is a matter of vital importance constitutionally. But bearing in mind that many of the speakers will presumably travel from Scotland, with all the cost of overnight expenses, is it constitutionally possible to hold the Second Reading debate—there will be no vote anyway—in Scotland?
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I understand that this may be the last major Second Reading debate on Scotland. It is quite intolerable to think that so many Peers on both sides of the House, and former Scottish Ministers, will not have an opportunity to express their views within

1157
a reasonable timescale. To do so at three or four o'clock in the morning, or even late on the second day, is not acceptable. We simply must have two full days.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, on the question of timetabling generally, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Chief Whip to reconsider the apparent intention to set down on Thursday 25th June the Bill for the premature release of terrorists, which happens to be the day provided for, in legislation passed by this House, the all-important elections to the new Northern Ireland assembly.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it is a little unusual to have a usual channels discussion on the Floor of the House. The one thing that I have learnt in this job is never to be surprised by the frailty of human nature. It is a little early to start the usual discussions about the date of the Summer Recess. In the usual way, we shall discuss that a little nearer the date.
I am grateful to the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip for his kind remarks about the Government of Wales Bill. Perhaps he will remember that there was first an unexpectedly long debate on the report from the Select Committee on Procedure. In my usual kindly way, I managed to find some more time, so everybody was happy.
On the point about this House not starting its fair ration of Bills, I remind your Lordships that we started the Crime and Disorder Bill and the Teaching and Higher Education Bill, together with other important Bills. In fact, we receive what we are entitled to. On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, the date of the Second Reading of that Northern Ireland Bill was agreed through the usual channels.
I turn now to Scotland. I am grateful to the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip for his remarks and I give him full marks for a good try. It had been the clear intention that the debate on the Second Reading of the Scotland Bill would be concluded in one day. However, when we saw the length of the list of speakers, we took our decision. When the number of speakers became clear this morning, after discussion through the usual channels, it was decided that the list of speakers had grown too long to allow the debate to be confined to a single day unless the House sat extremely late into the night. Therefore, time has been provided to allow that debate to spill over into a second day. It is hoped that it will be possible to do that without deleting the other business set down for Thursday 18th June although that business would then start later in the day. I shall certainly bear the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Barnett very much in mind.
All noble Lords who have already set down their names to speak will be assumed to be available on Wednesday, as that was the day for which the business was announced and, accordingly, it is the day for which they put down their names to speak. If any noble Lord whose name is already down will also be available on the Thursday, it would be helpful if that fact could be communicated to the Government Whips' Office to assist in the construction of the Speakers' List. I should stress that the procedure will be to have a single debate spread over two days rather than
1158
to have two days for separate debates. As always, the final list of speakers will be produced on the Wednesday morning in the usual way. I am not sure whether the Opposition Chief Whip was entirely serious when he suggested splitting the subjects. It will be the Second Reading of an important Bill and every noble Lord should be able to speak in his place on the list to every aspect of the Bill.
Regarding the question from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the one thing for which I am not responsible is the lack of Scottish Opposition Members of Parliament in the other place.
I hope that your Lordships will be satisfied. As always, we have tried to be accommodating. We had to see how many names were put down to speak. When we saw the list, we realised that it was too long for one day so we have allowed a spill-over into the second day.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, before the Chief Whip sits down, may I ask him to reconsider the point made by my noble friend Lord Molyneaux about the debate on 25th June? This matter was not discussed with the Cross Benches and as two former Northern Ireland Members of Parliament sit on our Benches, it would have been courteous to discuss with us whether that was a convenient day. Northern Ireland Members will naturally wish to be in the Province at the time of the election.
Lord Carter: My Lords, all I can say is that there was the usual discussion through the usual channels. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, if he was excluded, but because of the very tight timetable, of which all your Lordships are aware, regarding the enactment of that legislation and relating to the agreement in Northern Ireland, it was agreed that that was the right day for that business. We discussed this through the usual channels and the business was agreed for that day.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, before the noble Lord comes to a final decision on this matter, may I urge the importance of the arguments put by my noble friend Lord Barnett concerning a debate on the European Central Bank? The debate on the European Central Bank, and in particular the comprehensive and authoritative contents of the report from Sub-committee A, make it indispensable that this House treats the matter very seriously. The events that may happen would have a profound effect, not only on the economy of the United Kingdom, but also on its political relationships with other countries.
I am sure the noble Lord agrees that it would be intolerable if such an important document did not have a full day allotted to it. It is inconceivable that the report could properly be discussed at the fag end of business—although I agree that that business is of considerable importance. Therefore, I implore the noble Lord, in both the short-term and the long-term interests of the country, to give a full and adequate opportunity to the whole House to discuss that report on the European Central Bank. I hope that wise and more considered counsels may ultimately prevail.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, is the Chief Whip suggesting that Northern Ireland Members of this House

1159
should be deprived of their democratic right to vote in the assembly elections in Northern Ireland because they have to stay here to suit his convenience to consider the Northern Ireland Bill to release terrorists?
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with a point raised by my noble friend Lord Bruce. We are, of course, aware of the importance of that debate. The decision was taken only this morning that, because of the length of the list of speakers for the Second Reading of the Scotland Bill, we had to adjust the business. These are early days. I suggest that we wait until next week when we shall take a final decision on the shape of the day.
I return to the point about the Northern Ireland Bill. I repeat that the timetabling was agreed between the usual channels—between myself, the Opposition Chief Whip and the Chief Whip of the Liberal Democrat Party. The Belfast agreement states that we shall seek to enact the legislation by the end of June. If your Lordships will consider the timing of that Bill in the Commons, you will see that it is important that we now get on with the Bill. The usual channels decided not to put down the Bill for consideration before the election on 25th June, but on that day. On the point about voting in that election, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, will be able to vote in the morning and to take part in our debate in the afternoon.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am thankful that some aspects of this debate can return to the mystery of the usual channels. I am sure that that is where such discussions should be held. Perhaps I may clarify two points. First, there is no reason why this Session should necessarily end at the end of October. It could easily go into November. I refer to the point about there being plenty of time to complete the business when we return after the Summer Recess.
Secondly, and more specifically, I am still confused about how noble Lords who have put down their names to speak on the Scotland Bill on Wednesday will know whether they have been moved and are to speak on Thursday. I do not expect an answer to this now from the noble Lord the Chief Whip. It is important that not only my noble friends, but all Peers around the House, can adjust their diaries to deal with this. Will the Government Whips' Office telephone all those who have put down their names to speak to ask them on which day they wish to speak so that we can have a clear view of who will be speaking when?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I hope that the Opposition Chief Whip, having agreed to the wish of the House for a debate lasting two days, is not now suggesting that not all noble Lords will be present on both days. I hope that he is not suggesting that. I do not think that we can telephone all noble Lords. If noble Lords can tell us that they are available on the Thursday as well as on the Wednesday because—I must make this clear—they were expected to speak on the Wednesday, that would be helpful. As to the
1160
dates of the Summer Recess and the spill-over, again, I give the noble Lord full marks for a good try, but it is very early in the season to be starting that debate.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, on the question of the Northern Ireland day, can the Chief Whip clarify to me whether he considers that the Cross Benchers in our House are not part of the usual channels?
Lord Carter: My Lords, discussion of the Business of the House in the usual channels takes place among the three Chief Whips and always has done.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, as I understand what has been decided, we are to have two days, which was certainly the wish of the Cross Benches.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I intervene briefly. I thank the Chief Whip for his constructive attitude. We all know that he is an extremely reasonable man both as a Member of this House and in his former profession. He is very professional. I hope that the Chief Whip will be able to give the House an assurance that when the usual channels resume their discussions on this matter he will take very carefully into account the points that have been made on all sides of the House this afternoon and that when he has addressed these points in his usual helpful fashion he may be able to report back to the House as to the detailed conclusions that have been reached.
Lord Carter: My Lords, of course. The short debate that we have had illustrates what happens when the usual channels are invited to work across the Floor of the House and not outside the Chamber.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
4 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reason be now considered.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 62 as first printed for the Lords]
LORDS AMENDMENT
1 After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

QUOTA-HOPPING
(". This Act shall come into force only when each House of Parliament has come to a resolution on a motion tabled by a Minister of the Crown considering the legal protection for British fishermen afforded by the Treaty of Amsterdam on the issue of quota-hopping.")
1A The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
Because it would not be appropriate to restrict commencement of the Act in the way proposed.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1A. I remind the House that the Bill received from another place, which would allow for ratification by the United Kingdom of the Treaty of Amsterdam, was approved without amendment to its central provisions by your Lordships' House. The amendment that this House passed and which another place, by a majority of 196, has not accepted was a delaying caveat that would not alter the substance of the Bill or the Treaty of Amsterdam. Indeed, it relates to an issue not covered by the changes made to the treaties at Amsterdam. However, the important issue before the House today is that if the amendment were to be reinstated by this House it could have disastrous repercussions by delaying ratification by all 15 member states. It could potentially destabilise relations with our partners and reverse all the painstaking progress made in our European policy since the advent of this Government.
I accept that the amendment was tabled by the Opposition on the supposed basis of seeking to help Britain's fishing communities. I must make clear to noble Lords that the amendment would not remove a single quota-hopper from the British register or help our British fishermen in any way whatever. Instead, it would delay or block ratification of a treaty that offers many benefits and advantages to this country. However, in no way does this mean that we do not share the very genuine concern of the Opposition and noble Lords generally about the plight of our fishing industry. We do. The exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the President of the Commission at Amsterdam was a real step forward. That exchange recorded the Commission's interpretation of how a member state might, within the rules of the single market, require an economic link between fishing activity and fishing communities. Since Amsterdam we have taken this forward. We issued a consultation document last July, following which the Government had extensive meetings with representatives of the UK fishing industry to discuss implementation of the "economic link" licensing conditions that we proposed.
Following that consultation, we submitted draft proposals to the European Commission which incorporated contributions from the UK fishing industry. A copy of those proposals was placed in the Library of the House on 12th May. This is a substantive package of measures which will be both effective and compatible with the treaty. We intend that all vessels shall be required to comply with one of the following criteria: having to land 50 per cent. of their catch of quota species in the UK; or requiring 50 per cent. of the crew to be resident in UK coastal areas; or requiring a certain level of operational expenditure in UK coastal areas; or other measures which will provide sufficient economic benefit to populations in the UK which are dependent on fishing and related industries.
The process of putting flesh on the bones of the exchange of letters between ourselves and the Commission at Amsterdam is an important one. We await the Commission's final opinion on the proposals.
1162
Only last week my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food discussed progress with Commissioner Bonino.
This subject affects a number of member states as well as ourselves and it will be discussed at official level in Brussels tomorrow. We have learnt that France and Belgium are already modelling an economic link for licence conditions in their countries based on our proposals. We understand that the Commission will soon present its opinion. We expect real progress from that opinion. We have made progress. These measures will ensure that in future real economic links exist between the UK's fishing fleet and our coastal communities. That is a significant improvement on the current situation in which many vessels bring little or no benefit to the UK. Vessels that fail to maintain an economic link with the UK will be unable to fish UK quota species until such time as they are able to demonstrate that satisfactory economic links have been established.
During debates on the Bill we ranged over a number of issues, but we passed only this amendment. It is only this amendment that the Commons has rejected. While no doubt on past form certain noble Lords will wish to range slightly wider than the amendment in the course of the debate, this is the issue before the House. The elected Members of another place have overwhelmingly made clear their collective view.
Perhaps I may provide some slight comfort to the Official Opposition in regard to their amendment. I can report that its passage through this House was noted to some extent in Europe. It impressed upon the Commission and our partners that fishing is an important issue for the UK. But it also alarmed them to see that it threatens ratification. Therefore, in one sense it has achieved an impact. Unfortunately, that impact is double edged. The other edge is that our partners fear that the UK, despite the achievements of this Government, is reverting to the negative table-thumping, Europhobic behaviour of earlier years. If they go on thinking that we shall again end up on the margins of Europe. Unfortunately, that second impact is already in danger of predominating. If we persist by restoring the amendment today it will predominate and the main losers will be the very fishing communities that the amendment purports to help.
While most of the debate on the treaty was conducted in good spirit, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and I exchanged a few harsh words. I am sure that the noble Lord does not wish to see a negative impact on the fishing communities any more than I and other noble Lords do. I appeal to the noble Lord and other noble Lords not to oppose the Commons rejection of our amendment. What limited positive impact our discussion of the importance of the fishing industry may have had could be jeopardised by persistence in the amendment. I hope that neither the Official Opposition nor the House in general will oppose the elected House on this issue. I call upon the noble Lord and the House to accept the position adopted by the House of Commons.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1A.—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, in his place today. He was right yesterday to point out that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, is a popular figure in your Lordships' House. However, I hope that noble Lords will understand if, in my opening remarks, I put any personal feelings of your Lordships aside and focus on the political judgment of a Foreign Office team that once again has determined that our final consideration of this Bill—the only Foreign Office legislation in this Session—apparently does not warrant the presence of the Minister.
Noble Lords will recall the importance that was attached to this matter by your Lordships' House at Second Reading. At that time my noble friend Lord Beloff begged to move that the debate be adjourned because of the absence of the Minister. Today the Minister is not with us again. I remind noble Lords of the speech of my noble friend Lord Beloff:
"It is the opinion of many noble Lords that this [Bill] is a matter of great constitutional importance and that there are precedents which show that, whenever a matter of constitutional importance is before your Lordships' House, the Bill is piloted on Second Reading and, even more importantly, in its later stages by a Minister from the department concerned".
He continued:
"The fact that this Bill is of constitutional importance hardly needs demonstrating by reference to its own clauses. In another place, it was taken through all its stages by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. Clearly, they thought that it was a matter of such constitutional importance that, in spite of their many other commitments, often airborne, they would have to devote the necessary time to dealing with it".—[Official Report, 16/2/98; cols. 25–26.]
The importance of the amendment is that it is constitutional, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, a moment ago. He said that it was of constitutional importance, and recognised as such in Europe.
On Tuesday night, when the amendment that we are considering was debated in another place, the subject was of sufficient importance to warrant the direct involvement of two Ministers in a discussion which lasted over three hours and saw no fewer than 468 Members of Parliament go through the Division Lobbies. But today, once again, we are presented with a Whip to mop up behind the absent Minister, albeit a very good Whip indeed.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have not often interrupted the noble Lord. I need to now. It was made clear in the exchange following my noble friend's intervention yesterday that my noble friend the Minister is carrying out important business in Canada and the US. It may have escaped the notice of some noble Lords that she is responsible in the Foreign Office for relations with Canada and the US. There was no earlier objection to her not dealing with this final stage of the Bill, which has been down in my name for at least one week and probably longer.
1164
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, on that occasion, rightly directed his criticism not to my noble friend but to the business managers. His procedural Motion was defeated by the House at that stage. Having taken account of views expressed during the debate, my noble friend participated fully in the debates on the Bill. She was present throughout the Committee and Report stages. She dealt with the central issues of common foreign and security policy, defence, sovereignty, human rights and many other issues. During those stages I dealt with quota hopping. There was no objection from the Official Opposition or any other quarter of this House to my doing that. My noble friend dealt with Third Reading in this House.
As I said yesterday, in my experience of this House no Minister has shown greater diligence in fulfilling her duties to this House. However, she has other duties which are vitally important to this country and to our relations with two of our greatest allies. It is trivial for the noble Lord to raise this issue, in this way, at this time. I hope that he will not persist in it, but will let us get on with debating the substance of the amendment.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, that is a wholly unacceptable response from the Government Front Bench. The first duty of any Minister in either House is to the House. That is a fundamental priority. Last night my noble friend Lady Young raised an important debate. The Minister was absent. Today, we have another important debate on a constitutional measure, and the Minister is absent. It is not unreasonable to point out that the Minister may, in any case, have felt compelled to return from the US to make a personal statement to the House in relation to her answers to your Lordships' House on the arms to Africa affair.
We have had three important foreign affairs issues this week. It has not been an average week in your Lordships' House for matters relating to foreign affairs. That warrants the presence of a Minister in your Lordships' House. It warrants it, as was proved on Tuesday night, when another House felt that it warranted two Ministers to appear at the Dispatch Box—two Ministers to answer in detail the points that were raised. I shall be more than happy to give way again if the noble Lord can say why it was necessary for two Ministers to be accountable to the other place where this issue had been rehearsed significantly during earlier stages of the Bill, and rightly so, whereas there is no Minister present in your Lordships' House today?
4.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it may have escaped the noble Lord that this place operates differently from another place. It has long been recognised that Whips take on what, in another place, would be regarded as ministerial duties. We did not object to that when the noble Lord's party was in power. I am amazed that he does so now. If he objects to my dealing with the substance of the amendment, why did he not do so in Committee, on Report or at any other stage? If it was proper for me to deal with it then, why is it suddenly not proper for me to deal with it now? The noble Lord is making a meal of this. I hope that we can get on

1165
with the substance of the Bill, not just for the fishing communities of this country but for our future relations with Europe. None of this will be understood outside this House, and precious few people within the House will understand it.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, the noble Lord cannot lightly dismiss the importance of ministerial accountability. We will return to that point time and time again. I have made my point. I hope that I have made it clearly. I echoed the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff. I highlighted the fact that on Second Reading this was a subject of considerable importance which was debated in full across the Chamber. I merely restate that point. I am not for a minute questioning the ability of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to respond to parts of this legislation. I have praised his ability on many occasions. Indeed I have done more than that.
As noble Lords will be aware, I have argued strongly that due to his regular presence at the Dispatch Box on matters regarding foreign affairs he should be made Minister in the Foreign Office and should be given the backing he deserves for his eloquence and attention to detail. It is a pity that he has had so many opportunities because his noble friend the Minister is so frequently absent from the House on important constitutional matters as at Second Reading and today.
I thank the noble Lord for his brief response. Having read the proceedings in the other place on Tuesday night, his response was disappointing, although predictable. I regret the fact that the Government used their majority in the other place to overturn the amendment. I shall not rehearse all the key points. There were some interesting developments on Tuesday night which are worthy of further consideration in your Lordships' House.
The issue of quota hopping to which the amendment refers is a grievous example of a promise made and a promise broken. Before the election the Prime Minister told the country that the one thing he would ensure he delivered at Amsterdam—the top priority for British negotiators—was the resolution of this issue. He said that he would hold up IGC business to get the right changes to fishing policy in British interests.
The amendment clearly puts on the face of the Bill the Prime Minister's apparent intent when he made that promise. He did not say that about any other issue. He said it about fishing policy. He said it about British fishermen's interests. Yet the Government failed. They failed to achieve indisputable legal protection for British fishermen at Amsterdam. The Prime Minister returned with barely more than a confirmation of the status quo. At Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, despite our best efforts, we have been given no satisfactory explanation for that, let alone a compelling one.
Instead, we have had trotted out, time and time again, the same empty rhetoric in this House, and, two days ago, in another place while the Government attempt to hijack the high moral ground by savaging the previous
1166
administration's record. The logic of the argument seems to be that the provenance of any criticism is more relevant and more important than the objective validity of that criticism. In that way, attention can be neatly diverted from any governmental shortcomings.
For all the righteous sound and fury, the defence by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, of the Government's record was flimsy to the point of threadbare. The intended effectiveness of his attack on the previous government's record throughout discussions on this issue was in inverse proportion to the weak defence of his Government's own record. As a result, we still do not know why the crucial opportunity to ensure that British fishermen were afforded legal protection—it is what they would have received—which was there to be grasped at Amsterdam, was lost.
It is with great interest that I note what the Minister responsible for quotas stated in another place. He argued surprisingly that when in government he realised that life was a little different from what it was when he was in Opposition; and because it was tough he simply did not push it, and that was that. On the one key issue on which the Prime Minister had said that they would hold up the IGC in order to get a deal, the junior Minister concerned suddenly realised the day after he was in government that life was different. And that despite the comprehensive and assiduous as ever contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, before the election which he told us on many occasions was a key mark to the work he was doing, and the effect of that work after the election.
It is fascinating to me now to question whether the whole manifesto, by virtue of being drawn up in Opposition, holds the same importance as we are regularly told it should once in government. It was a paltry excuse from the Front Bench in another House for failure to protect British fishermen's interests.
I make these comments because I see it as vital to recognise that, unless the Government go ahead, unless they push hard for changes on behalf of British fishermen, they will lose. The Government ducked this issue at the IGC because they did not have support; they saw opposition coming. We heard today about new initiatives that the Government were taking in this context. It is interesting to note what Patrick Nicholls, Member of Parliament, stated on those very proposals on Tuesday night. He asked:
"Where are we now? We have been told that some new proposals have been worked out, so where are they? Aficionados of such matters will have to find an obscure parliamentary question of 12 May saying in effect, 'These things are in the pipeline. We are waiting for Europe to tell us whether we can do what we want".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/6/98; col. 971.]
Europe has since spoken. The Spaniards have already said what they think about that. They have raised grave reservations and doubts about the revised version of the United Kingdom proposals. That is the status of those proposals for British fishermen and for the British Government in their attempt to get changes. I predict they will fail. I predict that they will not have the heart to fight for them, as was clearly displayed at the IGC and which led to the tabling of this amendment. From these Benches we have made our feelings very clear.

1167
The Government's approach to the whole subject has been regrettable; and I sincerely hope that it is not a harbinger of disappointments to come.
But it is not my intention to press the point today. We shall not oppose the decision of another place to remove the amendment from the Bill, but we shall leave on record our complete disappointment at the failure of the ministerial team to deliver what the Prime Minister said he would fight for; namely, the interests of British fishermen—interests which have been jettisoned, interests which were thrown away by this Government in their negotiations at the IGC.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he explain his own government's part in this? Will he explain why they signed up to the Treaty of Corfu in 1957, and the circumstances in which the government spokesman from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr. David Davis, addressed himself to the chairman of the House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation? He endeavoured to explain the circumstances in which the assent of the government to the Treaty of Corfu was obtained.
Will the noble Lord agree that, on reflection, the real treaty to be discussed in this connection is not the Treaty of Amsterdam, which was not about this subject, but the Treaty of Corfu which was? Can the noble Lord clarify that position? It may well be that his own government are not without blame in this for the ambiguities that have arisen in this matter.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am always willing to be as helpful as I can to the noble Lord in answering his questions. I recognise that the passage has been long and difficult, not just with regard to the implications of the Treaty of Corfu which the noble Lord rightly points out, but also the 1988 Merchant Shipping Act, the responses of the European Court of Justice, and the difficulties throughout the 1980s in resolving the question. All that led to the conclusion that the most effective way forward was to write a protocol which sought to deal with a quota-hopping problem once and for all by entrenching the condition that UK quotas must provide economic benefit to UK fishing communities and not to fishing interests in other member states.
Because of the history, the difficulties and the challenges, both parties recognise that the IGC and the Treaty of Amsterdam provided an opportunity to resolve that issue once and for all. It was because of my sincere disappointment that that opportunity was not taken to address the subject once and for all that I tabled the amendment that went to another place.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, this is hardly an appropriate subject for party polemics in however mild a form they may have been embarked upon. Rather, it is an occasion where, despite our being fairly hardened politicians, we should feel and express some collective shame for the state of our fishing industry and the way in which successive governments have failed to secure their minimum interests.
1168
The issue does not arise just over Amsterdam, as we all well know. It arose in the beginning by the British government of the day abandoning the concept of British waters and accepting that the waters around our islands are a "Community" resource. Further to our great disadvantage was the imposition and acceptance of fishing quotas which enormously undervalued the previous British take from our waters, with the result that we have had a continuing contraction of the British fishing fleet. Indeed, when historians write about this period, one of the many subjects which they will find puzzling indeed is how a great maritime nation, with the debt it owed to its navy, its merchant navy and its fishermen, came to abandon what is a great national resource.
We now come to the present situation. What is there left for Parliament to do? It is not the best way to threaten to hold up the implementation of a treaty which has been broadly agreed and must clearly be brought into effect. But virtually every other sensible way of proceeding has been denied to us. There was the third great humiliation. Some years ago we passed the Merchant Shipping Act which would have excluded the Spaniards from quota-hopping as regards the British quota. That measure was struck down by the superior legislative and judicial powers of the European Court of Justice.
To add insult to injury, millions of pounds of compensation are now being paid to deprived Spaniards. If it comes off, the deal described by my noble friend would at least guarantee 50 per cent. of the British quota being landed in British ports and 50 per cent. of the ships which are not British, operating in our waters, would have to have some connection with the maritime interests of this country; and that is a hit of progress. But I have yet to be convinced that it will be achieved. What a miserable situation this is when we have to content ourselves with a mere 50 per cent. of what should lawfully be our own.
I cannot disagree with the course recommended by the noble Lord who speaks for the Opposition, but I do say to my noble friend that something has to be done. We are going to see a further dramatic contraction in the British fishing fleet unless we find a way of escaping from the trap into which successive European treaties have placed us.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, there are, I fear, very few issues of European policy on which the noble Lord, Lord Shore, and I would agree. Nevertheless, I would like to say, on behalf of us all, how delighted we are to see him back among us after his absence through illness.
The only reason for my intervening is the extraordinary speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, at the beginning of this debate. My noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire will apply himself to the situation as far as the fishing industry is concerned and the text of this amendment. But I do not think that it is right to let that extraordinary speech go by without some comment from these Benches.

1169
I have rarely heard an exercise in synthetic indignation on quite such a scale. First of all, he was factually inaccurate, which perhaps is not altogether surprising. He seems to imagine that the Government Whips in this House are not Ministers. They are Ministers of the Crown, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will no doubt learn over a period of time in this House. If, in fact, his argument is to be taken seriously—namely, that it is some form of constitutional outrage that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, is not with us—let me say this to him. The last Minister of State responsible for Foreign and Commonwealth Office business in this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, was often absent from the House because she was carrying out her ministerial responsibilities abroad. I cannot remember one occasion when anyone made the sort of trivial complaint which we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. It really was dreadful stuff. I hope he is going to improve.
In a moment I shall gladly give way, but we had 14 minutes of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on this narrow issue before he applied himself, in seven minutes, to the issue related to the fishing industry. That is a two-to-one ratio which, in itself, is remarkable.
I hope that ungracious attacks made on a Minister, who is carrying out public duties outside this country, will not be repeated on future occasions by the noble Lord.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I should like to point out to him that I am fully aware of the status of Government Whips. I was rather surprised by the tone of his intervention on that point.
Indeed, I went further than that, because as the noble Lord may know, there was a time when we understood that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, had been made Minister with special responsibility for the EU presidency. Specific questions were tabled in another place by Mr. Michael Howard—I would be happy to give the noble Lord copies—which disprove his point. Sadly, in my view, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was not made Minister with special responsibility for the EU presidency, but was a Whip with special responsibility for FCO business.
As for the other points which the noble Lord raised, they were not trivial. They were important because they emphasised, as I would do once again, the importance of ministerial accountability to this House on legislation which has a far-reaching constitutional impact. That is the point I was making. It is an extremely serious point. I am surprised that the noble Lord, from his Benches, trivialises that. It is critical that on any major legislation the Minister responsible should come before the House. That is the first priority of the Minister.
That was the point I was making. It will be a point that I shall always make and it was a point that I made regularly when I was in another place. I believe that noble Lords on all sides of this House recognise the power of that argument. It is wholly reasonable for your Lordships to expect the Minister responsible to be
1170
present, especially when it is the only legislation in the whole Session, and indeed likely to be the only significant legislation during this Parliament, coming from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, but as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was intervening in my speech and I gave way to him. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has sought to justify the point which he made earlier. In my view, the point that he made earlier was entirely unjustifiable. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, gave him his answer. If it had been so wrong for anyone other than the Minister of State to address the House on this issue, why was that point not taken when the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was addressing the issue during the earlier stages of this Bill?
When the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, quoted the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, with warm approval, he omitted to point out that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was rejected by this House, and by a substantial margin. He almost indicated to us that the words of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, were rather like a judgment of the Lord Chief Justice in the Court of Criminal Appeal. I did not see that as a precise analogy, but having made the point which I have made, I propose to conclude my observations by repeating the point that I hope that we shall not have a repetition of such an ungracious statement from the Opposition Front Bench in future.
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may descend from the great heights of ministerial responsibility and the interests of our fishing industry, to make a minor grammatical point about the Motion before us. I know it is a long time since I was at school, but I was taught to agree or disagree "with" things, not "to" them. We find on the Order Paper that we are asked to disagree to this amendment.
It may be that without my knowledge the use of our great language, which is now the language of the world, has changed. I hope not and I believe not. I hope that we can get this right in future.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Chairman frequently says "The Question is that this Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say 'Content' or 'Not-Content'". Clearly, parliamentary usage is different from that which the noble Lord was taught at school.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that the Minister for Education should be called before the House.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I feel that I should start by apologising for the fact that my noble friend Lady Williams is not able to be here today. She is in the United States on business.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I gave way, but not with a view to terminating my speech. It may be that I have

1171
such a limited knowledge of our language, after so many years practising the law and 53 years in Parliament, that I am wrong, but I do not think that the word "to" in these circumstances is as good as the word "with"
Having made that minor point, I say that we were right to ask Members of another place to think again about ways in which the interests of our great fishing industry, which has declined, could be protected. The noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, referred to matters long ago which were against the interests, as he maintains, of our fishing industry. On this occasion we gave the Government and Members of another place an opportunity to improve things, and regrettably they have rejected that opportunity.
Alas, the other place has the last word, but we have asked them to think again. As my noble friend Lord Moynihan said, we must leave the matter there; it is not one on which we can reject the whole Bill and have forced upon us the Parliament Act. I believe that my noble friend and the noble Lords, Lord Shore and Lord Bruce, were right to draw attention to a missed opportunity, which is regrettable.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for interrupting. I had not realised that he had not finished his speech. I was merely commenting that some of us who specialise in foreign affairs from time to time find it useful to go abroad. That unavoidably interferes with the business of this House.
I yield to no one in admiring the largely solo performance of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. On one or two occasions I wondered whether some members of the previous government who were experts on foreign affairs had gone abroad permanently and left him to handle so much.
I wish to make two further comments. We all agree that as regards fisheries, the issue is not only the British case but the conservation of fisheries in the North Sea and elsewhere. That is an extremely important issue on which the European Union as a whole needs to take further measures. We were not helped in particular by the Spanish, but the previous government cannot escape some of the blame. It was one of two cases when the Conservatives, driven by Treasury considerations, failed to provide full compensation for those who were asked to take vessels out of service. That encouraged British fishery owners to sell their boats to Spanish owners rather than accept full government compensation. The other case on which the previous government, on Treasury advice, thought it cheaper not to provide full compensation was in the early stages of BSE. That also had deleterious effects. I hope that the current Government, driven by a remarkably parsimonious Chancellor of the Exchequer, will not repeat that mistake in other matters.
My second point is the importance of the completion of the Bill. I and many others were ashamed that the previous government delayed ratification of the Maastricht Treaty for so long and waited until everyone else had done so. Today, we have a chance to complete ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty a good deal earlier
1172
than our partners and are demonstrating that it is not always the intention of the British Government to drag their feet on European issues. That is much the most important issue and I am glad that the Conservatives will not be insisting on the amendment and dividing the House.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I was most surprised that there was no Motion on the Marshalled List that this House insists upon its amendment. That is what I really would like to have seen. If we want to put pressure on the European Commission and the other countries of Europe, we must show them that we are tough.
There was another way in which we could have shown that we are tough. We could have proposed another amendment and sent it back to the House of Commons for consideration. That really would have been putting pressure not only on our own Government but also on the other governments of the European Community. I believe that an opportunity has been missed.
Noble Lords might ask why on earth I did not table such a Motion. The fact is that if I had done so I would not have received support. However, if the Opposition were doing its job, if it were really on the ball, it would have played this for as long as it possibly could. I understood from yesterday's Daily Telegraph that the Conservative Opposition was to have a new lease of life and that it would oppose the Government whenever it could. Yet when the first opportunity arises it falls at the first fence.
I very much regret that, but the Conservatives have a bad history on that, as my noble friends pointed out. I wish to remind the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, whom we all respect particularly for his operations on the Bill, which have been considerable and very effective, that it was under a Conservative Government that we had the spectacle—and I say that advisedly—of the unfortunate Mr. Jack being pelted with flour by British fishermen while they were feting the High Commissioner for Canada and flying not the Union Jack but the Canadian flag all over the south-west. If there ever were a failure over fishing policy it was a failure of the Conservative Government. I hope that my noble friends in the new Labour Government will be able to do far better.
I regret that today we are not to give more power to the Government's elbow because of the failure of this House yet again to do what it can, which is to put additional pressure on the House of Commons and on the Government. That failure is noted outside and it will do us no good. I must tell those hereditary Peers who believe that being gutless will save them that it will do nothing of the kind.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, what the noble Lord has proposed would mean that the Bill might not come into operation for another year if we had successfully pressed the amendment. It could conceivably have come back to us from the House of Commons yet again, but that would be a most unusual procedure. I remember it being

1173
used only once, and then we did not resist. I believe that in the unfortunate circumstances we simply must accept it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I take that as an intervention. The noble Lord will know that I often put innovative ideas to the House but it does not appear to accept them, which is a great pity. He also knows that if we were prepared to insist on our amendment and that prevented the treaty from coming into operation for a year, I should be over the moon and delighted. Indeed, the country as a whole would benefit.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney pointed out in most forthright terms, there can be little doubt that Parliament as a whole, comprising both parties, has let down the British fishing industry. No party can escape the blame for that. As my noble friend pointed out, the origin of the existing unsatisfactory position of our fishing industry arose from the deliberate deception—the deliberate deception—of the British public on the passing of the European Communities Act 1972. Then it was not revealed to the British public as anything worthy of their consideration that we were giving up our rights within the 200 mile limit. That was never explained and the approval of the British people and the British Parliament was obtained by deception. Of that there can be no doubt whatever.
The question is: what can we now do to redress the position? I suggest to your Lordships with the utmost respect, and as one who has spent the last portion of his life studying these matters, that the argument, "we must not be kept on the fringes of Europe" is a generality that is no longer acceptable at all. Every time any Member of your Lordships' House or of another place raises a question—even a question—about the validity of our existing arrangements within the European Community there is a jeer and a sneer that we must relegate ourselves to the outer regions of Europe. We must somehow conform in order to be admitted to the inner circle of Europe, which still remains, and will remain, France and Germany, whatever their temporary dislocations may be.
Every time an argument has been raised about the validity of our arrangements with Europe, of the economic benefits and otherwise to Europe, they are covered in these blanket terms, this miserable cowardice that we must agree with our European partners or we shall be relegated to the margins. I am sick of that argument as, I think, is the country as a whole.
What we need to address ourselves to, from the existing position, is how we can make amends to our own British fishing industry within the constraints under which we now labour. First, we must use our muscle. Sometimes one would think that the Government did not have any muscle despite their insistence on how important they are in Europe. We must determine what steps should be taken in order to redress the position of the British fishing industry. That requires thinking. It does not require slogans. It also requires reading through a host of regulations, decisions and directives inflicted
1174
upon this industry with the connivance or even through the ignorance of the Ministry of Agriculture not all of whose legislation in the form of regulations or even Acts of Parliament is thoroughly read by people in Parliament who should read and understand them.
It has become one of the defects of our democratic system that those responsible for the legislation know so damn little about what they are passing into enactment, let alone authoritatively argue about it. This must stop. The steps we need to take are firstly to apprise ourselves of the position. I was in general sympathy with the whole purpose of the amendment until I began to dig into the documents. Believe me, even working full-time it will take at least another three weeks or a month for me—and I am very familiar with European affairs—to ascertain precisely in European law and regulations, let alone in British regulations, exactly what the position of the industry is and what legal rights it has or does not have. That will take time. All of us who support the British fishing industry should undertake that task.
Clearly, it is insufficient and would be futile, other than as a gesture, to use the amendment to the Treaty of Amsterdam, or the British enactment of that treaty, as a vehicle in the argument for British fisheries. That is not a suitable vehicle. The matter requires far greater time. Therefore I shall not be insisting on our own amendment here. I shall support the Government if it comes to a vote. But I warn the Government that they should give these matters serious attention, and not just on a sloganised basis. They should endeavour to tackle the problems at base. That, after all, is why we are here. We are not here to mouth generalisations and make debating points.
We are here as part of Parliament. This is our job. Not all of us can do it; not all of us have the time to do it. But we should at least play our part. So in agreeing that the Government Motion should go forward I issue a warning. The Government should give the matter real and detailed attention and cease to heed ridiculous cries of, "We must not stay on the margin; we have to keep in with the boys in order to be recognised." Until they can ignore those arguments and deal with the facts, they will be faced with the shame of having ruined the British fishing industry.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I greatly respect his contribution to the House on these matters as a sort of in-house guru. Perhaps I may ask him whether he knows how we came to make the agreement ceding our shores to the Spaniards to come and fish and cause this distress? If the noble Lord knows, it may help if he can tell us. If we are to try to put things right would it not be helpful to know how it happened?
Lord Bruce of Donington: I am very pleased to answer the noble Lord. I do not yet know the steps to be taken. It will take weeks of study in order to piece the whole matter together within its correct context.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: One matter to be borne in mind is the term "British fisherman". I am from the

1175
West Country. I was delighted to hear what the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart, and Lord Shore, had to say. I feel that possibly we shall be helped in the not-too-distant future if we are worried about the English and the Welsh. The English, certainly, are the West Countrymen. The Welsh may decide, as the Scottish have said they will decide as soon as they have their own parliament, what to do with the common fisheries policy. That matter was raised by myself and other noble Lords last year. It may be that everything which has been sorted out today, as we heard, will be thrown overboard by the Scots when they have their fishing fleet under their rules within the European Union, or without—but probably within because there is money involved. The same will apply if the ever-eager Welsh follow suit. It is only right for us to consider that it looks likely that whatever may be agreed today will be thrown overboard by what were initially parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, if there is one thing I can welcome in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, it is the indication that the Official Opposition will not be insisting on this amendment. I do not wish to raise the temperature any further at this stage. I do not wish to pursue the question of ministerial appearance here. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, expressed the views of many in this House more eloquently than I can.
Incidentally, I am gratified to note the change of policy on the Liberal Democrat Benches. It was a Liberal Foreign Secretary, Lord Grey, who prided himself on going abroad and we ended up with the First World War. It is possible to be a Foreign Office Minister and fulfil your obligations to this House and your diplomatic obligations also. My noble friend Lady Symons certainly does that.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to savaging the past government's record. I have tried to do that on previous occasions but have not really done so today. My noble friends Lord Shore, Lord Bruce and Lord Stoddart have done it for me. As noble Lords know, we have not always seen eye to eye during the passage of this Bill, but on that issue we do.
I shall dwell briefly on the last passage of the previous government's performance in this area. The noble Lord said that there was an agreement to be gained in Amsterdam that was somehow better than that we managed to achieve. The real history is that the previous government submitted a memorandum to the Amsterdam process in July 1996. The following May, after we took over government, the Foreign Ministers of most major countries in Europe had not heard of it. Could it possibly be the case that the previous Foreign Secretary felt too diffident to approach his colleagues in the other chancelleries of Europe and tell them what a central part of the negotiating policy of the British Government this was? I really cannot believe that of Malcolm Rifkind. It is surely more likely that he realised that the domestic insistence that we should hold up the Treaty of Amsterdam if we did not achieve a legally binding deal at Amsterdam on the basis of a change in the treaty—which is what the last government
1176
claimed—was a piece of domestic politicking and therefore, obviously, of no concern to the Foreign Office.
I fear that that is what much of this debate has been about. But, as noble Lords have indicated, there is a serious situation behind it. To be fair to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate, I am sure we all recognise that the British fishing industry has suffered seriously since the advent of the common fisheries policy. We are all committed to trying to reverse that downward trend. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney that there is no way of doing that other than by seeking to block the treaty. It is wrong to dismiss the 50 per cent. linkages but I accept also that other steps need to be taken to improve the situation of the fisheries industry.
It would be extremely beneficial to the fishing communities of all parts of this kingdom to move on from debate on the Amsterdam Treaty to pursuing the discussions between my right honourable friend Jack Cunningham and the Commission in order to reach a positive conclusion for the fishing industry in an entirely different context. I believe that the exchange at Amsterdam gave us the basis for that and what we have done to pursue that has given us an even better basis.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I may even elicit support from noble Lords on the Front Bench of the Liberal Democrats on this point. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is a great admirer of my noble friend Lady Trumpington. It is fair to place on record—and she would be the first to do it if she were here—that back in June 1996 she began intensive work with regard to notification of the IGC, the Commission and member states on the tabling of proposals to deal with the problem of quota hopping. It was high on her agenda. It is historically rather inaccurate to say that the previous government and in particular my noble friend Lady Trumpington were not active on this point well before the IGC.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I mean absolutely no disparagement of the commitment of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. I am not in the habit of disparaging the noble Lord's colleagues. I was pointing out that the person who conducted the negotiations for Britain and who was therefore focused on the key points of our negotiating portfolio was not pushing this point with our allies. That is not to say that the Ministry of Agriculture at that time was not taking the matter seriously. But the treaty negotiators and those preparing for the Amsterdam conference, had the last administration been re-elected, did not take it seriously because it was not the way forward any more than boycotting and vetoing matters in the so-called beef war was the way forward. That set us back for months. It is a situation which my right honourable friend Jack Cunningham is only now beginning to rectify. The insistence on threatening the rest of Europe does not help our fisheries industry any more than it helped our beef industry.
I hope that in this House, from now on, we can move on to more constructive support of the fisheries industry. My noble friend Lord Bruce made some good points but

1177
I do not agree with his view that it is miserable cowardice for us to want to be at the heart of Europe. We should be there and we should use our negotiating strength to full effect on behalf of the fisheries industry and other British interests. The Amsterdam Treaty provides us with an opportunity to do that. We should now move on, and I ask the House not to insist on their amendment with which the Commons disagreed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Economic and Fiscal Strategy
5.5 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report. The Statement is as follows:
"The comprehensive spending review has been the most comprehensive and in-depth examination of government spending and priorities for many years. Its results will be announced in two stages. Today I will announce an entirely new regime to apply to public spending control, a fundamental reform of the rules that govern our public finances. Later next month I will set out the results of a wholesale revision of our spending priorities and the purposes of government support in each department. The central challenge is to combine prudence and stability in public finance with investment and reform in public services.
"There are four key elements to our reforms. First, the new regime must be consistently prudent and responsible. Strong public services cannot be sustained on weak public finances. The spending plans we set must ensure sustainable finances over the whole economic cycle, rigorous financial discipline that, together with monetary stability, ends once and for all the boom and bust that for 30 years has undermined stability, hindered long-term investment in our public services and prevented the country achieving its potential. That is why we will enforce two fiscal rules—the golden rule, that over the cycle current spending is covered by revenues, and the sustainable investment rule, that there must be a prudent debt to GDP ratio.
"Secondly, in each department we are assessing radically what government do, and how and where they spend their money. The comprehensive spending review results, when published, will not only show changes in priorities within and between departments but must redefine the role of government so that it is enabling and empowering, not centralising and controlling. Where government should be acting, we will do more; where government is unnecessary or restrictive, we should not act at all. And the results of the spending review will mean reform and modernisation.
"Thirdly, in respect of publicly-owned assets the essential test should be how to best meet the public interest and we will therefore propose a radical
1178
change in government policy towards investment and the assets government hold. Finally, where governments spend on public services they should link spending explicitly to modernisation and reform for each government department. Where there is extra money it will be tied to specific outputs. It will be investment for reform.
"So first the new framework for the future. For 30 years British public spending has been characterised by: an annual spending round rather than long-term planning; a year-to-year bidding culture, with all the problems of hurried end-of-year corrections, instead of strategic planning of resources; incremental bids not tied to outcomes, rather than spending to achieve defined results; too much attention to current spending and muddling through, too little attention to long-term investment and reform; too much focus on the public sector acting in isolation from the private sector and not enough long-term partnership with it.
"So to break decisively with this old-fashioned and short-termist culture, first, we will abolish the annual spending round. We will now set departments firm plans and fixed budgets for three years at a time. Secondly, to ensure our fiscal rules are met and to make possible long-term investment in our infrastructure, there will now be a separate current budget and a separate capital budget for each department. Thirdly, in place of incremental budgeting we will lay down new targets for efficiency and performance for every department. Fourthly, instead of the old sterile conflict between public and private sectors, we will promote new public/private partnerships. Fifthly, for the first time this Government are legislating for a code for fiscal stability which requires more open and comprehensive reporting of the public accounts. The key assumptions have been and will continue to be examined by the independent National Audit Office.
"The Chief Secretary and I are today publishing detailed figures both for the current balance and capital spending. We will set out not only the public sector's net cash requirement, the PSBR, but also the internationally accepted accruals measure of public sector net borrowing, which will provide a better guide to the underlying state of the public finances. Copies of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report will be available in the Vote Office.
"And all these changes—the end of the annual spending round, a long overdue distinction between investment and current spending, a new emphasis on outputs, more effective partnership between the public and private sectors and proper public scrutiny of how we are meeting our fiscal rules—make clear the importance the Government attach to reform and modernisation as the foundation for both sound finance and good public services.
"I turn now to the public finance plans that follow from our fiscal rules. The Government inherited a national debt which doubled in the early 1990s. And in the last economic cycle, debt as a proportion of GDP rose by 18 percentage points—and is now

1179
around £15,000 for every family in the country. As a result we are paying more in interest payments than we spend on schools or on housing and law and order put together.
"In addition, we inherited a level of annual public borrowing that was unacceptably high: in the final year of the last government, a public sector net cash requirement of £23 billion and public sector net borrowing of £27 billion.
"In the first year of the Labour Government, with the tough decisions we took in our first Budget, public sector net borrowing fell last year from £27 billion to £6 billion. We kept within the spending ceilings that we inherited in addition to a £400 million increase in the Budget for pensioners, £2 billion more on the NHS and £2.5 billion more on education.
"Those who said that we would fail to meet our targets and would fail to show the discipline necessary have been proved wrong. Indeed, over the first two years of our Government, through setting tough departmental limits, spending is within budget. But Britain must have sustainable public finances, not just for the odd year or two, but throughout the economic cycle. And British public spending, which has for decades been denied a long period of consistency and stability must now be subject not only to a framework for the future but also to clearly defined limits.
"As a result of the plans that I am announcing today, we will lock in the fiscal tightening that I announced in the March Budget not just for this financial year but for the next financial year as well. Over the three years from the time we came into Government—that is to say, 1999–2000—the fiscal tightening amounts to 2.75 per cent. of GDP measured by the public sector net cash requirement. It is 3.5 per cent. of GDP measured by public sector net borrowing, that is over £25 billion since 1996–97. This is the fiscal tightening from 1996–97 to 1999–2000 that we promised in the Budget.
"To meet our first rule, the golden rule, the Government will plan for a balance on the current budget over the economic cycle as a whole. For 35 years, current spending has grown by an average of nearly 3 per cent. a year in real terms. But within this average, annual changes have ranged from plus 11 per cent. to minus 3 per cent. From 1989–90 to 1993–94 a surplus on the current budget of over £10 billion was transformed into a deficit on the current budget of £38 billion. So in the same way that our economy has suffered from the instability of boom and bust, public spending has suffered the instability of stop and go. The uncertainties caused by this short-termist approach have frustrated the long-term planning of decent public services. Let us be clear who suffered first and worst: the vulnerable who depended most on public services. So imprudence in public spending is of no help to those who rely on public services being there when they need them.
"In the last economic cycle Britain ran an average deficit on the current budget of 1.5 per cent. of GDP, or the equivalent of an annual deficit of £12 billion
1180
pounds. By contrast the figures that we publish today will ensure that, over the full economic cycle, Britain will have a current budget balance—current expenditure will be covered by revenues over the cycle, something that other governments have promised but did not achieve.
"So that we can deliver sustainable public finances and thus sustainable public services over the whole cycle, the plans for current spending that I am announcing today deliberately take a more cautious approach than in the past to meeting the fiscal rules. That is why we need to plan for a surplus on the current budget over the next three years.
"The plans that we publish today are for a surplus on the current budget next year of £7 billion, in 2000–2001 £10 billion, and in 2001–2002 £13 billion. Within this new framework I can confirm that current spending will grow in line with our cautious estimate of the trend rate of growth of the economy, that is 2.25 per cent. in real terms a year over the next three years. Current spending is now planned to be 39.25 per cent. of GDP every year for the rest of the Parliament.
"It is because we are showing prudence in public finance, and because we are prepared to modernise in choosing our priorities, that we will be able to invest in long-term improvements in our key public services, education and health, and also fulfil our commitments to those, like the elderly, who depend upon public services.
"But as everyone knows the public will be better served if we also ensure the best value for money and the most efficient possible use of resources. Inefficiency in the public sector is a cost that could be afforded by a government who had a vested interest in proving the public sector could not work and believed in a philosophy of private good, public bad. But inefficiency will not be tolerated by a government who will modernise the public sector so that this country is better equipped for the future. That is why in our spending review there will be no place for new spending unless there is reform through clear targets, standards and rigour in the use of money.
"I can confirm, first, that as a result of our review each department will be set efficiency targets. Secondly, each department will be set new quality standards. I can confirm that as part of best value, we will introduce an inspectorate for housing that will help improve the management of council housing, set new standards for performance and guarantee high quality of investment. Thirdly, before allocations are made from the comprehensive spending review, departments will have to demonstrate how they propose to root out unjustified subsidies.
"So not only will we set fixed budgets for three years, but we are building in new disciplines to ensure that investment is conditional on reform. Just as new disciplines will apply to current spending, so they will also be applied to capital investment.
"Our second fiscal rule is to ensure a prudent and stable ratio of debt to national income. This is the sustainable investment rule, which is essential if we

1181
are to contain interest payments on the public debt. If this Government simply left the debt/GDP ratio at the level we inherited from the last government, we would be paying interest payments of £25 billion more over the Parliament, at a cost to public services.
"In the interests of greater stability, I propose to bear down on the debt/GDP ratio. Indeed, the plans that we are publishing this afternoon show the debt ratio falling from 45 per cent. when we came into government to 40.5 per cent. next year and in the following years down again to 39.5 per cent. and 38.25 per cent. The comparable figure in the European Union as a whole is 78 per cent. Britain will now plan on the basis that our debt/GDP ratio will be 40 per cent. or lower.
"For the first time for decades we are set over the cycle to have both a current budget in balance and a prudent debt/GDP ratio. As a result of our two fiscal rules public sector net borrowing, which was over 3 per cent. of GDP in the last cycle (1995–96 to 1996–97), will average 0.2 per cent. for the Parliament, 0.2 per cent. next year, 0 per cent. for the following two years and 0.1 per cent. the year after that. And we will meet the fiscal criteria laid down in the Maastricht Treaty.
"It is only because we have this tough framework, based on strict control of current spending, a prudent debt/GDP ratio and a fiscal tightening that it is possible to take the action necessary to reverse the chronic under-investment in our country's health, education and transport and housing infrastructure, and to re-equip Britain as a modern nation.
"Total investment, public and private, in Britain has in recent years fallen as a share of national income and is far behind our competitors, and far behind the rates that we achieved in the 30 years after the war. But if Britain is to renew its infrastructure, we must be prepared to break with old dogmas. We will not succeed simply by throwing money at problems or by privatising the responsibility for them. We must, therefore, be prepared to look at new ways of managing our assets and, if necessary, be prepared to redeploy them so that they serve the future, not reflect the past.
"The British Government have property, land and other assets worth hundreds of billions of pounds. But, as we discovered in the first register of national assets, Britain has an accumulation of unused or underused properties and holdings. We can no longer afford a surplus of holdings when we have a deficit in investment and there is no benefit to us in hoarding assets that do nothing to equip us for the future when we need to build a modern 21st century infrastructure. There is no public interest served by continuing to hold surplus land and building that are not needed.
"The fiscal projections set a new target for central government to realise for investment around £1 billion a year for each of the coming three years from the sale of surplus holdings that we no longer need. In the next financial year we will go ahead with
1182
the sale of all remaining debt held in British energy. So we will realise the value of what we do not need to invest in what we do need.
"The Deputy Prime Minister and I will propose a new long-term framework for investment by local authorities to release resources for new investment; and to co-ordinate the use of existing assets. Local authorities are now expected to realise at least £2.75 billion a year from property sales—again a sale of what we do not need to pay for investment in what we do need. To maximise investment in the renewal of our infrastructure, public and private sectors must work together in a more modern and effective partnership.
"In the past the private finance initiative was a means of substituting private investment for public investment and thus an excuse for abdicating responsibility for public investment. So there was no net gain to investment in our country. But as we have shown with our new deal for schools, public-private partnerships work best when public investment succeeds in levering, in addition, finance from the private sector. As the Deputy Prime Minister has shown in the planned multi-billion investment in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and London Underground, private investment can be mobilised to serve the public interest.
"So this Government will apply a public interest test—what is the best means, whether through private or public investment, of securing the highest levels of investment in Britain's future and so ensuring the best public services; not demanding private ownership as a matter of dogma when it does not serve the public interest, nor maintaining state ownership when private and public partnership is the best way of advancing the public interest.
"It is obvious to the Deputy Prime Minister and me that the levels of investment and efficiency that we need in our National Air Traffic Services can be best achieved through a partnership between the public and private sector which will give the National Air Traffic Services the flexibility to plan and finance forward investment more effectively. Safety is paramount. The Government's proposals will ensure that air safety regulation is conducted independently from the National Air Traffic Services and is open and transparent. The regulator's remit will be to enforce the toughest safety standards in the world.
"My right honourable friend the Minister for Transport is making a separate announcement today on the future of air traffic control services. Our preference is that 49 per cent. of the shares, and a golden share, are held by the Government, and 51 per cent. by private investors including employees. We will consult on the details of the implementation of the proposals. This realisation of assets will enable us to invest more in our transport infrastructure, as will our proposals for greater commercial freedom for financially sound regional airports such as Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds-Bradford and Norwich.

1183
"The same partnership approach is appropriate for the Commonwealth Development Corporation which needs new finance for higher investment in developing countries, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development will bring forward proposals to sell a majority shareholding.
"We will also consider how to extend the existing public-private partnership in the Tote into a broader partnership with the private sector. I can also announce that we are agreed in principle that a new public-private partnership is the best way for the Royal Mint to take advantage of new commercial opportunities.
"These are four examples of new partnerships now being evolved that show we can make the long-term investment we need while protecting the public interest. But public investment in reform and modernisation is also a means by which the Government can help renew our country's infrastructure. Under the previous government public investment fell below 1 per cent. of national income and we now invest less than all our major European partners. This Government recognise that we must invest properly in our economic and social infrastructure; in our schools and our hospitals; our transport infrastructure; our science and technology base; and in building better housing and safer and stronger communities.
"To meet these challenges of the future we are therefore setting up a new programme, investing in Britain's future. So over this Parliament we will double the level of net public investment as a share of GDP by raising it from 0.75 per cent. up to 1.5 per cent. Through realising unused and underused assets we will plan to invest £29 billion a year by the end of the Parliament. In place of two decades of run-down in investment, Britain is investing in its own future. Our long-term aim will be to maintain the share of investment in national income, at this sustainable and prudent level. For years we have been told that prudence in public finances could only be achieved at the cost of running down public investment and neglecting public services, years that ended with neither good public services nor prudence.
"The framework I am announcing today means that with sensible and tough decisions about priorities in every department in our comprehensive spending review, which will report next month, this country will now be able to ensure that the necessary resources are available for health, education and essential public services. Because of our toughness to modernise and our discipline in reform, our prudence today provides the solid foundation to invest in better schools, hospitals and public services today and tomorrow. In place of short termism and the neglect of public services, we have a new long-term direction for the renewal of our public services and our country. Prudence and investment in reform are the way forward to create a Britain that is modern, strong and fair. I commend this Statement to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for repeating the Statement, and in particular for his courtesy in letting me have a copy of the Statement well before half-past three which has given me a chance to read it. I congratulate the noble Lord on coming to the House. That is in contrast to his noble friend in the Foreign Office who does not appear to be prepared to come to the House.
I am a little sorry for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in having to repeat such a long Statement. Perhaps I should apologise on behalf of my fellow Scotsman, the Chancellor, who seems always to use 10 words when one would do. Perhaps if he had not gone to France yesterday to watch a certain football match, he might have had time to slim down the Statement and not give the noble Lord such a long read.
The first part of the Statement tells us how we have conducted public affairs in the Treasury and in government departments over the past 30 years. As the past 30 years includes the tenancy of the Treasury of some noble Lords opposite—for example, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett—we are all obviously reprimanded for the way in which we dealt with spending rounds in the past. For many years—certainly during the time I have been involved with these matters—there has been a three-year rolling programme. That has been reviewed each year. It seems sensible to consider new priorities and new demands; to work out what needs to be done as regards the economy; and to plan for the following year so that the programme rolls forward one year at a time. As I said, there has been a three-year rolling programme. When I read and hear the Statement I wonder what differences are proposed. If there is to be a system of three-year blocks—it could be read like that—does that mean that the next time the Government consider the whole question of spending will be in 2001 when they will plan another three-year block? I cannot believe that that is what they intend, but perhaps it is.
That certainly contrasts with the Monetary Policy Committee which meets every month to make sure it "fine tunes" monetary policy. It appears that the Government's spending plans do not need "fine tuning" at all. That is an interesting thought. I was interested in the idea that somehow in the past no distinction has ever been made between investment and current spending. That is another fiction rather like the description of the way governments of all parties have dealt with normal annual spending rounds. It will not be long before we see annual spending rounds reintroduced, although the Government will obviously have to find some other words to define them.
I was interested to hear of the Government's plans to pay off some of the national debt. My recollection is that when we paid off some of the national debt in the mid to late 1980s we were roundly criticised by the Labour Party for doing so. I welcome this conversion, along with the many others. There is a nice paragraph about the tough decisions the Government have taken in

1185
their first Budget. That is rapidly followed by the sentence,
"We kept within the spending ceilings that we inherited".
However, we took the tough decisions when we were in government and the party opposite simply carried on with them. It has only managed to carry on with them by fiddling some of the figures. That is the fact of the matter.
As regards spending plans and other such matters, the only reason that the noble Lord can come to this House and throw a few nuggets to his noble friends—and the Chancellor can throw a few nuggets to his honourable friends on his Back Benches—is because of the golden economic legacy that the party opposite inherited. That legacy was well underlined at the time by the noble Lord, Lord Healey. If I remember his words correctly, he said that no government had had such a good economic inheritance as the current one. They have us to thank for much of that.
I then turn to what the Government are going to do, and the quality standards that departments are to be set. I note one of them:
"we will introduce an inspectorate for housing that will help improve the management of council housing".
Most council housing in this country is run by Labour local authorities. That has been the case for years, and I welcome the admission that it is not very well run. I suppose the Government had no option. Up and down the country, the way in which Labour authorities have run their housing estate is being exposed. Nowhere is that more evident than in Scotland, where, one after another, Labour local authorities are having to own up to direct labour organisations which are a disgrace. I hope the inspector will be paid more than the plumbers who work for North Lanarkshire's DLO department, who receive £54,000 a year. Will the noble Lord assure me that the inspectorate will be better paid than the plumbers who work for that council? I welcome the proposal. However, it is rather late. The Secretary of State has had to send in a team of investigators to try to sort all these matters out. This is the Labour Party trying to sort out their own local government problems.
I could not help but notice an interesting sentence:
"And we will meet the fiscal criteria laid down in the Maastricht Treaty".
Why does that statement have to be there? The noble Lord knows that we on this side agree with the fiscal criteria that were laid down. We have always made that perfectly clear. It was sensible economics. Why does the Chancellor have to say it? Is he merely attempting once again to jump his neighbour, the Prime Minister, into joining the single currency? I wonder whether the Prime Minister, who seems to lack the Chancellor's convictions about the single currency, approved of this sentence and its meaning.
We then turn to the most amazing part of the Statement. I welcome it—I welcome the conversion of the Labour Party absolutely and wholeheartedly. However, that does not prevent me from being amazed. Perhaps I may read to your Lordships, slowly, what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. He said:
1186
"There is no public interest served by continuing to hold surplus land and buildings that are not needed … £1 billion a year … from the sale of surplus holdings".
Do I hear something of an echo of the sale of the family silver coming from the Benches opposite? Do they regret, and will the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, apologise for, the number of times from the Dispatch Box he poured derision on what we were doing, when it was exactly what he is now saying his party is going to do?
On the sale of British Energy, will the noble Lord tell the House how much he expects to raise from this interesting sale? Of course, it is marvellous, when I think of all the privatisations that had to be driven through this House and the other place in the teeth of the party opposite. I welcome this proposal. It is the Road to Damascus in spades.
Local authorities are also expected to sell property and to raise considerable amounts of money—much more than central government: £2¾ billion a year. In the other place I sat on the committee which put into place the legislation for the sale of council houses. The party opposite did not want to sell anything in those days. This is an amazing conversion. I say to noble Lords opposite: welcome to the real world.
But what are local authorities going to sell? Will it be their playing fields? That would be interesting. Some noble Lords used to get very worked up when they thought that my party was agreeing to too many sales of playing fields.
Then we come to the private finance initiative. Now it is a great thing. That is another great change. Again, welcome to the real world! It amazes me that one such initiative—I take an example in Scotland which is self-contained; namely, the private finance initiative that built the bridge over the sea to Skye—was attacked day after day and week after week by Members of the party opposite. It was campaigned against by them. The campaign was largely led by a Member who is now in the Scottish Office team. How they disapproved of using—I must not call it privatisation—a public/private partnership. What is better than that partnership? The bridge has been built; people are using it; and in 20 or 25 years' time it will revert to the Government and be free. That seems to me a good public/private partnership. Yet the party opposite attacked it. Amazing!
Then we come to national air traffic control. At the last election this was a very big issue in Scotland. Perhaps I may quote Mr. Gallie, the defeated Conservative Member of Parliament for Ayr, on the subject of NATS. My quote is taken from yesterday's Herald. He said:
"I made it clear I did not oppose privatisation, but when I gauged the feelings of my constituents who worked in the Scottish Air Traffic Control Centre at Prestwick it was clear they did not support these views. I respected their views and persuaded the Government to shelve any privatisation plans until after the General Election. I wonder after today's news from within the Cabinet"—
that was when it was just a rumour, an attempt on the part of spin doctors—
"whether the current crop of Ayrshire MPs will show the same loyalty to their constituents".

1187
The press did not leave it at that. They went to Sandra Osborne, who is the Member of Parliament for Ayr. She said:
"I campaigned against privatisation of air traffic control and was unhappy when it appeared to remain on the agenda, however vaguely, after the election. I remain unconvinced".
Cunninghame South MP, Brian Donohoe, said:
"I firmly believe to put air traffic control into the hands of private industry would be a major step backwards in terms of safety and efficiency. This has come as a shock and I will be spending the next few days finding out the strength of feeling within Government for such a move. In the meantime I remain opposed to the principle".
An awful lot of humble pie is going to be eaten—certainly in Scottish politics—over this one, because it was made a major issue. Frankly, the Labour Party have now done a total about turn on the issue. I welcome the about turn, but I am appalled at the brazen way in which they have done this. I hope that some of those people will have the courage of the convictions they had last year in April and May when they were touting for votes around Scotland. On a general point, have the Government managed to square the difficulties of the Royal Air Force when it comes to the privatisation of NATS?
As to the other three—the Commonwealth Development corporation, the tote and the Royal Mint—my recollection is that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, is very keen on the Royal Mint. I am well inside what the noble Lord had to read out. There can be one verbose Scotsman, and there can be another verbose Scotsman. I wonder whether he is happy about the privatisation of the Royal Mint.
We then turn to what the Government intend to spend the money on. For a year they have frozen all spending on roads and new road projects. Some very important schemes have been frozen. We should therefore welcome the fact that they are unfreezing them.
What we see here is a tax-and-spend government, just as we said they would be. They have taxed companies and pension funds in this country. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will expect me to remind noble Lords of the £5 billion a year in tax on pension funds. The tax equivalent is 5p in the basic rate. Now we are seeing the spending. So much for the Iron Chancellor!
In the Budget, Gordon Brown set out three possible scenarios for public spending. Today, he has announced that he is to follow the least disciplined option, with spending set to grow by 2¼ per cent. in real terms.
Labour promised so much. They promised to keep taxes low, to control inflation and to bear down on public spending. They have raised taxes 17 times. They have missed their inflation target 11 times out of 12. Interest rates have gone up and up, and with them mortgage rates for young people trying to buy their own homes. Today, they have even admitted that they cannot keep a tight control on spending. It is no wonder that the Chancellor tried to bury it all in a mountain of words.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to respond to the Statement repeated by the Minister, because I know how much pleasure it gave him to
1188
deliver it. Indeed, in certain respects we welcome it. I should also welcome an assurance from him that, given the very broad nature of the Statement, we might have a rather longer opportunity to debate it than the limited time that is available this afternoon. There is a slight sense that the timing of the Statement was determined principally by the need of the Chancellor to make a Statement before he makes a speech, which he will do this evening, rather than for any other reason of timing. I should therefore welcome that assurance from the Minister.
In terms of the aspects of the Statement which we welcome, we believe that the introduction of a more transparent system of Government accounting and the concentration on outputs rather than simply cash is a welcome change. Anyone who attempts to make sense of the way in which the Government spend their money using current conventions finds it an extremely difficult task. I believe that the changes proposed in the Statement will help in that regard and also help to ensure that the Government can operate under the discipline that the noble Lord and the Chancellor wish it to operate under in the future.
Secondly, naturally, anyone will welcome the principle of planning for the longer term rather than planning simply year on year ahead, although, given the nature and scale of events, in the political process one cannot believe that it will be possible to continue for the whole of this Parliament without having some significant review of at least some aspects of these plans.
Thirdly, we welcome the Government's commitment to increasing levels of public investment. I am particularly pleased to see that housing is back on the list of desirable areas of public expenditure. "Housing" is a word that has for many years been lacking in government Statements when public investment has been mentioned. I should welcome anything further that the Minister could say about how increased expenditure on housing might be delivered in the future under these plans.
We find less acceptable the way in which the Government increasingly appear to consider a low level of current expenditure to be a virility symbol which they must worship. This seems to us to have echoes of some of the rhetoric of the early years of the previous administration, and we find it more than slightly disturbing, coming from this Government. We notice, for example, that levels of current expenditure of some of our key competitors are significantly greater than in this country—in Germany, for example, they are some 5 per cent. or more greater—without this having any deleterious effect on the efficiency of growth rate with which the economy is managed. I should welcome anything further that the Minister is able to say about the general proposition that a low and increasingly tight level of current expenditure is a good thing in itself. We find that a difficult contention to accept.
We are relieved to see that the freeze on current expenditure will be lifted from the next financial year. However, does the Minister agree that, given the freeze that we have seen in the previous and current financial

1189
years, and the announcement made today for future years during this Parliament, over the course of the Parliament as a whole the Government will preside over a lower level of expenditure growth than was the case over the entire period of Tory Government? If that is right, as I believe it to be, how does the Minister believe that will deliver the better public services on which the Government have placed so much store?
When the lottery was first introduced, there was tremendous enthusiasm because it was able to put capital into a range of tremendous projects which otherwise could not have been undertaken. However, with the passage of time, we have found that a significant number of projects have fallen by the wayside because there has not been adequate current expenditure to back them up and keep them going. In the policy that the Government have set out this afternoon, we see a danger that very little will be done to deal with under-funding of current expenditure and that ongoing current expenditure will not be provided for to enable the new facilities planned on the capital front to be fully utilised over the longer term.
Good schools and hospitals rely as much on first-class teachers and nurses as they do on first-class buildings. In general, while we welcome the new framework which the Government plan to introduce, we fear that the Chancellor has not delivered the cash injection necessary to create the first-class education and health services for which people thought they were voting a year ago.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to both noble Lords for their utterly different responses. The difference is that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, understood the Statement and the noble Lord. Lord Mackay, understood nothing of it. I have to apologise for the length of the Statement. I got it through in 21 minutes, whereas I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took 25 minutes, so perhaps there is something in Londoners reading as opposed Scots reading which leads to some benefit to your Lordships' House.
As to the Chancellor's absence in France yesterday, I suspect that the noble Lord is just jealous. In fact, as he well knows, the Chancellor was there for business meetings with Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who just happened to invite him to the Scotland v. Brazil match at the same time. It sounds to me like an excellent use of valuable time resources, although personally I would not have given a thank-you for such an invitation—but that is my problem, not the Chancellor's.
I said that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, understood nothing of the Statement. He is in good company. Mr Francis Maude, in another place, understood nothing of the Statement either. Both of them thought that it was fundamentally a statement about expenditure over the next two or three years—and, of course, that was an important element in the Statement—but neither of them seemed to understand the fundamental nature of the changes from cash accounting to resource accounting
1190
which lie behind the Statement and make it possible for the Government, over the rest of this Parliament, to make a sensible distinction between current expenditure and capital expenditure of the kind that all businesses have made since double-entry book-keeping was first invented several hundred years ago. This is the real impact of what the Chancellor announced today, and it is tragic that the Opposition do not show any understanding of it whatsoever.
There are individual aspects of which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has a legitimate opportunity to make fun. Let me try to deal with the particular secondary points that he raised. First, he asked about three-year blocks of expenditure and whether decisions will be taken only every three years. The important point here is that those who are responsible in spending departments should have the ability to look more than one year ahead. That is what a rolling three-year programme means. The next review of expenditure programmes will take place in the year 2000. The inestimably beneficial effect of all this will be that there will never be a period in which spending departments have less than two years in which to look ahead.
The noble Lord talked as though there was nothing new in the distinction between cash and resource accounting. This is the first Government to split the current and capital accounts and the first Government under which it has been possible to make the distinction with regard to what we call "investing in Britain", which is our capital expenditure targets over the next three years. If that happened under any previous government, I should like to hear about it.
That leads me to what the noble Lord said about the various public-private partnership proposals which the Chancellor announced and the disposal of surplus land and properties. As the noble Lord well knows, in the 18 years of the Conservative Government, privatisation produced something in the order of £65 billion. I am probably out of date and underestimating that figure. Where did that money go? It went straight into the current account. In other words, it went to reduce taxes for the less well off and to enable the Government to renege on their responsibilities for investment in our country's future.
The whole point about the disposals we are discussing, whether they are disposals of land and property from central Government or of assets from local government, is that they will not be allowed to go into the current account. They will be hypothecated into investment accounts. That is a profound difference and one which shows the complete contrast between what we are doing and the privatisation programme of the last government. If I am then teased about air traffic control and British Energy, I accept that teasing with equanimity. I know that what is being done is the right thing in order to encourage investment.
Did the noble Lord even recognise what was said in the Statement? We are proposing to double the rate of public investment from less than 0.75 per cent. up to 1.5 per cent. over the period of this Government. Did he recognise the profound significance of that for the infrastructure of our country? He said not a word in recognition.

1191
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, looked for an opportunity to debate this matter and that message will go to the usual channels. He may find it better for us to have a debate on both parts of the package—both the Statement that is being made today and the comprehensive spending review which will be announced in July. I can say no more than that I would love to take part in such a debate and engage with the Official Opposition to see whether they understand the next part of the package.
The noble Lord accused us of treating a low level of current expenditure as a virility symbol. A low level of current expenditure is not a good thing in itself; nor is the opposite—tax and spend—as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay seemed to believe. The important point is that of course much current public expenditure is investment in the sense that investment in training and education or investment in proper pay to recruit teachers is investment. But under any acceptable statistical definition—we rely on the independent Office of National Statistics to do this for us—we have to include those elements as being current expenditure. That is why a significant increase in current expenditure was proposed in what we said this afternoon. Of the three options put forward at the time of the Budget, the option of 2.25 per cent. increase in real terms in each of the next three years is a significant increase in current expenditure in addition to the investment expenditure plans which we announced this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, is quite right. I take great pleasure in presenting this Statement to the House.
5.52 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords—
Lord Barnett: My Lords, the noble Baroness looks so well that I will give way to her later. Is my noble friend aware that I agree with much that is contained in the Statement, particularly in relation to Maastricht? I do not even want to make fun of it. I do not object to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, having fun; he will be there a long time and I understand that only too well. He enjoys himself and is welcome to it.
I welcome much in the Statement. However, I know that my noble friend is aware that the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee are obliged only to consider the Government's economic policy after bringing down the rate of inflation to 2.25 per cent. That is the priority. In those circumstances—I mention this as a possibility—what if those eight economists got the rate of inflation wrong?
I know that economists occasionally get things wrong; they could certainly have got it wrong in suggesting an increase in interest rates, with its impact in two years' time. However, given that, what are the Government's priorities, let alone the priorities of the Monetary Policy Committee? Is the policy to bring down inflation? Is it to bring down the borrowing requirement? Or is it to obtain the levels of growth that
1192
the Government require in order to meet the public expenditure figures that are included in the Statement? Which of those are the Government's criteria?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend knows the answer to his question because we spent many happy hours debating it earlier this year during the passage of the Bank of England Bill.
The answer is that the primary target set for the Monetary Policy Committee is to adhere to a rate of inflation set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, subject to that, to promote the highest possible levels of growth and employment. The Monetary Policy Committee has adhered exactly to that remit. That means, in terms of what has been announced this afternoon, that in anticipating a real rate of growth in current public expenditure of 2.25 per cent. a year for the rest of this Parliament we are planning that public expenditure should benefit, as it can from the revenues available, from the growth which we expect in the economy. That means that public expenditure, both capital and current, will make its contribution to the regeneration of this country, the creation of jobs and assistance to growth which is the fundamental objective of all economic monetary and fiscal policy.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, at last! The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, briefly mentioned the Tote in the Statement. Will he elaborate a little more on what he said? Is the object of the exercise to help racing? It is in a difficult position. Or is it simply to add to the list of bookmakers who do not put enough into racing and the Tote? To eliminate the bookmakers and give all that money to the Tote would be much better.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must confess that our plans on the Tote are not well advanced. As the noble Baroness knows, the Tote is already in a public-private financial partnership with Ladbrokes. However, the discussions that have taken place with the chairman of the Tote elicited the response that he believes that further public-private partnerships would be valuable and could increase the efficiency of the operation of the Tote and produce benefits for the public purse. We do not yet know how that will operate and I certainly do not understand how it relates to the private side of the betting industry.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, will the Minister expand on one specific aspect of the Statement which we on these Benches, as indicated by my noble friend Lord Newby, very much welcome? I refer to the long-overdue distinction between revenue and capital spending which, in my view, is the most significant aspect of the Statement today.
In the Statement which the Minister repeated, the following sentence appears:
"Total investment, public and private, in Britain has in recent years fallen, … and is far behind our competitors".
Those of us who have been arguing for the distinction to be made between capital and revenue spending by government would argue that one of the reasons that public sector capital spending has been so low is

1193
because capital spending has been aggregated with revenue spending and there has therefore been a significant reduction in public infrastructure spending, which it is to be hoped we will now see some movement to reform.
Perhaps I can probe a little on the impact of that decision on public-private partnerships and the private finance initiative. One of the reasons why the previous government, and indeed this Government, wished to try and encourage public-private partnerships and the private finance initiative is the absence of distinction between capital and revenue spending. There was significant pressure on the Government's resources and capital spending suffered.
If we now have the situation enshrined in the Statement in which we are to distinguish between capital and revenue spending; and if—as indicated on page 43 of the larger book—the public sector net borrowing requirements from 1998–99 onwards for the next five years will be negligible; will not the Government have to consider using the fact that they will be the keenest borrower and will be able to obtain the keenest rates in financial markets for capital spending? If they wish to encourage public-private partnerships, it is silly for the private sector to go into the markets and borrow at rates higher than the rates at which the Government can borrow. Will not the Government take into account the fact that, in those public-private partnerships and PFI initiatives, they ought to be in there as the borrower, if necessary, in respect of lending to the private sector vehicle? The overall cost of borrowing and the overall cost of the investment will then be lower.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those very thoughtful comments. I tend to over-simplify these matters. The Treasury hate it when I say that its traditional way of looking at these things is that £1 of capital and £1 of revenue equals £2 for cash accounting purposes. That is the truth of the matter and what we are getting away from. That is the value of the whole exercise.
Everything that we are doing in this regard must be constrained by the two basic framework statements that we have made. First, there is the golden rule and, secondly, the stable debt ratio. Having said that, what we shall get from resource accounting and budgeting is a clear structural distinction between current and capital expenditure so that they are no longer treated as though they were equivalent economic categories.
What we shall get in terms of value for money is twofold. First, we shall be focusing on capital as it is consumed rather than as it is financed. That puts the long-term investment implications of public capital on a more transparent footing similar to that in PFI at the moment. Secondly, there will be greater emphasis on the objectives to which departments devote taxpayers' money; namely, the outputs and, over a longer
1194
timescale, the outcomes produced and the trade-offs made. The noble Lord went further than that, but I have forgotten the final point that he made.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, it is the fact that the Government can borrow at the cheapest and keenest rates and that that should be put to use in the initiatives.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are a number of ways in which that can be achieved. Rather than bore the House with a long exposition, perhaps I may refer the noble Lord to the Deputy Prime Minister's Statement about the Channel Tunnel rail link. Under those proposals bonds will be raised which will be guaranteed by central government. I probably will not be thanked for this, but on that basis the effect will be that we are borrowing at below market rates because there is no risk involved. That is what we are trying to achieve.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the PSBR system that we have been operating in this country for many, many years has undermined our public services and seriously impeded investment? Does he agree with me that today's Statement takes a brand new approach to the management of capital expenditure and to our fiscal balances which will have a significant impact on productivity in this country both in terms of the economy, public services, jobs and, therefore, families?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am tempted to agree tout court. In earlier statements we indicated that we were proposing to move to resource accounts. We shall be publishing the first of them for the year 1999–2000. We shall be producing them parallel with the cash-based supply estimates and appropriation accounts until the years 2000 and 2001. I thank my noble friend for his congratulations. We are not abandoning entirely PSBR at the moment. It represents something real, which is cash coming in to government. When I say that we are producing, as private businesses do, balance sheets as well as income and expenditure accounts, we cannot neglect what private businesses also produce, which is cash-flow accounts.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I share my noble friend's surprise at the somersault which the Government appear to have carried out in many parts of the Statement. In the interest of time I shall confine myself to one question. The noble Lord suggested that the separation of capital from revenue was a new inspiration by the Government. There has not been a Chief Secretary over the past 40 years who has not tried with the Treasury to get the separation of capital and income. The noble Lord will probably agree that the Treasury has a list which goes back to when chief ministers questioned whether there should be capital or income, starting with the battleship and turning down all kinds of things.

1195
Has the noble Lord a clear definition of what is going to fall on the capital side and the income side? Does he accept that no doubt this has been gone over many times by governments in the past?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is that for 40 years Chief Secretaries have tried, but we have succeeded. The answer to the noble Lord's second question is as I acknowledged in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Newby; namely, that there are always going to be difficulties in the definition of what is capital and what is revenue. I gave the example of expenditure on human capital, which the Office of National Statistics will not allow us to count as capital. We are approximating as closely as we can to internationally recognised norms of accounting in both the public and private sector. As with employment statistics, I believe that that is the right way to go.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, can the Minister clarify the Government's thinking as regards best value in local government? I and others understood that the Government were still consulting on best value and that pilot projects were being set up. Can he also expand a little on how the Housing Inspectorate will work?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the answer to the noble Baroness's first question is that we are consulting on that subject. As regards her second question, those matters will be covered in the publication next month of the comprehensive spending review. While I am on my feet, may I correct something that I said to the noble Lord, Lord Boardman? The resource accounting and budgeting system will be introduced from the year 2001–2002 and not a year earlier, as I suggested.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I welcome the separation of capital and current accounts and the golden rule. Is the projection of 2.25 per cent. growth in real expenditure and output a pessimistic forecast of output? It is below the trend experienced by the economy over the past 40 years. The growth rate in expenditure is even lower than the quoted 3 per cent. per annum. Can my noble friend say whether it is just a cautious outcome or do the Government have genuine forecasts that the economy will grow more slowly than in the past?
Perhaps I may register one small disagreement about the debt-GDP ratio. I do not see how a low or high ratio is any indication of economic prosperity. Between the years 1970 to 1990 the debt-GDP ratio decreased from 70 per cent. to 27 per cent. They were not the happiest years for the British economy. We all complained how miserable we were. Does my noble friend agree that getting that ratio down should not be a primary objective?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the projection of a 2.25 per cent. increase in current public expenditure is, as my noble friend said, a cautious figure. It is achievable within the constraints of the golden rule and the debt-GDP ratio. It is not necessarily
1196
the same as forecasts for output as a whole. It is designed to be not too far away from the figures for output as a whole.
My noble friend has a point about the debt-GDP ratios. They are not always associated historically and statistically with economic growth. That is true. However, when we are confronted with such wild accusations of tax and spend, it is important at the very least to be able to remind noble Lords opposite that this is not a Government who are moving rapidly towards a command economy.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I certainly go along with the increased emphasis on output measures and on the move to accrual accounting, and particularly balance sheets, which is something that the House of Commons Select Committee on the Treasury has advocated for a long time. First, on balance sheets, is it the Government's objective that the government balance sheet should go up or down in value? Secondly, the noble Lord gave the impression that if the Government sold off assets and invested money, that would result in a net increase in investment. Perhaps the noble Lord will confirm that that is not so. It may be more efficient, but it does not change the amount of investment.
Following the point made a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, perhaps I may express my grave concern about the way in which the Government's overall policy is developing, with an independent Bank of England which has a clear objective, largely relating to inflation, and now, apparently, with a fiscal strait-jacket with regards to public expenditure. There is an assumption that that means that the tax side will not change. Presumably, that is not the position. Therefore, at least at this stage, remarks about the PSBR or other surrogates for it are not helpful. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I suspect that the Government's forecasts show a low rate of economic growth compared with past history—and that is because of the way in which the Government's monetary and fiscal policies are interacting.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government's forecasts of economic growth are publicly available. Anybody can produce projections on the Treasury model—and that frequently happens. I simply do not know the answer to the noble Lord's question about whether we expect the balance sheet to go up or down. We expect it to balance. Whether we expect it to go up or down in total depends largely on the way in which we value the fixed assets which are taken into account. Work on that is still developing.
The noble Lord is right in saying that the interaction of all those factors is extremely complex. I thought that by stating our objectives more clearly we would be increasing the transparency of government economic policy. I do not describe these as a "strait-jacket". It is much better to do what we are doing here and to make forecasts about what we hope to achieve through economic policy than to do what the previous

1197
government did, which was to set continuing targets for tax reductions regardless of, or without any conscious reference to, their effect on economic growth.

National Minimum Wage Bill
6.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Clinton-Davis.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Workers to be paid at least the national minimum wage]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("by his employer").
The noble Baroness said: When I first read the Bill and then saw this amendment, which looks very simple and which was proposed by my colleagues in the other place, I wondered why the Government were making such a fuss, but this amendment was debated at considerable length—for almost three hours—in Committee in the other place. It was described then as a "probing" amendment, but as no answer was given to the basic question, we have to take up the time of your Lordships' Committee by raising the matter again. The basic question is: why do the Government insist on the inclusion of the words, "by his employer", when to any dispassionate reader they seem to be mere verbosity? As long as the employee gets the minimum wage, why does it matter who pays him?
The debate in the other place largely revolved around the situation of catering and hairdressing staff, whose remuneration includes tips whether given directly to the employee or shared out in the tronc system. There are stories—perhaps apocryphal—that the doormen and cloakroom attendants at major London hotels, far from being paid any wages, used to pay the hotel for the concession. There are other examples. There used to be a system whereby taxi drivers kept a proportion of the fares and all the tips. Those drivers would not have regarded themselves as the employees of the vehicle owner but merely as hirers of it. However, under this Bill, it is likely that they will cease to be treated as self-employed and would be employees.
Then there is the situation where an employee is given a commission on what he takes in. I am not talking about ordinary commercial travellers and salesmen but about people such as seaside deckchair attendants who used to keep part of the ticket money as an incentive to be more assiduous. I doubt whether the unions permit local councils to operate that system these days.
I repeat my question: why do the Government insist on these three little words which do not add a single thing to the Bill and the exclusion of which will not detract from the clause by one iota? Is it because of some hidden agenda to abolish tipping, a long-held desire of old Labour, emulating the Soviet Union where it was impossible to get a taxi once the driver had performed his daily quota of rides?
Today I read a report in the Daily Telegraph—it was repeated many times on the radio—of a leak suggesting that the Low Pay Commission agrees with us. I shall be pleased if that report is correct. The question is: do the Government agree with the Low Pay Commission?
My other question is: when are the Government going to tell us what the Low Pay Commission's entire report says—or are the Government going to continue with their practice of treating Parliament with contempt and announce their policies to favoured journalists instead of to Members of both Houses, a practice for which Madam Speaker has reproved the Government on several occasions in the past few weeks?
In the light of the leaked report, will the Government undertake to accept and implement this amendment? I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: Perhaps I may respond to one point made by the noble Baroness when moving her amendment. I refer to her point about service charges and tipping. Before doing so, perhaps I may say how sorry I was not to be present in the House for the Second Reading of this Bill as I have spoken often in your Lordships' House in support of such provisions. I should very much have liked to be here to record my support then. My comments throughout this stage are intended to be helpful and constructive, even if a little probing.
It is important to understand that there are two kinds of service charge normally operating in hotels and restaurants. The first comprises tips which are left on the table by clients who have enjoyed a good meal and feel moved to leave something extra. Customarily, they are collected either by the waiter concerned or through something known as petit tronc. There is no involvement of the employer whatsoever. The sums are simply divided among the staff and very little, if any, record is kept of them. I hope that those payments are not swept up into any consideration of a minimum wage. That would clearly be quite wrong.
The other form of service charge is where a specific percentage is included on the bill by the establishment and where the patrons very often do not have any discretion about whether or not to pay it. That is called the tronc system and it is usually administered by the hotel or restaurant. The amount passes through the books and has PAYE and national insurance levied on it. When one is recruiting a member of staff, it is usual to say, "You will be paid such-and-such as a salary and you may expect to receive so-and-so from the service charge", of which usually a certain amount is considered guaranteed. In that instance, I believe that it is perfectly proper for that amount to be taken into consideration when looking at the minimum wage. However, I feel that that is encompassed within the words, "by his

1199
employer". As those amounts are dealt with by the proprietor of the restaurant or hotel and appear in the PAYE system and on the payroll, it seems to me that that situation would be covered by the words currently in the Bill.
Finally, I reassure the noble Baroness that the story about doormen is entirely apocryphal. I believe that that went out before the last war. In any hotel with which I have had anything to do doormen are gold dust and I do not believe that in London the minimum wage will affect any of them.
Lord Clinton-Davis: First, I welcome the noble Baroness to this debate, which of course will be very short. We shall finish at about half-past seven! I am sure that the noble Baroness will make a major contribution to that debate. I am not surprised that the Opposition took so long in Committee in another place. The noble Baroness said that it took three hours. If it relies on the argument that the Labour Party is emulating the Soviet Union, it is not surprising that it takes a long time. That is just verbiage, and the noble Baroness knows it.
I very much welcome the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. He has made a personal contribution to the principle of the national minimum wage. He has applied that in the hotels of which he has experience and in which he is involved. I congratulate him on applying the principle and not just talking about it.
There is a very good reason for opposing this amendment: it is against the whole thrust of what we seek to do. That is the simple answer to the points made by the noble Baroness. The amendment seeks to remove the requirement on employers to pay their workers at least the national minimum wage. It would make it very unclear where responsibility for payment rested. If there is no responsibility how can there be enforcement? The Bill makes it manifestly plain that the responsibility lies with the employer, and there is no alternative to that. The approach of the Bill, just as with other employment law, is based on the relationship between employer and worker. I do not see any difficulty in relation to that. The proposition is very simple. We are talking about a minimum wage, and wages are paid by employers. The amendment undermines the purpose of the Bill which requires employers to pay their workers at least the national minimum. How could a worker or enforcement officer press a claim if it was not abundantly clear who was responsible for paying the minimum wage? Our evidence is that business wants to see effective enforcement. Good companies do not want to be undercut by bad companies. Clause 54(4) of the Bill makes it very clear who is the employer.
The noble Baroness spoke about tips. I believe that the issue is rather more complex than she has credited. The Low Pay Commission will make a report on this matter. I am unable to set out the Government's detailed position on tips until they have responded to the whole issue in due course. What I can say is that customers in restaurants are not employers. Sometimes they treat employees as employers but they are not. They have no share in the responsibility to pay the staff the minimum wage. We shall deal with the whole area of performance
1200
bonuses, gratuities and tips when we come to make our Statement on the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission.
We shall consult very widely on the draft regulations which will take this issue into account. I do not want to go into the whole issue of tipping at this particular juncture. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has drawn attention to some salient points. We shall return to that matter in due course. I believe that the Committee would be very unwise to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Before my noble friend determines how she responds to the Minister's reply, if the noble Lord opposite believes that the Committee will be finished by 7.30 p.m. he should advise us in which week it will reach that conclusion. I regard his response on the issue of tips as totally inadequate. I recognise well enough the very real difficulty in which he finds himself; namely, the Low Pay Commission has a report on which the Government have not yet reached a view. Clearly, the Government are trying not to reach a view upon it until this Bill has concluded its passage through this House and has been returned to another place. That is unsatisfactory. It is not simply a matter that affects the narrow point of tips in restaurants. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Thurso, is correct.
Viscount Thurso: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that promotion, but I remain simply a Viscount.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Viscount may in any event enjoy that promotion for only a brief period. I believe that the noble Viscount was correct in saying that there were two types of tips. First, there are tips that are simply left on a plate or are passed directly to staff and the employer has no part in their distribution. Secondly, there are those which are collected and then divided up according to an agreed formula.
As I understand the proposal in the not particularly confidential report from the Low Pay Commission, it is recommended that all payments by result, commissions, bonuses, tips and gratuities paid through the payroll—which fall into the second category—should be included when calculating salary levels. If that is the only type of tip that is included when the calculation of the minimum wage is made, the difficulties may not be very significant. However, if what is proposed—I have not seen the confidential report—is that a wider category of tips should also be included, then some very fundamental questions arise on the whole structure of the Bill. The assumption that lies behind many of the ancillary provisions of the Bill is that of necessity the employer knows what has been paid over to the employee. For example, we find in Clause 28 that in any civil proceedings that arise over this issue there is to be a reversal of the ordinary burden of proof.
It is not difficult to understand why the Government may consider that to be an acceptable approach when the employer has full knowledge of all that is paid over to the employee. But in the circumstances that we are considering in which a restaurateur may be broadly

1201
aware that most of his clientele tend to leave tips, he may not know how much they leave or how often they leave them or whether any tips are left in any particular week. I believe that in those circumstances there is a very real argument that the onus of proof should not be reversed. For that reason I believe it is important to know at the outset exactly what is to be included and what is to be excluded. I believe that it would be in the Government's interests to give the Committee as clear an indication as possible of what is to be included; otherwise, we shall have to go through the Bill line by line assuming the worst and that even those tips which are not passed in any way through the books of the employer are to be included when calculating whether or not the minimum wage has been met. I hope that the noble Lord will at the outset give the Committee a rather fuller response than he has given so far.
I appreciate the difficulty. From reports that have appeared this morning in the media—in particular, the Daily Telegraph—Mr. John Monks of the Trades Union Congress has been writing to the Government about what is in the report. The Committee must know what is in the report and what the Government propose to accept at the earliest possible date; otherwise, it is not simply a matter of determining whether it is £3.60, £3.40 or £3.80. If one was concerned simply with the figure that might be one thing. It is now becoming clearer and clearer that the report contains a number of other issues that must be addressed within the whole framework of the Bill. If the Government were prepared to take a number of straightforward decisions we could deal with the scrutiny of the Bill much more simply and without the elaboration which I otherwise fear will prove to be necessary.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: It is nice to see the noble and learned Lord back. I welcome him back. His contribution is bewildering because, at one moment, he says that he understands the difficulties—the Low Pay Commission report has not been published, and the Government have not responded to it—then he says that he wants to know where the Government stand in relation to the report on this and that issue. I am not going to deal with Low Pay Commission report in dribs and drabs. He understands that.
The noble and learned Lord may want to have a debate on tipping now. I can assure him that it is a long and complex subject. It is not easy to deal with. We have the tronc system; questions of who controls it and how it is controlled; and service charge issues with which to deal. This place will have ample opportunity to discuss the matter in a more comprehensible way in due course, because it will then have before it the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission and the Government's response to those detailed matters. I shall not go into the issue in any further detail this evening, notwithstanding the noble and learned Lord's implied threats. I was only joking about 7.30 p.m. It is more like 7.40 p.m. after that intervention.
1202
On the noble Baroness's own admission, there was considerable scrutiny of the Bill's principles in another place. We are going through a number of those debates again. This place is entitled to do that. I confess that when I was in opposition I did that on a number of occasions because it is appropriate for this place to go through such things again if it deems fit. We have reached certain agreements in that regard which necessarily mean that it is not always helpful to go through the fundamental points again.
I tried to make it clear in my first speech that in the amendment the Opposition are seeking to undermine the fundamental tenet of the Bill. I can add nothing more to what I said originally. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I leave it to my noble friend to make up her own mind. It will not do: the Minister said on Second Reading that this place would see the report before the end of last month. I have not seen it. We do not yet have any government decisions on it. At the risk of repeating myself, if the only issue that this place needed to have brought to its attention was the level recommended by the commission—£3.60, £3.40 or £3.80—I could see that a final decision by the Government on that matter would not necessarily affect the detailed scrutiny of the Bill.
What is troubling about today's report is the revelation that there is to be an amendment on how tips are to be treated. There is an indication also in the press reports that the trade unions are profoundly unhappy about the recommendation. The Daily Telegraph claims that it is a recommendation which seems certain to be accepted by the Government.
That is our difficulty. I am sure that the Minister understands what I am driving at. Unless we know how that matter will be handled by the Government, the only way forward for us—I should prefer to avoid taking this way forward—would be to assume in every circumstance in the Bill, where there might be some impact on the drafting, if tipping on a wider basis is to be included, close scrutiny will be needed. Let us not be flippant about 7.30 p.m. or 8.20 p.m., I am more concerned that we will not do ourselves a great deal of good, in trying to scrutinise properly, if we have to make a broad range of assumptions, because, if only the Government would make up their mind, we could set them aside so that the range of scrutiny would be markedly restricted.
I appeal to the Minister again to give us some indication, if he can, of when we might know about these matters. We were promised the report by the end of May. As we understood it at the time, that meant that we would all have it available for this Committee stage. It would be helpful were we to know, at least before we reach the next stage, whether we shall see the report by then, and, equally importantly, whether there is any prospect of having the Government's decision on the acceptance or otherwise of those recommendations by that time.
Viscount Bridgeman: I support the amendment, but I do not in any way anticipate a later amendment tabled

1203
by my noble friend Lady Miller. The Inland Revenue has, for many years, had to wrestle with the problem of tipping. At the later stages of the Bill, I hope that the Government will pay attention to the long-established practice which has been built up by the Inland Revenue in relation to tipping.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble and learned Lord has asked me to do what he used to rebuke me for suggesting, that titbits of information that he might read in the press should be the subject of considered debate here. I decline to do that. He has referred repeatedly to what he has read in the Daily Telegraph, based, of course, upon speculation.
We are dealing with the framework for the national minimum wage. It will be implemented through regulations which will be subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament. The Bill establishes the principle of the national minimum wage and the regulations will define the detail.
When we come to debate those matters, many of the issues to which the noble and learned Lord has referred will be dealt with. I cannot continue the debate by going into further and better particulars, as the noble and learned Lord wishes. I have said that on a number of occasions, and repetition does not improve the argument. He then said that he would have to take us through the Bill step-by-step, no doubt threatening us with spending hours and hours on the Bill. That is for him to choose.
I have had detailed discussions with his Front Bench and with the Liberal Democrats. The noble Baroness will recognise that. We have tried to be as helpful as possible. I had not expected this kind of approach this evening. It is a matter for the noble and learned Lord. He is an experienced Member of this place and of the other place. It is for him to decide what he wants to do.
The commission's report and the Government's response will be before this place. I cannot say now when that will be. It is not just a question of choosing one item to discuss. The commission was asked to consider a number of complex items. It would be doing an injustice to it were we just to select, piecemeal, the matters that we were going to discuss, when the Government have not mind up their mind upon the entirety of the report. I cannot carry the matter any further.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am becoming even more disappointed by the Minister's response. It has been indicated that the noble Lord's colleagues are having a reception this evening. If that were not so, I would be minded to go back on a promise that we would not have a Division on the matter. The noble Lord must appreciate how close he is getting to infuriating us seriously. The programme, the timetable for the publication of the report, and the timetable for securing decisions of the Government are not titbits. It was said at Second Reading that we would at least see the report before we reached this stage of the Bill. That does not seem to be a matter that should be caricatured as seeking titbits of information. The Government
1204
clearly regard it as extremely important to have the matter resolved as objectively as possible by passing it to the Low Pay Commission for a conclusion.
I shall not press the matter further on this amendment. However, if the noble Lord regards our seeking to discover the likely response of the Government to the report as a titbit, or something of inconsequence, it will not make for a measured, calculated consideration of amendments by the Opposition. I leave it to my noble friend to determine what she wishes to do.
Lord Clinton-Davies: I had no intention of upsetting the noble and learned Lord. I have done so on a previous occasion. I know how wrathful he can be. It was not my intention.
I am saying that at this stage I cannot give the noble and learned Lord a timetable. I can undertake to inform the House at the earliest opportunity what the timetable will be, and how it will fit into consideration of the further stages of the Bill, but I cannot do so tonight. The noble and learned Lord would be the first to rebuke me—he has done so in the past—for relying on speculative information in the press. The noble and learned Lord will recall that. If he cannot do so, my memory is better than his in that respect. Be that as it may, I wish to add that footnote to this debate.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister will remember that on Second Reading I asked specifically when we were to receive the report from the Low Pay Commission. I recall the matter well because the noble Lord intervened, saying that he thought he had already addressed the matter. It is impressed upon my mind, since I thought that I must have misheard. Whether or not I misheard, it is troubling that when we seek to discuss the Bill all we have are leaks. The Daily Mail today had an article on tipping. A little while ago we heard that the proposed sum was £3.60. We heard that the Treasury was not pleased about that. Then we heard reference to the Board of Trade. We are entitled to ask when we are to receive the report from the Low Pay Commission and to be concerned that the House will not receive it first.
Having said that, I shall read carefully what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert (", provided that such person has no other casual, part-time or permanent employment with another employer in respect of the same work.").
The noble Baroness said: The urgent need for this amendment arises from an ambiguity in the clause compounded by what was thought by one of my honourable friends to be an ill-considered throwaway remark by the Minister for Small Firms during the Committee stage in another place. It occurred not in relation to Clause 1 but on a totally different aspect of Clause 2. That is why I believe that the Minister did not realise the full implication of what she said.
The Minister began by saying:
"Under Clause 1 a worker is entitled to receive the national minimum wage from his or her employer. If the employee has two jobs, he or she is entitled to have the national minimum wage from each employer".
The honourable Member for Daventry asked:
"Is she saying that would apply if the employee was employed simultaneously?"
The Minister replied—and this is of vital significance:
"Absolutely. An employee who is working for more than one employer simultaneously would be entitled to receive the national minimum wage from each of his or her employers".
Let me stress the word "simultaneously" in that reply. The honourable Member for Buckingham then said:
"I think the Minister has just dropped a clanger, to judge by the expression on the faces of Labour Members at the back of the room. Am I correct in understanding that an employee would be entitled to claim the national minimum wage from more than one employer at one time for work in respect of the same period?"
The Minister replied:
"Yes, of course".
I stress the words, "in respect of the same period".
It seems to me that the honourable Member was being magnanimous and charitable, as is his wont, in assuming that the Minister had been guilty of a slip of the tongue. Not so; the Government really meant it. In the very next session of the Standing Committee that afternoon, the Minister of State said:
"If an individual has two employers for whom he works during the particular pay period, each employer has to pay the minimum wage irrespective of whether a worker has three, four, five or six employers".
I apologise for the lengthy quotations, but it was important for the Committee to hear exactly what the Government contend is the effect of the Bill.
As the Committee is aware, the courts may now adopt the practice of looking at what Parliament intended when interpreting the words of an Act. Perhaps I may give the Committee a couple of examples of the ludicrous results that follow from this incongruous interpretation of the Act.
Let us imagine that three brothers trade in partnership in a small factory unit manufacturing widgets. Their only employee is a secretary who answers the telephone, deals with a small amount of correspondence, issues the invoices and does other minor clerical jobs. For that she is currently paid £7 an hour or £280 a week. We understand that the Low Pay Commission has recommended a national minimum wage of £3.60. If the Minister's interpretation is correct, the result is that she would now have to be paid £432 per week because she was working for three employers, the three persons who owned the business in partnership. However, the paradox does not end there. Next door is a similar business, but it trades as a limited company, so its secretary has only one employer—the company. She therefore has the proper single market rate for the job.
In place of that hypothetical example, let me give one that would exist in real life. Let us consider a large firm of solicitors practising in the City, let us say in Gray's Inn Road. Part of the infrastructure of that firm is a
1206
catering staff of three or four people to supply tea, coffee and quantities of delicious sandwiches so that complicated negotiations do not have to be broken off for lunch and staff and visitors in meetings are sustained well into the night. Never mind the Minister's hypothetical three, four, five or six employers. Let us suppose that that firm had 54 partners who are the owners of the firm and the technical employers of the catering staff. It is by no means the largest of such firms; there are many larger firms with numbers of partners running into three figures.
If the Minister is right, it means that each member of the catering staff, receptionists, the four people employed in the print room (which churns out thousands of pages of documentation every day), and members of the typing pool, would be entitled to 54 times the national minimum wage. If it were 54 times £3.60, the figure would be £194 an hour, or £1,555 for an eight hour day, or £7,760 for a five-day week, or even £404,352 a year. Of course that is a perfectly preposterous proposition. I am certain that one result would be a mass exodus of your Lordships from this House to seek a job as a messenger boy or girl in such a firm.
By their injudicious remarks in another place, the Ministers have opened Pandora's box. Sure enough, someone will try it on and perhaps a judge will feel bound to adopt the two Ministers' interpretation. This simple amendment removes any possible ambiguity or doubt. Common sense tells us that if a person is working simultaneously for more than one person, then he or she gets paid for the hours he or she is working concurrently. For an eight-hour day the pay is for eight hours, not 16, 24 or 54 times eight which equals 432 hours.
Nobody can claim to be paid for a 432-hour day, but that is what the Ministers in the other place were suggesting. Even the planet Mercury only has a 59-hour day. What the Minister is suggesting is that the meaning of this Bill would introduce the mother of all Spanish practices.
I do not believe for one moment that the Government could possibly intend this utterly ridiculous interpretation to prevail. All they need to do, to put the issue beyond any doubt, is to adopt the eminently sensible amendment, which in no way detracts from the right of an employee to receive the minimum wage, whatever it turns out to be, for each actual hour worked. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Baroness spoke of preposterous propositions and then went on to make a number of them, drawing inspiration from the planet Mercury in doing so.
Perhaps I may deal with the question of a partnership. I have been inured into this because I am a solicitor. All the noble Baroness has to do is to mention the word "solicitor" and I become ensnared. We are talking about one employer in that situation, in terms of a partnership.
One can rely on a whole set of hypothetical circumstances in order to try to undermine a principle. All these cases, if they fell to be dealt with, would have

1207
to be dealt with on the specific facts, on the particular contractual arrangements that existed between the parties. The responsibility for paying the minimum wage can depend on those particular circumstances, especially on whether the individual being paid is self-employed, or an employee or a worker.
Amendment No. 2 would remove the entitlement to the minimum wage from any worker who works for more than one employer in respect of the same work. That is the purpose of it. I see that the noble Baroness nods in agreement.
It is worth mentioning that when the amendment was originally tabled on 30th March the words
"in respect of the same work"
were omitted. According to that version, the amendment would catch employees with a second job. We could certainly have a debate about that, if that occurred, when there was a debate in another place.
The situation would, in any case, be clear. The minimum wage would be payable for both jobs. After all, if a person has two jobs, no one expects his first employer to pay him less simply on account of the fact that he is earning two pay packets. That would be beyond the realms of imagination. So why should anybody with two jobs not be entitled to the minimum wage in respect of each employment?
The issue of second jobs does not appear to be the point that lies behind this amendment. The original amendment was changed and replaced on 21st April by the current version, which adds the words
"in respect of the same work".
Therefore, the situation which the amendment seems to envisage is one where a single person is being paid by two employers to do the same work. For the individual in question, that appears to be a very happy situation, because the person concerned would be receiving two salaries for carrying out a single piece of work.
With great respect, I do not believe that the amendment has anything to do with practical realities. Are there really individuals in this happy situation? Can the noble Baroness point to such cases? The noble Baroness sought to allude to solicitors' partnerships, which have nothing to do with this at all. Or, are there really employers who, between them, are content to pay the same individual twice over? Perhaps the noble Baroness can allude to certain factual situations. In any event, if she is able to, I do not see these situations being something that the Bill could or should be designed to prevent.
With the best will in the world, I believe that the revised amendment is meaningless. The situation is quite simple, despite this and other attempts to make it appear complex. If a worker has more than one employer and more than one job, each of those employers is responsible for paying the worker at least the rate of the minimum wage for the time during which that worker is working for him. I do not see the problem. If a person does two jobs as a worker, then he or she should get two wages, each underpinned by the minimum. That is our case. I believe it is a very sensible proposition.
1208
I believe the Opposition have become somewhat confused by these hypothetical instances. I hope the noble Baroness will feel persuaded that this is not a matter which she would wish to press forward tonight.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: Perhaps I may have some clarification. A number of people in this country act on a commission-only basis. How could they be described under these circumstances? Because they are responsible for the sale of a product, in the course of their work they may be employed by four or five employers. In that case, would they fall within this particular clause?
Lord Clinton-Davis: No, because they would be self-employed persons. They would be acting on a commission-only basis.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: For the purposes of clarity and Hansard, I was not nodding at the Minister. I was smiling across the Despatch Box and I was not actually agreeing with what he was saying.
Turning to that particular point, I hesitate to argue a point of law with the Minister, who has been a member of the solicitors' branch of the legal profession for, I believe, something like 45 years. Indeed, I would not wish to argue a legal point with anyone on the Government Front Bench. As he said to me, with the greatest respect, that I was wrong, I would like to say, with the greatest respect, that I believe that the Minister is wrong.
A limited company is a legal entity. A corporation created by statute or Royal Charter, such as the BBC, is a legal entity. A partnership is not a separate legal entity, but a body made up of all its individual members. If one of them incurs a debt on behalf of the partnership, or injures someone in the course of the partnership's activities, or if someone simply falls down a defective staircase in their office, each partner is jointly and severally liable to the third party. In my opinion, it is not sufficient simply to exempt partnerships because there are other activities where a person can be working for more than one person simultaneously.
The Minister asked me to give some examples. It could be a joint venture or an unincorporated members' club. For example, I and some colleagues could get together to employ a researcher out of our meagre secretarial allowance, or 50 of us could decide to engage a trainer to conduct a keep fit class between Divisions during late sittings, and many of your Lordships might well appreciate that. The amendment that we are considering has been drafted so as to cover any eventuality that the most fertile imagination could conceive. The Minister suggested that the wording of the amendment had been changed. We have changed it in order that it will cover any example that anyone might like to think up.
The amendment is helpful and is intended to rescue the Government from the consequences of the very loose phraseology used by the draftsman, followed by the extravagant and ill-considered interpretation put on the clause by the two Ministers in the other place.

1209
I have no intention of withdrawing the amendments at the moment. I wish to hear what the Minister has to say and I believe that my noble and learned friend has something to say, too. The Minister suggested that the amendment was irrelevant and that I did not know what I was talking about. I tried to point out to him that it was particularly relevant and that I should like to hear what he had to say.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I should never be so discourteous as to say that the noble Baroness did not know what she was talking about. I am grateful to her for her intention to be helpful, but it has not worked out that way. The partnership she referred to was a body. That is exactly what it is.
7 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Is a partnership a person?
Lord Clinton-Davis: No, a partnership is not a person.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Will the Minister look at Clause 54(4), which states:
"In this Act 'employer', in relation to an employee and a worker, means the person"?
Lord Clinton-Davis: It is not, normally speaking, a person, but in the context of this Bill that is how it is defined. Normally speaking, a partnership is not a person, but it depends on the context in which one is referring to it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: There will be some disagreement between my noble friend and myself because so far as I am concerned a partnership in Scotland, as even English lawyers know, enjoys a separate legal persona. Therefore, in the terms of that definition, I have no doubt that a Scottish partnership would be a person.
I am interested to know, and I should be grateful for elucidation before we reach Clause 54, whether a partnership in England is properly described as a person. If a partnership in England is described as a person, we wish to get the matter clarified before we reach Clause 54.
Lord Clinton-Davis: For the purpose of this Bill, a partnership is defined as a person. In other respects, it may not be. However, I do not wish to become involved in that debate, nor do I wish to become involved in the niceties of Scottish law, of which I know even less than English law.
The question about keep-fit classes is interesting, and I shall join. I am not suggesting that the noble Baroness is talking utter balderdash; I merely tried in a polite way to refute the argument from the Government's point of view. We do not see that she is seized of the proper point. I do not see that repetition adds anything to the argument; I clearly set out our case in this regard. We believe that the Opposition are wrong. The amendment,
1210
if agreed to, would do serious damage to the Bill and I do not want that to happen. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do, perhaps I may say with all respect that I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has answered her point about people banding together to hire the services of a secretary or a personal trainer. We are not talking about partnerships, which may well be a grey area; what we are talking about is not a grey area.
Lord Clinton-Davis: If two people employ someone to do a job simultaneously for them the position is clear; the person concerned should receive two wages, each underpinned by the minimum. It is inconceivable that in the circumstances described by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, a typist would have a worker's contract with all three. It does not happen that way.
We are dealing with hypothetical situations. In reality, when considering the legal liabilities of particular circumstances, one would have to examine the contractual relationship which exists. One could dream up all kinds of hypothetical situations which will not advance the interests of addressing the principle. The Bill reflects employment law, all of which assumes that a worker cannot have more than one employer in relation to one job. He or she can of course have two jobs at the same time, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, but cannot do them simultaneously.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: After that last remark, I am in a certain confusion. I would have thought—and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, made the point—that we could all join together and have a keep-fit class in the Royal Chamber. The question is whether each and every one of us would have to pay the minimum wage to the instructor for undertaking the same job at the same time. I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. Although I do not agree with him, I shall not press the matter to a Division tonight. We agreed not to do so because the Minister's colleagues were at a social gathering and it is not my intention to break such an agreement.
The Government need to look at the issue again and we wish to return to it. In no way does this simple amendment interfere with or alter any of the principles of the Bill. It clarifies the Bill and would get the Government out of certain trouble. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert (" or has reached the age of seventeen years, whichever is the later").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. Some parts of the Bill are defective because not all the effects of particular provisions have been fully considered. Clause 1 (2)(c) is one such provision. As

1211
drafted, the Bill provides for the start of an employee's entitlement to receive at least the national minimum wage to be when he or she reaches school-leaving age.
Perhaps I may say for the first time that, as the Minister knows, we on these Benches do not agree with the idea of a national minimum wage, although we certainly appreciate that it is a manifesto pledge. All we shall attempt to do is to make it a little easier and a little better for everyone to live with. I agree that if there has to be a national minimum wage there has to be a start-up date for it. However, basing it on something as flexible as the school-leaving age produces uncertainty and ambiguity.
The reason is simple. Within the United Kingdom there are three different school-leaving ages. England and Wales have a different age from Scotland, and Northern Ireland has yet a third. The differences are a matter of months, being based on how long after a child reaches his or her 16th birthday he or she is allowed to leave school. The details, even as set out in the normally helpful notes to the Bill, are extremely confusing. I have read them several times and, as the Minister will have done so, perhaps he can explain the differences. I found the matter extremely confusing, although in practically every other respect the notes on clauses were helpful.
No doubt they would be understood by an expert on education, which I certainly am not. But it is clear that children living within the four different areas will be able to leave school at ages different from others living in the same area. I agree that that problem cannot be avoided. However, as between the four areas, each using a different formula, there can be a difference of several months between the age at which a child is allowed to leave school. For example, as I understand the figures in the notes to the Bill, it means that a Scottish child may have to remain at school until he or she is about 16¾. According to this same note, in Northern Ireland a child may leave school in the same year as he or she attains the age of 16 on or before 1st July. Frankly, I am not sure what that means for Northern Irish children but it seems to me that a child born on 2nd July—which happens to be the birthday of one of my sons—would have to stay in school a whole year longer than one born on 1st July. If the proposed Scottish parliament has the power to do so, it could presumably alter the school leaving age north of the border to yet a different one, higher or lower, thus yet again introducing a different standard.
For the purpose of the present debate we do not have to concern ourselves with the precise effect of these arcane and convoluted regulations. It is sufficient to say that as between England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on another hand and Northern Ireland on a third hand, children are treated differently. Using the term of art, "school-leaving age" means that distinctions will be made between children from different parts of the United Kingdom. That is, in effect, discrimination, not just on the grounds of age but also on the grounds of nationality. I believe that is totally unacceptable. I am amazed that the party opposite should continue to countenance it after it was drawn to their attention in the other place. But that is not the end of the anomaly.
In Committee in the other place, my honourable friend the Member for Daventry pointed out the situation of someone living on or close to the Scottish border; for example, in Berwick-on-Tweed. Would his entitlement to the national minimum wage depend on where he lived or where he took a job? Would a new school leaver from England be entitled to a different wage from a colleague working alongside him who lives in Scotland? That is not the end of the possible problems. What would happen if a young person from the EC came here from a country where, for example, the school leaving age is 18 or 15?
However, what I am addressing here is the differences in school-leaving ages between children living in different parts of the United Kingdom. The amendment we propose purely and simply provides a uniform base for all school-leavers irrespective of where they live or where they work. It is not designed to deprive them of any so-called benefit from an entitlement to a minimum wage, although I personally believe they will find themselves in severe competition with those still at school who are trying to secure the part-time and weekend jobs that so many young people are looking for.
The amendment removes the absurd geographical distinctions that I have drawn attention to. In the debate in the other place no satisfactory explanation was given by the Government for not agreeing to sort out this unnecessary problem. Now that they have time to reflect, I trust that they will agree to do so.
Before I speak to the next amendment I should like to mention a matter which comes back to our discussions much earlier on the Low Pay Commission. If rumour has it, and it is right, it may well be that young persons under 18 will not be entitled to the national minimum wage. Therefore, the whole of the argument which I have just proposed would be irrelevant. That is why I and my noble friend made the point that it is difficult for us to deal with all these matters in the dark because we do not actually know.
I turn to Amendment No. 4. This amendment does not seek to provide the facility to exploit with low wages senior citizens who have attained the age of 65 and who choose for whatever reason to remain at work full or part-time or even in some new occupation. I certainly would not wish to do that. I must declare an interest in that I will be joining that venerable group in just a few days' time, difficult as I find it to believe. Nevertheless, it is the truth.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide for the exclusion of those of pensionable age from what we believe may be the adverse effects of a national minimum wage. We believe that the effects of the Bill may be to harm many members of a particular group that the Government think it is intended to help. Elderly workers are indeed a vulnerable group. The same is true for those under the age of 26 where the Government have already taken permissive powers to make an exception. The amendment would not force pensioners to work for low wages; nor would the amendment to Clause 3, mirroring the exception for the under-26 year-olds.
The amendment recognises that they are a group who may have low productivity specifically related to their age or the lack of modern technological skills. I hasten to add that there will obviously be notable exceptions—myself included—who will continue to be able to work with undiminished vigour, as do many noble Lords in this House. Such persons should be allowed to price themselves into work if they choose to do so.
The Low Pay Commission should be empowered by the Secretary of State, after due consideration, to recommend a separate level of pay for pensioners. The Secretary of State has already given herself discretionary powers not to follow any recommendation of the commission if she chooses not to.
Pensioners are a large and growing proportion of our population. Out of 10 million pensioners in this country—almost 20 per cent. of the population—800,000 of them are economically active. Approximately 600,000 of those are employees. There was a dip in the number of employed pensioners during the economic downturn in the early 1990s. This emphatically proves the vulnerability of this group in times of economic and employment difficulty.
The Minister in the other place propounded the novel economic theory that higher wages result in higher employment. I shall not get into arguments about the reality of the so-called McCarthy curve. I am certainly not an economist but common sense makes it clear that some jobs will be lost if wages go up. Without special exemptions, jobs will be lost if wages are forced up. Those job losses will fall on the most marginal groups with the lowest productivity. At present, those liable to be low producers—those who want merely to work part-time and who may need more time off work for health, family or personal reasons—can price themselves back into the labour market by adjusting the price they charge for their labour.
Many of the over 65s are in possession of their state pension and occupational pensions. They may be happy to give a couple of hours a day for a nominal wage, possibly just to pass the time. They, as well as those who want to supplement their state pension, may make all the difference as to whether the village shop can stay open or have to close down. I well remember the example that my noble friend gave on Second Reading of such a case. They may be the means of enabling the local newsagent to continue with the delivery service and thus be able to compete with the big chains.
An unacceptable anomaly is created by the Government's refusal to exempt pensioners from the minimum wage. Pensioners do not pay employees' national insurance contributions. A pensioner will therefore be between 8 and 9 per cent. better off than a person below pensionable age doing the same work for the same wage. Is it not odd that a pensioner should have a higher take-home wage than his colleague working for the same employer? Similarly, in cases where an employer has a pension scheme, an employee over the age of 65 will not be able to join it. That will save the employer from making contributions, and also the employee, thus increasing his take-home pay still further.
The amendment will help to rescue from the margins of employment many of those who are currently unemployed solely on account of their age. The Government, albeit reluctantly, have given themselves flexibility to exempt the under-26 year-olds. I am at a complete loss to understand why they should be discriminating against older workers who are presumably old enough and wise enough to know whether it is worth their while taking a job or whether they are being exploited. The amendment seeks to end the inflexibility which has characterised the Government's approach to this Bill.
The last amendment in the group would exclude trainees on a recognised training programme from the national minimum wage. That is Amendment No. 5. There is a vast variety of training arrangements ranging from day release, instruction at the employee's place of work, study leave and so on. The Government have not only said that their priority is education, education and education, but in numerous policy statements and ministerial speeches, as well as those delivered before the election, they have stressed continually the need for a trained, skilled workforce. We entirely share that view.
What we find surprising in a party which also claims that it keeps its electoral promises is that it is placing a positive obstacle in the way of the unskilled improving their skills. It must be a disincentive, even to the most enthusiastic employer, not only to have to incur the disruption of giving a trainee time off work and/or to spend time giving him on-the-job-training but also to have to pay him a larger wage than his existing capabilities command.
The training of a new employee is not only an expense and a burden on the employer; it is a positive benefit to the employee and will later, one day, one hopes, result in enhanced earning capacity for the employee. In other words, paid training, albeit at a wage lower than the national minimum wage, is an investment being made by both sides. There must be a strong commitment to training on both sides and, indeed, by the unions as well. As my honourable friend the Member for Daventry pointed out in Committee in the other place, there are a number of cogent reasons why there should be an exemption in respect of trainees.
First, it is simply a matter of equity. There could be occasions when a skilled person and a trainee are working side by side. There is no reason why the skilled employee and the trainee should be subject to the same minimum wage. Of course, this is a matter of differentials which the party opposite fully understands.
But, secondly, there is the matter of incentives. Employers should be encouraged to provide training and the Government should be encouraged to live up to their rhetoric for training. Why should an employer take on a trainee with all the commitment that that entails when, for the same money, he may employ someone already possessing the necessary qualifications and experience? It must be economically better for an employer to take on someone who has already been trained, presumably at someone else's expense, rather than incur the commitment of training a raw recruit.
Then there is the matter of consistency. On the one hand, the Government are proposing, under their welfare to work scheme, to give employers incentives in the form of subsidies to take on new trainees. Yet here in this Bill they will impose disincentives by requiring those same employers to pay over the market rate for those same trainees.
In the other place on 28th July, the Secretary of State said:
"The national minimum wage will be introduced sensibly and will take account of the needs of young trainees and not penalise occupational training activity".
It is not only the CBI which supports the idea of different rates of pay for trainees and escalating rates of pay as an incentive as that training progresses. The GMB also says that there is a case for a lower training rate. The TUC itself stated:
"There is a case for trainees of any age to be entitled to a percentage of the full minimum wage while they attain the full level of competency required to undertake the full range of duties. However, this partial exemption must be properly regulated to prevent abuse".
We certainly agree with that.
We agree with the CBI, the GMB and the TUC on that point. We agree also with what the Secretary of State said in the other place. What is surprising is that the Government do not agree at least with the evidence of the unions and the TUC. What is even more surprising is that the Secretary of State no longer agrees with herself and what she said just 10 months ago. Why has she departed from her previous reasonable attitude and adopted the inflexible doctrine of universality?
There is then the aspect of ageism which I mentioned earlier. Why are the Government discriminating against older workers? They are giving themselves the option with no assurance at all that they will exercise it to provide exemptions for those under the age of 26. In view of the Secretary of State's apparent aversion to exemptions, I am by no means convinced that it is more than window dressing or that she will bring the provision into effect, at least in the foreseeable future. I say that because she could make it an immediate exemption, if she so wished, in the same way as share fishermen and the Armed Forces have already been exempted.
Be that as it may, older trainees need consideration as well and their potential employers need incentives. With many traditional jobs disappearing, the previous government encouraged retraining schemes. The mining and steel industries are cases in point. I do not suggest that the present Government are any less committed to the retraining of those who, for some reason or other, have become redundant—and what an ugly word "redundant" is. However, it is inconsistent and wrong for the Government to place that obstacle in their way simply for what appears to us to be nothing but the doctrinaire concept of universality. That doctrine is evidenced by the title that the Government have chosen to give the Bill; that is, the National Minimum Wage Bill.
In Committee in the other place, the Minister of State claimed that Clauses 3 and 4,
"give the Government maximum flexibility to take into account the Low Pay Commission's recommendations".
With all due respect, they most certainly do not. Clauses 3(3) and 4(2) are hedged around with the most severe limitations. It so happens that I hope to assist the Government to simplify the whole matter with the amendment that I shall propose to Clause 2 later. Therefore, I shall not take up the time of the Committee any further at this stage.
The object of the amendment is to stop the Bill moving in the wrong direction by making it more difficult for employers to take on genuine trainees of whatever age. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: I should like to ask the Minister one question. Before doing so and speaking generally on training, I have always believed that the minimum wage is just that—a minimum wage—and that everyone employed should be entitled to it. Once people are trained, they should move on to higher rates of remuneration. Therefore, I do not quite support what the noble Baroness said. Indeed, in all the industries where I have been employed, we have tended to take the view that you take people on at the specific rate, you train them, and thereafter you receive the value of the training. In a later amendment we seek to reduce the age from 26 to 18, very much on that principle. It is in that regard that I should like to ask my question.
Colleges place people with businesses for work experience. Those people should be, although sometimes they are not, completely supplementary to the workforce. The employer takes them on specifically because of the co-operation that exists with the college in order to give work placement experience. In the hotel and catering industry, during a three-year degree course, students will typically spend six months on a practical experience split over several departments. In that circumstance they are not required by the business. I am fearful that if provision is not made, there will be a disincentive for employers to offer places to colleges. I am not sure whether that situation is covered later in the Bill. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments.
Lord Monson: The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is perhaps too young to remember that there was a time not very long ago when student nurses, trainee accountants and so on, far from receiving a minimum wage, had to pay something towards their training.
The noble Baroness has made out an excellent case for all three of her amendments. I wish to comment in particular on Amendment No. 4. It was mentioned that exemption has already been made for the under-26 age group. That group already receives concessions on rail travel, both here and on the Continent. The over-65s receive many more concessions—free prescriptions, subsidised rail travel, and free bus, Underground and suburban rail travel—as well as a state pension and, in most cases, an occupational pension. Why on earth should they not be allowed to work for a lowish wage for fun, as it were, or just to keep their hand in or to give them contact with other people, if that is what they wish?
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 5. I shall give the Committee a specific example of something that happened to me. When I left the sea with, I am glad to say, a master's certificate in my pocket, I wanted to get into another industry; namely, the manufacture of wire and wire ropes. It was arranged for me to go to America to learn that trade in a firm which was very friendly with a firm in Scotland. I went over there and worked in every department of the firm for about nine months, which enabled me to receive a thorough grounding in the trade. However, that was on the very clear understanding that I received no wages whatever. In fact, I was warned that if I did receive any wages it would very much upset the wire-drawers union and that I would also be in quite serious trouble with the US income tax authorities.
I have given the Committee that specific example, but a similar sort of case arose a while ago. I am now a farmer. The son of a very good friend of mine wanted to gain experience of farming on other farms and came to my farm to learn. He lived with me and my family but, again, for various tax reasons, he was paid not a single penny. In that respect, I feel that those people who want to receive a proper training could find themselves in difficulties under the provisions of this Bill.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I rise to offer a few additional comments on Amendment No. 3, which relates to the age of 17, or the compulsory school-leaving age. The Minister will be aware from previous exchanges that one of the matters that I believe that this Chamber ought legitimately to be exploring at this stage is the interrelationship between those pieces of legislation, which, even after constitutional change affecting the rest of the UK, will remain within the purview of this Parliament. It is absolutely clear that the issue of employment law generally—and certainly the national minimum wage—will remain within the purview of the Westminster Parliament.
However, as Clause 55(4) makes clear:
"For the purposes of this Act, a person ceases to be of compulsory school age in Scotland when he ceases to be of school age in accordance with sections 31 and 33 of the England (Scotland) Act 1980".
As I understand such matters, following on from Royal Assent and the establishment of the Scottish parliament, it is proposed that that 1980 Act is one which it would be for the Scottish parliament to amend, if it so desired. I want to be absolutely clear about that point. The difficulty lies in the relationship between devolved matters, such as education, and matters of employment, such as the national minimum wage. If the Scottish parliament were significantly to alter the school-leaving age, that would carry with it the potential for a significant change as regards those to whom the national minimum wage would apply.
I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether that is the case. If the Scottish parliament were to change the provisions within the 1980 Act from, let us say, the age of 16 to the age of 18, would it mean that no one in Scotland would come within the national minimum wage until he or she reached the age of 18? Alternatively,
1218
is this one of those rather grey areas where the purpose of the reserved matter is effectively being defeated and where accordingly, in such circumstances, there is the potential for an override of what the Scottish parliament would do?
My understanding is that there is such a risk attached. If that is the case, then, for the purpose of clarity and indeed for the purpose of uniformity, across the United Kingdom, which my noble friend highlighted, perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that a preferable way to deal with the matter would be to do so within employment law to establish a single age. It would mean that the age limit would not suffer the risk of fluctuation in different parts of the UK and would, within employment law, be applied uniformly across the country. For that reason, at least part of Amendment No. 3 would seem to me to have a value as regards securing such uniformity.
Lord Clinton-Davis: This has been a somewhat long debate thus far. The remarkable and astonishing fact that has emerged from it is the revelation by the noble Baroness that she is approaching the age of 65. Indeed, I cannot believe it. I thought that she was about 33, but there we are. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will continue with the undiminished vigour to which she referred.
In essence, the minimum wage will apply when a person has left school. The amendment would include on the face of the Bill a much more rigid situation—that is to say, a starting point of 17 years—from which entitlement to the national minimum wage would start. In replying to this series of amendments, it is important for me to point out the need to distinguish between the primary legislation and how it is framed and the flexibility which the Bill provides under secondary legislation, especially under Clause 3.
As far as concerns the Bill's framing, I suggest that the most logical place to draw a line for eligibility in principle for the minimum wage is as set out in the Bill; that is to say, at the age when a person no longer has to attend school and may enter full-time work. Therefore, on that basis, there is a clear dividing line between the world of education and the world of work for the purposes of the Bill.
However, there is a difference between the framing of the Bill and how it is to be implemented in detail. Here I refer to the power available to apply exemption or a different rate to those under the age of 26, and to the Government's particular request to the Low Pay Commission to consider whether, and if so how, that power might be used. It is true that there was a considerable amount of discussion in the other place about the possible consequences as regards the variation of ages in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland at which young people can leave school; and that, under the Bill as drafted, this would introduce an unfairness in entitlement to the national minimum wage.
If there were anomalies, I submit that they would arise as a result of the different education systems in the United Kingdom. They would have nothing to do with the minimum wage as such. In practice, I do not believe that such anomalies would amount to very much. However,

1219
even if they did, there is no need to change the primary legislation as suggested by the amendment. Instead, we could simply make use of the powers available under Clause 3 to set the entitlement according to a strict age limit rather than school-leaving status. We shall certainly be consulting when we come to frame the draft regulations in this regard. Therefore, when Parliament comes to consider those issues, noble Lords will be able to embark upon a full debate on age exemptions. I submit that the amendment is unnecessary.
I turn now to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. Many people on what is called work experience will not have contracts of employment or other kinds of employment contracts. Therefore they will be completely outside the scope of the Bill. Some who are engaged on work experience may be trainees or apprentices with contracts of employment. We have asked the Low Pay Commission to make recommendations on this point. We believe that Clause 4 deals with that issue. However, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having raised that important matter.
The experiences of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, are interesting but I am not sure that they are germane to the issues that we are considering here. In those days the situation was completely different from the position with which we are currently dealing, and will deal with when this Bill is enacted. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, raised a point which I hope I have dealt with in the remarks I have just made. I notice that he nods his head in agreement.
I turn now to Amendment No. 4 which would have the effect of removing people of pensionable age from the scope of the Bill altogether. It would take away their right to the national minimum wage. I do not know whether that was intended but in our view that is what the effect would be. Certainly I agree with the contention made by the noble Baroness that those who acquire a certain age are still able to make a contribution. I declare my interest without revealing my age, which is a very great one. As far as I can see, the amendment would remove the right to a decent minimum from workers who have retired from their main jobs but who want to supplement their pensions by working, for example, at a local shop. It would also affect those who had not retired but who continued in their original job after attaining the age of 65. Why should employers be allowed to pay less than the national minimum wage to those older workers who have gained a lifetime of skills and expertise and who can still be of great benefit to firms for whom they work? Many pensioners would be excluded by this amendment. Our calculation is about 272,000 men over 65 and 504,000 women over 60 are in work.
The amendment would not only deprive those aged 65 and over of the right to a decent wage, but it would also encourage job substitution. That point was not taken up by the noble Baroness. I refer to the replacement of younger workers by older workers. That is not the outcome that we intend to produce under the Bill. The Committee will be aware that Clause 3 provides for a single exception on grounds of age for young people below 26. There are complex issues involved here. That is why we have asked the Low Pay Commission to look at the position of young people and to make recommendations. However, the
1220
issues are different as regards those aged 65 and over. Many will have retired from their main job but others will still continue in their main job. Whatever the case, they still have skill and expertise to offer. They deserve the rate for the job, and the rate for the job should be at least the national minimum wage. We do not need to provide for different treatment of those aged 65 and over. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Amendment No. 5 effectively addresses the issue of how we should deal with people who are in training, or, more particularly, workers who are working only as part of a recognised training programme. The amendment would have the effect of removing entitlement to the minimum wage from people within this classification. We want a well trained, adaptable, motivated workforce. Certainly rapid staff turnover is not something that we aim at. We do not want employers to lose the incentive to offer training. We asked the Low Pay Commission to consider particularly the position of young people, many of whom will be learning a job and will be willing to undergo training to improve their opportunities. That is to be encouraged. It is not something that we would wish to discourage.
The commission was also given the task of considering and recommending a different rate for trainees. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill have made provision to enable the Government to respond—if we agree—to any recommendations which are made by the commission in this area. I think it is right to frame the primary legislation in the way that we did. These situations can then he adjusted by the secondary legislation which, I repeat, Parliament will have a full opportunity to consider. The amendment would provide a great deal of unnecessary detail on the face of the Bill which would be unhelpful.
Perhaps this is a suitable moment for me to make my next point as it applies to much else in the Bill. We intend to consult by circulating draft regulations covering the regulations which the commission proposed on these issues, and no doubt on others. They will be subject to affirmative resolution.
In more technical terms it could be said that the amendment would go too far because it would take the trainees in question outside the entitlement to the national minimum wage altogether, whether that is the standard rate or, if that is decided, a modified rate. I believe that would give entirely the wrong message to employers and workers. After all, trainees are an important part of the workforce. Their training will make them more valuable to a company and will have a great effect on their future working lives. For all those reasons I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
7.45 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: Before the noble Lord sits down, I point out that in the example I gave I tried to illustrate that for various reasons I was not allowed to earn any money at that time. I think particularly of a student who comes to this country and who wants to study textiles but for technical reasons he is not allowed to earn money in this country. That is exactly what happened to me. We are

1221
now in the common market but during the period to which I referred a Dutch student could have got into trouble if he had earned money and then crossed borders.
Lord Clinton-Davis: If we brought that situation into the current considerations, there would need to be an examination of the contractual relationship that exists in the circumstances. I cannot respond to a hypothetical instance of that kind because all kinds of considerations would be brought into play. I see that the noble Earl agrees.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Before my noble friend decides what to do with the amendment, the noble Lord correctly recorded that I nodded as he provided me with an answer. I certainly now understand the route to an answer which he has offered me in terms of regulations under Clause 3. However, I think the noble Lord will recognise that I do not readily accept that such a route to achieve an answer by way of regulation is necessarily desirable.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. As regards Amendment No. 3, there is another point I can make with regard to the Low Pay Commission. If the rumours are correct, and if people under 17 were exempted, it would not matter whether the age limit was school-leaving age or 17. However, that is another issue.
I was interested to hear the Minister's remarks in relation to Amendment No. 4. He made no mention of the position of pensioners; namely, that they would not pay national insurance and would therefore be 8 per cent. better off anyway. So a pensioner might want only a small job helping out at a corner shop and would perhaps find great difficulty.
I now turn to the question of training raised in Amendment No. 5. The Minister referred to Clause 3, which relates to the under-26s. There are many people over 26 who change careers and who need training. However, having made those comments, I shall reflect carefully on the matter. I believe that these points are fundamental and we may wish to return to them. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before ten minutes to nine.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elton): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Petroleum Act,

Audit Commission Act,

Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Act,

Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act,

European Communities (Amendment) Act.

Tamar Bridge Bill
7.52 p.m.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I hope that some noble Lords will know of the Tamar bridge, a graceful suspension bridge which links the city of Plymouth and south-west Devon with Saltash and Cornwall. Beside it runs the older, historic railway bridge built by Brunel. This bridge is the main road link in that part of the country and, as such, is of very great importance to the local population, who rely on it to get them from one side to the other. The bridge is looked after by a joint committee composed of representatives from Plymouth City Council and the Cornwall county council. It is they who are promoting this Private Bill.
I see the purpose of the Bill as threefold. First, it is necessary to strengthen the bridge. That is of the greatest practical importance. It has taken a lot of traffic, much more than could have been anticipated when it was opened in 1961. Furthermore, the regulations relating to standards have quite properly been increased. And we have the prospect, after a decision taken some eight or nine years ago, of lorries of 40 tonnes being permitted to run on the roads of this country. Therefore, it is essential to strengthen the bridge. If that does not happen, the restrictions on the bridge for traffic will be very great indeed.
The committee looked at the various engineering options. It decided that the best method was to replace the concrete deck over which the roadway itself goes with a steel deck. That is not the cheapest option, but is considered by far the most satisfactory from an engineering point of view and in terms of future maintenance. If it were to be replaced by concrete, as it is at present, we could expect in another 20 years, or possibly less, a further major repair job, with all the inconvenience that that causes, and so on every 20-odd years. With a steel deck—and I asked particularly about this—one could expect a life of 120 years plus. All it would require by way of maintenance would be painting from time to time. So that seems a very good option.
The second purpose is to widen the bridge by building two cantilevers, one on the north side and one on the south side. I should perhaps explain carefully why that was thought to be a wise move. The bridge currently carries three lanes which operate on a tidal principle, so that there are always two lanes operating when the

1223
traffic is flowing strongly in a particular direction. That would continue. However, the cantilever lane on the north side would take the local traffic which currently joins the bridge in a very awkward and at times quite dangerous way. There are a number of accidents. Instead, it would kept quite separate from the main flow over the bridge. As a bonus, it is intended that buses should have priority on that local lane. Bearing in mind the increased interest in public transport as opposed to private cars, I am sure noble Lords will agree that that is a wise move.
The cantilever on the south side of the bridge will be solely for pedestrians and cyclists. At present, cyclists find it quite tricky and dangerous, because they are mingling with heavy vehicular traffic. They tend to use the footways that are intended for pedestrians, which leads to undesirable disputes and difficulties. With this arrangement, they will have their own paths and cycleways, quite separate from the rest of the traffic and from each other. I am sure noble Lords will agree that that, too, is a good and wise move when we are trying to encourage people not to use their cars.
I can tell the House from my own experience that the traffic that comes in locally, and at present joins in, can be very trying indeed. Only last Friday I came back from Liskeard to Plymouth and saw the full force of the flow of local traffic blending in rather unhappily with the main through traffic. I therefore believe that this widening of the bridge will be a very good move.
There is a third purpose. It is a financial one. Currently, the tolls that are used to maintain the bridge can be used only for the purposes of the bridge itself. Under Clause 31 of the Bill, it is intended that wider powers will be taken to enable the joint committee to aid good traffic management schemes on the bridge and beyond it. One particular item that it has in mind to support is a park-and-ride scheme on the Cornwall side of the bridge. That will be of great value in trying to prevent too much road traffic going over into Plymouth. The point has been reached at which the committee has said it will allow £300,000 to be set aside to help with the construction of such a park-and-ride facility. The promoters themselves are not in a position to guarantee dates as to when that might happen because there are factors that are totally beyond their control. However, there is already a site which looks likely, and there could be others if that one falls through.
I know that both Cornwall county council and Plymouth City Council are very keen on a park-and-ride scheme. It already features in the Plymouth transportation package, which also has the support of other local authorities. That would add greatly to the traffic management that we all want to see in every part of the country. It would be particularly useful in this instance.
I should add that extensive consultations have taken place, both with the local authorities involved and with the general population. The scheme has been widely supported. I believe that the promoters have been very forward-looking in seeking not only to strengthen the bridge but to make it more useful in traffic management terms. They are seeking to promote the use of transport
1224
other than cars by giving priority to buses, by giving greater encouragement to pedestrians and cyclists and by their financial support, if the Bill goes through, for a park-and-ride scheme. I therefore hope that your Lordships' will feel that this Private Bill is worthy of support. I was discussing it the other night with a colleague in the other place, the Member for Salisbury. He told me that in 1961, when the bridge was opened, his father, then Bishop of Truro, blessed the bridge. I hope tonight for your Lordships' blessing upon this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Fookes.)
8 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I rise to speak about the Bill in general terms and, for the convenience of the House, to speak to the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, which seeks to ensure that, if a Select Committee of this House is appointed to hear the one petition, it will take into account an alternative and cheaper way of strengthening the bridge, which I shall discuss briefly.
Noble Lords may wonder why I should speak on the Bill at all. I have no known connections with the south-west. I am a civil engineer and I am keen on public transport. My interest stems from discussions I had with the petitioner, the Transport 2000 Plymouth group, which caused me to look at the provisions of the Bill and seek to relate them as a local issue to present government transport policy and, in particular, to the Road Traffic Reduction Act and the more general exhortation to reduce emissions. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, eloquently outlined the local issues, and I congratulate her on her very clear exposition of the objectives of the Bill.
As the noble Baroness told us, the Bill seeks powers to strengthen the bridge. I support that objective, and I commend the promoters on deciding on a steel deck as opposed to a concrete one, which I sure was an excellent decision. I have a few questions with regard to the widening of the bridge from its present three lanes to five lanes, four of which would be in use initially. It is good to hear that one would be a bus priority lane. The fifth lane would be a cycle path and footpath.
I am sure that the promoters are clear about what they want to do. However, with this design, there is nothing to stop someone saying, in a generation or two: "Let us have five lanes. All we have to do is put a different colour paint on the road and the bridge will take the heaviest lorry traffic". I have some concern about that, which I shall come to later.
I had the pleasure of meeting the promoters and the petitioner, and I am grateful to them for the information that they gave me. The first point to discuss is the traffic on this bridge. As the noble Baroness said, it is tidal-flow traffic. I understand that something like 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. is commuter traffic into Plymouth. Therefore, although this is a trunk road, not much of the traffic is long-distance traffic.
I understand that the promoters believe that the strengthening can be done only by adding lanes on the outside first and then closing the middle three lanes

1225
for reconstruction. A cynic would say that that was wonderful; they kept the traffic going during construction, which is very important, and increased the traffic capacity across the bridge by, say, 50 per cent. at a stroke, depending on the lane directions used.
I am sure that the intention to keep the traffic going is perfectly laudable. However, having heard the costs of what one might call the two options, I have to query it. I am informed by the promoters that, if they were able to strengthen just the middle three lanes of the bridge, the cost would be about £10 million, whereas the cost of adding the side lanes as well will be somewhere between £25 million and £31 million. My first question is therefore: can the traffic be kept moving during construction without adding lanes on the outside at an additional cost of about £20 million?
I believe there are two possible options, and maybe the promoters have looked at them. I believe that, with modern construction techniques, it would be possible to keep one lane operational in the centre of the bridge and carry out work on the other half of the bridge. That would allow reasonable safe construction space for the workforce. It would, of course, require traffic lights for one-way working, but, sadly or not, that is quite common on trunk roads today. We are not talking of traffic lights over a bridge as long as the Severn Bridge. The Tamar Bridge is quite short compared with many other bridges. I believe that that could be done safely and at a cost considerably less than the cost of what is proposed in the Bill.
An alternative would be to divert some of the traffic across the ferry. I believe that the promoters intend to buy some new ferries to increase the capacity, which would help mitigate the effects.
I am not persuaded that spending an extra £20 million pounds to keep one lane open for, say, two years is justified simply to keep commuter traffic moving. In addition, I wonder whether that complies with the Government's current transport policy. There is a similar example closer to home on the A.40 Western Avenue. It was planned by the previous government to widen that road and to build flyovers, but this Government cancelled that project soon after coming into office. I regard that as a similar problem. It is a piece of road which it might have been good to widen. The scheme involved the demolition of a large number of houses. However, the Government decided not to do it.
Does the project comply with the draft guidance to local traffic authorities on the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997? That is not the Bill we were discussing last week, but the Act, which refers to local authorities. I refer to the draft guidance published for consultation by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, on which comments had to be in by 20th April. The guidance suggests that the first plans for all authorities must be submitted by July 1999. All local authorities have about a year to do this, if it is accepted. The guidance requires local traffic authorities to produce a report containing an assessment of existing levels of traffic and a forecast of expected growth. It should also
1226
contain targets for reducing the level of local road traffic; and, if the authorities cannot produce such targets, they must give reasons. The guidance continues:
"The Government will, of course, want to satisfy itself that authorities are giving proper regard to their obligations under the Act, and to this guidance".
Where the capacity of the bridge is increased by 50 per cent., I find it difficult to see how these local authorities will comply with this guidance. We shall have to wait and see.
I now come to the park-and-ride scheme, with which I believe there are two problems. It was good to hear what the noble Baroness said about the promoters' intentions and wishes and the constraints that they are under. One problem is the permissions and the other is finance. It is good to hear that Plymouth already has a successful park-and-ride scheme at the other end of the town.
Turning to finance, there cannot be any excuse that money cannot be found from local authorities in the area. When £31 million is available for widening the bridge, if that cost were reduced to £10 million, there must be some left for a park-and-ride scheme. I know that the same authority is not involved, and I know it is difficult, but I am sure a solution could be found. There are probably precedents in many other parts of the country. I know that at the moment they do not have provision to provide the money, and the agent for the promoters made that quite clear to me in a copy of a letter. Nevertheless, the two promoters are transport authorities. If they had pursued the park-and-ride scheme in the early days with the same commitment that they have now and with which they pursued the bridge, we might well have been a bit further on.
The second comment applies to the permission for the park-and-ride. That is a separate issue because I gather that the two authorities are not the planning authorities. Again, if there is a delay with a public inquiry—as seems likely—on their preferred site, I suggest that they look for a temporary site for however long the inquiry is likely to take. If they cannot get to this stage with a park-and-ride scheme, the argument against widening is extremely strong. I believe that they should bring in the park-and-ride scheme at an early stage, even if they merely strengthen the bridge without widening it.
The promoters have a year and a bit to go before they have to submit proposals for reducing traffic and emissions. I shall be interested to see—I am sure that the Minister will be equally interested—what happens and whether they are able to follow the guidance. Page 16 states:
"submit 6 copies — by 31 July,"
which will then be made public. It will be an extremely interesting document.
I conclude by again congratulating the noble Baroness on her explanation of the Bill in relation to how the promoters intend to go forward. I hope that the promoters will consider carefully the points I made and that the Select Committee, when appointed by the House, will accept the instruction in my name. I have no wish to stop the Bill proceeding, the Select Committee from going ahead or the construction going

1227
forward in some shape or form. The strengthening is absolutely essential. However, I hope that some of my remarks are taken into consideration in the ongoing discussion.
8.11 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Berkeley has drawn attention to various matters so effectively that he has stolen my thunder. I shall, therefore, only rumble gently.
The petitioners against this Bill are seeking two objectives. The first is that a park-and-ride facility be established that operates within certain constraints. The second is that there should be a safe footway across the bridge at all times during construction—and I am led to understand that the promoters of the Bill have agreed to providing a minibus service in lieu of the footpath.
I cannot see anything unreasonable in either of those objectives. After all, as your Lordships know, the vast majority of traffic currently using the bridge is commuter traffic. If the bridge is comparatively empty outside rush hours, what is the reason for widening it? If the widening is being done to attract more traffic to Plymouth, then that is contrary to this, and the previous, Government's policy. It seems to me that the only effect would be for traffic jams to build up more rapidly in Plymouth during peak periods due to the funnel effect. However, if, as the petitioners seek, a park-and-ride scheme is put into operation, at reasonable cost, that will not only reduce traffic levels and congestion in the city, it will also obviate the necessity—in the eyes of the Cornwall County Council and the Plymouth City Council—to widen the bridge.
I can understand the need to strengthen the bridge to take the new lorry weight limit but, when bearing in mind government policy, I fail to see why the bridge should be widened in order to, in effect, create more traffic and traffic related chaos in Plymouth—and at a very much larger cost than that required for strengthening alone. There will, without doubt, be traffic congestion during construction or strengthening work and, to me, it makes sense for a park-and-ride scheme to operate, thereby greatly increasing vehicle occupancy during peak periods and reducing the number of vehicles crossing the bridge. And if commuter traffic was reduced by the effect of a successful park-and-ride scheme, this would allow the A.38 traffic to continue without undue hindrance.
As I mentioned, I am convinced of the need to strengthen the bridge, but I am not convinced of the need to widen it.
8.14 p.m.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I am doubtful that I can convince either of the two noble Lords of the rightness of the Bill as I see it. However, I shall make a short attempt to do so, so as not to plague your Lordships' patience too much.
The preoccupation with the cheap option is mistaken. Again, it would involve the use of concrete and, as I explained in my opening remarks, the maintenance would be vastly different if steel was used rather than
1228
concrete. Furthermore, the preoccupation with the two extra lanes is overdone. I have already explained that it is the intention to allow buses priority in the one lane and cyclists and pedestrians in the other. I feel therefore that the misgivings expressed are overstated.
What is more, if the cheaper option is taken, my understanding—I have to take guidance on this from those who are engineers when I am not—is that it would so greatly reduce the capacity of the bridge for the duration of the works that real problems of congestion would arise. In practice, I suspect that some of the traffic at least would go the long way round and therefore the roads would be used more, which I gather is what the two noble Lords opposite do not wish to see. I fear that I cannot agree with their understanding of the Bill. I believe that it is highly necessary and highly desirable. I hope that your Lordships will give it a fair wind. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Select committee.
Lord Berkeley: I beg to move, That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should consider whether the transport needs of the area could be achieved at a lower cost by strengthening the existing bridge without widening it.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should consider whether the transport needs of the area could be achieved at a lower cost by strengthening the existing bridge without widening it.—(Lord Berkeley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998
8.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) rose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 1st June 1998 be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order will replace, with some amendments, those provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act (NI) 1968 which relate to children and young people concerned in criminal proceedings. It may be helpful if, by way of background, I first explain some of the inadequacies of the present system. I shall then highlight the changes to be made by the order which will contribute towards reducing the number of children in custody and ensuring that custody is used as a last resort and then for the minimum period.
The current law is primarily contained in the Children and Young Persons Act 1968. That legislation, and in particular the provisions relating to the powers of the courts to deal with more serious offenders, are outdated and result in too many children being detained in custody, and those in custody being detained for periods which are disproportionate to the offences for which they were convicted. Under the present system the only custodial order available to the juvenile courts is the

1229
training school order. This is a two-year order and the courts are unable to tailor the period in custody to the seriousness or persistency of the offending behaviour. The period actually spent in custody is decided by the managers of the training schools and that will often be determined by the child's behaviour in the training school or his home background rather than the seriousness of his offending. Time spent on remand is ignored.
As a result, the average period of detention of children in training schools is around 12 months. That is clearly excessive when compared with older people. For example, over 75 per cent. of young adults given a custodial sentence in the young offenders' centre are detained for six months or less and 50 per cent. are held for three months or less.
The present situation is highly unsatisfactory and the changes brought about by the order are necessary to ensure that we comply with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and that custody is regarded by the courts as a measure of last resort; to be used to the least extent appropriate and for the shortest possible time.
The order will abolish the training school order and Article 39 will replace it with a new determinate custodial order, the juvenile justice order. The standard period for the new order will be six months, three months of which will be spent in custody and three months under close supervision by the Probation Service in the community. In addition, time spent on remand will reduce the period in custody. Bearing in mind what I said earlier about the current average period of detention being around 12 months, these changes should have the effect of reducing significantly the numbers in custody. However, in addition, Article 12 of the order will require the youth court to release a child on bail unless fairly strict criteria are met. This is new and should have the effect of further reducing the numbers in custody.
To put the matter in context, on average, at present, over 60 of the 113 custodial places are filled. This should be reduced to below 40. These important and necessary changes were the subject of very widespread consultation in February 1997 under the previous administration. Indeed, the content of the order was the subject of discussion with interested parties before that. While a few had reservations about some aspects, in general there was widespread support for the main proposals and objectives of the order. It is interesting to note that although the policy reflected in the order was developed separately by the Northern Ireland Office, the proposals before noble Lords today are remarkably similar to those relating to the detention and training order currently being promulgated by the Home Office for the youth court in England and Wales.
The revised explanatory document sets the legislation in the context of the wider proposals for the development of the juvenile justice system in Northern Ireland. The document also identifies the changes from the proposal for a draft order which was published in February 1997 and the reasons why those were made. I do not intend to refer to them but I draw the attention of noble Lords to the decision not to extend the upper
1230
age for juvenile courts to include 17 year-olds. Since consultation on the proposal took place, the Home Secretary has indicated that he intends to review the 1991 decision to bring 17 year-olds within the remit of the youth court in England and Wales. In all the circumstances we decided for the present not to extend the jurisdiction of the juvenile court to include 17 year-olds. Nevertheless, we decided to retain the proposal to adopt the nomenclature of England and Wales and rename it the youth court.
In conclusion, I believe that, taken together, these changes will lay the framework for ensuring that Northern Ireland has a juvenile justice system which will meet the demands of the 21st century while retaining the flexibility to adapt and develop.
Although the changes the order makes are modest and relate mainly to the sentencing powers of the courts, the measure will not only reduce the numbers and length of time children spend in custody. It will also act as a catalyst for a greater focus on our key aim which is to prevent children committing offences in the first place. Much work is already being done to divert children from crime and to provide alternatives to custody. As the number of children in custody is further reduced, we intend to devote more resources to that area. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 1st June be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
8.23 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of what the order does and how it is placed in the broader strategy. The order makes many amendments to related legislation and it is difficult for anyone not closely involved with children's legal problems to understand. The order is filled with references and cross-references and, if they are all correct, I congratulate the parliamentary draftsman who put them all together.
I find the revised explanatory document extremely interesting and helpful. It makes clear that in addition to the measures being taken in the order to reduce custodial sentencing and time on remand, particularly in custody, the Government intend to bring together all agencies, both statutory and voluntary, to work on a partnership basis to divert children from crime and to work more effectively to prevent them re-offending.
Part of this strategy requires a supporting infrastructure. I hope that that develops in a way which will make the most of the important work of the voluntary bodies who already operate well together. I hope that the statutory bodies such as health, social services and the Probation Service, will not think it beneath them to work with the voluntary agencies.
This work is urgent and most important. Children's crime is not decreasing in Northern Ireland. For instance, the pressing of drug-laced sweets on children in primary schools by drug pushers is deeply disturbing and is not disconnected with paramilitary groups.

1231
I understand that funds are not at present available to develop inter-agency work. Is the Minister able to say what is being done to make funds available? It will be money well spent.
Child crime tends to be worse in cities where efforts are currently concentrated. But it is now clear that the Juvenile Liaison Bureau must cover the whole of the Province, the rural areas as well as the housing estates. I believe that the order is just part of a strategy which is very exciting and which holds a real prospect of reducing child crime in Northern Ireland. I wish it every success.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, I welcome the order and the strategy of which it is a part. I also congratulate the Minister for the clear way he introduced the order and for his emphasis on prevention. Ultimately, the order deals with children who have to be taken to court and judged. I believe that we all recognise that the most important thing is prevention and that only part of the iceberg shows.
I have two comments and two questions to ask of the Minister. My comments are these. There is a requirement in Article 8 that a child should be brought before a magistrate as soon as practicable and at all events within 36 hours. There are certain limited exceptions. This is extremely important. There is nothing more important than a child in that situation—who, in the end, may or may not be proved guilty—being brought before a magistrate as soon as possible. I welcome the way in which that is expressed in the order. I hope that the measure will be implemented and that there will be as few as possible exceptions to it.
I welcome Article 37 which sets out clear recommendations for the amount of time a young person should serve at an attendance centre. Such guidelines are very welcome when they define exactly what latitude the court has without undermining the discretion. The article is a model for future legislation.
My questions are these. It is important that future legislation complies with the European Convention on Human Rights. I am not clear that Article 45, and perhaps Article 46, do comply. The notion that someone's sentence can be altered by the Secretary of State is a matter of lively debate. It has arisen in the tragic case of the two boys who were convicted of the murder of Jamie Bulger. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on his confidence in the compliance of Article 45.
Finally, I am concerned about Article 59, which gives the Secretary of State the power to acquire land by agreement or compulsorily for the purpose of the order. On the face of it, it is difficult to see why the Criminal Justice (Children)(Northern Ireland) Order should involve the compulsory acquisition of land by the Secretary of State. I am prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. The power is extremely widely expressed and, on the face of it, appears to be unnecessary. I do not see why the Government should not acquire in the market any land
1232
they need for centres or other purposes. I ask the Minister to exercise minimally the powers contemplated in this very wide-ranging expression in Article 59 and to do so only where they are directly relevant to the purposes of the order.
8.29 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the clarity of his explanation of the terms of the order. It is with some surprise, but it is a pleasant surprise, that I find myself speaking from the Front Bench on Northern Ireland matters. I served for some years as a magistrate, but in England, including in the youth and family courts. Although I find the contents of this order of great interest, I am, however, only too keenly aware of the differences in the operation of the youth criminal justice system between England and Northern Ireland and I therefore sought the advice and assistance of the Northern Ireland Juvenile Courts Association before drafting my comments and questions for tonight's debate. I am most grateful to the association for the time and trouble it has taken to assist me.
In most part, the order follows the terms of the draft order published in February 1997 by the previous government. In that respect, the House will not be surprised that I give a welcome to these provisions.
There are some amendments to the 1997 version, but I do not object to them. There are, however, several questions which I will put to the Minister on issues raised by the provisions of the order. In the spirit of co-operation, I have given the Minister's office advance notice of those questions in order, I hope, to make it possible for him to address them effectively tonight.
The draft order was prepared in 1997 as part of the juvenile justice strategy which the Conservative Government were in the process of developing. Its publication followed extensive consultation with a wide range of NGOs that are concerned with children's issues and the criminal justice system. It took account of the principles underlying the Children (Northern Ireland) Order which came into effect on the 4th November 1996. The objective behind that order was to provide the statutory framework within which an appropriate range of justice services could be developed.
It is of course important that systems do not become too rigid, too bureaucratic, with too high a dependence on statutory measures. I therefore welcome paragraph 5 of the revised explanatory document which points out that there is already much excellent work taking place in Northern Ireland in preventing re-offending and that that work can be built on without the necessity of legislation.
The questions I wish to address to the Minister tonight cover the following four issues: bail; the reporting of court proceedings; the establishment of juvenile justice centres, and the role of multi-disciplinary co-operation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, has already referred.
With regard to bail, I note the general welcome given by the Northern Ireland Juvenile Courts Association to the presumption that bail should be granted and to the

1233
laying down of strict criteria regarding remands in custody. I welcome the fact that the original draft order has been amended so that Article 12 now includes serious persistent offending as a possible exception to release on bail.
Decisions taken by magistrates as to whether or not bail should be granted are always a serious matter and are treated thus by magistrates—all the more so when one is faced with a child defined in this order as a person under 16. Could the Minister tell the House why the Government decided to reject the Juvenile Courts Association's proposal that there should be a requirement in the order that courts consider a bail assessment before deciding on a remand in custody of a person under 16? Could the Minster also tell the House what the Government's view is of the Juvenile Courts Association's proposal that bail hostels should be established so as to avoid the necessity of remanding a child to custody solely on the grounds that he or she has nowhere to go?
The second issue to which I should like to refer is the reporting of court proceedings. Article 22 extends to Northern Ireland the provision that youth courts may allow the identity of the defendant, including a photograph, to be published. I note, in passing, that this morning's newspapers carry reports that the Government have plans to encourage courts in Great Britain to make further use of this procedure than is currently the case.
Earlier this evening, I noted on the BBC News website that the Minister in another place, Mr. Alun Michael, has gone on record as saying that alleged perpetrators of offences will be encouraged to watch the proceedings in youth courts so that they can see the impact of what has happened on the alleged victim. Does the Minister consider that there are any problems peculiar to Northern Ireland in the operation of such a procedure? For example, will the courts in Northern Ireland be required to pay particular attention to the effect that publication of name or photograph could have upon the security of the child and his or her family?
I turn now to the establishment of juvenile justice centres, which the Minister carefully explained. Northern Ireland Office statistical research indicates that children who are committed to custody tend to have experienced family breakdown and may have been subjected to neglect, and physical or sexual abuse. The National Children's Bureau research highlights that most of the children have emotional and behavioural problems necessitating the implementation of anger management and other therapeutic programmes. The same research indicates a disproportionately high number of the children in the present training school system as having disabilities, including learning difficulties.
Can the Minister assure the House that the staff looking after these very vulnerable children will receive appropriate childcare training and that regular independent research will be undertaken into the operation of the new juvenile justice centres? Will the Minister consider including requirements to this effect in the new juvenile justice centres rules?
1234
Despite the assurance given in a Written Answer by the Minister of State in another place, Mr. Ingram, in February this year, it is widely believed that bullying is a problem in the current training schools. Fears have been expressed that this legislation may exacerbate the problem. A number of children's rights and childcare organisations have raised concerns about the potential for sectarian bullying which could arise as a result of the routine mixing of Catholic and Protestant children in the new juvenile justice centres. Can the Minister identify what measures the Government intend to take to ensure the protection and safety of vulnerable children under the new arrangements?
In a Written Answer to Mr. Kevin McNamara on 27th February this year, the Minister of State in another place indicated that currently 34.6 per cent. of staff in the training school system identified themselves as Catholic, but that only 18.4 per cent. of staff in the statutory sector are Catholic. I am told that if the impact of the legislation results in the closure of Catholic training schools, it has been argued that that will almost halve the number of Catholic staff providing a service to a mainly Catholic group of children. According to recently published statistics from the Northern Ireland office, those children account for 55 per cent. of the total. Can the Minister reassure the House that, in the sprit of the Good Friday Agreement, that will not be allowed to happen, and that the contribution of the Catholic voluntary sector will be positively maintained?
Finally, I turn to the matter which was so carefully raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke. I refer to the role of multi-disciplinary co-operation within the criminal justice system as it affects young people. Paragraph 9 of the revised explanatory document refers to the role of the Probation Board and states that,
"It will be encouraged to work in partnership with other organisations".
How do the Government envisage the board being "encouraged" to work with those other organisations? How will that progress be monitored? Here I join to some extent with the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, in asking what estimate the Government make of the resource implications for the non-governmental organisations. I have some experience of costing such resource implications for NGOs and I know that it is always difficult to achieve the right level of resourcing.
I realise that I have not alluded tonight to many of the major aspects of this order. In part that is because they deal with provisions with which I wholly agree, but mainly because I am very much aware of the constraints of time that govern us. For example, I am aware that the discussion of doli incapax alone may occupy us for two, three or four hours—as indeed it did so recently during the passage through this House of the Crime and Disorder Bill. I would however be grateful if the Minister could address the questions that I have posed tonight, albeit they touch upon a fairly narrow range of issues. Like other noble Lords this evening, I welcome and support the making of the order.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the support given by noble Lords to this particular measure and for

1235
their approval of what the Government seek to do. This relates back to the previous government who put in hand the process of consultation that brings us to the present position. But it is useful that this particular proposal has widespread support. I believe that it will result in fewer children being in custody and that those in custody will remain in custody for shorter periods and will have a greater sense of justice. The present procedures are a blunt instrument that is not sensitive to the offences committed by the children and may on occasion punish them for having unsupportive home backgrounds by keeping them in detention for longer. Clearly, that is an unsatisfactory position and this particular order will put that right.
I shall deal with the specific questions raised this evening. Both the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about the role of voluntary organisations and resources. The Northern Ireland Office has established a working group to bring together a wide range of interested parties. This is helpful in developing the partnership concept to deal with some of the difficulties that have been described. As to resources, it is hoped that savings will be realised from a reduction in the numbers in custody and that those savings can be used to encourage further work in this area and involve voluntary organisations to a greater extent than hitherto.
I appreciate the comments on the background document made by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke. It is encouraging that he agrees with it and regards it as helpful in clarifying the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked a number of questions. He asked about the role of the European Commission on Human Rights and its relationship with Articles 45 and 46. Articles 45 and 46 deal with the punishment for certain grave offences. It is a re-enactment of provisions in the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 and similar provisions are in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 which applies to England and Wales. The legal advice that we have been given is that the provisions as currently drafted do not offend against the European Convention on Human Rights. It is on that basis that we are proceeding with them.
The noble Lord also asked about the powers to acquire and dispose of land. The simple answer is that the power is needed so that the Secretary of State can acquire land to provide juvenile justice centres if the need for new ones should arise. It is only for that reason that we seek to include the power in this measure. It is the standard formulation in legislation in the Northern Ireland statute book where it is necessary for government to acquire land, and it links into the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972 so that the Secretary of State occupies land as would a local authority.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked a number of questions. I am grateful to her for having given me advance notice of them. I shall try to deal with them in the order in which she raised them, although I may have them in a slightly different order. She asked about restrictions on reported proceedings. The provisions in the order mirror those applying in England and Wales. It is for the court to decide whether reporting restrictions
1236
are to be lifted. The court can do this only if it is in the interests of the public to do so. Obviously, the court would take into account the possible danger to a young person found guilty of an offence if his or her name was allowed to be published. That has particular relevance to the situation in Northern Ireland.
As to bail hostels, the provisions of the order make clear that a court shall not remand a child in custody merely because there is nowhere else for that child to go. In such a case the provisions of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 would come into play and a place would be found for the child to be looked after. Clearly, that draws a distinction between care for a child and punishment for an offence. Dealing with the general situation on bail, the provisions of the order make it clear that only in exceptional cases will a child be remanded in custody, and in making its decision a court will have to make an assessment as to the need for the child to be detained in custody. Further, a court will have to give reasons when it decides not to release a child on bail. Therefore, we do not consider that a bail assessment as advocated by the JCA is necessary. We have already achieved the same aims by the way in which we are proceeding.
I refer next to juvenile justice centres and the training of staff. Many of the staff in training schools are qualified in either social work or education. I can assure noble Lords that we place great importance on the programme of education, training and confronting offending to be offered to children in custody and that staff will be given appropriate training where necessary. With regard to research into the operation of the juvenile justice centres, a new database will monitor closely the success of the regimes in preventing reoffending, which is surely one of the key yardsticks for making such judgments. As to the quality and standards of care in those centres, the Social Services Inspectorate of the DHSS is fully committed in this area, but we shall consider including that point in the rules to be published.
The noble Baroness also asked about Catholic staff in training schools. A policy and fair treatment analysis was carried out before publication of the draft order. The principal changes to be introduced by the order should lead to a reduction in the number of children, both Catholic and Protestant, remanded in custody and shorter periods in custody for those given custodial sentences by the courts. The clear benefits to children outweigh any adverse consequences for staff in juvenile justice centres as a result of a fall in population. I can assure noble Lords that if further changes are to be made to the training school estate to reflect a reduction in population, a further policy and fair treatment analysis will be carried out. But if we seek to reduce the number of children in custody and are successful in that, it follows that there will be a need for fewer centres or fewer staff in existing centres. I am afraid that that conclusion is inescapable. I believe that if the whole aim of reducing numbers can be achieved it will be well worth while.
Next, the noble Baroness asked about child protection safeguards. The staff in training schools who currently look after children in residential accommodation will become the staff in the juvenile justice centres. They are

1237
already fully acquainted with child protection procedures. Inspectors of the Social Services Inspectorate of the DHSS regularly visit the schools and ensure that standards are maintained.
I turn next to the role of the Probation Board. The senior management of the Department of Education in Northern Ireland, the DHSS in Northern Ireland and the NIO have agreed to work in partnership to meet the needs of children in need, including young offenders. NIO has established a working group which comprises representatives of DHSS, DENI, social services, probation, RUC and other bodies to consider how best to deal with young offenders and those at risk of offending. In addition, a new database is being established so that all children, whether in custody or under supervision, can be closely monitored or tracked. NIO officials are in close discussion with the Probation Service as to how the standards of supervision can best be monitored. The Social Security Inspectorate of the DHSS will also be engaged in monitoring the standards of supervision by the Probation Service.
I believe that I have dealt with all of the key points that have been made. I am very grateful for all the support that has been given to this order which will surely be of great benefit to young persons in Northern Ireland and therefore to the wider community in Northern Ireland.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure for three minutes. I suggest that the House reconvenes at 8.52 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.49 to 8.52 p.m.]

National Minimum Wage Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Baroness Seccombe Baroness Seccombe moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("single").
The noble Baroness said: Before I speak to the amendment, I wish to refer to the fact that we had Second Reading before Easter. Some of the amendments were tabled, and, once again, I have to say how sad and unhelpful it has been not to have had the details of the Low Pay Unit Report.
This evening I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 14, 15 and 16. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 15 and 16 is to explore whether there should be more than one wage rate. We on these Benches have serious reservations as to whether a single rate is appropriate in every case.
Areas of the UK differ widely. One national wage would have varying effects on large and small firms. Of course it is simpler to have only one wage rate, but, as we know, the cost of living varies in different parts of
1238
the country. My honourable friend the Member for Daventry in another place quoted from the evidence that the CBI gave to the Low Pay Commission when he said that in Greater London 15 per cent. of employees earn under £4 an hour, while in South Yorkshire the figure is 35 per cent. I am sure that many noble Lords appreciate the higher cost of living, especially commuting, in London.
Many other areas could be taken into account under the amendment; for example, those who work in the catering industry and who receive non-monetary benefits in kind. It is always the smaller business employer who is hit by this type of legislation. As he builds up a business an employer often takes for himself less than the minimum wage. Small businesses have been the fastest growing sector. That is a fact which, I understand, has been much welcomed by new Labour, but, sadly, in the Bill we see the hand of old Labour as it proposes to price jobs out of the market in the very areas in which we need them.
The rigidity of one national minimum wage will be detrimental to one group or another. If it is fixed at a level which will not damage the economy of, say, the south-west, it will be so low that it will be of no benefit to the south-east. If, however, it is levied at a rate that lifts low wages in the south-east, it will result in significant and probably unsustainable costs on small firms in the less prosperous regions. I hope that the Minister will accept the conundrum and have an encouraging answer.
I move now to Amendment No. 14 which is a probing amendment. It relates to the two words "what is". I cannot understand why those words are included, because they do not seem to add anything, unless there is some special significance in them which is not apparent. Perhaps the Minister will tell us, or for the purpose of any future litigation disclaim, the significance. The words add nothing to the clause which reads equally well either with or without them. "Equally well" is not correct, because the clause reads badly. It is a convoluted piece of legalese. It would be easier to read the clause if it used the same words but in a different order; for example:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for determining for the purposes of this Act the hourly rate at which a person is to be regarded as being remunerated by his employer in respect of his work in any pay reference period".
In that way, the words "regarded" and "remunerated" which are the objectives of the clause are close to each other, and not separated by unnecessary parenthesis. However, I suppose that we are not here to discuss grammar. As I have already said, we need to know the significance of the two words, if they are not mere tautology. I beg to move.
Lord Newby: We on these Benches have associated ourselves with Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. Logically, we might have associated ourselves with Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 because such amendments are required if more than a single minimum wage is to apply in all circumstances. Some noble Lords will be aware that in another place and elsewhere we have argued that the issue of regional variations in the rate should be looked

1239
at seriously. As it stands, the Bill appears to rule out any such variation, not as a matter of policy, but just because the legislation is in the singular rather than in the plural.
In the light of the stories which have appeared about the Low Pay Unit proposing two minimum wages—one applying to those over 21 and one applying to those aged between 18 and 21—the Government will need to make a similar amendment to allow for two minimum wages to come into force.
Lord Monson: Although I agree with all the amendments in the group, I commend, particularly, Amendment No. 14. Alas, Lord Airedale, is no longer with us to swoop like a hawk from the Liberal Democrat Benches upon bad grammar or sloppy drafting in Bills. I agree strongly with the noble Baroness that the words "what is" are inelegant and redundant. I hope that the Government will at least agree to remove those two words.
The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): This grouping brings together a set of amendments which attack the principle of the minimum wage being a single rate. As the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, made clear, it draws attention to what may be a drafting point rather than anything else. I refer to the words "what is" to which I shall come in a moment.
First, perhaps I may deal with the noble Baroness's preliminary observations about the absence of the Low Pay Unit's report. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, will be aware, the effect of the Bill is to permit the Government, after receiving the report of the Low Pay Commission, to fix a national minimum wage. It also permits the Government in the future by secondary legislation to change the national minimum wage. We are dealing here therefore with a Bill which provides a framework in which the national minimum wage is to be set now and in the future.
I should have thought—I could be wrong—that if it is a framework for the future, the examination of the Bill by this House would require examination, in effect, of the framework, and that that is what the process of examination would concentrate on. Although certain advice will be given by the Low Pay Commission, it might not be the same advice that it would give on a subsequent occasion.
At present I am somewhat surprised by the number of times noble Lords opposite have made the point about the absence of the Low Pay Commission's report. I am not entirely clear at the moment about the extent to which that has affected the amount of examination that they think the Bill requires. No doubt when the noble Baroness determines what to do about the amendment she will say what effect she believes it has in relation to the examination of the Bill.
I return to the substance of the amendment. I am glad to be given the opportunity of defending the principle of a national minimum wage, and a single national minimum wage. As has been made clear in another place, and was made clear during the course of the
1240
Second Reading debate, a single national minimum wage is a fundamental principle of the Bill. A single rate is easier to understand, and fairer and easier to enforce. The Bill provides some limited flexibility to take account of the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission. For example, the Bill provides for the possibility of a youth rate or a rate for trainees. But the flexibility is strictly limited.
I believe that there is great virtue in simplicity. The simpler we can make the provision, the simpler and more effective the Bill will be. People will know what their rights are. There will be no difficulty in understanding their minimum wage entitlement; and there will be no over-complexity which might lessen the effect of the Bill.
I do not think that I need to refer to the detail of Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. They are intended to remove the reference to a single rate in Clause 1. The noble Baroness made absolutely clear why she wished to remove that reference. She believes that there should be the ability to have differential rates. As I have indicated, the Government do not believe that a multitude of regional, sectoral or other minimum wages is the right approach. It is neither sensible nor justifiable intellectually.
I deal with examples that the noble Baroness gave. First, on variation by region or sector we need to establish a general floor under all wages, not different floors for different types of workers in different places. If we had different regional rates, there would be advantages to being in some parts of the country rather than others. There would be disadvantages for the employees in some parts of the country. Those people would be stuck on lower pay than others in other parts of the country. The proposal gives power to set a number of different rates. There could be different rates in Wales from those in Northumberland. Regional rates, quite simply, would be unfair and would not work. They would be unfair because they would not discriminate purely by where you live or work. What would one use to determine it? Is it where a worker lives or where he works? The potential for complication and bureaucracy is enormous.
Regional rates throw up anomalies for employers as well as workers. Employers in low minimum wage areas could gain a competitive advantage over those in higher areas—in the extreme case, this could encourage clustering of low paid employment in certain areas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, referred to the fact that the cost of living is different in different parts of the country. Of course it is. But that is a factor that the Low Pay Commission can take into account in determining the national minimum wage and the Government can take into account in determining the level at which they set the rate.
Having put forward her case in relation to regional differentials, the noble Baroness then moved to sectoral differentials. I suppose we would have to have rules for deciding which sector each worker's job was in. The labour market is developing rapidly, as we all know. One has only to look at the sectoral divisions drawn up in former years to see how quickly they can lose much of their relevance.

1241
Defining the sectors would not be easy and many workers and their employers would inevitably be uncertain about which sector their job is actually in. Many jobs will seem to be in more than one sector. Some may seem not to fall into any particular sector. Again—I say with respect to the noble Baroness—this is a recipe for bureaucracy, confusion and complication.
There are further difficult questions. How would a regional or sectoral rate be enforced? For businesses with employees who live or work in more than one region, there would be huge complications in knowing whether they were complying with the statutory minimum for each employee.
The same goes for those businesses—and there are an enormous number of them—whose activities and workers cover more than one sector of employment. Is that really what the noble Baroness wants—a great bureaucracy placing burdens on employers and providing uncertainty and a lack of simplicity for the employee?
The noble Baroness then turned to the variation of the size of the business. We have heard that smaller businesses should be exempt from the national minimum wage or be allowed to pay lower rates than their larger rivals. Why should large firms be vulnerable to undercutting by a small minority who by paying poverty wages may be able to keep costs artificially low?
Of course we are aware of the situation of small firms and their importance to the economy. We value that contribution and understand the importance of it to the economy. That is why we asked the Low Pay Commission to have regard to the position of small firms in coming to its recommendations on the national minimum wage. I do not, therefore, believe that there is any reason to distinguish on the grounds of size of firm in the Bill or under the regulations.
On a wider level, differentiation according to size of business could be unfair and could potentially distort the structure of competition. It might even lead to fragmentation of businesses into smaller units simply to avoid paying the national minimum wage. There would be less incentive to achieve economies of scale through growth.
I come back to the point I started with. We believe that a single national rate is the fairest, simplest and most easily enforceable approach. It keeps things clear cut and cuts out unnecessary complications.
That deals with Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. I hope we have made our position clear in relation to those. I now turn to Amendments Nos. 14 to 16 with which I can deal more shortly.
These amendments are similar in their effect to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. They are all linked or consequential amendments to do with replacing references to a single rate with references to more than one rate. Taken singly or together, the amendments would fundamentally alter the effect of Clause 2. By removing references to a single national minimum wage,
1242
the amendments attack the fundamental principle behind the Bill. I have covered that in what I said in relation to Amendments Nos 6 and 7.
My main point in relation to Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 is simply to make clear that their effect would be rather different from the effect of Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. While the latter are to do with the setting of the rate, Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 are aimed at the calculation of pay for minimum wage purposes—that is to say, the subject of Clause 2. However, they would lead to a similarly odd result by providing in principle for different rates of pay to be calculated—for example, according to region, sector or size of firm.
I hope that I have explained sufficiently why we need a single rate of minimum wage. For the same reasons, we need to ensure that there are no variations in the calculation of pay. That is to say, if a particular benefit can count as payment towards the minimum wage in East Anglia, it should also be able to count towards payment of the minimum in Wales. Any other approach is unfair and would lead to absurdity's.
That covers every point except for the point made by both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, concerning the words "what is". The general view expressed by the two people who spoke is that this is not a very elegant form of drafting.
When I looked at it, after the point was made, I thought that the words "what is" probably did not have much effect on the meaning of the Bill. That was my impression. I am glad to say that those in the Box take the same view. It probably means nothing different without those words, but it could hardly be said to be ungrammatical. The advantage is that, taken with the words "is to be regarded" they emphasise that the calculation contemplated concerns what is to count in determining whether the single hourly rate has been paid. Obviously, it is a matter of opinion, but there is a good case that the sub-section is clearer with those words than without them.
I shall certainly undertake to consider carefully the points made about the elegance of the drafting. To be honest, I do not think that there is any point of principle on this matter.
I hope that, in the light of the rather laborious explanation which I have given, the noble Baroness will feel minded to withdraw her amendments.
Viscount Thurso: I did not realise that we would embark on a debate about regional variation this early on. We have an amendment coming up later, Amendment No. 51, which addresses this issue. It may be, for the convenience of the House, if I deal with it briefly at this point, which would enable my noble friend, therefore, not to move that amendment when we come to it.
In looking at regional variation, we have, on these Benches, long advocated that that is the way to approach the minimum wage. However, I fully accept the arguments which the Minister has put forward. It may well be that intellectually and logically it is more appropriate to have one single minimum wage for the whole country. Equally, there may come a time in the

1243
future when views change and it is thought desirable that some variation may be necessary between different regions. It may be between Scotland and England and it may be between greater regions than that. Therefore, it seems to me quite logical that if we put into the Bill at this stage the ability for that power to be exercised by the Secretary of State at a later stage, it does not mean that he has to exercise that power immediately, and if the Low Pay Commission chooses to recommend that it is not a good idea, then he certainly does not have to exercise that power.
In order to avoid the kind of enabling legislation, which so often comes to your Lordships' House, such as one in which I was involved recently that I call the mollusc Bill, which is in fact the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) (Amendment) Bill, would it not be sensible at least to provide the power at this stage and then, if it is not exercised, it is not exercised; but if the Government wish to exercise it they have that power?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am sorry to rise again, but I do so in order to answer the points skilfully made by the noble Viscount. As regards the principle, I made the Government's position clear. We take the view that there is, as a matter of policy, a balance of advantage strongly in favour of not having regional rates. The Low Pay Commission and the Minister setting the rates can take into account the differences throughout the regions. It is a strongly held view, and it is a view that is fundamental to the Bill, that a simple, single national rate is the appropriate way forward in relation to that. That being the principle, I submit that it is entirely right that the principle is reflected in a Bill which specifically states that there cannot be regional variations.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: One of our problems is that we have a different attitude to the whole issue. We believe in a minimum income and the Government believe in a minimum wage. We understand that the Bill is a manifesto commitment and that it will go onto the statute book.
The noble and learned Lord mentioned the report from the Low Pay Commission. Our difficulty is that we are working in a vacuum. It is difficult to say what our reaction would have been if we had known the facts. We agree that the proposal is easier, but the Government say that it is fairer. I wonder if people with small businesses in the south-west, who may have to close those businesses, will see it as being fairer. There will be the demise of many rural shops and the Government must take responsibility for that. We believe that the minimum wage will price many people out of work in that area.
We know that wages vary in different areas. We hope that at some stage there will be regional differences to reflect the different wages that are paid. I shall read what the Minister has said, discuss it with my colleagues and perhaps return at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert (", being at a rate not in excess of £3.00 per hour (at September 1997 prices) or its equivalent uprated in line with inflation").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 8, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10. They are probing amendments and they were probing amendments in another place. We need to probe because we are working entirely in the dark as to the amount that the national minimum wage will be. It is bad enough that in the other place the Bill went through all its stages without honourable Members on either side being able to extract a figure from the Government. Here we are at what is probably the most important stage of a Bill, still being asked to consider major complex matters without having that vital piece of information. That information might well affect our attitude to some of the Bill's provisions.
We were told that there might be a Statement on the report of the Low Pay Commission early this week. What do we have? We have not had that and it could be said that we have had nothing. That is not absolutely true because we have had a heavy and, one assumes, an authoritative leak from the Department of Trade and Industry that the rate is to be £3.60 an hour, with a variation for under-21 year-olds. That is countered by leaks hinting at conflicts with the Chancellor of the Exchequer who apparently wants a lower rate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already hit out against wage inflation, backed by the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee whose increase in interest rates last week was on the grounds that it was concerned with the increasing size of wage settlements. During this bizarre Dutch auction between the Treasury and the DTI—which if rumours are correct, and they usually are, is conducted by what is often called "a full and frank exchange of views"—the Government paymasters—the trade unions—are also exerting pressure. Just like Oliver Twist, they are saying, "Please, sir, I want some more".
Rodney Bickerstaffe, the Secretary General of Unison, said in a television interview last Sunday that there was a lot of pressure on the Low Pay Commission from the Treasury to keep down the national minimum wage. Perhaps we should be told what other pressures were put on the Low Pay Commission by the DTI in respect of the other aspects of its deliberations, bearing in mind that the Low Pay Commission was supposed to be conducting an independent and impartial inquiry.
Mr. Bickerstaffe, in that same interview, predicted that the Bank of England's latest interest rise would result in yet another rise in mortgage rates and that his members would then want increased wages. In other words, the Bank of England is generating its own wages inflation spiral.
Is the reason why the Government have been so coy about releasing the report of the Low Pay Commission and announcing, in accordance with Clause 5(4), what their intentions are that they are split on the matter; or is it that they hope they can spin out the announcement until the Bill has made further progress through your Lordships' House—perhaps until the Recess?
If the Minister will not tell us what the minimum wage is to be, will he tell us when he will tell us? If he will not tell us even that, will he tell us why he will not tell us that? Will he at least tell us what is the cause of the hold up? The Bill's passage through the other place included several all-night sittings in Committee. It has had its Second Reading in your Lordships' House. Will the Minister not accept that the fundamental principles and theoretical issues have been debated almost to the point of exhaustion? I say "almost" because in the absence of satisfactory answers to some of those fundamental points, and with an obstinate refusal by the Government to pay any attention to valid and constructive arguments, we shall have to go through some of them again, plus some new ones, in this place.
The amendments and this discussion would have been totally unnecessary if the Government had treated Parliament with the minimum of courtesy and provided it with the facts on which this Committee could base its judgment. The Government are not merely expecting Parliament to rubberstamp whatever they decide to do and are not merely asking us to sign a blank cheque. They will not even let us see how much the cheque is made out for. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Those Members of the Committee who did not have the amendment in front of them would be surprised to hear that the speech that the noble Baroness has just delivered was to amendments that recommended that £3.60 should be the upper limit for the minimum wage and £3.20 the lower rate for 18 to 20 year-olds.
I appreciate that the procedures of this House are quite lax, but I imagine that there must be some talking to the amendment itself rather than to any issue of a more general nature. The noble Baroness made the point that there has been no publication of the report of the Low Pay Commission. As I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, the Bill sets out the framework within which, by means of secondary legislation, the Minister can determine what the national minimum wage shall be.
In order to establish a national minimum wage, regulations must be laid before both Houses of Parliament and affirmed. So both Houses of Parliament will have the opportunity to debate the level at which the national minimum wage is set. Noble Lords opposite and Members in another place will have a full opportunity to debate the level at which it is set and make such points as they regard appropriate in relation to that.
The whole of the speech by the noble Baroness was devoted to the issue of why we have not published the report of the Low Pay Commission rather than to her particular amendments. As I said when the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, moved the previous amendment, I should have thought that, when scrutinising the Bill at the Committee stage, those opposite would want to concentrate on the structure of the Bill rather than on something that would occur at a later stage.
1246
I feel slightly diffident in talking about the details of the amendment because that is not something that the noble Baroness has done in the course of her speech. However, perhaps I may just say that it is not appropriate at this stage to talk about what the level is. It would be wholly inappropriate in the Bill to set minimum or maximum rates for the national minimum wage. That is something much more appropriately done in the procedure laid down in the Bill. It is obviously appropriate as well that a body such as the Low Pay Commission should give advice to the Government before such a conclusion is reached. That is what the structure of the Bill lays down.
I hope that in the light of what I have said the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: In the first place, I did not speak about one amendment setting a rate of £3.60, to which the Minister referred. I spoke to three amendments which suggested different rates. The point I made to the noble and learned Lord was that had we known what might be the recommendation, we could have forestalled the whole of this conversation and discussion at this stage. We should not be probing as to which is the appropriate salary level. It was done in the same way in the other place when my honourable friends and honourable Members were discussing matters in the dark, without any guidelines as to the rate.
We made the point very early on, I believe on the first amendment that we discussed today, that we are finding it extremely difficult to discuss these matters because nobody has any idea of any of the recommendations. The Minister shakes his head, but the fact remains that it happens to be a habit of this Government not to come back to the House and make statements about matters. Instead, we read about those matters in newspapers or hear about them on the radio. These debates could be much shorter if we had more information and the Government gave the courtesy to the House which it deserves by making available that information.
If the Government are not in a position to give more detail, it is extremely unfortunate that we are having leak after leak after leak because some journalists are certainly obtaining that information. This is not the only Bill on which that has happened. I know that my noble friend Lady Blatch had similar experiences when she found it practically impossible to debate matters on an education Bill because certain information which she required was not made available to her, although it was made available widely to other people.
I know that that is nothing to do with the noble and learned Lord. But I say that with regard to the way in which I moved the amendment because that is the difficulty that we are having. I still believe that this is an important matter which we must get to the bottom of. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
Lord Newby Lord Newby moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) The single hourly rate shall, at the end of one year, be increased by—

(a) the rate of inflation; or

(b) the percentage rise in the median of full-time hourly earnings during the preceding year,

whichever is the greater.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to take out of the political arena the question of operating the minimum wage. Quite clearly, even if the Government are successful to the most ambitious extent in relation to inflation targets, we shall see wages rising both as a result of the rise in prices and as real incomes grow.
In those circumstances, it would be wholly inappropriate for the level of the minimum wage to be eroded in relation to both the overall level of prices and the earnings of the rest of the population. Our amendment suggests one way in which automatic provision could be made to uprate the minimum wage. We have suggested that it should be an annual uprating and that it should be either by,
"the rate of inflation; or … the percentage rise in the median of full-time hourly earnings during the preceding year, whichever is the greater".
It is fair to say that we are not wedded to that precise formula but we believe that by having an automatic uplifting provision it will save a tremendous amount of political debate and argument later which foreign experience suggests has been to the detriment of the low paid because it has tended to delay uprating.
Therefore, in large measure this amendment is a probing amendment to seek the Government's view on how they intend to deal with uprating and whether they accept the principle that taking uprating out of the political arena is an acceptable and sensible way forward, rather than having a dog fight every time the Government are suggesting putting 10p or 20p on the minimum wage.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Lord moved the amendment in a characteristically fair way. The Liberal Democrats have been very consistent in arguing this particular point. The amendment has some superficial attraction but I do not find the noble Lord's reasoned argument very compelling. I shall explain why. We do not believe that an automatic uprating system is the right way to proceed as regards the hourly rate. The amendment would take out of the method of calculation that element of judgment and flexibility which we believe to be important. Indeed, that is linked with the reasons why we asked the Low Pay Commission to recommend a rate in the first instance. We need that flexibility in order to judge what will be a sensible rate in all the circumstances, taking into account the wider factors. That is why we asked the commission to consider the matter initially. I believe that the noble Lord is familiar with those considerations, so I shall not go into them. They are well established.
1248
After setting the rate for the first time, I do not believe that we can assume confidently that all we have to do is sit back and let the thing run on mechanically over future years. Unquestionably, circumstances change; indeed, they often change in a way that is fairly unpredictable. I believe that it was Mark Twain who said that he was prepared to forecast anything but future events. He put it quite rightly.
In a situation where we have never had a statutory national minimum wage in this country, surely we should wait to see how the situation works out. We need to monitor and evaluate the impact and then we need to come to a considered judgment on the action required. Our position is that automatic uprating is rigid and unnecessarily prescriptive. I do not believe that it would be right to tie the Government to an automatic and fixed annual uprating of the national minimum wage or to a particular percentage increase.
Moreover, it is not necessary because such matters can be dealt with, taking into account intervening events, through the surveillance by this Chamber of the relevant secondary legislation. We could deal with the matter in that way without imposing a straitjacket whereby the Government are required to take such matters into account. I hope that I have given the noble Lord a reasonably compelling argument.
Lord Newby: The Minister advanced a reasonable argument, but I do not find it wholly compelling. I see a danger. There are some marvellous phrases about changing circumstances and the exercise of judgment. But if circumstances changed, I suspect that everyone earning a wage would be affected in the same way. Either there would be a big increase in wages across the economy for some reason, or there would be higher or lower levels of inflation. Therefore, the Minister's argument is not wholly compelling.
However, as I made clear, we are not necessarily wedded to every last word of the amendment. I am not completely persuaded that our arguments are misguided in principle. We shall obviously consider carefully what the Minister said and may return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 1, line 17, after ("such") insert ("reasonable").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13. These two amendments were discussed together in Committee in another place in a debate which lasted one hour and a quarter. It was a good humoured debate, described by my honourable friend the Member for Daventry as being of a very high quality. He complimented the Minister on having responded "sensitively" to the debate. The amendments were withdrawn in the other place to give time for reflection on the arguments. That time has now come.
The difficulties caused by Clause 1(4) arise not from the principle of the provision, which we accept, but from the way it is drafted. Amendment No. 12 requires the

1249
Secretary of State to act reasonably in fixing what is called a "pay reference period". Frankly I cannot understand why there should be any resistance to requiring the Secretary of State to be reasonable in everything that she does. The implication of a refusal of this requirement is that she reserves the right to act unreasonably, capriciously and arbitrarily. I readily acquit her of any such intention. I hope that, having now had time to reflect on the issue, the Government will accept this harmless and—if I may put it this way—reasonable little amendment. After all, it does no more than to state that the Minister will comply with the common law and the Wednesbury Rules.
Amendment No. 13 is much more complex. Part of the problem is that we do not know what pay reference period or periods the Low Pay Commission will recommend or whether the Secretary of State will accept those recommendations. This is the difficulty I raised in the Second Reading debate. I hasten to add that I do not want to rehash old arguments—I know that the Minister will be pleased about that—or to introduce any political arguments into what is essentially an administrative provision. However, the fixing of a pay reference period is a horribly complex matter. Whatever is decided is almost bound to raise as many problems as it solves and could cause injustices to employers as well as protecting employees' rights. This is because the national minimum wage will be based on some arbitrary hourly rate. However, the pay of many employees is not calculated hourly. The selection of a week for weekly paid workers and a month for monthly paid workers is a simplistic solution which is attractive on the face of it but which of itself gives rise to difficulties. That is why we have proposed that the pay reference period should be not less than a week or month, as the case may be.
I give the Committee an example of the kind of difficulty I am talking about. Let us take the case of a highly seasonal occupation, the tourist trade. Employees are required to work extremely long hours at some times in the year but have much less to do at other times. An employer may pay his staff, especially key skilled staff such as chefs, housekeepers and head waiters, an annual salary with pay averaged out over the whole year. The system operates on the basis of swings and roundabouts. Other less skilled staff may receive a bare retainer during the off season. If the pay reference period is in every case and in every occupation fixed by reference to a week or a month, an employer may find himself penalised when the busy season arrives, despite the fact that he has kept the employee on the books during the slack season. The consequence is that there may be a great deal more defensive casualisation of seasonal occupations, with some domestic staff being laid off during the off season. That is something that I believe already happens. That is why, as there has to be some pay reference period, we have suggested that it shall be not less than a week or month, as the case may be, but should be a reasonable period to be fixed by the Secretary of State, taking into account all relevant considerations which may vary from trade to trade.
The amendments enable the Secretary of State to act in a flexible manner and not cause an injustice to one kind of business by imposing a uniform solution or standard on many different trades where different considerations may apply. Although some minimum pay reference period is required, the Minister must have the power to differentiate between those different trades. At the same time, by not taking the easy route of an arbitrary universal pay reference period, the Secretary of State will need to give consideration to representations made to her about the needs of those different trades.
These two amendments are not intended to derogate in any way from the principles of the Bill, and nor do they. They simply clarify aspects which are far from clear and impose a minimum standard where there is not one, and above all they require the Secretary of State to act reasonably. I feel sure she is only too willing to do that. I hope that the Government have made use of the time to reflect given by my honourable friend in another place and will agree that what is proposed improves the Bill and that they will accept the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The amendment was beguilingly moved by the noble Baroness. She made the amendments sound so attractive. However, we have had time to think about them and we do not, for the reasons I shall indicate, believe that they would be an improvement to the Bill. They would be a detriment to it.
Perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 12. That amendment, as was accurately stated by the noble Baroness, requires the Secretary of State to be reasonable in determining the pay reference period. I do not imagine for one moment that the Secretary of State would wish to be unreasonable in determining that period. Indeed, the noble Baroness accepted that that was the position. The Secretary of State will make her decision in the light of the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission: an entirely reasonable approach.
The Government are currently considering the detailed application of the commission's recommendations, including this one in relation to the pay reference period. We are keen to ensure that the nitty-gritty of the legislation gets this right. The Bill provides, of course, for the Secretary of State to prescribe what the reference period should be, by means of regulations subject to affirmative resolution. Those regulations will, of course, be debated by Parliament.
Prior to that, the Government will consult on the draft regulations particularly with a view to ensuring that we get the details right. The consultation will give those affected a further opportunity to comment on the length of the reference period. So there is the advice of the Low Pay Commission; the consideration of the Secretary of State; the consultation on the detail by the Secretary of State; and the placing before Parliament of the regulations. That gives rise to a huge range of views to be taken into account.
It is difficult to envisage a process that could be more reasonable than that. There is no need to inject a reasonable requirement explicitly into the Bill itself, as

1251
the amendment proposes. To do so would be counter-productive. If the amendment were accepted, speaking as a lawyer myself, I am sure that the lawyers will have a field day. I can imagine all kinds of lengthy disputes and debates on whether any particular decision was reasonable.
The effect of the amendment would be that, even if the Secretary of State chose a period which she considered reasonable, others would have the right to challenge it and substitute their view for hers. I do not think that would be right. I do not believe this is a matter for lawyers to debate. It is a matter for government to decide after proper consultation and after taking proper advice in relation to it.
It is always difficult to argue against the inclusion of the word "reasonable" in legislation—because it seems unreasonable so to argue. But surprisingly, often the word achieves nothing, as in this case, and causes difficulties—again, as in this case.
It would be unusual, and unduly and unnecessarily prescriptive, to include an explicit test of "reasonableness" in this legislation. We expect our elected representatives to act in a reasonable way. If someone considers that a decision of the Secretary of State has been made on wholly unreasonable grounds, there is already scope to challenge it.
I hope that I have assured the Committee that the way in which we are proceeding is entirely reasonable. We have the Low Pay Commission's recommendations; we are consulting further; and we shall come back to this House with the detailed regulations. I am equally confident that the outcome will also be a reasonable one. I hope that deals in detail with the attractively put but, I respectfully submit, flawed proposal that the noble Baroness made in this amendment.
I now turn to Amendment No. 13. This in effect proposes to put limitations on what the Secretary of State may prescribe as a pay reference period. I can reassure the Committee that before we bring regulations on this matter before the House—namely, setting out what the pay reference period shall be—we shall be consulting on the draft regulations, particularly with a view to ensuring that we get the details right.
The consultation will give those affected a further opportunity to comment on the length of the reference period. There is no need to prescribe the reference period on the face of the Bill. There is no need to place limitations on what the pay reference period should be. Clause 1(4), as presently drafted, provides a power to set and adjust the pay reference period. It will be a matter of judgment as to what the pay reference period should be; and there can be different pay reference periods for different kinds of workers. Surely the right course in relation to this is to give maximum flexibility in order to avoid the kinds of anomalies to which the noble Baroness referred. I do not think the proposal she makes is of value to the Bill; I think it is positively detrimental and could give rise to the kinds of anomalies that she mentioned. With the greatest of respect to her, I suggest that she withdraws both of these amendments.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: In the other place my honourable friend complimented the Minister on having
1252
responded sensitively; here in this Committee, the noble Lord the Minister said that I asked the question attractively; but we do not seem to have got very far. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Determination of hourly rate of remuneration]:
[Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert (", including remuneration by the piece rather than the hourly rate").
The noble Baroness said: Piecework is not another name for sweated labour. It is an incentive method whereby more able and faster workers can earn more by their own efforts. It is a system where those working from home can do as little or as much as they wish and can work at whatever pace suits them. The days are long gone since the notorious speed-up of the production line inaugurated by the late Henry Ford.
It is true that there are some unacceptable cases of vulnerable home workers and some factory workers still being ruthlessly exploited by unscrupulous employers. We join in the condemnation of such conduct.
The fact is that piecework is an essential part of some industries, including, for example, farming, horticulture and packing goods for mail order. Unless the Government intend to outlaw and prohibit this method of remuneration—which they do not—piecework and piecework rates are factors which have to be taken into account when calculating the minimum wage to which an employee is entitled.
There are, however, complicating factors affecting the amount that an employee may receive. Some employees may work more slowly than the average on which the piece rate is calculated. Machinery may break down during the course of a working day, with no contingency to make up for the resulting lost pay. The problem is, once again, that trying to reduce pay calculated on some other basis into an hourly rate causes a major complication.
Our amendment to Clause 2(2)(c) does not alter or detract from the provisions of that clause. It supplements it by emphasising one of the factors to be taken into account. Maybe the clause as drafted already requires the Secretary of State to take piecework remuneration into account. Certainly paragraph 2(c) of the DTI's Notes on Clause 2, Part 31–1 Detailed Provisions, claims that the regulatory powers include:
"wages … paid on a "non-time" basis eg piece work".
The amendment underlines that point that is in the notes. It is belt and braces, if you wish.
The Secretary of State will be required to frame the regulations so as to produce a viable formula to correlate the piece-rate remuneration to the hourly rate, a formula that will not allow employers to use creative accounting or for pieceworkers to fall through the cracks in the system.
The amendment is intended to concentrate the Secretary of State's mind on the problem. I suggest that there can be no harm in this modest amendment, which simply emphasises what the Government claim the clause already does. The amendment simply removes any ambiguity. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I think we are completely at one in relation to this matter. As far as we are concerned, it is vital that the Bill covers pieceworkers. We know from having read the debates in the other place that it is in relation to piecework that some of the most appalling exploitation goes on. There are horrible examples, such as people being paid 8p for sewing a pair of trousers. There is no doubt that piecework should be covered. I genuinely pay tribute to the noble Baroness for raising this point.
The Bill was specifically drafted to cover that point. Subsection (2)(c)—the one that the noble Baroness wishes to amend—says:
"That the regulations may make provision for determining the hourly rate in cases where … the remuneration is, in whole or in part, otherwise than at a periodic rate or rates".
That is specifically drafted to deal with the piece-rate position. I sympathise entirely with the desire of the noble Baroness that it should be underlined. However, we do not believe that it is necessary; we honestly believe that that is the Bill's intention. We applaud the sentiment, but take issue with the drafting. In the light of those comments, I hope that the noble Baroness will be minded to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: That was a satisfactory answer. I accept what the noble and learned Lord said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) the employee is, by the terms of the contract of employment, required to live in for the proper performance of their duties").
The noble Viscount said: This is a probing amendment. Before I probe, perhaps I should declare an interest for the sake of good order. I am an employer and have a number of live-in staff. It may therefore be construed that I have an interest in this matter although a number of employers to whom I have spoken believe me to be speaking against my interests. I leave that to one side.
This is a straightforward question. I have no intention of pressing the amendment; I simply want to know a little about the Government's thinking. The amendment relates to live-in staff. The ones of whom I have knowledge are the harbourmaster at Scrabster harbour where I am the chairman and where he is obliged to live in the harbour house, and at Champneys where a number of staff, for example, head green-keepers, are often obliged to live on the premises.
Essentially, there are two kinds of live-in staff. There are those for whom the employer provides accommodation, largely because it may be difficult to find accommodation in the area. The staff often pay a rental contribution and the accommodation arrangements are largely of an administrative nature. If there is any difference between the cost of the accommodation provided and the rate the employer charges the employee for it, the Inland Revenue considers that to be a benefit in kind and taxes it as such. I am not concerned with those employees.
The amendment seeks to find out how the Government feel about the other kind of employee; that is, those who fall into a category which satisfies two Inland Revenue tests. The first test is that they are required by their contract, for the better performance of their duty, to live in. The second test usually applied is that it is the custom and habit of that specific trade.
In circumstances where the employees may not live out, where they are absolutely required to live in, it is accepted that living in is not a benefit in kind. There is usually a differential in the rate paid. Clearly, if an employee lives in a tied house or flat, there are costs to the employer. In that circumstance, the rate for the job may be less than for a similar occupation where someone is permitted to live out. There is also clearly an exchange of values. Some value is received by the employee and some value is given by the employer.
When the old Hotel Catering Wages Council was in existence, it dealt with the matter quite simply by setting two rates; that is, a live-in rate and a live-out rate for jobs. I am concerned that employees will lose out if some sort of similar provision is not made. If the value of their live-in accommodation is not taken into account, it will become easier or perhaps make more financial sense for the employer to pay the live-out wage and then charge a deduction. The actual net pay packet that the employee receives will then be less than otherwise. It is a very straightforward point. I fully accept that the drafting of this amendment may be hopelessly bad and I have probably got it in the wrong place. As I said, I simply wanted to ask the Government their views on this question. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for addressing an issue that was worth being addressed. It is, of course, a probing amendment. We have drafted Clause 2 in such a way that it enables ensuing regulations to cover a wide array of topics affecting pay and working arrangements. Clause 2(2)(d) covers the situation envisaged because it stipulates that the regulations may make provision for cases where,
"the remuneration consists, in whole or in part, of benefits in kind",
while subsection (4)(a) and (b) enable the regulations to treat accommodation as,
"forming part of a person's remuneration".
and to say what its value is. I believe that that is the point that the noble Viscount has addressed.
We shall look carefully at the recommendations that the Low Pay Commission makes in that regard and in other areas. We shall make a decision on that. These are issues that will come before the House in its consideration of regulations.

1255
The noble Viscount mentioned a tax regime in the same context as the minimum wage regime. There are different considerations which apply. We shall be looking at those in the next amendment.
Viscount Thurso: I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply which addresses all of the points I wished to raise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 16, at beginning insert—
("Subject to subsection (4A) below,").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 22. They are to incorporate a new subsection temporarily numbered (4A). Amendment No. 19 is purely a paving amendment. The plain and simple effect of the main amendment, Amendment No. 22, is to define "remuneration". It is defined as being anything which the Inland Revenue would treat as taxable. In other words, if it is subject to income tax then it is income. It is as simple as that.
The Inland Revenue has spent several generations defining the meaning of "income" and "benefits in kind". It has, item by item, closed one loophole after another. There is a vast body of statute, case law and Inland Revenue practice notes covering both phrases. By the same token, Acts governing income tax have defined that expenses personally incurred by an employee himself should be regarded as deductions from his gross pay; for example, for a telephone and the nominal rent of an office at the home of the employee working from there.
The PAYE system also has the advantage of anticipating one of the requirements of this Bill. Each employee receives an annual certificate called Form P60 showing the amount of his gross pay and benefits. In other words, we have a method of defining income which has stood the test of time and which would doubtless continue to be refined with successive Finance Acts.
What we do not need is a second system defining income and benefits. We do not need a second system which may possibly be in conflict or inconsistent with the existing main system. We do not need a confusing system where income for one set of purposes is different from the income for another; a system which may mean that employer and employee alike will not be absolutely and consistently clear about how and where they stand.
Who, I ask, is going to draft the regulations defining pay and benefits? Are experts to be seconded from the Inland Revenue, or is it to be done by dedicated amateurs on the subject in the DTI? However able officials undoubtedly are, they may find themselves overwhelmed by the amount that they have to learn about a highly complex and specialised subject. How often will the Secretary of State have to come back to Parliament with amending regulations to rectify errors and omissions and to close loopholes?
I cannot conceive of any valid reasons why the Secretary of State should want to take on the onerous burden of defining "income" for the purposes of this Bill and then shepherding that definition through both Houses of Parliament when the work has already been done for her very competently by the Inland Revenue. I am sure that the Secretary of State and her officials at the DTI have more than enough to do without reinventing the wheel. When I was in the mail order business, advertising agencies would come to me with suggested new adverts to replace my already successful ones. That was due to something called the "not invented here" syndrome. As the Americans say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
What we need in the operation of this legislation are fewer regulations, fewer possible contradictions between the Inland Revenue and the DTI, and less expensive bureaucracy, not more. I do not accuse the Secretary of State of having empire-building ambitions. However, if it is good enough for the Inland Revenue, it ought to be good enough for the DTI. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: I should very much like to support my noble friend Lady Miller on this amendment, to which I referred briefly when we were considering an earlier amendment. As my noble friend said, the Inland Revenue has vast experience of, and case law and practice on, the question of tips, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, spoke with his considerable experience. The amendment sets out clearly and concisely a summary of Revenue practices. I very much hope that the Minister will reconsider his rather inflexible attitude to the definition of the "hourly rate" in the context of this amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thought that the noble Baroness indulged in some dangerous doctrine when she said that what is good enough for the Inland Revenue must be good enough for the DTI. I am not sure that her government would have accepted that doctrine. I believe that it was Winston Churchill who once said of the Treasury that it is like an inverted Micawber, waiting for something to turn down—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Clinton-Davis: No, I did not say that!
Perhaps I had better use the word "beguiling" again because it seems to persuade the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments more readily. Although the noble Baroness moved her amendment so beguilingly, I am afraid that it encounters certain difficulties. The definition of "remuneration" for tax purposes is not the same as that for minimum wage purposes. I shall try to explain why. The natures of the tax regime and of the minimum wage regime are very different. The tax regime examines all forms of income. It is not concerned simply with remuneration as such. It examines the whole range of remuneration and income at all levels. It operates according to a general set of criteria which individuals use to assess their own tax liability. Then, a tax inspector will test the situation

1257
periodically. What is taxable remuneration in one person's case may turn out not to be taxable in another case or to be taxable at a different rate.
On the other hand, the minimum wage regime will focus purely on remuneration. The intent is to provide a floor; it is not to intervene at all levels of pay. The composition of what will constitute remuneration will be a standard package. I am talking here of it consisting of gross pay or of net pay. Whatever the case, the same rules will apply to all. We are considering the detailed application of the minimum wage in this and other areas in the light of the commission's report.
The amendment would be very prescriptive and require the regulations under Clause 2 to deal with the calculation of remuneration for national minimum wage purposes in a very particular and direct way. As I and my noble and learned friend have said on a number of occasions, we shall consult on draft regulations to be laid before the House in the light of the commission's report. We are dealing here with a very technical matter but a very important one that affects everyone in the low-paying sectors. Employers and employees will want to know precisely what does and does not count as payments for determining compliance with the minimum wage.
We would be very chary of defining "remuneration" in the way suggested in the amendment. We believe that it is inappropriate and that it would lead to the definition of remuneration being changed every time the income tax rules changed. Those rules change frequently. Employers and individuals are obliged to adjust to those changes—sometimes they even become reconciled to them—but it is entirely different to have adjustments of this kind that create uncertainty in the context of the minimum wage, which imposes duties and obligations on employers and creates rights for workers. That unnecessary uncertainty prevents this amendment being helpful. I ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment.
Lord Lyell: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may be very naughty. I did not detect much more than a hair's breadth between what he said about remuneration and what was said by my noble friend. He spoke about differing rates of tax and remuneration. I am just an accountant. I am not a lawyer like the noble and learned Lord opposite or my noble and learned friend who has just sat down, let alone an expert like my noble friend on the Front Bench. To me, "remuneration" is "remuneration". Everything that the Minister has said covers remuneration and is perfectly clear. He may have referred to differing rates but he has said nothing about forms of income, whatever they may be called, that do not come within "remuneration" for tax or minimum wage purposes. He spoke of differing rates of remuneration and changes in tax rates but it is still remuneration. I did not detect much between the excellent case argued by the Minister and the pretty good case argued by my noble friend.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Lord is the first accountant I have ever heard to describe himself as "just
1258
an accountant". I do not believe that he is being naughty. He is perfectly entitled to make a bogus point. I believed that I had categorically set out the substantive differences between my argument and that of the noble Baroness. I do not complain that she makes this point. It is a point which superficially is attractive. But I hope that the noble Lord will do me the honour of reading what I have said and comparing it with the speech of the noble Baroness.
Lord Lyell: I concentrated with all the attention that I could muster. I apologise to the Committee. I rose at three o'clock this morning and I have just flown back from Cyprus. I hope that my faculties are undiminished. I concentrated very hard on what the noble Lord said. I hope that it will be as attractive in writing as his mellifluous way of putting it, even at this late hour and even for me. He put it beautifully. I hope that my point is not a bogus one. I did not detect an awful lot—perhaps it was a little wider than a hair's breadth—between the Minister's case and that put by my noble friend in relation to remuneration. As an accountant, layman or a mere Angus lad I always make a naughty dig at the lawyers, but I shall desist and read what the noble Lord has said. No doubt I shall learn. I hasten to assure the noble Lord that mine was not a bogus point. I may be an accountant but I hope that I am reasonably serious, even this evening.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Lord will not have received what I have said by 3 o'clock tomorrow morning. It will have to be a little later. I am sorry if I have not persuaded him that there was a substantial difference between my approach and that of the noble Baroness. I leave it to him to detect further when he has read my contribution.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister is in extraordinarily good form this evening. He tempts fate somewhat when he says that I present my amendments in a beguiling way. The more that he says that I am beguiling, the quicker I am to withdraw the amendment. I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I do not agree, but then I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant. The best thing for me to do is to read carefully what he said. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 22, at end insert—
("except that expenditure made by an employer in respect of training that is wholly or partly attributable to a person shall not be treated as part of that person's remuneration for the purposes of this Act").
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment intended to elicit an answer to a problem raised in the other place on Third Reading. No answer came on that occasion. Now that the Government have had a chance to reflect upon the problem perhaps we can have a clear response.
As is well known, we are opposed to the principle of a national minimum wage because of the burdens that it will place on industry, with consequential adverse effects on employment. It may therefore seem strange that we propose an amendment, the effect of which will be to add to the costs of employers who provide training for individuals by not permitting those training costs to be treated as part of that employee's wage, despite the fact that the training an employee receives will, it is hoped, benefit him for the rest of his working life.
We have had to ask this question because of the Government's coyness in revealing their intentions as regards the amount and the administrative details of a national minimum wage. Parliament is being forced to legislate on the national minimum wage on the basis of a largely skeleton Bill, when most of the important details will be filled in at some later date in the form of a ministerial order.
Like a stone thrown into a pond, the ripples caused by the Bill will spread into many unexpected quarters for which the Government have not provided any contingency provisions. Training costs, and the consequences of including or excluding them, are such a contingency. The problems regarding training costs are contradictory. They begin with the failure to say whether they will impose a training rate of a national minimum wage on genuine trainees. Presumably it will be a rate lower than the universal rate that the Government will impose elsewhere.
There are two sides to the problem. If the training costs are not counted as part of the national minimum wage, and if there is not a lower training rate of pay, there will be an incentive to potential employees to take up the benefits of a training place. On the other hand, if employers cannot get credit for the cost of training, or even a percentage of the cost of providing the training, against their labour costs, it will be the employers who may be discouraged from incurring the expense.
In the end, employers may find it cheaper to let someone else do the training and to poach the employee as soon as he is qualified. The Government have expended a great deal of rhetoric on the need for a well-trained workforce. Now is the time to come off the fence and to tell us what they mean.
I can speak to Amendment No. 21 briefly as it is a simple amendment. I am sorry for my hesitation but I am having a slight problem because I have had a bit of a nose bleed which has made a bit of a mess on my paper. The amendment is simple in content and in terms of reasonableness and fairness. It provides that if the employer makes a contribution for an employee into a recognised pension fund, and hence for the employee's benefit, then such contribution shall be treated as additional wages enjoyed by that employee.
It is such a logical and obvious provision that it defies any necessity to explain it. One simple fact will serve to illustrate the point. The CBI's evidence to the Low Pay Commission says that pension payments are often worth as much as 10 per cent. of pay. Encouraging private pension arrangements is an important part of the Government's avowed plans to establish a second pension to supplement the state retirement pension.
1260
Acceptance of the amendment would be evidence of the genuineness of the Government's well publicised utterances on this topic.
However, what is difficult to explain is why the Government have wrapped up all the potential ingredients of what is pay in the mysterious wide-ranging regulatory powers in Clause 2(4). Instead of making their thinking clear and embodying it in this primary legislation, they want power to create a major piece of law by ministerial fiat.
The Government's attitude is that, as with the actual minimum wage, we shall have to wait for the pronouncement of this currently non-statutory body when all will be revealed. At that point, we shall presumably be presented with a fait accompli by the Secretary of State unless she happens to dislike the findings and decides to alter them. In the meantime, we are supposed to discuss this important Act on the basis of abstract principles. I say that because in the debate on Second Reading in another place, my honourable friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire specifically invited Ministers to say whether they wished the Low Pay Commission to treat pension payments by employers as remuneration for the purposes of the national minimum wage. That invitation was not replied to. Therefore we are still none the wiser. I repeat the question to the Minister now. If the Minister cannot or will not answer it at this stage, perhaps he can tell us why not. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I hope that the noble Baroness is now all right. Of course if she requires a short adjournment, we shall certainly accommodate that.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister. However, I think that I am now all right.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Amendment No. 20 seeks to ensure on the face of the Bill that an employer's expenditure attributable to training should not count towards remuneration for the purposes of the national minimum wage. If translated into practice, the effect of the amendment would work in favour of the worker. So I am delighted that the noble Baroness is confronting us with the vivid portrayal of herself as the workers' champion. I am delighted to see it. To that end, we are on the same side.
I do not think that it is necessary to change the Bill in the way proposed by Amendment No. 20. The function of Clause 2—we have said it over and again in debates—is to provide the necessary flexibility to reflect recommendations which are made now, but also recommendations and changes which might be made in the light of future experience. The amendment would be very prescriptive.
The purpose of Amendment No. 21 is to ensure that an employer's contributions to pension funds on behalf of the employee will count towards remuneration for national minimum wage purposes. In such cases this would have the effect of reducing the cash value of the minimum wage.

1261
The Government aim to widen pension provision. The noble Baroness has said that she understands that to be the objective of the Government. Occupational pension schemes are an important part of this framework. I understand by the amendment that she would wish not to provide a disincentive to employers who might be considering such schemes. There is merit in that.
On the other hand, the amendment would have the undesirable effect of reducing the cash value of the minimum wage that a worker would receive. I beg the noble Baroness to appreciate that that is the side of the amendment which we find unacceptable.
The noble Baroness says that there will be a ministerial fiat to deal with all this. That is not right. We have said repeatedly during the course of the debates that we shall be consulting about the regulations. The regulations will come before the House. They will be subject to the approval of the House in implementing the minimum wage. Indeed, the affirmative procedure would apply in this particular case, so the House would have ample opportunities to look at these matters.
In the light of the amendment and the argument—I had better not use the word beguiling or anything of that kind—which the noble Baroness has attractively put forward, I am not persuaded that we should change the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I listened carefully again to what the Minister said. I shall certainly read his remarks with great care in Hansard tomorrow. I am not sure whether it is beguilingly or attractively put, but whichever way it is put from over there, it is rejected. I have to say that the Ministers are definitely tempting me not to be so generous. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): Before calling Amendment No. 23, I should inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 24 to 28 inclusive.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 34, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 23, 31 and 40 are to delete the whole of Clause 2(7), Clause 3(3) and Clause 4(2) respectively. These are the provisions which inhibit the Secretary of State from exercising any discretion over the application of the Bill.
If the proposed new clause, Amendment No. 29, to which I shall be speaking later, is accepted, then each of these subsections is inconsistent with it and would need to be removed in any case. I am afraid that the sequence in which the amendments are called is not the chronological order I would have preferred. There are
1262
also line by line objections which we have been told could not be moved if this amendment were to be agreed to.
I believe that it is more important to concentrate on the principle of ensuring that the Secretary of State does not build a barrier preventing herself from adapting the Act in case of need. In each of the subsections I wish to delete, the Secretary of State is seeking to prohibit herself from making any exemptions or variations in the case of any of the very important factors that might call for just that. I have in mind variations for different areas of the country, different sectors of employment or undertakings of different sizes, as happens in the United States of America, which is one of Government's role models for the minimum wage, or for persons of different ages, which could have an adverse effect on older persons getting part-time jobs for which they are suited on grounds of health or family commitments.
I do not wish to anticipate the arguments that I shall be advancing in support of the new clause that I shall shortly be proposing, which is to give the Secretary of State the widest possible discretion to make exemptions. Although those arguments do bear repeating, if only in the hope that they will eventually percolate through the barrier of deafness that I think the Government have erected against the concept of giving themselves a safety net, I am well aware of the time.
The minimum wage is a new concept in this country. The Government are not following the experience of other countries, particularly the United States of America, but also other European countries. It is possible—I repeat, it is possible—that the Government may discover, when the Bill has been in force for some time, that they have made a mistake. I agree that at the moment, with their faint omniscience, they, and they alone, believe they know what is good for the country in every possible field and subject. Suppose, even with the crystal ball which the Secretary of State possesses, there is a change in circumstances and one of the parameters of these three subsections, what then will happen?
The Secretary of State will be unable to do anything without coming back to Parliament and begging for time out of a heavy legislative programme to put the matter right and to rectify her present refusal to consider the possibility that she might be wrong. In the meantime, any damage caused by the absence of discretion may go on and on, and may possibly become irrevocable.
The reason for the Government's present adamant refusal to allow any exceptions to the national minimum wage, apart from those very special ones which were wrung out of them in the other place, seems obvious. The Labour Party pledged to the unions that there would be a universal national minimum wage and Labour claims that it always keeps its promises. That is not true, as events of the past year have proved, but we need not go into that now.
So far as the unions are concerned, the Secretary of State is determined to keep that pledge, no matter what the cost to the country, the economy or individuals which may prove to be prejudicial. The power to create exemption in case of need is a matter of common sense

1263
and it is a matter of justice. The attitude of the Government in tying themselves hand and foot is the height of folly. These amendments will mean that the Government will be compelled to put the interests of the country before doctrinaire considerations. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: These amendments are exactly the reverse of Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. Those amendments concerned multiple rates by region, size of firm and so forth. In this group of amendments the noble Baroness is suggesting that the Secretary of State should have the right to make such exceptions.
My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer carefully explained that these exceptions are impractical and against the principles of the Bill. At this late hour, I do not wish to go over all the points which he made in explaining why they are impractical, but the same arguments apply in this case. The universality of the Bill is a source of its strength and we wish to maintain that. I do not see any pragmatic justification for sectoral exemptions, which is what the noble Baroness suggests. The amendments might be a recipe for confusion and uncertainty and there would not be the safety net which she suggests.
New sectors constantly emerge or combine with old sectors. Modern firms now encompass multi-sectoral activities, so how would it be possible for employers and workers to cope with a range of different sectoral rates? That is why we do not believe that it is right for the Secretary of State to have these powers.
I hope that with that explanation in mind, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I do not agree with the Minister, but I shall withdraw the amendments. We might well return to them at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, leave out line 38.
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 26, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 34 and 44. They relate to Clause 2(7)(c), Clause 3(3)(c) and Clause 4(2)(c). The Secretary of State declines to give herself powers to make regulations distinguishing between undertakings of different sizes. This is the most inexplicable of all the proscriptions which the Secretary of State is imposing on herself. It brings me back to the question of why the Government are so adamantly trying to impose a regime of absolute invariable universality.
The Labour Party, in its argument in favour of the whole concept of a minimum wage, pointed to the United States of America which has had a minimum wage since 1938. Indeed it has. However, it has also had an exemption in favour of small businesses. A small business is currently defined as one with an annual turnover of less than 500,000 dollars. At current rates of exchange, that is
1264
about £309,000. Why will not the Government follow the example of their model regime, the United States of America, and grant the same exemption to our own small businesses? I refer to the corner grocery shops, the little newsagents, the bakeries, the greengrocers, the village stores and other businesses which struggle to survive against the onslaught of the giant superstores. Are all those to go the same way as the high street fishmonger? Perhaps noble Lords have not noticed that they have largely disappeared from the shopping scene. And what about the new businesses just starting up? There can be no reason, except for politics, for this obstacle being placed in the way of the most vulnerable but vital sector of the community. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: The noble Baroness referred to the minimum wage in the United States. What she did not tell us is that exemption from the minimum wage applies only to small companies which do not engage in inter-state trade. I have been an employer in the United States for many years and I am quite familiar with that.
The noble Baroness's amendment would allow the Secretary of State to differentiate the calculation of a worker's pay according to the size of the business in which the employee works. Again, the same arguments apply about differentiation as my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer made when we were discussing some of the earlier amendments. To take a random example, in the situation where one size of hotel could be allowed to use accommodation as an offset and another size of hotel could not, those companies would be paying different wages. It would be confusing and unfair and would distort competition. The whole principle of the minimum wage is that it is a minimum wage. It is not the wage that people are being paid; it is the minimum wage that they are being paid. If firms can afford to pay more, they will pay more. So we do not see any justification for allowing such variations in the calculation of the rate.
I would ask the noble Baroness to reconsider her amendment. If she is not feeling well we can certainly have an adjournment for a few minutes.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the Minister. I am feeling well.
I do not agree with his argument. My understanding is that under the fair labour standards legislation of 1938, firms whose annual turnover is less than 500,000 dollars are exempted from the national minimum wage. I am perfectly happy to look into that again, but I believe my information is correct. That is the very point that I was making.
There are all kinds of other exemptions that happen in America for small businesses. That is the one area that we are particularly concerned about. My noble friend at Second Reading gave a good example of a small shop which would be caused enormous difficulties if the minimum wage were to come in. But that is another matter.
I shall certainly look into that, but I think that the Minister might also be advised to do the same. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Razzall Lord Razzall moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
("(f) different hours of work; or
(g) different patterns of work.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment designed to test the Government's attitude on this particular point. As various Members of the Committee and Ministers have indicated, the way that Clause 2 works, and in particular Clause 2(7), is that it reflects the Government's determination to have only one national minimum wage and to remove from the Secretary of State the power to have anything other than one single minimum wage.
As the Committee will be aware, in particular we disagree with regional variation. On the other hand, the Government are determined to press on. The structure of the clause in subsection (7) confirms that there is to be a single minimum wage and that certain areas may not be excluded. Concern has been expressed that there is a problem of potential discrimination in setting the minimum wage in relation to employees who are not simply nine-to-five employees. Therefore, it should be made clear in the Bill that the minimum cannot be either recommended or fixed by the Secretary of State to deal separately with people who, for example, are doing night work or whose job is not a continuous nine-to-five job. There is a concern that there is insufficient protection in any anti-discrimination procedures. I should like to probe the Government's attitude in that regard. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Lord has made absolutely clear the purpose of the amendment. He wants us to tell the Committee our attitude to workers who work, in effect, non-standard hours of work or patterns of work. He wants us to make it clear that such people are covered by the Bill and no distinction will be made in their case. I have absolutely no hesitation in giving him the assurance that he seeks in that respect.
We share the concerns of the noble Lord and those on his Benches. Indeed, we have always emphasised that workers who are marginalised and not typical—for example, part-time workers, home workers, agency workers, workers who are forced to work unsocial hours or who choose to work hours in an abnormal pattern—are often the workers most in need of protection. That is why we have clauses later in the Bill dealing specifically with them. I draw the attention of the Committee to Clauses 34 and 35.
As I said, we are happy to give the Committee the assurance that workers will not be discriminated against because of the hours they work or because they have an unusual pattern of work. After all, Clause 1 applies the minimum wage to all—and I emphasise "all" workers.
The noble Lord's amendments apply the same protection to three different clauses—Clauses 2, 3 and 4. The effect of the amendment is slightly different in the context of Clause 2, where it would prevent the Secretary of State treating workers with different hours or patterns of work differently when making regulations concerning the calculation of the workers' hourly rates
1266
of pay. If one looks at Clause 2(2), one sees that the Secretary of State must have power to reflect different patterns of work in working out various ancillary aspects to the minimum wage. We believe that the effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to make that more difficult rather than easier.
The purpose of Clause 2(2) is to give the Secretary of State the flexibility to reflect in the regulations the many and varied types of working and pay arrangements which exist. The amendments proposed would prevent that. For that reason, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment No. 27.
The amendments he proposes to Clauses 3 and 4 would not have that detrimental effect, but we say that they are simply unnecessary. The Government have absolutely no intention of applying different youth or training rates to people on the basis of the hours or patterns of work they follow. The Bill applies universally, as Clause 1 makes clear.
Therefore, while the Government are entirely in sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, we are keen to leave Clauses 3 and 4 as drafted. They are sufficiently restrictive to ensure that the clauses cannot be misused, and sufficiently flexible to allow for any unforeseen situations in the future where the Low Pay Commission, for example, may recommend some specific use for the powers in either clause. I urge the noble Lord to accept my assurances and withdraw the amendment.
Lord Razzall: On the basis of the Minister's assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. In the circumstances, I give notice that I shall not move Amendments Nos. 35 and 47 in due course.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Exclusion of and modifications for, certain classes of person]:
Lord Newby Lord Newby moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 2, leave out line 42 and insert ("18.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the question of the minimum wage payable to workers under the age of 26. In a sense, I suspect that the amendment has been, or is about to be, overtaken by events. When we looked at the Bill as it first appeared before us, it was unclear what the Government's intention was in respect of workers under the age of 26. At that stage there was at least a theoretical possibility that they would not be subject to minimum wage protection. Therefore, we wished to put down a marker to show that we thought that that was unfair.
As a general principle, we support the concept of equal pay for equal work. There is clearly a whole raft of occupations in which someone undertaking work at the age of 18 is doing so on the same basis and with the same degree of output as someone who is considerably older. For that reason, we thought it appropriate to bring the coverage of the minimum wage down to the age of 18. Of course, the question then arises as to why we did

1267
not propose bringing it down to 16, so that it would cover everyone who might have left school. Our reasoning in that respect is quite simple.
Our view is that the period in a young person's life between the ages of 16 and 18 should essentially be a period for education and training. A large majority of young people are, indeed, undertaking formal education and training during that period. Under our proposals for education and training, we would make that the universal position. In those circumstances, therefore, it would be inappropriate for us to go below the age of 18.
As regards this amendment and those grouped with it, given the fact that we understand that the Low Pay Commission is, in a sense, dealing with the matter along the lines that we propose—namely, that young people aged between 18 and 26 will be covered by the Bill's provisions and by the low pay minimum wage legislation—and bearing in mind that we have been slightly overtaken by events, I move the amendment simply to see whether we can flush out anything further from the Minister on the matter this evening. I move the amendment on that basis. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I shall attempt to answer the noble Lord's request to be flushed out. The noble Lord will appreciate that Clause 3 is an enabling provision. It will allow us the flexibility to reflect the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission; but, at the same time, it will limit the scope of the clause to be misused, as we would see it, by differentiation by region, size of business, and so on.
We chose to invite the commission to consider any exemptions or variations for young people up to the age of 26. My honourable friend the Minister of State made it very clear in the discussions which took place in Committee in another place that the Government are not seeking to steer the commission to exempt all those under the age of 26. We needed to draw a line somewhere; and we drew it at 26 because that was where the New Deal drew its line.
The noble Lord has recognised that his amendments are, to some extent, deficient; indeed, he chose to use the phrase, "overtaken by events". They would result in a full adult rate for all those over 17. That is not consistent with evidence we have received from other countries and from academic studies showing that there are particular circumstances in the youth labour market which point towards some different treatment for young people. These are matters that remain to be dealt with later when the Low Pay Commission report is before us and we have tendered our reply in relation to its recommendations. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Newby: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I shall obviously withdraw the amendment but before I do so I reiterate the point that we believe that the principle of equal pay for equal work is a valid principle. When the detailed provisions for the minimum wage are brought forward we shall consider the extent
1268
to which that principle has been accepted by the Low Pay Commission and the Government. With that caveat I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before calling Amendment No. 31, I inform the Committee that if this amendment were to be agreed I cannot call Amendments Nos. 32 to 35.
[Amendments Nos. 31 to 37 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Power to add to the persons to whom section 3 applies]:
[Amendments Nos. 38 to 47 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 48:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—

POWER TO SUSPEND THE NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE IN THE EVENT OF LOCAL OR NATIONAL ECONOMIC EMERGENCIES
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State, after such consultation with the Low Pay Commission as may be reasonably practicable, may by order suspend the operation of this Act if he is satisfied that such suspension is required in the public interest by extreme economic circumstances.
(2) An order under subsection (1) may provide for the operation of this Act to be suspended in whole or in part and, in particular, may provide for the provisions of this Act to be suspended in respect of—

(a) any area or description of area; or

(b) any individual employer.

(3) No order shall be made under subsection (2)(b) above unless the employer has given the Secretary of State not less than 30 days' notice in such form as may be prescribed that, in the opinion of the employer, such an order is necessary in order to prevent the loss of jobs.
(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament after being made.
(5) Unless an order under this section is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which it is made, it shall cease to have effect at the end of that period.
(6) In reckoning the period of 28 days for the purposes of subsection (3), no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than 4 days.
(7) An order under this section which does not cease to have effect before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the day on which it is made shall cease to have effect at the end of that period.").
The noble Baroness said: There have been several amendments I have not moved, not because I do not think they are important but because I am aware of the lateness of the hour and I think it is inappropriate to detain the Committee even longer at this stage.
This amendment concerns the power to suspend the national minimum wage in the event of local or national emergencies. I shall try to cut down on my notes. I remind those on the Benches opposite that one important rule in politics and indeed in government is that you never say "never". I do not possess the crystal ball that the Government claim to own, but I think there

1269
is bound to be a time when the Government may repent of their folly and wish there was some way they could put this whole Bill on hold, even if only for a temporary period. I shall not take up time by trying to conjure up any theoretical scenarios. I shall just give the Committee one taken from real life which many Members of the Committee on the other side of the Chamber will recall.
Meridian Motor Cycles became insolvent and, with the encouragement of a former Labour government and with a great deal of public money, were taken over by an ill-fated workers' co-operative. I do not remember what the financial arrangement with the employees comprised, but supposing that in this or in similar circumstances the employees volunteered to forgo all or some of their wages in a bid to save their firm and their jobs. Under the Bill as drafted they could not do so for fear of running foul of the Bill and the penalties imposed by it.
The proposed new clause would give the Secretary of State power to suspend the national minimum wage both as regards an area or as regards a particular employer if the circumstances warranted it, but only after consultation with the Low Pay Commission. We have made ample provision for a suspension to be brought before Parliament within a short space of time, and also for the time limit not to be affected when Parliament is not sitting. We have also made provision for the order to come to an end in no more than three months. Therefore there is no question of an unlimited suspension.
Once again this is an option which the Secretary of State can have in reserve in case of need, even if she believes that there is no possible occasion when such a need might arise, and even if she believes there is no possible occasion when some emergency might arise when the good of the country or of some particular area or potential pocket of unemployment might override the Government's philosophical view that the Bill is to be regarded as being set in concrete. She has no obligation to exercise the discretion that this clause gives her; indeed she has no obligation to do anything. But, again, if circumstances arise where it might be imperative for her to do so, she will not find herself with her hands tied, or find herself constrained by the parliamentary timetable from introducing emergency legislation.
This is an enabling provision in what is largely an enabling Bill. It in no way detracts from the initial operation of the Act in the present circumstances. However, the present circumstances are that we are at the beginning of a new recession. There is no point in entering into any recriminatory discussion about it. The fact is that what are the present circumstances may be vastly different in perhaps 12 or 24 months' time. The last thing that the Government, or indeed any of us, will want is to find small businesses going to the wall and crowds of disaffected youths findings themselves priced out of such jobs as might actually be available.
I know that the Government do not believe that such circumstances could arise, especially under their benign rule. But they must make allowances or have contingency plans for the possibility that they might be wrong, even though they have a fervent and unshakeable
1270
confidence in their own infallibility. I trust that in accepting that there is no conceivable credible explanation, they will accept this entirely constructive amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I rise to speak as a member of a Government with unshakeable confidence in our own infallibility. Now I know I am infallible. I have tried to convey that to the rest of the Committee.
The circumstances in which the noble Baroness seeks to invoke this rather extreme measure are unnamed, unidentified, and not defined; and the phrase, "extreme economic circumstances", used in the new clause has no meaning. I reject the idea that it is right to assume that poverty wages might be reinstated by suspending the national minimum wage in these undefined circumstances. I cannot accept that. Nor do I think the noble Baroness was under the impression that I ever could. It is in periods of economic difficulty that poverty pay becomes even more unacceptable. We do not wish to get into the realm of discussing the power to suspend the national minimum wage, particularly in the ill-defined circumstances suggested by the noble Baroness.
Why are we seeking to acquire these powers to deal with the minimum wage? It is because exploitation has to be tackled. I believe that noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches would go along with the Government in that view. It leads to a lack of motivation and a lack of involvement on the part of people who are working. All these practices are contrary to the public interest. We need to be able to encourage firms to engage on the basis of competition, higher competitiveness and higher productivity. Quality in terms of pay and conditions is extremely important in that. I do not believe in poverty wages.
I simply cannot see how acquiring this power could be in the public interest. Who would benefit from this situation? It would be the very unscrupulous employers who have motivated the actions that we seek to take. Anyway, the new clause would not work in practice. Every time an individual employer got into difficulty he would come running along to the Secretary of State asking for an order, rather than exploring ways of avoiding the crisis.
If economic circumstances were to change, the Low Pay Commission could be called to review the rate at any time. That is the very reason for the flexibility that we seek to introduce in Clauses 5 to 8. Of course, it is possible for an unexpected crisis to develop. It happened in south-east Asia very recently. But we have, I hope, developed a mechanism to try to deal with that situation. I do not believe that what is proposed in the amendment is the route we ought to be going down.
I am aware that there is a power in the Bank of England Bill to cover action in extreme economic circumstances. But that Bill deals with the macro-economy and allows the economic levers controlled by the Bank to be returned to the Treasury in certain circumstances. This Bill is not about that. This Bill is about individual rights and covers a relatively small part of the economy.

1271
I believe that the line taken by the noble Baroness is not the right one. We cannot go down that route. If workers deserve protection, they deserve it all the time.
Baroness Byford: Before the Minister sits down, I should like to follow up the point made by my noble friend Lady Miller in relation to where there is, for example, a management buy-out. The Minister did not respond to that point and I seek guidance. Am I wrong that, if a group of workers decide that they wish to keep their project or business going, there is in those circumstances no way in which they can forgo their wage to keep the business going? I am uncertain as to the position and should be grateful if the Minister could elucidate a little further.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Baroness raises an interesting point; but there would not be an exception in that event. However, one has to examine the totality of the circumstances affecting the company. One cannot just say that the company has gone down the drain because of a particular situation which would be affected by the national minimum wage. I do not see that I can isolate that particular circumstance—which is hypothetical anyway—and say that that is the whole cause to which the company's failure is attributable. One would have to look carefully at the situation. I do not accept the conclusion reached by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for that reply; but there have been such circumstances in the past, and I suspect that there will be in the future. If this attitude is taken to its fullest extent, those who are temporarily employed at that stage will cease to be employed. They will be worse off because they are not even given the opportunity for a short period of time—as has happened in the past—to decide to forgo their wages or take lower wages to keep the company buoyant and afloat so that it can continue in business. The Minister has just told me that is precluded in the Bill, and I am anxious about that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: If one is considering a buy-out, one has to look at all the circumstances. It is not possible for me to respond to the noble Baroness on the spur of the moment. I will write to her about it. We can always return to the matter at a later stage.
Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for that. This is an important point. I shall certainly not press him tonight but, if he could come back to me on it, I should be very grateful.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am grateful to my noble friend for reiterating what I said in moving my amendment. I do not think the Minister took note of it. The point I was making, and which was repeated by my noble friend, was that Meridian Motor Cycles became insolvent. With the encouragement of a former Labour Government, and a great deal of public money, it was taken over by an ill-fated workers' co-operative. I have no idea what kinds of salaries they were paid or
1272
what kinds of salaries they drew. The point I was making was that in such cases the employees volunteer to forgo some of their wages in a bid to save their jobs. As the Bill is presently drafted, that could not happen.
All I am saying is that I was disappointed with the Minister's answer, but I hope that he will look at this again, because we are talking about events that happen from time to time and it would be foolish if a business were not able to survive simply because of that situation. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [The first regulations: referral to the Low Pay Commission]:
[Amendments Nos. 49 to 60 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Referral of matters to the Low Pay Commission at any time]:
11 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 61:
After Clause 4, page 4, line 45, at end insert—
(" ( ) The Secretary of State shall also, without prejudice to his other powers under this section, refer to the Low Pay Commission any proposal which would result in any increase in the actual hourly rate, whether by the application of some formula or in percentage terms or by a general amount; and the provisions of section 5 shall apply to any subsequent recommendation of the Low Pay Commission.").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 6 enables the Secretary of State to refer any matters relating to the Bill to the Low Pay Commission at any time. It is, as with so many other provisions of this Bill, entirely permissive. As the DTI's explanatory note says, it is up to the Secretary of State to decide whether, and if so when, to consult the Low Pay Commission. Again, the Secretary of State is not obliged to follow any of the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission, though she is obliged to explain to Parliament her reasons for not doing so. What would happen if Parliament disagreed with her reasons is not clear. But we would be grateful if the Minister could perhaps tell us.
In other words, these provisions are largely cosmetic. The Secretary of State can refer matters to the low pay unit if she wants to, but if it does not sanctify whatever course she favours, she can ignore it. On the other hand, she can act unilaterally if she wants to. There is no regulation or criterion as to which of the two courses she should adopt. She does not have to act consistently from one case to another and does not have to explain why she preferred one course to another.
It is unclear what the Low Pay Commission will actually do after its first burst of activity in recommending what is called in Clause 5(1) "the first regulation". After that, it is presumably to go into hibernation until the Secretary of State, like the prince in "Sleeping Beauty", rouses it from its slumber and asks it to give her some advice on something or other, which she can ignore or override if she does not like the

1273
advice. After that—mixing up the fairy tales—it will be sent back to sleep again, just like the dormouse at the Mad Hatter's tea party.
According to the financial statement, the Low Pay Commission will cost between £500,000 and £1 million a year to run. But to do what? Absolutely nothing, if that is what the Secretary of State so decides. It may become involved in some pointless exercise if the Secretary of State decides to ignore its findings and advice. It will have to produce an annual report and accounts, but that report might conceivably say, "We have not done anything this year". It does not have to study and report on the economic effects of its own activities and of the Secretary of State's independent actions. It does not have the power to recommend that the Secretary of State should consult it on anything connected with the Bill, whether on the current rate or the desirability of altering it, creating modifications or exemptions where they are required. No. The Secretary of State will command it to sit like a well-trained dog, and sit it will, until instructed to the contrary.
There is one important task however that it can and should be given, and that task is the subject of this amendment. It requires the Secretary of State to refer to the Low Pay Commission any proposal which will have the effect of increasing the national minimum wage. There are two important—indeed vital—reasons why that should be done, and not merely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. She still retains the discretion given to her under Clause 5(4)(d) of the Bill as to whether to follow any new recommendation.
The first of the two reasons is economic. There may be cogent reasons why there should be no increase in wages at a given time, reasons why pay restraint should be exercised. We have all seen it happen in the past, and doubtless circumstances will require it again in the future.
What has to be avoided is some automatic increase for one group of workers inserted into what is called "the annual pay round". Apart from the inflationary effect that that will have and the consequences to our international competitiveness, it will also have a disastrous effect on the pay claims of workers earning well above the national minimum wage, and that is because of the resulting demands to restore differentials.
In the debate in your Lordships' House on 23rd March, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said.
"I fully expect that we shall encounter the ogre of the 'restoration of pay differentials—"'.
He went on to cite a study by Income Data Services which claimed that,
"Arguments about the … effect of minimum wages and the restoration of differentials had been highly partial and prone to exaggeration".—[0fficial Report, 23/3/98; cols. 1031–2.]
I do not know how and where this think-tank conducted its research. Perhaps it should have consulted the noble Lord, Lord Healey, who said in 1994, "Don't kid yourselves": the minimum wage is something on which unions will build differentials. Therefore, the minimum wage becomes the floor on which one erects
1274
a new tower, but then, of course, he is only a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, so what would he know about inflationary cycles?
Has this think-tank, on whose over-optimistic predictions the Government are relying to justify their head-in-the sands forecasts, ever heard of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, one of the largest, most powerful and influential trade unions? Perhaps not, because they would then have read its policy paper on the national minimum wage which states,
"The AEEU will seek to restore differentials in wage settlements. While the AEEU agrees with the long-term aim of increasing the earnings of the lowest paid, it should not be at the expense of those slightly better off. The AEEU will seek to restore differentials".
I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Healey, and the AEEU deserve the dismissive description by Income Data Services, quoted by the Minister, of being,
"highly partial and prone to exaggeration".
I have tried very hard this evening not to be political. The second reason that I mention as regards this amendment is entirely political. If there is an unfettered discretion to increase the national minimum wage without even going through the motions of seeking the advice of the Low Pay Commission, there will be the temptation arbitrarily to increase it at the time of a general election or an important by-election. After all, the incumbent of the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer of either party is frequently accused of having give-away budgets for electoral purposes. I cannot believe that the Secretary of State will not be subject to similar political pressure by the strategists in her party and by the unions which influence its policies.
Needless to say, I readily assume that the Secretary of State, whether the present one or any future incumbent, will be able to resist such crude pressures. However, elsewhere in the Bill on the question of exemptions the Secretary of State has strenuously tried to avoid any discretion. To be consistent, she should simply eschew any discretion as to whether it is time to consider a reversion to a national minimum wage only—the Committee will note, only to consider whether it is time—still without being bound to follow the commission's advice in whole or in part. Involving the Low Pay Commission will at least partially absolve the Secretary of State from having a political agenda.
Before the Secretary of State presses the button to start an inflationary wages spiral, perhaps she ought to commit herself to obtaining independent advice and to come to Parliament to explain her reasons if she declines to take it. As I have already pointed out, the Low Pay Commission will cost up to £1 million a year to run. That is about £19,000 a week or £4,000 a working day. For a party that used to complain about quangos, surely it is not about to create one in this Bill, which is also nothing but a sinecure for its members and staff.
Once again, this amendment does not affect the principles of the Bill. It merely adds a necessary safeguard in the manner of its operation. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The main effect of the amendment is that it would require the Secretary of

1275
State to refer any proposal which would result in a higher national minimum wage to the Low Pay Commission. In other words, it would remove the ability of the Government to change the rate without first referring the matter to the Low Pay Commission; and that is, at first sight, particularly in the hands of the noble Baroness, an entirely reasonable proposition. The Government have already made clear in another place that they do not believe that the minimum wage should be varied by some kind of automatic formula. They have also made it clear that the Low Pay Commission is the right model to ensure ownership of the policy by the social partners—a vital ingredient if the minimum wage is to be introduced effectively.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee of what the Bill says at present. It is deliberately flexible regarding future changes to the national minimum wage. It says in Clause 6:
"The Secretary of State may at any time refer to the Low Pay Commission such matters … as [she] thinks fit".
We have been asked both by the noble Baroness and in another place why that wording, with its discretion, has been chosen. The reason is this: to cater for the possibility that the regulations setting the minimum wage and establishing its operation may require amendment at some future time because they do not cover particular detailed circumstances that have been overlooked or missed for some reason.
A component of pay, for example, may not have been considered fully. Problems of a technical nature to do with the pay reference period may be discovered. Obviously, we will do our best to avoid this situation but such problems can and do arise, under any administration, especially in a new area of legislation. Ministers have in any event made a commitment to consult on these and other issues in the form of draft regulations, before implementing the rate. There will plainly be cases where it will be unnecessarily cumbersome, bureaucratic and time-wasting to refer the whole matter to the Low Pay Commission. That is why the Bill is drafted as it is. It is right that there is no requirement on the Secretary of State to refer every last detail of such matters to the Low Pay Commission before making changes.
At the same time it remains perfectly open to the Government to refer matters of a more substantial nature, including any review of the need to vary or increase the level of the minimum wage. I am not convinced by the arguments that the Secretary of State should be required to consult the commission on the face of the Bill. At the same time, as was made clear in another place, I would not wish to rule out any such future consultation. It is plain that in many cases it would be appropriate. The whole arrangement needs to be bedded down, monitored and analysed before we can begin to think about how to make changes to the rate.
The noble Baroness referred to the members of the Low Pay Commission having sinecures and to the commission lying fallow, doing nothing and not even producing annual reports, while revving up expenses. That is a slight misunderstanding of the way in which the Low Pay Commission would work. From time to time, the Secretary of State, as she thinks appropriate,
1276
will refer matters relating to the Bill to the commission. When it does not have matters to consider, it will not be doing anything. It will not be sitting around incurring expenditure, as it were. The picture that the noble Baroness created of the Low Pay Commission may not be the model that the Bill envisages.
Finally, if there is a reference to the Low Pay Commission on any matter and if the Secretary of State determines that he or she will not accept any particular suggestion of the Low Pay Commission, under the existing provisions of the Bill the Secretary of State is required to lay a report before Parliament, giving her reasons. I think that deals with the point made by the noble Baroness about the need to explain why advice is not being accepted.
I very much hope that in the light of the explanations that I have given—I fully understand the reasons behind the amendment—the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I was interested and pleased to hear from the Minister that the Low Pay Commission will, from time to time, do something and that sometimes it will be busy while it may not be so busy at other times. Given the amount of money that it will cost, it would be hateful to think that it had nothing at all to do! This reminds me of an earlier amendment when I said that sometimes people are very busy and sometimes they are not; it is then difficult to work out a pay reference period.
Having listened carefully to what the Minister has said, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Referrals to, and reports of, the Low Pay Commission: supplementary]:
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [The Low Pay Commission]:
11.15 p.m.
Lord Razzall Lord Razzall moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 7, line 3, leave out ("may at any time appoint a") and insert ("shall, not more than 12 months after this Act comes into force, appoint a permanent,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 63 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 64. In our view the two amendments are linked. Reverting to the discussion that the Committee has just witnessed between the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, we take the opposite position as to the status of the Low Pay Commission. As an aside, far from worrying about the members of the Low Pay Commission obtaining a sinecure of some kind and the annual cost of £1 million, we believe, as fervent supporters of the national minimum wage, that in the next few years it is important that proper resources are devoted to enforcing this measure and providing the necessary mechanisms to ensure that it is a success. Therefore, we fundamentally disagree with the Conservative Opposition. We should like to press the

1277
Government for confirmation, as happened in another place, without tying the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that adequate resources will be provided to ensure that that happens.
The fundamental point on which we wish to push the Government is that the national minimum wage will be a success only if permanent status is given to the Low Pay Commission. The Committee will be aware that as it stands Clause 8 gives the Government the right within a period to give the commission permanent status. That is a mistake. We believe that the Government should now be in position to appoint a permanent commission to provide a framework for the ongoing administration of the Bill. In moving Amendment No. 63, we hope that the Government are prepared to go the last mile and confirm that they will give permanent status to the Low Pay Commission.
Turning to Amendment No. 64, this is the crux of our belief that the commission requires permanent status. We were disappointed that the Government were not prepared earlier in the debate to accept the need for a mechanism for the annual uprating of the minimum wage. We are nervous that, as has happened in the United States and other countries with a minimum wage, there will be an annual row—which we believe is now going on in the Cabinet—about the level of the minimum wage. Obviously, Ministers will not comment on that. Those who wish the minimum wage to be a success do not want this to be a political football every year. We believe that, particularly in years when the economy is not as strong as it is currently, this will be a political football. We want to enshrine in the Bill as many powers as possible for the Low Pay Commission to be divorced from that and to have an objective structure in which it can make recommendations in the public arena on which the Government will act. One knows that in fixing the initial rate the Government have set their face against the particular point that we make; namely, that regional variation is important.
If the Government are going to fix the rate at a low figure, the regional variation may not be as important as it would be if the rate were fixed at a higher figure, as the trade union movement has been advocating. We shall wait to see what the rate is and whether the Low Pay Commission has commented upon a regional variation for the fixed rate. We shall return to that point.
It is paramount that there should be an annual review by the Low Pay Commission of that and other issues. If it agrees that there is no case at the moment for a regional variation, so be it. Clearly the Government will act on that, and we will accept that. However, one, two, three, four or five years down the track, rates of unemployment in Cornwall may be significantly different from those in London, and average wage rates in the north-west may be significantly different from those in London and the south-east. Without committing themselves in any way to accepting the principle of regional variation, perhaps the Government can move towards agreeing that the Low Pay Commission will have an obligation to look every year at that and other issues and to make a report. We shall then see whether we or the Government are correct. We should like the
1278
Government to commit themselves to setting up the Low Pay Commission as a permanent body. It is not in the Bill, but we should like an assurance that the Low Pay Commission will be given adequate resources to enable it to perform its work correctly.
Amendment No. 64 reflects the type of report that we should like to see the Low Pay Commission produce. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: From what the noble Lord said in relation to this matter and others, I have identified that we have many common denominators in relation to the Bill. We both support the Government's objectives. I thank him for that. His concern is to ensure that the Bill, when enacted, works well. I choose to differ from some of the prescriptions that he offers, without closing off all the routes.
The Government see the commission as continuing to play an important role, particularly in the early stages of the operation of the minimum wage. Clearly, the Secretary of State should have the valid option of being able to consult the Low Pay Commission before she uses the powers under Clause 3. That is a likely situation. We have already set up the consultation process. That is a good indication of how things will work in the future.
As this is a novel form of legislation, we need to keep open certain options for the future. I am not sure that one of those options will necessarily be the appointment of a permanent body within one year of the Act being passed. How do we know that there will be any task for it to carry out then? The minimum wage may have been in place for a few months only by then. There may be a degree of impracticability there.
Amendment No. 64 prescribes particular issues which must be covered in the Low Pay Commission's report. It is to be made annually, but it does not limit the commission to looking at those issues only. Thus the amendment is over-prescriptive and open-ended.
The noble Lord identified some important areas which any review of the Bill would need to examine: different sizes of business, different areas, gender, race, and so on. But we do not need to spell it out in this way on the face of the Bill. The commission is already obliged to look at economic and competitiveness factors in coming to its recommendations. In addition, under Clause 6(5)(b) the Government may specify other factors for the commission to consider.
I think that that is a rather more sensible and less prescriptive approach to the answers that the noble Lord seeks. I hope that he will agree with that and will not press the amendment to a Division tonight.
Lord Razzall: I have listened to the Minister with interest. He is right that we share the Government's objectives as regards the Bill to ensure that the slave wage rates prevalent in certain parts of this country should be a thing of the past. To that extent, we are arguing about methods rather than about principle.
I have listened carefully to what he said. Once the initial wage rate is fixed, if the Low Pay Commission is not given the permanent status and functions that we

1279
advocate, we are concerned that problems will arise in future and we shall be revisiting each year a number of the issues that are being debated here and elsewhere.
We shall reflect on the Minister's comments. We may wish to return to the issue at a later date. But at present I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Lord Haskel: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Teaching and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed (H.L. Bill 124).
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Turkey and Greece and the EU
  Turkey and Greece and the EU
  Overseas Police Services: Provision of Training
  Overseas Police Services: Provision of Training
  Gibraltar and Spain: Air and Maritime Links
  Gibraltar and Spain: Air and Maritime Links
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Montserrat
  Montserrat
  Development Policy Forum
  Development Policy Forum
  Turkey: Police and Security Co-operation
  Turkey: Police and Security Co-operation
  Women in Prison: Childbirth
  Women in Prison: Childbirth
  NACRO Report: Government Response
  NACRO Report: Government Response
  Rough Sleeping in Westminster
  Rough Sleeping in Westminster
  Privately Operated Ambulances
  Privately Operated Ambulances
  Short-term Engine Shut-off: Pollutant Emission
  Short-term Engine Shut-off: Pollutant Emission
  London: Strategic Road Network
  London: Strategic Road Network
  Compulsory Purchase and Blight
  Compulsory Purchase and Blight
  Bristol: Free Exhaust Emission Tests
  Bristol: Free Exhaust Emission Tests
  Heysham-to-M.6 Link Road
  Heysham-to-M.6 Link Road